Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 18th, 2017 #321
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister Mohamed Siala of Libya’s Government of National Accord, Moscow, December 12, 2017



12 December 2017 - 12:44









Mr Minister,

Colleagues and friends,

We are glad to meet with you again. We met with Prime Minister of Libya’s Government of National Accord Fayez al-Sarraj in New York in September this year. Also in September, the new UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Libya Ghassan Salamé presented the Action Plan for Libya at the UN. Today we have an opportunity to discuss progress at the intra-Libyan talks on this important document.

We highly value the resolve of the Government of National Accord in Tripoli and the House of Representatives deputies in Tobruk to maintain contact with the mediation of UN Secretary-General’s Representative Mr Ghassan Salamé. Two rounds of talks have been held, and we can see concrete results.

The Russian Federation is ready to provide all-round support towards achieving a final arrangement. We established contacts with absolutely all political groups and tribes at the very beginning of the Libyan crisis. And we still maintain close interaction with all the parties involved. We hope that we will be able to increase bilateral cooperation with a united, sovereign and free Libya when the situation stabilises and all the threats to Libyan statehood and security are removed.

I would like to note that not only Russian diplomats and other officials but also representatives of the legislative authority – the State Duma – are contributing to the national reconciliation process in Libya. We appreciate our cooperation with them.

We can see that your delegation includes representatives of law enforcement agencies and economic companies. Separate meetings have been organised for them. This will lay the groundwork for our future relations.

We are looking forward to listening to your views on the Libyan settlement process, especially ahead of the next UN-mediated intra-Libyan meeting between Tripoli and Tobruk representatives next week.

Once again, welcome to Moscow.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2985025






Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and reply to a media question at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister Mohamed Siala of Libya’s Government of National Accord, Moscow, December 12, 2017



12 December 2017 - 13:55









Ladies and gentlemen,

My colleague, Foreign Minister Mohamed Siala of Libya’s Government of National Accord, and I have had very substantive talks. We held an in-depth discussion on the situation in Libya and prospects for a settlement there, as well as on some aspects of bilateral relations.

We pointed out the importance of consolidating international efforts to facilitate the development of conditions for an early settlement of the protracted crisis in Libya through direct talks between the relevant Libyan groups.

We agree that any mediation is welcome if these efforts are coordinated by the UN, which has appointed Ghassan Salamé as the new UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Libya. Mr Salamé has submitted an Action Plan for Libya, a kind of a roadmap to a settlement, which the UN Security Council has supported.

In this context, we are glad that the main Libyan players – the representatives of Tripoli and Tobruk – have, at the initiative of Mr Salamé, begun an intensive and concrete dialogue on the modification of the Libyan Political Agreement signed in Skhirat, which provides the basis for a lasting settlement. The next round of these consultations will be held next week.

We welcome the results that have been achieved within the framework of the intra-Libyan dialogue. We will contribute to the settlement of all issues through talks between Tobruk and Tripoli, with which we are in contact on a regular basis.

We are convinced that the Libyans will be able to attain the main goal by implementing the plan that has been proposed by the UN within the framework of inclusive talks, the goal of restoring the unity of the country with due regard for the interests of all political forces, tribes and regional groups and ensuring Libya’s subsequent sustainable development.

We firmly believe that the implementation of the Skhirat agreement, after its modification, on which the parties to the intra-Libyan talks are working, will help fulfil other immediate tasks on the Libyan agenda, such as the restoration of order in the sphere of security, economic and humanitarian rehabilitation, as well as the settlement of the problem of illegal migration, which has seriously deteriorated recently.

We held an in-depth discussion of the possibility of resuming full-scale trade and economic cooperation between Russia and Libya. We are quite optimistic on this score. Many Russian companies that used to work in Libya are willing to resume their operations there and to join energy and industrial and transport infrastructure projects. We have agreed to maintain contacts on the resumption of bilateral trade and economic ties. A delegation of Libyan business leaders visited Russia in October, and there are plans for a Russian business mission to Libya early next year. Our Libyan colleagues have pledged to do their utmost to protect the security of Russian companies that return to Libya.

The Foreign Minister of Libya’s Government of National Accord, Mr Mohamed Siala, has promised to accelerate the settlement of a humanitarian issue related to the detainment of a Russian tanker by the Libyan coast guard. All crew members, with the exception of the first officer and the captain, have returned to Russia. We hope this problem will be settled in the near future.

Russia will do everything in its power to normalise the situation in and around Libya in connection with the international aspects of the restoration of Libya’s rights. I hope we will soon have grounds for this, following the ongoing talks between the Libyan parties.

I am grateful to Foreign Minister Mohamed Siala of Libya’s Government of National Accord for these constructive talks, which will certainly promote the progressive development of Russian-Libyan ties.



Question:

It has been reported that Russia plans to organise something like a Libyan national dialogue conference. If this is so, who would take part in this? Does this contradict the existing formats within the framework of the Skhirat agreement?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding a Libyan national dialogue conference, I have never heard of it. I only know that many intermediaries are working with different Libyan parties. Some countries can influence the territories that are not controlled by the two main participants of the intra-Libyan talks – Tripoli and Tobruk. Tribes are very influential in Libyan society, especially in the southern and western regions, for historical reasons. When – I am sure that it is not if, but when – the situation reaches the stage of implementation of the amended Skhirat agreement and the Action Plan proposed by the Special Representative for Libya, we will need to involve Libyan society in this process. No matter whether this process takes the form of a national dialogue or any other form, the results of the ongoing UN-sponsored talks must be accepted throughout Libyan society as a whole. This is a given. No wonder that these talks include discussions of possible legislative, constitutional and institutional reforms and general elections. The entire Libyan people and Libyan society will need to support the agreements that are being worked out with our support.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2985123






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting of the Russian Coordinating Council of the Trianon Dialogue civil society forum, Moscow, December 13, 2017



13 December 2017 - 13:17









Colleagues,

Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank members of the Russian Coordinating Council of the Trianon Dialogue civil society forum for their active participation in the implementation of the initiative advanced by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of France Emmanuel Macron during their meeting in Versailles last summer to strengthen trust and mutual understanding between our peoples. I am sure that your knowledge and experience will help raise Russian-French citizen diplomacy to a fundamentally new level.

I am glad to say that our colleagues on the French side are highly respected people. Many of them, for example, former Ambassador to Russia Pierre Morel, CEO of the oil and gas company Total Patrick Pouyanne and Director of the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI) Thomas Gomart, have rich experience of multifaceted cooperation with Russia. I hope we will lose no time in developing an active and fruitful dialogue with them.

The flexible model of this forum helps us to absorb the useful experience of other organisations, primarily the Franco-Russian Dialogue Association. In addition, we can bear in mind Russia’s ways of cooperating with the civil society of other countries, for example, Germany and Italy.

It took a considerable time to prepare this meeting. A common vision of the immediate and mid-term agenda has been coordinated thanks to the contribution of Forum Co-Chair Anatoly Torkunov and Executive Secretary Alexander Orlov, alongside their French counterparts Pierre Morel and Christian Leyrit.

The forum has been established to promote direct contact between NGOs (especially their youth sections), professional business associations (above all SMEs), research and academic communities, as well as cultural and educational establishments.

We on Smolenskaya Square, as well as, I am sure, our colleagues at Quai d'Orsay will give you the necessary assistance. At the same time, we believe that since the forum aims to promote dialogue between the general public in Russia and France, its content should be the responsibility of representatives of scientific, cultural, business and human rights organisations.

Ties between Russia and France go back centuries. Our peoples have always entertained feelings of respect and sympathy for each other, even during the most difficult periods in bilateral relations. Our cultures are closely intertwined and provide mutual enrichment. It is a positive thing that France’s interest in Russia is not slackening but growing stronger. We could see this very well during the large-scale events held this year to mark the centenary of the Russian Revolution.

I hope that thanks to our joint work within the framework of the Trianon Dialogue forum, your colleagues on the Coordinating Council and most importantly, all French citizens will gain first-hand objective information about Russia, its domestic and foreign policy, and the way of life and moral values of Russians. This is especially important in the current complicated situation in Europe, when many channels of communication have been closed and there are grounds for saying that an information war is being waged against Russia.

I would like to point out the importance of creating a digital platform adjusted to the latest realities within the framework of the Trianon Dialogue. I know that Russian marketing communications group ADV has submitted practical proposals regarding this. This platform will certainly create additional opportunities for a free and committed interaction between our citizens.

As far as I know, the first joint project, City of the Future, is being prepared within the framework of the Trianon Dialogue. The specific social, economic, transport, technological and environmental aspects of life in megacities, as well as small and single-industry towns are presenting society with new and very serious challenges. Combining our efforts towards finding effective solutions to these problems is a very good beginning for the forum.

As for the official inauguration of the Trianon Dialogue, a ceremony could be held during the first meeting of the joint Coordinating Committee in the presence of the Russian and French leaders. We are working on several options. A suitable alternative would be to hold this event at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum next year. It has been announced that President Emmanuel Macron plans to attend this event as an honorary guest. Either way, the Russian and French coordinating councils must be prepared to submit concrete plans and results of preliminary deliberations to their heads of state.

I wish you success in your efforts to promote partnership between the Russian Federation and the French Republic.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2988011






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening of the exhibition "Ilya Glazunov: Nicaragua through the Artist’s Eyes," Moscow, December 13, 2017



13 December 2017 - 17:59









Ms Orlova, Your Excellency Mr Ambassador, friends,
I am pleased to attend the opening ceremony of this exhibition of paintings by Ilya Glazunov related to Nicaragua. Frankly, I was surprised to learn about his close ties to this beautiful country.

I would like to thank Inessa Orlova, director of the Glazunov Moscow State Picture Gallery, for supporting the initiative that our ministry came up with in conjunction with the Embassy of Nicaragua, as well as all those who made major efforts to put together this collection from five Russian museums. Almost all of the artist's works from the Nicaraguan series are presented here.

This exhibition is timed to coincide with the memorable date that diplomatic relations were established between our countries on December 12, 1944. Yesterday marked another anniversary as December 12 is an official state holiday in Nicaragua celebrated as Day of Friendship with Russia. We are very grateful to our Nicaraguan brothers and sisters for their attention to our strategic relations.

Glazunov visited Nicaragua in August 1983, where he met with President Daniel Ortega, Vice-President Rosario Murillo and other members of the Junta of National Reconstruction. At the same time, Managua hosted the first exhibition of the artist's works dedicated to the People's Sandinista Revolution. I hope that some paintings from that series are presented here today.

We remember that it was a very difficult period for the Nicaraguan state, where the new political forces led by the Sandinista National Liberation Front took up arms to defend the inalienable right of the Nicaraguans to independence and freedom, and their own path of development. Glazunov observed this with his own eyes and showed himself as a talented and highly motivated artist in tune with the present and events around him. At the same time, he never lost his political awareness of the historical nature of that period.

In his works, he showed the heroism of ordinary Nicaraguans who rose up to fight for the freedom of their homeland. Thanks to their courage and tenacity, Nicaragua today is a dynamically developing state. I can confirm this, since I have been there many times and have witnessed the ongoing improvements. It is a state that conducts an independent foreign policy and enjoys worldwide respect.

Our relations have a long history, but the Sandinista revolution opened a new chapter in it. Strong traditions of friendship, mutual sympathy, and mutual assistance were formed during that period of building a new life in Nicaragua. The foundations of trade, economic and cultural cooperation were also laid back then, and still give an impetus to our relations in all these areas.

I want to note that, in addition to cultural achievements of our partnership, we are witnessing other manifestations of our strategic cooperation. Managua is home to the Latin American immunobiological enterprise named after Ilya Mechnikov, which makes vaccines with the aid of Russian technology that are used not only in Nicaragua, but also in neighbouring countries, the GLONASS measurement data collection station, the Training Centre of the Siberian Law Institute of Russia’s Interior Ministry where law enforcement personnel is trained. The Russian-Nicaraguan Intergovernmental Commission for Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation is operational. Cooperation is actively developing across various fields, such as training specialists for natural disaster prevention and relief operations, in the medical field and many others.

In closing, I would like to note a fun fact which my colleagues shared with me. There’s a drawing, “The Eternal Flame at the Grave of Carlos Fonseca Amador”, who is Nicaragua’s national hero. Glazunov met Carlos Fonseca in Moscow back in 1957 during the World Festival of Youth and Students, when the victory of the Sandinista Revolution (it's hard to imagine it now) was still a quarter of a century away. This fact in itself once again underscores that Ilya Glazunov was somehow destined for a connection with Nicaragua. I think that we will all enjoy today the works of this outstanding artist and share good times with our friends from the beautiful country of Nicaragua.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2988586
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 18th, 2017 #322
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova regarding the Venice Commission’s opinion on the Ukrainian Law on Education



13 December 2017 - 10:54





On December 11, the European Commission for Democracy Through Law, better known as the Venice Commission (VC), published its opinion on the provisions of the Ukrainian Law on Education, which has been sharply criticised by many countries.

VC experts point out that this law “provides no solution for languages which are not official languages of the EU, in particular the Russian language, as the most widely used language [in Ukraine] apart from the state language. The less favourable treatment of these languages is difficult to justify and therefore raises issues of discrimination.” The experts conclude that “the appropriate solution would certainly be to amend Article 7 and replace this provision with a more balanced and more clearly worded one.”

We support these conclusions of the Venice Commission. The implementation of this law would amount to direct discrimination against millions of Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine.

We believe that our requirements regarding the protection of the language rights of a majority of Ukrainian citizens do not conflict with the recommendations issued to Kiev by the concerned international organisations, which have published critical human rights reports on Ukraine.

We urge Kiev to hold consultations with national minority representatives and other concerned parties based on VC recommendations in order to draft decisions to guarantee equal language rights for all Ukrainian citizens without exception.

We expect the Council of Europe to monitor compliance with VC recommendations in Ukraine. We have also taken note of statements made by high-ranking EU officials, who have promised to insist on the full implementation of these recommendations in Ukraine. It is vital to do this to effectively guarantee the rights of Ukraine’s national minorities to education in minority languages.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2987527






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question about Turkmenistani national Galina Kucherenko



14 December 2017 - 17:25





Question:

Answering a media question at his news conference in Vienna on December 8, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov promised to ask the Russian ambassador to Turkmenistan to clarify the situation regarding Galina Kucherenko. Can you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

According to information that the Russian Embassy in Ashkhabad received from Turkmenistan’s authorities, on December 7, Turkmenistani national Galina Kucherenko and her adult daughter Valeriya, who has citizenship of Russia and Turkmenistan, were detained by the local police over a complaint filed to the court by her neighbours. Valeriya was released on the same day, after paying a fine, while Galina was sentenced to 15 days’ detention. Turkmenistan’s authorities have assured the Russian ambassador that the daughter was allowed to visit her mother.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2990679






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on American and Canadian weapons deliveries to Ukraine



14 December 2017 - 21:15





We have to point out the continuing distortion of facts in the United States and Canada, which accuse the Donbass self-defence forces of artillery attacks that are in fact waged by the Ukrainian forces. The last time this happened was at the December 13 briefing at the US Department of State. We have a strong impression that deliberate attempts are being made to shift the blame. Washington and Ottawa are clearly seeking a pretext to begin large-scale lethal weapons deliveries to Ukraine.

The Canadian authorities have announced that they may grant their companies licences for such commercial transactions, without thinking through the possible ramifications of this decision. It has transpired recently that US concerns, in particular AirTronic USA, are delivering weapons to Kiev with the covert permission of the State Department and the Pentagon, although the official US position is that there has been no final decision on this matter yet.

We advise those who are pressing for and taking these decisions to stop and think about their personal responsibility. It is clear that supplying US and Canadian means of warfare to Ukraine is paramount to pushing Kiev, which has been sabotaging a peaceful settlement in the east of the country, towards reckless new military decisions. Washington and Ottawa should realise that there is no military solution to the Donbass conflict, which was caused by the state coup in Kiev, and that those who deliver weapons to murderers will share the blame for people’s deaths.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2990728






Excerpts from Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 13, 2017



13 December 2017 - 17:51









Developments in Syria

The military-political hotbed of international terrorism has been completely eliminated in Syria. The Russian army group has made a decisive contribution to achieving this victory. According to Russian leaders and international experts, this army group has brilliantly accomplished its objective and has helped the Syrian army to preserve Syria as a sovereign and independent state.

Under the December 11 order issued by Russian President Vladimir Putin during his visit to Hmeimim air base, a considerable part of this army group is now being withdrawn to their permanent bases in Russia.

At the same time, Russia retains a military presence in Syria and, if necessary, it is ready to thwart attempts of the terrorist underground to regroup and to recover their losses in manpower and equipment.

I would like to note that this legitimate military presence hinges on agreements that have been concluded by Russia and Syria in full compliance with international law.

This cannot be said of some of our partners. Syria is a full-fledged subject of international law and a UN member. Now that ISIS has been eliminated in Syria, no justification of actions violating the sovereignty of this state can be accepted, especially when they are accompanied by claims that ISIS has not been completely defeated in Syria, and that if it was defeated, it would be the United States that deserves credit.

We will not talk about credit. Everything is clear as is. But there is one real problem, that is, a reluctance to admit that ISIS has ceased to exist as a military-political organisation in Syria.

At the same time, a new objective reality is making it possible to launch a political settlement of the Syrian conflict and is calling for launching the country’s rapid reconstruction. Syria is in need of the broadest possible international assistance for resuming peaceful life and overcoming the consequences of the humanitarian disaster.

This week, the Russian Defence Ministry said that agreements on sending humanitarian convoys December 12-18 to a community in Homs province and to five more communities in Hama province had been reached after contacts with senior officials from the Syrian Arab Red Crescent. In addition, Russian service personnel continue to deliver humanitarian relief to Syrian regions that have been affected most by combat operations.

At the same time, they continue to discuss organisational issues of convening the Syrian National Dialogue Congress which is called on to invigorate intra-Syrian talks and to create favourable conditions for resuming national dialogue. The Congress will greatly assist UN-led intra-Syrian talks in Geneva. Agreements on constitutional reform and UN-monitored national elections that have been reached by the warring parties in Syria through consensus are to be finalised under the Geneva format, as stipulated by UN Security Council Resolution 2254.



UN cross-border humanitarian aid supplies to Syria

Currently, the UN Security Council is continuing to discuss the extension of the special mechanism for delivering UN humanitarian aid to Syria across the border of neighbouring countries that was established in 2014. This mechanism was introduced by UN Security Council Resolution 2165 during the escalation of the hostilities, at a time when the Syrian Government lost control over vast territories and there was no other way of providing humanitarian aid to the population in these regions. The resolution approved humanitarian access through border crossings at the Turkish, Jordanian and Iraqi borders without having secured the approval of authorities in Damask, who had received prior notice, though. The resolution also approved a humanitarian monitoring mechanism for overseeing UN-sponsored humanitarian aid delivered to Syria in the border area, which, however, does not monitor the distribution of this aid on the territory of the country, where, unfortunately, militants who were fighting against the government often got hold of it.

In the context of positive developments in Syria, we believe it is necessary to push for the gradual winding down of the mechanism established by the aforementioned UN Security Council resolution. It was created as an emergency measure when the conflict conditions were altogether different. It infringed upon and continues to infringe upon the sovereignty of Syria and tends to set a very undesirable precedent for international approaches to providing humanitarian aid. In addition, in Russia’s view, now this system is contributing to the division of Syria, which contradicts the UN Security Council resolutions and decisions that have been agreed on in various international formats.

We are prepared to work jointly to identify the best ways of winding down the mechanism for the cross-border delivery of humanitarian aid, given that its mission is complete, while minimising the likely harm to those who are really in need. Steps are also needed to create a transparent mechanism for informing the UN Security Council about who is getting the UN humanitarian aid from across the border and how much of this aid there is. Russia has submitted relevant proposals to the UN Security Council. In so doing, we believe that merely extending the mechanism mechanically, without seriously changing it, does not meet the new demands of the situation in Syria.



UNESCO’s role in restoring world heritage sites in Syria

Russia is undertaking consistent and purposeful steps towards restoring cultural heritage sites in Syria that have been destroyed by extremists. The Memorandum of Understanding on the protection and restoration of cultural values in conflicts zones, in particular, in the Middle East, which was signed by the State Hermitage and UNESCO in October, is an important step in this direction.

We hail the new version of the Strategy for the reinforcement of UNESCO’s action for the protection of culture and the promotion of cultural pluralism in the event of armed conflict that was approved at the 39th session of the UNESCO General Conference. We believe that this document could serve as a good foundation for promoting strong international cooperation on these issues.

At the same time we believe that it is high time we moved from words to practical actions and we are calling on UNESCO to step up its activities and get involved in the effort to restore world heritage sites in Palmyra and Aleppo.



Middle East settlement process

Protest rallies of varying degrees of intensity have been going on since December 6 in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank of the Jordan River, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, as well as Arab districts of Israel, in response to President Trump’s decision.

Reportedly, four Palestinians were killed, about 2,000 injured, and dozens sustained gunshot wounds as a result of clashes with the Israeli police.

Mass protests are also taking place in some other Arab and Islamic countries, such as Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia.

Moscow is seriously concerned about the destabilisation in the region caused by the US Administration’s decision on Jerusalem. We are convinced that the resumption of Palestinian-Israeli talks in order to achieve a lasting settlement of the conflict based on the well-known decisions of the international community are the only way to break the vicious circle of violence and tension. We believe that prior to that, all stakeholders should exercise restraint and refrain from actions which may cause harm to innocent people and damage the prospects for restoring peace, justice and security for all in that region.



Temporary suspension of Russia’s diplomatic presence in the Republic of Yemen

Russia’s diplomatic presence in Sana'a was suspended on December 12. All Russian Embassy staff in the Republic of Yemen left its capital on a special flight made possible by Russia. Thirty Russian citizens and several citizens of other states who wished to leave the zone of ongoing armed conflict in Yemen boarded that flight as well.

The decision was made in the wake of the rapid deterioration of the security situation amid further escalation of the intra-Yemeni crisis. The Russian Ambassador to Yemen temporarily staying in Riyadh will continue his activities and contacts with legitimate leaders of Yemen residing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In this regard, we believe it is necessary to reiterate our principled position that the opposing sides in Yemen should end hostilities with all due haste and discuss disagreements and the future of Yemen’s government structure at the negotiating table with due account taken of the opinion of all major political forces in that country. We will continue to use all available avenues to pursue this goal.



Ministerial Meeting of the International Support Group for Lebanon

On December 8, Paris hosted a Ministerial Meeting of the International Support Group for Lebanon. The Russian Federation was represented by Ambassador of Russia to France Alexei Meshkov.

President of France Emmanuel Macron spoke at the opening of the meeting. It was attended by Prime Minister of Lebanon Saad Hariri, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, UN Deputy Secretary‑General Amina Mohammed, as well as representatives of Britain, Italy, China, the United States, the EU, the Arab League, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN Development Programme, the World Bank and the Office of the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon.

In his speech Ambassador Meshkov reaffirmed Russia’s solid, consistent support for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Lebanon, and Russia’s desire to see Lebanon as a stable and safe state. He emphasised that Lebanon should not become a venue for the settling of scores by influential regional and international players. Such actions are fraught with the country’s destabilisation, collapse of its statehood and the emergence of new hotbeds of conflict in the Middle East. Attention was drawn to the flow of refugees from neighbouring Syria to Lebanon in the past few years. Their return home would considerably improve the situation in Lebanon. Russia is doing all it can to facilitate this. It is helping Syria to counter terrorism, ensure security, rebuild the country and facilitate the resolution of domestic political problems. Russia invariably advocates the resolution of all urgent issues of the Lebanese agenda by the Lebanese people without outside interference via dialogue with due account of the interests of all leading political forces and ethnic and religious groups of that country.

The participants adopted a joint statement on the situation in Lebanon following the meeting.



Meeting of the Joint Commission on implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme

On December 13, the Joint Commission of the six world powers and Iran met in Vienna. The participants discussed in detail the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). All members of the Joint Commission reaffirmed their commitment to the consistent fulfilment of the JCPOA, emphasising the need to ensure its efficiency and sustainability in the long-term perspective.

The Joint Commission welcomed Iran’s strict observance of commitments under the comprehensive agreements, which is regularly confirmed by the IAEA – the only international agency that is authorised to monitor Iran’s nuclear programme.

The participants raised issues linked with the implementation of projects on developing the production of stable isotopes at Fordow and upgrading the reactor in Arak, as well as other aspects of the JCPOA aimed at expanding international cooperation with Iran in peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In this context they emphasised the positive results of the international seminar on the 25th anniversary of Russian-Iranian cooperation on civilian uses of nuclear energy, which was held in Moscow in October 2017.

They paid special attention to problems linked with the uncertainty surrounding the JCPOA’s future due to the decision of US President Donald Trump not to certify Iran’s strict compliance with it. The members of the Joint Commission unanimously reaffirmed that the JCPOA is built on the fundamental principle of reciprocity that is designed, in particular, to facilitate normalisation of international trade and economic cooperation with Tehran.

The Russian representatives emphasised that neglect of this principle by one party to the agreements threatens the future of the JCPOA, which was endorsed by mandatory UN Security Council Resolution 2231.



Developments on the Korean Peninsula

We are closely following events on the Korean Peninsula, which became even more complicated after North Korea launched a ballistic missile on November 29. We regret to note that in this context, the US continues its previous misguided efforts to expand military activities in Northeast Asia. In particular, after the most massive in history joint exercises of the US and South Korean air forces were held on December 4-8, tripartite naval manoeuvres involving the Japan Self-Defence Forces started on December 12. We are convinced that this “muscle-flexing” does nothing to de-escalate tensions but, on the contrary, is fraught with the most serious consequences for the sub-regional situation.

We urge all the parties involved, first of all the US and North Korea, to refrain from any steps that might further aggravate the conflict, and to promptly launch joint practical efforts to find ways to achieve a political and diplomatic settlement of the full range of problems on the Korean Peninsula.



Regular OHCHR report on human rights in Ukraine

We have read the 20th report on the situation of human rights in Ukraine by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) based on the work of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) for the period from August 16 to November 15, 2017.

We have taken note of the reported reduction in the number of civilian casualties in Donbass. However, even the decreased figures – 15 deaths and 72 injuries – are shocking. These unjustifiable murders must stop.

We are especially concerned by the fact that, although the shelling of civilian facilities from heavy artillery guns has become routine, the leading causes of casualties are mines, booby traps and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). We support the HRMMU calls on all parties to the conflict to adhere to the ceasefire and to implement the Minsk Agreements, including the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the line of contact.

We support the OHCHR calls on Kiev to adhere to the agreement reached in Minsk on July 19 to create “safety zones” around the Donetsk Filtration Station and the First Lift Pumping Station. The shelling of these facilities restricts access to fresh water for over half a million people and is pushing the region towards an environmental disaster. We would like to remind the Kiev authorities that the shelling of civilian infrastructure is in direct violation of their commitments under international law.

We are seriously concerned about Kiev’s stubborn refusal to investigate gross human rights violations by Ukrainian law enforcement agencies and the SBU, which, according to HRMMU reports, have become systemic. These violations include arbitrary deprivation of liberty, enforced disappearances, unregistered detention when a person is held incommunicado, torture, sexual violence, as well as the use of terrorism-related provisions to deal with political opposition and dissenters. Moreover, this time the UN observers reported unprecedented direct pressure by senior public officials in Ukraine on judicial authorities, which is promoting the proliferation of arbitrariness and impunity in the country.

In this situation, it is outrageous that no progress has been made in investigating the crimes that occurred at Maidan, and in Odessa in May 2014 and other places.

We are gravely concerned about Kiev’s inhuman discrimination policies against Ukrainians in Donbass, which has been confirmed by UN expert conclusions. The Kiev authorities’ refusal to transfer pensions and social payments to people in southeast Ukraine, the absence of an approved procedure for recompensing people for the loss of housing and property as a result of Ukrainian military operations, the creation of artificial obstacles that prevent the free movement of locals across the contact line and the confiscation of their money have not only resulted in poverty for 4 million Ukrainians but have also deepened the divide in Ukrainian society and, hence, have decreased the chances for national reconciliation.

We share the HRMMU’s concern over a new wave of extreme intolerance in Ukraine, in particular by the political authorities. This includes widespread attacks against freedom of speech and assembly, the persecution and attacks on journalists, including foreign journalists, and their deportation. The UN experts have pointed out, with good reason, that the authorities do not even investigate these violations.

We also urge Kiev to take note of the HRMMU’s opinion of the Law on Education, which definitely infringes on the rights of minorities in Ukraine. Pointing out the discriminating essence of the new law, the UN experts recall the 2001 decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Cyprus versus Turkey. The Ukrainian law has infringed on the language rights and legitimate interests of millions of people.

We also have to point out that the HRMMU’s mandate does not allow it to monitor the human rights situation in other countries. The Republic of Crimea and the Federal City of Sevastopol are Russian territory, and any attempt to include the assessment of the human rights situation in that Russian region in the mission’s report on Ukraine is inappropriate.



The Venice Commission’s response to the education law recently adopted in Ukraine

On December 11, the European Commission for Democracy through Law, also known as the Council of Europe's Venice Commission (Venice Commission), published its opinion on the controversial Ukrainian education law, which has already elicited a flurry of sharp criticism from a number of countries.

The Venice Commission experts emphasise that this law does not contain a solution for the languages ​​that are not official EU languages, in particular, Russian, as the most widely used (in Ukraine) non-official language. The opinion stresses that a less favourable attitude towards these languages ​​is hard to justify in any way, which gives rise to a question about discriminating them. It was found that the most appropriate solution would be to amend Article 7 of the law and replace its current provisions with more balanced and clearly articulated ones.

We support the aforementioned assessments of the Venice Commission. Practical implementation of this law will mean open discrimination of millions of Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine.

For our part, we note that Russia’s demands regarding protection of the language rights of the majority of the Ukrainian population do not go beyond the recommendations issued by relevant international organisations to Kiev, whose reports contain critical remarks about the situation in the human rights sphere in Ukraine.

We call on the Ukrainian authorities, taking into account the recommendations of the Venice Commission, to hold consultations with the representatives of national minorities and other stakeholders with a view to work out solutions which would ensure equal language rights to all citizens of Ukraine without exception.

We hope that the Council of Europe will continuously monitor Ukraine’s compliance with the recommendations of the Venice Commission. We also took note of the statements by high-ranking representatives of the EU, who promised to insist on their full implementation by Kiev. This is imperative for effective exercise of the right of national minorities in Ukraine to education in their native language.



100th anniversary of Finland’s independence

On December 6, Finland celebrated the centenary of its state independence. Around 5,000 festive events under the motto “Together” took place around the country and abroad to mark this anniversary throughout 2017, events that were aimed at strengthening the unity of the Finnish nation and pay respects to its national history.

Russia was largely involved in the celebration. President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Savonlinna in eastern Finland on July 27 at the invitation of Finnish President Sauli Niinisto became a key event.

On May 22−24, the 5th Russian-Finnish Conference of Brotherly Peoples took place in Turku (southwest Finland) under the patronage of the Russian and Finnish presidents. Around 300 delegates from the two countries attended the conference. Russia and Finland have approximately 130 pairs of sister cities, including Moscow and Helsinki, and St Petersburg and Turku.

On September 21−23 St Petersburg hosted the 18th Russian-Finnish Cultural Forum to mark the anniversary. Prime ministers Dmitry Medvedev and Juha Sipila opened the forum.

Other Russian contributions to the independence anniversary included performance tours of Finland by major Russian theatre companies, including the Bolshoi Theatre show in Savonlinna, Valery Gergiev’s Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra in Mikkeli, the Moscow State Circus on Vernadsky Prospekt and the Alexandrinsky Theatre shows in Helsinki, as well as the Nikolai Osipov National Academic Folk Orchestra in Helsinki and Imatra.

There has been extensive cooperation between the Russian Archives and the National Archives of Finland. On December 19−20 the two archive organisations are holding a research conference “From the empire to the republics. Russia and Finland in 1917−1920” in Moscow. The conference will open the historic document exhibit “Russia and Finland: Images of revolution, independence, war and peace from 1917 to 1920” and present the collection of documents “Russia and Finland in 1917−1920: From confrontation to peace.” Work continues on the collection of documents “Russia and Finland’s independence. 1899−1920.”



Moscow Exchange Forum 2017

On December 6 and 7, the Moscow Stock Exchange and Goldman Sachs Bank convened an annual financial forum in London dedicated to investing in Russia. The event was attended by over 400 representatives of European, American and Asian banks and investment funds, service companies, and professional associations.

The highlight of the forum was Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich’s speech concerning the anti-Russian sanctions imposed by the West, economic growth and diversification of our country’s GDP, including in the context of improving the efficiency of state-owned companies, and Russia's macroeconomic policy. Another major focus was a presentation of the Moscow Stock Exchange, which covered, among other things, the possibilities this trading floor offers to foreign clients, and speeches made by major Russian corporations’ executives. The forum’s success has sent yet another clear signal of Russia’s openness to further development of business relations and building up financial cooperation with the West.

We consider this kind of direct contact between international businesses and our country’s leadership extremely important. We are confident that, despite the current geopolitical difficulties, positive changes in the Russian business environment, including greater transparency and improved corporate governance, macroeconomic stability, and an expanded investment horizon, will be correctly interpreted by our partners in the context of making investment decisions with respect to Russia.



Russian Seasons in Japan

On December 10, the Russian Seasons project in Japan ended with a concert by the Mariinsky Theater Orchestra conducted by Valery Gergiev, featuring virtuoso pianist Denis Matsuyev, at Tokyo’s Santori Hall. According to the Japanese side, about 3 million people in 42 cities attended Russian Seasons events, as well as the 12th annual festival of Russian culture in Japan. The festival alone included over 40 cultural events in 27 cities, which were attended by about 1.2 million people.

Alongside Russian classics, Russian Seasons in Japan offered a broad scope of our modern culture products including cartoons, cinema, cuisine, fashion, and rock music, which found ardent admirers among the sophisticated Japanese audiences.

We are glad that our Japanese partners are committed to the comprehensive development of cultural ties with Russia and eagerly work on cross-year projects. We hope we will have even more contacts in this format. Russia always has things to show the international public.



Setting up Russian Fan Houses 2018 at Rossotrudnichestvo missions abroad

To attract the attention of foreign audiences to the 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia and to use a systematic approach in working with football fans and tourists during major sports events, the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad (Rossotrudnichestvo) in cooperation with the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Culture, the Federal Agency for Tourism, the Russia 2018 Local Organising Committee and other interested agencies are implementing the Russian Fan House 2018 programme at Rossotrudnichestvo’s existing foreign missions.

The Russian Fan Houses will provide potential guests with comprehensive information about Russia and the 2018 FIFA World Cup, help them plan their trips and attend football matches. Foreign fans will be offered broadcasts of the games, meetings with players and coaches, and communication with Russian fan communities.

On December 4, the Russian Centre for Science and Culture in Berlin, Germany, hosted the opening ceremony of Europe’s first Russian Fan House 2018.

The guests showed the greatest interest in the procedure for issuing a personalised FAN ID, which entitles foreign citizens to a visa-free entry to the Russian Federation for the period of the football championship. This document is also necessary for attending the 2018 World Cup matches and traveling between the host cities. German fans have submitted over 300,000 applications for tickets.

During the opening ceremony, representatives of the 2018 World Cup host cities presented their programmes for receiving fans.

Plans call for opening Russian Fan Houses in more than 30 countries (16 in Europe, 3 in America, 9 in Asia and the Middle East) before March 2018.

The Russian Fan Houses will work on a permanent basis until the end of the World Cup.

If you have any questions, please send them to us, and we will respond promptly.



Russian ambulance spotted in Stockholm

The appearance of a Russian ambulance in Stockholm has recently sparked lively discussions in both social and regular media.

Unfortunately, the lack of reliable information at that time has led to the proliferation of various speculations on the issue, ranging from innocuous assumptions about the vehicle participating in a film to ridiculous fantasies about a new case of Moscow’s interference in the internal life of Sweden.

The fact is that a St Petersburg ambulance car had driven to Sweden to transport a patient on a private insurance from Orebro to St Petersburg. While driving through Stockholm, the Russian medics stopped to give first aid to a man who needed it before the arrival of Swedish colleagues, as true professionals should do. I can tell you that their prompt and qualified actions were very much appreciated in Sweden; in particular, the words of gratitude were sent to them through the Russian Embassy in that country.



“The bear is coming: On Russia hate, stilted thinking and military blunders”, a book published in Sweden

We have taken note of this book because it clashes with the general biased position against Russia. Its author, Mattias Goransson, attempted to analyse the sources and reasons for the Russophobic hysteria that continues unabated in Europe and, regrettably, in Sweden. He used a historical method to study media evidence since the Cold War and to this day.

This is not his first book on the subject. Last year, he exposed the “Swedish media troll factory”, which was constantly demonising Russia in Sweden. This time, his work is on a grander scale.

He starts his historical analysis in the 1940s, when, in his opinion, a behind-the-scenes Russophobic triangle – the armed forces, the related influential defence industries and a group of biased and corrupt bogus experts and media outlets – began to take shape. He reveals an entire brainwashing mechanism and states that there is a clear pattern. At first some rank-and-file “military sources” or “responsible citizens” feed an ambiguous news story with clear anti-Russian connotations to the media. For example, this could be a report on certain “mysterious phenomena” containing a transparent hint to their national origin. All of us remember the maniacal search for evidence of Russian submarine presence in Sweden. It transpires that stories keynoted by claims like “it’s inexplicable but a fact” happened back in the Soviet period as well.

I told you that we had reviewed the briefings for the period when the USSR was in existence. USSR Foreign Ministry spokespersons commented on stories with allegedly emerging Soviet submarines as early as then. The allegations failed to be confirmed, of course. But this news story is being exploited again and again.

Mr Goransson also lists some other phenomena, such as mysterious flashes of light in the sky, odd underwater sounds and serious infrastructure failures. After being planted, these strange stories or descriptions of some unprecedented occurrences are given prominence in the media. Next they migrate to public political debate venues. As is only natural, people become anxious about the “treacherous and aggressive Eastern neighbor.” Thus, the coveted goal is finally reached: the military induce the government and related state agencies, “given the tense situation” and with broad public support, to make additional defence appropriations. As a rule, investigations into the “mysterious incidents” are hushed up or simply classified after the desired effect has been achieved. This is really so, because after submarines come to the surface and get described in detail, no one ever says what the investigation has finally led to.

As the author concludes, the current stable anti-Russian background has resulted from a long-term, purposeful and systematic campaign directed against Russia, a campaign fomented by quite trivial and venal interests of certain circles rather than ideological or geopolitical considerations. Regrettably, entire regions are falling back on this propaganda model as part of their strategies. Of course, it is disconcerting that, on the one hand, we hear our European colleagues say they are committed to law and media freedom, but in practice they are implementing the scenarios [of the kind I have mentioned] that have to be analysed by Swedes, who cover these problems professionally.



Statements by US Department of State Spokesperson Heather Nauert

We have taken note of the statements by US Department of State Spokesperson Heather Nauert during her December 12 press briefing on the idea that Russia and the US put on paper the fundamental principle of international law and ethics whereby country’s must refrain from interfering in each other’s domestic affairs. Let me share what this is actually about.

Against the backdrop of all the hysteria we are witnessing in Washington over the mythical “Russian meddling in US elections,” the Foreign Ministry suggested to the US back in July an exchange of letters reaffirming the principle of non-interference at the ministerial level, for example. There was nothing new in this proposal since the same principle was stipulated when our countries restored diplomatic relations on November 16, 1933, and let me emphasise that back then this was done at the request of the US. In 1933, the Foreign Commissar of the USSR Maxim Litvinov and US President Franklin Roosevelt exchanged personal notes stipulating the indisputable right of each country to order its own life within its own jurisdiction in its own way. As a famous saying from a Soviet movie goes, “this is a document, you know.”

Washington’s refusal to consider the proposal at this point, as US State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert said, reveals yet again the fake nature of the campaign to accuse Russia of meddling in last year’s elections in the US. In fact, this is an acknowledgment that nothing of this sort happened and that the US has never experienced any kind of threat to its electoral system from Russia.

In doing so, the US showed that it is not willing to be bound by any commitments. Why? Maybe the US believes in its right to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. We have seen this all too well in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya that have been devastated by so-called “Western coalitions.” If we follow the logic of the US, bombing women and children in the name of democracy is a normal and even right thing to do.

It seems that failing to find any worthy justification for the refusal to refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, the Spokesperson of the US Department of State tried to shift focus to some unfounded claims against Russia in other matters. She came up with a series of accusations, including related to the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range Missiles (INF Treaty).

We have provided detailed explanations on this matter on several occasions, and published a special report to this effect on the Foreign Ministry’s official website. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and our experts commented on the matter. On December 9, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov issued a detailed comment on this subject. As a reminder, the US has not shown any evidence to support its allegations, and there is no way they can, since there is no such evidence. At the same time, the United States is brushing aside our concerns with how it is handling its own commitments under the INF Treaty. For example, one can plainly see launchers at the US antimissile base in Deveselu, Romania, whose specifications enable them to launch not only interceptor missiles but also strike missiles like Tomahawks. In 2018, the Pentagon is planning to deploy identical launch systems in Poland, even though installing them on land runs counter to the INF Treaty.

We also heard criticism over the conflict in Ukraine, alleging that Russia is failing to honour its commitments under the Minsk Agreements. I would like to remind our US colleagues once again and maybe reinvent the wheel for some in the US, that only the parties to the Minsk Agreements, i.e. the Donbass republics and Kiev, are bound by them. However, Kiev has clearly been seeking to derail the agreement for a long time, not to mention that the Ukraine crisis in general resulted from the February 2014 government coup, and that the US was directly involved in it and has been working in close contact with the current Kiev authorities ever since. The current spokespersons for the US Department of State are simply unaware of what members of the Department of State were doing back in 2014, so I stand ready to offers them regular reminders.

The next topic has to do with the media, or the restrictions that the Russian media are facing. We are not surprised by their absurdity, but still this is just too much. It is obvious that the “player piano” is not only out of tune, but is also faltering due to an apparent defect, and is about to break down, so it is important to keep away in order to not get hurt.

Let’s look at recent statements by Heather Nauert point by point.

