Abonnez-vous à la page Facebook et à la chaîne Vimeo Follow me on Facebook and the Unz Review

samedi 31 mars 2018

Vladimir Poutine : si la Russie est attaquée, ce sera la fin du monde

Extrait du film de Vladimir Soloviev intitulé Le Nouvel ordre mondial, mars 2018.


[Chaîne censurée par Youtube : retrouvez toutes les vidéos de Sayed Hasan sur Vimeo]

Transcription :

[...] Vladimir Soloviev : [Qu'en est-il du] poids de la responsabilité du bouton nucléaire, lorsque des millions de vies, si ce n'est le sort de l'humanité entière, sont entre vos mains ? Et aussi le fait d'envoyer nos hommes (combattre) dans des horizons lointains, sans avoir de garantie qu'ils reviennent vivants. Comment prenez-vous de telles décisions ? Comment assumez-vous une telle responsabilité au quotidien ? 

Vladimir Poutine : Cette responsabilité est inévitable pour le Président. Elle fait partie de la fonction. Et avant de prendre de telles décisions, tout doit être minutieusement pesé. Quant au bouton nucléaire, pour le dire clairement, je pense que la question est déplacée.

Vladimir Soloviev : Excusez-moi, mais je dois la poser...

Vladimir Poutine : Oui, oui, je comprends. Mais ce n'est pas nous qui avons commencé tout ça. Permettez-moi de vous rappeler que la première bombe atomique n'a pas été créée par la Russie mais par les Etats-Unis.Voilà pour le premier point.

Deuxièmement, nous n'avons jamais utilisé d'arme nucléaire. Ce sont les Etats-Unis qui l'ont utilisée contre le Japon. D'ailleurs, dans de nombreux manuels scolaires japonais, ce fait est passé sous silence et imputé aux 'Alliés'. Quels 'Alliés' ? L'Union soviétique était alliée des Etats-Unis mais ils ne nous ont même pas informés. Et de nombreux experts assurent qu'il n'était pas nécessaire de l'utiliser. Mais les Etats-Unis l'ont fait. Qui peut garantir que cela ne se reproduira pas ? Voilà pour le second point.

De plus, nous ne sommes pas les seuls à être dotés de l'arme nucléaire. En plus des Etats-Unis, il y a la République populaire de Chine, la France, la Grande-Bretagne, la Russie... Cinq principales puissances nucléaires. Et il y a des puissances nucléaires qui ne sont pas reconnues par la communauté internationale. Ce sont l'Inde, le Pakistan, Israël... Nous ne sommes donc pas les seuls. Et si tous ces autres pays ont des armes nucléaires, pourquoi la Russie n'en aurait-elle pas ?

Quant à votre question, elle est bien sûr très importante et très sensible, mais je tiens à ce que vous sachiez, ainsi que le peuple russe et tous ceux qui nous écoutent à l'étranger, que nos plans pour l'utilisation d'armes nucléaires (et j'espère que cela n'arrivera jamais), mais nos plans théoriques prévoient seulement un 'lancement de contre-attaque'. Qu'est-ce que ça signifie ? Que la décision d'utiliser les armes nucléaires ne peut être prise que dans le cas où notre système d'alerte anticipée détecte non seulement le lancement d'un missile, mais donne également une prévision précise de sa trajectoire de vol et du moment de l'impact des têtes nucléaires sur le territoire de la Fédération de Russie. C'est ce que nous appelons un 'lancement de contre-attaque'. En d'autres mots, si quelqu'un décide de détruire la Russie, nous aurons légitimement le droit de riposter. 

Certes, ce serait une catastrophe planétaire, ce serait une catastrophe absolue pour le monde entier et l'humanité. Mais en tant que citoyen russe et dirigeant de l'Etat russe, je me pose la question : à quoi bon ce monde s'il n'y a plus de Russie ? [...]


dimanche 25 mars 2018

Skripal Case: Maria Zakharova Destroys UK Allegations against Russia

Interview with Maria Zakharova on the Russian Channel 24 about the conflict with the Great Britain over the Skripal Case, March 17th, 2018.

