|
|
March 5th, 2021
|
#261 |
|
Senior Member
|
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s opening remarks at a briefing at the Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency on arms control and strategic stability, February 11, 2021
11 February 2021 - 20:51  Today’s subject does not need to be introduced because it is clearly topical. We will have to deal with a package of major tasks following the extension of the Russian-US New START Treaty. The relevant agreement entered into force on February 3. However, before dealing with these tasks, I would like to recall that in our opinion, the treaty’s extension was obviously the only acceptable option. Nevertheless, Moscow’s repeated attempts to discuss this issue with Washington during the Trump Presidency were to no avail for a long time because of the US’s reluctance “to rush.” As a result, the sides came under a time pressure that was artificially created and completely unnecessary. At the same time, the US made its potential consent to our proposal contingent on certain unacceptable demands that are basically ultimatums. The new US administration has adopted a more realistic approach to this issue, which has allowed the sides to quickly reach a mutually acceptable result. This was largely achieved owing to the personal contribution of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Joseph Biden who prioritised this issue during their first telephone conversation. Against the backdrop of the rapidly approaching expiration of the treaty, the sides reached an agreement on extending it. It was formalized and carried out very quickly. I need to emphasise that this achievement is not based on any concession by either side. We are convinced that the joint decision to extend the treaty meets the national interests of both sides in an equal measure. Due to this step, Russia and the United States will maintain the necessary level of mutual predictability and transparency in strategic offensive arms for the foreseeable future. This alone is extremely important for enhancing international security and strategic stability. One more positive result of the treaty’s extension is the creation of conditions for breaking the dangerous trend of weakening and discarding the political and diplomatic mechanisms of ensuring international security. In effect, we opened a new window of opportunity for the diplomatic search for promising arms control agreements, the need for which is obvious to everyone. Needless to say, we do not know yet what positions the Biden administration will adopt on these issues but we welcome statements describing the decision as the beginning of further cooperation in this area. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken quoted President Joseph Biden as saying that the New START Treaty extension is “only the beginning of our efforts to address 21st century security challenges.” We agree with this approach and note Washington’s signals to be open to launching a new stage of bilateral strategic dialogue. That said, we are fully resolved to address problematic strategic issues. We are willing to start working on this without delay, as soon as Washington is ready. We have everything the sides need for resuming the strategic bilateral dialogue: political will, well thought-out approaches, and an established interdepartmental team. We assume that the tried-and-tested format of interdepartmental delegations headed by deputy foreign ministers will be the main working channel for this work unless the US makes other proposals. The new US administration knows our positions on the strategic agenda in a dialogue with them. They are focusing on a search for ways of creating a new “strategic equation” between our countries. This “security equation” should take into account all factors significant for strategic stability in a comprehensive manner. It is not limited to nuclear weapons. We consider it very important to embrace the entire spectrum of both nuclear and non-nuclear offensive and defensive arms that are capable of resolving strategic tasks. I would like to draw your attention to these words that reflect the essence of the Russian position. When we talk about strategic defensive systems, we are referring to missile defence weapons. We do not intend to give up the principle of an inseparable link between strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms, which is fixed in the valid New Start Treaty. This is why a proper account of the ABM variable has no alternative for us. As for offensive arms, we need to look carefully at the attack systems that could be used in a first counterforce strike at the territory of the other side with a view to neutralising or weakening its deterrence potential. Relevant technology is being developed quickly, and today strategic objectives can be partly achieved with conventional precision weapons. That said, we consider it justified to maintain a focus on delivery vehicles and their carriers, including missile launchers. As for warheads, we suggest, as before, concentrating on the deployed warheads that pose the biggest operational threat. In addition, it is important to focus on working out common approaches to ensuring security in outer space exploration and preventing an arms race in space. Understandably, potential future agreements will require the development of adequate verification measures. We believe these cannot be universal or limitless. They must correspond precisely to the subject and scale of specific agreements. We believe it is necessary to create additional mechanisms for responding to crises fraught with the threat of a direct armed confrontation or the use of nuclear weapons. Obviously, it would be very difficult to include all these elements in a single treaty. We do not insist on this. Through mutual consent, the sides could adopt a package of interlinked agreements that could have a different status, if necessary. I would like to emphasise separately the issue of land-based intermediate and shorter-range missiles. We are convinced that the post-INF problems require priority attention and discussion as part of the Russian-US strategic dialogue. Russia has proposed a number of initiatives aimed at maintaining predictability and restraint in an INF-free world, including verification measures. Naturally, all of them remain valid and we are prepared to discuss these issues with our colleagues, but only based on the principles of equality and mutual consideration for each other’s interests and concerns. We firmly believe that following these principles remains key to successful cooperation in promoting international security and stability. Arms control is one of the main areas in this cooperation. It makes it possible to enhance national security through peaceful political and diplomatic means, which is the least expensive approach since it does not involve big expenses. Importantly, arms control is not an end in itself because the importance of national security interests and considerations remains decisive. Like any other country, Russia has its lawful interests and concerns. Our colleagues in Washington and in other capitals should understand this and take this into account. This is not a one-way street, and no concessions can be made under pressure or without reciprocity. Only an equitable dialogue can lead to balanced and mutually acceptable agreements. If a balance of interests is found, agreements will ensue. If we do not find a balance of interests and again face only a destructive approach to the above range of issues, there will be no agreement. Our colleagues in Washington and other NATO capitals must be clear on this. The time of Russia making unilateral concessions is long past. The world is too tough and too cynical to believe in fairytales. We don’t believe in them and will persistently uphold our own national interests. We believe that if the other side displays realism and an understanding of what is possible and what is not, we will be able to start overcoming the deep crisis in arms control through concerted efforts. This has been in crisis mode in the past few years largely due to the US. Washington must give up its attempts to build “peace with reliance on force,” and impose a dangerous and destabilising concept of a great power rivalry on the international community. This concept implies by definition an unlimited race for military supremacy. This is a road to nowhere which is fraught with very serious and possibly even disastrous consequences. By offering our expanded and largely new strategic agenda to the United States, we invite our colleagues to analyse jointly the existing challenges in this area and look for ways of overcoming or at least minimising them, so that in the future, given enough political will from both sides, we would be able to move on to substantive and result-oriented work to outline the parameters and give substance to possible new arms control agreements. Extending the New START Treaty gives us the necessary time for this, but it is still not very long. It is important to make the most of it. This is exactly what Russia will do. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4570219 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's interview with the Solovyov Live YouTube channel, February 12, 2021 12 February 2021 - 12:00 Vladimir Solovyov: Good afternoon, Mr Lavrov. Why was the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell “buried?” Sergey Lavrov: Nobody "buried" Mr Borrell. He carried out the will of the EU member states. They determine EU policy. This is a lengthy and controversial process. On several occasions, some EU member states have told us in private that they are against sanctions and that they do not believe that Russia should be “punished” with sanctions. They know this is futile, but they act out of “solidarity,” or the consensus principle. I have said several times that as far as I understand it, the principle of consensus means that if someone disagrees, that means there’s no consensus. So far, I haven’t received an answer to this question. Back to Mr Borrell, he was visiting us mindful of the complex environment surrounding his plans. Many were against his visit and publicly stated that he should not be going to Russia unless we “put right the wrongs.” In the end, they agreed upon the approaches that Mr Borrell was supposed to make known to us. This is not the first time - and this applies not only to Mr Borrell, but to his predecessors as well (before him there was Federica Mogherini, and before her there was Catherine Ashton), they were unable to discuss things. When Mr Borrell read out the position regarding Mr Navalny, I put forward our counterarguments. The EU’s position is that we have made him a political prisoner, and this is unrelated to accusations against him. And that all of that constitutes a violation of human rights and Russia, as a party to numerous conventions on human rights, including the European Convention on Human Rights, must release him and respect his rights. But Russia has laws that must be respected. By the way, I notified the High Representative that if he presents this matter from this angle during a news conference, I will respond by mentioning the Catalans sentenced to 12 years or more in prison for organising the referendum on Catalonia’s independence. We were accused of organising this referendum, but no one presented a single piece of evidence, nothing even remotely close to the facts. So it happened. With regard to human rights, I reminded Mr Borrell that we expressed our willingness to conduct a substantive dialogue on this matter a long time ago. However, first, it must be based on facts and, second, it needs to be a two-way street. If human rights are a recognised topic without borders, and states cannot hide behind their borders when discussing human rights, let's agree on what human rights are. There’s a list of these rights, which are primarily socioeconomic rights. The right to life is the most important one. But the West strongly opposes the idea of discussing socioeconomic rights. Vladimir Solovyov: Why do you deny Navalny and his brother the right to rip off the French company Yves Rocher? Sergey Lavrov: This is what I told High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell. I said that we did not pledge to protect those who did commercial damage to an EU company, Yves Rocher. There is factual information about this, about how the French company was lured to accept transportation and logistics services at 30 percent above the prices it had paid before, and how this was done by a one-man firm, which hired a subcontractor and transferred the money to the accounts of another company whose stakeholders are well known. Vladimir Solovyov: And he did not give any response to that? Was he pretending not to understand you? Sergey Lavrov: Mr Josep Borrell definitely has a clear understanding of the matter. But I would like to repeat that the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, however serious his title may sound, has no room for manoeuvre. He is acting within very tight limits. Vladimir Solovyov: Did he make any positive suggestion, or was it just a call for surrender? Sergey Lavrov: We ultimately found a constructive agenda. The High Representative himself proposed focusing on the subjects where we can help each other and find a balance of interests. These subjects are climate change, protecting the interests, economies and population of our countries to the best of our ability in the context of this natural hazard, as well as the issues of healthcare, science and technology. I believe that this is enough to make headway. I reminded him that we have been marking time for over two years on the extension of the Russian-EU intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in science and technology. The problem is that the EU wants the agreement to mention that Crimea is not part of the Russian Federation. The choice is between addressing the current aspects of our economic relations and promoting cutting-edge technology, and being stuck on this problem. Vladimir Solovyov: Why has Europe decided that it can pose as a moral leader with a right to lecture us? Have they forgotten about the tragedy of Yugoslavia? And, speaking about Navalny, we can remind them about Julian Assange whom nobody is discussing any longer. You mentioned the three political prisoners in Spain, to which they have replied arrogantly that there are no political prisoners, only imprisoned politicians in Spain. Immediately after that, Carles Puigdemont remarked that there are not three but nine of them in Spain. Sergey Lavrov: Incidentally, when all this happened, Carles Puigdemont and his associates were in Belgium, and several others were in Germany. The Belgian and German law authorities said the charges brought against them were politically motivated, but the Spanish authorities replied that they have their own laws, which must be respected. When I cited this argument during the meeting with High Representative Borrell, adding that we have our own laws as well, he started saying again that Navalny had been sentenced illegally, for political reasons, and that his rights had been infringed upon. We also talked about the rallies which Navalny and his team members, who are currently living abroad, organised actively and with provocative goals. Mr Borrell complained that a thousand people have been detained and many of them have been prosecuted, and that the right to peaceful protest is being rudely trampled on in Russia. He was especially concerned about the three expelled diplomats. His team told him about them while we were having lunch. Vladimir Solovyov: He didn’t express his concern immediately, did he? Sergey Lavrov: He told me when we were leaving the room that he was seriously concerned. Vladimir Solovyov: Did you know that the diplomats were being expelled? Sergey Lavrov: Yes, we knew this. Vladimir Solovyov: It was not timed for Mr Borrell’s visit? Sergey Lavrov: No, of course not. The decision was made when the identities of the diplomats who took part in protest rallies were established. And then they started wailing that the diplomats, who were just doing their job and carrying out their professional duty, had been detailed illegally and accused of what they did not do, that is, that they did not take part in the illegal rallies. We reminded them that the rally was not just unapproved and uncoordinated, but that its organisers did not even plan to request permission for it. Moreover, Leonid Volkov said publicly many times that they would not request permission but would simply take to the streets. In itself, this is more than just a breach of the law; it is an action designed to humiliate the state. If you believe that taking to the streets in this situation is your professional duty, you are not diplomats but provocateurs. Vladimir Solovyov: Plus, no one has canceled the pandemic restrictions yet. Sergey Lavrov: International conventions, including Vienna conventions of 1961 and 1963 on diplomatic and consular relations, bilateral conventions and, by all means, our conventions with Estonia and Sweden, firmly stipulate the fundamental truth that diplomats enjoy immunity and privileges, but must respect the host country’s laws and rules. The law was violated in the first place when the permit to hold a rally was not requested. The rules were violated as well since there is a presidential executive order and Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin’s order on epidemiological restrictions that remain in effect. The same restrictions apply in St Petersburg and other cities. That is, both laws and rules have been violated. Vladimir Solovyov: You also gave them a USB flash drive to keep them in the loop of what’s happening in Europe, didn’t you? Sergey Lavrov: This flash drive can be updated literally daily. There’s a wave of protests in Poland now that are being brutally suppressed with batons and water cannons. The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy said that he did not have the chance to watch the contents of the flash drive before his talks in Moscow, but promised to do so afterwards. Vladimir Solovyov: Did you send it to him before the talks? Sergey Lavrov: Yes, a couple of days in advance. I’m sure they watched it. The fact that he declined to discuss it saying he didn’t watch it goes to show that they realised they didn’t stand a chance in a candid dialogue with us. This awkward narrative from an arrogant standpoint, which was imposed on Mr Borrell in order for him to let it be known here, is being put into a certain philosophical and political context of the same geopolitical dimension. This is what happened when Josep Borrell was reporting back to the European Parliament and came up with the statements that Russia failed to live up to the expectations, a modern democratic society failed, economic ties with the EU collapsed, and we do not respect human rights and the like. Vladimir Solovyov: Well, they are demanding that sanctions be imposed on us, aren’t they? Sergey Lavrov: Yes, they are. Vladimir Solovyov: I’m one of those who they want to see included on the sanctions list. Sergey Lavrov: You are in good company. Vladimir Solovyov: A good company, indeed. I will be the first journalist in history to be sanctioned against. Sergey Lavrov: Not necessarily. That depends on what you call sanctions. RT and Sputnik correspondents cannot get an accreditation in Paris. I found out recently that one of our media outlets filed a lawsuit against the state for not being allowed to attend a news conference by President Vladimir Putin. Their argument was that, according to the law, if all the requirements are met, the accreditation must be provided. I’m not aware of these subtleties, but I know that this year’s news conference is being held in compliance with the pandemic requirements. It’s a fact that, without any coronavirus, RT and Sputnik, despite direct requests to the French government, were denied access to the Elysee Palace. Of course, we should also bear in mind the situation with Sputnik in Estonia, where criminal cases were opened against the journalists. Vladimir Solovyov: Yes, our guys find it hard to work in the United States as well. Recently, White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki came up with a boatload of god-knows-what... Sergey Lavrov: Yes, but getting back to the allegation that we disappointed the EU, failed to live up to their expectations and are moving away from Europe, having adopted a deliberate course on self-isolation... Well, this is some kind of a kingdom of crooked mirrors. The problems between us and the EU began a long time ago. They were testing our patience and good will. When the Baltic states and other East European countries were admitted to the EU in 2004, we asked them if they were sure those countries were mature enough to be admitted as responsible members of this progressive association. We were told that, of course, they still have some holdover phobias from their past in the Soviet Union, but rest assured that as soon as they become EU and NATO members, they will calm down and no longer have reasons for these phobias. Nothing of the kind. The exact opposite happened and they became the most zealous Russophobes and are pushing the EU to adopt Russophobic positions. On many issues, the EU position dictated by solidarity is determined by an aggressive Russophobic minority. Vladimir Solovyov: Why did they choose Germany and why Navalny? Sergey Lavrov: I think he just came their way. It if was not Navalny, it would be something else. Clearly, he was being prepared for that quite seriously, if you think about preparations for the notorious film, which wouldn’t have been possible without the German authorities’ consent. Vladimir Solovyov: Are you talking about personal data from the Stasi archives and Vladimir Putin’s photograph? Sergey Lavrov: Yes, that too. Vladimir Solovyov: But Maria Pevchikh, who had come from London to Moscow to accompany Navalny on his trip, during which she gave him his shirts, as Navalny said, and who allegedly brought back a certain water bottle, later disappeared. Sergey Lavrov: She brought back more than one water bottle. Vladimir Solovyov: In the process, they have either forgotten about the bottle or it has grown to the size of a whole water tank. She has openly accused you, saying that even the foreign minister doesn’t know that these documents are available in open access, that it is enough to write a letter. Sergey Lavrov: She has even said, if I remember correctly, that she has filed such a request. Vladimir Solovyov: Not so simple. She said that only a German citizen can do this. This makes one wonder who Maria Pevchikh is. Sergey Lavrov: I have heard debates on this issue on the Rossiya channel. Vladimir Solovyov: Thanks for watching us. Sergey Lavrov: I can’t go to sleep otherwise. Vladimir Solovyov: So much for the secret of ratings: dropping off with your TV set on. Sergey Lavrov: To begin with, Maria Pevchikh has surrounded herself with mystery. Our German colleagues are helping her to keep up that mystery. First of all, nobody has seen her after she left on board that plane. The Russian Prosecutor General’s Office has bombarded its German colleagues with requests to honour their commitments under the agreements on assistance in legal matters. In particular, we also requested a meeting with Maria Pevchikh, to which our German colleagues replied that they don’t know her whereabouts. However, she wrote herself in social media that she had met with Navalny in Germany. Vladimir Solovyov: She gave interviews. Sergey Lavrov: Yes, she did. Navalny had several German security agents with him round the clock. We told the Germans about this, that she had been among the people at Berlin airport who came to see Navalny off before his flight to Moscow on January 17, 2021. But they don’t even allow us to talk with the doctors who provided medical treatment to Navalny and found traces of toxic agents in his samples. Vladimir Solovyov: But the doctors didn’t find anything. Sergey Lavrov: No, I mean the Bundeswehr doctors. They are doctors as well. We have pointed out on numerous occasions that if the Omsk doctors did not find anything, and the Charité doctors didn’t either, then the Charité doctors can also be accused of concealing evidence of Navalny’s poisoning. A great deal has been said about the Bundeswehr. This does no credit to Germany as a country with a responsible attitude to its international commitments. First, they said there was one water bottle, and the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office mentioned it. Suddenly, they forgot about the bottle and started talking about clothing. Then they brought up the bottles again, this time three of them, claiming that traces of a toxic agent had been found on two of them. But the Germans, just as the French and Swedish experts who were allegedly asked to double check the results of German tests, and the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) have not provided any information to us. They have refused to do this. Vladimir Solovyov: I have read the OPCW’s report. It said plainly that they did not find any traces of a toxic agent but only “biomarkers of the cholinesterase inhibitor” in Navalny’s samples, which are not identical but “have similar structural characteristics” with certain toxic chemicals. And the report further says that this cholinesterase inhibitor is not on the list of toxic agents. Why do they keep saying “Novichok” and “toxic agent” then? The OPCW report doesn’t say so. Sergey Lavrov: We have been told since the Skripal case that only the Soviet Union, and hence Russia, has the Novichok production technology. They completely disregard the facts which we provide and which are available in open access to the effect that over a hundred inventions related to the so-called Novichok formula have been registered in the United States. Vladimir Solovyov: If I remember correctly, Hillary Clinton has confirmed this. Sergey Lavrov: Yes, of course. Vladimir Solovyov: This has also been confirmed by the Czech President. Sergey Lavrov: True. Moreover, during the story with the Skripals’ poisoning, Germany was one of those who pointed the finger at us, saying that no other country could have the Novichok production technology. When the Bundeswehr found the traces of a substance similar to Novichok in Navalny’s samples, we asked them how they had been able to determine this if they told us themselves that they had never conducted such research. No reply. Just note that the point at issue is not Navalny. This is not just a coordinated Western campaign of deterring Russia, but a campaign of aggressive deterrence. Vladimir Solovyov: Why? Sergey Lavrov: Because they don’t like it that we have our own views on global developments and that we openly express them and take practical actions to uphold them, unlike a huge number of other countries who have their own views as well but keep mum. I have talked with many ministers and other officials, as well as with members of civil society, who say that they don’t like what the West is doing. Vladimir Solovyov: Are they afraid to say so? Sergey Lavrov: Of course, they are. They are tied to the dollar, investments, and the children whose studies abroad are paid for with the money they keep there. It is a major damper on the elite’s ability to speak their minds. But we have no right to remain silent. Our history, our ancestors and our genetic blueprint do not allow us to stomach insults or unilateral attempts to dominate all and everything. Vladimir Solovyov: I’m aware of what you personally think about this, so I can imagine your indignation caused by Navalny’s behaviour in court with regard to the veteran and this act of bullying ... But the West turned a blind eye to this, too. After all, their emissaries were sitting in the courtroom and watching their underling do his thing. Sergey Lavrov: Representatives of the embassies of Great Britain and France attended this particular court session. They were our allies during World War II. I will not even comment on this. Any decent person can clearly see what is going on. Returning to why it’s Navalny and not anything else, this “case,” in today’s parlance, is a deliberate act. The date of his return and the date of releasing the film make it all too obvious. But, look, now that there’s a wave of attacks on Russia, no one is talking about the “poisoning.” What they are saying is that Navalny has been illegally convicted and must be set free. Vladimir Solovyov: This has already become imprinted in the public consciousness. This is a lie that has already taken root, same as with the Skripals. Sergey Lavrov: That is why we will keep asking them questions. Recently, I received an open letter from Mr Kozak, a researcher, a biologist who lives in Switzerland. I answered him. Literally today, we will be sending an official inquiry to the OPCW, Germany, France and Sweden with a request for them to comment on his findings made on the basis of the publications substantiating and analysing what happened to Navalny, the biomaterials that were obtained from him and tested in the West. From a purely scientific standpoint, he raises a number of questions related to biological and chemical science. Vladimir Solovyov: I have read Mr Kozak’s papers and your answer. Interestingly, the Lancet documents show a blood test with lithium in it. I started looking closely at various papers on lithium and talked with the professionals. Interestingly, there have been several studies reporting the effect of excess lithium intake on cholinesterase inhibitors. It’s complicated. I’m not even talking about the diseases that are treated with lithium. Clearly, we need to consult psychiatrists about this. However, the complete silence from the other side is surprising. I don’t think Germany is a random choice. At one time, George Friedman from Stratfor wrote that the alliance between Russia and Germany represented an existential threat to the United States. The goal is to prevent an improvement in relations between our two countries. No one expected Germany to be part of this direct attack on Russia. After all, Navalny wasn’t taken to Porton Down in the UK. Germany was their first choice. Surprisingly, this film, if we are talking about Gelendzhik, managed not to tell a single word of truth. Everything is 3D imagery. But the West got infected with this lie. They are doing their best not to see this debunked. Sergey Lavrov: I’m sure that the United States does not need us to have good relations with Germany. The same goes for European countries. Britain doesn’t need this either. Just like the West didn’t need a united Germany at one time. The Soviet Union was the main proponent of a unified Germany. Vladimir Solovyov: First, the preservation of Germany. Sergey Lavrov: Yes. I’m already talking about modern times. The West was very worried back then and reluctantly agreed on reunifying Germany. We operated on the belief that the German people have the right to be one nation which is its historical destiny as a nation. Here’s something (which is funny) about double standards. When I mentioned this at the Munich Security Conference in 2015 and said that we were doing it then deliberately, understanding the German people’s aspirations, and stressed that it would be important for other countries to treat Crimea’s reunification with Russia in about the same vein – as a manifestation of the people’s will. There was a referendum in Crimea, but there was no referendum in Germany. The audience had a fit of hysterics. The German deputies yelled things like “How dare you compare these things!?” I can see this arrogance on the part of the Germans in recent years. You know, there is such a subtext. They are not saying it out loud, but the message is clear: “Dear friends, we have paid our bills, and we owe nothing to anyone anymore.” Vladimir Solovyov: Hence, the revision of WWII outcomes and the attempt to equate the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany. Sergey Lavrov: That’s true. A fairly large portion of their elite is pursuing this policy. There are people who want Germany to lose its every chance to enjoy normal cooperation with us. At the same time, there are still voices of sanity there. Recently, President of the Federal Republic of Germany Frank-Walter Steinmeier said it was always better to discuss things, to be mindful of the future and to operate based on national interests when tackling the most challenging issues. So far, he has been the only foreign politician to mention our past. He said that 2021 marked 80 years since Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union. This is nothing short of political courage in modern Germany. There are a number of public organisations, such as Potsdam Meetings, or the St Petersburg Dialogue forum. This date cannot go unnoticed. When Vladimir Putin was elected President for the first time, we declared the historic reconciliation of our nations. Now, when they are trying to pit us against each other (there are people who want to do so within Germany and outside it), this date could serve as an important psychological message to the effect that confrontational logic must be abandoned and everything should not be seen as an opportunity to impose more sanctions on Russia. Speaking in the Bundestag, my German colleague Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said that Nord Stream 2 must be preserved, but only in order to have a lever to control Russia. Here again comes the logic of “who has an influence on whom.” It seems to me that the Soviet and Russian energy projects in Europe have always been a material foundation for positive interdependence. It’s always good when the countries depend on each other in terms of the economy. It makes overcoming many other issues easier. Mr Maas then said that Germany should consider sanctions against Russia over the case of Navalny, and “it’s okay” that they failed to achieve their goal earlier. Most importantly, a signal would be given that Moscow’s actions would not go unnoticed. Sanctions are imposed in order to feel satisfaction from the act of meting out “punishment.” But sanctions lead nowhere and cannot result in a change in our course on upholding our national interests.  Vladimir Solovyov: They lead to consolidation of our society. Sergey Lavrov: What I’m saying is that they are not conducive to achieving the goals that the West has set for us. Vladimir Solovyov: They do not understand our logic, our society. For example, Yulia Navalnaya suddenly flies to Germany, despite the coronavirus restrictions. Sergey Lavrov: I’ve read about it. We could ask the Germans if they know anything about the special rules created for her. But they won’t answer. I think there is no need to ask until this story acquires a dimension that affects our legitimate requirement of the Germans to explain what exactly they found in Alexey Navalny’s tests. Vladimir Solovyov: They do not even bother to enter into a dialogue with us. Sergey Lavrov: They have no arguments, but we will not leave it at this. Vladimir Solovyov: In this whole situation, I am most concerned about Donbass. Russia, as one of the guarantors of the Minsk Agreements, has no other choice but to maintain dialogue with our German and French colleagues. Apparently, they have lost sight of their role in this dialogue, and no longer know why they are even there. The war in Donbass has been going on for seven years. This is not a direct function of the Russian Foreign Ministry, but it’s a tragedy for those people. And you have to look your colleagues in the eye all this time. They don’t seem to want anything there, just waiting for a change of government in Russia. They think we are oblivious to it, and will play their game. Sergey Lavrov: This is a sad story, and every day it is taking on a more and more perverse nature. Paris and Berlin now almost unquestioningly demand that issues be resolved in the Normandy format only, which means without Donbass. We argue that the Minsk agreements say that the Contact Group formed under those agreements should resolve issues directly between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. They tell us no, the Contact Group plays a supporting role, while everything will be decided in the Normandy format, and Donetsk and Lugansk will be given ready-made solutions. It is a lousy position with regard to the people who were declared terrorists, although they never attacked anyone. They are still considered terrorists only because they have expressed dissatisfaction with what was happening in Kiev, and declared its moves unconstitutional, and asked to be left alone. They were actually attacked by the illegal regime that came to power as a result of a coup d’etat. The West stomached it all: the coup itself, and its instigators’ new Russophobic approach to the Russian language in Ukraine, or their banish-everything-Russian-from-Crimea rhetoric. In response to this, the people revolted, on a political plane. Donbass said it wanted to be independent, and later agreed to negotiations, and Crimea voted for reunification with Russia. The Russophobic wave that brought with it the geopolitical changes in Ukraine and Crimea had been approved by the West, or at least the West did not object to it and even encouraged it to a certain extent. But Russia has been punished for it. Vladimir Solovyov: But we put up with this for some reason. For some reason, we cannot just tell them that if they are not going to fulfil the Minsk agreements, then we will decide the fate of the Russian people there. It is our legitimate right to protect the interests of our compatriots. Sergey Lavrov: We are protecting them. Not only in Ukraine, but also in the Baltics, and in other countries. This is not even helplessness on the part of the EU. I think it is a conscious policy of turning a blind eye to Russians being persecuted, be it the media or the Russian-speaking population. In the Baltics, they are denied access to information in their native language, contrary to what is guaranteed under the local laws and international conventions. This attitude to the Russian language problems in the European Union, as well as their stories that they have their own mechanisms and will use them to influence the situation, it is all lies. They will not do anything, will not lift a finger to bring the Baltics to their senses and make them stop their Russophobic hysteria. I could not even imagine this. But let’s go back to Ukraine. We are interested in keeping the Minsk agreements on the table. They were approved by the UN Security Council and contain arrangements that are very difficult to abandon. Vladimir Solovyov: They are not complying. Sergey Lavrov: They are not. This means that Donbass is living the way it does now. As you may recall, with regard to the Minsk agreements and the compliance mechanism in the Contact Group and the Normandy format, we have repeatedly accepted a compromise, such as the Steinmeier formula. Originally, the Minsk agreements required that Donbass be given a special status and then the election be held. The Steinmeier formula stipulates gradual provision of this status. Vladimir Solovyov: Why go meet them halfway if they take it for granted and never reciprocate? I know you are a diplomat, and I’m a proponent of forceful solutions. Sergey Lavrov: I’ll give you an example. Take, for instance, the repeated and gross violation of the UN Charter by the United States and its allies. However, no one is suggesting that we leave the UN and tear up our signature under the UN Charter. If there’s a completely “unkillable” document and someone is trying to justify their non-compliance with ludicrous assurances, we benefit from it diplomatically. Vladimir Solovyov: We can stay. But maybe we need to act in a completely different way. Sergey Lavrov: How? Life takes its own course. Donbass has learned to live in a situation of illegitimate blockade, which the French and the Germans “refuse to see.” Instead, they pester us with a demand to open two more checkpoints. But this is not about lifting the blockade. The Minsk agreements are not talking about the checkpoints, but complete unblocking of economic ties. Vladimir Solovyov: Why talk to them at all? They themselves do not decide anything. We need to talk directly with the Americans. Sergey Lavrov: I think it would be the wrong thing to do. We exchanged views with the Americans on Ukraine when they had a special representative for this conflict. I don’t think we should call on the United States to influence their “underlings” and say that we have no use for the Minsk agreements. Vladimir Solovyov: They themselves do not decide anything. There’s even no point in memorising the name of yet another of their foreign ministers. Sergey Lavrov: The process that we are now observing with it being mandatory that the Minsk agreements are kept on the table means that the discrediting of the Ukrainian leadership is in full swing. Vladimir Solovyov: You are playing chess with them, and they are playing checkers with you. Sergey Lavrov: We are not playing chess with them. We are not talking to them altogether. Here are the Minsk agreements. Go ahead and comply with them. Period. Vladimir Solovyov: I like that. No extra motions. What if they don’t comply? Sergey Lavrov: Let them explain to their own public why they are not doing so. Vladimir Solovyov: In their own country, they explain that it is normal to close three channels, with sanctions imposed on one of their own citizens, a deputy of the Verkhovna Rada. Sergey Lavrov: The Americans said that this was the right thing to do. Europe mumbled something (sorry for this non-diplomatic term) to the effect that they will look into it. What is there to look into? Freedom of speech is either there or it is not. Vladimir Solovyov: There is no freedom of speech. Sergey Lavrov: Ukraine wants the Minsk agreements to cease to exist. Let them say so themselves. President Zelensky says that the Minsk agreements are bad, but they help keep sanctions on Russia in place. We are telling the Germans and the French: you wrote down that you would resume normal communication with Russia once it fulfilled the Minsk agreements, even though there’s no mention of us there. They talk only about Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. So, if they keep intact their five principles requiring Moscow to fulfil the Minsk agreements, President Zelensky will respond that way. He is not doing anything. They say Russia must comply, but the sanctions remain in place which makes him happy. Frankly, I’m even happy with that sanctions situation. Not fully yet, but we have realised that we must rely only on ourselves. No, we do not want to self-isolate. We want to take advantage of the international division of labour, but if someone is saying that there will be competition, but we will be “cut off” here, here and also there... As Minister Maas put it, they will impose sanctions just to make sure our actions don’t go unnoticed. What kind of a reliable partner are you then? Vladimir Solovyov: This phrase hurt their feelings. Sergey Lavrov: First, we said this not one year ago, but a couple of years ago, when the sanctions were being imposed and import substitution was discussed. Then, they began to wail about why we were responding to the sanctions, meaning that they had good reasons to impose them, while we didn’t. It was stunning to see them act like schoolchildren rather than politicians. I read excerpts from the foreign press. The German Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote a couple of days ago that it is necessary to think twice before acting emotionally and imposing “sanctions for the sake of sanctions,” because the punishing side must understand that they also pose a threat to it, as it ceases to be a reliable partner. So, we are not alone in drawing such conclusions, which I put my name down for. Vladimir Solovyov: Are we heading for a breach with the EU? Sergey Lavrov: We believe we would be ready for this. We are neighbours. Speaking collectively, they are our largest trade and investment partner. Many EU companies operate here; there are hundreds or even thousands of joint ventures. When a business benefits both sides, we will continue. I am sure that we have become fully self-sufficient in the defence sphere. We must also attain the same position in the economy to be able to act accordingly if we see again (we have seen this more than once) that sanctions are imposed in a sphere where they can create risks for our economy, including in the most sensitive areas such as the supply of component parts. We don’t want to be isolated from the world, but we must be prepared for this. If you want peace, prepare for war. Vladimir Solovyov: It should be said that our coronavirus vaccine has come as a blow to them. They never expected this to happen. It turns out that they don’t know anything about Russia and don’t understand it. They are shocked to see that our economy is not in tatters, and that we have [advanced] research and scientists. Sergey Lavrov: It was Barack Obama who said that Russia’s economy was in tatters. They haven’t learned from others’ mistakes. And it appears that they are unable to learn from their own mistakes either. Vladimir Solovyov: Will you miss President Donald Trump? Sergey Lavrov: He is an outstanding person. I remember my two meetings with him, once when I was on a visit to Washington, and also the talks he had with President Vladimir Putin, which I attended. Donald Trump is a remarkable politician acting from his own experience. Where there is benefit, everything must be done to maximise it; where there is no benefit, let things take their course. As for respect for our, Spanish or American laws, I am shocked by the impeachment proceedings. The charges brought against him… You can watch and listen to Trump’s video addresses again and again… Vladimir Solovyov: And find nothing criminal in them? Sergey Lavrov: Yes. Just compare them to what Leonid Volkov or Vladimir Ashurkov are saying. As many people say, have they ever urged young people and children to take to the streets? No, they have not. But I have heard them say, “What’s wrong with this?” Vladimir Solovyov: Right. This is exactly what Volkov said. Sergey Lavrov: They believe that if children want to join a protest rally, there is nothing wrong with it. This means that they are becoming part of civil society. Vladimir Solovyov: During his meetings with foreign secret agents, Vladimir Ashurkov asked for $10-$20 million and offered to share information about a Russian bank [allegedly involved in corruption]. Sergey Lavrov: We have exposed this. But it’s like talking to a brick wall. The West doesn’t see this, just as it pays no attention to our arguments on the alleged poisoning at this point. They just want our repentance. Vladimir Solovyov: But we have changed as well, haven’t we? We no longer react as nervously as we did before. I am concerned about you. The newly appointed US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the ninth US Secretary of State you will be working with. You said that you have to recite the history of Russian-US relations to every new appointee. Sergey Lavrov: This reminds me of an old phrase, “You are my first.” I have had a conversation with Antony Blinken. I believe it was a normal conversation. We agreed that there are many problems between us. Vladimir Solovyov: Have you agreed not to agree? Sergey Lavrov: Yes, we can hardly agree on the majority of these problems. But it is clearly inevitable that we must continue our dialogue on strategic stability and try to mend the damage done by the “disarmament experts” of the previous US administration. An agreement has been reached on extending the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). Vladimir Solovyov: But our position remained unchanged, didn’t it? It was the Americans who hesitated, not us? Sergey Lavrov: Yes, it is unchanged. As to how our foreign policy activities are being covered by some media, a few neoliberal journalists wrote that as soon as US President Joe Biden snapped his fingers, Russian President Vladimir Putin immediately signed a deal to extend the New START Treaty. The problem was resolved that same day, although before that, the Russian Foreign Ministry had said that it required a lengthy procedure under our laws (several weeks). So it was all a lie, they concluded. I will not reveal any big secrets. I will just say we hoped common sense would prevail with the President of the United States Joe Biden. A few weeks before his inauguration, we made all the preparations required under our legislation to conclude an agreement to extend the New START Treaty. Vladimir Solovyov: Joe Biden said last summer that this was one of his top priorities. Sergey Lavrov: It was not 100 percent guaranteed. Vladimir Solovyov: But he talked about it. Sergey Lavrov: In other words, we simply prepared beforehand for an optimistic scenario to avoid time trouble. It is just that sometimes our commitment to extension of the Treaty is shown in a perverse way – like they say, Joe Biden proposed it, and Vladimir Putin agreed. Vladimir Solovyov: Care for a conspiracy theory? Sergey Lavrov: Go on. Vladimir Solovyov: How about Vladimir Putin helped replace Donald Trump with Joe Biden because Trump did not agree to extend the New START? Sergey Lavrov: Possibly. I am sure this is what happened. I can say just one thing to all those who are looking for an intrigue in who is more important, or whether Russia is doing America’s or someone else’s bidding. In fact, Russian President Vladimir Putin does not really care who will take all the credit later. If we reach an agreement that will be good, useful, and important for us and for the whole world – be it on disarmament or on something else – it’s our pleasure. Vladimir Solovyov: Mr Lavrov, where does your freedom end? And where does it begin? The Constitution says that the President determines the country’s foreign policy. Sergey Lavrov: My freedom ends where another’s begins. This is not from the Constitution, though. Vladimir Solovyov: How free are you in foreign policy matters? Sergey Lavrov: There’s the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation which was updated several years ago. It was approved by the President. We have doctrinal documents covering regional geographic areas. They are classified, just like in any other country, but are based on the publicly available Foreign Policy Concept. In addition to geographical areas, whose doctrinal documents are also approved by the President, there are areas such as strategic stability, arms control, etc. This is also reported to the President collectively by all departments involved, such as security services, the Defence Ministry and the Security Council. Once a common policy is coordinated, that’s what guides action. Vladimir Solovyov: Your every step isn’t supervised? Sergey Lavrov: No. The President trusts me. If we have a directive that he approved, be it in foreign policy or elsewhere, you must act independently to achieve the goals it sets. Whether you succeed or not is a separate matter. In case of unconventional situations that are not covered by the established approaches, we have weekly, or more frequent, meetings of the Security Council permanent members where we openly discuss these matters. It is always a collegial decision. Vladimir Solovyov: Is there enough time for FC Spartak? Sergey Lavrov: The winter pause is about to come to an end... I miss it. Vladimir Solovyov: Do you still play football? Sergey Lavrov: Yes, on Sundays. Last Sunday, we played outdoors despite the fact that it was 15 degrees below zero. Vladimir Solovyov: Did you score? Sergey Lavrov: I’m embarrassed to say ... yes! But I like assists better. Vladimir Solovyov: Like Lionel Messi? Sergey Lavrov: Messi is a great scorer too. Vladimir Solovyov: Yes, but he also likes to pass the ball. Sergey Lavrov: True. Vladimir Solovyov: Rafts? Rafting? Sergey Lavrov: Well, not in winter... In summer, yes. Vladimir Solovyov: Poetry? Sergey Lavrov: Honestly, no real poetry for a very long time now. For now, I make do with epigrams for my friends’ birthdays. The elevated stuff isn’t coming as easily. Vladimir Solovyov: The current Russian Government has a quite a few talented writers. Sergey Lavrov: Do they write poetry? Or… Vladimir Solovyov: Poetry. Not writing each other up. Sergey Lavrov: I didn’t know that. I know that Arkady Dvorkovich wrote poetry when he worked in the Government, and he continues to write, probably. Prime Minister Mishustin wrote lyrics for many popular pieces of music. It’s a romantic way to escape. However, it shouldn’t create the impression that we are romantics in practical matters. We are realists. Vladimir Solovyov: Hard-nosed? Sergey Lavrov: You could say that. A healthy dose of cynicism has never been a bad thing in politics. Vladimir Solovyov: Do you prepare your memorable quips in advance? Or do they just come out on their own and “kill” on the spot? Some have become legendary, although you deny authorship. Sergey Lavrov: The words were accurate but a different order. If you are thinking what I’m thinking. Vladimir Solovyov: You said to former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband: “Who are you to lecture me?” Sergey Lavrov: Well, how do you prepare jokes in advance? I’m not saying that I take after Viktor Chernomyrdin, who never prepared his jokes in advance. With him it was like a force of nature. No, I do not prepare my jokes in advance. Vladimir Solovyov: Do you ever make friends with your international colleagues when you feel like you get each other? Sergey Lavrov: There are quite a few of them. I am afraid to list them. Vladimir Solovyov: So they won’t be hounded? Sergey Lavrov: Many of them hold very high posts in the European Union. They are good guys. I don’t want to give them up. Vladimir Solovyov: Has it really become that bad? Sergey Lavrov: I think so. We are “toxic” after all. I mean for them. Vladimir Solovyov: Us? I think it’s the other way round: we are the only ones who follow their principles. Sergey Lavrov: They think we are “toxic” but we don’t care. If they want cordial working relationships (President of Russia Vladimir Putin and the Foreign Ministry have said this many times), the foundation has to be mutual respect, not interfering in each other’s internal affairs, and cooperating on issues of mutual interest. Striking a balance between our interests is the only possible outcome of such talks, not merely our consent to their proposals. Vladimir Solovyov: Do the personal attacks, insults and attempts to smear your family members get to you? Sergey Lavrov: I don’t read about it myself. Sometimes, a well-meaning person will draw my attention to it. For example, six or seven months ago I was shown a report (anonymously sourced as always) about an illegitimate son of mine who works in the Foreign Ministry’s facilities department. Vladimir Solovyov: What a pleasant surprise! Sergey Lavrov: But he doesn’t come to see his dad. Apparently, he makes good money. Vladimir Solovyov: You are really fortunate to be able to take such a light and ironic attitude to it all. So, they don’t succeed because you don’t let it get to you? Sergey Lavrov: I don’t think any member of the Government, not to mention the Foreign Minister, should let themselves get rattled. To be honest, I find it easy to deal with. But those who take it harder must keep their perfectly justified feelings to themselves. As the old Hollywood saying goes, “Never let them see you sweat.” Vladimir Solovyov: Thank you, Mr Lavrov. Sergey Lavrov: Thank you for a very interesting conversation. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4570813
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
March 7th, 2021
|
#262 |
|
Senior Member
|
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Finland Pekka Haavisto, St Petersburg, February 15, 2021
15 February 2021 - 18:37 Ladies and gentlemen, My Finnish colleague Pekka Haavisto and I held meaningful and detailed talks. We have reviewed the key matters of Russian-Finnish relations and international matters. Both sides were satisfied with the resumption of personal contact, even though we did not interrupt it during the pandemic restrictions. Since my visit to Helsinki in March 2020, our respective presidents have talked by telephone five times. Interaction continues at the ministry, parliament and defence ministry levels. The co-chairs of the Russian-Finnish Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation maintain contact and are planning an in-person meeting sometime in the middle of the year. We have held a number of online technology-assisted events, including the 21st Russian-Finnish Cultural Forum and a Russian-Finnish video conference in connection with the 150th anniversary of the opening of the railway connecting St Petersburg and Helsinki. In December 2020, we marked the 100th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. On this occasion, Minister Haavisto and I exchanged messages. A number of functions dedicated to this anniversary took place. We reiterated our support for expanding direct contacts between our countries’ business communities. We discussed ways to advance a strategic project - the construction of the Hanhikivi 1 Nuclear Power Plant in Finland - with the participation of Rosatom. We touched on building up the Fortum concern’s lucrative investment activity in Russia. We exchanged views on the prospects for resuming tourism and our respective citizens’ travel to Russia and Finland. The number of trips has dropped significantly during the pandemic. We hope that the situation will improve. We covered international affairs as well, and discussed various conflicts, including the internal Ukraine crisis, as well as a number of other areas in the international arena, in which Russia and Finland interact. We have overlapping approaches and priorities when it comes to working in multilateral regional formats in northern Europe. This year, Russia is assuming chairmanship of the Arctic Council, and Finland chairmanship of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council. Since we will be holding these important and responsible positions for the next two years, we agreed to coordinate our actions. We reviewed our cooperation in the UN and the OSCE and the steps that would be required if we want to improve security in Europe and to de-escalate tensions in this common region. In this regard, we stressed the importance of the well-known initiative by President of Finland Sauli Niinisto on flight security over the Baltic region. It has been largely implemented, but since the NATO countries refuse to agree on military aircraft flying with transponders turned on, we have been unable to follow through on it. We expressed our satisfaction with the fact that the well-known discussions in the Finnish parliament on how to build relations with NATO ended with adopting a governmental report on security, which confirmed Finland's status as a non-aligned country. We regard this as an important factor that contributes to stability and security in Europe. We pointed out our well-known proposals that we put forward in our dialogue with NATO about a year ago. The proposals offered a solution to the issue transponders on military aircraft and provided for efforts to reach an agreement so that NATO and the Russian Federation hold military exercises farther from the line of contact, and approve a minimum safe distance for Russian and NATO aircraft, as well as navy vessels, to approach one another. We believe it to be of basic importance that all countries in the Euro-Atlantic region and all OSCE member countries are guided in their activities by the fundamental provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and the key principle of indivisible security. A commitment to this principle has been reaffirmed repeatedly at the top level; however, so far, it has not been put into practice. This is the main reason for the situation in Europe becoming tense. Mr Minister also touched on the situation with Alexey Navalny and the decision to expel the three diplomats from the Western European countries who took part in the unauthorised rallies that were held in Moscow and other cities in late January. We explained to him in detail what considerations underlie our stance on these issues. We reaffirmed our willingness to openly talk about human rights and any other topics that are of interest to our partners. We are ready to engage in a frank and friendly discussion with our Finnish neighbours the way we usually do. In general, we are quite satisfied with the outcome of the talks. We will continue the talks during the working lunch to discuss international affairs in more detail. Thank you.  Question: Your recent interview generated a lot of controversy. You implied that Russia admits the possibility of breaking off with the EU. How do you see this break and what conditions would have to happen for it to occur, that is, where does Moscow draw the red line? Sergey Lavrov: This interview took place on February 12, and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell was here on February 5. Upon his return, he made a number of statements to the effect that Russia had failed to live up to expectations and to become a modern democracy and is rapidly moving away from Europe. That is, it sounded as if Russia was a hopeless case. This happened several days before the interview. Hence, the question as to whether we were ready to break off with the EU during the interview with Vladimir Solovyov based on those remarks about Russia. As a matter of fact, anyone who is even slightly interested in the situation in Europe has long known that a break-off has been underway for many years now. The EU has been consistently tearing down our relations. 2014 was a turning point. A coup took place in Ukraine, and the EU showed it was helpless and unable to comply with the agreement that was reached between the government and the opposition right before the coup. Importantly, Germany, France and Poland put their signatures under it. The opposition spat on these signatures and on the EU, which thought it was important to comply with this agreement. It was then that the EU was really humiliated. Everyone knows what happened next. By and large, the EU turned a blind eye to the attacks against the residents of Crimea and eastern Ukraine on the part of the ultras and neo-Nazis who came to power, and decided to put all the blame on the Russian Federation. The EU has consistently destroyed all the mechanisms without exception that were based on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, including the biannual summits and annual meetings between the Russian Government and the European commissioners and presidents of the European Commission, projects to form four common spaces, over 20 sector-specific dialogues and almost every other more or less important contact, as well as the Partnership and Cooperation Council’s annual meetings with the Russian Foreign Minister and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. These meetings were supposed to be used to conduct a full review of all areas of cooperation between Russia and the EU. To reiterate, all of that has been destroyed. Not by us, mind you. Our contacts with the EU as an organisation have become sporadic. We discuss isolated issues without systematic analysis; issues such as hydrocarbon distribution, and the fact is that the EU is interested in holding these meetings only to cover up for Ukraine’s irresponsible leaders. We also discuss certain foreign policy issues. For many years, my contacts with the EU High Representatives for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, and his predecessor Federica Mogherini focused mainly on “situation-specific” discussions like Syria, or the Iranian nuclear programme or some other international situation rather than overviews of our relations with the EU (because there are almost no relations left). We meet occasionally to discuss various interests, primarily, the ones coming from Brussels. We are not imposing ourselves and are ready to consider any issue, but occasional meetings do not necessarily mean we have relations. We are willing to discuss these matters in cases where they are in Russia’s interests, as well. We interact on the topic of climate and the environment. I discussed this with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell. We reiterated that if there’s interest in cooperating on these matters in multilateral formats (because they are all discussed under UN auspices, which includes the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement and the like), then, of course, we are willing to participate. But this is not part of relations between Russia and the EU as such, because the framework of these relations was deliberately destroyed at the initiative of Brussels. It is impossible not to take into account the EU’s connivance in relation to gross violations of the rights of Russian-speakers, ethnic Russians, the Russian language and culture and the attacks on the Russian language and Russian culture, which we see in the Baltic states, Ukraine and a number of other countries. The Russian-language TV channels are being shut down, criminal cases are opened against Russian-speaking journalists just because they do their job, and the shameful practice of statelessness persists in the EU, which just looks at it indifferently, not planning to do anything about it. I don’t think Russia is distancing from the EU, but rather, the EU is distancing itself from everything that is Russian, including the language, culture and, hence, Russia itself. We must be prepared for any turn of events. It’s up to the EU what to do next. If it decides that, after all, relations must be restored and it reverses its actions designed to break them off, we will be ready for this, too. Importantly, we do not have any problems in our relations with individual European countries, I would even say, most European countries. Russia's relations with Finland are a very good example of how they are being built systematically and based on general principles, primarily, equality and mutual benefit, and how they are translated into the language of specific economic, cultural and other projects that are of interest to both sides. The EU should not be confused with Europe. We are not leaving Europe, we have many friends and like-minded people in Europe, and we will continue to expand mutually beneficial relations with them. What I am saying is that there are no relations, but trade and economic ties are nevertheless expanding, albeit not as quickly as we would like, primarily, because of the EU’s sanctions. This goes to show that life goes on, and the deliberate undermining and destruction of the system of relations does not affect the mutual attraction of people and businesses. Our relations with the EU do not really matter in this respect. To reiterate, if the EU is willing to restore what we call relations, we will be ready to do so as well. Question: Do the events around Alexei Navalny and the suppression of protests affect the relations between the European Union and Russia? Brussels and Moscow find it difficult to come to a common opinion on this. Does this also affect relations between Finland and Russia since Finland is an EU member? Sergey Lavrov: As for the illegal actions that took place in Moscow, St Petersburg and other cities in Russia, which were attended by some diplomats from EU countries, we have explained our approach to this issue several times. The Vienna conventions on diplomatic and consular relations of 1961 and 1963 and bilateral consultations with EU countries imply that diplomats enjoy privileges and immunity with the exception of cases where they interfere in the domestic affairs of the country of their stay. The UN’s International Law Commission explained in its comments that participation in public political actions in the country of stay is the most graphic example of interference in internal affairs, something that is incompatible with diplomatic immunity. The organisers of these actions openly state online and from television screens that they know about the requirement to acquire permits for such actions, but they deliberately refuse to do so, and urge people simply to come out into the streets. When diplomats come out into the streets in this situation, especially now that the Moscow Mayor has issued an order banning such public actions during the coronavirus pandemic, they know very well that they are failing to fulfil their functions under the Vienna conventions and that they are interfering in Russia’s domestic affairs. Diplomats from the overwhelming majority of EU countries did not go into the streets despite the opposition’s appeals, which shows that they understand all this. As for whether this situation affects our relations with Finland (if at all), I will say that we don’t feel any negative influence on our close bilateral cooperation or in cooperation within the regional associations of the north. In evaluating the questions expressed by Mr Haavisto, we heard that our colleagues from Finland and other EU countries always bring them. We know that they are edited and written by the EU, in Brussels, and are a subject of consensus. We hear this regularly enough, and these statements are practically the same, word for word. If the organisation called the European Union has made this decision, we take it as a certainty. We reply to problematic issues, and the main point we express is how the EU consistently, diligently and deviously avoids specific discussions that are fact-based rather than accusations often made against us for some reason or without any evidence. This has no impact on trade, mutual investment, cultural events or cooperation in science, education or tourism. This is exactly what our citizens need rather than assessment of various situations, most of which refer to geopolitics rather than daily life. Question: The Sixth Belarusian People’s Assembly took place in Minsk on February 11-12. What do you think of its outcome? Sergey Lavrov: What is happening in Belarus is the domestic affair of the country and the Belarusian people. I assume the Belarusian People’s Assembly was convened to develop the initiative made by President Alexander Lukashenko before the presidential election in August 2020. The organisers invited Russian representatives as observers. They expressed their assessments in public. In their words, the assembly took place with keen interest and in a lively atmosphere. Different views were expressed. I think we need to see how the process goes. A venue for a broad dialogue with different political forces was established in a difficult time for Belarusians. This is a positive fact. We sincerely hope our friends and allies carry this process forward in the way it was outlined. Question: What consequences could a potential break in Brussels-Moscow relations have for Russia’s ties with individual EU members? Sergey Lavrov: I have already said that I don’t see any consequences for relations between Russia and Finland as a result of the policy pursued by the EU over the past seven years. I’ve shown through specific examples how this policy has actually destroyed the entire structure of what we understand under “relations between Russia and the EU.” For seven years we have lived without the mechanisms that were meticulously created over a long time, and then were destroyed overnight in 2014. And nothing happened. This was not our choice but we have had to consider this in our daily affairs, in relations with individual European countries, including Finland. With the exception of the unlawful sanctions adopted collectively without any grounds, I don’t see any other impact on our relations with the individual countries. Of course, the sanctions dealt a blow to trade and business interests on both sides. This was the decision. Let me recall that when these sanctions were introduced, business, including in Germany, urged against hurting the economy and against making it a victim of politics. At this point, German Chancellor Angela Merkel specially took the floor to say in public that Russia must be punished and that in this situation politics must prevail over the economy. This was very unconventional for a representative of Germany. We realise that the EU must have bloc discipline. Certain manifestations of this, like the sanctions, influence our relations with our neighbours and other European countries. This is life. Once again, the absence of normal relations with the EU does not affect in any way our underlying cooperation, for instance, with Finland, or the principles that support such cooperation (equality, mutual respect, benefit and non-interference in internal affairs). The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4574102 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and Togolese Abroad of the Togolese Republic Robert Dussey, St Petersburg, February 16, 2021 16 February 2021 - 17:49  Ladies and gentlemen, The talks with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Togo Robert Dussey took place in a friendly, warm atmosphere of trust and mutual respect, as is always the case in our longstanding relations. We have reaffirmed the fundamental agreements reached at the highest level, including on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Johannesburg in July 2018, where Russian President Vladimir Putin and Togolese President Faure Gnassingbe held a bilateral meeting, as well as in October 2019, when Faure Gnassingbe participated in the Russia-Africa summit in Sochi. We have a mutual interest in intensifying and deepening the entire scope of bilateral ties, including trade, the economy and investment. We have agreed to look for specific opportunities for joint projects in areas such as energy, natural resources, infrastructure, transport, and agriculture. We have an understanding to develop humanitarian ties, including education opportunities at Russian institutions for Togolese people. We have offered to organise an internship for Togolese Foreign Ministry employees at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry. We have discussed some key aspects of international affairs, above all the current situation on the African continent. The Russian Federation is consistently adamant that African problems (of which there are many) require African solutions, while outside interference never does any good. We strongly support the African Union, the G5 Sahel, and the sub-regional organisations in Africa, in their efforts to resolve numerous local conflicts and crises. We specifically focus on supporting the fight against terrorism, which poses a real threat, including for our friends in Togo and other coastal countries in the region of the Gulf of Guinea. We appreciate Togo’s contribution to the peacekeeping mission in Mali – the largest contingent was sent by our friends from Togo. I expressed our condolences over the dead and wounded in three attacks by terrorists against Togolese peacekeepers during the past month. This is yet further evidence of the need to display international solidarity with our African colleagues. We agreed to promote cooperation in the UN, where Togo supports many Russian initiatives, including the resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism. Togo is a co-author of our resolution. Togo also backs other Russian resolutions, including the one on preventing an arms race in space. We signed a joint statement by the governments of the Russian Federation and the Togolese Republic, emphasising our resolve to prevent an arms race in space and pledged not to be the first to begin it. This initiative has already acquired many supporters. The UN is adopting special resolutions to back this process. We are interested in developing the resolutions of the Russia-Africa summit. We spoke in detail about the implementation of these agreements. The coronavirus pandemic has required adjustments. Nevertheless, the results on implementing the Sochi agreements are obvious. This year we will actively continue these efforts. My colleague has kindly invited me to visit Togo. I am grateful to him for this invitation and will use it by all means. Thank you. Question: Robert Dussey, Togo’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and Togolese Abroad, praised the Russian Sputnik V vaccine. What about the development of bilateral COVID-19 diplomacy? When is Togo planning to register this vaccine? Is Russia going to supply Togo with medical equipment to help it counter the coronavirus? Sergey Lavrov: It is very important to observe the necessary procedures on legislative regulations in this respect. I believe we have supplied almost 30 African countries with equipment, test kits and individual protective gear at their requests. We are willing to do this in the future, too, including at the request of our Togolese friends. As for the Sputnik V vaccine, it has already been registered in over 30 countries, including three African states: Algeria, Tunisia and the Republic of Guinea. Our Togolese colleagues have officially requested our cooperation is supplying this vaccine. As Minister Dussey has said, it is necessary to complete some procedures in Togo. Once this is done we will be ready to discuss the practical steps. As you know, the Sputnik V vaccine is being promoted in external markets by the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF). The African Union established the African Vaccine Acquisition Task Team on acquiring COVID vaccines. Recently, the RDIF and this Task Team held a video conference whereby our friends from the African Union were provided with relevant information. During the video conference, fund representatives replied to questions on what must be done. Let me repeat that the RDIF is dealing with the distribution of the export vaccines, and it has its delivery schedules. The sooner the vaccine is registered, the quicker we can decide on distribution. Question: The next Russia-Africa summit is scheduled to be held in an African country in 2022. Do you know where exactly? The first summit in Sochi in October 2019 was dedicated to promoting peace and security. What will the next one focus on? Sergey Lavrov: Preparations for the summit are underway. It will be held in 2022. It was decided in Sochi to hold it every three years. Our African friends will decide on the venue. The Association for Economic Cooperation with the African States was created in Russia following the 2019 Sochi summit. It includes representatives from the related departments and major Russian companies. The Russia-Africa Partnership Forum, which is a political association, was created as well. Its secretariat is located at the Russian Foreign Ministry. We agreed to hold the forum’s annual political meetings at the foreign minister level, from Russia and the African Union Troika that is comprised of its former, current and incoming chairpersons. In 2020, we held them via videoconference with the foreign ministers from South Africa, Egypt and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Hopefully, we'll be able to meet in person in 2021. Russia and the African Union Troika will use the political meetings to draft the agenda for the 2022 Russia-Africa summit. I think it will be of a comprehensive nature and cover all aspects of our relations. The positions of the African Union, the African countries and Russia on key current issues overlap. We advocate full respect for international legal norms and principles, the UN Charter, non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries, the right of peoples to determine their future and the peaceful settlement of disputes through diplomatic and political means. The participants in the 2022 Russia-Africa Summit will discuss combating terrorism and other threats of our time, drug trafficking and organised crime, as well as the economy and investment. We are still slightly behind other states, but trade between Russia and the African countries has been growing quite rapidly lately. I think we will soon make up for the time we lost in the years when, at the dawn of the new Russian statehood, we were too busy to maintain proper ties with Africa. A very strong foundation was laid in Soviet times, though. Our friends remember this. Many Africans have graduated from Soviet and Russian universities. We will continue to support the Russian Universities’ Alumni World Association that is active in many countries. This is also a very important area of contact between the people. The agenda will cover all areas of our relations. There’s no doubt about it. Question: How do the Western countries feel about Russia getting closer to Africa? Sergey Lavrov: Their approaches differ. Some are neutral, others, like the former US administration, are very negative about it. Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went to Africa before the end of President Trump's term and publicly urged them not to cooperate with Russia and China in trade, because Moscow and Beijing are allegedly pursuing their own geopolitical interests and trying to benefit from these ties. The United States, though, is doing so out of the goodness of its heart. I will not comment on this. It wasn’t long ago that representatives of the new US administration said the Russian Sputnik V vaccine should be treated with suspicion, since it was another geopolitical plan from the Kremlin, and that one must be careful not to become dependent on Russia. It’s sad if they have nothing else to say about normal and friendly relations between countries, and if this is the only thing that they have to say about this. We never make friends with other countries in order to oppose third countries. If Russia and its foreign partners are mutually attracted, we have every right to develop our relations as we see fit. I hope others will also learn their lessons and treat our ties with Africa with respect. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4574660 Joint Statement by the Representatives of Iran, Russia and Turkey on the International Meeting on Syria in the Astana format, Sochi, 16-17 February 2021 17 February 2021 - 13:52 The representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey as guarantors of the Astana format: 1. Reaffirmed their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic as well as to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and highlighted that these principles should be universally respected and complied with; 2. Reiterated their determination to combat terrorism in all forms and manifestations and stand against separatist agendas aimed at undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as well as threatening the national security of neighboring countries. Condemned the increasing terrorist activities in various parts of Syria which result in loss of innocent lives. Agreed to continue cooperation in order to ultimately eliminate DAESH/ISIL, Al-Nusra Front and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaeda or DAESH/ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the UN Security Council, while ensuring the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure in accordance with international humanitarian law. Expressed serious concern with the increased presence and terrorist activity of “Hayat Tahrir al‑Sham” and other affiliated terrorist groups as designated by the UN Security Council that pose threat to civilians inside and outside the Idlib de-escalation area; 3. Reviewed in detail the situation in the Idlib de-escalation area and highlighted the necessity to maintain calm on the ground by fully implementing all agreements on Idlib; 4. Discussed the situation in the north east of Syria and agreed that long-term security and stability in this region can only be achieved on the basis of preservation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. Rejected all attempts to create new realities on the ground, including illegitimate self-rule initiatives, under the pretext of combating terrorism, and expressed their determination to stand against separatist agendas in the east of Euphrates aimed at undermining the unity of Syria as well as threatening the national security of neighboring countries. Expressed concern, in this regard, with the increasing hostilities against civilians. Reaffirmed their opposition to the illegal seizure and transfer of oil revenues that should belong to the Syrian Arab Republic; 5. Condemned continuing Israeli military attacks in Syria in violation of the international law and international humanitarian law and undermining the sovereignty of Syria and neighboring countries as well as endangering the stability and security in the region and called for cessation of them; 6. Expressed their conviction that there could be no military solution to the Syrian conflict and reaffirmed their commitment to advance viable and lasting Syrian-led and Syrian-owned, UN-facilitated political process in line with the UN Security Council Resolution 2254; 7. Emphasized the important role of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva, created as a result of the decisive contribution of the Astana guarantors and in furtherance of the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi; 8. Discussed in detail the fifth round of the Constitutional Committee`s Drafting Commission held on 25-29 January, 2021 in Geneva and reaffirmed their determination to support the Committee`s work through continuous interaction with the Syrian parties, Constitutional Committee delegates and the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Geir O. Pedersen, as facilitator, in order to ensure its sustainable and effective functioning; 9. Emphasized the importance of ensuring respect to the Terms of Reference and Core Rules of Procedure to enable the Committee to implement its mandate of preparing and drafting for popular approval a constitutional reform as well as achieving progress in its work; 10. Expressed the conviction that the Committee in its work should be governed by a sense of compromise and constructive engagement without foreign interference and externally imposed timelines aimed at reaching general agreement of its members; 11. Reiterated grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Syria and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, recognizing that it presents a profound challenge to all Syria`s health system, socio-economic and humanitarian situations. Rejected all unilateral sanctions which are in contravention of international law, international humanitarian law and the UN Charter, particularly in the face of the pandemic. Took note of the statements made by the UN Secretary-General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in this regard. Called upon the wider UN system, in particular WHO, including through COVAX initiative, to prioritize the vaccination inside Syria; 12. Emphasized the need to increase humanitarian assistance to all Syrians throughout the country without discrimination, politicization and preconditions. In order to support the improvement of the humanitarian situation in Syria and the progress in the process of the political settlement, called upon the international community, the United Nations and its humanitarian agencies, to enhance the assistance to Syria, inter alia by developing early recovery projects, including the restoration of basic infrastructure assets - water and power supply facilities, schools and hospitals as well as the humanitarian mine action in accordance with the international humanitarian law; 13. Highlighted the need to facilitate safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) to their original places of residence in Syria, ensuring their right to return and right to be supported. In this regard they called upon the international community to provide appropriate contributions and reaffirmed their readiness to continue interaction with all relevant parties, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other specialized international agencies; 14. Reaffirmed their determination to increase and expand their cooperation within the framework of the Working Group on the Release of Detainees / Abductees, Handover of Bodies and Identification of Missing Persons; 15. Took note with appreciation the participation of delegations of Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon as observers of the Astana format as well as the United Nations and the ICRC; 16. Representatives of Iran and Turkey expressed their sincere gratitude to the Russian authorities for hosting in Sochi the 15th International Meeting on Syria in the Astana format; 17. Decided to hold the 16th International Meeting on Syria in the Astana format in Nur-Sultan in mid-2021. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4576121 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 14th Kirkenes Conference, February 17, 2021 17 February 2021 - 15:00 Madam Minister, Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to welcome you to the annual conference on the socioeconomic and industrial development of the High North. First of all, I would like to express our gratitude to the conference organisers for holding this important international event in Kirkenes despite the complicated epidemiological situation. During the past years, the conference has become a respected regional platform for discussing the Barents process. Its success rests on the active contribution of politicians, business people, academic circles and civil society. The importance of multilateral cooperation in the Arctic can hardly be overestimated. The Barents Cooperation is generally acknowledged as the most successful dialogue format in Northern Europe that has demonstrated stable resilience to political fluctuations. A reason for this is a well-developed regional tradition of mutual assistance and good-neighbourliness, as well as an unprecedentedly high level of cross-border ties. A unique two-tier structure of the Barents Cooperation helps to identify promising projects and to combine in the best possible manner the priorities of individual states with the interests and requirements of certain regions. I am delighted to say that despite the coronavirus hurdles our cooperation continues developing in practically all the main spheres, including healthcare, transportation, environmental protection and the forest sector, as well as dialogues with our youth and with indigenous peoples. Proof of this is the large number of events held via videoconference during the past few months. Thanks to the efforts of Norway and Sweden’s Västerbotten (West Bothnia) County, a high-level meeting of the Barents countries was held in October 2020 to discuss the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on multilateral cooperation in this part of Europe and ways to overcome its negative consequences. We have a positive view on the meeting’s results, primarily when it comes to the maintenance of a regular political dialogue in the Barents region. The conference we are holding today is focused on this goal as well. Together with the Cooperation in the Arctic annual conference held in Murmansk, your forum is helping to promote the idea of Barents cooperation on the scale of Greater Arctic, together with the search for an effective joint response to the challenges we are facing. A vital element of the current agenda is to strengthen the financial basis of our cooperation. We are working together with our partners at the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC) to launch the region’s own financial mechanism in 2022. It is our common goal to make our multilateral cooperation in this part of the Arctic even more effective and diverse. We are convinced that securing stable socioeconomic and environmental development and establishing comfortable living conditions for people in the High North must remain a priority task for our interaction in the Arctic. We really do hope that Barents cooperation will not only maintain its pace in the years to come, but that it will break new ground in the interests of strengthening trust, stability and good-neighbourliness in Northern Europe. I would like to wish you every success and all the best in your efforts. Thank you. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4574740 Article by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov "Russia–Zimbabwe: Time-Proven Friendship", published by Zimbabwean Newspaper The Herald on February 18th, 2021 18 February 2021 - 06:00 February 18th marks the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Zimbabwe. This date formalized the ties of friendship and cooperation between the two peoples, which are rooted in the history of the struggle of Zimbabweans for their independence. Our country offered its full support to liberation struggle of the people of Zimbabwe. We appreciate the fact that Zimbabwean citizens and Government highly value this support and remember it with gratitude. Over the past four decades, through joint efforts, we have gained rich experience of developing diversified partner relations. Further impetus was given to expanding this partnership during the official visit of the President of Zimbabwe Emmerson Mnangagwa to Moscow and the talks with the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin in January 2019. Focus should be placed now on consistent implementation of reached top level agreements. We welcomed the Zimbabwean leader's active participation in the Russia – Africa Summit in Sochi in October 2019. We strongly believe that the first ever top-level meeting between Russia and Africa set the direction for further development of interaction among government bodies and business circles on various treks, as well as opened new avenues for major Russian economic projects aimed at ensuring, among other things, sustainable social and economic growth on the African continent. We are pleased to note that the leadership of Zimbabwe has established long-term strategic planning under the motto "Zimbabwe is open for business." This provides further conditions for expanding mutually beneficial bilateral practical cooperation, including with a view to enhancing the well-being of the citizens of your country. The Russia-Zimbabwe Intergovernmental Commission on Economic, Trade and Science and Technical Cooperation has a special role to play here. The regular meeting of its co-chairs last October (via videoconference) reaffirmed the commitment of Russian economic actors to joint work in such fields as mining, energy, agriculture, information and communication technologies. In spite of the objective circumstances caused by the global spread of the new coronavirus infection, Russia's large companies, V Holding and Alrosa, have progressed with their flagship projects. We are confident that their successful launch will help increase cooperation in related sectors. We are happy to see other Russian flagship businesses, such as Rosatom State Corporation, Kamaz Group of Companies, Rosgeologia, Uralchem Holding and Rostselmash Combine Plant, show interest in entering the Zimbabwean market. Cybersecurity is another area with good prospects for interaction. Our long-established ties in education have been consistently advancing. Each year, young Zimbabweans arrive in our country to study. They are genuinely welcome. It is our hope that the skills and knowledge they acquire would contribute to ensuring the dynamic development of their country and that friendship between students would help strengthen trust and mutual understanding between our two nations. Russia provides humanitarian assistance to our Zimbabwean friends, both within the UN specialized agencies and bilaterally. We will continue this work, including in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic's negative impact on the country's economy. Moscow and Harare continue their fruitful interaction in the international arena. Our foreign-policy dialogue builds on the support for the central, backbone role of the United Nations in world affairs; our close or largely coinciding approaches to addressing the most pressing challenges of today's world; respect for cultural and civilizational identity of peoples across the globe and their natural right to independently determine the paths of their political and economic development. Both our countries strongly reject the illegitimate practice of introducing unilateral sanctions, which the United States and its European allies widely apply as a tool of unlawful competition. We regard such unscrupulous efforts by our Western counterparts to impose their will on sovereign States as a vestige of colonial thinking. It should be recalled that Russia condemned and vetoed the anti-Zimbabwe resolution initiated by Washington in 2008 and did not hesitate to support the Southern African Development Community (SADC) initiative to declare October 25 as solidarity day against sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe. Let me assure you that we will continue to respect the desire of the Zimbabwean people to decide their own destiny. I would also like to seize this opportunity to thank our Zimbabwean friends for supporting Russian President Putin's initiative to create "green corridors" free from sanctions and other artificial barriers in international trade. Today we can say with confidence that our relations have stood the test of time. We are ready to continue work to strengthen these relations and bring them to a new stage for the benefit of our citizens, for the sake of enhancing regional and global security and stability, and in the interest of consolidating legal and democratic principles in international affairs. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4580510
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
March 8th, 2021
|
#263 |
|
Senior Member
|
Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, February 18, 2021
