Diplomat: Russia is ready for 'asymmetric response' to tougher US sanctionsRussian Politics & Diplomacy October 24, 13:25
Putin supports plans of OSCE armed mission in Ukraine — KremlinRussian Politics & Diplomacy October 24, 13:22
Kremlin in doubt if separation of Syria opposition from terrorists "is possible at all"Russian Politics & Diplomacy October 24, 13:18
Press review: Moscow sharing Syria intel with Turkey and Russia's defense spendingPress Review October 24, 13:00
Diplomat: Too early to say who attacked Russian Foreign Ministry’s old websiteRussian Politics & Diplomacy October 24, 12:31
Moscow says no prerequisites for Lausanne format meeting before US electionsRussian Politics & Diplomacy October 24, 12:02
Russian-made software supplies to state agencies to double in 2016 — ministerBusiness & Economy October 24, 11:24
Testing on system to shield Russian Defense Ministry from cyberattacks completedMilitary & Defense October 24, 11:18
Maria Sharapova removed from Women's Tennis RankingsSport October 24, 11:17
MOSCOW, August 29 (Itar-Tass) - Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said it is necessary to allow the UN chemical weapon experts to complete their work in Syria. Gatilov made the statement at a meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, a Russian diplomat said.
Gatilov said "it's necessary to use the political and diplomatic instruments to the fullest extent at this stage, in the first place by allowing the UN experts, who are investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria to complete their mission and report the results to the UN Security Council."
Earlier, a source from Russia's Security Council told Itar-Tass that, since there is no answer yet on who has used chemical weapons in Syria - the opposition or the government forces, the UN experts should complete their investigation first. “It is unacceptable when without the results of the experts’ probe accusations continue to be voiced only against the Syrian leadership,” said the official. “The US, British and French politicians have been making statements about the allegedly available evidence. But why should we believe the words?” Where is the evidence?”
The source said that the invasion of Iraq had also been preceded by the so-called “evidence” obtained by Western intelligence services ostensibly from their most reliable sources. The UN experts’ opinion was unclaimed. Now it is known that these “intelligence sources” shamelessly lied”.