Russia’s UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia has dissected the UK’s version of the Skripal poisoning, exposing inconsistencies in the crumbling British narrative in a series of memorable statements at the UN Security Council meeting.
On Britain’s version of Russia’s motive to poison Sergei Skripal
Why did we have to wait eight years and then decide to do it two weeks before the presidential election in Russia and several weeks before the World Cup? Why did we have to wait eight years and then decide to do it two weeks before the presidential election in Russia and several weeks before the World Cup? Why did we release him from the country in the first place? Why did he/they have to be killed in a way that was extremely dangerous to the perpetrators and the public and would cause such an outcry? Any fan of murder mysteries like The Bill TV series knows hundreds of clever ways to send a person into the next world.
On Porton Down lab’s denial that it had identified the origin of the poison allegedly used against the Skripals
We have to give credit to Mr [Gary] Aitkenhead [the lab’s chief executive]. He did not sacrifice his professional reputation in the service of the speculations of the British leadership… The main argument of the British side – the claim that the toxin was definitely Russian in origin – which served as the lynchpin in their entire system of ‘proof’, that it was ‘highly likely’ that Russia was culpable, is crumbling before our eyes.
On ‘Russian origin’ of Novichok agent
We reiterate this ‘urbi et orbi’: There is no Russian copyright on Novichok, even though the name seems Russian. This name was invented in the West for a family of military toxic agents, which, as experts in the field know very well, were developed by many nations, including the US and the UK.
On British media reports, based on leaks from anonymous intelligence sources, and blaming Russia for testing and deploying Novichok
Gentlemen, I don’t really know how to comment on those. This is a theater of the absurd. Couldn’t you make more believable fake news? And, anyway, we know the worth of British intelligence from Tony Blair [British Prime Minister during the 2003 Iraq invasion]. We told our British colleagues: You are playing with fire and will get burned. Making accusations with no evidence to back it is one thing and speaking like professionals is another. Professionals don’t use ‘loudspeaker diplomacy’ and can provide clear answers to reasonable questions.
On expulsions of Russian diplomats
On British success in blocking a Russian proposal for a joint probe at the OPCW
Britain and its allies blocked the proposal, which they celebrated as a victory… This is not surprising. Why would Britain want a joint probe if it established the culprit before an investigation? Such a probe could destroy their streamlined version, which is based on ‘strong arguments’ like ‘highly likely’, ‘overwhelmingly likely’, ‘highly plausible’, ‘there is almost no doubt’, ‘there is no other plausible explanation’, ‘Russia was almost certainly to blame’, ‘high likelihood of Russian responsibility’, ‘Russia is the likely perpetrator’.
On historic parallels
Boris Johnson, who constantly swears to be a Russophile, made an absurd – and that is the mildest word I can use here – an absurd and immoral claim that Russia needed this incident to rally the people before the election. Equally immoral was his comparison of the upcoming World Cup with the 1936 Olympics in Germany. By the way, unlike the USSR, Britain sent a high-profile delegation, that included many dignitaries, to that event.
On a six-page presentation used by the British ambassador in Moscow to inform allies about London’s allegations against Russia
A comic strip is being used as a substitute for evidence. There is nothing in them but the same ‘highly likely’ mantra. Apparently the same ‘irrefutable’ document was shown by Theresa May to her counterparts in the European Union… Such an argument is an insult to any reasonable mind. How little respect you must have towards those you are trying to convince with this? And those who allow themselves to be convinced – don’t they realize they are being zombified into a collective psychosis?
On the state of British political culture
On media coverage of the Skripal case
The media is a terrifying weapon. The media can easily be used to manipulate the public, and we see that the Western media is quite successful with this job. No smart approach is needed. One can only repeat the same baseless lie time after time, imprinting it on minds and making the people take it as an undisputed truth. This is the method of [Nazi propagandist] Dr. [Joseph] Goebbels: a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth.
On alleged perpetrators
The British authorities dare to claim that Russia is ‘highly likely’ to be behind the Salisbury incident. We believe that it is ‘highly likely’ that the intelligence services of certain countries are behind this provocation. Russia, which has nothing to do with the poisoning of the Skripals, is, more than anyone, interested in establishing the truth.