18 February 2021 - 19:22 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Mohammed Haneef Atmar ................................................................................................. APEC Forum The current condition of the world economy increases the need to promote regional cooperation, which many countries view as an effective tool in overcoming the adverse consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. One such time-tested regional mechanism is the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, in which Russia has been playing an active part since 1998. The annual APEC cycle on preparing its summit next November has just begun. Over 40 Russian ministries, departments, public and private companies, research centres and public organisations are involved in this work. They take part in the activities of over 60 APEC expert groups and dialogue venues. In the APEC format, we focus on creating a free, nondiscriminatory, transparent and predictable trade and investment environment, the digitalisation of different economic sectors and government management systems, and ensuring innovative sustainable development and secure growth. Faced with the current challenges, we consider it a priority to provide fair access to vaccines and maintain constructive cooperation in developing, producing and distributing diagnostic devices and medications. The initiative on economic growth and integration of remote territories is one of Russia’s successful projects within the forum. We intend to pay special attention to cooperation between APEC and other regional associations with a view to advancing President Vladimir Putin’s initiative on creating the Greater Eurasian Partnership. Visit to Kazakhstan by the Healthcare Ministry’s Chief Children’s Surgeon for Siberian Federal District Yury Kozlov We regularly inform you about the assistance Russia provides to neighbouring countries and other countries fighting the pandemic. I would like to give you some examples of this during today’s briefing. Russia and Kazakhstan have managed to transform the challenges of fighting the coronavirus pandemic into more opportunities for them, primarily in expanding ties in healthcare between the two countries. This month Kazakhstan started vaccinating its population with the Russian Sputnik V vaccine made at the Karaganda Pharmaceutical Integrated Plant. Yury Kozlov, Chief Children’s Surgeon for the Siberian Federal District at the Russian Healthcare Ministry, visited Kazakhstan on February 5-12. The main reason for the distinguished Russian doctor’s visit was to hold instructional classes for the School of Children’s Surgeons. Within a week, Kozlov performed more than ten surgeries at Nur-Sultan and Almaty’s leading surgery centres that were broadcast live on a specialised website. He gave several presentations on advanced methods and practices used in infant, baby and child surgery, including those he developed himself. He delivered lectures to local students from medical colleges and to young surgeons. Medical personnel and the public at large in Kazakhstan showed a lot of enthusiasm for the visit. We are grateful to our friends for the warm reception of our doctor. As for us, we will continue providing the necessary support for the mutually-enriching educational missions that are carried out by our countries’ specialists. Russia’s humanitarian aid under the UN World Food Programme reaches Palestine On February 11 this year, a ceremony to transfer 936 tonnes of vitamin-rich wheat flour, another shipment intended for Palestine, to UN World Food Programme (WFP) officials took place at the port of Ashdod, Israel. Wheat flour was delivered by the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry as part of Russia’s voluntary donations to the WFP Fund. Palestine is traditionally among the recipients of humanitarian aid from Russia under the UN programme. The above shipment will be delivered to the Gaza Strip and distributed among the needy in late February-early March this year. Another 1,008 tonnes of flour intended for the Palestinians living on the West Bank is in the final stage of clearing customs. The World Food Programme is our key partner in providing humanitarian aid to Palestine as part of the UN-led effort. In addition, Russia regularly sends humanitarian aid to the CIS countries, as well as Middle Eastern and African countries. We also send food to the Caribbean and Latin American countries. Of late, Russia has been expanding the geography of its humanitarian activities, along with diversifying them. Russia combines its food supplies to many countries with, among other things, funding and sending experts to help these countries implement their ambitious programmes seeking to ensure that children have meals at schools regularly. Update on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement We have received many inquiries concerning the current state of affairs in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. The situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict area has remained stable over the past several days. No ceasefire violations have been recorded. The Russian peacekeeping contingent is monitoring the situation from 27 observation posts, and continues to clear the area of explosives and ensure the refugees’ safe return to their homes in Nagorno-Karabakh. The implementation of the declarations by the leaders of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia of November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021 was discussed during telephone conversations between President Vladimir Putin and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov on February 17, as well as during Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Foreign Minister of Armenia Ara Ayvazyan in Moscow. The trilateral working group co-chaired by the deputy prime ministers of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia remains operational. Information about the results of the group’s second meeting, which was held via videoconference on February 12, is posted on the Russian Government website. Ukraine and Western countries refuse to back Russia’s OSCE initiative to settle the conflict in Donbass Last week, Russia submitted to the OSCE a draft statement by the OSCE Permanent Council to support the Package of Measures to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine. As you may recall, this document was adopted six years ago by Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk with the participation of Russia and the OSCE, and approved by the Normandy format members and a UN Security Council resolution, and thus became part of international law and the only viable path to achieving a settlement, which many of our foreign colleagues never stop to say. Russia’s current OSCE initiative is the result of Kiev’s never-ending sabotage of the Minsk agreements and its attempts to distort and revise the content and sequence of the steps prescribed therein. Statements to this effect have often been made by the Ukrainian leaders, but they failed to receive a proper response from international organisations, or France and Germany as mediators of the peace process. Our brief draft was straightforward. It contained three clauses: to support the Package of Measures approved by the UN Security Council, to call for its early implementation, and to encourage OSCE bodies to provide corresponding assistance. It may appear that there is nothing new about this, just confirmation of the key points of what the international community has already agreed on. No one at the OSCE should have objected to this approach, since all countries involved have come up with similar ideas at the Permanent Council weekly meetings. At least, they said so many times trying to convince us of their sincere positions. We believed that the unanimous approval of this statement would send a clear message to Kiev, as well as to Donetsk and Lugansk, and would encourage them to implement the Package of Measures and to promote peace in Donbass. We were surprised to find that Ukraine and the Western countries refused to support Russia’s initiative. During two rounds of consultations, they tried to impose wording that goes beyond the Package of Measures and the UN Security Council resolution, which eventually blocked the adoption of the document. It is especially regrettable that our Normandy format partners – Germany and France, as well as Sweden, the OSCE Chair, whose special representative coordinates the Contact Group’s activities – did not support the initiative. Our partners’ behaviour speaks volumes about many things (including their “sincerity”) and begs the legitimate question: What exactly is behind their reluctance to confirm in writing things that they themselves have been saying and what was officially adopted by the Contact Group six years ago and approved by the Normandy format members and the UN Security Council? I would like to believe that this response is not covering up plans to dismantle the Minsk agreements and to resolve the Donbass problem by force. Our partners will need to prove that through their actions. We are convinced that the conflict in eastern Ukraine can only be settled peacefully through direct talks between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk based on the Package of Measures, to which there is no alternative. We regret the OSCE rejecting our initiative to support it and once again call for the genuine implementation of its provisions in full and on a consistent basis. We will take into account our partners’ response to Russia’s initiative when determining our position regarding the OSCE’s further role in resolving the domestic Ukraine crisis. US naval exercise in the Black Sea We became aware that on February 9, a group of US and Turkish naval ships supported by aircraft held a joint maritime exercise in Black Sea waters to practice hunting for a simulated enemy’s submarine. The ships were the Arleigh Burke-class USS Donald Cook and the USS Porter, a P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, the Turkish frigates TCG Orucreis and TCG Turgutreis as well as two F-16 fighters and a reconnaissance plane. Officials from the Pentagon and the State Department released provocative-sounding statements about Washington and its allies allegedly “contributing to the strengthening of security in Europe” with this exercise. To achieve increased security, as we noted in the previous news story, the implementation of the Minsk agreements must be facilitated, which would be a real contribution to the process. The US, which is deeply involved in Ukraine developments, if not in the Minsk format, could do much by urging Kiev to abide by its commitments as approved in the UN Security Council resolution. This would be a true contribution to enhancing security in Europe. It is highly questionable for everyone to see how F-16 jets would do that. Anyone can see that the exercise has a clear anti-Russia push. It was held right at Russia’s borders, near our Black Sea coast, to be exact, and thus threatens peace and stability. It seems as though the US 6th Fleet wants to find an enemy in the Black Sea, but they are searching in vain. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg remarks on the Alliance’s concept of containing Russia and China NATO officials seem to be intrinsically unwilling to objectively assess their role in the NATO-Russia relations crisis. In recent years, we have repeatedly submitted for consideration initiatives to search for ways of exiting this crisis, in particular, to decrease tensions, and to create a truly equal system of European and Euro-Atlantic security. None of our efforts have received a meaningful response, while the Russia-NATO Council, established in 2002, remains suspended. Do you recall at whose initiative? Not Russia’s. We have been providing regular and detailed coverage of this subject. In particular, our relations, and the NATO’s approaches to interaction with Russia were covered at the December 3, 2020 briefing. Regrettably, nothing has changed since then. That commentary can be considered valid today, too. The German Government’s response to the question on Navalny’s case by the Alternative for Germany party in the Bundestag We have noted the German Government’s response to the Alternative for Germany opposition party’s inquiry on Alexey Navalny’s case in the Bundestag, which was published on February 15, 2021. You can read these materials. I would like to comment on them because there were many questions. It follows from the German Government’s response that on August 22-31, 2020, Alexey Navalny was guarded by security services personnel: first, a security group from the German Federal Criminal Police Office and later the criminal police departments of federal lands. In other words, the Government does not deny that he was guarded and controlled by security services. It is also claimed that traces of a combat chemical agent in Navalny’s biomaterials coincided with those found on “the poisoned bottle” and “other things.” However, the government said in its response that a decision on whether these traces could be considered important material evidence is within the competence of Russian law. I have a question in this context. If Berlin says officially that this issue is within the competence of Russia law, why are we denied these materials? According to the German government’s information, Alexey Navalny’s wife Yulia Navalny and Press Secretary Kira Yarmysh were on a plane flying from Omsk to Berlin. Interestingly, in an interview with the BBC Russian Service of September 18, 2020, Maria Pevchikh claimed that she accompanied the blogger rather than Kira Yarmysh. It follows from the same interview that “the poisoned bottle” with the traces of Novichok that was later sent to a Bundeswehr laboratory, was also aboard of the same plane. Now they’re in a tangle. I’m not sure they can come up with something else. The direct incongruities in Berlin’s statements (this is not a journalism investigation but Germany’s official position) are beyond understanding. One gets the impression that these are deliberate attempts to “cover the tracks” of Maria Pevchikh. By the way, her national citizenship is unclear. It would be good to specify this. Supposedly, the German government does not know whether she visited Mr Navalny in the hospital. Our German partners are unable to give a sensible reply to any of our questions. And, finally, the main point, almost a scandal. It appears that the German authorities were not afraid that Alexey Navalny’s companions might have been “poisoned” because if they had, they would have developed similar symptoms by the time the evidence of Novichok poisoning was received. Since they had no symptoms, they were not examined at all. But maybe there were no symptoms because there was no poisoning? The German government is indirectly admitting that this version has the right to exist because in its response it said that it “does not have information as to whether the companions were examined to identify Novichok poisoning as a result of carrying objects with traces of a poisoning substance.” As for observing the necessary precautions when carrying these items, the German government “does not have any information or even an excuse for receiving it.” We again urge Berlin to stop confusing the international public. Germany continues to persistently and somewhat obviously conceal the real circumstances of the Alexey Navalny incident and of his stay in Germany not only from Russia but also from its own MPs. Berlin does not share any details even with its own allies. Naturally, this brings into doubt the sincerity of Germany’s professed humanitarian motives in this context. We must state once again that Berlin still does not intend to provide answers to most of the key questions on this incident. There is no evidence of the accusations made, no specific conclusions from expert examinations, and an absence of many other things that are badly needed to understand what happened. The inquiries of the Russian Prosecutor-General’s Office are ignored, and no substantive, exhaustive answers are given. We will continue seeking explanations for the main details of the incident from the German authorities. German special services’ cooperation with Alexey Navalny A discussion in the media on Western special services’ role in Mr Navalny’s “investigative files” has come to our attention. In particular, many commentators refuse to consider the access to materials in the Dresden Archives of the GDR Ministry for State Security (Stasi) which was provided to him as proof of the special services of foreign states’ links with Alexey Navalny. In accordance with the German Stasi Files Act of 1991, anyone can access this archive, but only with the German competent authorities’ permission. We hear implausible statements to the effect that the German authorities allegedly knew nothing about the blogger’s activities and were not interested in them. On the other hand, suspicions that the German authorities could have deliberately facilitated access to the Stasi files for Mr Navalny and even directed him to specific documents are now looking more convincing. This assumption is corroborated by the fact that throughout the entire period following the unification of Germany, notorious Stasi “dirt” was occasionally used to settle scores with political opponents and persecute unwanted individuals. Scandals involving Stasi archives arose, among other things, around such iconic figures as former chancellors Willy Brandt and Helmut Kohl. The fact that a large part of the Stasi archives ended up in the United States after 1990 and then returned to Germany only after a long time causes even more distrust in what Berlin is saying. Thus, there is good reason to believe that in this case Berlin has deliberately committed an openly unfriendly act towards Russia, which is yet another piece in large-scale anti-Russia provocation, which the German authorities are diligently fomenting around the situation with Mr Navalny with the goal of interfering in our country’s internal affairs and thus exerting influence on the political situation in Russia. Foreign Minister Lavrov’s message to the OPCW Director-General and the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Sweden As you may be aware, an open letter to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov by Russian neurologist Vitaly Kozak who works in Switzerland was posted online in late January. In it, he posed a number of difficult and uncomfortable questions related to the article in The Lancet journal about the alleged use of a chemical warfare agent against Mr Navalny. The letter raises a number of important questions to which our Western colleagues still haven’t clearly responded. The media took note of the issues mentioned by the doctor as well. In this regard, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to some of the questions asked in the letter were published on February 8. After that, the Foreign Ministry sent Sergey Lavrov’s message to OPCW Director General Fernando Arias and the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Sweden with a request to comment on concerns expressed in the letter. The letter itself and an interview with Sergey Lavrov with his comments were attached to this message. We look forward to the OPCW, Berlin, Paris and Stockholm responding publicly. As you are aware, they are not known for modest evaluations or mild verdicts. Colleagues, it’s time to start providing evidence and do so as zealously as when you were providing your earlier assessments. As a matter of fact, the OPCW, as well as our European colleagues, could have taken up this matter and provided authoritative opinions on the circumstances contained in the letter themselves, without outside prompting, but it appears that we need to come up with a reminder. Serious accusations have been made, and the world is intrigued. Let’s get to work. Court verdicts on yellow vests in France After the unauthorised protests in Russia in January, which included attacks against law-enforcement officers, representatives from the “progressive and liberal” West subjected Russia to unjustified and inappropriately scathing criticism. It went beyond the framework of diplomacy and was often just undisguised interference in our domestic affairs. Appeals were made to immediately release those who violated public order and that were subject to administrative liability and in some cases to criminal liability under Russian law. Unfortunately, our French colleagues joined this chorus. In this context, we would like to advise our partners that focused on Russia to look at their own problems – they have enough to deal with. France is not doing well in many respects. Traditionally posing as an ardent defender of human rights, France does not stop at using the most stringent legal measures if its authorities believe protesters have upset public order. The French “Themis” sentences against those convicted in the yellow vest movement are indicative. According to available estimates, about 12,000 demonstrators were detained and over 3,000 court verdicts were handed down, of which, one third included actual prison sentences. The favourite method of French law enforcement bodies is to accuse protesters of “encroaching on a government authority representative.” French courts tend to interpret this at will. Thus, a court in Nice sentenced four demonstrators to a suspended sentence of two months and a fine of 7,000 euros for anti-police posters, while a court in Marseille imposed on a demonstrator a fine of 900 euros and damages amounting to 1,000 euros for insulting a policeman. These “peculiarities” in the approaches of the French authorities to the demonstrators did not go unnoticed by the international public. This is borne out by the recent Amnesty International report “France: Arrested for Protest: Weaponising the Law to Crackdown on Peaceful Protesters in France.” The Economist dropped France’s ranking in its Democracy Index. Every country has its problems. France and other countries need to focus on their own problems. As soon as they are reduced to none or are about to disappear forever, we will be happy to listen to their opinion and be interested in their experience of success. Their recommendations would be complete, interesting and relevant, but not at this point. While the French authorities are engaged in propaganda and feel sorry for the plight of democracy in other countries, protesting citizens from the Fifth Republic have the opportunity to feel all the “justice” and “democratic benefits” of the French judicial machine. British plan for settling the Cyprus issue Russia supports the efforts of the international community to achieve a fair, viable and comprehensive solution to the Cyprus issue. However, as we have said many times, there should be no pressure on either party. It is unacceptable to impose a blueprint on them for a settlement from the outside or rigid deadlines or tailor UN assistance to the indicators of progress at the talks. The Cypriots themselves must assess the various external promptings on the alternatives for a settlement. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, we advocate the modalities endorsed by the resolutions of the UN Security Council, which imply the creation of a dual zone and a two-community federation with common international legal standing, sovereignty and citizenship based on agreements to be reached by both Cypriot communities. That said, any change in the basic parameters must be reviewed by the UN Security Council. Remarks by Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany Andrey Melnik We have noted comments by Ukraine’s Ambassador in Berlin to the DPA state news agency regarding the German Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s interview with the Rheinische Post of February 6, 2021. The Ukrainian diplomat blamed the Federal President for distorting history and underestimating the number of Ukrainian victims in the fight against Nazism. He went as far as demanding a reshuffle of the historical memory culture established in Germany since it allegedly does not fully highlight the role of the Ukrainian people in the victory in World War II, and also called on the Bundestag to convene a special session and take a decision on building a special monument in Berlin to commemorate Ukrainian victims of the war. Such calls to pay tribute to the dead sound cynical from a representative of a nation which annually votes down the UNGA resolution on countering the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The Ukrainian diplomat should be taking a closer look at the situation in Ukraine where local collaborators and Nazi proxies from OUN–UPA (Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists—Ukrainian Insurgent Army) are elevated to national hero status and are honoured with torch marches comparable with the 1930s Nazi marches while the Ukrainian Institute of Historical Memory is in a court battle over the status of the Galicia SS Division insignia as a non-Nazi symbol. Those who are so eagerly honoured by Kiev now fought during the Great Patriotic War against Soviet and Polish guerrillas, exterminated civilians and joined Jewish pogroms. It would be a good idea to disclose that as well. Nevertheless, the majority of Ukrainians fought for the freedom of our common homeland in the ranks of the Red Army, which is well remembered in Russia, alongside all the ethnic groups of the former Soviet Union. The memory of the priceless Victory, one for all, which was attained at incredible cost, is not to be forgotten. Attempts to “split” this heroic deed by the Soviet people and take its pieces away to “national flats” are unacceptable, all the more so since the Ukrainian SSR, as well as modern Ukraine, was a multi-ethnic republic. Currently it is a multi-ethnic state that seems to be trying to forget that. This is what loyalty to historical truth is all about. We regret that official Berlin felt nothing but “bafflement” at yet another despicable stunt aimed at the German head of state by the Ukrainian ambassador accredited there. Kiev’s incumbent authorities should be regularly reminded that all peoples of Europe were victims of Nazism, and it was impossible to defeat it without a common effort. Delays in deportation case of Nazi criminal Helmut Oberlander in Canada The hearing on the deportation of Nazi criminal Helmut Oberlander, resident of Canada, has been delayed again. During World War II, Oberlander served in the Nazi punitive unit Sonderkommando SS-10A, which was involved in the massacre of 214 orphans in Yeysk in 1942 and over 30,000 people in the Rostov Region. His lawyers have been granted a stay of proceedings due to the defendant’s ill health. We believe that the use of legal loopholes to draw out the hearing of Oberlander’s case is absolutely unacceptable. Incidentally, what does the Ukrainian Ambassador to Canada think of this matter? We are waiting for commentary, statements and debates. We share the opinion of the leading Jewish Canadian human rights organisations, which demand that this Nazi collaborator be punished for his crimes against humanity, which have no statute of limitations. The Canadian authorities obviously hope to settle the deportation case of Nazi criminal Helmut Oberlander based on the precedent with Vladimir Katriuk, who escaped punishment for his involvement in the Khatyn massacre in Belarus. Nazi torchlight march prohibited in Bulgaria This year, the Sofia mayor’s office has again prohibited the neo-Nazi torchlight Lukov March, held to glorify the criminal and inhuman Nazi ideology. The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry, Interior Ministry and Prosecutor’s Office welcomed that decision, saying that such xenophobic meetings are unacceptable. Meetings honouring WWII Bulgarian General Hristo Lukov known for his fascist and anti-Semitic views were held in the capital of Bulgaria between 2003 and 2019. Russia has been consistently urging the international community to join ranks in the fight against the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and aggressive nationalism and is the initiator of the annual adoption of a UN General Assembly resolution to this effect. We are pleased to note that this joint work is yielding positive results. We believe that any attempts to rehabilitate Nazi ideology and to falsify history, including in the context of the 80th anniversary of the start of the Nazi aggression against the Soviet Union we will mark this year, must be cut short. Declaration of Vladimir Solovyov persona non grata in Latvia Today the Latvian authorities have added Russian journalist Vladimir Solovyov to the list of personae non grata. The Foreign Minister of Latvia accused Solovyov of the “glorification of the crimes of Nazism.” To begin with, Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics has posted a fake story. We believe that the only reasonable explanation for this is the prohibition of the broadcasting of VGTRK and RT television channels in Latvia. The policy of banning “undesirable” channels as part of the general campaign of smothering Russian and Russian-language media resources in the Baltics has led to the proliferation of fake information by Edgars Rinkevics. He simply had no opportunity to watch. Otherwise, the Latvian Foreign Minister would have known that Vladimir Solovyov is one of the most ardent anti-fascists devoting a great deal of his air time to fighting the Nazi plague. In general, the Latvian authorities’ cynical policy has gone beyond the pale. This is more than just cynicism. A loose definition won’t do in this case. We should think about a serious assessment, primarily a legal one of this situation. We would like Mr Rinkevics to return to reality. If the Latvian authorities really want to fight Nazism, he should stop turning a blind eye to the torchlight marches held by Latvian citizens in honour of the Latvian Legion of Waffen SS. They should stop tearing down and prevent the desecration of monuments to the Soviet soldiers who gave their lives for the liberation of the Baltics from Nazism. Otherwise, in accordance with the logic of Mr Rinkevics, many citizens of the neighbouring Baltic countries should be declared personae non grata, along with some Latvian officials, for example, Defence Minister Artis Pabriks. In September 2019, he took part in a commemoration ceremony in the town of More, where in 1944 the 19th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (2nd Latvian) was holding up the Red Army advance towards Riga for a week. Artis Pabriks said about members of the Latvian Legion: “It is our duty to honour these Latvian patriots from the depths of our soul. Latvian legionnaires are the pride of the Latvian people and the state.” I don’t remember Rinkevics posting a tweet condemning the statements glorifying Nazism, fascism and other criminal ideologies made by his own Defence Minister. Latvian officials can hardly be described as anti-fascists considering that in 2020 Latvia, together with the other EU member states, voted against the adoption of the UN General Assembly resolution on countering the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Moldova “forbids” Russian Ambassador in Chisinau to attend Transnistria events Several days ago now, the press service of Moldova’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration responded ambiguously to the Russian Ambassador’s attending an event in Transnistria on February 10, 2021 via videoconference. In their comment, officials of the press service urged diplomats, accredited to the country, to refrain from attending events, organised by “Tiraspol agencies.” This response causes dismay. Chisinau realises that Russia does not call into question the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, that it is acting as a guarantor and mediator of the Transnistria peace settlement, and that it advocates the sustainable development of Russian-Moldovan relations in the spirit of principles, stipulated by the bilateral Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation of 2001. The actions of the Russian Ambassador to Moldova completely meet these principles. Chisinau should also realise that it is impossible to fulfil mediatory functions in the Transnistria peace settlement without maintaining contacts with the parties to the conflict. In addition to this, the duties of any ambassador include efforts to expand ties with the receiving country’s regions and to maintain contacts with the local diaspora of his or her country. The Embassy of Moldova to Russia conducts such work, including by making trips to the Russian regions, and this causes no allergic Russian response, all the more so when this implies videoconferences. We expect that our Moldovan partners refrain from politicising the activities of the Russian Embassy in Chisinau. Russian demarche in connection with Estonia’s provocative actions Russia is consistently working to expand neighbourly relations with border countries, including Estonia. However, it is clear that our partners should also strive to improve relations. Unfortunately, the Estonian party has once again shown that it is not prepared to overcome its completely unprovoked hostility towards Russia. It appears that the Estonian authorities have decided to display loyalty towards their handlers in Washington and Brussels, having absolutely groundlessly granted persona non grata status to a diplomat from the Russian Embassy in Tallinn. The diplomat concerned was dealing with cultural and educational matters or those fields where our countries still maintain cooperation. Russia has responded quickly. We have summoned the Ambassador of Estonia to Russia, voiced our resolute protest and announced the expulsion of a diplomat from the Estonian diplomatic mission. Update on Russian citizen Konstantin Yaroshenko imprisoned in the United States We continue to closely monitor all developments concerning Russian citizens imprisoned and detained in the United States. We are doing our absolute best to improve the harsh and sometimes inhumane conditions in which they are kept. You can read about it in Maria Butina’s book, which does not make for light reading but it helps understand the actual state of affairs. In addition to poor incarceration conditions, our citizens are exposed to a serious risk of contracting COVID-19. We are particularly concerned about civil aviation pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison in a fabricated case based on “testimony” by American stool-pigeon agents. For ten years, the Russian citizen, whose health was seriously undermined, has been dealing with cynical disregard for his problems and unwillingness of US officials to provide him with the medical help that he needs. Unfortunately, Russian diplomats’ numerous requests for a full-fledged medical examination and required medical procedures continue to be ignored. The issue of Konstantin Yaroshenko’s possible release and return to Russia for humanitarian reasons has been raised with US officials at different levels. However, Washington, which is consumed with protecting human rights anywhere but at home, is ignoring the obvious and undisputable facts and insisting on the validity of the unjust and deliberately politicised verdict issued by the court in New York. Konstantin Yaroshenko was detained following US agents’ lead in Liberia, where, in the course of a brutal interrogation, he was subjected to torture resulting in lost teeth and serious damage to his internal organs. Then the Russian citizen was transported to the United States to a so-called court hearing which demonstrated a complete absence of even a rudimentary due judicial process. For his principled denial of guilt, Konstantin Yaroshenko was sentenced to 20 years in prison, a huge term according to normal standards but commonplace in the “democratic America.” We will continue to vigorously seek Konstantin Yaroshenko’s speedy release and the release of other Russian citizens who were unjustly subjected to repression in the United States. It would be helpful if US media reporting on Paul Whelan and his allegedly inhumane prison conditions in Russia would occasionally remember Konstantin Yaroshenko, and if the self-censorship, in which US media outlets are completely bogged down, would make an exception for a Russian citizen who has already been in prison for ten years. We will not back down and we will not leave the White House Administration alone. We will demand that the legal rights of Russian citizens caught in the grinder of American punitive justice be observed. The Russian Language and Culture Centre closes in Krakow The Russian Language and Culture Centre, created in 2008 at the initiative of the Russkiy Mir Foundation at the Teacher Training University in Krakow, closed down on February 15. The university decided to terminate cooperation without providing any explanation for the cause of the decision. We are sorry to hear this. The Centre was instrumental in promoting bilateral cooperation in education for more than 10 years. During this time, hundreds of students studied Russian as a foreign language and over 600 different functions were held there with the participation of local students and teaching staff, including festivals, contests, exhibitions, workshops and Q&A sessions with Russian cultural figures. Every year, the centre hosted an international European-standard exam for proficiency in Russian as a foreign language. Of course, the University of Krakow can make whatever decisions it sees fit. However, it should be noted that by doing so Poland is severing another bond in Russian-Polish cultural cooperation. Anniversaries of independence of Saint Lucia, Guyana and the Dominican Republic .................................................................................................. Brunei Darussalam National Day ..................................................................................................  Answers to media questions: Question: The ultra-right nationalist Turkish party and the attendant extremist neo-Nazi organisation Grey Wolves have stated their intention to implement certain projects on occupied Artsakh territories, including the city of Shusha. Does not the presence of foreign forces preaching the ideology of neo-Nazism and using terror as the main method for achieving their goals threaten Nagorno Karabakh and regional security? The top leaders of Turkey and Azerbaijan have approved the implementation of specific projects by these forces. Does not this highlight the plans of Ankara and Baku to set up hotbeds of tension in the region and neighbouring countries, and to undermine the international community’s efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict by peaceful means? Maria Zakharova: We have no information about these plans. Nagorno Karabakh is now returning to peaceful life through collective efforts following the agreements made between the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia on November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021. To accomplish this, Armenia, Azerbaijan and all neighbouring countries should act in unison and in line with common positions and should help launch dialogue between all regional nations, help de-block economic and transport ties and protect historical and cultural landmarks. Regarding common positions, it is necessary to establish lasting peace, first and foremost. Consequently, people returning to the region will reinstate peaceful life in various fields, including in the economy, finance, economic links, transport, logistics and many other fields associated with normal life. All of us should remember this. Question: Two Armenian churches are on sale in Turkey. Numerous Christian churches and cemeteries are also being destroyed, and competent Turkish agencies are not responding to this in any way. Is it possible to trust statements about regional peace and stability against the backdrop of such vandalism with regard to cultural and historical landmarks? Maria Zakharova: I will now probably deviate from the formal part, but, speaking of real-estate sales, I cannot provide any assessment for the time being. I was surprised to learn about the practice of selling cultural facilities worldwide. I will refrain from personal assessments, but, under this widespread practice, cultural facilities are converted into houses, shopping centres and even night clubs. In this case, we are talking about the domestic national legislation of each state. We have to proceed from this assumption. Regarding the demolition of religious facilities and historical landmarks, one should know the specific context. You have merely mentioned this aspect, but you have failed to provide any hard evidence. If you believe that Russia should somehow comment on this, and that there is an international aspect here, please provide some specific examples. Otherwise, it is rather difficult to comment on this. You are perfectly aware of the Russian position that, among other things, hinges on approaches, voiced at international venues. This position is linked with the need to treat religious facilities and historical landmarks with care. In this case, we have to know the facts before replying to your question. I will be able to comment on this if you send such facts to us, and if there are certain components dealing with Russian or international positions. Question: The intra-Afghan talks in Qatar have been deadlocked, which has resulted in an outbreak of violence in Afghanistan. At the same time, two weeks ago official talks were held with a Taliban delegation in Moscow. What is Russia’s position on the possibility of restoring peace in the region in this situation? Maria Zakharova: Indeed, the parties to the conflict in Afghanistan, wrangling over technical matters, have not even started discussing the main aspects of national reconciliation such as the future system of governance, a lasting ceasefire and other issues of vital significance at this moment. This deadlock was one of the main issues discussed at the Moscow consultations between Special Presidential Representative for Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov and a delegation of the Taliban’s political office. The Russian official pointed out the importance of launching a substantive intra-Afghan dialogue as soon as possible. The Taliban delegates reaffirmed their commitment to constructive talks with the Kabul delegation and to the Doha accords with the United States. We believe that additional efforts should be made in this situation to boost the intra-Afghan reconciliation process. We intend to continue working towards this end within the framework of the extended group of Russia, the United States and China plus Pakistan. We also hope that Iran will join the group. One more meeting could be held within the Moscow format. If necessary, and if the concerned members of the intra-Afghan negotiations agree, we will propose holding this dialogue in Moscow. Today I have already announced the upcoming talks between the foreign ministers of Russia and Afghanistan, during which this issue will be discussed as well. Question: You have said at the beginning of today’s briefing that Kiev continues to sabotage the Minsk agreements and that the international community is not responding to this. In light of the continued shelling (it was reported the other day that a school in the Lugansk People’s Republic had been damaged), alarming statements have been made, including by members of the negotiating group, that the Ukrainian Armed Forces would retaliate if shooting continued from Donbass. Attempts are being made to prevent the implementation of the Minsk agreements. What could Russia do to attract international attention to Kiev’s criminal activities and to prevent new provocations against civilians in Donbass? Is there actual risk of disruption of the Minsk agreements? Maria Zakharova: I have already spoken a great deal on this subject today. I believe I have answered your question as well. We have submitted one of our initiatives to the OSCE, but our so-called Western partners have blocked its implementation. We continue urging the Normandy format participants and all other countries that are curating Kiev in one way or another to convince the Ukrainian authorities to implement the Minsk agreements. As for Donbass, we are above all providing humanitarian assistance. This is a difficult period, especially for those who are living in an active phase of the conflict, considering the coronavirus pandemic and many other serious problems. As you are aware, Moscow has been providing humanitarian assistance and support throughout the past years. Question: Would you comment on Britain’s call to bar Russia and China from the UK defence supply chain, as well as the accusations of espionage? Will we give an equivalent response? Maria Zakharova: As far as I can see, you are referring to the recent ideas of the House of Commons’ Defence Committee. I believe that their Russian law-making counterparts may well respond to that. After all, there is the tool of parliamentary diplomacy. I believe that this is a case when it would be right to use it. It is obvious that some UK quarters are interested in fuelling anti-Russia hysterics and keeping up the myth of the Russian threat. If these ideas take the practical form of unfriendly actions, we will provide an equivalent response. We would like to encourage all our ill-wishers to take the side of good, which amounts to developing civilised relations, first of all, in the interests of our countries’ citizens. Question: You handed over videos about violence against protesters in Western countries to High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell. Earlier, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also gave them to his Swedish colleague Ann Linde. What was their response? Did they take the time to watch the videos? Maria Zakharova: The absurdity of the situation is that, in order to see the actions of the police in the EU countries, Brussels does not have to watch Russian videos; all it needs to do is look out the window or just go outside. Instead of participating in illegal campaigns in Russia, Brussels diplomacy should walk the streets of its own cities. Unfortunately, they are not doing this or, when they do, they are zealously pretending nothing is happening. Aware of this kind of approach, we handed over the materials. I am certain they saw them. I am also certain they have no desire to comment because any comment would come down to having to assess their own problems in their own countries. They do not like to do this but we will keep reminding them. Question: In early February, the relations between Russia and Europe were once again in a state of crisis. Do you think our dialogue with Germany is dependent on Russia’s relations with the European bureaucracy (the European Commission and other bodies) or, on the contrary, is it the relationship between Moscow and Berlin that will determine the tone of the Russia−Europe dialogue in general? Why is Berlin refusing to build a strategic union with our country and criticising us when it comes to all significant matters? Maria Zakharova: As one of the major sponsors of European Union institutions, Germany has a substantial influence on the current agenda, the work and policies of the European bureaucracy. The fact that former German Minister of Defence Ursula von der Leyen is now President of the European Commission speaks for itself. Germany used to be a generator of positive initiatives concerning Russia, including in our bilateral contacts. Unfortunately, now the situation has changed and there is a different state of affairs. It is telling that during Germany’s presidency in the Council of the EU in the second half of 2020, it was at Berlin’s initiative that the European Union introduced not one but several packages of anti-Russian sanctions. That clearly confirms that Germany’s strategy is to use EU resources to implement its chosen course towards full-fledged containment of our country. At the same time, it is unlikely that Germany could have easily accomplished this plan had it been not for the mutual willingness of the European bureaucracy to act in line with it. And it is essentially pointless to even speak about the European bureaucracy’s independence when it comes to foreign policy. Few EU countries are happy about this state of affairs. Many of our partners are openly displeased and concerned about Germany’s ambition to dominate European foreign policy; however, due to various circumstances, including their notorious financial dependence on the union’s leading economy, they are not able or hesitant to speak out openly against the policy which is being imposed from outside and which puts them at a disadvantage. When we are told that decisions in the European Union are based on consensus, we always clarify what they mean by consensus. Consensus means unanimous support; it does not mean that those who are against a decision, have to accept it because it is their obligation. Consensus is something different. We are open to and ready for constructive cooperation with Western Europe based on the principles of mutual respect and consideration for each other’s interests. This is a basis, a foundation of international law. We are committed to it and always talk about it. The question of why Berlin is pursuing a deterioration of relations with our country should be addressed to our German partners. We do not see any objective benefits for Germany from such policy. Perhaps Germany does but then they should explain it. It would be interesting to hear about it. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4580881
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
March 9th, 2021
|
#264 |
|
Senior Member
|
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the RBC Media Holding, Moscow, February 19, 2021
19 February 2021 - 19:55 Question: There is a feeling that the West is very annoyed by the appearance of the Russian Sputnik V vaccine. At first, they were very aggressive and wouldn’t let it go. When I talked with Minister of Trade and Industry Dmitry Manturov, he called it “the vaccine war.” Now the opinion has changed. Is this about the quality of the vaccine or is politics involved in this? Sergey Lavrov: I think it is possible to use the logic of the Russian proverb that can be translated into English as “love it so but mother says no.” Western experts know that the Sputnik V vaccine is definitely one of the best, if not the very best. Otherwise, there would not be such a stream of requests for it, which is growing geometrically. On the other hand, they realise that the spread of Sputnik V and other Russian vaccines that will soon enter the international market, will enhance our authority and status in the world. They do not want this to happen. But they have come to realise that their first response was simply outrageous in the context of the facts and medical science. When President Vladimir Putin announced the development of the vaccine in August 2020, the offensive was completely undiplomatic. Their response just betrayed their irritation, you are perfectly right. And now many countries (the Czech Republic and others) are saying they can’t wait for the certification of the vaccine by the European Medicines Agency. In Hungary, they believe they are ready to start vaccination and supplies are now underway. The number of requests from Europe is steadily on the rise. Just the other day, Prince Albert II of Monaco sent a request for the vaccine for the entire population of his principality. After independent agencies published their scientific evaluations, the West had to admit that the vaccine was good. Yet, attempts to discredit it continue. Just yesterday I read a somewhat ambiguous statement by President of France Emmanuel Macron. He put us and the Chinese into the category of those who are trying to gain advantages in the world arena at the expense of their medical achievements. The day before yesterday, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen spoke with an emphatically negative connotation about the supplies of the Russian vaccines to foreign countries. We must follow the correct position of principle, first voiced by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, notably, that we were the first to develop the vaccine, and we will continue to increase its production. This is not easy, we do not have enough capacities, and this is why we are negotiating with India, South Korea and other countries. At the same time, he said we are open to the broadest possible cooperation. There is one more important point. When this issue was discussed at the UN the other day, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged the countries that have this vaccine or have the money to buy it, not to forget about the poor. In the meantime, attempts are being made to accuse us of trying to gain geopolitical favour by supplying it abroad. This is an obvious discrepancy. It is clear that the West is poorly prepared for this discussion. Question: So, it’s about the same as when President Putin said at the Davos Forum that the world cannot continue creating an economy that will only benefit the “golden billion,” and we are actually accused of supplying the vaccine for the benefit of the “golden billion.” Still, are they talking about the vaccine like this just because it was made in Russia? Sergey Lavrov: I don’t see any other reason, because no one even tried to conduct a medical or a scientific test. They just said right away that it was impossible just because it’s impossible, meaning that “no one can do this that quickly.” It was only in October 2020, when the West said they would be able to report on their achievements. President Putin announced in August that the Russian-made vaccine was ready for rollout. Unfortunately, I often see that the response to everything we do, say or offer is, at best, questioned right off the bat. Usually, they say that “the Russians are playing their geopolitical games again.” Question: EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, who was here recently and met with you, said that Russia is distancing itself from the West. At the same time, Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said we are open to cooperation with Europe. You said we are ready to break up, but we are not breaking off our relations. What really stands in the way of normal relations between the EU and Russia? Sergey Lavrov: A biased attitude, by and large. I worked with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, a good colleague of mine, when he was Spanish Foreign Minister. Now many, in an attempt to give a controversial dimension to the High Representative’s visit to Russia, forget how it all began. In May 2019, Mr Borrell said: “Our old enemy, Russia, says again ‘here I am,’ and it is again a threat.” We then asked his protocol service to confirm what he said. We were told that it was a figure of speech and that he was misunderstood. However, this attitude shows. We are seen as a stranger. In my interview with Vladimir Solovyov, replying to his question as to whether we are ready to break off with the EU, I gave an affirmative answer because there are no relations to talk about. As former US President Barack Obama once said (although he said it about the Russian economy), relations have been “torn to shreds.” Indeed, the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement [between the EU and Russia] entered into force in 1997. It contained a number of declarative goals for moving towards common economic, humanitarian and cultural spaces. For many years, we used a mechanism of summits, which were held every six months in Russia and in the EU alternately. In fact, our entire Government held annual meetings with the European Commission to discuss the participants’ responsibilities in the context of over 20 sector-specific dialogues. We were building four common spaces and roadmaps for each of them. These were 100 percent substantive and specific projects. It was all destroyed, just like the Partnership and Cooperation Council, within which the Russian Foreign Minister and the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy reviewed the entire range of relations. This disappeared long before the Ukraine crisis. Many in our country are just waiting for a chance to pounce on the Russian Government’s foreign policy. We are being asked how we can say that we are ready to break off with the EU when it is our largest trade and economic partner. If we take the EU as a collective partner, it is our largest partner in terms of gross trade. For example, in 2013 (before the Ukraine events) Russia became a WTO member. From that moment, our trade relations were built on the principles advocated by that organisation rather than the EU’s principles. As a single trade bloc, the EU also participated in the WTO. We traded with member countries based on WTO guidelines. If you think the EU is a valuable trade and economic partner, here are some statistics for you: in 2013, the United States was the EU’s biggest trading partner with about $480 billion, followed by China with $428 billion and Russia with $417 billion. That is, these numbers are of the same order of magnitude. Where do we stand now? In 2019, EU’s trade with the United States stood at $750 billion, with China $650 billion, and with Russia at about $280 billion. In 2020, it was $218 billion, if counting with Great Britain, and $191 billion without it. The reason? It’s the sanctions imposed by our “valued” and largest economic partner for reasons that have never relied on any facts whatsoever. At least, no facts have ever been presented to us. We understand Crimea. We understand Donbass as well. It’s just that the EU admitted its inability, or perhaps, unwillingness, to prevent the anti-constitutional coup with an open Russophobic slant and chose to turn things upside down. Brussels shifted the blame to us and imposed sanctions on Russia rather than the putschists, who, by and large, spat on the guarantees of the European Union, which signed the corresponding agreements, totally ignoring, as I said, the fact that the actions of the government, which they supported, were openly and violently anti-Russian. Question: Without the events in Ukraine, would our relations with the West have sunk to where they are now? Sergey Lavrov: It is difficult for me to talk about this. After all, later there were other events linked with the accusations of “the poisoning in Salisbury.” No facts were presented. We were not allowed to meet with our citizens. No evidence was offered. Everything was similar to what is happening now with the alleged poisoning of Alexey Navalny. Question: It seems the West is looking for a pretext to spoil our relations. Sergey Lavrov: They are looking but there are many pretexts: it’s always possible to use something as an excuse to put the relationship on the required track. But it’s not that they want to spoil relations. I don’t think this is their main goal. They want to bolster their self-esteem. Now they are starting to act like the US, revealing the mentality of an exclusive group of states. I quoted German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas. When asked why they continue discussing sanctions against Russia and what goals they had achieved by imposing sanctions, he replied that he didn’t believe sanctions should be used for any purpose. What matters is that they don’t leave any action by the Russian Federation unpunished. The concealment of facts that could somehow confirm accusations against us started long before the crisis in Ukraine. We can recall 2007 – the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in the hospital. There was a coroner’s inquest. Later this trial was declared “public.” In George Orwell’s logic, in Britain this means a “secret trial” during which no inquisitorial procedures of the secret services may be presented. You know, these are system-wide problems. I listed what we used to have in our relations with the European Union. Nothing is left now, not even sporadic contacts on some international issues. As regards the Iran nuclear programme, we are taking part in the work of the collective group of countries, which are trying to somehow put this programme back on track. This is not part of our relations with the EU proper. In the Middle East, we have a Quartet of mediators consisting of Russia, the US, the EU and the UN. In other words, this is multilateral cooperation rather than our relations with just the EU. With regard to who is taking steps to prevent our relations from further decline, at least a little, we were thinking about that when Josep Borrell, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, was getting ready to visit Moscow. He suggested cooperating in healthcare and vaccines. We have already discussed this here. As a Brussels institution, the EU will hardly be allowed to contact Russian agencies or companies independently regarding the vaccines. We would sooner cooperate directly with the producers of AstraZeneca, as this is already taking place. On the eve of Mr Borrell’s visit, we invited his experts to make a joint statement on the Middle East by the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Our positions are nearly identical on the matter and we thought it would be appropriate to urge the Quartet to resume its activities and call for direct Palestinian-Israeli talks, respect for the relevant UN resolutions, and so on. We gave them a page and a half text that was easy to approve after the first reading. Several days prior to his arrival, we were told that “it did not work out.” I will reveal a secret because this is a blatant example. I asked Mr Borrell at the negotiating table: “What about this statement? Why didn’t it work out?” He started turning his head all around. It was clear from his reaction, and he confirmed this later, that nobody had even told him about it. These are the people that deal with what some of our liberals call “relations with the EU.” Question: Concluding this theme, I’d like to say that as a man born in the USSR, I understand that during the Soviet-Western confrontation we had different ideologies, economies and so on. Later, I thought that everything was the same on both sides. They were for democracy and we were for democracy; they had a market economy and we had a market economy. So what are the differences? Why do we fail to find a common language to this day? I thought we found it in the 1990s? Why did we find it then? Sergey Lavrov: We found it at that time because nobody in the Russian Federation disputed the answer to the question of who was ruling the show. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has talked about this many times. We decided that was it – the end of history. Francis Fukuyama announced that from now on liberal thought would rule the world. Now there are attempts to push this liberal thought to the fore again in a bid to gain international influence. But when it became clear that Russia did not want to live in the house of “a self-appointed boss,” all these complications began to emerge. Initially, having become President, Vladimir Putin and his team tried to convey this message through diplomatic signals that educated and smart people would be bound to understand. But nobody listened. Then the explanations had to be made politely but openly in the Munich speech. All this started when this signal was not perceived (to be more precise, Russia was seen again as a “hoodlum” in the world arena and they were again going to teach it “good manners”). In any event, the West began its ideological preparations, for its current actions, at that time. Question: Regarding the sanctions. Bloomberg posted a news item today that new sanctions against Russia are planned concerning the Nord Stream 2, however, they are not going to be tough but rather “soft.” On the other hand, they report that the Americans want to thwart the Nord Stream project but without irritating Germany. Where are we in this situation? Sergey Lavrov: We are a country that completely complies with the contractual obligations undertaken by our companies that are part of the project, along with the EU companies that joined it. The current situation is largely due to a decision taken by what we call the European Union, a decision that proves beyond doubt what sort of alliance it is. A few years ago, when the Poles, and others sharing their attitude, attempted to impede the Nord Stream project, the Legal Service of the European Commission was asked for legal advice, official opinion. The service presented a document which stated in no uncertain terms that the investment project had been launched long before amendments were made to the EU’s gas directive, the Third Energy Package. That’s it. Period. This issue should be closed for any person who has respect for the law. But no, the European Commission took this opinion and launched its own quasi-legal procedure which resulted in the conclusion that the project had indeed been launched much earlier, yet it fell under this third energy package and the gas directive. That’s what kind of a partner we have in this “relationship.” This is about how we can “pounce” on them and express readiness to break relations with them when they are our main economic partner – that’s what kind of a partner they are. Meanwhile, now Germany alone is fighting for the project. And in fact, Joe Biden’s administration will not cancel anything which was done by Donald Trump except for leaving the World Health Organisation (WHO). The Democrats are returning there now. The NATO defence ministers meeting has just ended. But there was no let-up in US demands to pay 2 percent of a country’s GDP for defence needs, i.e. for purchasing US weaponry. There was no backing off the demands on Europe regarding Nord Stream 2 – to stop participating in some matters that undermine European security. They see it better from across the ocean, right? This is about who is the boss. Europe also wants to run the house but it was taken down a peg. The situation around Nord Stream 2 is straightforward. For now they are saying publicly that bargaining is underway and possible agreements between Washington and Berlin are being discussed, including that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline may be allowed to be completed and even start operating. However, if at the same time gas transiting via Ukraine is going to be falling, then Nord Stream 2 must be shut off. I cannot decide for Germany, however, it is obvious to me that this proposal is humiliating. As Russian President Vladimir Putin said at his meeting with parliamentary party leaders, this is yet further evidence that they want Russia to pay for their Ukraine geopolitical venture. Question: Do we have to pay for this geopolitical project? Why do they think we have to pay for it? Sergey Lavrov: Because they don’t feel like lashing out on it. They need the Ukrainian regime for the sole purpose of constantly irritating Russia and finding new reasons to support their Russophobic policy. They want to weaken anything around us – Belarus, Central Asia, and now also the South Caucasus, as they got nervous after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s successful mediation mission between Armenia and Azerbaijan: why was this done without them? They are now trying to infiltrate this region and step up their activities there. All of that has nothing to do with the Cold War-era ideology of a showdown between the two systems you talked about a few minutes ago. It has to do with the fact that our Western partners are unwilling, unprepared and unable to speak on an equal footing, whether with Russia, China, or whoever. They need to create a system where they will be the boss regardless. This is why they are taking an increasing dislike to the United Nations since they cannot have total control of it. Question: Do you see the EU as a monolith, or as something more loose, with certain processes unfolding inside and some countries, no matter what, starting to talk about their willingness to be friends with Russia? In the case of the sanctions, the key figures behind them are, strange as it may seem, the Baltic States, which do not play a prominent role in the EU but, for some reason, everyone is listening to them. Sergy Lavrov: It sounds inappropriate to refer to the EU as a monolith a mere couple of months after Brexit. This “monolith” is not the same as before. If you mean a monolith in a figurative sense, my answer is no. Quite a few countries are maintaining relations with Russia. The visit of Josep Borrell was the first trip by an EU official of this level to Russia in three years. In the same three years, about two dozen ministers from European Union member countries have visited Russia. We are having a great dialogue, without wasting too much time on confrontation and moralising. Indeed, all of them do have their assignments – a couple of sheets of paper from which they read a script approved by the “party committee” in Brussels. Question: Do you mean they bring a notebook with instructions with them? Sergey Lavrov: Certainly. They do not dare to veer off course. This, for example, goes for Alexey Navalny, or the Skripals as in the previous case, or human rights. Now scientist Yury Dmitriyev from Karelia is in the spotlight. They flatly refuse to accept evidence of his involvement in crimes, like pedophilia. They read from their notebook and I would adduce my arguments to the contrary and describe our vision of this or that situation and wonder why we cannot obtain evidence on the Navalny case or the Skripal case. In response they simply read again from their notebook. Apart from this discipline induced by the bloc member states’ solidarity, we discuss things normally. Yes, the EU sets the terms on which [its member countries] participate in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), while we are trading with these countries in the WTO on the terms that were agreed on for Russia to join this organisation. But the EU has nothing to do with this cooperation in trade and investment activity, except for its attempts to restrict trade and economic ties with the sanctions. You mentioned the Baltic States. Indeed, they run the show in this respect to a great extent. I have talked to your colleagues about this on more than one occasion. When in 2004 there were hectic activities to drag them into the EU, Russia and Brussels maintained a very frank dialogue. The President of the European Commission at the time was Romano Prodi. In 2005, the objective was set to move to visa-free travel. Question: Nobody has any memories of this today. Sergey Lavrov: We remember this when we reply to those who ask how we dare say that we are ready to break relations with the EU. You mentioned the Baltic States. We had long been negotiating an updated version of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between Russia and the EU, which the EU terminated in 2014. It was expected to go a bit beyond the boundaries of the WTO rules and allow us to negotiate additional trade preferences. At one time there was an objective to establish a free trade zone, but this has long since fallen into oblivion. However, there were plans to update the agreement in order to liberalise trade even more, in addition to the WTO rules. In 2014, they ceased to exist – another example of breaking down our relations. A visa-free travel agreement was also finalised back in 2013. We had met all of the EU requirements: we agreed that only people with biometric passports would be eligible for visa-free travel and that those who violated EU entry rules or any other EU rules while in an EU country during a visa-free period would be subject to readmission. We signed the relevant agreement. Everything they asked for, and that suited us, was done. Later, when it was time to sign the agreement and then ratify it, the EU said: “Let’s wait.” It did not take us long to learn why they had said this, all the more so as they did not try to conceal their motives. This Brussels team decided that it was politically incorrect to approve a visa-free travel agreement with Russia prior to offering it to Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova. Question: In other words, Russia was made dependent on other countries? Sergey Lavrov: It sure was, at the Baltic States’ initiative. This is also important for understanding the nature of our relations. This is an attitude from people who decided that they were European, which is not at all the case. Russia sees Europe in all its diversity. If the “party committee” in Brussels does not like it, we cannot force them to. Question: Europe stretches at least to the Urals. Sergey Lavrov: Correct. In 2009, when Jose Manuel Barroso was President of the European Commission, we held a Russia-EU summit in Khabarovsk. Our European colleagues arrived later in the day. We went out for a walk along the embankment. We were showing them around the city and Mr Barroso said: “It’s amazing. It took us 13 hours to get here from Brussels, and it’s still Europe.” This is the key message behind the slogan “Europe from the Atlantic to the Pacific.”  Question: I’m going to ask you about one other country, Belarus. There will be a presidential summit on February 22. President Lukashenko will come to Russia. Recently, Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei gave an interview to the RBC media holding and mentioned Belarus’ multi-directional foreign policy. Do you think we have managed to work well with Minsk on integration? What should we expect from these talks? Sergey Lavrov: The term “multi-directional” should not be used as a profanity. Most normal states want it. Russia, too, has used a multi-directional approach as the basis of its foreign policy since 2002. In our understanding, a multi-directional approach is possible only if based of equality, respect and a balance of interests, as well as mutual benefit. This is the only way it can work. First, they threaten us with sanctions, and then the same people are saying that we “had it coming” and impose unilateral restrictions on us, and then say that we are “bad” because “we are looking to the East.” Everything has been turned upside down. Russia is a Eurasian country. We have close contacts with Europe, which have been cultivated for centuries, before anyone even thought of a European Union, and the Europeans fought and competed against each other. By the way, we often helped them achieve peace and fair outcomes in wars. Question: We even saved the monarchies? Sergey Lavrov: Yes, and they are aware of it. The republic in the United States, too, to a certain extent. However, our European neighbours have severed almost all of our ties and left only sporadic contacts on international crises that are of interest to the EU in order to keep a profile on the international arena. In many ways, the EU is driven by a desire to be seen as an important operator in Syrian and other matters. If we are not welcome here, we will simply continue to work with our other neighbours who are not prone to whims like that. Objectively, our trade with the EU is almost half of what it was in 2013. Our trade with China has doubled over the same period. Question: Back to Minsk. What can we expect from talks between President Putin and President Lukashenko on February 22? Sergey Lavrov: There are some who want to interpret Minsk’s words about the multi-directional nature of its foreign policy as proof of its “unreliability” as a partner and ally. I do not think so. In the Council of Europe, of which Belarus is not a member yet, we advocate the CoE establishing relations with Minsk. We supported the accession of Minsk to a number of Council of Europe conventions. We have always been in favour of Belarus enjoying normal relations with its western neighbours. I’m not sure what the CoE will do next. Russophobia has swept over most of the EU countries, and the most “violent” ones are in charge of the agenda. I read the remarks by President Lukashenko (not all his interviews, but they were cited) to the effect that he sees no obstacles to deepening integration. Progress will depend on how President Vladimir Putin and President Lukashenko agree on things. There are two more days to go before the talks. I don’t think we should be speculating on the outcome of the summit. We will know everything soon. Question: Recently, US President Joseph Biden said the United States will no longer be “rolling over in the face of Russia’s aggressive actions” (ostensibly, Donald Trump did this). How can we build our relations now? Are there subjects we can discuss with Washington? Are they ready to talk with us? Sergey Lavrov: These comments on who is rolling over or will be rolling over in the face of someone’s actions illustrate a very deep split in US society. It reached a level of personal enmity that is aggressive and contrary to American political culture. The politicians did not particularly mince their words during previous presidential campaigns or prior to elections to Congress, but I don’t remember anything comparable to what is being said now. Our liberal media promote a tough pro-Western line. In looking for objects of criticism in Russia, they are infringing on the threshold of decency and getting personal. They are very crude, and behave not like journalists but like inveterate propagandists, accusing others of propaganda. The fact that the New Start Treaty was extended in time is a very positive step. This shouldn’t be overrated, but it shouldn’t be underrated, either. In his election speeches Joseph Biden mentioned his willingness to extend it, but these were election speeches after all. His promise could be interpreted differently later, but he extended this important document for five years without any conditions, like we suggested. If this had not happened, there would not have been a single instrument of international law, not only in Russian-US relations but in the entire range of multilateral ties, that contained any restrictions in the sphere of disarmament, arms control and nuclear weapons non-proliferation. It is very important that just a few days prior to February 5, 2021, the date the treaty was extended for five years, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Joseph Biden reaffirmed their intention to promote talks on strategic stability in these new conditions, in their first telephone conversation after the US presidential election. The situation has changed substantially since 2010: We and the Americans have acquired new weapons some of which are covered by the treaty. We announced this last year. We said that they must be taken into account. Some other weapons are not covered by the treaty – they are basically very different because of their physical characteristics. Question: Are you talking about hypersonic weapons? Sergey Lavrov: Yes, the United States also has such weapons. Hypersonic weapons are partly covered by the New START Treaty, if these are ballistic missiles. The New START Treaty already covers some weapons systems, so we now have to include these weapons systems in the Treaty for the next five years and see how all this will be verified. But it does not cover some weapons. The United States has developed a new system called the Prompt Global Strike (PGS). By the way, this system implies a non-nuclear strike. We have suggested negotiating all issues without exception that have an impact on strategic stability and the legitimate interests of the contracting parties. Question: Did they agree to this? Are they ready? Sergey Lavrov: In October 2020, we submitted draft joint understandings to the Trump administration. This rough outline shows how we can sit down and start negotiating the agenda. We have received no reply from them. Instead of addressing this matter, Marshall Billingslea, the Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control, mostly made vocal statements that the United States was all for it but that the Russians did not want to do this. When I spoke with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, I reminded him that Russia had submitted its proposals to the Trump administration, which dealt with this matter and many other issues, including cybersecurity and concerns over interference in each other’s domestic affairs. We would like to get back to them, and to hear the Biden administration’s opinions in this regard. We realise that they now need some time to settle down in the White House and the Department of State. I hope that this will not take too long. There are still some questions on disarmament, for example, the lineup of participants in the disarmament process. The US position on China, approved by Donald Trump, remains unchanged; the same concerns a number of other matters. Regarding multilateral talks, first of all, this should not annul Russian-US agreements because we have several times more nuclear weapons than other nuclear countries. Second, if we make this a multilateral process, then all prospective participants, primarily the five nuclear powers, should reach a voluntary agreement. We will never try to persuade China. We respect the position of Beijing, which either wants to catch up with us or proposes that we first reduce our arsenals to China’s levels and then start on the talks. All circumstances considered, if this is a multilateral process, then we will get nowhere without the United Kingdom and France. The Trump administration insisted that China should take part and at the same time said about its allies that they were the good guys, literally. This sounds funny. Apart from the complicated and lengthy disarmament process, we do not have so many promising spheres where we can cooperate constructively. Question: Does this mean that their vision of the issue is entirely different or that they are reluctant to negotiate? Sergey Lavrov: They think that they are the boss, and this mentality is still here and it determines the perception of their enemies. So far, they have not designated China as an enemy, but they have called us an enemy a couple of times. Democrats have an additional motivation for expanding this policy. Their position is that, supposedly unlike with Donald Trump, they will be “no Russian tail wagging the dog.” Question: Don’t you think that Democrats have come to power with the intention of taking revenge against Russia, and that they will implement Donald Trump’s anti-Russia plans that he failed to accomplish in four years. Sergey Lavrov: They made such statements during the election campaign. Joe Biden and his supporters said openly that the Trump administration had gone soft, that it was constantly making advances and working for the Russian intelligence. Donald Trump said that he was conducting the toughest policy with regard to Russia. He said that he liked Vladimir Putin, but he introduced more sanctions than all of his predecessors taken together. We are also witnessing a cowboy-style showdown there. But this is normal for US politics, especially today. Disagreements between liberals who considered liberalism an irreversible trend have become aggravated to the greatest possible extent. Donald Trump, who did not like liberal principles and approaches, suddenly took over. He tried to think more about the basic interests of the American founders, the people who moved there (and it has always been a nation of immigrants), and who accepted its laws. So, the big question is whether people should remain loyal to the country that has accepted them, or do they want to erode its principles? Question: Should they try to fit in? Sergey Lavrov: Yes, and they want to be the boss. Everything boils down to this once again. Question: Karabakh, the subject of that. Fortunately, the war is over and a peace agreement has been inked. We covered extensively the role Russia and Azerbaijan played. I have a question to do with Turkey. I was in Azerbaijan during the war and heard many people say that the Azerbaijanis are supportive of the Great Turan idea (a state that covered the territory from Turkey to Central Asia). Is Moscow concerned by Turkey becoming a stronger state? Sergey Lavrov: This opinion is entertained by a portion of the society. I’m not going to give a percentage of how many people support this idea. I’m not sure many of those who informed you about this really know what “Great Turan” is all about. The relations between Turkic-speaking peoples have become an integral part of cooperation between Turkey and the corresponding countries, including Azerbaijan and a number of Central Asian states. There is the Cooperation Council of the Turkic-Speaking States, in which we participate as observers. A number of our republics are interested in contacts with it and are promoting their specific projects. There is TURKSOY ̵ the International Organisation of Turkic Culture. There’s also the Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic-Speaking Countries. All of them have been functioning for a long time now. They draft their own plans and hold functions. Their cooperation is mainly based on cultural, linguistic and educational traditions. Speaking about the Great Turan as a supranational entity in a historical sense, I don’t think that this is what Turkey is after. I don’t see how former Soviet and now independent countries can be supportive of this idea in any form. On the contrary, their foreign policies and practices focus on strengthening their national states. Turkey has its interests which include its fellow tribesmen who speak the same language. We also want the Russian World to communicate. We have created an extensive network of organisations of our compatriots living abroad; we are opening Russian World centres at universities in different countries with purely linguistic, educational and scientific goals. The Centre for the Russian Language and Culture created by the Russkiy Mir Foundation was recently closed in Krakow. This is an obvious step for Poland, as well as for the Baltic States, which are fighting everything that is Russian. Ukraine followed in their footsteps and shut down several media outlets and imposed a language ban. We are well aware of all this. We will keep raising this matter at the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the corresponding UN agencies. One cannot pretend that this comes with the “growth” and the “coming of age” of the Ukrainian nation, which, as they say, is an “ill-fated” one. The Ukrainians claim that they are the descendants of Alexander the Great. In that case, they should be responsible for the orders they introduce. The EU, and Germany and France as the Normandy format participants, avoid performing their duties when it comes to “educating” Ukraine in terms of making it comply with the Minsk agreements, and this has become a chronic behaviour pattern which does not reflect well on Germany or France. Question: It was announced that Ukraine was recognised an unfriendly state. How will this affect relations between us? Sergey Lavrov: This is just a descriptive attribute. What's friendly about it? Russian schools are being closed, customers and shop assistants are not allowed to speak their native language, and the Nazis are burning Russian flags. Question: This is reminiscent of the Baltic States 20 to 30 years ago. Sergey Lavrov: Back when the Baltic States were about to be admitted to the EU, we asked the Brussels bureaucrats, the Eurogrands, whether they were sure they were doing the right thing. The problems that are at odds with the membership criteria persist, including non-observance of the rights of the Russian-speaking minorities in Latvia and Estonia. We were told that the Baltic States are phobic of Russia (war, the so-called occupation, etc.), the EU will bring it into its fold, it will calm down and ethnic minorities will be happy and contented. Things turned out the other way round. The Russians were not granted any rights, and statelessness is still there. Question: Let’s go back to Turkey: Ankara’s stronger position, its active role in the Nagorno-Karabakh war, President Erdogan’s visit to Northern Cyprus (which a Turkish leader has not done for quite a while). What does Moscow think about it? Sergey Lavrov: As far as Turkey and Northern Cyprus are concerned, we see it as Ankara’s relations with its “fellow countrymen.” I have not heard about Turkey refusing to honour the UN obligations accepted by the conflicting parties. These obligations include seeking a mutually acceptable solution and creating a bicommunal bizonal federation. There is a discussion of whether the federation will be strong or weak. But there is no disagreement about the fact that it must be one state. Although not so very long ago, it was the common opinion that the entire project would fail and they would have to create two states. We understand that Ankara is interested in Cypriot Turks living in equality and their rights being observed. We support the idea that the same motives with which Turkey explains its actions in the Eastern Mediterranean, including with respect to hydrocarbons, should determine its dialogue with Greece and Turkey. On February 17, 2021, I spoke with Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias who told me that on January 25, 2021, he had had a probing conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu. They did not iron out all issues. But it is good news that a dialogue was established. They agreed to continue it. On February 18, 2021, I spoke with Mevlut Cavusoglu. We continued sharing opinions following the telephone conversations between President Putin and President Erdogan on Syria, Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh and our bilateral relations. New power units of a nuclear power station are under construction; the TurkStream project is ongoing. There is much common ground between our countries when it comes to energy. In October 2019, the first Russia-Africa Summit in history was held in Sochi. A record number of heads of state and heads of government attended. In the course of the preparations for the summit, we reviewed the development of our relations with African countries and the current state of affairs, including from the perspective of expanding our presence on the continent which political scientists consider to be the most promising in the long term. We reviewed other countries’ presence in Africa. Since 2002, the number of Turkish embassies in Africa has increased from 12 to 42. Turkey’s trade with the region is estimated at around 20 billion dollars a year and Russia’s trade is around 15 billion dollars. This is to say that Turkey has an eye for potential. Question: Perhaps Turkey is disappointed with the EU because nobody accepted it? Sergey Lavrov: I believe it could partially be the case. In its contacts with the EU, Ankara continues to insist that the EU promised it accession. Turkey is spreading its wings and gaining weight despite the existing economic problems at home. Turkey mainly goes on by accumulating its national debt but this model is widely common around the world. Question: 2020 is the year of the pandemic. During such times, countries should join forces and help each other. Do you think that this was the case? Or did the world fail to put aside disagreements and rally together even when it came to the COVID-19 infection? Sergey Lavrov: Now this conversation is back to square one. There are no ideologies anymore. But this ideology-based, politicised perception of the Russian vaccine was not a very good signal. The Sputnik V vaccine was announced in August 2020, many months after the G20 summit (March 2020) where Vladimir Putin strongly advocated cooperation in vaccine production. Even then, we were ready to create joint scientific teams. But Western countries and their companies, unwilling to help competitors, did not respond to that proposal. So much for unification in this purely medical field. There is also the humanitarian sphere. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet made calls during the pandemic to suspend all unilateral sanctions in fields directly affecting food, the supply of medicine and medical equipment, in order to alleviate the suffering of the population in countries that were under unilateral sanctions (regardless of their reasons). There was no reaction from the initiators of those sanctions (primarily the US and the EU). Also, there was no response to President Vladimir Putin’s proposal, at the G20 summit, to create ‘green corridors’ for the period of the pandemic, to move goods under the most relaxed rules – without tax, duties, tariffs, delays, or special customs inspections. We are all in the same boat, and it’s not so big. Some forecasts say this situation will continue for a long time, and the coronavirus will be a seasonal infection, and it is not at all the same as the flu or other diseases, so we will have to use precautions permanently, use PPE. This realisation should somehow prod countries to more open cooperation, especially those that up until recently had some doubts. True, there have been some good shifts. One of them is the United States’ return to the World Health Organisation (WHO). Some hotheads in Washington believe that, now that they have returned, they will make others do their bidding. There are fewer than 50 Chinese people in the WHO Secretariat, 25 Russians, over 200 Americans, and more than 2,000 NATO representatives. The past US administration said China was manipulating the WHO. That is not true. Otherwise, we are admitting the complete helplessness of 2,000 NATO members who should be the majority in the WHO Secretariat. Nevertheless, there are some positive results though. This problem has been recently considered at the UN General Assembly and the Security Council. It is important now to focus on equitable collaboration within the WHO. Besides the attempts at carrying out “soft coups” and establishing their own rules in the organisation, hardly based on consensus, an idea has been suggested to move the main decision-making on global health policies outside the universal organisation. We have been pointing out this tendency for some time now – the one to replace international law with a rules-based world order. As it turns out in reality, those rules boil down to working out all decisions in a circle of those who agree with you rather than in a group with universal representation where you have to argue your case and search for balances and compromises. And then you just present the decision as ‘the ultimate truth’ and demand that everyone respect it. This underlies the Franco-German initiative for a new multilateralism and some limited partnerships in the West. For example, Paris has launched an International Partnership Against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons. Under this non-universal, non-UN partnership, the EU creates the so-called ‘horizontal’ regime of sanctions to be imposed on anyone that France-initiated partnership points at. A similar sanctions regime is being created for cybersecurity. Instead of any open-ended discussion, the French are promoting some partnership to defend freedom in cyberspace. This is another example of rules on which ‘order’ will be based. There are attempts to start similar groups outside the WHO. But people's health is not a field where one can play geopolitics. Unless there is a conspiracy behind this to reduce the population of the Earth. Many are now starting to develop such theories and concepts. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4589817
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
March 10th, 2021
|
#265 |
|
Senior Member
|
Statement by Member of the Delegation of the Russian Federation to the Vienna Negotiations on Military Security and Arms Control A. VOROBIEV at the IWG on «Structured Dialogue» meeting in the Vienna-based format, 19 February 2021
20 February 2021 - 22:40  Mr. Chairperson, Distinguished Ambassador Cuesta, At the outset, allow me to congratulate you on your appointment as the Chairperson of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on the Structured Dialogue and thank you for organizing today’s meeting. We carefully listened to your detailed and quite encouraging report on the first outcome of your consultations with delegations of the participating States that you are intending to continue, as well as the indicative calendar of events for this year. We appreciate the great work you have accomplished that provides a solid ground for future activities on this track. We were pleased to learn that the Spanish Chair intends to add more dynamic to the Structured Dialogue. To this end, just as before, you have put forward some innovative ideas both with regard to the overall approach and to the working plan. We took positive note of the fact that your indicative calendar provides for holding one more meeting compared to the previous year. Besides, you intend to continue the proved practice of holding two-day meetings with sessions involving expert level on the first day and political level discussions on the second. These modalities could help experts to feel more comfortable while sharing their opinions on a subject. The fact that the Chair is considering to expand the geography of the third meeting which is to be organized, if conditions allow, in a shape of Retreat, to our mind, can also contribute to the exchange of views. In addition, the motto proposed by the Chairpersonship that stresses the importance of understanding for security (including four components – Listening, Reflecting, Sharing, Learning), sets the right key for further dialogue and a way ahead. As we understood, the Chair plans to frame the process in the two main areas: military-political aspects of security and current and future security challenges. We expect that the Chairpersonship will soon present the specific topics for the meetings, and look forward to interesting discussion on the document “Framework for Arms Control” adopted in Lisbon. Naturally, we will seek the final approval of the proposed annual indicative calendar from our capital. Mr. Chairperson, The work of the IWG obviously builds on achievements of the previous years, and in this regard, we would like to highlight the contribution of the German, Belgian and the Dutch Chairpersonships to the development of this process. The Russian Federation shares the view that the Structured Dialogue is an important confidence-building measure aimed at de-escalation of tensions and search for ways to restore European security. It has proved to be a valuable platform for maintaining contacts between military experts and for holding an open exchange of views on threat perception. We support continuation of the Structured Dialogue this year and stand ready to engage in a professional, constructive, depoliticized and calm discussion, including on the level of experts from capitals. At the same time, while the dialogue itself is important, we should not lose sight of its possible outcomes, as provided for by the Hamburg OSCE Ministerial Council declaration. This requires political will of the participating States to seek common solutions based on equality and mutual respect of each other’s interests. In our view, it is essential to keep and strengthen the politico-military dimension of the Structured Dialogue, A certain progress has already been made in this regard and it needs to be continued. The previous IWG meetings confirmed the importance of discussions between military representatives on incident prevention at sea and in the air, as well as dangerous military activities. We see the value of sharing positive experience in implementing bilateral agreements in this field. We have many converging interests in the sphere of countering current and future security threats and challenges. A constructive dialogue on this topic should help us to reach common understanding on a new model of European security and further development of its key elements. Nevertheless, since “hybrid threats” have been mentioned, let me repeat what we stated on many occasions, that this issue, because of its clear confrontational potential, neither is in line with the “Hamburg mandate”, nor is it beneficial to strengthening of the Structured Dialogue as it restrains the progress of this format. By contrast, let us recall the last year discussion between military experts on practical issues, which was much more productive. We are convinced that the Structured Dialogue should avoid fruitless polemics and rather be aimed at obtaining concrete results in the military-political sphere. Mr. Chairperson, The contemporary Euro-Atlantic stability cannot be achieved without genuine co-operation. We are convinced that the dialogue is to be aimed at finding ways to restore trust and reduce confrontation in the OSCE region. If we agree that the current situation on the continent is of concern to all participating States, it would be logical to work diligently and focus on efforts to reduce military threat, deescalate the situation, reduce military confrontation (return to status quo at least as of early 2014) and military activities along the Russia-NATO border on a reciprocity basis, re-establish bilateral military contacts, restore trust and improve the mechanisms for preventing incidents and dangerous military activities. These issues are also to be discussed at the Structured Dialogue platform. On our part, we intend to continue, as a sign of good will, to inform the participating States of snap exercises and invite military attachés of foreign states as observers. By the way, two years ago our General Staff of the Armed Forces made concrete proposals to the Alliance to increase, on a mutual basis, the distance of military exercises to the Russia-NATO contact line. Similar proposals have been put forward with regard to aviation security over the Baltic Sea and the minimum safe distance between naval ships and combat aircraft. Regrettably, we have not received constructive response so far. Mr. Chairperson, Russia is ready to continue its participation in the Structured Dialogue but notes that the conversation will not go well along with the attempts to politicize the discussion and include confrontational issues in the agenda. In conclusion, allow me to once again thank for the detailed report and wish you and your excellent team every success in fulfilling a challenging mission of the Chairpersonship of the IWG Structured Dialogue. We look forward to fruitful co-operation with you and with all other Delegations. Thank you for the attention. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4590419 Foreign Ministry statement on the EU’s new illegal restrictive measures against Russia 22 February 2021 - 22:05 We are disappointed by the February 22 decision of the EU Foreign Affairs Council to impose new illegal, unilateral and unsubstantiated restrictive measures on Russian citizens. The European Union has missed an opportunity to rethink its policy of artificial linkages, sanctions and pressure in its relations with Russia, a policy that has proved to be completely ineffective over the past few years. Instead, guided by its bloc discipline and anti-Russia stereotypes, Brussels has instinctively pressed the ineffective sanctions button. Moreover, contrary to all logic, the EU first adopted a political decision, and plans to choose the candidates for the sanctions later on. This new faulty decision of the EU Council has been adopted amid an unprecedented anti-Russia information campaign ongoing in the EU following the talks which High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell held in Moscow on February 5. Western media outlets unanimously denounced the talks as “worthless” and “humiliating” and called for increasing the sanctions pressure on Russia. That information offensive was obviously designed to find a pretext to convince the EU foreign ministers about the need to settle the score and make up for the alleged loss of diplomatic face by the EU by aggravating relations with Russia still further. The above shows once again that the opponents of improving relations with Russia are guided by political considerations rather than their declared commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is notable that EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime established by the EU Council in December 2020, just as the two previous mechanisms of sanctions against cyberattacks and chemical weapons, will be used first of all against Russians. Brussel’s attempts to present these illegal tools as “horizontal” and “global” cannot conceal the anti-Russia essence of these instruments of their Russia containment policy. We regard as categorically unacceptable the continued illegal and absurd demands to “free” a Russian citizen who has been found guilty of committing economic crimes in Russia in accordance with the Russian legislation. In international practice this in described as interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. However, the EU obviously does not intend to respect the ethics of interstate relations and is using the myth of its own infallibility in the sphere of human rights, which has been laid bare by the daily footage of police violence in many European cities and the ongoing offensive against the freedom of the media and the Russian language, to promote its concept of a rules-based world order. It is regrettable that illegal instruments, such as ultimatums, pressure and sanctions, are becoming the basis of the EU foreign policy inventory. The EU, which would like to become an independent pole on the global stage, has apparently forgotten that this position can only be attained through respect for partners, non-interference in the internal affairs of others and undeviating commitment to international law. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4590496 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the high-level segment of the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Moscow, February 24, 2021 24 February 2021 - 11:43 Unofficial translation Madam President, Ladies and Gentlemen, This year, Russia is participating again in the work of the United Nations Human Rights Council as a full member. We regard our return to the main human rights body of the global Organization as confirmation of our country’s key role in all the areas of multilateral cooperation. We intend to make active use of our mandate in the Human Rights Council in order to strengthen its capacity and authority, as well as to advance a unifying agenda. This is especially important in the context of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. COVID-19 has substantially undermined the social and economic foundations of states and respective rights of citizens. The most fundamental human right, the right to life, has been threatened. The world economic downturn caused by the pandemic has led to a significant rise in unemployment and increased social insecurity. There is a widening development gap between certain nations and regions. There is also growing inequality within certain countries, including those of the so-called golden billion. These are the issues that we must focus on today and jointly search for ways of resolving them, while utilizing the potential of the UN Human Rights Council. Unfortunately, despite the pandemic and the apparent need to consolidate our efforts, some of our Western counterparts refuse to reconsider their selfish ways and abandon their coercive approaches and unlawful methods of intimidation and pressure. The calls of the UN Secretary General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to suspend unilateral sanctions on supplies of food, medicines and equipment needed to combat the virus, as well as on related financial transactions, have gone unheeded. Let me recall President Putin's initiative on opening green corridors (free of sanctions and other artificial barriers) in international trade. Western capitals persistently ignore the fact that unlawful restrictions have a devastating impact on human rights implementation. We see this not only as the politicization of humanitarian issues, but also as the desire to take advantage of the pandemic to punish “undesirable” governments. Today, the global media is becoming a place for pursuing narrow and self-serving geopolitical goals. Fake and aggressive media campaigns undermine internal political stability in sovereign states, fuel unrest and violence. Of particular concern is the ease with which false advocates of democracy irresponsibly use youngsters and children for their political purposes. This is unacceptable. Those who for decades have been preaching about freedom of speech and expression to the whole world are now demonstrating intolerance of alternative views. A number of countries deliberately seek to impose political censorship and limit access to information in violation of UN, OSCE and CoE commitments. The recent closure of television channels broadcasting in the Russian language in Ukraine and the Baltic countries, searches of journalists’ offices and homes, and their expulsion are glaring examples of this. Of growing concern are non-transparent policies of social networking platforms which openly manipulate public opinion by banning or censoring user content at their own discretion. In this regard, it is of paramount importance to develop rules for regulating social networks at the national and international levels to prevent such abuses. States that have undertaken commitments to ensure freedom of access to information for all citizens must now prove that they are able to deliver on these commitments rather than hide behind corporate policies. Madam President, The pandemic has exacerbated old problems such as racism and xenophobia, as well as discrimination against national and religious minorities. Mass protests in the United States and Europe have exposed these countries’ continuing systemic inequalities, while highlighting the risks of condoning extremist ideologies. We are increasingly concerned about discrimination against the Russian-speaking population in the Baltic countries and Ukraine, particularly with regard to linguistic and educational rights. We regret that the UN Human Rights Council and its special procedures remain silent about the blatant violations of human rights of millions of people. It is unacceptable when the protection of a state language is accompanied by repressions against national minorities. Since September 2020, Ukraine, in accordance with its laws on education, state language and general secondary education, started forcing languages of national minorities out of public and educational spaces. And even in this case, the Russian language (the native language for 30 to 50 percent of the population of Ukraine according to various estimates) is faced with additional discrimination in comparison with other minority languages since the Ukrainian authorities have provided for a separate preferential regime for the languages of the European Union countries. As a result, opportunities for receiving secondary education in the Russian language in Ukraine have decreased by more than 80 percent. Moreover, on 16 January 2021, another provision of the Ukraine’s notorious Law on Ensuring Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language came into force. According to it, all service providers, regardless of their form of ownership, shall serve consumers and provide them with product information only in Ukrainian. The Ukrainian authorities have taken yet another step towards destroying multilingualism and multiculturalism in their country. Madam President, This year marks the 15th anniversary of establishment of the Human Rights Council. We are convinced that the Council requires neither a fundamental reform nor a status change. At the same time, however, it is clear that the Council’s performance is not perfect. We have serious complaints about the work of the Council's special procedures which were originally conceived as a mechanism to assist countries in fulfilling their human rights obligations. Their work must be brought in line with these criteria. I should point out that Russia takes its status as the Council member responsibly and is determined to continue to cooperate with the special procedures and is also willing to host them once the coronavirus situation improves. We stand for a stronger principle of cooperation in the work of the Council and for an honest, mutually respectful, and equal dialogue on topical issues. We will continue to stand up for our principles and priorities, such as combating discrimination against linguistic and religious minorities, combating statelessness, ensuring the integrity of the judicial system, protecting vulnerable groups and their socio-economic rights. We look forward to an open and depoliticized discussion of any issues at the Geneva platform. We are committed to listening and taking into account other countries’ priorities and concerns. We will do our utmost to ensure that human rights are seen as a factor that brings states closer together rather than alienates them, a factor that builds up the atmosphere of trust and mutual respect on the world stage. Thank you. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4594290 Address by Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, to the High Level Segment of the Conference on Disarmament (Moscow, 24 February 2021) 24 February 2021 - 12:17 Unofficial translation Mr. President, Colleagues, I appreciate the opportunity to address this authoritative forum. 2020 was a difficult year in all respects. It saw a growing destructive trend toward the collapse of the existing international arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation regimes, an increasing tension and lack of trust between UN Member States. Unfortunately, the United States continued taking steps to substitute some global "rules-based order" imposed by Washington for international law and the central role of the United Nations. After withdrawing from the JCPOA in 2018 and dismantling the INF Treaty in 2019, the United States decided, in 2020, to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies, thereby undermining international security. The Coronavirus pandemic was another factor that made work at all multilateral fora, including the Conference on Disarmament (CD), even more challenging. It actually paralyzed all traditional channels for diplomatic communication and interaction. It is only now in 2021 that we begin to observe some encouraging developments. First of all, I refer to the recent extension of the New START Treaty, which remains an essential element of maintaining strategic stability and international security. This ensures the adequate level of predictability for the next few years in relations between Russia and the United States – the two countries possessing the largest nuclear arsenals. Moreover, foundations were laid for further negotiations on arms control with due consideration of all factors affecting strategic stability. Maintaining restraint in the missile sphere following the termination of the INF Treaty remains a top priority. Our proposal is still on the table: we will not deploy ground-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in any given region unless US-made missiles are deployed there. We urge NATO countries to take similar reciprocal steps. Our specific proposals regarding mutual verification measures are well known. There is a growing threat of an arms race in Outer Space. The US and its allies have embarked on a policy towards the use of the near-Earth space for combat operations (including offensive ones) and deployment of strike weapon systems. Russia is committed to the obligations on the non-discriminatory use and exploration of Outer Space for peaceful purposes. There is still a chance for us to come up with generally acceptable legally binding measures to prevent violent confrontation in Outer Space. The Russian-Chinese draft treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects, submitted here, at the CD, could serve as a good basis for that. Russia will continue to make its substantial practical contribution to the nuclear missile disarmament. Further progress in this area requires the involvement of all States possessing military nuclear capabilities, particularly the United Kingdom and France. Russia is open for multilateral dialogue, which should be held on the basis of consensus and respect for the legitimate interests of all sides, as well as upon their consent. We have been consistently advocating for recommitment by Russia and the US, as well as by other P5 States, to the fundamental formula that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. I once again put this proposal forward during our telephone conversation with Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken this February 4. Our position is that NATO's continuing practice of "nuclear sharing", which runs counter to the NPT, is inadmissible. American nuclear weapons must be returned to the territory of the United States, and the foreign infrastructure for its deployment must be dismantled. The NPT Review Conference, with the NPT being the key international legal instrument for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament and one of the pillars of the existing world order, is expected to be the central event of the year. All States Parties to the NPT should do their best to make sure that the Review Conference contributes to the strengthening of the Treaty. We need to join our efforts in order to consolidate all the three elements of the NPT (non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear energy), ensuring their balanced interconnectedness. In the context of the NPT review, a constructive approach is also required for the creation of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, as well as for addressing the situation with Iran's nuclear programme. We call on all stakeholders, first of all the new US administration, to step up efforts on these tracks, which are critical for the world community. The current situation at the OPCW needs to be rectified. We oppose the vicious practice of using the Organization to exert pressure on "unwanted" states through sanctions based on unsubstantiated allegations of the use of chemical weapons. We advocate for objective and professional dialogue based on the honest fulfillment of CWC provisions by the Technical Secretariat, not on some conspiracy theories in the spirit of "highly likely." We consider the strengthening of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) regime as a priority task for the international community. We are ready for constructive work aimed at preparing and efficiently holding the BTWC Review Conference scheduled for 2021. We call on all parties to support Russia's initiatives aimed at consolidating the BTWC institutional framework. In our efforts the UN and its disarmament machinery have a central role. At the Conference on Disarmament, we intend to further contribute to agreeing on a comprehensive and balanced program of work in accordance with the CD’s negotiating mandate and with respect for its fundamental operating principles, first of all the consensus rule, remaining inviolate. In order to reach a consensus, we urge all parties again to consider in the most responsible manner the Russian initiative to develop at the CD an international convention for the suppression of acts of chemical and biological terrorism. There is an urgent need to resume the work of the UN Disarmament Commission by effectively addressing organizational issues, including that of providing representatives of all Member States with unfettered access to New York for participation in UN events. We all are in desperate need of a constructive dialogue to prevent further deterioration of the international arms control architecture. Given its unique status as a single negotiating forum on disarmament, the Conference on Disarmament can significantly contribute to bringing the current challenging situation in the sphere of international security back to normal as well as building confidence among States. I wish participants at the Conference fruitful work. Thank you. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4594359 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions during a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Afghanistan Mohammad Haneef Atmar, Moscow, February 26, 2021 26 February 2021 - 17:11 Good afternoon, We had useful, substantive talks with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (IRA) Mohammad Haneef Atmar. Russia considers Afghanistan an important partner. We consistently advocate the development of the IRA as a peaceful, independent and neutral state, free of terrorism and narcotic drugs. We discussed in detail the status of bilateral relations, including trade and economic ties. We agreed to arrange a regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission, which has not met for quite a long time. We paid great attention to the continuation of the projects that are being carried out with Russia’s participation: the training of Afghan national personnel in civilian, military, police and diplomatic professions and humanitarian assistance (including the efforts to counter the coronavirus pandemic). Russia reaffirmed its position of principle on all-round assistance to create conditions for intra-Afghan national reconciliation. We will continue these efforts both in our contacts with the parties and as part of the so-called expanded Threesome – Russia, the US and China – with Pakistan’s involvement. We are ready to resume the work of the Moscow format, which includes all key states of the region and the US, at any time. We reaffirmed the importance of the US-Taliban agreement signed in Doha in February 2020 and approved by a UN Security Council resolution. We are concerned that the situation in Afghanistan remains unstable and tensions are growing despite the launch of the intra-Afghan negotiations. We have a common view that ISIS is a serious factor in the deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan. ISIS wants to enhance its influence, including in the northern provinces of Afghanistan, with a view to turning it into a bridgehead for expansion into Central Asia. We expressed concern over the persistent problem of the production and smuggling of narcotic drugs, which fuels terrorist groups. Unfortunately, Afghanistan remains a major exporter of opiates, accounting for 90 percent of the world market. We would like to see more resolute and effective efforts by the Afghan authorities against this threat. We will continue to help strengthen the potential of Afghan relevant agencies via both bilateral channels and the expansion of the joint Russia-Japan project under the aegis of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. This project has been carried out for several years now. On behalf of the Afghan leaders, Mr Atmar conveyed assurances of their unwavering commitment to the further promotion of our cooperation in all areas. We confirmed that Moscow fully shares this approach.  Question: What is Russia’s role in achieving national reconciliation in Afghanistan? Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Mohammad Haneef Atmar): I have already mentioned our commitment to promoting national reconciliation in Afghanistan, by harnessing the efforts made by many parties to build a foundation for direct talks in order to make sure they are a success. So far, unfortunately, the Doha round has been stalling and it has not even been able to draft a meaningful agenda. Today, Mr Atmar spoke positively about the importance of the Moscow format. Indeed, we are interested in resuming it if and when all parties are ready to do so. We and many other participants believe it is the best option currently, since it unites all countries of the region and involves the United States. We will continue our contacts with the key external players, which include the United States, China, Pakistan, India, Iran, and the Central Asian countries. These contacts should help ensure the success of direct and inclusive intra-Afghan talks. This is the only way to go. Question: Several rounds of talks took place in Moscow with the participation of the Taliban. Are you satisfied with the preliminary results? Were there any consultations with Haneef Atmar on this matter? Sergey Lavrov: We maintain regular contacts with all Afghan parties, including the government and the Taliban. Today, we shared what was discussed during these meetings with our partners from Kabul (as we always do). The “message” to the Taliban is not a secret. It’s about the need to avoid escalation on the ground, to respect the already agreed upon terms and conditions for holding direct intra-Afghan talks, and not to put forward any new preliminary requirements, which is mandatory for both parties participating in the negotiating process. Of course, all parties, including the Taliban, must respect the UN Security Council resolutions. Question: What do you think about last night’s US air strikes on the pro-Iranian formations in eastern Syria near the border with Iraq? Did the Americans inform Moscow about this through military channels? How will this affect the situation in the region and cooperation with the new US administration on Syria? Sergey Lavrov: Our military were notified of this four or five minutes before the strike. Even if we talk about de-conflicting, which is customary in relations between Russian and US military personnel, this kind of notification, when a strike is literally in the process of happening, doesn’t do much. This concerns the military side of the matter. But in no case should it be considered in isolation from the fact that the United States’ presence in Syria is illegal and breaks every norm of international law, including the UN Security Council resolutions on the Syrian settlement. We have repeatedly expressed concern over the US actions in Syria, including in the Al-Tanf area on the border with Iraq and on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River in northeastern Syria. They continue to play the separatism card and block, using pressure on other countries, all supplies (even humanitarian aid, let alone the equipment or materials needed to rebuild the economy) in the areas controlled by the Syrian government. In every possible way, they encourage and force their allies to invest in the regions that are not controlled by Damascus. At the same time, they illegally use Syrian hydrocarbon resources. Recently, we have been receiving information from various sources (we cannot confirm them yet, and we want to ask the Americans directly) that they are allegedly in the process of making a decision never to leave Syria and even to break up that country. We have communication channels to keep in touch with the Americans. The military are using de-conflicting. They are there. This is real. We need de-conflicting to avoid collisions. However, we believe it’s important to resume political and diplomatic contacts. We hope that the new US administration will soon form its teams to deal with these matters. It is important for us to understand how Washington will be building its strategy on the ground and in the region, since the United States is voting for resolutions confirming the need to respect Syria’s sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4600910 Comment by the Information and Press Department on the ratification of Russian-Estonian border treaties 26 February 2021 - 18:53 We have taken note of the statements made by the newly appointed Foreign Minister of Estonia Eva-Maria Liimets and supported by President Kersti Kaljulaid about Estonia’s interest in the ratification of treaties on the state border with the Russian Federation. However, we have also noticed the frenzied reaction this initiative has caused among the radical part of the Estonian political spectre, which is hostile to Russia. Some of its representatives, including Parliament Speaker Henn Polluaas, have openly accused the new government of betraying national interests. According to Mr Polluaas, ratification would amount to cowardice, surrender and the formalisation of the annexation of Estonian territories by Russia. We have discussed the possibility of ratifying state border treaties on numerous occasions. It is fundamentally important that in the process Estonia does not advance any territorial claims or political conditions. An essential factor is also Tallinn’s readiness to improve the general atmosphere of bilateral relations, in particular, abandon its policy of removing the Russian language from Estonia’s public life, persecuting Russian-language media and journalists, disregarding the shameful problem of non-citizens, and attempting to demonise Russia, including in NATO and the EU. We would like to emphasise that it was not Russia who disrupted the ratification process after the signing of the Russian-Estonian border treaties in 2005 and blocked it after the treaties were signed again in 2014. As a result, we have to start anew. We leave the choice to Estonia. Estonian politicians should first of all settle the issue among themselves, abandon political posturing and take steps towards settling the border issue in the interests of their own people. Russia is always ready for constructive interaction. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4601016
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
March 10th, 2021
|
#266 |
|
Senior Member
|
Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, February 26, 2021
