Embassy Press Officer on unanswered questions regarding the Salisbury poisoning
Question: At yesterday's briefing, the Official Representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the Embassy had asked quite a few questions that remain unanswered. What are those questions?
Answer: Indeed, we are witnessing a blatant violation by the UK of its international obligations under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the 1968 bilateral Consular Convention. We have not received a response to our multiple questions and requests made through diplomatic notes. Failure by Britain to engage in normal diplomatic exchange with the Embassy on this matter is regrettable.
The questions to which we are awaiting answers are as follows:
1) What is Mr and Ms Skripal's exact diagnosis and condition?
2) What treatment are they receiving?
3) Is that treatment the same as that provided to Sgt Nick Bailey?
4) Is it true that Yulia Skripal has regained consciousness and can communicate, eat and drink?
5) Mr Bailey has been discharged, Yulia Skripal is getting better, but why is Sergei Skripal still in a critical condition?
6) Did Mr Bailey, Mr Skripal and Ms Skripal receive antidotes?
7) Which antidotes?
8) How were the right antidotes identified?
9) Did they actually help or harm?
10) The Embassy immediately informed the FCO that Mr Skripal's niece has been enquiring of her uncle's and cousin's health. Why have the authorities ignored her?
11) Why are there no photos/videos confirming that the Skripals are alive and at hospital?
12) Did the Skripals agree on Salisbury CCTV footage to be shown on TV?
13) If not, who agreed on their behalf?
14) Can that person also agree on hospital photos/videos to be published?
15) Why are consuls not allowed to see the Skripals?
16) How are doctors protected against chemical exposure?
17) Can consuls use the same protection?
18) Where, how and by whom were blood samples collected from the Skripals?
19) How was it documented?
20) Who can certify that the data is credible?
21) How can we be sure that the chain of custody was up to international standards?
22) Through what methods did experts identify the substance so quickly?
23) Had they possessed a sample against which to test the substance?
24) Where had that sample come from?
25) Nerve agents act immediately. Why was it not the case with the Skripals?
26) Leaks suggest the Skripals were poisoned at a pub, at a restaurant, in their car, at the airport, at home... Which version is the official one?
27) How to reconcile quick political moves with Scotland Yard's statement that the investigation will take "months"?
1. The objective of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) is to reaffirm and strengthen the central and coordinating role of the Organization in international affairs. The UN is a unique platform for equitable dialogue aimed at seeking solutions with due regard for different opinions and based on the purposes and principles of its Charter. Any attempts to challenge the UN authority are dangerous and may lead to a dismantled system of international relations. We have consistently advocated a polycentric world order, equal and indivisible security based on unconditional respect for sovereignty and peoples' right to independently choose their development path.
Question: How would you comment on today’s Guardian article claiming that “Russian diplomats held secret talks to assess whether they could help Julian Assange flee the UK”?
Answer: This publication has nothing to do with the reality. The Embassy has never engaged either with Ecuadorian colleagues, or with anyone else, in discussions on any kind of Russia’s participation in ending Mr Assange’s stay within the diplomatic mission of Ecuador.
Why should we trust or distrust Petrov and Boshirov when there’s zero evidence on the table that would in any way link their very existence to the Salisbury incident? Just because these people were there? Then, can Britain provide a list of all the foreigners who were in Salisbury on those days? On top of that, no one has seen Sergey Skripal since the incident. No one has even talked with Julia Skripal. The whole thing is absurd, because these two individuals came in, talked with Simonyan, provided answers to the counts that the UK publicly accused them of, and, for some reason, everyone is now saying, “We do not believe them.” However, when Yulia Skripal spoke before a camera, which was operated by no one knows who, and didn’t answer any question, but instead read a text apparently written for her by someone, and before that published a text similarly written for her by someone, everyone said, “Yes, of course, we trust her.”
Question: During his visit to Turkey the Minister for the Middle East Mr Alistair Burt met with the infamous White Helmets group, whom the Russian Federation considers terrorist supporters. How would you comment on that?
Answer: It is up to HMG of course to decide which contacts are to develop and whom the senior diplomats are to meet. Nevertheless, this choice is a truly remarkable one.
Question: How would you comment on yet another decision of the British side to classify additional information on Mr A.Perepilichny within the inquest into his death? Answer: This procedural decision concerns classification of information on Mr A.Perepilichny’s connections to the British secret services, to wit, whether he has been their agent or made contact with them. It has been made public just before the next hearing of the inquest into the death of Mr A.Perepilichnny, which is scheduled for 21 September in the Old Bailey.
Question: How would you comment on the statement of Minister of State Sir Alan Duncan to the effect that the UK will “push for new sanctions […] as well as robustly enforcing the existing EU regime against Russia”?
Answer: This and other similar statements fall in line with the Conservative government’s current policy aimed at destroying the fabric of Russian-British relations, further isolating Russia and presenting it as a major threat to the “rules-based international system”.
Faced with the realities of Brexit, the British government is desperate to convince its partners of the need for a tougher sanctions regime against Russia. As usual, it resorts to insinuations, unverified facts and media leaks. Despite our numerous requests, no evidence of Russia’s responsibility has been provided. Russia’s proposals of cooperation in dealing with common challenges and threats, including in the sphere of cybersecurity and chemical disarmament, are being rejected without explanation.
Question: What does the Embassy expect from the party conference season in the United Kingdom starting this week? Answer: Annual conferences of UK’s major political parties are important events in the country’s life. At the conferences parties set out their priorities on a wide range of issues and arrange open and frank discussions on pressing domestic and international matters. Among other things, they offer a platform for a dialogue between party leaders and activists and the diplomatic corps.
Question: 12 September marks 6 months since the mysterious murder of the Russian national Nikolay Glushkov in London. Does the Embassy have any new information regarding the circumstances of his death? Answer: Unfortunately, the British side continues to pay no attention to our numerous requests, including the official request of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation for legal assistance in the criminal case opened in Russia into the death of Mr Nikolay Glushkov, which was delivered to the Home Office as early as in April. The Embassy’s proposals to arrange a meeting between the Russian Ambassador and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, or between experts from law enforcement authorities of the two countries, made as far back as in April, have also been met with silence.
Question: How would you comment on the recent statements of the British officials who said that the UK was prepared to “retaliate” against Russia, including by deploying its cyber warfare capabilities?
Answer: Yet again, we have seen a series of official statements to the effect that the UK should use its “massive retaliatory capabilities” to counter Russia’s “aggression”. Home Secretary Sajid Javid said on Sunday that the UK had “considerable powers, and we’ll bring all these powers, both covert and overt to bear on Russia”. Last week GCHQ head Jeremy Fleming spoke in a similar vein saying that the British authorities and their allies were prepared to “counter the threat” allegedly posed by Russia. In this context he mentioned a plan to “deploy the full range of tools”, including Britain’s “offensive cyber capability” against Russia.
Such statements are reckless, provocative and unfounded.
Sajid Javid: This [the Salisbury incident] was the act, we now know unequivocally, crystal clear, this was the act of the Russian state. Comment: If Mr Javid has evidence that allows him to make this kind of direct accusations, why wouldn’t he share it with the public? So far, what the public has seen is nothing but photos of two Eastern-European-looking men walking around Salisbury on two different days. Everything else, including exact dates and names, let alone these gentlemen’s involvement in the Skripals poisoning and their links to the Russian state, is only assertions based on unverifiable “intelligence” and on the “lack of alternative explanations”. If the “crystal clear”-level evidence exists, it is in everyone’s interest for it to be published.
Tweet Follow @russianembassy