Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia

[Alex Him]

Comment by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov on new US sanctions against Russia



21 June 2017 - 17:03





On June 20, Washington announced plans to significantly expand US sanctions against Russian individuals and legal entities. It was clearly a political gift to President Poroshenko who was in the United States at that time. The sanctions were imposed under the old pretext of events in Ukraine, which is clearly inadequate, especially since the Americans are apparently holding the Moscow Bike Centre and a well-known catering company, to name a few, accountable for the developments in Ukraine. In their absurdity, such decisions can be compared only with the US decision last year to add the Chaika swimming pool in Moscow to the sanctions lists (its location next to the Krymsky Bridge across the Moscow River was apparently the pretext).

Washington surely understands that such rash acts only embolden the war party in Kiev, which has long since been seeking to thwart a peaceful settlement in Donbass. It is also disquieting that this step, motivated by domestic political considerations in the US, follows the same path of destroying relations between our countries set by the Obama administration. Regrettably, the new American leadership is taking its cue from inveterate Russophobes in US Congress, which simply ran out of ideas for annoying us and, most importantly, obliterating any prospect of restoring balance in Russia-US relations.

With that in mind, the official statements coming from Washington about its willingness to maintain a dialogue with us, to seek common ground, and to address bilateral and important international issues sound quite unconvincingly. The practical actions of the United States seriously undermine these statements, which we will absolutely keep in mind.

This new American attack will not go unanswered, including in the form of a practical response on our part.

As is known, bilateral consultations were scheduled to continue within the next few days to discuss the irritants that have piled up in Russia-US relations, and to find ways out of the extremely difficult situation created by the United States in its partnership and cooperation with Russia. After yesterday's decision to impose more sanctions on Russia, such a dialogue seems out of place, especially since there is not much to discuss, since Washington has yet to come up with any specific proposals. It has not returned the Russian diplomatic property expropriated in December 2016, either.

Of course, the United States can continue to harbour illusions about exerting pressure on Russia. But the numerous previous rounds of US sanctions did not yield the results their initiators hoped for. Any new attempts to “subdue” Russia will fail as well.

We hope that the realisation of this simple fact will finally convince Washington to end the sanctions spiral and focus on returning bilateral dialogue and interaction back to normal.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2792045

[Alex Him]

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, June 22, 2017



22 June 2017 - 13:44





Day of Memory and Grief

Today, June 22, is one of the most horrible dates in domestic history – the day of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. On this day we recall all those who were killed in action, tortured in Nazi captivity and died of hunger and privations at the home front. We remember all those who fulfilled their sacred duty defending their Motherland at the cost of their lives. The memory of those who died for the sake of the Fatherland is sacred for all of us. We will remember all those who gave up their lives serving their Fatherland.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation at the opening of the 14th Russian-German conference of partner cities

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the opening of the 14th Russian-German conference of partner cities in Krasnodar on June 28. Vice Chancellor and Federal Foreign Minister of Germany Sigmar Gabriel is expected to attend the event from the German side.

The conference is called upon to further promote cooperation between the twin cities, which in some cases exists for several decades. Thus, St Petersburg and Hamburg have had a partnership since 1957. Moscow has close bilateral ties with Berlin, Dusseldorf and Munich. In all, about one hundred twin cities in Russia and Germany have official partnership agreements.

The conference will also launch the Russian-German cross year of regional and municipal partnerships in 2017-2018 under the patronage of the two countries’ foreign ministries.

Under the plan, Mr Lavrov and Mr Gabriel will hold talks to discuss urgent bilateral and international issues. This will be the continuation of the discussion started with the newly appointed German Foreign Minister in Moscow on March 9.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov takes part in the second Primakov readings “The World in 2035”

On June 30, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the Second International Forum Primakov Readings.

The holding of this event under the aegis of the National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) has already become a good tradition. It stands out for its intensive programme and respectable foreign and domestic participants – prominent scholars, politicians, diplomats and essayists. In the current international situation that is far from being simple it is hard to overrate the importance of such intellectual forums aimed at a search for the best ways of overcoming common problems.

The Foreign Ministry appreciates that the readings are inseparably linked with the wealthy heritage of Yevgeny Primakov, an outstanding state, political and public leader of our times. Mr Primakov made a priceless contribution to the elaboration of key provisions of modern Russia’s foreign policy doctrine, did much for the comprehensive apprehension of sophisticated processes in the post-bipolar world and, of course, did all he could to promote a multi-polar world concept.

Mr Lavrov will describe his views on the main trends of world development in the foreseeable future and answer questions from the audience.



Developments in Syria

We are pleased to note the generally steady positive momentum in the way the military and political situation in the Syrian Arab Republic has been developing since the May 4 signing of the Memorandum on the Establishment of De-Escalation Zones in Syria by the guarantor countries of the Astana process – Russia, Turkey and Iran.

The Syrian Armed Forces are fighting their key battles against jihadists in the provinces of Aleppo, Homs, Hama, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor, Daraa and a number of the suburbs of Damascus. Militants of ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and affiliated terrorist groups continue to be eliminated across the country.

The Syrian army is mounting vigorous offensive operations near Palmyra. The Syrian Armed Forces are closing in on the last remaining ISIS stronghold in the east of the Homs province – the town of Al-Sukhnah. After liberating the town, government forces will be able to launch an offensive to unblock the besieged garrison at Deir ez-Zor. Army units gained control of and liberated from jihadists the Al Talila Nature Reserve south of the village of Arak. The Syrian military drove jihadists out of several villages at the junction of Aleppo and Raqqa provinces, advanced towards the city of Tabqa and are pushing towards the Sufyan and Rusafa oil fields.

Meanwhile, terrorist units in the Aleppo province have seized the opportunity offered by the ceasefire to promptly regroup their forces, rotate militants, rush in food and ammunition supplies, and repair hardware.

Fighters of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are storming the ISIS stronghold in Syria – the city of Raqqa – from the west and east and have taken control of a third of the city. The 4,000-strong Tribal Army formation fighting alongside the SDF in Raqqa has been actively supporting operations by the Syrian army at the junction of Raqqa and Aleppo provinces. The volunteer corps formed by the Bedouin clans intends to fight its way alongside government forces up to Deir ez-Zor. According to some media, ISIS leaders have reportedly engaged in talks with the SDF command about the evacuation of jihadists and their families from the so-called ISIS capital and about the terms of safe corridors in the direction of Deir ez-Zor and Palmyra. Counterattacks attempted by jihadists have on the whole been unsuccessful.

The Syrian government has been stepping up multiple efforts to restore areas liberated from illegal military groups' militants to peaceful life. Eight new police departments have opened in eastern Aleppo. A batch of school textbooks has been dispatched to East Ghouta and East Harasta. According to offciials from the Syrian Ministry of Education, similar aid will be provided to all state educational institutions, including those located in the terrorist-controlled Idlib and Raqqa provinces.

A UN evaluation mission has reported, following its earlier visit to the Al-Waer district in the Homs province, that life there is returning to normal. The UN officials have confirmed the completion of the demining process. Humanitarian access is available and transport communications have been put into service. Refugees and internally displaced persons are returning to their homes. The Syrian authorities have allowed the Aleppo-Qamishli motorway to be used for humanitarian needs. In cooperation with the Syrian Red Crescent Society, the International Committee of the Red Cross and UN humanitarian relief agencies, humanitarian aid has been brought to Harasta, Modira and Misraba in the Damask province – 37 truckloads of food and medicine.

Considering all that, one cannot but feel outrage at the destruction on June 18 the Syrian airspace in the Raqqa province by the so-called anti-ISIS US-led coalition of a Syrian Su-22 fighter jet performing a combat mission against ISIS militants near Rusafa. The Russian side views such incidents as blatant violations of international law and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity for Syria and as disrespect for the UN Charter. Given the fact that at the time of the strike on the Syrian fighter jet, the Russian Aerospace Forces were also flying combat missions in Syrian airspace, we regard this incident as our American partners' deliberate non-compliance with their commitments under the memorandum on the prevention of incidents and ensuring air safety during operations in Syria, which was signed on October 20, 2015. For that reason, the Russian Ministry of Defence has been forced to temporarily suspend cooperation with our American partners in the sky over Syria within the framework of the aforementioned document. We are demanding a thorough investigation by the American command into the aforementioned incident and the necessary measures to prevent a repetition of similar situations in the future.

We have been dismayed by reports about the delivery to the so-called anti-ISIS coalition’s base near Al-Tanf of HIMARS high mobility artillery rocket systems and the deployment of an additional American contingent at Az–Zaqf 70 km north-east of At-Tanf. This is evidence that the Americans have been actively building up their military presence in southern areas of sovereign Syria in violation of international law.

On June 19, aircraft of the so-called anti-ISIS US-led coalition carried out yet another attack on ISIS positions, this time in Tal al-Shayer area in the Hasaka province, killing 12 civilians, all from the same family.

As part of efforts to create de-escalation zones in Syria and bolster and consolidate the ceasefire, Russia, Iran and Turkey as guarantor states are conducting preparations for the next round of the International Meeting on Syria in Astana, which is scheduled for July 4-5, as we have already reported. At present, the guarantor countries are drawing up a package of documents on the implementation of the May 4 memorandum. The Russian side is confident that the upcoming meeting in the Kazakh capital will become an important step towards a political settlement in Syria.



Latest reports about unidentified aircraft sighted in Afghanistan

We’ve taken note of new reports about unmarked helicopters ferrying the fighters of ISIS Afghan branch, as well as weapons and munitions for them, in eastern Afghanistan.

On June 14, ISIS captured a large part of Tora Bora, a strategic cave and tunnel complex in the Pachir Aw Agam District of Nangarhar. Some reports say that shortly before this, unmarked helicopters delivered over 50 armed extremists to reinforce the fighters who were preparing an offensive on Tora Bora, as well as a container full of weapons and munitions.

MP Zahir Qadir, the lower house representative of the tribes whose fighters are defending the cave complex, has said publicly that these unmarked helicopters belong to the United States. He also said that the Tora Bora defenders had not received any real support from the Afghan government and its Western allies for nearly a week before the ISIS offensive.

It is symptomatic that neither the Afghan authorities nor the US and NATO military contingent officials in Afghanistan have offered a rational explanation for the increased number of flights made by unidentified helicopters providing support to ISIS fighters in many Afghan provinces. Silence in this case is becoming increasingly conspicuous.

I would like the Western media, including American journalists who have published so many reports about Russia’s alleged assistance to the Taliban and extremists in Afghanistan, to take note of this information. We have repeatedly denied these reports as ungrounded and have outlined Russia’s firm stance on this matter.

We would like these unidentified helicopters to appear not only in Afghanistan but also in the Western media. Dear colleagues, you have the opportunity to ask these questions in the Pentagon, the White House and the US State Department. I know that you are looking for Russian hackers, but you can now shift your attention to the helicopters. It is said in Afghanistan that these are US helicopters and that they deliver assistance not to moderate fighters or extremists, but directly to ISIS.



Lack of European agencies’ response to Estonia’s closure of the case on Russian citizen Ganin’s murder

We’ve taken note of the lack of European officials’ response to Estonia’s decision to close, due to the statute of limitations, the case on the murder of Russian citizen Dmitry Ganin during the defence of the Bronze Soldier monument in Tallinn in April 2007.

We have commented on this situation before. However, this time we would like to draw your attention to the lack of any reaction from Brussels, which is not only the capital of a European country but also the capital of the European Union. We are surprised by its silence. The EU, some of its officials and many of its agencies actively comment on developments in Russia, closely monitor the investigation of high-profile cases in Russia and also demand that we regularly update various international organisations on the progress in these investigations. I would like to remind you that we regularly submit such reports in keeping with our obligations within these organisations. We don’t understand why nobody at the EU has issued a statement or requested that Estonia explain why the case of Dmitry Ganin, which is a high-profile case concerned with the protection of human rights, democracy, the freedom of expression and media on a global scale, has been archived.

As I said before, the EU has always claimed to defend the law and fight lawlessness and has never been shy to tell other countries how they should live and what they should do. We know this very well because we have always been in the focus of this organisation’s attention. But it has never been equally active when the matter concerned the human rights situation in EU countries. The EU is a union of countries with different legal frameworks, traditions and levels of democracy. It wouldn’t hurt Brussels to see what happens in this sphere concerning the new EU members and possibly issue recommendations to them to improve their behaviour. As we used to say in the past, it wouldn’t hurt Brussels to take them in tow.

Regarding Ganin’s case, the EU has probably decided to turn a blind eye to the Estonian authorities’ obvious intention to wash their hands of this embarrassing case by closing it due to the statute of limitations.

Likewise, it is surprising that the OSCE institution concerned – the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) – has not reacted either to a murder that was committed during a demonstration that was held by locals to protect their rights and historical truth and to express their views on flagrant violations and attempts to rewrite history. We keep returning to this issue and pay so much attention to this case, including in the context of the OSCE, because it concerns an OSCE country that is neglecting its obligations on the rule of law and fair trial. By failing to see the clearly political nature of this case, ODIHR has yet again shown that it cannot work objectively without bias.

We urge ODIHR, the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities and personal representatives of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office on fighting intolerance and discrimination to provide an objective assessment of Tallinn’s unfair decision and to demand that the Estonian authorities respect the memory of those who fell in the war against Nazism and stop any discrimination against Russian speakers in the country.



Developments around the Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Centre

We paid attention to a number of statements by US officials, including Department of State official Hoyt Brian Yee, which are aimed at discrediting the Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Centre (RSHC) in Nis (Serbia). They made absolutely unthinkable, absurd accusations in the worst traditions of the Cold War. They alleged, for one, that Russia has all but created a spy nest on the Balkans to threaten the US contingent in Kosovo. Take a map and find Nis and Kosovo on it. Of course, the US Department of State may not know where Nis and Kosovo are located. If they believe that Kosovo had a referendum, why should they know where it is located? Not to mention the RSHC in Nis.

The RSHC project has been designed and implemented as a joint humanitarian mission with Serbia for work in the Balkans in cooperation with all interested parties. It was registered as an international organisation. The centre took part in responding to emergencies in Serbia, Greece, Slovenia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. We wish US diplomats had found out what these states and their public organisations think about the work of the RSHC before making such absurd statements. Specialists from various countries underwent training in the centre and its facilities were visited by representatives not only of individual countries but also international organisations – the UN and OSCE – who repeatedly invited their colleagues from various countries and multilateral agencies to cooperate with the centre. Incidentally, the US Ambassador in Belgrade was also invited to visit the centre more than once but neither he nor his subordinates wished to take advantage of this opportunity. Why bother? This elegant tactic has been used in many places. If you see something with your own eyes, you will not be able to let your imagination run wild but will have to continue producing fake news.

It is absolutely impossible to understand how four civilian experts from the Russian Emergencies Ministry, several fire vehicles and employees of the Serbian Ministry of the Interior’s emergency response department can threaten the security of 600 US soldiers in Kosovo, 150 km away from the centre. Mr Yee said the centre was a threat to security and, in principle, the US contingent in Kosovo. So, four experts, fire vehicles and a couple of employees of the local Ministry of the Interior versus 600 Americans. What’s wrong with them? Are they so badly trained that they can’t take care of themselves?

We are again urging Washington not to speculate and spook itself, or look for Russian spies in Nis. It would be best to send its experts to the RSHC and draw the appropriate conclusions. It would be great if they could go on record with their account.



Investigation into Ambassador Andrey Karlov assassination

Turkish law-enforcement authorities are continuing to investigate the murder of Russian Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Turkey Andrey Karlov. The inquiry is being conducted in close cooperation with the Russian operative investigation group. Several people, including colleagues of police officer Mevlut Mert Altyntash who committed the crime, have been detained on suspicion of involvement in this act of terror.

It would obviously be premature to elaborate on some of the versions and details of the inquiry.

The Russian Foreign Ministry and the Russian Embassy in Turkey are keeping up with the investigation.



Robbery of Rosoboronexport chief delegate Sergey Kornev in Paris

Last night, we received many questions about an attack on the car of Rosoboronexport chief delegate Sergey Kornev in France. There has been extensive media coverage, and the French media are providing only unclear reports. Let me clarify some things.

A car hired for the Russian delegation that arrived for the Le Bourget air show was attacked in the Parisian suburb of Bobigny, which is known for its criminal situation. The attackers stole the purse of the driver, a woman who is not a Russian citizen. She had money and documents in her purse. I’d like to point out that these were only her personal belongings.

A Russian delegation member who was in the car managed to neutralise the situation but, unfortunately, he sustained a minor injury as a result. The police were summoned to the scene, and a Russian Embassy consular department representative quickly arrived as well. According to the police, four suspects were detained shortly after the incident.

The Russian Embassy has sent a note to the French Foreign Ministry, requesting a thorough investigation into the attack.

A preliminary inquiry has shown that the assailants’ only goal was to steal the driver’s handbag that was lying on the car seat. These are the facts.

I’d like to tell you something we never mentioned before on the record. A similar incident took place a few years ago. One of the buses that was part of the Russian delegation’s cortege escorting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, came under a similar attack in Paris. The attackers had the same intentions but luckily no one was hurt.

There were Russian journalists travelling on the bus – the ministerial pool that was covering the Foreign Minister’s visit. Let me say again – on that occasion, it was an attempted attack. Nothing was stolen, nobody was injured. But honestly, it was enough to be concerned about.

That time, the attack took place on the central motorway that connects the airport and the city centre. The time of day was also a strange choice – it was broad daylight. When we mentioned this to the local authorities, we were told that this happens often. Moreover, we have seen similar incidents from our car windows when bikers approached cars trying to steal something, also on the roads linking the airport and the city. It is of course unpleasant.

At this point, we have a story where an attempted assault became a real crime that caused an injury to a Russian citizen, an official delegate. This is of course unacceptable. It is hard to believe that the situation cannot be taken under control.

In this respect, I’d like to say a few words about our embassies, and the consular departments of Russian embassies in EU countries and also Russia’s general consulates in European countries that have been helping Russian citizens who have suffered similar attacks and robberies, not in extreme circumstances, not in remote places, not in the dark or at night, but in plain daylight. Money, documents get stolen. People are left without passports, IDs, keys or money, and they are left completely incapacitated – they cannot pay for their accommodation or to move elsewhere. This happens on a daily basis.

We have even tracked the trend. Such crimes typically take place at tourist attractions and in major shopping centres, and our tourists arrive and spend their time at such places and in city centres, in shops. It is next to impossible to believe that the police in these countries cannot take more control of the city centre, especially the sites attracting vast crowds of tourists.

This problem does not merely affect Russian tourists. I heard a story where such attacks were not spontaneous but part of a standard routine. Our citizens went to the police to fill out the forms and found other theft victims from various countries with the same problem already sitting there – they had been robbed almost at the same place too.

Let me say this again that it is hard to believe that the police in these countries, in this case – the French police, cannot take the situation under control.

We receive signals from different European countries every day about how things are going here. But I would recommend that they first resolve their own problems, and then we will report on ours. This is of course very unfortunate.



The so-called Lisa case

On June 20, a criminal district court in Berlin closed the books on the so-called Lisa case.

As you’ll recall, the case involved possible criminal acts committed against a 13-year-old girl, at the time a Russian citizen, which led to spontaneous unrest, including among the Russian-speaking diaspora of Germany. The matter received widespread coverage in the media. The situation was influenced by the January 2016 events in Cologne and other German cities, when hundreds of German women were assaulted, including sexually, by groups of migrants, made possible by the negligence of the authorities.

The Russian Foreign Ministry then turned to our German colleagues with an absolutely concrete, clear-cut and lawful request – to verify the reports and inform us about the course of the investigation and its conclusions. However, instead of a normal dialogue, we were accused of disinformation and of attempting to discredit the German government. Russian journalists in Berlin and members of the Russian diaspora came under severe pressure.

Leading German media and representatives of the German political establishment were hyping the matter, presenting it as a “product of Russian propaganda.” They alleged that no offence had been committed against the girl and that the whole story from beginning to end had been forged by Russia.

So what do we have in the end? A German citizen, who was charged with committing a crime against the aforementioned female Russian citizen under Article 176A of the German Criminal Code (sexual acts with an underage person) and Article 184 (the manufacturing and distribution of child pornography), was found guilty.

Such is the outcome of the alleged Russian propaganda. He received a suspended sentence of one year and nine months and was fined 3,000 euros. It’s amazing how humane German justice is! But the investigation, in the opinion of participants in the case, was objective and unbiased. This is most important of all. This is what the Russian side has insisted on from the very start. If, from the very beginning, German law enforcement treated the matter the way it has been treated now, there would have been no such fuss. All the fuss began after German law enforcement refused straight away to provide information and pay attention to that situation.

The sentence handed down by the Berlin court shows that the Russian side had reason to express concern. As a result of the investigation, a criminal case was opened and the criminal received real punishment. There’s your alleged Russian propaganda.

In the German media, which, of course, covered this guilty verdict, I read materials on the issue. And once again, everything was turned upside down. The main idea is that the investigation was under way and that everything would have been normal, if Russia had not turned it into a political show. Let me repeat, there would have been no show if, straight from the start, the Russian side and, most importantly, the parents, the family, the relatives of the child, had been given information, and law enforcement had been doing what they were supposed to do – investigate.

I would like to remind you that humane as the punishment for the criminal might be, Russian journalists, too, were virtually threatened with prosecution for bringing the matter up, to give you a little understanding of how it all works there. In other words, people who began digging into the case, conducting a journalistic inquiry, which is their professional duty, were threatened with prosecution, deportation and prison sentences, despite being right. It is a paradox.





Answers to media questions:



Question:

What do you think about the recent visit by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to Nagorno-Karabakh and the fact that tensions on the Line of Contact between Azerbaijan and Armenia have escalated in the past few days?



Maria Zakharova:

The statement by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs includes Russia’s position and views on the recent developments in the region. This statement is available on the OSCE and other websites. You can read it. As I have said, it fully reflects Russia’s position on this issue.

I was asked at the previous briefing whether the Nagorno-Karabakh issue was discussed at a meeting of the Russian and French foreign ministers. No, this issue was not discussed in detail.



Question:

Could you comment on the current tensions on the Line of Contact between Azerbaijan and Armenia?



Maria Zakharova:

The situation in Nagorno-Karabakh is always on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s agenda.



Question:

During their meeting yesterday, the foreign and defence ministers of the United States and China agreed that their companies would not cooperate with North Korean businesses on the UN sanctions list. Is Russia monitoring this issue? Do Russian companies maintain business relations with these North Korean companies? Do you plan to introduce a control mechanism?



Maria Zakharova:

Russia is committed to UN Security Council resolutions, including those on sanctions that are based on international law. We fully honour our commitments under these resolutions. As for cooperation [with North Korea], it is only maintained within the legal framework. We strictly comply with our obligations.



Question:

IOC President Thomas Bach has said that Russia will not stave off IOC sanctions no matter how enormous the pre-emptive measures in combatting doping it may take. Is this a sports or political decision?



Maria Zakharova:

The doping scandal regarding Russia is a political case from beginning to end. I believe that everyone can now see the reasons behind it. As we predicted, no evidence to prove the allegations against Russia has been provided. This is a political affair designed to deliver a blow against Russian sports. What is the reason for this affair? I believe that is part of the isolation policy launched by the United States under President Obama. It was a political put-up job. We have to hand it to them: they never made a secret of their intentions. They called for isolating Russia in all areas openly and publicly. Russia has huge sports achievements, which we have confirmed at the Sochi Olympics. And so sports have become a target for this political offensive.

Not that the doping problem does not exist in Russia. It does, but it exists everywhere, in all countries. This is why they create special organisations to deal with this problem jointly and find solutions to this problem. But instead of using these special organisations, they have decided to make it a political affair. As you remember, decisions were based on the principle of collective responsibility and evidence-free allegations. They used every trick in the book, and so we wouldn’t be surprised at anything now. We have been working to combat doping, as Russian leaders have said. We are doing this at home and at the international organisations concerned.



Question:

It was announced yesterday that the bilateral Russia-US consultations at the deputy foreign minister level were cancelled after Washington expanded sanctions against Russia. Does this mean that this format was abandoned completely? The US has said that it was open to working with Russia, despite its stand. What steps should the US take for Russia to resume the work and contacts in this format?



Maria Zakharova:

In principle, Russia did not withdraw from this format. The Foreign Ministry released a comment by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov yesterday, clearly stating that the atmosphere created by our US partners was not conducive to holding this round of talks. The statement lays out our position very clearly.

As for the US being open to working with Russia, it is our duty to ask them whether the sanctions are part of their foreign policy work. If so, they have to honestly state that the sanctions are an official element of their foreign policy doctrine. This way, we will all be aware of it. Our US colleagues used to say that sanctions are adopted as a response to specific actions that they could not support or felt their duty to oppose. At least there is some logic in this stance. The latest sanctions defy any logic. Are we seeing renewed attempts to isolate Russia? Or maybe the sanctions were expanded by inertia which is beyond the control of the US Department of State? It may also be explained by the specific nature of domestic politics in the US. This is hard to understand. What is clear is that the decision was not driven by a willingness to promote cooperation. A country cannot be ‘open’ to cooperation with another country, while also trying to isolate it. This is absurd.



Question:

How will the downing of a Syrian aircraft by the US and the incident with the airplane of the Russian Defence Minister affect the atmosphere of the meeting between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump that is expected to take place in Hamburg?



Maria Zakharova:

Questions on the meeting between the two leaders should be referred to the Presidential Executive Office, which comments on all issues related to summits, bilateral meetings and top-level contact.