26 February 2021 - 19:22 Talks with Foreign Minister of Afghanistan Mohammad Haneef Atmar ......................................................................................................... Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Foreign Minister of Uzbekistan Abdulaziz Kamilov ......................................................................................................... Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to meet with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Abkhazia Daur Kove ......................................................................................................... UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ initiative to create a group under the G20 to develop a global plan for vaccination against the coronavirus infection During the UN Security Council meeting held on February 17, the UN Secretary-General put forward an initiative to create an emergency G20 task force to draft and implement a global plan for immunisation against the coronavirus infection. The goal is to provide the public in all countries around the world with equal access to COVID-19 vaccines. Russia is taking energetic efforts to curb the pandemic and is providing assistance to the countries in need. We consider vaccination against COVID-19 a global public good, which is confirmed by a WHO resolution. We are ready to conduct a detailed study of the UN Secretary-General’s initiative at the G20, and we look forward to receiving specific proposals. Russia’s response to the WHO investigation into COVID-19’s origins in Wuhan We consider it important to comment on the WHO’s investigation into the origins of COVID-19 in Wuhan. The WHO investigation is being carried out on the instructions of its members issued at the 73rd World Health Assembly on countering the novel coronavirus in May 2020. An international expert group visited China in January-February after thorough preparations in which the WHO was involved, in cooperation with China, since July 2020. The group included experts from Russia (Deputy Director of Science at Rospotrebnadzor’s St Petersburg Paster Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology Vladimir Dedkov), China and ten other countries, as well as international organisations. The experts conducted serious comprehensive studies, but they are not yet completed and it is too early to draw far-reaching conclusions. Unfortunately, politicised comments have appeared in some foreign media on the organisation and outcome of the WHO mission in China, which contribute nothing to the effective international cooperation to uncover the truth and defeat the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this mission are currently being rigorously reviewed. Russia will continue to monitor the situation as a WHO member and an active contributor in this area. Report by the Italian Institute of Infectious Diseases on the Russian Sputnik V vaccine On February 17, 2021, the Lazzaro Spallanzani National Institute for Infectious Diseases in Italy published its scientific conclusion on the Sputnik V vaccine. The report describes the technical characteristics of the Russian vaccine, reviews the methods and results of its experimental use based on the clinical studies published by The Lancet journal and lists the countries that have approved the Sputnik V vaccine. The Italian experts note in their conclusion that the available data suggests that the Russian vaccine is highly effective and safe. They believe Sputnik V can play a major role in the coronavirus vaccination programme. The conclusion was submitted to the Health Ministry and Foreign Ministry of Italy. In an interview with Italy’s flagship TV channel, RAI 1, the director of the institute, Francesco Vaia, urged the Italian authorities not to politicise the procurement of coronavirus vaccines and recommended the use of the Russian vaccine in Italy. The conclusion of the prestigious Italian institute confirms again that the world’s first Russian vaccine is highly effective against the coronavirus, and underscores the objective and unbiased approach of the scientific community to combatting the pandemic. Russia seeks an open, objective, science-based discussion of these issues. We reject any attempts to politicise this vitally important matter for narrow, opportunistic purposes. We naturally support the appeal of the Italian scientists to remove ideology from the efforts to confront one of the greatest challenges of our time. Russia seeks the broadest possible cooperation in this area. Russian assistance to African nations fighting Ebola We have been closely monitoring developments concerning the Ebola virus in western and central Africa. A new outbreak was recorded in the southeast of Guinea on February 13. Six people are reported to have died while three more with a confirmed diagnosis have been isolated in epidemiological centres. In 2014-2015, Russia rendered considerable support to Guinea, Liberia and Sierra-Leone to fight the Ebola epidemic. Our assistance exceeded $60 million. A Russian-Guinean research centre for epidemiology and infectious disease prevention operates in Guinea, with Rospotrednadzor specialists stationed there on a permanent basis as well as all the necessary equipment to provide medical care. In November 2019, post-registration studies of the Russian Ebola vaccine, Gam-Evak-Kombi Ebola, were completed. At present, the head of the Rospotrednadzor task force in Guinea is coordinating with the emergency response centre set up by the country’s health ministry. We hope that the authorities in Guinea will be able to swiftly contain the spread of the disease. We will continue to provide necessary assistance to Guinea and other Western African nations fighting the Ebola virus. Russia has been providing support to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) to fight infectious diseases including Ebola. Russia, through its Rospotrebnadzor agency, trains Congolese specialists in epidemiology, microbiology, molecular diagnostics and biosafety. In May 2020, the health ministry of the DRC was given over 28,000 items of expendable lab materials and over 8,000 PPE kits including respirators, special clothing and other medical accessories. In September 2020, Congolese authorities were provided with two mobile microbiological laboratories mounted on all-terrain GAZ-33088 trucks and equipped with cutting-edge Russian equipment for rapid diagnosis of infectious diseases. Congolese doctors will be able to use them to provide service to the local population in the country’s remote areas. In addition, these laboratories are multi-purpose and can be used to combat not only Ebola but also the novel coronavirus and other infectious diseases. This February instructions were issued to provide the DRC, through Rospotrebnadzor, with additional consultative, material, scientific and technical assistance in order to prevent the spread and eliminate the outbreak of the disease caused by the Ebola virus, including through the use of the Russian-made vaccine in 2021-2022. US air strike on Syrian territory On the night of February 26, the United States carried out an air strike on a facility on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic in the Abu Kemal district bordering on Iraq. Initial reports of casualties are starting to come in. According to US officials, the attack authorised by US President Joe Biden targeted a pro-Iranian Shiite militia accused of carrying out rocket strikes on US military bases in Iraq. US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin stressed that the choice of target for retaliation was based on irrefutable intelligence. We strongly condemn such actions and call for unconditional respect for the SAR’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We reiterate that any attempts to turn Syrian territory into an arena for settling geopolitical scores are unacceptable. France and Germany’s response to Sergey Lavrov’s message concerning Alexey Navalny We were perplexed by France explicitly declining to respond to Sergey Lavrov’s verbal message to France’s Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian delivered to him on February 15 regarding the letter by neurologist Vitaly Kozak describing the inconsistencies he had discovered in the allegations about Alexey Navalny’s poisoning. France and Germany’s failure to respond to the letters sent by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to his colleagues about Navalny’s “poisoning” with chemical warfare agents – which our Western partners have groundlessly accused Russia of carrying out – has raised many questions. As you are aware, France has not yet responded to Russia’s official request of September 16, 2020 to provide the blogger’s test results, or the inquiry by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office of September 18, 2020 on mutual legal assistance in accordance with the corresponding European convention. We interpret this not only as another case of double standards on the part of Paris, but also as a lack of basic diplomatic courtesy. Without going to the trouble of providing substantiated and well-reasoned clarifications, Paris joined in the information campaign designed to exert pressure on our country. People should be held accountable for what they say. Please do so. Follow your glorious traditions, rather than the inglorious traditions of the collective West in recent years. The situation is similar with regard to our request that Germany provide a reasoned, substantive response to the open letter written by neurologist Vitaly Kozak. We received a perfunctory response (we received similar responses from Berlin to the inquiries sent by the Prosecutor General’s Office). In this particular case, we were told that there was nothing to comment on, since the Federal Foreign Office’s staff are not experts in these matters. That is, six months ago, everyone was an expert, including heads of state and foreign ministers. Officials representing various departments, ministries, organisations and governments of dozens of Western countries provided a variety of comments on this situation. They were coming up with demands and throwing around accusations. They were using words, the meaning of which they did not really understand, but they were telling everyone things, providing evidence and making demands. After we had steered the dialogue back to substantive matters and suggested speaking the language of facts rather than ultimatums, they abruptly became “non-specialists.” That’s what they are telling us in Germany and France’s foreign ministries: they are not experts in what they accuse Russia of. Notably, diplomats are working in the OPCW missions. The foreign ministries of many countries, the EU for sure, have units dealing with chemical weapons in the context of disarmament. Where did these specialists go? Why did they stop being specialists? Let’s think back to the well-orchestrated chorus of foreign ministers and other politicians who were talking in unison about the details of the alleged poisoning of Alexey Navalny in 2020. Remember the outstanding expert in chemical weapons – British Prime Minister Theresa May – who provided a well-rounded account of the Skripal poisoning in the British Parliament three years ago. She struck us as an expert in these matters. Any deviations from the logic of unfounded accusations and disregard for the truth, any independent assessments of the situation concerning the “Berlin patient” that reveal the West’s biased approach are dismissed out of hand by our Western partners and colleagues. All inconvenient questions and invitations to hold a fact-based conversation, or to exchange data, are roundly rejected. The Navalny case revealed the actual value of the French and German authorities’ statements regarding their adherence to the principles of multilateralism, objectivity and fairness in international affairs, as well as the fact that neither Berlin nor Paris are prepared to be held accountable for what they say. Political persecution in the United States In recent weeks, the United States, which seems unable to survive even a day without our country, accusing it of every sin under the sun, has turned its attention to human rights issues and political persecution in Russia. Who has been talking about it? Representatives of official Washington. So let’s take a look at the United States. When we see and hear numerous statements from the United States about the persecution of some members of the so-called non-systemic opposition that allegedly took place in this country, including the participants in the recent unauthorised street protests in Moscow, we want to understand whether we are talking with experts in this field or people who are simply issued sheets of paper to make statements they do not comprehend. The latter seems to be more plausible to me. In this context, I want to recall how the American judiciary can be tough on their compatriots involved in politics. The US campaign to identify and punish those involved in Russia’s alleged infamous “interference” in the US election has become the topic of the day. General Michael Flynn, political scientist George Papadopoulos, lawyer Paul Manafort and several other public figures and politicians connected with the Republican Party were charged, as members of the Trump team, with maintaining contacts with the Kremlin during the election campaign. The pretexts were far-fetched and groundless while the accusations were quite real; this was not just persecution – though, it was a massive information campaign rather than persecution – as there were court cases. At the same time no credible evidence of any sort of collusion with Moscow had been produced. The investigation led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller had not found any proof of Russia’s influence on the course or the outcome of the 2016 election, while the persecution of the US politicians was quite real. Do they not remember this in the White House and the State Department? Let’s take a recent example. The latest US presidential race was unprecedented in terms of both the intensity of political passions and the extent of scandalmongering, on the one hand, and the level of police violence and lawlessness, on the other. The apotheosis was the massive persecution campaign unleashed by the intelligence agencies against the participants in the so-called storming of the Capitol on January 6, as well as against other individuals who did not accept Joe Biden’s victory and who were labelled domestic terrorists by the Biden administration and the media associated with it. How do you like that? A new term has been coined to refer to public and political figures who are not part of the mainstream. Domestic terrorists – this is how they are called in the United States. The FBI initiated over 400 criminal cases. Courts were asked to issue over 500 search warrants and subpoenas. Over 230 people were detained. They are subjected to huge pressure, including by taking their relatives and friends in hand and browbeating them into giving the “required” evidence. In addition, they are trying to accuse people who just voiced a different opinion and who have not even formally been charged with anything of spreading fake news and conspiracy theories. These people lose their jobs, they are banished from social networks, with their accounts blocked, and are subjected to public harassment and ostracism. To say nothing of social networks banning government officials, beginning with former President Donald Trump and his supporters, who found themselves under real media sanctions introduced by US internet monopolies. All this is taking place in a country that is accustomed to posing as the “global beacon of democracy” and urging everyone to take a humane approach, as they say, to “peaceful protests”. It is not a beacon of democracy but rather an anchor of democracy. The new US administration would do well to, first of all, listen to its own citizens and try to hear them, instead of engaging in witch-hunts in their own country and afterwards talking hypocritically about human rights in other countries. In these circumstances, it has become particularly clear that Washington has no moral grounds to infinitely teach other nations good sense, as far as observing human rights and civil liberties is concerned. Statement by the German permanent representative to the UN on Berlin’s “concern over the fate of oppressed Crimean Tatars” The heads of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People have invented a certain “atmosphere of terror created by the occupation authorities.” Unfortunately, this invention was eagerly picked up by other ill-wishers who are either agents of influence inside or their curators outside. False information was spread about alleged “large-scale abductions of Crimean Tatars” and “numerous unlawful searches and arrests” of their activists in Crimea. All these allegations are completely groundless and not supported by any solid facts. In this context, we would like to advise Mr Christoph Heusgen to read the article “To Russia with Love” by professors John O’Loughlin, Gerard Toal, and Kristin M. Bakke. It was published in early April 2020 in the authoritative US magazine Foreign Affairs (German diplomats are supposed to trust this publication). The article contains conclusions that are fairly unusual and maybe even shocking to German diplomats. The authors describe actual events and realities in Crimea, and Crimeans’ perceptions of their own lives. As for anyone being “denied entry” to Crimea, we would also like to refute a statement by the German ambassador to the UN. Russia has always demonstrated its willingness to receive representatives of any international human rights monitoring mechanisms on their official visits to the Russian regions, including the Republic of Crimea. However, during these visits they should abide by their mandates and the procedures for visiting the Russian Federation. We welcome visits to Crimea by politicians, journalists and public figures because we consider them to be the most effective way of informing the world public about the true situation on the peninsula. I would like to recall that we conduct press tours to Crimea for foreign correspondents accredited in Russia. We are equally willing to support joint business and humanitarian projects in Crimea with foreign participation. But you are blocking all this in the EU. You are describing horrors allegedly perpetrated in Crimea but do not go there yourselves and do not let official delegations visit the peninsula. You are preventing all others from going there by scaring them with sanctions. You are doing all these things yourselves and hurling accusations at us at the same time. Recall how you blocked tourist opportunities for your businesses and your citizens in Crimea. Let me remind you that in the EU you deny visas to residents of Crimea. You are doing all this. You even consider visa discrimination acceptable, as if you are concerned about human rights, but in the next instance you accuse us of not allowing people to come to Crimea. In 2020, about 90 foreign MPs, representatives of municipal authorities, and public and cultural figures came to Crimea to attend different events. The group of observers for the vote on constitutional amendments in Russia was among them. Here’s a question for Berlin: Did you send your observers there? Did you want to? Maybe you sent a letter to Russia about your desire to monitor the elections in Crimea? I don’t remember anything in this vein. Send me a copy. Let me recall that Crimea was visited by five deputies of the European Parliament, representatives of German and Bulgarian parliamentary parties among others. Ask them how they get into Crimea. They will tell you (Berlin officials) how it is possible to come to Crimea. Last year, Crimea was visited by almost 160,000 foreigners. The German ambassador should have asked them how they get in. A certain reduction in their number compared to 2019 is only natural. It is due to restrictions caused by the spread of the coronavirus. It has affected the whole world. Now I will cite the main piece of information for the German permanent representative to the UN, who believes that it is impossible to get into Crimea because Russia bans all visits there. Nowadays, Simferopol Airport receives from 16 to 25 flights by 17 airlines daily, including 13 flights from Moscow, three from St Petersburg and one from Yekaterinburg, Krasnodar, Mineralnye Vody, Rostov-on-Don and Samara. Advise your colleagues in Moscow to buy a ticket for one of these flights to Crimea. They will arrive there and get their own unbiased impression of life there and will tell you how to visit Crimea. To be sure, you can’t put a price on the truth, but in this case it does have a price. It is not so high, just the cost of an air ticket from Moscow to Simferopol. German diplomats, allow yourselves this luxury, buy a ticket and stop using international venues for spreading obvious lies about Crimea. Britain’s efforts to weaken Russian influence Documents were published on February 4, 2021, that may have been produced by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It follows from them that London supports, through intermediaries, the work of the so-called independent news publications, in particular, Meduza and Mediazona, and has established a secret network of influential bloggers in the Russian segment of the social media to create conditions for regime change in Russia and undermine Russian influence in the countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. There are a lot of materials and we are studying them now. We are surprised that we have not heard any response from the British, who are so fond of discussing problems of other countries and endlessly lecture others. We would like to hear some initial response from the UK. They may deny everything. This is possible. But they should be more active somehow, considering their media activity in other areas. At the EU summit in November 2017, Theresa May, who was prime minister at the time, announced the plans to assign the status of a hostile state to Russia and promised to spend over 100 million pounds sterling on countering the alleged threat of Kremlin disinformation throughout the world. Now we have received documented evidence on how this programme works. It follows from these leaks that British media such as the BBC and Reuters are taking part in this multi-million operation. Our British colleagues are working through intermediaries like PR offices, Zinc Network and Albany, the veterans of Britain’s secret information operations abroad. These subcontractors include the Bellingcat project, a notorious scandalous group of British propaganda support. The range of services by the above subcontractors includes promoting content, expanding the readership and adjusting the editorial policy of Meduza and Mediazona. We would also like to hear the response of these organisations as well. We will take it into account. We haven’t seen it so far. It follows from the published documents that they are even given long-term projects and taught to use latest mind control technology. Incidentally, in July 2019, London hosted the Global Conference for Media Freedom, which RT and Sputnik were not allowed to attend. A Russian representative was also barred from it. He was simply denied a visa. RT and Sputnik were not allowed to take part due to what was described as their active role in spreading disinformation. Of all people, the British should keep quiet about this. Our representatives were not issued visas. That said, Meduza CEO Galina Timchenko was among the participants of this event. This is not the first time the world has learned about the British involvement in such information operations. For example, in October 2020, Anonymous published information on the PR training of the Syrian opposition by structures affiliated with the British government. As for the anti-Russia information campaign, it amounts to large-scale and systematic efforts of the British authorities not just to demonise our country in the world arena – this stage is apparently over – but also at rocking the internal political situation. The response of the internet giants, the Western monopolies, is indicative. A large detailed article by journalist Aaron Maté in the GrayZone on this issue got a special label from Twitter to the effect that the materials presented in it “may have been obtained through hacking”. Indicatively, the Western mainstream press has been prudently silent about this extremely interesting information. Are Bellingcat’s materials accompanied by the same label in the social media? Or do they deem it unnecessary to ask Bellingcat how it received its materials, by hacking or in some other way? All of you have simply disgraced yourselves against the backdrop of this undisguised propaganda, the use of different funding resources via Western governments, involvement of NGOs, PR agencies and the media. The media and the resources that present themselves as the media are playing an obviously unseemly, disgusting and unlawful role in today’s media sphere. The most fantastic thing is that there has been no response despite these materials and articles by real journalists that provide responsible coverage of these issues. This is because they realise that they should wait a bit, be patient and this issue will probably disappear by itself. After all, they don’t fund this topic and this is why you don’t get it in push notifications on your phones. So, there is no point in making comments on it so as not to attract attention. Britain will not draw attention to it but we will because you were caught red-handed. As we now understand, this uncovered mass of information (let me remind you that we are just beginning to study it because there are too many materials) is just the tip of the iceberg. Let me repeat that we are waiting for Britain’s response. It must follow. If there is none, this will show that Britain has misrepresented itself as a state that respects independent journalism and freedom of speech and ostensibly counters fakes, black PR and interference in the affairs of sovereign states. We understand the value of all those international forums organised under the auspices of the UK supposedly for the purpose of protecting freedom of speech. We understand what is the main idea and the main message of these forums. If we don’t hear a sensible response, we will know for sure that the independence of the British media is paid for fairly well. We will study these materials and wait for a response. Decision of Montenegro’s Court of Appeal on the case of the “attempted coup” I would not be surprised if part of the funds that I mentioned in the previous section were spent on promoting the topic that at one time simply swept over the Western information community. I mean the “attempted coup” in Montenegro and Russia's alleged participation in it. On February 5, 2021, the Court of Appeal of Montenegro took a decision overturning the guilty verdict of the High Court in Podgorica on the case of the “attempted coup d'état” in 2016 against 13 convicts (including two Russian citizens). As noted, there was no proof of corpus delicti or the fact that a crime was committed. We consider the decision as further confirmation of the absurdity of the allegations of Russia’s involvement in attempts to organise any illegal activities in Montenegro. The Russian side consistently and categorically denied such accusations, emphasising their unfounded, groundless and clearly made-to-order nature. We count on the objectivity and impartiality of Montenegrin justice when this case is re-examined. Everyone remembers that fantastic information campaign, how skillfully and deftly words were combined, how facts were intertwined with lies, and how a feeling of absolute, one hundred percent confidence in Russia's involvement in those events was created. What will these authors write now? Or will they just forget that they have ever written on this topic? Twitter removing “Russian” accounts We noted reports about Twitter removing 100 accounts originating in Russia. The microblogs are said to have been allegedly involved in so-called “Russian information campaigns.” Two fake (according to the social network) account networks were allegedly connected to the Main Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces’ General Headquarters and the Internet Research Agency. Even some specific figures and statistics of those accounts were reported. This is not the first wave of account blocking that has affected Russian accounts. It is telling that the Twitter accounts from Western countries do not become targets of such “punitive operations” even though the information they publish may be blatant lies sometimes. Once again, assumptions and unsubstantiated insinuations were presented as grounds for blocking the accounts. The rationale presented in Twitter’s own report is absurd: the suspended accounts allegedly “amplified narratives that were aligned with the Russian government,” “focused on undermining faith in the NATO alliance” and were linked to “influence efforts targeting the United States and the European Union.” This is unspeakable because if accounts get blocked under the pretext of undermining faith in NATO, then why hasn’t Twitter removed French President Emmanuel Macron’s account since he posted comments about the brain death of NATO? Could it be because that is not considered undermining faith but rather a statement of facts? As concerns influence on the United States and the EU, anything could be qualified as such, for example, music (not to mention political content which is being used however social networks see fit); but there are also humanitarian aspects such as information about vaccines. This information should probably be removed as well because information about vaccines and the pandemic is having a great influence on both the United States and the EU. It lets people find out about the vaccine and different options, buy it in bulk and sign supply contracts. What is the principle behind account removal? These are not principles but rather complete ignorance or simply laziness about inventing far-fetched excuses. As a matter of fact, the owners of the blocked accounts are, apparently, guilty of not marching in lockstep with the Western mainstream but simply expressing an opinion that is different from the only view that is right. As concerns faith in NATO, it is being undermined by facts. Our Serbian partners, in particular, could reveal a lot of interesting details after they fell victim to the alliance’s cynical aggression in 1999. A host of other countries have first-hand experience of dealing with NATO and its members, including losing their own civilians. The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) has already requested that the social network hand over the list of blocked accounts, explain the reasons for their removal and present at least some evidence. Twitter claims that it removed anonymous accounts although facts suggest otherwise. For example, even the official Russian- and English-language accounts of the Valdai International Discussion Club were caught in the mass purge. Are they anonymous? It is a global brand and an acclaimed platform. Valdai Club forums are attended by prominent international relations experts and world-renowned people. The club meetings take place all over the world. The club’s publications are a source for analysis and research by experts in different countries. How can Twitter explain this? The accounts of the Valdai International Discussion Club, whose events are often attended by President Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as well as reputable political scientists, economists and scientists from all over the world, were blocked back in September 2020. It is absolutely impossible to understand why Twitter moderators decided that the Valdai Club media are involved in some disruptive information campaigns – and there has been no explanation to this very day. This unsubstantiated decision was surprising even to the seemingly non-judgmental experts of the Internet Observatory at Stanford University, which cooperates with digital platforms as part of its partnership programmes. Even they, the people who remain non-judgmental and uninvolved and rather try to be above this battle, could not wrap their heads around the social network’s motivation behind the removal of the Valdai Club account. Regardless of whether the Valdai Club incident was an AI algorithm error or a conscious unfriendly act, the practice of arbitrary and extralegal removals based on completely non-transparent criteria is unacceptable. It undermines trust in social media as a place for free expression and exchange of opinions. Once again, we have to state that Twitter is sweepingly going downhill and turning from an independent discussion platform into a tool of global digital dictate in the hands of the Western establishment. The senior management of this company must take action in order to preserve its independence, objectivity and information sovereignty. EU sanctions against Venezuela Unilateral restrictive measures have begun to occupy an increasingly significant place among EU’s diplomatic instruments. They continue to be actively applied despite the fact that they are illegitimate under international law, meaningless and counterproductive in terms of their effect on the politics of sovereign states. The newly introduced restrictions against representatives of some branches of government in Venezuela are a fresh example of this. It is notable that at international venues, including in their contacts with us, our EU colleagues consistently advocate a search for an intra-Venezuelan solution to the problems on the basis of an inclusive dialogue, and repeat it like a mantra. For example, this position was reflected in a recent statement by the EU-led International Contact Group on Venezuela. The statement was wonderful but the deeds run counter to these messages and words. The EU’s actions completely contradict such statements. The Government of Venezuela has actually been declared an “outcast” in advance. There are attempts to suppress it by illegitimate restrictions and to force it to accept one decision or another. In other words, while it claims to support the establishment of an intra-Venezuelan dialogue, in actual fact the EU has consistently torpedoed it. This is classic: to state its support for intra-Venezuelan dialogue on political settlement and at the same time to impose unilateral sanctions with respect to a certain political group, or to say that nationalism is inacceptable and is an evil, including in the 21st century, while at the same time to support public figures in some countries who act from the positions of nationalism and under the guise of caring for their destiny impose sanctions against a state that denounces nationalism in general and those public figures in particular. This prompts a question: has the EU actually forgotten how to engage in an equal and mutually respectful dialogue within the framework of universally adopted rules and international law, and without any attempts to interfere in its partners’ internal affairs? We would like to stress once again that the only way out of the political crisis in Venezuela is through a peaceful, inclusive dialogue between Venezuelans, without any destructive interference from outside. Based on this, we are prepared to assist in the search for a settlement in that country, including in contact with other international players, such as the EU. Based on this, we are prepared to speed up work in this area. Neuengamme camp guard Friedrich Karl Berger’s deportation from the US We have noted the decision of the US Department of Justice to deport 95-year-old Nazi criminal Friedrich Karl Berger to Germany. We welcome this decision. According to existing information, Friedrich Berger is receiving a pension from Germany, including for his service during the war. Upon his arrival in Germany, he was questioned but not detained. According to a series of media citing the German prosecutor’s office, the case against the Nazi was dismissed due to the absence of evidence. On our part, we plan to work persistently to make sure that the German authorities clarify the situation with Friedrich Berger and file charges against him. There is no statute of limitations on the atrocities committed by Nazi executioners and their accomplices. This is our principled stance. This is important to remember, especially in the year of the 75th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials. We hope that the positive example of zero tolerance to Hitler’s former accomplices shown by the US justice will be an example to the government and courts of Canada which have been delaying a decision on former SS member Helmut Oberlander. As we said before, it is unacceptable that Nazi criminals leave this life unpunished, as it happened with Vladimir Katriuk, an executioner who took part in the Khatyn massacre in Byelorussia. Desecration of Soviet soldiers’ graves in Jekabpils, Latvia On February 24, 2021, another act of vandalism was committed against the Soviet monument to liberators in Jekabpils, Latvia. The 76-mm gun was stolen from the memorial under the cover of darkness. The heroes memorialised there were from Bashkiria, Orenburg and Byelorussia: Guard Artillery Maj. Gen. Sergey Kupriyanov, Guard Colonel Gavriil Sharikalov and Guard Colonel Sakhabutdin Gazeyev. The Russian Embassy in Riga promptly responded to this barbarian act and sent a note of protest to the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Latvia. It demanded that the Latvian authorities take all the necessary measures to investigate this crime, bring the perpetrators to account and restore the monument in accordance with the Russia-Latvia intergovernmental agreement on the status of Latvian military graves in the Russian Federation and Russian graves in the Republic of Latvia of December 18, 2007. This yet another outrageous event has caused a public outcry among our compatriots and was widely covered by the media. Many journalists, as well as our compatriots, noted that the monument is protected by the Russia-Latvia agreement of 1994 on the social protection of Russian military pensioners who live in Latvia. According to Article 13 of this agreement, Riga is supposed to maintain, care for and preserve memorials and mass graves of soldiers on its territory. The Latvian Foreign Ministry earlier said that it would comply with this agreement. Dmitry Yermolayev has written an interesting article on the subject for Sputnik Latvia. While it supports individuals who insult veterans in Russia, Latvia also allows vandalism against WWII memorials on its territory. However, they will not be able to hide these revanchist incidents from the global community. People in Latvia see what is happening and condemn it. We will monitor Latvia’s compliance with its obligations. Russian position on Kosovo settlement In connection with the international media reports of some Western officials’ calls to Belgrade and Pristina to accelerate movement towards a certain comprehensive settlement, we would like to reaffirm our positions of principle to achieving a viable and mutually beneficial settlement of the Kosovo problem. We believe that this settlement must be based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and international law and must be approved by the UN Security Council. We regard any attempt to accelerate the so-called ultimate normalisation between Belgrade and Pristina and to set an arbitrary timeframe as destructive. It is more important to coordinate a viable plan that will also be accepted by society. We support the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue aimed at a settlement of the Kosovo problem under the guidance of the EU, which must fulfil the mediation function it has been assigned by the UN General Assembly scrupulously and without bias. Efforts must be taken to implement the decisions coordinated by the sides, first of all, on the establishment of the Community of Serb Municipalities in Kosovo, which Pristina has been sabotaging since 2013. We hope that EU Special Representative for the Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue Miroslav Lajcak will ensure progress in the settlement of this fundamental matter. The dialogue will skid unless the agreements achieved are implemented. We are worried about the increasingly radical rhetoric used by Kosovo Albanians after the Self-Determination Movement won the early parliamentary election. The movement’s leader, Albin Kurti, has said openly that talks with Belgrade were the least of his priorities and that his agenda included the possibility of Kosovo’s unification with Albania. We do not see any reaction of the Kosovo Albanians’ Western sponsors to these provocations, which can undermine the already fragile regional stability in the Balkans. We call on all the concerned partiers to act in a responsible manner based on international law and to look for compromises that will ensure lasting peace and progressive development of all countries and nations in Southeast Europe. Middle East Quartet’s videoconference We continue to monitor the developments related to the Middle East settlement within the framework of our regional agenda. In mid-February, the special representatives of the Middle East Quartet comprising Russia, the United States, the UN and the EU held a videoconference. Russia was represented by Special Representative of the Foreign Minister on the Middle East Peace Process Vladimir Safronkov. This mechanism has been operating regularly since last summer at Russia’s initiative, with the member states’ representatives holding monthly meetings. We believe that the stimulation of consolidated international efforts is necessary in the interests of a lasting peace process in the Middle East. During the last meeting of the Quartet’s co-chairs, the Russian delegate pointed out that it is essential to create conditions for the resumption without delay of direct Palestinian-Israeli talks under the guidance of the international quartet of intermediaries with a view to coordinating the fundamental aspects of the final status based on the generally accepted norms of international law and the principle of two states, Palestine and Israel, living together in peace and security. Our partners support this approach. I would like to note that Russia’s efforts towards a Middle East settlement are not limited to the quartet only. We are also holding active bilateral consultations with both the Palestinians and the Israelis, as well as with the main international and regional players. We support the efforts by the Palestinian political movements towards restoring their unity on the PLO platform. As part of our support to improving the socioeconomic situation on the West Bank, Russia attended the February 23 meeting of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, which discussed assistance to Palestinians. 50th anniversary of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances The Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which was signed 50 years ago on February 21, is one of the pillars of the international legal framework in combating illegal drugs. We intend to continue to strictly comply with its provisions, and this intention has been sealed in the Russian State Antidrug Policy Strategy until 2030, which was approved in November 2020. This is especially important in light of some countries’ attempts to undermine the international drug control system by legalising some kinds of drugs and psychotropic substances. Russia and like-minded countries strongly condemn such aspirations and are acting resolutely, including on the international stage, for the consolidation of international efforts against the global drug threat. Plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly On February 23, 2021, at the request of Kiev, the UN Assembly held its plenary meeting on the situation in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, under the agenda of the 75th UN General Assembly Session. Regarding Germany, we have commented on the situation. I would like to focus on Ukraine and Sergey Kyslytsya, the Permanent Representative of Ukraine, whom we have come to know through his scandalous and largely inadequate statements. In his remarks, he voiced a number of trite accusations with regard to Russia and distorted real facts and events in the context of the March 2014 Crimea-Russia reunification following a free referendum involving the peninsula’s population. You know, there can be different assessments. Diplomats are supposed to exchange these assessments and to find common ground, rather than distort facts. This is unacceptable. Disagreements in political approaches should not be presented as “distortions,” and distorted facts should not be passed for some principled approach. This is exactly what the Ukrainian delegation is doing at the UN. The permanent representative of Ukraine did not hesitate to repeat a well-known set of insinuations regarding the situation in Donbass. We are constantly drawing the attention of Western partners to the fact that virtually no Western media outlets work in Donbass. They write stories, cover the Minsk Agreements, publish material, but they don’t actually work there. Therefore it would be appropriate to recheck all the statements made by Ukrainian representatives on Donbass. Representatives of Western media outlets should be advised or inspired to visit Donbass and to film real-life developments taking shape there. Sergey Kyslytsya claimed that, unlike Kiev, Moscow was not fulfilling the Minsk Agreements. In his remarks, the Russian representative refuted these allegations and bolstered the Russian position with irrefutable evidence as well as facts. Indicatively, only 32 out of 193 member states attended the event. Obviously, many of them were present on directions from Washington and Brussels and voiced the relevant approaches towards this matter. Judging by an extremely low interest in this event, Ukraine’s striving to incite anti-Russia moods at the UN and retain this item on the General Assembly’s agenda is the only real reason for holding the meeting. By spreading more fake news at international organisations, you will reduce interest in such events still further. It is disappointing that Kiev prefers to voice politically motivated rhetoric, occasionally substituting the truth with open lies, instead of conducting direct constructive dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk under the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements in order to establish lasting peace in eastern Ukraine. First railway carriages manufactured at a Transmashholding enterprise in Hungary arrive in Egypt On February 23, 2021, the first batch of railway carriages, manufactured at an enterprise of Russia’s Transmashholding shareholding company in Dunakeszi, Hungary, arrived in Egypt’s Alexandria seaport. Earlier, Egypt received carriages, manufactured at the Tver Railway Carriages Factory, also part of Transmashholding. Signed in 2018, the contract between the Russian-Hungarian consortium Transmashholding-Hungary Kft. and Egyptian National Railways stipulates the delivery of 1,300 train carriages to Egypt until October 2023. This highlights complicated but highly constructive cooperation between various countries and even continents. An official ceremony marking the event involved Egypt’s Minister of Transport Kamel el-Wazir, Hungary’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter Szijjarto and Georgy Borisenko, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Arab Republic of Egypt. The officials praised the implementation of the trilateral contract. Signing of the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in the Field of Disaster Management between ASEAN and Russia In 2021 we are marking a “double” anniversary in the Russia-ASEAN dialogue ̵ 30 years of Russia’s relations with the association and the 25th anniversary of Russia’s full-fledged partnership, which was granted strategic status in 2018. Our partnership has been developing progressively over this period of time and we are working on the expansion of our practical cooperation, including in such fields as combatting new challenges and threats, security of information and communication technologies, knowledge-intensive industries and the building of smart cities. The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in the Field of Disaster Management between ASEAN and Russia by Russian Federation Minister of Civil Defence, Emergencies and Disaster Relief Yevgeny Zynychev and Secretary-General of ASEAN Dato Lim Jock Hoi on February 19 is a graphic example of the dynamics when it comes to the fostering of relations between Russia and the 10 ASEAN member states. The MoU has created an organisational and legal framework for building up Russia-ASEAN cooperation in the field of emergency response, including that of the monitoring and prevention of threats, the exchange of cutting-edge technology, specialist training and assistance in cases of emergency. The adoption of such a memorandum will promote interaction between such specialised organisations as the Russian National Crisis Management Centre and the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management. 20 years of Declaration on Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam The Declaration on Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam was signed in Hanoi on March 1, 2001. This proved to be a good example of the Russian and Vietnamese peoples’ wish to progressively strengthen their intergovernmental relations based on many years of friendship and mutually advantageous cooperation. The adoption of this historic document was a natural result of decades-long fruitful collaboration between our countries in a variety of fields and showed their determination to expand bilateral ties in the new historical conditions on the basis of their rich experience of interaction accumulated over the previous period of time. Over the past 20 years Russian-Vietnamese strategic partnership has achieved impressive results. Political dialog at the top and high levels has become regular. Our cooperation in the trade, economic, military, military-technical, scientific, technological and humanitarian spheres has got an additional impetus. Exchanges in interparliamentary and interparty fields as well as inter-regional contacts have become more active. We have developed new cooperation mechanisms enabling more efficient interaction in trying to find ways of solving pressing issues concerning bilateral affairs and close coordination on the international arena. It is indicative that our strategic partnership became comprehensive by mutual consent in 2012. The spirit of solidarity and unchanging mutual support, typical of Russian-Vietnamese relations, was most vividly manifested during the spread of the novel coronavirus infection. Russia and Vietnam have been rendering each other the necessary consultative, methodological and other assistance, and their specialised institutions are engaged in a dialogue on a whole range of matters in fighting COVID-19 and are constantly exchanging experience in combating this dangerous disease. Today, notwithstanding a complex situation in the region and the world, increased turbulence and radical changes in the entire system of international relations, the all-round strategic partnership between Russia and Vietnam based on many years of experience of fruitful cooperation remains an important part of Russian foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region. Natalia Vodianova’ appointment as UNFPA goodwill ambassador We welcome the decision of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to appoint Natalia Vodianova, a well-known Russian public figure, philanthropist and also a very beautiful woman, to be its goodwill ambassador. The UNFPA was set up by the UN Secretary-General in 1967. Its main job is to help developing countries in family planning, maternal mortality prevention, monitoring and analysis of demographic trends as well as assistance to governments in organising population programmes and financial support for their implementation. A UNFPA goodwill ambassador’s duties include actively drawing the attention of the public to the problems of women’s health and combatting harmful practices affecting the health of women and girls, as well as the participation in the relevant specialised fora. We believe that this decision will favourably influence the dynamics of our cooperation with the fund, which is actively growing.  Answers to media questions: Question: I would like to move northward now, if I may, because the Northern Sea Route will be opening soon. It is very important for people, for travel, trade and resources. The north is becoming more important. There are three states in the North Atlantic: Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Iceland gained independence from the Danish Kingdom in 1944 because in the spring of 1940 Hitler occupied Copenhagen. But Greenland and the Faroe Islands still lack sovereignty; opponents believe it is a remnant of Danish imperialism. Iceland held a referendum in 1944, in which 98 percent of the people voted for an exit from the Danish crown. What is Russia’s stance with regard to the possible independence of those two states, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which currently operate under Danish law, police, currency, etc? Maria Zakharova: Greenland and the Faroe Islands are autonomous territories within the Kingdom of Denmark. This is where we stand while interacting with them. As for trade ties, Nuuk and Torshavn have not joined any of the EU anti-Russia sanctions, so our cooperation is based on pragmatism and a constructive approach. Mutually beneficial projects are being implemented in fishing and aquaculture, and there is a mutual interest in establishing cooperation in wood processing, construction, culture, education and sports. In October 2020, Russia appointed an honorary consul in Nuuk. We are sure this will give an additional impetus to Russian-Greenlandic cooperation. Question: On February 15, the Azerbaijan side, without any comment, banned search and rescue operations to retrieve the bodies of dead service personnel and civilians in the territories that are now under Azerbaijani control. Since Russian peacekeepers are negotiating with the Azerbaijani side, does the Russian side know when the search operations will be resumed? Maria Zakharova: We would recommend you to address this question to representatives of the Russian peacekeeping contingent in Nagorno-Karabakh. The peacekeepers are aware of the situation on the ground, and are assisting the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides in the search and rescue work and the exchange of prisoners of war. According to available data, from November 13, 2020 to the present, 1,684 bodies have been transferred – 1,374 to the Armenian side, 310 to the Azerbaijani side. Question: Rallies began in Armenia after the country’s General Staff made a statement demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. How do you assess the latest events in Armenia? Maria Zakharova: As an internal affair of Armenia. Russian officials made quite a few statements about this yesterday, both through the Foreign Ministry and through the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. Contacts took place at various levels. And this has been reaffirmed. Question: President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev said during a news conference that Azerbaijan had handed over all prisoners of war to Armenia, and that only saboteurs were being held, so any speculation by Armenia or other countries was inappropriate. However, according to the Armenian side, there are about 300 more people held in Azerbaijan. What is your response to this statement? Maria Zakharova: It would be better to direct this question to our peacekeepers who are assisting the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides on the spot in their search and rescue operations and the exchange of prisoners of war; they are involved in this work every day. Therefore, for my part, I can turn to my colleagues to clarify this information. But in any case, first of all, this is their area of responsibility and competence. Question: Our colleagues from various media report that a number of journalists, individuals, and tourists, including representatives of charitable and international organisations cannot enter Artsakh, because, according to them, Russian peacekeepers are not letting them in, referring to Azerbaijan’s position on this matter. Do the Russian peacekeepers have the authority to decide who enters Artsakh and who is denied entry? Maria Zakharova: Here is something we all need to ask ourselves – what is it we want? Do we want to develop tourism in Artsakh right now? Is this the main task? Or do we want to achieve a sustainable peace, the return of refugees and a normal life? As we understand it, the latter option is today’s priority – a sustainable peace, people’s return to their homes and bringing life back to normal, including a gradual resolution of the remaining issues, of which there are a lot. Russian peacekeepers are busy with this priority. Among other things, they are indeed considering specific cases involving admission, non-admission, and related problems, together with the parties. But again, for all the parties that signed the relevant agreement in 2020, and for anyone who sees themselves as contributing to the resolution of the situation and is in contact with the parties and international organisations, the main priority is to ensure sustainable peace, people’s return and normal life in this territory. Everything else will be settled after this main task is achieved. But this task is multi-component and complex. I think you know this better than me. There are a lot of provocations, and there are many difficult situations outside the framework of any clear legal regulation that need to be addressed. You know very well how long and difficult this conflict has been. We all agree that journalists should be allowed to work everywhere, in all parts of the world, and tourists should be free to travel, but there are certain realities on the ground. This is the main priority on which we must all concentrate. Thank you for providing a list of specific cases. We'll hand it over to our experts involved in this and will see what we can do. But again, nothing should distract us from this main task. Otherwise we will simply disrupt its implementation. This cannot be allowed. Everyone has paid too dear a price for it. Therefore, with all due respect to people interested in local sights and beauty (just to expand their own horizons), they should also remember the most important priority. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4601052
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
March 11th, 2021
|
#267 |
|
Senior Member
|
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with the heads of foreign media offices in Russia, Moscow, March 1, 2021
1 March 2021 - 15:53 Colleagues, I would like to congratulate you on the first day of calendar spring. I hope it will arrive soon in terms of the climate and that it will help bring about a spring in political relations on our planet but, of course, not in the same sense as the Arab Spring. Let us all be in a good spring mood that will motivate us to do practical deeds in the interests of all our citizens. We appreciate our cooperation with the mass media representation in Moscow. Today, the heads of the leading news offices of these media have gathered here. I am sure that we managed to communicate despite the coronavirus restrictions, maybe not in the way we did previously, but still, communication was not interrupted after the start of the pandemic. I hope our current meeting that we have deliberately suggested be informal, will help us openly and constructively exchange our views on the issues that concern the media and the international community in general, including the citizens of all our countries. Speaking about the number of media outlets represented in Russia, we are one of the leaders in terms of the number of news offices and foreign journalists. There are 271 foreign media offices from 57 countries in Moscow and other cities. This points to the interest in Russia, its life and foreign policy and we welcome this interest. We have been acquainted with many of you for a long time and met repeatedly at news conferences, during interviews and at different unofficial events. Our dialogue has always been very useful. The frank assessments that we hear from you via your questions (these questions show what worries your readers) help us to plan our information work and sometimes contain prompts for the positions we promote in the world arena. We do not intend to impose our opinion on either our diplomatic colleagues or you. We hope that your coverage of events will follow the same principle, that you will describe them from all sides, objectively. Such mutual trust between politicians, diplomats and journalists guarantees success in our work and yours.  I would like to emphasise in particular that we do not close our doors to anyone and are always ready for discussions. That said, we cannot accept, let alone agree with, the current wave of so-called fakes, the attempts to use labels from the ideological clichés of the Cold War. Such attempts are turning the information field into an area of confrontation. I believe this does not help create the atmosphere that is required by our time. As the coronavirus pandemic has shown, our time demands an end to the attempts to create confrontation and hostility at every step. Even as regards the vaccines, sometimes there is a desire to turn this issue that is vital for all humanity, above all, for ensuring that all people have the right to live, into an object of geopolitical insinuations. This is sad. I think the overwhelming majority of journalists working in Russia (I am referring to foreign journalists) certainly value the reputation of their publications and their authority as professionals that work for these famous publications. We read much of what your media houses issue. I can see you are striving for profound analysis and want to get to the bottom line of everything. You can always rely on us to be your most sincere and active assistants in this respect. In conclusion, I would like to note that we will continue our cooperation and will tell you about the circumstances that shape Russia’s foreign policy. We will be ready to answer your questions about our actions in the international arena. We are always open to mutually beneficial cooperation. Like in diplomacy, we are always striving to understand the gist of things before making any decisions. I hope you will preserve your journalistic striving to always work with authentic sources of information. Today’s meeting confirms that we are always ready for this. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4601976 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Uzbekistan Abdulaziz Kamilov, Moscow, March 2, 2021 2 March 2021 - 18:00 Good afternoon. As always, the talks with my Uzbek colleague, Abdulaziz Kamilov, took place in a constructive and friendly atmosphere. We reviewed in detail the entire range of Russian-Uzbek relations and stated that, despite the challenging pandemic situation, we have managed to maintain contacts at all levels, including in-person meetings. With regard to bilateral cooperation, we focused on our preparations for the state visit by President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev to Russia. We have several dozen bilateral documents almost ready to be signed. The forthcoming second meeting of the joint commission at the heads of government level will make a special contribution to successful preparations for the summit. We highly appreciate the inter-parliamentary interaction and contact between various departments, including the foreign ministries. Our cooperation in culture and education is expanding. We supported the Klass project initiated by the Ministry of Education of Russia, the Ministry of Public Education of Uzbekistan and Alisher Usmanov’s Art, Science and Sport Charity Foundation which is designed to improve the quality of teaching the Russian language and general education subjects in Russian. For our part, we reiterated Russia's commitment to continue to provide ample opportunities for Uzbekistani young people to receive a higher education in Russia. Twelve branches of Russian universities operate in Uzbekistan and enjoy the support of the country's leadership. About 35,000 Uzbek students study in Russia, of which about 9,000 have received grants from the Russian Government. We also talked about reinstating labour migration at its former levels, the epidemic situation permitting. We have specific agreements that allow the corresponding services to coordinate their actions. We discussed mutual assistance in fighting the pandemic and noted the importance of the earliest possible rollout of the Russian Sputnik V vaccine in Uzbekistan. I would like to take this opportunity and to thank our friends for the fact that the vaccine was quickly registered in the Republic of Uzbekistan. We have overlapping or very close positions on key international regional issues. Like our Uzbek colleagues, we are in favour of resolving crises and conflicts by peaceful means based on international law with the central and coordinating role of the UN. We agreed to continue to coordinate our actions at the UN, the CIS, the SCO and the OSCE. We welcome Uzbekistan’s energetic, concrete and effective contribution to our common integration associations. Once again, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our friends on their successful CIS chairmanship in 2020. The adoption of the CIS Economic Development Strategy up to 2030 and the adoption of an action plan for implementing this Strategy were the main accomplishments of this chairmanship. We also welcome the fact that Uzbekistan has obtained observer status with the EAEU. We consider this the first step on the path of moving closer to the EAEU. We believe that Tashkent will benefit from Eurasian integration, and observer status will make it possible for it to fully and comprehensively assess these prospects. In turn, Russia is prepared to provide its Uzbek friends with concrete practical assistance in order to help it expand relations with the EAEU. We covered in detail the state of affairs in neighbouring Afghanistan. We are convinced that the conflict cannot be settled through military means (history has proved this many times), but exclusively through political and diplomatic means. We agreed that this work must be continued with the use of tried and tested mechanisms, including the SCO-Afghanistan contact group and the Moscow format consultations on Afghanistan. We have taken note of Uzbekistan’s focus on the mobilisation of multilateral efforts in support of a peaceful settlement. A very important conference was held in Tashkent a couple of years ago, in which I had the honour to represent the Russian Federation. We were very interested in learning the details about Uzbekistan’s initiative to hold an international conference titled, “Central and South Asia: Regional Interconnectedness. Challenges and Opportunities.” Mr Kamilov kindly invited me to take part in this. We will definitely help you make it a success and make sure it leads to practical results. The talks were productive overall. I’m grateful to my colleague and friend for the traditionally trust-based and friendly conversation on all matters. I am convinced that this is the only way for us to promote our relations of alliance and strategic partnership.  Question: It was noted that the migrant flow from Uzbekistan to Russia has gone down due to the pandemic. How do Moscow and Tashkent plan to resolve this problem? Sergey Lavrov: I mentioned the impact of the epidemiological restrictions. This has affected not only guest workers but also students. Many of them went home when in-person studies were cancelled. Now they will be gradually restored. The emergency response centre has already issued recommendations: it has been up to each school to resume personal studies since last February. A special algorithm was adopted for guest workers. It is common to the citizens of all countries that work or study in Russia. Employers are required to send an application for guest workers, which must be approved at the regional level. The Russian regions are entitled to decide on imposing and lifting epidemiological restrictions. With due account for the requirements of the emergency response centre, each region can return or invite guest workers based on an employer’s application. The large-scale vaccination against the coronavirus will be launched in Uzbekistan in a couple of days. Today, a delegation of the Health Ministry of Uzbekistan is here and is working with their Russian colleagues. Progress will be achieved in all of these areas. We will soon return to the normal criteria and terms of labour migration. The issue of producing the Sputnik V vaccine is Uzbekistan is being considered. It was registered there ahead of schedule. We appreciate the cooperation in this regard. Question: The media report that the US may impose more sanctions on Russia today because of the Alexei Navalny case. What can you tell us about this? Will Moscow react to this move? Sergey Lavrov: We will react to this by all means. Nobody has cancelled the rules of diplomacy. Reciprocity is one of these. There is not much to say in this respect. We have already repeatedly expressed our attitude to the unlawful unilateral sanctions that are introduced by our American colleagues and the EU countries that follow in their wake without practically any excuse. They have nothing to present by way of substantiating the alleged poisoning of Navalny in any way; those who treated him conceal the facts that could throw light on what happened to him and instead of honestly cooperating they are economical with the truth. When they start “punishing” us (as they believe), such decisions do not reflect well on them. We will respond to this, by all means. Question: On Monday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reported that the EU is working on a programme to introduce so-called COVID passports or certificates for those who have been vaccinated. This programme may be presented this month. What does Russia think of this initiative? How might it affect the prospects of resuming travel with the European countries? Sergey Lavrov: As far as I know, this is still an idea that is being developed. As your colleagues in Europe write, this idea has received an ambivalent response from the European countries. The attitude towards this bureaucracy in Brussels is not just ambiguous but is also very serious. Many people say that this idea contradicts the rules of democracy because the EU has already decided that vaccination is voluntary. Introduction of a COVID passport will be at variance with this principle. So people will be forced to be vaccinated if they want to travel. Meanwhile, in Europe people can hardly imagine their life without travel in the EU countries. Let’s see what it ends up with. I hope a decision will be made with consideration for the interests of the EU members rather than imposed on them. Voluntary vaccination is a very serious approach. I cannot say at this point how this would affect opportunities for Russian citizens. We must wait for the final solution to this issue. At our level, we informed our EU colleagues that we hope for the adoption of a decision that will not discriminate against our people. It will be possible to be more specific when this programme acquires at least a tentative outline. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4604921 Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on new US anti-Russia sanctions 2 March 2021 - 22:36 The US Administration, teamed up with the EU, has made a hostile move towards Russia by announcing new sanctions “to punish Moscow.” Having become enmeshed in its own domestic problems, the White House is again trying to cultivate the image of an external enemy. We have repeatedly commented on this US policy which lacks logic and common sense. It is increasingly aggravating bilateral relations that Washington has already brought to a complete halt. Absurdity triumphs when the reason behind the sanctions is based on Alexey Navalny’s alleged “poisoning” with some toxic “chemical warfare” agent. This is just a pretext for the continuing undisguised interference in our domestic affairs, and we will not accept this. Based on the principle of reciprocity, we will respond but not necessarily with symmetrical measures. We can only assume that the US administration does not realise that times have changed and that in the current geopolitical realities attempts to dictate one’s will to others are counterproductive for those who are unable to quit this approach. Instead of instigating a new round of confrontation the US should concentrate on the honest implementation of its commitments, for example, on the destruction of its chemical weapons, weapons Russia hasn’t possessed since 2017. Apparently, our US colleagues find it difficult to understand and accept the idea that their claims to exclusivity are baseless. Any hopes to impose something on Russia by way of sanctions or other pressure have failed in the past and will fail now. If the US is not ready for an equitable and reasonable dialogue, this is their choice. Regardless of the US’s enthusiasm for sanctions we will continue to consistently and resolutely uphold our national interests and rebuff any aggression. We urge our colleagues not to play with fire. As a serial violator of international treaties and agreements on arms control and the non-proliferation of weapons, Washington is, by definition, deprived of the moral right to “lecture” others. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4605069 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with UK-based magazine Russkaya Mysl, March 4, 2021 4 March 2021 - 14:00 Question: Mr Lavrov, first of all, I would like to thank you for fitting this interview with Russkaya Mysl into your packed schedule. How would you describe the current EU policy towards Russia? What are the prospects for an improvement in relations between them, considering that both sides obviously depend on each other? Sergey Lavrov: Unfortunately, the EU’s current policy towards Russia can hardly be described as friendly. The EU has knowingly destroyed almost the entire infrastructure of our relations and is carrying on a policy of illegal unilateral sanctions. It keeps saying that the normalisation of relations with Russia depends on the implementation of the Minsk agreements on Ukraine, which Kiev is openly sabotaging. Media campaigns are orchestrated to accuse Moscow of disinformation, without any substantiation, and all Russia’s proposals to launch a professional dialogue based on facts have been rejected. It has come to open interference in our internal affairs. Russia and the EU are neighbours. I believe that it is in our common interests to ensure the peaceful, stable and safe development of the Eurasian continent as a whole. We would be delighted to have constructive cooperation with the EU based on the principles of mutual respect and account for each other’s interests, when, and if Brussels is ready for this. Moreover, Russia-EU cooperation is extremely important in some areas such as healthcare, climate change, research and technology. Cross-border threats and challenges – international terrorism, drug trafficking and cybercrime – have not abated and call for joint efforts against them. Together with the main traditional sphere, energy, this comprises a substantial mutually beneficial agenda. As President Vladimir Putin said at the online session of the Davos Agenda 2021 forum in January, we need to approach the dialogue with each other honestly, discard the phobias of the past and look to the future. And we will certainly enjoy a positive stage in our relations. Question: US President Joe Biden has repeatedly stated that the United States faces increasing “strategic challenges” from Russia. Nevertheless, can the agreement to extend the Russian-US New START treaty be regarded as a desire to reset bilateral relations? How will bilateral cooperation evolve under the Biden administration amid the anti-Russia campaign in the United States? Sergey Lavrov: The extension of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START) was the result of the combined Russian-US efforts. The ultimate impetus to this process has been given personally by the presidents of Russia and the United States. Experts on disarmament agree that the New START is the backbone of strategic stability. It has provided the framework for and presented a correct balance of the two countries’ interests. As for further cooperation with Washington in the sphere of arms control, it would be premature to talk about any details. We have submitted to the Americans our vision of the parameters of a new “security equation” with the understanding that talks can only be fruitful if the United States is willing to respect Russia’s interests and to ensure a two-way process aimed at achieving equal and mutually acceptable agreements. Russia is ready for this. We do not expect to see any serious changes in the entire complex of bilateral relations under the Biden administration. The future of our cooperation depends not only on us but also on the American side. We have always been ready for an open dialogue based on mutual respect, a balance of the sides’ interests and a resolve for making compromises. Regrettably, the United States has taken a different track in recent years, and it does not depend on the domestic political situation or who stands at the helm in the White House. Nevertheless, we hope that our American colleagues will come to see that the biggest current challenges, from arms control and regional crises to the coronavirus pandemic, can only be addressed through uniting or at least combining the efforts and potential of the leading global players. In this sense, sustainable and predictable cooperation between Russia and the United States as the guarantors of international stability would meet the interests and demands of the international community as a whole. Question: What effect might Britain’s exit from the EU have on Russia’s interests? Sergey Lavrov: We have pointed out on numerous occasions that Brexit is an internal matter of the UK and the EU. At the same time, we are paying close attention to the development of interaction parameters between the UK and the EU and the influence of this process on the sides’ cooperation with other international partners, including Russia. For our part, we can say confidently that Britain’s withdrawal from the EU has not encouraged London to normalise interstate dialogue with Russia. Over the past few years, the British government has pursued a harsh anti-Russia policy combined with a steady increase in sanctions pressure. In the year after Brexit, London adopted three packages of sanctions against Russian officials and organisations. The British authorities have been making absolutely unsubstantiated attacks on Russia and using harsh anti-Russia rhetoric in the public spotlight regardless of their EU membership. As the result, our bilateral cooperation has almost come to a standstill, mutual trust has been lost, and the temperature of our relations is hovering around zero. As for the trade and economic effect of Brexit on Russia, we are monitoring the London-Brussels dialogue, which is not nearing completion even despite the signing of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement in December 2020. We have pointed out on numerous occasions that we would be interested in promoting economic ties with the UK regardless of Brexit. We believe that Britain will remain an important trade partner for Russia. For example, in 2020, our bilateral trade amounted to $26.6 billion or 53.6 percent more than in 2019. We are ready to relaunch the relevant bilateral mechanisms, including the Intergovernmental Steering Committee on Trade and Investment and the High-Level Energy Dialogue. At the same time, there is no doubt that we will be unable to make use of the considerable potential of cooperation without a balanced political dialogue and a responsible attitude to bilateral relations, including in the public space. We remain open to developing cooperation with Britain in so far as it is ready for it. Question: Russia plays a key role in preserving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme. At your joint news conference with Josep Borrell, the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, you highlighted the tremendous significance of this document as an achievement of multilateral diplomacy. Is it possible to reinstate the nuclear deal with Iran in cooperation with European countries? Sergey Lavrov: A window of opportunity for saving the nuclear deal remains open. The complete and consistent fulfillment of the comprehensive 2015 agreements by all countries that drafted and concluded them is an essential condition. We closely cooperate with all JCPOA participants in order to achieve this goal. For example, we also maintain regular contact with European partners for elaborating possible decisions to rectify the current situation. However, not everything depends on us or the European parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action here. The position of President Joe Biden’s administration on the nuclear deal is an essential aspect. In our opinion, Washington’s steps sending a message to Tehran showing serious US intentions to rejoin the JCPOA could help resolve the situation concerning Iran and its nuclear programme. We hope that it will become possible to improve the situation in the near future and to return the JCPOA implementation process to the initially coordinated framework, all the more so as Tehran has repeatedly voiced its readiness to once again start fulfilling the JCPOA provisions, which it suspended, as soon as the lost balance of interests is restored. In turn, we are ready to help reach the relevant agreements in every way. Question: How could you explain NATO’s position with regard to Turkey, which is playing a double game on the international scene and venturing far beyond its borders, using weapons? Can Russia prevent the escalation of tensions in the Middle East by using its influence in Syria? Sergey Lavrov: It would be more logical to address the question of NATO’s attitude towards Turkish actions to our Western colleagues. On the whole, it is common knowledge that Ankara attaches great significance to NATO membership and is committed to a number of common intra-NATO obligations in this connection. At the same time, Turkish leaders seek to pursue an independent foreign policy favouring national interests. Turkey’s NATO allies criticise Ankara for its reluctance to blindly follow in the wake of Washington’s policy and for independently choosing methods of ensuring its own defence capability. They have even imposed certain anti-Turkey sanctions in some fields. The example of Turkey shows the real-life situation with intra-NATO democracy. Regarding Syria, it is common knowledge that Russian service personnel are staying there at the invitation of the country’s legitimate government. We now have every reason to say that they have made a decisive contribution to defeating terrorism and guaranteeing the security of the Syrian Arab Republic. We continue to help stabilise the situation on the ground, to advance the political settlement process and to provide humanitarian assistance to that country for the purpose of post-conflict recovery and the return of refugees and temporarily displaced persons to the places of permanent residence. These comprehensive efforts have made it possible to reliably stop the spread of terrorism and radical pseudo-Islamic ideology. We have prevented the threat of a forcible government change in the Syrian Arab Republic; such a government change would only continue the bloodshed in this country and wreak further havoc in the entire region. Russian approaches towards the Syrian peace settlement are based on international law, respect for the Syrian Arab Republic’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. I am convinced that we should address all other Middle East challenges based on these universal principles. Proceeding from this understanding, we have drafted the Russian concept for establishing a mechanism of collective security and stability in the Gulf zone. The well-known initiative of President Vladimir Putin on forming a truly universal anti-terrorism coalition under the auspices of the UN still has good potential. Certainly, its implementation would help mitigate tensions in the Middle East region. Russian efforts aiming to facilitate a Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement under the well-known international law framework, with reliance on the Middle East Quartet of international mediators, remain in high demand. Russia has no covert agenda in Middle East affairs. We are acting in the interests of international peace and security, while striving to stabilise the Middle East and North Africa. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4606164
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
March 12th, 2021
|
#268 |
|
Senior Member
|
Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 4, 2021
4 March 2021 - 20:49 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming visits to the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar .......................................................................................................... Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Russkaya Mysl magazine I would like to draw your attention to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with a UK-based Russian-language magazine, Russkaya Mysl, published by our compatriots today. This is the oldest Russian-language foreign edition, which was published for the first time in Moscow in 1880. Russkaya Mysl is one of the most popular media sources among Russians residing abroad that covers geopolitics from a unifying position. This interview touches on important matters of our country’s relations with the EU and the United States, as well as other countries, on a wide range of global and regional matters. We encourage you to read the interview posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry and the magazine’s websites. The 25th anniversary of the Asia-Europe Meeting March 1 marked the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Day. This year we celebrate its 25th anniversary. Since joining the forum in 2010, Russia has been promoting practical cooperation across a variety of fields, including through the implementation of specific sectoral projects. As one of the ASEM Asian Group Coordinators (since the second half of 2019), we have been directing the forum’s efforts to deepen continent-wide connectivity in all its aspects and manifestations forming a single Eurasian contour of inter-regional cooperation. Russia’s initiatives under ASEM include the High-Level Conference on Intercultural and Inter-religious Dialogue (St. Petersburg, 2014), the Education Senior Officials’ Meeting (Moscow, 2016), as well as the Summer University project (Vladivostok, Chita and Irkutsk, 2016). In 2019, we launched the STIpot academic mobility digital platform as a communication channel between research and education communities in ASEM countries. To date, over 2,500 researchers, teachers and students from Asia and Europe have become registered users. In the first half of 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia came up with a proposal to build transcontinental supply chains via rail transport. At the same time, we are among the coordinators of the ASEM project for implementing advanced technological solutions in customs cooperation. Last year one of the forum’s outcomes was the ASEM Foreign Ministers’ Statement on COVID-19 adopted by the Regional Coordinators (Russia, EU, Germany and Singapore) and Cambodia as the Chair of the 13th ASEM Summit scheduled this autumn. In the context of preparations for the Summit, we see good prospects for achieving positive and tangible results in post-pandemic socio-economic recovery. Our experience and practical achievements in countering COVID-19 attract interest in many ASEM nations. We will continue to share our expertise in this area with our partners. This year we came up with an important social initiative to establish direct contacts between volunteer organizations in Asian and European countries. As we saw last year, these movements have played and continue to play a cementing role in the civil context in our fight against pandemic challenges. At the ASEM Senior Officials’ Meeting held on March 1-2 via videoconference, we once again called for a pragmatic and depoliticized approach to promoting multilateral cooperation. Agreement on ceasefire at the India-China border in Eastern Ladakh We continue following the developments on the border between China and India. We welcome the agreements on settling the situation that were reached following the telephone conversation between the foreign ministers of China and India on February 25 of this year. We respect the striving of the sides to act without the interference of the external forces on this issue in the framework of the multi-level mechanisms of bilateral dialogue, which they created. We hope that as responsible members of the international community both states will find mutually acceptable and peaceful ways of decreasing tensions as soon as possible. The launch of the Russia-funded UNESCAP project on the technical assistance programme, “Strengthening research and studies for improved quality of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) statistics in Central Asia” Russia will fund the UN programme on training young specialists on statistics in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) will be in charge of this programme over the next two years. During this period, UN experts and international consultants will conduct a series of training seminars for young employees at statistical services and university graduates that plan to work with official UN statistics. Following the seminars, the organisers plan to prepare manuals and training courses and publish them in the public domain for future statisticians. Russia will spend $400,000 from its voluntary contribution to ESCAP for these purposes. We believe this project will be a useful way to support our CIS partners. The courses will be taught in Russian and be aimed at tailoring the national statistical indicators to UN standards and requirements. We consider this Russia’s contribution to enhancing the efficiency of international statistical accounting and monitoring the SDG in the CIS countries. Federal State Statistic Service (Rosstat) experts will be involved in the programme. Entry into force of the European Convention on the Abolition of the Legalisation of Documents executed by Diplomatic Agents or Consular Officers in the Russian Federation on March 9, 2021 On March 9, 2021, the European Convention on the Abolition of the Legalisation of Documents executed by Diplomatic Agents or Consular Officers, of June 7, 1968, will enter into force in the Russian Federation. The Convention simplifies the procedure for the recognition of the documents issued by the officials of the embassies and consular offices of its member countries. It rules out the need for legalising such documents, notably additional verification of the authenticity of a seal or stamp or the signatures of the officials in the Foreign Ministry of the country of stay. In addition to the current bilateral conventions and consular treaties, the European Convention facilitates the unimpeded recognition of Russian documents in its member countries where about 1.5 million Russians currently live. Thus, the following documents will be accepted without mutual legalisation if they are issued by the embassies and consular offices of the member countries both in the country of stay or in third countries: birth, death and marriage certificates, certificates of the lack of a criminal record or the facts of prosecution, and any obstacles to marriage certificates. The European Convention entered into force on August 14, 1970. It was signed by the Russian Federation on January 22, 2016 and ratified on October 27, 2020. The certificate on Convention ratification was deposited for safe-keeping with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on December 8, 2020. Apart from Russia, 24 countries are members of the convention, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Turkey, France and Sweden. Let us note that under Article 7, after the entry into force of this Convention, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe may invite any State not a member of the Council of Europe to accede to this Convention. Antony Blinken’s speech at the State Department I wish I could come up with more positive news – I believe there will eventually be good news. Today, however, I will have to engage in a debate with the US State Department, in particular, with Mr Antony Blinken, and with good cause. Many things that the Secretary of State has said sound correct. One is unlikely to disagree with his statement that democracy must not be promoted through force. However, the reasoning behind this statement gives rise to objection. If you read his speech carefully, it appears that the overthrowing of governments in other countries is not the right thing to do, not because it is a flagrant violation of international law – basically, it is a crime – but because it is too costly for the American budget that, as is well known, is now coming apart at the seams. We share any aspirations to build a more sustainable and inclusive global economic system. It is just too bad that our colleagues in Washington have forgotten to clarify how this correlates with the ever-increasing number of US sanctions that are rubber-stamped in an unabashed manner against different countries, Russia included. The words of Mr Blinken about American democracy being imperfect can be described as positive. This sort of self-criticism is praiseworthy. At last, our colleagues have started to move towards seeing reality. At the same time, it was announced in a characteristic US hypocritical and messianic manner that the US intended to give an example to other countries in order to “incentivise democratic behaviour.” What can be more democratic than calling its own citizens “domestic terrorists” for their dissent? We suspect that this is a matter of persecuting those who disagree with the aggressively liberal changes that are being vigorously promoted by the Biden administration. We are calling on the State Department’s team to give up, in actions, rather than in words, attempts at interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Without considering and having respect for one’s partners’ interests, declared good intentions will remain just statements. We will remain vigilant. It is necessary to support our colleagues in their efforts to shift to a constructive and realistic approach. The Atlantic Council’s report “Russia after Putin” Apart from the above, the US has another problem which is the destitution of contemporary Russian studies in the US. The released report is not analytics; it is a manual for the “agents of influence” from among radical and marginal elements. How this correlates with Antony Blinken’s statements is also a good question for the State Department and the US political establishment. The Atlantic Council builds its conclusions (which are, in fact, recommendations) from its illusory and out-of-touch conviction that the United States is capable of dictating its will, as well as a belief in the moral right to lecture the rest of the world on democracy and human rights. The only explanation that holds in this case is that the Atlantic Council released the report prior to Antony Blinken’s statement that the US would not impose its will through hard or soft power. Obviously, this report was being prepared based on the previous positions. We hope their next report will take into account the State Department’s latest approach. The US is currently in no position to practice hegemonism or interference in other countries’ domestic affairs. This is actually what Antony Blinken said. We would like to take this opportunity to advise US analysts and experts to focus primarily on system-wide problems of their own political regime which have been exacerbated to the breaking point both in terms of political tension and the scale of scandals, and the scope of police violence and lawlessness. “Recommendations” on improving “democracy” are needed more in the US than in Russia or other countries. State Department Spokesperson Ned Price’s comments regarding freedom of speech in Russia We cannot neglect US State Department Spokesperson Ned Price’s preposterous criticism of the Russian authorities as he expressed concern over the “infringement of journalists’ interests” in Russia. By way of examples, he quoted Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Let’s revisit the facts. As a reminder, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has been fined for numerous violations of Russian law regarding the requirement to ensure the basic identification of their materials as those of a foreign agent. At present, 260 administrative cases have been filed against this media outlet and 142 fines have been imposed in an amount which may go well beyond 70 million roubles. Let me point out that these fines were preceded by repeated notices from related authorities, which were simply ignored by Radio Liberty. This was done deliberately and demonstratively. Such disregard for the laws of the host country is flatly unacceptable. What would follow in the United States if media outlets working there and connected with the governments of other countries in one way or another did not comply with US law? We know the answer: a harsh punitive response. In addition, the imposed restrictive measure of this illicit activity in no way limits the activities of US journalists or the media outlet’s right to freely spread information (the State Department failed to mention this), which is a far cry from the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a US law applied to Russian media in the US. In this respect, we see the farfetched claims by the US side as nothing more than Washington’s arrogant attempt to interfere in the operations of the judicial system of a sovereign nation. Please respect Russian law. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas’s statements on Crimea in the Council of Europe Germany has also given us an excuse to comment, but unfortunately not on the positive aspects of our relations. Our German colleagues have recently been fixed on the situation in Russian Crimea. First, the German Ambassador to the UN was concerned about the destiny of Crimean Tatars and alleged that international observers had no access to the peninsula (we have commented on this). Later, Foreign Minister Heiko Maas made a statement on the seventh anniversary of Crimea’s reunification with Russia as the Chair of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. His statement was a mix of all genres. He talked about the situation on the peninsula, the decision of the ECHR and for some reason, the Minsk agreements on settling the conflict in Donbass. We urge Mr Maas and other protectors of the destiny of Crimeans to respect the choice they made in 2014 and stop recounting fairytales about the peninsula while punishing them with sanctions, non-recognition of passports and visa denials. If you, Mr Maas, still want to focus on this issue, start with the facts. Tell your audience about the referendum and try to recall where and when referendums were held in the regions whose self-determination you support. Recall the laws introduced after 2014 to support people from different ethnic communities, who speak different languages in Crimea. Finally, send your representatives there, officials (diplomats from the Foreign Ministry). Let them talk to the people there. Stop relying on inventions and fraudulent stories. Let us recall that Crimea has again become part of Russia in accordance with the principle of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act on the right of nations to self-determination. The Crimeans implemented this principle in the most democratic way – by holding a referendum. Don’t forget about this, Mr Maas. This decision is final and is not subject to revision. We are surprised that Mr Maas, as ex-Justice Minister, so broadly interprets the intermediate ECHR decision of January 14, 2021 on the dispute initiated by Ukraine. In making this decision, the court merely declared its right to consider the case on its merits and concluded that many accusations made by Ukraine against Russia were unfounded. The statement by the Chair of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe looks like an attempt to pressure this judicial body. Speaking about the Minsk agreements on Donbass, Mr Maas demanded that Russia implement them. Meanwhile, like Germany, France and the OSCE, Russia is just a mediator in the settlement of the conflict between Kiev on the one hand and Donetsk and Lugansk, on the other. This document exists and has been signed. You know about this, Mr Maas, don’t you? Why do you mislead everyone? You probably forgot that the events in Crimea and Donbass were triggered by the coup on Kiev’s Maidan Square in February 2014, in which Germany along with France and Poland acted as a mediator between the government and the opposition. They persuaded the lawfully elected president not to use force against the far-from-peaceful protesters. At the same time, Berlin became a guarantor of their agreements but did nothing to protect them when the opposition trampled them underfoot. In effect, the so-called mediators and guarantors became accomplices in the anti-Constitutional armed putsch and seizure of power by the nationalist radicals. You are bound to know and remember this. With the tacit consent of the Western community (Germany was in the centre of these events) “the Maidan winners” first resorted to a crackdown of their opponents and then unleashed an armed conflict in Donbass, which still remains unsettled due to Kiev’s reluctance to fulfil the Minsk agreements. This is aggravated by the failure of Germany and France to carry out their part by encouraging Kiev to implement these agreements. Since Germany is largely responsible for these events, we suggest that Mr Haas address his concerns to himself. We consider his statement to be evidence of Germany’s inability to fulfill the functions of “an honest broker” as the Chair of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This approach will lead to a split in the organisation. It will negatively affect the atmosphere in the Council of Europe and complicate the preparations for the ministerial meeting of the Committee of Ministers in Berlin in May 2021. Canadian Foreign Minister Marc Garneau’s remarks on the “annexation of Crimea” The Canadian Foreign Minister, Marc Garneau, could not avoid talking about Crimea. He picked up the Canadian authorities’ “tradition” of supporting the Kiev regime that is in their fold and came up with another “portion” of remarks about the “illegal annexation and occupation of Crimea.” In this regard, we would like to note once again that, in full compliance with the UN Charter and international law, the Crimeans decided on their future in a national referendum. I want the Foreign Ministry of Canada do us a favour. If and when you are talking about the events of 2014, please mention the referendum as well. The people voted of their own accord. Please cite the statistics, because the overwhelming majority of votes were cast for reunification with Russia. Like other Russian citizens, the Crimeans are guaranteed the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. This should also be mentioned when making statements like this. Instead of spreading fabrications and outright disinformation, official Ottawa should worry about the disastrous situation in Ukraine. That is, if you are indeed concerned and worried about the citizens of that country, where dissent is suppressed, certain media outlets are banned, and objectionable politicians are persecuted. We call on the Canadian authorities to refrain from actions that constitute interference in Russia’s internal affairs. RT DE media bank accounts closed in Germany Now about the true values of democracy and how our Western partners neglect them. As we learned, on February 26, the German Commerzbank sent a memo notifying RT DE and Ruptly information agencies of the closure of their accounts. These Russian media outlets will not be able to conduct financial transactions in this bank starting on May 31, 2021. The bank’s right to terminate cooperation with a client unilaterally without providing a reason was offered as a formal reason. This has now become a negative tradition. Dozens of large German and international banks, as well as regional financial institutions, which our colleagues from RT contacted, have refused to cooperate with them without providing any reasonable grounds for doing so. The fact that the media company announced its ambitious plans to launch full German-language television broadcasting in Germany by the end of 2021 speaks volumes in his regard. It has caused irritation and an abrupt stepping up of activities of Russia’s ill-wishers from among the German media and political establishment. A witch hunt began. But given that the actions undertaken by the Russian foreign broadcaster were absolutely legitimate, it was decided to make it hard for them by using this Neanderthal trick. Notably, this is not the first time the FRG has tried to “cut off the air supply” to our journalists. In 2019, the German bank Sparkasse Berlin notified the companies representing the Russian cable channel Russia Today in Germany, namely, Ruptly GmbH, Redfish and Mаffick Media, that their accounts would be closed within two months without giving any reason. Deutsche Bank and the above Commerzbank refused to open an account for Maffick Media substantiating their decision by a “corporate policy.” However, thanks to our prompt response, the incident was resolved. We consider our foreign partners’ openly hostile attitude towards the Russian media unacceptable. These media outlets are performing their legitimate professional activities abroad. We regard the steps to close Russian news agency accounts an element of political pressure and a clear violation of Germany’s commitment to ensure freedom of speech and of the media. We will not accept any references to “corporate rules,” because this is not true. We earnestly urge Berlin to change its mind and to ensure the normal operations of the above media companies, and to revoke the restrictive measures that impede their work. Otherwise, we will be forced to take tough retaliatory measures against the German media in Russia. Frankly, we do not want to do this. Let’s not force it. Germany and Russia must remain committed to their respective obligations to create a proper working environment for journalists in both countries. We do have complaints with regard to the German journalists and media working in Russia. They are aware of that. However, we sort out these issues based on mutual respect and law. We talk and explain things, and we accept the arguments. We would like Germany to reciprocate. There is yet another important point. Why are they closing or refusing to open accounts for Russian media in Germany and other countries? There are no claims against them. No one can come up with any. Russian media outlets operate in a financially open and transparent manner. They do not finance systemic or non-systemic opposition through their bodies, nor do they engage in any under-the-table dealings. This is yet another important factor behind closing these accounts. If the media operates openly and honestly based on the host country’s laws, the public in that country may wonder what these media outlets are accused of if their financial operations are transparent, clean and legal. Only political motives remain in this instance. We are sending this message to Berlin and look forward to a favourable solution to the situation. Faustine Vincent’s article The Battle of Languages in Ukraine in Le Monde We noted Faustine Vincent’s article The Battle of Languages in Ukraine, which was published in Le Monde on February 17, 2021, where the author argues that “for the sake of Ukraine’s national security and in the face of the Russian threat” it will be appropriate to ban several million people from using the Russian language. We did not believe that such a statement could have been published by a media outlet in France, a democratic country and the cradle of contemporary liberalism. The author goes on to speculate that this “will not give rise to tensions” because the population has “largely responded positively to the new law” and “only” 34 percent reacted negatively. Head of the press service at the Russian Embassy in France Sergey Parinov sent an open letter to the editorial director of Le Monde on February 24, 2021. Regrettably, we have extensive experience and past record of cooperation with this daily (1, 2, 3, 4). We are accustomed to receiving no reply to our official letters from the editors, so this time we have posted our open letter on the Foreign Ministry’s website. We suggest that all journalists, including from France, who are accredited in Russia read it. If this matter is truly of interest to the French media, we are ready to answer more questions, hold meetings or help organise meetings. By publicly bringing the attention of the Le Monde correspondent in Moscow to this matter, we are trying yet again to pass our message to editorial director of Le Monde Jerome Fenoglio. We are looking forward to the response of the reputable French periodical. I want to emphasise again: this is not the first time that the daily has published blatant nonsense and not the first time that it has refused to print our refutation. Online media outlets blocked in Ukraine A new attack is underway on online media resources in Ukraine. The National Commission for the State Regulation of Communications and Informatisation has ordered the local internet providers to block four popular Telegram channels and 426 websites in Ukraine, citing a court decision. This time the Ukrainian authorities attempted to camouflage the country’s censorship policy and yet another attempt to remove undesirable media outlets from the national information space. The blocking of media outlets has been explained by court decisions based on proceedings initiated by private individuals and the results of investigations conducted by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) against the allegedly pro-Russian online media resources. All of us know about the “humane” nature of the SBU and its actions to “protect” the freedom of speech and democratic values. Regrettably, such investigations are unlikely to be objective. The new restrictive measures have been adopted against news, sports and entertainment resources and thematic forums, including Russian outlets such as RBC, Argumenty Nedeli, Inforpressa, Novosti Ukrainy and the Live Journal social network, as well as a number of Ukrainian sources of information. Some of them have initiated counterclaims regarding the illegal restrictions adopted on the basis of far-fetched pretexts. We have pointed out on numerous occasions the international community’s failure to react to Kiev’s deliberate policy of infringing on the freedom of speech and journalists’ rights. We call on the relevant international platforms not to follow the lead of the Western patrons of Ukraine’s pseudo-democracy, who always cover up for their wards’ unsavoury deeds, and to give an objective assessment to the offensive on media freedom in Ukraine. Statements by Estonian President Kersti Kaljulaid We have taken note of the Estonian President Kersti Kaljulaid’s statements on the occasion of Estonia’s Independence Day, which have caused a public outcry in that country. We regret that when speaking about “a sense of belonging” on the country’s Independence Day, the head of state only applied the term to “real Estonian people,” focusing not on the real unity of society but on the protection of the Estonian language and culture. It sounds especially destructive in the context of the need to shield Estonia from the alleged threat by a “great foreign power.” She mentioned a similar priority in education, saying that non-Estonians have “the obligation to enrol their child in an Estonian-language school.” In what age are you living? I would like to remind you that this is 2021. You have adopted and signed a large number of international legal documents that stipulate a tolerant attitude to minorities, the protection of minority languages and an opportunity for people of different nationalities, views and faiths to freely express their opinions. You seem to have forgotten this overnight. This will not do. In this context, we can understand the sharply negative reaction to the Estonian president’s statement not only from our compatriots but also from the leading Estonian political parties. At a time when Russian speakers, who constitute almost a third of the country’s population, continue to face discrimination in all spheres of life, they have actually been described as an “inferior” part of Estonian society. It is impossible to interpret this statement in any other way. Just take time to read it. The worst part is that it has been made by the country’s president. Statements by UN special rapporteurs holding Russia responsible for an attempted assassination of Alexey Navalny We continue to follow another farce now unfolding around the mythical “poisoning” of Alexey Navalny. We regret to say that the UN Human Rights Council’s special rapporteurs, namely, Agnes Callamard, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and Irene Khan, the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, have contributed to this show. They simply decided to follow in the wake of the United Kingdom’s “highly likely” card-sharking concept and said the other day that the Russian authorities were “very likely” involved in the attempted assassination, presumably at high level. This is very impressive, amounting to an entirely new level of descriptions. We regret that the UN Human Rights Council’s special rapporteurs on human rights whose work should, first of all, be distinguished by a professional and unbiased approach have voiced trite and absolutely unconfirmed accusations, and that they have held this event in line with mainstream Western directives. I would like to note that no country, organisation or laboratory has so far provided Russia with any evidence of Alexey Navalny’s poisoning with some war gas listed by the specialised Chemical Weapons Convention. We got nothing, except tweets, statements, mutual references and formal replies to official requests. To be quite honest, we should not expect this material to be published. It is hardly surprising that neither Russian, nor German civilian experts found any evidence of the so-called war gases on samples of Alexey Navalny’s biological materials. In turn, experts from the Bundeswehr’s laboratory have failed to provide any evidence confirming their dubious claims. Nor did the UN Human Rights Council’s special rapporteurs receive any similar information from the German party during their so-called investigation. I would like to note that, acting in the spirit of conscientious and responsible cooperation with UN experts, Russia provided them with exhaustive and timely information regarding this situation. It remains a mystery why they did not use this information, while speaking in Geneva. Our reply said clearly that, on August 20, 2020, after Alexey Navalny’s condition deteriorated aboard the aircraft, and after he lost consciousness, doctors at Omsk Emergency Hospital No. 1 made a different preliminary diagnosis that suggested, among other things, that the patient’s condition might have deteriorated after he took preparations with extremely specific medical properties. As we can see, Agnes Callamard and Irene Khan ignored the opinion of Russian medical specialists. I would like to note that all the material was sent to them. We don’t understand why they used Western mainstream data alone. We perceive this position of special rapporteurs as biased and politically prejudiced. This position also runs counter to the provisions of the Manual of Operations of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. UN experts should be guided by this document in their work. Against this backdrop, we continue to inquire about the relationship between the mandates of Agnes Callamard and Irene Khan who deal with arbitrary executions and freedom of speech and a global political and information campaign that has been unfolding in front of us for the past six months. We are convinced that the so-called Navalny case is a provocation that has been artificially elevated to an international level, so as to create a false agenda in the media space that would distract the global public from truly topical problems, and that can serve as a tool for interfering in Russia’s domestic affairs. We are insistently urging the UN Human Rights Council to pay attention to the unseemly behaviour of special rapporteurs Agnes Callamard and Irene Khan who have organised a farce in Geneva. