Transcript:
Maria Zakharova: This
is a really quite scary and very dangerous game that the West started.
It is not just British action; clearly, the resources of many players
are involved.
Let me explain why I am saying this. All of us and the whole world learned
a new Russian word: "Novichok". The most interesting thing is that this
word is perceived as a Russian word everywhere in the world. Just
listen how it sounds to a foreigner: "Novichok". This must be connected
to Russia.
But
as far as we, the native Russian speakers, are concerned, it sounds
similar to the toast that Westerners say when we drink with them in
company: Your health! It sounds Russian, but we know that we never say
this toast this particular way - we always say something else. But in
the West it is a cliche about the Russians that for a toast, they'd say
"For your health", even with some emphasis. It's the same concept.
Let
me explain. Never on the territory of the USSR, in the
Soviet times or in the times of the Russian Federation on its territory,
were studies conducted under the code name "Novichok". It was neither
patented, nor used as a symbol or a code.
Once
more, as this is the key thing: the word "Novichok" has never been used
in the USSR or in Russia as something related to the chemical weapons
research. This word was introduced and used for poisonous materials in
the West.
In
the early to mid-1990s, a lot of Soviet scientists and, later,
scientists with Russian citizenship, who had worked in this area, left
for Western countries. They didn't just leave - they
were expected in the West. Among other things, they took with them the
technologies they were
working on. After that, in Western countries, according to various
sources, including the open ones, this work was continued in the West
with the participation of former
Soviet scientists: in the US, in Great Britain, in Slovakia, in Sweden, and a few other countries. I repeat,
this info is openly available on
the Internet. I read it, it is open info. Yes, this info is totally
open. One can study it if one wishes... Completely open information.
Right
at that time, this surprising name
appears: "Novichok". It does not sound right to us, but it fits Western
cliches about
Russia. Very interesting: the British PM is speaking in the Parliament
(not to some student gathering; not to not an NGO; not even to
journalists). These are the people making decisions that affect the
fate of the
country. These are people who'd want to know the facts.
But
the British PM does not mention the chemical formula. Instead, the
British PM uses this cliche name immediately associated with the Russian
Federation, or with something Russian. Everything is designed to focus
the
attention on Russia. Very theatrical. She gets an ovation. Yes, she gets
an applause. Immediately this name is circulated in all media. But
that's not the
only falsification of this magnitude.
Open
British newspapers. Or listen to British journalists. Who is Skripal?
What is he called in British media? He is called "Russian spy". How
come he
is a Russian spy? He is
exactly the opposite. Yes, he
is the opposite. He is a British spy. We don't have
customary consulate access to the Skripals, who, as
we are told, are in critical condition, but we
have no information about their state, their whereabouts,
nor about what is happening to them.
Well, an
important point is that Skripal worked for
the British intelligence services. He never
was a Russian spy. He was a British spy. He was
transferred to the UK because he worked for the UK government.
Another
important point. This person,
when he was caught, was tried
according to the Russian law. The court
decided on a term of incarceration.
He was serving his time in jail. When the
time came to return him to the UK, the country,
for which he worked as a spy, he was alive and well. He was
handed to Britain in good shape. Nobody
knows what state he is in now or where he is,
except the people in the UK who made it top-secret. The
British side received him from Russia in good health.
This story will involve additional
mystifications, but I believe
the truth will come to light, one step at a time.
Journalist: London
never gave us any information?
Maria Zakharova: None
whatsoever. This is the next point: total mystery around this created by Great Britain.
Journalist: As I
understand, they shared the data with the
US and some European countries?
Maria Zakharova: Nobody
knows that. According to international
treaties,
particularly the Chemical Weapons Convention,
of which both Russia and UK are members, the UK
had an obligation to share all data with Russia.
What's
more, this is the obligation of any country that is a signatory
to this Convention, even if there is no
suspicions that one of the
countries-signatories is implicated in any banned actions. This is
an obligation of all signatories if the compound used is
suspected to come from a particular source in any country-signatory.
This applies to transit, origin, storage, anything. I.e., the
country possessing any information has an obligation to share it. Among other things, this is an
issue of safety.