If we are talking about the general atmosphere of bilateral relations, as I said when answering the question on sanctions, there is no positive momentum with decisions of this kind, since even for the US these sanctions can hardly be justified.

As for the actions in Syria, the Foreign Ministry just commented on this issue, and statements to this effect were released earlier as well. We are committed to taking action. What matters the most is that Russia’s efforts in Syria are bearing fruit. These are not just empty words with nothing to back them. I am talking about foreign policy and international initiatives that really help bring about concrete results and promote normalisation in the country. Of course, there is still a long way to go before the situation in Syria gets fully back on track. This is a very lengthy process that involves not only external players but most importantly the Syrian people. The Syrian people have suffered for many years from attempts to divide them. Russia’s efforts in Syria have proven their value and yielded concrete results.

For what reason and why did the US as the leader of the so-called anti-ISIS coalition take such unilateral action that obviously had nothing to do with fighting terrorism? Their strikes are targeting those who are fighting the terrorists. Perhaps just as in previous years there are many people in Washington who still think that through local media they can create an illusion within their country of the legitimacy and effectiveness of their action. Remember when former US Secretary of State John Kerry said at a UN Security Council meeting that he thought he was living in a parallel reality? He was one hundred per cent right. They created this parallel reality, and they live in it. However, with the development of the media and the emergence of a globalised information space, it is no longer possible to sustain a lasting impression that the US-led coalition in Syria is accomplishing something. Everyone understands who the real target is. This is obvious. What everyone also understands is that efforts to remove Bashar al-Assad from power, overthrow his regime, change the constitution of this country are now discredited, have resulted in massive casualties, made innocent people suffer, destroyed civilian infrastructure in Syria, and thrown its economic, financial, cultural, humanitarian and educational indicators many years into the past. And all this because the tactic did not work. It is impossible to understand why these mistakes should be repeated. It may be that some in the US political elite have this illusion that by owning media outlets (usually directly), by controlling or influencing the media, they can present counter-terrorist efforts as positive and effective. This is not the way things are, and everyone understands it. These actions are simply ridiculous, while also being tragic. It is absurd to strike those who are actually fighting terrorists, while continuing to operate under the label of an anti-ISIS coalition.



Question:

The media reported last week that Saudi Arabia is planning to set up a new negotiating format for the Syrian opposition in Riyadh, and that this venue will not include pro-Qatar supporters. Do we need this format at a time when the Astana and Geneva formats already exist? What do you think about this?



Maria Zakharova:

First, as we said two years ago, every opposition group is supported by specific countries, and no one even bothers to conceal this fact today. Earlier, we said that any opposition group had its own external sponsors, and now we can see how these countries are simply dividing their spheres of influence within these opposition groups. They no longer have any apprehensions about losing face, to say the least. In fact, they are already hampering the efforts of certain opposition groups to join the Astana process.

Officials in some capitals claim that the Astana process is on the verge of breaking down. It was or could have been on the verge of breaking down, but not because it has become irrelevant but precisely because certain states or vested interests supporting some opposition groups virtually hampered this process or prevented them from taking part in it. However, trends within the Syrian opposition are obvious. People who sincerely believe that Syria is their homeland and that it is necessary to save the Syrian state comprehend the topical nature of the Astana process.

We believe that relations between regional states are very complicated. This amounts to mutual relations between these countries and to their history. As we see it, these countries should not hamper the process of launching dialogue, including that under the Astana format, while squaring accounts. In this case, we can see that they are already unable to conceal some rather dirty games, even while controlling virtually all major regional media outlets. Everyone understands that earlier stories portraying the armed Syrian opposition as the so-called “fighters for democracy and justice” in Syria and about alleged democratisation were quite funny. All these armed “fighters” conducting extremist activity were backed by certain financial resources and vested interests.

It is our opinion that all countries should consolidate their efforts because terrorism will eventually spare no one, including its own creators; and we know about such historical examples. They need to improve relations for this purpose. In addition to this, the political process, including the Astana and Geneva formats, should not become affected, while the concerned countries are busy squaring accounts. Syria, including the opposition and official Damascus, will receive a historical chance to chart the state’s future foundations on a consolidated basis.



Question:

Do you have any information that the United States is planning to set up a certain security zone on the Syrian-Iraqi border.



Maria Zakharova:

Our military experts should comment on this issue because this amounts to the situation on the ground. I believe they will do this.



Question:

It was announced in connection with the June 17 incident that any flying objects, including those of the international coalition, will be tracked as air targets in areas where the Russian Aerospace Forces are accomplishing their military objectives. Does this Russian stance remain unchanged, and does this mean that any US aircraft might be shot down?



Maria Zakharova:

You should address these issues to our military experts. Please address them to the Defence Ministry.



Question:

Yesterday the media reported on Russia forming a full list of terrorist organisations for the new UN body. Can you clarify which terrorist organisations in Afghanistan will be on the list?



Maria Zakharova:

The UN Secretariat and the Secretary-General personally are building a new body that will specifically deal with counterterrorism-related issues. How this body will operate is yet to be seen.

Yesterday, it was reported that a new UN Deputy Secretary-General was appointed to supervise this new area. He is a Russian diplomat, Vladimir Voronkov, who is currently Russia’s permanent representative to the UN International Organisations in Vienna.

It is a question of what happens in the future and of the specific work. Vladimir Voronkov represents Russia right now. After he joins the UN, he will represent the UN Secretariat and the UN will be in charge of his information support. While we are still providing him with information support, we can ask him to meet with journalists shortly and talk about his vision of this effort.



Question:

What was the Foreign Ministry’s reaction to the expansion of US sanctions against Russia? Yesterday, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov announced that the consultations with Thomas Shannon were cancelled. Is the Foreign Ministry preparing additional retaliatory measures to this, yet again, act of political aggression against Russia? What is the ministry’s opinion of the escalation of these provocations against Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot say that the consultations were cancelled in response to the new sanctions. These are two different things.

It is customary to respond to sanctions in a mirror-like fashion. As Sergey Ryabkov said, the Foreign Ministry was working on a response. Unfortunately, there has to be a response.



Question:

There is still a Soviet coat of arms on the façade of the Foreign Ministry building. Why has it not been replaced with the coat of arms of the Russian Federation?



Maria Zakharova:

I think the outside appearance is less important than what is inside, and the inside has definitely changed. I think you can see that yourself. At the same time, we have maintained the best traditions inherited from the past, including the Soviet era, because Soviet diplomacy was in many respects truly outstanding as demonstrated by the post-war world order. The Russian Federation completely abandoned the policy of ideologising its foreign policy and introduced new elements in line with the current state of things. I assume you have noticed the changes in foreign policy and its development, as well as the fact that we gave up on the aspects that were unacceptable for the new Russia, and, on the contrary, added new elements that adequately corresponded to the new reality. This is reflected in our Foreign Policy Concept, in the ministry’s work and generally has become a good modern tradition.

Regarding the building, it is historical and directly reflects the history of the Soviet era. As you know, the construction of the building faced many difficulties. The famous spire was not originally planned and was later installed, as directed by Joseph Stalin or Lavrenty Beriya (historians differ in their theories). When Nikita Khrushchev was in power, there were attempts to remove the spire but eventually it was decided to keep it, as the building had already become quite well known and, to a certain extent, symbolic. Even the elements that were not originally planned or perhaps did not completely represent the architect’s vision, reflect the course of history, and this is important. I believe this is the right approach. Russian history has many good and some difficult pages but we cannot just renounce it. Knowing, understanding and accepting one’s history is very important. Rejecting or rewriting it is not just useless but dangerous. For those who do not know their history, who try to rewrite or renounce it, history tends to come back in its negative aspects.

This is a historical building that has its own well-established appearance. Thanks to modern technology, it has been updated and presented again. The work on the façade continues. The renovation includes several stages. The renovation of the right wing is nearing completion, while the left wing was revamped in the early 2000s. In 2011, the new Foreign Ministry building was opened. It is Building No. 1 where we are now and where the Press Centre is. The work has been extended over time.

We have received many requests to show the new spire and we are ready to do so. We can arrange tours for those journalists who are interested.



Question:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asked for explanations after the US Air Force shot down a Syrian aircraft. Have you received any comments about this?



Maria Zakharova:

No, noting other than public statements. We have made our reaction to this clear: this is unacceptable.

We maintain contact with the United States at various levels, including through talks with the US Secretary of State and between the experts who deal with bilateral relations and Syrian issues. Washington is fully aware of our position. We say that such actions are absolutely unacceptable.



Question:

The memorandum on air safety in Syria has been suspended because of this incident. What other diplomatic instruments can Russia use to influence the United States?



Maria Zakharova:

Talks and diplomacy.



Question:

A question from Al Jazeera…



Maria Zakharova:

By the way, how is your network doing? Are you working alright?



Question:

Yes.



Maria Zakharova:

Is the situation in the region normal? What about your headquarters?



Question:

Everything is fine.



Maria Zakharova:

Good, because there’ve been reports about attempts to shut your network down.



Question:

Everything is fine at the moment.



Maria Zakharova:

Everything is fine. This is very good. You sometimes want to get first-hand information. It’s good that you are not being shut down.



Question:

Yes. Do you have proof that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed as a result of a strike by the Russian Aerospace Forces?



Maria Zakharova:

No, I have no information to this effect.



Question:

Many people have expressed interest and even are surprised at the new, unusually bright façade of the Russian Foreign Ministry. What can you say about this?



Maria Zakharova:

This is the result of the stone cleaning technology. We didn’t paint the building but only cleaned the stone. I think that many people are surprised because the colour of the upper stories has changed. Those who often come to Smolenskaya Square can see that the colour of the left- and right-wing annexes has changed following repairs: it has become a lighter shade. But the overall colour will even out with time due to the effect of rain, snow and wind.

No new parts have been added to the ministry building. Only the spire is completely new. It has been made of modern alloys and is therefore stronger and yet lighter.

The lining of the part of the building under the spire is the same. It has been only cleaned and restored. The stone tiles have been additionally protected, but their colour will gradually even out for natural reasons.



Question:

In other words, am I right in thinking that it will gradually become the same as the rest of the building?



Maria Zakharova:

I could prepare a thorough report on this matter – the stone, its colour and the restoration work involved – for the next briefing. But as I have said, we worked very accurately and have preserved the building’s former look, including the smallest details. The only item that has been replaced entirely is the spire. When the initial spire was installed – many of you are now the happy owners of small parts from it – this was done in haste, because the spire, which is some 70 metres tall, was not stipulated in the design. The architectural plans for the building did not include calculations for the spire, and so the architects had to consider the structure and materials which the building would support. This was back in the 1950s.

New materials have been invented since then, and we have decided to use them. But outwardly the spire is the same as the original one. It’s a carbon copy. I can request information from the engineers and developers, so as to be able to tell you every detail regarding the form and the colour.



Question:

Could you answer a question about air tracking in Syria?



Maria Zakharova:

This is a question for the Defence Ministry, which also holds briefings and regularly meets with the media. The defence and foreign ministries have different spheres of responsibility.



Question:

We are unable to do this.



Maria Zakharova:

We’ll phone our colleagues, and I think this issue will be settled.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2793895

[Alex Him]

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the adoption of amendments to the law on the prohibition of communist propaganda or any other totalitarian system by the Polish Sejm



22 June 2017 - 18:34



On June 22, the Sejm of the Republic of Poland overwhelmingly approved the amendments to the national law on the prohibition of propaganda of communism or any other totalitarian system of April 1, 2016, the so-called law on decommunisation.

The amendments imply that Poland must get rid of all memorial sites commemorating the organisations, events and dates unwanted by the current Polish authorities. They make no secret of the fact that the “main blow” will be dealt to the monuments and other memorial objects that honour the heroism of the Red Army, which liberated Poland from the Nazis and the Polish people from total extermination.

This decision seems particularly objectionable as it is timed to coincide with the sacred and tragic day of Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union. We cannot call this anything other than the disgraceful desecration of the memory of those killed. We are certain that many people in Poland oppose this abominable behaviour. Those who continue the campaign of “war” against monuments have to realise that they are provoking higher tensions in Russian-Polish relations.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2795682

[Alex Him]

Remarks by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Dmitry Balakin on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, June 22, 2017



23 June 2017 - 10:26





Mr Chairman,

The situation in Ukraine continues to arouse grave concern. Kiev’s militant nationalist agenda is undermining the chances of a peaceful settlement of the internal conflict in Donbass and plaguing the economic, cultural and family ties between Ukraine and Russia, which the organisers and instigators of the Maidan coup in Kiev, both Ukrainian and foreign, would be eager to break off once and for all. The split in Ukrainian society is growing deeper.

Contrary to the Ukrainian representatives’ propaganda-laden assertions, Russia is not punishing Ukraine for its so-called “European choice.” The nationalists are doing a better job destabilising their country than any invented Russian “aggression” or “invasion.” It makes no sense to deny that there is an internal civil conflict: it is Ukrainian citizens that are manning both sides of the divide. It is shortsighted to close our eyes to this and think that a solution could be found outside of Kiev’s direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk.

Russian spoken by a considerable part of the population is being ousted from all spheres of public life, the media and government agencies. There are many bilingual and multilingual countries among the OSCE member-states, and these countries know well how different languages can coexist within a single state.

The historical memory related, among other things, to the victory over Nazism is being distorted. Present-day Ukraine’s heroes are the henchmen and followers of the Nazis guilty of massive extermination of civilians in Ukraine and some neighbouring countries. The attempt to destroy our common history, the thoughtless and wholesale “decommunisation” is extremely dangerous. The official nonfeasance in relation to the armed neo-Nazis from the Azov regiment, who, for example, attacked a peaceful protest against the renaming of Prospekt Vatutina in Kiev on June 16, is fraught with sinister consequences. The neo-Nazi leaders, including some deputies of the Verkhovna Rada, are looking forward to what they call the Night of the Long Knives. The historical connotations are clear.

Attacks continue on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, its parishioners and its property.

Persecution of dissent has become normal practice in Ukraine. This includes shadowing by the secret services, reports to the authorities, the ban on using the social media and Russian web browsers, and a Criminal Code article for “homegrown separatism.” A chain of mysterious deaths of politicians and public figures, including author Oles Buzyna, should not be forgotten either. We also remember slain journalists Igor Kornelyuk, Anton Voloshin, Anatoly Klyan, Andrea Rocchelli, and others.

The continuation of clashes in Donbass benefits the nationalist wing, or the “party of war.” They do not want peace, nor do they need the Minsk Agreements. Nevertheless, there is no other basis for a peaceful settlement.

Following the Contact Group meeting in Minsk, it became clear that the draft law On the Reintegration of Donbass, which is being discussed in Kiev, does not provide for a comprehensive political settlement of the crisis. There is no special status for Donbass or modality of local elections. The draft has disregarded even the “Steinmeier formula.” The procedure for implementing Paragraph 5 of the Minsk Package of Measures, which emphasises the need to “ensure pardon and amnesty by enacting the law prohibiting the prosecution and punishment of persons in connection with the events” that took place in the conflict zone.

Regrettably, the promotion of this draft law, as well as the calls to replace the punitive operation with something else that is strongly reminiscent of martial law are all signs that Kiev is still considering a military, not political, solution to the Donbass crisis and trying to misrepresent the Minsk Agreements.

We hope that the new regime of quiet, or the so-called “bread ceasefire,” which the parties in Minsk have agreed to impose as of June 24, will not be, as usual, disrupted by the Ukrainian armed forces.

So far, however, the situation in Donbass is not being stabilised. On the contrary, the Kiev-controlled military continue provoking a rise in tensions on the line of contact. A clear proof of this is a Ukrainian armed forces attack on the village of Zhelobok in the Lugansk Region during the Contact Group meeting on June 7. Based on satellite data, the Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine has confirmed that nearly 200 artillery strikes were delivered at the self-defence forces’ positions. The military continue indiscriminate shelling of populated localities in Donbass. According to media reports, the period from June 12 to 18 alone saw fire strikes issuing from Ukrainian deployment sectors, including those delivered by multiple rocket launchers, at Donetsk, Trudovskoye, Sakhanka, Starolaspa, Yasinovataya, Oboznoye and Khristovo. As a result, three civilians were killed and three wounded; a boarding school and several houses were damaged.

The disengagement of forces in Stanitsa Luganskaya has been put off ten times in a row through Kiev’s fault. In the small hours of June 17, a local SMM camera recorded an exchange of fire, with the fire attack launched in the north-to-south direction, which means that it was initiated by the Ukrainian armed forces. That the latter is not interested in diffusing tensions is evidenced by the deployment of numerous military equipment close to the line of contact (including 3 multiple rocket launchers (MRL) and 7 howitzers in Konstantinovka, 4 MRL in Stepanovka, 3 MRL in Yablonovka, 6 howitzers in Volnovakha, 3 guns in Zhelannoye, 3 howitzers and 3 antiaircraft missile systems in Zelenoye Pole, and a mortar in Novosyolovka Vtoraya). Immediately behind the lines of withdrawal, the monitors have spotted 36 tanks and 6 self-propelled mortars (at the railway stations in Zachatovka, Konstantinovka and Khlebodarovka).

Concerns were expressed today that the monitoring in the territory under the control of the self-defence forces was largely restricted in comparison with the other side of the line of contact. This is not true to fact. While the monitors face certain cases of transit bans in individual areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, there are entire districts in Ukrainian-controlled Stanitsa Luganskaya, Schastye, Popasnaya, Bogdanovka and Katerinovka that have been off-limits to the SMM for a long time under the pretext of a mine threat. The existence of “prohibited areas” was confirmed by SMM deputy head Alexander Hug at a news briefing on June 12.

As for the incident in Yasinovataya on June 20, the reports posted on the DPR and LPR news websites the following day said that the local security services had detained the culprits. According to preliminary information, the detained persons were members of a raiding and reconnaissance party belonging to the Ukrainian government forces. Their mission was to discredit the authorities of certain districts in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions and to intimidate the OSCE SMM. We have repeatedly pointed to the Ukrainian armed forces’ increased raiding activities in Donbass.

We hope that Western countries will look at the imposition of restrictions on the SMM’s freedom without bias and will not try to politicise the issue.

In conclusion, we are again calling on states that have influence on Kiev to use it for the purpose of bringing about an early settlement of the Ukrainian crisis on the basis of the Minsk Agreements, something that will certainly have a positive effect on the general security and cooperation climate in the OSCE space.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2795742

[Alex Him]

Remarks by Alexei Karpov, Deputy Head of the Russian delegation and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the International Organisations in Vienna, at the 48th session of the Preparatory Commission (PC) for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO), Vienna, June 22, 2017



23 June 2017 - 15:01





Madam President, Mr Executive Secretary,

We would like to express our gratitude to PC Executive Secretary Lassina Zerbo for the informative reports about the work of the Provisional Technical Secretariat of the Commission. We positively assess the activities of the Secretariat during the reporting period.

Madam President,

We are compelled to state that given the uncertain prospects for the CTBT's entry into force, certain additional factors increase our concern for the future of this important Treaty. I am referring to a recently circulated draft convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, including, among other things, the introduction of a nuclear testing ban parallel to the CTBT, as well as the attempts to involve the CTBTO Preparatory Commission and the IAEA in these negotiations. This issue was mentioned today by a number of speakers before us.

We would like to share our thoughts on this matter.

This initiative would undermine the NPT regime’s integrity, and undercut the CTBT, which enjoys almost universal support.

Nuclear disarmament is not mentioned either among the tasks of the CTBTO Preparatory Commission, or among the object and the goal in accordance with the CTBT and its Protocol.

As is known, the mandate of the CTBTO PC is limited to conducting the necessary preparations for the effective implementation of the CTBT and preparation for the first session of the Conference of States Parties to this Treaty. The creation of a costly comprehensive mechanism to monitor compliance with the Treaty is nearing completion.

The initiative, which introduces a ban on nuclear testing in parallel to the CTBT, threatens the normal activities of the Preparatory Commission, including final stages of creating the verification mechanism. It undermines 20 years of individual and collective efforts of the signatory states aimed at ensuring its early entry into force. At the same time, this initiative is unable to resolve the practical task of achieving a universal, comprehensive, legally binding and controlled nuclear testing ban, since it does not enjoy universal international support, but rather serves to divide us. In view of the above, we consider untenable any arguments in this context regarding the need to further strengthen the CTBT provisions signed by 183 and ratified by the 166 states.

We object to any participation of the Executive Secretary of the CTBTO Preparatory Commission or its representatives in any talks on implementing this questionable initiative.

We are saying all this exclusively in defence of the CTBT, the treaty, which we have been directly involved in on this platform, and to which Russia has been committed for over 20 years. Let me remind you that the firm intention of our country to seek an early entry of the CTBT into force is included in the statement of the Russian President of April 11, 2016.

Madam President,

We reaffirm our continued support for Executive Secretary of the Commission Lassina Zerbo, and his activities in this capacity. We are confident that with his inherent wisdom, he will sympathise with our concerns expressed here and make the right decision.

We would also like to express our gratitude to all our colleagues present in this room for their active and constructive joint work to approve the draft final declaration of the forthcoming conference to be held in New York in September, which will focus on promoting the CTBT’s entry into force. We are confident that our joint efforts to support the Treaty will allow us to finish what we have started. This is our primary goal.

In closing, I would like to confirm that Russia is fully committed to the goal of building a world free of nuclear weapons. At the same time, we urge all the supporters of a nuclear-free world to concentrate their efforts on forming such conditions, including the entry into force of the CTBT, which would be a great help in considering possible further steps in the sphere of nuclear weapons at corresponding international venues.

We would like to ask our colleagues to refrain from including on the agenda of the commission issues that are outside its mandate and goals.

The Russian delegation is prepared to comment on other issues on the agenda as part of the session activities.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2798639

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Belarusian media for the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, Moscow, June 23, 2017



23 June 2017 - 16:15





Sergey Lavrov:

I am glad to welcome you here and I’d like to congratulate you on the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations, which is coming in two days.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, thank you for agreeing to answer our questions on the eve of the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. For the majority of Russian and Belarusian citizens this is a fairly formal figure because our bilateral relations are much deeper and longer than a quarter century. At the same time for journalists and experts 25 years is a significant period of intensive cooperation – sometimes not very easy but indisputably important. We would like to hear your objective assessment of the greatest successes of our cooperation in the past 25 years.



Sergey Lavrov:

You are certainly right. Twenty five years is a moment in the history of our relations that are rooted in the ancient past. For many centuries we have lived together and asserted the independence of our lands and peoples, and our spiritual and cultural proximity. The intertwining of human lives in the literal sense – Russian-Belarusian families and children – creates a special atmosphere and foundation in our relations. I think this foundation is solid and reliable enough to last into the distant future.

As for the period during which we lived as independent states after the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the Russians and the Belarusians were the first to understand the detriment of the collapse of relations that took shape in the previous period and that met the vital interests of the people in our independent countries. This is exactly what provided the impetus for our movement towards integration, which later on was embraced by other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) on a broader geographical plane. The 1999 Treaty on the Creation of the Union State between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus and the bilateral 1998 Treaty on Equal Rights of Citizens were important bricks in the building of our Union State, which allow us to derive huge benefits from our advanced integration plans and decisions. Therefore, the Union State as such is certainly our biggest gain, even though we still have to complete many plans that are mentioned in the Treaty on the Creation of the Union State. In any event, we must do an inventory, and we suggested this to our Belarusian friends. Importantly, this cooperation does not rest only on Moscow-Minsk relations. Practically all Russian regions (a bit over 80 – so practically all) maintain ties with their partners from Belarus. We regularly exchange visits both at the Government and regional level. The two-way traffic never stops, allowing us to maintain very close daily cooperation and enhance our allied relations.

We have common defence tasks. We have a joint force that reliably ensures the security of our countries and our Union State. Furthermore, we are most active in developing and coordinating our allied relations in the CSTO.

I would also like to mention the humanitarian and cultural aspect. Russia and Belarus are continuously hosting each other’s festivals. Their performers and public movements are in close contact, consolidating the human contacts that are so important in the modern world.

As for our foreign policy affairs, we are developing the closest cooperation possible between us in the context of the two-year programmes of coordinated foreign policy action, which allow us to synchronise all of our actions on a daily basis.

This is far from an exhaustive account of our relations in the past 25 years but I tried to cover our major achievements.



Question:

What did you mean when you said it’s necessary to carry out an inventory?



Sergey Lavrov:

You should read the Treaty on Establishing the Union State, and it will become clear what has already been accomplished, and what has not. I will not go into these details now. I believe everyone can do this by themselves.



Question:

The main idea of the Union State deals with equal opportunities both for the citizens of Russia and Belarus. Two decades on, we can see that joint work should be expedited in certain fields. In what areas will rights soon be jointly standardised?



Sergey Lavrov:

The 1998 Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus on the Equal Rights of Citizens stipulates standardised rights in all spheres . It goes without saying that there are so many areas where it was hard to accomplish this in one go. Although just over ten years have passed, much has been accomplished when it comes to labour and economic activities, such as methods which guarantee the right to work and leisure, education and healthcare. Efforts have been made to equalise all rights to a considerable extent, if not by 100 percent. As I have already pointed out, this includes various aspects of labour activity, retirement, education and the payment of grants. Life continues to develop all the time, and Russia, for example, has introduced the Unified State Exam. Belarus stipulates similar requirements that differ somewhat in terms of their methodology. It has now been decided to harmonise these tools, so as to eliminate all inconveniences. At any rate, Belarusians now graduating from high school under their own methodology have every right to enroll at Russian universities without any restrictions, and vice versa. This is very important.