US Department of State spokesperson Heather Nauert said that she would “be very suspicious” of any kind of a deal with Russia. And what about, for example, the agreement between the presidents of Russia and the United States which paved the way for the joint statement on Syria that was released following their conversation on the sidelines of the APEC Leaders’ Meeting last month? Was everything all right with that presidential statement? By the way, back then a senior State Department official said that “this statement really builds on months of fairly intense discussions with the Russians… I would describe these discussions with the Russians as quite intense, difficult, but also professional and ultimately constructive.” He went on to say that the joint statement proved that cooperation between Moscow and Washington was possible, despite the existing differences. What is going in there? They do not read or listen to what they are saying? It all comes from one department.

My US colleague also mentioned the environment in which the Russian media in the US found themselves, saying that the decision was taken not by US authorities, but rather some kind of an association of reporters that handles who is given inside access to cover Congress. This point is not clear to us. Could we have some details on that? It was said earlier that the decision on Sputnik and Russia Today were taken under applicable US law. Whom should we believe? When should we trust the statements by the Spokesperson of the US Department of State?

Hearing the Spokesperson of the US Department of State call on the Russian Government to “give us the same opportunities to report freely in Russia as we provide you all here” was a case in point. I have a question: Did you given any thought to this sentence before saying it there in Washington? What if we make the same arrangements for US media in Russia as you have for Russian journalists? Do you understand what you are wishing for? It could come true.

In Russia, US media are free to attend, without any restrictions, briefings at the Foreign Ministry and other government agencies, and until recently the Russian parliament, and to have regular interviews with Russian politicians. Can you give me an example of the last interview of the US Secretary of State or spokesperson with Sputnik or Russia Today? Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and our representatives regularly talk to US journalists, including interviews and answering their questions. We know all too well, and you made an official statement to this effect, that you refuse to give interviews to Russia television networks, including Russia Today, for a number of reasons. Do you really want parity in the way we treat the US media in Russia? This question deserves an answer, even if you do not share it with us.





Answers to media questions:



Question:

Addressing his supporters in Florida December 12, US President Donald Trump said the United States had won both world wars. How can one respond to this?



Maria Zakharova:

As I have already said, these statements are endless in terms of their illogical, groundless and fickle nature. Statements by US Presidents, senior State Department officials and official US representatives change constantly and sometimes are diametrically opposite. It might be appropriate to ask only one question: Is this being said for the sake of one’s own political activity, for attracting the attention of voters or is this an official US position? It is also hard to understand this.



Question:

Did Russia play any role in bringing closer the positions of Washington and Pyongyang in the context of US State Secretary Rex Tillerson’s December 12 statement about Washington’s willingness to hold talks with North Korea without any pre-conditions? Do you believe that this willingness paves the way for the resumption of six-party talks on the DPRK?



Maria Zakharova:

I believe you should ask the US side about the motives for these statements. This is the prerogative and competence of the United States to respond to questions about specific motives behind this position.

It goes without saying that we have prompted and have tried to motivate all the sides, and not just the United States and North Korea but all other countries that are involved in this process in one way or another, to more actively use political and diplomatic methods to resolve the situation. We have done this openly during diplomatic talks, and we have acted very intensively. We have done this through Russian embassies in the concerned countries, Russian Parliament members made relevant statements, and the related events were also organised. We did our best to prove that it was pointless to press for a military solution and to whip up tensions. We have also tried to do everything we can to promote a political process. As for your question about Washington’s position and the motives behind it, it should be addressed to the United States.



Question:

On December 10, Bulgaria celebrated the 140th anniversary of victory over the Ottoman Empire. An official event also took place near a monument to the heroes of Plevna in Moscow. Bulgarian President Rumen Radev also recalled your country’s role in the history of Bulgaria. I would like to note that Russian children stood like soldiers near the monument for two hours in cold weather. I would like to address the Mayor of Pleven (Plevna): I believe that these children deserve to be given a free trip to Bulgaria. Perhaps, Bulgarian businessmen could pay for their trip.

Over 50,000 Jews were saved in Bulgaria with the Red Army’s help. I am sick of living like an animal. I am sick of working like a black to live like a white. I want someone to make me a Jew…



Maria Zakharova:

Now that you have used our hospitable venue for your theatrics, please see to it that they don’t insult other ethnic groups, nations and people from various religions. You should think about them, too.



Question:

What actions does Russia plan to take at international venues regarding the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?



Maria Zakharova:

The UN Security Council has just held its meeting. Russia’s representative presented some very strong arguments on the issue. You can watch his remarks online. I have commented on this matter just now as well. I said that it is necessary to pay close attention to the increasing tensions caused by Washington’s actions and that they are leading to an enormous escalation not only in the region but also beyond it.

We are closely monitoring this issue. We have repeatedly presented our principled position on the matter and stressed the importance of following the accumulated international legal basis for the settlement of this extremely complicated Middle East problem. You can also review our statements. Please follow our media publications regularly.



Question:

Yesterday Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that he had handed over to Russia the list of Kurdish groups that are acceptable for Turkey as participants in the Syrian National Dialogue Congress. Can you confirm that you have received the list and tell us more about this participation approval procedure?



Maria Zakharova:

As concerns the list, I honestly do not have any accurate information, but I also have no reason to distrust the Turkish Foreign Minister’s statement.

Speaking about the preparations for the congress, they are very active. Among other things, we are discussing participants with various interested parties.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2988576
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 18th, 2017 #323
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and replies to media questions during the Government Hour in the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Moscow, December 15, 2017



15 December 2017 - 12:55









Ms Matviyenko,

Colleagues,

Thank you for inviting me again to address you during the Government Hour.

We at the Foreign Ministry highly value our long-standing, close and even comradely cooperation with both chambers of the Federal Assembly and their relevant committees. We appreciate your interest in the operations of our foreign policy department. We welcome and support the efforts of parliamentary diplomacy to improve interstate relations and to strengthen friendship and mutual understanding between nations.

I would like to highlight the success of the session of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly, which was held in St Petersburg in October and was attended by the largest number of delegates in the history of IPU. This unprecedentedly high level and composition of representatives is evidence of the prestige the Russian legislative bodies rightly enjoy with their foreign colleagues. I congratulate you on this truly important achievement.

It is especially important now to coordinate our work in all areas in order to implement the foreign policy that has been approved by President of Russia Vladimir Putin. This is an extremely complicated stage in global history. The potential for conflict is increasing, and along with the intensification of old crises, we see new crises emerging. We are deeply concerned about dangerous trends, such as the erosion of the fundamental principles of international law and attempts to undermine the role of multilateral institutions or to use them for selfish purposes. The enlargement of NATO and the build-up of its potential on the so-called eastern flank, as well as the deployment of the US ballistic missile defence systems in Europe are seriously undermining the principle of indivisible security. This principle, which involves a political commitment not to strengthen one’s own security at the expense of others, was adopted by the leaders of all OSCE countries. Major international agreements, including on Iran’s nuclear programme, are under threat of disruption. I hope this will not happen, because if it does, it will send the wrong signal to those who are considering solutions to the problems on the Korean Peninsula.

We are openly saying this to our colleagues and are using every opportunity to explain our views and respond to their assessments. We spoke about this at the OSCE Ministerial Council in Vienna last week. I mentioned it during my numerous contacts on the meeting’s sidelines, including my conversation with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

We are convinced that the main reason for the current tension is the persistently egocentric and cynical line taken by a number of countries, led by the United States. Having come to believe in its own supremacy and infallibility, and having become accustomed to thinking its opinions should be perceived as the ultimate truth, the so-called “historical West” is trying to obstruct the natural process of the development of a more just and democratic polycentric world order. Those who dissent are subjected to a broad range of reprisals, unilateral coercive measures and direct interference in their internal affairs.

You can see clearly for yourselves that for many Western states, Russia’s dynamic development and the consolidation of its positions in the international arena, cause overt irritation and rejection. Hence, they are willing to punish us for our independent foreign policy. The line of deterring our country is conducted on the broadest scale – from the economy and power industry to sport and our domestic media. There are many examples of such actions and I do not want to take up your time with them.

We are trying to do everything necessary to ensure the reliable provision of sovereignty, national security and rights of our citizens. Importantly, while working towards this, we are not withdrawing into ourselves or resorting to self-isolation. Nor are we trying to organise perimeter defence. On the contrary, Russia is playing an active role in elaborating a positive, unifying international agenda and taking specific initiatives aimed at resolving urgent international issues.

Our honest policy, relying on the principles of truth, goodneighbourly relations and keeping our word, enjoys broad support, allowing us to develop equitable, mutually beneficial dialogue with the overwhelming majority of foreign partners.

We are paying special attention to the need to unite the international community in the struggle against the terrorist threat. This is in line with President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to create a genuine global anti-terrorism coalition united in its efforts to counter this evil, without any double standards.

ISIS and other extremist groups that entrenched themselves in Syria have been fully routed. Credit for this is largely due to the efficient actions of the Russian Aerospace Forces that facilitated the Syrian Government’s anti-terrorist efforts. The suppression of terrorists and the functioning of de-escalation zones established within the framework of the Astana process are creating the necessary prerequisites for the transfer to the next stage – political settlement in Syria on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 2254. This task falls to the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, to be arranged on the initiative of Russian, Iranian and Turkish leaders. Now the agenda includes the elaboration of a new Constitution, organisation of UN-monitored general elections, the resolution of humanitarian issues and elaboration of a long-term comprehensive programme for the country’s recovery.

As I said, we are very concerned about the situation around the Korean Peninsula. There is no other alternative but to gradually relieve the tension and move forward towards negotiations. Any attempts to provoke a military scenario in the hope of resolving the crisis by force will lead to a disaster. There are plenty of opinions on this issue, including in the Western political establishment. In cooperation with our Chinese partners, we have developed a settlement roadmap that would divert the crisis away from the dangerous line. The number of supporters of this approach is growing.

The domestic conflict in Ukraine remains unresolved. The Kiev authorities are clearly sabotaging the peace process. They are persistent in their refusal to establish a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. Considering our Western partners’ influence on the Ukrainian leadership, we are urging them to use this influence and persuade Kiev to promptly begin fulfilling the Minsk Package of Measures, which was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council.

Our absolute priorities include expanding the diverse cooperation with former Soviet states. This of course includes the CIS, where Russia is successfully presiding this year, the CSTO and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), where Russia is taking over the chairmanship next year.

We are encouraging the EAEU’s stronger external ties in every possible way, as well as the harmonisation of integration processes with a view to potentially forming the Greater Eurasian Partnership. We continue taking action to interlink the EAEU and China’s One Belt One Road initiative. In particular, we have concluded talks on a trade and economic cooperation agreement that is now being prepared for signing. We are laying the groundwork for talks on establishing free trade zones between the EAEU and Egypt, Israel, India, Iran, Serbia and Singapore.

We continue to consolidate our strategic partnership with China. Coordinating our countries’ approaches to the major modern issues has proved a necessary and important stabilising factor in global affairs. We are working on strengthening the privileged strategic partnership with India. Our relations with the majority of other partners in the Asia-Pacific Region are advancing dynamically, including with Vietnam and ASEAN states. Reinforcing our positions in the Asia-Pacific Region contributes to the general efforts to provide for the social and economic upsurge of Eastern Siberia and the Far East.

Our relations with Turkey have been restored, which in many ways became possible thanks to the personal efforts of President Putin and President Erdogan. Political dialogue and practical cooperation with Latin American and African countries are expanding.

We continue to work closely with our partners within the framework of such associations as BRICS, the SCO, and RIC, the foreign ministers of which met four days ago in New Delhi. These are associations of a new type, without leaders or followers, dictates, or bloc discipline. On the contrary, they are based on mutual respect, the principle of consensus and the search for compromises in compliance with 21st century realities. We are facilitating further disclosure of the G20’s significant potential, which is an effective mechanism for coordinating approaches to a number of key contemporary issues. By the way, the very fact of its creation means recognition of the multipolarity of the modern world and the impossibility of addressing key problems in international affairs, economy, or politics without the participation of new centres of political influence, including the BRICS countries.

Dialogue with the United States and the European Union will be built exclusively on the principles of mutual respect and a balance of interests.

As President Putin has repeatedly stressed, including at yesterday’s news conference, Russia is open to constructive joint work with Washington. Unfortunately, we do not see any progress on the part of the US Administration. It has taken a number of new openly anti-Russian actions. In particular, I am talking about the law, Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions, which takes aim at us, shutting down Russia’s Consulate General in San Francisco, and the seizure of five diplomatic sites. We are not seeking to deepen confrontation, but, of course, we will continue to respond to any hostile actions in accordance with the principle of reciprocity.

The prospects for our relations with the European Union remain hostage to the Russophobic policy pursued by a narrow group of countries within the EU, which, in effect, is acting in the interests of the United States, not Europe. Meanwhile, the sanctions spiral set off by the Brussels bureaucrats on direct orders from overseas inflicted serious damage to European businesses (primarily, German), which lost some of its positions on the Russian market. The Americans did not sustain any losses. Moreover, under the pretext of fighting Russia, they want Europeans to buy expensive American liquefied natural gas, and increase defence spending. It’s up to the Europeans to decide whether they need it or not. For our part, we will develop cooperation at a pace that is comfortable for our EU colleagues. However, our multi-pronged foreign policy will not be a hostage to the whims inside the EU.

We continue to work vigorously to protect Christians facing serious challenges, especially in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as the followers of other religions. We are pushing for the OSCE, where the Declaration “On Enhancing Efforts to Combat Anti-Semitism” has already been adopted, to adopt similar documents in defence of Christians and Muslims.

As part of our relations with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), we promote mutually respectful inter-civilisational and inter-religious dialogue. We are taking energetic steps to uphold the enduring spiritual and moral ideals that are common to the world's major religions and cultures.

One of the most important tasks is to uphold the rights and the interests of Russian citizens and companies abroad, our compatriots living abroad, and to further consolidate the multi-ethnic and multi-religious Russian world. The World Thematic Conference of Compatriots “The 100th Anniversary of the Russian Revolution: Unity for the Future” held in Moscow in the autumn made a useful contribution to this work. We plan to continue to make maximum use of the potential of “soft power,” promote the Russian language and Russian culture, and the multifaceted dialogue with the Russian NGOs, academia and business community.

Of course, we will continue to provide all the necessary assistance to the regions that you represent to improve their international and foreign economic ties. In particular, the Council of the Heads of Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation, which effectively works under the Foreign Ministry, focuses on this task.

All our actions are ultimately aimed at creating favourable external conditions for Russia’s peaceful development and prosperity of our citizens. The Foreign Ministry consistently operates on the premise that only joint efforts and deeper interaction with domestic legislators and civil society will help us effectively resolve the large-scale tasks which we are faced with, and provide proper answers to the challenges of our time.

We will defend justice and the truth, preserve our identity, and rely on our culture, history, and values.

Thank you. I can now take your questions.



Question:

The implementation of the Federal Law on Ratifying the Treaty between Russia and Kazakhstan on the Russian-Kazakh State Border gave rise to a number of demarcation issues in the Omsk Region. One of the centres of the Russko-Polyansky District has the only road linking it with the city of Omsk. Part of this road (10km) went to Kazakhstan. The construction of a roundabout road will cost 800 million roubles. The federal budget will not provide this sum whereas it will take the Omsk Region three years (until the end of 2020) to build a new road. There is an agreement on continuous movement along this section but only until January 1, 2019. Is it possible to reach an agreement with the Kazakh side on extending this agreement until January 1, 2021?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have very good, allied relations with Kazakhstan. When the border agreement was drafted, even before the work on land started, some issues arose, for instance, on dividing oil and gas deposits. The sides agreed on the delimitation and subsequent demarcation of the state border.

Naturally, the issues you mentioned come up. If you submit to me the relevant documents, I will definitely attend to it. We will raise it with our Kazakh neighbours. I think we can hope for a positive response.



Question:

I rarely praise anyone but I believe that we are lucky with our Foreign Minister, unlike some of your colleagues. If you had been involved in some way in the Olympics doping scandal, it would not have been so shameful. As for Vitaly Mutko, as a decent man he should resign altogether.

About a month ago, we sent an appeal to the Foreign Ministry linked with the dismantling of monuments to Soviet soldiers in Poland. We were hoping that the Foreign Ministry will respond to it. Probably, I simply missed its response in the media. I would be grateful if you could comment on these actions because they are contrary to the current bilateral Treaty on Friendly and Neighbourly Cooperation.



Sergey Lavrov:

We often loudly responded to these actions, appealing not only to the conscience of these people, that does not always work in dialogue with our European partners, but also to the letter of the treaty you mentioned. Our Polish colleagues are trying to interpret it in a different way – they acknowledge their commitment to keep in good shape only tombstones rather than simply monuments in honour of Soviet soldiers. This is not right. The lawyers that studied this treaty confirmed that all memorials in Poland and Russia without exception, as long as they concern Poland’s history and its citizens, should be preserved in proper condition. We are talking with them although you probably understand that these attempts lead nowhere. They are infused with Russophobia and I do not know why.

As for our statements, we made them not only on behalf of the Foreign Ministry. We drafted a joint statement at a CSTO meeting and circulated it at the OSCE Ministerial Council that took place in Vienna literally a week ago. We suggested relevant formulas in a joint document of the OSCE. Regrettably, our Western partners veered off from this but the issue remains urgent. We will insist that the monuments to the heroes who liberated Europe should be respected and protected not only in Poland but also in all other countries.



Question:

On October 4, 2016, Russia and Kazakhstan signed an intergovernmental agreement on preserving the ecosystem of the trans-border Ural River at the 13th Forum of Interregional Cooperation in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan. When will the Russian-Kazakh commission on this issue be established?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am sure that the time is specified by the agreement itself. We have already appointed its co-chairman. He is the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Environment. I do not know whether the Kazakh colleagues have also appointed their co-chairman but I will check on this and submit your request to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment that is the head department in this respect.



Question:

There is now a kind of association of Russia, Turkey and Iran and those who joined them. Can it transform, in the future, into a serious political structure that will engage on the basis of its own interests? In your speech, you mentioned that a number of our energy companies were subjected to sanctions. Subsequently, if such a structure emerges, our companies could hope to get support within the framework of this “eastern brotherhood.”



Sergey Lavrov:

I would say that we found a “troika” format for cooperation on Syria and have been successfully taking advantage of the opportunities that each of our three countries offers. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin repeatedly noted, there is no 100 percent agreement between our goals and interests, but regardless of the many approaches each country takes to this or that aspect of the situation in Syria, we definitely rely on 100 percent agreement on the need to defeat terrorism, preserve the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic and ensure the harmony of all its ethnic and religious groups.

These common interests pave the way for consistent and effective work within the Astana format. For the first time ever, a Russia-Iran-Turkey trilateral summit was held in Sochi. During that summit, as you know, it was proposed to convene a Syrian National Dialogue Congress.

I will not speculate on the necessity or expedience of transforming this “troika” into something permanent, structured and bureaucratic, with a secretariat and executive staff. Surely, everything is good in its season. But on the whole, the current problems in the world require not rigid bureaucratic structures, but flexible coalitions that make it possible to respond to modern challenges quickly and effectively. BRICS, for example, is not an organisation, but rather an association unburdened by a secretariat. All its work is coordinated through a presiding country. Of course, the cooperation level between Russia, Turkey and Iran is far from that of BRICS. And yet, it is not a rigid alliance.

We indeed have and will have common economic, energy and financial interests, because none of the three countries, for clear reasons, wants to depend on the current global currency and financial system controlled by the United States. It tries to use its dominant position in the system it controls to blackmail all the rest. Nobody likes that, China included. Therefore, in our economic relations with Turkey and Iran, we are trying to find opportunities for such forms, in mutual settlements as well, that rely on national currencies. In this sense, energy cooperation will also become less dependent on the conditions imposed by Washington.



Question:

President Vladimir Putin set the task of considerably intensifying the work on increasing the contribution of tourism to the GDP to 10 percent. Without resolving visa issues in inbound tourism (which brings in most of the revenue) it is very difficult to reach this goal. This work is going on in Vladivostok and we are grateful for this. Over 5,000 people have already received visas since August 8. Kaliningrad is also starting this work. What do you think about it?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are positive about it just like you. The transition to electronic visas was produced by serious interdepartmental efforts. The Foreign Ministry never acts alone when resolving such issues. There is also the Border Service of the Federal Security Service (FSB) and the Federal Customs Service.

I think at this point the introduction of e-visas for the entire free port of Vladivostok, for this whole region, is the best solution. Citizens of many countries are already using this service, although not of all countries, including those that the region is interested in. The situation in Kaliningrad is the same – there is a list of countries that can easily travel on e-visas but this list does not include all countries. The principle of reciprocity is important here. I believe Russia should not make unilateral concessions when its citizens have to undergo very serious verification procedures to get a visa to some countries.

True, there are positive changes in the application of Schengen rules that have a broad range of options, including the granting of five-year multiple visas in several days. Many EU countries, for instance, Italy, are promoting this approach. Naturally, we are paying them in kind. However, we cannot switch to visa-free travel with those countries that restrict entry by visas, although we are ready to sign relevant agreements with each EU country.

Until 2013, we were engaged in intensive efforts to draft an agreement on visa-free travel between Russia and all Schengen countries, in addition to the agreement on simplifying visa procedures that has been in force for a long time. We wanted to fully transition to visa-free travel for a broad range of groups, primarily, athletes, tourists, scientists and entrepreneurs. The agreement was ready. We even conducted special expert consultations that enabled the EU to see for itself that we will only use biometric passports, that we can work with them and that we will have the required equipment. We also concluded the agreement on readmission to remove EU apprehensions that our citizens will stay there for permanent residence (as Ukrainians are doing now – I think there are a million of them there). We agreed on everything.

All EU concerns and requests were fully complied with, as Brussels confirmed. This was long before the events in Ukraine, before the EU followed in the wake of the United States and introduced sanctions. They tried to feign the impression that they suspended work on this agreement in response to the events in Ukraine. In reality, they suspended this work because several Russophobic EU countries said they would not support the visa-free travel agreement with Russia for political considerations until visa-free travel is granted to Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. So, cheap politics obstructed the adoption of this agreement.

However, our goal is to expand the range of countries with which we have such agreements. All Latin American countries save one are visa-free for us, very many states in Asia, including the Republic of Korea. We are ready to sign such an agreement with Japan and have most easy visa procedures with China. We know the goal but I hope everyone understands that Russia cannot open its doors unilaterally, without reciprocity.



Question:

We in Crimea have always believed and still believe that Ukraine can only become a prosperous country if it builds absolutely friendly relations with the Russian Federation. Clearly, currently Ukraine is being controlled by countries that are against its friendship with Russia, however, given the results of Kiev’s efforts to move towards integration with Europe that are not quite satisfactory, are there any signs that even the incumbent Ukrainian leaders have realised the need to normalise relations with Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

Frankly speaking, I don’t see any such signs. I agree with you that the country is under external control, however, with a caveat – we know for sure that countries like France and Germany, who are parties to the Normandy format, other EU countries and even the United States admit in discussions between them that the Ukrainian regime has already started behaving like the tail wagging the dog.

What they are doing in Kiev now, even with regard to the mechanism for countering corruption that was recommended and imposed on them by Washington, shows that they are simply ignoring their obligations. The pledges that our Western partners gave in public to support the democratic revolution that took place there make it impossible for them now to eat their hats and backtrack on their words, saying that this is another failed experiment following the one with Mikheil Saakashvili.

President Poroshenko of Ukraine is taking advantage of this and will continue doing this until the West gets enough courage to admit that it was wrong to provoke the Maidan revolution, topple the legitimate president who was recognised by all, bring radicals into power who furiously attacked the Russian language and did not respond to what Dmitry Yarosh said two days after the coup, insisting that Russians in Crimea would never honour Roman Shukhevich and Stepan Bandera and there should be no Russians in Crimea. As if they did not realise that these words were not just empty talk. These words were uttered at a critical moment for the country. The residents of Crimea and eastern Ukraine could not but react to these words.

Unfortunately, with this on my mind, I am pessimistic about how the Ukrainian leadership views the future of their country in the context of its relations with Russia. The population is much more realistic about these things and realises that the timeservers who try to bleed their country white and capitalise on their relations with the West as much as they can do not represent the interests of the Ukrainian people.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, we understand how complicated your job is. We are grateful to you for your service to Russia. We see how the United States is unleashing civil wars and destroying whole states to the accompaniment of fine words about democracy. Indicatively, “the fuel” is sought in the victim country. Maybe the time has come for us to help Africans in their struggle or deal with Native American reservations in their bid for rights and democracy? I think many women in Russia will sacrifice their golden jewellery for this noble cause. Maybe in this case the United States will have no time left to deal with other countries and it will finally focus on its own business.



Sergey Lavrov:

Probably, it would not be appropriate for us to do something in this vein both because of our Christian Orthodox morality and Muslim traditions in the part of the country where Muslims live, and also proceeding from pragmatic interests. I do not think that we will stand to gain anything if large countries fall into the abyss of internal revolutions. That said, it is a fact that now history, including the history of conquests, wars and victories is very intensively used not for preserving memory about them but for conducting anti-Russian policy.

As you know, World War II is now the most popular subject. Who started it, what are its results and are the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal immutable? We are ready to discuss these issues. Meanwhile, our Western partners get embarrassed when they are reminded of the event that took place 15 years after the end of WWII. I am referring to decolonisation and generally to everything that colonialism did in the modern world. In response we are being accused of propaganda. So, rewriting the results of WWII is not propaganda. Anyway, they are never willing to express their opinion on the colonial era and its consequences. After all, this is also linked with the drawing of borders by a ruler in the Middle East and North Africa, which cuts through whole ethnic and religious groups and is largely a trigger for regional conflicts. Therefore, I believe these subjects should be fairly and honestly discussed, and nobody should try to avoid this discussion.

Every six months I meet with the ambassadors of the entire European Union. They spoke about Crimea. I said that those who would like to see how people in Crimea live and whether their rights are violated, have every opportunity to do so. For instance, Representative of the Council of Europe Gerard Stoudmann made a trip to Crimea and published a very decent, proper and honest report. Many MPs go to Crimea, and after all, many foreign observers attended the referendum. So, no questions are raised in this respect.

I asked my colleagues in the EU what they thought about overseas possessions of one of its members – France. When, during the decolonisation process, the residents of the Comoro Islands voted for the choice of their future on the basis of the UN resolution and with France’s consent, all of them with the exception of Mayotte Island chose to become independent rather than remain a French overseas territory. A decision at this referendum was supposed to be made by a simple majority − if all others are for independence, Mayotte Island should also become part of the independent Comoros. But France said “no.” Admitting that the initial arrangement was different, France nevertheless decided to retain its possession of Mayotte Island, claiming that this was what the population wanted. The UN Security Council issued several resolutions to compel France to recognise the results of the referendum based on the initial terms before the voting. But to no avail. France simply ignored this. In the beginning of this century Mayotte Island became an overseas territory, a sovereign part of the French Republic. I quoted this example to understand the attitude of the EU to respect. The referendum in Crimea was criticised for being held in a rush. This does not apply at all to the referendum on the Comores, in which case the UN was coordinating preliminary terms. Ambassador of France to Russia Sylvie-Agnes Bermann said we were comparing apples and oranges. I do not understand why our foreign partners so dislike to compare their conduct and ours in the international arena.

I would not advise our women to give up their jewellery for the sake of what you mentioned.



Question:

You have repeatedly stressed that “soft power” is an important element of diplomatic relations. Also, you are perfectly aware that 135 friendship societies have no place where they could convene and register their legal address. Earlier, there was Boris Yeltsin’s order from 1992 and back then there was the House of Friendship at Rossotrudnichestvo. But since 1994, this venue does not exist either. There are a number of your letters to the Russian Government and the Mayor of Moscow. You know, Moscow officials of the highest rank tell me that if the Foreign Ministry thinks that this is necessary, why cannot it allocate two or three rooms for the House of Friendship in its own building?



Sergey Lavrov:

Two or three rooms are not a problem, of course. But I am afraid that this is not enough. We all remember what was the House of Friendship, where it was located and how beautiful it looked. Unfortunately, it is hard to imagine a suitable replacement now. By the way, attempts were made to transfer the premises currently occupied by Rossotrudnichestvo for other purposes. So far, we have managed to prevent this. Repairs in our right wing are nearing completion and we expect Rossotrudnichestvo to move there. I hope that at least one of the premises they currently occupy may be used for this as well. I will make a note and keep that in mind. This is not a matter for tomorrow. First, it is necessary to complete repairs.



Question:

What do you think about future development of relations with the countries of the Middle East?



Sergey Lavrov:

In brief, I think it will be positive. I will try to explain and specify why. Our ties are long-standing. We established them at a time when turbulence, struggle for independence and different wars started in the Middle East. As the USSR, we sided with the Arabs in their war against Israel although the USSR was the first country to recognise Israel’s independence and sovereignty immediately after its establishment. After relations with Israel were normalised at the end of the Soviet period, Russia adopted a policy that is described in the 2000 Foreign Policy Concept as a “multi-vector course” (this goal remains in the concept’s latest version): to develop relations with all countries that are ready to do this on an equitable and mutually beneficial basis. Since then we have established partnerships practically with all Arab countries, including those that do not get on too well with each other, and Israel. In parallel we have been developing ties with such an important regional country as Iran. By now we have established very good and close political, trade, economic, cultural and humanitarian relations practically with all countries in the Middle East.

I think we have achieved this primarily owing to the line that we are pursuing in the international arena, upholding independence, keeping our word and refraining from changing our policy depending on circumstances, whether international or domestic. When the so-called Arab Spring began and we strongly objected to the actions of the Western states in Libya and later on in Syria we were told (do you remember what Barack Obama said?) that Russia would remain on the wrong side of history and that the Arab people would berate it because it supported dictators that were stifling them. Nothing of the sort happened. Neither in Iraq (it all started in Iraq when we opposed the aggression there), nor in Libya, nor in Syria, nor anywhere else is there a single political, ethnic or religious group that would view Russia as its enemy. There are some mavericks, like those who until recently headed the radical wing of the Syrian opposition, emigres that live on other people’s money. It is their job to make ultimatums. Otherwise, if a settlement is reached, they will lose this job. Therefore, I think that in many respects credit for this goes to the policy pursued by President of Russia Vladimir Putin starting from his first term – a multi-vector and open policy towards all those who are ready to work with us in a friendly and honest way.



Question:

Russia has submitted its candidacy to host the World Universal Exhibition Expo 2025 in Yekaterinburg. Now comes the crucial moment: promoting the bid, lobbying Russia’s interests in the countries which are members of the International Bureau of Exhibitions. The Foreign Ministry of course has an important role to play in that. I would like to hear your comment on how active the Ministry is today and whether our country’s embassies have joined this process?



Sergey Lavrov:

The embassies have joined it a long time ago, immediately after Yekaterinburg entered its bid. This topic is raised in all my meetings with the ministers of every country, we make a point of reminding them of our submission. I have to tell you that it is invariably among the materials prepared for President Putin for his international contacts. He always touches upon this issue. The vote is less than a year away (I think it’ll be held in the autumn of 2018). We have strong rivals: Paris, Osaka and Baku. They are of course promoting their bids. It is hard to make any forecasts, but we keep this work under constant review.



Question:

The military operation in Syria has come to an end. Our military has gained vast experience of interacting with various Syrian army units, and the units from Iraq, Iran and Turkey. The Russian Foreign Ministry and our diplomatic establishment have gained extensive experience in creating an association of political forces as part of the Astana format. I think much of the credit for this goes to you. However, terrorism has not gone away; it is simply moving to Iraq. We see and we get information from our Afghan partners that there were ISIS camps in northern Afghanistan. How is the Russian Foreign Ministry working on that with its Afghan partners? How do we see the potential threat to us building up in Afghanistan?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are very aware of this threat not only in Afghanistan, but also in other parts of the region and beyond. As you have absolutely rightly said, ISIS has been defeated in Syria in the sense that the pockets that had been created there and where ISIS had been imposing its rule have been liquidated. But isolated small groups are still there, and they will be finished off, there is no doubt about it. Most of them have moved abroad, including via Iraq, although we have repeatedly asked the Americans and their coalition to prevent this from happening. In one episode ISIS militants fled from Syria to Iraq, where our Aerospace Forces have no powers while the Americans have. We provided them with information and said that they should liquidate that group. They said they were not going to do it because these people were already prisoners of war and their status was covered by the Geneva Conventions. This is of course an absolutely unacceptable position, but unfortunately it is becoming very much part of the American approach. Back under President Obama, the Americans thought up a very simple concept of countering violent extremism. Extremism is where there is a dictatorial regime which strangles civil society. Therefore, to prevent manifestations of extremism the world community must, over the heads of the dictatorial regimes, educate civil society in how it should organise democracy in its country. The implications are clear. But, as we now realise, this concept pursues yet another task. By introducing the term “violent extremists” they try to present these people not as terrorists, but to treat them as a separate category in order to be able in the future or even now, by playing with these terms, to equate some to the terrorists that are to be destroyed and some to the violent extremists who are still amenable to educational work. This is a dangerous trend to which we are categorically opposed. Our approach is known and it is not subject to change.

As regards Afghanistan, we are concerned that ISIS is increasing its presence on the borders with our neighbours and allies, the Central Asian countries. In Afghanistan, they are pushing to the north. This suggests that Central Asia is going to be their next target. We are working out plans to counter this terrorist threat in the framework of the CSTO and SCO, and this involves not only foreign ministries, because it is a complex problem, but also the security and intelligence agencies and defence ministries. In addition, there is the SCO-Afghanistan contact group that met in Moscow this October and will meet in China early next year. The fight against the terrorist threat will be high on the agenda. A similar mechanism has been put in place with the CSTO, where there is also a working group on Afghanistan whose main task is to take preventive measures to stop this threat from spreading into the Russian Federation. As to who will deal with this problem within Afghanistan, of course it will be the Afghan security forces and the armed forces of Afghanistan. We are actively helping to equip them with the weaponry they need. Unfortunately, the Americans, who have led the NATO coalition (120,000 troops) in Afghanistan since 2001, have failed to crush terrorism. They not only failed to put an end to drug production that supports terrorism, but they looked on as this production burgeoned. This year saw a record output of heroin and a record opium poppy harvest. They refuse to have anything to do with it. However, there can be no excuses when it comes to fighting terror, this is written down in the mandate of the NATO forces. Each time we ask what they are doing in this connection we get incoherent answers. Indeed, we had a major Russia-NATO Council project to supply, maintain and service Russian-made helicopters in Afghanistan with the money raised by all the members of the Russia-NATO Council because these helicopters are the best weapon for fighting terrorists. The Afghans know how operate them; they are very easy to handle. It was a very successful programme. When NATO cut off all links after the coup in Ukraine, which they backed, we continued the programme with Afghanistan on a bilateral basis. The Afghans were very pleased. The US has recently started to press Afghanistan to scrap these helicopters and buy American helicopters. At the same time the Americans pressed Afghanistan to give up the 50,000 Kalashnikov automatic rifles along with ammunition, which Russia had made available to the Afghan forces as a gift and to buy American rifles and machine guns instead. In addition to the question as to what would happen to these 50,000 Kalashnikovs (we have put this question to the Afghans) another question suggests itself: what is the rationale behind the attempts to undermine the capacity of the Afghan army to use the weapons it is accustomed to and impose new weapons that would take some getting used to? There is no answer to that question other than the fact that the Americans try to throw roadblocks in our way wherever they can, just because they love doing it.


* * *


Question:

What are the chances of winning the stand-off over Crimea?



Sergey Lavrov:

The situation has been brought back to normal. For us it became normal when the people of Crimea cast their votes. It is those who cannot accept the objective reality and historical justice that need to be “normalised.” I think this awareness will come. At least those of our Western colleagues who come to Crimea realise immediately the falsehood of the propaganda to the effect that the people are oppressed and human rights are violated. We have a very honest position: come and see for yourselves. It is hard to disagree with that.



Question:

I would like to thank you. President Putin gave a press conference yesterday and not a single foreign correspondent asked a question about Crimea. The credit for that goes to you. I think they have taken note of President Putin’s words that the Crimea issue is closed.



Sergey Lavrov:

They were listening to the President first and foremost, and rightly so.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2992396






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s reply to a media question on the sidelines of the Government Hour in the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Moscow, December 15, 2017



15 December 2017 - 14:49









Question:

Russia has been accused of interfering in various elections in foreign countries. A presidential race is beginning in Russia. What can we do if our political partners attempt to interfere in our elections?



Sergey Lavrov:

They have tried to interfere in our elections many times. President Vladimir Putin has provided numerous examples of the US Embassy doing this, for example, when US diplomats attended the meetings of opposition parties, including those that are not represented in the parliament.

Of course, diplomats need to monitor the situation in the host country and to report their observations to the headquarters, that is, to their capital. But taking part in the host country’s political life by rallying members of the opposition to issue instructions to them, let alone doing what the US Embassy did to lay the groundwork for the state coup in Ukraine, contradicts the Vienna conventions on diplomatic relations.

So, I firmly believe that those whose job is to see that diplomats do not engage in illegal activities are doing their job properly. Anyway, it is not our foreign partners but the Russian people who will make the choice.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2992570
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 18th, 2017 #324
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding the expert meeting on Afghanistan



13 December 2017 - 19:16



We would like to say the following regarding Russia’s decision not to attend the December 13 meeting of the International Contact Group (ICG) on Afghanistan in Oslo, Norway, which was attended by experts from Afghanistan, China, India, Iran, Pakistan and the United States.

We reaffirm our support for international efforts to launch peace talks between the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the leadership of the Taliban movement and to attain national accord in a process led by the Afghans themselves.

At the same time, we believe that in light of the growing terrorist and extremist threat coming from Afghanistan to its neighbours, primarily the Central Asian states, these states should be involved in the work of reconciliation mechanisms on Afghanistan.

This approach has been applied within the framework of the so-called Moscow Format, which was launched following regional consultations in Moscow in April of this year, as well as within the revamped SCO-Afghanistan contact group, which resumed its activities in October of this year.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2988692






Press release on consultations on security and stability in the South Caucasus



13 December 2017 - 21:07



Another round of consultations on security and stability in the South Caucasus took place in Geneva, Switzerland, on December 12−13. The Republic of Abkhazia, Georgia, the Republic of South Ossetia, the Russian Federation and the United States took part in the consultations co-chaired by the EU, the OSCE, and the UN. The Russian delegation was led by State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin.

The delegations from Abkhazia and Russia noted that efforts by the Georgian Embassy to Great Britain to dismantle a monument in Kilmarnock to the residents of Sukhumi – victims of the 1992−1993 war − ran counter to Tbilisi’s statements on its willingness to promote reconciliation with its “brothers from Abkhazia and Ossetia.” Russia pointed out that the attempt to erase the memory of Sukhumi residents who lost their lives back then was an ignominious and profane act. This is in stark contrast to Abkhazia’s commitment to assist in all possible ways with the reburial of the remains of Georgian soldiers.

Representatives from Abkhazia, Russia and South Ossetia highlighted the calamitous decision by the US Department of State to approve the possible sale of Javelin shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles to Georgia. This could be the largest military deal between Washington and Tbilisi since 2008, pushing Georgia to new and dangerous military undertakings.

In this context, Abkhazia and South Ossetia confirmed that they viewed Russia’s assistance in the defence sector as justified and timely. Once again, Georgia blocked the approval of a draft statement by the participants in the discussions on the non-use of force, even though other delegations suggested a number of alternatives. It was agreed that the groups would work further on this matter.

Other than Georgia, all the participants in the Geneva discussions agreed that the situation on the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South Ossetian borders were stable and predictable. The existing checkpoints have been able to handle the increasing cross-border movement of people and vehicles. The number of incidents on the Georgian-Abkhazian border has dropped significantly over the last year.

During the consultations, representatives from Tskhinval circulated a detailed timeline of Georgia’s anti-Ossetian policy, beginning in the 18th century. Abkhazia presented a paper criticising Tbilisi’s revanchist ambitions, and describing steps by Abkhazia and Russia to implement all the provisions under the 2008 Dmitry Medvedev-Nicholas Sarkozy agreements.

The participants in the Geneva discussions reaffirmed their willingness to build on the emerging positive developments on humanitarian matters. During the last reporting period, the sides held a successful prisoner exchange which was made possible by their good will and refusal to make a political issue out of it. They agreed to remain engaged with the stakeholders on the protection of cultural heritage and searching for missing persons.

The next meeting in Geneva is scheduled for March 2018.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2988745






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the situation around Joint Centre for Control and Coordination in Ukraine



18 December 2017 - 13:16



The Joint Centre for Control and Coordination (JCCC) on ceasefire and stabilisation of the demarcation line between the parties was set up in September 2014 in southeastern Ukraine. The Centre, created to help implement the Minsk Agreements, was established at the request of the Ukrainian side under agreements between the presidents of Russia and Ukraine. The centre includes representatives of the Ukrainian and Russian Armed Forces (75 officers who are rotated every three months). The centre included representatives of the self-proclaimed Donbass republics during the initial stage.

Since its inception, the JCCC has become an important mechanism for attaining a peace settlement in southeastern Ukraine and has played a substantial role in monitoring the situation and helping resolve contentious issues along the demarcation line between the parties in Donbass. Russian officers have made a weighty contribution to stabilising the regional situation and have provided practical assistance to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine. On the whole, our international partners involved in the search for solutions to the Ukrainian crisis have a positive opinion of the centre’s work.

At the same time, the centre has, unfortunately, encountered serious difficulties, due to the position of the Ukrainian authorities. For example, Kiev flatly objected to any documentary regulation of the centre’s operations. Attempts to resolve this issue at the bilateral level, at the Minsk Contact Group or in the Normandy format have proven unsuccessful.

In violation of the agreement between the presidents of Russia and Ukraine on the centre’s establishment and deployment, the Ukrainian side has deliberately created a tense moral and psychological situation for the Russian service personnel involved in the centre’s work and has hampered the execution of their official duties. For example, Russian officers received limited access to the demarcation line and could not effectively monitor the work of personnel at joint observation points on Ukrainian-controlled territory. They were sometimes forbidden to contact the local population. In some cases, Ukrainian service personnel have acted disrespectfully towards their Russian counterparts.

From January 1, 2018, Kiev is planning to introduce a new procedure regarding the entry of Russian citizens to Ukraine and their stay in the country. Under this procedure, Russian citizens will have to disclose detailed personal information to Ukrainian authorities in advance. This runs counter to provisions of the January 16, 1997 agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of Ukraine on visa-free travel of Russian and Ukrainian Citizens and is unacceptable for Russian service personnel.

In our contacts with Ukraine within the Normandy format and the Minsk Contact Group, we have insisted on the need to resolve this issue without bias towards Russia’s involvement in the centre’s work. However, the Ukrainian side has ignored our requests.