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell’s statements in the European Parliament We have noted a series of critical attacks made by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell at the hearings in the European Parliament on March 1. The head of European diplomacy again could not resist the urge to put forth unfounded accusations against our country of spreading misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. He cobbled together all the old Russophobic clichés, myths and hackneyed tales widespread in the Western media. According to him, Russia seeks to undermine the unity and democratic achievements of the European Union, tries to mislead and intimidate ordinary Europeans, and wants to plant in their minds the dangerous idea that wearing masks and observing public health restrictions is useless. Where did Mr Borrell get all this? It is unclear. The absurdity and cynicism of such attacks really are off the scale. It is time the European Union stopped justifying its own blunders in its pandemic response by ‘Moscow’s schemes’ or other excuses. Try to analyse what is going on with you. Be honest, be realistic. Let me remind you that the European Union has not yet shown us a single convincing piece of evidence in support of any of the accusations it has made. On the other hand, the European Union, its agencies in Brussels and certain political leaders of EU countries support the non-systemic Russian opposition, the people actually involved in misleading the Russian public and the Western community alike with regard to the pandemic. Remember how in August 2020, Alexey Navalny, who is now supported by a number of politicians in the European Union and the West, said there was no vaccine in Russia, that it was all a lie, that the Russian government was not even thinking about it, and the WHO did not support Moscow in this because, why, Moscow had no vaccine. That was indeed misinformation – something you are now accusing official Moscow of doing while at the same time supporting the people who did it. Where, then, are you looking for evidence of misinformation? We have given you the facts, you have them, but not in relation to the people you are accusing. For our part, we have repeatedly proposed to Brussels establishing a professional dialogue on the misinformation problem, so that our experts could, facts in hand, discuss mutual concerns in this field. We have far more concerns. We have a lot of such evidence in the Published materials that contain false information about Russia section on the Foreign Ministry website, as well as reactions to articles in Western media. Those are attempts to distort reality that Western journalists make. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed our readiness for such a dialogue during a joint news conference following his talks with Josep Borrell on February 5, 2021, in Moscow. But our colleagues from the EU are stubbornly avoiding an honest and substantive discussion based on facts – because there are no facts, I think. All this suggests that in reality, the European Union simply has no arguments. That is why they are reluctant to engage in a dialogue, resorting to unilateral statements and accusations alone. All they seem to want is to keep up anti-Russia propaganda under any, even the most absurd pretexts, believing that would make our country “pay the price” (as Josep Borrell himself put it) for its independent foreign policy line and obvious successes in fighting the pandemic. Let's get back to the facts. Russia has proven by deeds that it is willing to work together with other countries, including the EU, to fight the global threat. During his visit to Moscow, Josep Borrell publicly acknowledged the Russian virologists’ achievement in making an effective anti-COVID vaccine. Sputnik V has already been registered in 39 countries by now, including in two EU states. Any attempts to present this objective reality as Russia's interference in the EU’s internal affairs or undermining its unity are inappropriate. European agencies are incessantly trying to attach a political agenda to the coronavirus response effort; that persistence is prompted by unscrupulous competition and is causing additional damage to the image of the European Union itself. Such action can hardly increase trust in the EU as an independent and responsible representative of the international community. Instead of escalating the coronavirus info-demic, which really threatens people’s health around the world, the leaders of the EU diplomacy should instead channel their efforts in overcoming the EU-led crisis in relations with Russia. We suggest the European Union change its public accusatory tone. We call on them to finally start a conversation with facts in hand on all problematic issues. We are ready for this dialogue, including in the public plane. We have much to discuss. And the senseless confrontational rhetoric needs to be renounced so that we can all move on to building a constructive EU-Russia dialogue on an equal and mutually beneficial basis. As for all the nonsense that is now being issued publicly or through EU institutions’ accounts on social media, we will respond to it with clear argumentation and truthful factual information. Canadian Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations We have scrutinised the unilateral Canadian government’s Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. Pretending to be defending justice and human rights, Ottawa has advanced a questionable initiative in the spirit of the rules-based order promoted by the US-led coalition of like-minded countries. This is yet another example of double standards and open hypocrisy used to justify interference in the internal affairs of other countries and to put pressure on those that refuse to yield to the dictate of the “collective West.” Meanwhile, Washington has launched a veritable worldwide hunt for Russians against whom it has some complaints. They are detained arbitrarily and without any reason and subsequently sentenced to long prison terms in inhumane conditions in the United States. But the Canadian and other Western “defenders” of democracy close their eyes to this, of course. We categorically reject this Canadian initiative, we consider it harmful and believe that it will only aggravate confrontation in international affairs and complicate the already tense Russian-Canadian relations. 20th anniversary of the Declaration on Principles of Friendly Relations and Partnership between Nigeria and Russia ...................................................................................................... Celebration of Ghana’s Independence Day ...................................................................................................... Republic of Niger update According to reports, the developments in the Republic of Niger have escalated over a period of the past few days due to the opposition refusing to recognise the results of the presidential run-off election, published by the Independent National Electoral Commission on February 23, according to which the winner is former interior minister Mohamed Bazoum of the ruling Nigerien Party for Democracy and Socialism with 55.75 percent of the vote. His rival Mahamane Ousmane of the Democratic and Republican Renewal opposition party gained support of 44.25 percent of the voters. A number of local politicians initiated protests resulting in the deaths of two people as the demonstrators clashed with the police. About 450 rioters have been detained. What is taking shape is aggravated by the growing terrorist activities being carried out by the radical Islamist groups on the territory of the republic. We urge all the political forces of Niger to show restraint, to act exclusively within the constitutional framework and to resolve all controversial matters in accordance with the country’s legislation. We expect Niger and its civic institutions to proceed along a path of stable and democratic development. Leaked French Foreign Ministry’s 1994 correspondence on Rwanda published We found it most interesting to read about the investigation carried out by the French online outlet, Mediapart, concerning Paris’s actions during the Tutsi genocide in Rwanda in 1994, based on the archives of the former African Affairs advisor to the French Presidency Bruno Delaye. Judging by the released data, the French Foreign Ministry knew that members of the Rwandan leadership responsible for the mass killings of the Tutsis were staying on French-controlled territory. However, Paris “washed its hands” of the matter and urged the aforementioned persons to leave the area of responsibility of the French army instead of handing the perpetrators over to international law. The genocide in Rwanda which claimed a million lives is a direct consequence of the policy of neo-colonialism pursued by former colonial powers in Africa. We are aware that French historians are currently working on a special report dedicated to France’s foreign policy on the Rwanda track in 1990-1994. The report is due to come out on April 7, 2021. We believe the document will make it possible to restore the true picture of the tragedy and give a fair assessment of France’s role in those developments.  Answers to media questions: Question: Regarding the US and EU interference in Russia’s internal affairs, despite all Russia’s calls and warnings about the sanctions pressure, the United States and the European Union have introduced new anti-Russia restrictions under the pretext of the alleged blogger Alexey Navalny poisoning story. Have Russian-American relations hit their historical low after that? How will the Russian side respond to the new US sanctions? Maria Zakharova: We have already commented on this. The relevant material was published on the Foreign Ministry website. Question: About America’s ‘generosity’ in such difficult times. The US Department of Defence announced on March 1 that it was providing another package of military assistance to Ukraine in the amount of $125 million to improve the country's defences, despite all of its internal problems. The Pentagon stressed that the United States would provide defensive flying weapons that would help Ukraine to more effectively defend itself against the ‘Russian aggression.’ Are there any mechanisms, under international law, to impose a military embargo against Ukraine in connection with the situation in the Southeast? And if so, who should initiate that process in connection with the violation of human rights in that region? Maria Zakharova: Your question, and all you have just said, touches on several very difficult topics. I will give a brief answer to some of them because I have repeatedly commented on them. First, military technical cooperation between two sovereign states is a matter of their agreement. At the same time, it is necessary to understand that when it comes to Ukraine, we mean a country in which an internal conflict is still in its active phase. We are following the developments there. There are many circumstances that do not inspire optimism but, on the contrary, are sending an alarming signal about the state of affairs. But generally, with regard to the US ‘generosity’ in supplying weapons to Ukraine, I would like to reiterate – it is a matter between the two capitals, the two states. Yet, since you have asked, for some reason it seems to me that in recent months, the citizens of Ukraine have been more in need of vaccinations than weapons. But this is a side note; I’m just saying. As for your question about a possible military embargo, let me explain the mechanism that is stipulated in international law. A military embargo is one of the coercive measures that can be imposed against any state only by a UN Security Council resolution adopted under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression. As for unilateral embargoes imposed in the absence of a Security Council sanction, we qualify those as interference in the internal affairs of the respective state that is illegal from the standpoint of international law. The UN Security Council is responsible for identifying any threats to peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression that could give reason to invoke such measures under the UN Charter. Question: Yesterday was an important date for Russia and Bulgaria, the 143rd anniversary of the liberation of Bulgaria from Ottoman rule as a result of the Russian-Turkish liberation war. Unfortunately, our bilateral relations are now going through a tough time due to the imposed pro-Western course and participation in various organisations. But our people still have respect for their liberator. In this regard, is the Russian Federation ready to consider the possibility of facilitating visa regime with the Republic of Bulgaria? What does the Foreign Ministry think about visa-free travel between our countries to strengthen bilateral relations? Maria Zakharova: The Russian Federation is a consistent supporter – one might use an even stronger term, a lobbyist – for the removal of visa barriers in relations with most foreign countries, including Bulgaria. We have long been ready for this process. You know about our long-term negotiations with the European Union, which, unfortunately, has curtailed them at its own initiative, without any correlation with the real situation. For reference, any simplification of visa formalities can only be introduced on a reciprocal basis. For our part, this step has essentially been taken. After the COVID-19 travel restrictions are lifted, we intend to fully launch the electronic visa system, which will greatly facilitate the procedure for obtaining a visa to visit Russia. Bulgaria is included in the approved list of countries whose citizens will be issued such visas. If there are reciprocal steps, we are always ready to consider any official initiatives from the Bulgarian authorities in this field. I would like to emphasise that, according to the ethics of international relations, proposals concerning visa liberalisation are not announced in the media; they are made within the framework of a relevant negotiation process. I would like to stress once again – we are ready for dialogue. Question: From time to time there are incidents in the liberated territories in Azerbaijan when people get blown up by explosive devices. Azerbaijan has repeatedly pointed out that Armenia has not provided Baku with maps of minefields, which could save many lives. Did Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia discuss this matter during their trilateral or bilateral contacts? Is Russia ready to help resolve this matter? Maria Zakharova: We have stressed on many occasions that these matters are within the remit of peacekeepers and officers of the Russian Emergencies Ministry. They help Armenia and Azerbaijan conduct rescue operations in the region, and they are involved in this work every day. Please address this question to them. You could also address these questions to Baku and Yerevan. I am always ready to assist in this if you need help in establishing communications, although I don’t think this is necessary. Question: How would you comment on an article in Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozrenie (Independent Military Review) whose author suggests deploying tactical nuclear weapons on the South Kuril Islands to prevent possible Japanese provocations? Maria Zakharova: We have recently seen discussions in the media about the military aspects of a hypothetical Japanese invasion of Russia’s South Kuril Islands. I would like to stress a principled aspect here: this discussion was triggered by the Japanese party’s statements, namely, a 2019 statement by Hodaka Maruyama, a member of the Japanese Parliament’s House of Representatives, who suggested seizing the islands by force. We should consider this only as a response to such statements. This highlights the response of journalists, the public at large and experts, rather than that of the Foreign Ministry. Question: Can you comment on the decision of the EU Council’s Committee of Permanent Representatives to adopt new sanctions against Russian individuals over the situation in Ukraine? Maria Zakharova: Regarding the EU Council’s latest portion of sanctions against a number of Russian officials, poet Mikhail Lermontov aptly said, “All this could sometimes be great fun/If were not so much distressing.” I can just add that sanctions seem to be the only remaining method in the EU’s political and diplomatic arsenal with respect to Russia. All other methods seem to be stuck, so that they only have this button to press. This is distressing. They push this button with or without any substantiation. They keep telling us that sanctions are being used to punish us, civilise us and force us to change our approaches and behaviour. This is ridiculous rather than distressing. Washington, Brussels and several other countries, or rather their officials, the EU bureaucracy and American representatives have been saying recently that Russia must change its behaviour. I will not comment this phrase in relation to Russia. We have been doing this often enough. Let us look at the matter logically. If Russia must change its behaviour, does this mean that it should do what the Western countries are doing? Is this right? How should Russia behave if they want us to change our behaviour? Apparently, we must copy their behaviour. Let us review the biggest achievements of the Western world in recent years. Intervention: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said only yesterday that the United States would not promote democracy through military interventions. Before that, it adhered to this concept in theory and applied it in practice. It used armed force to attain its goals and interfered in the internal affairs of other countries. And nobody even pretended that this was not the case. Today we talked a great deal about Ukraine. France, Germany and Poland, not to mention the United States, have been dictating their will to Kiev for many years, orchestrating and later micromanaging the situation in a foreign country. Next, we see the persecution of undesirable media outlets. Russian media outlets are far from the only example of this. There are numerous examples in the United States and Britain of the persecution of Chinese media outlets and journalists from other countries and even their own reporters. The latest instances concern the blocking of thousands of not just Russian accounts but also the social network accounts of their own politicians, media outlets and public figures. Next, unpredictable behaviour on the international stage, when they force others to join the international agreements they want. Later they themselves withdraw from these agreements, leaving the international community wondering what will happen next. They make contributions to international agencies only when they want and stop doing that when it no longer benefits them. These are only a few examples of the behaviour of the collective West, which tells us that we must change our behaviour. There are many more such examples, both in theory, confirming they are moving in a particular direction, and in practice when they try to replace international law. Has international law been overturned? No. Not a single body of the UN, its Security Council or General Assembly has adopted, separately or collectively, any document that would invalidate the UN Charter, international law or activities based on international law. At the same time, attempts are being made to substitute international law with a rules-based international order. It is one more example of the behaviour of the collective West. I am not talking about their disinformation campaigns. I have mentioned interference in other countries’ internal affairs. There is a long list of such examples, from military scenarios like in Libya, to hybrid warfare like in Ukraine, and to the so-called “soft” and “velvet” scenarios, of which we have seen a huge number. The West’s own domestic problems and the methods used to deal with them are not worth seeing as examples to emulate. These are examples of how the collective West behaves. Are we encouraged to emulate it? To do as they are doing? No, this cannot be, it is simply impossible. This runs contrary to our understanding of international relations, of how countries should and can behave and how they should develop relations on the international stage. We must look deeper, asking questions and seeing that when they adopt sanctions and urge Russia to change its behaviour they want us to emulate their own behaviour, which is often completely indecent. The EU has adopted the new restrictions without the approval of the UN Security Council, which means that they are invalid from the viewpoint of international law. We are all aware of the circumstances in which the EU adopted this decision. Brussels has actually admitted that it is using human rights issues for political considerations. It is one more distinguishing feature of the collective Western behaviour, when noble messages, goals and ideals are used as the instruments of political fighting. The EU has again turned a deaf ear to our calls to return to the framework of international law. Instead, it disregarded the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states to adopt one more, a third in a row hastily compiled package of illegitimate sanctions against our compatriots. The Brussels officials claim that the creation of global sanctions mechanisms is strengthening the EU’s strategic autonomy. This is a sham, camouflaging the EU’s compliance with the trans-Atlantic objective of containing Russia, as has been openly admitted at a recent meeting of the EU foreign ministers in Brussels. This is also one more example of consolidation and common goals and tasks concealing a lack of solidarity and, most importantly, the absence of unity for addressing and solving real problems. We have noticed that the EU’s illegal restrictions have been imposed on the leaders of federal government agencies that are responsible for cooperation with the relevant bodies of the EU and its member states within the framework of the roadmap on the Russian-EU Common Space of Freedom, Security and Justice, as well as other bilateral agreements. By doing this, Brussels has clearly shown that it is not interested in maintaining normal depoliticised interaction in this vital sphere. We believe that Brussels has missed one more opportunity to abandon its dead-end policy of ultimatums and pressure and to develop, at long last, an equal and mutually beneficial cooperation with Russia. Russia will not leave this latest unfriendly EU action without a commensurate response. Question: Does the Russian side have any specific data on how many Armenians are now being held in Azerbaijani captivity? Maria Zakharova: The sides’ approaches to this problem differ significantly. Yerevan keeps changing the figures. Baku reports different information. Taking into account such discrepancies, I recommend that you address this question to both the Azerbaijani and Armenian sides. I am sure they will be ready to provide their own comprehensive explanations. To date, through the mediation of Russian peacekeepers, a total of 79 people have been returned: 63 from the Armenian side and 16 from the Azerbaijani side. For our part, we would like to take this opportunity to once again accentuate the Russian stance on this score. We believe that the all-for-all prisoner exchange formula is the best option and that this problem should be resolved as soon as possible so that the parties are able to turn this tragic page in their relations and concentrate on promoting a positive agenda, including in the economic sphere. This was discussed during the Moscow summit of the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia on January 11. Question: The agenda of the last meeting of the deputy prime ministers of Armenia, Russia and Azerbaijan included the issue of unblocking roads. Has there been any progress regarding this matter? Maria Zakharova: On February 28, the Russian Government website published a statement by Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk on the results of that meeting. I would like to suggest you study that document, as it contains all the information. Question: Troublesome developments have taken shape in Slovakia due to the delivery of the first batch of the Sputnik V vaccine which is not registered in the country. There are apprehensions whether Slovakia can duly store the vaccine. There are fears that the vaccine’s mishandling can cause negative consequences. This may be followed by direct accusations that Russia is using this as a weapon for hybrid warfare. Incidentally, Slovakia’s Minister of Foreign and European Affairs Ivan Korcok has already made such an official statement. What could you say about this? Maria Zakharova: He is not the first or the last person to make such statements that are not worthy of the current global situation in connection with the pandemic. They seem strange and sometimes outrageous. Today, it is necessary to focus on ways of overcoming hurdles, rather than creating new ones. Vaccine deliveries to Slovakia were launched under Bratislava’s government request. This violates no norms. We have noted an emotional response. To put it mildly, statements mentioned by you cause dismay. However, the people of Slovakia have also responded, and they are thanking the Russian Embassy. This is a very sincere and positive response. Russian vaccine deliveries have caused political disagreements in Slovakia, and this fact merely shows the existence of such disagreements, including the assessment of Russia’s role. What does this have to do with the vaccine? Good question. Experts should discuss this matter, and politicians should join in only for making professional dialogue easier, rather than putting additional obstacles in the way. We are really happy that we can help a friendly country, and Russia perceives Slovakia as a friendly country, at this difficult time of the new coronavirus infection’s critical spread and vaccine shortages. As I see it, specialists, including virologists, biologists, immunologists, representatives of businesses supporting medical cooperation and transport sector representatives should speak their mind. If politicians take the floor, they should think how to make dialogue and people’s destinies easier. Regarding vaccine storage conditions, I hope that the manufacturer will provide the relevant assessments in the near future. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4606704
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
March 13th, 2021
|
#269 |
|
Senior Member
|
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's congratulations on the occasion of International Women's Day, Moscow, March 8, 2021
8 March 2021 - 00:00 Dear ladies, I am delighted to join the campaign For You, Our Beloved Ones. My heartfelt greetings on International Women’s Day. I sincerely wish you good health, success, joy and happiness, We are proud of your professional achievements. We give our profound thanks for your efforts to keep the family hearth warm and cosy. You are our inspiration. There is good reason that throughout centuries men have dedicated music and poems to women, created and produced the best works with your names on their lips. You give us life, welcome us to this world and accompany us throughout our entire life. We will do anything to surround you with tender loving care and make you smile more often. I wish you a sunny spring mood, the fulfilment of your most daring endeavours and all the very best! The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4612085 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the UAE Abdullah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Abu Dhabi, March 9, 2021 9 March 2021 - 16:10 Ladies and gentlemen, We held a lengthy and trustworthy conversation with Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. We also had talks with my friend and colleague Abdullah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the UAE. They were very useful. We praised relations between Russia and the United Arab Emirates, the special character of which is fixed in the Declaration on Strategic Partnership of June 1, 2018. We agreed to continue filling all areas of our relations with mutually beneficial projects in accordance with the declaration and the agreements signed during President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s visit to the UAE in October 2019. We continue contacts at the highest level; our leaders stay in contact. I am sure that all our cooperation will return to its usual format with the overcoming of the pandemic. We noted a considerable increase in trade. During the past year, it went up almost 80 percent to reach a historical high of $3.27 billion. We emphasised the importance of maintaining this positive dynamic. One of the ways to this goal is the active role of the Joint Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic and Technical Cooperation, which will hold its regular session this year. We supported using the potential of the Russia-UAE Business Council. We have a common understanding of the promising projects we can carry out in such areas as hydrocarbon production, petrochemicals, automobile and aircraft manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, banking, hydrogen technology, peaceful space exploration, agriculture and military-technical cooperation. We have many plans in all these areas and hope they will be consistently implemented. We noted the benefits of participation by Russian delegations in UAE-hosted events. Recently, international arms and food exhibitions were held here. We agreed to cooperate in organising the international and universal exposition, EXPO, in Dubai in the autumn of 2021, including the Day of Russia within this framework. In December, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of our diplomatic relations. These relations officially began just days after the UAE declared independence. We agreed with the Crown Prince and the Foreign Minister to befittingly celebrate these important landmarks. We have a common understanding on the need to continue building up cooperation between the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and the UAE’s Mubadala Investment Company. We welcomed our close bilateral coordination in the global hydrocarbon market, including under the OPEC+ agreements. We mentioned the prospects for space cooperation. In December 2020, a Russian Soyuz carrier rocket put into orbit yet another Emirati remote sensing Earth observation satellite. We assessed our efforts in countering the coronavirus infection positively. Last January, the Russian Sputnik V vaccine was officially registered in the UAE for use in “case of emergency.” We hope that soon Sputnik V will also be approved for regular vaccinations of the people. We discussed in detail a number of regional issues: developments in the Middle East and North Africa, including Syria, Libya and Yemen. In these cases, Russia and the UAE promote a peaceful political settlement based on the UN Charter and relevant UN resolutions. We advocate an inclusive dialogue for overcoming all crises. We spoke about the Arab-Israeli settlement. We reaffirm our position and welcome the normalisation of Israel’s relations with several Arab states, including the UAE, on the understanding that a fair settlement of the Palestinian problem must not be relegated to the background. We will be willing to continue facilitating direct dialogue between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We also discussed developments in the Persian Gulf. We reaffirmed our desire to encourage the region’s countries and the Gulf states to start promoting trust and transparency in military construction and normalisation of relations between Iran and regional countries in general with the participation of international organisations (the UN Security Council, the Arab League and the European Union). We agreed to maintain a dialogue on all of these issues. I am grateful to our Emirati friends for the hospitality accorded to our delegation.  Question (translated from Arabic): Trade between Russia and the UAE is up despite the pandemic. Do you have any idea why? Sergey Lavrov: I would say this is rather a philosophical question. When you focus on interaction and the implementation of mutually beneficial projects, no disease can stop you from making it happen. We have those kind of relations with the UAE. Today, this approach was fully reiterated during our talks with the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Our relations go beyond strategic partnership. Every year, they grow closer and encompass all areas, without exception, of interaction between our states and peoples. The tourism industry is also essential for promoting people-to-people contact which strengthens our friendship. I’m sure this state of affairs will continue into the future. Question: Thanks to Russia’s initiative, the well-known Iran nuclear deal was negotiated as a result of a reciprocal effort. As of today, it is stalled because of Washington's tough stance on the Iranian nuclear programme. Can we expect Russia to take new steps to have all the parties return to the negotiating table based on Russia’s security concept for the Gulf region? Sergey Lavrov: There are several aspects to this, which we discussed in detail today. First, the previous US Administration withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and thus destroyed it. For more than a year, Iran has faithfully fulfilled its obligations, including voluntary ones, despite the fact that the promised resumption of normal trade was undermined by the United States. The Americans stopped delivering on their promises under the JCPOA and told others to do the same under the threat of sanctions. Nonetheless, Iran has been complying faultlessly for over a year, and then said it would drop out of its voluntary commitments if the United States failed to fulfill its commitments. Everyone is aware of where we are now. We welcome the Biden administration’s decision to return to the JCPOA. It has not yet been implemented, because the United States, as I understand it, is still in the process of figuring out how to go about it. There are those who advocate loudly the need to revive the JCPOA in an updated form. They are talking about the need to discuss Iran's missile programme and its regional policy with regard to the neighbouring countries and the Middle East and North Africa in general. We are convinced that we should now focus on restoring the JCPOA in full and not overburden it with other considerations and concerns however important they might be. To resolve this immediate task, we believe we should work out the concurrent steps that the Iranians and the United States will need to take. If we keep discussing who should be the first to resume compliance, we will never arrive at anything. The Collective Security Concept for the Persian Gulf, which Russia has been promoting for many years now, is another side of the problem. We have repeatedly discussed this concept at our meetings with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers, including here in the UAE, and have updated the concept in accordance with the changes that have taken place in the world and the region since then. Several years ago, we presented an updated version and held a scientific conference with scientists from all the countries involved, which was very productive. In October, when Russia chaired the UN Security Council, we held a special open meeting, which made it possible to generate very interesting ideas that we will use in the future. Returning to the issues arising from renewing the JCPOA, including the conditions for Iran (missiles and regional policy), we are convinced that if the Conference on Security in the Gulf that we are proposing is held based on the principles of respect for each other's interests, equality, and the need to achieve mutually acceptable compromises, then it could be used to discuss the problems and concerns of the parties. I hope that this overall pragmatic approach will help bring in like-minded people and, ultimately, create proper conditions for the countries of the region to get together, build trust and proceed to cooperation. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4613115 Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question about a regular expanded “troika” meeting on Afghanistan 9 March 2021 - 17:46 Question: Would you comment on the media reports concerning the plans to hold a regular expanded “troika” meeting on a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan? What topics will be discussed at this event? Maria Zakharova: It is true that a regular meeting on the intra-Afghan settlement is scheduled to take pace in Moscow on March 18 at the level of special representatives of Russia, China, the United States and Pakistan. We expect the meeting to be attended also by delegations of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Afghanistan’s High Council for National Reconciliation, prominent Afghan political figures, the Taliban Movement and Qatar as a guest of honour. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will deliver the opening remarks. The agenda includes discussions on ways to boost the intra-Afghan talks in Doha, reduce violence and stop the armed conflict in Afghanistan and promote its development as an independent, peaceful and self-sufficient state free from terrorism and drug-related crime. A joint statement is planned to be adopted following the meeting. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4613252 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Riyadh, March 10, 2021 10 March 2021 - 16:05 Good afternoon. We had very fruitful talks with my colleague. As Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud pointed out, we maintain friendly and multifaceted relations, which have a long history. Both sides have reaffirmed their commitment to working together to bring about their consistent progress in all spheres. We will focus on the implementation of the relevant agreements that have been reached at the highest level, in particular, during a state visit by President of Russia Vladimir Putin to Saudi Arabia in October 2019, as well as during other bilateral contacts, including through Vladimir Putin’s recent telephone conversation with Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud. We noted with satisfaction the maintenance of a modestly positive trend in bilateral trade despite the coronavirus pandemic. It grew in 2020 to nearly $1.7 billion. A major role is being played in this by the Joint Russian-Saudi Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation. Its co-chairs have met here in Riyadh and have agreed to hold a full-scale meeting of the commission in Saudi Arabia this year. We noted the good partner-like interaction between the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and the Public Investment Fund (PIF) of Saudi Arabia, which have funded investment projects worth $2.5 billion within the framework of a joint platform. They are discussing additional investment across a number of sectors. Both sides are interested in promoting joint efforts to curtail the spread of the coronavirus infection, including the organisation of the third stage of the clinical trials of the Sputnik V vaccine in Saudi Arabia and the possibility of producing it locally. We share the opinion that we should promote our cooperation on the global hydrocarbons market and also closely coordinate our activities, including within the OPEC+ format. They are producing results. We also noted that there is considerable potential for implementing forward-looking projects in space exploration and nuclear energy. We have agreed to stimulate our joint efforts towards improving the legal framework of our relations, including those aimed at creating more favourable conditions for businesses. We discussed regional issues. For our part, we welcomed the restoration of unity in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and among the Arab countries in general, following the GCC summit held in the Saudi city of AlUla on January 5, 2021. We paid much attention to the prospects of long-term normalisation in the region by developing direct communication channels among the regional states and creating collective mechanisms of response to the existing and potential new challenges and threats. Russia reaffirmed its willingness to provide the necessary assistance to reach these goals – in keeping with our well-known concept for ensuring collective security in this strategically important part of the world. We reviewed the developments in and around Syria. We confirmed our commitment to the sovereignty, national unity and territorial integrity of the SAR and the right of the Syrians to decide their destiny themselves, as envisaged by UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress. I told our colleagues about Russia’s efforts to speed up the political settlement of the conflict, maintain the ceasefire, facilitate the return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs), and restore the destroyed infrastructure. We are making these efforts both bilaterally and in partnership with our colleagues in the Astana format. We are concerned, as are our Saudi friends, over what is happening in Yemen. Over two thirds of its population is in need of urgent help as a result of the bloody conflict that has lasted almost six years. We share the view that the country can be prevented from sliding into an abyss of chaos and humanitarian disaster only if the armed confrontation is stopped as soon as possible and the Yemenis resolve their numerous problems and fairly serious divergences at the negotiating table and reach agreement taking into account the interests of all Yemeni political forces. In this context, we reaffirm our support for the efforts of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths. We have agreed on the need to intensify international efforts under the UN aegis in order to settle the crisis in Libya as soon as possible and form permanent pan-Libyan government bodies. We expressed the hope that the transitional national government that is now being created will be able to join the efforts to unite the country both as regards the functioning of its government structures and as a financial and economic entity, as well as in the formation of integrated armed forces. We, and our Saudi friends, are convinced of the need to resolve the Palestinian issue on the existing foundation of international law, which includes the Arab Peace Initiative that King of Saudi Arabia Abdullah suggested at one time. The long-term stabilisation of the entire Middle East will be substantially complicated without the resolution of all issues on the principles that were agreed upon within its framework. We reaffirmed our readiness to develop cooperation on the Palestinian problem between the Middle East Quartet and the Arab League. I would like to express gratitude to our Saudi colleagues for the traditional hospitality that we are always given in Saudi Arabia, and thank our friends for the intensive talks and trustworthy dialogue. We appreciate this dialogue that really helps us develop bilateral relations and facilitates the conditions for stabilisation in different parts of this region.  Question: Are Russia and Saudi Arabia concerned that the increase in oil prices triggered by Riyadh’s decision to reduce supply by 1 million barrels a day might lead other countries, including the United States, to increase their oil production which would defeat the purpose of OPEC Plus efforts to cut production and ultimately send oil prices down again? How significant are the differences between Russia and Saudi Arabia regarding further steps to stabilise the oil market? Could these differences break the OPEC Plus deal? Sergey Lavrov: I see here one question in its various aspects. Today, my friend and colleague Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud and I confirmed our commitment to strengthening our cooperation on the international hydrocarbon markets. So far, there have been no scenarios which, should they play out, will undermine the interest underlying our cooperation. This is an objective state of affairs, which, I believe, are of a long-term and sustainable nature. With regard to the impact our actions may have on stability and growth in global oil prices or other producers, whose costs exceed the costs incurred by OPEC Plus members, we are dealing with a market economy here. Should this trend re-appear (and it has already done so for a short while), we will surely find a way to coordinate our actions in order to balance the interests of both producers and consumers. Current prices somewhat reflect this balance. We will do our best to make sure the global economy is not affected by any major fluctuation in oil prices. Question (translated from Arabic): What do you think about the recent attack on Ras Tanura Airport in Saudi Arabia? How did the international community respond to this? Should the international community take any additional measures in the context of that incident? Foreign Minister Lavrov (speaking after Faisal bin Farhan): Early on, during today's talks, I stated Russia’s position on these unacceptable actions and emphasised that all parties to the conflict in Yemen, just like any other conflict for that matter, must comply with international humanitarian law under which attacks on civilian infrastructure facilities causing civilian deaths are absolutely unacceptable. We have held this position from day one. I hope all parties understand the need to stop the hostilities and will be supportive of the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy for Yemen, Martin Griffiths’, efforts. We see eye-to-eye on this. Question: How will the US decision to stop supporting military operations in the republic affect the situation in Yemen? Sergey Lavrov (answers after Faisal bin Farhan): I will not comment on relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States, including in the sphere of arms supplies. Regardless of whether the issue is about Yemen or any other hot spot, the more weapons there are, the greater the temptation and risks. On the other hand, cutting arms supplies will not guarantee peace in the region. Most importantly, everyone with or without weapons must end the hostilities and sit down and talk. The United States decided to take the Ansar Allah group off its terrorist list. I hope this message was taken correctly. This by no means represents issuing a carte blanche to continue the violence. This is an indication that they must be part of an inclusive all-Yemeni process. We discussed this issue today from that perspective. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4615285 Joint Statement of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the State of Qatar, Republic of Turkey, and Russian Federation, Doha, 11 March 2021 11 March 2021 - 14:40 The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the State of Qatar, Republic of Turkey, and Russian Federation had a meeting on 11 March 2021 in Doha to discuss the Syrian crisis and ways of cooperation with the aim of contributing to a lasting political solution. The Ministers: - Emphasized their commitment to preserving the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic in accordance with the UN Charter; - Expressed their conviction that there is no military solution to the Syrian conflict, and reaffirming their commitment to advancing a political process facilitated by the United Nations to support the Syrian parties to reach a political solution in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and Geneva Communique of 2012; - Underscored their determination to combat terrorism in all forms and manifestations and stand against separatist agendas undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as well as threatening the national security of neighboring countries; - Emphasized the important role of the Constitutional Committee and ensuring respect to its Terms of Reference and Core Rules of Procedure by the Syrian parties. Expressed their support for constructive engagement without foreign interference in the work of the Constitutional Committee; - Reaffirmed their position on contributing to the work of the Constitutional Committee by supporting the efforts of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to Syria, Geir Pedersen, through continuous interaction with the Syrian parties and delegates of the Constitutional Committee in order to ensure its sustainable and effective work to achieve a constitutional reform; - Expressed their grave concern in regards to the humanitarian situation in Syria and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the profound challenge it poses to the health system in Syria, and to the social, economic and humanitarian conditions. In this regard, called upon the United Nations and its agencies, particularly the World Health Organization, including through the COVAX initiative, to prioritize vaccination inside Syria; - Emphasized the need to increase humanitarian assistance to all Syrians throughout the country without discrimination, politicization and preconditions in order to support improving the humanitarian situation in Syria and achieving progress in the political settlement process, and called upon the international community, the United Nations and its humanitarian agencies to enhance their efforts in this regard; - Stressed the need to facilitate the safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons. In this regard, expressed their readiness to continue interaction with all relevant parties, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other specialized international agencies; - Highlighted the importance of cooperation and support for confidence- building initiatives between the Syrian parties regarding the release of detainees, especially women, children and the elderly, which will contribute to the advancement of the political process by creating positive atmosphere between Syrian parties based on mutual trust. The Foreign Ministers of the Republic of Turkey and the Russian Federation expressed their gratitude to the State of Qatar for hosting their first consultative meeting on Syria in Doha. The Ministers decided to assign the envoys of the three countries to continue their efforts to achieve the common goals referred to in this statement. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4616331 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu and Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani following a trilateral meeting, Doha, March 11, 2021 11 March 2021 - 16:45 Ladies and gentlemen, I join in the words of gratitude addressed to our Qatari friends for their hospitality and their initiative to hold this meeting. This is the first time we are holding a ministerial meeting in this format. Before this, our special representatives worked to establish communication on Syrian issues between our three countries. Special thanks go to the experts for preparing today’s meeting, including our Joint Statement. We noted with satisfaction the overlapping or similar approaches to various aspects of the settlement in Syria. We noted our common understanding of the fact that there is no alternative solution to the political process based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the outcome of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, which was convened by the Astana Troika. We share the understanding that, in all our actions, we and other international players must respect, without reservations, Syria’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. We emphasised the importance of urgently providing the Syrians with humanitarian aid, including in fighting the coronavirus infection, as well as assistance in rebuilding civilian infrastructure destroyed during the war. These pressing tasks cannot be acted on in full because of the illegitimate unilateral sanctions imposed by the West on Syria’s legitimate government and, by and large, on the Syrian people. Russia, Turkey and Qatar’s common goals are included in the Joint Statement which reiterates their determination to fight terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and to oppose the implementation of the separatist plans that undermine Syria’s territorial integrity and threaten the national security of neighbouring countries. The Statement underscores the important role of the Syrian Constitutional Committee and our countries’ willingness to assist it in every possible way, including in collaboration with the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for Syria, Geir Pedersen, in order to ensure sustainable and effective work on the Constitution. We agreed to make every effort so that the next meeting of the Constitutional Committee Drafting Commission can achieve tangible results. We hope it will take place before the holy month of Ramadan begins. Russia, Turkey and Qatar also said they would take part in international efforts to ensure the safe and voluntary return of Syrian refugees and internally displaced people to their homes. The parties noted their shared commitment to support the initiatives aimed at building trust between the Syrian sides, including with regard to freeing detained persons. Our special representatives will directly coordinate joint efforts to achieve the common goals set out in the Statement. We will continue to hold regular ministerial meetings. In general, trilateral contacts will come as a useful addition to Russia, Turkey and Iran’s Astana-format activities. Once again, I wish to thank our Qatari friends.  Question: Russia will host a conference on Afghanistan in Moscow on March 18. Is it held in parallel with the intra-Afghan talks in Doha or is it an alternative to them? Sergey Lavrov (speaks after Mohammed Al-Thani): I support what my colleague and friend just said. We are genuinely interested in bringing an end to the Afghan tragedy as soon as possible. This is yet another example of the consequences of democratisation, which the countries outside of that region are trying to impose, including in Iraq, Libya and Syria. We are not competing with Qatar or any other country in this regard. We have not adopted a stance that could become a bone of contention. As you are aware, before the Doha process, there was the Istanbul process and the Moscow format, and no one ever thought of reproaching our Qatari friends for “stealing the show.” This is a case of flawed logic. Indeed, we followed closely and supported strongly the Doha talks. I can’t agree with you saying they were a success. Many unresolved problems remain. We discussed this today, including with Emir of Qatar Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani and Foreign Minister Mohammed Al-Thani. We would like to help these talks to continue, with each participant adopting a more constructive position. This is exactly why the Moscow meeting is being convened. It was initiated by Russia, the United States and the People’s Republic of China. The three countries will meet in an expanded format which will include Pakistan. The Afghan parties will be invited as well. This is in no way an official format, fixed by some decision. It is designed to encourage the parties to be more cooperative through informal discussions and a trust-based dialogue. So, I can only support what Foreign Minister Mohammed Al-Thani had to say. Question: It was stated today that this will be a permanent format. In what way will this format be different from the Astana format? Will the Astana format focus on military issues, and this one on humanitarian issues, or is there something else to it? Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Mevlut Cavusoglu and Mohammed Al-Thani): I agree with what has just been said about this format. One of the first questions was why we are meeting now. We are not meeting just now, this format has been in existence for over a year now. Our representatives have held at least three meetings to exchange opinions on how to overcome the Syria crisis in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. It complements the Astana format, rather than replaces it. In its own time, the Astana format created the foundation for the efforts that are now being undertaken to achieve a Syrian settlement. It created the basis for implementing UN Security Council Resolution 2254, primarily through the holding of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. The Astana format is dedicated to all aspects of settlement, including military, political and humanitarian. We will, of course, welcome the role that Qatar is willing to play. This is a manifestation of a natural impulse to help a fraternal Arab nation. The joint patrolling (if you are familiar with the history of this issue) is part of the agreement between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on settling the situation in the Idlib province. In addition to separating the responsible opposition from terrorists, it includes the mutual consent to organise a joint Russian-Turkish patrol of the M-4 Motorway. We discussed this today as well. Yesterday, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu and I held a bilateral meeting to discuss these matters. So, I can only welcome Qatar’s initiative to contribute to creating proper conditions for overcoming the current tragic situation in Syria. Question: How can the favourable position of a number of Arab countries regarding Syria’s return to the League of Arab States help settle the political crisis in Syria? Are we likely to see any progress in relations between Qatar and Syria? Perhaps, Qatar could open an embassy in Damascus? Sergey Lavrov: I can only welcome any progress in the Arab states’ collective opinion on the need to return Syria to the Arab League. I believe this will come as a consolidating factor and will play a positive role in the efforts to stabilise this entire large region, just as the recent restoration of GCC unity played a very positive role in this sense following the summit held in Saudi Arabia on January 5. So, we are always in favour of joining efforts, rather than going separate ways. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4616426
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
March 15th, 2021
|
#270 |
|
Senior Member
|
Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 12, 2021
12 March 2021 - 15:25 PACE President Rik Daems’ visit to Russia As we announced, on March 15-16, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Rik Daems will be in Moscow on a working visit at the invitation of Vyacheslav Volodin, Speaker of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly. Mr Daems will also meet with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to discuss developments in the Council of Europe and current international issues on the organisation’s agenda. Foreign Minister of Israel Gabi Ashkenazi’s visit to Russia On March 17, Foreign Minister of Israel Gabi Ashkenazi will be in Moscow on a working visit and will hold talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the restoration of Russian-Israeli diplomatic relations, the ministers plan to hold an in-depth discussion on the current issues on the bilateral agenda, including the development of ties between foreign ministries, the activities of the Joint Russian-Israeli Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation with a view to strengthening business interaction, which has been damaged during the coronavirus pandemic, and humanitarian ties. The ministers will exchange views on international and regional issues, focusing on a Middle East settlement. The Russian side will reaffirm its commitment to boosting the efforts of the Middle East Quartet of international mediators towards resuming the peace process through a direct Israeli-Palestinian dialogue based on the universally recognised principles of international law. They will also highlight the coordination of measures to curb any attempts to revise the history and results of WWII and prevent the glorification of Nazis and their accomplices and the denial of the Holocaust. We would like to mention the intensive character of the multifaceted Russian-Israeli dialogue that is based on mutual respect and interest in attaining mutual understanding on issues under discussion in the best interests of our peoples. The expanded “troika” meeting on peaceful settlement of the conflict in Afghanistan A regular expanded “troika” meeting at the level of special representatives from Russia, China, the United States and Pakistan to discuss the intra-Afghan settlement will be held in Moscow on March 18. The delegations of the Afghan government, the Afghan High Council for National Reconciliation and prominent Afghan political figures, as well as the Taliban Movement and, as an honoured guest, Qatar are expected to attend as well. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will deliver a message of greetings. The participants will discuss ways to advance the intra-Afghan talks in Doha, to reduce the level of violence and to end the armed conflict in Afghanistan, as well as to help that country become an independent, peaceful and self-sufficient state, free from terrorism and drug-related crime. A joint statement will be adopted based on the outcome of the meeting. Rossiya Segodnya asked us before the briefing whether Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov would have any pull-asides on the sidelines of the meeting. It’s possible provided there are relevant requests. The schedule is still in the works. A letter of thanks from the Moscow diplomatic corps’ doyen I would like to say a few words about the international community’s joint efforts and our country’s contribution to fighting the pandemic. Russia has offered free Sputnik V vaccines to employees of embassies accredited in Russia and their families. We are doing this based on corresponding international legal documents and diplomatic rules and traditions. Many foreign diplomats have already had the Russian vaccine. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov received a thank-you letter from the Ambassador of Azerbaijan, Polad Bulbuloglu, who is also doyen of the Moscow diplomatic corps which emphasises that “the Russian Foreign Ministry’s initiative deserves profound respect and was highly appreciated by the entire diplomatic corps.” I would like to remind you that the Russian-made Sputnik V vaccine has an excellent track record in Russia and internationally. It has been approved for use in 50 countries, which makes it the world’s second most widely registered vaccine. Other domestic vaccines are on track to become registered as well. We are definitely not going to politicise this issue and we are not participating in any political races, let alone the infodemia. We hope we are immune to this – I’m talking about the vast amount of fake material. Unfortunately, we have become an object of lies and large amounts of unreliable information, including about the Russian-made vaccine and our country’s efforts in this area. The attempts aimed at discrediting Russia and Russia’s contribution to the global fight against the pandemic do work, but they work against those who are making them. We are confident that the international community must act as one and coordinate its efforts if we want to overcome the coronavirus pandemic and provide the earliest possible alleviation of its widespread socioeconomic fallout. The Russian vaccines (this is a reminder for those who come up with all sorts of fabrications or publish offensive or misleading materials) are part of the overall effort to beat the pandemic. I would like to believe that, realising the importance of progress in immunising the global population, our foreign partners will stop wasting their energy on politicising this issue and building more barriers, and instead focus on a positive agenda serving our common interests. We are not only open and ready to talk, interact and cooperate. We are also working energetically to this end, on which we regularly keep you informed. Foreign Ministry statement on the 10th anniversary of the start of anti-government demonstrations in Syria I would like to read the Foreign Ministry’s statement on the 10th anniversary of the start of anti-government demonstrations in Syria. This document will be published on the Foreign Ministry website. On March 15, it will be ten years since the beginning of civil disorder in the Syrian Arab Republic. Due to outside interference, the domestic political process rapidly turned into an armed conflict, in which illegal armed groups moved to the fore. The country was subjected to unprecedented aggression by international terrorism. Owing to Russia’s decisive contribution, ISIS was defeated and irreparable damage was done to other international terrorist groups. As a result of the concerted efforts of the Astana format partners – Russia, Iran and Turkey – a sustainable ceasefire is ensured in the larger part of Syrian territory. At the same time, there are still isolated hotbeds of tension in Idlib, where the terrorists of Jabhat al-Nusra and its allied gangs have entrenched themselves, as well as in the areas with an illegal US military presence – east of the Euphrates and At-Tanf. Occupying an uncompromising position on international terrorism in all forms and manifestations and rendering military assistance to help eradicate terrorism in Syria, Russia firmly and consistently advocates a political settlement to the internal conflict in Syria. We are firmly convinced that there cannot be a military solution to it. We are committed to a political process led and implemented by the Syrians themselves in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We are doing all we can to promote this process in our contacts with the Syrian government and opposition representatives. We actively facilitate the work of the Syrian Constitutional Committee in Geneva, which was set up following the decision of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress held in Sochi in 2018. We encourage the involved Syrian parties to conduct regular constructive discussions in Geneva. That said, we are convinced that the Syrians must independently work out a common vision for the future of their homeland without external pressure or artificial deadlines for a final result. Respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic has always been and remains an imperative of our policy in Syria. On the tragic anniversary of the start of the destructive and bloody events in Syria we are bound to recall the numerous atrocities committed by terrorists against peaceful civilians and provocations staged by pseudo-humanitarians from the White Helmets with the use of chemical agents, which were inspired by their Western patrons. It is public knowledge that it was the far-fetched accusations of the Syrian Government of war crimes that were repeatedly used by the Americans and their allies to justify strikes at Syrian territory in violation of international law and in circumvention of the UN Security Council. We believe assistance to the voluntary and safe return home of Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons is a major step towards restoring national unity in Syria. We are convinced that the entire international community must make vigorous efforts to resolve the urgent humanitarian task of providing acceptable living conditions for the millions of Syrians that have suffered in alien lands. Unfortunately, the positive trends in Syria are not welcomed by everyone. After the failure of the long-standing previous attempts by anti-Syrian forces to achieve the overthrow of the lawful Syrian government by force, using criminals and terrorists as proxies, they have moved to financial and economic strangling. To achieve this, they are using unilateral restrictions, blocking external aid and creating obstacles for the return of refugees and IDPs to Syrian government controlled territories. In the process, the selective assistance rendered by the Western countries to their clients in Syria, can only perpetuate the existing dividing lines in Syrian society and stimulate separatist attitudes in the areas that are being artificially isolated today. We consider the approaches by those who make political demands on the provision of humanitarian assistance to the Syrians anti-humane and unconstructive, all the more so during the coronavirus pandemic. In effect, the Syrians are being punished because they did not want to live according to the patterns imposed on them from the outside. We see this as yet further evidence of the double standards that are used by our opponents in Syria. They are trying to make Syria hostage to narrow self-serving geopolitical interests and turn it into a territory of permanent domestic conflict and an arena for the settling of accounts by external forces. It is no surprise that this position is held by the states that took a direct part in fanning the flames in Syria and that have supported anti-government forces, including terrorists. It is they who are primarily responsible for the ongoing Syrian tragedy. We urge all those who are really interested in settling the crisis in Syria as soon as possible to give up politicised approaches and take an active part in rendering international assistance to the Syrian people, primarily in resolving urgent socio-economic problems and parrying humanitarian challenges. Western countries manipulating the OPCW This is not the first time that the United States and other “like-minded” OPCW members have used this technical platform for groundlessly accusing Syria of using chemical weapons. Taking advantage of procedural tricks, the Western countries have blocked Russia’s proposal to review, during the current session of the OPCW Executive Council, a French draft sanctions decision against Damascus for the alleged use, on three occasions, of chemical warfare agents by the Syrian army outside Al-Latamna in March 2017. The OPCW’s investigations in Syria are politicised and lost any credibility a long time ago. Suffice it to recall the fabricated report on the alleged chemical incident in Douma in April 2018 and the provocation a year before that in the town of Khan Shaykhun, where the White Helmets used sarin. Both episodes were conclusively refuted by Russian military experts who presented technical details on ballistics, demining and chemical protection. They did this openly without using information influence techniques, held press conferences, gave interviews and published corresponding materials. Based on the objective monitoring data published by the United States itself, they showed that the mainstream Western narrative describing the bombing of Khan Shaykhun is at odds with the elementary laws of physics. To divert the international community’s attention from the facts of exposing the West’s “fake news,” Washington and its allies then tried to bring up the alleged chemical incidents at Al-Latamna. The fabricated report, compiled to a corresponding “order,” turned out to be biased, unconvincing and, ultimately, unprofessional. Despite that, in July 2020, Syria was presented, with a minimal majority of votes, with intentionally impracticable demands to come forward with the allegedly undeclared production and storage facilities for chemical weapons. The fact that Syria’s chemical warfare programme had been scrapped under strict international control, which was confirmed by the OPCW more than once, was simply ignored. Cynically violating the Chemical Weapons Convention, the collective West, in circumvention of the organisation’s Executive Council, is seeking to impose sanctions on Damascus at the upcoming Conference of the States Parties to the Convention. The scenarios remain unchanged. The names of the countries that become targets of the staged information and political campaigns may change, but the methods remain the same. We will work to counter this approach. We state that through the efforts of the United States and the US-manipulated Technical Secretariat, the OPCW has become a tool to service the geopolitical interests of a small group of “chosen” countries, whose notorious “solidarity” is nothing more than complicity which is increasingly replacing common sense and a sense of reality. Unfortunately, the OPCW does not do much in areas that are more constructive and important, even though its name is the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Isn’t it time for you to start implementing your immediate responsibilities? As you are aware, the United States has not destroyed its chemical weapons despite its obligation to do so. OPCW Technical Secretariat, would you please pay attention to this flagrant violation of international law? The possibility of deploying US land-based intermediate-range missiles in Japan We noted the reports in the Japanese media saying that Tokyo and Washington might soon be discussing the prospects of deploying US missiles in Japan. Judging by the context, these reports are most likely about land-based intermediate-range missiles, which earlier were banned under the INF Treaty. In this connection, we want to point out again that the deployment of American land-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, regardless of what they carry, in various parts of the world, including in the Asia-Pacific Region, would have an immensely destabilising effect, in terms of international and regional security. This would provoke a new round of the arms race, the implications of which can hardly be predicted. Obviously, this scenario would do nothing to enhance the security of either the United States or its allies. At the same time, the additional threat that the deployment of these missiles poses to Russia will certainly provoke a reaction from us. We are calling again on all interested parties to start seeking ways of reaching a political and diplomatic settlement of the situation that has evolved since Washington dismantled the INF Treaty. Let me remind you that despite destructive actions by the United States, Russia has announced a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of land-based intermediate- and shorter-range missiles in the regions where Americans do not deploy similar missile systems. Our commitment has remained in force. We are still open to constructive efforts on an equal footing to restore confidence and strengthen global security and strategic stability “in the post-INF Treaty world”. Norway’s plans to open new blocks for oil and gas development within the area covered by the 1920 Spitsbergen Treaty We have noted the information about the Norwegian authorities’ plans as part of the latest licensing round for continental shelf exploration, including in the predefined areas in the Barents Sea, to open nine more blocks for oil and gas development in the area covered by the 1920 Spitsbergen Treaty. We proceed from the fact that the legal regime established by the 1920 Spitsbergen Treaty fully applies to the archipelago’s continental shelf. It follows, in particular, that mineral exploration and production on the shelf around Spitsbergen should be conducted in accordance with the above-mentioned Treaty and the 1925 Mining Code for Spitsbergen in order to guarantee that individuals and entities from all the states parties to the 1920 Treaty can exercise their rights and legitimate interests. We strongly urge Norway to strictly comply with the Treaty, which is the basis for the Kingdom’s sovereignty over the archipelago under international law. Leonid Kravchuk’s statements on “radical steps” by Kiev if Russia fails to declare itself a party to the conflict in Donbass We have received many questions regarding statements by Leonid Kravchuk, head of the Ukrainian delegation at the talks within the Contact Group, on Kiev taking “radical steps” should Russia fail to recognize itself as a party to the conflict in Donbass. Unfortunately, Ukrainian officials have tried, with amazing regularity, especially of late, to cover their inaction and overt sabotage of the previously reached agreements on a settlement in the east of Ukraine with accusations against Russia and to shift the responsibility to us for actually driving negotiations into a dead-end. In so doing, Kiev is trying to persuade everybody that Moscow is allegedly a party to the conflict, that it supposedly has some obligations under the Minsk package of measures. As if they don’t have that document in front of their eyes and can’t see whose signatures are on it. I want to remind those who have forgotten: the parties to the conflict were clearly identified in the document approved by a UN Security Council resolution. They are Kiev, on one side, and Donetsk and Lugansk, on the other. It is precisely a reluctance to recognize this fact by Ukraine’s negotiators and their lack of will to come to terms with Donbass that is the reason for the lack of sustainable peace in the region. The aggressive and hostile rhetoric outside the legal context, at a time when the security situation is clearly degrading, makes us seriously consider Kiev’s real intentions at this given period of history. Moreover, Ukraine has actually withdrawn from the supplementary agreements on a cease-fire signed last July. The number of artillery attacks, including against civilian infrastructure, is growing, and this issue is becoming even more relevant. In this respect, we would like to warn Kiev and the “hotheads” manipulating or serving it from further escalation and attempts to use force in Donbass. We urge the Ukrainian authorities, once again, to stop inventing “new understandings” and documents, and start fulfilling their obligations under the Minsk agreements in good faith. Situation concerning UN Disarmament Commission We view the United Nations Disarmament Commission (UNDC) as a crucial element of the UN disarmament triad which, in addition to the UNDC, includes the First Committee of the UN General Assembly and the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Russia has consistently upheld the full-format character of the commission’s activities and the scrupulous observance of its mandate – drafting recommendations on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation (ACDNP). We are interested in continuing a detailed discussion of the issues on the UNDC’s agenda. Russia, like many other UN member states, used to send qualified experts to UNDC sessions in New York in view of the importance and particular specifics of ACDNP issues. However, in 2019, this practice was suspended. As a reminder, US authorities failed to issue an entrance visa to the head of the Russian delegation under a far-fetched pretext, and they have continued doing this. This critical situation with the UNDC is not an isolated case but rather the result of Washington’s system-wide illegal visa control practices with regard to experts from the UN member states that are delegates to UN events. As a result, the UNDC’s substantive work has, in fact, stalled. The US authorities have grossly violated their obligations under the 1947 Agreement Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations and have ignored the key provisions of the UNGA Resolution 75/146 Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country approved by consensus, which also means with Washington’s support. Under Article IV of the above agreement, “the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the Headquarters district of Representatives or Members of the United Nations,” and also visas “shall be granted without charge and as promptly as possible.” Let me remind you that visas were denied in 2019, and now it is 2021. This regards the “prompt granting of visas” by the Americans to experts who are not traveling to the United States but to the UN, which is located on US territory. The provisions of the Article shall be applicable irrespective of the relations between the Governments of the persons and the Government of the United States. UNGA Resolution 75/146 states that US authorities are expected to promptly issue entrance visas to all UN member states’ representatives so they can come to New York on official matters of the United Nations Organisation. In addition, the resolution reaffirms that there is an unrestricted right of persons to enter the United States for the purpose of proceeding to the Headquarters district. The US’s neglect of its obligations as a host country for UN Headquarters has become a factor which impedes the UNDC’s work and discredits its status as a key element of the UN disarmament mechanism. When it is impossible to ensure the participation of respective experts of the UN member states in the work of the commission, the “added value” of its recommendations is debased. In addition, Washington’s actions undermine the established procedural peculiarities of the UNDC’s operation, primarily the practice of consensus decision making, the basic principle which guarantees a balance of interests for all member states and the universal nature of the recommendations designed by the UNDC. Holding the commission’s organisational and substantive sessions loses its sense of purpose once equal conditions for work within the UNDC format have not been provided for all experts of the UN member states. In view of the above, we demand that the US authorities reconsider their approach and return to responsible compliance with its obligations as the UN Headquarters Host Country by ensuring entrance to the US for the head of the Russian delegation to participate in the UNDC. I know that the UN Secretariat is also engaged in resolving this predicament, which is due to illegal actions by the US government. Man-made disaster in the Republic of Equatorial Guinea On March 7 of this year, a number of powerful explosions took place on the Nkoantoma military base in Bata, the economic capital of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea. According to officials, the tragedy was caused by the inflammation of ammunition stored at this facility. Initial estimates put the death toll at 105 people. Over 600 people were injured to one extent or another. Residential buildings were destroyed and city infrastructure damaged in neighbouring areas. The Russian Embassy in Yaoundé (accredited in the REG concurrently) reported there were no Russian citizens among the victims of the disaster. The leaders of Equatorial Guinea declared national days of mourning on March 10-12, 2021. We express our sincere condolences to the families and friends of the deceased and wish early recovery to the wounded. Developments in Haiti We have received many questions about the developments in Haiti. I would like to give a generalised response to them. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council (apparently, this is why we were asked so many questions in this context), we are closely following the events in Haiti, which cause our concern. At present, this Caribbean state is going through a new round of political instability that has lasted for over a quarter century. Haiti is in the grips of a major social and economic crisis. This situation, with some changes to this or the other side has become a constant way of life for the Haitians. It would be natural to ask what the sources of this predicament are? Once a rich territory, Equatorial Guinea was called a Caribbean pearl in the 18th century. It was the first Latin American country to win independence and set an example for progressive development. Why is it now permanently beset with grievous problems and is one of the region’s poorest and most unstable countries, and a special concern of the UN Security Council? There are many reasons for this. They include the consequences of its colonial past. The internal problems of organisation and governance are natural. There have been natural disasters, the most dramatic of which was the earthquake in January 2010. However, a different and absolutely artificial destructive factor for Haiti is invariably playing the main role in its troubles. I am referring to imposed external influence. How else can one qualify the permanent “big stick of democracy-making” used by Haiti’s northern neighbour that calls itself the most democratic state in the world? What other result could have been expected from such external “assistance” as the long-standing absolute power of the Washington-backed Duvalier clan and two foreign military invasions – in 1915 and 1994 – in one century? These questions are not rhetorical but have answers. What other result can come of an external presence that is continuously permeating all areas of Haiti’s economic and political life that comes with the imposition of direct rule through the instigation of conflict between the national elites? Such political and social engineering always exacerbates the problems but never helps to resolve them, especially during the current pandemic. World practice has proven more than once that any export of foreign development models, not to mention imposition by force, with no regard for specific peculiarities, traditions, attitudes or national historical roots of the people in any country can only be fraught with the introduction of an imbalance in the backbone elements of state development, the destruction of development guidelines and disruption of natural economic bonds. All this is becoming even more obvious against the blatant practice of double standards. We are seeing this in Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and a number of other countries in different parts of the world. It is sad that open use is made of the dual morality that erodes international principles (if it can be called morality at all) and that democracy is interpreted only through Western rendition and largely as an excuse for interference. Hence, the challenges that we are discussing today with respect to Haiti and the responsibility of foreign states for their part in exacerbating these challenges. We are convinced that these countries should ask themselves many unpleasant questions and try to reach at least some sensible conclusions. The main point is to realise that the true goal of aid is not to impose foreign patterns but to help people decide their destiny themselves via an inclusive dialogue, the formation of a public and political consensus based on their domestic law and international standards and without outside interference. These are common truths that are fixed in the UN Charter. However, we often see them violated and even forgotten by many global players. Russia advocates this approach. Being invariably committed to the principles of the UN Charter, we are willing to continue rendering the needed assistance to the Haitians both bilaterally and under the auspices of the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti. We intend to help Haiti restore political stability in the country, maintain its domestic security, train its personnel, maintain peace and ensure human rights. Polish-American “fake history” Unfortunately, I have to spend a moment discussing a subject that has become almost an integral part of our briefings. I’m talking about the distorted interpretation of history and the rewriting of history. In this particular case, we will focus on Polish-American history-related “fake news.” Sometimes the lies coming from Eastern European state entities and the Western media make it possible to reveal the mechanism behind the falsification of history and the distortion of the outcome of WWII. The US media published materials about Polish archaeologists who unearthed nuns “killed by Russian soldiers in 1945.” These unconfirmed “data” came from the infamous Polish Institute of National Remembrance which is responsible for destroying hundreds of memorials to over 600,000 Soviet soldiers who died liberating Poland. The US media is saying that the Red Army invaded Poland in 1944, after it had been occupied by Germany, in hopes of establishing control by imprisoning, banishing and eliminating Polish soldiers, civilians and religious communities. There’s an even more bone-chilling statement to the effect that the brutal Soviet occupation of the war-torn country was established when Nazi Germany withdrew its troops. At the suggestion of some Polish organisations, US audiences are being told that the Soviet Union “occupied” Poland when it was at war with Germany. This transcends fabrication. This is a dangerous insanity. It is claimed that the Red Army captured the Polish towns of Gdansk, Olsztyn and Orneta in February 1945. The Polish Institute may try to mislead incompetent US journalists, but the historical facts cannot be argued with. The above cities became Polish cities by Yalta Conference decision. Before that, they were called Danzig, Allenstein and Wormditt, respectively. The last two were in East Prussia. Incidentally, World War II began by firing shots in Danzig in 1939. And it was liberated in March, not in February. The First Army of the Polish Armed Forces fought there alongside the 2nd and 1st Byelorussian fronts of the Red Army. So, the Poles occupied Poland as well? This is impossible. As you may be aware, the Red Army lost 127,000 soldiers in the East Prussian Offensive and 53,000 soldiers in the East Pomeranian Offensive. Our Polish allies lost 9,000 soldiers. As absurd as modern historiography may be in the minds of Western journalists, it appears that in the course of the joint Soviet-Polish capture of Poland, the Red Army still managed to liberate the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. We are all aware of this fact, which is marked annually on January 27. However, Poland tried to argue the international community out of this as well. Remember Polish Foreign Minister Grzegorz Schetyna saying in 2015 that Auschwitz was liberated by the Ukrainians? Moreover, the US ambassadors, taking the cue from President Obama in 2008, claimed from time to time that Auschwitz was liberated by the US Army. Playing with history is a dangerous and insane endeavour. Let’s go back to the excavations in former East Prussia, which became Polish territory thanks to Soviet troops. The incumbent authorities in Warsaw aren’t satisfied with demolishing monuments to those who saved the Polish nation from annihilation. This is not just about memorials outside burial sites. A mass grave of 56 Soviet soldiers and a mausoleum were destroyed without conducting archaeological excavations in the town of Czarnkow in 2017. As we see, the Institute of National Remembrance is making serious efforts to tarnish the memory of the dead soldiers and is doing so not only in Poland, but also abroad with the help of Western NGOs and the media. We will continue to expose the activities of this pseudo-historical society. We will issue refutations and send corresponding letters to the editorial offices of the US media, if they still remember the meaning of the word “reputation.” We suggest that they avoid talking with this “institute” led by ultra-right activists who practice Nazi greetings. We will conduct targeted work with the US media on this matter. Renaming a public garden in Bucharest We were stunned by the news that the municipal council of one of Bucharest’s districts demanded that the public garden in the central part of the city named after Marshal Fyodor Tolbukhin be renamed under the pretext that the Soviet commander had allegedly been involved in changing the political system in Romania. This is not the first time that attempts have been made to erase his name from the map of the Romanian capital: in 2017, similar plans failed. It would be appropriate to remember that as World War II drew to a close, our distinguished military commander led the operation to drive Nazi troops out of Romania, and in May 1947 the King of Romania awarded him the Order of Michael the Brave for his outstanding service to that country during the liberation of Romania from the Nazi invaders. Clearly, this is yet another example of revisionism, an unscrupulous attempt by the masterminds of this plan to gain prominence by taking an anti-Russia, Russophobic stance that, regrettably, is popular today in certain circles. We must not forget that mocking the history and the memory of true heroes who fought against Nazism is a morally flawed and reprehensible act. These cheap escapades look particularly dishonorable in the year when we mark 80 years since the attack of Nazi Germany and its allies on the USSR. We hope that the Bucharest authorities will yet again show common sense and will not bow to the instigators. We and our Romanian colleagues have many interests and objectives that are knit together in the military and memorial field. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe resolution on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Latvia On March 3, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Latvia. The document notes that the Latvian authorities are not fully delivering on their obligations. This concerns, first, restrictions on receiving an education in a minority language, violating the rights of the non-Latvian population to full participation in the country’s cultural, economic, social and political life, and the prohibition of using national minority languages in dealings with regional and administrative authorities. In this connection, immediate action is needed to rectify the situation. In part, the following recommendations should be considered: - promote the integration of society as a whole with an understanding that the process is not limited to the promotion of proficiency in the state language; - ensure the continued availability of teaching and learning in the languages of national minorities throughout the country with a view to meeting existing demand; - ensure the inclusion of national minorities in decision making; - combat stereotypes and prejudices in political discourse and counteract manifestations of xenophobia in society; - reconsider the approach to the quota requirements in the broadcast media and pursue efforts to promote the state language through incentive-based methods rather than through the imposition of language bans. We note that the above approach and the qualifications of the Council of Ministers are consonant with Russia’s assessments of Riga’s comprehensive violations of the rights of Russian speaking citizens. We hope the Latvian authorities will heed these recommendations and will bring their policy in line with their international commitments. For our part, we would like to emphasise that protection of the rights of our compatriots and, generally, Russian-speaking citizens in the Baltic states and Ukraine remain a priority of Russian foreign policy. The Lithuanian Court of Appeal’s ruling to extend Russian national Yury Mel’s jail term We are indignant at the lawlessness taking place in Lithuania with respect to Russian Army reserve officer Yury Mel, who was sentenced by Lithuanian justice, if we may say so, as part of the a politically motivated trial of the tragic events of January 13, 1991 in Vilnius. This Russian prisoner has already spent seven years in jail in Lithuania, that is, his full prison term under the Vilnius District Court’s ruling of March 27, 2019; he was to be released on March 12. However, in a move to play up to the Russophobic sentiments of the Lithuanian political establishment, the court of appeals in this country has ruled to leave Yury Mel in jail until a ruling is announced on the appeal filed by the Lithuanian Prosecutor General’s Office, which is seeking a tougher jail sentence by extending it for another three years. The verdict will be announced on March 31 this year. Why is this taking place in a country that associates itself with democratic values and endlessly tries to lecture others as well as talks about justice and the need to comply with the law where other countries are concerned? Where is Brussels? Where are the tweets by the Brussels authorities? Where is the European ombudsman? I want to ask them if they see what is happening. Don’t you understand that this is a true reprisal? This is just a desire to show, with one specific individual as an example, how one’s life can be ruined… Where are all these lofty words that are spoken at EU headquarters? How are they translated into real life? Let’s call a spade a spade. The Lithuanian authorities are blinded by the thirst for political revenge, while the judges who are subordinate to them are ignoring elementary universal human rights standards. We are addressing this commentary directly to Brussels, the EU authorities and the many institutions that must and are expected to oversee law and order, as well as compliance with fundamental democratic principles in the EU member countries. You are so fond of speculating on the issue of human rights. Here is a person who is simply being bullied. I will remind you that Yury Mel suffers from a grave condition caused by pancreatic diabetes. This makes all the lawlessness he has already been subjected to even worse. The repeated requests by his lawyer that at least his jail sentence be changed to house arrest have been turned down. I want to repeat that all this is taking place in a country that positions itself as all but a model of democracy. So, this is the democracy you have, if [Lithuania] is the standard. Then you should not preach democratic values because nobody needs such democracy Live it yourself. We will not allow these kinds of stories to be overlooked. We will continue to draw the attention of the EU institutions to this manifestation of lawlessness. We demand that an end be put to the cynical efforts to defame justice and an actual person. The authorities in Vilnius should understand that these games will have consequences. 100th anniversary of the signing of the Russian-British Trade Agreement March 16 marks the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Trade Agreement between the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic and the United Kingdom. Commissar of Foreign Trade Leonid Krasin and Chancellor of the Exchequer Robert Horne signed the document in London. The agreement was not only commercial but also political in nature. Its fundamental principles, such as the mutual commitment to refrain from hostile acts and propaganda (the key word) against each other, are still relevant today. This document amounted to de facto recognition of the Soviet government and was the first treaty concluded by Soviet Russia with a Western power. We consider the upcoming anniversary as a practical confirmation of the history of relations between our countries. At the same time, we have to state that today Russian-British relations are going through difficult times, to put it mildly. We remain ready to normalise our relations with the UK to the degree that London is ready to do so. In the context of the upcoming anniversary and the very provisions laid out in the document that the parties undertake to refrain from propaganda against each other, we would like to draw attention to a very important problem – how the UK does not honour its commitment to non-interference in media activities, thereby making its own media no longer independent. British media We have received many requests to comment on the high profile interview of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on a CBS television show. We are not really interested in such things and won’t comment on them. This is not our business. However, we are very interested in and concerned about everything that is linked with British propaganda and the undermining of freedom of speech in Britain. We paid some attention to this interview in this context. First, we are perplexed by some very specific “modalities” of British media performance, This is what the Duke of Sussex said: “There is this invisible contract behind closed doors, behind the institution (monarchy) and UK tabloids. Well, to simplify it, it's a case of, if you, as a family member, are willing to wine, dine, and give full access to these reporters, then you will get better press.” As we understand it, in this case “the institution” means the office serving the Royal Court and the family of the head of state, or, to be more precise, the heads of state in 16 countries (Australia, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Great Britain, Grenada, Canada, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Vincent and the Grenadines, St Kits and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Jamaica). I have some questions in connection with the “revelations” we heard in this interview. Do we understand it correctly that this implies collusion between the power institutions in Britain and the media? This is exactly what our colleagues in London like to accuse others of, calling themselves “the champions of free press.” During the conversation, the Duchess of Sussex openly admits that British tabloids cast everyone in a role (“a standard” as the interviewer says). This is hardly the same as the principle of unbiased press, which can be found in the fifth section of the guidelines in the British Ofcom regulations (meanwhile, based on these guidelines, RT was fined in July 2019). If the Duke of Sussex indicated collusion between the institution of the monarchy and the press, and that the Duchess of Sussex had to follow different rules. She was “given a very clear directive from the moment the world knew Harry and I were dating to always say, ‘No comment.’” So, they were silent. Is this true democracy and freedom of the media, British style? All this is taking place against the backdrop of leaks about the enormous funds that the British authorities spend to shatter the situation in other countries, primarily in our country, using both the Western and Russian-language information space. All this is taking place against the backdrop of endless accusations hurled by the Foggy Albion at any “objectionable” media that are called “biased,” “non-transparent,” “closed” and “propaganda-oriented.” So, on the one hand, there is collusion between the institutions of authority and the media, whereas on the other, each representative of the political establishment has been assigned a role to play in these tabloids. On top of all that, there is a direct instruction for them to remain silent. This is taking place while at the same time tremendous amounts of money from the British budget are being spent on promoting freedom of speech in other countries. The Russian Embassy in Britain recently notified the British Foreign Office about its documents on the internet, which reveal the existence of the British government’s large programme of systematic influence on the Russian language media space. These documents point to the existence of fairly destructive propaganda campaigns. Based on these documents, projects have been carried out on the order of the Foreign Office for several years in Russia and neighbouring countries. These projects are pompously presented as support for Russian-language “independent media,” and “efforts to ensure a balanced media” and the like. Let’s return to the start of the interview by the Duke and the Duchess. They told us about the “independent” media, British style, “a balanced media” and “freedom of speech.” This is not about encouraging sound competition among journalists although it seems that they could figure out how to do their job without instructions from British government institutions. The professional community has adopted a host of documents and regulations. There are many valid international legal documents in this area. I would like to ask a reasonable question: why should British officials send money to support “freedom of speech” (as they see it) to other countries? Do they think journalists will not figure it out without them? If there had been a decent example to follow; but this doesn’t exist, as it follows, based on the recent interview with Oprah Winfrey. All this shows that targeted support is meant only for media that promote British and generally Western political ideas. To counter the “Kremlin’s propaganda and disinformation” they work to reduce the influence of Russian media resources that are, incidentally, operating on legal grounds. London does not comment on documents that are not published by the British government “in the established procedure.” But it does not deny the existence of the above programmes and its subversive activities in the media space. It justifies this as “support for freedom of the media.” From the above interview, we know what “freedom” and what media are being referred to. The interview with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was a sensation. It clearly showed what an unsightly (to put it mildly) role the pocket media are playing in the British political machine. In fact, the British establishment has admitted to the whole world that their media mechanisms are opaque and uncivilised, and the people behind the mass media in the UK stick to very dubious principles. Can we trust British journalists after this? Is it still possible? For decades, the British media were seen as the benchmark of journalism like London itself wanted everyone to believe. They tried to convince us over many years that the British mass media are keepers of profound traditions and are guided by lofty ethical standards, of which impartiality is a key. During our briefings, we have repeatedly mentioned the British media, mostly because of their blatantly biased approach. However, recent revelations by the royal family gave us an idea of how deep the problem lies. It has nothing to do with Russia. What they said vividly showed that Britain, in particular, its media, has not been impartial for a long time, perhaps ever. I cannot say how deep this goes in history, but there clearly has not been any such thing as impartiality in recent history. Instead, the “unwavering traditions of professionalism” of the British media, stemming from their close ties with the British political establishment, are nothing more than a mixture of hypocrisy and double standards wrapped in custom-made snobbery and imperial phantom pains. As a result, the world is held hostage by the never-ending manipulation of public opinion, the juggling of facts, and the fabrications and unscrupulousness of the British media. Russia has long realised this and cited many examples in recent years, including dirty anti-Russia information campaigns in recent years such as the cases of Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, the Skripals, the Winter Olympics in Sochi and accusations of Kremlin propaganda, to name a few. All of that shows the people who are well-versed in the matter, what the UK mainstream media’s objectivity is really worth. But no one believed us back then. Now, the British political elite have spoken. You now have other examples which you can use to draw your own conclusions. Anyone who does not fit into the Western mainstream mould can instantly fall victim to a smear campaign ordered by the political establishment and obligingly carried out by the pseudo-impartial media in the worst traditions of propaganda, in this case, British propaganda.  Answers to media questions: Question: What comments can you make about the March 5, 2021 statements made by President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev at an online meeting of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development member countries? At that time, he said that Zangezur was a territory of Azerbaijan, and that the November 10, 2020 statement stipulated the creation of a transport corridor. Don’t you think that Ilham Aliyev’s statement about Zangezur or the Syunik Province of the Republic of Armenia grossly violates international law and encroaches on the internationally recognised sovereign borders of the Republic of Armenia? Does not the statement made by President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev violate the trilateral Statement, signed on November 9, 2020, its Paragraph 9 that calls for de-blocking regional transport lines of communication and routes, rather than establishing a “corridor?” Maria Zakharova: On the whole, we note a constructive mood being displayed by Baku and Yerevan within the trilateral Working Group chaired by Russian, Azerbaijani and Armenian deputy prime ministers. Its main task is to implement top-level agreements on de-blocking all economic and transport ties in the region. We hope that the same desire to achieve positive results and to search for mutually acceptable points of contact will prevail in official comments and media outlets of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Question: At the March 5, 2020 online meeting of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development member countries, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev invited OECD member countries to use the “Zangezur corridor,” which will link Azerbaijan and Turkey. “Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran have a common position regarding the implementation of transport projects in the region,” President Aliyev said. How can you comment on the fact that Ilham Aliyev did not mention Russia in his statement about lines of communication? Maria Zakharova: It would be strange if I commented on statements made by President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. We maintain and develop relations with this state, including in the economic sphere. Regarding the regional situation, I have already replied to this question in the first part. Question: A regular military exercise involving over 10,000 service personnel, aircraft and artillery systems is getting underway on March 15 in Azerbaijan. Can this hamper the implementation of the trilateral Statement? Is official Moscow concerned about this, and what are the real goals of this exercise? Maria Zakharova: All South Caucasus states conduct military exercises on a regular basis. The concerned parties get the relevant information in advance. According to our sources, this is a scheduled exercise aiming to improve the standard of combat readiness, and it does not create any risks for regional stability and security. Question: Could you comment on the latest act of vandalism committed by Azerbaijani servicemen at the monument to victims of the Great Patriotic War in the village of Karin Tak in Artsakh? In Shusha, Azerbaijanis have destroyed the monument to the Hero of Socialist Labour Ivan (Hovhannes) Tevosian and the monument to Shusha local, twice Hero of the Soviet Union Nelson Stepanyan. Maria Zakharova: I have commented numerous times on the subject of the destruction of monuments. I will repeat again what I have already said at every briefing. We regard as absolutely unacceptable and amoral any form of abuse of the memory of those who heroically fought against Nazism during the Great Patriotic War. The information you have mentioned is being verified. We hope that if there are facts to confirm it, the Azerbaijani authorities will take measures to remedy the situation. I would like to remind you that Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia agree that victory over Nazism was achieved through the heroic efforts of all nations of the Soviet Union. It is our duty to reserve this memory for future generations. President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan and President of Russia Vladimir Putin pointed this out on numerous occasions. I mentioned this during my briefings and my meetings with Armenian journalists when I visited Armenia, as well as with members of the press from the other post-Soviet republics. I believe that the subject of the desecration of monuments to Red Army and Soviet soldiers has not been properly covered in the media or society. We have already addressed today the topic of the Great Patriotic War, WWII and the monuments, memorials and graves of Soviet soldiers. Regrettably, journalists or media outlets do not give this topic a whole lot of support. Likewise, I do not see your concern regarding the developments involving the monuments, memorials and graves of Soviet servicemen, for example in EU countries, although we raise this matter every time. Monuments to the Red Army and its soldiers are located not only in the regions you have mentioned. A huge number of such monuments, including to Armenians, have been demolished. We urge you to respond collectively to every event of this nature. This will make our voice stronger. We have always said and promoted the idea that Victory over Nazism is indivisible. Likewise, the protection of historical truth must not be divided either, contrary to what we are encouraged to do, for example, by Polish colleagues who claim that “Auschwitz was liberated by Ukrainians.” There are unmarked graves all across Eastern Europe, and there are graves with the names of Red Army soldiers on them. They were of different nationalities, as you can see from their names. Let’s join forces to respond to every case of desecration instead of highlighting the elements that have political relevance for you. This can become an important unifying basis for precluding the desecration of monuments anywhere. I would like to bring this up once again: I really do believe that not enough attention is being given to this matter, including by the media. In Russia, any act of vandalism, attempted or committed, against monuments to Soviet soldiers, who came from different nationalities, is considered an emergency. This is reported and widely covered, demanding a response and practical actions. We do indeed respond and act. We write notes, help restore damaged monuments and work together with public organisations to preserve memory and to maintain monuments. This is part of our diplomatic work. Regrettably, our voice remains desolate in most instances. This must not be the case: it must be a strong chorus of voices. Question: Welt am Sonntag obtained an internal German Federal Ministry of Defence document stating that Russia is pursuing the destabilisation and weakening of NATO while China is seeking to build a world order to meet its own interests. What comment does Russia have on such allegations? Maria Zakharova: This is not a matter of allegations but an information campaign tactic. Arranging “leaks” of classified documents to the media is a favoured practice of the German intelligence agencies, used to form public opinion in Germany. Information is “planted” like this in Germany on a regular basis. Obviously, the initiators and executors of such propaganda operations refer to such materials as “classified” in order to attach higher significance to the distributed statements, to make them sound more convincing and justify them in the eyes of the German public. In this case, the message is old: Germans are being inculcated to believe that Russia poses a real threat to NATO countries (the notorious “Eastern threat”). This example fully corresponds with the German government’s increasingly obvious positioning of our country as an enemy, which Moscow is clearly observing. This anti-Russia vision is being reinforced in Germany (as proven by the said document of the Federal Ministry of Defence, among other things) at the doctrinal and strategic level. Similar statements are being made by top German officials and politicians. Public and semi-public analytics centres are releasing reports and research pieces one after another to diligently substantiate the course selected by Berlin. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has spoken on this issue at length during his press conferences and interviews. Russia takes this reality into account when considering its relationship with Germany. Question: The United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) plans to carry out educational programmes “to support freedom of speech” and “to support independent media outlets” across the world, including Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Is Russia going to provide Russian and foreign media outlets with an opportunity to take part in training programmes on countering fake news and hostile propaganda? Maria Zakharova: First of all, this question should be addressed to the Russian Union of Journalists and other professional associations actively involved in this area. Throughout 2020, as part of the All Russia 2020 national media festival that took place in Sochi in October 2020, the Russian Union of Journalists conducted a series of online and offline workshops and seminars on countering fake news, misinformation and infodemics. The same topic has been covered by sessions of the Inforum training programme that has been running since 2019, including in the regional branches of the union. Similar courses are offered by other professional associations. If there is interest in engaging the Russian Foreign Ministry in visa support (because crossing borders is currently restricted) or offering expert views, we will gladly participate in such events. Question: Why does Russia not respond to US sanctions pressure, and why does it not declare sanctions against the United States in connection with the US side’s actions in the field of biosecurity, the Ukrainian domestic conflict and human rights violations, freedom of speech and attempts to torpedo the Nord Stream 2 project, etc.? Maria Zakharova: We can list many spheres where our US partners behave unlawfully, strangely and where they largely contradict themselves. We have a clear approach towards this matter: unilateral sanctions are illegal. Only those sanctions that are declared by the relevant and duly authorised international organisations, vested with these functions (the UN Security Council) are legal. Unilateral sanctions by countries through mutual collusion are not legitimate. This is our basic and principled approach. Retaliatory sanctions, among other things, aim to highlight the unbecoming behaviour of partners and to warn them against such actions in the future. Unfortunately, we are forced to respond. We can see the unconstructive and illegal approach of some countries where the United States is playing a leading role. We would like this to take place in other spheres, but the US believes that they should lead the way in the policy of sanctions. Such is reality. Question: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has sent a letter to President of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani, suggesting the establishment of an interim coalition government. The Afghan side resolutely turned down this proposal. What is Russia’s position regarding this situation? Maria Zakharova: We believe that the people of Afghanistan themselves should decide on establishing an interim government during national reconciliation talks. The establishment of an all-inclusive interim administration could help resolve the problem of the Taliban’s integration in the peaceful political life of Afghanistan. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...nguageId=en_GB