We still have a little to accomplish though. It is necessary to specify certain healthcare nuances. We are currently expanding the list of citizens’ categories, eligible to automatically receive free treatment in both countries. One issue is related to different legislation concerning real estate property rights, as well as payments for treatment at health centres and for hotel accommodation. We are bringing this up with our Belarusian friends. Experts maintain the required contacts. I believe these are sufficiently minor points.

However, certain things requiring urgent solutions sometimes arise. This concerns the mutual recognition of driving licences for self-employed or other business people. On June 16, members of the Union State’s Cabinet of Ministers passed the appropriate resolution in St. Petersburg, that is, two weeks after this issue started making us apprehensive. This matter has now been resolved completely. I believe that any other nuances that may arise (because well-coordinated national legislations are, nevertheless, developing rather individually) will be quickly resolved without inconveniencing our citizens in any way.



Question:

You have already mentioned that Russia and Belarus coordinate their respective foreign policies. This year, the EU lifted its sanctions on Belarus, and their relations have become somewhat warmer. However, Russia has cooler rather than warmer relations with the West. How does Moscow react to such actions by its ally?



Sergey Lavrov:

As far I understand, only a portion of the sanctions on the Republic of Belarus has been lifted.

With regard to the rapprochement between Belarus and the European Union, we are not allergic to that; there is no jealousy whatsoever. It is a natural desire of any country, including the Russian Federation, to seek mutually beneficial ties with all its neighbours.

Notably, there was no cooling with regard to the European Union on our part. We remain convinced that Russia and the European Union, just like Belarus and the European Union, or our other EU neighbours, should cooperate transparently, equitably and openly.

We never asked our partners in the post-Soviet space to make a choice, or decide who they want to be with, Russia or the West. However, our Western colleagues have posed this question repeatedly to the post-Soviet countries. The first Maidan protests in Ukraine in 2004, when the EU foreign ministers publicly demanded Kiev make a choice between Russia and Europe, is a case in point. I believe that this is an ugly and subversive policy, which is still affecting the Ukrainian people, and many others as well, as it was used and conducted not only in Ukraine.

Our Foreign Policy Concept says that we are in favour of an equal and advanced strategic partnership with the European Union. This principle remains unchanged in our doctrines. As soon as the European Union is ready to abandon its current absolutely dead-end policy (and we can already see signs of it), we will be willing to return to the path of progressive development in the interests of the citizens of the EU and Russia.

To reiterate, there is a number of indications that many members of the European Union are beginning to realise the absolute futility of the current policy. They have long disliked the fact that the EU policy towards Russia is dictated by the Russophobic minority, which abuses the EU principle of solidarity and requires everyone to accept their extremist and utterly anti-Russian approaches. They are unwilling to accept the positions of those who advocate sensible relations with Russia, or to meet them halfway.

We told our partners in the post-Soviet space, including our partners from the Republic of Belarus and our EU colleagues, that we would not want the well-known Eastern Partnership programme to be used to present the so-called focal countries with a false choice. We were willing to cooperate with this project from the get-go, and suggested that Brussels look for projects which, within the framework of this programme, will unite the EU countries, and countries that are focal for the Eastern Partnership programme, and which will also ensure Russia’s participation. Unfortunately, little has been achieved since then. However, we are not making a tragedy out of this, even though we are aware that some people want to turn this process, which is aimed at achieving useful results, into some kind of an anti-Russian venture.

I would like to emphasise once again that we are fine with any country willing to cooperate with any other country in the socioeconomic, humanitarian or cultural sphere. This is enshrined in our documents. In our foreign policy, we use the term “multi-vector principle” to refer to it. Based on its geographic location, Russia cannot base its foreign policy on any other approach. By the same token, given its geographical and geopolitical position, Belarus is entitled, and I would even say obligated, to seek good relations with all its neighbours.

The fact that our neighbours are beginning to see the light and have begun to turn away from their sanctions policies with regard to the Republic of Belarus is a welcome development. I hope that they are not doing it as part of another attempt to tear Belarus away from Russia, but simply because they have realised that sanctions lead nowhere and never result in anything good, including for those who commission or carry them out.



Question:

It is not uncommon for East European neighbours to overreact to any planned joint exercises by Russia and Belarus, while turning a blind eye on the fact that NATO infrastructure is moving closer and closer to the borders of the Union State. Only recently, President of Lithuania Dalia Grybauskaite said that her country’s proximity to Belarus posed a threat to the Baltics. In your opinion, how should we respond to statements of this kind? Are we ready for further attempts by NATO to strengthen its positions to the west of our borders?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, it is not the first year that we have been hearing laments and wailing over the joint exercises held by Russia and Belarus. We are currently preparing the West 2017 exercise. The Union Shield 2015 exercise was held two years ago. Back then, we heard the same outcries that Russian troops would enter Belarus under the pretext of participating in an exercise and would stay there forever and occupy the country. This is nonsense in its purest form, especially when statements of this kind are coming from politicians aspiring to a respectable role within the European Union.

Both Russia and Belarus have denied on multiple occasions rumours that Russian troops were preparing to invade Belarus under the pretext of a military exercise and stay there forever.

Our NATO colleagues know all too well that they were invited to attend these exercises, and that they are transparent, just like all the previous joint military exercises held by the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus. At a number of Russia-NATO Council meetings we made presentations on the exercises held by Russia with its allies and partners.

We try to do everything we can to maintain normal relations with Europe, strengthen trust and prevent any escalation or confrontation. We have seen time and again the kind of far-fetched pretexts used to justify all these preparations that are going on right now, with NATO infrastructure approaching our borders and new detachments being sent there on rotation, which means that there will be constant deployment, and other actions. If there had not been a government coup in Ukraine, when Russia had to protect people refusing to submit to neo-Nazi-leaning forces behind the coup, they would have come up with some other pretext. NATO has never changed its plans, which were always more or less aimed at cultivating the geopolitical space that, as they thought, was “up for grabs” after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

It is extremely regrettable that this strategy prevailed over proposals to devise a common approach after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, maybe under the OSCE umbrella, and based on equal and indivisible security for all in the North-Atlantic Region, instead of seeking to further strengthen NATO and permanently expand it in all directions, primarily to the east, and instead of exacerbating dividing lines in Europe.

When several years ago Russia proposed entering into an agreement to this effect, in order to confirm as a legally binding commitment what western leaders were solemnly saying about the need to prevent attempts to strengthen one’s security to the detriment of others, we were told that this political message should remain in the political realm, while the west will guarantee security only for those who join NATO.

This was an outright provocative stand, and it remains in place to this day, reflecting a sort of a NATO-centric attitude. There is nothing good about it, and it does not help build neighbourly relations or trust, or address concerns. Nevertheless, Russia is still doing everything it can, even in these conditions.

One year ago, the President of Russia Vladimir Putin supported the proposal by the President of Finland Sauli Niinistö to develop additional security measures for the Baltic airspace, including the issue of the so-called transponders. In July 2016, Russia submitted a proposal to this effect to the Russia-NATO Council. Not only did it cover transponders, but also other confidence-building and transparency measures. It has been almost a year since NATO has been thinking how to respond to these proposals, despite the fact that they are always the ones who call on Russia to be more predictable. This is how you can check whether they really mean what they are saying.

As for NATO building up troops and infrastructure, primarily in the Baltic countries and in Poland, using upgraded former Soviet bases and creating new ones, as well by redeploying NATO troops to the border with Russia, including from the leading western countries, I can say that I have a very high opinion of the military thinking and training in the US, Germany, Great Britain and other NATO countries. I cannot allow them to consider, even in the most distant and abstract terms, the possibility of NATO attacking Russia. All these developments are in line with the policy that emerged in late 1980s – early 1990s of cultivating the geopolitical space that was allegedly left vacant. Of course, all this runs counter to the assurances that were provided to the leaders of USSR whereby NATO not only did not intend to expand to the east, but even to have any military infrastructure in eastern Germany. I am not saying that we have to panic, escalate this confrontation and give in to this provocation aimed at dragging us into an arms race. We are confident that Russia and Belarus, through their joint military command, have everything it takes to prevent any provocation undermining our security.



Question:

Just as any other partners, Russia and Belarus have similar views on some issues and diverge on others. Are there serious differences and problems between them, or only issues that can and are gradually settled?



Sergey Lavrov:

There are no two countries that have settled all issues between them once and for all. First, we are talking about sovereign countries. And second, balancing partners’ economic interests is the key in any integration organisation. No balance remains static, because life goes on, the developing economy gives rise to new technologies, and the situation on the market changes, which in turn influences the economy of every party to international trade and investment cooperation.

This is also true of our relations in the Union State. I would like to say that Belarusian negotiators, especially in the economic block, persevere and can debate very well. Their Russian colleagues do their best to hold their ground. When we fell out over some aspects of energy cooperation, our experts spent much time and effort to create conditions for the April meeting between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, when they reached an agreement that settled the problems and eased tensions that had developed at this stage in our integration. I know there will be problems in future as well, and we will need to address them. But I am sure we will settle them in the same friendly manner and to our mutual benefit, as true allies should.



Question:

An intergovernmental agreement on mutual recognition of visas is now being prepared. When will it be signed? Can we say that our countries have a common union view on the entire spectrum of migration policy issues?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are working on a common perspective now. The Union Government approved a joint action programme for creating a common migration space by 2020 at the meeting on June 16 in St Petersburg. The recently established interdepartmental group for the coordination of migration policy will be the main working tool in this area, assisted by the first deputy interior ministers, who met in April and for the most part drafted the proposals that were approved by the prime ministers as part of the common migration space programme. That was an important step in shaping a unified approach to this difficult issue, given that we do not yet have a complete agreement on the list of countries for visa-free travel or simplified visa procedures.

We have plans for an agreement on a single visa space. The first step in this direction is reaching an agreement on mutual recognition of visas that we want to coordinate. This will require professional, technical and expert consultations. We are now starting them. Once reached, the agreement will help us significantly advance in forming a single migration space, and more, a single visa space.



Question:

You have already said there are no plans to deploy Russian forces in Belarus. I would like to clarify a few related details. Setting up a Russian military air base in Belarus was once discussed. Is this no longer on the table? Is the issue of any other form of Russia’s military presence in that country being raised?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have not heard anything about the military base plans lately. We acknowledged Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko’s decision made within his powers and competence. We treat his decisions with full respect.

Nobody is considering Russian military presence in Belarus without the consent of the Belarusian leadership. I would like to reiterate that the military exercises that regularly take place in Belarus and involve the Russian Armed Forces units are the result of coordinated decisions taken by the heads of state that are carried out in a transparent manner and in full compliance with their obligations within the framework of the Union State.



Question:

At present, Russia and Belarus have joined the Silk Road Economic Belt project. However, there are sceptics that think it poses a threat of soft conquest of our markets. What prospects does this project have and what can it give to Belarus, Russia and the EAEU as a whole?



Sergey Lavrov:

The world economy is not very stable and predictable. It is usually called volatile. More and more countries are coming to realise that stability should be primarily sought through greater integration. The formation of the EAEU, with the active role of our countries as initiators, reflects this trend. Let me note in parentheses that integration processes are also taking place in the CIS. One example is the free trade area for goods. Now experts are considering its expansion to services. So, these processes are developing not only in the EAEU but also on a broader geographical plane.

At the same time, as you will recall, when establishing the EAEU the heads of state affirmed its open character and their interest in working with other countries in the most diverse, universally acceptable forms. Now about 50 states are interested in establishing different forms of relations with the EAEU. Many of them would like to negotiate a free trade area. The first free trade area agreement was signed with Vietnam. Negotiations are being conducted with several other Southeast Asian countries and consultations with ASEAN are getting underway. This was agreed upon in May 2016 when Sochi hosted the summit of the Russian Federation and the ASEAN countries.

The openness of the common position of the EAEU countries implies their desire to establish ties with the neighbours of our integration association. China is the largest of them. It began to promote its initiatives of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road at approximately the same time as talks on the EAEU got underway. Eventually these initiatives formed the One Belt One Road concept. Last May Beijing hosted a very representative forum that was attended by about 50 leaders of various countries and organisations. They discussed ways of developing this concept. This includes advancing transport and logistics routes and economic cooperation on the vast space of Eurasia. I do not think it creates grounds for concern.

As for our actions in the EAEU, first, a couple of years ago the EAEU leadership and heads of state endorsed our efforts to harmonise our integration plans with those advanced by China under this concept.

Second, our leaders and the Chinese leader agreed to work on what is tentatively described as the Greater Eurasia Project that would include EAEU, China and the SCO. The accession of India and Pakistan added substantial economic weight to the SCO. Apart from the organisations I mentioned, ASEAN also expressed interest. If we consider the geographical parameters of this emerging cooperation, it is obvious that we should also look at the West where integration processes are developing in the EU, which is now undergoing a difficult period. It is enough to mention Brexit and some other examples of scepticism. It is in our interest for these difficulties to be overcome. Despite a sharp reduction in trade, the EU remains our main foreign trade partner. Incidentally, Belarus is our first partner in the CIS and fourth in the world.

Considering the active efforts to the east of the EU, I am convinced that Brussels will eventually understand that EU states will only gain from joining these efforts. When (and I hope it is a matter of "when" rather than “if”) this happens, we will witness the realisation of Charles de Gaulle’s vision of a common Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals. We are already talking about a common economic and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok. There are no grounds for apprehension. Nobody, at least from among our partners – the EAEU and SCO countries, China and ASEAN – is going to press anything on anyone. All decisions will be made on the basis of a balance of interest. As a country located at the junction of the processes developing between the EAEU and its eastern neighbours, Belarus has very good opportunities to organically merge with modern trends.



Question:

There has been more talk lately that the Minsk agreements have exhausted themselves and that the time has come to move on to a different format, possibly involving the United States. How would you comment on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have not heard any serious opinions about the Minsk agreements having exhausted themselves. There is a lot of casual talk though, mainly in Kiev. Ever since these agreements were signed, the Ukrainian leaders have been looking for excuses to not observe them. The idea of ​​going to the UN was spread at some point and stirred up for a long time, bringing confusion into the arrangement that relied on the OSCE. Then they began suggesting involving armed police from the EU, or an armed UN peacekeeping mission, etc. And yet, we just heard from President Poroshenko of Ukraine that the Minsk agreements should be fully implemented. These are just words of course, always followed by a series of interpretations by our Ukrainian colleagues in various formats and through various channels: the Minsk agreements should be implemented, they say, but not in the order stipulated. In Kiev, it is believed that the Ukrainian government should first get full control over the entire Donbass area, and after that fulfil its obligations to organise elections and enshrine the region’s status in the constitution. This is illegal, because the Minsk agreements, approved by the UN Security Council, stipulate implementation of all political reforms (such as amnesty, the law on the special status of Donbass permanently enshrined in the constitution, and elections under the OSCE control) before Kiev establishes complete control over that region. Without these political reforms, it will be impossible to guarantee the security of the people who now administer some of the districts in the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions, and who have led protests against the illegal coup d’état organised with the help of neo-Nazi forces. What happened – and is still happening – to those who objected to the presence and dominance of radical thinkers in the Kiev authorities (I am referring to the Odessa incident and many others that have not yet been investigated) makes me seriously question whether Kiev will be able to ensure the safety of these people. It is absolutely indispensable and inescapable to have guarantees in the form of special status, amnesty, and elections that reflect the will of people living in these areas. They are required by the Minsk agreements as a condition for restoring Kiev’s full control over the entire region.



Question:

Is there any other format needed here, or should Minsk agreements be exclusively implemented?



Sergey Lavrov:

Even during Barack Obama’s tenure, when we were asked these questions, we gave the same answer. If our European partners – who are helping us promote the Normandy format as a means of external assistance for the implementation of the Minsk agreements – are ready for this, we will not mind the involvement of our American colleagues. However, back then, it was deemed advisable to cooperate with the Americans alongside the Normandy format, not as part of this mechanism. As you know, there was a bilateral US-Russia channel at the level of representatives of the Department of State and Russian Presidential Executive Office. Washington then established similar bilateral channels with Berlin, Paris, and Kiev. When US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was in Moscow in April, when I was in Washington and met with US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in May, while discussing the Ukrainian crisis with them, we confirmed our readiness to resume the bilateral channel if Donald Trump’s government finds this expedient. We thought it would be useful, but so far we have not received a concrete response.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2796130

[Alex Him]

Press release on the 35th Session of the UN Human Rights Council



24 June 2017 - 09:42



The 35th Session of the UN Human Rights Council ended in Geneva on June 23.

The participating delegations exchanged opinions on a wide range of international human rights issues, highlighting the rights of women, internally displaced persons and migrants, transnational corporations and human rights, peaceful assembly and association, independence of judges and lawyers, the right to health and education, human trafficking and several other issues.

The Russian delegation at the session focused on preventing the politicisation of human rights activities or their use for interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign states and on the importance of the principle of equal and mutually respectful cooperation in the area of human rights. The Russian delegates pointed out that the adoption of politically motivated country specific resolutions and destructive criticism of states cannot improve the human rights situation in these countries or promote their dialogue with international organisations.

During discussions of the human rights situation in Ukraine, the Russian delegation expressed serious concern over the dramatic growth of tensions in Donbass and the data provided by the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine about recent cases of unlawful and arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, and systematic use of torture by Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) personnel to extract confessions from those who were detained on suspicion of involvement in the Donbass conflict. The Russian delegates also pointed to Kiev’s discriminatory activities such as the socioeconomic blockade of southeastern Ukraine. In this context, they urged the UN and the human rights community to continue to encourage the Ukrainian authorities to strictly comply with their international human rights obligations and international humanitarian law, as well as to implement the Minsk Agreements in order to achieve a lasting peace in the country.

The participants of the 35th session of the UN Human Rights Council adopted without a vote a Russia-sponsored resolution on the Seventieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action in 2018. The document was co-sponsored by over 120 member states and observers.

Another important achievement was the adoption of yet another HRC resolution on the protection of the family, which was sponsored by a group of states, including Russia. The resolution reaffirmed the inseverable connection between human rights and traditional humanitarian values.

At the same time, the session revealed old problems in the HRC’s work, primarily those that are connected to growing confrontation between states, double standards and attempts to use human rights allegations to demean some countries. In this context, the discussion of Syria and Belarus and the adoption of politically motivated resolutions on them were completely detached from reality.

The 36th session of the UN Human Rights Council will be held between September 11 and 29, 2017.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2796428

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Ethiopian Minister of Foreign Affairs Workneh Gebeyehu, Moscow, June 26, 2017



26 June 2017 - 14:08





Question (addressed to Workneh Gebeyehu):

Many regions of Africa are under serious threat of their security and stability due to the invigoration of terrorist activities. What measures is the African community taking to counter this evil?



Sergey Lavrov (adds after Dr Gebeyehu):

I would like to add that we are reaffirming our solidarity with the African nations that are opposing the threat of terrorism. This threat appeared after outside forces, notably Western countries, carried out a number of projects to overthrow objectionable regimes. This was a crude violation of international law and these projects have let the genie of terrorism out of the bottle.

After the Muammar Gaddafi regime was overthrown in 2011, Libya was flooded with illegal arms supplies and militants started moving from Libya into the depth of Africa. We are still dealing with this situation. The first blow was dealt at African countries in the Sahara-Sahel region, particularly in Mali. The Islamic State is acquiring new allies – Boko Haram in Nigeria, groups that split from al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb, and al-Shabaab in Somalia, which is also spreading out beyond that state.

We are convinced that the only way out from this critical situation lies in the formation of a genuinely international anti-terrorist front, for which President of Russia Vladimir Putin has long been calling for. For the time being the formation of this front is being impeded by those who would like to fish in troubled waters and exploit the need to eliminate the terrorist threat as the top priority of the world community. Double standards are being used once again. I have said more than once that judging from our experience of combatting terrorism in Syria we got the impression that Jabhat al-Nusra, or whatever it may be called today, has always been spared by the forces of the US-led coalition and its allies. Recently there has been new evidence that Jabhat al-Nusra in its new reincarnation is again being let off the hook. We consider this a very dangerous game that must be stopped. All double standards, ulterior motives and secret plans must be put aside for the sake of the uncompromising struggle against terrorism.



Question:

Soon Astana will host a regular round of talks on Syria. Moscow hopes it will adopt a package of documents on de-escalation zones in Syria. Are the sides ready for a regular round of talks in your opinion? Can this round be decisive? Are Moscow, Ankara and Tehran working on the layout of international forces in Syria’s de-escalation zones as Ankara has stated?



Sergey Lavrov:

The forthcoming round of talks that was endorsed at the previous meeting held in Astana on May 4 will take place in the capital of Kazakhstan in early July. As the guarantor countries agreed, it will focus on specifying the concept of de-escalation zones in Syria with the support of the Syrian government and participation of the armed opposition involved in this process. The concept requires detail elaboration. Now technical experts (who met in Moscow not so long ago) are discussing all details of this concept with a view to translating it into practice. There may be different options. For the most part this matter has practical, technical, professional and military aspects. Each future de-escalation zone is being considered on a case-to-case basis. Experts are determining the most rational ways of ensuring its functioning in terms of compliance with a ceasefire and unimpeded access and delivery of humanitarian cargoes and free movement of civilians.

I would like to emphasise that when de-escalation zones were announced in Syria, there was a substantial reduction in military activities and violence in these areas. I hope that the results of the regular round of Astana talks will facilitate our common efforts to settle the Syrian crisis and the talks that will then continue in Geneva, where a regular round of these talks under the UN auspices is scheduled in the first half of July. Meanwhile, the Astana talks will also be attended by UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, among other special representatives. These processes are syncronised, which gives us grounds to hope for substantial progress to a settlement.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2798395

[Alex Him]

Director of the Department for European Cooperation Andrey Kelin’s remarks at the opening of the OSCE Annual Security Review Conference, Vienna, June 27, 2017



27 June 2017 - 12:30





Mr Chairman,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Looking for ways out of the current European security crisis makes sense only if we accurately understand the reasons that have caused it. When the Russia-NATO Founding Act and the Charter for European Security were signed 20 years ago, we hoped to overcome the vestiges of bloc confrontation and start trust-based cooperation. In the late 1990s, these documents solemnly proclaimed the principle of indivisible security.

However, the Western countries resumed a policy of military and political pressure towards Russia contrary to the principles in the Charter, unwilling as they were to understand that Russia had legitimate interests of its own in the international arena and that it was concerned with finding a balance of interests, rather than simply towing the line under our Western partners. What followed were two waves of NATO expansion and the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty that was of fundamental importance for international security.

When we began expressing to our Western colleagues that these processes directly affected our security and warning them against continuing on a disastrous course of unilaterally strengthening their security at the expense of other parties’ security, we were told, without proof, that the NATO expansion was not directed against Russia and that the US global antimissile system was not being created against Moscow. In 2008, the notorious decision to pull Kiev and Tbilisi closer to NATO was approved. Next, in 2009, the Eastern Partnership was created, with our neighbours pressured to choose whether they were with the West or with Moscow. All of these actions only pushed the dividing line closer to Moscow.

Russia repeatedly put forth initiatives aimed at overcoming the increasing tension. But our Western partners brushed them aside under far-fetched pretexts. The Russia-proposed European Security Treaty was quickly rejected as political rhetoric with no potential. It was, allegedly, only NATO that could provide real security. That marked the inglorious demise of the indivisible security principle.

US forces, including an armour brigade and an air brigade, are returning to Europe. Five brigade-size forward-based depots for heavy military equipment are being commissioned. The number of NATO military exercises and naval and air force activities has increased twofold. Antimissile facilities are being built. In the past, this would have been described as an “escalation of military tensions” in Europe. We believe that all available tools should be used to ensure détente. Russia-NATO Council dialogue should be resumed and should include the military. This was the reason the council was created after all.

The OSCE retains much potential as a forum in the search for ways out of the European security crisis. Issued by the OSCE Summit in Astana, the statement to form an indivisible security community should remain the long-term goal for the 57 member states, while their current goal is to restore trust. We hope that the “structured dialogue” on security challenges initiated by the Council of Foreign Ministers in Hamburg in 2016 will also facilitate military and political de-escalation.

Russia will be practicing a responsible approach towards its FSC chairmanship in May and July of this year. We hope to enhance the Forum’s role as a venue for exchanging the best national practices.

Colleagues,

We hope to conduct a substantive discussion at this conference on effective forms of resistance to transnational threats, primarily terrorism and drug trafficking.

The fight against terrorism can only be effective in the framework of a united front based on international law and respect for the equality and sovereignty of states and the principle of non-interference in their internal affairs. It must be part of the activities conducted by the UN in this sphere, primarily by the UN Security Council. We hope that contribution by the Transnational Threats Department at the OSCE Secretariat will correspond to the level and volume of tasks of counterterrorism cooperation. We support the format of the annual OSCE-wide counterterrorism conferences. The discussions that are held at these conferences provide grounds for drafting ministerial decisions.

We appreciate it that the OSCE agenda regularly includes issues related to combating drugs. We look forward to the OSCE-wide Conference on Combating the Threat of Illicit Drugs and the Diversion of Chemical Precursors, which will be held in Vienna on July 10-11 to study the nexus between illicit drugs, organised crime and terrorism. We reaffirm our support for the idea of a department on combating illicit drugs at the OSCE Secretariat. For our part, we will continue to implement OSCE projects to train counter-narcotics police for Afghanistan (at Domodedovo) and for Serbia (in St Petersburg).

