Sergey Mikheyev, top political expert: First, I'd like to say that our firm stance on this issue proved to be the right one. Because some time ago, some people, including certain guests of this show encouraged us to cooperate, to look for a compromise to surrender something not to spoil our image again. But now we see the results of our firm stance on the issue. That's roughly the way to act in this and future situations perhaps even the mild one. As we see, the British have overestimated their resources and underestimated the situation in the OPCW.
By the way, continuing the line of Mr. Nikonov I must admit I was wrong. I'm sorry that I used to fling mud at the remains of the international law. You know, it appears something's left of it. It still exists. And actually, the OPCW has just demonstrated that. Fourteen countries that weren't afraid of the pressure of the "civilized" world that have basically isolated us and voiced their unbiased opinion on this matter. And suddenly, after just a few people dared to demonstrate integrity not their support for the Kremlin, but their professional integrity the whole "propaganda tower" the UK's been building began to crumble by the minute. What's happening now? Britain wanted to get the OPCW in its side in order to further support their anti-Russian version of the events. But they failed. Something went wrong or rather not exactly right. Anyway, their forecast was wrong, their estimates were wrong.
And what do we see? The head of the Porton Down laboratory to put it simply tried to play coy with the Prime Minister. "I'm a scientist, I've got nothing to do with that. They told me to analyze the samples and I did. We've got no idea who produced the agent. We haven't said or discovered anything. Go blame politicians."
- It's important to understand that correctly. The phrase wouldn't have caused any reaction if he'd said: "Not my jurisdiction." If Boris Johnson had said during his interview with Deutsche Welle that their best chemical expert reliably told him that the agent was produced by the Russians.
- Actually, the proliferation of chemical weapons…
- And Foreign Office posted it online.
- Vladimir, the CWC-Agreement and the system that's been formed within the framework of the OPCW are too dangerous to openly and cynically twine them into politics exactly what the British tried to do. The OPCW officials felt it because this attempt could have allowed the British to do anything. If they continued to produce those politically motivated groundless verdicts the whole chemical weapon prohibition system will crumble. That would be a catastrophe. Everything would be possible, chemical weapons would spread like a plague. And people who consider themselves scientists understood that their reputation was more precious and playing along with Theresa May wasn't really worth it. Theresa May and Boris Johnson can contemplate all they want why they did that.
By the way, on the same day, the US said that those 60 diplomats who got expelled could be replaced. It means that they realized that the situation became unstable. They started to lose control. "Sorry for expelling your diplomats, you can send some new ones. Just make sure they've got different names." It means they felt their position was unstable.
- Can we send those who got expelled from Britain and Europe?
- Yeah, send them to the US now. As a result... We must definitely stand our ground although they said there would be no apologies.
- They said every single diplomat would be considered separately.
- They would never apologize because in that case, the "civilized" West would have to admit that sometimes, they put a foot wrong that sometimes, they build cynical, biased, and fake propaganda constructs that they are trying to apply to the real politics. Nobody would apologize, but the situation is illustrative. We must stand our ground.
You know, we can indefinitely go on about the British being the biggest rascals in history. Because the era of the British Empire left a scar on the face of the human history. That's it. But let them handle their reminiscences on their own. I'd like to continue the line I've started earlier today.
You know, being men of honor they could tell those European countries: "You know, we followed the fake lead. Our bad. Russia's not our friend, but we all are decent people." Unfortunately, they won't do that.
- Let's invite them to St. Petersburg. They could repent in the Sennaya Square like Raskolnikov did. Let them shrive.
- But they won't do that. By the way, they've shown the episodes we're allegedly guilty of the extension of the historical chain of Russia's guilt that began centuries ago. Regarding their reluctance to apologize I'd bring up Iraq. Did they apologize back then? It was just an episode that allowed them to execute their Geo-political plans.
Regarding the current issue it could follow a different scenario because Britain initiated it, not the US. Theresa May could be potentially sacrificed. She could get tarred and feathered by the leaders of the opposition. Why not? Let them make a scapegoat out of her. But the nastiest thing here is that the whole Western community even though it's not monolithic would prefer to deflect attention from its recent failure to some other provocation. And this provocation might happen anytime.
I believe the two most likely territories are Syria and Ukraine. And look, the situation with our vessel in the Azov Sea is escalating. They basically stole our vessel and captured its captain. They force the sailors to admit they are Ukrainian citizens and not the Russian ones. A conflict is brewing.
- Don't we know what to do with pirates?
- Yes, we do know, but…
- If they are pirates, then we must save our citizens from pirates.
- Yes, that's the point. That's the main point: we must respond to this situation by force. At least, we must bring our military ships to the Azov Sea which will control and, when required, block the Ukrainian Border Guard vessels.
- They'll also be sinking pirates, right?
- It's almost the breaking point of a military provocation.
- Don't you like that approach?
- This scenario could escalate in a brutal way.
- Sorry, what did you say?
Yakov Kedmi, analyst (Israel): Don't sink.
- Shall we capture them instead?
- Yep.
Sergey Mikheyev: OK. Secondly, we can approach the issue in a number of ways I'm just sharing the most obvious scenarios. Let's be honest — Ukraine is asking for a war. This episode proved that it's asking for it. For a military operation. It could serve as a distraction. The second option is Syria, where our success, as declared by Putin at the meeting with Erdogan and Rouhani in Turkey really annoys the US. I think they haven't given up on their illusions about the Syrian chemical weapons even though even the ISIS's been eliminated still it's a territory where a provocation is likely to happen and deflect the attention from the poisoning incident.
- I'd like to quote what was said in the OPCW. We said regarding the time they scolded Yakovenko: "Ultimatums won’t work with great Russia." We made it clear: "Russia has nothing to do with what happened in Salisbury." Under the supervision of the OPCW, Russia destroyed all its chemical weapons. The disarmament process has been going on for years. Hundreds of OPCW inspections controlled that. In September 2017, we finished the destruction process. We finished it, but there are still some countries that still haven't — the US that blames the lack of finance. For the first time since WWII, it's Britain, the US, and their NATO allies that perpetrated a massacre in the middle of Europe. Carpet bombings in Serbia smoking ruin in Iraq and desolated Libya. Havoc and death everywhere. Our Western partners tried to disrupt today's session as hard as they could.
First, they suggested a minute of silence, to commemorate those killed in Idlib. We suggested commemorating everyone killed by chemical weapons in Vietnam, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq. And our partners suddenly felt uncomfortable. Until now, Russia's Deputy Permanent Representative to OPCW is aligning the text of the final document. They don’t want to commemorate the victims of chemical attacks in Vietnam, Cambodia, and other countries. The Khan Shaykhun tragedy. We're convinced that it was a vulgar provocation orchestrated by the pets of the UK and the States from the pseudo-humanitarian organization White Helmets. We didn't manage to get two-thirds of the votes on the joint Russian-Chinese-Iranian project. The US and Britain voted against along with their docile NATO and EU buddies and some Asian US allies. 23 countries voted for us or abstained — more than a half of the Executive Council. It means they are starting to realize the flaws of the British policy.
Our suggestion was simple and reasonable. It included two basic measures but the British didn't want to listen. Moreover, today, Boris Johnson repeated everything he'd said before. Like water off a duck's back.
