EMBASSY INFORMS
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
Today marks exactly six months since the Russian citizens Sergei and Yulia Skripal were taken to Salisbury District Hospital under obscure circumstances. Ever since, they have been kept in isolation and under full control of British authorities. They remain out of the public eye at an unknown location, unable to communicate freely with their relatives, friends, journalists or Russian officials, deprived of the freedom of movement. The British authorities have been continuously refusing the Embassy to establish direct contact with the Skripals in order to verify their actual health situation, the conditions in which they are held and, most importantly, to ascertain to which extent their isolation is voluntary.
Question: How will you comment on the statements made by British representatives, including Ambassador Karen Pierce, UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations, threatening to “respond appropriately if the Assad regime repeats its illegal use of chemical weapons”? Answer: We consider these statements and the plans to carry out a military strike against Syria as extremely dangerous. Fresh air strikes would become another blatant violation of international law. They would also seriously complicate the situation in Syria. We have already seen this in April.
Question: How would you comment on the information published by the British media stating that experts specializing in face recognition have allegedly joined the team investigating the Salisbury incident? Answer: The latest leak, claiming that some “face recognisers”, who allegedly participated in the investigation of the 2011 London riots, have been asked to help to identify the “Russian agents”, is yet another indication of the lack of serious evidence on this case. If one is to believe that the experts were called to check Salisbury CCTV recordings against photos of “known Russian agents”, this is another clear example of the efforts to make the investigation fit original political accusations against Russia voiced just days after the incident.
Question: How would you comment on the statement by the British Ministry of Defence that on 23 August Royal Air Force fighter jets stationed in Romania “interrupted” a "provocative" Russian aircraft over the Black Sea? Answer: Russian armed forces strictly comply with international law and pose no threat to Britain. One might understand why Royal Navy escorts Russian military ships in the English Channel, in the vicinity of the British coastline, even if this there is no need for the UK to publicise it. But what kind of threat to Britain or its allies does a Russian patrol aircraft hypothetically pose while conducting flights off Russia's own shore, some 1500 miles away from the UK?
Question: How would you comment on the statement by Wiltshire Police that Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury, searched in the framework of the investigation of poisoning of Dawn Sturgess and Charles Rowley, is to be reopened for the public? Answer: First of all, we are happy for the people of Salisbury. Reopening of the park, which has also been cleaned from litter, gives them an opportunity to return to normal everyday life. However, we would like to stress that the British side still has not provided us with answers regarding the investigation which, as before, is being conducted in a non-transparent way.
Question: How would you comment on the publications in the British media that a Royal Navy minehunter vessel HMS Hurworth “intercepted” the Russian frigate “Admiral Makarov” when the latter was passing through the English Channel? Answer: Russian Navy ships act in accordance with the international law and strictly follow the current English Channel passing regulations. They do not pose any threat to the United Kingdom. The British side is well aware of this.
Question: How would you comment on the US, UK and France joint statement regarding the fifth anniversary of the chemical attack in Ghouta? Answer: Regretfully, the three states have issued another baseless statement. Five years have passed after the tragedy, and the international community still has not seen the proof of the Syrian government’s involvement in that incident. Moreover, it is put on a par with the events in Khan Sheikhun, Ltamena, Saraqeb and Douma, despite the fact that they took place after the successful completion of the international operation to remove precursors of chemical weapons from Syria in June 2014. “Assad regime” is blamed for the attack in a traditionally dogmatic manner, although even the US Department of State admitted that the terrorist groups operating in Syria had access to chemical weapons.
Question: How would you comment on the article by the Conservative Party MP Bob Seely in the “Daily Telegraph” claiming that Russia is “buying some European states and bullying others”, making it “difficult for the EU to unite against Russia”? Answer: Bob Seely’s article amounts to a manifesto of British russophobic circles. Such people tend to consider any social and economic phenomena in Europe through the lens of confrontation with the “aggressive Russia”.
Question: The British officials frequently use in their public statements the term “rules-based international order” or “system”. What is your view on such a wording? Answer: We follow this kind of verbal gymnastics with interest. The terms themselves are meant to create an impression that the UK is a consistent supporter of international law, ostensibly distinguishing London from some other states, who are supposed or declared to be its violators. In fact, this is an attempt to disguise apparent fundamental difference between consensual, agreed by the whole international community, clearly fixed norms of international law and some obscure “rules”, which are so dear to the British officials.
At a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Serbia Ivica Dacic Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt's urges to European partners to slap their own sanctions on Russia in connection with the Salisbury incident.
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
| 