The OSCE efforts in the area of international information security are very important for drafting universal rules of conduct. Considerable progress has been made with the OSCE decision on confidence-building measures to reduce the risks of conflict stemming from the use of information and communication technologies. The next step should be to stop making unsubstantiated claims and to start using these measures voluntarily and based on non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The OSCE continues to highlight regional conflicts. We believe that the OSCE’s crisis management instruments are sufficient in the current situation at the organisation. Crises must be settled peacefully on the basis of inclusiveness and respect for the interests of all conflicting parties and for the existing negotiating formats. There must be no alternative to the leading role of the OSCE’s policy-making agencies, right of consensus and civil nature.

The situation in Kosovo is a cause for concern. Ethnic tensions are growing and no progress has been made towards creating a Community of Serb Majority Municipalities in Kosovo. Pristina’s decision to transform the country's security forces into a regular army can jeopardise stability in the Balkans. This means that the OSCE Mission in Kosovo must keep working and that it should be reinforced.

We support the efforts of the OSCE to facilitate a settlement of the Ukrainian crisis via the mechanisms of the Contact Group and Special Monitoring Mission (SMM). It is necessary to enhance the efficiency of the SMM and improve its human resources and technical equipment. It is essential to step up the monitoring on the line of contact and the adjacent areas and, ideally, to switch to round-the-clock monitoring. The SMM should reflect major events in Ukraine’s domestic political, social and economic life in its reports.

SMM observers must be guaranteed security. It is necessary to rule out the repetition of incidents similar to that on April 23 when a US citizen lost his life. We hope the independent investigative group will establish responsibility for this. The SMM should enhance coordination of its routes with the local government to make it safer for observers.

The OSCE is called on to play an important role in the Transnistrian settlement. In the summer of 2016, all parties welcomed the resumption of the talks in the 5+2 format after a two-year hiatus. The negotiation process must proceed with regularity and with priority given to this internationally recognised negotiating format. We hope Wolf-Dietrich Heim, the Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office for the Transnistrian Settlement Process, will make a constructive contribution to this process.

Regrettably, the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh is still volatile. Russia considers it a priority to facilitate dialogue between the parties. We are working to this end at all levels – as the co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group in cooperation with the co-chairs from the United States and France, and supporting the efforts of the OSCE Personal Representative of the Chairperson-in-Office, Andrzej Kasprzyk.

We appreciate the OSCE co-chairmanship at the Geneva discussions on stability in the South Caucasus, which are important for ensuring security in the region and developing Georgia’s dialogue with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The main goal of these discussions is ensuring security of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The adoption of commitments on the non-use of force should help achieve this goal.

The regions bordering on OSCE space remain a source of many challenges and threats. There are grounds for concern over the situation in Afghanistan against the backdrop of spreading terrorist groups, growing drug trafficking, the criminalisation of the country's economy, and cross-border crime. The active use of young people as a resource base for terrorism is particularly disturbing.

The Mediterranean region is also a source of instability. We hope the new dialogue on migration issues will enhance the OSCE’s role in the region and help the organisation join the efforts on overcoming the consequences of the migration crisis in the Western European countries.

Colleagues, we hope the recommendations to be made at the conference will form the foundation of ministerial decisions, help restore trust and enhance security in the OSCE space. I wish productive work to all participants at the conference.

Thank you for your attention.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2798899

[Alex Him]

Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov’s answer to a question from Rossiya Segodnya news agency



27 June 2017 - 14:13





Question:

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently commented on a change in Russia's position on North Korea. Did Moscow really change its policy? Is Russia ready to try to influence Pyongyang, possibly together with China, to make it stop the moves that violate the UN Security Council resolutions?



Answer:

Russia's principled position on ways to resolve the North Korean issues remains unchanged and consistent. We support a comprehensive resolution of all the problems on the Korean Peninsula exclusively by peaceful means, through dialogue of all parties involved without preconditions, and above all, the main antagonists – the United States and North Korea. It is our strong conviction that any military provocations, any saber rattling, bellicose statements, from whatever party, only exacerbate the situation, bringing it to a critical point that might be followed by a slide towards a large-scale armed conflict, even with the likelihood of using nuclear weapons.

To avoid this scenario, we have developed a set of practical measures, a sort of roadmap with the ultimate goal of building a lasting peace in Northeast Asia while addressing the peninsula’s problems, including its denuclearisation. We are ready to discuss this with our partners. We need to ensure that all countries in this subregion feel equally safe, and as far as North Korea is concerned, guarantees are needed that would make Pyongyang discontinue its nuclear missile programmes. We propose to advance in this direction without preconditions, step by step, from simple to more complicated moves, starting with obvious things – manifestations of mutual restraint, refraining from mutual provocations, the start of negotiations on the general principles of relations such as non-aggression, and non-use and non-threat of force.

In promoting our initiative, we are acting in coordination with our Chinese partners who have similar concerns about what is happening on the Korean Peninsula. They have put forward a proposal of a “double freeze” – of Pyongyang's nuclear tests, and of joint US–South Korean military exercises – and “parallel progress” towards the denuclearisation and creation of a peace and security system in the region. We support these ideas.

An important element of Russia’s position is the requirement for all parties to strictly observe the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Russia was involved in drawing up these international documents and voted for their adoption based on the unacceptability of North Korea having a nuclear status. At the same time, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that these UN Security Council resolutions state that there is no alternative to resolving the existing problems by political and diplomatic methods.

As for the international sanctions against North Korea, they are aimed at inducing Pyongyang to abandon its missile and nuclear programmes rather than intended to “punish” the North Korean people. We are against the broad interpretation of the UN sanctions regime and, moreover, against the introduction of unilateral restrictions by individual states, aimed, in fact, at North Korea’s economic strangulation.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2798991

[Alex Him]

Speech by Russia’s Permanent Representative to NATO Alexander Grushko at the opening of the OSCE Annual Security Review Conference (ASRC) in Vienna, June 27, 2017



27 June 2017 - 17:42





Mr Chairman,

Colleagues,

I am grateful to you for the opportunity to speak at such an important forum.

As you know, there are two eternal Russian questions: who is to blame and what is to be done. It is impossible to answer the question of what is to be done without understanding the causes of the current crisis, and Helmut Kohl’s departure simply obliges us to do this.

Looking back it is impossible not to see all the missed opportunities. The legacy of the Cold War – primarily mental and political – has not been overcome. Western countries have proved to be unprepared for equitable cooperation with Russia in areas of common interest and in the construction of a European security architecture without dividing lines. The OSCE has not been institutionalised. The corner stone of European security – arms control in Europe – has been destroyed for purely political reasons.

When we suggested signing the European security treaty several years ago, our initiative was perceived as an attempt to destroy NATO, and an encroachment on the convention that legal security guarantees can only be received by countries that join NATO. This was further evidence of the failure to overcome the NATO-centric mentality. It would be appropriate to ask why only NATO members should be entitled to enhanced security.

We have long felt growing resistance to the consolidation of Russia’s role and the dynamics of its intertwining with Europe. The European Union got scared by its own project of four common spaces, including external and internal security, and impeded the projects that played a key role in ensuring quality relations with us – talks on the basic agreement, movement towards visa-free travel, formation of a mechanism for joint decision-making in the area of security and anti-crisis response. The Eastern Partnership became an instrument for driving a wedge between Russia and its historical neighbours. NATO and the EU demonstrated a high-handed attitude to the EAEU and the CSTO, which emerged in post-Soviet space.

Throughout all these years, NATO has been conducting a systematic, creeping expansion eastwards, which has led to deeper dividing lines in Europe and fuelled the habitual “Cold War” instincts. Meanwhile, Russia was not “moving” anywhere. Militarily, it was “contracting:” in the early 1990s, it pulled out all former Soviet contingents from East European countries and massively reduced its military capacity along its western borders.

After failed interventions in breach of international law and its commitments within the OSCE framework, NATO, having found itself at a new fork in the road of history, chose to return to its roots, to the search for a big “enemy,” in order to prove its relevance in the new security conditions. And this fell on fertile soil. The Ukrainian crisis was used by the alliance to justify its transition to deterrence schemes dating from an era of confrontation. If there had been no coup in Ukraine, something else would have been worked out. The alliance’s ex-leaders were saying it frankly and openly. Consequently, the bet was made again on military force and on gaining military superiority.

Things have reached a point where some Western officials regard geographical proximity to Russia as an “existential threat” to NATO. The question of who created this “proximity” is, of course, being left aside. Western media, taking their cue from the RAND Corporation, are speculating in a businesslike manner how many hours – 60 or less – it would take Russian tanks to reach Tallinn.

We see evidence of an approaching arms race. Despite the assurances that these measures are not a provocation but a defensive reaction to changes in the area of security, the ongoing military development in NATO countries points in the opposite direction. The bloc has deployed its forces where there were none before and where the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act prohibits the deployment of such forces in this amount or duration. The regions of Central and Eastern Europe are being primed with military units, weapons and equipment. A series of provocative military exercises has been held. To appease its allies, the White House has requested a 41 per cent increase in defence spending for the next fiscal year. This could be the precursor of the deployment of additional forces and infrastructure in Europe.

A propaganda campaign is rising over the Russian-Belarusian Zapad (West) military exercise. At the same time, NATO countries plan to hold over 15 mutually complementing military exercises in the bloc’s eastern area from June to November of this year. They have a common tactical background and provide for training in the entire range of containment tasks. As a result, the annual series of NATO tactical and combat training are aimed not only at maintaining the reinforced military presence of NATO forces in direct proximity to Russian borders but also at intensive development of this theatre of operations, which includes beefing-up military infrastructure. US ballistic missile defence facilities are being developed there. And an unprecedented information campaign is ongoing to discredit Russia.

The quality of security also depends on the countries’ ability to join forces in the fight against common threats over and above the official dividing line. Yet NATO is acting contrary to our common interests in this area as well. The bloc has suspended nearly all practical cooperation projects. The operation of all working groups and cooperation between concerned professionals within the Russia-NATO Council have been suspended. This cooperation was developing productively until 2014, primarily in the fight against all kinds of terrorism, in Afghanistan, in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and in fighting piracy. Russia and NATO trained Afghan technicians for servicing Russian-made helicopters, counter-narcotics police for Afghanistan (the Council’s project was the largest of its kind; over 4,000 counter-narcotics police officers have been trained), Pakistan and Central Asian countries. We also worked on the Stand-off Detection of Explosives (STANDEX) project to detect explosives on vehicles, at critical infrastructure facilities and on persons moving through a crowd. Under the Cooperative Airspace Initiative, we exchanged information about “renegade aircraft” that were supposed to have been hijacked by terrorists. We also promoted our cooperation in the fight against piracy. There are more examples to show that our interaction within the Russia-NATO Council really improved the safety of both Russian and NATO citizens. The Council’s activities did not overlap with those of other organisations, but our dialogue led to the appearance of cooperation programmes that helped strengthen the security of the Council’s member states and also protect the safety of their citizens. The tragedies in St Petersburg, Brussels, Manchester and London will forever stand as evidence of all the opportunities we missed.

It is regrettable that the Russia-NATO Council is becoming an empty shell. It no longer has a practical agenda, although it was created to rally the efforts of Russia and NATO countries in the areas of common interests.

I believe that many people in the bloc know that this has affected their interests, yet they have opted for rejecting the possibility of doing “business as usual” contrary to their real needs. However, if we take a closer look at the task of de-escalating tension and preventing dangerous military accidents, we will see that it cannot be achieved without the revival of ties between our militaries and military experts. NATO is not yet ready for this, just as it is not ready to resume our common projects either.

Meanwhile, we need to cooperate together to deal with the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, primarily in and around Syria. Considering the nature of the current threats and the conflict potential, no islands of security can be created within NATO or the EU. We firmly believe that it would be better to back each other in the current situation, rather than look at each other as adversaries or strategic rivals.

Russia does not need to prove that its aspirations are peaceful. We have long proved this, including by dismantling the legacy of the Cold War, which offered Europe a chance to end the arms race and enjoy the dividends of peace. NATO appears to be planning to abandon these dividends and to return to the past. Otherwise, why is it not satisfied with Europe’s current defence spending, which has reached 250 billion euros?

But vital interests will eventually regain priority, and despite the institutional obstacles erected by NATO, we are not short of partners for dealing with common tasks.

Russia has been doing its best to maintain a normal atmosphere in Europe, to build up confidence and also to prevent the situation from escalating into a conflict. We have not suspended anything, and we are ready for cooperation. We’ll wait until our partners are ready for this. The Russian military have formulated several proposals for re-launching the operation of the Russia-NATO Council. The bloc has so far not responded to these initiatives.

I am sure that NATO will eventually admit that security systems without Russia, or worse still, against Russia, cannot be viable or productive, that such systems only create risks and do not meet the interests of the bloc’s members. We need to look for ways to defuse tension and to launch practical cooperation based on honest cooperation, equality and respect for each other. There is no other option.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2799459

[Alex Him]

Remarks by Andrey Rudenko, Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Second CIS Department, at the Special Session on ensuring security and stability in the OSCE region in light of developments with respect to Ukraine at the OSCE Annual Security Review Conference, Vienna, June 27, 2017



28 June 2017 - 13:23





Colleagues,

I would like to join our colleagues in expressing condolences to the family of Joseph Stone. His death is a heavy loss for his family and friends and a severe blow to the peace-making efforts of the Special Monitoring Mission and the OSCE. We hope the truth in this case will be established soon and those responsible will be held accountable.

The internal Ukrainian crisis that began more than three years ago was provoked by contradictions that had accumulated in the European security system after the Cold War. The Ukrainian tragedy is the result of Western attempts to retain their tottering global leadership and to dominate the post-Soviet geopolitical space, including through direct interference in the internal developments of the emergent states. The foreign-inspired state coup in Ukraine has split the nation and pushed the country into the abyss of permanent instability and a fratricidal war. This has created a serious source of tension in Europe and buried the dreams and hopes for a common European home. The litany of Russia’s responsibility for this tragedy is nothing more than cheap propaganda and an attempt to avoid responsibility. We know very well now how it began, who paid whom, who sent weapons to Ukraine and, as they say in Ukraine, who waged an all-out hybrid war.

Nobody in Russia, Ukraine or Europe needs this conflict, which has resulted in huge human and material losses. But some forces are stoking instability in Ukraine in a bid to attain their geopolitical goals – to reinforce their waning influence and beef up their military presence in Europe, to maintain NATO’s decreasing relevance, and ultimately, to uphold their economic interests, including their energy interests. An additional goal is to settle their internal political problems.

Despite Kiev’s anti-Russia hysterics, hostility and efforts to sever all relations with Russia and root out the memory of our shared history, we still view Ukraine as a close neighbour with family ties to Russia. To us, Ukraine is a country with which we continue to develop trade and from which millions of ordinary people go to Russia in search of a living. Russia probably feels the consequences of the internal Ukrainian crisis better than anyone else, partly because it has accepted over a million Ukrainian refugees, which is more than any other country has done. This is why we are advocating the early restoration of peace and stability in Ukraine – and hence on our borders – and also the resumption of pragmatic and mutually beneficial cooperation between our countries.

Despite this, we have attained the main goal in the two years since the signing of the Minsk Package of Measures – we have stopped an all-out war in Donbass. Permanent channels of communication between the conflicting parties have been created, including the Trilateral Contact Group where a permanent dialogue is maintained between Donbass and Kiev, even though it is not as productive as we would like. Intensive contact is also maintained at different levels within the Normandy format.

Armed clashes have not been stopped but they are localised. The line of contact has not changed on the whole. Periods of aggravation alternate with relative lulls, but regrettably, the latter cannot yet be turned into a complete and stable ceasefire. In general, in the opinion of the OSCE SMM, the sides are capable of observing a ceasefire. They can withdraw heavy weapons and agree on areas of disengagement of forces. The so-called bread truce – for the period of harvesting – was due to come in force on June 24. It should be followed by a truce linked with the start of the academic year in schools. We hope it will not suffer the same fate as the previous ceasefires.

There is some progress on the exchange of prisoners. Some water supply facilities have been restored. We credit the OSCE for this, in particular, the SMM and its representatives in the Contact Group and the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination.

At the same time, there has been no success in disengaging forces and weapons to agreed-upon safe distances, which is a key condition for a stable ceasefire. The number of casualties, including civilian losses, is growing on both sides primarily due to lack of trust between them. It can only be restored politically, by granting Donbass constitutional political guarantees – the entry into force of laws on special status and amnesty and the holding of local elections under the supervision of ODIHR. This is the core of the Minsk Package of Measures.

We are convinced that persisting tensions along the line of contact are caused by Kiev’s unwillingness to search for solutions in Minsk and treat Donbass representatives as equal participants in the talks. The protracted impasse in the Contact Group’s political subgroup and the demonstrative reluctance of the Ukrainian negotiators to discuss key issues with representatives of individual regions is the main obstacle in the way of a full settlement.

Summits of the Normandy Four in Paris and Berlin in 2015 and 2016 produced agreements on synchronising political and military steps. This concept was laid in the foundation of the future roadmap that should structure and specify the implementation of the Minsk agreements. Let me emphasise that it is necessary to concretise the Minsk decisions, not emasculate them or change their essence. The work on the roadmap in the Normandy format is an uphill fight, primarily because of Ukraine’s attempts to revise the terms of the Minsk agreements. Yet this work continues despite all difficulties.

Statements made by Kiev and some other capitals from time to time about the inadequacy of the Minsk agreements and the need to replace them with other formulas do not facilitate the search for solutions. We are absolutely convinced that today there is no alternative to the Minsk Package of Measures. All talks about their irrelevance and possible new settlement formats are harming the negotiating process by shifting attention from the substance of the talks to secondary issues.

In this context we are closely following Ukraine’s discussions on the new draft law on the reintegration of Donbass. We are concerned that the new law may contradict the Minsk agreements and cast doubts on the holding of local elections in Donbass and the enactment of laws on special status and amnesty. We are also worried that the discussion of the new initiative is accompanied by increasingly bellicose rhetoric and threats to use force, including the example of Yugoslavia. If this happens, the prospects for peace in the south-east will become remote for a long time to come.

Progress towards a settlement is hindered by the overall instability in Ukraine, the exploitation of the Donbass issue in political infighting, the growing influence of radical and extremist forces and the authorities’ open flirtation with them. Extremists are increasingly often using weapons – the flow of which the authorities are unable to control – in order to settle conflicts. Moreover, the authorities often play up to the radicals in the hope of seizing the initiative from them or winning their support. A case in point is March 2017, when President Poroshenko issued an executive order to formalise and toughen the socioeconomic and transport blockade of certain Donbass areas, which pushed them to the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe. By doing this, Kiev has violated Paragraph 8 of the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements, which provides for “full resumption of socioeconomic ties, including social transfers.” Germany and France’s promise to resume mobile banking services for the population in the concerned regions failed to materialise.

The situation may be further complicated as the next election cycle is approaching in Ukraine, especially considering the people’s economic hardships. Kiev’s ill-considered and politically motivated actions are only compounding its economic problems. No one has damaged the Ukrainian economy more than the country’s authorities, which have stripped the national budget of billions in revenue because of the aforementioned blockade, not to mention the severed cooperation with Russia, the efforts to squeeze Russian business out and the persecution of the Russian banks’ subsidiaries in Ukraine, who accounted for 15 per cent of Ukraine’s banking sector in aggregate. In short, Kiev is the author of its own misfortune.

The path to peace lies through the rapid implementation of the Minsk Agreements in full and in accordance with the specified sequence of their implementation. If Kiev musters the political will and shows a real desire to restore peace in Donbass, and if Kiev’s Western friends provide an impetus for this, the implementation of the 2015 Minsk Agreements and subsequently a peaceful reintegration of the region will be easy.

I would like to express special thanks to the SMM leaders and observers, who are working in very difficult and dangerous conditions in Ukraine. We strongly condemn the attempts to obstruct the observers’ work by intimidation and threats, whoever makes them, and to limit their freedom of movement. At the same time, we have taken note of the fact that the SMM has reduced its patrolling of the government-held areas after an SMM vehicle was damaged in an explosion because there are fewer hard surface roads there. In fact, there are many areas there where SMM observers are not allowed to enter.

We urge the SMM leaders and observers to work more closely with Donetsk and Lugansk representatives, to publish honest reports and statistics and to maintain the high standards of objectivity and impartiality stipulated in their mandate.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2799695

[Alex Him]

Comment by the Information and Press Department on White House Press Secretary’s statement about Syrian authorities’ alleged preparations for a chemical attack



28 June 2017 - 13:28



We could not but notice a sensational June 26, 2017 statement by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer that the US has “identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children.” The US side warns that Bashar al-Assad “and his military will pay a heavy price” for this.

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has gone even further and tweeted on her account that “any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people.”

It appears that Ms. Haley is once again referring to the April 4, 2017 Khan Shaykhun chemical attack which is relentlessly ascribed to the Syrian Government without any evidence whatsoever.

We perceive all these new insinuations regarding weapons of mass destruction - made in the worst traditions of the 2003 NATO intervention in Iraq - as nothing but an “invitation” for terrorists, extremists and armed opposition units active in Syria to fabricate another large-scale provocation with the use of chemical weapons. Washington expects to follow up with inevitable punishment for Bashar al-Assad after this provocation. This scenario has been repeatedly used with regard to Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya and also other countries too. Unfortunately, although many officials in Washington have admitted their unacceptable and really tragic past mistakes, it appears that the Washington establishment still fails to draw any practical conclusions from this.

It is not hard to predict the subsequent actions of the United States and its supporters on the “Syrian chemical file.” This issue will once again become extremely politicised at The Hague-based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the UN Security Council in New York City, and it will be suggested that sanctions and resolutions be adopted with regard to the legitimate Syrian authorities. In the next few days, the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria will present its final report confirming the use of sarin in Khan Shaykhun. Therefore it appears that no one in the West will expect the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) that has been established for these purposes to completely investigate this episode. Damascus’ “guilt” in such crimes is being presented as something incontestable, these allegations are politically motivated and JIM’s formal findings on this matter hardly play a decisive role.

Russia will continue to demand a full-fledged professional and politically unbiased investigation of the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, as well as other manifestations and relapses of “chemical” terrorism in Syria and Iraq, as required by the 2016 UN Security Council Resolution 2319 on extending the mandate of the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) in Syria for another 12 months, on expanding its area of operations and anti-terrorist aspects. This is the only way to learn the truth, and it is impossible to accomplish this task on the basis of fake evidence of Damascus’ alleged guilt fabricated by terrorists, extremists and opposition members with foreign sponsors and NGOs “sympathising” with them.

Speaking of Washington’s bellicose rhetoric, we deem it necessary to warn our American colleagues against subsequent irresponsible actions in violation of the UN Charter and generally recognised norms of international law, as has been the case during the April 7, 2017 missile strike against Syria’s Shayrat air base. If, as Mr. Spicer claims, US military presence in Iraq and Syria aims to fight terrorism, then US actions in this respect should fully conform to the anti-terrorist nature of the international community’s tasks to defeat ISIS and affiliated groups.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2799709

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at the opening ceremony of the 14th Conference of Russian and German Partner Cities, Krasnodar, June 28, 2017



28 June 2017 - 20:24





Mr Minister,

Mr Kondratyev,

Mr Pervyshov,

Colleagues, friends,

First of all, I would like to thank the Krasnodar Territory authorities for the hospitality and warm welcome they have accorded us. I am pleased at this opportunity, together with the leadership of this territory and this city, to welcome my German colleague Sigmar Gabriel.

I am greatly honoured to take part in the opening ceremony of the 14th Conference of Russian and German Partner Cities. This forum, which took over from Karlsruhe, is an important event in the vast array of bilateral interregional and people-to-people contacts. Considering the current situation in Europe, when relations between our states – to put it bluntly – are going through hard times, such depoliticised cooperation is an important element in fostering an atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding between nations and countries. Taking advantage of this opportunity, I would particularly like to note the contribution made by the Sister Cities international association to preparing this event and fostering Russian-German cooperation in general.

We have always sought and will continue to seek to build our relations with Germany on the basis of equality and consideration for each other’s interests. History and recent experience show that deviating from these principles causes serious damage to both our countries and the stable development of the European continent as a whole. We are still open to close coordination of efforts in the interest of strengthening European security, for which our countries bear special responsibility, and we are ready to work together to counter global threats and challenges, primarily international terrorism and extremism.

Lately, our ties have acquired a more constructive and pragmatic nature. The top-level dialogue is moving forward. On May 2, President Vladimir Putin had talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Sochi. We will be happy to host the German president in Russia.

Frank-Walter Steinmeier has received an invitation. Interparliamentary and interministerial exchanges continue, including between our diplomatic services. The high-level working group on security issues is resuming full-scale activity.

We welcome the positive trends in the trade and economic sphere. In the first quarter of this year, trade was up by one-third, year on year. A lot was said recently at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, in which our German partners took a very active part, about the interest of German business circles in expanding their operations in Russia. Major joint projects are under way and mutual investment activity is expanding. The interagency working group on strategic cooperation in the economic and financial sphere, which will next meet in July, makes a valuable contribution to efforts in this area.

Cultural, humanitarian, scientific and educational cooperation, as well as cooperation in historical and memorial activities, is expanding. Contacts between civil societies, including as part of such influential discussion forums as the St Petersburg Dialogue and Potsdam Meetings, are as relevant as ever. The bilateral year of youth exchanges was a great success. Mr Gabriel and I plan to attend its closing ceremony in Berlin on July 13.

