UK Claims Petrov & Boshirov Interview To RT Contains “Lies And Blatant Fabrications”

Donate

UK Claims Petrov & Boshirov Interview To RT Contains "Lies And Blatant Fabrications"

Metropolitan Police/PA

On September 13th, UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s official spokesman commented on the interview with the two men identified as suspects in the Salisbury nerve agent attack by RT.

The prime minister’s official spokesman said that the interview contained “lies and blatant fabrications” that “are an insult to the public’s intelligence”. He added: “More importantly, they are deeply offensive to the victims and loved ones of this horrific attack.”

The spokesman added: “An illegal chemical weapon has been used on the streets of this country. We have seen four people left seriously ill in hospital and an innocent woman has died. Russia has responded with contempt.”

The official spokesperson added that this is what the UK authorities have come to expect.

The prime minister’s spokesman also said that police had set out “very clearly” the evidence against the two Russians.

The UK Foreign Office earlier claimed that the two suspects, Russian nationals Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, deliberately lied and distorted facts in the interview to RT earlier in the day. A Foreign Office spokesperson told TASS that the Russians are still being viewed as main suspects in the case.

The Guardian reported that the UK said that it wanted to put the two men on trial, but the authorities have said they will not attempt to seek their extradition because Russia does not comply with extradition requests. Downing Street No. 10 said the two were “wanted men” and must be “brought to justice in the UK”.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova in a Facebook post said that the British Foreign Office’s response to the interview with Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov “points to the problems that Theresa May’s government is facing.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on September 12th that Russia had identified the two men accused by the UK of being spies who had carried out the Salisbury poisoning. The Russian president said they were civilians and called for them to come forward. Which they did in their interview, released by RT.

On September 13th, the US also responded to the developments, with US Assistant Secretary of State Manisha Singh saying that the Trump administration is ready to impose a new and “very severe” round of sanctions against Russia in November if Moscow does not take certain steps in the wake of the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in the United Kingdom.

“We have indicated to them that they can evade, they can make themselves not subject to these sanctions if they allow the onsite inspections, if they give us a verifiable assurance that they will not use these nerve agents against their own people again,” Singh said. “They have not done so so far, so to that extent, we are looking at this November deadline as absolutely, we plan to impose a very severe second round of sanctions under the CBW [Biological Weapons and Warfare Elimination Act].”

This follows the early August announcement of a new round of sanctions over the alleged poisoning, the first batch of restrictions went into effect on August 22nd, with the second are likely to be imposed in November, if Moscow doesn’t comply to US demands.

The interview conducted by RT’s Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan was very suspect, with both Alexander and Ruslan being very unconvincing. They confirmed that their names were not aliases, as the UK Police claimed. Alexander and Ruslan said that they were just mid-level entrepreneurs and traveled to Salisbury as tourists on friends’ advice.

Craig Murray reported that their story seemed highly improbable, however after looking at the Twitter storm which seemed to prove that all of the things that seemed impossible, were actually highly possible. With Stonehenge, really being closed on March 3rd, roads being blocked by snow, etc. The part of just flying to the UK just to see the Salisbury cathedral also makes sense, after people recalled famous rapper Jay Z’s visit to Salisbury to see the Original “Magna Carta” in the cathedral. Murray also wrote: “Even more strange is the idea that it is wildly improbable for Russian visitors to wish to visit Salisbury cathedral and Stonehenge. Salisbury Cathedral is one of the most breathtaking achievements of Norman architecture, one of the great cathedrals of Europe. It attracts a great many foreign visitors. Stonehenge is world famous and a world heritage site.”

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Merijn

    The prime minister’s official spokesman said that the interview contained “lies and blatant fabrications” that “are an insult to the public’s intelligence”….

    No…you Folks are an insult to Humanity and should be Tried for High Treason & War Crimes….the Gallows for you Traitors….

    • Empire’s Frontiers

      I’ll pull the door, tie the knot, stretch the rope.

      Whatever job ain’t been claimed yet.

      • You can call me Al

        I’ll pull the floor release system and I am English.

        • AM Hants

          I will get my knitting needles out, munch on the popcorn and enjoy the show. Love from England.

          • You can call me Al

            😂 🥂

  • If those tow are GRU agents then the Kremlin has far more to worry about than Westminster and…. as British officials are, I presume, not claiming their own statements are lies they ought to explain how these two men arrived in Salisbury after 11 am and poisoned a door handle at 9am of the same morning?

    • as

      Oh whelps if they believe they’re really part of GRU they would make a joke of these two men for their incompetence and in extension incompetence of the GRU as a whole. Instead they spin them as if they’re so scary spook to be feared of.