If there
are any traces of a banned substance we need to
be informed (as you know, by 2018 Russia destroyed
all stocks of its chemical weapons). So, what
could be an issue with Russia? The
decision to destroy all chemical weapons was made in 1992, if I am
not mistaken. Thus, this is an issue of our safety, as well.
So,
the
Russian Federation immediately asked the UK to share the info. We
received no info whatsoever. It is interesting as a part of
the overall picture of global international cheating. We ask a
question having heard that Britain is closely cooperating with the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The Brits
proclaim they won't deal with Moscow, but only with OPCW. There are
many mechanisms that can be used, but all of them presuppose
the participation of the party concerned in the matter. This
doesn't necessarily mean that the country is suspected of having
done something illegal, but means any connection of the substance used with that country's
territory.
Not once,
via any channel, diplomatic or OPCW, did
Russia receive any information from London. This is
all public rhetoric, a part of a large play or show, a
scary show destabilizing the international order. It is
very important to keep in mind that we are talking
about a nuclear power. The UK has nukes. So, when
the British PM Theresa May makes statements that her country was a victim of aggression,
it should be a
responsible statement of a leader of a nuclear power.
After
that, there is silence and pause, when no information
is presented, including the chemical formula
of the substance they allegedly found. Why am I
saying "allegedly"? Because nobody except
the British special services have access. A very
convenient position.
Another
important aspect. Based on the British statements
to the international organizations, the UK conducted
tests, all of which took less than 10 days. Apparently,
these tests were conducted by brilliant agents 007, as this could not have happened in
reality. We all
know that even when you do blood lab tests, it takes time, but this is presumably an unknown
chemical compound.
Journalist: I want to
ask you about our response.
Maria Zakharova: As far as
the response is concerned: I want first to remind about something important, which has
been completely ignored by the media.
In 2016,
Russia (the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
talked about that) initiated the development of a treaty to
fight acts of chemical and biological terrorism. That was
Russian initiative. Now guess who is blocking
it? The UK! Ever since 2016. Isn’t it interesting?
Let's
continue. I tried to explain why the word "Novichok" was introduced. It is
important to note that a concept of a word associated with Russia draws attention away from
the chemical formula of the substance. Why is
this done? Very simple. If the British PM and British so-called experts reveals the chemical
formula, that would make clear which countries developed the compounds
of this type. Yes, it
is an open info.
Then one
can via Internet or research institutions figure out what the talk is about. I repeat, no
information was given
regarding the compound that was allegedly used. Too
secret?
Another
important issue. In the international organizations, including
OPCW, the British side stated that they have all the
proofs that the Russian Federation is
involved, and that
these proofs were obtained by lab tests in the UK. The lab was named: it's a center
belonging to the British Ministry of Defense in Porton
Down. This is
the center that played a key role in the development and production of chemical
weapons, including
substances of that type. You understand? Somewhat
dubious.
You see,
the tests were conducted in the same center
that manufactured compounds of that type. The
question is how the sample was connected specifically with Russia, considering that
they did not
share the samples with Russia. Presumably
they don't have that compound, they should't
have it, so what did they compare it to? What did they have
to compare it to in the UK to come to that conclusion?
An idea
comes to mind (maybe not a conclusion, but a question): This means that either they have
samples, which they
conceal, or the whole thing is a lie from start to finish.
Thus,
with every new piece of information there are more and
more questions, and they become more and more revealing regarding this very dangerous
mystification.
I want to
state once more today, on live TV in your studio, that the most likely source of this
compound is one of
the countries that since the late 1990s have been
actively studying compounds of the project "Novichok". As we
already stated, it was developed neither
by the Russian Federation, nor by the USSR. I listed
these countries, but I will do so again: the UK, Slovakia,
Czech Republic, Sweden, possibly the US. The data
showing this are on the Internet. How do you like this story? Lose ends
are sticking out all over.
Most
importantly, I want to say to all foreign colleagues demonstrating today
their solidarity with the UK position: Remember Tony Blair, who made
a decision about the UK participation in the Iraq war. He also
made statements: these statements are available on the Internet, they are on
British government
websites, they are on the UN websites. With a
straight face, he declared that Iraq has weapons
of mass destruction. The weapons that make the whole world worry, chemical weapons. All sorts
of things were named, all sorts of theories were advanced. Based on
that, the UK decided to join the anti-Iraq coalition.