Today, my colleague and I are giving the go-ahead to a new joint initiative – the bilateral year of regional and municipal partnerships, which will be held under our patronage. Its extensive programme in Russian regions and German federal lands includes numerous activities in various fields – from the economy and business to culture and sport. I am inviting the heads of Russian and German regions and cities to take an active part in it. We will mark the anniversaries of the establishment of ties between Moscow and Düsseldorf, St Petersburg and Hamburg, and other cities and regions.

Overall, we have many positive examples of joint efforts. They should lay the groundwork for a new unifying, forward-looking bilateral agenda, which would not depend on the political situation of the moment, and for returning our relations back to the path of strategic partnership for the good of our nations, Europe and the world as a whole.

Obviously, Russians and Germans must not be allowed to become alienated from each other. The path of postwar reconciliation and subsequent rapprochement was far too long and hard. It may be recalled that many prominent statesman have consistently advocated for friendship and neighbourliness between Russia and Germany, including such an influential, thoughtful and farsighted politician as Helmut Kohl, who, unfortunately, died recently. President Vladimir Putin recalled his meetings with Mr Kohl, stressing that he had urged everyone to renounce phobias and look to the future.

I would like to wish the conference organisers and participants success in your important and much-needed work.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2803570






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with German Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, Krasnodar, June 28, 2017



28 June 2017 - 20:37





First of all, I would like once again to thank Krasnodar Governor Veniamin Kondratyev and Krasnodar Mayor Yevgeny Pervyshov for the hospitality and warm welcome they have accorded us. We know that the region makes a significant contribution to consolidating interregional ties with our foreign partners, and regularly hosts major international forums. The Foreign Ministry appreciates these efforts.

I would like once again to welcome German Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel. This is his third visit to our country this year, which graphically illustrates how intensive and substantive our bilateral dialogue is. I am sincerely grateful to Mr Gabriel for the constructive attitude that helps our ministries deal with their tasks.

We have just taken part in the opening ceremony of the Conference of Russian-German Partner Cities, an important event in expanding interregional and people-to-people ties between our states. Our shared opinion is that considering the difficult situation in Europe these days, public diplomacy and direct contacts between people are highly conducive to deepening trust and mutual understanding between our countries and nations.

We are pleased that, despite existing disagreements on a number of serious international issues, the Russian-German dialogue is generally constructive. Regular political contacts are maintained, including at the top level, and bilateral cooperation formats, which were frozen not on Russia’s initiative, are being restored.

It is encouraging that after a prolonged decline, positive trade and economic trends have emerged. German business was broadly represented at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. Promising joint innovation, high-tech and energy projects are underway.

Interparliamentary and interagency dialogue channels are working effectively. Cultural, humanitarian, scientific and educational cooperation, as well as cooperation in historical and memorial activities, is expanding. The bilateral Year of Youth Exchanges was a great success. Mr Gabriel and I plan to attend its closing ceremony in Berlin on July 13.

Today, we announced the start of a new joint initiative – the bilateral Year of Regional and Municipal Partnerships. Its extensive programme includes numerous meetings between business people, education professionals, scientists and artists, as well as youth and sport exchanges and contacts between civil societies.

After our news conference, Mr Gabriel and I will have another opportunity to address a broad array of pressing issues on the bilateral and international agenda. We will talk about ways of resolving the crisis in Ukraine by implementing the Minsk agreements and working together to overcome the serious crises in the Middle East and North Africa, including in Syria and Libya. We will also consider ways of combining our efforts in fighting terrorism for our mutual benefit, as well as for the benefit of the entire international community. Our agenda always features issues such as cooperation in the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the G20 and the UN. We will be ready to listen to our German colleagues’ assessment of the situation that is emerging in relations between the EU and Russia and between NATO and Russia.

I would like once again to thank Mr Gabriel for accepting our invitation. Over to Mr Gabriel.



Question (addressed to both ministers):

The G20 Summit will be held next week, including a meeting between the Russian and US presidents. What do you expect from it in terms of headway on Syria? Do you see any opportunity for progress in principle? What sort of cooperation is Russia prepared for to settle the Syrian conflict?



Sergey Lavrov:

The preparations for the summit are in progress. There is an agenda proposed by the German chair. It is quite packed. Of course, such contacts are held on the sidelines of these forums.

The media have discussed a likely meeting between the Russian and US presidents in sufficient detail during the last few days, if not weeks. There is nothing to add to this. We proceed from the assumption that this contact will take place because the two presidents will be in the same city, the same building and also in the same room at the same time. Probably it would be wrong for them not to discuss a whole range of matters.

You mentioned Syria and Ukraine. I think that Russia and the United States should primarily normalise their dialogue so that it is based on their fundamental interests. Currently we are observing an extremely distorted picture taking shape in Washington under the influence of Russia hate moods that have engulfed many politicians. I believe this is hurting the United States itself and some farsighted US analysts are beginning to say as much. What is certain is that this is not helping to address international issues, the settlement of which Russia and the United States could contribute. Thereby, this is complicating finding a solution of the problems facing the entire international community.



Question:

Is the Normandy Four planning to meet on the sidelines of the summit? Do you see a potential for progress concerning this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I myself haven’t heard anything about such plans. There are remarks in favour of holding a contact session, at least by telephone, given the results of the latest presidential elections in France and the election of a new president. I think the organisational issues are being addressed by the relevant protocol services.



Question:

Is there a way to limit or stop the arms build-up by NATO and Russia? What steps should be taken in this respect?



Sergey Lavrov:

There are statistics that no one has contested thus far, and we have referred to them on numerous occasions. According to the data, NATO has increased its presence manifold in the parts of Europe where there was an agreement to refrain from permanent arms build-up. NATO says that these troops are deployed on a rotation basis, but they are constantly rotating, so we do not see any difference between permanent deployment and deployment by rotation. The number of military exercises has also increased, and they are mostly aimed at containing Russia.

We do understand that this is not the only point NATO is making. In order to clarify things, Russia has proposed that Russia’s and NATO’s military experts sit down at the negotiating table, take a look at the maps and compile an inventory of all the forces NATO has on the border with Russia, and what Russia has on the border with NATO countries. The fact that our North-Atlantic colleagues avoid such a conversation and are ignoring this simple proposal suggests that they have a perfect understanding of the current balance of forces in Europe.

Nevertheless, Russia is ready for talks, and is also ready to engage in dialogue regarding the initiative by the President of Finland Sauli Niinisto on air safety in the Baltic region. A recommendation to this effect was made one year ago. So far, our NATO colleagues were not eager to examine this proposal.

Just as in Russia’s ties with the US, in the relations with NATO the perception of the ongoing developments is distorted, which is due to the fact that NATO avoids normal talks. It may be that some NATO members use the consensus rule to prevent this dialogue from resuming, and are constantly repeating as a mantra that NATO’s relations with Russia will never be the same until Russia mends its ways. This approach is clearly driven by a political and ideological agenda, and it will not take us very far. Russia has shown good will on all issues you have mentioned.

Regarding Syria, Russia’s joint initiative with Turkey and Iran, supported by the US, the UN and Jordan, to hold a series of important meetings between the Syrian government and opposition in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, has won all-round support. The next round will take place as soon as next week. We want this initiative to be implemented in good faith by all the parties to the conflict, including external actors. This is the concrete contribution Russia wants to make. I expect our US, European and regional partners to demonstrate the same kind of an open and intelligible approach aimed at achieving de-escalation by creating dedicated zones (as you know, this is the gist of Russia’s proposal), normalising the humanitarian situation, and stopping attempts to win back parts of Syrian territory, since it poses a threat to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Syria.

The same applies when it comes to the crisis in Ukraine which you have mentioned in a question on plans to convene the Normandy Format. The Minsk Agreements are in place. As we say in Russia, all the new ideas that emerged recently can hardly do any good. The Minsk Agreements were approved by the UN Security Council. They are straightforward and extremely specific. They should be fulfilled. When the Normandy Format reconvenes at the top level, we will draw the attention of our partners, including Germany and France, to this matter. After all, they have committed themselves to facilitating the implementation of these agreements and have great influence over Kiev. In this case, Russia stands ready to do its bit.



Question:

The White House has issued a statement accusing Bashar al-Assad of preparing another chemical weapons attack, and threatened harsh retaliatory measures. The US refused to provide evidence, but the threat has been made. You have recently discussed with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that provocations against the Syrian Army were unacceptable. What can be done in a situation where Russia cannot make its voice heard? How will Russia respond to the possible actions by the US and its allies?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia will adopt an adequate and appropriate response depending on the situation.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called me by phone. It was not the first time that the specific content of our conversation was leaked by the US side. I can now confirm, in order to avoid any misinterpretation or false rumours, that he called to warn me that the US had information about potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic against the opposition. I reminded him that allegations that Syrian air forces used chemical munitions during the April 4 bombing of Khan Shaykhun were totally groundless and had to be investigated. I also reminded Mr Tillerson that as soon as April 5 he asked me during a telephone conversation to facilitate access for inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to the air field from where the airplanes took off for the mission. If these airplanes were carrying chemical weapons, it would have been impossible to hide it, and experts would have probably been able to tell whether there were chemical weapons on the site or not. I promised to convey this message to the Syrian Government, and pointed out that Russia was also interested in investigating this incident, especially since there were witness accounts from Khan Shaykhun. The Syrian Government confirmed that it was ready to receive the inspectors. But as soon as the consent had been granted, the US immediately changed its position. The US said that it was ready to support the inspection if the OPCW was interested in conducting it. Can you imagine an organisation created for the sole purpose of fighting chemical weapons not being interested in visiting a specific location from where the planes took off carrying toxic weapons? However, this organisation suddenly announced that it had no reason to visit the airfield. In this situation, the US also said that this inspection would not be necessary, if the OPCW was not willing to engage. We are still trying to persuade them to at least visit Khan Shaykhun where the Syrian air force allegedly used munitions containing toxic agents. I hope that this far-fetched situation will be resolved one day.

Seymour Hersh published an article in the German media on a journalistic investigation he had carried out, showing that the US military and intelligence agencies were well aware that the Syrian air forces did not use chemical weapons. I am not necessarily saying that he was right in what he wrote (we do not know what his sources were), but I do not have any doubt that the situation is not clear and requires further clarification. I am not at all impressed when I hear time and again that there is some kind of irrefutable evidence, but it cannot be shared because it is secret intelligence data. The same arguments were put forward when the Russian government was accused of staging hacking attacks. The same goes for many other issues, be they related to Syria, Libya or anything else.

I do hope that this time the US will opt for protecting the chemical weapons non-proliferation regime instead of speculating about some kind of intelligence reports that are secret and cannot be shown to anyone, with a view to provoking or creating a pretext for new strikes against the Syrian Army, while it combats terrorists.

I am following what experts are saying in the US regarding new reports on potential chemical weapons attacks. Experts said that extremists could benefit from warnings of this kind coming from Washington by staging provocations and shifting the responsibility on the Syrian Army.

Let me remind you that reports on the alleged April 4 chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun came from witness accounts. But no one actually saw these witnesses who are members of the White Helmets. These are professional agitators who operate on territories controlled by terrorists. No one saw them on government territory, but the information that comes from them is used by those seeking to stage anti-government coups.

Let me also remind you that the April 4 incident, as our US and European partners have been telling us, was investigated by the OPCW using some kind of samples collected by France and Great Britain and analysed in unspecified laboratories. We do not know how these samples were collected or in which laboratories they were analysed. It seems that this information is also classified.

We are tired of pointing to the example when in 2003 Colin Powell brought a tube with white powder to the UN Security Council, and insisted that it contained anthrax spores, which served as a pretext for invading Iraq. This happened only recently. People who did not learn a lesson back then or forgot about it assume great responsibility.



Question (addressed to both ministers):

Recently Matias Placek (Prime Minister of the Federal State of Brandenburg) spoke about a new Eastern policy and quoted Willy Brandt. Maybe it is worth mapping out a new road and finding a way to be reasonable? Do you see an opportunity of reaching agreement and overcoming EU-Russia disagreements? Is it possible to create a common space from Lisbon to Vladivostok?



Sergey Lavrov (answers after Sigmar Gabriel):

I agree with what Mr Gabriel said. More and more people on both sides, so to speak, want normal relations but the policy is determined not by them but by decision-makers in the capitals.

I would like to draw your attention to one simple circumstance once again. There is always an opportunity for reaching agreement in any situation. For all the deep disagreements between Russia and the West in general, despite our differences on many aspects of reaching a settlement in Ukraine, Syria and probably some other regions, we have always had respectful relations with Germany and we have never discontinued our dialogue.

Not so long ago there were periods when our German colleagues froze certain formats of this dialogue but now they are resuming their work. We advocate exactly this approach in relations with all countries – Western or not – notably, that disagreements should not be an obstacle to dialogue. They should not prevent us from listening to each other and hearing what the other has to say. I am convinced that if there is goodwill to understand the legitimate interests of a partner, compromises are possible in any situation.

Let me repeat what I have already said. We are being accused of everything that is taking place in Europe, the United States and the Middle East. Accusations regarding hackers, chemical weapons and Ukraine are not supported by a single fact for the same reason of secrecy. Incidentally, the position on Ukraine is fairly categorical – they are telling us that Russia should resolve everything, forgetting that the main principle of settling any conflict is the involvement of all sides. Working with the Contact Group, which nobody has disbanded and which is reinforced rather than replaced by the Normandy format, the Ukrainian Government should start an honest and direct dialogue with those people in the country’s east who refused to accept the armed coup d’etat.

We are being told that they cannot shut their eyes to what Russia is doing. After the Ukrainian crisis and the coup d’etat in Ukraine, the EU banged on the door, cancelled the summit and froze practically all formats of dialogue that are now only beginning to be restored. They also shut down the Russia-NATO Council because they took offense. But we could have taken offense as well. They implored us to support the February 21, 2014 agreement (between the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition, which was signed by the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland). However, a day after it was signed and we met the request to support this decision the agreement was broken by the opposition. Instead of establishing a government of national unity in line with the agreement, the opposition proclaimed the formation of a “government of victors.” The Russian language was instantly quashed by the adoption of a law that substantially impinged on it. When people protested against this, our Western colleagues said that nothing could be done – democracy had won. We could have also taken offense because we were asked to support what was coordinated with the EU’s direct participation. However, we know well that “pride goes before a fall” and we believe that channels of dialogue should be kept open in any situation to prevent even greater misunderstanding. As a result, differences began to be overcome by seeking sensible solutions. In the case of Ukraine, these sensible solutions produced the Contact Group and the Normandy format that, if nothing else, at least led to the universal recognition of the Minsk Agreements.

I do not want to express grievances against anyone. This is simply an example that taking offense is a huge mistake in foreign policy, just as in life, in any specific situation. Politicians don’t have this luxury – they must be pragmatic. Our German colleagues and our Western partners in general have always been pragmatic.

I hope that eventually a sound understanding of one’s vital national interests, the realisation that in today’s world not a single country can pursue its national interests without cooperating with other major players in the world arena, will win out and we will return to normal.

As for a new eastern policy, you can call what is needed today by any number of names. What is needed is equitable and mutually respectful dialogue based on an effort to find a balance of interests. We are all for such dialogue.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2803584

[Alex Him]

State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin’s interview with Izvestia published on June 29, 2017



29 June 2017 - 11:12





Question:

According to the latest statistics, increasingly more Russians are returning to Russia. What do you think is the reason for this? What programmes is Russia implementing or planning to implement to help Russians come back from abroad?



Grigory Karasin:

First of all, we are helping our compatriots, who have decided to move back to Russia, with a long-term special state programme that provides assistance for voluntary relocation to the Russian Federation. Nearly 631,800 participants in the state programme, including their family members, have returned and registered at the Russian Interior Ministry regional offices over the last 10 years, including upwards of 46,000 during the last five months.

Our compatriots living in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, as well as in Ukraine are taking the most interest in the programme. The most popular destinations for relocation as of now are the Kaluga, Lipetsk, Voronezh, Kaliningrad and Tula regions, with about 229,000 people moving to those places since the start of the programme. There is also a growth trend in the number of compatriots who are moving to the Siberian Federal District, specifically to the Novosibirsk and Omsk regions.

These dry statistics can hide the invisible but, believe me, huge efforts made by the staff of Russian missions abroad and the regional authorities. After all, the fate of these people is what’s at stake.



Question:

Late last year, the Latvian parliament approved legislative amendments endorsing the dismissal of teachers and school headmasters recognised as “disloyal” to the state. Now the pretexts for school dismissals may include the “glorification of the Soviet regime,” appeals to participate in May 9 events, denial of Latvia’s occupation by the USSR in 1940, and so on. Many Russian schools in the Baltic states are closed. How can Russia oppose this?



Grigory Karasin:

What is remarkable is that the Latvian authorities have adopted these amendments to the Law On Education, like many other similar legislative initiatives in recent times, in haste and contrary to the many critical analyses offered by the county’s education and scientific communities. Yet another characteristic feature of “modern Latvian law-making” is the introduction of a new terminology that does not lend itself to clear-cut legal interpretation. For example, the above law does not define the term “loyalty,” something that creates broad opportunities for interpretation and abuse. It is clear that the Latvian ethnocracy would like to have yet another repression tool. It is an extremely dangerous turn for our neighbor-state.

As of today, we have no information on the use of this “punitive” mechanism. We are monitoring the situation.

In general, the linguistic rights situation in the Baltic countries continue to give rise to serious concern. The authorities in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have consistently been closing in on the Russian schools, and this process has only accelerated recently. As we see it, these countries’ official policy towards Russian schools interferes with the national minorities’ right to education in their native language. We are focusing on this problem and regularly bring it up for discussion at the related international organisations. We will continue to do this.



Question:

Many problems remain when it comes to relations with Ukraine. When can we expect to see the next round of Normandy Format talks?



Reply:

The Normandy Format is not just about the periodic summit meetings, but also about the day-to-day work by experts from Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine on important aspects of settling the internal Ukrainian conflict. This work continues today. The issues under discussion are complex and sensitive matters for Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk related to the implementation of the Minsk agreements. As for summit meetings, we will most certainly keep you informed depending on when the sides are ready. I want to stress that the Minsk working group, in which the interests of Donbass are also represented, remains the main mechanism for resolving the issues. This component is essential for making progress in implementing the February 2015 agreements.



Question:

Russia and the United States plan to re-launch dialogue on Ukraine, but in a new format. Do you think that the Normandy Format is viable in this respect?



Reply:

The United States was involved in the internal Ukrainian settlement process right from the start, though it is not participating directly in the Normandy Format. The situation in southeast Ukraine is constantly on the agenda for Russian-US talks at various levels. During the previous US administration, Presidential Aide Vladislav Surkov and Vice Secretary of State Victoria Nuland worked on this matter together. She has now left her post. We proposed to our American partners that this work continue. This idea has Washington’s support. We are waiting to see now who they appoint, and we will resume this important dialogue.

Regarding the Normandy Format and its significance, it continues to play an important role. It was instrumental in drafting the Minsk Package of Measures, which remains the cornerstone for the settlement process. At the same time, we should not see it as the be all and end all. This mechanism’s purpose is to help the parties to Ukrainian conflict achieve rapprochement in their positions. It is not in itself a decision-making body. The final word remains with the Contact Group, in which the representatives of Kiev and Donbass must engage in direct dialogue and reach agreement on mutually acceptable solutions. This is a matter of principle. Ukraine’s future must be decided by its own people. It is they who hold the key to resolving this crisis. We are ready to help them with this.



Question:

You plan to meet with the Georgian Prime Minister’s special representative for relations with Russia, Zurab Abashidze, in early July. Can we expect an improvement in bilateral relations?



Grigory Karasin:

Since there are no diplomatic relations between our countries now, our meetings with the Georgian Prime Minister’s special representative are the key venue for conducting an interstate dialogue based on instructions from the Russian and Georgian authorities. Our position has always been for normalising bilateral relations, which is why we promptly responded to a positive signal we received from Tbilisi in late 2012. Thanks to the constructive efforts by both sides, an informal dialogue that was subsequently launched has produced positive results in trade, the economy, transport and culture. Last year, our bilateral trade exceeded $707 million. Today Russia is one of Georgia’s three largest trade partners. We buy over 50 per cent of Georgian wine exports and 25 per cent of its tangerine harvests. The bulk of remittances from Georgians working abroad, or some $400 million a year, comes from Russia. There are regular flights between some cities in Russia and Georgia and over 20 international bus routes.

Ties between our researchers, business people and young people have become more active. The number of Georgian students at Russian universities has increased.

Regarding my upcoming meeting with Zurab Abashidze in early July, its agenda is quite large. I hope this meeting will be held in a business-like atmosphere, as always.

However, the situation is not simple. We continue to hold widely different views on the political processes in the South Caucasus. We have always told our Georgian partners openly that out bilateral dialogue has no relation to our comprehensive cooperation with the independent republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is a matter for discussion at the Geneva talks, which have been ongoing since 2008.

Regrettably, instead of developing a neighbourly and equal dialogue with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Tbilisi continues to speak about the alleged Russian occupation. This absurd claim is being used as an argument in favour of rapprochement with NATO. It may sound sad, but the current Georgian authorities’ position on this matter does not differ from that of the Saakashvili government. Moreover, Georgia-NATO cooperation has acquired elements that make Tbilisi a party to the NATO policy of containing Russia. Last year alone, Georgia hosted three multinational military exercises with NATO member countries. For a second year running, they trained in the operational deployment of heavy weaponry from Europe. The recent NATO Parliamentary Assembly Session that was held in Tbilisi and the declaration that was adopted at it have clearly demonstrated the bloc’s political intentions in Georgia and its desire to strengthen its positions in the South Caucasus.



Question:

What is the visa situation with Georgia?



Grigory Karasin:

Let me remind you that we always sought to preserve and facilitate the conditions for communication between citizens of our countries even in the most difficult period for Russian-Georgian relations. In December 2015, Russia began issuing business, working, educational and humanitarian visas for any number of entries to Georgian citizens, as well as private visas. As a result, the number of visas issued by our Interests Section in Tbilisi almost doubled in 2016. Currently, we are preparing visa simplifications for aircraft crews performing flights between our two countries.

At the same time, it should be noted that Russian citizens visiting Georgia run the risk of coming within the purview of the notorious Law On the Occupied Territories stipulating not only administrative but also criminal liability for those who earlier visited Abkhazia or South Ossetia.

Georgia itself has unilaterally abolished visas not only for Russians but also for citizens of another 100, or so, countries. This is usually practised by states seeking to attract foreign tourists. The “tourist countries” certainly cannot hope for “automatic” visa reciprocity in the modern world, where terrorist and other threats are rapidly growing.

In the absence of diplomatic relations, it will be difficult to organise a large-scale joint visa liberalisation effort. As is common knowledge, the diplomatic relations [between the two countries] were broken off by Georgia. The prospects for their restoration in the future will also hinge on Tbilisi’s initiative.



Question:

There are points of tension in Russian-Moldovan relations as well. In your view, how will Igor Dodon be able to deal with the Transnistrian issue? And how can Russia help to solve this problem?



Grigory Karasin:

If you mean Moldova’s expulsion of a group of Russian diplomats, to which Russia had to respond symmetrically, this happening certainly reflects the intensity of the internal political struggle in Chisinau over prospects for relations with Russia. We clearly separate those behind this provocation from the overwhelming majority of ordinary Moldovans, who have warm feelings towards Russia and are directly interested in active relations with our country. We are prepared to cooperate with all sensible and constructive political forces in Chisinau and, of course, with the government agencies. But we will continue to respond fittingly to provocations similar to the recent one.

As far as the Transnistrian settlement is concerned, we understand that for today the Moldovan public and the political circles do not have a single point of view on how to solve the Transnistrian problem. It is important to avoid the emergence of new irritants in relations between Chisinau and Tiraspol, such as the opening of a joint Moldovan-Ukrainian border-crossing and customs control centre at the Kuchurgan checkpoint.

As a guarantor state and mediator in the negotiating process on the Transnistrian settlement, Russia is determined to help promote the 5+2 dialogue between Chisinau and Tiraspol.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2804108

[Alex Him]

Statement by Deputy Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Oleg Khramov at the Cyber Security Summit (28 June 2017, Tel Aviv, the State of Israel)



29 June 2017 - 16:51





Distinguished ladies and gentlemen!

Activities of states to ensure their information security are regulated by their relevant strategies, doctrines and laws.

In Russia the system of official views on ensuring national security of the Russian Federation in the information sphere is laid out in the Information Security Doctrine, which was approved by the President in December last year.

The document contains detailed analysis of new challenges and threats in the information sphere and specifies priority areas of ensuring information security.

The cross-border nature of threats to information security, coupled with the explosive growth of the use of ICTs for unlawful purposes, clearly demonstrates the need for consolidation of efforts to address these threats.

Nineteen years ago, back in the autumn of 1998, at the session of the United Nations General Assembly Russia presented a draft resolution in which it was drawing attention of the entire international community to the challenges and threats in the information sphere.

Already then, Russia was calling for joint efforts to counter the use of information and communications technologies for unlawful military and political, terrorist and other criminal purposes (the so-called “triad” of threats).

However, our appeal was not heard. The approaches we proposed came under criticism from a number of major Western states. Experts and politicians were buried in years-long fruitless debate where objective assessment of the situation was substituted by ideological narrative.

In those "battles" we lost the most important thing – time. Our inaction only played into the hands of terrorists, extremists and the criminal community, whose methods, ways and means have grown more far-reaching and sophisticated.

Only 12 years later, in 2010, this "triad" of threats was recorded in the report of the UN Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security.