Under these conditions, further work of the Russian Armed Forces’ mission at the Centre has become impossible. On December 19, 2017, the Russian officers working at the centre will leave the territory of Ukraine.

We have already notified our foreign partners about this forced measure, and we have noted that the Ukrainian side will assume complete responsibility for any possible consequences.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2993360
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 18th, 2017 #325
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov’s interview with Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, December 14, 2017



14 December 2017 - 11:46





Question:

Japan, as the UN Security Council President for this month, intends to convene a ministerial-level meeting of the council on December 15 to discuss the situation around the DPRK. Who will lead the Russian delegation?



Gennady Gatilov:

It is true that Japan, as this month’s President in the UN Security Council, plans to hold a ministerial-level meeting on Friday, December 15, on the Challenges and Threats to International Peace and Security caused by the DPRK. The Foreign Minister will not be in New York at this time due to his tight schedule. So, Russia will be represented by its Permanent Representative to the UN.



Question:

In November, Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General Staffan de Mistura came to Moscow ahead of another round of intra-Syrian talks. Did he promise to attend the upcoming National Dialogue Congress in Sochi? How are preparations advancing? When will invitations be sent to participants?



Gennady Gatilov:

Staffan de Mistura was in Moscow on November 24. Following up on our regular contacts, he took part in a detailed exchange of views on all aspects of the Syrian settlement with a special emphasis on Russia’s initiative to convene the Syrian National Dialogue Congress.

We strongly believe that by promoting a conversation on constitutional reform and elections the Congress will help mobilise support for the UN-led talks in Geneva and make them more substantive. In this sense, we believe that Staffan de Mistura and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres should be interested in seeing the Congress succeed.

Preparations for the Congress are currently underway in close coordination with Turkey and Iran as co-guarantors of the Astana process.



Question:

The UN-led intra-Syrian talks in Geneva failed to generate momentum. How can you explain the fact that they have not yielded any results so far? Does Russia still support the Geneva process?



Gennady Gatilov:

The eighth round of the UN-led intra-Syrian talks has been taking place in Geneva since late November. Assisted by Staffan de Mistura, delegations from the government and the opposition are trying to reach a consensus in order to overcome the crisis. Even though the opposition claims to be participating in the talks without any preconditions, it continues to emphasise the removal from power of the legally elected President of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar al-Assad, to the detriment of a comprehensive political settlement. This remains the most serious challenge. How does the opposition expect the government delegation to respond?

The Russian Federation has been steadfast in its support for the Geneva process, believing that the UN should assume a leading role in it based on Resolution 2254, which was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council, while decisions should be adopted by the mutual consent of the parties. Not only does Russia support this process, but it is also actively involved with its parties, including both the Syrian government and the opposition in order to facilitate a substantial discussion despite the stubborn public statements, and achieve progress on the key issues.



Question:

The idea of sending a UN peacekeeping mission to the east of Ukraine to protect OSCE monitors seems to have hit an impasse. The positions of the interested parties diverge on this issue. Do you see any possibility of a compromise? Does it all come down to whether Russia and the US are able to reach common ground? What will our future steps be? Is Russia working on a resolution, and who will co-sponsor it?



Gennady Gatilov:

Russia continues to actively support efforts designed to end the conflict in Ukraine. There is no alternative to the Package of Measures to resolve the conflict in Donbass, and as part of efforts to ensure its speedy implementation President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin put forward an initiative to create a UN mission tasked with ensuring the safety of monitors from the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission. This is what the objective of the UN mission should be all about. In addition, peacekeepers can only be sent to the region after the disengagement of forces and the withdrawal of heavy weapons. Consent by the parties to the conflict, including both the Ukrainian authorities and the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, is an important condition for setting up a peacekeeping mission.

Russia vehemently opposes the idea of re-writing the Package of Measures as a foundation for an intra-Ukrainian settlement, replacing the existing negotiating formats (Contract Group and the Normandy Four) with new ones or transferring the settlement process to the UN to the detriment of the OSCE. This is what Kiev aspires to, being unwilling to deliver on its commitments under the Minsk Agreements.

Russia’s draft resolution on a UN mission to protect OSCE SMM monitors remains on the table. We have conducted two rounds of expert consultations in the UN Security Council, but they have not yielded any tangible results so far. At the September 20 open session of the UN Security Council, Petr Poroshenko welcomed the launch of discussions on this matter within the council and expressed his willingness to contribute to them in a constructive manner. Three months have passed, but real work on the document has yet to begin.

The US, in turn, plays into the hands of Ukraine, insisting that the mission should have a much broader mandate and geographical scope than we propose in order to control the border between Russia and Ukraine, and to be a full-scale peacekeeping mission. What they want is to install there what would actually be a UN administration that would control everything going on in the DPR and the LPR while sidestepping the issues of granting special status to Donbass, amnesty or preparing elections through direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. It is clear that a scenario of this kind would undermine the existing format of the Minsk process which is based on a direct negotiating process and reaching agreements on all the aspects I have mentioned.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2989084






Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich’s remarks at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, December 14, 2017



18 December 2017 - 11:33





Mr Chairperson,
The talks of a draft declaration by the OSCE Ministerial Council on the Ukrainian crisis have revealed the continuing attempts to distort the essence of the Minsk Agreements and to erode their political provisions. Stability in Ukraine can be only achieved through a comprehensive political settlement, as this is stipulated in the Minsk Package of Measures. This implies a constitutional reform sealing the special status of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, as well as local elections, the implementation of an amnesty law and the non-persecution of people in connection with the events in Donbass.

Our goal was to adopt a document that would reinforce the Package of Measures with a consensus support by 57 countries in addition to UN Security Council Resolution 2202, and would provide our assessment of the performance of the OSCE SMM, as well as the Contact Group and its subgroups. But it appears that some member states are not interested in this.

Statements on so-called Russian aggression are nothing but a propaganda camouflage for their desire to keep the conflict burning. We will acknowledge a sincere resolve to achieve a peaceful settlement in Ukraine only when we see efforts designed to stop the punitive operation against Donbass residents and to cut short instead of validating the operations of nationalists who provoke shoot-outs at the contact line and engage in violence and looting.

We denounce the practice of Kiev’s “creeping offensive.” The OSCE SMM has confirmed that Ukrainian armed forces have occupied townships in the so-called grey zone. SMM satellites and drones have reported the trails of military equipment moving from Ukrainian positons to Travnevoye and Gladosovo, as well as three military camps with Ukrainian military equipment in these towns’ suburbs. SMM observers have seen the Ukrainian armed forces’ emplacements in the southern suburbs of Verkhnetoretsky and the accumulation of Ukrainian military personnel in Svetlodarsk.

The SMM has observed 28 combat vehicles of the government-controlled forces in the security zone in violation of the Minsk Package of Measures over the past two weeks, including: nine self-propelled howitzers in Aleksandropol, five howitzers in Kremenevka, two howitzers and an MLRS system in Volnovakha, three howitzers in Vodyanoye, three howitzers in Netailovo, two howitzers in Novoselovka-2, an air defence missile system in ЗРК in Roty, a tank in Popasnaya and an air defence missile system in Novognatovka.

Despite their numerous attempts, the SMM observers could not enter Travnevoye and Gladosovo, because government-controlled forces have denied them entry. We do not know what is happening in these villages now. However, we can easily imagine what is going on there based on the latest OHCHR report on Ukraine, which indicates looting, torture and intimidation. Overall, the SMM’s freedom of movement in the government-controlled territory has been greatly restricted under the pretext of a mine threat. This prevents the mission from reporting the real number of Ukrainian combat vehicles on the contact line. The so-called mine threat accounts for over half the reasons for restricting SMM operations in the government-controlled territory between November 27 and December 11. SMM observers were directly prohibited from inspecting warehouses in Konstantinovka twice on December 2.

The SMM must not fear the host country’s authorities. It must report its findings in an impartial and objective way, which is the earnest of support for the mission, as SMM Chief Monitor Ertugrul Apakan has said. We urge SMM leaders and observers to more closely cooperate with the local authorities in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions on all issues in the SMM’s purview.

The occupation of two settlements at the contact line and the failed attack near Frunze led to a dramatic increase in the number of ceasefire violations. Between November 27 and December 12, the SMM reported some 9,000 ceasefire violations and 12 artillery attacks on the residential areas held by the self-defence forces from the government-controlled territory. Three civilians have been wounded and at least 12 buildings and other structures have been damaged in Dokuchayevsk, Trudovskikh, Golmovskoye, Yasnoye, Pervomaisk, Dolgoye, Yasinovataya and Zelenaya Roshcha.

According to the SMM, shortly after midnight on December 13, government forces opened fire with 152-mm artillery guns in violation of the Minsk Agreements while in the direct vicinity of the SMM’s forward patrol base in Popasnaya. It cannot be ruled out that this action was designed to provoke return fire that could threaten the observers’ safety.

SMM observers report that the fire from Popasnaya targeted Stakhanov and Pervomaisk. In addition, Ukrainian armed forces also shelled Lugansk, hitting some 20 residential buildings. We are waiting for SMM updates on the shelling of Lugansk, Stakhanov and Pervomaisk.

Kiev continues to sabotage the disengagement of forces in Stanitsa Luganskaya. During the latest meeting of the Contact Group on December 5, Ukrainian representatives failed to coordinate a new date for disengagement, while representatives of the self-defence forces said they were willing to do this on any day. However, Kiev stages provocations each time shortly before the disengagement day. This time it happened on December 7. Shooting within the disengagement zone in Petrovskoye is reported almost daily.

We expect the sides to honour their commitments regarding the exchange of prisoners precisely, without adding non-existent persons to their lists or resorting to other tricks. During the December 12 video conference of the subgroup on humanitarian issues, Kiev representatives failed to confirm the exchange list or the process of legal clearance of prisoners, and could not even provide any information regarding the timeframe for the exchange.

It was with great difficulty that the wooden cover of the damaged part of a bridge near Stanitsa Luganskaya was repaired. We are grateful for this to the SMM and everyone else who helped attained this goal. Unfortunately, Kiev continues to avoid coordinating this project under the International Committee of the Red Cross to repair the metal parts of the bridge.

The latest flare-up in Donbass has been complemented by an increasingly turbulent situation in Kiev. According to the SMM, up to 10,000 people join protest rallies to criticise the government and to demand the impeachment of the president. The SMM observed members of the Donbass punitive battalion in helmets and body armour, as well as members of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Right Sector. The Mission saw signal flares and smoke bombs, razor wire and tires. The only things missing are sandwiches from our Western partners, without whom the protest actions seem unable to gain momentum. We are concerned about the situation with Mikheil Saakashvili, who is famous for his opportunistic projects and provocations. Seeking to prevent undesirable consequences, we propose discussing the situation in Kiev in greater detail at the Permanent Council.

We urge SMM observers and those who prepare the reports to monitor the situation more closely and to provide more detailed reports outside the conflict zone.

Kiev’s forceful attempts at the Ukrainisation of the cultural, education and information space in the country are a destabilising factor. We see growing ethnic-based tension with Ukraine’s other neighbours.

The December 11 opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission or VC) on the provisions of the Ukrainian Law on Education says, in part, that this law “provides no solution for languages which are not official languages of the EU, in particular the Russian language, as the most widely used language [in Ukraine] apart from the state language. The less favourable treatment of these languages is difficult to justify and therefore raises issues of discrimination.” The VC experts conclude that “the appropriate solution would certainly be to amend Article 7 and replace this provision with a more balanced and more clearly worded one.”

Mr Chairperson,

I would like to draw your attention to Kiev’s actions that are designed to undermine the efforts of the mechanisms that are aimed at promoting a settlement. Kiev is doing its best to destabilise the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination (JCCC). Kiev has refused to approve regulations on the JCCC. In keeping with Kiev’s decision, Donetsk and Lugansk representatives, who initially worked on the Joint Centre in the government-controlled territory, have been removed from the JCCC. Attempts have been made to hinder the work of Russian officers by restricting their movement, escorting them wherever they went and even demanding that they be subjected to body searches. The new border crossing rules, which Kiev plans to introduce for Russian citizens, will prevent Russian officers from working at the JCCC.

In conclusion I would like to again draw your attention to the Minsk Agreements as the main and only basis for the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis. Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov has said that these agreements are dead, while his adviser, Anton Gerashchenko, has admitted that the Ukrainian delegation deceived everyone in Minsk. We have to say that these people are telling the truth, and that the statements made here to the effect that Kiev is honouring its commitments are completely unsubstantiated. This is clear from the operations of the Contact Group, where Kiev is avoiding a direct and productive dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk, as well as in the Normandy format, where Kiev is sabotaging the efforts to draft a roadmap.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2993300
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 24th, 2017 #326
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting of the Business Council under the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow, December 18, 2017



18 December 2017 - 17:55









Good afternoon, colleagues,

And so we begin the Business Council meeting.

I think these meetings are mutually beneficial for the executive authorities and our business circles.

We have a fairly important and wide-reaching topic, which is the goals and prospects for strengthening economic cooperation within the BRICS, on today’s agenda.

There has been quantitative and, more importantly, qualitative growth in the activities of this association in recent years. The Big Five has entered its second decade of activity. We can safely state that it has evolved from a club into a full-fledged strategic partnership mechanism covering many areas. Two BRICS leaders’ summits are held annually - the main one and a meeting on the sidelines of the G20 meeting, plus about 100 official events, of which about 20 are ministerial meetings. These figures translate into a wide network of concrete interactions between the five countries, contacts and cooperation between business circles, scientists and representatives of civil society.

Deepening the strategic partnership within BRICS is among Russia's foreign policy priorities. More and more countries are listening to the voice of the Big Five, especially since the planet is not getting any more peaceful or safer. In this situation, it is important for us to promote polycentric and multilateral approaches to addressing international challenges. It is a natural process which reflects the objective redistribution of the global balance of power in favour of emerging markets. This found its reflection in the emergence of formats such as BRICS and the G20, the existence of which, by the way, means recognition by Western countries of their inability to independently address international monetary issues without the participation of emerging economies as new centres of economic power and financial influence, which, of course, paves the way to political influence.

Clearly, a new world order, which should be democratic, has yet to be won. The stumbling blocks include the attempts by a number of states to cling to outdated approaches, to maintain domination, to impose their own development models on other nations, and to promote their private interests unilaterally using forceful methods.

In contrast, BRICS is a vivid and positive example of strengthening multilateral and collective principles in international affairs. These states with various cultural and civilisational foundations rely in their relations on the principles of equality, mutual respect, the supremacy of international law and strict consideration of each other's interests. We have identical or similar approaches to the key issues facing humankind. We focus on forming an equitable global governance system that takes into account the interests of all key countries, including emerging and developing economies. We firmly uphold the basic principles of the UN Charter. This really constitutes the foundation of the world order, in particular, the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, and the resolution of disputes by peaceful means. Together with our BRICS partners, we are promoting a unifying agenda for international relations, and are looking for opportunities to achieve connectivity of approaches in the areas where they do not yet fully reflect the consensus.

The comprehensive cooperation within BRICS follows three main and closely intertwined tracks, such as politics and security, economy and finance, and culture and humanitarian exchanges.

Economic interaction remains the most solid foundation for unification among the three, because the growing economic influence of the participating states, and their importance as the main driving force behind the global economy, remains the basis for the Big Five’s influence on the international arena. The fact that India and China are record holders in terms of growth rates for several years now is a known fact. We also take into account such factors as the population size, vast potential for innovation and rich natural resources of the Big Five.

We are united in our assessments of the current state of affairs in the global economy and finance. We joined efforts in our search for new sources of economic growth. We operate on the premise that the scale and nature of modern economic challenges suggest that it is only possible to develop in collaboration, building up cooperation ties which can be most effectively done as part of transparent multilateral institutions.

BRICS is working to reform the global financial and economic architecture, which has become obsolete. We are working at the UN, the G20 and the IMF, where the BRICS countries have 14.75 per cent of votes. We need another 0.25 per cent to have a blocking stake. We stand for an open, equal and mutually beneficial multilateral trade system and the WTO’s role as its foundation. We continue to look for alternatives to the current domination of the global economy by a limited number of “old” reserve currencies. This is why we have created the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement with an aggregate nominal capital of $200 billion.

Of course, we want our companies to receive practical benefits from Russia’s involvement in the BRICS’ strategic partnership and the five countries’ mechanisms that have been established in a number of industries that are of vital importance for our business.

I hope that today we will discuss some better and more effective ways to use the institutions and tools created within the BRICS framework, including in the interests of the Russian business community. What reserves are available? What do we need additionally? These issues should be discussed with due regard for the specific approaches of each of the five countries.

The Ninth BRICS Summit, which was held in Xiamen, China, three months ago, produced very good results. It has shown that the group is entering its second decade with a major package of concrete and useful initiatives. At our meeting in Xiamen, we reported major progress in implementing the BRICS Strategy for Economic Partnership, which was adopted at the Ufa Summit in 2015 and which defines the points of economic connectivity for years ahead. Today we will discuss not only the implementation of our decisions but also ways to promote the new Russian initiatives during South Africa’s BRICS presidency in 2018.

I would like to say that we highly value the role of our relevant agencies, primarily the Economic Development Ministry and the Finance Ministry. The Russian members of the BRICS Business Council led by President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Sergey Katyrin are making a major contribution to cooperation between the five BRICS countries.

As I have said, I would like to focus on multilateral projects today. We maintain extensive and intense contacts with each of the BRICS countries, but in this context we would like to discuss projects that involve three, four, or better still, all the five BRICS countries.

In conclusion, I would like to say that BRICS and its economic dimension continue to enjoy demand in any global economic situation. Its main goal is to enhance the living standards in the G5 countries. Of critical importance in this connection is the work of the Russian business community, which can make efficient use of the mutually complementary BRICS economies in the interests of their sustainable development.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2993996






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s acceptance speech during the St Andrew the Apostle Foundation’s Faith and Loyalty International Award ceremony, Moscow, December 18, 2017



18 December 2017 - 20:58









Mr Yakunin,

Friends,

It is a great honour for me to become a laureate of the Faith and Loyalty International Award, especially alongside these outstanding people, my compatriots.

I see this award (and these are not just empty words, I do mean it) as recognition of the efforts of the entire ministry, without which this ceremony today would not be possible, because this is our common work, the practical implementation of foreign policy as defined by President Vladimir Putin, for promoting the ideals of peace, kindness, honesty and justice at the international level. The same ideals form the basis of the St Andrew Foundation with which we have cooperated closely for a long time, for the benefit of our country and people.

The St Andrew Foundation’s efforts to preserve our historical memory, enrich our spiritual and cultural heritage, and educate our young generation deserve the highest appreciation. I would also like to note the humanitarian programmes, some of which were mentioned in the video, that assist people in need in the Balkans, in the South Caucasus, in the Middle East and other regions of our restless world.

Most importantly, the St Andrew Foundation promotes the moral values and ideals that are common to all world religions without exception. This is what brings us together. Aspirations to reach inter-civilisational accord deserve more than kind words, they deserve every possible means of support. The Foreign Ministry will continue to assist these efforts in every possible way.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2994105






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the ceremony unveiling a memorial plaque to Hero of the Russian Federation, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Andrey Karlov, Moscow, December 19, 2017



19 December 2017 - 11:26









Ms Maria Karlova,

Ms Marina Karlova,

Mr Karlov,

Mr Plotnikov,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to sculptor Alexander Rukavishnikov, the Moscow City Hall and personally Mayor Sergey Sobyanin for making this fine portrait of our friend and for promptly resolving all organisational and technical issues.

Ambassador Andrey Karlov was a comrade, a close friend and one of our top diplomats. We were in Turkey shortly before he died. Andrey met with our President and was highly praised for his selfless work, topmost professionalism and the ability to put service to the Motherland above everything else. At the same time, he was always very compassionate, outgoing, kind-hearted and friendly, and always there to lend a helping hand. It is no coincidence that Andrey Karlov was a mentor for many diplomats who remember him warmly every day. He got them off to a good start in their professional careers.

Andrey Karlov deserves great credit for his work on all the fronts, be it the DPRK, where he made a significant contribution to putting our relations on the right track (unfortunately, recently they have veered off it); the Consular Department, the effectiveness of which he significantly improved, and in recent years in Turkey, where Andrey Karlov made a major contribution to improving our relations with this most important Russia’s neighbour.

Andrey died performing his official duty. We will keep our memories of him alive. Today's ceremony is another step in perpetuating his name. A street in Ankara and a street in Moscow were named after him. His name was given to School No. 648 where he studied, as well as a school at the Russian Embassy in the Republic of Turkey. A portrait sculpture of Andrey Karlov will be unveiled on the grounds of our Embassy in Ankara today, on the first anniversary of his death.

I want to thank our Council of Veterans, and the Council of Young Diplomats, who are sincerely, with all their heart, helping Andrey Karlov’s family. We will always stay by your side.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2995436






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a General Meeting of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO, Moscow, December 20, 2017



20 December 2017 - 17:52









Сolleagues, friends,

I am pleased to welcome you to this General Meeting of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO.

The outgoing year was fairly challenging for us in our line of work, as it was for everyone else working in other areas. We strived to uphold the ideals of justice and loyalty to international law, and democracy in international affairs. Unfortunately, the objective trend towards the emerging multipolar world runs into the stubborn reluctance of those who, for several centuries, have been deciding the fate of the world, to renounce their hegemony and domination in international affairs, even though they now lack the strength for it. Moreover, the issues that arise in international relations can be resolved only through collective effort.

Unfortunately, international humanitarian cooperation, the work that you and I are doing, has been seriously tested by these attempts to politicise the situation, and to resort to not entirely pure methods, including attempts to politicise the activities of organisations such as UNESCO.

We have advocated and will continue to advocate for an end to such attempts to politicise the work of this noble forum, and we want all of us to strictly abide by the mandate of this organisation of ours.

Speaking at the opening of the St Petersburg International Cultural Forum on November 17, President Putin noted that culture, art, and education provide an answer to the challenges of barbarism, intolerance, and aggressive radicalism which threaten our entire civilisation. We took note of the new Director-General of UNESCO Audrey Azoulay’s call for depoliticisation and joint efforts in addressing common pressing problems. We expect that these intentions will turn into practical deeds. I believe that the commitment to the traditional values ​​of UNESCO, and ensuring the non-confrontational nature of the key areas of its activities are the recipe for success.

The outgoing year was good for our dialogue with the Organisation. The 39th session of the General Conference was an important event. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Olga Vasilyeva, who led the Russian delegation and achieved positive results for both the Russian Federation and UNESCO in general.

The revised version of the Strategy for Reinforcing UNESCO's Action for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict adopted during the session reflects our priorities and provides a good foundation for progressive development of cooperation in this sphere. The signing of a memorandum of understanding between the State Hermitage and UNESCO on the protection and restoration of cultural treasures in conflict zones came as a significant step in this area.

In the wake of serious damage inflicted by terrorists to the rich cultural and historical heritage of the Middle East, we are striving to re-energise UNESCO's activities to restore Palmyra and Aleppo monuments. Unfortunately, things slowed down following the first few positive steps, as the pressure that continues to be applied to the UNESCO Secretariat reflects that regrettable fact that political considerations continue to prevail over common sense.

Significant progress was made in promoting educational and awareness projects. As I mentioned earlier, a session of the General Conference took place in November, at which it was decided to create, under the auspices of UNESCO, an International Competence Centre in Mining Education at the St Petersburg Mining University. The General Conference resolved to include in the calendar of memorable dates of 2018−2019, anniversary dates related to names such as Maxim Gorky, Ivan Turgenev, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and Marius Petipa. On our initiative, 2019 was proclaimed International Year of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements.

Two more of our sites were added to the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2017, namely, the Assumption Cathedral and the Monastery of the Island Town of Sviyazhsk, as well as the Russian-Mongolian Landscapes of Dauria natural project. So, today Russia is on the list of the world’s top 10 states with its 29 cultural and natural World Heritage sites. Ensuring their safety in close coordination between all relevant departments and regions is what matters now.

It is in our interest to engage the potential of UNESCO to promote cultural cooperation in the vast Eurasian space. This topic was discussed during my recent meeting with the heads of a number of Russian regions. In particular, we supported the establishment of the Eurasian Cultural Centre in Moscow, the International Centre of the Epos of the Eurasian Peoples in Yakutsk, and the Archaeological Centre in Khakassia. The 2nd Eurasian Humanitarian Forum dedicated to professional training was held in Bashkiria in July. The appointment of Mintimer Shaimiyev as UNESCO Special Envoy for Intercultural Dialogue speaks volumes about the high assessment of the contribution made by our regions to promoting international cultural cooperation.

We pay special attention to protecting journalists in areas of armed conflicts, countering fake new and media radicalisation, raising the quality of vocational training and developing recommendations for ethical conduct when it comes to the work of UNESCO in the sphere of communication and information.

Given the leading role of UNESCO in developing international approaches to addressing matters related to information society and ensuring information security in the cultural sphere, we will continue to increase our participation in intergovernmental programmes such as Information for All, Development of Communication, and Memory of the World. We will continue to provide comprehensive support to the relevant Russian committees’ activities.

We welcome the decision of the 202nd session of the UNESCO’s Executive Board to update the Charter of the Memory of the World Programme in order to depoliticise it. With the energetic participation of the Russian Committee of UNESCO Information for All Programme in June, the 3rd World Meeting of UNESCO Experts entitled “Multilingualism in cyberspace for inclusive sustainable development” was held in Khanty-Mansiysk. It contributed to implementing the resolutions of the World Summit on the Information Society.

Energetic efforts were made to strengthen our positions at the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, and we managed to retain our place in the Executive Council of this structure.

Good results were achieved as part of the Man and the Biosphere Programme. Largely thanks to our efforts, it was decided, at the 29th session of the International Coordinating Council, which is the governing body of the Programme, to include three Russian biosphere reserves in the UNESCO World Network, as well as to create the first cross-border reserve in Russia jointly with Kazakhstan.

Global Geoparks ranks high on the list of UNESCO’s most popular projects. We welcome and encourage the interest of our regions in this work. With the assistance of the Russian Committee of the International Geosciences and Geoparks Programme, we filed an application for creating the first such site in Bashkortostan. The Republic of Altai and the Irkutsk Region are next.

We continued our studies, in collaboration with the Ministry of Economic Development and the UNESCO Chair at Moscow State University, of global issues within the framework of UNESCO’s Management of Social Transformations Programme. It resulted in developing the International Master's Programme on Social Transformations.

Increased attention in the outgoing year was paid to forming a cluster of secondary vocational training institutions within the network of UNESCO Associated Schools. The 10th International Conference “Ob-Irtysh basin: Youth studies and preserves the natural and cultural heritage in the regions of the great rivers of the world” was held in Khanty-Mansiysk in May (the name sounds a bit long, but states the matter quite clearly and concretely, I believe).

We attach great importance to developing another UNESCO educational network − the UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs Programme − that turned 25 this year. We believe it is important to step up cooperation in this area in order to popularise our scientific and practical achievements, and to form an objective image of Russia in the international educational space.

In the coming year, we will witness a lot of vivid and exciting events hosted by UNESCO. Among them, the celebration of International Jazz Day in St Petersburg on April 30, 2018. The choice of this city on the Neva River as the World Capital of Jazz-2018 (kudos to Igor Butman), of course, speaks to the recognition of Russia's significant contribution to promoting this wonderful music genre.

In closing, I would like to wish everyone Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. All the best to you, your families and your loved ones.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2998812






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and response to a media question at a joint news conference following talks with UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, Moscow, December 21, 2017



21 December 2017 - 19:41









Ladies and gentlemen,

Together with the Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu, we had frank and important talks. We discussed matters relating to the current stage of efforts seeking to advance the Syrian settlement in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 with UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura.

We note that Mr de Mistura regularly visits the Russian capital. We also hold regular meetings at international venues. This is important for us to be able to compare notes on a number of processes that started recently, and which we want to synchronise and ensure their contribution to the success of the UN-sponsored Geneva process in accordance with UNSC Resolution 2254.

Of course, you are aware that international activity around Syria has increased significantly recently. The Astana process started off about a year ago. It is unfolding under the umbrella of three guarantor countries – Russia, Iran and Turkey – with the participation of observers from the United States and Jordan, as well as representatives of the office of the UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura.

Today we also noted with satisfaction that Mr de Mistura will go to Astana directly from Moscow to participate in the next round of Astana talks between the delegations of the Syrian Government and the armed opposition.

In addition, as you may be aware, a joint statement of the Presidents of Russia and the United States was adopted, and a trilateral meeting of the presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey took place in Sochi on November 22. Due to the fact that the task of eliminating the terrorist threat has been largely accomplished, today we concentrated on the issues that need to be resolved in order to set the necessary pace for the political process. All this gives us additional opportunities to advance the overall task of a political settlement. This is what we focused on today.

I would like to reassure everyone (for some reason, there are still doubters out there) that, as President Putin repeatedly stated, we want full and comprehensive compliance with Resolution 2254.

In light of the not so satisfactory outcome of the latest round of intra-Syrian consultations in Geneva, we discussed the steps that will be required for the next round – when Mr de Mistura deems it possible to convene it – to be positive and to promote direct dialogue between the Syrian Government and the opposition.

In conjunction with my colleague, Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu, we provided detailed explanations with regard to the Russian initiative supported by Iran and Turkey, about convening the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. Just like the Astana process, preparations for the Congress in Sochi are designed to promote the implementation of Resolution 2254 under the auspices of the United Nations.

We also touched upon the humanitarian situation in Syria, including Eastern Ghouta outside Damascus, Raqqa and Deir ez Zor. We share the opinion about the need to increase humanitarian aid to the Syrian people, and to provide assistance to the efforts to rebuild that country. We are convinced that it must be done without politicising the issue, shifting accents to benefit either side of the conflict, or artificially fomenting the so-called “tragedies of the day,” without any preliminary conditions, or tying in external assistance with promoting the agenda of a particular external player. It is imperative to strictly abide by the rules of international humanitarian law, impartiality and lack of bias. I look forward to our colleagues from the UN, I mean the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, following these principles in their subsequent steps.

Today we also talked about the need to step up UN efforts to coordinate the agreement on the [UN] involvement in humanitarian mine clearing. So far, the UN potential in this area has not been used. We believe this to be wrong.

Speaking about the humanitarian situation in Syria, unilateral sanctions imposed by some Western countries on Syria must certainly be lifted as they are having negative effects primarily on ordinary people.

In my view, our talks today were very helpful. We have an understanding that Russia, Iran, Turkey and the UN have a common goal, which is a comprehensive and complete implementation of Resolution 2254 on a Syrian settlement under the auspices of the UN, which includes drafting a new constitution and preparations for holding general elections on its basis that will be overseen by the UN.

We have agreed to maintain contacts, compare notes and coordinate our efforts as the political process and the situation on the ground develop.



Question:

After the victory over terrorists in Syria, tensions still remain in the fourth de-escalation zone in Idlib, where large numbers of militants from Jabhat al-Nusra have fled. Do countries guaranteeing the [de-escalation] process, which are Russia, Turkey and Iran, have the intention to defuse the tensions in this de-escalation zone? Is the transfer of control over all de-escalation zones to the Syrian Army being contemplated?



Sergey Lavrov:

Certainly, our goal is to defuse the tensions, which can be seen from the very term – de-escalation. We are working together with our partners in both this zone and others. In this case, our partners are Turkey and Iran, and our three countries are guaranteeing the de-escalation process. We have coordinated how these zones will operate, including observation and checkpoints where the military from our three countries will be sent.

Of course, it is a troublesome zone and, perhaps, the most difficult one. Indeed, militants from Jabhat al-Nusra are still there and we are working with them, urging them to stop the violence. I believe that if they fail to fulfil the agreements reached by the countries guaranteeing the de-escalation process and tensions continue to run high, the military from the three countries will agree on the measures that will allow them to put an end to this unacceptable activity.

As for the future of the de-escalation zones, they have not been created to last forever. At this stage, they have been established for six months with the possibility of extension. This will be decided by our colleagues from the military through their contacts with their counterparts in Iran and Turkey.

In addition to the need to stop armed skirmishes and hostilities, another reason why we are vigorously pushing for the de-escalation zones is that we see them as the first step towards national dialogue on national reconciliation and the establishment of absolutely pragmatic contacts between the local authorities of each zone and federal authorities. This includes logistics, the delivery of humanitarian aid and measures to ensure that people can leave the zones and return home.

Hopefully, the national dialogue process, in which we support the Syrian Government in order to facilitate this contacts [between the opposing parties], will, ultimately, involve the whole nation. To make this happen, Russia, with support from Iran and Turkey, has come up with an initiative to hold the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. As I already said earlier today, we informed Staffan de Mistura and his colleagues about what is being done in this area. As to organisations and private individuals who will be invited to attend the congress, this issue will be considered in Astana tomorrow, as the three presidents agreed in Sochi on November 22. The document signed by the presidents of Russia, Turkey and Iran in Sochi says that the three countries will coordinate their lists of guests to the congress among themselves.

We have reaffirmed that all participants in the Geneva process are invited to the Sochi congress. No doubt about this. I believe that as we move the political process forward through the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, which we see as a contribution to the Geneva talks, we will all firmly abide by our obligations specified in UN Security Council Resolution 2254 on the restoration of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3000048
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 24th, 2017 #327
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Interview with Director of the Foreign Ministry Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Mikhail Ulyanov for Rossiya Segodnya news agency, December 18, 2017



18 December 2017 - 20:07





Question:

Could you comment on the situation around further investigations of chemical incidents in Syria? Earlier, the Foreign Ministry declared that you have not drawn a line under the case of Khan Sheikhoun and Moscow will be against further politicisation of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Will a new mechanism be created? What will be further efforts in this direction? Will Moscow move a new draft resolution to the UN Security Council?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

This matter is not yet entirely clear. One thing is obvious today: the previous OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism disbanded and ceased to exist. It was “killed” by Western governments headed by the US, which voted against Russia’s UN Security Council draft resolution on extending and reinforcing the Joint Investigative Mechanism mandate. What is more, some of them, while voting, likely failed to understand that when they voted against our draft resolution, they put an end to the Mechanism’s operation. They suddenly changed their minds later, when they proposed consideration of a successor to the Joint Investigative Mechanism. We are not against consultations on this subject but we can say directly that, given this negative experience, we will be ready to accept a new investigative mechanism only if its mandate and investigative methods fully conform to the high standards of the Chemical Weapons Convention. This first of all means the need for investigations directly on the scene of crimes involving the use of chemical weapons. In addition, the new structure should resume investigations of the Khan Sheikhoun incident because the former JIM did not do its job and actually offered a cooked report which does not pass muster. We agree not to insist on carrying out new investigations of all previous cases, responsibility for which the JIM equally groundlessly assigned to Damascus. However, one case which took place in the area of the town of Sarmin in 2015 should be re-investigated, bearing in mind the JIM’s imaginative explanation that a barrel of chlorine, allegedly dropped from a Syrian military helicopter, got into a ventilation shaft of about the same diameter on a house roof. If these, in my opinion, absolutely reasonable conditions will be acceptable to our western partners, we could start talks about a successor to the JIM. We are not ourselves planning to move a new draft resolution at the UN Security Council. As for the tragic events in Khan Sheikhoun, we believe that sooner or later the real perpetrators will be identified. To do this, there is no urgent need to establish a new international investigative mechanism right now.

Other schemes can be used, including an investigation carried out by Syrian authorities, because Khan Sheikhoun will not be controlled by fighters forever.



Question:

What does Russia think about the recent statement by OPCW Director-General Ahmet Uzumcu, who said that the mission’s work in Syria dispelled any doubts regarding the OPCW capability to investigate the chemical attacks in Syria?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

I have not seen this statement. But if it has been made indeed, the grounds for this optimistic assertion are unclear. In fact, the situation is completely different. Following the attack at Khan Sheikhoun, Russia and many other countries became convinced that the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria (FFMS) is unable and even unwilling to investigate the incident thoroughly. Even when the UN Secretariat’s Department of Safety and Security (DSS) secured the cooperation of the local field commanders regarding safe access to Khan Sheikhoun, the FFMS refused to make use of this. For the past few years, the OPCW mission preferred to conduct its investigation from Turkey. This is ridiculous. As a result, the OPCW personnel are unable to ensure compliance with the basic principle of appropriate chain of custody procedures for evidence collection and delivery to the assigned laboratory for analysis. The OPCW documents say that environmental samples that have been left unattended by international personnel even for a short time shall not be accepted as evidence. This principle was violated many times in Syria. There are also problems with the testimony of the alleged witnesses, who are brought to the FFMS attention by the fighters and the notorious White Helmets. The FFMS has not even stopped to ponder the fact that 57 of the 247 victims of the alleged sarin attack requested medical assistance before the attack. There are many more of such absurdities. The trouble is that our opponents are avoiding fact-based discussions, preferring to say that they have full confidence in the conclusions of international agencies. This is nothing other than propaganda of very low quality that has extremely negative consequences.



Question:

What can you say about Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad’s statement that the report by the UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism could be written before the investigations even began?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

I do not think this statement should be taken literally. Of course, JIM’s report was not written before the investigation but is based on its results. In our opinion, what the high-ranking Syrian diplomat wanted to say is that the conclusion on Damascus’ guilt in the sarin attack at Khan Sheikhoun was made too hastily, that no other options were considered, and that JIM’s task was to make this conclusion as credible as possible. Moreover, it has been done extremely clumsily.



Question:

Some Western politicians and media suggest that Damascus may have failed to report all of its chemical weapons stocks before their destruction. What does Moscow think about this hypothesis?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

I would like to say that after Damascus joined the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) it submitted a declaration on its chemical stocks in compliance with the CWC provisions. Damascus was pressed for time and compiled the document amid ongoing hostilities. It is not surprising therefore that the essence of this document subsequently provoked questions. This is not at all unusual. Several states that joined the CWC in peacetime had to clarify and augment their declarations after their submission. In other words, the presumption of innocence should apply to Damascus and other states in this situation. There is not a shred of evidence to prove the allegation that the Syrian authorities have concealed part of their chemical stocks. If anyone has any doubts regarding this, the CWC stipulates challenge inspections, which should have been used instead of throwing unsubstantiated accusations at Damascus.



Question:

Russia completed the destruction of its chemical stocks in September 2017. The US authorities have postponed the destruction of its chemical stock several times. Can you explain this hesitation?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

Indeed, the US chemical weapons stockpiles were smaller than the Russian stocks, yet the United States has not completed their destruction to this day. It plans to do this in 2023 and explains that this is due to environmental safety reasons. This does not amount to a violation of the CWC. The conference of the CWC states has allowed Washington to complete its chemical demilitarisation in six years. However, everyone would be pleased if the US completed this task sooner, just as Russia has done. This lengthy delay with the implementation of its CWC obligations is not good for the US image.



Question:

A Greek military diplomat has told RIA Novosti that Washington is using NATO agencies to promote a decision on the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe by 2020. Do you know about these US plans? If there are such plans indeed, what does Russia think about them?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

Russia has withdrawn its nuclear weapons to the national territory. We believe that our American partners should have done the same long ago. However, they continue to deploy their nuclear weapons in Europe. According to the available information, there are up to 200 US nuclear-tipped aviation bombs in Europe. Moreover, Washington plans to modernise them so that they would be better suited for military purposes thanks to increased accuracy and decreased destructive capacity, according to some retired US military. However, the deployment of additional nuclear bombs in Europe, if there are such plans, would only aggravate the situation.



Question:

What do you think about the call made to Russia in Brussels last week to actively engage in a technical dialogue with the United States on compliance with the INF Treaty, as well as about NATO concerns regarding Russia’s compliance with the treaty?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

The recent NATO statement regarding the INF Treaty means that US allies have taken Washington’s side in this dispute. Before that, they refrained from taking sides, which was a reasonable policy that gave Europeans room for manoeuvre and gave them more opportunities in the relevant discussions. The situation has taken a negative turn now, because Europeans’ voice in support of the United States cannot influence our position but may aggravate the existing contradictions.

We will need to take this into account in our work. Also, I would like to say that this NATO statement sounds rather cynical considering that three of its authors – the United States, Romania and Poland – are directly involved in INF Treaty violations. Romania and Poland have agreed to accept the US Mark 41 launching systems, which are not supposed to be based on land.

As for our position, we continue to advocate the settlement of our differences through negotiations. We reaffirm our firm commitment to the INF Treaty, and we do not intend to withdraw from it, unless the Americans force us to do so. We believe that this treaty continues to play an important role in the system of European security and meets Russia’s interests at this stage.



Question:

How much is Moscow concerned about the US decision to finance the creation of a new cruise missile, which has been partially approved in the new defence budget and may become reality next year?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

The decision to finance research and development activities aimed at creating a ground-launched cruise missile will further aggravate Russian-US contradictions over compliance with the INF Treaty. Strictly speaking, R&D activities are not in violation of the treaty, but they amount to a factual step towards the production of such missiles, which will amount to a treaty violation. Therefore, we have a negative attitude to this decision. The Americans have a specific mentality. They cannot understand that the means of pressure they are using against Russia do not, cannot and will not help find acceptable solutions. Likewise, such language and behaviour in relations with Russia are clearly flawed and counterproductive. The Americans find it hard to accept this. There are certain clichés and stereotypes which they have been using without due regard for the specific elements of a problem or a partner, in this case, Russia.



Question:

How would you describe the results of the 31st session of the Special Verification Commission under the INF Treaty in Geneva?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

The Commission’s work is confidential by its nature. The parties have coordinated a press release on the results of their meeting, and I have nothing to add to it, with the exception that this meeting has not made any progress towards settling the existing differences.



Question:

Will new meetings be held?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

We have no information regarding a new meeting. First we need to absorb the results of the latest session.



Question:

Full-scale talks on adopting an International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Chemical and Biological Terrorism are hindered by the United States. Has the US clarified its position on this document?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

As far as we know, the United States intends to complete a review of its foreign policy by the end of the year. It is unclear yet if this document will clarify the US position on the draft convention. So far, as you have said correctly, the United States has been hindering the talks. I believe this position is irrational. The United States does not deny the fact of the increasing threat of chemical and biological terrorism. Therefore, the drafting of an international agreement aimed at strengthening the legal framework for international cooperation in a more efficient struggle against this evil would be in the interests of all states, including the United States. So, there is a possibility that the United States will change its position. However, it does not necessarily mean that this Russian initiative will be withdrawn if Washington confirms its negative approach to it following a review of the US foreign policy. It will remain on the table until Washington revises its attitude to it.