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
March 20th, 2021
|
#271 |
|
Senior Member
|
Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s comment on Ukrainian authorities’ planned action against Russian Crimea
15 March 2021 - 16:34 Ukrainian officials remain agitated in the run-up to the seventh anniversary of Crimea’s reunification with Russia. Last week, Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba announced three “pillars” on which the policy of “returning” Crimea and Sevastopol to Ukraine would hinge. This implies a new “de-occupation” strategy, approved by the National Security and Defence Council, the Crimean Platform initiative and the “reinstatement of international law.” It is safe to say that it is impossible to stand for a long time on such shaky “pillars.” No “strategies” for working covertly against Crimea’s residents, including sanctions and the water-supply blockade, can win back their trust. No “platforms” for discussing Kiev’s “phantom pains” with other countries will convince the people of Crimea to change their decision, made at the 2014 referendum. No discussions of alleged violations of international standards will abolish their legitimate right to self-determination. All Kiev’s efforts to return Crimea to Ukraine are illegitimate and cannot be perceived as anything other than a threat of aggression against two regions of the Russian Federation. We would like to recall once again that we will consider the involvement of any countries and organisations in such actions, including the Crimean Platform initiative, as an unfriendly move with regard to the Russian Federation and as a direct encroachment upon its territorial integrity. Today, the Kiev authorities are shamelessly trampling upon international law with the support of their Western handlers. Their policy of forced all-out Ukrainisation, the encouragement of neo-Nazism, the violation of the linguistic, cultural and educational rights of ethnic minorities and Russian-speaking citizens, the fight against dissent, the propaganda of Russophobia and media censorship – all this distances Russia’s Crimea and the regions and citizens of Ukraine from Kiev still further. We are urging Ukraine and other states supporting Ukrainian “initiatives” to respect the legitimate choice of Crimean residents and the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4632674 Statement by Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Oleg Syromolotov at the Virtual Regional Workshop on Fostering Judicial and Law Enforcement Cooperation and Information-Sharing under the auspices of the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism, 16 March 2021 17 March 2021 - 14:04  Unofficial translation Distinguished colleagues, Dear friends, I am pleased to welcome you to the opening ceremony of the Virtual Regional Workshop on Fostering Judicial and Law Enforcement Cooperation and Information-Sharing co-organized by the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). I have to admit that the present event is of a particular significance to my country as it represents the start of a practical implementation of a large-scale project in the sphere of countering supply of weapons to terrorists in Central Asia. The Russian Federation initiated this project and, what is more important, has become its donor. We commend the organizers and personally United Nations Under-Secretary-General, head of UNOCT Vladimir Voronkov for the efforts to let the mentioned project acquire a visible form even now, under ongoing epidemiological restrictions. We also expect the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure, which coordinates the activity of this Organization in Central Asia, to facilitate its successful implementation. The reason for us to choose the Central Asian States as the main recipients of technical assistance in such a key area of counter-terrorism efforts as eliminating arms supply to terrorists is clear. The risk of potential terrorist threats in the region is still high. The situation in neighbouring Afghanistan, unfortunately, remains alarming: political and military tensions and exacerbation of inter-ethnic divisions in that state increase the danger of outflow of both members of terrorist groups and weapons into neighbouring countries. Of particular concern is the growing activity of ISIL and Taliban and destructive actions of Al-Qaida fighters in the territory of Afghanistan. All these factors continue to affect the region of Central Asia. Terrorists are diligently looking for ways to provide logistical support for their illegal activities. Using well-established linkages with transnational organized criminal groups, terrorists receive an opportunity to profit from arms trafficking and use the weapons for their own purposes. Besides, forms of that illegal cooperation are constantly being improved, what makes states actively and closely monitor the ongoing processes to respond to emerging challenges in a timely and appropriate manner. This is the aim of our project – to take measures to prevent illegal arms trafficking in the context of counter-terrorism. I am convinced that the forthcoming workshops will help reinforce the Central Asian countries’ capacity and will contribute significantly to ensuring security in the region. I congratulate the organizers on launching the first educational event in the framework of the project. I wish all participants fruitful work, interesting and, above all, useful discussions. Thank you for your attention. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4640505 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Israeli Foreign Minister Gabriel Ashkenazi, Moscow, March 17, 2021 17 March 2021 - 18:27 Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to have held an in-person meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Gabriel Ashkenazi during his first visit to Russia in this capacity. Before that, we met on the sidelines of international forums and have spoken by telephone. It was important to fully review our bilateral relations, exchange assessments of the regional situation and international relations, in general. We believe that Russian-Israeli bilateral ties are making progress in accordance with the agreements reached between President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. We agreed to hold a meeting of the Joint Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation, the coronavirus situation permitting. We reiterated our commitment to promote interaction across all areas, including the economy, culture, science and education. Steady contacts have been established between the defence ministries. Russia and Israel have consistently opposed the increasingly frequent attempts to rewrite the history of WWII, to glorify Nazi war criminals and to revive neo-Nazism. We emphasised the importance of our acting jointly with the overwhelming majority of other countries in adopting the related annual resolution by the UN General Assembly. We coordinated our approaches on current regional matters, focusing on relations between the Arab countries and Israel. Moscow welcomes the normalisation of Israel's relations with a number of Arab states and believes this should help advance a comprehensive settlement in the region, including the long-standing Palestinian problem. I reiterated Russia's commitment to further facilitate the direct dialogue between the Israelis and the Palestinians based on the existing international legal framework, which provides for the creation of a Palestinian state that would coexist in peace and security with Israel and other countries in the region. With regard to Syria, we have an overlapping position on the need for a political settlement based on the principles laid down in UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We declared our principled support for Syria’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity, and the Syrians’ legitimate right to decide on their own future without outside interference. We updated our Israeli friends on Russia’s activities as part of the Astana format and other channels in order to help overcome various aspects of the Syria crisis. We focused particularly on stepping up the Constitutional Committee’s activities and shared our steps designed to make the upcoming 6th meeting of the Constitutional Committee’s drafting committee productive. We also spoke about the need to help overcome the humanitarian crisis in Syria, where the infrastructure has been destroyed and the people are suffering badly in the wake of crippling sanctions imposed by the United States and other countries. We discussed the situation in the Gulf, as well as the ongoing efforts to fully restore the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and to resolve the situation related to the Iranian nuclear programme. We also focused on ways to establish an inclusive, mutually respectful and a specific talks-oriented process on other matters of concern for the countries in the region. We mentioned Russia’s initiative to form a collective security system in the Gulf region with the potential to include neighbouring countries. I believe we had productive talks. We appreciate mutual trust in our contacts with our Israeli colleagues on all matters on the bilateral and multilateral agendas. My colleague and friend invited me to visit Israel, which I will do with pleasure.  Question: The small body of the Constitutional Committee will soon hold its sixth session. Can we expect any kind of breakthrough as distinct from previous sessions? Does Moscow support UN Secretary-General Special Envoy for Syria Geir O. Pedersen’s initiative to expand the number of participating countries so as to expedite the settlement of the issues in Syria? Sergey Lavrov: Along with our partners in the Astana format, we are working to ensure results at yet another session of the Constitutional Committee’s small body. There are grounds to hope for progress, that the small body will manage to establish direct contact between the key delegations in the Constitutional Committee format – the government’s and the opposition’s. The groups in the small body are already exchanging considerations, in writing, during preparations for this session. This will create conditions for more productive discussions at the upcoming session. We hope Mr Pedersen will soon announce the dates of this session. We believe it should be held in late March or early April, before the holy month of Ramadan. Mr Pedersen suggested expanding the range of mediators as well. He proposed bringing together the participants in the Astana format and the so-called Small Group on Syria that includes the leading Western countries and three Arab states. We are willing to look for any way to create external conditions that will allow the Syrians to decide their destiny themselves in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. If Mr Pedersen is seriously promoting this approach, it should be put on paper conceptually. The Astana format is firmly committed to the principles of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, including the need to allow the Syrians to come to terms themselves, to prevent interference in their internal affairs, curtail any encroachment on Syria’s territorial integrity, and to counter separatism, to name a few. We do not simply support these principles in the Astana format but are guided by them. I don’t know whether the participants in the Small Group on Syria, whom Mr Pedersen wants to involve in this work, share the same approach. Moreover, I have never seen a written description of their positions. The Western countries (the US, Germany, Britain and France) show in their regular actions that these principles do not suit them. At this point, we need to determine on which foundation Mr Pedersen wants to pursue the new format. I would like to emphasise that we will only accept a foundation that is clearly based on a commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Question: Gabriel Ashkenazi talked about Israel's response to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which said it was an independent organisation and was not going to politicise this issue. What can you say about this? Sergey Lavrov: We have a negative impression of this body. This is our principled and consistent position. When the ICC was created, we hoped it would be an independent and professional judicial body with the potential to eventually become a universal body. In reality, it turned out to be the other way round. The ICC has not lived up to our expectations. It has repeatedly demonstrated a political bias, a lack of professionalism or understanding of certain rules of international law, made mistakes in using them and, contrary to the Rome Statute provisions, unjustifiably tried to expand its competence by invading spheres that are beyond its terms of reference. All of that is further aggravated by its low efficiency and high operating costs. This also needs to be accounted for. Not only Russia, but many other countries justifiably criticised the ICC. Its activities are taken with much pain by a number of African countries. When the UN Security Council transferred a number of cases to the ICC (in particular, on Libya and Sudan), the court performed poorly and once again proved its lack of professionalism. It is not surprising that any hope of seeing this body grow into a universal body quickly vanished. Russia has refused to participate in this and has revoked its signature under statute. Israel did so even earlier. China, India and many other states are not part of the ICC. Even the countries that are parties to the Rome Statute recognise the systemic problems plaguing ICC functions. Unfortunately, the ICC has discredited itself and the mission that was entrusted to it. Any action taken in The Hague must be viewed through this lens and in light of the court's tarnished reputation. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4640733 Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova 17 March 2021 - 20:09 Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov has been summoned to Moscow for consultations in order to analyse what needs to be done in the context of relations with the United States. The new US administration took office about two months ago and the symbolic 100-day mark is not too far away, which is a good occasion for trying to appraise what Joe Biden’s team has managed to do and where it was not very successful. The most important thing for us is to identify ways of rectifying Russia-US relations, which have been going through hard times as Washington has, as a matter of fact, brought them to a blind alley. We are interested in preventing an irreversible deterioration in relations, if the Americans become aware of the risks associated with this. This is what we will talk about during the consultations that the Foreign Ministry and other relevant agencies will hold with the Russian Ambassador to the United States. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4640791 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at the meeting of the expanded trio on peaceful settlement in Afghanistan, Moscow, March 18, 2021 18 March 2021 - 15:51 Esteemed participants, First of all, I would like to thank all of you for taking part in this offline meeting of the expanded trio despite the challenging epidemiological situation. I would like to convey special gratitude to the representatives of the Afghan sides, the Government and the High Council for National Reconciliation, prominent politicians, the Taliban movement, and guests of honour from Qatar and Turkey. The trio format was designed to create favourable conditions for launching intra-Afghan peace negotiations and consolidating international assistance to Afghanistan at the post-conflict stage. Having started its work in 2019, this mechanism played a tangible positive role in facilitating the talks between the US and the Taliban, which led to the signing of a relevant agreement on February 29, 2020. We urge both sides to retain their commitment to the provisions of this document supported by UN Security Council Resolution 2513. We thank our partners from the People’s Republic of China, the United States and Pakistan for their contribution to the work of the expanded trio that remains topical, in part, because of the need to impart more dynamics to the process of peaceful settlement in Afghanistan. We are grateful to Qatar for its contribution to Afghan national reconciliation. We regret that the efforts to launch a political process in Doha have not yet produced the desired effect. We hope the current conversation will help create the conditions for reaching progress at the intra-Afghan talks. We are also convinced that further delays are unacceptable amid the deteriorating military-political situation. The situation is all the more alarming against the backdrop of the approaching spring and summer when combat activities are traditionally invigorated. To my knowledge, the signs of this are already there. Both conflicting sides are sustaining increasing losses. Civilians continue to lose their lives. It is particularly alarming that the radical terrorist groups, primarily the Islamic State (ISIS), are trying to use the current situation to strengthen their positions “on the ground.” In our estimate, ISIS has not given up its attempts to entrench itself deeper in northern Afghanistan with a view to extrapolating their plans to Central Asia. All this creates the prerequisites for the further flourishing of drug trafficking that is a serious challenge to Afghanistan, the region and the rest of the world, and is a major source of funding for terrorist activities.  We believe that in parallel with promoting initiatives aimed at a political settlement, it is necessary to consolidate regional and international efforts to counter the terrorist and drug threats. It is worth actively using the potential of such tried-and-tested entities as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). For its part, Russia will continue to render versatile aid to Afghanistan, our friendly partner, and contributing to the measures aimed at putting an end to the long-standing armed conflict and establishing durable peace in that country. We urge the confronting sides to reduce the level of violence “on the ground.” At the negotiating table, it is important to display flexibility, make concessions and refrain from advancing patently unacceptable conditions. This is the only way to bring the positions of the sides closer together and find solutions to important issues. This is the gist of our current meeting. I would like to confirm that Russia is in favour of combining the efforts of the expanded trio with the Moscow format of consultations on Afghanistan. It is generally recognised that this mechanism is much in demand and unites all the neighbours of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the key countries of the region and the United States. Let me recall that it was in the Moscow format that the representatives of the Afghan Government and the Taliban met officially for the first time in November 2018 in the presence of delegations from more than a dozen countries. We are willing to organise another meeting of this forum if need be. It is also important that in February and May 2019, Moscow hosted meetings of the intra-Afghan dialogue participants. They were held at the initiative and with the direct participation of the Afghan Diaspora in Russia, other CIS countries, Europe and Asia. It was at that time that influential Afghan politicians, the heads of the Afghan High Peace Council (HPC) and the Taliban leaders laid the foundations for launching the intra-Afghan peace process. This work was continued in Doha. Today, many of those who participated in the 2019 Moscow meetings are present here. I would like to note that in Moscow female representatives of the Afghan political elite sat at the negotiating table with the Taliban for the first time. In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that only Afghans themselves must lead the peace process in their state. It is unacceptable to impose on them any solutions from the outside. The Afghan parties interested in national reconciliation, can reach peace only through talks and compromise. It is important to sign an agreement meeting the interests of all the key ethnic and political forces of the country and defining the direction of its further development. For all the importance of their role, the external players should create the necessary conditions for the Afghans to come to terms themselves. I hope the participants of the current meeting will make substantial progress in this area. Russian President’s Special Representative for Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov will coordinate the work. I wish you success in your efforts. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4641689 Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova in connection with the latest anti-Russia remarks from Washington 18 March 2021 - 16:15 The current US administration never ceases to surprise us with its absurd public statements. It’s not just about the unseemly attacks against Russia’s top officials, but also the absurd accusations of Russia’s interference in last year’s presidential election in the United States, in which, as you are aware, Joe Biden was the winner. We consider this yet another fabrication which is built entirely on the groundless belief that “Russian influencers,” including Donald Trump’s support base if you follow this line of thinking, were behind the massive online criticism of the Democratic candidate. Meanwhile, if there was anyone who tried to “influence” the voting, it was the pro-Democratic internet juggernauts that blocked the social media accounts of the incumbent president and hundreds of thousands of his supporters. We have to mention the obvious fact that there is no evidence of Russian government agencies’ interference in US domestic affairs, something you can’t say about the US officials’ endless attempts to control political processes in other countries, including Russia, and to issue direct orders to marginal opposition groups in order to sow instability, discord and strife. We clearly saw this in their response to the unauthorised demonstrations in Moscow in January, in which their organisers tried to involve even minors. Now, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has hastily posted his critical remarks on Twitter about the law enforcement agencies that suppressed an illegal gathering in Moscow on March 13, which an objectionable organisation attempted to hold in flagrant violation of the sanitary pandemic-related restrictions. In fact, the head of this foreign department not only encroached on the scope of the duties of our judicial and executive authorities, but also questioned the legality of the epidemiological restrictions during public gatherings. Unfortunately, the United States is held captive by illusions as it strives to unleash a senseless campaign of Russophobic attacks. This only leads to further degradation of bilateral relations, which contradicts the fundamental interests of the peoples of Russia and the United States. It appears that Washington is not ready to understand the ensuing risks to peace and security. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4641723 Joint Statement of extended "Troika" on peaceful settlement in Afghanistan, Moscow, 18 March 2021 18 March 2021 - 17:46 On 18 March 2021, Moscow hosted a regular meeting of the extended "Troika" comprising representatives of Russia, China, the USA and Pakistan, which focused on making progress in the intra-Afghan process to reach a negotiated settlement and permanent and comprehensive ceasefire. The event was attended by representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Afghanistan’s High Council for National Reconciliation, prominent Afghan political figures, and representatives of the Taliban movement, as well as Qatar and Turkey as guests of honour. In the spirit of the discussions, as well as provisions of joint statements on the outcomes of previous 'Troika' meetings held on 22 March, 25 April, 11 July and 25 October 2019, online conferences held on June 3 and 30 November 2020, the four states participating in the extended 'Troika' have agreed as follows: 1. We acknowledge the widespread and sincere demand of the Afghan people for a lasting and just peace and an end to the war and confirm that a sustainable peace can only be achieved through a negotiated political settlement. 2. We call on all parties to the conflict in Afghanistan to reduce the level of violence in the country and on the Taliban not to pursue a Spring offensive, so as to avoid further casualties and to create an environment conducive to reaching a negotiated political settlement. 3. As stated in the UNSC resolution 2513 (2020), we do not support the restoration of the Islamic Emirate and we call on the Government of the Islamic Republic and the High Council for National Reconciliation to engage openly with their Taliban counterparts regarding a negotiated settlement. 4. We urge participants in the intra-Afghan negotiations to engage immediately in discussions on fundamental issues to resolve the conflict, including the foundations of the future peaceful and stable Afghan State, the content of a political roadmap leading to an inclusive government, and the modalities of a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire. At this pivotal moment, our four states call on the parties to negotiate and conclude a peace agreement that will bring an end to over four decades of war in Afghanistan. 5. We strongly advocate a durable and just political resolution that will result in the formation of an independent, sovereign, unified, peaceful, democratic and self-sufficient Afghanistan, free of terrorism and an illicit drug industry, which contributes to the creation of pull factors for the voluntary, sustainable and expeditious return of Afghan refugees, stability and global security. 6. We call on all Afghans including the Government of the Islamic Republic and the Taliban to ensure that terrorist groups and individuals do not use Afghan soil to threaten the security of any other country. 7. We reaffirm that any peace agreement must include protections for the rights of all Afghans, including women, men, children, victims of war, and minorities, and should respond to the strong desire of all Afghans for economic, social and political development including the rule of law. 8. We encourage all concerned countries to support the Afghan people and contribute to a lasting peace in the interest of all. We reaffirm our commitment to mobilize international political and economic support for a post political settlement Afghanistan. 9. We appreciate the long-standing support of the State of Qatar to facilitate the peace process, and we support the continuation of discussions between the parties’ negotiating teams in Doha, which began in September 2020 and which have resulted in meaningful progress toward a political settlement. 10. We recognize and welcome all international efforts that are underway to facilitate and support a negotiated settlement as soon as possible. We note that the UN Secretary General Gutteres’ appointment of Mr. Jean Arnault as his personal envoy on Afghanistan and regional issues. We welcome the UN playing a positive and constructive role on the Afghan peace and reconciliation process. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4641844
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
March 21st, 2021
|
#272 |
|
Senior Member
|
Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 18, 2021
18 March 2021 - 21:27 The forthcoming meeting of the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund’s Board of Trustees ........................................................................................................ Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visits to the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Korea Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay working visits to the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Korea on March 22-25. Mr Lavrov will have talks with Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China Wang Yi in Guilin on March 23 to discuss the current status of and prospects for bilateral relations, including in the context of the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty on Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China which is marked this year. The foreign ministers of Russia and China will exchange views on a wide range of important international issues and review interaction between the two countries at various multilateral platforms. On March 24, in Seoul, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the opening ceremony for the Mutual Exchange Year between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea timed to coincide with the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations. On March 25, Seoul will host talks between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea Chung Eui-yong. The ministers will discuss the promotion of bilateral relations, including cooperation in practical spheres, the situation on the Korean Peninsula, as well as regional and international issues. Seventh anniversary of Crimea’s reunification with Russia Before getting to the international agenda, I would like to talk about the domestic agenda, which has an international dimension. Today is the seventh anniversary of Crimea’s reunification with Russia. We are celebrating a historic event, without exaggeration. The treaty on the accession of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation was signed on March 18, 2014. This was a fair and long-awaited decision both for the Crimeans and the citizens of our country. At the referendum on March 16, 2014, the residents of Crimea made an independent and conscientious choice on the future of their small motherland, their children and the generations to come. This decision required no small courage – we remember how “friendship trains” packed with nationalist hoodlums and weapons were sent to Crimea. Owing to the selfless and responsible behaviour of the Crimeans, peace and order were preserved and plans to turn the peninsula into the “Black Sea coast of the United States” fell through. Later the Ukrainian authorities made numerous attempts to complicate life in Crimea in many ways and punish the people for their adopted decision. These attempts continue today (the water blockade is a good example). They are accompanied by misleading and hypocritical statements from Kiev who says how much they “care” for the Crimeans and look forward to their return “home.” Much has been done in the ensuing years. Many problems that had accumulated on the peninsula over years of Ukrainian governance have been resolved. The targeted federal programme “Socio-Economic Development of the Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol to 2025” is being successfully carried out. Large-scale projects like the Crimean Bridge (motor and railway) have been completed. The existence of this bridge is still denied by Kiev. Maybe, there is no bridge, but there is traffic on it. The Taurida Highway from Kerch to Sevastopol has been built. The air terminal in Simferopol has been upgraded and receives between 16 and 25 flights from 17 airlines a day. Over 550 projects will be carried out before 2025. They include the development of the Crimea Railway infrastructure, the modernisation and building of four-lane branch roads from the Taurida Highway to the southern coast of Crimea and upgrading the Artek international children’s centre. The peninsula will have a reliable water supply despite the scheming of the Kiev regime. The Belbek water-intake facility (50,000 cubic metres of water per day) was put into service on March 16 of this year; the construction of the Nezhinsky, Prostornensky and Novogrigoryevsky water supply inlets will be completed before the end of this year. Two desalination units are expected to be put into operation in 2022. They are already being engineered. Crimea is steadily developing its economy despite the difficulties. The macro indicators for 2020 point to sustainability against the external challenges. Tourism is making rapid headway (6.3 million tourists visited Crimea in 2020). Despite continued attempts to isolate Crimea, our opponents are finding it more difficult to pursue this course. Interest from the foreign public, political and business circles in developing cooperation with Crimea is steadily growing. Foreign guests (exceeding 160,000 in 2020) saw for themselves what the Russian authorities are doing to ensure diverse development on the peninsula, promote religious peace and protect the rights of the local people. President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin spoke about this today. Our ill-wishers are annoyed by the issue of Crimea. But despite their efforts to conceal the facts, the true information about the real state of affairs is slowly but steadily breaking the wall of lies and censorship in the Western media. A number of influential foreign politicians support the international recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and favour the lifting of anti-Russia sanctions, and these are not isolated cases. UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights’ statements on Crimea On March 12, an Arria-meeting on Crimea: 7 years of violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity was held on the sidelines of the UN Security Council. It was initiated by Estonia, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine and several other countries known for their highly biased position on Crimea. During the event, Ilze Brands Kehris, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights and Head of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in New York, made yet another statement with unsubstantiated allegations regarding the work of law enforcement agencies in Crimea. According to her, the police, the FSB and members of the local militia (she did not specify who they are; she probably made a mistake) were involved in arbitrary detentions and enforced disappearances on the peninsula. We would like to note that Estonia, which initiated that unofficial meeting, refused to give the floor to Crimea residents. It is the best proof that the agenda promoted by the organisers is a lie. The “advocates” of democracy have yet again demonstrated their coordinated stand in favour of maintaining a full-scale information blockade of the peninsula. The campaign includes systematic efforts to block the operation of the Crimean media and to push them out of the global information space, prevent Crimean residents from taking part in the work of UN bodies (a great deal has been done in this respect) and regional European organisations, as well as procrastinate and deny entry visas for local residents. Many obstacles have been created, but success comes with tenacity. Nevertheless, the Russian Federation has been working consistently to ensure the right of the Crimean people to present their views at international platforms, including meetings on freedom of the media. We have seen many times that our Western colleagues keep a low profile at events organised by Crimean representatives on the sidelines of multilateral conferences. Moreover, they consider it acceptable to discourage other countries’ delegates from attending such meetings. The West continues to ignore this, to slander the Russian authorities and to accuse them of numerous human rights violations in Crimea, clamping down on independent journalists, intimidating members of the press and preventing the plurality of opinions. Moreover, they are promoting openly fake stories. We once again invite our colleagues and partners to do the simplest thing – visit Crimea. Come and see for yourselves that there is a huge difference between the allegations you are promoting at international venues and reality. We know that this is exactly why you refuse to go to Crimea. There are no other reasons. A day will come when you will see that this approach has pushed you into a corner. Informal Arria-formula meeting of the UN Security Council members on the situation in Crimea On March 17, Russia initiated an Arria-formula meeting, an informal meeting of the members of the UN Security Council, on the situation in Crimea. The event was held in response to a similar discussion sponsored by Estonia and a number of other Western countries on March 12 on the sidelines of the Security Council, where they blocked the participation of Crimeans. The informal meeting on March 17 involved a broad participation of Crimean public activists. Rector of the Crimean Engineering and Pedagogical University Chingiz Yakubov, Head of the Ukrainian Community of Crimea Anastasia Gridchina, representatives of Crimean ethnic and cultural communities, as well as Crimean students spoke at the event. The participants representing Crimea – not people posing as residents of the peninsula who in fact had not even visited the place for long and never living there at all – shot down in flames all the myths promoted by Kiev and its Western patrons about the unfavourable human rights situation in Crimea, the oppression of Crimean Tatars, and the dysfunctional medical system. At the same time, they recalled the total Ukrainisation of all spheres in Crimea enforced by Kiev before March 2014, a situation that only changed after its reunification with Russia. They sharply criticised the visa barriers imposed against Crimeans, restricting their freedom of movement. The meeting was widely attended by international representatives – about 40 delegations, including all members of the UN Security Council with the exception of Estonia. Many of them showed an interest in the information provided by the Crimean speakers on the real state of affairs in the Russian region. On March 12, Estonia hosts a forum on Crimea but shutting out Crimeans. On March 17, another forum on Crimea is held where Crimeans are admitted at the initiative and with vigorous support from Russia, but Estonia is not there. This is the reality of Western-style democracy. On March 18, Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations Christoph Heusgen again spoke in a tendentious manner on the topic of Crimea – something he has done repeatedly before. He reiterated a standard series of anti-Russia clichés that predictably ran contrary to Crimeans’ reports, which presented the real picture. Permanent Representative of France Nicolas de Rivière also used double standards. While saying that the population in Crimea “does not deserve condemnation,” he still evaded answering the question about the EU visa restrictions with respect to Crimeans if that is the case. Because there is no answer to this question. This is the punishment of these people for their free and truly democratic choice. We look forward to the further involvement of Crimean residents in discussions at various multilateral platforms. We will not just do what needs to be done to ensure this; we will leave no stone unturned. Water blockade of Crimea When the water blockade of Crimea started, we could not quite believe that something like this was happening in the 21st century. But what we faced was a state that claims to be “modern” and “forward-looking” and part of the “family of civilised countries” was, in fact, engaging in a water blockade. By blocking the North Crimean Canal in 2014, Kiev deprived the peninsula of its then primary source of fresh water. Today I have told you about the efforts that were made to turn the situation around. But I still want to get back to this blockade. I have plenty of interesting facts to tell you about it. Years went by and the office on Bankova Street has a different tenant now but Kiev is not even thinking of dropping the water blockade either in theory or in practice. In fact, it is reinforcing it. Ukrainian officials have announced their plans to secure their “dam victory.” Extensive theoretical and hands-on work is being carried out. Do you think Kiev invented this tactic? Turns out it did not. Do you think it was the first time that people of this and neighbouring regions had been subjected to such humiliating pressure? Not at all. Here is a quote from a WWII notice: “Water for German soldiers only. Russians who take water from here will be executed. Water for Russians on the other side.” This notice was put up in one of the Donbass villages occupied by the Nazis during WWII. When I saw this photo I thought it was a fake. We checked and it is real - (http://dppc.ru/data/edited/public/social/donbass.pdf). The invaders were not bluffing. Dozens, hundreds of thousands of Soviet civilians were executed for violating similar rules or simply for allowing themselves to scowl at the aggressors. Of course, we all know episodes from the defence of the Brest Fortress and resistance in the famous Adzhimushkai Quarries when the Nazis shot dead Red Army soldiers and partisans who tried to get water for their dying comrades. Decades after those atrocities at the hand of the Ukrainian officials’ ideological icons, the Kiev regime decided to punish the Crimeans for their historical choice in favour of Russia by using such a Hitleresque method. Unfortunately, this move is most illustrative of Kiev’s policy. All we can do is express sympathy and pity because condolences to the Kiev regime seem to be the most appropriate reaction here. If you want to have first-hand knowledge of the state of affairs in Crimea, just go there. There are people who go there on a regular basis – not only out of curiosity but also to be able to communicate the truth about what is really happening there to the Western community. Hendrik Weber’s book Our Crimea To all the statements made by our Western colleagues who say they would love to go to Crimea but they are not allowed to go there (by whom it is not clear though) – Germany’s UN Representative Christoph Heusgen recently claimed exactly that – we patiently respond (and Western public figures are helping us now) that all you need is the will and a little money for a ticket. President of the People’s Diplomacy Norway public organisation Hendrik Weber recently published his book, Our Crimea. Moscow publishing company Ketlerov released the book in Russian in 2020. The book originally came out in German in 2019. It should be an informative read for Germany’s UN Representative Christoph Heusgen. You could at least start with the book written in your native German language by a person who has visited Crimea many times. You could call the author. He will tell you that the book is real, it is not fake. And he will tell you where to buy tickets to Crimea and how to get there. I will not recite the content of the book. You might want to read it yourself. Our Western partners are the ones we want to inform about it first. Don’t tell us about Crimea. We all can travel there and do it with pleasure. Our Western colleagues live in a mythological world they created where they are allegedly prohibited from or completely unable to visit the Crimean peninsula. It is not true. Go there. You will like it. Developments in connection with the decision of the authorities of Ternopol, Ukraine, to rename the city stadium in honour of notorious Nazi accomplice Shukhevich Since we have touched upon the subject of the Kiev regime and have drawn certain historical parallels, so that no one would think that we are over-exaggerating, and that there are no parallels in real life, I would like to say the following. We have noted media publications in connection with the March 5, 2021 decision of the City Council of Ternopol, Ukraine, to rename the city stadium in honour of Roman Shukhevich, commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. We unequivocally denounce this decision. The very fact of glorifying Nazi accomplices and collaborationists under the guise of activists of the “national-liberation movement” is absolutely unacceptable. We would like to recall that the glorification of WWII Nazi accomplices who were recognised as criminals by a decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal runs counter to the Tribunal’s findings and also violates international law. Roman Shukhevich, the odious founder of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Deputy Commander of the Nachtigall Battalion and Hauptmann of the 201st Schutzmannschaft Battalion, gained wide notoriety for his collaboration with the Nazis. First of all, he is known for his complicity in masterminding and carrying out mass murders of Belarusians, Poles, Jews and Ukrainians in Ukraine during WWII. The decision of the Ternopol city authorities to name a public facility of the municipal infrastructure in honour of an active Nazi accomplice cannot evoke anything else but indignation and outrage. However, the efforts of the Ukrainian authorities to completely whitewash and glorify collaborationists who committed atrocities during the years of Nazi occupation that took on the form of a state policy no longer surprise anyone. Over a period of the past few years, this country has been exerting all kinds of efforts to justify and glorify Nazism, WWI Nazi accomplices and to falsify the history of those tragic years. In an effort to cultivate nationalist moods among wide population strata, official Kiev implements the most diverse initiatives. They probably believe that it is impossible to unite the country by any other means; at the same time, they are splitting it even further. They regularly draft various regulatory legal documents. A campaign to rename communities and streets has been launched under the de-communisation programme. They actively glorify Nazi accomplices, install memorials in their honour, conduct mass marches and publicly confer reinstated “insurgent awards” on surviving collaborationists. They also actively work with young people, and state funding is allocated for these purposes. They set up summer camps for children and teenagers and also organise festivals for them. Unlike the national vaccination campaign, the glorification of collaborationists is proceeding smoothly. They hold children’s competitions dealing with Ukrainian SS units. Right radical and ultranationalist groups and former participants in the so-called “anti-terrorist operation” in southeastern Ukraine are taking part in “patriotic work.” It should be noted that this work devotes considerable attention to Shukhevich. Numerous monuments are installed, and competitions are organised in his honour. Ternopol has been the venue for numerous youth competitions called the Shukhevich Cup. Only the other day, deputies of the Lvov City Council joined the relay race and called on the Ukrainian government to name the Lvov Arena stadium after Stepan Bandera. All this resembles a nationwide Banderisation epidemic. It should be noted that, while glorifying collaborationists, Ukrainian authorities so far shy away from openly declaring their cooperation with the Nazis. Consequently, the official interpretation of history deletes the facts proving Ukrainian nationalists’ collaborationism with the Nazis, and textbooks are being modified for these purposes. By honouring Nazi accomplice Shukhevich, Ukraine chooses such heroes, and it has trouble finding worthy heroes because all of them are linked with Russia, one way or another. Only nationalists whose reputation has been tarnished by the murder of thousands of civilians remain. What will become of the new generation of Ukrainians worshipping such heroes? And what future do Ukrainian leaders hold in store for their country? Ukrainian policies are not confined to the already-mentioned glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism, as well as racial discrimination and xenophobia. The country-level section of the Foreign Ministry’s regular report regarding the situation with the glorification of Nazism and the spread of neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance contains detailed facts on this subject. These facts are also reflected in a specialised report on human rights in Ukraine. These documents are posted on the Foreign Ministry website, and they highlight Kiev’s efforts to falsify the history of WWII and to promote a fake version of the events. They also slander the efforts of the Soviet Union and the Red Army to fight the Nazis and gangs that collaborated with them, as well as to persecute civilian anti-fascist activists. We call on everyone to read these reports. Foreign Ministry’s report Violations of the Rights of Russian Citizens and Compatriots Abroad A report Violations of the Rights of Russian Citizens and Compatriots Abroad compiled by the Foreign Ministry's Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law was posted on the ministry’s website. The Foreign Ministry pays much attention to protecting the rights of our citizens and compatriots abroad. The problems abound. Increasingly often, Russian citizens are being detained in foreign countries or persecuted for political reasons. The conditions in detention centres also give us cause for concern. The activities of the Russian journalists or journalists representing the Russian media often get obstructed. The report prepared by the Ministry covers the most acute problems faced by our citizens and compatriots in foreign countries. We encourage everyone to read the report. Another case of groundless accusations by the US authorities Our US partners’ remarks have riveted public attention over the past 24 hours. We are waiting for the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, to come to Moscow in order to analyse and develop new approaches to Russia-US relations, which, unfortunately, have been brought to a dead end by Washington. The current US administration never ceases to surprise us with its absurd public statements. It's not just about the unseemly attacks against Russia’s top officials, but also the absurd accusations of Russia’s interference in last year's presidential election in the United States, in which, as you are aware, Joe Biden was the winner. We consider this yet another fabrication which is built entirely on the groundless belief that “Russian influencers,” including Donald Trump’s support base and the entire opposition, if you follow this line of thinking, were behind widely circulated online criticism of the Democratic candidate. This sounds strange, especially if you look at this from the US approach to democracy. Meanwhile, if there was anyone who tried to “influence” the voting, it was the pro-Democratic internet juggernauts and digital platforms that blocked the social media accounts of the incumbent president and hundreds of thousands of his supporters. Or, does the US intelligence community also believe that the internet monopolies have connections with Russia? If we follow this absurd logic, which has been replicated by the US authorities for years, we can arrive at this conclusion. I’d be remiss not to mention the obvious fact that there is no evidence of Russian government agency interference in US domestic affairs, something you can’t say about the US officials’ endless attempts to control political processes in other countries, including Russia, and to issue direct orders to marginal opposition groups and “agents of influence” in order to sow instability, discord and strife which we can observe around the world. We clearly saw this in their response to the unauthorised demonstrations in Moscow in January, in which their organisers tried to involve even minors. Unlike the US administration, which declines to provide concrete comments and is unable to answer even the questions posed by its media, we have openly commented on this story. Now, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has hastily posted his critical remarks on Twitter about the law enforcement agencies that suppressed an illegal gathering in Moscow on March 13, which an objectionable organisation attempted to hold in flagrant violation of the sanitary pandemic-related restrictions. In fact, the head of this foreign department not only encroached on the scope of the duties of our judicial and executive authorities, but also questioned the legality of the epidemiological restrictions during public gatherings. Unfortunately, the United States is held captive by its own illusions as it strives to unleash a senseless campaign of Russophobic attacks thus leading itself into a dead end. This only further degrades bilateral relations, which contradicts the fundamental interests of the peoples of Russia and the United States. It appears that Washington is not yet in a position to understand the ensuing risks to peace and security. Libya update On March 10, 2021, members of the Libyan House of Representatives met in Sirte and passed a confidence vote on the government of Abdul Hamid Dbeibah that should prepare the country for the December 24 general election together with leaders of the Presidential Council, headed by Mohamed al-Menfi. On March 14, 2021, members of the Presidential Council took an oath of allegiance in Tripoli. On March 15, 2021, members of the National Unity Government did the same in Tobruk. We are noting the important role of the Joint Military Committee, established in the 5 + 5 format on the basis of the decisions of the Berlin peace conference. The committee has successfully resolved various security issues regarding the above-mentioned events. At the same time, the new interim Libyan authorities have a difficult mission to accomplish. At this stage, their main tasks include the fastest possible normalisation of the national situation, the establishment of joint governing bodies, the merger and consolidation of state agencies, financial and economic institutions, as well as the establishment of the joint armed forces. It goes without saying that Libyan society will have a difficult time overcoming the problems that have accumulated, as well as mutual mistrust. We believe that it is possible to end this long-standing conflict in a country which is friendly to Russia only through attaining a comprehensive political settlement, the main parameters of which need to be coordinated during an all-inclusive dialogue involving representatives of all regions and influential political forces, including the supporters of the former regime and Khalifa Haftar, Commander of the Libyan National Army. In turn, Russia is ready to help stabilise the Libyan situation in every way. This will create essential conditions for reinstating mutually beneficial diverse cooperation between our countries. Russian representative’s participation in the ceremony of taking the constitutional oath by the Libyan Government of National Accord On March 15, 2021, Jamshed Boltayev, the Russian Federation’s Charge D’Affaires Ad Interim in Libya, as well as the heads of other foreign diplomatic missions, accredited in Tripoli, attended a meeting of the Libyan Parliament in Tobruk as an invited guest. Members of the Libyan Government of National Accord took the constitutional oath of allegiance during the meeting. Mr Boltayev met with Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah and some ministers of the new Libyan Government on the sidelines of this event. During their conversations, Russian and Libyan officials reaffirmed their desire to resume and expand mutually beneficial cooperation in various fields. In this context, they discussed the possibility of reopening the Russian Embassy in Tripoli, the capital of Libya, whose personnel was evacuated to neighbouring Tunisia for security reasons in 2014. NATO Secretary General’s Annual Report 2020 Annual Report 2020 has been released and presented by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. It describes the activities of this truly astonishing organisation in 2020. The document traditionally accuses Russia of dangerous and destabilising activities in all spheres, including hybrid operations in Libya, Syria and Ukraine, and of conducting large-scale military exercises during the coronavirus pandemic. It accuses Russia of refusing to invite international military observers to attend these exercises, of demolishing important mechanisms and violating arms control agreements. NATO representatives have done a great job. They did not forget to mention the “poisoning” of Alexey Navalny and our CWC obligations in this connection. The report has been written in the best traditions. Good job! The main claim is that Russia allegedly refuses to conduct dialogue within the Russia-NATO Council. In reality, this is the other way round. I will not comment on the first part; everything is clear with it. The main claim is that, apart from being so horrible, Russia does not want to talk. A year ago, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg during their meeting on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference about our readiness to conduct dialogue. It was also noted that truly important matters of mutual interest should be discussed. Our proposals for de-escalating military tensions and preventing unintended incidents advanced in 2018 aim to accomplish this task. In May 2020, the Russian Federation called for mutual military restraint during the pandemic. We have so far failed to receive a detailed NATO response. This shows who does want to talk to whom. Instead of an unbiased conversation, they are once again trying to impose a discussion of the Ukrainian conflict within the framework of the Russia-NATO Council. What has NATO to do with eastern Ukrainian developments and the implementation of the Minsk agreements, and how does this warrant a mutual discussion? What is the added value of such monologues, rather than discussions, for addressing issues of the Russia-NATO agenda and overall European security? In his report, the Secretary General recalls that, following the Cold War, NATO and Russia expanded cooperation and even started building strategic partnership. But how does the Alliance’s unilateral decision to downsize all political and practical cooperation parameters in 2014 correlate with the spirit of real partnership? The NATO Secretary General does not reply to this question. In this situation, it is really impossible to resume business as usual. Nevertheless, we do not refrain from dialogue; on the contrary, we remain open to constructive proposals for holding meetings of the Russia-NATO Council and other formats of communication. We hope that NATO will eventually hear our appeals for an honest conversation on urgent matters. Britain’s Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy On March 16, the UK government released an updated version of the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy. In addition to the modernisation and rearmament of the British armed forces, the factor of China, cyber threats and terrorism, the document focuses on Russia. The review repeatedly refers to our country as the “most acute threat to our [UK] security.” At the same time, London is stating its plans to use, in conjunction with its NATO allies, its military, intelligence and diplomatic potential to successfully “deter nuclear, conventional and hybrid threats to our [UK] security, particularly from Russia.” In addition to this, the British present as a fact their assumption that Russia will allegedly step up its activities with the aim of “undermining democratic systems and open economies” “around the wider European neighbourhood.” The British government has reiterated that “we will uphold international rules and norms and hold Russia to account for breaches of these.” How interesting! They keep silent about the international law, because they themselves undermine it. They have coined a new term “international rules and norms” and instantly came up with the idea that Russia is undermining them. As before, Britain is using the all-too-familiar fakes that are not backed by any convincing evidence to justify its vision of relations with Russia. There is no evidence whatsoever which once again shows that the propaganda spread by the British media has become London’s state policy. Despite our numerous messages about our willingness to turn the page in our bilateral relations and focus on the development which will benefit our nations, as well as our calls to get serious about normalising relations between us and solving the accumulated problems, the British government has taken another step towards dismantling Russian-British ties. The fact that London continues to formulate its approaches to its relations with Moscow based on the logic of confrontation and the approaches typical of the Russophobic part of the British political establishment is both disquieting and regrettable. London is again ignoring the interests of its own people. In addition to this, the document in question shows that London has abandoned its previous plans to reduce its nuclear arsenal to 180 warheads and is now talking about building it up by more than 40 percent to a total of 260 nuclear warheads. All of this is presented under the guise of absolutely far-fetched rhetoric about alleged “military threats” coming from Russia. Clearly, this move is at odds with London’s many statements about its commitment to obligations to promote nuclear disarmament under the NPT. Such plans on the part of Great Britain confirm the growing importance of making the US nuclear allies, who are building up their nuclear arsenals, part of the Russia-US strategic equation. This concerns not only Great Britain, but France as well, which is closely interacting with Washington in the military-nuclear sphere. The British leadership’s decisions underscore the urgent need to directly involve US nuclear allies in the efforts to reduce and limit nuclear weapons, which Russia never ends to point out. We would like the Western nuclear “troika” to act responsibly. Time is ripe for it to abandon its threatening rhetoric and to start practical interaction with Russia in order to improve international security and strategic stability. Bellingcat's support for terrorists in information landscape The Bellingcat website is known for its bombshell ‘journalistic’ investigations, mainly of an anti-Russia nature. Let me remind you that this resource, founded in 2014 by Briton Eliot Higgins, presents itself as an independent publication. In fact, for many years now, it has been juggling facts around and combining them with fake stories, for example, picturing terrorists and radicals as victims while hiding information they find inconvenient from the public. This is not the only thing they do, but I would like to focus on this particular field of their ‘creativity.’ The media got hold of Higgins’ correspondence, which proves that the head of Bellingcat has deliberately concealed the fact that terrorists in Syria have chemical weapons. The evidence suggests that in 2013, head of the Sons of Liberty International military organisation Matthew VanDyke informed Higgins that the Syrian militants had chemical weapons. Despite this, Bellingcat has repeatedly published material accusing the Syrian authorities of using chemical weapons, although there was no evidence of those facts. One of the most notorious examples of fabricated evidence was the incident in the Syrian city of Douma in 2018, which was then followed by a series of illegal US, French and British airstrikes against sovereign Syria. Bellingcat is also known for its attempts to show members of the White Helmets, a notorious pseudo-humanitarian group operating in Syria, as selfless rescuers. This organisation is well known for its illegal activities such as robberies, racketeering, staging chemical attacks, air and artillery strikes, and assisting terrorism. Bellingcat investigators compensated their lack of arguments to disprove the White Helmets’ crimes with groundless propaganda attacks against Russia and Syria. But the website’s activity involving manipulating public opinion and misinformation does not end there. Bellingcat’s close direct and indirect ties with NATO countries’ intelligence services are an open secret. The organisation works closely with a number of leading German media, which are regularly used by German intelligence agencies for information ‘leaks’ and planted stories, as well as for propaganda campaigns, Germany and other EU countries are bashfully disguising as ‘strategic communication.’ This is their strategic communication at work. In this context, it is quite remarkable that the so-called media resource, Bellingcat, for the most part produces the media product based on Berlin’s accusations against Russia – several stories that are being diligently and consistently promoted by the German side. One is the imaginary attack on the Bundestag by some pervasive GRU hackers in 2015; then there’s the alleged involvement of Russian officials in the murder of terrorist Zelimkhan Khangoshvili, who legally resided in the German capital, in 2019; and the so-called poisoning of Alexey Navalny's with a chemical agent. These three stories have been vigorously peddled, each of the ‘bombshells’ (as well as the aforementioned Syrian problems and the British scam with the Skripals) actually signed by ordinary British journalists and their associates from Bellingcat. The latter claim they can find evidence on social media to support just about anything, and even more so what never happened. This is some perverse dead-end logic. On the one hand, they accuse Moscow of unleashing hundreds of thousands of Russian hackers who can upturn the internal agenda of a major state – the United States. A similar report was released by the intelligence community claiming Russia is interfering on the internet, hackers, bots, etc. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, some pseudo-media (such as Bellingcat) are telling us they have “dug up” piles of evidence against Russia, because it is all there on social media. Those two points are inconsistent with one another. If hundreds of thousands of Russian hackers are scurrying about online, on social media, why would they be spreading implicating information and filling the social media with anti-Russia content? Or is there actually a lot of anti-Russia content out there, in which case the version about hundreds of thousands of Russian hackers does not hold water. This leads to a deadlock. It sounds like a snake eating its own tail. It is absurd, but there are strategic communications (as NATO puts it) behind this. For lack of any real facts, sanctions are imposed against Russia based on fabricated investigations by a long-compromised online publication and several crooks behind it. Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill in the House of Commons The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill recently submitted by the British government to the House of Commons has come to our attention. It contains provisions designed to toughen British legislation on protest actions and also expands the powers of the local police. Could it be the same country that came with a thunderous response to the illegal actions and unauthorised rallies in our country? Is it the same country that talked about human rights and alleged that Russia is not just experiencing a throwback in democracy, but almost a decline? Why are you then coming up with more laws to toughen the police response during rallies? This is impossible. Or is there something different at play? In particular, as part of the innovations spearheaded by the British Home Office, plans are in place to make the procedure for coordinating processions and assemblies more complicated, to expand the powers of the police to respond to protests in the event of an increase in public safety risks, and the Home Office Secretary can introduce a definition of “violation of public order.” If they continue in this kind of direction, “internal terrorists” are likely to become available in Great Britain as they already have in the United States. We do not question the UK government’s right to independently determine ways to improve national legislation. At the same time, British society had a mixed reaction, to put it mildly, to this initiative. Partly, it is viewed as the British security forces’ attempt to gain unlimited freedom of action. At least, that’s what British analysts are saying. We hope that London will be able to maintain a balance of interests and will not allow a situation where the country’s international obligations to ensure the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, as well as the reputation of the British claiming to be a global human rights arbiter, may be questioned. At the same time, alarming signals coming from the UK in recent days indicate that these concerns are by no means unfounded. The entire world saw the footage of the British security forces and the police allegedly restoring order in the streets of their cities. The disproportionate use of force and unreasonably brutal actions of the British police in London during the peaceful rally in memory of young British woman Sarah Everard allegedly murdered by a member of the London police force protecting diplomatic missions and government buildings, is alarming. Just like hundreds of thousands of people around the world, we were shocked by the footage of the female mourners subjected to police violence. They were literally dragged by their hair across the asphalt with their arms locked. I’ll give it to them, it was done “professionally.” I would like to explain the term “professional”: clearly, the British police received proper training in using these brutal methods. Such inhuman ways used by British law enforcement officers have drawn sharp criticism even from local politicians. For example, London Mayor Sadiq Khan said that the police actions were unreasonable and disproportionate. The opposition said they want the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick to go. Britain’s Home Secretary Minister Priti Patel noted that the scenes captured during the protests were sad. The rhetoric is wrong. You need to be tougher about it. Go ahead and re-read your tweets to Russia’s law enforcement agencies. The wording there is much clearer and more colourful. The above emphasises the need to closely monitor the UK government’s actions and initiatives in the law enforcement sphere by London’s foreign partners and international organisations, as well as human rights NGOs, to make sure the UK does not fall far back from the democratic standards. Iceland’s Foreign Minister Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson’s article Strong Defence as the Basis of Peace I would like to comment on the article produced by Iceland’s Foreign Minister Gulaugur Thor Thordarson published in the newspaper Morgunbladid on March 11, 2021 and titled “Strong Defence as the Basis of Peace.” The minister said that the creation of NATO’s nuclear arsenal was a direct consequence of the development of nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union. We double checked it to make sure we read everything correctly. This cannot be! Iceland’s Foreign Minister couldn’t have written this. It turns out he can. In this regard, we are compelled to remind Mr Thordarson of the historical fact (perhaps, new data has come to light in Iceland, but the world is not aware of it). The United States was the first country to obtain nuclear weapons in 1945 and remains the only country to have used it. Perhaps, this will come as a shock, but the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is in some way connected with the use of nuclear weapons by the United States. The Soviet Union began to develop its nuclear arsenal precisely in response to a direct threat to its existence. We believe that the strengthening of international security and strategic stability requires equal commitment of the parties. In this context, we note with satisfaction the extension, in February 2021, of the New START Treaty. I would like to note that Russia spearheaded this decision. For some reason, Mr Thordarson failed to mention this fact, apparently insignificant for him, in his article. Notably, the minister has nevertheless admitted that reciprocity is a critical factor of international security, and is the only way to achieve nuclear disarmament. Indeed, reciprocity is the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals and to ultimately achieve the common goal of a nuclear-free world, and Russia is doing its best to get there. We invariably advocate full compliance by the parties with obligations under agreements in the nuclear missile sphere. We are ready for a substantive dialogue on overcoming the damage that Washington had previously inflicted on the arms control architecture, and on possible new agreements on this track, which would take into account the entire gamut of strategic stability factors. We urge everyone not to forget about Iceland’s constructive role in organising and hosting, in 1986, the historic meeting between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan, which marked the end of confrontation between the Soviet Union and the collective West, and to refrain from making remarks that create an unfavourable information background, especially ahead of the ministerial session of the Arctic Council in Reykjavik in May 2021. Hampering RT Deutsch television channel’s journalist work I would like to recall what I have already mentioned at our previous briefings and what I’ve said at a meeting with representatives of German media outlets. On February 26, 2021, Germany’s Commerzbank sent a letter notifying that the bank accounts of the RT Deutsch and Ruptly news agencies would be closed as of May 31. The bank’s management cited a right to unilaterally terminate cooperation with clients without having to give any reason for doing so. Although the bank was asked to answer some questions put to it by the Russian and foreign media outlets in the context of this high-profile case, its representatives declined to do so. They did not comment on the bank’s actions. The situation is not being resolved despite our requests that Berlin influence it. Earlier on, similar situations were resolved following our appeals to Berlin. Dozens of other major German and international banks, as well as regional financial institutions contacted by the bureau’s management, have refused to cooperate, without offering any justified arguments. This also directly proves that the relevant German agencies are putting pressure on them; or perhaps we will explain this by miracles. The absence of any comments on the part of one bank and all others, which either close the accounts of the Russian media outlets or prevent them from opening such accounts, the absence of comments and information on certain violations of local legislation by Russian media outlets proves convincingly that, first of all, Russian media outlets and journalists did not violate such legislation. Second, this is a politically motivated case. It is common knowledge that Berlin is seriously irritated by the media company’s plans to launch full-fledged German-language television broadcasts in the Federal Republic of Germany before the year is out. The authorities have started openly ostracising the bureau’s journalists. Hendrik Zörner, spokesperson for the German Journalists Association, has posted an article on the Association’s official website, in which he openly sabotages the process of hiring RT Deutsch personnel and insults numerous employees of the RT holding. This is one of the latest and highly representative examples. The leader of the professional association of journalists who should understand and comprehend corporate ethics and who should be guided by principles of respect for his colleagues writes that those working for RT have said goodbye to critical and independent journalism. Whether they want this or not, but RT employees are involved in the destabilisation of democracy. He did not make it clear how exactly RT journalists are destabilising democracy, and he did not even specify what he meant by the destabilisation of democracy. Does this amount to having an alternative viewpoint? If so, then this is a pillar of democracy. Quite possibly, people in Germany have either forgotten about this or are trying to do so. We consider such outbursts not just counter-productive, but aggressive. We understand the nervousness of Germany’s journalist community whose members obviously fear competition on the part of the RT bureau. Nevertheless, it is necessary to stick by the rules and honour ethical and democratic principles. Quite possibly, it would be appropriate to have another read of international obligations of the Federal Republic of Germany as regards compliance with freedom of speech and the prevention of a discriminatory approach towards journalists. We are indignant in connection with open discrimination with regard to the RT television channel in Germany and the persecution of this media outlet. Germany is not the only country in this respect. We can see that a number of EU countries display a similar approach towards the Russian journalists of this holding, as well as towards other Russian journalists. The situation differs from country to country. Russian-language media outlets are persecuted in some countries, and certain Russian journalists are harassed elsewhere. Poland has now refused to admit a Russian correspondent under far-fetched pretexts. Earlier, another Russian journalist had trouble obtaining a Polish visa; the visa was revoked, and the Polish authorities also forbade the journalist from entering the country for another five years. This is real obscurantism, rather than double standards. As we can see, entire EU countries have succumbed to such obscurantism. On the one hand, they pay lip service to freedom of speech and human rights, and on the other hand, they flagrantly violate fundamental democratic principles in favour of their time-serving interests. In this connection, we find it important to emphasise that all actions made by Russia’s foreign broadcaster were absolutely legitimate. If you have any other information, please give it to us. All claims to them are politically motivated and are supported by government institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany. Since Berlin has failed to voice a constructive position, we are addressing specialised international human rights organisations. We ask them to respond to the violation of RT journalists’ rights in Germany. We will certainly prepare letters and send them to the relevant international agencies. We have already said at our previous briefings that Russia would respond appropriately, unless the situation concerning RT in Germany is resolved. In reply, they say they don’t like our manner of speaking. And for a long time now, we haven’t liked your manner of speaking either. We will have to respond, unless the situation is resolved. Opening of Kosovo “diplomatic mission” in Jerusalem On March 14, 2021, Kosovo opened an “embassy” in Jerusalem. Needless to say, this step runs counter to UN Security Council Resolution 1244, according to which the status of Kosovo, including its right to have independent diplomatic relations with other countries, has yet to be determined. In this context, we would like to reaffirm Russia’s principled position on Jerusalem. It remains unchanged: the city should become the capital of the two independent states – Palestine and Israel, open to followers of all three monotheistic religions. We proceed from the assumption that the specific parameters of an agreement on the status of Jerusalem will be worked out during direct Palestinian-Israeli talks on a well-known international legal basis, backed by UN Security Council Resolutions 476 and 478, as well as UN General Assembly Resolution 2253. We will continue to defend this approach in our work with the Palestinians and Israelis, as well as with our other international partners, including in various collective formats, such as the Middle East Quartet of international mediators. As for the Kosovo issue, we consistently advocate its settlement based on international law, as well as the achievement of a viable and mutually acceptable solution by Belgrade and Pristina, which should be approved by the UN Security Council and which should meet the interests of the people of Serbia. There were questions about how Belgrade reacted to the opening of the so-called Kosovo embassy. Was a representation made by the Serbian leadership to Israel? Has Serbia send any protest notes? Does Belgrade consider the event as an offence? I leave these questions without comment and address them as intended to Serbia. This is not a question for the Russian Foreign Ministry. Unveiling the monument to Yuri Gagarin in the Indonesian capital On March 10, 2021, the monument to Yuri Gagarin was unveiled in Jakarta, which was timed to coincide with his birthday and became a landmark event for the traditionally friendly Russian-Indonesian relations. The ceremony was attended by Ambassador of Russia to Indonesia Lyudmila Vorobyova, Jakarta Governor Anies Baswedan, First Deputy Foreign Minister of Indonesia Mahendra Siregar. Minister of the Moscow Government Sergey Cheryomin delivered remarks via video linkup. Yuri Gagarin is well known in the “country of 17,000 islands.” In June 1961, two months after the historic space flight, the high state award of Indonesia, the Mahaputra Star, was personally presented to the first cosmonaut by President Sukarno. Some citizens of Indonesia bear the names “Yuri” and “Gagarin”. Pakistan Day On March 23, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan celebrates Pakistan Day, its national holiday marking the adoption of the Lahore Resolution in 1940, which laid the foundation for the movement to establish an independent state. The occasion also commemorates the adoption of the country’s first constitution in 1956. The friendly Pakistani people gained their freedom in 1947 as the result of a difficult struggle against British colonialism. Pakistan is rightfully respected on the global stage as an independent state playing a significant role in regional and international affairs. The Pakistani people are rightfully proud of their ancient history, cultural heritage and socioeconomic achievements. Russian-Pakistani relations are friendly and dynamic. Even during the coronavirus pandemic, our countries maintain a regular political dialogue, including at the highest and high levels, as well as constructive interaction at international organisations, including the UN and the SCO. Trade and economic cooperation has significant potential. We congratulate our Pakistani friends on their national holiday and wish them peace, prosperity and well-being. Coronavirus update in view of the upcoming tourism season The summer holiday season is almost upon us. Various countries all over the world are taking steps to revive the tourism industry and are gradually opening borders. Unfortunately, they are also closing them in some regions of the world. This is an ongoing process. It is about opening borders to foreigners. At the same time, uncertainty remains regarding the evolution of the new coronavirus infection on a global scale. Experts note the virus is still active; new variants are being recorded. These are not political assessments, but exclusively expert ones. We would like to once again draw the attention of our citizens to the need to consider the current epidemiologic situation and to carefully and comprehensively assess all the dangers and risks that may be associated with foreign tourist trips. If you decide to go on a foreign holiday nevertheless, we would ask you not to forget to find out in advance the entry conditions of a particular country and strictly follow the current sanitary requirements, which is necessary for crossing borders and boarding an aircraft, as well as to understand that at any moment (you have seen these examples, there have been a lot of them in recent months) the logistics could change due to the introduction of additional measures and restrictions. Once again, we remind you about our app, Foreign Assistant. Updates are available on embassies’ websites. I would like to note once again that the situation is rapidly changing in all countries without exception. Almost every day or every week we can see coronavirus-related changes in border crossing procedures, as well as the introduction of additional restrictions or, on the contrary, the lifting of them. We have to be fully prepared, monitor the information, follow the news and calculate all the risks.  Answers to media questions: Question: Anti-Russia sanctions, moves, statements, steps and rhetoric have been gaining momentum in the past few years, but a direct accusation against the head of the Russian state is, I believe, an unprecedented and hostile action. Do you think US President Joe Biden has taken this step deliberately so as to worsen the already complicated relations between our countries? What effect can this have on the cooperation aspects that remain important to this day? For example, Moscow is hosting a peace conference on Afghanistan today that is being attended by American representatives. There are also other spheres of mutually beneficial cooperation such as counterterrorism, the settlement of regional conflicts, disarmament, and the like. Maria Zakharova: I have already commented on all these issues, but I can say it again out of regard for you. We have heard a lot of things from the collective West and individual countries, or more precisely from their political leadership, during the past years or even decades. Our intention to invite Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov to Moscow for consultations on Russian-US relations with various Russian bodies is an unprecedented step we have not taken in the past years, if not decades. There were other examples, but they concerned a specific problem. But doing this in order to analyse the entire range of bilateral relations is truly unprecedented not just in the history of Russian-US relations but in general. You have mentioned an event on Afghanistan taking place in Moscow, which is being attended by American representatives, and asked about the possible effects on it. I don’t understand your logic. You yourself have said that the statements made are unacceptable. That is, some people make unacceptable statements and we should respond by further worsening the already dead-locked bilateral relations? There is absolutely no point in following that logic. Carrying on the destruction, putting spokes in wheels and engaging in intrigue are definitely not Russia’s strategy. We need to take up this matter and to thoroughly review the state of our bilateral relations. Question: The other day a delegation of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc in the Lebanese parliament, which represents Hezbollah, visited Moscow. Could you comment on the outcome of that visit and the Lebanese delegation’s meetings with the Foreign Ministry leadership? What effect can this visit have on the developments in Lebanon, where a difficult process of forming the government is underway, and in neighbouring Syria, where both sides have been working together successfully against terrorism for many years? Maria Zakharova: Moscow is satisfied, in general, with the results of the meetings we have had with the leadership of the Lebanese political party Hezbollah during a recent visit by Mohammad Raad, head of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc in the Lebanese parliament, and the accompanying delegation. We hope that the exchange of views and the understandings reached during the delegation’s meetings in the Foreign Ministry, the State Duma and the Federation Council of Russia’s parliament will facilitate an expeditious settlement of the government crisis in Lebanon, progress in the comprehensive peace process in Syria and, overall, security and stability in the Middle East. Question: Does Russia support the idea of UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen on the need for a new international format for a settlement in Syria, which must include Russia, the US, Iran, Turkey, the EU and Arab countries? Maria Zakharova: At present, the Astana format remains the only credible international format for facilitating a settlement in Syria. The decisions made in the Astana format with the participation of the two Syrian delegations representing the Syrian Government and the armed opposition and the subsequent well-orchestrated efforts of the guarantor countries (Russia, Iran and Turkey) made it possible to establish and maintain a sustainable ceasefire in the SAR. This saved thousands of lives and paved the way for all-round normalisation in Syria. I would also like to recall that the above guarantor countries supported the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi in January 2018, the decisions of which led to the formation of the intra-Syrian Constitutional Committee that began functioning in Geneva. Unfortunately, the process of political settlement in Syria is not moving as fast as we wished it would. This is dragging the suffering of the Syrians, including millions of refuges and internally displaced persons (IDPs), impeding the restoration of the destroyed socio-economic infrastructure and complicating intra-Syrian talks in Geneva. It is easy to find an answer to the question of why this is happening in the recently published joint statement of the foreign ministers of the US, Britain, Germany, Italy and France in connection with the 10th anniversary of the start of the Syrian crisis. This collective demarche makes it clear that the West is not ready to accept the reality that has taken shape in Syria now. It still hopes to turn the situation to its favour and punish “the culprits.” Russia holds a position of principle on this issue, which we express regularly. We have prepared an all-embracing background for the 10th anniversary of the start of the Syrian crisis. We support the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the SAR. We built our policy on the foundation of basic standards and principles of international law. We give priority to the objective recorded in unanimously adopted UN Security Council Resolution 2254 on the need to support a political process that must be led and carried out by the Syrians themselves. We are facilitating this political settlement and post-conflict reconciliation in the SAR after defeating the international terrorists. To this end, we are working with the Syrian Government and the opposition. In part, we are mobilising international assistance for the Syrian people to help them overcome the consequences of this grievous crisis and, naturally, are providing them with our own humanitarian aid. We have seen that for some time lately the Western states respond to every step taken by Damascus to find a political solution and achieve stabilisation in the country by toughening the financial and economic blockade of Syria in line with the notorious Caesar Act and other similar decisions. There are continuing provocative appeals to bring to court Syrian political and military leaders for their alleged “war crimes” in fighting the international terrorists. Indicatively, such positions are promoted by those who made no small “contribution” to the exacerbation of the domestic conflict in Syria and the appearance in that country of tens of thousands of foreign militants who later joined ISIS and other groups, which are qualified as international terrorist organisations by the UN Security Council. I am referring to those who have carried out massive strikes with the latest weapons at facilities in Syria under the pretext of fabricated accusations against the Syrian government of using chemical weapons against their own people. I am also referring to those who are still involved in the unlawful military occupation of a sizeable part of Syrian territory. They are deliberately fueling separatist attitudes and, in parallel, are engaged in the undisguised robbery of the natural resources that belong to the Syrian people. During Geir Pedersen’s recent visit to Moscow, we listened to his wishes on creating a new collective mechanism for facilitating a settlement in Syria with the participation of the states in the Asana format and some members of the so-called Small Group. I would like to emphasise that efficiency is the main yardstick for any international format. Is it possible to ensure this under the current conditions, considering the openly destructive position of the potential participants that I have already mentioned? The creation of a new format does not automatically entail a change in political approaches. On the contrary, a change in the view of the situation and the attitude towards it could create additional points of contact among the partners that were on different sides of the barricade before. We have always supported dialogue, but a dialogue that is constructive and based on international law rather than a striving to exclusively implement one’s own geopolitical schemes. Otherwise, this is simply not a dialogue. Special Envoy Geir Pedersen’s idea certainly deserves serious consideration by the countries that are directly involved in the Syrian crisis. In part, they must ponder the following questions: What role in the suggested format would be allotted to the Syrians themselves – the government and those isolated groups that qualify themselves as the opposition? And, will its work be based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254? Finally, I would like to emphasise again that we have been and remain open to contacts with our international and regional partners on Syria. We are willing to cooperate with all those that are sincerely interested in overcoming the crisis in Syria as soon as possible with due respect for its sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity. Question: Could you comment on a recent article by Japanese political analyst and retired diplomat Akio Kawato, who suggested that Japan must demonstrate its ability to block the La Pérouse and Sangar straits, the supply arteries between mainland Russia and the South Kuril Islands? Maria Zakharova: I would like to say that you did right to mention that Mr Kawato is a former government official, which it is very important to know in order to understand what he has written for a number of reasons. We analyse all such statements regardless of who makes them. Such attempts at intimidation, which are also presented as a tactical tool to be used at negotiations on a peace treaty, cause nothing but regret. It is notable that the latest statement was made by a former high-ranking member of the Japanese Foreign Ministry who had been responsible for Japan’s policy towards Russia and had been Japan’s ambassador to several CIS countries. This position can only lead bilateral dialogue into a dead-end, but it cannot change the reality. Russia has undeniable sovereignty over the South Kuril Islands. Question: What do you think of the book titled The Nazi’s Granddaughter: How I Discovered My Grandfather was a War Criminal, published in the United States in March by US journalist Silvia Foti, the granddaughter of Lithuanian collaborator Jonas Noreika? Maria Zakharova: There have been constant attempts in Lithuania to glorify Nazi accomplice Jonas Noreika and to present him as an “independence fighter.” I have already spoken at length on this subject today, but you have provided one more example, this time regarding Lithuania. There are memorial plaques dedicated to him in Vilnius and other Lithuanian cities, and streets and schools bear his name. Moreover, attempts are being made to this day to justify Noreika’s crimes based on very strange arguments – that he was not personally involved in the execution of Jews but even allegedly nursed schemes to save them. However, facts point in the opposite direction. He personally signed documents on the creation of conditions for the massive execution of Jews. He received incentives, including material ones, for doing his horrible job. The publication of Silvia Foti’s book in the United States has been explained as an attempt to tell the Western reader the truth about the crimes against humanity committed in Lithuania during WWII by a leader of the notorious bandits called the Forest Brothers. The author believes that this will recreate or help readers see the real image of that Nazi accomplice. You are well aware of our position of principle, which I have put forth in a digested form once again today. Question: My question concerns the not very adequate statements made by US President Joe Biden about President Vladimir Putin. What about an apology? We would like to hear the latest news about this scandal. Maria Zakharova: It is definitely not our scandal. I suggest that you address your question to American representatives. Let them comment. We are surprised that a huge number of all manner of press secretaries, spokespersons and officials in the United States who are responsible for commenting on the White House’s official position have buttoned up and are keeping silent on this subject. The question you are asking is not for us. It is for the United States. You know about our position of principle regarding the development of relations with absolutely all countries, including the United States. Even in the worst periods, when our positions diverged on truly fundamental issues, Russia said that all problems must be settled at the negotiating table. This position does not depend on whether we like or dislike a country or an individual representing it. We understand that politics is about the interests of our nations, and that national interests can and do differ. But we must never forget about the interests of our own people. This has always been our logic. May I refuse to do their job? Please, ask for comments from the representatives of the country that has always taken pride in its declared commitment to the freedom of expression and respect for the media and journalists. The United States spent a long time trying to teach the world the difference between the “right” and “wrong” journalists, between “propaganda” and “good” media outlets. Let them now prove their attitude to the freedom of speech and to journalists. They must stop evading questions and comment on everything that is going on in their country. I believe this experience will do them good. There is a wonderful Russian saying, which, I believe, will not be so easy to translate: You say you are a mushroom, so into the basket you go. This is your homework: try to translate it into your national languages. Question: Please allow me to convey greetings from the Bulgarian audience in connection with the anniversary of the Russia-Crimea reunification. The first question is related to the blocking of Russian and other objectionable content in social media and other platforms. During the meeting with the heads of the Russian media on February 10, 2021, President Vladimir Putin said that the internet giants would be restricted if they take hostile actions against Russia. Will restrictions be applied to individual services and Western platforms if they take hostile actions against Russia (blocking, removing Russian content, etc.)? Is Russia ready to start creating comparable alternatives to these media that would be accessible to all internet users in the world with a view to preserving freedom of speech and the right to information access? Maria Zakharova: I will reply to your second question first. Russia already has its own platforms that are very popular not only in our country but also abroad, for instance Vkontakte and others. There are others that are still being developed. I think they will be developed even more rapidly now. As for your first question, we are seeing an absolute backsliding of the internet monopoly and hence, the state because the United States has assumed certain international commitments. This amounts to renunciation of commitments to defend freedom of speech, respecting the plurality of opinions and many other parameters. Mass blockings in which Twitter takes the lead have already been recorded in history. Content blocking, removals and other repressive actions as regards thousands of users are being taken. This applies to ordinary users and public and government figures. In the process, Twitter and the US are accusing Russia, in particular, Roscomnadzor, of some “attack on freedom of speech.” Officially, in response to warnings from Roscomnadzor, Twitter wrote that it continues to advocate an open internet all over the world and is seriously concerned about the more frequent attempts to block or restrict the public online dialogue. This concern is being expressed by a company that has blocked its own president and hundreds of media materials? Are we not confusing anything? How could this be the case? The US Department of State is the same “alternative universe.” It writes about its concern about Russia’s intensified attempts to control the internet and online content. It notes that the expression of opinions and differences, including via the internet, consolidates society rather than threatens it. It explains that freedom of self-expression plays a major role in fostering a more tolerant, inclusive society. All this is being expressed by the US State Department, the very same country that blocked its own president on all social media platforms. Moreover, they tried to justify this in some way. There is a difference in our approaches. US internet giants justify the blocking of their president, users in the US and the rest of the world with political considerations, and do not conceal it. Meanwhile, our arguments in our claim to the same Twitter are common knowledge and boil down to violation of Russian laws. For this reason, they are in sharp contrast to the groundless statements of the US side (both the private companies we are talking about and government bodies). Let me recall that since 2017, Twitter has not deleted content that incites minors to commit suicide, and content containing child pornography and information on using narcotic drugs. As of March 10, 2021, it has not removed 3,168 materials with banned information (including 2,569 with the appeals to minors to commit suicide, 450 with child pornography and 149 with information on drug manufacture and use). In all, Roscomnadzor has sent over 28,000 initial and repeated demands to remove unlawful links and publications. Another striking example is complete disregard of regulator demand to remove the incitement for minors to commit mass suicide on March 3, 2021. According to reports by law enforcement bodies, several attempts by minors to commit suicide were prevented on that day. Instead of dealing with urgent issues and countering criminal manifestations on their services, Twitter and other internet platforms continue carrying out “punitive actions,” introducing political censorship as regards Russian citizens and organisations. Today, we talked with our colleagues from Roscomnadzor. Interestingly, Twitter does not remove objectionable content that Russia demands to delete from the Russian internet segment, and at the same time, completely deletes all similar content from its Western section. This is surprising! As if they have other views and laws. No, at home they delete this kind of content, but it appears that it is okay to subject Russian minors to these ineligible actions on the part of the people that are using social networks beyond the law. When we ask why legitimate content is removed and unlawful content is not, we receive lies. First, they refer to technical errors and then to moderators. Then moderators talk about technical errors again and mention some mysterious algorithms. All this is ridiculous. According to the opinion expressed by the Twitter administration on February 26, 2021, 100 Russian accounts allegedly “amplified narratives that were aligned with the Russian government,” “focused on undermining faith in the NATO alliance and its stability” and trying to “influence efforts targeting the United States and the European Union.” Here’s a question for Twitter: Was French President Emmanuel Macron also blocked in social media? He undermined faith in NATO by saying it was brain dead. No, he continues to be active on social media. February 13, 2021: the official account of the Russian delegation at the Vienna talks on security and arms control was temporarily blocked. We were told this was a “technical error.” January 14, 2021: the Sputnik V account was temporarily blocked. They said it was an accident. May 9, 2020: Facebook blocked the account of Rossiya Segodnya journalist Leonid Sviridov for three days after he published a photo depicting the Victory Banner over the Reichstag. This was a mass-scale “punitive action” by the social media outlets. There are many similar examples. That said, direct threats, including those addressed to Russian diplomats and the Foreign Ministry in general are either not blocked at all (although we point them out) or are only blocked several months later, after our painstaking efforts. We have quoted specific examples. Unfortunately, American social networks, the internet giants, have themselves created this situation through their illegal actions. Question: Today, Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan reported that early elections to the parliament will be held next June. What can you tell us about this statement? How will these elections affect the situation in the region, in your opinion? Maria Zakharova: We consider the decision to hold early parliamentary elections in 2021 to be Armenia’s internal affair. We have noted that the sides have come to terms on the date of the elections. We hope the pre-election period will take place in a constructive atmosphere aimed at reaching long-term results. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4642021
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
March 25th, 2021
|
#273 |
|
Senior Member
|
Video message of Minister of foreign affairs of the Russian Federation to the citizens of Bangladesh on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, founder of the State, and the 50th anniversary of independence of Bangladesh, Moscow, 19 of March 2021