We thought that a uniform understanding of the problem would become a point of departure for a gradual progress towards building an international system of information security. Clearly, building such a system is the only adequate response to the growing challenges and threats in the information sphere.

The first step was made when, in September 2011, member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization submitted an international code of conduct for information security to the General Assembly at its sixty-sixth session as an official document.

But our Western partners did not support this initiative. Again, we lost time so much needed to organize cooperation in this area.

Nevertheless, dynamic development of the information sphere, fast evolution of information and communications technologies and the extent of their misuse compelled us to revisit the above mentioned issues two years later.

In 2013, the UN Group of Governmental Experts issued a report which formulated results of the research dedicated to norms, rules or principles of responsible behavior of states in the information space.

In 2015, a new Group reaffirmed those provisions in its report.

However, those norms and rules remained merely the conclusions of expert reports. They were not mandatory (or at least recommendatory).

Life dictated its own terms, posing new challenges for states in the field of ensuring information security both on a national and global scale.

Russia and its partners proposed that in 2016–2017 the UN Group of Governmental Experts draw up a report focusing on rules of responsible behavior of states in the information space in the context of international security. Drawing on the results of the Group's work, a proposal could be put forward for the UN General Assembly to adopt a resolution enshrining those rules.

Nevertheless, that initiative, though supported by many members of the Group, was blocked by Western countries. As a result, consensus wasn’t reached and the outcome report wasn’t adopted.

Talks about the need to adopt rules of behavior in the information space remained mere talk. We all were thrown years back.

But we have no right to passively watch the developments; we have no right to condone the growing challenges and threats in the information sphere.

We need to join efforts of the world community in fighting this evil.

Russia's approach to the above rules of behavior is based on the following postulates.

First, information and communications technologies should be used for peaceful purposes only. International cooperation should be aimed at preventing conflicts in the field of the use of ICTs, rather than at regulating them.

Second, taking into consideration the unique characteristics of ICTs, as well as norms of international law that are applicable in the field of their use and that are of great importance for maintaining international peace, security and stability and for creating an open, safe, stable, accessible and peaceful information space, additional legal norms may be elaborated for regulating international relations in the field of the use of ICTs.

Third, states should have sovereignty over the information and communications infrastructure in their territories.

Fourth, any accusations against states of involvement in computer attacks must be substantiated and proved.

Fifth, states should prevent their territory from being used for carrying out computer attacks or facilitate the use of proxies for this purpose.

Sixth, states should fight the inclusion and the use of malicious hidden functions and software vulnerabilities in IT products and work for ensuring security of users.

In conclusion, I would like to note that we are convinced that building a system of international information security that takes into account interests of all states is possible today.

This is our common goal, and we should work together to achieve it.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2804268






Response of the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation for International Cooperation on Information Security Andrey Krutskikh to TASS' Question Concerning the State of International Dialogue in This Sphere



29 June 2017 - 16:53





Question:

In the context of the recent developments caused by the deterioration of the international information security (IIS) situation, including the recent large-scale hacker attacks, could you provide comments on the general state of international cooperation in this field?



Answer:

We are deeply concerned about these trends. Nearly every week the world is faced with new computer attacks. We believe that this challenge calls for an urgent response from the international community. But unfortunately, so far the dialogue on the issue has progressed in a less effective way than is desired.

On 23 June 2017 the UN Group of Governmental Experts on International Information Security (GGE) chaired by the Federal Republic of Germany completed its work at a regular session. The GGE was expected to adopt a final report at its concluding meeting, as had been the case earlier, in 2010, 2013, and 2015. But the Group failed to reach a consensus.

The reason lies in the fundamental political disagreements among the participants concerning their visions of the future of the global information space and the principles by which it will be regulated.

Russia stands for the maintenance of peace in the information space and the prevention of an information "arms race." We regard the inadmissibility of the use of force both in the virtual and real world as an absolute truth. Under no circumstances should the information space become yet another battlefield.

We strongly believe that a just and equitable world order that would accommodate the interests of all states irrespectively of their technological capacities should be ensured in this area. The IIS system should guarantee equal security for all and serve to protect the most vulnerable players, instead of turning them into a target for the stronger ones.

In this regard, during the discussion within the GGE, the Russian side advocated the idea of necessity of conflict prevention in the digital field and its demilitarization as well as the establishment of principles of the non-use of force, respect for state sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs of other states, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. To these ends, we suggested that the Group should prepare and recommend for adoption by the UN General Assembly universal rules of responsible behavior of states in the information space reflecting these principles. In this context, the Russian representative within the GGE, in cooperation with BRICS partners and other states, including developing ones, has repeatedly introduced substantive proposals and contributions to the Group.

Unfortunately, the peace-oriented concept suggested by Russia has come in conflict with the position of certain countries that seek to impose on the whole world their own game rules in the information space, which would only serve their own interests.

Building on their technological advantages, they seek to secure "the right of the strongest" in the information space and provide an international legal basis for their "free hand" behavior. To this end, they have attempted to adopt within the UN format the decisions of the NATO Summit in Warsaw declaring cyberspace a new warzone.

This policy is being followed up with an attempt to "tailor" certain norms of international law, including its humanitarian aspects, in order to make it possible to use force in the digital field. At the same time, the need for a careful consideration of essential issues related to the specific nature of information and communication techonolgies is being completely ignored. This includes, in particular, attribution of computer attacks.

We believe that this approach, as well as the hastely manner in which it is being advanced, is indicative of the one and only thing: states that support it try to provide a legal "cover up" for every case when they use force.

We are particularly concerned about the fact that the concept of forceful and military countermeasures in the digital field, which, among other things, implies the imposition of sanctions and punishment of "undesirable" countries bypassing the existing mechanisms, including the UN Security Council, is being imposed on the world, and that the idea already agreed upon in previous GGE that any charges against states for carrying out cyberattacks should be proven, is being revised in all possible ways.

We believe that such an approach puts in jeopardy the security interests of other countries and is fundamentally in contradiction with the objective of ensuring peace in the information space.

Besides, in order to rid the discussion on IIS of the "inconvenient" opinion of the developing states, a course has been adopted aimed at discrediting the role of the key and the only universal negotiation platform – the UN – in dealing with IIS issues.

The final draft report submitted for consideration to the GGE by the German Chair reflected these exact approaches unacceptable to Russia, so we did not support it. In unison with us many other members of the Group – our BRICS and CIS partners, as well as a whole number of other states, including developing ones, spoke against the adoption of that version of the report.

However, we are convinced that such an outcome of the Group's work does not mean that this track is no longer effective. The history of the GGE has already seen breaks when a USA representative vetoed one of the draft reports (decisions within the Group are made by consensus). Despite that, three substantive reports in a row were adopted subsequently.

But the emerging tendencies that could be traced in the course of the Group's discussion are alarming. Instead of agreeing within the United Nations on joint practical steps to address the threats in the IIS sphere, attempts are made to undermine the work on this track and to "grab the bigger piece of the pie."

Russia remains determined to constructively address the issues of ensuring IIS in a bilateral and multilateral format. We are firmly convinced that, given the current circumstances, a refusal to pursue the dialogue on this topic may lead to damaging consequences. Against the background of increasing challenges in the IIS sphere, we need to jointly elaborate and adopt within the UN framework universal rules of responsible behavior of states in the information sphere as soon as possible. Draft rules were already drawn up by the SCO and presented to the United Nations in January 2015 as an official document. The work to negotiate the rules of behavior is an urgent necessity for all countries, and it has to become a priority of the international IIS agenda.

The idea to adopt an international convention on ensuring IIS also has not been removed from it. A draft concept of such document was prepared by the Russian side and presented at the 2nd International Meeting of High Representatives for Security Issues (Yekaterinburg, 21-22 September 2011).

Specific practical steps to fight cybercrime are equally urgent. In May 2017, at the 8th International Meeting of High Representatives for Security Issues (Varaksino, Tver region, 23-25 May) and on the margins of the 26th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Russia presented a draft UN universal convention on cooperation in combating information crimes.

We are open to dialogue on these issues with all interested states.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2804288

[Alex Him]

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, June 29, 2017



29 June 2017 - 17:54





Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Speaker of the Knesset of Israel Yuli-Yoel Edelstein

Today, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet at the Foreign Ministry with Yuli-Yoel Edelstein, Speaker of the Knesset of the State of Israel, who is visiting Moscow at the invitation of the Speaker of the Federal Assembly’s Federation Council Valentina Matviyenko.

Mr Lavrov and Mr Edelstein are expected to discuss a broad range of issues related to the situation in the Middle East, joint counter-terrorism efforts, and topical matters on the bilateral agenda.



Secretary-General of the Arab League Ahmed Aboul Gheit to visit Russia

Secretary-General of the Arab League Ahmed Aboul Gheit will pay a working visit to Moscow on July 4-6. On July 5, he will meet with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for in-depth consultations.

Our political contacts with the leaders of the Arab League, which is an influential Pan-Arab organisation, are steady and regular in nature, which allows us to exchange views on important issues of regional and international agenda in a constructive manner as partners. This year, Sergey Lavrov and Ahmed Aboul Gheit met twice: first, on the sidelines of the fourth ministerial session of the Russian-Arab Cooperation Forum held in Abu Dhabi on February 1, and then in Cairo on May 29 during a joint visit by Russia’s Foreign Minister and Defence Minister to Egypt.

Moscow greatly values the substantive dialogue between Russia and the Arab countries, and is committed to promoting it. The swiftness of the transformational processes in the Middle East, the commonality of global challenges and threats dictate the need to strengthen interaction between the Russian Federation and the Arab League in the interest of ensuring peace and stability in this region and the world in general.

During the upcoming consultations, the sides will discuss in detail the situation in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, the crisis surrounding Qatar, and the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. In the context of persistent security turbulence, it is assumed that special attention during the talks will go to coordinating the steps taken, including in a collective format, to counter international terrorism and religious extremism.

Promoting cooperation between Russia and the Arab League in the economic, humanitarian and cultural spheres will also come under review. The sides will analyse the implementation of the Action Plan to implement the principles, goals and objectives of Russian-Arab cooperation for 2016-2018 adopted during the third ministerial session of the Russian-Arab Cooperation Forum held in Moscow on February 26, 2016.



Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Paris

Sergey Lavrov will have talks with Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of the French Republic Jean-Yves Le Drian in Paris on July 6. The meeting will be held as a follow-up to the agreements reached during the talks between President Putin and President Macron in Versailles on May 29, and at the working meeting of the foreign ministers of the two countries in Moscow on June 20.

A thorough dialogue will continue on the issues related to fighting terrorism, resolving crises in Syria, Libya and Ukraine, and other important issues on the international agenda. It is also planned to touch upon certain aspects of bilateral cooperation between Russia and France, including the creation of a permanent entity for interaction through civil societies, such as the Russian-French Trianon Dialogue.



Sergey Lavrov’s participation in an OSCE Informal Ministerial Meeting

On July 11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend the OSCE Informal Ministerial Meeting in Mauerbach, Austria. The event is being held at the initiative of Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz, in his role as OSCE chairperson-in-office. No documents will be adopted at the meeting. It aims for an exchange of views on the situation in the OSCE area of responsibility and a discussion of the preparations for a meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Vienna (December 7-8). We hope for a frank and unpoliticised conversation on current topics on the European agenda.

The discussion will focus on a search for ways of resolving the current European security crisis. Russia is open to dialogue. We believe that the OSCE, which has great potential as a forum for discussion on an equal footing and for making decisions on security issues, can and should be used to that end. Our common long-term goal is the 2010 OSCE Astana Summit’s resolution on creating an undivided security community, and our current task is to restore trust.

There will be an exchange of views on the so-called structured dialogue on security challenges that was launched within the framework of the OSCE this year. We hope that it will make a substantial contribution to de-escalating the military-political situation and reducing military confrontation in Europe. The success of the dialogue hinges on renouncing confrontational rhetoric and recriminations, as well as on the long-awaited transition to a conversation based on respect, without any attempts to impose one’s will and values on others.

The security situation in Europe is compounded by growing transnational threats – terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime and the migration crisis. Special attention at the meeting will be devoted to the OSCE’s contribution to countering current challenges, primarily terrorism and terrorist ideology. We believe that this evil can be effectively fought only on the basis of international law with respect for the equality and sovereignty of states.

For our part, we also intend to promote at the OSCE priorities for the peaceful resolution of ongoing conflicts in the existing formats, the protection of traditional values, including the rights of Christians and Muslims, and the harmonisation of integration processes.



Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Belgium

On July 12, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be in Belgium on a working visit at the invitation of the Belgian side and will have talks with Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Affairs Didier Reynders.

The two foreign ministers intend to discuss in detail the status of and prospects for the development of Russian-Belgian cooperation, as well as a number of current issues on the international agenda, in particular the situation in the Middle East and Africa, including in the context of fighting international terrorism.

During the talks, the two officials plan to coordinate their approaches towards the prospects for Russia’s relations with the European Union and NATO, as well as with the OSCE and the Council of Europe.

Before the talks, on July 11, Mr Lavrov will have a meeting with Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission, within the framework of the Russia-EU political dialogue.

On July 13, Mr Lavrov will pay a visit to Germany, as he said yesterday at a joint news conference with his German counterpart Sigmar Gabriel. We will duly inform you about the events planned in Germany.



The situation in Syria

We note a positive trend in the development of the military-political situation in Syria. We see this as a direct result of implementing the May 4 Memorandum on Establishing De-Escalation Zones in Syria and consolidating the ceasefire regime.

Ceasefire monitoring continues. The Russian Defence Ministry regards the situation in de-escalation zones as stable. The overwhelming majority of violations are reported in areas controlled by Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS militants. The Russian centre for reconciliation in Syria conducts regular humanitarian operations, delivering basic necessities to affected areas. Towns continue to join the ceasefire regime: As of now, their number has reached 1,832. In particular, in the Latakia province, there is not a single town that has not joined the regime. Talks are under way with armed opposition groups in the Aleppo, Idlib, Damascus, Hama, Homs and Quneitra provinces on joining the ceasefire.

Eastern and southeastern parts of the country have become the main theatre of operations by the Syrian Armed Forces against terrorists.

The Syrian Army continues to advance toward the Iraqi border. For the first time during the five-year conflict, government forces have crossed the administrative border of the Deir ez-Zor province. Forward-deployed units are several kilometres from the T2 oil pumping station, 80 km from the city of Abu Kamal and 100 km from terrorist-besieged Deir ez-Zor.

Near Palmyra, Syrian Army units expelled ISIS militants from a gas refinery and expanded their zone of control near the Arak gas field.

In the northeast of the Hama province, Syrian Army fighters took Al-Abjar Hill not far from the town of Ithriyah. The military are advancing further along the Salamiya-Raqqa road to block ISIS militants near the town of Uqayribat, who have not managed to retreat to the east.

The terrorists are trying to reverse the course of events. On June 24, al-Nusra attacked Syrian Army positions in the city of al-Baath in the northwest of the Quneitra province. The militants took control of several strongholds in the city, including a local council building. Dozens of civilians were hurt as a result of militants shelling attacks on residential districts. Closer to evening on the same day, the Syrian Army recaptured practically all of the positions lost previously.

The successes of government forces are punctuated by bloody conflicts between the terrorists themselves. Thus, al-Nusra militants tried to take control of the town of Salqin in the northwest of the Idlib province, but encountered opposition from local groups supported by Ahrar al-Sham followers.

As part of national reconciliation efforts and to mark the end of the holy month of Ramadan, the Syrian Government has amnestied 672 people, including 91 women, who were detained on suspicion of being connected to illegally formed armed groups.

The Syrian Democratic Forces, supported by the US and its anti-ISIS coalition allies, have freed the town of Mustajid Naqib south of Raqqa on the right bank of the Euphrates River, thereby closing the circle of the blockade around the ISIS capital. Fierce fighting in the city continues.

Unfortunately, new allegations against the Syrian authorities, who are purportedly “planning a new chemical attack,” have come from Washington. We took note of these allegations and commented on them. We also know that no evidence has been provided to substantiate them. We do not know the basis for these allegations. The situation that has evolved as a result is reminiscent of a large-scale military and informational provocation that is directed not only against the Syrian authorities but also against Russia.

These accusations and threats sound cynical against the backdrop of the openly illegal actions by the US-led anti-ISIS coalition with regard to sovereign Syria, such as the missile strike against the Shayrat airfield on April 7, the bombing of government forces in Deir ez-Zor and al-Tanf and the shooting down of a Syrian jet bomber. On top of that, a large number of Syrian civilians were killed as a result of bombing and shelling by coalition forces in Raqqa and other cities. According to AFP, during the Ramadan period alone, 500 people who had nothing to do with terrorists were killed as a result. Forty-two civilians were killed and dozens injured as a result of a missile and bomb attack against the town of Mayadeen in the east of the Deir ez-Zor province during celebrations after the Muslim fast.

Moscow has repeatedly stated that we regard such unilateral acts of aggression as blatant violations of international law and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, and disrespect for the UN Charter.

Russia, Iran and Turkey as guarantors of the Astana process are actively preparing for the next round of the International Meeting on Syria in Astana, set for July 4-5. Russia sees the upcoming meeting in the capital of Kazakhstan as an important stage toward a peaceful settlement in Syria.

I would like to talk in detail about the chemical provocation that is unfolding right in front of us. Today we have an opportunity to see how the entire scenario to carry out a Syria plan based on allegations regarding weapons of mass destruction was planned and acted upon, a plan that we very much hope will not be implemented. We know numerous examples when countries that consider themselves civilised have taken criminal actions on those grounds. Not just thousands but millions of people, including civilians, have suffered as a result. Nobody knows, and nobody has taken the trouble yet of counting civilian casualties in Iraq: hundreds of thousands of peaceful, innocent people at the very least.

As for the current situation, the information campaign regarding “the Assad regime’s preparations for a new crime against its own people with the use of chemical weapons,” which has been launched by Washington with support from London and Paris, as I said previously, it is nothing new. It is developing in accordance with the traditional scenario, which was written for Syria. In other words, the traditional scenario that had been tested on a number of countries in the region was developed specifically for Syria back in 2013. At least that was when it was made public but it may have been developed even earlier. In 2013, a provocation involving the use a chemical agent in eastern Ghouta (it is still unclear who used it) almost caused direct intervention by Western countries against Syria. At that time, not only the region but also the entire world was saved from a major war with absolutely unpredictable regional and global consequences by the decisive position of Russia, which proposed a plan for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapon stockpiles. However, in April 2017, [civilians in] the Syrian town of Khan Shaykhun fell victim to an alleged chemical attack that, according to the West, was launched by official Damascus. The current US administration did nothing unexpected. It only dusted off the playbook prepared by its predecessor (this refers to the 2013 scenario), which it recently criticised, and launched a strike against a sovereign state, Syria. By all indications, the information attack that is unfolding now, these days and these hours, is a forerunner to new intervention.

The reiterate, the scenario will be the same. Some incident occurs in an area controlled by militants, resulting in civilian casualties; the so-called opposition (i.e., jihadists, who do not in any way differ from ISIS or al-Qaeda but who receive aid from the US and its allies) will report the regime’s latest crime, as they usually do. Importantly, at that moment no one will count the number of people who have died at the hands of these same jihadists, the so-called moderate forces; everyone will forget about the thousands of civilians killed by extremists but will only focus on a specific situation that will be highlighted in every possible way by extremists, who do not differ from terrorists in any way. Just as the last time, purported evidence will be demonstrated to the Western public: [explosion] craters and some murky footage and photos of dead bodies allegedly made during the incident will go viral online. Then it will be proved that it was all staged in the same way as some well-known organisations demonstrated before. Militants posing as the opposition concerned about Syria’s future and as eyewitnesses will go on camera. No effort will be spared to persuade the regional community to work for the Western TV and social media audience, providing firsthand accounts of the attack.

On the other hand, the scenario will be enacted as follows. Representatives of US intelligence services will claim to have airtight evidence proving the [Assad] regime’s responsibility. You know what the response to the request to present that evidence will be. They will say that this is classified information that cannot be disclosed. What’s more, as previously, they will say that the disclosure of this information would affect the situation and security in the region. They will argue that Western intelligence services, in particular US intelligence services, do not disclose their sources. This is classic. The motivation and explanation will be very simple: certain sources, witnesses, people who are in possession of real facts are in dire danger from the regime.

The 2003 aggression against Iraq has already demonstrated that simply anything can be used as evidence: detergent powder or some cleaning agent in a vial passed off as “sarin” or some student paper as a classified report. Eventually, everyone will learn the truth but it will be too late. There will be an intervention, civilians will be killed and conditions for founding even more extremist organisations will be created. This was the case with Iraq. Ten years later, as you remember, Tony Blair apologised. What about those apologies? Who needs them? An entire generation was not born during these 10 years. It is not that people were killed and children and young men who lived in those countries were physically and psychologically scarred for the rest of their life, but simply, new people were not born. This massacre continued for 10 years, expanding from the active phase into the phase of fighting terrorists who had never existed in that region. Then people in nice expensive suits appear on camera, apologise and bear absolutely no responsibility. They do not risk their freedom, let alone their life; they do not even risk their positions or official status. They can simply say, “We are sorry” but many do not say even that.

All objections by a legitimate government, which for some reason the West has described as a regime for so many years, all evidence from independent sources, issues related to the quality of sources or the expediency of citing terrorists and militants [in the media] will be simply ignored.

The provocation in Khan Shaykhun on April 4 bore all the hallmarks of this scenario. Such scenarios were developed on a small and large scale alike. Their organisers and those who called for punishing the regime have ignored not only the refutation of the chemical attack by Syria’s legitimate Government and by Russian experts on the ground, but also objective data. In April 2017, the Syrian Army was successfully advancing on the militants’ positions. A question arises: what was the point of using chemical weapons in a territory that the Syrian authorities intended shortly to take control of? Most average people who watch and read news do not bother to think what chemical weapons really are. Yes, these are horrible weapons of mass destruction, but these are also weapons that remain in the soil. It turns out that the Syrian authorities themselves make their own land, environment and country unfit for habitation. After all, Syrian Army units should be deployed there, civilians should return to their homes there and people should live, work and study there. This most obvious and simple logic is ignored.

One hundred per cent of chemical weapons that were under the Syrian Government’s control were destroyed in 2013-2014 under international oversight. This is a fact that is obvious to everyone. What’s more, this fact was confirmed by the OPCW and it even won a Nobel Prize for that. It would seem that everything goes to show that what they are trying to portray to us as a reason, as the main explanation for attempts at an intervention and regime change is refuted by the obvious facts. But no, the power of the media and propaganda, as well as the high-quality scenarios and time-proven methods of conducting these campaigns convince many people in the West that these measures are very effective.

There are also incontrovertible facts that everyone should know, remember and recapitulate. On the one hand, all the chemical weapons that were under the control of Syria’s legitimate authorities were destroyed. To reiterate, this is a fact that was confirmed by international experts, for which they received a Nobel Prize. On the other hand, nobody took the chemical weapons from the militants, and it’s also a fact that militants, extremists and terrorists have these weapons. They periodically use them against government forces, in particular Kurdish detachments. However, international agencies investigate these incidents very slowly. The investigation of these incidents is dragging on and nobody in the West is in any hurry or insists that it should ever be finished. Likewise, for some reason mainstream media outlets are ignoring these facts.

The video footage that was purportedly made during the incident cannot be recognised as fully authentic or meeting the standards of documentary footage. It is simply impossible because this footage is full of incongruities and inconsistencies. So-called doctors give confusing evidence: they talk about chlorine and then they talk about sarin. Then the people on camera say they are experts and doctors. Either they are not doctors or they have no objective information. Rescuers (to be more precise, people who say they are rescuers) work without any protective gear or equipment. Imagine this: rescuers at the epicenter of a chemical attack have absolutely no protective equipment and easily talk on camera about what just happened there. As a general rule, there are only men and children among the casualties but for some reason no women. There are people involved in the activities of extremist, in particular jihadist groups among the “witnesses” and “experts.” Nobody pays attention to a report by the Center for Citizen Initiatives, a US NGO, which has published an appeal from CIA veterans to President Donald Trump on the Khan Shaykhun incident. According to these veteran experts, in Khan Shaykhun, a Syrian plane dropped a bomb on the ammunition depot of a local Al Qaeda group where the noxious agents were in fact stored. A gust of wind created a cloud that rose as a result of the explosion, spread to a nearby village and led to numerous casualties. The Conflicts Forum, an online resource run by former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke, published a series of materials by US investigative bloggers who are also critical of the US administration’s version of the Khan Shaykhun events. On June 25, German Die Welt published an article by Seymour Hersh saying that the Trump administration has ignored US intelligence services’ report that there is no evidence of chemical weapons being used in Khan Shaykhun. As for the symptoms of chemical poisoning, they were probably caused by the cloud of the chemical substance that was stored at the target of the attack. None of this is taken into consideration or analysed.

Let’s go back to the goal of the provocation that is being prepared right in front of you now; you can see all of its components for yourselves. The goal is obvious – to reanimate the issue of so-called regime crimes, derail the political process launched in Astana and return the situation in Syria to the impasse into which it was led by Western rhetoric to the effect that Assad should go. That said, the information attack launched by Washington is in effect provoking militants into committing crimes involving mass casualties.

This information attack will most certainly include components such as the use of photos of children by leading commentators, journalists and correspondents. Just as before, it will take not decades but months (half a year at the most) to acknowledge that these are either fake or staged photos. However, the most important thing is that the entire power of mainstream channels (CNN and its commentators will play far from secondary role there) will be aimed at creating a gruesome picture designed to prove the regime’s crimes. Then action will begin. According to some reports, highly creative footage of this kind of provocation has already been made.



