Embassy Press Officer replies to a media question on the legal basis of air strikes against Syria
Question: The UK has published its legal position claiming that the legal basis for the strikes against Syria is “humanitarian intervention”. Does Russia agree with that?
Answer: First of all, the concept of “humanitarian intervention”, actively promoted by the West in the 1990s, has been rejected by the international community. As such, it cannot possibly serve as a legal basis for any use of force. International law only allows to use force in self-defence or under a Security Council mandate.
The fact that Britain refers to “humanitarian intervention” is therefore a direct acknowledgement of the unlawfulness of the air strikes. The specific arguments used by the UK in support of its position confirm this further.
The gist of British reasoning is that the whole international community recognizes that a “new” chemical attack in Syria is imminent and that only the air strikes could prevent it. Yet, let alone a new attack, the international community is not convinced that a chemical attack took place in Douma, and wants to see the results of the ongoing OPCW investigation. When international monitors are arriving in Damascus, and – more broadly – when the Syrian government and large parts of the opposition are moving towards creating a constitutional committee to end the war, to say that “there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved” is hypocritical, to say the least.
We should add that today, speaking at the Andrew Marr Show, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson admitted that the strikes were not about saving lives or actually prevening President Assad from further chemical attacks, but should simply be seen as a “message”.
Let’s leave legal details to lawyers. But one doesn’t need deep expertise to see that we are dealing with an attack under a false pretext, a false legal basis and a false result.
Question: How would you comment on the recent reports in British media that Russia supposedly offered “bounty” to the Taliban to kill UK as well as US soldiers in Afghanistan?
Dear Editor, I feel compelled to express disagreement with the Financial Times coverage of Russia’s efforts to combat the Covid-19 pandemic. Judging by your reports, Russia’s response has been to manipulate with figures at home and to spread disinformation abroad, with the government acting inefficiently and doctors having inadequate protection. This distorted picture requires a refutation. Even by most pessimistic accounts, Russia’s performance in terms of healthcare system capacity and death rate is among the best of all major countries.
Sir, Roger Boyes is wondering why Russian industrialists (he calls them ‘oligarchs’) are helping to fight Covid-19. Are they suddenly ‘embracing philanthropy’, or ‘cleaning up their nasty image’, or else seeking to impose a ‘new compact’ on the ‘floundering’ government?
Attempts to distort the results of the defeat of Nazism and the decisive contribution our country made, which are continuing in Washington even during these days of universal celebration of the 75th anniversary of Victory, cause utter indignation.
Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with Prime Minister of Great Britain Boris Johnson.
The President of Russia and the Prime Minister of Great Britain exchanged greetings on the 75th anniversary of Victory over Nazism, which became one of the greatest events of the 20th century and an example of unprecedented cooperation between the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition.
Vladimir Putin noted in part that Russia remembers the exploits of the British sailors, participants in the Arctic convoys, owing to which the Soviet army and industry received arms and equipment needed during the war.
On May 6, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Dominic Raab at the latter's initiative.
The two officials exchanged greetings in connection with the upcoming 75th anniversary of the victory in WWII. They noted the contribution of the members of the anti-Hitler coalition in the fight against Nazism, and emphasised the importance of using the alliance's experience in mobilising the international community's efforts to counteract today's global challenges. Particular attention was paid to discussing the efforts being taken to tackle the spread of the novel coronavirus infection and to overcome its effects.
The virtual exhibition project Stalin – Churchill – Roosevelt: The Common Struggle Against Fascism, held on the 75th anniversary of victory in World War II, acquaints the public at large with the key documents and artifacts of the emergence of the anti-Hitler coalition during the war.
April 25, 2020, marks the 75th Anniversary of the historic meeting between Soviet and American soldiers, who shook hands on the damaged bridge over the Elbe River. This event heralded the decisive defeat of the Nazi regime.
The meeting on the Elbe represented a culmination of tremendous efforts by the many countries and peoples that joined forces under the framework of the United Nations Declaration of 1942. This common struggle required enormous sacrifice by millions of soldiers, sailors, and citizens in multiple theaters of war.
On April 8, 2010, the Russian Federation and the United States of America signed the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START Treaty). The Treaty was an important new step in developing Russia-US interaction to control nuclear weapons in the interests of strengthening international security and strategic stability.
British media continue publications seeking to find discrepancies and hidden agenda of Russian humanitarian assistance rendered to the United States and Italy in order to help them combat the coronavirus pandemic.
Tweet Follow @russianembassy