Iraq was a sovereign state, it was a state where no
international terrorism ever existed. Naturally,
Iraq had its own problems, its internal development problems.
But because of London, this country lost hundreds of thousands of civilians, not counting the
military personnel.
More than
10 years have passed. The same Tony Blair, with the same highly intellectual facial expression, is
now saying that the data, on the
basis of which the UK decided to join
the Iraq war, turned out to be wrong. According
to him, the politicians who made the decision were fooled by the British special
services. Shame on
them.
The
difference with the Skripal situation, where the victims are (although I would
like to repeat, as stated by the UK) Skripal, his daughter, and a British cop, is that in Iraq hundreds of
thousands of civilians perished. But the
mode of decision-making was exactly the same:
based on some briefings and secret materials.
In the end, all they say is "we are so sorry". It just
so happened. Yes, it
just happened. "Highly likely”. The same style.
Journalist: Let's talk about
what comes next in this - I don't even know what to call it - maybe
standoff, diplomatic and otherwise, between the UK and Russia. We had to
respond, so we also expelled 23 British diplomats.
Ours are returning later this month with their families, I understand. What do you think
would come next? Britain,
having expelled Russian diplomats, followed in its traditions, when diplomats have always
been the first victims. However, what is going to
happen next? There are
many inconsistencies, you mentioned them all. The
situation in Syria, where we hear threats of strikes on Damascus
and new fakes about chemical attacks precisely when the humanitarian mission achieved certain
success. Plus,
there are Russian elections. All of these situations are
cooking in the same pot, so to speak. What do you think
could happen next? At least, on the diplomatic front.
Maria Zakharova: Unfortunately,
this question should be addressed not to politicians
or official representatives. It should be addressed to political analysts, historians, maybe even
philosophers. They can give
a comprehensive evaluation, or, at least, start working
on it, regarding the crisis of the political systems and the democratic foundations of the modern
Western world.
The
reason is simple: Everything we see, the circus, the show, the scary, bloody
show, when people are dying, but all information is made
secret, is needed to keep the internal economy grow. Generally
speaking, in the modern post-colonial world, such
performances ensure the forward movement for many Western
political systems. It is a philosophical question.
Whether
the UK will back away from its favorite way of solving
problems by provocations, which reveal all the dirty side of
the intrigues leading to such scary, tragic events, I can't say. However,
in the last 15 years we witnessed numerous lies coming from the official London, which were
eventually unmasked by the international community, by human rights
campaigners. This is a fact. It is a
well-established fact.
Yes, there are events and critical points in
the development of the states, countries, and nations, when secret operations must be conducted and the
info must be kept secret. But there
comes a time when the government representatives or officials responsible for
public relations have to
explain those secret acts to the public, and they do.
Here, on
the other hand, we see intentional lies, and then cover up of these lies, just like it was
in the story with Iraq. Just recall the history of the
Iraq-related events. Not a
mere representative, but the US Secretary of State brought a tube
purported to contain the Iraqi chemical weapon, or something that can be a component of a chemical weapon,
to the UN Security Council, and tried
to make it the basis for the decision of this UN Security Council.
Who was against legitimizing
this criminal ideology back then? I'll
remind you - it was Russia. And it was similarly subjected to information attacks. Unlike
today, back then France and Germany had
enough political courage to oppose the legitimization of the fabricated
"information". Thanks to
this, the UN Security Council did not vote for the
decision, and neither France nor Germany joined the anti-Iraq coalition. Whereas the UK
joined it.
Moreover,
the UK fabricated "proof" just
like it does
today or did in other cases. In the Litvinenko case everything was made secret; the same
in the case of Berezovsky as well
as in the case of Perepelichny.
When I
talk to British journalists - and as you can imagine, in the
last few days I talk to them daily and more than once a
day - I ask them why all of that was kept secret? They tell
me that many Russians died on UK territory. I say, yes, it is so, and we worry about it. We sent
you numerous requests
for information, so we ask why all of it is kept secret? They say,
it is a National Security issue.
Now, like in the past, everything will be kept secret. As we see in
the case of Skripals, even the state of their health is kept secret,
even their whereabouts. The
Russian side does not get any information,
despite the fact that Skripal's daughter
is a citizen of the Russian federation.
Translated
by Eugenia Gurevich (Youtube).