Question:

Are our countries cooperating in the fight against chemical terrorism?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

Regrettably, we are not cooperating on this issue, although it deserves attention. We have tried a dozen times to condemn the acts of chemical terrorism in Syria and Iraq at the UN Security Council by adopting a resolution or a statement by the UNSC President to this effect. But every time the United States and its allies blocked this initiative. Certain contacts on chemical terrorism are underway at the OPCW, which was drafting a document on this issue at the initiative of the United States and Germany. We were not satisfied with some provisions of this document, and consultations were held for a long time. An acceptable text was ultimately coordinated, and the document has been adopted. It is not a bad document, and I hope it will be used, but this does not mean that the proposed convention for the suppression of acts of chemical and biological terrorism is not necessary.



Question:

What does Moscow think about Pyongyang’s refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the face of US nuclear blackmail?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

Russia firmly believes the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty must be universal. We urge all countries on which the entry of this document into force depends to sign and ratify it, just as Russia did many years ago. This fully applies to North Korea, because its accession to this treaty, just as the accession by the United States and the six other states that have not done this yet, is essential for the entry of this treaty into force. But it would be completely unrealistic to expect this now, the more so that Pyongyang considers its growing nuclear potential as a means of deterring the hostile US policy. It is likely that a solution to this problem lies within the framework of a nuclear settlement on the Korean Peninsula.



Question:

Pyongyang announced at the latest meeting of the UNSC that it would not abandon its nuclear weapons programme. What is Moscow’s attitude to this statement, considering that Russia and China have called on both the United States and North Korea to launch a dialogue?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

Our position is well known. We condemn violations of UNSC resolutions by Pyongyang. We point out the defiant and provocative nature of the continued testing of missiles and nuclear weapons and believe that it is aggravating the existing problems. We believe that this problem cannot be settled by the adoption of new sanctions, which are not effective anyway, as has become evident to everyone. It looks as if the Americans are tightening the sanctions because they cannot offer any other solution and do not have a clear, coherent and forward-looking policy on this issue. Actually, a solution can only be found through diplomatic efforts. And one of the key elements of this solution is the reliability of security guarantees the international community can offer to Pyongyang to convince it to abandon its reliance on nuclear weapons. This is what we need to consider. As for our views on further steps in this sphere, they have been set out in the Russian-Chinese roadmap, which is becoming increasingly relevant.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2994085






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s reply to a media question about Japan’s intention to dump Fukushima liquid nuclear waste into the Pacific



19 December 2017 - 20:43





Question:

Some Japanese and British press outlets are reporting that Japan intends to dump liquid nuclear waste from the Fukushima accident into the Pacific. Could you please comment?



Maria Zakharova:

We are alarmed by regular media reports about the intention of the Japanese operator of the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant to dump into the ocean a large mass of liquid nuclear waste produced by the accident there. I am referring to the statements made by TEPCO Chairman Takashi Kawamura in July 2017, and the recent publications in some foreign newspapers, for instance The Independent and Japan News. We note that this waste amounts to hundreds of thousands of tonnes of radioactive water. We believe that such large-scale dumping may do substantial damage to the environment and fish stock of the Pacific. This would deal a blow to Japanese fishermen and, probably, the residents of coastal areas in general. We cannot rule out a possibility of cross-border damage. The dumping of radioactive waste may have an adverse effect on the interests of the fishing industry in Russia and other countries of the region.

We believe that the Japanese Government should ban the dumping of radioactive water into the ocean and find ways of safely processing the waste from the Fukushima disaster. If Japan does not have such technology, it could ask the world community for assistance.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2996952






Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s comment on US sanctions against Russian organisations in the context of the INF Treaty



19 December 2017 - 21:34





Washington continues laying its own fault at Russia’s door by pointlessly accusing us of having violated the Treaty between the USA and the USSR on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty). We have repeatedly suggested that the Americans present at least some data in support of their groundless claims, but this did not happen even at last week’s meeting of the Special Verification Commission under the INF Treaty. Instead, Washington announced on December 19 that it was introducing sanctions against two Russian organisations.

As we have noted before, we are used to sanctions. The US has been enthusiastically imposing restrictions against us for almost four years now, but the Russian economy and military might have become only stronger due to this. The illusion that we can be intimidated, one harboured by certain US politicians, can only reveal their full ignorance of Russia and their dangerous lack of foresight.

However, we are concerned over other things. The United States seems to be setting a course for dismantling the INF Treaty and looking for a pretext. But it will not have its way putting the blame on Russia. We have repeatedly noted clear violations of the INF Treaty committed by the United States, including ground deployment – at a military base in Romania – of installations capable of launching Tomahawk-type strike cruise missiles, which is prohibited. Washington will bear full responsibility for a possible destruction, as a result of these irresponsible actions, of one of the pillars of the arms control system.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2996972






Director of the Foreign Ministry Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Mikhail Ulyanov’s interview with the Interfax news agency, December 19, 2017



20 December 2017 - 20:49





Question:

Mr Ulyanov, is dialogue on strategic stability going on with the current US administration given the freeze in many areas of cooperation? Is Washington a difficult and unpredictable partner for us in this area or is everything not so gloomy?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

The Obama administration stopped full-fledged contacts on the entire range of strategic issues in 2014. These contacts have not been resumed but at the same time it would be wrong to say that there is no dialogue on issues of strategic stability. These issues are regularly discussed during bilateral contacts at different levels. In addition, agreement was reached with Donald Trump administration to hold an interdepartmental meeting on strategic stability, which took place in Helsinki on September 12. It was attended by a Russian Deputy Foreign Minister and an American Under-Secretary of State. The meeting was useful since the participants focused on the most problematic issues to ensure better understanding of each other’s approaches and concerns.

To conduct further practical discussions, it is necessary for the US administration to complete its reviews of nuclear policy and missile defence. It is expected to do this fairly soon. But even regardless of this, contacts on strategic stability issues, including the situation with arms control treaties, will be continued.

As for the United States as a partner, it has never been easy. At the same time, Russia and, hopefully, the United States will realise the burden of special responsibility before the entire world as its largest nuclear powers. So, no matter what assessments we make of each other, and what difficulties we may face in our cooperation, it is important to continue thinking together how to move forward and reduce threats to international security through joint efforts.



Question:

US President Donald Trump stated his intention to review his country’s nuclear forces and build up its nuclear capability. At the same time we are being urged to develop a treaty on further reductions of strategic nuclear weapons. Do we understand the US strategy in this sphere?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

Donald Trump did not or does not simply intend to conduct a nuclear posture review. On his orders, the US administration has been conducting this review since the beginning of the year. It is expected to be completed in early 2018. In addition, a new US national security strategy could be adopted within the same timeframe. Then we could talk about US plans.

In any event, any new developments in this area can hardly be expected. Evidently, the US strategic arsenal modernisation programme will continue as formulated under Barack Obama. The Pentagon is focused on completely overhauling the nuclear triad, including the development of a new strategic bomber and the replacement of missile carrying submarines and ICBMs. A new air-launched long-range cruise missile with a nuclear warhead will be developed. Plans call for modernising nuclear weapons command and control systems and other infrastructure. Spending for this purpose could top $1 trillion over 30 years.

Sometimes it is argued that the United States is replacing nuclear weapons that have effectively gone beyond their service life and that there is nothing unusual about this. However, this argument goes only so far. We are seeing a number of systems undergoing deep modernisation. Take, for instance, the B61 bomb modernisation programme: under this programme, the bomb will have a lower or variable yield but higher accuracy. Nuclear systems with such specifications are ceasing to be “political weapons” and turning into “battlefield weapons.” Since the United States is deploying B61 bombs on its NATO allies’ territory, eventually nuclear weapons will appear in the European theatre. Against this backdrop, the Pentagon is saying that NATO nuclear tactics are also being upgraded. Meanwhile, NATO’s so-called joint nuclear missions are ongoing, in the framework of which non-nuclear members participate in planning the use of US non-strategic nuclear weapons and are involved in training exercises to handle these weapons, which is a direct violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We cannot possibly ignore such approaches in planning our national security activities.

As for developing a treaty on further reductions of strategic nuclear weapons, we have not received such proposals from any party. At some point, the Obama administration suggested considering the possibility of cutting nuclear weapons by a third of the 2010 START levels. However, this idea has not been on the political agenda for several years now.



Question:

Does Russia consider it crucial to extend the START Treaty after it expires in 2021? If the treaty is not prolonged and if the new bilateral agreement that we oppose is not adopted, how big would the risk be that we could end up without any strategic offensive weapons monitoring and verification systems and would have to act blindly?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

The START Treaty, which runs through 2021, provides for a five-year extension. We are willing to considering this option – at least to discuss it with the Americans. At the same time, before this conversation begins, it is important to know that Washington allows for the possibility of such extension. In other words, we need a partner prepared for this kind of conversation. Right now, this is not what we are seeing. Although there is still time, because the Treaty will remain in force for more than three years.

In this context, it is wrong to say that we are opposed to developing a new bilateral agreement. Our position is that the steps to reduce and limit nuclear weapons that Russia and the United States are jointly taking have come to a point where all nuclear-capable countries should also join these efforts. This applies primarily to the UK and France as the US’s NATO military allies. Incidentally, the START Treaty contains a provision regarding the need for all nuclear powers to join Russia-US efforts. As such, it is important to provide international conditions whereby nuclear arms reductions and limitations would harmoniously strengthen international stability, peace and security of all states without exception. We are ready for a conversation, including with the United States, on creating such conditions based on equal partnership and consideration for the interests of all parties involved.



Question:

Is there a risk that New START parameters will not be met by February 5?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

Indeed, before February 5, 2018, we should reach New START targets on delivery systems and warheads. Russia faithfully complies with the treaty and will meet its commitment on arms ceilings. We are absolutely confident about this.



Question:

Are US strategic non-nuclear weapons and their redeployment potential an impediment to the full implementation of the START Treaty? Can this issue be resolved under the current agreement and its verification system?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

As far as we know, the United States has not yet developed strategic nuclear ICBMs or SLBMs. In any case, the START Treaty makes no distinction between ballistic nuclear and conventional missiles: All of them fall under the provisions of the treaty as strategic offensive weapons. What’s more, the START Treaty directly provides for the possibility of converting strategic heavy bombers into nonnuclear bombers, after which they are excluded from the count.

Regarding redeployment potential, the Treaty does not rule it out. For instance, the aggregate number of strategic systems counted under the Treaty includes a parameter such as 800 systems for deployed and non-deployed launchers and heavy bombers. As for warheads, if they are not on deployed delivery systems, they are not taken into account under the New START Treaty.



Question:

What is the actual significance of the INF Treaty? Should it be viewed from a technical standpoint, i.e. as a tool for mitigating security threats Russia is facing, or rather as a link in a chain without which the whole arms control system would fall to pieces, producing a domino effect for other agreements?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

Just a few days ago we marked the 30th anniversary of the INF Treaty. Over these years many different opinions on the treaty have been voiced. We believe that the INF Treaty has clearly played a significant role in strengthening European and global security and stability. By signing and implementing this instrument we made a major step towards disarmament by eliminating two types of nuclear-missile weapons. For us, the INF Treaty remains the cornerstone in the reduction of nuclear weapons and one of the key elements in the international arms control regime.

These are challenging times for the treaty. The US accuses Russia of violating this instrument, but these accusations are not supported by evidence, which makes a detailed review of these grievances impossible. If there are any grounded claims against Russia, they should be clearly articulated and backed by corresponding facts. This has not been the case so far. The US recently pointed to a Russian missile (known as the 9М729) that allegedly violates the INF Treaty. However, the Americans have yet to explain what makes them believe that the missile’s range exceeds 500 kilometres. There is no doubt that they came up with these allegations for a simple reason that no such data exists, since the specifications of the 9М729 missile are fully compliant with the treaty.

At the same time, more and more calls to impose additional sanctions on Russia for these alleged violations can be heard in the US. An approach of this kind does nothing to resolve treaty-related issues. One can even suspect that the main goal pursued by the US in making these fake allegations is to portray Russia as a recurrent violator of its international commitments, while turning a blind eye to its own shortcomings.

For instance, we have serious objections regarding the use by the Pentagon of target missiles during tests of missile defence systems, since these target missiles are very similar in terms of their specifications to intermediate-range missiles. We have also voiced misgivings over the use of combat UAVs, which fall within the treaty’s definition of a ground-based cruise missile. The deployment in Eastern Europe of universal launchers as part of Aegis Ashore anti-missile complexes is also an obvious violation of the INF Treaty, since this system can launch both interceptor and attack missiles. While the deployment of sea-based launchers of this kind is not banned under the treaty, having them on land runs counter to its provisions.

Russia has reaffirmed its adherence to the treaty on numerous occasions. We remain committed to preserving it, but without any free-wheeling on behalf of the US. We are ready to discuss in a constructive manner all the issues that have to be addressed bilaterally and be free from excessive politicisation.



Question:

If the US launches the development of a new ground-based cruise missile with the funds allocated by Congress, will this be a signal of Washington’s intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty, which would in turn require Russia to respond in kind?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

On December 12, Donald Trump signed the so-called National Defence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 that features funding for the development of a ground-based conventional cruise missile on a mobile platform with a range banned under the INF Treaty. The US claimed that the treaty does not ban research and development, which is true. In fact, the US went as far as to say that it was forced to take this initiative as part of a package of measures designed to help Russia return into the treaty’s fold and put an end to its noncompliance.

It is obvious that this is pure fantasy coupled with far-fetched accusations against Russia of violating the INF Treaty. All this is aimed at discrediting Russia, artificially whipping up tension and stepping up pressure on our country as part of the all-round strategy of containment.

For us, the persisting refusal to present any evidence to back the claims against us confirms that what the US is actually after has little to do with keeping the INF Treaty alive or could be even headed in the opposite direction. Moreover, the escalation of the propaganda campaign could be a sign that Washington has decided to withdraw from the treaty (just as the US did with the ABM Treaty). When they do not have a credible pretext, they try to fabricate one.

On this matter it is hard to add anything to what President Vladimir Putin said at the October meeting of the Valdai Club: “If our American partners wish to withdraw from the treaty, our response would be immediate and reciprocal.”



Question:

The opening of the US base in Poland in 2018 will complete the third and last phase of the deployment of a US ballistic missile defence system in Europe. Will Russia view this as a tactical or a strategic system? Its military and technical response will depend on the answer to this question. Will the US BMD system impair Poland’s security, just like it did in Romania?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

The unilateral and unrestrained deployment of the US global BMD system is one of the biggest problems in the sphere of strategic stability. The US missile defence architecture in its entirety, including the European segment, will change the balance in the sphere of offensive weapons dramatically. Another danger is that this BMD umbrella can fuel the belief in one’s invulnerability and impunity and hence provoke unilateral steps to settle global as well as regional problems. Also, this can lower the nuclear threshold.

Compliance with the coordinated BMD parameters helped maintain stability for a long time. The United States withdrew from the landmark ABM Treaty, which is the cornerstone of the international security system, saying that their action is not directed against Russia. Strategically, it is not intentions but military capabilities that matter here. The Russian leadership stated in this context that we will have to respond by improving our offensive weapons, primarily their ability to evade air defence systems. The Russian military are analysing possible ways to protect national security, focusing on the deployed capabilities and the possibility of improving them.

As for the latest deployment of BMD systems in Romania and Poland, I strongly doubt that this will strengthen their security. If anything, it won’t.



Question:

The United States plans to deploy Aegis radar stations in Japan. Do they pose a danger to us? Moreover, Japan plans to buy these systems, which means that they will stay put in Japan. Actually this will create a permanent source of threat to our security. As a result, the combination of threats in northeast Asia will become comparable to the threats coming from the West. Should Russia pay more attention to this situation and take specific response measures?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

Japan is playing a key role in the implementation of the dangerous and destabilising US global BMD plans. Due to technology exchange together with regular joint ballistic missile defence activities (including exercises), as well as efforts to align the Japanese and the US air defence command systems, an increased level of interoperability of the two countries’ air defence systems has been achieved. The US and Japan are developing an improved Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor. Tokyo has approved the deployment of two AN/TPY-2 forward-based radars in Japan. A decision to deploy two US Aegis Ashore land-based systems in Japan would be in line with this dangerous policy.

In addition to constituting yet another step towards creating a full-scale Asian-Pacific segment of the UN global BMD system, this will also amount to a major change in Japan’s military capability, because Aegis Ashore includes vertical launch systems capable of launching offensive weapons, including Tomahawk cruise missiles. Of course, we will have to take this factor into account and may need to take measures to protect our national security. We have openly pointed this out to our Japanese partners, in addition to telling them that the deployment of the Aegis Ashore systems in Japan would constitute yet another US violation of the INF Treaty, this time with Japan’s assistance.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2998923
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 24th, 2017 #328
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on US veto of UN Security Council draft resolution on Jerusalem



19 December 2017 - 15:28



On December 18, the UN Security Council voted on a draft resolutions proposed by Egypt on behalf of the “Arab Group.” The draft resolution affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, and calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem, pursuant to resolution 478 (1980) of the Security Council.

The Security Council failed to adopt the resolution after the US delegation voted against it. All other members of the Council voted in favour.

By submitting the draft resolution, the Arab states sought to respond to the decision announced by US President Donald Trump to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and instruct the Department of State to work on moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The decision was criticised not only by Arab and Muslim countries, but around the world, and resulted in an escalation of tensions in the West Bank and Gaza.

It is unfortunate that as a permanent member of the UN Security Council aspiring to the role of the key mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the US has chosen an approach that runs counter to the will of the international community and is diluting the international legal framework of the Middle East Peace Process. It is actually not the first time that this has happened.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2996544






Press release on a meeting of the Russian-Palestinian Working Committee on the Middle East



19 December 2017 - 18:21



On December 19, a regular meeting of the Russian-Palestinian Working Committee on the Middle East was held in Moscow. The Russian party was represented by Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov (Committee Co-Chairman). The Palestinian party was represented by Nabil Shaath, Palestinian President’s Advisor on Foreign Affairs and International Relations and member of the PLO Central Council (Committee Co-Chairman), Saleh Raafat, member of the PLO Executive Committee and the Palestinian Democratic Union, Qais Abdel Karim, member of the DFLP Political Bureau, and Ambassador of the State of Palestine to Russia Abdel Hafiz Nofal.

The participants discussed the Palestinian-Israeli settlement process, including the situation resulting from the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In this context, the parties stressed the importance of settling all final status questions, including the concrete parameters of the status of Jerusalem, in the course of direct Palestinian-Israeli talks and on the basis of well-known international legal principles, including the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly as well as the Arab Peace Initiative.

Nabil Shaath praised Russia’s principled position on ending the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, which began in 1967, and establishing a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. He also expressed his gratitude for Russia’s contribution to intra-Palestinian reconciliation.

The parties reaffirmed their shared intention to maintain confidential political dialogue at a high level as a crucial component in the further development of traditionally friendly Russian-Palestinian relations.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2996797






Press release on the results of the 37th Meeting of the BSEC Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs



19 December 2017 - 18:26



On December 15, the 37th Meeting of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) was held in Kiev, concluding Ukraine’s BSEC chairmanship.

Unfortunately, during the previous six months and at the BSEC meeting, Ukraine was unable to prevent the BSEC dialogue from politicising. On the contrary, there were cases of abuse of the role of chairmanship, violations of regulations and problems over organisational issues. Ukraine constantly tried to introduce anti-Russian lines of argument into the dialogue as well drawing delegations into discussions untypical for the BSEC. These efforts were opposed by Russia.

As a result, BSEC member countries managed to focus on the issues that are part of the organisation’s mandate. In particular, the participants exchanged opinions on prospects for cooperation between the region’s countries and ways of stepping up project activity and reforming the organisation. Topics discussed also included: the outcome of the meeting held by ministers of transport, the sessions of the working groups on trade and economic cooperation, protection of the environment, small and medium-sized businesses, science and technology, agriculture and the agro-industrial sector and on countering organised crime as well as other events that took place during the last six months of this year.

Armenia has taken over the BSEC chairmanship for the period from January to June 2018.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2996807






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the new US National Security Strategy



19 December 2017 - 20:59



It was with regret that the Foreign Ministry discovered the confrontational nature of the new National Security Strategy of the United States, unveiled on December 18. It is based on a vision that depicts the world from a position of strength and leads to adversity instead of promoting constructive and equal cooperation with other countries working together to resolve the existing challenges. Instead of seeking to promote partnerships, this document reveals the ambition to preserve at any cost the much weakened US dominance on the international stage.

Hence the anti-Russia proclamations scattered all over the text. The fact that Russia, as well as China, strengthened their economic and military might, is presented as a challenge for the United States. In other words, Washington clearly does not want our countries to become major powers, fearing to lose the dominant status it once enjoyed. It is for this reason that Russia is accused of threatening the world order, which in this case apparently stands for the unipolar world structured around the interests and needs of the United States.

The programme acknowledges the “central role of power in international politics.” The United States has long been guided in its policy choices by this vision. The new strategy does not change anything. All it does is openly state where the United States is heading, reflecting Washington’s growing incertitude in its standing.

As far as Russia is concerned, we reaffirm our readiness to promote partnership ties with the United States free from any attempts to impose anything or interfere in our domestic affairs. A genuine and effective partnership is possible only when based on the principles of equality and mutual respect.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2996962






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the adoption of a resolution of the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly on combating the glorification of Nazism



20 December 2017 - 14:38



On December 19, a plenary session of the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution at Russia’s initiative on combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The text of this resolution was previously approved by the Third Committee of the 72nd UNGA session.

This year the number of this resolution’s co-authors reached 57. Very many countries, 133, have voted for this resolution. As in previous years, the United States and Ukraine voted against it, while 49 countries, including the EU member states, abstained.

The problems covered by this resolution are becoming increasingly acute in countries where the glorification of the Nazi movement and former Waffen-SS soldiers, an organisation that has been denounced as criminal by decision of the Nuremberg Trials, is permitted and where Nazi collaborators are praised as national heroes.

A key element of this resolution is the condemnation of the war on memorials commemorating those who fought against Nazism, a war that is being waged in some countries, as well as the condemnation of regular marches of Nazis and Nazi collaborators and the nationalists’ torch marches.

It is regrettable that some delegations have not supported this resolution, claiming that they do this out of concern for the freedom of opinion.

The broad support for the Russian initiative and the number of its co-authors increasing each year confirm the importance of combating the glorification of Nazism and neo-Nazism today and reminding people about the horrors of the Second World War and preserving the memory of those who gave their lives for Victory.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2998146






Joint statement by Iran, Russia and Turkey on the International Meeting on Syria in Astana, 21-22 December 2017



22 December 2017 - 17:46



The Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey as guarantors of the observance of the ceasefire regime in the Syrian Arab Republic:

- reaffirming their strong and continued commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic;

- welcoming progress in the implementation of the Memorandum on the creation of the de-escalation areas in the Syrian Arab Republic of 4 May 2017;

1. Welcome the achievements made in the fight against terrorism in Syria, particularly the defeat of ISIL and imminent liberation of all the Syrian territory from ISIL;

2. Reaffirm their determination to continue cooperation in order to ultimately eliminate DAESH/ISIL, Nusra Front and other terrorist entities as designated by the UN Security Council and to prevent the relocation of international terrorists to other countries and regions;

3. Express joint determination to continue coordinated efforts to ensure that the progress in reduction of violence is irreversible. They underscore the necessity to take urgent and active international steps in order to assist the Syrians in restoring unity of the country, and achieving a political solution of the crisis in accordance with the provisions of UNSC resolution 2254 (2015) through an inclusive, free, fair and transparent Syrian-led and Syrian-owned process leading to a constitution enjoying the support of the Syrian people and free and fair elections with the participation of all eligible Syrians under appropriate UN supervision;

4. Reaffirm their determination to closely interact on a regular basis to support preparation for and convening of the Syrian national dialogue congress in Sochi on 29-30 January 2018 with the participation of all segments of the Syrian society and call on the representatives of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the opposition that are committed to the sovereignty, independence, unity, territorial integrity and non-fractional character of Syria to actively cooperate. To this end three guarantors will hold a special preparation meeting in Sochi before the congress, on 19-20 January 2018;

5. Emphasize that they view the upcoming Syrian national dialogue congress as an initiative aimed at giving momentum to negotiation process under the UN auspices in Geneva and facilitating an intra-Syrian agreement based on mutual consent;

6. Adopt, with a view to building confidence between the conflicting parties in Syria, the "Regulation on the Working Group on the release of detainees/abductees and handover of the bodies as well as the identification of missing persons" and the "Joint statement on humanitarian mine action in Syria including the UNESCO list of cultural heritage sites";

7. Reaffirm their determination to continue implementing the provisions of the Memorandum of 4 May 2017 and other decisions adopted earlier within the framework of the Astana process;

8. Emphasize the need to continue efforts aimed at strengthening the ceasefire regime and ensuring the effective functioning of all four de-escalation areas;

9. Express their sincere gratitude to the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, His Excellency Nursultan Nazarbayev and the Kazakh authorities for hosting in Astana the 8th high-level International Meeting on Syria;

10. Decide to hold the next high-level International Meeting on Syria in Astana in the second half of February 2018.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3001212






Working Group on the release of detainees/abductees and handover of the bodies as well as the identification of missing persons



22 December 2017 - 18:12



REGULATION

With reference to the UN Security Council resolution 2254(2015), the Working Group is created in order to improve the humanitarian situation in the Syrian Arab Republic.

The objective of the Working Group is to organize and facilitate release by Syrian government and the armed opposition groups that signed ceasefire agreement of detainees/abductees and handover the bodies as well as identification of missing persons.

The Working Group consists of the following representatives:

1. Guarantor-States (the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey) - 3-4 persons each;

2. The United Nations - 3 persons.

The representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, third countries and other relevant organizations which may contribute to the effective functioning of the group, may be invited on an ad hoc basis to the meeting, if necessary, based on coordination and agreement by the members of the Working Group.

The three Guarantors will act in close consultation and coordination with the conflicting parties.

During its regular meetings in Astana or other places as agreed by its members, the Working Group will:

- Prepare, agree and exchange lists of detainees/abductees, bodies and missing persons regardless of their origin, or alternatively submit lists to a neutral intermediary which shall be identified by the Working Group;

- define preliminary conditions and procedure of release of detainees/abductees, by prioritizing the most vulnerable persons as a first step, and handover of the bodies as well as identification of missing persons;

- appoint a neutral intermediary that will facilitate release of detainees/abductees and handover of the bodies as well as identification of missing persons of the parties based on the lists provided by the Working Group and maintain dialogue between authorized representatives of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and armed opposition.

The three Guarantors commit to use their influence on the parties so that parties ensure that detainees are treated humanely at all times and that issues of concern are brought to the attention of the Working Group, and that this agreement is implemented by the parties in good faith. All parties commit not to undertake any reprisal measures against released persons.

The Working Group will hold its first meeting on the margins of the next high-level International Meeting on Syria to be held in Astana. It will start its work by preparing its terms of reference which may include measures to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Regulation.

The Working Group will prepare progress reports on the implementation of the present Regulation and submit to the guarantors. The UN Special Envoy will be briefed accordingly.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3001235






Joint Statement on humanitarian mine action in Syria including the UNESCO list of cultural heritage sites



22 December 2017 - 18:18



The Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey (hereinafter – the Guarantors) state that there exists a large-scale threat of deliberate destruction and mining of world historical monuments and UNESCO cultural heritage sites in Syria by terrorist organizations.

The contamination from explosive hazards in populated areas as well as in historical and cultural heritage sites in Syria constitutes a great threat in light of their global significance for the world civilization.

The Guarantors call upon the UN Member-States to take urgent and necessary actions to preserve historical heritage for future generations, to demine and dispose of the explosive hazards regardless of the political context.

The Guarantors call upon the UN Member-States to provide technical support for the effective and rapid execution of mine action operations, to share relevant information and data as well as to provide for financial resources for humanitarian mine action.

The Guarantors emphasize the central coordination role of the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) in solving this problem.

The Guarantors call upon the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the UNMAS to work closely together to establish International Mine Action Group. The Guarantors will facilitate efforts of the international community on mine action and disposal of explosive hazards in Syria.

The Mine Action Group will develop a roadmap for launching the humanitarian mine action operation and ensuring safe access of the specialists to the de-mining sites.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3001245
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 25th, 2017 #329
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 21, 2017



21 December 2017 - 18:24









Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura

Today, on December 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu will meet with UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura in Moscow. The officials, who maintain regular contact, will continue to discuss all aspects of the Syrian settlement process, including in the context of the results of the eighth round of the intra-Syrian consultations in Geneva, the eighth round of the international meeting on Syria in Astana, which began earlier today, and the preparations for the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura are also planning to give a joint news conference later today. After the talks, detailed information will be posted on the Foreign Ministry website.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson

On December 22, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who will be on a working visit in Russia.

The talks at the Foreign Ministry are expected to focus on the status of and prospects for relations between Russia and Great Britain with a view to finding ways to normalise them and step up bilateral cooperation. A discussion of current international and regional issues is planned.

There is also a planned news conference following the talks. Hopefully, the British party will not make changes to this agenda.



The situation in Syria

The successful operation to eliminate the military and political seat of international terrorism in Syria with the decisive role played by the Russian Aerospace Forces is coming to an end. The Syrian Army has managed to uphold Syria as a sovereign and independent state. The ISIS terrorist group has suffered a devastating defeat and ceased to exist as a military and political organisation on Syrian soil.

Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces, President of Russia Vladimir Putin, efforts are ongoing to withdraw the Russian grouping of forces back to Russia, to their permanent stationing locations. A portion of service personnel will remain in Syria on full alert to help the Syrian military prevent dangerous incursions by the terrorist underground and not allow the remaining terrorists to move to neighbouring states and from there on to other regions and countries.

Although ISIS has been defeated, the security situation remains difficult. Syria is facing a serious threat of terrorist attacks, mortar fire and hostage taking. Recently, local security services prevented a major terrorist attack in Damascus, identifying and destroying a “jihad-mobile.” The son of a Syrian People’s Council deputy, a Mr Ramyah, was assassinated in Aleppo. The remnants of ISIS gangs taking shelter in the vast desert area straddling the Homs and Deir ez-Zor provinces, attacked Syrian Army checkpoints near the T-2 oil pumping station and al-Mueysiah [?]. On December 17, Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists attacked Army positions in northern Hama but were stopped by the Syrian military with support from the Russian Aerospace Forces.

Syrian government forces continue pushing out al-Nusra militants in southwestern Damascus. The military approached the strategic settlement of Magher al-Meir. Taking control of several high grounds made it possible to cut off jihadist supply and redeployment routes near the town of Beit-Jin.

Alongside its antiterrorism efforts, the Syrian leadership is working to foster local ceasefires, as well as the national peace process. A regular meeting between Syrian security forces and Jeirud city council members took place in eastern Qalamoun with mediation by the Russian military that addressed issues related to disarming local illegal armed bands, restoring the work of government agencies and evacuating “implacable” militants.

Needless to say, al-Nusra terrorists are impeding the effective operation of the Eastern Ghouta de-escalation zone. With Russian military’s assistance, the Syrian authorities managed to coordinate conditions for the withdrawal of 1,300 al-Nusra fighters and their family members from Damascus suburbs to Idlib, but the agreement fell through at the last moment over differences among al-Nusra members, some of whom rejected the “humiliating capitulation.”

Positive humanitarian trends are strengthening. More Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons are returning to their homes. The authorities are actively reconstructing the socioeconomic infrastructure damaged during the years of the conflict and creating conditions for peaceful life.

Unfortunately, not all parties are sincerely interested in resolving the Syrian crisis as soon as possible. We are seeing attempts to undo what has been achieved and derail the political process. Even though the opposition delegation in Geneva was reformatted Bashar Assad’s opponents have not recovered from their old “ailments.”

We regret that the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura did not deem it necessary to duly assess the clearly provocative statements by opposition members during the December rounds of intra-Syrian consultations, which they deliberately disrupted in a bid to impede progress toward peace, among other things, hindering the implementation of the initiative to hold the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

Moscow is also disappointed with Mr Mistura’s remarks after the intra-Syrian contacts in Geneva, in particular his allegations that the Syrian government delegation had disrupted the intra-Syria discussion. In our opinion, this is an attempt to shift the responsibility to the side that was not to blame for scuttling this round.

At the same time, we reaffirm our willingness to work in close coordination with the special envoy and his team in Geneva, Astana and Sochi in the interest of fostering a political settlement in Syria based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

To reiterate, an in-depth exchange of views on all issues is expected today. The Russian side will share its results at a news conference.

On December 21-22, the eighth international meeting on Syria will take place in Astana. We have high hopes for it. Plans include considering and signing documents on mine clearance in Syria and freeing detainees and hostages. Special attention at the Astana meeting will be given to organising and holding the Syrian National Dialogue Congress that we regard as a forum designed to jumpstart the UN-brokered negotiating process in Geneva and help the Syrians reach reconciliation agreements without any preconditions in keeping with the provisions of UNSC Resolution 2254.



UN Security Council resolution renewing authorisation for humanitarian access to Syria

On December 19, the UN Security Council renewed the authorisation for cross-border and cross-conflict-line humanitarian access to Syria for a further 12 months, until January 2019. Russia, China and Bolivia abstained. Russia did this because the draft resolution did not fully take into account Russia’s proposals to increase the transparency of this regime and to consider ways to gradually lift this provision.

At this stage, we did not veto the renewal of humanitarian access, acting primarily in the interests of the Syrian people who need assistance, as well as taking into account the position of neighbouring states across which aid is delivered.

Russia will closely monitor humanitarian deliveries to Syria and aid distribution among the people within the framework of the renewed mandate. We expect the UN Secretary-General to review the situation within the approved timeframe with a view to curtailing the cross-border delivery system, which is unavoidable in the context of the resumption of Syrian Government control over the entire territory of the country. UN humanitarian agencies and their partners should start considering a transition to more traditional means of providing assistance in coordination with the Syrian authorities and in full compliance with the principles of providing emergency humanitarian assistance and respect for Syria’s sovereignty.



Developments in Yemen

Military and political tensions persist in the Republic of Yemen. According to UN data for the period between December 6 and 16, 115 civilians have been killed and over 80 have been wounded in air strikes carried out by the Arab coalition in support of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi on targets in the Sana’a, Saada, Hodeida and Taez provinces, which are controlled by the Ansar Allah (Houthi) movement. In reply, the Houthis fired one more ballistic missile towards Riyadh on December 19, promising to continue these attacks against Saudi Arabia. This can further escalate the conflict throughout the region.

Moscow is deeply concerned about the continued armed confrontation in Yemen. We have to point out that the use of military force is aggravating the suffering of Yemeni civilians, spreading hostilities to neighbouring countries and hindering the launch of substantive talks, which we see as the only reasonable strategy to overcome the differences between the conflicting parties. The sooner they realise this the better it will be for Yemen, Yemenis and the region as a whole.



Situation in the Middle East settlement process

Tensions persist in the Palestinian territory due to the continued street protests against the US President Donald Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Developments in and around Gaza have reached a dangerous level. The number of casualties is growing every day.

In this situation, the UN Security Council voted on this issue. I am sure you know the voting results. We believe that, regrettably, this decision can only further aggravate the situation. In our opinion, the best solution to this extremely unfavourable situation in the Palestinian-Israeli track would be the resumption of a direct dialogue between the parties on a firm and lasting peace based on the well-known international decisions. At the same time, efforts must be taken to prevent the further escalation of the situation on the ground and actions that can harm innocent people and prevent the achievement of a lasting peace.



New US anti-Russia sanctions

On December 19, the Foreign Ministry issued multi-format comments on US sanctions against Russian organisations in connection with unjustified accusations regarding Russia’s alleged violation of the INF Treaty. And now, we have to talk about Washington’s new anti-Russia moves that are linked with the so-called Magnitsky Act. Under this act, they have been trying to present us with human-rights claims during the past five years.

Yesterday, the United States extended this act’s sanctions to cover several more Russian citizens, including Head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov. Therefore 195 Russian citizens, as well as 402 Russian companies, are currently covered by various US-imposed restrictions.

Of course, all this already looks grotesque because this is not based on anything real. Unfortunately, we have to reaffirm our position that these moves will be followed by reciprocal measures. We have always acted this way. We have always noted that this is not our choice, while responding in this manner. We strive to cooperate with the United States in the long-term. We are ready for this, and we believe this is the right option.

We regret to note that some political and security groups in the United States still want to continue disrupting bilateral relations, to officially call Russia an adversary, to call it a threat in the US National Security Strategy and to continue their sanctions games. Indeed, all this looks ridiculous against the backdrop of common challenges and threats facing our two countries as well as the entire world.

In our opinion, it is high time that the groups lobbying for precisely these negative developments in bilateral relations realise that this is dangerous for international stability, and that this would benefit no one, including the people of the United States.



Washington’s accusations of Russia allegedly violating the INF Treaty

We are noting that the United States continues to elaborate on this matter. We are talking about permanent planting of false information in the media, comments and statements about Russia’s alleged violation of the INF Treaty. At this stage, they have started accusing Russia that the range of the 9M729 cruise missile, now being adopted by it, does not meet the Treaty’s requirements. As usual, the United States does not provide any evidence because it appears that there is absolutely no such evidence.

The above-mentioned 9M729 ground-launched cruise missile meets the Treaty’s requirements completely. It was not developed and tested, so as to exceed the range banned by the Treaty. The missile is being deployed in strict conformity with Russia’s international obligations.

We are urging the United States to stop speculating on the matter of the so-called Russian “violations” and to become constructively involved in a dialogue to settle well-known Russian claims regarding the observance of the INF Treaty by the United States itself. I would also like to recall that this implies virtual efforts to upgrade intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles during the Pentagon’s use of target missiles in anti-missile tests and an attempt to leave strike drones outside the Treaty that defines them as ground-launched cruise missiles. The United States is also deploying Mk-41 multirole launchers, part of the Aegis Ashore systems, in Eastern Europe. These launchers can be equipped with strike missiles. Moreover, Washington has announced plans to launch a programme for developing missile systems that are banned by the INF Treaty. This is a direct way towards wrecking the Treaty.

While reaffirming our commitment to the Treaty, we are expecting the United States to revise its counter-productive line and to resume depoliticised and professional dialogue for resolving the accumulated problems.

We remain committed to our traditional position, and we are informing the United States, our partners as well as our colleagues about this position via various channels during talks.



US arms supplies to Ukraine

Russia is extremely disappointed by the fact that US authorities licensed an unnamed independent arms manufacturer to supply Barret М107А1 large calibre sniper rifles to Ukraine. This is the first time Washington has officially announced the transfer of weapons to Ukraine, although only recently it became known that AirTronic USA has been supplying hand-held grenade launchers to Ukraine since April.

The fact that from a formal point of view arms supplies are carried out under business contracts without the involvement of official channels does not change anything. This is merely camouflage, and an attempt to distort reality. The green light to these deliveries came from officials in Washington, which means that the US assumes full responsibility for the consequences and for the lives of Ukrainians who may fall victim to US arms.

We know all too well what the Kiev authorities stand for. Today, not only us, but also the vast majority of experts understands this. By arming them the US is actually pushing them to resume large-scale bloodshed in Donbass, which is already on the brink due to constant shelling from the territories controlled by Kiev. In fact, Washington is becoming complicit in the killing of people who opposed the government coup by nationalists in Ukraine, and stood up for their right to speak their native language and preserve their values. I think that over time, history will straighten the record. I hope that this happens now, not in many years. This would prevent a large number of casualties.



Withdrawal of Russian officers from the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination of the ceasefire and stabilisation along the line of contact in Ukraine

As it has already been announced, on December 19, Russian officers representing the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation at the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination of the ceasefire and stabilisation along the line of contact in Ukraine left the Ukrainian territory. Russia was forced to recall its officers. The reasons for this decision were provided in all clarity and are well known. Let me remind you that the Russian officers were unable to work within the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination due to Kiev’s position, since Kiev still prefers for the Donbass issue to be settled by force instead of implementing the Minsk Agreements. In these conditions, it no longer made any sense for the Ukrainian authorities to maintain the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination, which, according to our international partners involved in the efforts to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, has become one of the key mechanisms for promoting settlement in southeastern Ukraine.

In addition, Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko signed an executive order effective January 1, 2018 to step up controls on foreigners entering and exiting the country and their stay on its territory. Its provisions include obtaining excessive personal and biometrical data, including fingerprints, which contradicts Russian laws on the status of military personnel and is thus unacceptable for representatives of the Russian Defence Ministry.

Once again, Kiev tries to benefit from the withdrawal of Russian officers from the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination, distort the report to this effect and accuse Moscow of all possible sins, even though we promptly provided clear comments on this matter. There is no doubt as to why this is happening. The internal political situation in Ukraine calls for a constant flow of news stories accusing outside aggressors and justifying the authorities in their actions and everything that is taking place in Ukraine. It seems that they are doing just that.

Russia calls on Ukraine to focus on implementing its commitments under the Minsk Agreements in full, unconditionally and consistently, instead of trying to shift the blame for not doing so.

Russia hopes that its foreign partners, above all in the Normandy Format, as well as the US, will not stay on the sidelines and will be able to persuade the Kiev authorities to do so.



Developments in Honduras

We have been following closely the evolution of the difficult domestic political situation in Honduras, which emerged after the country held a general election on November 26. According to the returns published by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal of Honduras the other day, the winner in the presidential race is the current incumbent, Jose Orlando Hernandez, who has a 1.53 per cent edge over his closest rival.

I would like to remind you that Honduras is the Russian Federation’s promising partner in Central America. Both countries are promoting a political dialogue and have introduced a visa-free travel arrangement for citizens. They have also signed an interstate Treaty on the Foundations of Relations. We attach much importance to cooperation with that country within the framework of Russia’s dialogue with the Central American Integration System (CAIS).



The 72nd Session of the UN General Assembly approves a resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism

On December 19, the 72nd Session of the UN General Assembly adopted at its plenary meeting the Russian-sponsored resolution “Combatting glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related tolerance.” Somewhat earlier, its wording was approved by the Third Committee of the 72nd UN General Assembly.

This year, the number of the document’s co-sponsors has reached 57 and it was supported by an impressive majority of states, 133, with only the US and Ukraine, like the case last year, voting against it and 49 countries, including EU members, abstaining from the vote.

The topicality of issues raised by the resolution continues to grow for a number of countries, where glorification is bestowed on the Nazi movement as well as former Waffen-SS legionnaires recognised as a criminal organisation by the Nuremberg Tribunal, and where Nazi collaborators are extolled as national heroes.