19 March 2021 - 14:41 Dear friends, It is a great honour for me to address the friendly people of Bangladesh on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of founder of your country Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and 50th anniversary of independence of Bangladesh. Russia remembers Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as an outstanding political figure, a devoted fighter for the freedom and happiness of his people and a true friend of our country. He was the first ever Bangladeshi top-ranking official to pay an official visit to Moscow in March 1972, less than two months after the diplomatic recognition of the State of Bangladesh by the Soviet Union. It was then that the foundation for bilateral relations building on the principles of equality, mutual respect and consideration of each other's interests was laid. Symbolically, the commemoration of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's centenary is followed back to back by the celebration of the 50th anniversary of independence of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Let me extend to you my heartfelt greetings on this remarkable jubilee event. The people of East Bengal paid a high price for the right to determine its own destiny. Our country offered Bangladesh considerable political support and contributed to its war-torn economy restoration efforts. On request of the Government of Bangladesh, in April 1972, the 12th special-purpose company of the USSR Navy was dispatched to Bangladesh to perform mine and shipwreck clearance of the port of Chittagong. Soviet navy sailors lived up to their task. It is heartening that our Bangladeshi friends have carried the memory of this feat through half a century. Such a careful attitude towards our common history is highly commendable. We welcome the considerable success made by the People's Republic of Bangladesh over the years of its independence. Your country is steadily pursuing its path towards progress and gradual development and enjoys a strong reputation in the international community. Dhaka actively engages in addressing current global challenges, including fight against poverty and climate change. As a major troop contributor to the UN peacekeeping operations, it continues to largely contribute to the conflict settlement process across the globe. Bangladesh is Russia's important economic partner in South Asia. Last year, despite the coronavirus pandemic, the turnover between our two states saw a nearly 15 per cent increase, exceeding an all-time record mark of US 2.4 bln. I would like to highlight the ongoing implementation of the largest joint project on the construction of the first nuclear power plant Rooppur in Bangladesh. We expect that it will be put into operation in 2023-2024, bringing to a completely new technological level the local energy sector. Russia is ready to continue bilateral political dialogue and mutually beneficial practical cooperation. I am convinced that the existing ties of friendship will grow stronger for the benefit of our citizens. In conclusion, I would like to extend my wishes of peace, well-being and all the best to the friendly people of Bangladesh. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4644106 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Chinese media, Moscow, March 22, 2021 22 March 2021 - 01:00 Question: This year Russia and China will mark 20 years of the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation. It is rumoured that they have agreed to extend the treaty and to give it a new substance based on realities of a new era. What are these new realities? China believes that Russian-Chinese cooperation has no limits, restricted areas or reservations for development. Do you agree with this? What are your expectations when it comes to the further development of Russian-Chinese ties? Sergey Lavrov: Our leaders and people regard relations between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation as the best ever in the history of our bilateral ties. I believe that it is a well-deserved and substantiated description. In a large measure, our relations have reached this unprecedented level thanks to the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation, which President of Russia Vladimir |Putin and President of China Jiang Zemin signed in Moscow on July 16, 2001. It is a truly historical document. It provided a political foundation and the legal framework for the development of a new kind of relations between our countries, relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation. Right now, these relations are entering a new era. Dynamic cooperation, which has been a distinctive feature of our relations over a period of the past 20 years, shows that the Treaty has passed the test of time and that the obligations it seals are being honoured. I would like to remind you that our obligation is to pass friendship between our nations over to the next generation. It is a unique legal formula which I have never seen anywhere else, only in relations between Russia and China. It is an obligation to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each other, an affirmation of the absence of territorial complaints and mutual resolve to make the border between Russia and China a line of eternal peace and friendship. It is a very unusual formula for an official document. It is an indication of a truly unique nature of our relations. This form of interaction between Russia and China is absolutely free of any ideological limits. It has an intrinsic value that is not vulnerable to any short-term considerations and is not spearheaded against any other country. Our leaders have pointed this out on numerous occasions. Since we are going to be marking 20 years of the Treaty on July 16, we will prepare a special document, a joint statement by our leaders dedicated to this event. It will reflect an additional feature our relations acquired during the past 20 years. On February 28, 2022, it will be 20 years since the Treaty came into effect. It was signed on July 16, 2001 and ratified on February 28, 2002. We believe that on the 20th anniversary of the Treaty’s enforcement it will be automatically extended for another five years in accordance with Article 25. We regard the new era of Russian-Chinese relations, which you have mentioned, primarily in the context of the broader situation on the international stage. It is undergoing a very deep transformation and the strengthening of the new centres of economic growth, financial might and political influence. Regrettably, the objective trend for a rise of a truly multipolar democratic world is being hindered by some Western countries led by the United States, which would like to preserve their domination of the global economy and international politics at all costs and to force their will and their demands on each and all. In response to this, Russia and China are promoting a constructive unification agenda. We want the architecture of international relations to be fair, democratic, capable of ensuring stability and based on broad interaction of states and their integration associations, just as we are doing together with our Chinese friends by promoting integration in Eurasia. China is a truly strategic partner and a like-minded country for us. Our cooperation on the international stage is having a stabilising effect on the global and regional situation. Russia believes that our dialogue with China based on trust and mutual respect should provide an example for other countries, including those that are trying to develop ties with Russia and China on different principles that are not based on equality. This is not acceptable to us or our Chinese friends. We will continue developing our foreign policy constructively and flexibly, showing readiness for compromise but exclusively on the basis of mutual respect and a balance of interests. Question: 2020 and 2021 were announced as Years of Science, Technology and Innovation between China and Russia. What results have already been achieved in regard to the cross years? What is the significance of such major events? Sergey Lavrov: Russia and China began holding cross years in 2006. I believe this tradition reflects the quality of relations between Russia and China and, if anything, evokes appreciation from all impartial and objective observers. In 2006, the Russian and Chinese governments announced the Year of Russia in China, and then the Year of China in Russia. This was followed by the years of the Russian and Chinese languages, the years of youth exchanges, years of tourism and other major cross year projects. They are certainly significant because, first of all, each of the cross years includes dozens, and sometimes even hundreds of events that really contribute to cementing our relations in various fields. They provide intensive direct contacts between people, thereby significantly strengthening the foundation of our friendship and enriching the palette of our relations. Let me stress that it also strengthens the public basis for the Russian-Chinese partnership. These events help implement the provisions of the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation, and pass on the traditions of our friendship to younger generations. The current cross year project, the Years of Science, Technology and Innovation Cooperation, are being held in 2020-2021 under an agreement between the President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. They were launched in August 2020 during a ceremony attended and chaired by the deputy prime ministers of our two countries. The importance of building up exchanges in the high-tech sphere can hardly be overestimated today. As for the cross year project, the plan provides for more than 1,000 events in such fields as robotics, materials science, biotechnology, information technology, artificial intelligence, mathematics, physics, ecology, medicine, and also history, linguistics, culture, and sociology – a variety of fields covering almost all the more or less significant areas that determine the level of development of a modern state. Unfortunately, due to the coronavirus infection, most of the cross year events have to be held via videoconferencing. More than 500 events took place last year, mostly online. About 500 more events are planned for this year. I hope that the coronavirus infection will recede and that we will be able to hold some important meetings with in-person participation. The cross year plan includes a number of events and conferences to exchange experience in fighting the novel coronavirus infection. We maintain very close interaction, which began with the very first reports on the new virus. Mutual assistance was started right away. We began helping our Chinese friends, and then they helped the Russian Federation. Let me emphasise this once again – this is an example to follow for any and all countries building relationships with each other.  Question: The United States and its allies have been meddling in the domestic affairs of other countries with increasing regularity. Washington has been ratcheting up groundless sanctions. Only just recently, we heard disrespectful lexical constructs coming from President Biden. Given the circumstances, how can modern diplomacy respond to these steps coming from the West? Sergey Lavrov: This is an important matter. I consider sanctions to be the main tool used in the international arena not just by the United States, but the entire West. As a matter of fact, they have largely lost the skill of classical diplomacy. Diplomacy is about relations between people, the ability to listen to each other, to hear one another and to strike a balance between competing interests. These are exactly the values that Russia and China are promoting in diplomacy. Whenever a diplomatic or a political dialogue turns to the language of ultimatums, and partners are expected to “acknowledge their mistakes” or comply with demands, the whole thing stops being diplomacy. Whenever our Western partners, who are already using these methods, get politely rebuffed, they impose sanctions. Unfortunately, it is these manners that have taken root in the United States. It all started with President Obama and lasted during President Trump’s four years in office. We are witnessing the same “instincts” in the new US administration. Nothing good will ever come of sanctions which we can see in the case of the EU which followed the same path and imposed sanctions on Russia under a far-fetched pretext, accusing us of things that have never been proved. Not a single piece of evidence has ever been provided, either. You are aware that European businesses are disgruntled with their losses at a time when other countries are taking their niches in the Russian market. These countries are thinking about their national and economic interests. They have a desire to support their businesses rather than punish someone for something. Punishing anyone in the modern international arena is, by and large, a faulty approach and using it in relations with Russia or China is plainly imprudent. Poor countries and developing economies have been hit by the sanctions particularly hard, since the pandemic has seriously undermined the states’ ability to ensure normal living conditions for their citizens. It is no coincidence that UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres and, after him, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, came up with a proposal to freeze the sanctions and to make exemptions for essential supplies that the people need to have access to during the pandemic. Our Western colleagues fully ignored this initiative, just as they ignored President Putin’s proposal, which he put forward during the G20 summit held via videoconference in the spring of 2020, to create green corridors in international trade which would be free from sanctions and other artificial barriers. In conjunction with the People's Republic of China and many other like-minded countries, we keep raising this subject at international platforms, including the UN, which has adopted many resolutions that render illegal unilateral economic and other sanctions imposed in circumvention of the UN Security Council, especially the extraterritorial restrictions. When the United States withdrew from the Iranian nuclear deal, which it is now trying to bring back to life, it not only stopped complying with its commitments, but told other countries not to fulfill the UN Security Council resolution. The West bit the bullet and resigned: “What can we do, this is up to the United States. Of course, it would be better if they continued to implement the Iranian nuclear deal resolution, but this is how things are.” This is not how things are. This represents a gross violation of international law and a demonstration of the state's glaring incapacity to negotiate. I hope the US administration, which said it wants to rejoin the nuclear deal, will follow through with its plan. In any case, the initiatives to remove the illegitimate unilateral sanctions from international life deserve every support. Venezuela has come up with a proposal at the UN to create a coalition against unilateral coercive measures. By the way, the UN has a special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures who comes up with balanced and objective assessments. This kind of initiative must be encouraged. We must form a broad-based coalition of countries which will oppose this illegal practice. Concurrently, we must consolidate our independence. The United States has declared limiting the advance of technology in Russia and China as its goal. So, we must reduce our exposure to sanctions by strengthening our technological independence and switching to settlements in national and international currencies other than the dollar. We need to move away from using Western-controlled international payment systems. The circumstances make us build our economic and social policies to make sure we remain unaffected by our Western partners’ quirks. They are promoting their ideology-driven agenda aimed at preserving their dominance by holding back progress in other countries. Their policies run counter to the objective international developments and, as they used to say at some point, are on the wrong side of history. The historical process will come into its own, no matter what happens. Question: What do you think about the possibility of “vaccination passports” and the resumption of tourist exchanges between Russia and China and between Asia and Europe? Sergey Lavrov: It is an important subject. All sides are trying to find ways to resume the normal functioning of countries, nations and citizens at a moment when the coronavirus infection remains a quite serious challenge for many regions in the world. It is in this context that the possibility of introducing so-called vaccination passports is being discussed. During the G20 summit held in November 2020, President of China Xi Jinping advanced the idea of digital health passports for international travel. We can see that measures towards this are being taken in China. We are analysing China’s experience and other countries’ approaches to this matter, including within the framework of the EU. It is important to thoroughly consider and assess all possible aspects of this initiative based on the principle of voluntary vaccinations and an equal approach, so that any innovations adopted in this or that country are mutually acceptable. Otherwise we will create new dividing lines. It is unacceptable for the existence or absence of such certificates (I would rather not describe them as passports) to infringe on human rights and the rights of travellers. People travel a great deal. This is a fact of life and a new reality of international life. The WHO has not yet presented a final view on the issue of such passports or certificates; it has taken a low-key approach to this matter. As of now, our experience is only being formulated and boils down to the following. Those who have jabs can request a paper or digital vaccination certificate. The data will be added to the federal register of vaccinated citizens. This document will show that the said person has been vaccinated. We are not considering any other uses for this document. We are analysing all aspects of this initiative. We maintain large-scale tourist exchanges with China. They have increased considerably during the past years. In 2019, before the pandemic, nearly 2 million Chinese citizens visited Russia. The coronavirus infection has seriously damaged the tourist sector. I am sure that when the epidemiological situation gets back to normal, and we see the trend towards this, we will be able to do everything necessary together to open up the borders without delay and to resume mutual travel, gradually mitigating and eventually lifting all the currently strict coronavirus restrictions. Question: Many Chinese love Russian literature and arts. They invite our Russian friends to come to China to become better acquainted with the Oriental civilisation. Cultural and educational exchanges between China and Russia have been seriously damaged by the pandemic. Many Chinese students are unable to return to Russia. What practical measures should be taken to revitalise humanitarian exchanges? Sergey Lavrov: I said in response to your previous question that decisions on lifting lockdown restrictions are needed to resume tourist exchanges. As long as they remain in place, Russian citizens cannot travel to China either. Our foreign ministries are not playing the key role in this sphere, where the first fiddle is played by our countries’ healthcare authorities and governments, the first deputy prime ministers in charge of sanitary matters. The pandemic has changed all areas of our contacts, including the humanitarian, cultural and educational ones. We are gradually resuming in-person education at our universities. Foreign students are returning as well. The decision in each particular case is taken by the university authorities following consultations with relevant healthcare agencies. Everything depends on the region where the given university is located and the situation in the country from which foreign students come. Cultural events were last held in a traditional format as long ago as in January 2020. After that, concerts, exhibitions and conferences were held online. This form of interaction is good as well, but it will never replace face-to-face relations. I hope that we will gradually resume normal interaction in this sphere in the near future. We have coordinated with our Chinese friends a programme of cooperation between our couture ministries in 2020-2023. We tried to take into account the possibility of epidemiological restrictions. We will do our best to hold as many events as possible in the in-person format. The implementation of the programme, which began in 2020, immediately faced these difficulties. We are conducting our cultural and humanitarian contacts online while preparing to resume them in the traditional format. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4646592 Statement by the Foreign Ministry 22 March 2021 - 12:56 We regret to note that the American side has not supported the proposal made by President of Russia Vladimir Putin to US President Joe Biden to hold a live-broadcast discussion on March 19 or 22, 2021, on the problems that have accumulated in bilateral relations, as well as on the subject of strategic stability. One more opportunity has been missed to find a way out of the deadlock in Russian-US relations created through the fault of Washington. Responsibility for this lies entirely with the United States. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4647223 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China Wang Yi, Guilin, March 23, 2021 23 March 2021 - 06:10 Mr Minister, dear friend, I am delighted to meet with you again, as you have said, for the 51st time, in the wonderful city of Guilin. I am confident that today we will take one more step towards expanding our strategic cooperation and multifaceted partnership. In the past 12 months, during the fight against the coronavirus infection, we have once again seen that the Chinese people possess such outstanding qualities as discipline and perseverance. I firmly believe that our relationship symbolises relations between our countries and peoples. Our friendship reflects the solid and neighbourly bond between Russia and China. Acting in line with the tasks that were formulated by the leaders of our countries, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping, as well as agreements at the level of heads of government (the 25th meeting in this format was held recently), we must bolster all these agreements and move towards achieving foreign policy goals set by our leaders. As you have noted, the global situation is not becoming any simpler. It is increasingly characterised by the attempts of our Western colleagues to ensure their domination, by hook or by crook, disregarding the objective pace of history that facilitates the establishment of a multipolar international order. We need to mobilise our supporters while defending justice and the principles of the UN Charter which, as I have repeatedly said, are being increasingly ignored by Western colleagues. They are trying to invent their own rules and to impose them on all others.  I am convinced that draft documents that the two of us will sign today meet the current demands. The joint statement by the foreign ministers of Russia and China on some issues of global governance in the modern conditions and the Plan of Consultations between the foreign ministries of Russia and China for 2021 are very timely documents. They will help advance our coordination more clearly and effectively. This year, we will mark a number of important events, including the 20th anniversary of the Treaty on Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation. The leaders of Russia and China are planning to make a statement in connection with this anniversary. Our task is to prepare it well. On the whole, I completely share your desire to continue using cooperation between our foreign ministries to strengthen the positions of our countries on the international scene in full compliance with the principles of international law and the UN Charter. Thank you. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4647593 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following talks with Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi, Guilin, March 23, 2021 23 March 2021 - 10:15 Ladies and gentlemen, It gives me great pleasure to be in this wonderful place, enjoying the unique nature of this province. We really do admire these landscapes, but I can assure you that this has not prevented us from holding extremely business-like and practical talks. They were held in a traditionally friendly and trust-based manner. We pointed out once again that Russia and China continue their close and fruitful cooperation in virtually all spheres on the international stage despite the coronavirus pandemic, in all the spheres which have been identified as our priorities during contacts between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of China Xi Jinping. We will continue to strengthen our relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction. We have had a useful discussion on ways to boost our practical cooperation in the conditions created by the current epidemiological restrictions. We highlighted the preparations being made for Russian-Chinese contacts at the high and highest levels. We have submitted to our partners a draft joint statement of our heads of state on the 20th anniversary of the Treaty on Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. We discussed our positions on the main international topics and found them similar. Moscow and Beijing stand for developing interstate relations on the principles of mutual respect and a balance of each other’s interests, justice and non-interference in others’ internal affairs. We reject zero sum political games and the illegal unilateral sanctions, which our Western colleagues have been using increasingly more often. We share the opinion that Russian-Chinese foreign policy interaction remains a vital factor in global affairs. We pointed out the destructive character of US aspiration to undermine the UN-centric international legal framework by using the military-political alliances of the Cold War period and creating similar closed alliances. We noted the growing importance of the joint activities of Russia, China and a wide range of other countries to preserve the current system of international law in the context of the increasing Western attempts to promote its concept of a rules-based international order. We expressed our appreciation for the high level of coordination at various multilateral platforms, including the UN, the G20, the SCO, BRICS, RIC, APEC, as well as EAS and other ASEAN-based regional cooperation bodies. We spoke about the preparations for the summit of the UN Security Council permanent members, which has been proposed by President Putin and supported by President Xi Jinping. As Minister Wang Yi said, we have signed a joint statement, which reflects the views of Russia and China on vital issues such as democracy, human rights, international law and the necessity to find collective approaches to solving global problems. We signed an annual plan for consultations between our foreign ministries. It stipulates numerous contacts this year at the level of deputy foreign ministers and the heads of relevant departments designed to hold practical discussions on a wide range of global and regional matters. Speaking on behalf of our delegation, I would like to once again express our deep gratitude to our Chinese friends for their hospitality and for substantive joint work.  Question: How does Russia plan on moving away from using international payment systems controlled by the West? Are there any specific agreements with China to create a common system as opposed to the Western ones? What can it be based on? Russia’s Mir card or China’s UnionPay system? Sergey Lavrov: This work has been underway for quite a long time now in different areas. We have our own financial messaging system. The respective financial departments of Russia and China plan to expand its use. For many years now we have been trying to transfer trade to settlements in national currencies. There’s a corresponding mechanism which is quite effective. We are switching to the national currency in our trade with other major partners. This is the imperative of our time. The people behind the global monetary system suddenly decided they were unhappy with the way other countries, in particular China, are using this system. China is beating the West at its own game. Hence, the reaction of the United States. Wang Yi covered this in detail. You cannot do global business by means of ultimatums and sanctions, or force other countries to behave as expected of them. We have a proverb: You can't force your love on another person. Unfortunately, the United States has not learned this and is acting from the opposite position. I’m convinced that Russia and China will do their best to ensure their safety and protection against the threats coming from the states that are unfriendly towards our respective countries. This also applies to ways of conducting trade, mutual settlements and everything else that makes us stronger. Question (translated from Chinese and addressed to Wang Yi): Chinese and Russian vaccines are being delivered to dozens of countries all around the world. There are unfounded speculations that China is promoting “vaccine diplomacy” and Russia is trying to increase its influence. What can you say about this? Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Wang Yi): I fully support what Wang Yi said. From the outset of the pandemic, Russia and China have been showing an example of openness, cooperation and mutual assistance. This interaction continues to this day, including in the sphere of vaccine production and distribution. Our respective institutions remain in contact on these matters. On March 22, President Vladimir Putin chaired a meeting on vaccine production and distribution. He clearly spoke in favour of everyone being guided solely by considerations of humanity and the interest of saving lives rather than geopolitical or commercial approaches to overcoming competition. Everyone, including our partners in the West who are trying to portray Russia and China as vaccine diplomacy scammers, must keep this in mind. This is not true. Question: China and Russia are under sanctions pressure from the United States and the EU. Do our countries plan to share their experience of confronting this pressure? How justified is the opinion that both countries’ tense relations with the Western powers make them move ever closer to one another? Sergey Lavrov: We have covered Russia and China’s reaction to sanctions and the illegitimate unilateral restrictions already today. We share the understanding that these methods are unacceptable in international life. We have more than once stated our position on this score, including in the Joint Statement. I’m convinced that this approach will be reiterated in a clear and unambiguous manner in the document on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Treaty on Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation between Russia and China that our leaders will approve. In addition to our principled approaches that are set forth in public documents, we closely cooperate with many countries at the UN in order to counter these practices. As you are aware, the UN has a Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures. This is already a fairly serious practical move to clarify the unacceptability of this policy. The United States, Europe and the West in general are, in fact, replacing diplomacy, the art which they are losing, with the steps seeking to impose their own rules on everyone else. In their opinion, these rules rather than international law must underlie the international order. Sanctions are among these rules. Russia and China do not ally against anyone. Geographically, our country is located on the vast Eurasian continent. China is our good neighbour, as is the EU. We have always been interested in promoting our relations across all areas. Europe has severed these relations and destroyed the mechanisms that have been created over many years. There are only a few European partner countries that have a desire to act based on their national interests. Objectively, this led to cooperation between Russia and China developing faster than what is left of relations with the European countries. Importantly, there are no relations with the EU as an organisation. The infrastructure was destroyed by unilateral decisions made by Brussels. If and when the Europeans decide to eliminate this anomaly in contacts with their largest neighbour, we will be ready to build up relations between us on the basis of equality and a search for a balance of interests. But so far, all has been quiet on the Western front, whereas the East offers a very intense agenda, which is getting more varied every single year. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4647898 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with South Korean media, Moscow, March 23, 2021 23 March 2021 - 13:00 Question: We are delighted that you plan on visiting Korea. What topics will you discuss with your Korean counterparts in Seoul? Sergey Lavrov: The Republic of Korea is our important and promising partner in the Asia-Pacific region. We maintain stable ties with it. When the two Korean states joined the UN, I was head of the Russian Foreign Ministry Department of International Organisations. We maintained close contact with our friends in the Republic of Korea. I have a very warm recollection of that time. We did a good job. We were genuinely satisfied when both Korean states joined the UN. Since then, we have been actively cooperating at international organisations as well. During the talks with my colleague, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea Chung Eui-yong, we will discuss the current aspects of bilateral affairs. We have not had an opportunity for such in-depth talks for a very long time. We will also discuss a schedule of contacts, which have been suspended because of the coronavirus infection. I hope that following my visit we will be able to gradually resume direct in-person exchanges between our other ministries and agencies. I think that one of the main topics at our talks will be the efforts to curb the coronavirus infection. We are currently implementing a joint project to produce the Russian Sputnik V vaccine in the Republic of Korea. We know that you have very highly developed pharmaceutical and medical industries. Our cooperation in this sphere will benefit both sides. We sense our Korean partners’ interest in this project. We will also discuss other fields of bilateral cooperation. Hard joint work is ongoing and good results have been achieved in quite a few spheres. An opportune moment for reviewing our relations in all spheres will be the opening ceremony of the Year of Cultural Exchanges between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea. We planned to do this in 2020, but we had to postpone this because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The programme of the year will be launched after all. It includes over 300 events in the political, trade, economic, cultural, humanitarian and other spheres. Their implementation will greatly strengthen the foundation for boosting the further development of our bilateral ties, personal contacts, better understanding between our citizens and mutual interest of our nations to each other. We will speak about the main subjects on the international and regional agenda, including the situation on the Korean Peninsula. We are doing our best in the interests of maintaining stability and achieving denuclearisation goals on the peninsula. We urge all countries involved, primarily the members of the six-party talks, to take a constructive stand in the military sphere, stop militant activities and promote dialogue. We believe that there is no alternative to negotiations and that it should be resumed as soon as possible. We will also speak about other Asian-Pacific matters. Interesting processes are underway in the region. Attempts are being made to reform it and to introduce the term Indo-Pacific region. We do not fully understand this. These are alarming processes, because an attempt is being made to create something that would be directly opposite to the ASEAN-based organisations such as the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum and the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting, which are unification forums. They involve all Asian-Pacific countries and are designed for conducting a dialogue on the basis of equality and for attaining mutually acceptable compromises and agreements. The advocates of the Indo-Pacific strategic tilt (they have even changed the terms) say it is the same idea but that it would be developing much more energetically. In point of fact, a closer look at the events held within the framework of the Indo-Pacific strategy will show that they are based on bloc mentality, that is, the establishment of blocs that are not designed to promote a positive process but are spearheaded against certain states. The proclaimed goals include the containment of some states, while other countries are left outside the boundaries of such initiatives. I do not see this as a thing that is positive. It would be useful to revitalise the principles which we have reaffirmed more than once, namely the preservation of ASEAN’s central role in the development of regional cooperation in all spheres. Question: What measures would you suggest for improving economic cooperation between Russia and South Korea? Sergey Lavrov: Our relations are relatively young; they were established only 30 years ago. This is not a long time in terms of history. I believe that we have made considerable progress, and we have no desire to stop. We have far-reaching and forward-looking plans. The leaders of our countries set the task of increasing bilateral trade to $30 billion a year and mutual travel, to 1 million people a year. Of course, the pandemic slowed down our movement towards these goals. Nevertheless, we are resolved to achieve these goals as soon as we see an opening. This is our intention. We are pinning big hopes on the implementation of the concept of Nine Bridges, which stipulates the development of our relations in priority economic sectors. In October 2020, we signed an action plan for the implementation of this concept. It includes promising cooperation projects, including in the Russian Far East, a region where we are actively attracting our neighbours’ investments. We are highlighting vital sectors such as medicine, shipbuilding, transportation and energy. Our countries have accumulated positive experience in these spheres. The alignment of our efforts will produce a synergic effect. I would like to note that the East Asia Summit will, hopefully, resume operating normally this year. It is usually held in Vladivostok in the month of September. That is still some time away. We will encourage our friends to continue to make active use of this promising platform. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4648117
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln Last edited by Alex Him; March 27th, 2021 at 05:42 AM. |
|
March 27th, 2021
|
#274 |
|
Senior Member
|
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening ceremony of the Year of Cultural Exchanges between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea, Seoul, March 24, 2021
24 March 2021 - 12:27 Mr Minister, Colleagues, friends, I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak at the opening ceremony of the Year of Cultural Exchanges between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea held on a landmark occasion for our countries, the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between them. The historical decision made on September 30, 1990 was a logical result of Moscow’s New Political Thinking and Seoul’s Northern Policy. In other words, our countries abandoned the fallacious Cold War logic that divided them for several decades. I am pleased to say that we have moved a long way over a historically short period of time. Today Russia and the Republic of Korea maintain truly neighbourly relations based on common long-term interests and distinguished by a high level of mutual respect and trust. We have developed a sustained political dialogue, which is being strengthened and promoted by regular contacts at the top level. Our trade, economic and investment cooperation is developing dynamically. The main spheres of our combined efforts include the implementation of large-scale projects, primarily in Siberia and the Russian Far East with active use of the advantages created for foreign businesses in our priority development areas and the Free Port of Vladivostok. Of singular importance, as my colleague has pointed out, is our cooperation within the framework of the concept of Nine Bridges initiated by President Moon Jae-in, which stipulates the development of cooperation in energy, transportation, shipbuilding and shipping, agriculture, fisheries and other sectors. We are expanding our humanitarian ties, there are regular exchange visits by performance groups and exhibitions, and we hold festivals and other joint events. Proof of Russians and Koreans’ increasing mutual interest is the popularity of the partner country’s language, history and culture plus the growth of mutual tourism.  Friends, I have no doubt that the Year of Cultural Exchanges will help strengthen our multifaceted dialogue and break new ground. As we could see today, the events scheduled for the Year of Cultural Exchanges are being implemented. A decision to extend it into this year will allow us to strengthen bilateral contacts even more, primarily between people. We have the necessary conditions for this. Some events on the busy agenda have been held online, for example, the Russia-Korea Business Dialogue: Next Steps of Successful Bilateral Cooperation. Another important event was Korea’s participation as a partner country in the Open Innovations international forum in Moscow. The Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund and the Korea-Russia Culture and Arts Society carried on the positive tradition by organising an international conference last year under the theme 30 Years of Korea-Russia Culture and Arts Exchange and Future Tasks. Our countries also attended the international book fairs in Moscow and Seoul as guests of honour. More events were also held at the regional level. I hope that this year we will be able to implement as many events on the Year of Cultural Exchanges programme as possible. The most important events include the Russia-Korea Interregional Cooperation Forum in Ulsan and the Russian Seasons International Festival, during which world-famous Russian performers will visit Korea. I have no doubt that through our joint efforts we will strengthen friendship and mutual understanding between our nations, which is the main goal of the Year of Cultural Exchanges, despite the challenges of the pandemic. In conclusion, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those present in this room for their substantial practical contribution to the development of friendly and neighbourly relations between Russia and the Republic of Korea. I would also like to congratulate you once again on the opening of the Year of Cultural Exchanges. Thank you. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4648842 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a ceremony of awarding the Pushkin Medal to Lee Sang-kyun, President of the Korea-Russia Culture and Arts Society and President of the Seoul Cyber University, Seoul, March 24, 2021 24 March 2021 - 12:31 Mr Lee Sang-kyun, Ladies and gentlemen, Friends, It is a great honour for me to fulfill an honourable mission and to present the Pushkin Medal to Lee Sang-kyun, President of the Korea-Russia Culture and Arts Society, for his major contribution to the cause of promoting Russian culture and the Russian language in the Republic of Korea. Mr Lee Sang-kyun, We know you as an active and consistent advocate of expanded humanitarian cooperation between our two countries. You have become a worthy follower of the cause of your father, Mr Lee Se-ung, the Honourary President of the Korea-Russia Culture and Arts Society and a great friend of Russia whom we are very happy to see in this hall together with you.  I would like to note the fact that an entire group of enthusiasts who love and are acquainted with the culture of Russia, as well as its history, customs and language, has come to be around your family. This facilitates greater mutual understanding and friendship between states and also at the level of civil societies and ordinary people. It is quite symbolic that you are receiving this honourary and well-deserved award at a ceremony dedicated to the opening of the Year of Mutual Exchanges between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea. The ceremony also marks the 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries. Allow me to cordially congratulate you once again and to wish you and everyone present here good health, and every success in all your undertakings. All the very best. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4648852 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Republic of Korea Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong, Seoul, March 25, 2021 25 March 2021 - 05:27 Mr Chung Eui-yong, I am delighted to meet with you once again following the important, spectacular event that took place yesterday. Although the opening ceremony of the + had to be postponed a year, due to the coronavirus infection, it was a very high level occasion. Unfortunately, there were few people present, due to the sanitary requirements. However, large television audiences found pleasure in viewing the live concert. Doubtless, we can defeat the COVID-19 pandemic by pooling our efforts. Russia and the Republic of Korea are setting a positive example, including by launching the production of Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine in your country. Relations between our countries continue to expand 30 years on following the establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations. You mentioned statistics highlighting expanded trade volumes, tourist exchanges and contacts between people in general. All this shows that the Republic of Korea is Russia’s important partner in the Asia Pacific region; and I would like to underscore the fact that it is our promising partner.  The heads of government have set new ambitious goals for expanding bilateral relations in all directions in the framework of regular contacts between President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the Republic of Korea Moon Jae-in. I hope that today we will review trade and economic ties, humanitarian contacts, as well as exchange opinions on key international and regional matters with focus on the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Thank you. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4649336 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea Chung Eui-yong, Seoul, March 25, 2021 25 March 2021 - 09:38 Ladies and gentlemen, We held constructive, substantive and fruitful talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea Chung Eui-yong. Last year we marked 30 years of diplomatic relations between our countries. To commemorate this landmark, by decision of President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of the Republic of Korea Moon Jae-in, we are holding a special event, the Year of Mutual Exchanges between our countries. Yesterday I accompanied the Foreign Minister to a festive ceremony during which we declared the Year of Mutual Exchanges open. I believe that the ceremony itself symbolised mutual sympathy between our peoples and a qualitatively new level of relations that has developed over the past decades between our nations. The Republic of Korea is one of Russia’s most important partners in Asia Pacific. We noted with satisfaction the progressive and dynamic development of our bilateral ties. We also reaffirmed the high level of our political dialogue and our resolve to continue expanding and invigorating our contacts, including between our presidents and governments. Our Korean partners reaffirmed last year’s invitation to President Putin to visit Seoul. We agreed to resume discussions on this matter as soon as the epidemiological situation allows. Our trade and economic cooperation declined last year due to the coronavirus pandemic. But the talks we held today have shown that we have plans that will allow to quickly reverse this trend and to resume the build-up of our mutual trade. These plans are connected with the concept of Nine Bridges initiated by President Moon Jae-in. We expressed appreciation for the development of our cooperation within the framework of this concept, including in rail transportation, energy supply, nuclear power, shipbuilding, healthcare and medicine. Large-scale investment cooperation projects are being implemented or prepared for implementation in the Russian Far East and Arctic regions. Talks are ongoing on the establishment of a Russian-Korean investment fund worth up to $1 billion. These and other issues will be on the agenda at the next meeting of the intergovernmental Russian-Korean Joint Commission on Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, which is scheduled to take place in Seoul this year. Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea Chung Sye-kyun has received an invitation from Prime Minister of Russia Mikhail Mishustin to attend the Open Innovations international forum, which will be held in Moscow this autumn. As my colleague pointed out, we have great expectations for the next interregional forum this year. We spoke at length about efforts to deal with the consequences of the pandemic and to ensure the sanitary and epidemiological wellbeing of our citizens. We highlighted the agreement signed between the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and South Korea’s GL Rapha last November to produce the Russian Sputnik V vaccine in Korea, including for future supply to other countries.  We welcome the interest of our Korean partners in the development of the medical clusters on Russky Island and within the framework of Skolkovo. One of the international issues on which we focused was the situation on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia in general. Moscow and Seoul remain committed to an early resumption of negotiations between the parties in the interests of a lasting settlement of the entire range of problems in the region. We pointed out the importance of efforts to maintain peace and stability in Northeast Asia, including on the Korean Peninsula, which implies the sides’ rejection of the arms race and the build-up of all kinds of military activity. We exchanged views on promoting multilateral initiatives for strengthening cooperation in Northeast Asia in various spheres. Our Korean friends have very interesting ideas regarding this. They evaluated the proposals advanced by Russia. We discussed the development of our interaction at international organisations, namely the UN and the G20, as well as within the framework of the Asia-Pacific dialogue forums. We spoke about cooperation at the East Asia Summit and other organisations set up in the context of the ASEAN-centric regional security frameworks. Both parties expressed an interest in continued interaction in these open and, in the popular term, inclusive forums. We have agreed to keep up and strengthen interaction between our foreign ministries. We maintain a ramified network of contacts at different levels. The further development of these ties will be promoted by the plan of exchanges between our foreign ministries for 2021-2022, which we have signed just now. Our talks were fruitful and well-timed. I hope to be able to continue our contacts during a visit of Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong to Moscow. I have delivered the invitation to him. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4649424 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s video address to the participants in the international inter-party conference Russia-Africa: Reviving Traditions, Moscow, March 25, 2021 25 March 2021 - 13:23 Ladies and gentlemen, Colleagues and friends, I am glad to welcome the participants in the Russia-Africa: Reviving Traditions international inter-party conference. Russia and African nations are linked by traditional friendly relations that were established during the Africans’ struggle for their independence. Since that time, through concerted efforts, we have managed to achieve impressive results in a wide range of areas. Our unity primarily rests on an understanding of the importance of collective action based on the principles of equality and mutual respect and aimed at resolving common tasks. In the past few years, Russia-Africa cooperation has been noticeably stepped up. We are deepening our political dialogue, developing inter-parliamentary ties, promoting cooperation between ministries and departments and expanding scientific and humanitarian exchanges. We are also continuing the structural diversification of our trade. Despite a certain reduction in trade due to the epidemiological restrictions, more and more domestic operators are trying to enter African markets. Over 27,000 African students study in Russian universities. The high level of mutual trust allowed us to conduct the first Russia-Africa summit in October 2019. It gave a powerful impetus to the development of versatile Russia-Africa cooperation. At present, we are implementing the agreements reached at top level. Our friendship is definitely of the all-weather type. Thus, last spring Russia started helping African countries counter the spread of the coronavirus infection. We supplied them with medical preparations and personal protective equipment and sent our doctors and other specialists there. Russian private companies working in Africa actively joined these efforts. At present, our cooperation is entering a new level. We are actively discussing the registration of the Russian Sputnik V vaccine in African countries and its supplies both on a bilateral basis and as part of cooperation with the African Union. My friends, The second Russia-Africa summit is scheduled for 2022. It is already being prepared and filled with meaningful content. Thus, the Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum has already started working at the Russian Foreign Ministry. The coordination, public and scientific councils have been established under its aegis. The Association for Economic Cooperation with African Countries has been created. It unites large Russian companies operating in African markets. Experts plan to draft roadmaps of Russia-Africa economic, scientific and humanitarian cooperation. It is becoming a tradition that Russia-Africa summits are preceded by events in different fields of cooperation. The Russia-Africa public forums held at the end of the past year helped strengthen our academic, cultural and youth links. African issues are supposed to be included in the St Petersburg International Economic Forum scheduled for next June. A regular meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia and the African Union trio is planned for next year as well. I am confident that your conference will make a tangible contribution to promoting understanding between our countries and peoples. I hope its results will make it possible to step up inter-party cooperation and enrich the agenda of the forthcoming summit. In conclusion, I would like to wish you all good health, successful work and all the best. Thank you for your attention. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4649876 Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on new anti-Russia sanctions introduced by Canada 25 March 2021 - 19:41 The official Ottawa’s decision to impose anti-Russia sanctions, following its own Russophobic instincts, for a far-fetched reason of “persecution of Alexey Navalny and the opposition in Russia” was no surprise. The ruling elite in Canada has already brought our bilateral relations to their historic low for the sake of a senseless and counterproductive confrontation with Russia only to satisfy Washington's geopolitical ambitions. This kind of self-isolation from Russia, which has sincere respect for the people of Canada, runs counter to Canada’s national interests and makes the country's foreign policy no longer independent or even based on multilateral diplomacy, something previous generations of Canadian politicians have pursued. We are open for an honest and mutually respectful dialogue, but we will respond harshly and consistently to any hostile actions and personal sanctions. We plan to take retaliatory measures in the near future. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4650214
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
March 29th, 2021
|
#275 |
|
Senior Member
|
Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, Moscow, March 26, 2021
26.03.21 - 19:37 Upcoming meeting of MGIMO University Supervisory Board and Board of Trustees On March 31, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair a joint meeting of the Supervisory Board and the Board of Trustees of MGIMO University under the Russian Foreign Ministry. The university will present its 2020 performance report and announce goals and objectives for 2021. The participants will also consider the implementation of the University Development Strategy, and other matters such as the school’s long-term projects. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan Rashid Meredov to visit the Russian Federation On March 30 - April 2, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan Rashid Meredov will pay a working visit to the Russian Federation and meet with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The visiting official will also attend a meeting of the Council of CIS Foreign Ministers, and will consider the key issues on the agenda of the Russian-Turkmen Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation, a body he co-chairs. The parties plan to discuss key topics of bilateral cooperation, current matters of regional and global security, as well as interaction at interstate organisations. The two foreign ministers are also ready to sign a Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of Turkmenistan on biological safety. The Russian side views the upcoming visit as an important component of the comprehensive effort to deepen the bilateral strategic partnership as stipulated by the Strategic Partnership Treaty signed by the heads of Russia and Turkmenistan at the initiative of President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov. Sergey Lavrov to participate in special session of Valdai Discussion Club On March 31, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in a special session, Russia in the Middle East, held as part of the Middle East in Search of Lost Awakening conference organised by the Valdai International Discussion Club. In his remarks, Sergey Lavrov will outline Russian diplomacy’s principled approaches to current Middle East problems with an emphasis on the situation in Syria, Libya, the Arab-Israeli peace process and the Persian Gulf zone. He will reaffirm the need for a political resolution to the conflicts that persist in the region, strict observance of the relevant norms of international law, respect for the principles of sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of states and non-interference in their internal affairs. Sergey Lavrov to take part in the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers meeting A regular meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States will take place in Moscow on April 2. The Republic of Belarus is chairing the CIS this year. The agenda includes issues that cover the main areas of interaction within the CIS. The parties will exchange views on current regional and international topics, discuss prospects for deeper multifaceted cooperation in this format, including in law enforcement and in the humanitarian sphere. The ministers will sum up the results of the Action Programme to step up the partnership between foreign ministries that was adopted to promote the member countries’ positions on the global stage, and the plan for multilevel consultations between CIS foreign ministries for 2020. The CIS foreign ministers will consider a draft appeal by the heads of the CIS member states to the peoples of the CIS and the international community in connection with the upcoming 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, in 2021. A number of draft documents adopted at the end of the meeting will be submitted for approval by the CIS Council of Heads of Government (May 28, 2021, Minsk) and the CIS Heads of State Council (October 15, 2021, Minsk). As for planned meetings on the sidelines of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers, Sergey Lavrov will possibly meet with Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramov and Foreign Minister of Armenia Ara Ayvazyan. Update on the coronavirus The global epidemiological situation with COVID-19 remains ambiguous and is still fairly alarming in some countries. As of March 26, the number of infected people reached 126 million. Some 46 million people have been infected this year alone. Total human losses since the beginning of the pandemic has exceeded 2.7 million. The curve of the daily infection rate in the world has again started to climb up, whereas the daily death rate from the coronavirus shows an unsteady reduction trend. Concern is evoked by the load on medical institutions in some countries (up to 80 percent), where healthcare systems are stretched to the limit. The British, South African and Brazilian coronavirus strains continue spreading on the planet. The authorities consider the preservation of emergency rules primarily as a preventive measure aimed at minimising the risks of a repeated spike in the epidemic, which may be provoked by spring increases in the disease rate, mainly in large metropolises. The approach to anti-pandemic measures in different countries changes almost every day. Some measures are cancelled while others are supplemented, and new ones are introduced. This is taking place not just every day but almost every hour. We are recording the difficulties faced by the vaccination in the world. A number of states, primarily in the West lack consistency. They do not understand the order of priority for the vaccination and have problems with vaccines. I am saying this not just to note once again the crisis phenomenon in many Western countries but also to warn people before potential foreign travel. This is the start of the holiday season and it is necessary to have an objective approach to the epidemiological situation and the prospects of traveling abroad. In Russia the vaccination campaign is taking its course and continues gaining momentum, embracing more and more age groups. President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin was vaccinated early this week. I would like to remind you that three coronavirus vaccines are registered in Russia today – Sputnik V from the Gamaleya Centre, Epivaccorona from the Novosibirsk Vektor Centre and Covivak from the RAS Chumakov Centre. On March 25, Deputy Health Minister Pavel Pugachev said the following: “All three vaccines are equally effective, so there is no sense in waiting for another vaccine. It is perfectly safe to be vaccinated by any of these three.” I would also like to say a few words about the attention the Russian vaccine is receiving abroad. The demand for Sputnik V is fairly high in the world. Every day we receive new requests or confirmations for using our vaccine. This vaccine was certified on a bilateral basis by 57 countries; 21 countries are buying it in large amounts and some countries are ready to organise production at home. The number of positive responses by foreign officials is growing. The media are publishing more objective articles about our vaccine. We are waiting for the completion of the registration of Sputnik V by the WHO and the European Union. The Response Centre to prevent the import and spread of the coronavirus infection in the Russian Federation continues exercising special control over the assessment of the epidemiological situation in the world. It regularly makes decisions that are required by the circumstances. Thus, on March 25, it announced the resumption of regular roundtrip flights, starting on April 1, with Venezuela, Germany, Syria, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Sri Lanka. The number of regular flights to/from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Cuba and the UAE will be increased starting on the same date. Finally, flying abroad from the airports in Barnaul, Belgorod, Volgograd, Voronezh, Kaluga, Krasnodar, Lipetsk, Nalchik, Orenburg, Saratov, Sochi, Tyumen and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk will also resume April 1. Needless to say, established sanitary and epidemiological requirements must be observed. Once again, we would like to draw the attention to the Foreign Ministry’s recommendations to those who want to travel abroad. We urge them to take these trips only after making a well-balanced and well thought-out analysis, not to subject themselves to unjustified risk and, if possible, to adjust their travel plans accordingly, considering the circumstances, and paying priority attention to their own life and health and those of their families and friends. With consideration for the circumstances and recommendations of the Response Centre and the Health Ministry, we urge these people to get vaccinated, especially older people. You must understand that you are subjecting yourself to the additional risk linked with logistics and staying abroad. Let me emphasise this once again: you are seeing that the dynamics of infection and the problem of free beds, which is sometimes becoming critical in healthcare facilities, are really alarming in every country. In this context, you must do all you can to protect yourselves and your families and friends, if you plan to travel abroad. We also advise you to follow the latest news on the Foreign Ministry website, our embassies’ pages on the internet, and on social media. We again recommend that travelers abroad download the Foreign Ministry’s official mobile application Зарубежный помощник (Foreign Assistant). It publishes the latest materials and contact information and is regularly updated. Overview: “Foreign policy and diplomatic activities of the Russian Federation in 2020” An overview titled “Foreign policy and diplomatic activities of the Russian Federation in 2020” is now available on the ministry’s website. The review was drafted by the ministry and highlights the key areas of Russia's foreign policy in 2020, aimed, among other things, at mitigating international crises and expanding cooperation with the stakeholders in order to help ensure our country’s security and socioeconomic progress. The Foreign Ministry’s most important areas of activity in 2020 included state-to-state interaction based on the generally recognised principles and norms of international law with the UN playing the central coordinating role, efforts to bring Russian citizens back home and to support the ones stranded abroad, involvement in the settlement of a number of regional conflicts and crises, and dealing with issues of chairing interstate associations such as BRICS, the RIC group, the CSTO and the SCO. Importantly, Russia's efforts in economic diplomacy have led to stable prices on the global hydrocarbon market and the adjustment of agreements on the avoidance of double taxation with a number of states. In addition, in the context of celebrating the 75th anniversary of the end of WWII and the creation of the UN, large-scale work was conducted abroad, including on international platforms, to perpetuate the memory of the victims of the war and to prevent the glorification of Nazism and the falsification of history. We encourage journalists and anyone interested in international matters to read this overview. The status of the implementation of a joint Russia-UN World Food Program (WFP) project to develop a school meal system in the Republic of Tajikistan In conjunction with the UN World Food Program (WFP), the Russian Federation is doing much to improve the material and technical capacity of the school meal system in the Republic of Tajikistan. Over 600,000 primary school students in 52 rural Tajik districts receive food aid under this programme yearly. Notably, Russia allocated $17.1 million to the WFP for these purposes from 2013 to 2019. Last year, a new phase in this project was launched for 2020-2023 with Russian funding in the amount of $11.2 million. On March 20 an opening ceremony for a new bread baking facility with modern equipment was held in the village of Pyanj, Khatlon region, which will supply fresh bread to almost 9,000 schoolchildren in 31 schools in the Pyanj region. In addition, Russia has been providing large-scale food aid in excess of $87.5 million to Tajikistan through the WFP since 2005. We are committed to ensuring the sustainable development of that friendly state. I think that the above facts clearly demonstrate our solidarity with Tajikistan in its care for young people. Update on EU sanctions decisions There are destructive elements or factors on the international agenda as well. In contrast to humanitarian, and not just humanitarian, but normal cooperation in international affairs, the West has come up with a policy of unilateral sanctions. We are not surprised by the EU Council’s decision of March 22 to impose more restrictive measures on two Russian citizens and representatives of a number of other states under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime. The European Union continues its illegal policy of imposing unilateral sanctions which runs contrary to international law. This policy leads to destructive trends and chaos in international affairs. It is fraught with increased confrontation and degradation of relations between the involved countries. This kind of policy is outdated. This must be understood. It is unacceptable and illegal. We are strongly against the politicisation of human rights. The EU must abandon its claims to leadership and exceptionalism when it comes to protecting human rights, and not turn a blind eye to the human rights problems in its member states. It is important to develop common approaches to human rights, which are free of double standards, in all countries, and show respect for their cultural and civilisational specifics, traditions, diversity and the path of their choice. It is impossible to endlessly try to teach others things that you unable to achieve yourself. This directly applies to the EU and Brussels. We are witnessing a crisis unfolding in human rights right before our eyes. This is not only about the severe suppression of dissent in the form of protest sentiment, in particular, regarding pandemic-related restrictive measures, not only severe suppression of dissent through blocking or selective policies with regard to the media, but also a completely unacceptable situation in connection with the mass migration from African countries, the Middle East and North Africa, and a huge number of human rights-related problems, including the ones stemming from racism, nationalism, neo-Nazism. This is a tangle of concerns that the EU is not in a position to resolve. However, it is pretending that these problems simply do not exist. At the same time, the EU tries to teach these things to other countries, regions and continents. It just doesn't work that way. This is a strange, dead-end, absolutely hopeless and very dangerous policy. We have provided our assessment of these steps. To reiterate, as is always the case, the unfriendly steps by the EU against Russia will not be left without a proportionate response. New anti-Russia sanctions in Ukraine For a while now Brussels has been a co-sponsor of all the “changes” that are taking place in Ukraine, and given that Brussels is supporting the Kiev regime in everything that is presented as a move towards Western values and the foundations of democracy, it could have responded (at least publicly) to the fact that on March 23 of this year, President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky put in force the decision of the Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defence to introduce sanctions for three years against 26 Russian citizens, 81 Russian companies and a number of Russian media outlets. The latter include the Rossiya Segodnya news agency, the news websites Lenta.ru and Gazeta.ru, plus some news aggregators. I have the impression that by taking these measures, the Ukrainian regime is researching “the bottom” of democracy in Ukraine. The problem is that these restrictions include the blocking of assets, the limitation or suspension of telecommunication services and the use of telecommunications networks in general. Internet providers are also banned from providing users with access to the above resources. This new set of sanctions has supplemented the already alarming statistics of the past month when over 400 internet resources and seven television channels were shut down. In other words, the striving for democracy in Ukraine has a clear tendency towards decline. We consider such moves to be at variance with the fundamental principles of freedom of speech and pluralism of opinion. They also contradict the spirit of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Probably, Ukraine will soon impose a ban on reading this document because it will be clear to anyone who reads it that Ukraine is moving in the opposite direction. We see this as the continuation of Kiev’s line on imposing censorship, clearing its information space from objectionable media, discriminating against Russian speaking citizens in their country, and intimidating all dissidents and those who object to what is happening in Ukraine. Let me recall that since 2014 when the coup took place in Kiev, as a result of which Ukrainian leadership decided to sever all ties with Russia, Ukraine has already conducted several campaigns on restricting Russian and a Russian language presence on its territory. By different estimates, Ukraine has imposed unlawful sanctions on about 2,300 individuals and over 1,000 companies from Russia. I would also like to remind you that Kiev considers institutions like Moscow State University, the Hermitage State Museum, and the Pushkin Fine Arts Museum, to name a few, objectionable. To justify its onslaught on alternative information sources, Kiev has reformed Ukrainian legislation. It was an obstacle, so it was changed. The already adopted legal documents and those that are still being drafted contain obvious discriminatory provisions, but Kiev is getting away with all of this. Brussels is busy with its own approach; it is spending time on illegal unilateral sanctions against Moscow and disseminating myths about some kind of Russian threat. In this latest example, since March 23, we have not seen any response to Ukraine’s unlawful restrictions from representatives of agencies that monitor freedom of the media and human rights in the OSCE, UN, Council of Europe or UNESCO. We urge the international community to give up this policy of not just double standards but the refusal to take effective measures against this obvious onslaught on democratic principles and give an unbiased assessment to the numerous cases of murder, intimidation and criminal prosecution of dissidents and other forms of harassing journalists in Ukraine. For our part, we are certainly sending all relevant materials to the above international agencies and will continue doing so in the future. Meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the level of Ministers of Foreign Affairs On March 23 and 24, the North Atlantic Council (NAC) held a meeting at the level of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. The course of the discussion and the outcome of the meeting were hardly surprising. Once again we saw the Alliance’s inability to make sense of its further existence or to put together a positive agenda. The participants of the meeting agreed on the need to continue treating Russia as a major challenge to the security of the collective West. Not the pandemic or the infodemic, international terrorism, migration issues, or the economic and financial crisis in their own countries – none of the above was named by the Alliance as a major threat not just at the current moment but even in the period of its existence. Brussels keeps using the mythical Russian aggression to justify an increase in its funding and the strengthening of its military potential, the biggest since the Cold War, including on the eastern flank. An attempt was also undertaken to blame our country for the collapse of the INF Treaty. This was done even though, contrary to the Alliance’s loud claims about the need to de-escalate tensions on the European continent, NATO consistently keeps ignoring our proposals on the renewal of substantive professional discussions on stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic region. As we have repeatedly said before, we will take the NATO’s confrontational stand into account in our foreign policy and military planning. All those claims by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that Russia rejects dialogue are a lie. Substantive talks have been proposed, enough to say lest we wander into the politicised PR history our Western partners are so notorious for. We called for holding detailed talks with the participation of experts, including military experts, on a wide range of issues. All these proposals remain on Mr Stoltenberg’s desk. He can find them and stop spreading disinformation about Russia’s alleged refusal to engage in dialogue. What Russia refuses to do is to play a part in a pre-concocted PR campaign. This can be offered to someone else, but definitely not to us. Whereas a substantive, detailed and concrete discussion, let me reiterate, with invited military experts is what we have offered to you, so why should we turn it down. UK Defence Ministry white paper on defence and military capability development We noted the Defence Command Paper on defence and military development released by the UK Defence Ministry, which provides a detailed description of the directions and stages of the further military buildup and modernisation. We state that the document which attempts a global reach, is of an aggressive nature. Moscow is obviously the main target, as has been traditional for London for quite some time. To protect itself from Moscow’s scheming, the UK should develop an offensive rather than defensive potential, including by establishing special operations forces which were immediately labelled by the media as “anti-Russia special forces.” The document by the British Defence Ministry replicates tough confrontational beliefs and once again presents our country as the main factor forcing London towards military build-up and modernisation and projecting it onto remote theatres of military operations. It is not hard to guess where they are located, though. Ben Wallace, Secretary of State for Defence, shamelessly declared during the presentation of the Defence Command Paper in the UK parliament, as he was answering a question from his fellow MPs, that the document was a result of analysis of Russia’s military build-up and “subversive” activities, including in Crimea, the collapse of the INF Treaty, and the use by Moscow of a wide range of “hybrid” forms of confrontation. I have a question to UK’s Secretary of State for Defence. Does London remember that the United States of America still exists? If they do, how do the British assess the actions and activities of that nation in international space? Or have they forgotten about it? I can remind them if they have. We view the publication of the Defence Command Paper and respective statements by the British Secretary of Defence as further confirmation of official London’s trajectory towards political hostilities and confrontation. This is what real aggression is. Today it is on paper, but these plans are quite real in London’s thoughts, ideology and mentality, judging from what we read. We cannot but feel grave concern due to the British authorities assigning Russia the status of the “enemy” at the doctrinal level. We would like to believe that the survival instinct will still prevail in the heads of the London hawks. Illegal US operations We would like to tell London and NATO about what really threatened the world in the historical context, and not in a remote period but in a quite recent one. I am referring to US activities. Since the United States, NATO and Britain continue accusing Russia of all manner of sins, claiming that we are engaging in hybrid warfare, trying to undermine Western democracies and to influence the outcome of elections, I would like to say the following. The US elites and ordinary Americans believe that the United States is destined to play a special role in the world, a kind of American messianism. A belief that the United States has the right to interfere in any affairs around the world is accepted as justification for its attempts to influence developments in other countries. They believe that they have a right to dictate their will to others, to lecture them and even to force American views regarding the development path that other countries, peoples, civil societies and the world as a whole must follow. I would like to repeat now what our country and our leaders have said on numerous occasions. We do not engage in regime changes, do not interfere in the internal affairs of other states and do not orchestrate protests in other countries. We call for respect of and compliance with the fundamental provisions of the UN Charter. Everything is there. At the same time, we take note of the fact that the technologies I mentioned have been perfected by those who accuse us of using them, in particular, the United States, which has accumulated substantial experience in this sphere. The list of its pseudo-achievements and wrongdoing around the world is truly impressive. We had misgivings about making this public before, but we will now definitely devote part of our briefings to such examples. The United States regularly violates the national sovereignty of other states and interferes in their internal affairs. The favourite method of the US intelligence agencies is interference in elections and coups staged to replaced undesirable governments. This has been recognised by experts and retired intelligence officers. Steven L. Hall, a former CIA head of Russian operations, said in an interview with The New York Times in 2017 that “the United States ‘absolutely’ has carried out such election influence operations historically and I hope we keep doing it.” The newspaper also cited Professor Loch Johnson at the University of Georgia: “We’ve been doing this kind of thing since the CIA was created in 1947.” According to a study by Carnegie Mellon University researcher Dov Levin based on declassified US intelligence data, the United States more than 80 times tried to influence the outcome of elections in 45 countries worldwide between 1946 and 2000, and this data only covers so-called “peaceful” operations and does not include the organisation of military coups and colour revolutions. These secret operations included funding and organising election campaigns, providing exposes/disinformation and propaganda aid, as well as putting economic pressure on the incumbent governments. According to Mr Levin, the Americans reached the desired effect in 59 percent of such operations. Independent experts, such as Nick Turse, an investigative journalist, the managing editor of TomDispatch.com and a fellow at The Nation Institute, say that the United States is waging covert warfare in 141 out of 190 countries across the world. This opinion is shared by other researchers. Another TomDispatch regular, William Hartung, Arms and Security Project Director at the Centre for International Policy, said: “Most Americans would be amazed to learn that US Special Operations Forces have been deployed to three quarters of the nations on the planet. There is little or no transparency as to what they are doing in these countries and whether their efforts are promoting security or provoking further tension and conflict.” “Outside of Russia and Belarus we train with virtually every country in Europe either bilaterally or through various multinational events,” said Major Michael Weisman, a spokesman for US Special Operations Command Europe. “US Special Operations Forces have been deployed persistently and at the invitation of our allies in the Baltic States and Poland since 2014 as part of the broader US European Command and Department of Defence European Deterrence Initiative. The persistent presence of US SOF alongside our allies sends a clear message of US commitment to our allies and the defence of our NATO alliance,” he said. Did the NATO foreign ministers discuss this information at their recent meeting, or is the United States an exception that is never discussed? In 2019, the Joint Special Operations University of the US Special Operations Command published a 250-page report with a telling headline, Support to Resistance: Strategic Purpose and Effectiveness, in which Will Irwing, a retired US Army Special Forces officer, provided a detailed analysis of the purpose, practice and ultimate outcome of known cases of direct US interference in the internal affairs of other states. Mr Irwing noted that he drew information from open sources and declassified archival documents and that the facts he cited are only a small part of the overall picture of the Pentagon’s support to resistance (STR) operations in other countries. His work is full of hackneyed propaganda clichés. The forces supported by the United States are referred to as “insurgencies” or “resistance movements,” although many of them are Pentagon or CIA minions. On the other hand, this is yet another factual proof of disruptive US activities, interference in other states’ internal affairs and hands-on management of elections in countries that claim to be democracies. The report is clear proof that the US policy towards other countries has always been based on Washington’s “exceptionalism” and hence the declared “legitimate right” to interfere in the internal affairs of other states. The point is not that one must not interfere in the internal affairs of others, but that the United States is the only country allowed to do this. Washington believes that the United States can absolutely do this because it is exceptional and is the only country that knows how the world must develop. To justify his lop-sided position, Mr Irwing resorted to lies, claiming that at the time of US special operations “the targeted state was ruled by a repressive authoritarian regime” or, when this sounds absolutely absurd, “by an unfriendly occupying force.” In fact, members of the US establishment often use this argument even when normal democratic procedures take place in the “targeted state.” The author also pointed out that he did not include in his report “operations still in progress at the time of writing for reasons of security classification and uncertainty of outcome.” Mr Irwing also admitted that since WWII, “even presidents who, prior to their election, looked upon such [STR] activity with disfavour, found themselves compelled to use it after taking office.” Here is a perfect illustration of Washington’s readiness to interfere, by employing its army or special services working under diplomatic cover, in nearly all processes and political disputes around the world. It is a joke that has unfortunately become reality: “Do you know why coups never happen in Washington? The answer is because there is no US embassy there.” The events of the early 2021 have shown that the Americans prefer to close their eyes to domestic problems, which is why they have invented a special term for them: “domestic terrorism,” which sounds simultaneously funny and horrible. I would like to say once again that we will provide regular coverage of this subject. Our American partners have left us no other choice. Russian assessment of Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights performance It has become a long and familiar tale how we keep discussing our Western partners’ attitude toward human rights issues rather than the human rights problems themselves. We noted a statement posted on March 18 on the website of Dunja Mijatović, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, regarding the human rights situation in Chechnya. Skipping over the content of the text and the wording used by the Commissioner, we would like to say the following. Dunja Mijatović’s performance as Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe can hardly be viewed as satisfactory. We consider her policies biased and not corresponding to human rights standards. First of all, it concerns how the Commissioner fails to react to problems in other countries, including segregation of “non-citizens” in the Baltic countries; suppression of human rights of the Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine; extrajudicial ban on broadcasting by opposition media outlets in Ukraine; the introduction of TV censorship in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia; the suppression of dissent and any attempts to reach out to the authorities in a number of countries in Europe; and, outrageous violations of human rights in EU countries. None of this is professionally and publicly commented on the global level. When we ask why there is no assessment of certain events, we are told that all these problems are being resolved on a bilateral basis: they hold discussions, offer information and try to influence these countries so that the latter rectify the situation. So why then in Russia’s case, as well as in the cases of some other countries, this doesn’t happen in a bilateral format, but rather through endless threads in social network accounts before eventually ending up in front of a microphone? There is no answer to this question, although it is obvious. To reiterate, there has been no public response to a whole “bouquet” of problems in the EU, even over the past month. Meanwhile, there is excessive zeal in commenting on the human rights situation in our country. This happened, in particular, with regard to the actions of Russian law enforcement personnel during unauthorised protests in January and February of this year. We expect the Commissioner to promptly correct the above-mentioned policies, which so far have been far from objective. And we are not alone. The entire world is watching whether international organisations can uphold their messianic role in the contemporary world or will they collapse under crackdowns and pressure, whether they remain impartial and independent and follow international law or become a “tool” in the hands of various states. There are many who are watching closely: regional actors and associations of countries. We will move forward in building up our relations with the Commissioner on a pragmatic basis, on condition that she rids herself of the selective and discriminatory line mentioned above. Such a lop-sided approach is a blow to all international organisations. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights evaluation of findings on ethnic and language minorities in Latvia We were alarmed to read the review by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) of Latvia’s second periodic report on Riga’s compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The assessments by the UN experts cause serious concern. Thus, the Committee’s experts stated the prevalence of prejudice and discrimination based on colour, language, religion, national or ethnic origin as well as the absence of a comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation and policy aimed at ensuring equality and non-discrimination in access to all economic, social and cultural rights. The report also noted that Latvian authorities’ policy with regard to minorities is discriminatory, including in ensuring their economic, social and cultural rights, which impedes their access to health services and social benefits, and places barriers for employment in both the private and public sectors. Apart from other problems, the UN Committee pointed out that Latvia still has the disgraceful legal category of “non-citizens” and discrimination against such persons continues. In particular, the experts concluded that non-citizens are more likely to suffer from unemployment. In this connection the UN experts recommended that the Latvian authorities intensify their efforts to facilitate access to naturalisation and take targeted measures to ensure that those who currently hold non-citizen status have non-discriminatory access to economic, social and cultural rights. The Committee dedicated a special section to Riga’s language policy in education. The UN experts’ conclusions are unequivocal: Latvia’s approaches to the issues of language are fraught with negative consequences for persons belonging to minorities in the enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights. Moreover, recent amendments to the Education Law and Cabinet Regulation No. 716 of November 21, 2018 have discriminatory effect on minority groups and create undue restrictions on teaching of and in minority languages in preschool and primary education in both public and private schools. In this regard, the Committee recommended that Latvian authorities consider revising their language policies and laws on education in order to promote the teaching of and teaching in minority languages and to ensure that they do not affect negatively the educational performance of children belonging to minority groups. The Committee’s conclusions are consonant with assessments of Riga’s systematic and gross violations of human rights of Russian speakers that have been repeatedly voiced at events held by the UN, OSCE and Council of Europe. We insist that Latvian authorities heed the opinion of the international monitoring mechanisms regarding human rights, including that of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and take due and effective measures at the legislative and political levels to comply with their international obligations regarding human rights. We would like to underscore once again that Russia will continue upholding the rights of its compatriots wherever they might be. We are closely monitoring the situation with Russian speakers in the Baltic countries and Ukraine. Results of the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) met for its 46th session on February 22 - March 24 in Geneva, via remote participation. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov attended its high-level segment. During the session, the parties considered a wide range of issues on the international human rights agenda. These included equal access to the coronavirus vaccines, the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights, cooperation in the field of human rights, ensuring freedom of religion, democracy and the rule of law, as well as matters involving economic, social and cultural rights and other current topics. The HRC adopted more than 30 resolutions at the end of the session, including on the human rights situation in Belarus, Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Syria, Sri Lanka, South Sudan and the occupied Palestinian territories, and approved the results of the Universal Periodic Review of Andorra, Belarus, Bulgaria, Honduras, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Panama, the United States, Croatia and Jamaica. Experts have been appointed to serve as Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions and on Cambodia, as well as to the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Returning to the Council as a full member after a four-year hiatus, the Russian delegation used the session as a platform to make its partners see the importance of establishing a constructive international dialogue on the promotion and protection of human rights, and respect for the national, cultural and historical features of each state in the process of democratic transformation, without impelling anyone to borrow any value systems. The Russian delegation also underscored that using the notorious policy of double standards and adding any political agenda to the Council’s activity was unacceptable. Russia resolutely resisted the attempts, by a number of Western states, to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states through HRC decisions, to put pressure on national governments and put forward their territorial claims. The HRC adopted a Russia-sponsored joint statement, for the first time since it was established, in which a group of states expressed concern about the human rights situation in the European Union countries and the United Kingdom. During the session, the Russian Federation repeatedly highlighted the unacceptable situation when in the 21st century, European countries that have been most strongly affected by the Nazi ideology are pursuing policies of segregation on ethnic and religious grounds. Together with the Non-Aligned Movement member states, the Russian side sharply confronted the HRC about the illegality and negative impact on human rights of unilateral coercive measures, including with regard to Ukraine cutting off water supply to Crimea. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken's statement on Russia using misinformation We have been surprised by a statement made by the head of the State Department Antony Blinken about Russia’s alleged “use of disinformation to erode confidence in safe, effective (coronavirus) vaccines.” What does Russia have to do with this? Why don’t you show some specific facts at least to your media? We are witnessing a lot of mutual complaints from our Western partners against each other concerning vaccination and the activities of their own pharmaceutical companies. Russia is not interfering with the delivery schedules or the vaccine rollout in any Western countries, and is not involved in the licensing of Western medications or the suspension of their use. We can only read about what is happening, and primarily in the Western mainstream media. This is even more absurd given that Russia is consistently showing a totally depoliticised approach and willingness to openly collaborate with all interested parties in the supply of vaccines, joint research into their efficacy, and launching local production in various regions around the world. EU officials’ statements about Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine We have noted the public statements by a number of European Commission officials, including European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton, that there is no need for the European Union to make centralised purchases of Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine. In this connection, we regret to say that the European Commission continues its initially faulty policy of cooperating only with Western companies. The EU has signed centralized vaccine supply contracts with EU, US and UK manufacturers only. We would like to point out that the Russian Ministry of Health registered the Sputnik V vaccine in August 2020. The Russian authorities then suggested that interested foreign partners can take part in joint vaccine research projects, coordinate delivery parameters and even consider the possibility of production localisation. Nevertheless, although no one doubts the efficiency and safety of the Sputnik V vaccine anymore and global demand for COVID-19 vaccines is soaring, including in the EU countries, Mr Breton flatly denies any EU demand for the Russian vaccine. Isn’t this a politically motivated approach? We hope that the European Commission’s attitude towards Sputnik V and, actually, towards its own citizens will not affect the pace of reviewing Russia’s application for registering its vaccine by the European Medicines Agency, especially considering the fact that many EU member countries are interested in the Russian vaccine and in view of the statements by Dr Hans Henri Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe, about the real European demand for the Russian vaccine. The decision of residents of Afghanistan’s Uruzgan Province to file a lawsuit following Royal Netherlands Air Force attack We have noted a recent decision by residents of Uruzgan Province to file a lawsuit with the International Criminal Court in connection with the bombing of civilian facilities by the Royal Netherlands Air Force in the early hours of June 17, 2007. The attack killed 250 civilians. Russia has repeatedly noted substantial Afghan civilian casualties caused by the international coalition’s air strikes. At the same time, we have never heard that those guilty of killing civilians have been brought to justice. There is a certain imbalance in our Western partners’ assessment of human rights. On the one hand, they are concerned over the situation in peaceful regions that are not affected by armed conflicts, and at the same time, they don’t see that the unlawful operations of their own forces kill thousands of civilians. We resolutely denounce crimes against Afghan civilians, and we urge the Netherlands to conduct an objective and all-round investigation of this incident and to bring the culprits to account. We call on all the concerned parties, including the international coalition forces, to take exhaustive action to prevent the loss of life among Afghan civilians. We are convinced that this would prevent the spread of radicalism in Afghan society. Amnesty International calls for thorough investigation into lawfulness and validity of Dutch police methods used in detaining protesters on March 14 The entire world shuddered watching the level of inhuman cruelty displayed by the Dutch law enforcement authorities in suppressing the recent Hague protests against restrictions in view of the coronavirus applicable in the Netherlands. The released footage was more than eloquent: the demonstrators were dispersed by water jet cannons, baited, beaten with truncheons on their heads, and one woman was even pushed under a car. And all this happened in a state that unilaterally proclaims itself a model of democracy and human rights observation, and a legal Mecca of the world. It was not the first case that the Dutch police administer order in such a way. Just recall what happened during the protests in January, when dozens of people were injured and hundreds detained. However, this time the Dutch police went too far even by the standards of Amnesty International, which has opted to stay silent so far. Human rights activists were shocked by such atrocities and called for a thorough investigation of such actions in terms of lawfulness and validity. And what about the authorities? The government has refused any substantive comments. The only response to what has happened was the Health Minister’s statement that he regrets the fact that people protest against the measures to restrain the coronavirus. Instead of apologies, head of the Dutch police accused the protesters of “asking for” aggressive actions and said that the released shocking videos were “taken out of context”. So, this is the Dutch style of democracy and human rights protection. Anniversary of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia On March 24, 1999, NATO began bombing of Yugoslavia. An act of aggression against a sovereign independent state was perpetrated in Europe for the first time since World War II. NATO rudely violated fundamental principles of international law, formalised in the UN Charter, and turned the Balkans into a testing site for the streamlining of modern methods of warfare against an inherently weaker country. The process of substituting legitimate mechanisms regulating international relations with a certain rules-based order was launched at that time. In reality, this amounted to cynical arbitrary rule, concealed by fake-news propaganda about an alleged humanitarian disaster in Serbia’s Autonomous Province of Kosovo. About 2,000 civilians were killed during the 78-day NATO campaign, and many facilities in dozens of cities, including Belgrade, were destroyed or damaged. The use of depleted-uranium munitions contaminated large territories and caused an unprecedented surge in cancer cases. People, including service personnel from the Kosovo Force (KFOR), deployed there by the UN Security Council decision following the war, continue to suffer from malignant tumours to this day. Over 200,000 non-Albanian residents left their places of residence and have been unable to return, primarily for safety reasons. Acting under the cover of NATO’s aggression, militants from the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army committed horrendous crimes, including the abduction of Serbians whose organs were subsequently removed and sold. Many culprits remain at large, although all of them must stand trial, regardless of their current status and influence. Conducted over 20 years ago, NATO’s military operation against sovereign Yugoslavia became a tragedy whose long-term and diverse consequences are still being felt. One of its main lessons is that lawlessness and arbitrary rule are unable to solve even a single problem and merely aggravate the situation. This is confirmed by permanent delays in resolving the Kosovo problem. The issue of NATO Allies’ responsibility for the damage they inflicted on international relations and one specific country remains open. Terrorist attacks in Niger We are extremely concerned over the continued wave of terrorist attacks in the Republic of the Niger, a country friendly to Russia. On March 21, 2021, unknown armed persons attacked a number of villages in the Tahoua Region near the Mali border and killed 137 Nigeriens. This is the fourth major terrorist attack against civilians since December 2020, with total fatalities exceeding 300 people. Moscow resolutely denounces the inhuman deeds of extremists. We support the desire of Niger’s leaders to take all necessary action in order to guarantee security, arrest those guilty of the crimes committed and bring them to justice. We would like to note that the current upsurge in terrorist attacks in Niger coincides with a highly important period when parliamentary and presidential elections are being held. We are convinced that, despite obstacles being created by extremists, Niger’s society will continue to move along the road of sustainable democratic development. We offer condolences to the families and friends of the deceased, and we wish a speedy recovery to those wounded during yet another horrendous terrorist attack in Niger. Russia is firmly determined to continue making a constructive contribution to international efforts to ensure peace and security in the Sahara-Sahel region and to assist countries, including Niger, in expanding the combat capability of their armed forces, and training service personnel and law enforcement officers. Wirecard insolvency As you know, the inquiry into the insolvency of German financial corporation Wirecard, which happened in 2020, continues in Germany. The Bundestag created a special committee to investigate this company’s operations. Wirecard former COO Jan Marsalek, an Austrian citizen, who fled from justice, was charged by the German authorities with conducting fraud as part of an organised crime group, which resulted in large-scale damage of around 2.8 billion euros. In September 2020, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office received a request from the Munich prosecution authorities on establishing the whereabouts of Jan Marsalek, detaining and placing him in custody for later extradition to Germany in the event that he were found in Russia. The German side did not provide any data confirming the fact that the Austrian citizen was in our country. The enquiry is being processed by the Russian competent authorities and the German side was informed about this in a preliminary response via diplomatic channels. In this context, we cannot help but be perplexed by the speculation that continues to publicly circulate in Germany as well as claims by several members of the German parliament about alleged close links between Jan Marsalek and the Russian intelligence agencies. We hope that Berlin does not intend to find a “Russian trace” in this case as well. This is to warn the German side against further politicisation of this case and using it to set off another spiral of anti-Russia hysteria. Desecration of a Russian monument in Moldova On March 20, 2021, the memorial to the troops of the 2nd Cavalry Corps who were killed in battles with Nazi invaders in the summer of 1941, was destroyed near the village of Ivancea in the Orhei District of Moldova. Vandals sawed through the base of the spire-shaped stainless steel monument and it broke as it collapsed. As far as we know, Moldovan law enforcement agencies are currently collecting evidence to establish the circumstances of the incident. We strongly condemn this act of vandalism. It should not be forgotten that Moldova is a member of the Treaty on Perpetuating the Memory of Courage and Heroism of the CIS Nations during the 1941−1945 Great Patriotic War, signed on September 3, 2011, according to which the parties ensure “the security and preservation of war graves and military memorials on their territories.” We expect that the Republic of Moldova comply with this international obligation and the incident will be thoroughly investigated, with perpetrators identified and held accountable while the damaged memorial is restored. The decision of Polish authorities to rename a street in Inowroclaw that bore the name of a Hero of the Soviet Union Here is yet another example of the so-called historical policy of the Polish authorities. At the recommendation of the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, Iwan Alejnik Street in Inowroclaw, for many years bearing the name of Hero of the Soviet Union Ivan Aleinik (the correct spelling is Aleinikov), a brave Soviet officer who gave his life for the liberation of Europe from Nazism, has been renamed. It seems that Poland prefers to get rid of such memories. Here is a short historical summary: on January 21, 1945, Guards Lieutenant Ivan Aleinikov, commander of a T-34 tank, continued fulfilling his combat duty during the Red Army’s Warsaw-Poznan offensive after he was wounded, but his tank was set afire and the commander and the crew were burned alive. For his model performance in battle, as well as his heroism and courage, he was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union (posthumously). Aleinikov was buried in a mass grave of Soviet Army soldiers and war prisoners at a Catholic cemetery in Inowroclaw. Now, the former Iwan Alejnik Street bears the name of an honourary resident of Inowroclaw, entrepreneur and philanthropist Tadeusz Chesy. This case shows the cynicism of the Polish authorities who easily discard any appreciation or respect for Soviet liberators thanks to whom Poland is still present on the world map and, by the way, thanks to whom Poland has the city of Inowroclaw, which was part of Germany until 1945 under the name Hohensalza. Presentation of memorial album, They Are Remembered in Russia and China On March 16, 2021, the Russian Embassy in China presented the memorial album, They Are Remembered in Russia and China, in Russian and Chinese, at the Jintai art gallery in Beijing. The 200-page illustrated album describes in detail the main events related to the Soviet Union’s participation in the liberation of China from Japanese invaders in 1937-1945. Unique archive documents and photos from the Central Military Archive of the Russian Defence Ministry and the Russian State Military Archive, many published for the first time, were used in the album. As a thank you to Chinese colleagues for their contribution to memorialising the Soviet soldiers and officers killed in China during the resistance against the Japanese aggression, Russian Ambassador to China Andrey Denisov presented the medals of the Russian Defence Ministry and the Russian Organising Committee Victory to several local residents and museums. Amid the pandemic restrictions, the presentation became one of the largest events organised by the Russian Embassy in China of late, and was widely praised by the Chinese media. Russia maintains close cooperation with China on military-memorial issues. We share an active and positive stance to make this area of bilateral relations a strong tie that binds our peoples and improves Russia-China strategic partnership. The 7th International Motorcycle Race “Roads of Victory: Homecoming 2021” The Roads of Victory section of the All-Russian Motorcycle Club Night Wolves and the Foundation for Supporting and Expanding the Patriotic Motorcycle Movement Roads of Victory are planning to hold the 7th International Motorcycle Race “Roads of Victory: Homecoming 2021” to mark the 76th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. For the first time in the past few years, the motorcycle race will begin in a number of European countries and will end in Russia, thus symbolising the Soviet soldiers-liberators’ road home. Members of foreign motorcycle clubs from Germany, The Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland, Montenegro, the Czech Republic and other countries will join the Russian participants in St Petersburg where the event will be officially launched on May 2, and they will finish in Moscow on May 9. We believe that the successful implementation of this project will help preserve the historical memory of the Soviet people’s heroic feat during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 and this country’s role in defeating Nazism, as well as promote the patriotic education of the younger generation. As in previous years, we will be ready to provide the required information, consular and other assistance to the international motorcycle race’s organisers and participants. Celebration of the 200th anniversary of the start of the Greek national liberation struggle On March 25, 2021, the Hellenic Republic celebrated the 200th anniversary of the start of the Greek national liberation struggle that culminated in the establishment of an independent state. The Russian Empire did everything possible to help Greece obtain an independent status and preserve its uniqueness, culture and religion. It is deeply symbolic that Count Ioannis Kapodistrias, a Russian statesman of Greek descent and Foreign Minister of Russia, became the first head of state of the liberated Greece. The current open and dynamic Russian-Greek partnership rests on large historical grounds. Both countries maintain regular political dialogue despite the complicated conditions of the coronavirus pandemic. They discuss measures to stimulate trade and economic cooperation and cultural and humanitarian exchanges. Russia and Greece are implementing an agreement on holding the Cross Year of Russian and Greek History in 2021 and have also launched constructive cooperation in multilateral formats, including the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the Black Sea Economic Cooperation. Governor of the First Hellenic Republic On March 24-25, 2021, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin attended the main celebrations in Athens marking the 200th anniversary of the start of the Greek national liberation struggle. This confirmed the significance of expanding relations with the Hellenic Republic. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sent greetings to the organisers of and participants in the Public Diplomacy Forum dedicated to this event. Independence Day celebrations in Bangladesh On March 26, the People's Republic of Bangladesh marks the 50th anniversary of its independence. Over the recent half a century, Bangladesh has achieved significant success. The country is steadily moving along a progressive road and is taking part in trying to solve present day global problems. This includes combatting poverty and climate change. The country is also one of the major suppliers of military units for UN peacekeeping missions. Russia and Bangladesh are tied together by friendly relations, the foundation of which took place between 1971 and 1972. Our country was one of the first to recognise Bangladesh’s independence and applied its authority on the world arena to support the newly born state. At the request of the Bangladesh Government, Soviet Navy sailors cleared the Chittagong port of mines and sunken ships. The USSR rendered considerable assistance to the people of Bangladesh in the restoration of their national economy ruined during the independence war and in training personnel. Currently, Bangladesh is one of Russia’s important trading partners in South Asia. The proximity of approaches to many issues on the international agenda enables us to fruitfully interact within the framework of the United Nations and other multilateral organisations. We plan to make our cooperation still broader and stronger in the future. We congratulate our Bangladeshi friends on their remarkable jubilee and wish them peace, prosperity and wellbeing. Opening of an exhibition on the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Panama On March 29, Russia and Panama mark the 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations. Over this period of time our countries have managed to carry out a serious and effective job when it comes to establishing bilateral relations based on solid traditions of equal and mutually respectful cooperation. As a rule, our Ministry accompanies such landmark anniversaries with some major exhibitions. However, given the current situation with the coronavirus pandemic, such an event devoted to this will go online and be posted on the Ministry’s website. It includes basic documents, rare historical photos and other material from the Foreign Policy Archives of the Russian Federation revealing some of the most graphic episodes in the history of Russian-Panamanian interaction. The E-exhibition will open with congratulatory remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, addressed to Foreign Minister of Panama Erika Mouynes, and a video address by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov.  Answers to media questions: Question: I would like to ask you about yet another story concerning an alleged Russian spy ring circulating in Bulgaria and the deliberate aggravation of the spy mania. The spy sensation was made public in Bulgaria on the 7th anniversary of Crimea’s reunification with Russia. Sofia later announced that two Russian diplomats would be expelled from the country. Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko warned earlier that this action would be reciprocated. Bulgarians are worried that this will affect bilateral relations; they understand that this spy scandal is the result of outside pressure. What response actions will Russia take towards Bulgaria? What can be done to prevent the worsening of bilateral ties considering that this is the goal of third countries, which would like to see an increase in anti-Russia rhetoric in the Balkans? Maria Zakharova: We have already commented on this topic many times. Too many destructive events that are not in the interests of our peoples are taking place in bilateral relations, not through Moscow’s fault. We have to respond to all of them. On March 23, we posted a Ministry comment on this subject. I can repeat that on March 22, the Foreign Ministry of Bulgaria declared two diplomats at the Russian Embassy in Sofia personae non gratae. It is the fifth such case during the past 18 months, and no proof has been provided this time either. This decision was preceded by a vociferous campaign when the Bulgarian prosecutor’s office disclosed that a group of persons who allegedly spied for Russia had been exposed in the country’s defence and security services. This looked like preparations for declaring Russian diplomats personae non gratae. We regard this as yet another aggravation of the anti-Russia spy mania in Bulgaria that happened, for some reason, ahead of the April 4 parliamentary election and against the backdrop of an outbreak of Russophobia in the West, primarily in the United States. We have again urged Sofia to stop taking part in politicised campaigns orchestrated by Western countries or associations and to stop the witch-hunt, which are damaging Bulgaria’s national interests and its relations with Russia. It is necessary to resume a constructive agenda, which is much more natural for Russian-Bulgarian ties. However, such actions call for a response. The Russian Federation reserves the right to take reciprocal measures. We say this every time this happens. Unfortunately, such events keep happening again and again. I fully agree with you that this contradicts the interests of the Bulgarian people. These actions and steps are most likely encouraged by external forces and cannot be explained by Bulgaria’s natural national interests. Question: EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell has said: “We have to look for communication channels with Russia. Russia is a neighbour, a dangerous neighbour, but we have to share with it some issues in which we have common interests, like the nuclear agreement with Iran or climate change. But, above all that, we have to contain Russia, to push back Russia.” What is the Ministry’s attitude to this statement? Is it possible that the anti-Russia rhetoric is given special emphasis for a reason? How does Russia see its future interaction with Europe in these circumstances? Maria Zakharova: We regularly comment on these topics. It is not wise at all to say that Russia is a dangerous neighbour. Looking at the situation in a historical context, the EU foreign policy chief is bound to know that it is the EU countries that have themselves to blame for their problems and never Russia. Historically speaking, Russia has suffered aggression from these states all the time. Josep Borrell should look at the situation realistically to determine who is indeed a dangerous neighbour within the EU, instead of inventing what never actually happened. Our European colleagues say (the British said this when they were in the EU, and since then many others have taken up the idea) that Russia has always been aggressive and will likely act in the same manner in future as well. But there is no proof of this. Russia has never launched world wars. During such conflicts, Russia waged liberation operations, helping people to liberate from the aggressors not only its own national territory but also other countries, while at the same time suffering from aggression towards it. This is our historical experience, our national character and our mission. Who has given Mr Borrell the right to speak with the people of Russia like that? He describes Russia as a “dangerous neighbour,” but he surely must be acquainted with history. The witnesses of 20th century history are still alive. Historical proof has not disappeared even though some European countries have tried to tear these pages from the historical context. I have already spoken about this today: they are destroying monuments, renaming streets and erecting monuments to so-called “heroes” who are definitely not heroes. He used unacceptable comparisons, expressions and tone. We have commented on this at the level of the national leadership on numerous occasions. We urged the EU to change its accusing tone, to act realistically, to admit their own problems and to stop trying to minimise them by promoting myths of Russia’s alleged aggressive role. We called on them many times to start talking with facts in hand. We are ready for this. We told them so during negotiations and publicly. There are many topics for discussion. Confrontation rhetoric must be laid to rest, become a thing of the past. The matter concerns not only relations between Brussels and Moscow. Confrontation rhetoric is delivering a much more destructive blow than they suppose at the reputation of a Western leader who claims to be the “generator of essence.” All experts on international affairs know very well that historically Russia has never been an aggressive neighbour. Such statements are not just insulting but also untrue and misinforming. Question: How can another spy scandal affect the relationship between Bulgaria and Russia? In your opinion, are regular mutual expulsions (five in the past 18 months) degrading the level of diplomatic relations between Bulgaria and Russia? Maria Zakharova: These kinds of measures are not bringing any constructive added value or anything positive to our bilateral relations. Obviously, these steps are a blow to Russia-Bulgaria links. They throw our ties back rather than push them forward. When you say “degrading” or “upgrading” the level of relations, it may sound wonderful in a newspaper article or a commentary. But there are citizens of the two countries and specifically Bulgarian residents who, instead of understanding the nitty-gritty of political terminology, want to simply understand why all of this is happening, who benefits from it and why it has been done. Is the goal to help people who consider their own interests or wish to be politicians, to conveniently promote themselves? Although they must create a positive agenda but this requires some effort, action and results. It is much easier to create this agenda out of nothing, out of the Western anti-Russian state of affairs. Then, Bulgarian citizens could ask these so-called politicians: do they think that by degrading the bilateral relations with Russia they are not bringing any benefits to their own people at all even though they claim to be serving their fellow citizens? This issue is for an internal discussion inside Bulgaria. It is not up to Russia to answer this question. We have asserted ourselves, in deeds rather than in words, as a reliable and responsible partner of Bulgaria in a whole number of major projects (including economic projects). These are not words or theory but practical cooperation. We confirmed our approach with action. What you are asking about is a matter for an internal Bulgarian dialogue between the citizens and the so-called politicians. Since you are asking, I believe it is high time that Bulgaria has this internal dialogue. Where and why are these people leading Bulgarian society? What damage are they causing to both our bilateral relations and directly to the Bulgarian people with this kind of actions? Perhaps they can reveal benefits. I am not ruling this out. Perhaps they can produce, at least for their own public, some convincing facts that will attest to such benefits. Perhaps they have something they are not showing for some reason. This is a question to be addressed to the Bulgarian public. Question: Special envoys to the Middle East Quartet of International Mediators (Russia, the EU, the United States and the UN) held a teleconference on March 23. The parties reaffirmed the unique nature of the Quartet as the only mechanism approved by the UN Security Council to facilitate the peace process in the region. Does this mean that the current White House administration is moving away from the policy of the previous administration, which proposed the ‘deal of the century,’ and that the decisions made under President Donald Trump may be revised? Was this topic discussed during the teleconference? You mentioned today that Sergey Lavrov will take part in the Valdai Club meetings. He has had many meetings in Moscow with his colleagues from the region (including with visiting Israeli Foreign Minister Gabriel Ashkenazi) as well as during his Persian Gulf tour. Does Russia’s activity on the Middle East track indicate that Russia is preparing an initiative to revive the process and the Quartet? Maria Zakharova: You are asking me about the US approach to various matters. Can the current administration’s stance be seen as a revised policy of the previous one? The American side should rather answer these questions. I very much hoped that US President Joe Biden would answer this question, as well as touch upon the ‘deal of the century,’ the Middle East policies, and a whole range of other matters. I followed his news conference very closely, but, unfortunately, none of that seemed to be in the script. In fact, he had a very strict script to follow. Rephrasing a saying, they directed and over-directed it, and played themselves. I have never seen anything like that. A game changer in public events. So please contact the US for a comment on their plans. What are we hearing in the public landscape? We hear the new American government speak, in particular, of their plans to resume contact with the Palestinian National Authority, which was frozen in the previous period. This implies a reopening of the Palestine Liberation Organisation office in Washington and the US Consulate General in Jerusalem, as well as American humanitarian assistance to Palestinian refugees through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Our countries, as co-sponsors, were at the origins of the peace process in the Middle East. It's a complicated story. At the moment, if we talk about our current approaches, as we understand it, Russia and the United States agree that the Palestinian issue should be settled on the basis of the two-state solution approved by the UN Security Council and involving Palestine and Israel coexisting in peace and security; we also agree on recognising the important role of the Quartet. But so far, this has not gone beyond declared intentions. On our end, there is a public approach. It has been confirmed by the stance we take in the international arena and in international organisations, and by our concrete work. As of today, on the part of the United States, this proximity of approaches is solely supported by intentions in the form of statements. Let’s wait for some action. You, as journalists, should rather ask the Americans to get an idea of their strategy in the Middle East. Or wait for a final update of the parameters of their US Middle East policy in their foreign policy review and its practical implementation. There are opportunities for constructive Russian-American coordination on this track. A regular dialogue has been established between Special Representative of the Foreign Minister on the Middle East Peace Process Vladimir Safronkov and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israel and Palestinian Affairs Hady Amr. There is a whole range of reasons while it is up to the United States to comment on their actions or policies in this area. A new administration, new approaches, a new team. We want certainty. We do not yet feel it one hundred percent. We are writing it off to these approaches still being in the making. But it's time to finally work them out. Question: What is your take on the elections to the Israeli Knesset (parliament)? Maria Zakharova: The early Knesset elections were held on March 23, 2021. According to preliminary results, the leader is the ruling Likud party headed by the incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The vote count continues. It is expected that the 120 members of the newly elected Knesset will include representatives of 13 political parties and blocs. Once the election results have been confirmed, the process of forming a government coalition will start and a cabinet of ministers will be approved. The cabinet will be responsible for dealing with serious domestic and foreign policy issues, including efforts to ensure peace, stability and security in the Middle East. We hope that the future government’s priorities will include, as before, a further strengthening of friendly and mutually beneficial cooperation between Russia and Israel in various areas. We look forward to continuing constructive work with the new composition of the Knesset and the future government of Israel. Question: You have already mentioned Joe Biden’s news conference. What is the overall opinion of the Foreign Ministry on it? Maria Zakharova: The news conference was obviously staged. I can tell you that shocked me personally. I did not expect that such thoroughly doctored information campaigns could be organised at this level in the United States. We have so often been lectured about respecting freedom of speech and refraining from any dishonesty when working with the media that it is strange to see Washington engaging in all of this. Everybody has their own customs; but not so long ago, the United States had a tradition of direct communication between official spokespersons and, most importantly, the country’s top leaders and the media. Although lately, Russian media outlets have been subject to discrimination. Now we can see that not only foreign media outlets but even American journalists are affected by discrimination. We are witnessing speakers choosing in favour of certain questions and journalists. Representatives of the non-mainstream or a different side of the mainstream journalist community (opposition or else, it is hard to say) were never given the floor. It was shocking. And that was happening not at the level of a state or an agency but at the highest level. This is how the country’s leader communicates with the press. If this is the attitude towards journalists, journalism and freedom of speech that we are witnessing at a public media event, my question is: what is happening behind the scenes? It is disturbing to see the methods used by the current officials in Washington. That news conference left a shocking impression. Question: What is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s position on the cancellation of the sale of the Norwegian diesel engine plant Bergen Engines to the Russian company Transmashholding? Maria Zakharova: This is discouraging news. It was presented under the guise of “protecting national interests.” The arguments that guided the Norwegian side in making this decision are far-fetched. According to repeated confirmations by the Norwegian regulators, the plant's products and projects are not subject to Norwegian export restrictions. The deal was purely commercial in nature, aimed at expanding the Norwegian company’s markets, developing new products and securing employment at the facility in Norway – just the business how-to that the Western world has taught us for so many years, working in a non-politicised economy, and avoiding any political agenda in doing business. The cancellation of the deal with Transmashholding fits with the two-track approach that Oslo has been pursuing in recent years with regard to our country, with an obvious tendency towards containment of Russia. There are other such examples of Oslo blocking commercial contracts. In recent years, Norwegian business has stopped short of implementing new projects with Russian partners, even in areas not covered by sanctions, for fear of such inappropriate political interference in purely business cooperation. Let's look at the results. What has the Norwegian side managed to achieve? We have disastrous figures in bilateral trade, and no significant projects in our trade and economic cooperation, and related internal economic indicators. We call on the Norwegian side to avoid becoming hostage to political phobias and to follow the rich neighbourly traditions developed over the centuries-old history of relations between the Russian Federation and Norway. And most importantly, revive the mentality that has always been the foundation of the Western world and Western civilisation: democracy, freedom, competition, primacy of and respect for the law, respect for a partner, independence, self-determination and true sovereignty. We must return to this. The question might be asked: what for? But I think the answer is obvious – not so much for Russia or bilateral relations, but for their own interests, for the sake of their own companies and people. This much is obvious. Question: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told a news briefing the alliance has increased its presence on land, at sea and in the air, but also stepped up cooperation with its partners in Georgia and Ukraine, and is looking into how to further strengthen this partnership, both political and practical support. He added that NATO would not stop there even if there was an escalation in the region. Also recently, the Ukrainian Armed Forces held exercises on the Crimean border to practice strikes against a “manoeuvre enemy.” How will Russia respond to NATO's increased presence in the Black Sea region, and what measures can it take to prevent any provocations? Maria Zakharova: In short, with regard to a response from our own security perspective, the answer is traditional – it will be proportionate. As for statements about fighting some threats and challenges, I have already commented on those. NATO is looking for threats in the wrong places. New challenges and threats looming over NATO have not come from the eastern flank, not from Moscow or Russia. These new challenges and threats are the pandemic, financial and economic instability, human rights issues and their politicisation, as well as all the unresolved problems in the Western world such as racism, nationalism, discrimination and so on. This is an ideological crisis, a crisis of the political process in many states of the North Atlantic Alliance. Their problems include migration and the attitude towards migrants across NATO countries. Infringement on the freedom of speech, and the unconditional and disproportionate use of information resources, sometimes even beyond the bounds of legality (I mean pressure on the media, and the use of their own media companies for propaganda purposes). Those are the real challenges threatening NATO countries. They have nothing to do with our country at all. Russia is offering contact, partnership and cooperation, and extends its hand with regard to a whole range of complex and acute issues that really pose a threat to peace and stability not only in NATO, but throughout the world. This includes vaccines, something we have discussed many times today, cybersecurity (our initiatives are well known to everyone), countering international terrorism, and combating and preventing new forms of discrimination, racism and nationalism. We are ready to cooperate, to share our successful practices (and we have accumulated considerable experience). We have made a number of global anti-crisis proposals to the whole world about overcoming the consequences of the pandemic, many of which were ignored by NATO countries, again, doing little good to their peoples and their own citizens. They are looking for threats in the wrong places, and that is also dangerous. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/ru/press_service/...nguageId=en_GB
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
April 2nd, 2021
|
#276 |
|
Senior Member
|
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at Ministerial Conference of the Heart of Asia – Istanbul Process on Afghanistan, March 30, 2021
30 March 2021 - 11:37 Colleagues, We are grateful to our Tajik and Afghan partners for organising a regular Ministerial Conference of the Istanbul Process on the developments in Afghanistan and around it. Afghanistan is in a difficult period of its development. The military and political situation in the country is still very alarming. Terrorist attacks are staged frequently, and a seasonal increase in combat activities cannot be ruled out. In this context, it is necessary to do everything possible to reduce the level of violence. Of course, some progress has been made in this sphere. For example, we regard the termination of hostilities between the United States and the Taliban and the launch of direct intra-Afghan contacts in Doha in 2020 as a major step towards ending the armed conflict. We are convinced that these achievements must be used to move without any delay towards finding solutions on national reconciliation issues and the creation of broadly representative bodies of power. In this context, Russia is working closely with its regional and international partners in various formats. On March 18, 2021, Moscow hosted a regular meeting of the extended “Troika” comprising representatives of Russia, China, the United States and Pakistan, which was also attended by representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, prominent Afghan political figures and representatives of the Taliban movement, as well as Qatar and Turkey as guests of honour. We believe that the discussion held by the Afghan delegations has given a fresh momentum to the negotiations in Doha.  During the past years, Russia has been providing assistance to its Afghan partners in the economic, military-technical and humanitarian spheres. The training of national personnel remains an important part of our bilateral cooperation. An increasing number of young Afghans are studying at Russian universities. Last year, we enrolled over 500 Afghan students in civilian departments alone. We continue training personnel for Afghanistan’s armed forces, law enforcement and counter-narcotics police. In September 2020, the ground-breaking ceremony for a dog training centre of the Afghan Interior Ministry’s counter-narcotics police took place in Kabul within the framework of the joint project of Russia, Japan and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. I would like to point out that Afghan experts for this centre will be trained in Russia. In 2020, the region and the world as a whole faced a new challenge, the coronavirus pandemic. In this situation, Russia provided targeted humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. We donated PPE and medical equipment to the country in June and November and sent more than 300 tonnes of food aid in November and December 2020. We will continue providing this assistance. In conclusion, I would like to point out once again that Russia has always promoted the development of Afghanistan as an independent and self-sufficient state free from terrorism and drugs. We sincerely hope that the Afghan people will restore a lasting peace as soon as possible and will turn a new page in the country’s history. Thank you. I would like to wish you success. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4653975 Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the introduction of new anti-Russia sanctions by Australia 31 March 2021 - 18:43 We noted a statement by Foreign Minister of Australia Marise Payne on the introduction of financial sanctions and a ban on the entry of one Russian citizen and four companies linked with the construction and maintenance of the Kerch Bridge. After Crimea’s return to the Russian Federation in 2014, official Canberra chose a course towards the erosion of Russia-Australia relations, following the infamous principle of “Western solidarity.” Demonstrating an obvious lack of independence in foreign policy and reluctance to assess the situation in Crimea without bias, Australia supports all anti-Russia attacks by the United States or its satellites, regardless of how absurd they look. Unfriendly acts by the Australian ruling circles will definitely evoke an adequate response on our part. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4660013 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions during a special session of the Valdai International Discussion Club on the Middle East, Moscow, March 31, 2021 31 March 2021 - 23:21 Question: The theme of our conference is The Middle East in Search for Lost Awakening. Yesterday’s debate was rather lively. The participants discussed the extent to which the Middle East is an actor in international relations, the region’s dynamics in terms of its global position, and whether it is possible to say that the Arab Spring is over. What do you think about the role of the Middle East’s role in the modern world? Sergey Lavrov: Decades ago, when hydrocarbons became the driving force of global development, the region acquired tremendous geopolitical significance and became an arena for games motivated by attempts to gain access to resources. The Suez Canal, an intersection of numerous international routes, is located there. We have seen what happened when a container carrier manoeuvred unsuccessfully in this water artery. I believe that the region will retain its significance even when humankind converts to a hydrocarbon-free energy sector. This goal has been set for 2050 and 2060. It is quite possible that hydrocarbons will become less significant. Nevertheless, considering the strategic importance of the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf, I have no doubt that major players will remain interested in this region. Unfortunately, this interest now boils down to rivalry that often involves undiplomatic methods. We propose that the Middle East should cease to be an arena where the interests of leading powers clash. It is necessary to balance these interests and to reconcile them among the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, as well as among non-regional partners. We should not forget that our proposal to draft a security concept for the Persian Gulf zone does not cover this region alone. This proposal implies that all regional protagonist countries, primarily the Arab monarchies and Iran, should gather at one table. Such organisations as the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and the European Union should also join them. This configuration will make it possible to bring together representatives of all actors significant for the Middle East and North African countries. We should try and launch a process akin to the Helsinki Process and accomplish something similar in the region in the hope that, unlike the pan-European Helsinki Process, we could achieve better results. The pan-European process was launched on the basis of compromise ensuring a balance of interests, and the West began to demolish it later on. Today, they are trying to use the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which was established as a common regional entity, for advancing their own interests. I hope that we will be able to create more viable agreements in the Middle East and North African region, and that such agreements will allow this region to evolve in the direction of a balance of interests and not to become a territory of confrontation among major players once again. Question: The People’s Republic of China (PRC), with which we maintain friendly and strategic relations, has recently become more active in the Middle East. Observers and analysts are speaking about a fundamentally new stage in China’s foreign policy, including its increased presence in the Middle East and its interest in the region. It is notable that China’s latest initiatives are similar, to a degree, to the initiatives of the Russian Federation. This concerns, for example, the idea of collective security for the Persian Gulf, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and several other aspects. What can you say on this topic? How should we regard this Chinese activity? Sergey Lavrov: China is a global power with interests in all parts of the world. The PRC is promoting its economic projects within the framework of the Belt and Road concept and a community of shared future for humankind. It indeed has global interests, which are based on real global possibilities. There is no denying that the Belt and Road concept rests on an extremely serious economic foundation. This has been recently discussed at the events the EU held jointly with the Americans within the NATO framework. They have openly formulated the task of creating an alternative to this economic “expansion.” We believe in honest competition. In this case, mala fide methods are being used against China, just as against the Russian Federation. Relevant examples include the attempts being made by the United States and Europe, which is following in its wake, to adopt restrictions on the most trivial pretexts, to undermine their rivals’ positions and to introduce artificial restrictions on global markets contrary to the norms of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Of course, China has a right to protect its interests, just as we are doing in that region. China has recently proposed hosting a direct dialogue between Israel and Palestine, just as we did in the past. Regarding Afghanistan, there is a long queue for the right to host a meeting on Afghanistan. This queue has recently dispersed, though, and after the Istanbul meeting the Afghan authorities have proposed holding such meetings in Kabul because no one is willing to host them anymore. It is an interesting story. We can discuss it as well, if you would like. As for China, it has advanced an initiative they describe as a multilateral dialogue platform for the Gulf region. Not only China and Russia are promoting these ideas. Iran has advanced the Hormuz peace initiative, which should include, at least at the initial stage, only the coastal Gulf countries. But we believe that the external players, which can seriously influence the situation in the region, should take part in it from the very beginning. There is also a French initiative called the European Maritime Awareness Mission in the Strait of Hormuz. It could become a component part of a new agreement, if confidence-building measures and other arrangements are complemented with observers. I believe that it could be a useful measure, if all the parties agree to it. Competition in these matters can do no harm. When competition is an element of the development of common approaches and as such helps to coordinate common basic principles for a future settlement, it is a welcome trend. I don’t think that China views its own initiative as the only one all of us must accept. For our part, we do not insist on the formula set forth in our Collective Security Concept for the Persian Gulf. We are inviting all parties to dialogue. As the Chinese say, let a hundred flowers bloom. We should come together, exchange ideas and balance interests. Without this, everything will be unsteady and fragile. Question: I would like to return to your first answer. The word inclusiveness is often used as a necessary element of diplomacy. I would venture to doubt it being so effective, because there are so many different interests, and sometimes from players who have never had such a role before. If you try to include and consider all their interests, nothing is going to work out. The OSCE you mentioned (or the CSCE at a time when it worked) actually had two interests. Would it not be a good idea to reconsider the approach in the sense that there are interests necessary to solve specific problems, there are interested countries with influence, and there are countries that think they should participate simply because they have to? For prestige, or something. How can a balance be found between including those who need to be included without turning into a version of Noah's Ark that gathered “every kind”? Sergey Lavrov: Empirically. It is the only way. Until we begin to talk and compare approaches, we will not be able to understand which of them are being promoted for prestige, and which really reflect a sincere interest in solving a problem. In this configuration, there will be more than two interests, as was the case when the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) was convened. But there won't be many. At least the West is already united – this is one interest. Recent meetings have shown that Europe breathed a sigh of relief – was even delighted – when the United States again took it under its wing. European leaders made public statements on this score. The West will have one interest. If someone tries to break that harmony, their attempts will be curbed quickly and effectively. There are encouraging moments as well when it comes to the Gulf zone proper. The recent restoration of the solidarity and stability of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) at the January 5 summit (a very fruitful and important event, we must give credit to the Americans) is a step in an important direction. I hope that deal will be the forerunner for an agreement to start dialogue with Iran involving external players. We deliberately designate the five permanent members here. As practice shows, in very diverse conflicts and in different regions, if the five reach a consensus, the rest welcome it. The consensus of the five almost always reflects a balance of interests not only of these five countries, but also of their allies, partners and most other members of the international community. That is why we think it is so important to revive the spirit of cooperation among the five, the spirit of Dumbarton Oaks and everything else that the status of permanent members of the UN Security Council and their veto power involves. That institute was created so that no decisions at the international level could be made if one of these countries objected. We can say that the scope of states that now deserve to be highlighted in international configurations has expanded. We believe Africa, Asia and Latin America should have their additional representatives in the UN Security Council, but the five still play a very important role. President Vladimir Putin has proposed holding a summit of the five where we want to discuss not so much a specific crisis (although this can always be done), as this institution’s purpose in international politics. Unfortunately, the coronavirus prevented us from meeting last year, although China and France supported the initiative. Britain was waiting for the US to react. Washington said they would be ready, and then London said they would join. But then the pandemic broke out. We are now looking for ways to implement this idea and are holding consultations with our partners. I hope that such a meeting will take place. It is really important. Question (retranslated): I have two questions for you. First, you and many other speakers have mentioned the Helsinki format. For two days now, we have been discussing the need for new security architecture in the Middle East, because this is the only way to overcome numerous challenges there. The Helsinki format is interesting because it combines hard and soft security issues. The hard ones include freedoms, human rights, etc. This is what the region needs so badly at this point. Does Russia have some kind of a Middle Eastern Helsinki format, since it is among the region’s largest players? If not, what stands in the way? The second question is about Syria. In two months, Syria will have presidential elections. Initially, UNSC Resolution 2254, which you supported and co-sponsored, mentioned that the Constitutional Committee must make progress in its work, and some amendments to the constitution must be adopted before the elections. We know that the calendar does not provide for this, and the elections will be held without the adoption of amendments to the constitution. Does this mean that we should forget UNSC Resolution 2254 as part of overcoming the conflict in Syria? Sergey Lavrov: With regard to the first question, indeed, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe ended with agreeing upon the Helsinki Final Act based on three security dimensions, namely, military-political, economic and humanitarian. This should underlie the discussions in question focusing on the Gulf, the Middle East and North Africa. This is the only way to arrive at some kind of integrated result. Our proposals include the military-political aspect, such as trust-building action, military budget transparency, mutual invitations to military exercises and joint exercises. There is also a political dimension which includes restoring diplomatic relations between all countries. Economic contacts must be unblocked. This represents an integrated approach. I would not want this “future” (I hope, real future, not a hypothetical construct) to share the fate of the OSCE in Europe which is plagued by acute military-political problems, given NATO expansion, the consistent advancement of military infrastructure towards Russia’s borders, and the deployment of a permanent military presence in the Baltic states and Norway, under the guise of rotation. Our proposal was for the OSCE to realise its responsibility for the military-political situation in Europe and to stimulate agreements between Russia and NATO. NATO members flat out refuse to even discuss the military trust-building steps that we have come up with, including our proposal to agree on withdrawing exercises away from the contact line to an agreed distance and determining the distance of closest approach of aircraft and ships. Jens Stoltenberg said Russia refuses to be part of the Russia-NATO Council. We do not. It’s just that we do not want to sit there and listen to people talking about Ukraine. NATO has nothing to do with Ukraine. As always, whenever they propose to convene the Russia-NATO Council, they insist that Ukraine should be the number one item on the agenda. We went there a couple of times and listened to what they had to say. We are aware of all this. So, we proposed restoring contacts between our respective militaries in order to save that very comprehensive security agreement signed in Helsinki. They refuse to do so. The OSCE economy issues are struggling as well. Our EU colleagues are reluctant to get involved in them, but focus strongly on human rights instead. It would be sad to see the Gulf situation end that way. I doubt it, though, given the specifics of the countries we are talking about and their relations with the West. There is still hope that events will take a more positive course. We must not forget that Russia is proposing an inclusive process. The inertia inherited from the previous US administration, which considered all regional problems through the anti-Iranian lens and focused on gathering coalitions of Arabs, Israel, and the West against Iran, is still going strong. The Biden administration has sent a hopeful sign where some kind of a compromise solution may be found in order to break the deadlock around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and to begin to consider other concerns. We are strongly in favour of this approach. However, the West will want to restore the JCPOA, but not in its previous form. They would want to introduce extra restrictions on the missile programme, to see how Iran may change its policies in that region, and to extend the JCPOA beyond the timeframe set and approved by the UN Security Council in the original version. Iran insists on restoring the JCPOA in its previous form, and discussing mutual claims only after that. This makes perfect sense. Restoring the JCPOA as it was, without any appendages, makes it possible to simultaneously begin the security and cooperation process in the region. If someone has something to tell Iran as part of these talks, go ahead and lay your complaints on the table, but Iran will also come up with its complaints regarding its neighbours and Western countries. This is only fair. Inclusivity is the key word here. I hope that the anti-Iranian inertia of the initial period will give way to common sense, and the idea of creating a “Middle Eastern NATO” or “Asian NATO” will become a thing of the past. We have enough of NATO as it is. As the idea of a Middle Eastern NATO is gradually falling into oblivion, the idea of an Asian NATO, on the contrary, is beginning to gain traction through the Indo-Pacific strategies. The difference lies in the worldviews and the continuity of the Trump administration and the Biden administration’s policies. Even though President Trump pushed the Indo-Pacific strategy forward, the emphasis has now shifted to promoting bloc-based approaches in the Asia-Pacific region. Hopefully, we will be able to start a Middle Eastern process that will include all participants. We welcome the normalisation of relations between a number of Arab countries and Israel. We believe that negotiations and friendship, or at least neighbourliness, are much better than sliding into confrontation and conflicts. We hope this will not undermine the efforts to resolve the Palestinian problem, for which we can also see an encouraging sign coming from Washington. As opposed to the previous administration, which wanted to do everything itself and had no interest in resuming the Quartet of international mediators, the Biden administration, which is now forming its Middle East team, has outlined its support for the two-state solution (this is already an important statement), and announced its willingness to resume its participation in the work of the Quartet. We are in the process of building these contacts. I hope we will be able to obtain positive results here too. There was also a question about Syria. We do not see UNSC Resolution 2254 as requiring any elections to be held following the approval of a new constitution. The Constitutional Committee is in session. When Geir Pedersen was appointed to this position, he clearly indicated in his contacts with Russia the understanding that the Constitutional Committee cannot have any artificial timeframe for completing its work. Speaking at a conference on Syrian refugees yesterday, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell said that only the Syrians themselves can reach an agreement among themselves. Correct, but the current process, which allows the Syrians to negotiate directly, was launched at the initiative of Russia, Turkey and Iran. The Astana format played a decisive role here. Notably, before this format was created, the talks held under the auspices of the UN came to a dead end. For an entire year, former Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Syria Staffan de Mistura cited either Ramadan or other reasons. He simply wasn’t convening these negotiating groups and rounds. Back then, the Astana Trio, which was already operational, came up with an initiative to hold a Congress of the Syrian people in Sochi. Documents were adopted at this Congress, which were then used as a basis for the UN action. Let’s see how the West comments on the Assad government. If someone says they are ready to cooperate with Assad, they put forward many impracticable prerequisites. Most of the approaches are based on the requirement for regime change. In the West, they are openly saying that al-Assad has no future in Syria, and they have also been hindering the creation of the Constitutional Committee. When Staffan de Mistura finally agreed with the opposition on the 150 names: 50 from the government, 50 from the opposition and 50 from civil society (it was in late 2018, I believe), he invited the three foreign ministers of the Astana Trio, who were behind the idea of creating the Constitutional Committee, to come to Geneva. There, we, together with Staffan de Mistura, were supposed to solemnly announce the creation of the Constitutional Committee. As we were flying to Geneva, he received a phone call from New York and they told him that Western countries didn’t want Staffan de Mistura to announce the names of the people on the committee, because there were six names that caused concern in the West, even though the opposition was okay with them. Representatives of France, Great Britain and Germany at the UN even wrote a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres demanding that he does not approve the names agreed with Staffan de Mistura. Because of this, we lost a year early on when the Constitutional Committee became operational. So, if the West is unhappy with the Constitutional Committee’s slow performance, let it learn the lesson and act more constructively in the future. There’s nothing tragic about the fact that the Constitutional Committee may be functioning slowly. Recently, we spoke with UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen. We also spoke with the Assad government and the opposition. We are encouraging them to move towards one another. The next meeting, which, we hope, will take place before the holy month of Ramadan, should break new ground, since for the first time it has been agreed that a direct meeting will take place between the heads of the pro-government and opposition delegations. Mr Pedersen welcomed this agreement, which we helped to achieve. I really hope it will get implemented. Syria is coming under more attacks and sanctions every day. The Caesar Act has been openly announced as a way to strangle Syria’s economy and force the people to rise against their government. The West’s request to us to make the Damascus delegation act more constructively looks cynical. This consumerist approach to politics shows itself in almost any regional or functional crisis in international relations whereby they encourage us to take action while they sit back and tell us whether we did a good job or not. If all of us are interested in the Syrians agreeing on their future themselves, they should be given such an opportunity and time to do so. Speaking figuratively, the political moats in Syria turned out to be quite deep, and we need to help the Syrians overcome them, teach them how to be friends, to start talking and agree on how they can live together in one state. The main hurdles on this path include the illegal occupation by the United States of the eastern bank of the Euphrates River and creation of the Al-Tanf military outpost. Moreover, the West is literally throwing tantrums as it demands the preservation of cross-border mechanisms with regard to humanitarian aid delivery to the Idlib de-escalation zone, which precludes any participation of the government, or even keeping it in the loop about what’s going on, allegedly in order to keep Idlib breathing freely, but it insists on humanitarian aid being delivered from Damascus when it comes to Al-Tanf located on the border with Iraq. We keep telling them: “If you are staying there illegally and sending supplies directly from Iraq to your troops who are occupying this area, go ahead and bring supplies to the refugees in these camps.” There are lots of double standards here. The presence of the United States, which they have now announced, will be perpetuated; at least no timeframe for withdrawing the troops has been set which is nothing new, either. The Americans are in charge of their own word, and they can either keep it, or go back on it. First, they announced the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and then changed their minds. They want to stay in Syria as well. They are operating hydrocarbon fields, selling locally produced grain and using the proceeds – the money rightfully owned by the Syrian people – to pay for the separatist actions of some Kurdish organisations and to block the dialogue between the Kurds and Damascus, and they are doing their utmost to prevent this dialogue from ever taking place. At the same time, they are saying ISIS is rearing its head in the territories that are not controlled by the Syrian government. This is some kind of a kingdom of crooked mirrors. Let’s not forget that ISIS was created by the United States in the wake of its aggression against Iraq which wreaked such havoc in that country that a large number of countries and peoples are still reeling from its aftermath. ISIS was created after the Baath party and the police and the army were disbanded. Paul Bremer was in charge of Iraq as governor-general back then, and no one gave him any instructions. Subsequently, ISIS was widely used and continues to be used by the United States to hinder the processes that will lead to a settlement in Syria with the full-fledged participation of the current government. Regime change as an objective has not gone anywhere. Based on these approaches, the Syrian government is unlikely to be seen gleefully accepting every invitation to come to Geneva. What happened yesterday and the day before yesterday during the Brussels online conference on refugees in Syria is a very serious problem, including for the UN. When, in November, the Syrian government invited its foreign partners, including the UN, to a conference designed to create proper conditions for the return of refugees to their homes, the Americans spared no effort to minimise the number of countries that would accept the invitation. However, some countries, such as the UAE and Algeria, sent their delegations. This is a blatant case of privatising international organisations. The United States used pressure to force the UN to attend the conference on the return of refugees to Syria only as an observer. That is, the UN was not a full-fledged participant. More recently, the European Union was holding a conference in conjunction with the UN (Antonio Gutteres personally designated the approaches). He said the right things. The only thing I don’t really understand is why the conference dedicated to the return of refugees to Syria, was attended only by an observer on behalf of the UN. In turn, the Brussels conference was dedicated to raising funds, primarily, in order to provide for the refugees staying in camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, as well as to help people in areas that are not controlled by the Syrian government. In other words, this conference was originally convened with a gross violation of international humanitarian law, which presupposes the solution to all issues of the kind in direct contact with the government of the state in question. This is a double standard. When you compare the Western response to the conference on the return of refugees to Syria and the way it was holding its own conference without even sending an invitation to official Damascus, put yourself in the shoes of President Assad and his government. Question: The 30th anniversary of the Madrid Conference, a landmark date for the Middle East, will be marked soon. This conference paved the way for the Middle East peace process and was followed by the Moscow conference that marked the creation of useful working groups for security, economic development and water resources. These issues have become highly relevant with the water crisis being aggravated. How realistic would it be to approve the initiatives to revive such working groups on water resources? Is it too soon to do that or not? Sergey Lavrov: I recently read an article in Kommersant that quoted your proposals. I believe it was very important at the time when the creation of working groups was agreed upon. It is possible that they could be useful today as well, although the time has passed and it is always important to adjust former ideas to the current environment. The water crisis will not be resolved. Obviously, when relations between Israel and Palestine are normalised, this issue will be discussed alongside the problems of refugees and other issues. We stand for direct talks. As I said, we are ready to provide a platform for talks. Several years ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked us to invite him and the President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas to meet in Moscow without any preconditions. We prepared the meeting, but then, unfortunately, our Israeli colleagues asked to postpone it several times. We did not want to be pushy, so we told the Israeli party that we would wait until they were ready. As I said, the restoration of the Middle East Quartet’s efforts is a reassuring sign. We firmly believe that it is realistic and even necessary to involve Arab countries in this process. The 4+4+2+1 mechanism is being discussed informally; 4 stands for the international quartet, plus four Arab countries that have normalised their relations with Israel (Egypt, Jordan, the UAE and Bahrain), 2 stands for the two conflicting parties, Israel and Palestine, and +1 is Saudi Arabia as the author of the Arab Peace Initiative approved by the UN Security Council. We feel that it would be beneficial to hold informal consultations in this format. If we reach any agreements that use the experience of the Moscow conference and the experience of those working groups, we would be happy. Question (retranslated from English): I represent the Swiss Centre for Global Dialogue. Every day that passes without a return to the JCPOA complicates the situation. Is it still possible to revive the JCPOA today, or are we saying it is the end of this comprehensive agreement? Sergey Lavrov: Let me summarise the matter briefly. There are several problems. First, who will take the initial step to get back on track? Iran demands that the Americans lift all sanctions, and after that Tehran will take a few days to restore all the parameters that the original JCPOA version required it to comply with. The Americans insist on first reviving the JCPOA, and then they will think about which sanctions to relax or what other things to do. The second problem is the JCPOA plus. That implies not just reviving the JCPOA, but also changing (extending, of course) the duration of the restrictions imposed on Iran, and adding the missile programme, and Iran's so-called ‘behaviour in the region’ into the bargain. I believe this is a dead-end approach. We support the JCPOA being restored as approved by the Security Council, without any modifications; at the same time, negotiations should begin on a security and cooperation system in and around the Gulf region. And missiles can also be discussed as part of that conversation – not only Iranian ones, but the missile problem in general. And how the countries in the region see their roles in various crisis situations – here, too, there are mutual concerns, not one-sided ones. I think this is a fair proposal. I also know that our French colleagues are mediating there. As for reviving the JCPOA in its primary original version, it is also important who will take the first step. We have proposed an informal roadmap in which both Iran and the United States will return, step by step, to respecting their commitments. Our French colleagues are helping to formulate the content of those steps, especially the first step, which should launch the process of reviving the JCPOA in full. I will not go into details now. There are no secrets. It is just negotiations are now underway and it is better not to make the details public yet. Question: Thank you for your explanation and for paying attention to these topics, the problems of the Middle East as a whole and, in particular, the problems of Palestine. People in Palestine appreciate the efforts Russia is making to stimulate the activity of the Quartet. In this context, I would like to say that this format skidded during the Trump administration. Instead, they started promoting a different format, the so-called “deal of the century.” I believe that the Quartet’s efforts have largely helped to foil the American plan. In this connection, we would like to speak about Israel’s annexation of the occupied Palestinian territories. A new international “climate” has developed since the US elections. The new US administration has sent out a number of signals, quite obvious ones, indicating that it was abandoning Trump’s strategy. They hinted that the new administration supported the two-state principle and would take efforts to restore peace. The Americans say they support the idea of holding talks, reopening a US consulate in Jerusalem and a Palestinian representative office in Washington, and resuming US assistance to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). They claim that there are some technical problems hindering this. There is also the Taylor Force Act and problems in the US Senate created by the designation of our organisation as terrorist. We also agree with you that the Quartet should be expanded, but you are aware that the Americans and Europeans are against this. They have proposed expanding the format of consultations to the 4+4+2+1 formula. Expanding the format is very important for the Palestinians. This would end the US monopoly on being the only guarantor of the agreements. Palestinians will never agree to resume US-led direct bilateral talks. This topic is not even on our agenda, that is, in this format. We hope that you will bring about a fundamental change so that the Quartet resumes its activities and, if possible, that the Palestinian question is discussed within the framework of the Quartet.  Sergey Lavrov: I have commented on all of this in great detail. I can only add that the 4+4+2+1 formula is a Russian initiative. It is a Russian idea, and it has not been rejected by the West, the UN, the EU or Palestinians. We are discussing it. First we waited for the outcome of elections in Israel. We know them now, and so we are turning off the standby mode. I believe that at this stage we can already start establishing contacts, but I also understand those who say that we can hardly hope Israel to take any stand, even if such contacts are established, until the domestic situation is settled. The “deal of the century” has indeed become a thing of the past, alongside the planned annexation of a considerable part of Palestinian territories. The dangers of the “deal of the century” scenario are obvious to Israel as well, including to the parties that make up the coalition. If that scenario had materialised, Israel would have to do one of the following two things: either grant citizenship to all those who are living in the annexed territories, which spells the demise of Israel as the Jewish state in the foreseeable future, or create an apartheid state as an alternative solution. I am quite sure that Israel, a civilised nation that remembers such examples from our past, is not ready for the latter. There is nothing more to say. We will continue working. We welcome the plans announced by the Biden administration, including reopening the Palestinian office in Washington and returning to the UNRWA. I agree with you that we must keep working towards this. Question: Mr Lavrov, what is our strategy for Afghanistan and our fundamental approach to settling the Afghan crisis? Sergey Lavrov: Our strategy is no secret. We are promoting it openly. It is an intra-Afghan congress attended by all of Afghanistan’s neighbours and other key regional countries. We call it the Moscow Format. It involves not only the direct neighbours of Afghanistan, but also all Central Asian states, China, Pakistan, India, Iran, Russia and the United States. We believe that it is a sufficiently representative structure capable of discussing any topics and finding solutions. On the other hand, it is reasonably compact compared to conferences that bring together between 30 and 40 countries, many of which are seen as potential financial donors for future peace agreements. The Troika was created as an instrument for promoting the Moscow Format. The Russia-US-China Troika is not a separate format but an auxiliary tool of the Moscow Format; we have developed a constructive business-like process within the framework of the Troika despite serious problems in relations between the three parties. Their representatives held several meetings. After that, we agreed to promote extended Troika consultations, to which we invited Pakistan and Iran. Pakistani representatives attended them, whereas Iran said it was willing to attend but, considering its problems with the Americans, it would be “awkward” for them to sit at the same table and hold discussions together with the Americans at this stage. We can understand this. On March 18, 2021, we held an extended Troika meeting in Moscow together with Pakistan and invited Jordan and Qatar to it as well. The most important thing is that representatives of nearly all sections of Afghan society attended that meeting: the Taliban, the Government, the High Council for National Reconciliation (chaired by Abdullah Abdullah) and representatives of the ethnic minorities (Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks). It was a very fruitful meeting. If the Doha talks meet the parties’ interests, we will actively support them. The Doha talks were marking time during the Moscow meeting. Following the consultations in Moscow, Afghans thanked us for holding them, because they believe that the contacts between the Afghan parties held on the sidelines of that event allow them to look to the future with optimism. A Ministerial Conference of the Heart of Asia – Istanbul Process on Afghanistan was held in Dushanbe on March 30, 2021. We are analysing its outcome. President Ashraf Ghani made an interesting statement there. If I understand press reports regarding this correctly, he is willing to organise elections, and if it all comes down to him, he is ready to “hand over authority.” We are reading the press, but it is more important to analyse the official text to see what it really means. We need peace in Afghanistan. We are ready to continue helping Kabul create and strengthen its security forces. They are currently the weak link, unable to fulfil counterterrorism tasks, let alone deal with drug-related problems without outside assistance. The drug business is flourishing there, and we know that the drug business is the main source of funding for terrorists. We would like to see this problem settled. This can only be done through intra-Afghan agreements. In February 2020, we welcomed the agreement reached between Washington and the Taliban. First of all, we believed that it could open the door to a ceasefire and put an end to fratricide, because the war against ISIS is not over yet. ISIS is becoming entrenched there, including in close proximity to Central Asia. Second, we hoped that the agreement would help launch talks and create common Afghan bodies of power. This depended on the withdrawal of US troops by May 1, 2021. Washington is now revising that commitment and, judging by how this process is being reported, the US troops and some of their NATO allies will remain in Afghanistan for some time. This will create a new situation. The Taliban have promised to respond accordingly if Washington unilaterally revises its commitments. Regrettably, many efforts have been made and many formats created; the course of action seems to be clear, but every time we see a new situation that either wrecks or seriously slows down these efforts. Question: There are two as yet unmentioned conflict hotspots left in the Middle East – Libya and Yemen. For Libya, there seem to be some bright prospects (at least, opportunities). Russia has played a significant role in their emergence, and everyone acknowledges this. In Yemen, the situation is rather sad, although there are some factors that might give rise to optimistic scenarios there. One of them was the UAE pulling out from hostilities and declaring its commitment to peace initiatives. Saudi Arabia is proposing initiatives, for example, to unfreeze fuel supplies. How might Russia’s position on these topics change? Sergey Lavrov: Regarding Yemen, we have been working very closely in a format that Russia helped create, with the West and other players. It operates from the Saudi capital. The Russian Ambassador to Yemen has been based in Riyadh for several years, since the crisis broke out and we transferred the Embassy there. He communicates regularly with other external actors who are helping the UN achieve a settlement. I hope that the latest changes will help us work more productively on this track. The Saudi Arabian initiative was discussed during my visit to Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. As Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan said, the UAE is now entering a trajectory where they do not want to have a single enemy, around their country or elsewhere in the world. We welcome this approach. The Saudi initiative received a lukewarm response from the Houthis. Next, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths gave it a try. He tried to incorporate the Saudi approaches into his ideas and at the same time take into account the Houthis’ interests. One of the components of his initiative, which seems to be shared by Saudi Arabia, is a reopening of the airport in Sana'a along with the port of Hodeidah. I think there is work to be done there. We are in contact with all parties and are trying to encourage them to reach an agreement. As for Libya, some processes there began after the Berlin Conference and have now resulted in agreements. All of them were welcomed, although there were some pitfalls. Many still express concern because those agreements were reached by a 75-member forum in Geneva, a format created by acting Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Libya Stephanie Williams. Even at that stage, Libya did not fully understand the criteria by which those 75 people were chosen. The announcement of specific names for the Presidential Council members and for the head of government came as an even greater surprise. Nobody expected such election results. Maybe that was good, a surprise for everyone. I have spoken with the head of the Libyan Presidential Council Mohammad al-Menfi and Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah. I looked at their track record – both are quite experienced people. We assume that there is an agreement, reached in parallel with the appointment of those interim leaders, to hold elections on December 24, 2021. I do not know how feasible the specific date would be in the Libyan context. A few years ago, the elections were also scheduled for an exact date and that never worked out. But we will do everything to make it work. We believe the elections should be held in such a way as to satisfy all Libyan political forces and heavyweights such as Fayez al-Sarraj, Khalifa Haftar, Khalifa al-Ghawil and our other colleagues who have come to Moscow more than once. It is imperative that the interests of the Libyan National Army leaders and representatives of the Gaddafi regime be taken into account. Everyone is aware of this now. Such inclusiveness would help launch a sustainable peace process at the earliest opportunity. We will do our best to help. We have been accused of not doing anything in Libya, or not doing what we should be doing. We are ready to cooperate constructively, but we always ask other parties not to forget where this crisis came from and how it ultimately happened – it was NATO aggression in violation of the UN Security Council resolution. The flows of refugees now pouring into Europe are a direct result of what was done. The same holds true for the flows of weapons and terrorists, crossing Libya to move southward into the Sahara-Sahel zone where they continue to cause trouble. When solving immediate problems, it is also important to draw conclusions for the future. Iraq has been devastated, and now they are trying to put it back together with great difficulty. The same is happening in Libya. They tried to do it in Syria as well. With all due respect to all the calls to us to “let bygones be bygones”, we do need to remember the bygones, not in order to hurt someone emotionally, but in order to avoid suffering that entails losing hundreds of thousands of lives in the future. We are being invited to discuss the Libyan refugee problem (or other refugee flows provoked by the Libyan aggression), and before that, we were asked to sign a document that contained a commitment to ‘shared responsibility’ for resolving refugee problems. We apologised and said we had not created this problem and were not going to share the blame for what happened. During these discussions at international platforms, the question was raised as to how the EU could solve the refugee and illegal migration problem in such a way as to address the root cause, not the symptoms. A question was asked – why won’t the EU cancel duties on agricultural products from Africa? These are being taxed, if I understand it correctly. But, in line with the EU’s own agricultural policy, they do not want competition in the food markets because there is already oversupply there. It is a complicated topic. If the duties were lifted, it would have given a significant impetus to agriculture and the food industry, including through exports to African countries, and would have created additional jobs. This is just one example. There are many cases where the international community is concerned about the symptoms, not the disease or the essence of the problem. Question: The Biden-Blinken team seems to act in some ways more professionally in the Middle East. There are signs of a realistic policy. You have spoken in detail about the Palestinian track. Can we also expect any shifts from this team, towards greater realism in relation to the Syrian Kurds, for example? Sergey Lavrov: It is a challenging issue. Apart from Syria, there is also a regional dimension to it. A year and a half ago, I was in Erbil. The Iraqi Kurds, the Barzani clan expressed concerns about how the Kurds situation in neighbouring Syria could develop, and were eager to share the experience of coexistence, cohabitation within one state if they were given some authority, somewhere between cultural and national autonomy. It is a complicated topic. It is painful, too, also because there is no unity within the Syrian Kurds. There are groups there that do not hide their cooperation with the Kurdistan Workers' Party. There are other groups that the Americans are trying to reconcile with various movements that are friendly to them. Turkey is giving a hostile reception to everything that is happening. As far as I understand it, they are in a dialogue with the Americans to find compromises. The Americans are trying to convince them not to dismiss everyone as terrorists. But for us, it is fundamentally important (this was repeatedly mentioned in documents signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan) that we, together with Turkey, firmly advocate Syria’s unity and territorial integrity. We recently held a new trilateral consultation between the foreign ministers of Russia, Turkey, and Qatar in Doha. A joint statement was adopted that clearly reiterated that commitment. It also stipulated the unacceptability of any attempts to encourage separatism in Syria. The dialogue between the Government and the Kurds is not easy. It is not sustainable. But there are contacts. When Donald Trump announced the pullout from Syria, the Kurds immediately asked us to try to help them build bridges with Damascus. Two days later, Trump changed his mind or someone said he had changed his mind. And the Kurds immediately lost interest in contacts with Damascus and reinstated contact with the Americans as the main ‘guarantors’ of their well-being. We are in contact with various Syrian groups. We recently received Ms Ilham Ahmed, a co-chair of the Executive Board of the Syrian Democratic Council, who visited Moscow. We have contacts with Mazloum Abdi, the Commander-in-Chief of the Syrian Democratic Forces. We are ready to help. But love cannot be forced, and they are still hesitating between working out long-term and stable agreements with Damascus and hopes that the Americans (who decided to stay after all) will help somehow. The Americans, meanwhile, have banned everyone from supplying any economic goods or even humanitarian aid to the territories controlled by the Government. They are busy developing the eastern bank of the Euphrates where they are located. They are creating local authorities there, using the proceeds from selling their loot such as hydrocarbons, grain, etc. They are also insisting that Syria's Arab neighbours invest in those territories. The open pursuit of this kind of policy naturally raises serious questions. If their strategy is to establish, if not heaven on earth, then a good and prosperous life on the eastern bank, while making every effort to ensure that people in the rest of country (controlled by the Government) become impoverished and overthrow the hateful regime, then we can probably conclude what kind of goals the United States have pursued, at least until recently. No big changes have been noticed so far, but I assume their policy is yet in the making. I spoke with many of my colleagues about the US Caesar Act. Few agree that this was the right move. In fact, it prohibits any business with Damascus and is written in such a way as to make any step you take, even with the best intentions and with mediation purposes, can entail secondary sanctions against you. I hope the signals Washington is receiving now (and I know that they are coming from some states directly interested in stabilising Syria) will be heeded and will produce an effect. Question: We are witnessing a frozen conflict taking shape in Syria. In your opinion, what are the dangers of maintaining the status quo? Sergey Lavrov: It could lead to the disintegration of the country, which would be tragic, including, in part, due to the Kurdish factor, which will immediately become a regional issue. The consequences are unpredictable. We are trying to avoid this scenario. I agree that it looks like a frozen conflict. Question: One of the previous questions was related to the dialogue between Iran and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. There is a Russian plan and a Chinese one. Iran says it is ready to begin the dialogue. What is standing in the way? Sergey Lavrov: I already spoke about this. There is also a French proposal on patrolling the Strait of Hormuz. Nobody says no, but the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf still does not have a consensus on the readiness to such a dialogue with Iran. This is a crucial aspect. Everything else, such as configurations and external players, is not a problem. I think it would be much easier to deal with these issues than to ensure the readiness of all the six Arab nations of the Persian Gulf to start a direct dialogue with Iran, as we hope, without any preconditions. There has been some progress. I discussed it in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and in Qatar. I felt that Riyadh was also contemplating moving in this direction. I do not want to take wild guesses, but this is the sense I got. Question: What can you tell us about the development of Russia-Turkey relations in the context of tensions in Idlib? What solutions can be found there? Will they be permanent or temporary? Sergey Lavrov: Russia-Turkey relations are strong at the top level and have a substantive agenda. We have many joint projects. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has commented on them more than once. He always emphasises that we do not have a common position on many issues, and that we sometimes have serious differences. That said, we appreciate our relations because we can always find a solution with our Turkish colleagues that suits both them and us. This is typical for the meetings of our presidents. I can also confirm this as regards meetings at the foreign minister-level. We have a protocol on Idlib that our presidents agreed upon a couple of years ago. It is being fulfilled slower than planned but our Turkish partners confirm all their commitments under this protocol, including the disengagement of the armed opposition members that cooperate with Turkey from Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham and other terrorists who continue shelling Syrian army positions and try to attack our Hmeimim base from the Idlib zone. Now, regarding what has been done, Turkey removed its observation posts from the territories left by opposition members. The protocol envisaged this move. Now work is underway to implement in full the agreement on the M-4 motorway. This agreement provides for establishing a security zone running six km to the north and south. There should be no armed opposition groups in this zone and Russian-Turkish joint convoys must regularly patrol it. Some progress was achieved on this road but then the process stalled. Now we are redressing this situation. This will be done, but eventually the bottom line is to disengage the above forces to prevent the terrorists from using people as shields and to eliminate the terrorists. There is no alternative to this. There is one alarming point, though. It started under the Donald Trump administration when US Special Envoy for Syria James Jeffrey said in public that Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham is not that bad after all. He did this at a time when the UN Security Council officially listed it as a terrorist group and tried to sell this idea to the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen’s team. This is an alarming point that confirms what we discussed a few minutes ago. It is for a reason that America complains about the revival of ISIS on government-controlled territories. As for our relations with Turkey, they are not easy. They are difficult, but it is always better to negotiate something with a person that can influence a specific situation and has different views. Our Western colleagues talk about “a ruled-based world order.” It reflects a clear trend whereby the West has to promote its approaches in universal formats, which are sometimes opposed by Russia, China and other countries. They find it more comfortable to discuss such issues with their own associates. They agree on something, present these agreements as decisions of the international community and demand that every country abide by them. We have already discussed the French initiative to create a partnership against impunity as regards chemical arms although the OPCW already exists. What is the goal of the proposed partnership? There are also initiatives on freedom of information even though UNESCO has agencies that deal with this issue. There are initiatives on protecting human rights but in parallel, the EU creates unilateral mechanisms for sanctions. Thus, the partnership created outside the UN is supposed to accuse someone of violating the rights it has established. The EU then declares who is guilty and imposes sanctions on them. This is just a closed-door deal. It is important to prevent approaches like this from being used in any situation. The assumption that it is possible to come to terms with terrorists is highly alarming. At this point, we are waiting for Washington to put its team on Syria together. We had diplomatic contacts in addition to the de-conflict mechanism used by the military. We are not evading these. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4660109
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
April 3rd, 2021
|
#277 |
|
Senior Member
|
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview given to Channel One’s Bolshaya Igra (Great Game) talk show, Moscow, April 1, 2021
1 April 2021 - 15:00 Vyacheslav Nikonov: The word “war” has been heard increasingly more often lately. US and NATO politicians, even more so the Ukrainian military, have no trouble saying it. Do you have more reasons to be concerned now than ever before? Sergey Lavrov: Yes and no. On the one hand, the confrontation has hit bottom. On the other, deep down, there’s still hope that we are adults and understand the risks associated with escalating tensions further. However, our Western colleagues introduced the word “war” into the diplomatic and international usage. “The hybrid war unleashed by Russia” is a very popular description of what the West perceives as the main event in international life. I still believe that good judgment will prevail. Vyacheslav Nikonov: Recently, the United States has ratcheted the degree of confrontation up to never-before-seen proportions. President Joe Biden said President Vladimir Putin is a “killer.” We have recalled Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov. Sergey Lavrov: He was invited for consultations. Vyacheslav Nikonov: Hence, the question: How do we go about our relations now? How long will this pause last? When will Mr Antonov return to Washington? Sergey Lavrov: What we heard President Biden say in his interview with ABC is outrageous and unprecedented. However, one should always see the real actions behind the rhetoric, and they began long before this interview back during the Barack Obama administration. They continued under the Trump administration, despite the fact that the 45th US President publicly spoke in favour of maintaining good relations with Russia, with which he was willing to “get along,” but was not allowed to do so. I’m talking about the consistent degradation of the deterrent infrastructure in the military-political and strategic spheres. The ABM Treaty has long since been dropped. President Putin has more than once mentioned how, in response to his remark that George W. Bush was making a mistake and there was no need to aggravate relations, the then US President said that it was not directed against Russia. Allegedly, we can take any steps that we deem necessary in response to the US withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. Allegedly, the Americans will not take these actions as directed against them, either. But then they started establishing anti-missile systems in Europe which is the third missile defence position area. It was announced that it was built exclusively with Iran in mind. Our attempts to agree on a transparency format received support during the visit to Moscow by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, but were later rejected. We now have a missile defence area in Europe. Nobody is saying that this is against Iran now. This is clearly being positioned as a global project designed to contain Russia and China. The same processes are underway in the Asia-Pacific region. No one is trying to pretend that this is being done against North Korea. This is a global system designed to back US claims to absolute dominance, including in the military-strategic and nuclear spheres. Dimitri Simes can also share his assessment of what is said and written in the United States on that account. A steadfast course has now been taken towards deploying intermediate and shorter-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region. The INF Treaty was discarded by the Americans on far-fetched pretexts. This was not our choice. In his special messages, President Vladimir Putin suggested agreeing, on a voluntary basis and even in the absence of the INF Treaty, on a mutual moratorium with corresponding verification measures in the Kaliningrad Region, where the Americans suspected our Iskander missiles of violating restrictions imposed by the now defunct treaty, and at US bases in Poland and Romania, where the MK-41 units are promoted by the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, as dual-purpose equipment. To reiterate, this rhetoric is outrageous and unacceptable. However, President Putin has reacted to it diplomatically and politely. Unfortunately, there was no response to our offer to talk live and to dot the dottable letters in the Russian and English alphabets. All of that has long since gone hand-in-hand with a material build-up in the confrontational infrastructure, which also includes the reckless eastward advance of NATO military facilities, the transformation of a rotational presence into a permanent presence on our borders, in the Baltic States, in Norway, and Poland. So everything is much more serious than mere rhetoric. Vyacheslav Nikonov: When will Ambassador Antonov return to Washington? Sergey Lavrov: It’s up to President Putin to decide. Ambassador Antonov is currently holding consultations at the Foreign Ministry. He has met with the members of the committees on international affairs at the State Duma and the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly. He has had conversations at the Presidential Executive Office as well. It is important for us to analyse the current state of our relations, which did not get to this point overnight, and are not just because of this interview, but have been going this way for years now. The fact that inappropriate language was used during President Biden’s interview with ABC shows the urgency of conducting a comprehensive analysis. This does not mean that we have just been observers and have not drawn any conclusions over the past years. But now the time has come for generalisations. Dimitri Simes: Now that I am in Moscow, after a year in Washington, I see a striking contrast between statements by the leaders of the two countries. I think you will agree that when officials in Washington talk about relations with Russia, their pattern is simple and understandable: “Russia is an opponent.” Sometimes, Congressmen are more abrupt and call it “an enemy.” However, political leaders from the administration still call it “an opponent.” They allow cooperation with Russia on some issues that are important to the US, but generally it is emphasised that militarily Russia is “the number one opponent,” while politically it is not just a country with objectionable views but a state that “tries to spread authoritarian regimes throughout the world,” that “opposes democracy” and “undermines the foundations of the US as such.” When I listen to you and President of Russia Vladimir Putin, I have the impression that in Moscow the picture is more complicated and has more nuances. Do you think the US is Russia’s opponent today? Sergey Lavrov: I will not go into analysing the lexicon of “opponent,” “enemy,” “competitor” or “rival.” All these words are juggled in both official and unofficial statements. I read the other day that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that for all the differences with Russia and China, the US does not have anything against these countries. As for what the US is doing, it is simply “promoting democracy” and “upholding human rights.” I don’t know how seriously one can take this description of US policy towards Moscow and Beijing. However, if they are promoting democracy, practice must justify theory. George W. Bush announced that democracy was established in Iraq in May 2003. Aboard an aircraft carrier, he declared that Iraq’s liberation from its totalitarian regime was completed and democracy was established in the country. There is no point in elaborating. It is enough to mention the toll of the US-unleashed war – hundreds of thousands of people. We should also remember that the “rule” of the notorious Paul Bremer resulted in the birth of ISIS, which was rapidly joined by members of the Baath Party, employees of Saddam Hussein’s secret services, who had lost their jobs. They simply needed to provide for their families. ISIS emerged not because of ideological differences. Relying on US mistakes, the radicals actively used this fact. This is what democracy in Iraq is all about. “Democracy” in Libya was established by bombs, strikes and the murder of Muammar Gaddafi which was accompanied by Hillary Clinton’s cry of admiration. This is the result: Libya is a black hole; refugee flows bound for the north are creating problems for the EU that does not know what to do about them; illegal arms and terrorists are being smuggled through Libya to the south, bringing suffering to the Sahara-Sahel Region. I do not wish to describe what the Americans feel towards the Russian Federation. If their statements about us being their “opponent,” “enemy,” “rival” or “competitor” are based on the desire to accuse us of the consequences of their reckless policy, we can hardly have a serious conversation with them. Dmitri Simes: When officials in Washington, the Joseph Biden administration or Congress, call Russia an opponent and emphasise this, I think they would not agree that it is simply rhetoric. Nor would they agree that it is designed solely for domestic consumption. The Biden administration is saying that the US did not have a consistent policy towards Russia and that former US President Donald Trump let Russia “do everything the Russian Government of Vladimir Putin wanted.” Now a new sheriff has come in and is willing to talk in a way he sees fit without paying much attention to how Moscow will interpret it; and if Moscow doesn’t like it, this is good. This is being done not to evoke discontent, of course, but to show that Russia is finally realising that it cannot behave like this anymore. Is there any chance that this new Biden administration policy will compel Russia to show some new flexibility? Sergey Lavrov: The policy you mentioned, which is promoted in the forms we are now seeing, has no chance to succeed. This is nothing new: Joseph Biden has come in, started using sanctions against Russia, toughening rhetoric and in general exerting pressure all along the line. This has been going on for many years. The sanctions started with the Barack Obama administration and, historically, even earlier. Like many other restrictions, they have simply become hypertrophied and ideology-based starting in 2013, before the events in Ukraine. Dimitri Simes: They will tell you, and you know this better than I do, that this policy has not been pursued sufficiently consistently, that it was not energetic enough, and that now they and their NATO allies will get down to dealing with Russia seriously so as to show us that we must change our behaviour fundamentally not just when it comes to foreign policy but also our domestic policy. Sergey Lavrov: Dimitri, you are an experienced person, you know the United States better than Vyacheslav Nikonov or I do. What else can they do to us? Which of the analysts has decided to prove the practicability of any further pressure on Russia? How well do they know history? This question is for you. Dimitri Simes: Mr Minister, you probably know that I am not a fervent supporter of the policy of the Biden administration. Sergey Lavrov: I am asking you as an observer and an independent expert. Dimitri Simes: In my opinion, the Biden administration still has a sufficient set of tools it can apply against Russia, including new sanctions, the promotion of NATO infrastructure in Europe, a more “harmonised” pressure on Russia together with its allies, the advance of the US policy not closer to the traditional Old Europe (I am referring to Britain and especially to France and Germany) but to Poland, and lastly, the supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine. It is now believed in Washington that it is very important to show Russia that its current policy in Ukraine has no future and that unless Russia changes its behaviour it “will pay a price.” Sergey Lavrov: My views on the current developments range from an exercise in absurdity to a dangerous play with matches. You may know that it has become trendy to use examples from ordinary life to describe current developments. All of us played outdoors when we were children. Kids of different ages and with different kinds of family upbringing played in the same places. In fact, we all lived as one big family then. There were two or three bad boys on every street; they humiliated other kids, disciplined them, forced them to clean their boots and took their money, the few kopecks our mothers gave us to buy a pie or breakfast at school. Two, three or four years later, these small kids grew up and could fight back. We don’t even have to grow up. We do not want confrontation. President Putin has said more than once, including after President Biden’s infamous interview with ABC that we are ready to work with the United States in the interests of our people and the interests of international security. If the United States is willing to endanger the interests of global stability and global – and so far peaceful – coexistence, I don’t think it will find many allies for this endeavour. It is true that the EU has quickly towed the line and pledged allegiance. I regard the statements made during the virtual EU summit with Joe Biden as unprecedented. I don’t remember ever hearing such oaths of allegiance before. The things they said publicly revealed their absolute ignorance of the history of the creation of the UN and many other events. I am sure that serious politicians – there are still some left in the United States – can see not just futility but also the absurdity of this policy. As far as I know, the other day 27 political organisations in the United States publicly urged the Biden administration to change the rhetoric and the essence of the US approach to relations with Russia. Vyacheslav Nikonov: This is unlikely to happen. I believe that your example with “tough guys” on every street is too mild. The United States has gone beyond the pale, let alone the street ethics, which have always been respected. We can see this happening in Ukraine. President Biden is one of those who created modern Ukraine, the Ukrainian policy and the war in Donbass. As I see it, he takes the situation very personally, and he will try to keep it in its current tense state. How dangerous is the situation in Ukraine in light of the ongoing US arms deliveries, the decisions adopted in the Verkhovna Rada on Tuesday, and the statements made by the Ukrainian military, who are openly speaking about a war? Where do we stand on the Ukrainian front? Sergey Lavrov: There is much speculation about the documents that the Rada passed and that President Zelensky signed. To what extent does this reflect real politics? Is it consistent with the objective of resolving President Zelensky’s domestic problem of declining ratings? I’m not sure what this is: a bluff or concrete plans. According to the information published in the media, the military, for the most part, is aware of the damage that any action to unleash a hot conflict might bring. I very much hope this will not be fomented by the politicians, who, in turn, will be fomented by the US-led West. Once again, we see the truth as stated by many analysts and political scientists, including Zbigniew Brzezinski, being reaffirmed. They look at Ukraine from a geopolitical perspective: as a country that is close to Russia, Ukraine makes Russia a great state; without Ukraine, Russia does not have global significance. I leave this on the conscience of those who profess these ideas, their fairness and ability to appreciate modern Russia. Like President Vladimir Putin said not long ago; but these words are still relevant, – those who try to unleash a new war in Donbass will destroy Ukraine. Vyacheslav Nikonov: The US and Western diplomacy have definitely accomplished one thing: they put Russia and China in one boat. Indeed, we have already become strategic partners in deeds not just in words. You have just come back from China. You go there more often than once a year, for sure. During this trip, was there anything new that you sensed from Chinese leadership, which has recently come under unprecedented and rude attacks from the Americans? How strong are the bonds that are being established between Russia and China? How high is the bar that we can or have already reached in our relationship? Sergey Lavrov: Like Russians, the Chinese are a proud nation. They may be more patient historically. The Chinese nation’s national and genetic code is all about being focused on a historical future. They are never limited to 4 or 5- year electoral cycles. They look further: “a big journey begins with a small step” and many other maxims coined by Chinese leaders go to show that they appreciate a goal that is not just on the horizon, but beyond the horizon. This also applies to reunifying Chinese lands – incrementally and without haste, but purposefully and persistently. Those who are talking with China and Russia without due respect or look down on us, or insult us are worthless politicians and strategists. If they do this to show how tough they are for the next parliamentary election in a couple of years, so be it. Winston Churchill famously said that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” A big debate is underway about which one is more effective. The coronavirus infection has taken the debate up a notch. To what extent the Western democracies have shown themselves capable of opposing this absolute evil and to what extent countries with a centralised, strong and “authoritarian” government have been successful. History will be the judge. We should wait to see the results. We want to cooperate; we have never accused anyone of anything, or mounted a media campaign against anyone, even though we are being accused of doing this. As soon as President Putin announced the creation of a vaccine, he proposed establishing international cooperation. You do remember what was being said about Sputnik V. At first, they said that it was not true, and then that this was propaganda and the only purpose was to promote Russia’s political interests in the world. We can see the ripple effect of this. On March 30, Vladimir Putin held talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron. We sensed a more realistic commitment to cooperate rather than try to engage in “vaccine discrimination” or “vaccine propaganda.” Getting back to the heart of the matter, by and large, no one should be rude to other people. But what we see instead is a dialogue with a condescending tone towards great civilisations like Russia and China. We are being told what to do. If we want to say something, we are asked to “leave them alone.” This was the case in Anchorage when the discussion came to human rights. Antony Blinken said that there were many violations in the United States, but the undercurrent was clear – they would sort it out themselves and are already doing so. However, in Xinjiang Uygur, Hong Kong and Tibet, to name a few, things should be approached differently. It’s not just about a lack of diplomatic skills. It runs much deeper. In China, I sensed that this patient nation, which always upholds its interests and shows a willingness to find a compromise, was put in a stalemate. The other day, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson made a relevant comment. I don’t remember that ever happening before. With regard to whether we are being pushed into the arms of China or China is being pushed into our arms, everyone remembers Henry Kissinger’s words that the United States should have relations with China which are better than relations between China and Russia, and vice versa. He saw this historical process and knew which way it could go. Many are writing now that the United States is committing a huge strategic mistake making efforts against Russia and China at a time, thereby catalysing our rapprochement. Moscow and Beijing are not allying against anyone. During my visit to China, Foreign Minister Wang Yi and I adopted a Joint Statement on Certain Issues of Global Governance in Modern Conditions, where we emphasised the unacceptability of violating international law or substituting it by some secretly drafted rules, of interference in other countries’ internal affairs and, overall, everything that contradicts the UN Charter. There are no threats there. The documents signed by the leaders of Russia and China always emphasise the fact that bilateral strategic interaction and multifaceted partnership are not directed against anyone, but focus exclusively on the interests of our peoples and countries. They build on a clear-cut and objective foundation of overlapping interests. We look for a balance of interests, and there are many areas where it has been achieved and is being used for the benefit of all of us. Vyacheslav Nikonov: Have you noticed any change in China’s position? It is clear that Beijing is in a very tight situation. How far is China willing to go in its confrontation with the United States? It is obvious that they are now responding harshly. Sanctions are being introduced against Beijing, so it responds with tough counter-sanctions, and not only against the United States, but also against its allies, who are also joining the sanctions. Europe has joined this confrontation. Are we prepared to synchronise our policies with China, for example, our counter-sanctions, as we did with Belarus? Do we have a common strategy to counter the increasing pressure from the so-called alliance of democracies? Sergey Lavrov: There is a general strategy, and I just mentioned it. Along with the Statement signed during my visit to China, a comprehensive Leaders’ Statement was adopted last year. Now we are preparing the next document, which will be signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, and dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the Treaty on Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation. Our strategic treaty will be renewed. These documents spell out our line of conduct. We are not planning, and will not plan, any schemes to retaliate for what they are doing to us. I do not think that we will synchronise our responses to any new sanction acts against China and Russia. Our level of cooperation continues to grow qualitatively. You mentioned military alliances. There is popular speculation out there that Russia and China might conclude a military alliance. First, one of the documents signed at the highest level underscored that our relations are not a military alliance, and we are not pursuing this goal. We regard NATO as an example of a military alliance in the traditional sense, and we know that we do not need such an alliance. NATO clearly breathed a sigh of relief after the Biden administration replaced Donald Trump. Everyone was happy to again have someone to tell them what to do. Emmanuel Macron still occasionally tries to vainly mention the EU’s strategic autonomy initiative, but no one else in Europe even wants to discuss it. It’s over, the boss is here. That kind of alliance is a Cold War alliance. I would prefer thinking in terms of the modern era where multi-polarity is growing. In this sense, our relationship with China is completely different from that of a traditional military alliance. Maybe in a certain sense, it is an even closer bond. Vyacheslav Nikonov: The “alliance of democracies” will be created. This is obvious although fewer people in Russia still believe that it’s about democracy. In its election, its attitude towards freedom of the media and opportunities to express opposing views, the US has made it very clear that it has big problems with democracy. Europe also gives examples that compel us to doubt its efforts to promote a strong democratic project. After all, it still holds a position as a player under a big boss. Vladimir Putin had a conversation with Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel via videoconference on March 30 of this year. Without Vladimir Zelensky, by the way. This is the Normandy format minus Ukraine, which resulted in a bitter response from Kiev. They discussed a broad range of issues. Meanwhile, you have said more than once that our relations with the EU are frozen or absent altogether. Do you mean that we stay in contact or that contact is possible with individual EU members but not with the EU as a whole? Sergey Lavrov: This is exactly the case, and this was also mentioned during the March 30 talks, and during Vladimir Putin’s conversation with President of the European Council Charles Michel. We are surprised that this assessment offends the EU. This is simply an objective fact. It took years to develop relations between Moscow and the EU. By the time the state coup in Ukraine took place these relations included: summits twice a year; annual meetings of all members of the Russian Government with all members of the European Commission; about 17 sectoral dialogues on different issues, from energy to human rights; and four common spaces based on Russia-EU summit resolutions, each of which had its own roadmap. We were holding talks on visa-free travel. It is indicative that the EU broke them off back in 2013, long before the crisis in Ukraine. As some of our colleagues told us, when it came to a decision on signing the proposed agreement, the aggressive Russophobic minority adamantly opposed it: Russia cannot receive visa-free travel status with the EU before Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova do. This is the entire background. What the EU did after that, braking all channels of systematic dialogue was a burst of emotion. They took it out on us because the putschists insulted the West by throwing out the document signed by Yanukovich and the opposition the day before, this despite the fact that Germany, France and Poland had endorsed this document. The first actions of the new authorities were to remove the Russian language from daily life and to expel Russians from Crimea. When Russian-speakers and Russians in Ukraine opposed this and asked to be left alone, a so-called “anti-terrorist operation” was launched against them. In effect, the EU imposed sanctions on us and broke off all communication channels because we raised our voice in defence of Russian citizens and ethnic Russians in Ukraine, Donbass and Crimea. We try to discuss issues with them when they start making claims against us. They probably understand this; I hope they are still seasoned politicians. But if they understand this but don’t want to consider it in their practical policy, it means that they are being charged with Russophobia or cannot do anything about the aggressive Russophobic minority in the EU.  