Maria Zakharova is the Director of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.

Translated by Eugenia Gurevich (Youtube)

 
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).

mercredi 21 mars 2018

Vladimir Poutine sur l'affaire Skripal : les accusations contre la Russie sont ineptes

Vladimir Poutine a répondu aux questions de journalistes russes et étrangers à l’issue de l’élection présidentielle – 18 mars 2018



Traduction : http://sayed7asan.blogspot


[Chaîne censurée par Youtube : retrouvez toutes les vidéos de Sayed Hasan sur Vimeo]

Transcription :

[...] Journaliste : Nous avons suivi de près la campagne électorale en Russie. La tragédie des Skripal s’est produite au plus fort de la campagne électorale. Comment voyez-vous les futures relations de la Russie avec l’Europe ? L’Europe est-elle un partenaire ou le principal adversaire ?

Vladimir Poutine : En ce qui concerne la tragédie que vous avez mentionnée, j’ai appris cela par les médias. La première chose qui vient à l’esprit est que si c’était un agent (neurotoxique de fabrication) militaire, les victimes seraient mortes immédiatement. C’est un fait évident qui devrait être pris en considération. Voilà pour le premier point.

Le deuxième point est que la Russie n’a pas de tels agents chimiques. Nous avons détruit toutes nos armes chimiques, et les observateurs internationaux ont surveillé ce processus de destruction. De plus, nous avons été les premiers à le faire, contrairement à certains de nos partenaires qui ont promis de détruire leurs armes chimiques mais qui ne l’ont toujours pas fait, malheureusement.

Nous sommes donc prêts à coopérer, comme nous l’avons immédiatement déclaré. Nous sommes prêts à participer aux enquêtes nécessaires, à condition que l’autre partie le veuille également. Nous ne voyons pas leur intérêt jusqu’à présent, mais nous n’avons pas exclu de notre agenda la possibilité de coopération sur cette question.

En ce qui concerne la situation globale, je crois que toute personne douée (d’un minimum) de bon sens peut voir que (les accusations contre la Russie) sont absolument ineptes. Il est impensable que quiconque en Russie fasse une telle chose juste avant l’élection présidentielle et la Coupe du Monde de la FIFA. Absolument impensable.

Cependant, nous sommes prêts à coopérer malgré ces éléments. Nous sommes prêts à discuter de toute question et à faire face à tout problème. [...]

Putin on Skripal Case: UK Accusations Nonsense, especially Ahead Of Elections & World Cup

Vladimir Putin answered questions from Russian and foreign journalists following the completion of the presidential election - March 18, 2018



Transcript:

[...] Question: We were closely monitoring the election campaign in Russia. The tragedy with Skripal happened at the height of the election race. How do you see Russia’s future relations with Europe? Is Europe a partner or maybe the main opponent?

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the tragedy you have mentioned, I learned about it from the media. The first thing that comes to mind is that, had it been a warfare agent, the victims would have died immediately. It is an obvious fact, which must be taken into account. This is first.

The second is that Russia does not have such chemical agents. We destroyed all our chemical weapons, and international observers monitored the destruction process. Moreover, we were the first to do this, unlike some of our partners who promised to destroy their chemical weapons but have not done so to this day, regrettably.

Therefore, we are ready for cooperation, as we said immediately. We are ready to take part in any investigations necessary, provided the other side wants this too. We do not see their interest so far, but we have not removed the possibility of cooperation on this matter from the agenda.

As for the overall situation, I believe that any reasonable person can see that this is total nonsense. It is unthinkable that anyone on Russia would do such a thing ahead of the presidential election and the FIFA World Cup. Absolutely unthinkable.

However, we are ready for cooperation despite the above things. We are ready to discuss any issues and to deal with any problems. [...]

dimanche 18 mars 2018

Skripal Case: Maria Zakharova Destroys UK Allegations against Russia


Interview with Maria Zakharova on the Russian Channel 24 about the conflict with the Great Britain over the Skripal Case, March 17th, 2018.

Maria Zakharova is the Director of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.

Translated by Eugenia Gurevich (Youtube)


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).