I would like to note once again that a detailed report was posted on the Foreign Ministry’s official website on December 20.



Polish insinuations as regards the “Smolensk” air crash

We must state with regret the Polish administration’s steady desire to impose [on the public] all sorts of conspiratorial versions of the April 10, 2010 air accident, which saw the Polish presidential plane crashing to the ground near Smolensk, killing President Lech Kaczyński, his wife, and the entire government delegation. This sad event, a consequence of a tragic combination of a number of factors, is groundlessly presented as resulting from well-nigh premeditated actions by the former Polish authorities that were allegedly in collusion with the Russian Federation.

We do not think it necessary to dwell upon this subject once again: all possible information has been immediately passed on to the Polish side and is available to journalists. We repeatedly discussed this theme. A great number of joint events were held, including news conferences, briefings, plus interviews, during which exhaustive answers were provided to all possible questions. Therefore, we don’t think it is necessary to come up with any detailed responses and repeat once again what was said each time a new bogus story is planted, including to react to allegations that Russia might be concealing important witnesses who could shed light on some supposedly unaccounted causes of the disaster. These accusations are clearly untenable. The only thing I would like to remind you about is that the Interstate Aviation Committee and an authorised Polish commission conducted separate investigations at that time. Their conclusions were generally identical and ruling out anyone’s criminal intent.

Both the Russian and Polish law enforcement agencies are continuing parallel investigative activities and exchanging relevant information under a mutual legal assistance arrangement. However, they have found nothing fundamentally new lately.

We proceed from the need to respect the memory of the dead and again call on the authorities in Warsaw to refrain from exploiting this tragedy for political purposes.



Results of Russian-French Cultural Tourism Year

Between December 7-8, the Russian Spiritual and Cultural Orthodox Christian Centre in Paris hosted an official ceremony devoted to closing of the reciprocal Russian-French Cultural Tourism Year 2016-2017.

Many different kinds of events were organised, the most important of which included celebrations devoted to the 300th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and France, the international congress European Routes of Peter the Great dedicated to the life of the Russian Emperor and the forum Russian-French Cultural Routes. The overlapping Year strengthened bilateral ties between Russian and French cultural organisations, helped establish new tourist routes and destinations as well as boosted inter-regional cooperation.

The exhibition Tsar Peter the Great in France in 1717 became an important event whose opening on May 29 in Versailles was timed to coincide with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to France and his meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron.

The reciprocal Cultural Year showed that both the people of Russia and France remain sincerely interested in each other and display mutual respect and sympathy even during this difficult period for mutual relations, and that they aspire for consistent long-term development of mutual dialogue and cooperation.



French authorities hamper Russian journalist’s work

On December 18, officials from French President Emmanuel Macron's office denied RIA Novosti correspondent Viktoria Ivanova, who has been duly accredited for working in the country, permission to attend a protocol event at Élysée Palace. The Russian journalist was deprived of an opportunity to fulfill her editorial office’s assignment and to prepare a report on the presentation of credentials by the newly-appointed Russian Ambassador to France Alexei Meshkov. In effect, this event was directly linked with the Russian Federation.

It should be noted that this is by no means the first instance of French authorities’ hampering professional activities of employees of Russian media outlets. Moreover, an openly hostile public atmosphere is being created around Russia’s media resources. Less than one day after RT television channel obtained a broadcasting license in France, a certain conglomerate of French public activists asked Olivier Schrameck, Head of the Superior Audiovisual Council (Conseil Supérieur de L'Audiovisuel), to revoke the license. This was preceded by the August 2017 demarche of the presidential party En Marche! (Forward!) that urged French media outlets to stop systematically spreading information being submitted by RT and Sputnik.

I would like to note two aspects. Obviously, the state in the person of French President Emmanuel Macron is sending a message. All explanations on this matter, including those via diplomatic channels, boil down to a quotation from his statement with regard to RT and Sputnik, as well as journalists working for this media concern. I would like to note once again that this implies the position of the head of France’s executive branch with regard to journalists working there on a legal basis. Doesn’t this amount to an example of the state’s flagrant interference in the work of media outlets?

Secondly, public representatives wrote a letter demanding that the media outlet be shut down and prevented from working. It appears that this letter was prepared on orders from above. On what is it based? The letter’s style and spirit is based on the very same quotation from the statement made by French President Emmanuel Macron.

Moreover, in its November 2 communique, the French mission to the OSCE stated openly that foreign journalists’ accreditation did not automatically allow them to attend official events, and that personal invitations were needed. This event involved the Russian Ambassador who arrived for the relevant official ceremony but was unable to share his assessments and comments with Russian media outlets. In turn, this so-called invitation should not necessarily be issued to representatives of Russian media outlets, primarily RT and Sputnik, because, to quote French President Emmanuel Macron, these media outlets are not such but amount to organisations of influence and foreign propaganda. Can they explain on what specific criteria these findings were based?

We have repeatedly spoken with French representatives and asked them questions and raised this matter during our conversations with Harlem Désir representing the appropriate OSCE division responsible for freedom of speech. We asked him whether the OSCE had any mechanism in the European region that could provide competent expert findings as to whether any media was a media outlet or a propaganda resource, and in what proportion should this be taken into account. We were told that there simply were no mechanisms and criteria in this field. On what information does French President Emmanuel Macron base his findings then?

We perceive these moves as France’s obvious disregard for its obligations in the area of freedom of the media.

Regardless of whether this policy is Paris’ isolated decision or an element of implementing a common EU project to counter Russia in the media sphere, these actions will certainly meet with a Russian response.

I would like to ask one question to my French colleagues: How would Paris and the international community respond if French media outlets experienced the same attitude from Russian authorities? We are hoping very much to receive an answer to this question.

We believe that any politically motivated restrictions of media outlets’ work - and the French authorities' actions would be classified as such - deserve the attention of specialised international institutions. We are once again urging Harlem Désir, French citizen and the OSCE’s Representative on Freedom of the Media, to publicly comment on these developments.

I hope very much that Mr Désir’s national affiliation will not hamper his efforts to exercise the functions of a representative of an international organisation dealing with freedom of the media.



Western plans to tighten internet regulations

We have taken note of the campaign that is currently gaining momentum in the Western informational space to step up control over social media. This push is backed by the financial elite, which own traditional media. The Committee on Standards in Public Life, an advisory body for the UK Prime Minister, has recently released a report expressing concern about the lack of progress Google, Facebook and Twitter are making in protecting users online.

The document calls for updating laws in the part concerning information and communications. To make the case for these changes, the report points to the fact that extremists, terrorists and other mentally unstable people actively use the internet to exert pernicious influence on internet users, including by spreading fake information.

It is true that the world is changing. Only recently, officials in the US, UK and other Western democracies praised the complete and total freedom of the internet, including the social media, their transparency and accessibility. Everything was fine with them. Moreover, as we have reported on a number of occasions, during talks we were presented with social media posts coming from extremists, terrorists and other mentally unstable people as proof of Russia’s intervention in Ukraine or humanitarian cleansing operations carried out by Russia in Syria. To our objections that these posts came from extremist websites, we were told that freedom and democracy are essential for social media.

We have not forgotten the number of fake news that circulated during the Winter Olympics in Sochi. We saw an endless stream of fabrications and false stories to prove Russia’s alleged intervention in Ukraine. When asked to provide evidence, members of US delegations, especially Victoria Nuland and John Kerry, argued that all the evidence could be found on social media. Take for example social media publications on Syria. Just take a look at the reports featuring the girl Bana or the boy Omran, whose photos were spread using social media, as we all know. Let me reiterate that this information was presented as official evidence.

Faced with this situation, our response was not to go after Facebook, Twitter or let alone Google, although we did have a lot of questions, primarily regarding Facebook. However, we have never called for restricting internet freedom. What we proposed was to work together with our Western partners in order to identify ways of securing this area and shielding internet users from terrorist influence. Back then, everyone laughed at us. But now it turns out that in Great Britain, for instance, all this has made its way into legislative proposals. Once again, we are not saying that there is no need to fight fake news or any content related to terrorists and extremists. However, this should be done to protect the freedom of speech and users’ rights. And, of course, it is also essential that we get rid of the infamous double standards. Let me repeat that what we see can be described as an information apocalypse. When we received delegations in Russia or met with others in foreign capitals, the same materials Great Britain wants to combat were presented to us as evidence without any facts. The proposals we made back then to develop approaches in order to shield users from information coming from extremists were not only refused, but led to accusations of censorship and oppression of the freedom of speech. Today, the exact opposite is true, with the only difference that the current developments should not be viewed as a sincere attempt to protect users from falling under the influence of extremists or terrorists, as we understand it, but to assume control over specific segments of the internet.



Contract signed by Georgia with Swiss monitoring company SGS and its work in Georgia

Russia has a positive view of this contract, the first instrument in a package of documents to be signed by Georgia, Russia and Switzerland in order to fully implement the November 9, 2011 agreement between the governments of Russia and Georgia on customs administration and monitoring of trade in goods. Russia is preparing its part of the documents in cooperation with our Swiss partners. This matter was on the agenda, among other things, of the December 19 bilateral contacts in Bern.

Russia supports the implementation of the 2011 Agreement strictly in keeping with its provisions. It is essential that this international instrument stipulates the procedures for moving goods across Georgia’s customs border. Under the contract that has been signed, SGS’ role will be to oversee compliance. We hope that this will lead to the opening of additional transit routes that the regional trade needs so badly.





Excerpts from answers to questions:



Question:

UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is arriving in Russia today. One can recall how he drew a comparison between Russia and Sparta recently or again brought up the theme of Russia’s alleged interference, including in Brexit. You already commented on that. Does the Russian Foreign Ministry treat such statements as rhetoric intended for domestic use, to which one can turn a blind eye? Or do you treat them as the UK’s official position that will determine the course of tomorrow’s talks?



Maria Zakharova:

I think that it is up to London to explain whether Boris Johnson’s statements reflect the official stance of the UK. We view them as Boris Johnson’s own statements. One need not take offence at them.



Question:

Do you think that there is much difference between how the UN reacts to what is happening in Venezuela and in Honduras, where protests continue?



Maria Zakharova:

I am only responsible for the statements and comments made by the Russian Foreign Ministry. We state our position on the events in both Venezuela and Honduras promptly and clearly.

We proceed from the assumption that in their assessments of the situation in this or that part of the world, our colleagues and partners from various countries and regions and, naturally, UN representatives will not resort to double standards, but will judge it objectively. Objectivity is an important criterion when it comes to judging the internal political situation in various countries.



Question:

Let us go back to Boris Johnson. Given his numerous anti-Russian statements, is there any point whatsoever in engaging in dialogue with him?



Maria Zakharova:

Why do you consider his statements anti-Russian? In particular, the one about Sparta and Athens. In my opinion, they are not so much directed against Russia as against the British education system. It is absolutely clear to me that this was a blow to its image. Russia was in no way harmed. We just laughed, that is all.



Question:

On the eve of Boris Johnson’s upcoming visit, besides his own statement, there was the one made by UK Prime Minister Theresa May, who said that Russia has turned into a hostile state, that it is engaged in subversive activities…



Maria Zakharova:

We already commented on that.



Question:

The UK articulated its position clearly. What is the position of Moscow and the Russian Foreign Ministry? What practical results does Russia expect from this visit? What does it count on?



Maria Zakharova:

First, we already commented on this statement by Theresa May. You can take a look at it on our ministry’s website. Second, we never made a secret of our position. It is consistent and I again articulated it today, as I did during my last briefing. The essence is to search for ways to normalise bilateral relations and step up bilateral cooperation. In doing so, we are prepared to discuss the international and regional agenda, all matters of mutual concern on an equal basis, and cooperate in various spheres.

We repeatedly said in our comments on statements and when answering questions, that, unfortunately, the suspension of bilateral dialogue with Russia was London’s choice, which, in our opinion, was unjustified and badly timed. No one profits from fully suspended cooperation, for example, on combating terrorism, at a time when terrorist acts extend to almost the entire globe. Who, if not the UN Security Council permanent member states, should engage in a frank, trust-based and mutually beneficial discussion on this topic? The benefit is very simple: the prevention of terrorist attacks. But even in this field, cooperation was brought to a halt on the UK’s initiative, let alone contacts at other levels. Our position is clear and consistent, we did not conceal it.



Question:

After the independence referendum in [Iraq’s] Kurdistan there were armed clashes between Erbil and Baghdad. What role is Russia playing in resolving this conflict? Is Russia ready to help Erbil and Baghdad seek a peaceful solution to this conflict?



Maria Zakharova:

We regularly answer similar questions and comment on this matter. We believe that these problematic matters, which, unfortunately, sometimes lead to open conflicts, should be resolved peacefully by establishing an internal dialogue in Iraq, something that we urged, in particular, Baghdad to do.



Question:

Several days ago we marked a sad event – the anniversary of the death of Russian Ambassador to Turkey Andrey Karlov. The investigation has shown that the assassination was committed by the "Fethullah Terrorist Organisation" which is referred to as FETO in Turkey. Russian delegations that have recently visited Ankara also pointed to this fact. At the same time, thus far, the adherents of this organisation feel safe and comfortable in Russia. Will measures be taken against them?



Maria Zakharova:

Only competent bodies investigating the accident can comment on the course of the investigation which is being conducted. Regretfully, we cannot be too open on this matter for understandable reasons.

I would like to bring your attention to the material published precisely in connection with this tragic date – I read it the other day on a news website. What struck me was that they wrote that immediately after the assassination of the ambassador, Russia referred to the accident as a terrorist act, thereby unobtrusively offering information to cast some sort of doubt that this was a terrorist act and stressing that this was only Russia’s opinion.

Let me say it again that at рresent we cannot go into details of the investigation because this may prove harmful to it, however, we still definitely qualify it as a terrorist act. I will try, if possible, to provide you with more details if the specialists involved in the investigation supply us with relevant information.



Question:

Some time ago Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested that international cooperation in the 6+1 format to stabilise the situation in Afghanistan might be resumed. Did Washington react to this proposal?



Maria Zakharova:

I will clarify. Right now I do not have such information in my possession. I will see if there is any after the briefing later today. I reaffirm once again our commitment to cooperating with our American colleagues on this matter.

It seems to me that it would be logical to put this question to the American party, perhaps, the US Embassy or the State Department. We would be delighted to hear their public reaction. As you know, we take advantage of every opportunity to discuss the situation in Afghanistan in international formats as well as through bilateral channels.

As to the Americans’ stance, you would be better off asking them. I will see if there is any information on the latest developments.



Question:

Russia has crushed the terrorist organisations in Syria. How do you assess Turkey’s role in this process? Are there any plans to take joint steps with Turkey to restore peace in the region? New Year and your birthday are coming soon. Which event impressed you the most this year?



Maria Zakharova:

As for the aspects of different countries’ involvement in defeating the terrorists, we had better put this question to our military experts. Concerning the role Turkey plays in the political process, as you know, we have been actively cooperating with our Turkish colleagues in this field in different formats, including on the Astana platform. So we have been working in this area. We don’t have identical views on all the issues and there are still discrepancies, but we have been addressing them and they get resolved. We proceed from the premise that the general role of Turkey in facilitating political settlement in Syria and in the region is quite significant.

As for your second question, I’d like to take some time to consider the answer.



Question:

As it often happens, the bulk of this briefing concerned relations between Russia and the West and some bilateral relations. You have mentioned the United States, Ukraine, Poland and France. I have a more general question. How would you describe the Russia-West confrontation? Who is to blame for this? Is the West always to blame, or can Russia say self-critically that the other parties are not always to blame for all of the current problems?



Maria Zakharova:

First of all, the greater part of our meeting today was devoted to Syria, the Middle East and North Africa. In fact, we spoke about these issues most of the time. Let’s be honest with each other, at least on this issue.

Second, you have chosen a strange form for your question, asking if we reject everything the West says regarding Russia or if we can be self-critical. Why this question? What do self-criticism and Western criticism of Russia have to do with our relations? Why should we view the situation from this angle? And then, when have we not been self-critical? I believe that we are more self-critical than any other nation. It seems that we are ready to criticise our activities endlessly. Many foreign journalists, mostly – you won’t believe this – from Asia, the Caucasus and the Middle East ask me why we permit others to criticise us so sharply and why we criticise ourselves more sharply than anyone else. Look at our programmes, talk shows and statements. We never stop ruminating, analysing our history and our present and looking at what we do very critically. I don’t know any other country that would keep criticising itself and doing this more often and more thoroughly than others do.

As for our replies to criticisms by our Western colleagues, the point at issue is not that we do not admit to problems but that we keep saying that we want to deal with our problems ourselves. Thank you for pointing them out to us, but, first, you have your own problems that remain unattended because of your excessive attention to our problems. And second, we can figure them out on our own. Many problems can be settled much better without our foreign colleagues than with their interference in our internal affairs.

As for the global confrontation, as you put it, I believe that it is not the confrontation but the efforts to stand up against a huge information campaign and forced isolation and deterrence, which the other side is not even trying to keep secret. On the other hand, we have been trying equally vigorously to urge our colleagues to resume interaction and cooperation. Frankly, it is not easy to reply to persistent attempts to force Russia into isolation while keeping our hand extended in friendship and cooperation. Do you know any other state that would keep calling for interaction and cooperation and pointing out numerous problems that can only be settled together while pretending not to notice, or trying to avoid, attempts to bite our hand or even do something worse?

As for the main issue discussed at this briefing – Syria, which is logical, it is a good example of how we stood up, or tried to stand up against our Western colleagues’ attempts to destabilise the situation in the region. I am referring to the delivery of weapons to the militants and the provision of financial, moral and information support to them. At the same time, they continued to invite us to dialogue and joint actions. Here is a concrete example. You may remember that we were seriously criticised for launching the operations of our Aerospace Forces. But when did we do this? We did this after President Vladimir Putin proposed at the UN General Assembly that a united front be created to fight terrorists in Syria and throughout the region. We reinforced that proposal with a pledge to take practical steps on the ground and by developing the relevant legal framework. Our proposal remained unanswered. The Aerospace Forces operations were only launched after all the formalities had been observed and Russia had formulated and put forth numerous proposals, both publicly and behind closed doors, without receiving any positive reply to them. The situation brooked no delay; we needed to restore order [in Syria] so as to prevent the terrorist rule from proliferating any more, from spreading beyond the region and possibly reaching Russia. It is one of the many examples.

Browse through the documents of the Munich Security Conference and you will see who was nurturing confrontation. It was done before, during and after 2014. And all the time Russia called for joint action. And it has always been like this.



Question:

Why?



Maria Zakharova:

This question concerns the motives of our Western partners. They sometimes did not try to hide them. For example, the United States for years flaunted its “innovative” approach to international relations based on American exceptionalism. It is the motive of one political group. There were likely other motives as well, such as a desire to contain Russia, which was provoked by the speed of our development. Nobody probably expected us to develop so far; this did not fit in with their plans.

This question deserves a long and serious discussion. And it should not be directed at us. It was not our actions that provoked questions. Speaking about self-criticism again, read our newspapers, watch our television, talk with our political analysts – and you will see a thick layer of regular or even permanent self-criticism on many issues of domestic and foreign policy.



Question:

Yesterday the European Commission started applying Article 7 in relation to Poland, which implies a number of sanctions. What do you think about this? Could it also affect Russian-Polish relations?



Maria Zakharova:

These are relations between Brussels and Warsaw. This is a family matter. We do not interfere in family affairs.



Question:

I know that this does not concern Russia directly but there are some facts. Can you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

I think it concerns relations between Warsaw and Brussels. There is nothing to comment on. The problem should be settled within the EU family itself. We hope the EU will resolve all of its problems. The main point is that there should be no double standards. This is our favourite position.



Question:

Do you think that Poland may follow the same road as Hungary?



Maria Zakharova:

And what road have the Hungarians followed? Let us know.



Question:

They have better relations with Russia than Poland.



Maria Zakharova:

Do you think that turbulence in the relations between Brussels and Warsaw may prompt some rapprochement between Warsaw and Moscow? No, we do not play such games. Let me repeat that family relations should be settled within the EU.

As for Russia’s relations with Hungary, we do not build them on contradictions between different sides. We are developing relations with Poland and other European countries, while aware that they are an organic part of the EU. But we also have bilateral relations with them. We see that sanctions against Russia and the US-led attempts of many EU countries to drive our country into isolation are not accepted by other EU countries. Such examples are not rare. A number of countries consider this policy strange and flawed. They believe it clearly does not benefit the EU and its members in any way. This is obvious. European politicians, those who are in power or are members of the political establishment, admit this. Figures, economic growth rates and other domestic indicators show that sanctions have not benefited the EU. This policy is harming relations between EU countries rather than EU-Russian ties.

I do not think that we should seek advantages for Moscow in some temporary or long-term differences between EU countries and Brussels. I am certain that nobody is going to get involved in this. Without trying to benefit from any disagreements, Russia is openly offering cooperation with both the EU as a whole and individual EU countries. We are talking about the opportunities we have and those we had until the introduction of these sanctions and the losses that both the EU and Russia had to sustain because of them.

We reached a very high level of economic and political cooperation with Brussels as a whole and with individual EU countries in particular. We had enormous opportunities to build on these achievements. Regrettably, having yielded to pressure from Washington, the EU dealt a blow to itself and sustained huge losses. We are frank and honest in this respect and are openly talking about our readiness to cooperate. Why should we wait until our relations deteriorate or issues emerge? We have been telling our Polish colleagues and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini for several years now that it is necessary to cooperate in many areas. There is no sense whatsoever in waiting for problems to emerge in one country or another. On the contrary, by interacting with many Western states, notwithstanding the sanctions, we are showing that despite our differing views and a number of problems, we can still derive mutual benefit from our cooperation.

We are not sitting and waiting for someone to develop problems with a view to rubbing our hands together with glee. Nobody needs this. We are openly and clearly talking about our interests and inviting our partners to cooperate.



Question:

Kuwait will join the UN Security Council as a non-permanent member in 2018. Do Russia and Kuwait have any joint projects for the Middle East and Africa scheduled for that year?



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian delegation maintains a dialogue on all matters that are on the UN agenda with countries elected to the UN Security Council as non-permanent members. This is a normal and natural process.

As for the Russia-Kuwait dialogue, I will be ready to provide additional detailed information on this score for you at a later time.



Question:

In 2018, we will celebrate the 140th anniversary of Bulgaria’s liberation from Ottoman rule. Has Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov received an invitation to take part in these celebrations from his Bulgarian counterpart?



Maria Zakharova:

I will clarify the answer to this question.



Question:

Please pay attention to the Memorial Chapel to the Heroes of Plevna. It needs a facelift, and Interfax journalists said as much.



Maria Zakharova:

I’ll look into what we can do.



Question:

The US has recently published its new National Security Strategy, which names Russia and China as the main threats. It seems to me Russia has responded too mildly. What is the reason?



Maria Zakharova:

Our reaction was quite straightforward. Look at the comment by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov that was posted on the website and circulated via other channels. I covered this theme earlier today.

I can agree with you in that to a certain extent we tire of the same old grotesque steps we see Washington take, steps that are clearly being lobbied by certain forces there.

I think our statements display some weariness from the monotypic approach of those who think that destroying bilateral relations will benefit someone. But I cannot call our reaction mild. We automatically start commenting on those hackneyed claims to the effect that Russia is an enemy, that it interferes in elections, that Russian hackers have hacked this or that, that the “hand of the Kremlin is everywhere,” and the like. These are manufactured in bulk and arranged in lines separated by commas. No one feels surprised or takes this seriously. People understand that this is just a set of messages that can be shuffled and reshuffled. There is neither sense nor practical impact in this.

If earlier their aim was to frighten, they are now aware that they are failing to succeed, that people on the US sanction lists are not grieving, to put it mildly, and that their entire policy of pressure is producing just fatigue and no benefits. We constantly offer interaction and cooperation, but at the same time our position remains quite clear and straightforward.

Apart from everything else, this concept should be studied and analysed. I think we will present a more detailed commentary later. This is a bulky document with numerous sections and our experts are working on it. We will share additional and more profound assessments in due course.



Question:

The Orthodox Church had over 100 Orthodox schools and other property in Jerusalem before 1914. Will Russia defend the rights of the Orthodox Church?



Maria Zakharova:

Russia has been doing this regularly. If you want to clarify the status of properties and facilities owned by the Russian Orthodox Church, I am ready to do that. This is a very interesting subject. I will make a point of presenting detailed information on this at the next briefing.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2999934
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 25th, 2017 #330
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Moscow, December 22, 2017



22 December 2017 - 11:41









Mr Foreign Secretary,

Colleagues,

We are glad to welcome you to Moscow, especially considering that the last time a UK Foreign Secretary visited Moscow was five years ago. It is not a secret that our relations are at an extremely low ebb nowadays, though not at Russia’s initiative. We have taken note that you as well as our other Western colleagues do not share our views on the reasons for this and prefer to say so in the open. We would like to discuss mutual concerns directly with each other rather than through the public. I hope we will have an opportunity to assess the situation in our relations today, including the numerous mechanisms of bilateral cooperation that have been frozen.

I am confident that we will also have an opportunity to discuss positive trends in our trade and economic relations, ties between our business people, as well as our growing cultural and humanitarian ties. We are partners in the UN Security Council and the G20, and as such we definitely need to maintain cooperation despite our different views on many matters. We are willing to do this on the basis of equality, mutual respect and a desire to make mutually acceptable arrangements.

I hope that today we will have an open and direct discussion aimed primarily at mapping out concrete steps towards improving our relations.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3000329






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Moscow, December 22, 2017



22 December 2017 - 14:08









Ladies and Gentlemen,
We have held talks with Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson and his delegation and discussed a wide range of bilateral, as well as international and regional matters.

We agree that the current state of Russian-British relations is hardly satisfactory. Problems have been piling up to form a deadweight that is pulling us backwards, although it seems to me that both sides are willing to find ways to overcome these issues. Furthermore, we believe that putting the relations between our countries back on constructive track meets the interests of both Russia and Great Britain, including in terms of better cooperation on the international stage.

Today, we discussed a number of specific steps designed to normalise bilateral cooperation. Russia reaffirmed its readiness to promote dialogue on a broad range of matters based on the principles of equality, taking into consideration and respecting each other’s interests. We cannot accept a selective approach or any conditions for resolving any matters on our agenda.

We discussed trade and economic cooperation, and noted with satisfaction that mutual trade resumed growth this year. According to Russia’s statistics, trade increased by more than a quarter in the first nine months of 2017. We believe that this is indicative of the readiness by the Russian and British business communities to continue beneficial hands-on cooperation. On Russia’s behalf, we noted that the revival without delay of the Intergovernmental Steering Committee on Trade and Investment would benefit businesses and reinforce the positive trends in this area.

We agreed to resolve a number of issues with a view to improving working conditions for our respective diplomatic missions.

We noted the need to review the consequences of Great Britain leaving the European Union, primarily in terms of the possible effect of the final deal between London and Brussels on Great Britain’s trade and investment ties with Russia and the countries that remain within the EU. We hope that these discussions will pave the way to agreements enabling Russian companies and investors to continue to operate in the United Kingdom. On a broader scale, we have certainly a lot of work ahead of us to decide bilaterally on a series of matters resulting from this situation.

We praised the positive momentum in the long-standing and solid cultural and humanitarian ties between our countries, and welcomed the success of the cross-year of science and education in 2017, especially in terms of promoting cooperation between higher education institutions of our two countries. We agreed to prepare an initiative to hold the cross-year of music in 2019.

Of course, we discussed key global and regional issues, including the need to fight international terrorism as it flourishes in the Middle East and North Africa. We agreed on the urgency to settle regional conflicts, including the situation in Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Syria, through political and diplomatic means.

We informed our British partners of Russia’s efforts to facilitate the political process in Syria, including through the Astana process and the initiative to convene the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi in order to support the UN-led Geneva talks and make them even more effective.

We discussed the situation on the Korean Peninsula, including in the context of discussions on this issue within the UN Security Council. We generally agreed that Russia and Great Britain as permanent members of the UN Security Council should be more proactive and better coordinate their positions on all matters within the authority of the UN Security Council, i.e. questions of international peace and security.

We also touched upon the situation in Ukraine. Once again, we clearly articulated Russia’s position, emphasising the need to fully and unconditionally implement UN Security Council resolution 2202 approving the Minsk Package of Measures, signed in February 2015.

I believe that today’s talks were quite timely. I hope that they will help put our relations back on track in all these and other areas. I would like to thank the UK Foreign Secretary for this meeting.



Question:

Is it true there are still areas where Russia has never been more hostile towards the UK since the end of the Cold War? Do you trust each other?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Boris Johnson):

Frankly, I do not recall any Russian actions that were aggressive towards the United Kingdom. We have never accused London of anything. On the contrary, we have heard accusations, some of which were quite insulting, that we support the “criminal” Syrian regime, that we are the aggressor and occupier, and we annex foreign territories. We have heard all of this, although we have regularly provided information on our position and the reasons for it, in relation to all the regional issues and on many other questions. We never resorted to aggression in replying to these more than aggressive statements made in London by media outlets and television channels, and by UK officials. We have always called for a consideration of the facts. I think that today we have come to an agreement on a number of issues on which we hold different positions, but these divergences will not prevent us from exchanging factual data on vital political and international issues.

As for trust, I trust Boris. I trust him so much that I am prepared to Russify his name and to call him Borees.



Question (addressed to both ministers):

We have recently seen an example of how cooperation between Russian and US special services prevented a terrorist attack in St Petersburg and saved many lives. The UK often comes across the problem of terrorism. Is there potential for Russia-UK cooperation on counterterrorism despite the parties’ political differences? Are our countries ready for practical action in this sphere?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Boris Johnson):

I agree that this is an extremely important issue, on which there should not be any artificial restriction on global cooperation between all countries without exception. As President Vladimir Putin has said, we are in favour of creating a universal counterterrorism front. There should be no attempts to attach conditions to such cooperation. UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has mentioned a practical aspect related to the 2018 FIFA World Cup. First of all, we congratulate Britain on winning the right to take part in this sports festival. Second, the Russian and British agencies concerned are in constant contact with one another to ensure security during the FIFA championships. I know that meetings have been held at the level of interior ministries. The FSB will definitely be involved in this. But truly effective cooperation in counterterrorism has been hindered so far by the decision of the British government to suspend all contacts with the FSB following the so-called Litvinenko case.

The FSB is the main counterterrorism agency in Russia. The National Anti-Terrorism Committee is operating at the FSB and under its guidance. We can hardly expect counterterrorism operations to be as successful as we want and deserve without full-scale contact with the FSB, which London has precluded, as I have said.

We are concerned about British law enforcement agencies’ unwillingness to provide information on the so-called Litvinenko case despite our numerous appeals. A large part of this information has been classified without good reason and it remains classified to this day. I hope that this artificial link between a very controversial case and the obvious need for counterterrorism cooperation will not continue.



Question (for Boris Johnson):

Foreign Secretary, you described Russia this week as akin to the ancient Greek state of Sparta, calling it “closed, nasty, militaristic and antidemocratic”. Can you explain why you used those words? And, Mr Lavrov, do you agree with that explanation?



Sergey Lavrov (speaks after Boris Johnson):

Frankly, I don’t remember the Soviet Union glorifying Sparta and the Spartans as a model that the Soviet Union should emulate. Although, for example, in the United States, Hollywood was praising the Spartans as a paragon of courage, determination and strength. However, this is history, and everyone has their own opinion about it.



Question:

And may I also ask, every time you’ve denied Russia’s involvement in election hacking and democratic interference, the world hasn’t believed a word you said. Why is that?



Sergey Lavrov:

Today, I discussed with Boris the issue of our interference in all kinds of elections. The United States has been looking into it for a year now as part of the Senate hearings, a process led by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, and other formats. Dozens of people have been questioned and have given their testimony under oath. Knowing the American system, when so many people are involved in any specific discussion about Russia’s intervention, it is difficult to imagine that there hasn’t been a single leak in almost a year. This looks nothing like the American political system. Until we are presented with concrete facts, we cannot discuss this topic seriously with anyone.

I already said that we were also suspected of interfering in elections in France and Germany. With regard to Germany, there’s an established fact: several years ago it was confirmed that the US National Security Agency was eavesdropping on Chancellor Merkel’s conversations from its headquarters in Germany. Everyone seems to think of it as a given and no one expresses any concern about it.

With regard to your assertion that we are trying to convince everyone that we did not interfere, and the world does not believe us, by the “world” you probably mean the community of Western nations. But there are many people even in the Western community who have common sense and who have their eyes wide open. For example, the person sitting next to me, Boris Johnson, recently stated that he has no evidence that Russia meddled in the referendum over UK's withdrawal from the European Union.



Boris Johnson:

“Not successfully”, I think is the word that you need to use here.



Sergey Lavrov:

He’s afraid that if he doesn’t contradict me now, his reputation with his media back home will be tarnished.



Boris Johnson:

Sergey, it’s your reputation that I’m worried about. I think it very important that you should recognise that Russian attempts to interfere in our elections, in our referendum, whatever they may have been, they have not been successful. So you can reassure yourself on that point, and that’s an important consideration. Because I think had it been successful, that would be an entirely different matter.



Sergey Lavrov:

Lack of action can never lead to a result, I agree with you. However, we would still like to be presented with the evidence of our intervention, even if unsuccessful. It is very difficult to talk without facts. I think you have made it up, your whole Western fraternity. Unfortunately, you’ve become hostages to this topic. It is difficult to get off the fence, once you get on it.



Question:

Recently, we have heard a lot of negative things about Russia from your British colleague, including talk of hostility, interference in the referendum in the UK, criticism of his colleagues who were in touch with the Russian media, specifically Russia Today. Did such rhetoric continue today, or was it left behind for the UK audiences?



Sergey Lavrov:

You heard us discussing our talks and the subject of interference. We have yet to see a single piece of evidence. If there are a lot of them, then something would have leaked, but we haven’t heard anything of substance so far other than groundless allegations to the effect that someone had posted some cheap ads in some social media.

Of course, we are concerned that in this “cradle of democracy”, the United Kingdom, people are taking heat only for the fact of speaking with Russian reporters. This, indeed, should concern the current government, since it does not do much to uphold its good reputation.

I want to note that Boris said that for the first time since 1945, in connection with the so-called “annexation of Crimea”, some rules were violated in Europe. Let me remind you that there was a referendum in Crimea. Those who really want to make sure that Crimeans have made their choice of their own accord, just go to Crimea, see things with their own eyes, and do not believe the propaganda supplied at every corner by our Ukrainian neighbours and the patrons of the current Kiev regime.

What really cannot be disputed is that for the first time since 1945 in Europe, one OSCE country was attacked by other OSCE member countries. I am referring to the former Yugoslavia, which was completely unlawfully subjected to an aggression, dismembered and, without any referendums, the territory going by the name of Kosovo was declared independent. This is also a situation which came under review in the context of comparisons with the Crimean referendum, where, to reiterate, the situation was quite different and based on a declaration of will by the people and international law.

At today's meeting, we did not shy away from acute topics, and you heard about it at today’s news conference. However, I like the way we discussed it. At least, I do not feel any animosity and do not have any hard feelings myself. I think that this form of dialogue is very useful and will eventually allow us to move towards normalising our relations for the benefit of our peoples and international cooperation.



Question:

Mr Johnson, just a few days ahead of your visit a British parliamentarian warned you to be careful in Russia: not to use the phone to prevent wiretapping, not to drink vodka, to be careful with what you eat (risk of poisoning), not to take the lift alone. Has this advice proven useful? Did you really get an impression that it is so dangerous here?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Boris Johnson, who said that he gave his coat to Sergey Lavrov when he arrived):

I can tell you that there was nothing in the pockets of Boris’ coat.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3000518
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 25th, 2017 #331
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the UN General Assembly resolution on Jerusalem



22 December 2017 - 16:38



On December 21, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on Jerusalem, worded exactly as the US-vetoed draft resolution that was earlier submitted to the UN Security Council. The resolution was approved by 128 member states, the Russian Federation among them. Only nine countries voted against it. The resolution affirms that any decisions and actions aimed at altering the status of Jerusalem, including the establishment of diplomatic missions in that city, have no legal effect.

It is telling that the vote was preceded by open pressure from Washington right in the General Assembly Hall and threats that countries, which would vote in favour of the document, risked losing US aid and support in the future. Menacing letters of the same kind were circulated among the member states by US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of countries backed the resolution.

Very few countries yielded to the blackmail. In that category, Ukraine acted as a loyal subject. After voting for an identical draft resolution at the UN Security Council on December 18, Kiev shied away from the vote in a sign of backtracking from its earlier stance: Ukraine’s representative left the hall.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3000968






Comment by the Information and Press Department on UN Security Council Resolution 2397



23 December 2017 - 14:04



On December 22, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2397, which was a response to Pyongyang’s ballistic missile test on November 29, held in violation of all previous decisions of the Security Council.

In the course of extremely intensive work on the coordination of the resolution’s text, the sides managed to adjust the very harsh initial approach proposed by of the United States, which stipulated a total trade and economic blockade of the DPRK and the imposition of sanctions against all of its top officials.

At the insistence of the Russian delegation, the final resolution provides for the further implementation of the major Russian-North Korean project on Khasan-Rajin coal transit and the continuation of direct flights between our countries. It was decided not to impose sanctions on all North Korean leaders, the government and the Labour Party, as well as to abandon the complete embargo on oil and oil product deliveries to the DPRK. The provisions on detention, search and actions related to “suspicious” vessels were mitigated.

Guided by humane sentiments, we have managed to eliminate the provision on the unconditional and total repatriation of North Korean labour migrants. Now they have to return to their country within 24 months. However, this requirement does not apply to North Korean citizens who have received the citizenship of the host country or those whose repatriation cannot be allowed by the national or international law. We have to emphasise again that Washington’s determination to impose large-scale international sanctions instead of looking for sustainable political and diplomatic solutions will not contribute to solving the accumulated problems and normalising the situation in the region.

In addition to enforcing the sanctions adopted by the Security Council, it is time to begin implementing the provisions that call for a peaceful, political and diplomatic settlement of the crisis through dialogue and negotiations. It is clear that the obsolete, inefficient algorithms for the solution of the Korean nuclear problem have not brought any results. Isolation and pressure must give way to dialogue and negotiations.

We urge all concerned parties, primarily the DPRK and the United States, to exercise restraint and abandon steps that are fraught with unpredictable and devastating consequences for the entire Northeast Asia and beyond.

The Russian Federation consistently calls for the soonest launch of the peace process and is working to find mutually acceptable ways to solve the problems of the Korean Peninsula. The proposed settlement roadmap is focused on these goals.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3001355






Comment by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov on US arms deliveries to Ukraine



23 December 2017 - 14:08



The United States has crossed a line when it announced its intention to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine. Now the deliveries will not be carried out under US companies’ business contracts, as it has been happening for a long time, but under state contracts. They will start with the Javelin missile systems. The question is: what will happen next? In any case, US weapons can lead to new victims in our neighbouring country, and we cannot remain indifferent.

Having played an active role in staging the coup in Kiev several years ago and now gently nurturing the Maidan authorities as they banned the Russian language and bombed those who did not want to stand under Bandera's banners, today the US is clearly pushing them to new bloodshed. Kiev’s revanchists are already shelling Donbass every day, refusing to negotiate peacefully and dreaming of cracking down on the disobedient people by force. Now the United States decided to give them weapons for this.

Unfortunately, it is a waste of time to urge American politicians to see reason. Many of them are so blinded by Russophobia that they are happily applauding the Ukrainian nationalist battalions.

History, of course, will inevitably put everything in its place. However, how can we talk about United States’ reconciliatory role in resolving the conflict in Ukraine in the current situation? Washington is trying to present itself as an intermediary. But it is not an intermediary: it is an accomplice in fomenting a war.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3001369
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 27th, 2017 #332
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Cyprus newspaper Simerini, published on December 24, 2017



24 December 2017 - 09:00





Question:

What is the Russian Federation’s position in the wake of the unsuccessful Cypriot negotiating process, considering that Russia supported the idea of involving permanent members of the UN Security Council in another conference on the Cypriot issue during Cyprus President Nicos Anastasiades’ visit to Moscow?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are closely following the UN-mediated inter-community talks on the Cypriot peace settlement under the UN auspices.

Unfortunately, the latest round of talks has failed to produce results, to eliminate substantial disagreements on a number of key issues primarily linked with security guarantees for the future unified Cypriot state. However, all it means is that another stage of the negotiating process is required. In this connection, we are confident that dialogue must continue and that there is no alternative course of action.

Our well-known principled position remains unchanged. The reinstatement of Cyprus as an independent state whose sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity are ensured meets the interests of the Cypriots themselves and the task of maintaining peace and security in the Eastern Mediterranean region. This goal can be achieved through an all-encompassing, equitable, solid and viable resolution of the Cypriot problem.

We believe that intra-Cypriot aspects of the peace settlement are the prerogative of the parties concerned. We will support any solution that will be found by the Cypriots, with due consideration for the legitimate interests of both Cypriot communities. We consider attempts to impose any ready-made solutions or artificial deadlines from the outside to be unacceptable.

We believe that the UN should play a central role in the peace process because the entire negotiating process is based on UN Security Council resolutions. Therefore our proposal to involve all permanent members of the UN Security Council, including Russia, in the discussion of external aspects of the peace settlement and in an international conference on Cyprus appears logical.

We hope that President Nicos Anastasiades’ support for this idea, voiced at the 72nd UN General Assembly, as well as during his visit to Moscow, will help formulate a new system of security guarantees meeting modern realities and the interests of Cyprus.



Question:

The Cypriot leaders have explained the position of the Republic of Cyprus, which opposes European sanctions directed against Russia. In what way does Moscow benefit from this, and how important is the position of this small country in the Council of Europe?



Sergey Lavrov:

Obviously, the spiral of sanctions ratcheted up by the European Union under US pressure has had a major impact on the ties between our states. We value Cyprus’s position, which advocates the fastest possible normalisation of Russia-EU relations. In October 2017, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Nicos Anastasiades discussed prospects for restoring full-fledged dialogue between Russia and the EU at their meeting in Moscow.

We know that the EU political and especially business circles are increasingly voicing their dissatisfaction with this situation. But question regarding the extent to which the voices of Cypriots and other pragmatic Europeans are heard in Brussels, the capital of the EU, should probably be addressed to representatives of European organisations.

