EMBASSY INFORMS
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
Question: How would you comment on the statement made by MI6 chief Alex Younger, who has named Russia as one of Britain’s “adversaries who regard themselves as being in a state of perpetual confrontation with the UK”?
Answer: We have carefully taken note of the speech by the MI6 chief. In fact, it is Britain that regards itself in a state of perpetual confrontation with Russia, entirely on its own initiative.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. I'm at your service.
Question: Good afternoon, Mr President.
With all due respect to Argentina’s G20 Presidency, I still have a question about Russia-US relations. Once again, your meeting with President Trump fell through; he cancelled it at the last moment. Maybe he is wary of you, maybe he had some other reasons. Why do you think he did this, and how can one develop or maintain a dialogue with the United States in such conditions?
During the working trip to Scotland the Russian Ambassador to the UK Alexander Yakovenko met with the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament (Holyrood) Ken Macintosh MSP. The parties held a constructive and substantive conversation.
Question: How would you comment on the statement made by UK Prime Minister Theresa May on the eve of the G-20 summit, claiming that Russia should de-escalate the situation in the Kerch Strait? Answer: First of all, we would like to remind that the recent events in the Kerch Strait have obviously been a provocation orchestrated from Kiev. The Ukrainian ships entered Russian territorial waters (in the area that belonged to Russia even before 2014) and deliberately ignored requests by Russian border guards.
Question: How would you comment on the media reports concerning activities in the framework of the British project “Integrity Initiative”?
Answer: We are aware of publications regarding the activities of this structure. They show that it has been partially funded by the British government, and that a number of programmes in sovereign European states aimed at demonisation of Russia’s image have been arranged in its framework. The Embassy has sent an official request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office asking to confirm or deny the authenticity of the published documents, and to provide information on current and planned projects on Russia funded by the FCO.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey as guarantors of the Astana format:
Statement of the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin at the Fourth OPCW Review Conference in response to the USA, United Kingdom and Canada accusing Russia of not observing its obligations under Chemical Weapons Convention. Distinguished Mr. Chair, We consider absolutely unacceptable the groundless accusations voiced in the statement of the United States that Russia is in violation of its obligations under Article I of the CWC pertaining to alleged involvement of Russian nationals in use of a nerve agent in Salisbury. Such statements have absolutely no bearing on the facts and are effectively aired to influence the international community. The refusal of the United Kingdom to cooperate in any form with Russia on the “Skripal case”, which would be in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article IX of the CWC only underlines the emptiness of the accusations. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom has addressed the Technical Secretariat with a request to confirm the outcomes of its own national investigation, which contradicts the goals and objectives of technical assistance provided to a State Party under subparagraph e) of paragraph 38 of Article VIII of the CWC. As follows from the presented materials on the assistance provided in connection to Salisbury and Amesbury cases, we have to state the politically motivated nature of the undertaken measures.
Question: How would you comment on the statements by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Minister for Europe Sir Alan Duncan on the need to allow free passage through the Kerch Strait?
Answer: There is no logic in these statements by the UK Government. They are aimed purely at stoking anti-Russian sentiments. Until the deliberate provocation by Kiev on Sunday, there had been no problems with the passage of civilian or military ships, including Ukrainian ones, through the Kerch Strait. The so-called “obstacles” allegedly put by Russia were nothing but routine security checks and did not differ significantly from the inspection procedures used in the Strait by the Ukrainian authorities until 2014. The actions of the Russian border guards are not discriminatory: this year almost half of the checked vessels were heading to Russian ports on the Sea of Azov.
We have taken note of the statement by the Chief of the General Staff, General Mark Carleton-Smith, to the effect that “Russia today indisputably represents a far greater threat to our national security than Islamic extremist threats such as al-Qaeda and Isil”. The threat posed by Isil to the UK has indeed decreased, and that to a large extent due to Russia’s efforts in Syria, which have been constantly hampered by London. In this sense, Russia has strengthened Britain’s security over the last several years.
Question: Authors of the “Panorama” TV documentary concerning the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, shown on 22 November on BBC One, claimed that they had offered the Russian government to present its point of view on this incident, but that this offer was declined. What’s the reason behind such position of Russia? Answer: We have no information whether the film’s authors had sent any requests to any Russian governmental body. At least, the Embassy has not been contacted.
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
| 
