Ambassador Yakovenko: The British Scheme to Implicate Russia is Absolutely Transparent

- A quick follow-up question: Some said that Boris Johnson refused to shake your hand both times. And perhaps the main question: Regarding conspiracy theories many major newspapers, not some lousy ones, write that the Salisbury incident is a provocation and a part of some larger scheme which might even ultimately result in the US bombing Damascus Assad's residence, or something like that that it's a link in a larger provocation chain. What do you think about this theory?

 

Aleksandr Yakovenko, the Russian Ambassador to the UK:

- Well, answering your first question the meeting with Boris Johnson brought me a bit down. With their morose faces, they were demonstrating that they're blaming Russia for the incident and had every right to speak to us like that. But Boris Johnson stood far away from me at his side of the table so there was no need for us to shake hands. Still, everybody was displaying their negative attitude to the meeting and to our political course. But these are just peculiarities of personal communication. In general, the Foreign Secretary is a dedicated person. He graduated with a degree in journalism. And, as every journalist, he has an inquiring mind and a way with words. You've already heard his interview and can read his articles. The meetings weren't really pleasant but they are always useful because they let the other side share its opinion. At such meetings, when Russia receives an ultimatum I always share our perspective and the Secretary has to hear me out. But recently, I've also been asking a lot of follow-up questions that are essential to understanding the British point of view. It's a unique opportunity to ask a question directly and not through press or a megaphone. Their answers were really interesting and important for us. They helped us understand the British point of view and the future measures they intend to conduct. That's my impression of the meeting.

If we speak about Syria, there are several aspects to that. First, the creation of the negative image of Russia. The British have long been accusing us of covering up Assad who might not have destroyed all his chemical weapons which means Russia is accessory to those chemical attacks that Syria is accused of. However, it appears it doesn't work this way despite the vast media coverage. The thing is that it's the militants who use different types of chemical weapons to organize provocations and blame the Syrian government for them. The fact that during the liberation of Eastern Ghouta the troops found a lot of chemical weapons and places where it was manufactured signifies that a lot of incidents were orchestrated with the help of our British counterparts. Why do I say that? Because White Helmets who are deployed to Syria primarily to the areas controlled by the militants are financed by the British government. So there's a direct link. They helped to carry out the provocations that we saw and orchestrated some incidents. And it says much. Drawing a logical chain we get the Syrian government, chemical weapons, and Russian support which means Russia is in a way accessory to the chemical attacks and we, and I have to answer for that. A simple scheme.

- Thank you so much! A unique opportunity to discover it firsthand. Alexander Vladimirovich Yakovenko Russian Ambassador to Great Britain. Thank you.