Moscow hopes that the EU will overcome this inertia in their thinking and will find enough strength to stop building its Russian policy using the principle of the lowest common denominator, that is, stop pandering to a small but aggressive group of Russophobic countries that play the anti-Russian card in order to achieve their narrow and self-serving goals.



Question:

Cyprus and Russia maintain close economic and political ties. Nevertheless, we have witnessed some strange developments in connection with the Browder case not so long ago. Does Moscow understand the reasons why the Cypriot Ministry of Justice stopped the investigation and what are its expectations on this issue?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, I would like to note that the investigation on the case you mentioned has been suspended under Cypriot judicial proceedings, but it has not been closed. We have received the relevant explanations from the Republic of Cyprus’ competent legal departments and taken them into consideration.

After that, a number of Cypriot media outlets launched what looked like an inspired campaign to discredit our bilateral cooperation in the area of providing legal assistance on criminal and civil cases. The idea that Russia’s requests are politically motivated, and that cooperation between law enforcement agencies of our countries exceeds the boundaries of standard international legal practice is totally groundless.

In this connection, I would like to note that our cooperation is in strict compliance with the 1984 Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Cyprus on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations on Civil and Criminal Cases, the 1965 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, as well as other bilateral and international documents.

I think you will agree that such cooperation is an absolutely normal practice in interstate relations. As far as we know, Cyprus actively cooperates with other countries in this area, including the United States and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, Russia has been selected as a subject of media speculations.

This prompts the question: Who stands to gain from this? The situation around the court investigation of the William Browder case should be perceived as biased. We believe that Browder’s determination and that of various circles supporting him to portray this case as politically motivated is absolutely groundless since the case has to do with tax-related and other economic crimes he committed in the Russian Federation.

We hope that Cyprus’ law enforcement agencies will conduct an unbiased and honest investigation, and the culprits will be found and brought to justice.



Question:

Are there any additional prospects for future cooperation between our countries, including energy cooperation? What is your message to the people of Cyprus and the large Russian-speaking community living on the island?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have established very friendly relations with Cyprus, and we are confident that they have excellent prospects. The October 2017 visit to Moscow by President of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiades provided an additional impetus to interstate dialogue.

We aim to proactively implement top-level agreements with our Cypriot partners. This includes the implementation of the Joint Action Programme between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Cyprus for 2018-2020, as well as the Joint Declaration by our governments on cooperation in the area of economic modernisation.

The final protocol of the tenth meeting of the Russian-Cypriot Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation, held in early October 2017 in Nicosia, charts specific aspects of practical cooperation. We are confident that a considerable growth potential exists in this area. In this connection, we note with satisfaction that bilateral trade has expanded greatly throughout 2017. In January-September 2017, Russian-Cypriot trade soared by 42.4 per cent on the same period in 2016. It is important to consolidate this positive trend. We can boost trade and economic cooperation only by improving the structure of our trade, by increasing the share of value-added goods and implementing investment projects.

Regarding energy, relevant Russian and Cypriot ministries and organisations are studying promising partnership aspects, including those in the area of energy efficiency, renewable energy sources and green technologies.

Russian compatriots, including tourists visiting your hospitable island and those permanently living in Cyprus, are making a weighty contribution to stronger friendship and trust between our nations. The Cypriot-Russian festival in Limassol is an important event on the packed bilateral agenda. We value the friendly attitude of Cypriot authorities towards Russian citizens. I would like to use this opportunity to urge representatives of the Russian community in Cyprus to actively promote the further rapprochement of our countries and nations.

I would like to wish the readers of your newspaper and all Cypriots a happy holiday season, merry Christmas and a happy New Year. I wish the people of Cyprus peace, wellbeing, stability and all the best.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3001404






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Rossiya Segondya International Information Agency, December 25, 2017



25 December 2017 - 11:16





Question:

President Trump said he planned to hold a meeting with President Putin on the DPRK, and the Russian President also expressed readiness for such a dialogue. When and where may such talks take place, and in what format? When it comes to improving relations between the two countries, we can count only on personal contacts between the two leaders or are there other options to prevent us from slipping into a new Iron Curtain situation?



Sergey Lavrov:

Contacts between the presidents of Russia and the United States have intensified recently. Normally, they are not limited to anything in particular, but cover a wide range of bilateral and international matters.

The date of the next one-on-one meeting has not been discussed yet. As you may recall, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump spoke at the APEC summit in Danang, where they approved an important Joint Statement on Syria. Since then, the heads of state have already talked by phone three times, on November 21, December 14 and 17. Of course, they touched upon the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

In turn, Secretary of State Tillerson and I regularly discuss key items concerning the Russia-US agenda. Additional expert consultations at the working level are held on the most important of them.

The dialogue with the US administration is also maintained through other departments, including the special services. During a recent telephone conversation, the Russian President thanked President Trump for the intelligence provided by the CIA, which helped arrest the terrorists who were preparing explosions at the St Petersburg Kazan Cathedral and elsewhere in the city. This is an instance of actual interaction between Russia and the United States.

At the same time, we realise that there are many problems plaguing the relations between our two states, both old and new or, more precisely, artificially created ones. The main one is Russophobic hysteria which engulfed the Washington political establishment and took on a paranoid dimension, without exaggeration. It does not allow us to advance in the areas that are important for our countries, and creates additional tensions on the international arena.

In the summer, the United States approved a law aimed against us titled “Countering America's Opponents Through Sanctions.” Everyone is aware of the situation where our diplomatic property was seized in an illegal, in fact, raider takeover.

Our diplomats are under pressure from the FBI, and they run into obstacles as they try to do their work. Russian media, primarily, the Russia Today TV channel, are under pressure. This is only a portion of the extensive list of unmotivated anti-Russian actions. The lobby which is working against Russia is trying to make new unfriendly and even openly hostile steps.

I do not think, however, that the term Iron Curtain is applicable to Russia-US relations at their current stage. Rather, we can talk about another fit of McCarthyism, which the American society, it turns out, is still susceptible to. Personally, I am sure that similar to the witch hunt engineered by Senator McCarthy, with which everyone was fed up, in the current situation, everyone will see things for what they really are followed by recovery. However, it would be true to say that time was wasted.

For our part, we are acting in a pragmatic manner. We respond to aggressive attacks, but we are not going to spur the confrontation. We will continue to consistently and vigorously uphold our positions in an attempt to get our colleagues in Washington back to the fundamental principles which should form the basis for bilateral dialogue. Taking into account and respecting each other's interests are the main ones among them. Without this, it is simply impossible to improve our relations. By the same token, nor is it likely to work effectively when it comes to international affairs.



Question:

Is there a chance of reaching a political settlement in Syria in 2018? Will Syria possibly adopt a new constitution and hold elections and when will this happen, if at all? Will Bashar al-Assad participate in the elections? Is Russia ready to guarantee security in Syria during the elections? Don’t you fear that the US-led coalition will start operations against the government forces or even attempt to topple Bashar al-Assad after Russia pulls out its forces?



Sergey Lavrov:

We hope that the situation in Syria will continue heading towards stability and a long-term political settlement in the coming year. The prerequisites for this have been created. The Syrian Armed Forces have routed, with support from Russia’s Aerospace Forces, ISIS and stripped what was left of it of combat capabilities. Simultaneously we continue with our efforts to consolidate the positive trends on the ground in the interests of reconciliation and the country’s peaceful reconstruction and rehabilitation.

Since the start of the conflict, we have been calling for a broad-based intra-Syrian dialogue, within which the main matters on the national agenda should be resolved. Today, the Syrians, in fact, need to draft a new social contract that would become the basis for a new Syria in the future. No one has the right to dictate his will to them or to impose ready-made solutions. It is only the Syrian people in its ethnic and religious diversity that can and must decide how it will live in its state.

We continue promoting the initiative of convening the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, which is due to put into practice the idea of an inclusive intra-Syrian dialogue and lend a hand to talks between the delegations of the Syrian Government and the opposition under UN aegis in Geneva. The Geneva format should finalise the agreements on the constitutional reform and UN-supervised elections, as stipulated by UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which have been reached by the Syrian sides on the basis of mutual consent.

As for Bashar al-Assad’s participation in the elections, this question should be addressed to the Syrian President. Generally, we proceed from the assumption that no one has the right to impose on a sovereign state any terms discriminatory of its individual citizens or population groups.

As I noted, the Russian and US presidents approved a Joint Statement on the sidelines of the APEC Summit in Danang on November 11, which reaffirmed their shared commitment to the preservation of the unity, sovereignty, territorial integrity and secular identity of the Syrian state. We have been regularly reminding our US partners about the original illegitimacy, from the point of view of international law, of their military activities on the Syrian territory. For some time, the Syrian Government could de facto “tolerate” the Americans there in the name of the vital tasks of fighting terrorism. But the attempts to find a justification for their continued presence in Syria after the rout of ISIS do not hold up against criticism. In practice, the illegal US military presence is putting obstacles in the way of a political settlement and calling into question the country’s unity.

We will continue to render the Syrians support in normalising the situation and restoring peace and order. In working with our regional and international partners, we will, as before, remind them of the need to respect the Syrian state’s sovereignty, independence as well as territorial integrity.



Question:

Is Moscow trying to establish a permanent and regular top-level and high-level communications channel with Pyongyang? With whom is it trying to communicate, and why was this impossible until now? The West is criticising Russia for its “insufficiently resolute” position with regard to the DPRK. Will Russia act in a tougher manner, if Pyongyang crosses some red lines in its actions?



Sergey Lavrov:

It goes without saying that we are seriously concerned with the DPRK’s striving to acquire a nuclear status. We will never accept and approve this. Pyongyang’s actions in this area might undermine the global non-proliferation regime. And they are simply dangerous in the context of the current tense situation on the Korean Peninsula.

As a permanent UN Security Council member, Russia was involved in drafting the relevant resolutions forbidding the DPRK to conduct nuclear tests as well as to launch ballistic missiles for many years. The current tough international sanctions and restrictions aim to prevent Pyongyang from developing its missile and nuclear programmes.

We are not guided by the logic of “red lines” and by the supposed need to punish North Korea after it has crossed such lines. We are guided by the need for consistent and painstaking work with Pyongyang in order to accomplish the main ultimate task, which is denuclearising the Korean Peninsula and formalising its non-nuclear status. Therefore we do not share the striving of some states to exert maximum possible pressure on the DPRK, which is often interpreted by them as establishing a complete economic and political blockade of that country by all available means. And they fail to realise that the implementation of this plan would cause a real humanitarian disaster.

We are urging our partners to focus on resolving specific issues concerning the Korean Peninsula on the basis of talks. Instead of severing contacts with Pyongyang, it is necessary to expand them for this purpose.

For our part, we strive to maintain them at the highest possible level. Naturally, we have streamlined a mechanism of consultations as regards the implementation of the Russian “road map” for a Korean peace settlement.

We are firmly convinced that the DPRK, the United States and its allies must refrain from any actions capable of provoking a crisis, and that they must, at long last, launch the negotiating process. Russia will facilitate this in every possible way.



Question:

The military infrastructure of NATO and the United States, in particular, near the Russian borders is becoming increasingly massive. How can Russia respond? Why is it that Russian military bases abroad, for example, in Latin America, is an irrelevant matter?



Sergey Lavrov:

I will be brief. Indeed, we are deeply concerned about the build-up of NATO military infrastructure near the Russian borders, and the deployment of US missile defence in Europe. Such destructive steps undermine the principle of indivisibility of security, lead to increased tension in the Euro-Atlantic area, and deepen the divides in Europe. In this context, we are taking reasonable additional measures to increase our defence capacity, and protect our national interests. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin noted during his Big News Conference on December 14, we will ensure our own security without getting involved in the arms race.

Unlike a number of states, we are not proponents of military expansion. Creating foreign bases in the name of projecting force, including in Latin America, is not an end in itself to us.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3006935






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with RT, Moscow, December 25, 2017



25 December 2017 - 13:33









Question:

Let us begin with global matters. The first question will be about the multipolar world Russia has been talking about for more than ten years. Even as this multipolar world order is taking shape, there are no international rules to regulate this chaotic structure. In this connection the question will be two-sided. Is there a chance for these rules to be developed in the near future, and what is your view of Russia’s role in this new world? Should Russia proactively contribute to resolving issues beyond its borders?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think that the concept of a multipolar world came into being not ten, but rather some 20 years ago. It was put forward by Yevgeny Primakov when he served as Russia’s Foreign Minister, in 1996−1998. He was also behind the initiative to set up the Russia-India-China (RIC) three-sided cooperation framework, which operates to this day. Meetings in this format have been quite useful, including at the level of foreign ministers, as well as for experts in agriculture, industry, finance, youth and humanitarian cooperation, and many other matters. The RIC framework paved the way to what we now call BRICS, when Brazil and later South Africa joined the Russia-India-China trio.

I believe that this is indicative of the trend towards the emergence of what we call a polycentric world order, since these five countries came together at a time when their economies experienced rapid growth, and were probably world leaders in terms of economic growth rates. The situation has changed since then. Economic growth in Russia, Brazil and South Africa decelerated, while India and China remain among the fastest growing economies.

Jointly, the BRICS countries have 14.7% of the IMF vote, which is just 0.15% less than the blocking stake. We are not seeking to have this blocking stake as an end in itself, but, given the multi-faceted nature of monetary and financial problems, the current status of the dollar as well as the strengthening of many other currencies, we are confident that changes within the IMF are long overdue, which will guarantee a more democratic mode of governance of this highly important institution.

One step in that direction was made 7 or 8 years ago, when G20 was established and held its first summit. It existed even before that time but few people knew about it. G20 had never assembled at a more or less serious political level, but all of a sudden it convened a summit, which reflected the fact that the leading Western countries had come to realise the impossibility of doing business without reaching agreements with the new centres of economic growth, financial might, and political influence.

Incidentally, BRICS is not alone within G20 that also symbolises the movement towards a multipolar world. BRICS has allies, including such countries as Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Mexico, and Indonesia. Therefore, I think that approximately half the G20 members are interested in not conserving the situation, where non-Western countries would, in fact, be barred from the process of decision-making.

This is a healthy process based on the principle of consensus which exists within G20. I think that our Western G20 partners are becoming increasingly aware of the need to reach agreements.

This said, I would like to answer the part of your question about developing rules for shaping a multipolar world. This does not seem to me to be necessary. I gave you the examples of how a group of the three countries, Russia, India and China, as well as BRICS have been established as well as how G20 was given a new lease of life and started to move very fast. All these are natural processes and nobody predetermines the course they will take. I would also like to mention something else that also reflects the aspiration of countries to incorporate the objective trends towards a multipolar world [into their policy] – I mean our approach to developing cooperation on the Eurasian continent. The Greater Eurasia Project, the idea for which was suggested by Russian President Vladimir Putin, does not specify any indicators that must be achieved no matter what, nor does it put forward any preconditions. The Trans-Pacific Project (TPP), which Barak Obama was pushing forward, was from the very beginning designated to involve a group of 12 countries, who would develop the rules of the game while the rest would be able to join in if they were able to meet certain conditions formulated by these dozen countries. The project provided for specific targets that the countries had to meet.

We know what has become of this project at the current stage. The Trump administration decided to pull out of it, while the remaining 11 countries are contemplating two options: whether to continue without the United States or think up something else. It seems to me that having the project geared to achieving a specific result prior to evaluating the balance of interests of all who were invited, and not only them, has affected the fate of the project.

Our approach is much more democratic. We are against any restrictions on cooperation in Eurasia. President Putin has formulated an initiative that underlies our position of being in favour of relations between the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and ASEAN which start to be developed as soon as participants in these organisations grow aware of their mutual interest in cooperating in a specific area, be it logistics, infrastructure, energy or something else. We say in much the same manner that when the ideological considerations of our partners in the European Union have moved to the background, we will welcome their participation – we have already sent them invitations – in this pan-continental Greater Eurasia Project, which even extends beyond the land as far as South-East Asia, including the island-states.

I will cite a good example from everyday life. If I remember rightly , before creating a path across a lawn, people in Britain are allowed to walk on it, so it is clear which way would be most suitable for those that walk through this park every day. We are, perhaps, acting in the same way – we are not artificially creating a road that will be inconvenient to walk along.



Question:

The outgoing year was fairly complex with regard to Russia-US relations, despite last year’s hopes for the better. Russia is compelled to respond to hostile US actions, including in the sphere of sanctions and diplomacy. The latest example is the attacks on the Russian media, in particular, the withdrawal of our channel’s accreditation with the US Senate. Do you believe the method of mirror responses is effective? Where can such an escalation of relations between Russia and the West, Russia and the United States take us?



Sergey Lavrov:

You said your channel is one of the most hardest hit by this US policy, which is completely at odds with the norms and principles of journalism, freedom of speech, or freedom of opinion. By the way, as a leader of a group of Western countries in the OSCE, the United States has been pushing for the adoption of separate resolutions for several years now, which would highlight the need to protect journalists and ensure their rights. Russia is entirely for this. The only thing we are against is singling out a single social or professional group in the context of the need to ensure non-discrimination, respect for human rights, including, of course, professional rights. We are for respecting the rights of everyone in any line of work, if what they do it based on the law and international principles that provide the guidelines for everyone.

By the way, the United States is not the only country or government that discriminates against your channel. In France, problems remain, despite the opening of Russia Today France. As I understand it, you were "excommunicated" from the presidential pool alongside Sputnik. We cannot understand this. We keep reminding our French colleagues of this rather unseemly situation, but to no avail so far.

In Britain, politicians who speak on your station are accused of betraying the interests of the United Kingdom. I hope that I will not be included on some sanctions list for speaking with you now, and with your colleagues on other occasions.

I understand that reciprocity is one of the basic principles in diplomacy, and in life in general. If you want to be treated well, treat others well. When you are doing something with regard to your colleague or partner, always check if you would like them to do to you what you are about to do to them. That said, I will note that you are all aware of the law adopted by the State Duma, which does not name anyone as a taboo entity, but contains principles which make it possible to identify a particular media as a foreign agent. This does not mean that their accreditation will be revoked. Accreditation with the Foreign Ministry remains in full, and the reporters can attend all our events without any exception. With regard to the Federal Assembly, our colleagues who are parliamentarians will determine themselves if it’s appropriate to provide such access to the state media from the countries where our media receiving subsidies from the state cannot do so.

However, I would suggest that, while sticking to the principle of reciprocity, we should not be reckless and start mutual recriminations and punishments. No one will gain from this. I believe the right thing to do here would be to simply show the world how outdated as well as stupid this policy is which bans, in Ukraine for instance, all Russian media, including animation channels (if memory serves me correctly), and how important it is to oppose such developments. I would suggest not to tighten the screws any further, but rather go back a little and release existing tension through encouraging international discussions.



Question:

I would like to ask you about one of the greatest challenges in this year's political world, North Korea. It has been discussed at length. How likely, do you think, is the conflict on the Korean Peninsula? What do you think the United States is trying to achieve with its aggressive rhetoric on this subject? Many analysts are saying its goal is to raise the bets to the point where the capitulation will take place on the US terms. Do you agree with such an analysis?



Sergey Lavrov:

First, I don’t think anyone in their right mind would want a war on the Korean Peninsula. The consequences, including the colossal losses for the world, were laid out not only by us, but by US experts and officials as well. I don’t think anyone is consciously trying to take the matter to such an outcome. At least, I hope this is not true, although we can hear allusions to that. However, even if nobody wants a war, every time both sides of the confrontation start stocking up on advanced, high-tech, and destructive weapons, there’s a risk of human error or a technical failure. I hope those who constantly conduct provocative military exercises are aware of the fact that this must be kept in mind.

Second, having said that I do not believe, or at least hope that the United States does not plan a military solution, I cannot fail to note the pattern that has developed over the past several months. The situation has come to a point where it is necessary to lift the veil on how the United States approaches this matter. I will not go into details, but in September we received a signal from the Americans that they want to start a dialogue. They said no exercises were planned until the spring, so the North Korean government can feel at ease. They also said that this natural break can be used to open some kind of a dialogue in the run-up for the planned exercises next spring. We passed this signal along, and it was not rejected. However, with all the preparations underway, the Americans announced that they now have unscheduled exercises on their hands which would take place in October. So, in September we got a signal that we can have talks until spring, and in October things turned around and talk was already about unscheduled exercises, major ones at that. Surprisingly, Pyongyang took it in its stride. Then, as if they wanted to draw out a particular reaction from it, the unprecedented US-Japanese air force exercises were announced in late November. After that, Pyongyang did react.

This does not mean, though, that we justify what Kim Jong-un did having launched the missile on the most recent occasion, which appears to be intercontinental. However, this goes to show the sequence of steps that cannot be ignored, and the train of thought of the Americans. Our joint proposal with China about a double freeze suggested that Pyongyang does not launch or test anything, while the Americans, South Koreans and other allies at least dramatically scale down their exercises. The American line of thinking was that no one ever said that these exercises were illegal. They are absolutely legitimate in terms of international law. However, Pyongyang cannot launch missiles or test nuclear devices based on the UN Security Council resolution. That is true. This is the difference in the legal status between these two actions. However, in politics, you can, of course, pull the legalist strings and build your practical actions based on that, but in a situation where things have already reached a point where they can go into a nosedive, perhaps the stronger and the smarter one should step aside.

We hope there are people in the United States who understand the need to defuse this very tense situation and start looking for a political and diplomatic solution. China and us propose to freeze all actions that are mutually provocative, and to start a dialogue without any commitments. This has to happen in order for the United States and the DPRK, either one-on-one or in the presence of other states which both countries feel comfortable with, to sit down and exchange their concrete assessments of how this crisis can be overcome.

We are all aware of such a format as the six-party talks. Our Chinese colleagues and us see the third stage as a multilateral process to harmonise the principles of peace and security on the Korean Peninsula in general. Speaking of this, we cannot ignore the harmful signals that were sent by Pyongyang in the wake of Washington's throes over the Iranian nuclear programme (INP) with regard to the agreement reached as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). To question this fact only means that the agreement which led to the full closure of Iran's military nuclear programme is being questioned. Even though the United States has not yet withdrawn from it, the noise has already been pretty loud. Everyone, including those who participated in these talks alongside the United States, are becoming nervous.

The signal sent to Kim Jong-un is pretty straightforward. Yes, we urge you to abandon the nuclear military programme, and we will lift sanctions if you comply, but who knows what will come to our minds when the next administration moves into the White House.

I discussed this topic longer than I should have, but I think it’s an important aspect. One should realise that one can’t endlessly strangle the economy and the social sphere or try to impose a total blockade. Only recently, a new resolution was adopted, from which we managed to remove absolutely unacceptable things. Economic and logistical projects that are of direct interest to Russia were left in place, but again we hear from Washington that we need right now, almost before the New Year, or immediately afterwards, to sit down and think about how to strangle North Korea even more. This is a bad position.

If this is what was meant when McMaster stated that American diplomacy will rely exclusively on the world’s most powerful military force, then it’s bad, and we are all facing serious trials. We will do everything, as President Putin said, to prevent this from happening and to promote unifying rather than divisive approaches to various international matters, so as not to isolate anyone, but to seek inclusiveness in each specific situation instead.



Question:

The planned date for the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi – January 29 and 30 – was recently made public at the eighth round of talks in Astana. Do you think we have come closer to a political settlement of the Syrian conflict? Have your talks with the representatives of the regional powers and international players shown that the international community is ready to end this war?



Sergey Lavrov:

The main thing is that the overwhelming majority of those who were fighting on the ground, and some of those who continue fighting, are ready for this. The creation of four de-escalation zones has demonstrated the willingness of the opposition forces that controlled the situation in each of these zones to launch dialogue with the Syrian Government, to end the bloodshed and to resume peaceful life. This peaceful life is already returning to these regions. The local government agencies, which have survived the hostilities, have resumed operation. These are the officials who should be trusted by the local residents. They have been encouraged to launch reconciliation dialogue with the authorities of each of the four de-escalation zones, starting with simple steps such as meeting people’s needs, ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid and allowing people to cross the boundaries of de-escalation zones via observation points and checkpoints maintained by the guarantor countries, as well as by Russia, the United States and Jordan in the case of the southern zone. In other words, these are people who have opted for peace. In addition to the remaining terrorist groups, there are also the Jabhat al-Nusra units, against which our Western partners and members of the US-led coalition refuse to take resolute action despite our repeated urging, although al-Nusra is on the UN Security Council’s list of terrorist organisations. This means that there are plans to preserve al-Nusra for the eventuality that it will have to be used (some forces clearly want this) to attempt a regime change again.

The UN Security Council recently discussed a resolution on foreign terrorist fighters and measures to counter threats posed by returning FTFs, as well as several other aspects on the counterterrorism agenda. These resolutions have been adopted and will be used, although we wanted them to stipulate more resolute measures. However, the position of our American colleagues and some of their allies indicated their dual attitude to Jabhat al-Nusra. They said that this organisation need not be mentioned because it is already on the UNSC terrorist lists. Next they said that the “extradite or prosecute” principle should not be applied unconditionally, although this is a globally recognised principle for dealing with criminals. They argued that a jihadist who is apprehended before committing a terrorist attack or doing anything harmful could be regarded as other than a terrorist. They provided very interesting arguments, all of which were connected one way or another to the concept that was advanced by President Barack Obama. The current US administration, which usually does not like Obama’s initiatives, has taken this concept up and is promoting it, at least at the expert level. I do not know what President Donald Trump and his closest aides think about this, but US experts are advocating the Concept of Countering Violent Extremism, according to which violent extremism is caused by authoritarian governments that keep their people cold and hungry, restrict democracy, oppress their citizens and violate human rights. Therefore, the international community should go over the authoritarian government’s head to tell the people how they should spread democracy to improve their lives, which would supposedly help eradicate the causes of extremist sentiments.

Do you see what they are trying to achieve? I do not think I need to explain their motives. Therefore, we are seriously concerned about the attempts to speculate on counterterrorism goals, which should be common to all countries and without any double standards. These tasks and goals must not be used to promote self-seeking agendas, in particular, for replacing undesirable regimes.

To come back to the issue of Syria, I have mentioned the readiness of those who fought each other on the ground to return to peaceful life in de-escalation zones. As for the external players’ readiness, I can only speak for those with whom we are working directly. I think that Iran and Turkey are ready for this, although they have some concerns that do not necessarily coincide with our approach. These concerns include the Kurds for Turkey and the rights of the Shia brethren for Iran. In principle, these concerns are understandable, but it would be nevertheless better if these problems were settled through the reconciliation of Shias and Sunnis within the framework of common Islamic solidarity.

We have long been promoting the idea of a new Amman conference and a declaration that would declare the unity of all Muslims. This would benefit everyone and would also help build bridges between the main protagonists in the region. We believe that it is necessary to help Saudi Arabia and Iran launch dialogue. They should stop blaming each other and should sit down for talks to discuss concrete issues of their concern. As large regional powers, they are bound to have interests in adjacent regions. And they need to develop some common rules. We are ready to help them do this. We have long ago proposed a security concept for the Persian Gulf, and it is still on the table.

I am ambivalent about our Western partners’ attitude to the Syrian settlement. Our not always obvious or public dialogue with our American partners on de-escalation and some other military aspects in the areas where the US-led coalition comes into contact with the Syrian army, which we are helping, has shown that they are willing to act pragmatically and have confirmed that Syria should remain a united, multi-confessional and multi-ethnic country. At the same time, their initial assurances, about which US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told me personally, that their only goal in Syria is to rout ISIS, have become rather vague. They say now that the defeat of ISIS will only be complete when an irreversible political process in launched in Syria, and some people add that this process should result in the removal of Bashar al-Assad. In other words, the agreements we have reached are being interpreted rather unscrupulously. It is just another example of lip service, the same as their promise not to expand NATO. The US archive materials, which have been made public recently, concern similar situations in terms of behaviour and diplomatic proprieties. I am not sure that the other Western countries would accept any settlement scenario or that they do not care about who will play the leading role in this process. Some of our West European colleagues clearly want to turn the tables, to assume leadership and to show that the issue cannot be settled without them.

We are not driven by such selfish considerations. We have advanced the Astana initiative, which has helped reach a settlement on the ground, separate the ordinary armed opposition from the bulk of terrorists and deliver a crushing blow at ISIS in Syria. By the way, the terrorists are trying to escape from Syria to other countries, but this is a separate issue.

We have now advanced the idea of a Syrian National Dialogue Congress. I would like to remind you that the Astana process was launched a year ago following a 10-month pause at the Geneva talks. As soon as the first Astana meeting was announced, UN officials said they would resume the Geneva process. We are glad if our practical example has encouraged this decision. However, nothing was done at the Geneva platform for a long time this year. Saudi Arabia was trying to unite the opposition, and we did our best to help it. But the process in Geneva came to a standstill again. When Saudi Arabia created a delegation comprising representatives from three groups – the Riyadh, Cairo and Moscow groups – we saw this as a big step forward, even though the individuals who were chosen to lead the joint delegation advanced unacceptable ultimatums in a bid to discredit our Saudi colleagues, who had assured us, just as UN Secretary-General’s Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, that the delegation would come to Geneva without any preconditions to hold direct talks with the Syrian Government. These opposition leaders deceived Staffan de Mistura and, regrettably, also our Saudi partners. I hope efforts will be taken now to change this situation.

UN Secretary-General’s Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura visited Russia. Together with Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu, we tried to explain to him that this kind of behaviour by their protégés is unacceptable. I hope proper conclusions will be made from this. At the same time, we are working with the Syrian Government to encourage it to act constructively. I do not think it is right to blame the Syrian Government for refusing to talk with those who demanded government change, contrary to their obligations. What we need is to give a push to the opposition delegation. Several radicals were removed when the delegation was formed, but it appears that the format of the delegation should be revised to weed out any remaining radicals.

We advanced the idea of a Syrian National Dialogue Congress with due regard for the need to implement UN Security Council Resolution 2254. It stipulates direct broad-based talks between the representatives of the Syrian Government and all opposition groups, during which the Syrian people will decide the future of Syria. It is obvious that not all opposition groups are represented at the Geneva talks in the delegation of the Riyadh, Moscow and Cairo opposition groups. The overwhelming majority of these people are émigrés who do not live in Syria but in various European capitals. Seeking to implement the provision of UNSC Resolution 2254 on holding inclusive talks where the entire range of opposition groups are represented, we appealed to the opposition through our military personnel at the Hmeymim airbase and using the contacts they developed while ensuring the operation of the de-escalation zones and normalising life in Aleppo and other liberated towns. I believe these efforts to promote the political process involved over 1,700 Syrians, including sheikhs and tribal leaders, who probably did not take part in the hostilities but they live “on the ground” and so they are not indifferent to what kind of a constitution new Syria would have. They are not represented in the delegation that went to Geneva. We have compiled a long list, which we are coordinating with our partners, Turkey and Iran, which are the other guarantors of the Astana process.

A trilateral summit was held in Sochi on November 22, where the initiative was supported. We told Staffan de Mistura that we are not trying to snatch the palm from Geneva. Our goal is to help launch a constitutional process not in a restricted format, when mostly those who live beyond Syria would be represented, but in as large a format as possible in order to form a Syrian commission that will draft a new constitution. The establishment of this commission will give a new lease of life to the Geneva process. We will give our full support to drafting a new Syrian constitution in a UN-led process under the guidance of UN Secretary-General’s Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura.



Question:

I would like to clarify something. Do you think the US presence in northern Syria, with its 10 bases or so, is helping to organise the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, or is it hampering the political process?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think this has little to do with the Congress. It is relatively clear how this process will develop. We see the support for the Congress initiative by the overwhelming majority of Syrians “on the ground.” We are certainly concerned about the American military bases in Syria and especially about the information that some of these bases are beginning to be used to train militants, including former members of terrorist groups. We spoke about this publicly more than once. This is a direct violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. The Syrian Government has been pragmatic in dealing with the Russian Aerospace Forces, which were invited to fight the terrorists absolutely legitimately. This was a pragmatic decision that reflected the priority of destroying the terrorists. We understood that the American coalition (especially if slightly prodded, because at first it was very passive) could help to eliminate terrorist seats. This happened. Although it was clear that the Americans were working half-heartedly there until the Russian Aerospace Forces joined them. Their policy was questionable, especially because they spared not only the Jabhat al-Nusra, but very often failed to strike ISIS units when it was necessary. But this is another question.

We are cooperating with the Americans for equally pragmatic reasons, as we also do with the Jordanians in the southern de-escalation zone. A joint tripartite monitoring centre was established in Amman. This is a beneficial initiative, given the proximity of the Golan Heights and Israel’s concerns. Many factors have to be taken into account. This is such a holy mess, influenced by much of what is happening “on the ground”, as well as by external players, some promoting their own interests, or those of their fellow tribesmen, clansmen, fellow believers, and others, on the contrary, wishing to prevent adversaries from strengthening their positions in Syria. Without a broad-based and inclusive intra-Syrian dialogue, which we want to start, without a dialogue with everyone represented and everyone guaranteed that their interests will be taken into account in the final state structure of Syria, the Geneva process is unlikely to succeed. I hope that the convocation of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress at the end of January will give a practical impetus to the Geneva talks, since a much wider range of Syrian parties need to be involved in the constitutional process than those represented in Geneva.



Question:

Now about Russian-Egyptian relations. Our countries have recently signed an agreement on aviation cooperation, using the aviation infrastructure. Will part of the Russian air force be redeployed from Hmeymim to Egypt? Are you discussing any counter-terrorism cooperation in Libya?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have been cooperating with our Egyptian colleagues very closely for a long time. We continue to expand our strategic partnership in all areas, including the economy, trade, and the investment sector. We have also drafted a nuclear power station construction project, a project for establishing a Russian industrial zone in Egypt, and there are many other projects, including, of course, those involving cultural and humanitarian ties. Military and military-technical ties occupy a very important place, first of all, in the context of the threat posed by terrorists in this entire region and being seriously felt, including in Egypt.

We unequivocally support the Egyptian leadership’s determination to irreconcilably combat terrorism. Our military-technical cooperation stipulating deliveries of the required equipment and weapons for counter-terrorism operations continues to develop very actively. Our military maintain very close contacts. We hold joint military exercises. This helps exchange experience, including our counter-terrorism experience obtained in Syria.

There are no plans to permanently redeploy Russian military units from Hmeymim to Egypt.

The Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt have recently signed a technical cooperation protocol to maintain civil aviation safety. This document reflects the partner-like nature of our relations and envisions specific things, including the free submission of requests to use the air space of each other state, the provision of military navigation services and efforts to guard parking areas. These mutual military measures are in line with the most-favoured nation status.



Question:

Former President of Yemen Ali Abdullah Saleh has been recently assassinated. It is hard to understand the current situation in that country. What does Russia think about developments in Yemen? The Russian Embassy has been relocated from Yemen to Saudi Arabia. How, in your opinion, can the political process be advanced in the context of disagreements between Persian Gulf countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

The assassination of the former President of Yemen Saleh has seriously aggravated the situation and allowed the Houthi movement to become more radical. They maintained an alliance with the General People's Congress headed by Saleh, and internal disagreements later flared up between them. We persuaded the warring parties to join the all-out intra-Yemen dialogue. Although we met with understanding, something backfired. Quite possibly, there are some subjective factors involved there that should be taken into account. It goes without saying that, regardless of local developments (the Yemeni situation has become seriously aggravated, and the country faces the prospect of an all-out blockade) there is no alternative to peace talks. We are involved in the work of the support group whose members meet to assist the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Yemen. I hope that he will promote unbiased reunification initiatives, without supporting any side; this is very important for a mediator.

Of course, we are also holding talks with our Saudi colleagues, the United States, the United Kingdom and Iran. While replying to another question, I have just noted that, of course, it would be much easier to resolve many matters, if members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf and the Islamic Republic of Iran reached an agreement. Permanent mutual suspicions and a refusal to maintain contacts only make the situation worse. It is important to speak and look someone in the eyes, to listen to one another’s concerns and to find some ways of taking them into account on a reciprocal basis. I hope that we will eventually come to it.



Question:

Several Latin American countries will hold elections in the coming year. Of particular interest are Mexico, Venezuela and Cuba. President of Cuba Raul Castro said he plans to leave his post in April. Should we expect a change in Mexico’s political course, or any improvements in Venezuela, especially when it comes to the tension between the government and the opposition, or any drastic changes in Cuba?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have very good relations with Latin America. We can see the wave-like political process. Some time ago, leftist governments took office in most countries; now right-wing governments prevail. I can tell you, as I see it, we do not feel any drastic changes in the Latin American governments’ approaches to relations with the Russian Federation. They do have disagreements between local parties about domestic policies, as so often the case. Yet, we certainly cannot fail to notice some of our Western partners’ attempts to influence the course of the elections, as it was in Venezuela, for example.

Very positive changes have been achieved in that country, some of them during the recent gubernatorial and municipal elections, which were absolutely peaceful and their results were approved, much to the surprise of those who craved scandal. In Venezuela, the negotiation process is underway between the Government and the opposition. I am confident that if no one interferes, they will reach some agreement. These signs have been observed before; however, unfortunately, once there is some progress, immediately there appear those who whisper to the oppositionists, advising them to toughen their position. We urge them to stop doing this. This is not in the interest of either Venezuela or the whole of Latin America.

As for Mexico, we have not seen any “Russian factors” in that country’s election campaign. Nobody accuses us, thank God, of interfering in elections in that country. But I would like to note that we still have not received a single fact from any government that accuses us of interfering in their internal affairs. Not a single fact has been presented. So they probably do not have any facts.

Mexico and Russia have very good plans for developing cooperation – in investment, trade, civil aviation, and a number of other high-tech areas. We cooperate closely in the UN, G20, and CELAC.

As for Cuba, it is our long-time friend, and a time-tested partner. This is a country that has become a legend in its hemisphere, and indeed in the world. A country that, I believe, is very dignified, and holding itself proudly despite the hardest trials it has gone through. We are in constant contact with the current leadership of Cuba, as well as with all its representatives. We see no reason for our relations to change now that a new parliament is going to be convened in April, as far as I know, which will elect a new leader. I am looking to the future with optimism.



Question:

Donald Trump’s migration policy continues to provoke indignation in Latin America. Nevertheless, the list of those criticising Washington is not growing. On the contrary, the region continues its turn “to the right.” Against this background, China’s influence is growing stronger in certain countries. How will Russia behave towards its partners in Latin America under these circumstances? Will it go on cooperating with its long-standing partners? Will pragmatic relations be promoted with other countries in the region?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for migration, it does not concern us directly where Latin, South and North Americas, as well as the Caribbean are involved. We can only comment on this proceeding from the universal problems put forward by the current stage of migration not only in your region but also in North Africa, the Middle East, Northern Europe, as well as other parts of the world.

In New York, approximately a year ago, it was decided to start talks on drafting a treaty with regard to a streamlined, legal migration and the talks got under way in early December in Mexico. Regrettably, the US delegation failed to turn up and the United States declared that it was withdrawing from the process, although it had supported last year’s decision on starting the talks. The new US administration is unwilling, in this particular case, to follow in the wake of the steps taken by the Obama administration (we are witnessing this in other situations, too). But the problem will not disappear by itself: we should address it and come to terms on migration.

In Europe, we are in favour of the migration flows becoming subject to agreements, with account taken of the reasons that have accelerated these flows to an unimaginable degree. The reasons are clear: the Arab Spring and outside interference therein, as well as the bombing of Libya, which immediately turned into a “grey zone,” a corridor for all illegal arms deliveries and human flows, with militants heading south, migrants north, etc.

In Latin America, thank God, there were no disasters comparable to those that were and still are underway in the Middle East and North Africa, but anyway it is necessary to come to an agreement. As I understand, the majority of the migrants that are causing problems for Washington are economic migrants who are simply seeking a better life. It is not up to me but those living in the region to decide. I am just proceeding from the assumption that it is always better to come to an agreement than to isolate someone; it is better to build bridges than walls. I hope that eventually it will be this way.

As for China’s focus on this region, it is also absolutely natural. China is the second (and will soon be the first) economic power in the world today. China has interests and financial resources that it wants to invest for the benefit of its economy and the country, which is rather short of its own mineral resources. Of course, Latin America is a very promising region for Russian companies as well. As far as our economic operators’ capabilities allow, we are also active in Latin America.

I don’t rule out and, moreover, think that it would be right for Russian and Chinese entrepreneurs to consider situations where they will be able to pool their efforts (the first such contacts are already in progress). There are quite a few projects of this kind. I am confident that as Russian and Chinese businesses go deeper into Latin America and gain a better understanding of what and how things are going there, such projects will materialise not only as Russian-Chinese but also as BRICS undertakings supported by the New Development Bank that was created by BRICS and originally conceived as an institution for financing projects in BRICS member-countries. But its Charter does not exclude projects in other regions either (a BRICS office is being launched in South Africa). I think this is also a promising form of cooperation, albeit realisable not today, and not tomorrow.



Question:

It appears that US-Cuba relations are worse under the current US administration than they were under the Obama administration. The situation further deteriorated when the Trump administration accused the Cuban authorities of acoustic attacks on US diplomats in Cuba. What can we expect from US-Cuba relations in this situation?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are not happy about this. We supported the policy of normalising relations with Cuba under the previous US administration, when President Barack Obama visited Cuba and the US embassy reopened there. It should be said for the sake of justice, though, that the US Interests Section [of the Swiss Embassy in Havana] operated as a full-scale embassy and was several times larger than any other diplomatic agency on the island. However, diplomatic symbols are very important for political relations. The reopening of the US Embassy in Havana and the Cuban Embassy in Washington was a very positive sign.

Practical steps have been taken to normalise bilateral trade and economic relations despite the biggest obstacles still in the way such as the trade and economic blockade, which was introduced 55 years ago and is condemned every year in a UN General Assembly resolution, against which the United States and one or two of its close or not very close allies routinely vote. The EU, just as all the other countries, votes for lifting the economic blockade. There is also the problem of the Guantanamo base and the illegal military prison located there. All these issues are to be coordinated in bilateral agreements, though. For our part, we will support the sovereign positions of the Cuban authorities.

Regarding the blockade and the embargo, Cuba has shown convincingly, if anyone needed convincing, that the use of such enforcement methods for political purposes is pointless. Regrettably, this lesson has been wasted: the Americans, starting with Barack Obama, reach for the sanctions stick whenever they fail to attain their goals diplomatically. A case in point is North Korea, which we have discussed a while ago. We have the physical strength [to deal with this problem]. But, to paraphrase a well-known saying, all brawn and no diplomacy [does not help in such cases].

