Embassy press officer replies to a media question regarding new statements by National Security Adviser Sir Mark Sedwill on the Skripals poisoning
Q: How can you comment on the remarks by Sir Mark Sedwill at the House of Commons Defence Committee on 1 May, when he called the British reaction to the Salisbury incident an example of the new “fusion doctrine” in action?
A: We have noted two main elements in Sir Mark’s statements. First, he admitted that no suspects have been identitified to date in the Skripals investigation. Yet Russia was accused of this crime almost immediately. Second, the UK has no evidence of Russia being involved into the poisoning, or having developed chemical poisons in violation of its international obligations (and no such evidence can possibly exist; it is worth reminding that Russia has clearly stated in a diplomatic note that it has nothing to do with the poisoning).
Mr Sedwill again portrays his letter to NATO Secretary General as a manifestation of unprecedented transparency. In reality, the letter contains nothing but publicly known facts and, on the other hand, unverifiable assertions with reference to secret services.
In other words, Sir Mark has again confirmed that the most serious accusations put forward against Russia as well as the ensuing far-reaching foreign policy decisions accompanied by mobilisation of the whole Western bloc, were based on pure assumptions.
If this is what the “fusion doctrine” is about, then we are convinced that this doctrine runs contrary to the genuine interests of the British people. Instead of strengthening national security, it bears the riks of hasty and ill-conceived decisions damaging the quality of UK’s relations with its international partners and undermining the country’s credibility. This is also true about the essence of the response to “Russia’s behaviour” that London has chosen, namely to expel diplomats (and to inevitably face reciprocal expulsions of British personnel), the very people whose job is to improve relations. Brexit requires exactly the opposite strategies.
Meanwhile, Sir Mark’s attempts to provide a doctrinal basis for the inappropriate moves by the Government cannot negate the fact that Russia, in violation of consular conventions, has been denied access to its nationals, Sergei and Yulia Skripal. We have no information on their whereabouts and cannot verify the British statements regarding the health and wishes. Equally, there is no information available on the course of the investigation, while the numerous media leaks turn out to be false, time and again. The situation regarding the murder of another Russian citizen, Nikolay Glushkov, is hardly any better.
We reiterate our demand to the British Government to ensure compliance with their international legal obligations and the universal rules of international relations, and to urgently provide the Russian side and the public with meaningful proof that Sergei and Yulia Skripal are not forcibly isolated. For our part, we reiterate our readiness, expressed more than once, to cooperate with Britain in investigating the Salisbury incident within the framework of existing international mechanisms. We expect London to show the same attitude with regard to the legal assistance requests sent by Russian Prosecutor General’s Office in the framework of the criminal case opened in Russia with respect to the attempt on life of our citizens.
Question: What impact have the sanctions had on the state of relations between Russia and the West?
Maria Zakharova: Unfortunately, the growing use of politically motivated, unilateral restrictive measures by a number of Western countries, primarily the United States, has become a reality of our time. We increasingly view the sanctions against Russia as a “gesture of despair” and a manifestation of the local elites’ inability to accept the new reality, abandon the stereotypes of their bloc-based thinking, and recognise Russia's right to independently determine its path of development and build relationships with its partners.
In terms of discussion of the issue of current implementation of the Treaty on Open (OST) Skies, the Russian Delegation would like to announce the official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia on the situation with regard to the Treaty on Open Skies.
On April 21, Deputy Chief of Mission of the US Embassy Bart Gorman was summoned to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he was handed a note saying that 10 US Embassy employees in Moscow had been declared persona non grata. These people have been ordered to leave the Russian Federation before the end of the day on May 21.
We consider the FCDO statement of 15 April on “malign activity by Russian intelligence services in cyberspace” as nothing but an attempt to play along with the US, which as usually try to put a blame on Russia while obviously failing to ensure their own cyber security.
Question: Newly appointed to lead the inquest into the death of Dawn Sturgess, Baroness Hallet has announced her plans to examine the Russian state’s involvement in poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury as part of the inquest. Any comments?
Answer: We see it as a confirmation of our earlier conclusion that the situation with regard to these tragic events would evolve according to the Litvinenko Case scenario. Regular investigation and regular use of existing international legal instruments (since there have been Russian nationals affected) is being substituted with a quasi-judicial procedure. It does not formally pertain to the incident in Salisbury as such, yet would undoubtedly be used to support again and again the groundless accusations against Russia made by the British authorities.
On 10 March 2021, the Embassy undertook a demarche to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office regarding the leaked FCDO-related documents that reveal a large-scale campaign being performed by the UK Government aimed at exercising systematic influence on the Russian-language media space.
Three years have now passed since the highly publicized incident in Salisbury. So far we have learnt little on what really happened. The British authorities laid the blame on Russia for an alleged use of chemical weapons on the British soil. Such a serious accusation however was not backed by any facts, proof or other sort of relevant information. Being ungrounded, it cannot be considered credible.
The representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey as guarantors of the Astana format: 1. Reaffirmed their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic as well as to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and highlighted that these principles should be universally respected and complied with;
Russia has its own views on global developments and we openly express them and take practical actions to uphold them, unlike a huge number of other countries who have their own views too but keep mum. The West doesn’t like this so it chose aggressive deterrence of Russian Federation. Sanctions are imposed by the West in order to feel satisfaction from the act of meting out “punishment”. But sanctions lead nowhere and cannot result in a change in our course on upholding Russia’s national interests.
Mr Navalny was detained, in full accordance with the law, for violating the terms of probation. He was convicted for fraud back in 2014, and the European Court on Human Rights dismissed his claim that the case was politically motivated. He was released on probation, but neglected to comply with its conditions even before his alleged “poisoning” last August. He was not bothered during his hospital stay, but after the discharge he continued to break probation rules and ignored the warnings of penitentiary authorities, which led to his current detention. He is not a “political prisoner”, but a common criminal, who flaunted the law to look like a victim for political gains.
Tweet Follow @russianembassy