Dimitri Simes: I believe when we talk about the EU, it’s important to look at what the EU is and to what extent it has changed compared to what it used to be and what it was supposed to be when it was founded. The EU was primarily designed as an organisation for economic cooperation. No political component was even envisioned at the start. It was about the EU contributing to European economic integration. The possibility was even mentioned of Russia playing some associated role in that process. But then they said the EU should also have some common values. At first, the idea was that those common values were the cement of the EU itself. Then a new idea emerged in Warsaw that it would be nice for those European values (since they are actually universal) to spread to other regions, as well as for Russia to respect them, or even to obey them. When I look at the EU’s approach to Ukraine, the conflict in Donbass and the demands to return Crimea to Kiev, it seems to me that the EU is becoming a missionary organisation. When you deal with crusaders, trying to reckon with them or appealing to their logic and conscience is probably useless. Do you not think that the EU has journeyed to a place where there are limited opportunities for partnership and great potential for confrontation? Or am I being too pessimistic? Sergey Lavrov: No, I agree with you, absolutely. This is a missionary style – lecturing others while projecting superiority. It is important to see this tendency, as it has repeatedly brought Europe to trouble. This is actually the case. Established as the Coal and Steel Community, then the European Economic Community – if you look at the EU now, look at their values, they are already attacking their own members like Poland and Hungary, just because these countries have somewhat different cultural and religious traditions. You said it originated in Poland. I actually forget who started this... Dimitri Simes: I first heard it from Polish delegates at a conference. Sergey Lavrov: Now Poland itself is facing the consequences of its ideas, only not outside the EU, but within the organisation. When anyone tries to impose any values on Russia, related, as they believe, to democracy and human rights, we have this very specific response: all universal values are contained in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights that everyone signed. Any values invented now, which they try to impose on us or other countries, are not universal. They have not been agreed upon by the entire international community. Even inside the EU, look at those street protests! A couple of years ago, they had protests in France in defence of the traditional family, the concepts of “mother,” “father,” and “children.” This lies deep. Playing with traditional values is dangerous. As to the EU once inviting Russia as an associate member, we never agreed to sign an association document. Now the same is being done with regard to the Eastern Partnership countries – Armenia, Ukraine, and Moldova. As for Russia’s relations with the EU, which Brussels destroyed, only one thing remained – the basic document on the terms of trade and investment. It was indeed the subject of negotiation between the Brussels Commission and the Russian Federation. This is a document that remains valid. We cooperate with individual countries, but not with the EU, because those were the terms agreed upon, and their practical implementation is going through bilateral channels. The only thing the EU is doing in this respect now is imposing sanctions and banning its members from fulfilling some parts of this agreement because they want to “punish Russia.” That’s it, there are no other ties. We are being told that we are deliberately derailing our relations (although the facts are simply outrageous), trying to shift our ties with Europe to bilateral channels, wanting to “split up” the European Union. We don’t want to split anyone up. We always say that we are interested in a strong and independent European Union. But if the EU chooses a non-independent position in the international arena, as we just discussed, this is their right. We cannot do anything about it. We have always supported its independence and unity. But in the current situation, where Brussels broke off all relations, when certain European countries reach out to us (we have not tried to lure anyone) with proposals to talk, to visit any of the sides and discuss some promising projects in bilateral relations, how can we refuse our partners? It is quite unfair (even a shame) to try to present such meetings as part of a strategy to split up the EU. They have enough problems of their own that split them up. Dimitri Simes: This is a philosophical issue in Russia’s relations with the EU. When the EU has imposed anti-China sanctions, China made a tough response. This was an unpleasant surprise for the EU and caused indignation. Meanwhile, Brussels does not expect such a response from Russia in the firm belief that Russia has no economic levers to oppose the EU. To my knowledge, Russia has not imposed any serious sanctions on the EU. This is an interesting situation. Russia supplies Europe with 33 percent of its gas. The figures for oil are about the same. I think during all this time Russia has proved convincingly that it won’t use energy for political leverage in Europe. Understandably, Russia has been interested in this, especially when it comes to the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. It seems to me that certain people in Europe have forgotten that if Russia does not do something, it doesn’t mean that it cannot do it, or won’t be compelled to do it if the EU’s pressure on Russia crosses a line. Do you think this is possible in theory? Or does Russia completely rule out such actions? Sergey Lavrov: You are saying (metaphorically) that they either have not read (which is most likely) or have forgotten the epic about Ilya Muromets who slept on the stove while nobody paid attention? This is not a threat. We will never use energy supplies or our oil and gas routes in Europe to this end. This is a position of principle regardless of anything else. Dimitri Simes: Even of you are disconnected from SWIFT and everything else? Sergey Lavrov: We will not do that. This is a position of principle for President of Russia Vladimir Putin. We will not create a situation where we force EU citizens “freeze.” We will never do this. We have nothing in common with Kiev that shut down water supplies to Crimea and takes delight in it. This is a disgraceful position in the world arena. Frequently accusing us of using energy as an instrument of influence, as a weapon, the West keeps silence on what Kiev is doing with water supplies to Crimea. I believe the provision of basic needs on which the daily life of common citizens depends, should never be an object of sanctions. Dimitri Simes: In this case, what do you mean by referring to “the phenomenon” of Ilya Muromets? Sergey Lavrov: It is possible to respond in different ways. We have always warned that we will be ready to respond. We will respond to any malicious actions against us but not necessarily in a symmetric manner. By the way, speaking about the impact of the sanctions on civilians, look what is taking place in Syria under the Caesar Act. My colleagues in Europe and, incidentally, in the region, whisper that they are horrified by the way this act has eliminated any opportunity to do business with Syria. The goal is clear – to stifle the Syrians to make them revolt and overthrow Bashar al-Assad. Now a few words about our and China’s responses to the European sanctions. After all, China also avoided suspending economic activity. It simply imposed sanctions on a number of individuals and companies that held certain anti-China positions. We are doing basically the same. Vyacheslav Nikonov: As we know, Ilya Muromets did not shut down oil and gas supplies. He used other methods that were often symmetrical. I think we also have a solid set of instruments. Don’t we exaggerate the importance of the EU in the modern world? It has an identity and there are European values. I know this since I have dealt with European MPs and experts for many years. However, I have the impression that there are two main values: the first one is the euro and the second is LGBT and 60 more letters that describe this notion linked with sexual identity, their presence, absence, or mix. The EU is undergoing a crisis – Brexit. Britain has left the EU. The economic crisis is very bad. Probably, in Europe it is worse than elsewhere. The economy has dropped by up to 10 percent in many countries. The vaccine-related crisis has shown that Europe cannot counter the virus and adopt a common policy. These problems are emerging at all levels. It cannot draft a common economic policy, migration rules, and so on. Maybe, we are really paying too much attention to Europe? Maybe we can act without looking back at this “falling” structure? Sergey Lavrov: But where are we paying too much attention to Europe? We have a very simple position that President of Russia Vladimir Putin has set forth many times: we do not feel hurt. As we know, hurt people get the short end of the stick, or as we say in Russia, hurt people are made to carry water, something we are short of in Crimea. We will always be willing to revive our relations, practically to raise them from the ashes, but to do this we must know what the EU is interested in. We will not knock on a locked door. They are well aware of our proposals, just as the Americans know our proposals on strategic stability, cyber security and many other things. We have said to all of them: “Our friends and colleagues, we are ready for this. We understand that you will have some reciprocal ideas but we have not yet heard them. As soon as you are ready, let’s sit down and discuss them, seeking a balance of interests.” Meanwhile, now we are being accused of neglecting policy on the EU, so I don’t think we are courting this alliance or exaggerating its importance. It determines its place in the world itself. We have already talked about this today. As for European values, we have many ongoing debates. Some people need European price tags more than European values. They want to travel there for shopping, recreation, buy some property and return home. As I said, our common values lie in our history, the mutual influence of our cultures, literature, art and music. They are great. Vyacheslav Nikonov: As for modern European culture and art, have they really… Sergey Lavrov: I am referring to our historical roots. Vyacheslav Nikonov: Because I think today’s Europe is pretty empty in terms of culture. Sergey Lavrov: There are some funny songs; we can listen to them in the car sometimes. Dimitri Simes: Speaking of relations with the United States, I would like to ask you a personal question because you lived and worked there for a long time when you were Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Of course, you have also been dealing with the US as the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation. I lived in the US for almost 50 years. Sergey Lavrov: Why past tense? Dimitri Simes: I am now in Moscow. When I look at the United States today, I have the impression that it is undergoing a cultural revolution. I think that if many people in the Joseph Biden administration or the Democrats in Congress are told this, they would not feel offended in any way. They will say that a cultural revolution is long overdue, that it is finally necessary to eradicate racism, give equal and not-so-equal prevailing opportunities to sexual orientation minorities because they were also discriminated against and to develop a true democracy that requires that all those who want to vote can vote. In practice, this means that millions of people will have an opportunity to vote without necessarily being US citizens at all. This is why the Democrats emphatically oppose a ban on voting on Sundays. As you know, there was never any voting in the US on Sundays. Sunday is called God’s day. The Democrats wanted Sunday elections so that buses could go to Afro-American churches and take people to the polling stations. Vyacheslav Nikonov: Why take them by bus? They can vote by mail. Dimitri Simes: Both options are available. Sergey Lavrov: Why not put a ballot box right in a church? Dimitri Simes: Exactly. Do you believe the United States is, in many respects, evolving into a different country and that this is not necessarily an irreversible process, though a momentous one? Also, would you agree that this process is not a purely American internal matter because it goes hand in hand with the emergence of a new revolutionary ideology that requires that American values spread around the world and that these American models should not be resisted as they are now in Russia and China? Can this lead to an existential conflict? Sergey Lavrov: We will talk about this but, first, let me finish what I was saying about European culture. Here is, in my view, a telling illustration of the state of European culture today. If we talk about revolutions, including a cultural revolution, the Eurovision contest speaks volumes. What they are doing now to the Belarusians is repulsive. This is sheer censorship that goes like this: since we – nobody knows who exactly, some anonymous individuals – fancy that we heard some innuendoes in your song, we will not allow you to take part in the contest unless you have another song. But then the same fate befalls another Belarusian song. What does this have in common with art, culture or democracy? As for a cultural revolution in the United States, I do feel that processes which deserve to be described like this are unfolding there. Everyone probably wants to eradicate racism and, as for us, we have never had any doubt regarding this. We were trailblazers behind the movement to secure equal rights for all people, regardless of the colour of their skin. However, we should beware that we do not slip into another extreme, the one we have observed during the Black Lives Matter events, and into aggression against white people, white US citizens. The other day we marked an international day designated to increase awareness of this issue and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, speaking at a General Assembly meeting, said that the previous year had been a year of the most serious and numerous manifestations of white supremacy. I have asked to be given the full text of his speech, as I want to understand what specifically he had in mind. If this is about having a sense of a trend you talked about and the willingness to follow this trend, it is lamentable. This is still the United Nations Organisation and not a venue for promoting US concepts, some US trends. As for why they need this, yes, they want to spread this to the rest of the world. They have a huge potential to achieve this goal. Hollywood has also started to change its rules, so that everything reflects the diversity of contemporary society, which is also a form of censorship, art control and the way of imposing some artificial restrictions and requirements on others. I have seen black actors perform in Shakespeare’s comedies. The only thing I do not know is when a white actor will play Othello. You see, this is nothing less than absurdity. Political correctness reduced to absurdity will lead to no good. The other tool is social networks and internet platforms, as well as servers located in the United States. The US flatly refuses to discuss ways of either making internet governance more democratic or establishing common rules regulating social networks for the sake of avoiding the recurrence of the situation with TikTok and other social networks we encountered during the recent events in Russia, including the spread of abominable information, like personal abuse, pedophilia and many other things. We have already approached TikTok and other social networks about the need to establish elementary rules of respect and propriety but the Americans are unwilling to make these types of rules universal. In Anchorage, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken lectured the Chinese on human rights, ethnic minorities and democracy in China. Indeed, Mr Blinken said they [in the US] also had to address certain issues in this field but they would do it on their own. During talks with the Americans – the same goes for the Europeans – as soon as you start offering to discuss ways of democratising international relations or the supremacy of law on an international scale, they invariably get away from the subject. They want to replace international law with their own rules, which have nothing in common with the supremacy of law globally, on a universal scale. I already talked about large-scale rallies in France in defence of traditional family values. It appears that to secure the rights of one group of people, the rights of another group have to be infringed upon. That is, promoting these values around the world is not an end in itself, but rather a tool for ensuring their dominance. Dimitri Simes: Richard Nixon once told Nikita Khrushchev that there would be no true harmony or true partnership between the Soviet Union and America unless the Soviet Union stops spreading its ideology. And that was a big problem in the Brezhnev era, I must say, because they discussed a détente while at the same time supporting a continued international class struggle. As I see it, Leonid Brezhnev was doing it without much conviction. But now, things have turned the other way around. Now the collective West is eager to proliferate its ideology and values. And they seem to be doing so with far greater conviction and perseverance than the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev ever tried. Does this pose a risk of collision? Sergey Lavrov: Under Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet Union saw no threat to its existence. One can argue whether that stance was far-sighted enough, but that is how it was. Today’s West senses a threat to its dominance. It is a fact. So all those wiggling moves, including the invention of some ‘rules’ – as in the rules-based international order, something the West has come up with to replace the UN Charter – they reflect precisely this tendency. I agree that we have swapped positions, or rather the Soviet Union and the modern West have. I don’t think this will offend anyone since this is not a big secret. I spoke with Rex Tillerson when he was US Secretary of State. He is a thoughtful and experienced politician and diplomat. It was good to work with him. We disagreed on most things, but we always wanted to continue the dialogue to bring our positions just a little bit closer at least. When he first told me they were concerned about Russia’s interference in some elections, I said they had not proved anything to us yet, and all we heard was accusations. When they began to accuse us of interfering in their elections, we repeatedly proposed using the special channel we had for exchanging information about threats to information networks and organisations. They refused. We had repeatedly offered dialogue even before that, when Barack Obama was president, from October 2016 until Donald Trump's inauguration in January 2017. They always refused. I pointed out to Tillerson that they had in fact directly stipulated in legislation that the US State Department should spend $20 million a year to support Russian civil society and promote democracy. That was not even a suspicion on our part as they did it openly (for example, the Ukraine Support Act). There was nothing to prove – they just announced that they would interfere. He told me that was totally different. I asked him why, and he said because we promoted authoritarianism, and they spread democracy. That was it. Dimitri Simes: And he said it with sincere conviction, didn’t he? Sergey Lavrov: Yes. Vyacheslav Nikonov: Mr Lavrov, naturally, this policy leads to a drastic polarisation. The polarisation of international relations is a dangerous thing. We remember the early 19th century, and the early 20th century. It always ended in wars. The Americans, losing their global dominance, will create (they have already announced this) a new ‘alliance of democracies.’ I mean create American and pro-American alliances, compelling everyone else to make their choice. This polarisation will increase. What will this mean for the world and for the alliances where Russia is a member? I mean BRICS (which I think they will try to split up), the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). How far can this go? How dangerous is it? Sergey Lavrov: This is a deliberate policy and an extension of the agenda we are talking about – about the United States promoting democracy and spreading benefit. The Americans and Europe are very active (but the Americans are especially active) in Central Asia. They are trying to create their own formats such as C5+1. Russia is also part of a 5+1 format in Central Asia, in addition to the SCO, CIS, EAEU and CSTO – one that involves the foreign ministers of five Central Asian countries and your humble servant. That format is useful. True, the volume of economic ties that the US and the EU are now building with Central Asia is still incomparable with our economic interpenetration, but they are pursuing an unambiguous goal to weaken our ties with our allies and strategic partners in every possible way. The numerous initiatives around the Afghan reconciliation and around the Indo-Pacific region envision Central Asia’s reorientation from its current vector to the South – to help rebuild Afghanistan and at the same time weaken its ties with the Russian Federation. I could talk for a long time about the Indo-Pacific region and the Indo-Pacific concept. That multi-layered initiative is aimed at hindering China's Belt and Road Initiative and limiting the Chinese influence in the region, creating constant irritants for that country. There have been some slips about creating an ‘Asian NATO.’ Although in the US interpretation the Indo-Pacific region is described as ‘free and open,’ the chances that positions will be worked out through an equal or open process there are slim. It is already obvious that it isn’t ‘open’. China has not been invited; rather, that country is declared a target for containment. We have not been invited either, which means the attitude to Russia is similar. I would say those are long-term trends. We are talking about this frankly with our neighbours and closest allies. I am confident that they understand all these threats. None of them even considers the possibility of anyone telling them who to talk or not talk to. It is their sovereign right to choose their partners. The term ‘multi-vector’ has become semi-abusive, but we are not giving up the multi-vector approach. We are open to cooperation and friendship with everyone who is ready for relations based on equality, mutual respect, compromise and balance of interests. That our Western colleagues are clearly abusing this approach, especially in post-Soviet countries, is an obvious fact. Vyacheslav Nikonov: Is it possible to avoid the actual military scenario in these circumstances? Isn't it time to create an alliance of free countries given the role reversal that has taken place in the modern world? An alliance, perhaps, of genuine democracies that will oppose the ongoing all-out attack? Sergey Lavrov: We will not get involved in this kind of political engineering. Russia is committed to the United Nations. When France and Germany put forward the effective multilateralism concept, we asked them what it meant. There was silence followed by joint articles written by the foreign ministers of France and Germany stating that the European Union is an example of effective multilateralism, and everyone needs to adapt to the European processes. Our question why the readily available and universal UN multilateral platform is not a good option remained unanswered. However, the answer is there, and we mentioned it more than once today. They are making up the rules that the international order is supposed to be based on. Dimitri Simes: Mr Minister, we have taken up much of your time and we appreciate it. But we cannot let you go without asking you one more personal question. What is it like to be Russia’s Foreign Minister in this rapidly changing world? You have worked in several completely different eras. When you were Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN in New York, it was a period of Russia’s “romantic infatuation” with the United States, though perhaps not quite on the terms that were beneficial for Russia. In the early 21st century, Russia was in search of partnerships. Well, then we got what we are witnessing now. How do you, a person who, in many ways, is the architect of this era, a witness and a participant of this process, find your work in this very complex role? Sergey Lavrov: To put it short, I never get bored. That is if we are talking about the different eras in my career. We all lived in these eras, and we have seen these transitions. You asked me earlier whether the United States has changed. It has. A lot. Dimitri Simes: Have you changed? Sergey Lavrov: Probably. It's not for me to say. A person perceives the environment as a constantly evolving process. People grow up, get smarter or dumber, but they have no way of seeing it. Dimitri Simes: Do you think we have all become disappointed in many ways, but we have grown, too, as a result of these experiences, and, of course, in the first place, a person holding such positions as yours? Sergey Lavrov: This is true, of course. How can this not influence the formation of a person? The personality never stops to evolve. It is something that lasts until the end of our lives. Those revolutionary developments had a strong influence on me. I believe the 9/11 attacks were the turning point in the American life. I was in Manhattan, in New York, at the time, and I felt that odour. I was having a hard time trying to make a phone call, because the phones went dead. Since then, New York has become a different city. This free city, living its own life around the clock and enjoying it, became wary and started looking over its shoulder to see if there was someone around who could hurt it. This suspicion then spread deeply into American society. There were probably serious reasons for that. I have to commend the US intelligence services, because since then, apart from the Boston Marathon, which we had warned them about, there have been no other terrorist attacks. However, wariness and aloofness can still be felt. Perhaps, there are people who want to take advantage of this in order to do things that you just mentioned. If 11 million Americans become eligible to vote, welcome to the one-party system, Back in the USSR. Vyacheslav Nikonov: Mr Lavrov, thank you very much for the interview. Now that we are within the historic walls of the Foreign Ministry's Mansion on Spiridonovka, a place where history and great diplomacy were made, including the diplomacy of the great powers, I would like to wish us all the return of diplomacy. If it comes back, as President Vladimir Putin is conveying to President Joe Biden, in the form of a live-stream dialogue, then The Great Game will be at your service and at the service of the two presidents. Sergey Lavrov: Thank you. President Biden has already said that diplomacy has returned to US foreign policy. Your dream has come true. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4662534
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
April 3rd, 2021
|
#278 |
|
Senior Member
|
Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 1, 2021
1 April 2021 - 21:21 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meetings with Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramov and Foreign Minister of Armenia Ara Ayvazyan ................................................................................................................ Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming Republic of India and Islamic Republic of Pakistan visits On April 5-6, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay a working visit to New Delhi and will hold talks with his Indian counterpart Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. The foreign ministers will discuss the current status of bilateral relations, the preparations for the upcoming 2021 summit, including cooperation in battling the COVID-19 pandemic. They will also review key subjects regarding regional and global affairs and will assess approaches towards Russian-Indian cooperation on the international arena, including at such multilateral venues as the UN, BRICS, where New Delhi presides this year, and the SCO. On April 6-7, 2021, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay a visit to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and will hold talks with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Shah Mahmood Qureshi. There are plans to conduct a detailed discussion on the current status of bilateral relations and their development prospects, including opportunities for further strengthening trade, economic and counter-terrorism cooperation. They will conduct an in-depth exchange of views on topical matters concerning the regional and international agenda and will focus on the Afghan problem and cooperation at multilateral venues, including the UN and the SCO. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Kazakhstan On April 7-8, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay a working visit to the Republic of Kazakhstan. On April 8, 2021, he is to hold talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan Mukhtar Tleuberdi. The foreign ministers will discuss a wide range of bilateral cooperation matters and cooperation at integration associations, primarily the EAEU, the CSTO and the CIS. They will be focusing on joint efforts to cope with the consequences of the coronavirus infection, as well as both foreign ministries’ efforts to help accomplish tasks, set by the presidents of Russia and Kazakhstan, to reinstate and expand the entire volume of bilateral interstate ties during the post-COVID period. The parties will exchange opinions regarding prospects for Eurasian integration and cooperation in the Caspian region. The Ministers will compare their assessments of what is happening in Central Asia in the context of security risks stemming from instability in neighbouring Afghanistan and the activities of radical extremist organisations at the approaches to the region. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Egypt On April 12, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will visit the Arab Republic of Egypt. He will meet with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and will hold talks with Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry to discuss the development prospects of bilateral cooperation in the political, trade, economic, cultural, humanitarian and other areas, as well as the developments in the Middle East and North Africa. Russia lays special emphasis on maintaining active cooperation with Egypt, one of the country’s leading partners in the Middle East and North Africa. Bilateral relations have always been based on friendship, respect and consideration for each other’s interests. In Cairo, Sergey Lavrov will also meet with Secretary-General of the Arab League Ahmed Aboul Gheit. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s working visit to the Islamic Republic of Iran On April 13, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will make a working visit to Tehran at the invitation of Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. The two ministers will discuss the entire range of issues on the bilateral agenda, first of all, its trade and economic part related to the implementation of key joint projects in energy and transport, as well as prospects for boosting cultural and humanitarian ties between Russia and Iran, and further cooperation in preventing the spread of the coronavirus. They will also continue the exchange of opinions on a series of current international issues, including the situation around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as well as the developments in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen and the Persian Gulf region. 25th anniversary of Russia and Belarus Unity Day The Day of Unity between the Peoples of Russia and Belarus is marked on April 2. On this day 25 years ago, the Treaty on Establishing the Community of Russia and Belarus was signed, followed by the Treaty on the Creation of the Union State of Russia and Belarus in 1999. These documents outlined the goals of Russia-Belarus cooperation based on the 100 years of common history and friendship between the friendly peoples of our countries. Twenty-five years ago, Moscow and Minsk decided to create a politically and economically integrated community in order to unite the material and intellectual potential to boost the economy, create equal terms for improving living standards and spiritual development (according to Article 1 of the 1996 Treaty). The progress in building the Union State is obvious. Many things have become part of everyday life and are self-evident. These are equal rights of the citizens of Russia and Belarus to healthcare, social protection, pensions, education, freedom of movement, residence and freedom of employment. Our countries efficiently implement important joint initiatives in trade, the economy, defence, culture, research, technology and other areas. In the global arena, we realise initiatives that are important both for the sustainable development of Russia and Belarus, and for the entire global community. Together we face up to the common challenges and threats. We are ready to work with our Belarusian friends on the entire range of issues on the bilateral agenda in the interests of sustainable development of our two countries. Serious terrorist attack in Mozambique On March 25, a group of over 100 terrorists affiliated with ISIS attacked Palma in the northern Cabo Delgado province of Mozambique. Dozens of people were killed, including some foreigners working at a nearby gas project. Many people are missing. According to the Russian Embassy in Maputo, there are no Russians among the victims. As of March 30, 2021, the Mozambican armed forces and national police regained control of the city. Terrorist raids have been reported in several other regions of Cabo Delgado. Overall, the situation in Mozambique is stable. We condemn this heinous crime, which claimed the lives of civilians and offer our deep condolences to the victims’ loved ones. We wish a rapid recovery to those who were injured. Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Bolshaya Igra (The Great Game) talk show Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an interview to the Bolshaya Igra (The Great Game) talk show today. The text and video of this is available on the Ministry website. A considerable part of the interview was devoted to modern global realities, including interaction between the biggest international players. It was an interesting and gripping conversation on the current state of international relations. US State Department’s annual human rights report The US State Department has recently published the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. In our opinion, these reports, which are devoted to the situation in other countries, should instead focus on the developments in the United States itself. A cursory inspection of this large but essentially hollow document, including the chapter on Russia, leaves one with a strong feeling of déjà vu. Just as all the other annual reports, this one is full of double standards when it comes to human rights practices in other countries, which are cynically divided into “the good” and “the bad” based on their compliance with the US strategic guidelines or the championing of their own views on the way of living and development. The list of “penalised” countries and stereotyped complaints against them is obvious even without reading the report. It is ironic that the US administration has pledged to “stand against human rights abuses wherever they occur, regardless of whether the perpetrators are adversaries or partners.” In my opinion, Washington should first of all deal with such practices at its own agencies, such as the Pentagon and other security agencies, whose activities throughout the world have led to worldwide rather than individual human rights abuses. We have taken note of the Report on Human Rights Violations in the United States in 2020, released by the Information Office of the State Council of China. This is not a stereotyped paper; it provides facts proving that the US authorities have lost control of the situation in the country. The aggravating factors included the spread of the coronavirus infection, political disorder, interethnic conflicts and social division. The US authorities do not study the human rights situation in their own country, but the topics of social division and human rights abuses are indeed mentioned in political rhetoric depending when this suits the speakers. But they never take up this problem in international intercourse. The Chinese report pointed out that “people’s confidence in the American democratic system dropped to the lowest level in 20 years.” Judging by Washington’s reaction, its superiority complex only grows stronger when the matter concerns human rights standards. We noted on numerous occasions that the United States and its allies are interfering in the internal affairs of other states increasingly more actively, openly and blatantly. As Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pointed out in a recent interview, not just the United States but also the West as a whole have lost the ability of using traditional diplomacy and are instead relying almost entirely on sanctions. They are promoting an ideologically-laden agenda aimed at preserving their domination by restraining the development of other countries. This policy runs contrary to the objective trend in international affairs. Using the protection of human rights as a pretext, the United States and its minions are imposing illegal sanctions, which have little in common with reality and which are damaging human rights in other countries. This is absurd, but it is a vital component of the current US foreign policy. To help Washington formulate a more objective picture of human rights practices across the world, we suggest that the American side should read the analysis of the human rights situation in the United States in the Russian Foreign Ministry’s annual reports that are available on its website. A great deal of interesting factual material is to be found there. We once again urge Washington to start tackling its own shortcomings, including in the field of human rights, instead of promoting double standards and mentorship. Migration crisis in the United States Here is a specific example of what we mean when we say that the United States has more important problems than some global reviews of the human rights situation in the world. The growing migration crisis in the United States on the border with Mexico is about to reach the scale of a humanitarian disaster. This situation requires immediate intervention by the United Nations, other international bodies, human rights NGOs and everybody who sympathises with the suffering of children being held in horrible conditions. The reality is shocking: almost 18,000 minors are being held in overcrowded deportation detention centres that are not designed for lengthy stays. There is a shortage of funding and resources to provide them with normal accommodation that would be at least slightly similar to human conditions. These children were essentially put in cages with deplorable sanitation and spreading coronavirus. They have to sleep on the floor. Their parents are literally storming the southern borders of the United States. The number of detainees has already exceeded 100,000. US media estimate that every day, up to 1,000 people cross the border illegally. Almost 50,000 illegal immigrants, including a significant number of criminals and drug mules, entered the country in February and March. Law enforcement agencies expect that the number of refugees at the border will reach 1 million within a year. We believe that in its treatment of migrants in detention centres, especially minors, Washington is seriously violating its international human rights obligations – not only Article 6 (right to life) and Article 7 (freedom from torture) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but also the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The conditions in which illegal immigrants are held can be, based on many characteristics, considered as torture and inhumane treatment. This situation certainly deserves attention of respective international supervisory bodies such as the Human Rights Committee and the Committee Against Torture. We hope that the US media will not only pay close and objective attention to this issue but make it their priority. We know how American society is obsessed with human rights and their protection in other countries. It would be nice if the freedom of speech in the United States served a good cause and benefited the American people as well. I understand that this issue is less of a concern for the Department of State. Certainly, it is not Alexey Navalny’s leg, which every briefing focuses on. But after all, the lives of 18,000 children are worth some attention. Let me remind you that the United States remains the only country in the world that is not a member of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a universal instrument on children’s rights protection. Also, the United States has joined neither of the two major agreements on migration control adopted by the United Nations, neither the Global Compact on Refugees nor the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. With its games around the historically sensitive issue of migration in the United States, the new administration seems to have opened Pandora’s box. The humanitarian crisis breaking out in front of the entire world – in a country that is claiming the role of the biggest advocate of democratic values and human rights – is a telling example of how election campaign doublespeak in pursuit of partisan goals and empty promises to take in all those in need have turned into human suffering while authorities remain helpless. Making children hostage to domestic political feuds is shameful and unacceptable. US interference in other countries’ domestic affairs Now is the time to touch upon US interference in the internal affairs of other states. The United States itself and the current US administration prompted us to do this. “Interference” is a politically correct term that does not fully reflect the substance of the matter. This is not just about Washington's interference in the internal affairs of other states during various historical periods. This is about blood on the hands of the US administrations. We have already touched upon US interference in the domestic affairs of other countries. Clearly, most of the US intervention occurred during the Cold War. However, they have things to ponder during this historical period as well. Back then, in an effort to strengthen their geopolitical positions, ideological opponents in the international arena regularly tried to put in“their” government in a particular country. After WWII ended, the situation with “bloc-based” division in Europe was more or less clear, and the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America became arenas for “action.” The political motives of the US administrations were often tied in with economic interests. The goal of gaining control over transport corridors, natural resources and minerals, primarily oil and gas, was customarily disguised as “good goals,” such as human rights, the promotion of democracy, security concerns, etc. Restraining mechanisms, such as the UN, have not always been an effective barrier to stop the attempts made by the White House to redraw the political map of the world. I’m not going to let the briefing become a “lecture on the international situation,” but I would still like to note a number of facts related to US interference in the internal affairs of other states over the past decades, and the outcomes. A military coup took place in Chile on September 11, 1973 with the direct support of the United States. As a result, democratically elected President Salvador Allende was toppled and dictator Augusto Pinochet came to power for 17 years. His rule involved executions by firing squads, brutal repressions and a deep split in Chilean society. The vigorous activities of the US special services “helped” the military government in Guatemala to come to power in 1982. In 1983, there was a military intervention in Grenada. The Americans also financed anti-government militants in Nicaragua in 1984. The fact of open US interference in the internal affairs of this state was confirmed by the ruling of the International Court of Justice in The Hague on July 27, 1986, as part of the notorious Iran-Contra affair. The year 1989 was marked by an armed US intervention in Panama. One of the reasons behind it was that the United States was unwilling to comply with the agreement, signed by it in 1977, on transferring control over the Panama Canal to the government of Panama after 20 years (in 1999). President Manuel Noriega was arrested. He has worked closely with the CIA since the 1950s and was one of the main channels for the delivery of illegal weapons, military equipment and funds for the US-backed forces throughout Latin America. Noriega was taken to the United States and convicted of racketeering, drug trafficking and money laundering. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison and served 17 years in a US prison. According to different sources, anywhere from 515 to several thousand people perished during the US intervention in Panama. After the invasion began, the UN Security Council voted to condemn the US invasion of Panama, but the United States, Great Britain and France used their veto power to block the resolution. The Organisation of American States condemned the US invasion of Panama and demanded the withdrawal of US troops from that state. Cuba remains a case of Washington's egregious behaviour in the international arena. For more than 60 years now, the Cuban people have been defending their right to their own path of development and repelled direct attacks from Washington against their sovereignty. As you may recall, it all began with an attempted direct invasion of Cuba by US mercenaries in 1961. It went down in history as the Bay of Pigs Invasion. The anti-Cuban blockade imposed by Washington back in 1960 and the subsequent numerous administrative measures to toughen the sanctions regime against Havana, including the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act and the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, to name just a few, were an act of an open economic aggression, despite numerous condemnations of this policy by the international community, including the UN General Assembly.The inclusion by the US Department of State of Cuba in the list of countries supporting terrorism represents an absolutely unscrupulous game of double standards. Venezuela is a modern-day example of open and cynical US interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. For several years now, we have been witnessing the attempts to topple the legitimate government there by using crippling sanctions, inciting the national armed forces to a military coup and organising a cross-border armed invasion. In 1992, in Angola, the United States provided funding for a campaign of a “preferred” and “suitable” presidential candidate Jonas Savimbi. However, he lost the race. Before and after the elections, the US provided him with military assistance to fight the legitimate government. As a result of the conflict, 650,000 people died. The official reason for supporting the rebels was to fight the communist government. In 2002, the United States reaped the sought-after benefits for its companies, and Jonas Savimbi was no longer needed. The United States demanded that he stop the hostilities, but he refused. As one US diplomat put it, the problem with the puppets is that they don't always twitch when you pull their strings. As a result, Savimbi was killed in a clash with the government troops. In 1998, the United States claimed that the Al-Shifa factory in Sudan produced chemical weapons commissioned by terrorist Osama bin Laden. The site came under a cruise missile attack and was later found to be an ordinary pharmaceutical factory that produced 90 percent of malaria medication in Sudan. The missile strike killed tens of thousands of people eventually as there was nothing to treat them with. The most interesting part is that a journalistic investigation conducted by the New York Times in 1999 discovered that the decision to launch a missile attack on the factory was taken without sufficient grounds. Moreover, the US State Department senior officials actually forced the Assistant Secretary of State to destroy a report compiled by State Department intelligence analysts that showed inconsistency of the arguments in favour of bombing a pharmaceutical factory. We covered extensively the role of the United States and its satellites in the Balkans in the 1990s-2000s, including at the previous briefing. Without going into details (you are aware of them, they are terrifying), I will say that the goal of the United States was to make the political regimes in the Balkan countries as loyal to Washington as possible. A toolkit was tested and used, which later served as a template for imposing the political will of Washington and its allies in other parts of Europe, including the former Soviet republics. In Yugoslavia, public disgruntlement was fueled and channeled by difficult socioeconomic circumstances in which the country was at that time, and largely due to the notorious “external wall of sanctions” which the West hasn’t lifted despite the existing arrangements following the conclusion of the Dayton Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995. The unification of scattered opposition forces and movements was encouraged from outside. As a result, after the uncertain results of a tacky election campaign under direct offhanded pressure coming from the United States and its European supporters, as well as street protests, Slobodan Milosevic was forced to resign. Iraq. 2003. The official reason for the US invasion of this country (without the UN Security Council’s sanction) was the connection of Saddam Hussein's regime with international terrorism, as well as the CIA information about the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Subsequently, it all turned out to be a lie and a deliberately planned campaign. Colin Powell with a vial that he was holding sitting at a UN Security Council meeting became the symbol of it. Saddam Hussein was captured by US troops and executed by the verdict of the Iraqi Supreme Court in December 2006. A Shiite-dominated government came to power. US troops stayed in Iraq for almost nine years. According to Western media, the documented number of civilian casualties from 2003 to 2011 (when the US troops were withdrawn from that country) amounted to 100,000-300,000 people. A number of NGOs give a figure that is several times higher. Libya. 2011. UN Security Council Resolution No 1973 of March 17, 2011 authorised a military intervention in Libya under the pretext of protecting the local population from dying as a result of suppression of the armed opposition by the Libyan authorities. This enabled NATO, primarily the alliance leaders, to conduct air strikes against the regime that had existed for over 40 years. As a result of the civil war, the leader of the Libyan Jamahiriya Muammar Gaddafi was toppled and killed in October 2011. According to the British newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, 20,000 people died or were killed on both sides, including civilians. The number of refugees in the conflict area amounted to 180,000. According to the 2012 UN report, the Sahel region countries - Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Tunisia - were negatively affected by an influx of refugees in the wake of the Libya crisis. Whenever the Americans deem it possible to suspect, accuse or call someone a name, they should think about their own history. They don’t need to read books, it requires effort. All they need to do is look at their hands. The climate agenda promoted by the US administration and Russia’s main priorities in charting the environmental policy Official Washington’s return to the Paris Agreement became one of the first foreign policy decisions made by President Joe Biden in January 2021. This step shows the new US administration’s commitment to make a speedy conversion to environmentally friendly patterns and in fact to try and lead the global nature conservation movement. I would like to remind you that the United States officially withdrew from the Paris Agreement on November 4, 2020, that is, several months before the sensational US return to this multilateral agreement. In our opinion, the Paris Agreement is a reliable international legal foundation for a long-term climate policy. At the same time, we would like to express the hope that Washington’s future policy in this sphere will be more or less predictable and will not be subject to time-serving interests of the American political establishment. The Russian Federation attaches great importance to environmental protection and is an important party to international processes in this sphere. Moreover, Russia makes a substantial contribution to establishing global nature conservation mechanisms. At the same time, we advocate a depoliticised and responsible, rather than high-sounding, approach to the subject of global climate change. We believe that every state has the right to choose its own green transformation model, depending on national socio-economic development conditions. We regard any attempts to impose artificial environmental standards as counterproductive. We believe that the subject of nature conservation is one of those areas where Russian and US approaches towards a number of issues on the relevant international agenda may coincide or be similar. Russia has repeatedly stated that cooperation is the only way to tackle the complicated nature conservation challenges we face today. We voice our readiness for equitable dialogue at expert and political levels. Appointment of former UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Agnes Callamard as Secretary General of Amnesty International We have noticed reports in the foreign media on the appointment of Agnes Callamard, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), as Secretary General of Amnesty International, a prominent human rights NGO. We wish Dr Callamard success in her new role and hope that in her duties, she will be guided not by the interests of a specific group of countries but by objective facts and true aspirations of people. The Russian Federation has always believed that the appointment of new experts to roles in special procedures in HRC are non-politicised and are made in due course, with no specific response from countries required. However, recently, there has been a clear tendency for international human rights NGOs and monitoring mechanisms of intergovernmental human rights bodies to function as communicating vessels: human rights experts simply “flow” from one position to another. Amnesty International and some of the largest international NGOs are major “suppliers” of workforce for subdivisions of the UN Secretariat and vacancies in UN supervisory bodies, including HRC special procedures. One of Amnesty International’s former chiefs, Irene Khan, is now HRC Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of freedom of opinion and expression. Reverse movements also happen, and the appointment of Agnes Callamard is just one example. One question seems justified in this respect: what objectivity can we talk about when evaluating the human rights situation in certain countries if “professional critics” of government bodies on behalf of civil society become HRC special rapporteurs? Incidents of influencing such organisations also take place. We consider this state of affairs as rather problematic, requiring close attention and discussion between governments. Former MI6 head Alex Younger’s statements on Western values Former Chief of the UK Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) Alex Younger said: “Our intention is for the Russian state to conclude that, whatever the benefits it thinks it is accruing from this activity, they are not worth the risk. We will do this in our way, according to our laws, and our values. We will be successful nonetheless, and I urge Russia or any other state intent on subverting our way of life not to underestimate our determination and our capabilities, or those of our allies…” Many people in Britain and the West in general have spoken about the values allegedly underlying their world. But we did not expect a MI6 official to join the chorus. On the other hand, we understand now where these values are created in Britain. First of all, we would like to know exactly what they mean. What are these values, which London is protecting and defending so courageously? Do they include torture and other grave human rights abuses committed during so-called counterterrorism operations in other countries, including those in which London was directly involved? I am referring to the UK militaries killing civilians in Afghanistan? Are you protecting these values? Your lies regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq we have already talked about today and the “misleading intelligence” for which Tony Blair later had to apologise? I would like to remind you that Mr Blair only apologised for the death of hundreds of thousands of peaceful civilians. Britain, which was one of the leading forces in the illegal and criminal Iraq war, has not offered any material compensation and has not assumed political or any other responsibility for the results of its activities. Is this the value you are protecting? Are the Iraq War documents, with proof of horrible crimes committed by UK military personnel against civilians made public by WikiLeaks, a value you are protecting? This is a bad idea. Does the UK law intend to do anything about the dozens of out-and-out crooks, some of whom are Russian citizens, who are living tranquilly in the United Kingdom? Are you protecting this value? Many promises have been made, including recently, but in fact the British financial hub has become a global laundry for criminal money from not only Russia but also other countries as well. Are you protecting this value? I would also like to say a few words about British values in the historical context. Many volumes have been written about London’s crimes committed during the colonial period. We gave considerable attention to this subject during one of our previous briefings. We spoke a lot about that, especially during the April 19, 2018 briefing. Maybe the British intelligence officer was referring to the value of free speech? Indeed, this is a value that deserves to be protected. Let’s take a look at the situation in this sphere. No, facts show that this is not a valued subject in his home country, and that it is only being cynically exploited. In fact, it has been trampled underfoot. Infringements on the freedom of speech and media plurality are normal practice in the UK. Archival documents show that it has always been like this. During my briefing on February 26, 2021, I spoke about open discrimination against the Russian media outlets during various events, for example, the 2019 Global Conference for Media Freedom which Russian media outlets were not allowed to attend. We recently drew your attention to the publication of the so-called British Files, according to which the British government is financing through intermediaries some news outlets and bloggers in the Russian-language internet. As we could see from the documents, which nobody has contested, the objective is to create conditions for a regime change and to undermine Russia’s domestic and foreign policy. Major British media outlets and several PR companies are involved in this project. What about the UK’s main strategic partner, whose opinion London holds by, to put it mildly, and with whom it maintains a strategic union? What values underlie this tandem? Let’s take a look at the very recent events, because it would take us several years if we go deeper into history. I am referring to the election campaign in the country that loves so much to teach others when it comes to human rights and election standards. What should one do about the fact that approximately half of the Americans question the legality of the latest presidential election, according to American agencies? These people, who do not accept the election outcome, who have taken a stand based on what they see, hear and read, and who concluded that the Democrats “stole the election,” these people are being persecuted, expelled from the social media, their accounts are being blocked and they are condemned as “internal terrorists.” Criminal proceedings are initiated against them. Is this value worth protecting? Judging by what we can see and read, British society has taken a sceptical view of this. The more they claim that we are planning an attack or are pursuing an aggressive policy regarding Western values, the more questions we will be asking about these values, because we cannot understand what they are. UK Department of Education appoints Free Speech and Academic Freedom Champion We have noted a recent decision made by the UK Department of Education to appoint a Free Speech and Academic Freedom Champion at British universities. I thought it was just another special rapporteur or representative on foreign problems. But this is not what it is. The UK is not just facing a problem; it is experiencing a collapse of freedom of speech. As part of new competence, the relevant UK Government representative will monitor cases of violation of freedom of speech in universities and student unions and fine any entities that restrict students or academics in putting forward their opinions and choosing research areas. The Freedom Champion will also be in charge of reviewing cases of dismissal of academic staff or other sanctions against them, if these sanctions have become a manifestation of infringement on freedom. This decision is presented as a response to the growing demand from the teaching corps and the expert community, demanding to curb the “left” intellectual culture flourishing in British universities, especially in aggressive forms such as woke culture and cancel culture. The depressing situation concerning freedom of speech at UK academic institutions has been confirmed by recent sociological research. According to Civitas, the British Institute for the Study of Civil Society, 35 percent of universities in the UK are in the “red” group in terms of freedom of speech, 51 percent, in the “yellow” group and only 14 percent have no censorship. So overall, it can be said that the fostering of strange values (someone would call them neoliberal, other tend to not qualify them at all) in Britain is beginning to entail consequences that baffle even representatives of their own establishment. The only news that is to some extent reassuring is that London has finally realised the scale of the problem and decided to address its own ambitious task for a change. Let’s see what the result will be. On the other hand, what does Downing Street expect from British universities when everyone sees how the UK Government treats freedom of speech? Consider the situation with Julian Assange who was persecuted for political reasons. No one was satisfied with his journalistic activities. Everyone clearly sees how freedom of speech is being manipulated, and that the British political establishment directly controls a number of tabloids. What do you expect from academics and students if the Government sets the tone? Canada imposes more sanctions on Russia Canada imposed another round of sanctions on Russia over Crimea’s reunification with Russia. All this goes to show official Ottawa’s morbid stubbornness as it continues to deny objective reality. There may be only one way to help deal with it. You need to bid farewell to the illusion that the residents of Crimea, who voted to return to their home harbor, can be forced to go back on their historic choice. The Canadian authorities’ attempts to tell sovereign countries how to live and what values to uphold undermine Canada’s reputation and plunge it into confrontation with an increasing number of significant international players. Russia will not leave Ottawa’s attack unanswered. We are now working on the response. In this context, we consider the PRC’s decision to impose sanctions on Canadian officials and bodies for interfering in China’s internal affairs fully justified. It’s ludicrous to see sanctions imposed by a number of Western countries. In particular, by Australia, when it learned about the existence of the Kerch Bridge in 2021. That’s nothing short of comical. I understand that Australia lies far away, but there are media, social networks, communication devices and instant messengers. Taking several years to learn about a major construction project is a bit too much. It’s ridiculous. On the other hand, why should we be surprised? If they listened to the statements made by Kiev, which said that there would be no bridge, then they probably had a hard time believing that it was actually there. Now, they learned the news. Another historical fake by the Kiev authorities Yet another fabrication by the Ukrainian peddlers of propaganda came to our attention courtesy of the Foreign Ministry’s office in Simferopol. On March 25, a two-minute video about Crimea’s history was posted on an official Ukrainian Twitter account. The footage included images that have absolutely nothing to do with the peninsula. The Kiev regime’s propaganda machine has fallen into the same old trap. On earlier occasions, in their materials about the tragedy of the Crimean Tatar people, they used a photograph showing Nazis shipping Jews from the Lodz ghetto in occupied Poland to a death camp. This is what the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington gloriously did in 2019; in 2020, the Permanent Representative of the United States to the OSCE picked up this affliction from them. This time, our Kiev colleagues did not disappoint us, either. They took a picture from the Washington, D.C.-based Holocaust Memorial Museum’s archives, adding a caption about the “deportation by the Stalinist regime.” The fake was exposed and covered by the media, including in Crimea. The perpetrators of the fake video promptly removed it from Twitter. If this kind of fakes make it into public space, think about what they are saying during the talks, what kind of “reports” are sent to international organisations, and what kind of backstage fables the Kiev regime is coming up with when it describes today’s Crimea. Montenegro and North Macedonia join the EU sanctions against Russia EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell announced on March 30 the accession of a number of non-EU states to another round of anti-Russian EU sanctions that Brussels has come up with in the wake of the “Navalny case.” It is noteworthy that North Macedonia and Montenegro are among the countries whose unfriendly attitude has not surprised us for a long time now. Both Skopje and, more recently, Podgorica, have been assuring us of their desire to expand and strengthen good relations with Russia. In the case of Montenegro, to restore relations after a long period of degradation. They are talking about their willingness to create a proper environment for that. Along the way, they are trying to somehow clarify the reasons why they “had to” follow the Russophobic western course in stride earlier. They are citing the alleged requirement for the EU membership seekers to follow the EU foreign policy decisions and guidelines. In other words, to mechanically support the actions that had been decided without them. We are closely watching the attempts of our partners in North Macedonia and Montenegro to determine their policy in relation to Russia. Unfortunately, the “sanctions solidarity” shown by Skopje and Podgorica once again exposed our Balkan colleagues’ inconsistency and dependence. We remain open to a candid and equal dialogue based on mutual respect and mutual consideration of interests. The consumerist approach and awkward actions designed to fulfill opportunistic goals in favour of alliance with third countries just undermine trust and do nothing to promote bilateral relations with Russia. Decision by Lithuanian Court of Appeals on events of January 13, 1991 We are outraged by the final verdict issued by the Lithuanian Court of Appeals on the trumped up case of events of January 13, 1991. In this case former Soviet servicemen, party and government officials were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment on charges of crimes that they never committed. Among the defendants are Russian citizens, Yury Mel and Gennady Ivanov, who were tried in person and whose punishments were upgraded. The guilt of all the defendants has not been proven, and neither the presumption of innocence, the prohibition of retroactive application of the law nor the right to a fair trial has been observed. In this respect, I want to ask specialised human rights and international organisations, including those mentioned today, how they regard the reluctance of the Lithuanian authorities to find the real murderers of the victims of the January 13, 1991 tragedy in Vilnius? This shameful trial took place in a country fighting for the protection of human rights in neighbouring countries. As for its own territory, which is regarded as a “space of democracy,” the authorities, judging by the Lithuanian leadership, feel free to commit any unlawful acts and manipulate justice crudely and cynically for political purposes. We voice our resolute protest against the violation of the rights of Russian citizen Yury Mel, who has been locked up for over seven years now and who is to spend three more years in a Lithuanian prison. We will assist his defence attorneys in filing appeals to the Supreme Court and in other appeals to international courts. We would like to draw the attention of human rights activists to the use of justice for punitive purposes in Lithuania and to the creation of unbearable conditions of imprisonment for a person known to be innocent and who also suffers from a serious chronic illness. Will there be any tweets by EU countries’ heads of state on this matter? Maybe there will be a dedicated news conference by special rapporteurs? Will there be worldwide protests against such actions organised by NGOs that are so concerned about human rights? We will see. We call on the repressive Lithuanian regime to immediately free the wrongly convicted Russian citizen Yury Mel. These criminal actions by Vilnius will have consequences. Senegal Independence Day On April 4, the Republic of Senegal will mark 61 years of independence. Senegal overcame a difficult stage of colonial dependence and slavery in its history. In 1444, members of a Portuguese expedition became the first Europeans to reach the mouth of the Senegal River. Later on, the country came under the control of the Dutch, the British, and then the French. In the middle of the 17th century and in the first half of the 18th century, Senegal became a base for colonising West Africa, and the Island of Gorée became a regional centre for the slave trade. The Senegalese independence movement originated in 1914-1918. In 1948, national political associations began to form, giving rise to the Senegalese Popular Bloc in 1956, led by Leopold Senghor, who would become the first president of Senegal. On April 4, 1960, Senegal declared independence. Today Senegal is a dynamically developing country that strives to play an important role in African and international affairs. In 2022, Dakar will assume the chairmanship of the African Union, a continental association. Russia and Senegal have stable, friendly relations that are progressing steadily. Last year, Senegal became Russia’s largest trade and economic partner in West Africa. We fully share Dakar’s intention to expand the entire range of bilateral cooperation. We are confident that fruitful bilateral ties will continue to grow stronger in the interests of both nations. We would like to congratulate the people of Senegal on their national holiday and wish them new achievements, peace and prosperity. Coronavirus update We would like to state the disappointing incidence rate of COVID-19 on the global scale. I am talking about global trends now. As of March 31, the total number of those infected reached almost 129 million, and the total number of pandemic victims exceeded 2.8 million. Amid this alarming development, we would like to once again draw attention to and update our recommendations for Russians planning to travel abroad. The emergency response centre to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus in Russia announced that regular flights on a reciprocal basis to Venezuela, Germany, Syria, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Sri Lanka resumed on April 1. On the same date, the number of regular flights to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Cuba and the UAE will increase. From the beginning of the month, international flights will be allowed from the airports of Barnaul, Belgorod, Volgograd, Voronezh, Kaluga, Krasnodar, Lipetsk, Nalchik, Orenburg, Saratov, Sochi, Tyumen and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, while respecting the sanitary and epidemiological requirements. As any foreign trip today poses health risks, we once again urge people to be extremely cautious and prudent when planning their trip. If a foreign trip is urgent and necessary, we advise you to review in advance all the information available, in particular on the websites of the Foreign Ministry, embassies, the emergency response centre, and other ministries and departments, as well as to comply with all the requirements and instructions put in place by the authorities of the destination and sometimes transit country, including those related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.  Answers to media questions: Question: EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell said Russia and China seem to join forces to face the Western world to increase their independence from the West, and that the Chinese-Russian rapprochement is above all based on a rejection of democratic values and an opposition to what they see as interference in their internal affairs. Also in his blog post, Borrell mentions “the often adversarial nature of the relationships and the strategic intent that China and Russia have”, calling for some European “strategic autonomy.” How does the Russian Foreign Ministry assess this statement and, in particular, the “adversarial intent” part? Maria Zakharova: We interpret these statements and the EU’s political course as a whole as an attempt to distort things beyond recognition. With its latest statements and illegitimate sanctions against Russia and China, the European Union continues its unfriendly policy of alienating itself from its neighbours on the Eurasian continent. The EU is back to the language of the Cold War in the diplomatic discourse, promoting an obsolete bloc-related thinking and deepening the dividing lines. The EU’s attempts to talk to others from a position of strength are very dangerous because they can destabilise international relations. By keeping this up Brussels risks being left on the sidelines of world economic development, as its centre is shifting to Asia. Unlike the EU and the US, Russia and China are not being friends against anyone. Our relations are a valuable asset as they are, not susceptible to fluctuations in the external environment. We support a truly democratic and fair, multipolar world order based on the fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Proof of this is not only our statements in response to the “nonsense” that we hear from Brussels, but also the doctrinal documents approved many years ago. This is our principled position – worked out, approved, declared and implemented for many years. We believe that interaction between global players should rely on the principles of equality and consideration for each other’s interests. This is what our real “strategic intent” is, not the alleged ones. We have repeatedly proposed this paradigm of relations to the European Union, stressing our readiness for constructive interaction if Brussels shows reciprocal interest. Instead, we can see the EU sliding towards a different ideology, inventing new confrontational formulas for relations with other countries. With regard to China, there is the “partner, competitor, rival” parlance. With regard to Russia, they say they should “push back, constrain and engage selectively.” The “phased, proportionate, but also reversible approach” to a more active engagement with Turkey is meant the same way. In our opinion, such novelties do little but mask the carrot and stick policy and are not helping to build a dialogue based on mutual respect, as the one, for example, between Russia and China, or Russia and Turkey. We call on our colleagues from the European Union to reconsider their approaches. Attempts to close ranks against Russia and China, to integrate into respective Washington’s policy are unlikely to help achieve their declared goal of strategic autonomy the EU so craves. Moreover, this policy hardly meets the interests of ordinary citizens in the EU countries, who are not at all interested in paying for the next round of confrontation in the Euro-Atlantic. Question: There was an international scandal between Russia and the Czech Republic. One cannot fail to notice the general European trend, where Russian diplomats are in the focus of attention. The scandal has to do with the dismantling of the monument to Soviet Marshal Ivan Konev, who liberated the Czech capital from the Nazis. Due to the scandal, the Czech Republic started to blame Russia for the deterioration of relations between the countries. Czech journalist A. Cerny wrote that “there are too many Russian diplomats in the country and they do nothing to restore relations that are at the ‘freezing point’.” How does the Russian Foreign Ministry view such accusations? Where do things stand with the monument? Maria Zakharova: You quoted a journalist who asked a rhetorical question: “Are there are too many Russian diplomats in Prague”? I can answer the same way: Are there too many Czech diplomats in Moscow? For his information – such matters are the subject of agreement between the parties, the subject of parity. It is necessary to be objective and honest with your audience and say what those trends can lead to if they become reality. As for the monument to Marshal Ivan Konev, this is not a scandal. This is a real tragedy for the Czech Republic, the very “Western civilisation” that boasts of its “values.” I can enumerate a number of countries, continents, organisations and persons that are victims of this tragedy. When people forget about their history, rewrite it, it is a tragedy. And an even greater tragedy is that people forget the story of their survival. The decision of the Prague municipal authorities to dismantle the monument to Soviet Marshal Ivan Konev caused serious damage to Russian-Czech relations. I would like to remind you that by taking this step the Czech side violated the provisions of the 1993 bilateral Treaty on Friendly Relations and Cooperation, which stipulate obligations to preserve military monuments and provide access to them. We have repeatedly drawn Prague’s attention to this. To find ways to resolve this problem, the Russian side initiated bilateral consultations last summer. Unfortunately, they have not yet taken place, primarily for sanitary and epidemiological reasons. At the same time, we hope that we will be able to come to a mutually acceptable decision on the future of the Konev monument. Question: Can Russia once again call the attention of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, as well as UNESCO, to investigating the desecration of cultural and historical sites in Armenia and bring the Azerbaijani military, involved in the crimes, to justice? Maria Zakharova: We stand for respect for cultural and religious sites in Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding areas. We reaffirm the importance of organising a UNESCO mission to the region as soon as possible. We also keep in touch with the parties on each specific case. Question: How would you comment on media reports about the arrest of well-known human rights activist Sergey Seredenko by the Estonian security service on March 3, 2021? Maria Zakharova: I can make the same statement as the one assessing the mockery of justice with regard to Yury Mel. The three Baltic states have been using punitive justice time and again. This case is a tell-tale episode of the struggle against dissent and the security services’ search for an alleged “Russian connection,” as well as political pressure on members of the large Russian-speaking community. A person openly defending the interests of ethnic minorities in Estonia, including at international forums and conferences, is being persecuted for his active civic engagement. I would like to ask all EU heads of state and international organisations specialising in human rights matters and defending the freedom of speech: Where are you? Where is your response? Have you written at least one word on social media, and have you posted a photo of this person? We see nothing of the kind. We are urging the international human rights community to closely monitor compliance with generally accepted norms of international humanitarian law, with regard to human rights activist Sergey Seredenko, who has been arrested in Estonia, considering his age and health. Question: President of Lithuania Gitanas Nauseda has said that Russian authorities disregard the territorial integrity of Ukraine. What do you think about this position? Maria Zakharova: For many years, we, upon becoming sovereign states, cherished and protected the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Regarding the situation with Crimea, I would like to remind our Baltic colleagues that the people of Crimea had repeatedly voiced the need to hold a referendum on their own destiny. They acted openly, tried to appeal to Kiev and to use legal and judicial mechanisms to uphold their rights and freedoms. At that time, not a single spokesperson, official, diplomat or representative of Russian agencies and state organisations doubted the territorial integrity of Ukraine, although they understood the difficulties facing Crimean residents in the 1990s and earlier. There have never been any such instances, nor are there any today. The year 2014 was preceded by yet another, and not the only, instance of Western states’ interference in Ukrainian affairs. Once again, a government was changed and an unconstitutional coup was staged using protests on Kiev’s Independence Square that launched the relevant processes. Our country certainly has nothing to do with this; on the contrary, the neighbouring Baltic states were involved in these developments. I would like to recall the role of Baltic diplomats and state officials from Poland, Germany and the United States who directly fashioned and implemented the 2014 processes in Ukraine. Dozens and hundreds of the so-called foreign “specialists” in all fields, including security services and mercenaries, stayed in Ukraine and were involved in implementing Ukraine’s political agenda by posing as the “Ukrainian public” or “consultants.” This was interference in a sovereign state’s affairs. All the 2014 processes in Ukraine triggered a number of developments. They are a consequence of direct interference by Western countries, namely, the United States and the EU, in Ukrainian affairs. One should not look for culprits in those countries which, certainly, were not responsible for the situation, which always advocated the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine and respected them in fact rather than in word; expanded economic, political and humanitarian relations and used solely legal methods and diplomatic practice for cooperating with sovereign Ukraine. It is impossible to say this about our neighbours, namely, Lithuania itself. Question: Polish Ambassador to Russia Krzysztof Krajewski has said that Warsaw is open for an equal dialogue with Moscow. Do you see this as a signal for improving bilateral relations? Maria Zakharova: In his first interview published by the Russian media, the new Polish Ambassador, Krzysztof Krajewski, said Warsaw was open to dialogue and was for normalising relations with Russia. We welcome this attitude from the Polish side. We hope that these words will be backed by actions. If Poland really wants this, and if it acts to promote our relations in this spirit, we will be pleased. However, to see where we stand and where we should begin, we need to analyse the current situation. The new Polish ambassador explained the problems in our bilateral relations by the poor state of Russia’s relations with the West, which have deteriorated during the past few years. In fact, Russia has different relations with different Western countries. The problems in Moscow-Warsaw relations did not appear yesterday. For example, an improvement in our relations is hindered by the nationwide campaign underway in Poland to blot out a “false feeling of gratitude” to Soviet liberator soldiers. When speaking in the spirit of Warsaw’s “state historical policy,” Polish officials not only deny the role of the Red Army in the liberation of Europe from the Nazism, but also cynically claim that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were equally responsible for the start of WWII. Krzysztof Krajewski also said that Poland respects the memory of the fallen Red Army soldiers. Unfortunately, we often hear about the flagrant acts of vandalism against Soviet graves in Poland, and we have taken note of the shameless campaign to demolish Red Army monuments that has been underway in Poland for the past few years. As many as 446 such monuments have been destroyed in Poland, and although Mr Ambassador said the Russian media reports about the demolition of Soviet graves in Poland were untrue, this has indeed happened. The mausoleums on the common grave of Red Army soldiers were demolished in Trzcianka in 2017 and in Pogorzelica in 2018. In this situation, the relaunch of dialogue within the framework of the Russian-Polish group on the complex issues of common history appears not just difficult but also senseless. Mr Ambassador also presented a shiny picture of Russian-Polish trade and economic ties. However, Russian statistics have shown a negative trend in bilateral trade during the past few years: bilateral trade decreased by 35 percent in the past two years, and it continues falling. This is the result of Warsaw’s policy of limiting hydrocarbon imports from Russia, anti-Russia sanctions and unfavourable conditions for Russian companies that try to legally enter the Polish market. One of the very serious factors hindering the normalisation of ties with Poland is its attempts to militarise Eastern Europe with the help of American military capabilities. We regard this as an irresponsible attitude to the current system of military-political stability in Europe. The risks entailed in disturbing the current balance are much greater than the illusory “threat” allegedly posed by Russia, which Ambassador Krajewski inferred. If it really wants to normalise bilateral relations, Warsaw should not just listen to but respond with practical actions to our calls for dialogue based on international law and mutual respect for each other’s interests. Objectively, there are no insurmountable obstacles to normalising Russian-Polish relations. All the current problems can be settled if there is political will on both sides. However, we do not see that the Polish side has the will for this. If Mr Krajewski really does want to give it a try, we will offer our hand to him. Question: Which subjects will be the focus of attention at the meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia on the sidelines of the Council of the CIS Foreign Ministers on April 2? Can the Russian Foreign Ministry see a radical difference in the “issues of concern” for Azerbaijan and Armenia on the Karabakh track? Maria Zakharova: These meeting are going on at the moment, and it is not long to wait. Let’s wait until the statements on their results are published. Question: April 4 will mark the 29th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Azerbaijan. Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said of late that Russia and Azerbaijan maintain “relations of trust based on mutual respect.” 2020 was an important year for Russian-Azerbaijani relations in view of reaching a tripartite statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. In addition, it was remarkable in terms of vital cooperation in combatting the coronavirus pandemic. How effective does the Foreign Ministry think cooperation with Azerbaijan is in various areas and which of them are given priority? What common challenges requiring a response do you see? Maria Zakharova: Interviews by Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko to mark the 29th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Azerbaijan and Armenia will be published soon. The interviews contain detailed assessments of bilateral relations as well as the Nagorno-Karabakh agenda. Question: In the past few days, RT channel has had to deal with unprecedented restrictions on audience access. Latvian officials are blocking RT’s news website in Russian while YouTube has blocked its Arabic channel, which has almost 3 billion views, on far-fetched accusations. Can Russia counter these acts with anything besides formal protests? Are there any instruments that can help to realise our right to this profession and the world population’s right to information diversity? Maria Zakharova: When we are told that we are encroaching on or trying to spread a destructive influence on certain values in the Western world, it is a matter of values. On March 31, 2021, Latvia’s National Electronic Media Council blocked access to RT’s Russian-language website as well as ntv.ru, rus24.ru and teledays.net where users can watch Russian television online. All these websites were blacklisted, according to the council’s portal. Even though the politically-motivated and unlawful treatment of Russian media by officials in the Baltic states is not news to us, this is the first time that not only the channel itself but also its website have been banned in Latvia. To substantiate this measure, the council referred to the Latvian law on electronic media and alleged that this was a case of unlawful distribution of programmes the content of which may violate copyright, have an adverse impact or be directed against Latvia and its citizens. They made up hybrid fake reasoning. Clearly, this has nothing to do with the actual state of affairs and it is just an excuse to continue the consistent course of eradicating any dissenting views and Russian views, in particular. I am certain Russian media outlets will not be the only targets. It won’t be long before other countries and other media outlets are subjected to similar treatment. This is a case of cynical violations of the fundamental principles of freedom of speech and pluralism of opinion in the media, along with neglect for the rights of the Russian-speaking population in Latvia, which runs counter to Riga’s political obligations. The roller of the state machine continues to censor and block unwelcome media outlets that disseminate alternative views. It primarily targets Russian and Russian-language websites and media while also stamping down their own citizens’ right to unhindered access to information. Let me remind you that in June 2020, Latvia banned the broadcasting of seven RT channels under the pretext of EU sanctions against Rossiya Segodnya Director General Dmitry Kiselev, who has no relation to RT whatsoever. Once again, we are calling on international organisations and the human rights community to give this matter priority attention and respond to Latvia’s audacious and repressive policy against freedom of speech. You asked what we can do besides official protests. In addition to releasing statements, we also send constructive appeals to international organisations. What could be an instrumental measure? There should be an absolutely clear understanding that protective measures exist inside our country. You mentioned the blocking of RT’s Arabic channel on YouTube. The channel had more than 500 million subscribers and several billion views – but this did not stop them from blocking it. The channel was later unblocked. Can you guarantee that it will not be blocked again? Neither you nor we or anybody can guarantee this. The American internet giants do whatever they want. How can we respond? First, we can protect our own media space through a legislative framework (which is being developed) and its actual implementation (because often a legislative foundation exists but final implementation is slow). So, we can develop a legislative framework and widely implement it. Second, we can develop our own platforms and resources. Yes, I know that, once you have built up really big assets on a hosting platform or on social media, with hundreds of thousands of subscribers and views, it is a shame to have to part with it. It may be risky to move to a different platform and develop it from scratch. But there is one small nuance that should always be remembered: it may be uncomfortable to move to and develop our own, new platforms because we still remember how great working with the other platforms was. But without our own platforms, we may one day lose everything we built up. And it will be much more painful. In my opinion, these are two possible solutions to this problem. Question: Our channel is often accused of interfering in different elections and trying to change the way of life or the attitude in different countries. I think that such attempts are being made in Russia as well, including deliberate interference in the election processes. Elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation will take place this year. Not long ago, there was an interesting event linked with the dispersal of the Municipal Russia congress. The Western press, including official organisations, paid a lot of attention to it. Do you think our Western partners are paying such close attention to the elections in Russia, to influence them or even to directly interfere in them? Maria Zakharova: Let me recall that there were representatives of NGOs that are considered “objectionable” in Russia among the coordinators of the Municipal Russia forum. They tried to hold this public event in violation of the established sanitary-epidemiological rules. Naturally, law enforcement bodies responded to this gathering. We are seeing around the world how sometimes a truly punitive mechanism can persecute people for their objections to the existing norms rather than their violations. You see how rallies are dispersed in the Netherlands and other EU countries. They are always worried about the situation in Russia but do not notice their own problems. We have to say that the style and content of these publications testify to the attempts to influence the processes taking place in our country. And these are far from the only ones. These are basically attempts to implement the objectives set forth in the agitprop instructions on promoting “agents of influence” in Russia. I am referring to the report “Russia Scenarios 2030” by Washington’s Free Russia Foundation in 2019 and the recent opus of the Atlantic Council. These writings consist of a package of fantasies by Russophobic experts and reflect their own vision of “Russia’s future” and ways to bring it closer. Made-to-order publications like this follow a pattern. Unfortunately, their authors are people who pose as journalists. American journalists are among them. And this is not the only element of interference in our domestic affairs. We will counter such attempts to protect our information space. Question: Is the Foreign Ministry planning to send a formal notice to international institutions as regards the upcoming humanitarian catastrophe at the US southern border? This has an international dimension and must concern human rights organisations not only in the US but also in the rest of the world. Maria Zakharova: This is a humanitarian catastrophe. Imagine, there are 18,000 minors alone. As a journalist covering this topic among others, you can imagine the scale of what is going on. First, as for sending a notice, formal inquiries are not always necessary to send a signal to international organisations. They are bound to know about his situation. It is impossible not to know. This is not a remote part of the world without journalists or communications. This is the border between the US and Mexico. Second, the journalist community is actively covering this problem. Third, the Russian Foreign Ministry did publish an official statement on this issue today. All this supplements the work that international agencies must be doing under their mandate. They have instructions to monitor such situations and focus on them. These 18,000 minors and the conditions they are in present a very serious matter for the international community and the relevant international organisations. There is also another point. We are perfectly aware that now US representatives and diplomats will rush to the lobbies of international organisations and press the buttons to block any criticism and the desires of international special commissioners, representatives and review institutions to deal with human rights problems in the US. So in this context it is necessary to do everything we can for the US to receive a signal from its closest partners, its strategic allies not to be embarrassed by its own problems. As you know, the resolution of any problem starts with acknowledgement. So, it is necessary to acknowledge it and allow international agencies (government and non-governmental organisations) to join in and use the experience they have accumulated over the years. They conduct international conferences on Syria’s problems and international forums to understand what to do about Libya. They also hold conferences on human rights issues in other countries. I doubt the US itself will organise a conference to see what is going on at home but I believe they can let others help with this. Question: After a foreign minister from an EU country said the Sputnik V vaccine was part of Moscow’s “hybrid war,” the president of another European country said it was a “vaccine war of influence” being waged by Russia and China. However, the facts show that Russia is attacking the virus effectively and that the pandemic is retreating in Russia and is advancing in Europe. It would seem that Russia’s positive experience should be promoted and that the door should be opened to this effective medication. Instead, the crew on the sinking European Titanic is not thinking about salvation but is instead investigating the origins of the lifeboats and looking for pretexts to avoid using them. The leading role of Russia and China in the creation of vaccines has been declared a weapon in a new war rather than a means of protection. This is like saying that a gas mask is a weapon of aggression. During WWI when Germany became the world’s first country to use poison gases, Europeans used gas masks invented in Russia, of all places, because their goal was to save lives. But now the West is doing its best to prevent the use of the Russian vaccine and is trying to discredit it thereby depriving people of protection from the biggest threat currently facing them. Does this mean that the West has a different objective besides protecting people, and that Russia is preventing the West from attaining it? Is this why Russia’s genial attempt to help is interpreted as Ivan’s meddlesome interference and an attempt to disrupt the sophisticated Western plans? Maybe we should appeal directly to the people of Europe because this is about saving lives. Such a direct address regarding Russian vaccines could be used to explain many things, which the West is not just deliberately misrepresenting but is using to blame them entirely on Russia. Russia is ready to help all people in the world regardless of their political or any other affiliation. We are all passengers on a huge ship, and it is only together that we can defeat this deadly virus. There used to be a good phrase, “TASS is authorised to declare.” Maybe the Foreign Ministry should announce that it has been authorised to declare and tell the truth to the people of the world? What do you think? Maria Zakharova: This is exactly what we are doing, including during our briefings, by publishing a great deal of information and addressing various events – I am referring to the Foreign Ministry leadership, our ambassadors and other diplomats. The Information and Press Department is contributing to these efforts as well. Let’s start at the beginning. You mentioned the statements some Western officials made about the vaccine. Regrettably, many people, including in Russia, believe that we are exaggerating things, and that well-educated Western officials cannot be so bigoted as to deny the existence of the Russian vaccine and its positive effect and to accuse Russia of waging a vaccine war. This concerns not just Russia but also China. Today we will certainly discuss the relevant statements made by the heads of EU agencies and some EU leaders. We will show that Western flagships are brazenly using propaganda, unfair competition and politicking, contrary to their own declared precepts, which they are encouraging others to follow as well. I would like to point out once again that these statements are being made at a time when the world should come together, unite and stand up as one to address the current threat to people’s lives and health around the world. This is what President of France Emmanuel Macron said on March 26, 2021. He did not say this on March 26, 2020, which would have sounded strange but at least understandable. But when this is said on March 26, 2021, it sounds absolutely crazy. Here is what he said: “Europe is the only continent exporting vaccines. It is the only continent with its own strategy and its own diplomacy regarding vaccines.” As for Europe being the only one to have a real strategy regarding vaccines, we see how well it is implementing this strategy in the EU. Its vaccination campaign is a mess, and we are not the ones pointing this out. We are just quoting their citizens, media outlets, doctors, government agencies and experts. Just consider what he says next: “We are looking at a new type of world war. We are looking in particular at Russian and Chinese attacks and attempts to gain influence through the vaccine.” We do not want to influence anyone through the vaccine. It was you who refused to believe we had a vaccine, and we did not insist. Moreover, the “agents of influence” directly supported by Brussels and partly sponsored from the pockets of Western countries insisted just six months ago that Russia had no vaccine. We heard this. So your concept, which you are imposing on our citizens as well, says no Russian vaccine even exists. If there is no vaccine, what kind of war are you talking about? Why don’t you get off the fence? Either Russia has no vaccine, or Russia is using its vaccine inappropriately. The answer is obvious – Russia has a vaccine, more than one. And it works. Moreover, we have never kept it secret, never tried to monopolise anything concerning Russia’s vaccine development or production projects. As the first country to create a vaccine, we immediately offered the world equal and mutually beneficial cooperation in a number of vaccine-related areas. These included joint research, an exchange of experience, and joint production as well as various commercial projects on a legitimate basis. The problem is you haven’t heard us. But this is often the case with the European Union. As we know, on many issues, the EU is guided by its overseas Big Brother. This was also the case in 2015 when you failed to hear Russia’s call to join forces against ISIS. Some laughed, others turned away, and still others got mad. You are making the same mistake again – you deny reality and try to impose your own agenda under the guise of some values that either do not exist or that you have distorted. And in many respects, it is no longer about imposing your agenda, but about covering up your own inability to cope with the challenges of our time. French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian made a shocking statement. He said the Sputnik V vaccine “is more a means of propaganda and aggressive diplomacy than a means of solidarity and health aid.” What are you talking about? There are open vaccination stations around the country. We produce the vaccine jointly with the countries that have expressed an interest in joint production and use of this vaccine. France was interested, and then suddenly changed its mind. So stop saying it is propaganda and aggressive diplomacy just because you missed your chance or did not want to, or could not join the cooperation. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell wrote on his blog on December 29, 2020: “Such narratives are apparently directed at countries where Russia wants to sell its own vaccine, Sputnik V. In the current pandemic, any attempt to instigate such unfounded doubts threatens public health. Terrorist organisations, such as Da’esh, have also used the confusion in the Corona-situation to spread their own propaganda.” Just an outrageous statement. A fake story, something the European Union is rigorously fighting, creating more and more agencies to combat alleged Russian misinformation. The European Commissioner for Internal Market, Thierry Breton: “We have absolutely no need of Sputnik V. Today, we clearly have the capacity to deliver 300 to 350 million doses by the end of June and therefore by July 14... we have the possibility of reaching continent-wide immunity.” He added the Russians were having production problems for Sputnik V, and people had poor access to it, and “the EU should help Russia with production of the vaccine if needed but priority should be given to the Europeans.” This is absurd. Instead of offering us help with vaccine production, the EU should focus on its own vaccination problems. You had a row over access to vaccines; you failed to harmoniously combine your restrictive measures with vaccination and with people’s and businesses’ interests. You are sinking deeper and deeper into your own problems that you are unable to confront, and at the same time, you keep blaming Russia and inventing non-existent facts. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said “Russia was offering millions of doses worldwide while not sufficiently progressing in vaccinating its own people.” We offer cooperation in manufacturing millions and millions of doses. Take it or leave it. Austria is defining its position now. Many countries in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East understood everything a while ago. European Council President Charles Michel said: “We should not let ourselves be misled by China and Russia, both regimes with less desirable values than ours, as they organise very limited but widely publicised operations to supply vaccines to others.” Look at them: whenever they face problems, they immediately start holding up their values. What are these “operations to supply vaccines”? Generally, governments and commercial organisations are addressing us themselves. It is not our embassies that run around to foreign government agencies trying to impose some average quality medication. Our embassies regularly receive proposals to promote cooperation on production or on the purchase of a vaccine. What more is there to discuss? Christa Wirthumer-Hoche, the head of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and head of the Austrian Medicines and Medical Devices Agency, compared our vaccination to “Russian roulette.” But this is simply obscurantism. We feel ashamed for EU officials and Westerners in general. I won’t even talk about President of Estonia Kersti Kaljulaid; everything there is clear in this respect. Prime Minister of Lithuania Ingrida Simonyte said on February 5, 2021: “They say Sputnik V is good, but Putin does not want to use it as a medication for the Russian people – he offers it to the world as one more hybrid weapon.” Here’s a proposal for the Prime Minister of Lithuania. Call your ambassador in Russia and ask him to photograph the vaccination process in Russia. There are vaccination centres, outpatient clinics and mobile stations. What are you talking about? Or do your ambassadors misinform you? This could also be the case. After all, you block our channels and our websites. Apparently, you receive your information from the Western media (we know how they can be) or your embassies. Maybe your embassies are on the wrong track? White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki said: “We are concerned about attempts by Russia and China to use vaccines for diplomatic purposes.” As distinct from others, we are using our vaccine for vaccination and nothing else. If there is any other option, let the Department of States share its successes with us. We are using our vaccine only for vaccination purposes. Take my word for it. I just couldn’t remain silent and abstain from quoting these people because it is necessary to understand this attitude. When you put all these statements together, you understand that, first, they are all written in some strategic information planning centre in the depths of NATO and, second, that they are disseminated through hubs and spokes. Third, I think the words of leaders or official representatives are obviously analysed: did they say the right thing? Then, the EU and NATO distribute all this through their strategic communications in their media and then it returns to an official level in the form of questions. All this information nonsense is continuously spread in every way to create the impression of a new hybrid information war about vaccines and Russia’s “aggressive actions.” Sometimes they claim that we don’t have the vaccine, sometimes they say we have it but are using it as an element of aggression. This is amazing. We hope the EU’s leaders are fully aware of their responsibility for the lives and health of EU citizens during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and will abstain from such unacceptable, false and unscrupulous statements. We note that even though all anti-COVID medication developers are temporarily short of production capacity, Russia, as distinct from its Western partners, has not resorted to “vaccine nationalism” that is widespread in the EU. Moreover, Russia is trying to offer access to its vaccine to anyone who would like to have it anywhere in the world. We are not imposing anything on anyone. We are not forcing anyone to do anything; we are open to cooperation. We are willing to supply all interested states with our highly effective and safe vaccines in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner. I would like to urge our colleagues from various foreign ministries and international organisations to stop covering up their inability to manage their own domestic problems with some aggressive rhetoric against Russia. Stop using lies and faked statements to explain to your citizens why you cannot manage this common disaster and why you are using a whole gamut of unacceptable means and methods, from propaganda and misinformation to political pressure and influence, to avoid responsibility for your many failures. We are convinced that it is impossible to overcome the coronavirus pandemic and its negative consequences without pooling the efforts of all members of the international community. As we have said many times, the key priority lies in immunising the world population, which is being gradually perceived as a universal public blessing. This is not just the opinion of our specialists. It is based on the analysis of international healthcare organisations and world experts. We are seeing, and this is very important, that despite the disinformation imposed on them, people in many countries address their governments or Russia directly with a request to supply our vaccines, usually Sputnik V, and to cooperate on the production or distribution of these medications. The public in the EU countries does not like the attempts of the bureaucrats in Brussels to politicise everything related to vaccines and thus delay vaccine availability. More and more people abroad, as I see online and in the media (except the countries that have already approved Sputnik V) simply demand freedom of choice from their authorities. They want to have access to the Russian vaccine and, most importantly, no more attempts to politicise the issue. I read a very good phrase in one article. It said: “Real science cannot have national borders. When it is used for peaceful purposes, as a benefit, there must be no borders, especially no artificial borders.” Question: What can you tell us about the statement by US representatives that it is impossible to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by May 1, as was agreed upon at the talks in Doha? Maria Zakharova: I understand this is an alarming and complicated issue with implications for human lives, but I must point out the irony. When you say the US promised to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by May 1, I am tempted to ask: What year exactly? I feel this way because they seem to announce a troop withdrawal every year. In other words, every year they make a commitment, make promises and then announce their plans. The last time we heard this statement was a pledge to withdraw troops by May 1 of this year. We believe that the US is simply being sly with its references to technical difficulties related to the final withdrawal of US troops in Afghanistan by May 1, 2021. The US and the Taliban agreed on troop withdrawal deadlines over a year ago. We do not doubt that this amount of time was long enough for the necessary preparations. We believe the real reason for delaying the withdrawal is a concern about the future of the current Afghan authorities. The Americans themselves admit that despite 20 years of NATO military-technical assistance, they are still unable to ensure security on their own. Thus, speaking in the US Senate Armed Services Committee the other day, Special Operations Commander Gen. Richard Clarke emphasised the critical dependence of the Afghan national security forces on foreign military assistance. We hope Washington will remain committed to the peace agreement signed with the Taliban last year. The agreement specifies a deadline for troop withdrawal. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov answered this question yesterday during a Valdai Club session. I will repeat it: “The presence of the United States (in Afghanistan), which they have now announced, will be perpetuated; at least no timeframe for withdrawing the troops has been set which is nothing new, either. The Americans are in charge of their own word, and they can either keep it, or go back on it. First, they announced the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and then changed their minds. They want to stay in Syria as well. They are operating hydrocarbon fields, selling locally produced grain and using the proceeds – the money rightfully owned by the Syrian people – to pay for the separatist actions of some Kurdish organisations and to block the dialogue between the Kurds and Damascus, and they are doing their utmost to prevent this dialogue from ever taking place. At the same time, they are saying ISIS is rearing its head in the territories that are not controlled by the Syrian government. This is some kind of a kingdom of crooked mirrors.” Mr Lavrov was talking about Syria and Afghanistan together, but I hope you understand the gist of what he said. Question: What is Russia’s position on the proposal by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to reach a national reconciliation by holding early elections in Afghanistan under the control of the international community? Maria Zakharova: We think this is primarily a question for the Taliban. We believe the Afghans themselves must be in charge of their peace process. We will be satisfied with any solution that will be acceptable to both warring parties. As far as we know, the Taliban rejected Kabul’s initiative because the elections held by the Afghan authorities in the past were accompanied by scandals and put the country on the verge of a crisis. Question: What does Russia expect from the Istanbul format talks on Afghanistan? Who will represent Russia? Maria Zakharova: I think it is too early to discuss a new format. To our knowledge, there will be a single event in support of the Doha talks with certain regional and international Afghan partners, as well as high-ranking delegations from Kabul and the Taliban. We welcome any initiative that can facilitate the advent of peace in Afghanistan. However, we still don’t know the details of Turkey’s proposals, including the dates, the invitees, the format and other issues. Russia will decide on its representation at the event after receiving all the information. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4662908
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
April 3rd, 2021
|
#279 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Austria
Posts: 2,205
|
Hey Учителю.. Do you like to drink vodka? I'm a Bourbon drinker myself!!
|
|
April 3rd, 2021
|
#280 | |
|
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Please make it so that this person no longer has any opportunity to do off-top in my topics. Thank you!
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln |
|
 |
| Share |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 PM.
Page generated in 2.29357 seconds.