We would like the United States to normalise its relations with Cuba. Instead we see news about mysterious acoustic attacks targeting US diplomats. I know that Cubans and the FBI worked together on this case, and that FBI agents even travelled to Havana to investigate it and have found nothing to confirm the sonic weapons version. The FBI agents, being honest people, have reported their findings to politicians, who presumably decided against making their conclusions public. I have heard about this. I cannot vouch for this, but the United States would have taken practical or legal measures if this were not so. In addition, nobody has explained what acoustic attacks are.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3007223
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 28th, 2017 #333
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on the adoption by the UN General Assembly of a resolution initiated by Russia and China “Further practical measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space”



25 December 2017 - 18:12



On December 24, at the initiative of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, the UN General Assembly adopted by a vast majority of UN member states the resolution “Further practical measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space,” co-sponsored by as many as 35 countries. This creates new opportunities for promoting practical measures proposed by Russia and China to make sure that the outer space remains free from any kind of weapons and prevent the use or threat of force against outer space objects.

Specifically, the resolution calls for the establishment of a United Nations Group of Governmental Experts that will be tasked with issuing recommendations on the substantial elements of an international legally binding instrument on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, including on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space.

The establishment of the Group of Governmental Experts will create conditions for a comprehensive expert review of the draft treaty prepared by Russia and China on preventing the placement of weapons in outer space and the use or threat of force against outer space objects. The new version of the draft was presented at the Conference on Disarmament in June 2014.

The UN Secretary-General was requested to establish the Group of Governmental Experts in early 2018 with a membership of up to 25 Member States chosen on the basis of fair and equitable geographical representation. The Group of Governmental Experts will operate by consensus, and will hold two 2-week sessions in Geneva, one in 2018 and the other in 2019.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3007753






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Ukraine’s new entry procedure for Russian nationals



26 December 2017 - 18:38



In connection with reports circulated in the Ukrainian media about the country’s border service planning to apply new rules to citizens of the Russian Federation for crossing the state border into Ukraine from January 1, 2018, we have to say the following.

As follows from the Kiev authorities’ statements, Russian citizens entering Ukraine will be required to provide personal data to the Ukrainian authorities, including biometrics, as well as registration at the place of stay during the period of their trip and travel within Ukraine.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly asked Kiev about the nature of the changes to the entry rules they announced, how the new rules will apply to Russian citizens, and their specific content. So far, we have not received any answer to these questions despite the provisions of the current intergovernmental agreement on mutual visa-free travel of 1997 and the principles of civilized communication between countries.

In connection with the above, citizens of the Russian Federation intending to visit Ukraine in the near future should take into account that when they pass Ukrainian border control they may have problems due to the new additional requirements of Ukraine’s State Border Service.

Taking into account Kiev’s unconstructive actions, and to avoid possible provocations, we recommend clarifying the terms and procedure for crossing the border at Ukrainian diplomatic and consular institutions before going to Ukraine.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3008174
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 28th, 2017 #334
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin’s interview with Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, December 26, 2017



26 December 2017 - 11:53





Question:

Mr Karasin, people have been dying in Donbass for four years now. The Minsk Agreements have not been acted upon for the same amount of time. It appears that Kiev does not plan to comply, nor does it plan to enact the law on the special status of Donbass. Wouldn’t it be better in this situation if Russia recognised the independence of these republics from Ukraine, as their leaders insist?



Grigory Karasin:

Our position on this matter is clear. In accordance with the Minsk Agreements, Donbass should be granted a special status within Ukraine. In reality, we are witnessing the reverse process. Instead of reintegrating the region into the common political and economic space, the Ukrainian government is actually pushing the southeast out of the country with its own hands. Kiev is using every method it can, stooping to openly cruel and cynical ones ranging from stopping social and pension payments, disconnecting the water and power supply all the way to the attempts to isolate Donbass by imposing an almost total blockade. All of that is being done for one reason, which is to provoke mass discontent and force the region to capitulate regardless of the opinion of the majority of its people who do not want to put up with the Kiev politics.

Such actions run counter to the Minsk Agreements, which re-affirm the need to improve the humanitarian situation, to ensure economic recovery of southeastern Ukraine, and to resume trade with our country.

With regard to the future of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, it’s up to the people living there who must decide on the forms of state, political, economic and social coexistence with their neighbours which they will accept and be comfortable with. I am confident that a reasonable solution to the current crisis is unlikely to be found without a direct, honest and constructive dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. Alas, this is precisely what the Kiev authorities are avoiding in every possible way.



Question:

Recent reports say Canada has added Ukraine to the list of countries it is allowed to supply certain types of weapons to. US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said Washington has decided to supply defensive weapons to Ukraine to ensure protection of its territorial integrity and sovereignty. Given that Russian military observers have left Donbass, what will Russia do in the event that Washington and Ottawa do supply weapons to Kiev, besides the regular expressions of concern?



Grigory Karasin:

We frankly tell our US partners about our concerns about their plans to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine. We were extremely disappointed with the recent reports about US authorities issuing a licence to one of the US arms manufacturers to supply Kiev with large-calibre sniper rifles. This way the Washington hawks believe they are trying to raise the cost of the Donbass conflict for Russia. This is very flawed and dangerous logic. It leads to war, not to peace.

By making a decision to send such weapons to Kiev, the US and Canada are opening Pandora's box and, as a matter of fact, are being drawn into an internal Ukrainian conflict, re-igniting and internationalising it. However, few people seem to even think about the consequences of this move. Several hundred American, Canadian and other NATO military instructors now “working” in Ukraine will now be perceived differently by many of the locals – as full participants in an undeclared civil war in the southeast of the country. Today the Ukrainians’ attitude towards the events in Donbass as well as to all the soldiers of fortune who have arrived in their country is already rather ambivalent.

Furthermore, can Washington and Ottawa guarantee that their lethal weapons will not fall into the wrong hands? Won’t terrorists get hold of them? Or, for example, couldn’t some enterprising Ukrainian businessmen sell them to the Middle East or to another hotspot, somewhere especially sensitive for the US? We have directly posed all these questions to our overseas partners, and have urged them to once again analyse what such ill-considered steps can lead to.



Question:

US Department of State Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Walker has said that the UN peacekeeping mission in Donbass should provide for the presence of heavy weapons and have access to the border. The Russian proposal on granting security to OSCE observers does not suit the United States. Does this mean that the US has decided to facilitate a return of Donbass to Ukraine by force under the cover of the UN mandate?



Grigory Karasin:

For better understanding I would like to recall the gist of the Russian proposal on UN presence in Donbass. Russia suggested that no matter where the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission observers work or move, they should always be accompanied by UN security officers. The UN contingent is being introduced into the conflict area after the withdrawal of heavy weapons and the disengagement of the sides’ forces and facilities. Its deployment should be by all means negotiated with the authorities both in Kiev as well as Donetsk and Lugansk. This initiative corresponds to the spirit and letter of the Minsk agreements that are the foundation of Ukraine’s domestic settlement. The UN troops will fulfil a secondary, auxiliary role as regards the SMM (its mandate does not change). All existing negotiating venues also remain intact – the Minsk Contact Group and the Normandy format.

In response we are being told not to focus on the political aspects of a settlement, that is, the issues concerning the special status of Donbass, amnesty, preparations for the elections via direct dialogue of Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk and instead introduce the UN military-civilian administration that will be in charge of everything that is happening in the region. This rules out the Minsk process because it is based on direct negotiations on the afore-mentioned aspects. This is an attempt not only to turn everything upside down but also to bury the Minsk agreements altogether.

We have told our US partners that it is totally wrong to send such signals to Ukraine. This will only further encourage them not to fulfil their commitments under the Minsk agreements that are already being neglected by Kiev. In fact, Kiev official representatives are talking about this in public, claiming that they can resolve the Donbass problem by force as well. We are urging Washington to stop such provocations.



Question:

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin said Kiev will not make any concessions as regards the potential introduction of UN peacekeepers in Donbass. Will Russia, in turn, veto the draft UN resolution on peacekeepers that was prepared by Ukraine, the United States, Germany and France?



Grigory Karasin:

We realise that Kiev and its allies are violently opposed to our compromise initiative on instituting a UN mission to help protect the OSCE SMM observers in Donbass. As I have already said, instead we are offered an unacceptable plan of a peacekeeping operation aimed at returning the region back under Ukraine’s control by force with the help of an international contingent. It is clear that the battle of proposals will not produce any effect, but we need to start with something. Our version of UN involvement has already been outlined in the relevant draft resolution of the UN Security Council. It seems to us to be the best option, although we understand that we cannot hope for its unanimous support in the current conditions. Let’s discuss and think together. It is necessary to move from words to deeds.



Question:

US Ambassador to Georgia Ian C. Kelly has said that Washington will maintain particularly intensive security cooperation with Tbilisi. In November, the US Department of State supported the sale of Javelin anti-tank guided missiles to Georgia. Considering the fact that Georgia has been refusing for nine years to sign a document on the non-use of force against South Ossetia and Abkhazia, could the events of 2008 be repeated?



Grigory Karasin:

Indeed, the Georgian delegation has turned down another draft joint statement by the participants on the non-use of force during the latest round of Geneva discussions. We would like to note that the point at issue is a joint statement by the participants, rather than the signing of the document. But the sides, nevertheless, agreed to continue working on the document next year.

Naturally, in this context the efforts of the United States and other NATO members to militarise Georgia are a cause for serious concern in the region. Unfortunately, instead of improving relations with its neighbours, Tbilisi has become actively involved in implementing NATO’s strategy for containing Russia. Obviously, this does not strengthen Georgia’s security. Regarding our Abkhazian and South Ossetian allies, they are now reliably shielded from a repetition of the August 2008 events. The struggle continues between the different approaches towards ensuring South Caucasus stability.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3007842






State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin’s interview with the Interfax news agency, December 25, 2017



27 December 2017 - 11:20





Question:

What are the prospects for the Russian idea of a UN support mission to protect the OSCE SMM in Donbass in the context of Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin’s statements about Ukraine, Germany and France drafting a UN Security Council resolution on peacekeepers? Neither Russia nor Ukraine is willing to make any concessions. Does this mean that the idea of a UN support mission has been suspended and that no decision will be taken on it in the near future?



Grigory Karasin:

First I would like to say a few words about the Russian initiative for using UN peacekeepers in Donbass. President of Russia Vladimir Putin proposed in early September to establish a UN Support Mission to Protect the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Southeast Ukraine. The idea is that UN peacekeepers would protect the security of OSCE SMM observers in the disengagement areas on both sides of the contact line, as well as during their patrol missions in other conflict regions in keeping with their mandate under the Minsk Agreements. The UN mission is to be deployed to the conflict zone following the disengagement of the conflicting parties’ weapons and forces. The deployment of the UN mission is to be coordinated with the authorities in Kiev, as well as Donetsk and Lugansk.

The Minsk Agreements will remain the basis for a settlement in Ukraine, while the UN mission would play a secondary or auxiliary role with regard to the SMM, whose mandate will not be changed. All the existing negotiating platforms, including the Minsk Contact Group and the Normandy format, will be preserved.

This initiative has been advanced in the same spirit as our previous proposal on issuing weapons to the OSCE SMM. We have done this to accommodate President Poroshenko, who complained about threats to the OSCE mission and its inefficiency. It turned out, however, that the OSCE was not prepared to accept our proposal. Kiev is not happy with our initiative either. They say that Russia allegedly wants to freeze the current status quo in Donbass and to restrict the OSCE operations in Ukraine and demand that a large UN mission be deployed throughout southeast Ukraine, primarily on the border with Russia, which would make an “occupation force” out of the UN mission. They demand that the UN mission be given broad military and civilian administrative powers. Regrettably, our European and American partners have supported this approach, which actually amounts to a revision of the Minsk Agreements and their consistency, and would eventually bury the Minsk process. This is definitely unacceptable for us.

We hope that the Ukrainian party will take a constructive stand. This is a test that will reveal Kiev’s real peace intentions in Ukraine.



Question:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has noted different Russian and US approaches towards the Ukrainian peace settlement. What are the prospects for merging approaches towards this matter under the Surkov-Volker format, and when can their next meeting take place? And to what extent will the US decision to supply weapons to Ukraine complicate this process?



Grigory Karasin:

One should not expect both countries to merge their approaches towards issues of the domestic Ukrainian peace settlement in conditions of Washington’s increasingly greater temptation to “punish Moscow” for Kiev’s failure to honour the Minsk agreements. We don’t perceive this as a tragedy, and we continue to explain the essence of our position on Ukraine to US partners, and we are urging them not to search for confrontationist options for resolving the current Ukrainian crisis. In this context, various contacts between Russian Presidential Aide Vladislav Surkov and US Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker remain important. They have met three times, and they have no intention of stopping their dialogue that allows them to exchange opinions in a candid as well as trustful manner. To the best of my knowledge, their next meeting may take place in January 2018. The meeting’s exact date and venue will be coordinated via diplomatic channels.

We cannot help but feel worried about the more frequent statements regarding the need to deliver lethal weapons to Ukraine being made in Washington and Kiev. In the current fragile situation, the appearance of weapons in the conflict zone can only provoke a new spiral of tension and no one can guarantee that such weapons will not fall into the hands of revenge-seeking Ukrainian servicemen dreaming of another blitzkrieg to “liberate” Donbass. We hope that there are reasonable people in the White House who realise the possible results of such actions, and that they will prevent such things taking place. We hope that they will prevent the delivery of such weapons to hotbeds of tension, seen as “painful” by the United States, via Ukraine, and that they will prevent terrorists from using these weapons. But, in the long run, it is up to Washington to make this choice, and it will also assume responsibility for possible negative consequences.



Question:

What do you think about the results of a meeting between advisers to the leaders of Normandy Four countries? Do you think there is any need for a meeting at the level of foreign ministers or presidents in the foreseeable future? Are talks underway to organise such a meeting? Is the United States likely to become involved in this format, one way or another?



Grigory Karasin:

I will start with the last question. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly noted that, on the whole, Russia does not object to expanding the Normandy format by involving the United States. However, all other members of this group should approve this option, which has not occurred yet. Incidentally, representatives of the Trump administration have repeatedly noted that they are not very eager to become full-fledged Normandy Four participants. Today, they are quite satisfied with the contacts between Mr Surkov and Mr Volker who review the situation with implementing the Minsk agreements and topical matters concerning the peace settlement.

Over a year ago, on October 19, 2016, Berlin hosted a Normandy Four summit, with all the participants reaffirming their commitment to the Minsk agreements as the only foundation for a peace settlement and the need for unfailingly honouring them without any omissions or free interpretations. This became the summit’s main result and serves as a starting point for coordinating the algorithm of future actions to implement the available agreements. Following the summit, the advisers of the Normandy Four leaders continued their previously launched discussion of a balance between security and political elements. The relevant agreements are not being coordinated as quickly as one would like, due to Kiev’s reluctance to honour its obligations under the Minsk agreements.

The leaders of Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine are well aware of the situation in the negotiating process. They have repeatedly exchanged opinions on this score during their telephone conversations, and they are ready to continue dialogue. But any new summit or regular meeting at the level of the Normandy Four foreign ministers is still out of the question.



Question:

The Venice Commission has recommended Kiev to amend its Law on Education. But Kiev is not willing to make any exemptions for Russian speakers. Will Moscow undertake to do something to protect Russian speakers in this context?



Grigory Karasin:

We support the conclusions of the Venice Commission that the scandalous Ukrainian Law on Education should be revised to remove the discriminating provisions that infringe on the minority language rights, in particular the rights of the Russian-speaking population. We plan to continue working with our foreign partners at the bilateral level and on international platforms and will also use the humanitarian organisations concerned to increase pressure on Kiev in this matter. The legitimate rights of millions of Russian speakers in Ukraine must not be infringed upon by nationalists in Kiev.



Question:

The foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan will meet in the latter half of January to discuss a settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh. What does Moscow expect from these talks? What matters are on the agenda? Can any breakthrough agreements be reached in this respect?



Grigory Karasin:

An Armenian-Azerbaijani summit on Nagorno-Karabakh was held in Geneva in October 2017 with support from the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group after a long break. The parties have agreed to stimulate the talks and to take additional measures to ease tension between the conflicting parties on the contact line. In November, the Minsk Group’s co-chairs held separate consultations with the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan. In December, they organised the ministers’ meeting on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Vienna. The parties discussed the key aspects of the settlement on which they cannot reach a consensus. They also talked about possible measures that can help de-escalate the situation in the conflict zone. Concrete proposals on the expansion of the OSCE mission have been submitted to the parties. The foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed to resume talks on these and other aspects of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement in January 2018 with the participation of the three intermediaries.

Russia welcomes the revitalisation of the talks, including the upcoming ministerial meeting, and would like to see a practical outcome. We support the striving of Armenia and Azerbaijan to find compromise solutions based on the available arrangements. Russia will continue to work together with the other co-chairs of the Minsk Group to provide mediation services in order to achieve a peaceful settlement of this drawn-out conflict. This common position of Russia, the United States and France has been clearly formulated in a joint statement by the heads of the three countries’ delegations at the OSCE Ministerial Council held in Vienna in early December.



Question:

Moscow has recently said that the delivery of Javelin anti-tank guided missiles to Georgia might induce Tbilisi to launch “new dangerous adventures in the region.” What specific Georgian actions does Moscow fear? Will any preventive measures be implemented?



Grigory Karasin:

We are not afraid of Tbilisi, but we are seriously concerned with the actions of its Western allies. It appears that they have completely forgotten about the consequences of Georgia’s previous militarisation. Less than ten years after the barbaric attack on South Ossetia, NATO continues to rapidly expand its military infrastructure in Georgia. There are plans to deliver up-to-date weapons systems worth many millions of dollars to Tbilisi, including French-made air defence systems and US-made anti-tank guided missiles. The United States is beginning to implement a combat-training programme for Georgian service personnel.

Although the incumbent Georgian government is saying that it has no intention of attacking Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Tbilisi is still reluctant to sign any agreements on the non-use of force with Sukhum and Tskhinval. One cannot give any guarantees that bellicose approaches towards former Georgian territories will not prevail once again in Georgia which is equipped with Western weapons. Naturally, we will not leave our allies alone in the face of a hypothetical aggression. But, considering NATO’s presence in Georgia, a situation spelling a substantial danger for international stability may emerge in that case.

Therefore, at this stage, I would like to urge those countries and organisations involved in Georgia’s militarisation to think about the negative consequences of their actions. We are closely following this process, and we are adequately adjusting our assistance to Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the area of security.



Question:

After the defeat of ISIS in Syria, terrorists started redeploying their forces to Afghanistan. Are we cooperating with Central Asian countries for neutralising this threat, and do we heed this fact in our military plans? How reliably is the CIS-Afghanistan border protected? Are we helping CIS countries to strengthen the border?



Grigory Karasin:

Russia and states neighbouring on Afghanistan cannot help but feel worried about the processes directly influencing regional security matters. Increasingly greater threats emanating from the Middle East and the aggravated situation in Afghanistan make it necessary to constantly improve the defence of southern borders of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The Collective Security Strategy of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) until 2025 heeds a possible invasion or penetration of the CIS by paramilitary units and militants of international terrorist and extremist organisations.

Collective Rapid Deployment Forces of the Central Asian Region and their air wing (an air base in Kant, Kyrgyzstan) were established with the support of all CSTO member states. They were later beefed up with the Collective Rapid Reaction Forces and Peacekeeping and Collective Aviation Forces. Today, they form the foundation of the CSTO’s Troops (Collective Forces). The relevant agencies for combating terrorism, illegal drug trafficking and illegal immigration have been established under CSTO and are functioning effectively. The 201st Russian Military Base in Tajikistan acts as a weighty deterrent. A Border Cooperation Group of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) is working actively in this country.

In addition to all this, Russia continues to provide military-technical assistance to the states in the region for the purpose of strengthening the border with Afghanistan. This includes personnel training programmes, including at Russian military education facilities, methodological support, tactical information exchanges and bilateral armed forces’ modernisation programmes with a number of the countries in the region. Joint training sessions, as well as large-scale CSTO exercises, are held in Tajikistan on a regular basis.



Question:

What do you think about the prospects for expanding bilateral relations between Russia and Moldova in the context of Chisinau’s latest unfriendly actions with regard to Moscow and with due consideration for diametrically opposite positions of President Igor Dodon and the Government of Moldova to build upon relations with Russia?



Grigory Karasin:

I hope that the time-tested diverse ties between Russia and Moldova will be normalised. It is a dangerous and futile policy to obtain bonuses by ratcheting up an anti-Russia campaign, regardless of what party implements this policy. We are noting all unfriendly actions and adequately evaluating them. It is bad that the interests of a considerable part of the Moldovan society are being damaged.

Moscow continues to advocate constructive dialogue with all government branches in Chisinau and active joint work to implement agreements that have been reached. We are hoping that common sense will prevail.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3009606






State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin’s interview with the newspaper Kommersant, published on December 27, 2017



27 December 2017 - 11:21





Question:

Last week, the UN General Assembly approved the Ukrainian proposed resolution on the human rights situation in Crimea. The post-Soviet countries (with the exception of the Baltic states) can be divided into three camps as to how they voted: Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova co-sponsored the document, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan abstained from voting, while the rest voted against it. Can this line-up serve as the basis for a judgment on who are allies, opponents or neutrals with regard to Russia?



Grigory Karasin:

This vote is certainly an indicator of sorts, but I wouldn’t judge these line-ups only on this basis.

As far as the resolution itself is concerned, Ukraine should better sort out the situation in its own southeast rather than in Crimea. For us, the Crimea issue has been closed; we have solved it once and for all. And, of course, we will oppose resolutions of this sort, while simultaneously inviting unbiased people, including representatives of international organisations, to visit Crimea. For example, a Council of Europe delegation led by Gerard Studman visited Crimea not so long ago. They had contacts with all groups – Ukrainians, Russians, Crimean Tatars, and prison inmates. This resulted in a very balanced report, which, however, did not get anywhere because it was immediately blocked by those unwilling to recognise the new realities around Crimea. This is a road leading nowhere, and we will always fight this.



Question:

What is the fate of the Russian resolution on deploying UN peacekeepers in Donbass? Can we expect the Blue Helmets to turn up there in 2018?



Grigory Karasin:

I hope we will manage to take steps in this direction next year, but this progress should not be at the expense of the political interests of Donetsk and Lugansk.

As is evident from the Russian-proposed resolution, the main mission to be performed by the peacekeepers is to ensure safety of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission. We see artificial attempts to change this concept in favour of introducing an external administration in southeastern Ukraine involving the closure of the border between Donbass and Russia. This is out of the question. Russia will never allow this. We want the UN peacekeepers to protect the OSCE monitors and this is what our proposal is all about. A lot of diplomatic and political work is upcoming in this connection.



Question:

Given that Russia has withdrawn its military personnel from the Joint Center for Control and Coordination of the ceasefire regime (JCCC), the prospects for reaching a compromise seem even vaguer.



Grigory Karasin:

This decision was not spontaneous. We sent four notes to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, urging them to stop violating the rights of Russian officers in Ukraine. It will be recalled that the JCCC itself was established at Kiev’s initiative in 2014. It was implied that representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk would join it as well, but Kiev rejected them in 2015. Somewhat later, it started humiliating our officers. This concerns everyday problems, border checks (up to the point of undressing), and human contacts in general. This could not be tolerated, but we got no reply to our notes and so a well-justified decision was taken to recall our officers.



Question:

Can they return under certain conditions?



Grigory Karasin:

There is nothing impossible in our life, but Kiev should change its position for this and guarantee the conditions that must not depend on some or other Ukrainian politician’s will. An internationally approved code of conduct towards Russian officers should be adopted. I think this is possible, in theory.



Question:

I don’t understand Russian officials’ reasoning to the effect that a “second Srebrenica” will occur, if the border is blocked. There is the example of the formerly separatist-controlled city of Slavyansk. Everyone is alive and kicking now that it is under Kiev’s control.



Grigory Karasin:

You should better listen to what the Ukrainian politicians say, from Interior Minister Arsen Avakov to Deputy Minister Georgy Tuka, who is in charge of the “temporarily occupied territories.” You will also hear the same from Verkhovna Rada deputies, including Speaker Andrey Parubiy, and representatives of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry. I can send you a selection of quotes.

They treat the population of Donbass as though they are inferior people who do not deserve to be called Ukrainians; they compare them with vermin that should be chemically exterminated. I can imagine what will happen, if Donbass residents are cut off from the border of support, moral and humanitarian, which is now the stretch of Russian border with the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. We can’t take this risk and we will not put at risk thousands of lives of our Ukrainian neighbours.



Question:

The Minsk Agreements say that the border should ultimately come under Kiev’s control anyway.



Grigory Karasin:

This is the final clause of the Minsk Agreements. Before arriving at it, it is necessary to implement the law on the special status of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, the election law, and the law on amnesty. But this is forgotten and nobody mentions this at all. The political subgroup of the Contact Group in Minsk is, in effect, marking time. Its chairman, Pierre Morel, is a seasoned diplomat. He is trying to move the process off the dead centre, but in vain.

Kiev still wants “magic solutions” and primarily would like to solve its problems by proxy. This idea is stuck in Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko’s mind. He seems to believe that all Donbass-related problems will be solved of its own accord, if he calls Russia “aggressor country” as often as he can. This reasoning makes no sense.



Question:

When asked why they don’t apply pressure on Kiev in order for it to stop sabotaging the political portion of the Minsk Agreements, Western diplomats usually have the following to say: “Let Russia first force its clients in Donbass to fully comply with at least the first two paragraphs of the agreements on a ceasefire and withdrawal of weapons, and then we will begin to put the heat on Kiev.”



Grigory Karasin:

This conversation needs to start otherwise. First, it is imperative to understand whether Kiev considers Donbass a part of Ukraine. Apparently, it does, although I'm not entirely sure about this, because the radical party that has entrenched itself in Kiev believes that Donbass should be cut off.

Second, if you consider this region to be part of Ukraine, then why do you refuse to talk with your fellow citizens? Indeed, they have a different perspective on things: they did not accept the coup in Kiev, they fear for their lives and the lives of their families, plus they do not want to live under the dictate of the government, which deprives people of the right to speak Russian, etc. Their position is known. If Kiev wants to achieve a settlement, it should open a dialogue with the people of Donbass. There are ways to do this. There is, for example, a contact group in Minsk. Go ahead and agree on some forms of interaction, and create additional bodies for bilateral interaction. However, they have never come up with a single idea about this. All they are talking about is an “aggressor country.” Donbass and its people don’t seem to exist. This road leads nowhere, so I'm fairly pessimistic about the near future.



Question:

The relations between Moscow and Kiev over the past year do not inspire much optimism, either. Some experts say that Russia has lost Ukraine forever in the sense that Moscow's actions in Crimea and Donbass have caused irreparable damage to bilateral relations. What do you think?



Grigory Karasin:

Russian-Ukrainian relations continue to deteriorate. I’m saying this with pain and regret. However, the blame for this lies entirely with Kiev, which consistently pursues a policy aimed at complete destruction of bilateral ties, even if it runs counter to the interests of the Ukrainian people. The Kiev authorities are consciously following the path of curtailing cooperation with us in the sphere of industry, energy, transport, trade, and scientific and technical cooperation. They introduced a ban on imports of Russian literature to Ukraine, imposed stringent restrictions on Russian artists’ tours, showing Russian films, as well as our television channels and electronic media. Forced de-Russification of all spheres of public life is going at full speed. A discriminatory law On Education has been adopted, which infringes upon the rights of millions of Russian-speaking citizens as well as other ethnic minorities. They stick to the policy of glorifying Nazi minions, rewriting history, plus forgetting our common historical past. The initiative seeking to break off diplomatic relations with Moscow, which re-surfaced in the Rada, has become the high point of the anti-Russian sentiment. This discussion is periodically reignited by the Kiev hawks.

However, there is good news, too. Despite all this artificial negative background, the anti-Russian “vaccination” which the Kiev authorities have administered to their citizens seems to be wearing off. Real ties between Russia and Ukraine at the people's level are gradually resuming. The mutual flow of passengers is on the rise. In the first half of 2017, the number of Ukrainian citizens visiting Russia increased by 56.1 percent compared to the same period back in 2016. Positive dynamics can be seen in mutual trade. According to preliminary estimates, trade between Russia and Ukraine grew by 24.7 percent in 10 months of 2017 compared to 2016.



Question:

Let's take a less complicated region, Belarus. Previously, Moscow said that the Russian-Belarusian intergovernmental agreement designed to create a legal basis for crossing the land border between the two countries by foreign nationals will be signed before the end of this year. When should we expect this to happen?



Grigory Karasin:

We are working hard on this document. We share an understanding of the importance of creating a single visa space, but there are some technical difficulties. Our experts will soon meet to discuss this matter, and I hope that we will be able to resolve this early on in 2018.



Question:

That is, you will be able to have it done before the World Cup?



Grigory Karasin:

This is our number one priority. I believe we will have it done by spring, way before the World Cup. Both sides are willing to have it done, and we are fine tuning the details. I am not going to discuss the details of the talks right now. I will only say that both sides are interested in creating, as soon as possible, an international legal basis for resolving visa issues and regulating the procedure for the transit of foreign nationals from Russia to Belarus and back.

As you may be aware, the procedure for crossing by foreign nationals of a section of the state border between Russia and Belarus by air was introduced in April. The corresponding flights were transferred to international terminals. This system is working well, and there has not been a single complaint.



Question:

The situation in Moldova is paradoxical: the president is pro-Russian, while the government is pro-Western, and they keep throwing stones at each other. What is Moscow’s strategy in relations with Chisinau?



Grigory Karasin:

Our relations with Moldova, which is a friendly country, were paradoxical in 2017. On the one hand, there were many positive things. Bilateral dialogue at the top level was more regular than ever before: Since his election as President of Moldova, Igor Dodon has held talks with Vladimir Putin six times.

When Igor Dodon applied for the observer status at the Eurasian Economic Union, those in Moldova who advocated the revival of traditional multifaceted Russian-Moldovan ties that have been seriously damaged in the past few years due to Chisinau’s lop-sided policy of integration with the EU welcomed the decision as a signal event. The formalisation of this decision, which will open new vistas for Moldova’s integration into the Eurasian economic space, has entered the final stage.

On the other hand, growing confrontation between the two branches of power in Moldova continues to have a negative impact on Russian-Moldovan relations. We are concerned about the recent decrease in cooperation at the interdepartmental level. The Moldovan government and parliament are making anti-Russia statements. Actually, our relations have been thrown far back in some areas because of Chisinau’s misinterpreted “loyalty for European integration.” Moldovan Ambassador to Russia Andrei Neguta has been recently called back for consultations. I am sure that this situation does not suit the national interests of Moldova or the aspirations of the Moldovan citizens.

Nevertheless, we are resolved to carry on a constructive dialogue with Chisinau and to work together to implement the agreements achieved.



Question:

How would you describe your achievements on the subject of Transnistria?



Grigory Karasin:

We have achieved some results here in 2017, despite problems and a very specific, rather passive approach of the Austrian OSCE Chairmanship to organising talks in the 5+2 format, which is the main instrument of the Transnistrian settlement process. The Moldovan-Transnistrian working groups did the bulk of work thanks to a boost that they received from two meetings between Moldovan President Igor Dodon and Transnistrian leader Vadim Krasnoselsky in January and March of this year. In late November, four agreements on the practical aspects of Chisinau-Tiraspol interaction were signed with active support from Russia and the other international intermediaries within the 5+2 format. These include agreements on the authentication/apostille of Transnistrian university diplomas, on cooperation in telecommunications, on access to agricultural lands in the Dubasari District, as well as on the use of the Latin script in Moldovan schools in Transnistria. The parties have also settled the problem of opening the Gura Bicului-Bychok Bridge to transport.

The majority of the agreements signed only provide a general framework. We need to see how they are implemented and whether any artificial obstacles to this would be created.



Question:

The Moldovan authorities have recently presented a plan for settling the Transnistrian crisis, the so-called re-integration vision, which provides for offering Transnistria a special status within the limits of the Moldovan Constitution. Is Russia ready to hold talks on the basis of this document?



Grigory Karasin:

There are two main parties to this conflict, Chisinau and Tiraspol, which must discuss their visions of the situation. Moscow will not take part in any serious talks on the Transnistrian settlement process without Tiraspol. This is why we tell the Moldovan representatives that they need to discuss their vision with their Tiraspol colleagues. You can invite Russia to these talks; we have nothing against this, but we insist that the main negotiating parties be Tiraspol and Chisinau. We believe that this is possible.



Question:

In May, we talked in detail about the prospects for a convention on the legal status of the Caspian Sea. Back then, you said that the document was within arm's reach. Did you manage to reach out and get it signed?



Grigory Karasin:

I think progress in this endeavour is one of the most significant achievements of the past year. The draft convention was agreed upon, as a whole, by foreign ministers of the Caspian Five at a meeting held in Moscow recently. Experts worked on it laboriously for more than 20 years. A multinational team of diplomats, and specialists from other departments of the five countries, has formed over the years and, by way of a trust-based dialogue and search for compromises, eventually managed to create a balanced project that takes into account the interests of all sides.



Question:

So, is it safe to say that the convention will be signed in 2018?



Grigory Karasin:

As someone who’s been around, I won’t say “yes” right away. The 5th Caspian Summit in Kazakhstan is looming on the horizon. I predict that the agenda of this meeting of the presidents will be very busy. However, as the summit approaches, some nuances might appear which could require additional coordination. So, I would not rule out the possibility of foreign ministers or working groups getting together for a preparatory meeting in order to tie up a few loose ends.

In general, the relations between the Caspian countries are developing positively. In contrast to the 1990s, when the focus was on disintegration and attempts to unilaterally “divide” the sea, we are now at a completely different stage. At this point, everyone realises that the Caspian Sea is not only about oil and gas. Life forces us to take collective responsibility for everything that happens in this unique body of water.

Sturgeon is the first thing that comes to mind. Complaints about its disastrously low stocks have become commonplace. Indeed, the situation is far from perfect. However, we seem to have managed to reverse the negative trend through joint efforts. Since 2013, our countries have voluntarily observed a moratorium on the commercial catch of this fish, that is, it is being caught for research purposes only. The first session of the intergovernmental Commission on Caspian Bioresources was recently held in Baku. Its participants reiterated the determination of the Big Five to abstain from sturgeon fishing. In addition, a document on the joint fight against poaching in the Caspian is almost ready.

Potential accidents or disasters are another important matter. We pay close attention to this, including by way of improving and specifying the mechanism for protecting the Caspian Sea environment. A most important agreement on assessing the cross-border environmental impact, which must be signed in conjunction with the convention, is about to be approved.



Question:

Speaking of the convention once again, have all contentious issues been resolved?



Grigory Karasin:

We have agreed on ways for resolving them. It should be noted here that the convention will not resolve all issues arising, but it will create the required framework for agreements between the respective Caspian littoral states.



Question:

Has the principle for demarcating the Caspian Sea been coordinated?



Grigory Karasin:

Yes, but I would rather not go into details at this stage.



Question:

In November, Armenia and the European Union signed an agreement on comprehensive and expanded partnership. What does Russia think about this?



Grigory Karasin:

We always perceive our neighbours and allies as people who have their own opinions on life and foreign policy. Our neighbours are sovereign states, and the same is true of our allies in the Collective Security Treaty Organisation and the Eurasian Economic Union. Understandably, they are expanding multi-vector contacts in the modern era, and this is quite natural in the 21st century. We have never presented our neighbours and allies with the following choice: Are you siding with us or them? But we have the right to expect that allied relations will be prioritised. Moreover, agreements being signed in other formats, including the European Union’s Eastern Partnership, should not violate obligations on which we have already agreed.



Question:

Should we worry about the situation in Central Asia now that ISIS militants have been expelled from Syria and Iraq to neighbouring countries?



Grigory Karasin:

Indeed, emissaries of international terrorist organisations are becoming more and more active along all approaches to the region, near and far. Militants are gradually redeploying from Syria and Iraq to northern Afghanistan. This increases the risk of their activity transferring to neighbouring countries, including Central Asia. At the same time, drug trafficking in drug trafficking in Afghanistan, which provides funding for terrorist groups, continues to expand.

In this connection, we attach special significance to cooperation in strengthening Central Asian countries’ security and defence capability through measures such as the provision of gratis assistance to law enforcement agencies of a number of regional countries, including personnel training. The 201st Russian Military Base in Tajikistan and the Joint Russian Military Base in Kyrgyzstan play a major stabilising role.



Question:

Several months ago, the Kyrgyzstan authorities suggested that Russia deploy one more military base in the country. At that time, Moscow indicated that this was not necessary. Since then, a new president has been elected in Kyrgyzstan. Does Moscow’s position remain the same?



Grigory Karasin:

Sooronbay Jeenbekov has scored a landslide victory during the latest presidential elections, an important domestic political event in Kyrgyzstan. The new President has reaffirmed the continuity of the republic’s foreign policy, prioritising allied relations with Russia, active involvement in integration processes, as well as more profound neighbourliness and mutually beneficial cooperation with all regional countries.

Regarding the question of the base, Kyrgyzstan is our CSTO and EEU ally and a good friend. Therefore we always pay attention to the initiatives of Kyrgyzstan’s leaders. But, at this stage, we believe that our military base in Kant is quite enough for neutralising possible external threats.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3009616






Comment by Director of the Foreign Ministry's Department for Humanitarian Cooperation and Human Rights and Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law Anatoly Viktorov on the European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights



27 December 2017 - 16:04





We have taken note of the Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), which analyses the situation regarding ethnic minorities and migrants in EU member states.

The target groups chosen for this survey include respondents with Sub-Saharan, North African, South Asian and Turkish backgrounds, Roma respondents, recent immigrants from other countries, as well as representatives of Russian minority target groups in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The survey is based on the results of questioning participants about discrimination they encounter in the areas of employment, education, healthcare and public services.

Although this is the first FRA survey in the past few years that gives considerable attention to the Russian minorities in the Baltic states, it is obvious that the authors deliberately violated methodological principles by putting recent immigrants in the same category as the Russian minorities in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, regardless of differences in the legal status of these groups. The authors go as far as to suggest that respondents from the Russian minority groups in the Baltics encounter less discrimination than Roma respondents and immigrants. According to the survey, the Russian minority feels the least discriminated against based on ethnic origin, and finding employment does not depend on language proficiency. It looks as if the data in this survey has been deliberately adjusted to suit the desired result.

At the same time, the authors turn a blind eye to the shameful phenomenon of large-scale statelessness, which has deprived hundreds of thousands of people in Latvia and Estonia of access to political, social and economic rights for more than 20 years. There is also ethnic-based intolerance with regard to the students and teachers at Russian-language schools, as well as the punitive practice of the Latvian State Language Centre that fines Russian speakers for using their native tongue. A glaring example of these openly discriminatory policies is the Riga authorities’ plans to convert minority language schools to tuition in the national language by 2021. The government has turned a deaf ear to the appeals made by public organisations to preserve Russian-language schools and the autonomy of minority schools.

The publication of this FRA survey looks especially cynical in light of the numerous recommendations to the Baltic states made by various human rights agencies and institutions, such as the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

We urge the FRA and EU leaders to take a more objective and nonpartisan approach to their surveys, to give more attention to human rights problems that have existed in the EU for decades, and to take practical steps to settle them.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3009857






Permanent Representative of Russia to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich’s remarks at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, December 21, 2017



27 December 2017 - 18:27





Mr Chairperson,

Unfortunately, we are once again witnessing a sharp deterioration of the situation in Donbass. The number of ceasefire violations, including with the use of weapons banned under the Minsk Agreements, and including volley fire systems, has significantly increased. On December 19, in Yasinovataya, the SMM recorded over 4,000 shell explosions and gun shots. Reportedly, the shelling of Yasinovataya resumed on December 20. Two civilians died and two more were wounded.

On December 13, the Ukrainian military jeopardised the lives of the SMM observers by firing large-caliber artillery in the immediate vicinity of the mission's office in Popasnaya. Subsequently, the observers checked the results of this shelling in Pervomaisk and Stakhanov, where at least five buildings and power lines were destroyed or damaged. The shelling resumed on December 18.

According to the SMM, between December 11 and 19, six civilians were wounded, and massive damage and destruction was identified in Stakhanov, Pervomaik, Dokuchayevsk, and Gorlovka as a result of shelling from the directions where the Ukrainian military are stationed. Artillery was fired at Kalinovo-Borshchevataya, Lugansky and Sakhanka. New craters from shells fired at the sites controlled by the Donetsk People's Republic were discovered outside ​the Donetsk filtering station.

In recent days, 6,500 shots were fired at Donetsk, and 1,500 shots at Lugansk. This massive destruction in the Donbass region has not been seen in a long while. We expect the SMM to quickly and more thoroughly check these data.

Fire at these villages and sites was conducted from large-caliber artillery. As we understand it, the SMM is unable to inspect it because of fake and real mine obstacles in the territory controlled by the Ukrainian military, with which, this week alone (December 11−19), the SMM collided 24 times (which is double the SMM limits on the territory controlled by the militia over the same period). The number of Ukrainian weapons in Donbass can be estimated by the results of warehouse inspections. This week, the observers failed to account for 330 pieces of military equipment in the warehouses controlled by the Ukrainian military.

Kiev is torpedoing the withdrawal of forces. The Ukrainian military refuse to withdraw their forces and means from Stanitsa Luganskaya, despite the fact that the Contact Group has 15 seven-day periods of total silence on record. The Ukrainian military are destabilising the situation in other disengagement areas. In Petrovskoye, on an almost daily basis, the SMM records cease-fire violations. In Zolotoye, an SMM drone identified 169 mines inside the disengagement area on the side of the territory controlled by the government.

The situation in Donbass was aggravated when the Ukrainian military and the nationalist battalions occupied the villages of Travnevoye and Gladosovo. Such provocations, which lead to bringing the positions of the sides closer and, accordingly, to escalating hostilities, must be stopped.

Another “New Year’s” truce from December 23 that the parties agreed upon at a Contact Group meeting in Minsk on December 20 should defuse tensions. However, since the Ukrainian side has no credibility, we need firm guarantees that the truce will be observed. We expect that, at least, the punitive battalions and the Right Sector formation will be withdrawn from the line of contact. The corresponding orders for the armed forces of Ukraine on the non-use of weapons must be made public.

Instead of this, President Poroshenko and Alexander Turchinov, who has launched this punitive operation, are talking about reinforcing the Ukrainian armed forces in Donbass.

Regrettably, Kiev has used the withdrawal of Russian officers from the JCCC in Ukraine to further increase the intensity of shelling Donbass.

