EMBASSY INFORMS
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
Q: A week has passed since the air strikes against Syria were launched. How do you assess political consequences of this step?
A: We have already commented on international and legal aspects of this act of open aggression against Syria committed by the United States, together with the United Kingdom and France in gross violation of the UN Charter and fundamental principles of international law in general.
Since we met last time a lot of events took place:
- Military strikes of the United States, UK and France against Syria in violation of the international law
- Mission by OPCW inspectors to Douma
- Speech of Prime Minister May in Parliament in support of the British aggression against Syria
- Special meeting of the OPCW Executive Council (18 April 2018)
- New developments in the classified case of Salisbury poisoning of Skripal family
- No meaningful developments on the Glushkov case
- and Cyber security threats
I plan to comment all these issues. And I will be happy to answer all our questions, if you have any.
Several memorial events will be held in UK 2018 to celebrate the Victory Day.
Q: Can you comment on the recent statements by Mr Vladimir Uglev claiming to be a “Novichok” inventor and saying he is sure that A-234 was used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal?
Q: How did Russia react to a recent statement of G7 foreign ministers accusing Russia of poisoning of Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury?
A: We are disappointed by another groundless statement on Skripals’ case, this time made on behalf of all G7 members. It is regrettable that G7 members allow themselves to be drawn into an anti-Russian campaign built on hollow accusations.
Q: Do you have a comment on the Ofcom statement regarding pressure on the channel RT?
A: We have taken note of UK Government’s exercise of pressure on media, bordering on censorship, regarding the coverage of the Salisbury poisoning. In particular, the “Sunday Times” reported on 8 April that the National Security Council staff “had seized control” over the media response of the Salisbury incident. The media manipulation by the authorities is corroborated by multiple “leaks” of new versions of the incident which could not have appeared in any other way. Highly likely the apparent lack of interest from media outlets to gain access Sergei and Yulia Skripal, the doctors treating them and many other involved parties, in spite of evident public interest, testifies to the same.
Question: State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert claimed that Russia failed to live up to its 2013 commitments to assist in the elimination of chemical stockpiles in Syria. What is your comment?
Sergey Ryabkov: The elimination process included close cooperation between the countries concerned, including the US, and went on under strict international control. At certain stages, Moscow and Washington were coordinating their moves in real time in the course of telephone conferences and continuous contact at various levels.
Statement by Permanent Representation of the Russian Federation to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) A.Shulgin at the 58th EC Meeting of the OPCW
Faced with mounting threats in the information space, civil society continues to look for the most effective ways to counter these challenges, using various forms of consolidated efforts by professionals. The non-governmental sector is ready to contribute to international information security and make the information space a secure environment.
In line with this trend, the National Association of International Information Security was set up in Russia on April 10, 2018.
Q: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the UK has announced today that the nerve agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury was delivered in a liquid form. How can you comment on this?
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
| 
