EMBASSY INFORMS
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
We took note of UK media reports today that referred to statements by the British military on the establishment of specialised divisions for offensive cyber warfare in the information space. In particular, I mean The Daily Telegraph, which justifies such measures by the need to rebuff, among other things, imaginary threats from Russia. The Times, for example, wrote expressly that such divisions are to “orchestrate cyberattacks and spread misinformation.”
Question: How would you comment on publications in the British media about the excessive use of force by the Russian police during a public meeting in Moscow on July 27?
Answer: We have taken note of the numerous reports in the British press condemning the actions of the Russian police during the public meeting in support of unregistered candidates to the Moscow City Duma. We would like to note that this, so called “peaceful democratic” action was illegitimate, and it was officially announced by Moscow authorities in advance. The Mayor of Moscow also warned residents of the city that the opposition was trying to manipulate them through social networks and actively urged to take part in an illegal political event. We would like to emphasize that this rally was coordinated and carefully planned. This action was not intended to be peaceful or democratic, but was aimed at rocking the internal political situation in Russia. Protesters (the majority of them do not live in Moscow) deliberately attacked police officers with intent to provoke public unrest. Remarkable is also the wide presentation of foreign media employees, whose presence only pushed opposition activists to act more brazen. And the photo reports from Tverskaya Street were published so quickly fast as if they were specially pre-ordered.
Question: The British press pays too much attention to the measures by Russian law enforcement agencies in preventing unlawful assemblies. How would the Metropolitan Police behave if it was due to protect public order in the streets of Moscow?
Answer: We have no doubts in the professionalism of the Metropolitan Police officers that faithfully carry out their duty and prevent public disorder in the UK. They also do their hard work in full compliance with the national legislation.
Question: Recently there have been quite a few publications in the UK media telling the readers of the massed airstrikes in Syria, in Idlib and elsewhere, with multiple casualties among civilians. How would you comment on that?
Answer: We took note of yet another set of allegations in the British media. There is nothing new about it. It is hard to avoid the impression that some British journalists are remarkably gullible when it comes to the sources of their information, quoting anonymous witnesses from the notorious White Helmets group, proven liars and provocateurs, or from the so-called “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights”, which is only marginally more credible. Attempts to get a balanced picture of what happens in Syria, to listen to the independent, unbiased sources are lacking utterly.
In accordance with the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 18 July 2019 No. 347, starting from 1 October 2019 electronic visas are introduced for visiting Saint Petersburg and its surrounding region (Leningradskaya Oblast). E-visas may be obtained online at http://electronic-visa.kdmid.ru/.
What comes to my mind now is briefings by Mark Lowcock on, say, Yemen or Libya, where both the tone and presentation are completely different from those at briefings on Syria. Don’t you have the same feeling? It is not the first time such a thing comes to my mind.
As usual, today we heard another portion of invectives against Syria and Russia. Colleagues spouted figures, quotes and emotional testimonies. By the way, we know the price of some of those emotional testimonies. We remember leading Western Media, e.g. “New York Times”, inflate the tragedy of a Syrian boy Omran Daqneesh from Aleppo. However, after Eastern Aleppo had been liberated, this turned out to have been a staged episode. Later on, the boy’s parents confirmed this. Today my British colleague accused Russia of mocking at the Security Council. I do not intend to turn this meeting into a contest (by the way, I do not know what exactly she held for a mockery), but we remember a mockery at the Security Council that comes from those countries who are used to blaming Russia for everything.
Q: How would you comment on the statement made by the Foreign Office spokesperson regarding the detention of participants of the unauthorised rally in Moscow on 27 July?
A.: It is our understanding that our British colleagues have made no attempt to objectively assess the situation. In this regard we would like to point out that the rally in Moscow city centre was illegal. The people detained in its course committed a number of offences.
Question: How do you asses the EU visa restrictions imposed on Crimean residents?
Answer: A number of Western countries, not only the EU, continue their attempts to punish residents of Crimea for their will for self-determination expressed in a referendum in 2014. We consider these actions as a violation of fundamental personal rights of the Russian citizens living on the Crimean peninsula, particularly their inalienable right to freedom of movement. It runs contrary to the international standards in the human rights sphere, usually so jealously defended by European representatives.
The BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting has just ended. Its results are presented in the joint statement which was adopted and is being spread. I will emphasise several points which I think are important.
First, all the BRICS members expressly confirmed their commitment to the principles of international law, the goals and principles of the UN Charter, its central role in matters of peace, security and development. This statement has been worded very clearly, and bears special significance now when all principles of international law are under pressure from those who would like to replace them with some sort of rules. We had an informal and very straightforward conversation about that. We have a shared understanding that universally approved norms and principles of international law must not be allowed to fade away, especially those, as I have said, that are enshrined in the UN Charter.
At the outset, let me express gratitude to Jamila Afghani for her frank statement. Dear Jamila, we know too well, that when we help women, we help the entire Afghanistan. We are also thankful to our brave UN women, who stand at the helm of this global organization – First Under-Secretary-General A.Mohammed and Under-Secretary General R.DiCarlo – for their reports. It is very important that you visited Afghanistan and obtained first-hand experience. Your visit to Afghanistan, as well as the Security Council country visit to this State in January 2018 reiterated that the situation in the country remained not just complicated, but critical.
Heinous acts of terror (that take place i.a. in Kabul) concuss the country; casualties among civilians, (i.a. women and children) become more frequent. The toll among the Afghani military and police forces, whose selflessness in fight against terror we recognize and highly appreciate, is also growing. There is a need for coordinated measures to counter this malicious trend.
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
| 