Russian diplomatic property expropriated in the United States

We again have to comment on the matter of Russian diplomatic property expropriated upon President Obama’s instructions six months ago. This case took an unusual turn several days ago. Some US media outlets, including The Washington Post, reported that when FBI agents entered the abandoned facilities in Washington and New York, they found that they had been stripped of antennas, electronics, computers and other “sophisticated eavesdropping equipment.”

We know all about this spy mania and spying equipment, which is nothing but lies and fake news, which are becoming the accepted norm even from national US television networks and print media. But the story about FBI agents is interesting. There are two alternatives: either these media outlets are lying and there were no FBI agents at our facilities, or FBI agents did enter these facilities. If so, this is a bad case of self-exposure. Since no official US agencies have refuted this information (which can be considered circumstantial evidence in favour of the latter version), this means that US security agents have indeed entered facilities that are Russian property located in Russian territory and hence enjoy diplomatic immunity. This is a gross breach of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

A year or six months ago, they kept talking about – and this was later used as the reason for US action against Russia – the alleged harassment of American diplomats in Moscow. Nobody explained what this meant. Which US diplomats were harassed, and who did it? No, American diplomats were free to do what they wanted. We never even considered doing to US property in Russia what Americans have done to Russian property in the United States.

This is what happened to Russian diplomats in the United States. Shortly before New Year 2017, the US administration gave us 24 hours to evacuate two Russian facilities. We were not just to evacuate but also mothball these facilities, considering that this happened in winter and winters in New York and Washington are comparable to winters in Moscow, and so the heating systems at these facilities were running at full capacity. You can see how our diplomats were treated in the United States. Moreover, the children’s camps, which opened there during holidays, were shut down. The children of embassy staff, diplomats and Russian compatriots were deprived of the possibility of having a good rest, which should concern Washington with its positions on humanitarian issues.

At the same time, they continue to assure us that the abandoned Russian property is completely safe. This is a paradox. The media could be lying and these media reports could be fiction, but if so, why haven’t US security agencies refuted these reports? Indirect evidence shows that certain people in the United States have access to the facilities that must be only open to Russian diplomats. We don’t have the details, but available information indicates that somebody has entered our facilities. This is why we think so.

The obvious comparison comes to mind from reading what the US media write: our facilities have been occupied. Having failed to occupy Wall Street, they probably decided to occupy Russian property in the United States. It cannot be ruled out that some secret service agents could stage a provocation and set up “evidence” to prove that intelligence equipment had been installed at these facilities at some point. These agents have unattended access to our facilities. As I said, there was no such equipment at our facilities. US media claim that the equipment was dismantled, but our diplomats had less than 24 hours before their departure. Is this sufficient time to dismantle complicated espionage equipment? But there was indeed a great deal of household and other equipment that was dismantled to mothball these facilities.

And while Russian diplomats were removing their belongings and mothballing these facilities, they were closely watched by the police and FBI agents. They not only looked on but used a powerful searchlight to better see what went on in our territory.

My colleagues, who witnessed this arbitrariness, later said that the operation could have been a Hollywood movie. And there definitely were elements of intimidation.

Since then, we have not been allowed to enter our facilities even once. The US Department of State has not granted any of the 15 Russian requests for a single visit by maintenance workers to check the infrastructure in order to prevent possible accidents.

This means that the US authorities will be held accountable for any possible damage to expropriated Russian diplomatic property, as we have said more than once. Are we supposed to break into our property in case of fire or collapse? How should we respond? These are our facilities; we paid money for them and have the deeds to prove it. The US administration and security services have never questioned our ownership of facilities before, not even during the Cold War.

We have also told our American colleagues that the only way to dispel our suspicions that an anti-Russian provocation involving “espionage equipment” is being prepared there is to let us see for ourselves, which means that we need to enter the facilities. Or better still, give us our property back. Otherwise, we will have the grounds for a similar response with regard to US property in Russia. As we said before, and as I can confirm today, we are working on these response measures.



CNN

Once again, we are compelled to talk about the lack of professionalism and the biased approach of certain US media outlets.

Yesterday, we sent an official letter to the CNN office reminding them of the need to clarify the case of manipulating public opinion by the leading columnist of this television network Christiane Amanpour during an interview with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov taken in the run-up to the elections in the United States.

As you may remember, a couple of weeks before the presidential elections in the United States, CNN interviewed Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. During the course of the interview, Ms Amanpour produced photos of a Syrian boy that she brought along saying that the child had been killed in a bombing raid. Later, this US TV channel posted on its website this interview and the materials to the effect that this boy was a victim of Syrian and, primarily, Russian air strikes.

We believe that this is a case of manipulating public opinion, and that CNN and Christiane Amanpour owe us a response. It’s up to them to decide on the form of such a response, but they must explain themselves to the public.

We mentioned that we are prepared to help CNN contact the Russian reporters who found the boy's family, or to have our onsite experts help Ms Amanpour communicate directly with this family in order to correct the gross mistake that took place in late 2016.

Given the size of the CNN audience, this, of course, was a case of mass manipulation of public opinion. We look forward to getting their response.



An article in Iceland’s Morgunbladid newspaper about the anti-Russia hysteria in the United States

I’d be remiss to let go unnoticed an op-ed colourfully titled “Scum and Smoke” published by Icelandic Morgunbladid in its June 15 edition. It is not only the title that is colourful, but also the adjectives chosen by its author, former Prime Minister David Oddsson, to describe the erratic anti-Russian election-related attacks going on in the United States.

According to Mr Oddsson, the search for traces of Russia and the Russian leadership’s involvement (the notorious “hand of the Kremlin”) in the victory of a presidential candidate and generally in the US elections is becoming increasingly bizarre.

The serial allegations about information leaks, always quoting unnamed sources and individuals, and the propaganda-infused materials about Russia's involvement in the elections turn out as sheer nonsense if you just scratch the surface. The article’s author also lamented the fact that major publications and popular television channels allow this blatant misinformation to spread all over the world.

The author noted that just before Barack Obama left the White House, his people announced the involvement of some Russian diplomats and hackers in unlawful interference in the presidential elections. Now, it has become a hodgepodge of allegations whereby the Russian leadership, allegedly taking the victory away from Hillary Clinton, was also trying to take the victory away from Donald Trump. It’s a senseless mix-up of propaganda talking points.

Please take note of this article, as it is very revealing and indicates that not only here in Russia, but also in Europe people are beginning to get tired of this scum and smoke.



Vancouver events marking 80th anniversary of the Chkalov crew’s first non-stop flight from the USSR to the United States

Last week, we celebrated an outstanding event in the history of Russian-US ties, the 80th anniversary of the legendary non-stop trans-polar flight of the Valery Chkalov from the Soviet Union to the United States.

As you may remember, the Chkalov’s crew, including copilot Georgy Baidukov and navigator Alexander Belyakov, took off from Shcholkovo airport on June 18, 1937 and flew towards the North Pole. On June 20, over 63 hours later, the plane landed safely on Pearson Field in Vancouver, Washington.

On June 17, the Moscow Region’s Shcholkovo District hosted a celebration of this event. A Russian interdepartmental delegation headed by Alexander Radkov, Deputy Head of the Federal Agency for CIS Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation, visited Vancouver, Washington, at the invitation of our US partners, including the National Park Service that manages Pearson Field.

On May 25, 2017, participants in the first meeting of the Foreign Ministry’s interdepartmental working group for preserving Russian historical and cultural heritage in the United States made the relevant decision.

Members of the Russian delegation and representatives from the Russian Consulate General in Seattle attended an official ceremony at Pearson Field on June 24, laid a wreath at the monument dedicated to the flight and visited the upgraded Chkalov Gallery, opened last year with the assistance of the Russian Foreign Ministry, at Pearson Air Museum. Delegation members also met with Washington State Senators and Russian compatriots living there.



Japanese business mission in the South Kuril Islands

Members of a public-private Japanese delegation, currently visiting the South Kuril Islands, plan to study opportunities for joint economic activities there.

President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reached the relevant agreement during their April 27, 2017 meeting in Moscow.

On May 30-31, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk hosted the first stage of the Japanese business mission’s visit. This time, during the second stage, the members will visit the islands of Kunashir, Iturup and Shikotan.

During the current visit, the parties are to focus on the practical aspects of mutually beneficial economic projects in the most promising areas, including fish-breeding, fish processing, infrastructure upgrades, the geothermal power industry, construction, environmental protection and tourism.

The implementation of these projects would help promote the socioeconomic development of the South Kuril Islands.

The results of this work will be discussed at a regular round of bilateral consultations, at the deputy foreign minister level, on launching joint economic activities in the South Kuril Islands.



Progress of political settlement in Colombia

We welcome the important result achieved in the political settlement in Colombia: the completion of the surrender of arms by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas to UN observers, which paves the way to their full reintegration into peaceful life and national reconciliation.

We would like to highlight the coordinating role of the UN in the process of disarming the rebels, to stress the contribution made to its success by the guarantor countries (Cuba, Norway) and the countries which have assisted the process (Venezuela, Chile).

Russia will continue its efforts, including through the UN Mission in Colombia (UNMIC), to support the Colombian people and government in building a durable peace and in post-conflict development.



Internal political developments in Venezuela

Unfortunately, the pitch of political confrontation in Venezuela is rising.

The increasingly aggressive protest rallies organised by the opposition and claiming human lives continue to give cause for concern.

We have to note the obvious harm caused by the attempts to form parallel government structures ignoring established procedure and the calls of the radical forces not to recognise the current judiciary and legislative bodies and to boycott their decisions.

Sometimes one gets a feeling that many, including in Venezuela, under the guise of improving the situation, are simply trying to destroy the state. Improving life in the country should not entail dismantling the state.

The helicopter attack on the building of the Interior Ministry and the Supreme Court of Venezuela is nothing if not a provocation aimed at further destabilising the situation.

We are deeply surprised at the stern rejection and the stubborn commitment of an influential part of the opposition to disrupting the efforts of the Government and representatives of the international community to bring about a resumption of the intra-Venezuelan dialogue, serious and responsible negotiations aimed at a mutual compromise and at restoring peace in the country.

Let me note that the search for peaceful solutions to the current political conflict has the support of an overwhelming majority of Venezuelan citizens, according to opinion polls.

Russia invariably comes out for a settlement of internal conflicts by political means on the basis of the primacy of law and without outside interference. We are convinced that these three pillars should form the basis for a successful solution to the difficult situation in the friendly Venezuela, unless one seeks to make it hopeless.



Dismantling of a memorial plaque to Georgy Zhukov in Odessa

On the night of June 25, “unidentified persons” in Odessa dismantled the plaque commemorating Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgy Zhukov on the avenue that bears his name.

I would like to note that it was put up there not during the Soviet times, but in independent Ukraine, in 1995, with the approval of the local authorities. The people of Odessa saw this as a tribute to the outstanding military commander, one of the architects of Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. Georgy Zhukov was directly involved in the liberation of much of Ukraine and some European countries from Nazism, and after the war contributed to bringing back peaceful life to Odessa.

What happened in Odessa is not the first act of vandalism against commemorative markers to Georgy Zhukov set up in the city. Judging from the reaction in the social networks, the first to “break the news” were the local nationalists from the Freedom group and other right-wing radical movements. This leaves no doubt as to who is behind these actions, who instigates the vandals to commit such actions and whose interests are backed by the authorities which openly connive at radicalism.

Many in today's Ukraine are unhappy about everything that reminds them of the Victory of the Soviet people over Nazism, and in general of the fact that Nazism was defeated in the Second World War.

Most paradoxical of all, I have heard many statements, and not from the radicals, but from the people who are trying to build a new Ukraine and lead it to a bright future, who accuse Russia of claiming all the credit for Victory and all the merits in the Great Patriotic War.

We have always stressed the contribution of the Soviet people, have always said that this is the heroic feat of the people of various nationalities, we have never forgotten anyone and the memorials put up in our country have never been pulled down. We hold sacred everything associated with the contribution of the people, cities and villages that fought during those years.

However, I address my question to the people who accuse us of appropriating some kind of laurels: if you condemn us for this, why do you look on as monuments that seal the common victory of the Soviet people during the Great Patriotic War are being dismantled? You should be the first to say that the dismantling, among other things, of the memorial plaque to Georgy Zhukov means, in fact, the return of our heroes to Russia. In other words, you voluntarily cede to others your own participation and the participation of your people in the victory over Nazism. This is strange, disrespectful and amounts to rewriting history.

The dismantling of the memorial plaque to Georgy Zhukov is clearly part of the current Ukrainian policy of rewriting the past and challenging the historical truth. A graphic illustration of all this is the “anti-communism” laws and bans of the symbols of Victory over Nazism, including the St. George ribbon, adopted on April 9, 2015. In his time, seeking to play up to the present-day Ukrainian leadership, Mikhail Saakashvili, the former Governor of the Odessa Region, issued, back on May 21, 2016, an executive order to dismantle the markers to the “communist totalitarian regime”, including the memorial plaque to Georgy Zhukov.

At the end of the day, we may have many differences with the people of Ukraine and its individual representatives, we may also have much in common, but, after all, who are you listening to? You can't listen to Saakashvili. It's a disgrace.

In accordance with recent practice, no one asked the opinion of the local people in Odessa. Saakashvili came to Odessa, thought something up, was then chased out of Odessa, but his “legacy”, unfortunately, has remained.

All such actions are deplorable. We are confident that the fight against monuments, and I stress, against one's own past (because Marshal Zhukov is part of the heritage not only of Russia, but also of Ukraine) is futile. History, of course, will put everything in place.



Another anti-Russia news leak in Ukraine

I would like to comment on another news leak in Ukraine.

In the past few days, Ukrainian media outlets have been discussing another news leak from the Security Service of Ukraine on the arrest of a man named Igor Tkachenko, suspected of some illegal activity, in Odessa.

At the same time, provocative accusations were made with regard to the Russian Consulate General in Odessa and its officials. These accusations are based on this man’s completely unconfirmed statement. As we understand it, the Security Service of Ukraine believes this man is a “Moscow spy.” According to his statements, Russian diplomats allegedly supervise his actions. This is absolute nonsense!

We are urging the authorities in Kiev to take the necessary action to thwart purposeful actions that interfere with the normal operation of Russian diplomatic and consular missions in Ukraine and the fulfilment of their employees’ duties under the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations of 1961 and 1963.

Russia reserves the right to respond in kind to unfriendly actions concerning its representatives in Ukraine.



The restoration of the Foreign Ministry’s high-rise office building

At the last briefing, I was asked about the Foreign Ministry building’s restoration project, its colour hues and emblem. Our experts and analysts have prepared a report which I am ready to share with you.

The spire and decorative architectural elements of the façades of the central section of the Foreign Ministry’s high-rise office building will soon be completely restored. The metal structures and elements on the spire of the building have mostly been installed. The colour of the spire’s metal facing elements and restored façade sections where the USSR state emblem, an architectural element, is located meet the colour criteria of the Foreign Ministry building from the 1950s.

Work is now underway to reinstall roofs, assemble utility mains and completely restore façades and decorative architectural forms on the 21st floor and higher and to install facing materials on the sides on the 26th floor’s roof, including roof entrances and ventilation shafts. The entire project, including dismantling the scaffolding should be finished in late August.

Next year, there are plans to design, reconstruct and restore the building’s 16-story right-side extension and the façades of the central section of the building and to do so with the latest techniques and materials.

The building’s original image will be restored completely after this project is implemented.

After the project is complete, we will be ready to offer guided tours for you, so that you can see everything for yourselves.



Supplying Arab schools with Russian textbooks

During the briefing on May 31, 2017 Abdulla Haba, journalist from Iraqi news agency Al Mada, addressed the difficulties of studying Russian in Arab countries. He said that Russian cultural centres have been shut down in many countries of the region and that there were not enough Russian textbooks.

As I said, the issue of learning Russian abroad is complex, and its solution requires interaction with many Russian and local agencies. Also, each particular case requires an individual approach.

We did not waste our time but tried to respond as quickly as possible to the request made by the journalist, who expressed the shared opinion of our friends in Arab countries. With the help of Abdulla Haba, we are ready to send a batch of Russian language textbooks published with the support of the Russian Humanitarian Mission specially for Arab school students who study Russian as a foreign language. They will quickly learn the basics of the language through play and also learn more about our country.

We would appreciate it if Mr Abdulla told us later which schools and in which Arab countries were provided with these textbooks. We are ready to send more of them without the participation of the media if we receive relevant requests.



Search for missing US citizen Steven Beare

We are monitoring the search for US mountain climber Steven Beare. He went missing on June 16, after starting a solo climb up the southern slope of Mount Elbrus. A search and rescue campaign was launched by the Elbrus high-altitude search and rescue team of the Russian Emergencies Ministry when he failed to return to the check point in due time; two helicopters were deployed to search the slopes and the peak.

Unfortunately, harsh weather conditions are hampering the search. The team consists of professional rescuers who rescued a lost climber from Murmansk several days ago.

We are keeping in touch with the US Embassy and Steven Beare’s family. His friend is also at the site. We hope that our efforts will bear fruit.

I want to assure you that every effort is being made to find the climber.





Answers to media questions:



Question:

You have mentioned possible Western provocations related to the allegations about a planned chemical attack in the West. Do you have any new information regarding this?



Maria Zakharova:

We do have new information. I tried to present it. We believe that a provocation involving a fake chemical attack is being prepared. More precisely, such a provocation cannot be ruled out in the towns of Saraqeb or Ariha. We will share more information on this matter when and if we receive it.



Question:

The authorities of Iraqi Kurdistan have launched preparations for a referendum on independence. Russia and several other world powers, as well as regional countries, have a lukewarm attitude to this initiative. They have supported the territorial integrity of Iraq. The Erbil authorities have promised to hold a practical dialogue on a “civilized divorce” from Bagdad after the referendum. If they come to an agreement on this issue, would Moscow change its position on Kurdish independence?



Maria Zakharova:

You know our position. It has not changed. At this point, I have nothing more to say on this subject.



Question:

When a chemical provocation was staged at Khan Sheikhoun, the White House put the blame on the Syrian government and punished it. Now we hear that they are talking about a future punishment for a future provocation. Do you think we could see a repetition of the Iraqi scenario and Colin Powell’s actions?



Maria Zakharova:

Do you know why they are talking of a “potential” attack? Because they know from what is happening at CNN that there could be leaks about the planned attack. This could be a face-saving action, but this could also be an attempt to prevent a scandal, because those who are preparing these scenarios may refuse to do this and decide to tell them the truth. Some journalists are now telling the truth about the preparation of fake material about Russia. Likewise, we may hear numerous – yes, this is quite possible – testimonies about the preparation of provocations, including in Syria. The tactic of warning about a potential threat could be used to prevent possible leaks from those who are involved in these preparations. This is a Mexican standoff. You can see what is happening in Syria, the number of casualties there. [The United States] should formulate a policy towards this region. They are not doing this, because the ruins of Obama’s strategy are a poor foundation for anything. It takes a powerful intellectual resource to develop a new strategy. The big question is whether they have it.

You can see what is happening in the region in relation to the main local players. No comprehensive strategy can be developed on the basis of these relations, but they need to show to the world that they are doing something. The worst thing is that they cannot accept the Astana process, which some forces are trying to derail. For many long years, we were told that the political opposition, the moderate forces and the extremists would never sit down at the negotiating table with Damascus. It turned out that they can and have. They are waging a dialogue, although it is not an easy one at all. The reins have been slackened, probably because they had more pressing concerns, did not provide resources or did not pressure the political opposition. Or maybe those who care about Syria’s future, even though they have no sympathy for the Syrian government and don’t support its policy, have come to see that the country has been pushed to the brink of collapse by their former sponsors. These people are ready to negotiate in order to save their country. This is what is vexing the opponents of the Astana process. They are ready to do anything to stop or suspend it. What can they do? They cannot just go to Astana to try to talk the parties out of holding these negotiations. They need a reason, something that would involve civilian casualties, the death of children and old people, something to demonstrate the impossibility of a political settlement and the parties’ “incompatibility” with President al-Assad. This is banal. It is not a complicated scheme. It is horribly primitive.



Question:

If the US does carry out a strike on Syria this time around what will be Russia's response? Will it be political or military?



Maria Zakharova:

You think I am going to tell you everything just like that?



Question:

The Turkish-Russian Business Association recently awarded, posthumously, the Friendship Prize to the Russian Ambassador to Turkey Andrey Karlov. Your reaction?



Maria Zakharova:

This is not the only token of attention, respect and commemoration we have seen on the part of the Turkish public and on the part of the public in other countries. The reaction throughout the world was very powerful. Posthumous awards were conferred, reminiscences were written, letters were sent to the family of the Russian Ambassador who died at the hands of a terrorist on Turkish territory. This is not lost on us. We believe that our outstanding diplomat Andrey Karlov deserves such tokens of attention and to have his name immortalised, which is happening not only in Turkey and Russia, but in many other countries where he worked, where his colleagues are and where they know about his professionalism. Memory of him and his deeds will speak for itself given such public support. We have yet to assess the contribution he made to promoting bilateral relations and to settling the situation in the region. We are aware of that. We think it is important that the memory of him lives and will live on.



Question:

In the wake of developments in Ukraine, we see some countries trying to isolate Russia. But Russia hosts international events and fora and Russian leaders meet with the leaders of other countries. Has the attempt to isolate Russia succeeded?



Maria Zakharova:

Isolation was not announced until the events in Ukraine, but attempts to contain Russia began much earlier: the cancelling of the Russia-US summit speaks for itself. Those were the early signs. The campaign began long before Ukraine. It was obvious. You have only to read the statements of the US State Department, look at how the US Ambassador McFaul behaved. People behave like that if they are focused not on developing bilateral relations, but are tasked with destroying them. That, too, was long before the events in Ukraine. Just read and look and refresh your memory about what the US Ambassador said. I repeat, at the time there was no question of another Maidan.

Has isolation succeeded? I would rather not even talk about it. I am not sure isolation is possible unless it is based on international law and the actions of the UN Security Council, when sanctions are imposed and collective decisions are made to encourage certain processes or punish states for breaking international law. I am not sure that any other kind of isolationist policy is possible today in principle, considering that the world is undergoing globalisation. It is another matter that this should be guaranteed by the independent foreign policy of a state, its international role, its independent policy based on international law. This guarantees that a country can withstand various onslaughts. Isolation in the modern world is absurd. We have gone down the path of economic globalisation, unification of integration processes and open borders, and so it is simply absurd to try to put up little dams in this huge process.

We see that these attempts are being made with regard to other countries. Even the threat of isolation with regard to a number of countries influences their policies because they realise they will be unable to withstand this pressure. It is a very scary trend. But that merits a separate discussion.



Question:

Do the current complications in Russian-American relations have an impact on the preparation of the meeting between the Russian and US presidents through diplomatic channels? Will it change the format of the meeting?



Maria Zakharova:

These matters are commented on by the Executive Office of the Russian President. Such complications have an impact on events planned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. You know that a meeting in which the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov was to take part has been cancelled. It was cancelled not because we decided not to go forward with it in principle, but because it would not have made sense to hold it under these circumstances. We are not shutting our dialogue window with the US. The circumstances must be ripe for dialogue. You cannot conduct talks on improving bilateral relations and solving difficult problems shortly after introducing further sanctions. The main reason for the postponement of the meeting was that our American colleagues had promised to send us reference materials and their proposals for the round of talks in advance. We assumed the timeframe would be reasonable. We did not set any special deadlines. We needed their materials in order to work on them and hold the meeting, not just laying out our respective positions but being thoroughly conversant with them, knowing each other's positions. This is necessary in order to put forward our proposals. They failed to keep their promise and we did not get any information in advance of the meeting.



Question:

If I could return to the question regarding the expulsion of Russian diplomats from the US and the planned Russian response. Could you specify what measures and what timeframe we are looking at?



Maria Zakharova:

We are working on response measures and the timing. We will announce them when a corresponding decision is taken. We have said it openly to our American colleagues, this is not news to them, they know about it. It is impossible to leave such things for a long time without reacting. The main thing is that Russia is willing to solve these issues although we believe that this was a totally illegal act running counter not only to the letter of the law but to the very spirit of American society. We were ready for dialogue. There is a reasonable timeframe, and if the deadlock is not broken, retaliatory measures will be taken, as has been repeatedly said. What measures is up to the Russian Federation to decide.



Question:

At your previous briefing, you urged the Afghan authorities and the US military command to offer an explanation regarding unidentified helicopters that provide supplies to ISIS detachments in eastern Afghanistan. After that, a spokesman for the Afghan Defence Ministry said Russia should present official evidence to that effect because the Afghan authorities do not have such information. Could you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

I don’t quite agree with the wording of your question, namely that Russia can or should present official evidence of what is going on in the independent and sovereign state of Afghanistan. The presentation of official information on helicopters is the duty of the Afghan authorities and foreign military inspectors who are directly involved in monitoring Afghan airspace.

That said, we would like to reiterate that in our comments we refer to public statements made by Afghan officials: members of parliament, governors of provinces and their press services. I can even give you the names of the people whose statements we have cited: for example, Islamic Republic of Afhanistan MPs Zahir Qadir and M. Mehdi, Sar-i-Pul Governor Mohammad Zahir Wahdat and Ghazni Governor Abdul Karim Matin. Also the statement by Jilani Farhad, spokesman for the Herat governor, on a foreign military helicopter landing in an insurgent stronghold in the Herat province in late May with “an inexplicable mission.” Are the statements of these high-ranking government figures not “official evidence”? Surely they are evidence. Just how detailed they are, that is a question for them, not us.

