PRESS RELEASES AND NEWS
31.03.2018
Embassy Press Officer on new questions to the UK concerning the Salisbury poisoningQuestion: On Friday, the Embassy made public a list of 27 questions that Russia had asked Britain in the light of the Salisbury poisoning. Is this a closed list, or are there further questions?
Answer: Of course, with new information coming in, new questions appear. Today, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has published a number of fresh questions to the UK. They are as follows:
1) Why has Russia been denied consular access to the two Russian nationals, Sergei and Yulia Skripal, that have become crime victims in the British territory?
2) What specific antidotes were administered to Mr and Ms Skripal, and in which form? How were those antidotes available for the medical staff on the site of the incident?
3) On what grounds has France been involved in technical cooperation with regard to the investigation of an incident in which Russian nationals had suffered?
4) Has the United Kingdom informed the OPCW of France’s involvement in the investigation?
5) How is France relevant to the incident with two Russian nationals in the UK?
6) What British procedural rules allow a foreign state to be involved in a domestic investigation?
7) What evidence has been passed to France for studying and/or for a French investigation?
8) Were French experts present when biological material was taken from Mr and Ms Skripal?
9) Have French experts studied biologial material taken from Mr and Ms Skripal, and at which laboratories?
10) Does the UK possess the results of the French investigation?
11) Have the results of the French investigation been passed to the OPCW Technical Secretariat?
12) On the basis of which characteristics (“markers”) has it been ascertained that the substance used in Salisbury “originated from Russia”?
13) Does the UK possess reference samples of the military-grade poisonous substance that British representatives identify as “Novichok”?
14) Has the substance identified by British representatives as “Novichok” or analogous substances been researched, developed or produced in the UK?
LATEST EVENTS
In connection with the so-called summit for democracy to be held on December 9-10 at the initiative of the US administration, we consider it necessary to make the following statement.
The organisers and enthusiasts behind this strange event claim to lead the world in advancing the cause of democracy and human rights. However, the track record and reputation of the United States, Great Britain, and the EU member states in terms of respecting democratic rights and freedoms at home, as well as in the international arena, are, to put it mildly, far from ideal. The evidence suggests that the United States and its allies cannot and should not claim the status of a “beacon” of democracy, since they themselves have chronic problems with freedom of speech, election administration, corruption and human rights.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has always proceeded and continues to proceed from the premise that our work and that of other government structures must be in harmony with the efforts of business associations, the main participants in foreign economic activity. Together this should enhance the competitiveness of Russian companies, expand their opportunities abroad and help protect their lawful interests. This is one of the priority goals of Russian diplomacy. It is set forth in the Concept of Foreign Policy approved by the President of Russia. A new version of this concept is being drafted now, and this goal will be expressed even more prominently.
The announcement by the Home Secretary Priti Patel of a public inquiry into the death of Dawn Sturgess in 2018 to be established by the government came as no surprise to us. This is the turn of events we have predicted earlier having taken into account what we observe in the UK, including the bellicose mood of the British establishment. It confirms our earlier assumption that the situation around Salisbury and Amesbury ‘poisonings’ and the tragic death of Dawn Sturgess would develop in accordance with the painfully familiar Litvinenko Case playbook. As the Home Office statement demonstrates now, London doesn’t conceal it anymore.
NATO continues its propaganda efforts targeting people in European countries as it tries to convince them that Russia and its “aggressive” behaviour are the source of instability on the continent. Recently, the NATO Secretary General used a meeting of the 73rd session of the Nordic Council to repeat accusations that our country has interfered in other states’ affairs, which has become a bad habit of his. As usual, he did not provide any evidence. He just used stock phrases and clichés to advocate stepping up NATO activities in northern latitudes, drawing Finland and Sweden into the process of militarising the Arctic and turning it into a space for geopolitical competition rather an area of cooperation.
We noted the anti-Russia statements by British Foreign Secretary Elizabeth Truss, which were published by The Sunday Telegraph. She tried to pin the migration crisis on the Belarus-Poland border on Russia and urged European countries to oppose the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project in a united front.
It was announced on November 13 of this year that Britain and Ukraine signed an intergovernmental framework agreement on naval cooperation, which provides for the allocation to Kiev of a 10-year 1.7 billion-pound-sterling loan. These funds are supposed to be spent on purchasing or building ships and the construction of naval bases for the Ukrainian Navy in Ochakovo and Berdyansk. This is the legal formalisation of the bilateral accords on military and defence industry cooperation following the visit of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to the United Kingdom in 2020.
In light of the numerous media inquiries we have received, it is necessary to provide some clarification regarding the Defence Ministry’s successful test on November 15 of this year. The test resulted in the destruction of the inactive Russian satellite Tselina-D that had been in orbit since 1982. The test was conducted in strict conformity with international law, including the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and was not directed against anyone.
I would like to say a few words about the meeting of the foreign and defence ministers of the Russian Federation and the French Republic, which were held today in the 2 + 2 format.
On November 12, the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly’s 76th session adopted during a meeting, held in New York, the resolution “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” initiated by the Russian Federation.
On 7 October 2021, in response to the démarche made against Russia within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) by a group of 45 States “concerned” about the 2020 incident involving Russian blogger Alexey Navalny, the Russian Federation submitted through the OPCW Technical Secretariat (TS) a counter-démarche to the representatives of France, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom under paragraph 2 of Article IX of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
all messages  | 
Tweet Follow @russianembassy