  • Aphelion

    So, are they going to give us some examples of which parts were lies?
    Every time the Russian side says anything about this affair the British
    side responds with “they are obfuscating and lying”. But not once have
    the UK actually responded with an answer to even one issue raised by the
    Russian side. Frankly, I don’t know for sure which side is lying
    because there is absolutely no transparency on the UK side, which is the
    side sitting with all the so-called evidence. There is zero public
    information to judge the validity of their accusations. If one wants to
    apply the generally accepted civilized principle of “innocent until
    proven guilty” – I still have very little reason to believe the Russians
    did this; not even a convincing motive; while there are still thousands
    of holes in the UK version as often pointed out by virtually everyone
    following this story. I wish someone on the UK side could just for a
    moment try to look at themselves from a neutral perspective so they can
    understand why so-many outside Russia are also questioning the UK
    version.

    • Douglas Houck

      Exactly, What lies did the two Russians give? It’s a relatively simple time-line to corroborate. Some follow-up on establishing that the names of the Russians are as they say they are (I’d be very surprised if it wasn’t), and some pictures taken by them.

      The most daming evidence that the British had was the Novichok found in the hotel. The fact that the second round of tests turned up negative could very easily be that the lab had some internal contaimination problem, as its unlikely that they would have wiped all the poison off the walls with the first swabs.

      So far, the British have a very weak circumstantial case. Most likely why, while knowling about Alexander and Ruslan in May, they have waited till now to release the data/findings. The police know they have a weak case but the politicians couldn’t wait.

      • ruca

        “IF!” there actually was any novichok at, which I highly doubt. FFS the Skripals did not die!

        • Douglas Houck

          I believe the Porton Down chemical analysis of Novichok is accurate. No reason not to.

          What is obvious is that military grade Novichok is not 7-10 times more toxic than VX, nor is it especially volatile (like Sarin). Based on the observed and stated symptoms exhibited by the four people who were poisoned, it is quite a bit less toxic than VX (an oily substance that primarily works through the skin). Only Dawn Sturgess showed acute toxicity of an organophosphate poison (violent tremors) after spraying in onto herself, but even that took 15 minutes before symptoms presented themselves. The other three showed signs of minor VX poisoning (hallucinations, foaming at the mouth, etc.).

          Because Novichok is not that toxic I don’t believe any state agency would use it as a means to assassinate anyone. The poisonings were most likely done by a non-state group, (Russian mob, whatever).

          What I find most interesting, but not talked about much, is that after leaving their house at 09:15 and going for a drive they both turn off their cell phones for something like four hours and them both when about to eat, turn them back on. Who were they meeting and for what?

          • AM Hants

            Not forgetting, who took the photo of them in the restaurant. You can see his image in the mirror.

          • Douglas Houck

            It shows that any number of scenarios are possible if one only has a few images to go on. For all we know, Yulia Skripal came over from Russia to visit her dad, Sergey and the two of them went sightseeing at the Salisbury Cathedral for several hours and then went to lunch were they asked the man sitting across from them to take their picture with their point-n-shoot camera which has all their cathedral images on it.

            A lot of conjecture at this point. Still, highly unlikely that the UK story is the accurate one. How did the perfume bottle make it as a wrapped package into Charlie Rowley hands months later? In his post-hospital release TV interview he clearly states he doesn’t remember where he got the perfume box, but now the British press says it was found in a charity box in a nearby town. Yea, sure. The two assassins didn’t go near the town of Amesbury.

          • AM Hants

            questions, never stop asking till the answers provide facts.

          • Psic 88

            Dude! The reason the Skripals and the other guy didn’t die is they weren’t poisoned with Novichok.
            Google it. One scientist was accidentally exposed to it and the effects were awful.
            It took him several unpleasant years to die, because it was only a minor exposure, but die he did.
            The drug of choice, by the Brits, is an incapacitating agent called BX if I recall correctly, whose effects exactly mirror the symptoms observed, except Sturgess unfortunately managed to OD. As an addict of Opiates that behaviour might also be expected from her.

    • AM Hants

      They cannot answer. Just believe that Blair got away with lying to Parliament, with no come back, so they all can. What is worse, the masses believe the lies they are fed.

  • Barba_Papa

    It’s no secret that a liar won’t believe anyone else….

  • Brits should be far more worried about that time-travel machine the Russians have built and used in Salisbury…..

  • RichardD

    “The prime minister’s official spokesman said that the interview contained “lies and blatant fabrications””

    Really, such as?

  • ZP

    “police had set out “very clearly” the evidence against the two Russians.” evidence like what? That they travelled from London to Salisbury? Twice??? Well if that is not enough then you people are all “conspiracy theorists” and if you keep on resisting the imaginary evidence by the UK Gov you will all be confined to Foreign Embassies as de-facto house arrestees