It is perfectly obvious to us that based on the helicopters’ technical specifications (for example, their maximum range), as well as by drawing on the capabilities of the coalition, which has advanced technology of tracking and registering air flights, it will not be difficult for military experts to identify the owners of these helicopters and their itineraries.

Therefore, we cannot rely on the statement by the Afghan Defence Ministry press secretary that there is no evidence of “unidentified” helicopters providing support to extremists in various parts of the country.

To all appearances, what we have here is the reluctance of certain representatives of that country and perhaps their Western allies to make such evidence public.



Question:

Recently, French President Emmanuel Macron made allegations against Russia in connection with the Ukraine crisis. Is it your impression that all of this happens because our European colleagues cannot offer anything new in terms of conflict resolution and at the same time want to show that they are calling the shots?



Maria Zakharova:

These statements by Macron have already elicited comment at a very high level in Russia. I don’t think it makes sense to revisit them.



Question:

Thank you very much for the positive news from Japan at today’s briefing. We hope there will be more.



Maria Zakharova:

If nobody stands in the way of our two countries there will be plenty of such news. There could be a lot of it if certain forces did not try to pressure Tokyo into freezing [our] relations, joining the isolation campaign and severing [our] ties. This is the reason – not because we don’t want to talk or maintain constructive engagement. As you know, unfortunately, we have seen Tokyo unilaterally halt this engagement. Now they have put this behind them because it became obvious that this approach causes financial and economic damage to Japan itself: There is no development with our country, which is Tokyo’s natural partner geographically and historically. Nobody says that we cannot have disagreements, and there are differences on a number of issues. However, these differences should not cast a shadow over the development of economic, financial and humanitarian cooperation. We have nothing against “churning out” such news but there should be substance behind it. The most important thing is that this cooperation is not artificially impeded.



Question:

When you talked about [Russian] diplomatic property in the US you said there was evidence that these facilities were accessed. Could you specify the nature of this evidence – photos, witnesses?



Maria Zakharova:

Witnesses, among other things. People who were nearby said there were evidence our territory was breached. No matter what, we are not allowed there.



Question:

Was this information submitted as formal evidence?



Maria Zakharova:

Naturally. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov raised this issue with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and our embassy staff in Washington said this to their colleagues at the US State Department, as did Russian Foreign Ministry experts in contact with their counterparts. How much we have talked about this in public! Only a couple of months ago, I said we had information pointing to the territory being breached. At first, we simply said that we had certain direct and indirect evidence to that effect. Now articles are being published.

You cannot rely on what the American press says. If in the past you could take an article and go to the State Department saying, “look at what your journalists are writing,” today we know in advance what the response will be: They will tell us all of that is “fake news.” Therefore we are waiting for an official response, but there is none. Officials are keeping mum not only about the article in The Washington Post concerning the Russian diplomatic property but even about the chemical attacks. As you heard, they said they will not provide any evidence. We ask them about the “incontrovertible evidence” they say they have and they tell us they will not provide anything because this is “classified, secret” information.

They should either refute the articles in US media outlets (in particular in The Washington Post) or confirm that they did go there. So what if they did? They realise that sooner or later this will come out into the open. Let them say that they went there and everyone will know that we cannot enter our territory but they can. And then everyone will understand who is the hindrance.

I cannot say that this is a justification. Even now there is little that can justify this, considering what is going on in the US with its domestic political squabbling. However, perhaps there could be at least some understanding that not only our bilateral relations are in a bad way but that simply something [bad] is going on in their country.



Question:

During his meeting with the French President, Ukrainian President Poroshenko said Russian military servicemen were detained in Donbass and that the Ukrainian military has testimony and certain documents.



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian Defence Ministry has already commented.



Question:

Thank you for the song you wrote, which was performed a week ago at the opening ceremony of the Moscow International Film Festival. Today’s the closing ceremony. Should we expect any more surprises from you?



Maria Zakharova:

Nikita Mikhalkov has already said everything. I have to do what Nikita said.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2804352

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at the Primakov Readings International Forum, Moscow, June 30, 2017



30 June 2017 - 12:45





Mr Dynkin,

Mr Kissinger,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Colleagues,

It is a great honour for me to address the second Primakov Readings International Forum, which has been organised by the Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO).

I welcome prominent researchers, statesmen, politicians and diplomats from Russia and other countries, who are attending this forum.

Combined intellectual efforts and an expert and depoliticised search for the best way to deal with the current problems in this complicated situation deserve our respect and support.

The Foreign Ministry appreciates the Primakov Readings’ focus on dealing with current issues based on the experience of our famous predecessors, including the diverse heritage of Yevgeny Primakov. An outstanding statesman, diplomat, researcher and thinker, Mr Primakov has made a major contribution to the formulation of key provisions of Russia’s foreign policy doctrine, provisions that have passed the test of time. He also contributed to a comprehensive review of the complex processes underway in the post-bipolar world, which, as it turned out, do not fit the simplistic “end of history” logic.

Russia did its homework diligently in clearing up the Cold War debris and worked hard to build up confidence and mutual understanding in the Euro-Atlantic region and the rest of the world. One of its biggest contributions was its decisive role in the reunification of Germany and the withdrawal of its troops from Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries. We did this with our cards on the table, without a hidden agenda or double standards. It was largely thanks to the policy we pursued for the past 25 years that European countries have saved huge funds by redirecting their defence spending towards socioeconomic development and national prosperity.

Regrettably, the world has not become more stable or predictable. We more than once pointed to the reasons for deterioration in the international situation, the frailty of the unipolar world concept, counterproductive unilateral actions and the risks entailed in undermining international law and the associated growth in the use of force in international affairs.

It has become obvious that the liberal model of globalisation, which was developed in the early 1990s, primarily its economic element that is designed to secure leadership for a small group of countries at the expense of the rest of the world, has exhausted its potential. Despite the seemingly noble goals, this model turned out to be vulnerable to various challenges and incapable of dealing with numerous problems.

Additional opportunities that opened up for mankind in connection with the transition to a new industrial and technological level have failed to narrow the development gap between the rich and the poor countries. It has in fact increased over the past several decades. The world economy and world finances remain volatile. Climate change is fraught with major risks. Poverty, social vulnerability and sharpening competition in virtually every area are promoting isolationism, protectionism, nationalism, extremism and uncontrolled migration.

The reverse side of the “West-centric” globalisation model, the persistent desire to measure others by one’s own pseudo-liberal values, impose changes from the outside with no consideration for local traditions and even use force to remove undesirable regimes, has been a surge in international terrorism. In turn, nonstop bloody terrorist attacks in various parts of the world and the migration crisis that has hit Europe prove that attempts to build “individual islets of security,” sit it out in a “safe harbour” or address one’s own problems without relying on broad international cooperation are illusive.

The massive growth of cyber crime and the more frequent use of information and communications technologies to influence the socio-political and socio-economic situation and manipulate public opinion for the sake of narrow mercenary goals arouse special concern. The propaganda of extremist ideas and recruitment of young people to international terrorist organisations in cyber space is no less dangerous. For years, Russia has persistently called for the adoption of universal rules for the responsible behaviour of states in cyber space under UN aegis. We are expecting a response to our proposals.

Evidently, in the foreseeable future, the world will continue facing a number of long-term problems of a truly pan-civilisational nature. President Vladimir Putin, addressing the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum not long ago, pointed out that we must not, have no right to, waste our efforts and time on squabbles, feuds and geopolitical games. What we need is wise and balanced approaches, without stakes on unilateral global domination and the vicious practice of “double standards.”

Today, we are all participants of an objective process of forming a polycentric world order, which Yevgeny Primakov spoke and wrote a lot about. His talent as a researcher and a genuinely systematic approach made it possible to focus on the most important thing and to grasp the meaning of tectonic shifts in the international arena. Hardly anyone can dispute that this is a natural trend which has taken shape in the wake of the realignment of the global balance of power and the strengthening of the factor of cultural and civilisational identity in the modern world. It is in our common interest not to restrain this process, but to ensure its stability and predictability, and to make sure that the renewed world order ‒ cleaned on the basis of the UN Charter principles ‒ is fair and democratic, and globalisation plays a unifying role taking into account the interests of all the participants of international communication without exception, contributing to a stable and secure future for all humankind.

The emergence of new confident centres of economic power and associated political influence implies a new higher level of mutual trust, which is impossible to achieve without observing such fundamental principles of international life as the sovereignty of states, non-interference in their internal affairs, and the resolution of disputes by peaceful means. It is necessary to agree on a uniform interpretation of the principles and norms of international law. In this connection, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the UN, which enjoys universal legitimacy. Recent practice has shown that joint actions backed by the authority of the UN in the form of relevant Security Council resolutions can lead to significant progress in resolving the most complex issues.

The attempts to adapt the institutions dating back to the era of bipolar confrontation to realities of the 21st century are doomed to failure. In particular, the North Atlantic Alliance has remained part of the Cold War paradigm as it tries to find a reason for existence. However, it was unable to provide a proper response to the growing main threat of modern times, which is terrorism. Furthermore, NATO has destablised and continues to destabilise the security structure in Europe. This, without doubt, is at odds with the aspirations of the peoples of Europe.

International relations have reached an important fork. Our choice will determine the way the world will look 15-20 years from now. Either we will continue to waste our time and resources, which is fraught with a new arms race, further expansion of the space of instability, chaos, and uncontrollability, or the leading centres of civilisation will manage to reach an agreement and unite their efforts based on broad international partnership with the central coordinating role of the UN. Russia is clearly in favour of the latter. We are invariably open to working with everyone who shows willingness to effectively address key issues of global development. This our approach – in favour of collective multilateral efforts to strengthen security and establish broad-based equitable mutually beneficial cooperation – is shared by most members of the international community.

Russia will continue to act in this vein and promote a peaceful, positive and forward-looking agenda in international affairs, and also act as a counterbalancing factor and a guarantor of global stability. We will continue to build up cooperation with our partners in new associations such as the G20, BRICS, the SCO, the EAEU, and other associations in the CIS where there are no “leaders” or “followers,” and where decisions are made on the basis of a well-considered consensus with account taken of the interests of all the participants without exception.

Relations between Russia and the United States have a special role in the world, because a great many international issues, from strategic stability to regional crises, cannot be settled without them. We are aware of many countries’ concern about the souring of relations between our countries, which have been made hostage to political infighting in the United States.

We hope that the upcoming meeting between President Putin and President Trump in Hamburg will clarify the matter concerning the future of Russian-US relations. Personally, I hope that pragmatism and the resolve to use realistic and effective methods to protect national interests will prevail. This is the approach that Henry Kissinger, an architect of the US foreign policy and a big friend of Yevgeny Primakov, has always used. He is attending our forum today.

Colleagues,

The research and expert communities are meant to play a major role in the comprehensive analysis of the international situation. I would like to remind you that Mr Primakov always considered this work to be very important. It was at his initiative that the Department for Global Problems and International Relations and the Centre for Situation Analysis have been established at the Russian Academy of Sciences. I hope that the high potential of the Primakov Readings will be used in full measure to make an objective analysis and to find lasting solutions to numerous current problems, as well as to improve the overall situation in the world.

Thank you.



Question:

President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump are expected to meet. We know that the atmosphere in Russian-US relations is fairly grave. What do you think Mr Putin can expect from this meeting?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe that in their activities both President Putin and President Trump are guided by the national interests of their countries, and, probably, understand these interests better than anyone else.

When I worked in New York a long time ago, I recall how Ehud Barak, Israeli defence minister at the time, visited New York. The Israeli ambassador arranged a dinner in his honour and on that occasion Henry Kissinger, Ehud Barak and I dined at the same table. This was several days after Yevgeny Primakov had been appointed foreign minister (January 1996). Someone at our table asked Mr Kissinger what he thought about Primakov’s appointment after a fairly long liberal period in Russia’s foreign policy. Mr Kissinger said he always found it easier to deal with those who understood his country’s national interests. I proceed from the premise that Mr Putin and Mr Trump understand their national interests.

I would prefer not to speak about expectations because the main point here is that we will overcome the abnormal period in our relations when the leaders of the two major powers communicated only by phone and did not meet personally one single time. Yes, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Russia, and I was received by President Trump in the White House, but still a personal contact between the presidents, in addition to their telephone conversations, is very important, all the more so since judging by their telephone conversations, both presidents want to overcome the current abnormality and start negotiating specific issues that affect bilateral relations, including business interests and the resolution of international problems.

When we discuss with our European and other partners or international agencies the Ukrainian crisis, settlement issues concerning Syria, and the recent accusations of the Syrian Government forces of launching a chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun on April 4, when we start quoting our arguments to buttress our position, on many of these and other topics no matter which it is we are discussing (I hope I am not revealing a big secret), we are being told in whispers that the main thing is to come to terms with the Americans, and the rest will take care of itself. Incidentally, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had a very sluggish reaction to the alleged chemical attack. It refused to visit the site of the incident, did not submit any information and disseminated a report yesterday, which said they were not sure sarin that had ostensibly been discovered there had been dropped in bombs from aircraft; they said they did not know how sarin got there. Meanwhile tension has been escalating over the last few months.

I am not saying that coming to terms with the Americans is a bad thing. Life is such that Russia and the United States really need to come to terms on many things. Naturally, we cannot forget about other states that have their own particular interests in other regions of the world. This simply shows that preserving this abnormality in our relations would be a huge mistake because many countries have to suffer as a result.

I hope that pragmatism and realism will prevail at this meeting, as well as the realisation that each of our two countries will ensure its national interests better in an orchestral concert rather than as a solo recital.



Question:

Mr Kissinger once said that Russia always preferred the risk of defeat to compromise. Do you think that we are playing in the wrong league on a number of international issues?



Sergey Lavrov:

Everything depends on who looks at this or other situation. I don’t know whether the political community thinks that we are playing in the wrong league. I have read and heard much criticism regarding our decision to join the fight in Donbass and in Syria. But you should probably look at each given nation comprehensively. Is bread and circuses all they want? Do they care how they portray themselves on the international arena – as serious, responsible, independent and worthy players, or as those who are ready to approve anything the dictator does provided he gives them bread and circuses? This is very important for me, and I would like you to know this.

I do not want to draw parallels, but some time ago, one of our television networks covered discussions on whether we should have surrendered Leningrad [now St Petersburg] to the Nazis, and have saved a lot of lives and lived happily ever after. This is not a question for me. Let those who analyse the situation make their decisions based on the criteria of political analysis.

Would it be acceptable for Russia, considering its international standing, to keep mum and recognise the coup in Ukraine, and to leave Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine in the lurch after the first order issued by the organisers of the anti-constitutional armed revolt, which was supported by their foreign sponsors, banned many things that were connected with the Russian language? Should we have kept silent when they discriminated against the Russian language and announced that Russians must be kicked out of Crimea because they would never think like Ukrainians? But it does not matter now. Had we not done what we did, we would have betrayed our civilisation which our forefathers developed over centuries and who then spread it over vast territories, as Henry has said.

The same is happening in Syria right now. Some leading members of the international community have opted for overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad at all costs, possibly going as far as they did in Libya, when they only joined forces with the terrorists to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, hoping to later bring these terrorists to their senses.

Is this our league or not? Should we leave it to those who are used to playing there when we have suffered from terrorism more than any other country in the post-Soviet period, and when such dirty bargains contradict every principle of international law? The rules in this league, where, as you said, we should probably not play, are undermining absolutely all foundations of international law and all principles of the UN Charter. I don’t know if this is our business or not, but I do believe that we must protect what we pledged to protect after the Great Victory of 1945. I have no other answer to this question. As I have said, this is a matter of taste, education and political views. I have put forth my views.



Question:

Nowadays, regrettably, a meeting of presidents is not always enough to convince the people of a nation they are leader of. Thus, in the United States, Congress is playing a huge role in shaping foreign policy, among other things. Do you think it is enough for Russia to communicate with US congressmen each of which is acting on the basis of information presented by certain lobbyists and the media that are not always well-versed in Russian affairs? Do you plan a new round of communications with a view to bringing home the truth and your own opinion by using, in particular, public diplomacy channels?



Sergey Lavrov:

As is envisaged in the US Constitution, US Congress has always played (not only now) a very important role in foreign policy and many other areas. As for communication channels, they are practically nonexistent now. I see here Alexei Pushkov, as well as other Russian MPs. For several years now – before the new elections were held in the United States – they made attempts to establish such contacts and even had productive short meetings on the sidelines of this or that international forum. However, we received a report from Washington that American legislators, including heads of international congressional committees, took a break. This is my attempt to explain very politely what we were told.

I consider this incorrect because judging by the experience of our relations with the overwhelming majority of states, inter-parliamentary ties are a critical channel because MPs represent their countries and have been elected there. It would be wrong to withdraw into one’s shell even considering the US tradition according to which the bulk of congressmen, senators and House members do not even travel abroad. However, there are active politicians among them and they devote much of their time to foreign policy. Many of them have made a major contribution to Soviet-US and Russian-US relations. There are people there who understand what is happening in the world and they are interested in keeping inter-parliamentary communication channels open.

But today the atmosphere in the United States is such, and the witch hunt is so serious that nobody wants to do what would be perfectly normal in a typical environment. Anyone who dares do this in the current atmosphere is bound to be stigmatised as a witch. People were intimidated in many respects but I think this will pass away. The situation in US political life is absolutely abnormal today – some politicians are trying to revise the results of the elections without submitting a single proved fact. This cannot last long. American society, as well as the American political system has an instinct of self-preservation. I hope this will pass away. As for contacts via public diplomacy channels, different NGOs and politological centres, I think they continue up to this day, although our colleagues in Russian think tanks feel certain restraint from their US partners for the same reason. Nobody wants to be seen having any contact with our country today.



Question:

You rightly said that much in the world will depend on whether the Russians will manage to reach an agreement with the Americans. However, it looks like the Americans have already struck a deal with the Chinese. Does this simplify or complicate our task?



Sergey Lavrov:

Again, this is a zero-sum game, the “big international conspiracy” theory, and “grand chessboard,” as Zbigniew Brzezinski used to refer to it, or things that Henry Kissinger wrote about in his book On China. These three cards have been shuffled by many in different configurations. Remember, there was Chimerica. It was predicted that it would take shape and rule the world. I believe this is unrealistic. First, it will not add stability to the international system, which, now that unipolarity has become a thing of the past, is in search of a new support. It is more or less clear and includes countries that are developing faster than others and complement the group of the world's development leaders. So far, all of this has remained in motion and will most likely remain in motion for a long time to come. It cannot be stopped, but it must be stabilised. Everyone is busy doing so. In this context, it is impossible to say that a model, where the United States and China unite against Russia, or Russia and China united against the United States, will be productive.

However, the three of us realising how our three countries, given their influence on international affairs and the global economy, can help resolve international issues, is quite a realistic prospect. Clearly, the politicians, especially in countries heavily dependent on electoral cycles, like the United States, are always tempted to play the game to their advantage, and to try to outwit their partners in order to score geopolitical points with their voters and allies, and behave in ways that are not quite straightforward. It happens, and I do not rule out the possibility that it can continue. I’m sure that there may be proponents of such games in other countries, when someone needs to join efforts with someone else against someone. This is life, and this often happens in everyday life, in families, or between friends. There’s nothing new in this. Probably, it will never go away.

Please understand me correctly. We need to strive to agree in an honest manner, no matter how unnatural it may be for human nature.

Remember the joke about Vassily Chapayev in Monte Carlo? After the cards were dealt, and the players started to call their bets, someone said that he had 21. Chapayev asked the man to show his hand, and he was told that people around the table should trust each other’s word. That’s when things started going great for Chapayev, and he started having one great hand after another. Something similar is now happening with accusations against us. Those who are accusing us of hacking attacks sanctioned by the state, interfering in the election campaign in the United States and many European countries, those who are accusing Assad of using chemical weapons and accusing us and others of many sins, are guided by this same maxim: decent people trust each other when they say something.

However, first, the international community comes in many colours and shapes. Second, the US President Ronald Reagan famously said: “Trust, but verify.” We will trust only the facts, and trust no one’s word.



Question:

What do you think about the future of the European Union? I know that many people in Moscow think that the EU will fall apart soon, while others think that it is imperfect. What can we expect in Russia-EU relations? As far as I remember, you said at a Valdai Club meeting last autumn that Europe should play a more active role. What role should this be in the current situation?



Sergey Lavrov:

You began your question by saying that many people in Moscow think that the EU will fall apart soon and that it is imperfect. I thought that this is what the leaders of many EU countries said. We in Moscow only look at what is happening in the EU, but this is indeed what is said in some European countries. I won’t name them now so that they can’t be accused of colluding with the Russians to undermine EU unity.

Once again, this is what EU members are saying, and some EU politicians have proposed following Britain and holding referendums to exit the EU. We are not gloating, and we are certainly not looking at this situation with any schadenfreude. But we also know that we cannot influence the current developments in the EU. These processes and this unrest will take time to settle.

We do want the EU to be strong, united and speaking with one voice. It is deeply regrettable that the EU’s voice is based on the opinion of the smallest community and its common denominator depends on the position of a Russia-hating minority. Those who have a constructive view on relations with Russia, who are aware of the counter-productive nature of the current situation and of the efforts to stoke Russia-EU confrontation, shrug their shoulders and say that they live by the principle of solidarity and consensus. But as I said, consensus implies meeting halfway between extreme positions. This is not the principle by which the EU has been acting in the past few years. Its consensus amounts to accepting the extremist and anti-Russia positions of a small group of countries. We all know what countries these are.

We want the EU to pursue a policy regarding Russia or any other of its partners on the basis of a balance of interests within the EU rather than on the minority dictating the rules to the majority.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2804842

[Alex Him]

Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Concerning the Suspension of Payment of Russia's Contribution to the Council of Europe for 2017



30 June 2017 - 15:04



The Russian Federation expresses concern over the aggravating crisis within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

As is known, in their attempt to "punish" the delegation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation for the free expression of will by the residents of the Crimean peninsula, who voted for the accession of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation, in 2014–2015 PACE members restricted the credentials of the Russian parliamentary delegation to such an extent that it made its participation in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly impossible.

Since then, the situation in PACE has only been deteriorating: a frenzied campaign is being run to persecute parliamentarians who wish to normalize interaction with Russia in the framework of the Council of Europe as early as possible and preserve the infrastructure of pan-European cooperation in accordance with its Statute.

The crisis within PACE may also affect other bodies of the oldest pan-European organization and become systemic. Besides, the suspension of Russian parliamentarians from participation in the upcoming approval of the Council of Europe senior officials in PACE, including Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General, Commissioner for Human Rights and Judges of European Court of Human Rights, will question their legitimacy in the context of relations between Russia and the Council of Europe as a whole.

In view of the current developments, the Russian Federation decided to suspend payment of its contribution to the budget of the Council of Europe for 2017 until full and unconditional restoration of the credentials of the delegation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation in PACE.

At the same time, the Russian Federation continues its meaningful work in the Council of Europe including implementation of its obligations under the Conventions to which it is a Party.

We call upon all responsible Member States of the Council of Europe to make every effort to jointly overcome the crisis within the Assembly as soon as possible in order to "achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress," as defined in Article 1 of the Statute of the Council of Europe.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2805051

[Alex Him]

Comment by the Information and Press Department on US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley’s statement concerning the OPCW Special Mission’s report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria



30 June 2017 - 15:34



We have noted the hasty reaction of the United States Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley to the final report by the Special Mission of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) concerning the April 4, 2017 incident in Khan Shaykhun. On June 29, senior officials of the OPCW Technical Secretariat circulated the report among the five permanent UN Security Council members.

Like Ms Haley, we were not surprised that the report confirms the fact of using sarin or a similar toxic agent in that area. We agree that it is time now for the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) in Syria to meticulously investigate all circumstances of this crime and identify the culprits under UN Security Council resolutions 2235 (2015) and 2319 (2016).

At the same time, we are surprised, to put it mildly, by the US Ambassador’s “enthusiasm” over the “indisputable truth” that has allegedly been established by the OPCW Special Mission. In our opinion, a number of statements in the report dealing with the Idlib tragedy are hardly indisputable. They indirectly prompt readers who are unaware of all circumstances of this case to draw only one conclusion: Syrian government forces are responsible for this incident.

We are determined to study the report at the expert level in an extremely meticulous manner and to voice the resulting assessments at a special session of the OPCW’s Executive Council, scheduled for July 5, 2017, and also at a UN Security Council meeting on this issue.

Unfortunately, an initial examination of this document prompts us to state that its conclusions are still based on rather dubious data obtained from the Syrian opposition and the so-called NGOs, including the White Helmets. This data was obtained in some neighbouring country, rather than at the site. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the contents of the OPCW Special Mission’s report are largely biased, which suggests that the activities of this organisation are politically motivated.

It is to be hoped that our JIM colleagues will display the utmost professionalism and political impartiality during their upcoming investigation of the high-profile incident in Khan Shaykhun and expose the real culprits guilty of committing this crime. The same goes for other incidents in the endless reoccurrence of chemical terrorist attacks in Syria and the entire Middle East region. We also hope that JIM experts will visit the site of this chemical attack, as well as Syria’s Shayrat Airbase which is being persistently but groundlessly linked with this attack. As the latest events show, this base continues to disturb Washington.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2805160