We explained several times why Russian officers could no longer stay in Ukraine. We spoke about this at the Permanent Council meetings and also during the OSCE Ministerial Council in Vienna. But nobody heard or did not want to hear us. In addition, the Russian Foreign Ministry has sent four notes to Ukraine since September, which remain unanswered. We tried to attract attention to this issue within the Normandy format and the Contact Group. But Ukraine ignored all our calls. We are surprised, therefore, that the decision to withdraw our officers has come as a surprise to some people.

It should be said that Russian officers worked in Ukraine at Kiev’s request and greatly contributed to stabilisation efforts. But the Ukrainian authorities clearly no longer need our officers’ services if they have created unacceptable conditions for them. Overall, the obstacles created for Russian officers at the JCCC in the government-controlled territory are much more serious than the difficulties SMM observers encounter.

We are convinced that the SMM will be able to continue to operate effectively nevertheless, and that it will strengthen contact with the local authorities as per its mandate. We urge the SMM not to decrease but to increase its operations on the contact line. We welcome their visit to Travnevoye, although preparations lasted several weeks. The information that there are soldiers from the Azov punitive battalion, which has earned a poor reputation by its crimes, in the village has been confirmed.

We appreciate the fact that the SMM has monitored and verified the return of Russian officers from the JCCC to Russia. This was very important for preventing any provocations. However, there was an unpleasant incident at the Ukrainian checkpoint where one of our officers was kept for some five hours. We will definitely take note of this.

There is an obvious connection between developments in Donbass and simmering political tensions in Kiev. Tens of thousands of people, including veterans of the punitive operations and radical nationalists, have been holding demonstrations to demand the impeachment of President Poroshenko. We are monitoring the adventures of Mikheil Saakashvili, an opportunist and a military criminal who ordered an attack from heavy weaponry against unarmed civilians. In this respect, he is the twin brother of the Kiev leaders. So-called activists continue to interfere with the courts and law enforcement agencies. Is this the European standard of the supremacy of law? A new attempt has been made to occupy buildings in Kiev. This time, 32 police officers have been injured in clashes at the Oktyabrsky Palace. Some Western representatives described this as abuse of the right to hold peaceful protests. Where did they look in the winter of 2013 and 2014? Or did they apply different rules to that situation?

In conclusion, I would like to point out once again that the Minsk Agreements are the only path towards peaceful stabilisation. Other options are fraught with new victims and destruction. Kiev has used all of them. There is no point in doing this again.

Kiev’s hackneyed speculation regarding foreign aggression and the invading army is nothing but a propaganda curtain used to hide the desire to continue the conflict. These theses do not go well with the invitation of Russian officers on the JCCC to Ukraine.

Another example of this is the prevention of a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. I recommend a more considerate attitude to the Minsk Agreements. Under these, all the key issues are to be coordinated with Donetsk and Lugansk representatives, including questions related to local elections (Clause 12). Therefore, saying that Donetsk and Lugansk will only have legitimate representatives after the elections is an open misinterpretation of the Minsk Agreements.

Likewise, there are no grounds for presenting the punitive operation against Donbass as a self-defence operation. The delivery of large amounts of US and Canadian weapons and military equipment to Ukraine is only pushing radical nationalists towards new reckless military schemes, which cannot promote peace in the region or the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. The latest example of US support for Kiev has confirmed that Ukraine is an externally controlled territory. The situation in Ukraine’s economy and armed forces clearly shows that the country is living off foreign resources. Moreover, by supplying weapons to Kiev, Washington becomes an accessory to the murder of those who have risen against the nationalist coup in Kiev and are fighting for their system of values and for the right to speak in their native – Russian – language.

We urge everyone who really wants to end this crisis to get down more actively to removing one of the key factors fuelling the conflict in Ukraine, that is, aggressive radical nationalism. We must remove this core of the “party of war,” which is working hard to hinder the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, fomenting hatred and demanding that the punitive operation be continued until Donbass is mopped up completely.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3010001
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 30th, 2017 #335
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson



26 December 2017 - 19:50







On December 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke over the telephone with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The call was initiated by the US side.

The sides agreed that North Korea’s nuclear missile developments were violating UN Security Council requirements. Mr Lavrov again stressed that it was unacceptable to escalate tensions around the Korean Peninsula by Washington’s aggressive rhetoric against Pyongyang and buildup of war preparations in the region. The need to switch from the language of sanctions to the negotiating process as soon as possible was emphasised.

The officials discussed further steps to overcome the conflict in Syria, while preserving its territorial integrity, including the holding of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi as part of the efforts to move to a settlement based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and encourage direct talks between the Syrian Government and the opposition in Geneva without any preconditions.

The officials also discussed other international issues, including the situation in Ukraine in the context of implementing the Minsk Agreements. They reaffirmed the importance of further using the bilateral channel of consultations in addition to the Contact Group and the Normandy format.

While reviewing bilateral relations, Mr Lavrov and Mr Tillerson agreed to step up dialogue on urgent issues of strategic stability. Both diplomats agreed to stay in close contact.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3008194






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Ahmad Jarba, leader of the opposition Syria’s Tomorrow Movement, Moscow, December 27, 2017



27 December 2017 - 14:37









I am glad to welcome you to Moscow again. We have observed a number of positive changes in Syria since our last meeting. A decisive blow has been dealt to ISIS, and even though individual militants who have fled from the battlefield are trying to regroup in Syria or escape to other countries, it is clear that the main fight is over.

Today, the main antiterrorist task is to rout Jabhat al-Nusra. The Russian-supported Syrian army and their allies are pressing al-Nusra hard, but they are putting up resistance because, among other things, they, as we know, receive external assistance. To quote President of Russia Vladimir Putin, the Russian Aerospace Forces will most actively support the Syrian army in the event of recurrences of terrorist activities. To this end, as you know, a decision has been approved (based on an intergovernmental agreement with Damascus) on the permanent bases of the Russian Armed Forces in Tartus and Khmeimim.

The successes in fighting ISIS as well as the successful functioning of the de-escalation zones created within the framework of the Astana Process make it possible to take on the political process in a more active and detailed manner. Based on the results of eight meetings in Astana, the presidents of Russia, Turkey and Iran, as you know, have put forward an initiative to convene the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. The date, January 29-30, has been set for it. We appreciate your active involvement in efforts to ensure the success of this event. We see that it enjoys broad support among the Syrians, primarily those living in their country, including the majority of tribal chiefs.

As you know, external opposition members have been invited to the Congress as well, including those who formed a delegation for talks with the Syrian Government in Geneva. Our goal is to create a maximally representative basis for launching a constitutional reform. Its terms should, of course, be coordinated by the Syrians themselves, who would thereby comply with the clause of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 on the need for dialogue between the Government and the entire spectrum of the opposition.

We are confident that just as the initiative to establish the Astana venue a year ago gave a shot in the arm to our UN colleagues, who, after a 10-month pause, began taking steps towards resuming the negotiations, the Syrian National Dialogue Congress will, without any doubt, help UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and his colleagues to initiate, at long last, a direct dialogue without preconditions in Geneva, primarily on such matters as the constitution and preparations for the elections.

We will be glad to hear your assessments from within the processes unfolding at the stages in the Syrian settlement. They are always useful for us.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3009679






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Interfax news agency, December 28, 2017



28 December 2017 - 16:08





Question:

Mr Lavrov, what was the main factor influencing Russian diplomacy in the last year? What foreign policy challenges will we face in 2018? Will peace be restored in Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

2017 was a difficult year. The international situation has not improved. The main task for Russian diplomacy was to protect national interests, security and sovereignty, neutralise threats and provide an appropriate response to external challenges in the interests of consistent internal development. There were quite a few such challenges, from the fratricidal conflict in neighbouring Ukraine, which has an internal Russian dimension due to the special national-historic ties between our countries, to an alarming growth of tension in the Russian Far East, which borders the Korean Peninsula. Some irresponsible forces in the West are fueling conflict in a bid to contain Russia and other independent centres of global influence. The increasingly radical policies of some Western countries and their lack of any pragmatic basis in reality are seriously increasing pressure on international law and threatening to bring chaos to interstate relations.

The Russian Foreign Ministry continued to work efficiently in this difficult situation. Our diplomats are used to seeing problems as an impetus for creativity. Of course, we are glad that we can rely in our work on the unanimous public support for our President’s principled, honest and independent foreign policy. We are advocating a positive, balanced and future-oriented international agenda, including as a permanent UN Security Council member, aimed at finding effective solutions to global problems.

One of our key priorities was the promotion of a peaceful settlement in the long-standing internal Syrian conflict. We joined hands with Iran and Turkey to initiate the Astana format, which has proved effective: we have introduced and promoted a ceasefire between the government forces and the armed opposition, which allowed us to focus on defeating ISIS. Four de-escalation zones are operating effectively in Syria. Refugees are returning to their country, which is rebuilding its infrastructure. Therefore, the necessary conditions for a political settlement, based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254, have been created largely thanks to Russia’s efforts.

We closely monitored the development of integration within the EAEU and the strengthening of cooperation within the CSTO and the CIS, where Russia held the rotating chairmanship. We continued to work on the implementation of Vladimir Putin’s initiative on the creation of a Greater Eurasian Partnership, including through the alignment of Eurasian integration and China’s Belt and Road initiative.

All-out partnership and strategic cooperation with our great neighbour China has made considerable headway and has been enriched with new content. Other high-priority areas included the development of an especially privileged strategic partnership with India. Relations with Turkey have been normalised. The quality of ties with an overwhelming majority of Asia Pacific, Latin American and African states continued to improve steadily. We actively cooperated with our partners at such new multilateral associations as the G20, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS where there are no “teachers” and “pupils,” and where equitable dialogue is conducted.

In 2018, we will continue to focus on the uncompromising fight against international terrorism in line with Vladimir Putin’s well-known initiative to establish a broad anti-terrorist coalition under UN auspices. We intend to continue to help scale down tensions around the Korean Peninsula in every possible way and to prevent an armed confrontation there.

We will do everything we can to restore peace and stability in Syria as soon as possible. At the same time, it is obvious that progress in achieving a political settlement in the Syrian Arab Republic primarily depends on the people of Syria themselves. The efforts of outside players should be aimed at helping the Syrian parties to reach agreement. In this connection, we want to continue working energetically with the government and the opposition and to urge them to reach a consensus and to stop confrontation. Currently, we are focused on practical issues of convening the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi in close contact with our partners from the Astana format. This Congress is called upon to facilitate UN-mediated intra-Syrian talks in Geneva.

We continue to make our contribution to finding political and diplomatic solutions to other crises and conflicts, with which the world is, unfortunately, oversaturated. We will promote the universal values of justice, honesty, wide-ranging and equitable partnership and conflict-free constructive development. We will help strengthen multilateral aspects in international affairs for maintaining a more equitable and democratic world order, based on the UN Charter, reflecting and respecting the cultural-civilisational diversity of nations.

Our responsible and well-thought-out approaches meet with the broadest possible support. Therefore one can safely say that Russia has reinstated its historically essential role as the guarantor of global stability.



Question:

Washington has said that it is not going to pull out of Syria. Is Russia ready to work together with its American partners in Syria in order to rout terrorism and maintain peace and security there in the post-conflict period?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have said many times, at various levels, that if the Americans’ goal in Syria is indeed to fight terrorism, as they say, there are objective opportunities for cooperating with them in this sphere.

The joint statement, which President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump adopted on the sidelines of the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in Danang on November 11, seals their resolve to continue to work together in Syria. In addition, on November 8, Russia, the United States and Jordan signed a trilateral memorandum on de-escalation principles in southern Syria, which is designed to reinforce the ceasefire initiative in this region. The de-escalation zone, which has been functioning there since last summer, has proved effective.

We believe that Americans should pull out of Syria as soon as terrorist activity is totally eradicated there, which will happen very soon. I would like to point out that the United States and the US-led coalition do not have the UN Security Council’s mandate for their operations in Syria. The legitimate Syrian Government has not invited them either.

We are surprised, therefore, at the statement made by US Defence Secretary James Mattis, who has said that US forces will remain in Syria until progress in a political settlement is reached there. Washington is acting as if it has the right to judge progress towards a political settlement and wants to control a part of Syrian territory until it achieves the result it wants. This is not how it is done. Under UN Security Council Resolution 2254, the adoption of which the United States advocated, the Syrians themselves must decide the future of their country. We will be guided by this understanding in our relations with our American partners.



Question:

Did President Trump live up to our expectations in terms of bilateral relations? Or are you disappointed? How will Russia-US relations be affected by the coming into force of new US sanctions on the Russian energy sector and defence industry, and the planned publication of lists of the Russian elite early next year?



Sergey Lavrov:

Disappointment comes from inflated expectations, which we didn’t have with regard to Russia-US relations.

In our efforts to build a dialogue with Washington – no matter who is sitting in the White House – we rely on pragmatic approaches and realistic assessments. We do not entertain any illusions. From the outset, we realised that overcoming the burdensome legacy of the Obama administration in the sphere of bilateral relations would be an extremely difficult process.

We are still willing to do our part in order to get them back on track. We regularly remind our US colleagues that building a normal dialogue between our countries and establishing productive cooperation in international affairs is only possible if the national interests of both countries are taken in account and respected.

So far, we have been unable to achieve any changes for the better because of the Russophobic hysteria that has swept the political circles in Washington and has taken on, without exaggeration, a paranoid character. This is what prevents us from moving forward in areas that are important for both our states, and provokes additional tensions in the international arena. The United States is taking unfriendly actions with regard to our country. The implementation of Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act will inevitably affect our relationship. That said, Washington is clearly off the mark – the Russian economy has not only adapted [to sanctions], but has regained an economic growth trajectory, and is about to break new ground.

We will respond to any hostile actions against Russia and our citizens in the way that is best for us. However, we expect that Washington will at some point realise the futility of exerting pressure on our country. In fact, the sooner certain American politicians get rid of the illusions that Russia can be cowed by restrictive measures or a show of force, the better it will be for everyone, including themselves. This will not only improve the atmosphere of Russian-American relations, but will also allow us to more effectively address pressing global and regional problems plaguing the entire international community.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3012117
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 30th, 2017 #336
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 28, 2017



28 December 2017 - 18:40









Developments in Syria

Positive dynamics continue in and around Syria. With the support of the Russian Aerospace Forces, the Syrian army continues to systematically destroy the remaining hotbeds of international terrorists from Jabhat al-Nusra. The completion of the intense military phase of the Syrian crisis creates the urge to step up the political settlement process.

The 8th International Meeting on Syria was held in Astana on December 21-22, following which, in addition to the Joint Statement by Russia, Iran and Turkey, two more important documents were adopted on humanitarian demining in Syria and the release of detainees/hostages. The Astana forum participants focused particularly on preparations for the Syrian National Dialogue Congress scheduled to be held in Sochi on January 29-30. We regard the Congress as a body designed to give major impetus to the negotiation process under the auspices of the United Nations in Geneva and to the achievement by the Syrians themselves of the agreements by mutual consent and without any preconditions.

The success of the Astana meeting made all various political radicals step up their activities. They are trying to hamper the beginning of a broad inclusive intra-Syrian dialogue and practical steps to outline the political arrangement in a post-conflict Syria. The radicals are not interested in achieving peace. They have something to lose, because they cannot count on the support of even a small portion of the population in conditions of returning to a peaceful life. In this regard, they are trying to obstruct the settlement process in every possible way and to interfere with the work of the international formats, which seek to facilitate the political process.

We call on international and regional forces that have an influence on the situation in Syria to take an unambiguous position in favour of the Congress designed to advance the talks in Geneva, and help the Syrians themselves achieve consensus agreements based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254.



Bombarding Hmeymim airbase

On December 27, militants fired, from the village of Bdama, several missiles at the international airport of Latakia and the Russian Aerospace Forces deployment site at Hmeymim. Two of them were intercepted by the Russian air defence system Pantsyr. The third veered off its trajectory and fell in the vicinity of the town of Jebla.

Moscow is concerned about this provocation by terrorists. We are not worried about the safety of the Russian service personnel, who are reliably protected by a multi-level air defence system, which, in this case, proved its effectiveness. Another thing is of concern: where are the terrorists getting more weapons that allow them to carry out such raids?

In this regard, we noted that a Syrian Air Force L-39 jet was shot down over northern Hama province from a portable anti-aircraft missile system several days ago. So, the facts are telling us that the supply of weapons to the terrorist groups has not stopped.

We demand that all members of the international community take a responsible approach to the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which prescribes, inter alia, “to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks… and to eradicate the safe haven they [terrorist groups] have established over significant parts of Syria.”

In yesterday's attempt to attack the Russian military at Hmeymim airbase, we see another link in a chain of ongoing and, possibly, orchestrated provocations involving terrorists and radicals from the Syrian opposition aimed at disrupting the positive trends in the situation in Syria and, in particular, creating obstacles for convening the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi on January 29-30.

For our part, alongside the Syrian, regional and international forces that are wholeheartedly striving for peace, we will continue our preparations for the Congress, which is to give the necessary impetus to a political settlement in that country based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and genuine national reconciliation in Syria.



Results of the OPCW FFM experts’ visit to Syria

According to available reports, following numerous requests from the Syrian Government, a group of experts from the OPCW Fact Finding Mission visited Damascus, at long last, from December 8 to 16, to investigate the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The main purpose of the visit was an inspection of Zahiriyah area in northern Hama Province, where government forces discovered makeshift chlorine-filled weapons left in the caches by members of the terrorist and extremist groups upon their retreat.

Unfortunately, we have to state once again that the planned visit to the site did not take place. The OPCW special mission experts refused to go to the area at the last minute citing alleged recommendations by the UN Department of Safety and Security. This despite the fact that the territory has long been controlled by government troops, while the Syrian side offered additional guarantees of safe access to the area and was willing to provide the OPCW officials with a helicopter and armed escort.

Incidentally, the UN headquarters deny that such recommendations were given, which may testify to a certain “misunderstanding” between the two international agencies. Misunderstandings have been fairly regular, as seen by the examples of exclusively remote investigations by the OPCW and the UN of earlier cases and recurrences of “chemical terrorism” in Syria. This raises more questions.

Nevertheless, we must give credit to the OPCW experts as they did not waste a week in Damascus. They discussed with the Syrian authorities incidents of chemical weapons use by illegal armed units in Hama province in 2017, in Aleppo in 2016, and other similar cases. Testimonies were recorded of the victims of the above chemical attacks and the medics who helped them. The experts visited the research centre in Barz where they sealed samples collected by the Syrians on the site of the terrorist attack in Al-Hamdaniya, Hama Province for further analysis during the next visit to Syria in January 2018.

In the context of the above, we would like to believe that such “discrepancies” in the OPCW’s interaction with the UN will be removed in the nearest future, and the work on investigating cases of chemical weapons use in Syria will be brought in full compliance with the high standards of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The misguided practices of remote investigations such as the media-spun provocation by militants with the use of sarin in Khan Shaykhun, Idlid Province in April, must end.



The developments in Afghanistan

We note that the security situation in Afghanistan remains complicated despite the beginning of winter, which has traditionally been marked by decreased activity by terrorist and extremist group members.

Further evidence of the difficult situation was today’s attack on a Shiite cultural centre in Kabul. By preliminary assessment, over 70 people were killed or wounded in the double terrorist attack. None of the terrorist groups has claimed responsibility for the attack so far.

We resolutely condemn this inhumane act of terror and hope that its masterminds will suffer severe punishment. We express our deep condolences to the families and friends of the victims and wish a speedy recovery to the wounded.

The growing activity of the Taliban Movement rebels is seen in a number of Afghan provinces. Their presence in the provinces of Sar-e Pol, Takhar, Faryab, Nangarhar and Paktia is cause for serious concern. The Afghan national security forces trained by NATO and US military specialists are so far incapable of noticeably improving the situation.

The situation in the north of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan causes special concern. The ISIS Afghanistan “branch” is already in full control of several districts there and persists in attempts to establish a foothold in Afghanistan’s northern areas bordering Central Asian countries. In this context, we especially note Jowzjan province where ISIS members have launched a massive recruiting campaign, including among young people, in the districts of Darzab and Qush Tepa. In early December, media reports appeared that around 300 local teenagers from 10 to 15 joined ISIS.

We are concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. Due to ongoing fighting in Imam Sahib district in Kunduz province and in the Sangcharak district in Sar-e Pol province, about 2,000 people and 500 families were forced to leave their homes. In Urozgan and Daykundi provinces about 60 medical facilities stopped operating due to threats from the Taliban. About 30,000 students are temporarily unable to attend classes after 70 schools were closed by ISIS in Jowzjan province.

In connection with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s decision on the resignation of Balkh Province Governor Atta Muhammad Noor, we expect that the IRA’s leaders will be able to maintain a balanced domestic policy and will not allow the polarisation of Afghan society along ethnic lines or the violation of the rights of ethnic minorities ahead of the forthcoming parliamentary (July 2018) and presidential (2019) elections.



Release of two Belarusian citizens in Libya

On December 27, efforts by the Russian contact group in Libya, led by Lev Dengov, resulted in the release of two Belarusian citizens, Inna Babush and Sergey Zdota, who have been working in Libya under a civil contract since 2010 and detained by a local militant group. The details were widely covered by Russian media.

Regarding two Russian sailors, members of the international crew of the Temeteron tanker, held prisoner in Libya since June 2016 – Captain Vladimir Tekuchev and First Mate Sergey Samoilov – Russia will continue working most actively, including in contacts with the Libyan authorities at the high level, to ensure their safe return to Russia as soon as possible. We believe we will succeed.



Japanese government’s decision to deploy US Aegis Ashore missile defence systems on its territory

The recent decision by the Japanese government to deploy US Aegis Ashore missile defence systems on its territory causes deep regret and serious concern. Whatever arguments and motives behind it, it is clear that the deployment of these systems is yet another step towards building a full-fledged Asian-Pacific regional segment of the global US missile defence system. It should be kept in mind that these systems are equipped with universal missile launchers capable of using strike weapons. In practice, it means another violation of the INF Treaty by the United States with Japan’s assistance.

We consider Japan’s step as going against the efforts to establish peace and stability in the region. In addition, these actions by Tokyo directly contradict the priority task of fostering trust between Russia and Japan in the military-political area and will affect the general atmosphere of bilateral relations, including talks on a peace treaty.



Imposing restrictions on the United States under the Open Skies Treaty

Continuing its general political course towards the further degradation of relations with the Russian Federation, Washington, without providing any proof, has accused Russia of violating the Open Skies Treaty and undertaken unilateral steps to create as much inconvenience as possible for Russian Open Skies missions carried out over US territory.

In connection with this unfriendly move, and in line with the principle of reciprocity, Russia was forced to take response measures, which are procedural in nature. In particular, we have informed the Open Skies Consultative Commission of our intention to cancel overnight stops at three airfields for US aircraft. Also, in December, Russia sent a note to the US Mission to the OSCE, announcing the termination, as of January 1, 2018, of a number of bilateral agreements with the United States that were signed to facilitate flights under the treaty.

The US actions are undermining the Open Skies Treaty. We are calling on our US partners to stop and start seeking, in a depoliticised manner, a mutually acceptable solution to treaty-related issues.



The US plans to cut the UN budget

We were surprised to learn about the United States’ announcement that it has allegedly managed to trim $285 million from the UN budget. This is nothing more than juggling with numbers and doublespeak in order to, by all appearances, play up to the current political situation in the country.

I would like to remind you that the approval of the UN budget is the result of negotiations between all the member countries of this organisation, rather than a unilateral step by any single country, even if it is the largest contributor to the UN budget.

In addition, the amount of the cut to the UN budget announced by the United States, $285 million, has been calculated incorrectly, since the figure is not compared with the initially approved budget for the period of 2016 and 2017, as should have been done, but rather with the actual final figures. As things stand, the member countries and the UN Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions have slashed the initial figures proposed by the UN Secretary-General for the 2018–2019 budget by a total of $211 million. As a result, the 2018–2019 UN budget that was approved several days ago is approximately at the same level as the initially approved budget for the current two-year period of 2016–2017, which totals $5.4 billion.

We would also like to reaffirm that Russia consistently speaks in favour of checking the growth in spending by international organisations, including the UN, in a reasonable and substantiated manner and adheres to this position when participating in the relevant talks.



Statements by US officials

We have been surprised at US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s article in the New York Times, which was published yesterday. This is a sort of publication not typical of a diplomat, mostly due to its confrontational tone, let alone the wording. It looked like an attempt to drive yet another wedge in relations with other countries, above all, Russia and China.

I do not know what prompted this publication that abounds in many oddities. Perhaps, it was some fear of the growing influence of Moscow and Beijing on the international arena. This fear has already manifested itself in the recently renewed US National Security Strategy that virtually acknowledged a decrease in America’s global hegemony and set forth a new goal – to restore it.

Again, the thesis about Russia’s alleged “interference in the US election” was brought up. All these messages are turning the publication into a “fake news” outlet. As for what is behind this – poor interdepartmental coordination in Washington or the desire to secure support from some Russophobic circles – frankly, there is no strength or desire or time to guess at it.

We do not like the current state of Russian-US relations either. It is necessary to clearly understand and honestly say that it is the United States, and not Russia, which is to blame for the decline. Certainly, “business as usual” with the US is indeed impossible until it revises its aggressive stance, which includes the return of the stolen Russian diplomatic property in the US.

As a statement of fact: it is time for American politicians and diplomats to realise that military and economic pressure tools are useless against Russia. Washington’s delusive policy discredited itself a long time ago, including on the international stage.

Another example is an utterly outrageous publication by the US State Department’s Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker. Curiously, Kurt Volker published his article, full of anti-Russia comments, in the Italian media, in which he implored the United States’ European partners to maintain sanctions against Russia. He thereby revealed that those in Europe who are willing to follow Washington along the sanctions path are becoming fewer in number.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s phrase that when he wakes up, his first thought is how to prevent people around the world from being killed, poorly matches the supply of American lethal weapons to Ukraine intended to be used against the people of Donbass. Either, from a US viewpoint, the people of Donbass and Donbass itself are not part of Ukraine, or something is not working out well over there. US threats to destroy North Korea are further proof that a whole set of high-ranking officials in Washington have dreams that are far from peaceful.



Anti-Russia statements by US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker in an interview with Italy’s La Stampa

US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker said in an interview with Italian newspaper La Stampa that 2017 was the most violent and bloody year of the Ukrainian conflict, and that, judging by the number of civilian casualties, there were numerous ceasefire violations. In this context, as you understand, the blame has been placed squarely on Russia, which is really surprising considering that Washington and the US administration presented Mr Volker as an expert on Ukraine. One has the impression that he is totally unaware of what is going on in the country.

He has called for maintaining pressure on Russia, because, according to Mr Volker, only pressure can force Russia to comply with the Minsk Agreements. On the one hand, he says that the situation is deteriorating, but on the other hand, he calls for maintaining pressure. Mr Volker seems to be contradicting himself. If the anti-Russia sanctions have not produced any effect over the past few years, as he said, why persist in this completely useless striving to pressure Russia? Mr Volker’s interview is highly contradictory. Even if we forget about objectivity and look at the situation through the biased eyes of the US representative, we will see huge contradictions. Doesn’t anyone who prepares material for such interviews see this?

They are putting the blame for the non-implementation of the Minsk Agreements on Russia, as if no one in Washington knows that Kiev does not even make a secret of its unwillingness to implement them. I would like to point out that it is not an abstract American politician but the State Department’s special representative for Ukraine who is giving this interview.

He also mentioned fake news, alleging that Russia’s foreign policy doctrine encouraged well-considered actions intended to influence elections in EU democracies. Each time, we ask the US side and all those who talk about our alleged interference for any facts or evidence of this. The last time we did this was when UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was in Moscow. He said at a news conference that he had no convincing evidence or any evidence at all that Russia had meddled [in the referendum on UK’s withdrawal from the EU]. But they continue to make these propaganda claims again and again.

Kurt Volker said that the amount of fake news and unreliable information provided by Moscow has increased ahead of the parliamentary election in Italy. Does he have any evidence or facts proving this? Maybe they can be provided at some point? No, they cannot, because there are none. As I said, the only conclusion we can make from this is that this campaign suits Washington for propaganda purposes.

According to Mr Volker, Russia is actively applying economic leverage such as transit energy delivery to the Apennines. When has Russia manipulated energy deliveries? Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov regularly meets with European business leaders in Moscow. These are open meetings, unlike the meeting with business leaders held by foreign policy departments in Europe or Washington. We invite the media to these open meetings. You can read the transcripts or watch the video. European business leaders say every time we meet in Moscow, as well as when they meet with Russian representatives outside Russia, that they trust Russia as an energy provider completely. They say that Russia has always been the most reliable partner since the Soviet era regardless of the ongoing changes.

Here is another strange thing Mr Volker said in this interview. According to him, Moscow’s support for some pro-Russian Italian opposition parties, primarily the Northern League and the Five Star Movement, which demand the lifting of the anti-Russia sanctions, is an additional instrument of Russian influence on the internal political situation in Italy.

Mr Volker’s interview is the latest attempt to promote American views on the Ukrainian crisis in Europe. Moreover, it is an apparent attempt at US interference in Russian-Italian relations. Who has authorised Mr Volker to make value judgements of our bilateral relations?

It looks as if this US official has encountered problems in his current mission, Ukraine, where the situation is deteriorating in all areas. Problems are snowballing in Ukraine. It seems that Mr Volker is trying to shift the focus or is possibly considering new employment in case he fails with his mission in Ukraine. He may be looking for a new area to apply his talents, that is, the struggle against something that does not exist.



Results of prisoner exchanges between Kiev, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic

We certainly welcome the humanitarian aspect of the December 27 prisoner exchange. We are happy to note that hundreds of people have been reunited with their families, relatives and friends on the eve of the New Year.

At the same time, we realise that this is only the beginning of the process. We believe that the relevant work will continue for the complete implementation of the all-for-all principle under p. 6 of the Minsk Agreements.

We cannot help but say that we regret the way the Kiev regime has behaved even during this humanitarian project. It is good that almost everything has been accomplished, even despite the actions of the Kiev regime.



Western statements about preparations for the presidential elections in the Russian Federation

The US Department of State has accused the Russian Government the other day of putting pressure on potential candidates, due to take part in the 2018 presidential elections, of taking tough action against certain “independent voices” and of being unable to effectively guarantee human rights as well as the main freedoms in Russia.

First of all, I would like to reiterate clearly that such statements made by the US Department of State amount to direct interference in the election process and a foreign state’s domestic affairs. Why do official US representatives think they have a right to assess domestic political processes in other countries? This is a good question. Are they guided by the notorious US “exceptionalism” once again?

Second, the so-called “tough action against independent voices” implies journalists. What particular cases is the Department of State talking about? Can they provide us with specific information? What agency is taking such tough action and how? These allegations are being made at a time when US authorities are openly harassing Russian media outlets that have fallen out of favour.

A cursory examination of political developments in the West and the United States makes it possible to recall how the Obama administration had paved the way for its own candidates during the election race. Let’s recall how they neutralised Bernie Sanders and their unprecedented harassment campaign against Donald Trump before and after the elections. There was no talk of using administrative resources after the elections, but the Obama administration was the incumbent government before and during the elections. You know what resources had been used to “torpedo” presidential candidates, and you have seen this with your own eyes.

By the way, I suggest that you reread a detailed report analysing the US election system that was published by the Russian Central Election Commission on its website in 2012. The report lists specific facts and examples and it quotes findings of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). It proves that US elections are not direct, universal and equal, and that they do not guarantee the secret-ballot vote principle. It would be nice if the US side analysed its own system, before saying anything about the Russian system.

If our colleagues at the US Department of State or any other US agencies continue to make such statements, we will comment on these statements, remind them of their own electoral processes, and we will also provide you with the relevant facts.

The subject of Russian and US interference or non-interference in each other’s internal affairs has been broached repeatedly during the outgoing year. It is likely that not a single news show in the United States and many European countries went without charges that Russia was guilty of all “mortal sins.” Some cases in point are an article by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and an interview by US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker. One has the impression that the presence of this theme in the media space has become an exploited trend to boost ratings and citation indices. Moreover, this story was presented in a peremptorily affirmative key with the intention to sow the conviction that Russia was really to blame for both interfering in the US presidential elections and hacking attacks, and certain other influences on all internal processes.

In so doing, our US partners, usually so keen on public exposures, are for some reason in no hurry to disclose a very interesting fact. Starting in the Soviet period and for more than 80 years, this country has sought to put reciprocal non-interference in each other’s internal affairs within the framework of the law. Paradoxically, the Americans have either rejected or ignored all Russian non-interference initiatives advanced since the early 1990s. The likely reason is that they are the ones to systematically engage in interference in the political processes in our country and elsewhere. Following below is a brief recap of history.

On November 16, 1933, when diplomatic relations were restored between the two countries, they clearly put on record the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. The USSR People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov, who had arrived in Washington for the purpose, and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt exchanged special personal notes, which are posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry website. They say that each state has an indisputable right to order its own life within its own jurisdiction in its own way. The USSR and the United States pledged to “refrain, and to restrain all persons in Government service and all organizations of the Government or under its direct or indirect control, including organizations in receipt of any financial assistance from it,” from any act overt or covert, including any agitation or propaganda having as an aim the bringing about a change in the political or social order of each other. It was also agreed to take preventive measures against any other groups having a similar aim.

The initiative to exchange the notes came from the US authorities, who feared the USSR’s influences amid the Great Depression. The two countries also agreed not to permit the formation or residence on their territory of any organisation or group which makes attempt upon the territorial integrity of the other side or has the aim of armed struggle against it.

Under the new circumstances, the United States has been warned about the unacceptability of its interference in Russia’s internal affairs since the 1990s. This was done, in particular, in connection with the developments in Chechnya and the outside attempts to influence our elections.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reminded US State Secretary Hillary Clinton of the 1933 commitments during his conversation with her in St. Petersburg on June 29, 2012. Her attention was called to the unacceptable attempts to influence Russian domestic political processes, made by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), whose activities in Russia had to be terminated as of October 1 of the same year.

The same matter was raised during US State Secretary John Kerry’s visit to Moscow on May 7, 2013, in the context of the 80th anniversary of the restoration of diplomatic relations and also repeatedly at subsequent meetings with him. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov focused on the exchange of notes in his public remarks dedicated to the anniversary, which he made in the US Ambassador’s presence on October 23, 2012.

After the launching of a campaign of groundless accusations regarding “Russian influence on the US presidential elections in 2016,” we again repeatedly suggested that Moscow and Washington officially guarantee non-interference in each other’s internal affair, including as part of the efforts to overcome the existing distrust. A relevant clause was included in the draft joint statement of the presidents of Russia and the United States, prepared for their meeting at the G20 summit in Hamburg on July 7, 2017.However,the Americans avoided endorsing the document.

On July 17, Russia suggested that the Russian and US foreign ministers exchange letters with commitments to comply with the fundamental norms of equitable interstate dialogue, including a renunciation of attempts to influence the domestic situation in the partner state, and we sent a relevant draft to Washington. We hoped to exchange these reassurances in the course of the high-level week at the UN General Assembly. But on September 15, we received an elusive and vague written reply from the US Department of State, which said, without going into further detail, that the proposed pledge would not serve the purpose of improving Russian-US relations.

We think that by turning down our proposals it has clearly confirmed the absolute farfetchedness of accusations that Russia interfered in the US elections. Actually, this amounted to the recognition that nothing of the kind had taken place and that there has been no threat to the US and its electoral system from Russia. At the same time, Washington demonstrated that it was unwilling to assume any obligations, which looks like a desire to reserve the right to interfere in the affairs of others.

This was outlined in a memorandum dedicated to Washington’s long-standing and systemic aspirations to influence the developments in Russia in its own interests, which was handed over to US Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman on December 21. The memorandum also reiterated Russia’s readiness for an exchange of letters or other forms of guarantees concerning mutual non-interference in electoral and other internal political processes. Now the matter rests with the American side.



Letter by the ambassadors of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia to Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic Martin Stropnicky regarding the monument to Marshal Konev in Prague

A few days ago, the ambassadors of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia wrote a joint letter to Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic Martin Stropnicky regarding the monument to Marshal Ivan Konev in the municipal district Prague 6.

The ambassadors of the states, whose soldiers made a decisive contribution to WWII battles and the liberation of Europe, including Czechoslovakia, from Nazi troops, have put forth their position clearly and unambiguously. The intention of the district authorities to make “biographic” adjustments to the monument to Marshal Konev, who commanded the troops of the First Ukrainian Front during the Prague Offensive, contradicts the original idea of the monument, which was installed as a sign of Prague residents’ gratitude to the Soviet soldiers and their commander for liberating the city and saving it from destruction. These attempts can only be interpreted as deliberate actions to distort the role that Marshal Konev and Soviet troops played in the liberation of the Czech capital and are an act of contempt towards the sacrifices made by the multinational Red Army and Czech heroes in the fight against Nazism.

We hope that our Czech partners will show understanding for the concern expressed in the ambassadors’ letter and the opinion of Czech citizens who have called for the preservation of the original state of the monument to Marshal Ivan Konev in Prague.



The status of the Russian Orthodox Church properties in Jerusalem

During the previous briefing I received a question about the status of properties owned by the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in Jerusalem.

The ROC owns four properties in West Jerusalem: the Holy Trinity Cathedral, the building of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, the Gorny convent in Ein Karem plus an apartment on Ha-Nevi’im Street. The former two facilities have been registered as the property of the Russian Federation, while the other two belong to the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission. The ROC and the Imperial Russian Orthodox-Palestinian Society have joint use of the St Sergius Metochion, which has been registered as the property of the Russian Federation.

The Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia (ROCOR) owns four properties in East Jerusalem: the Alexander Metochion, the Church of St Mary Magdalene, the Russian Convent of the Ascension and an Orthodox school for girls in Bethany.



A branch of the Russian Centre for Science and Culture opens in Gyumri

On December 20, a ceremony was held in Gyumri, the second largest city of Armenia, for the opening of a branch of the Russian Centre for Science and Culture. The ceremony was attended by Deputy Head of the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudichestvo) Alexey Frolov, Governor of Armenia’s Shirak Province Artur Khachatryan, Minister of Education and Science of Armenia Levon Mkrtchyan, Gyumri Mayor Samvel Balasanyan, Director of the Russian Centre for Science and Culture in Yerevan Sergey Rybinsky, Consul General Alexander Kopnin, members of the Russian Embassy, delegates from the 102nd Russian Military Base and the FSB border department for Armenia, as well as academics and cultural figures plus Russian compatriots and young people.

The Gyumri branch has opened in accordance with instructions from President Vladimir Putin and decisions of the 17th meeting of the Russian-Armenian Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation. The opening ceremony is a major event in bilateral relations this year of priority importance for Armenia, as Armenian representatives pointed out at the ceremony.

The opening of the Gyumri branch of the Russian Centre for Science and Culture has greatly contributed to the strengthening of cultural and humanitarian ties between Russia and Armenia.



The owl rescued by Foreign Ministry workers

As you may recall, the other morning our workers saw an owl sitting in a tree outside the ministry building with crows flying around it. The owl was either wounded, or unwell in some way, because it wouldn’t fly, and the crows could have pecked her to death. It was removed from the tree as part of a special operation. We called the corresponding municipal department, and our colleagues from the Mayor’s Office responded promptly and took care of the owl.

I am pleased to inform you that the owl that touched your hearts and our hearts is alive and kicking. Indeed, it was injured as a matter of fact. It was taken to a nursery and released into a large enclosure to see how well it could fly. The owl is under observation. It had a bruised wing, which is clearly getting better. We went to see it once after some hours and had a few pictures taken with it.

Since the owl is now our adoptee, we were informed that it will be released in the spring. So far, it’s been preparing for the winter celebrations. We checked its diet and how it was doing overall. We are happy for the owl, and also for the fact that we managed to do at least something to rescue this living creature.





Excerpts from answers to questions:



Question:

Did Russia make a decision about the participation of the Syrian Democratic Union Party in the National Dialogue Congress, or is this matter still being discussed?



Maria Zakharova:

Preparations for the participation of the Kurdish, as well as other political and social movements, and figures of the intra-Syrian and foreign-based opposition, are still underway. It is premature to discuss any elements of this preparatory work. Give us some time. We believe that all the parameters of this event will be made public in the new year. You will know everything. Everyone is working hard on it.



Question:

Turkish President Erdogan said that President of Syria al-Assad is a terrorist. We can see that there are quite a few disagreements between Russia and Turkey regarding the Syrian settlement. How can Russia and Turkey find common ground to resolve the Syrian crisis?



Maria Zakharova:

Representatives of the legitimate Syrian government represent that country in the UN and its Security Council, participate in its activities, make statements, share their views, and provide information. In and of itself, even without any additional assessments or arguments, which are in ample supply, it suggests that one can go on forever discussing the Syrian regime's mistakes, but such assessments have no legal basis whatsoever. I will ignore the moral side of it for now. Such statements are groundless from the legal perspective.

With regard to bringing Russia's and Turkey's positions on the Syrian settlement closer, there are appropriate interaction formats for doing so in place. We are working closely with our Turkish and Iranian colleagues to take care of issues and disagreements. We have certain achievements, but much remains to be done through talks, consultations, meetings and information exchanges.



Question:

Could you provide the final comment for this year on Russia's position with regard to relations between Baghdad and Erbil?



Maria Zakharova:

This is a typical question. And our answer is also typical – by way of negotiations and peaceful dialogue.



Question:

On behalf of all the reporters present here, I would like to thank you personally and the Information and Press Department for the unusual beginning of today's briefing. That was very pleasant. We appreciate this kind of attention to the reporters. We thank the Foreign Ministry in general for working with us this year, and always trying to answer our questions.

Do you believe Russian diplomacy was successful in 2017, including with regard to conflict resolution in different parts of the world?



Maria Zakharova:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov holds an annual news conference for Russian and foreign correspondents precisely to answer this question in a global sense and also to provide answers to questions about specific areas. This time, it will be held on January 15. We will post an announcement and additional information after the New Year break, so that you can get accredited.

As is customary, the main purpose of this news conference is to sum up the performance of Russian diplomats, have a candid discussion on various foreign policy topics and the global situation. I think that you can safely go ahead and get your questions ready. As you are well aware, it can get very extensive occasionally. I think you will get the answers to your questions.



Question:

On December 5, Norwegian citizen Frode Berg was arrested in Moscow. He is currently at Lefortovo prison, facing espionage charges. Has this incident had any impact on relations between Norway and Russia? How will Russia respond to this case?



Maria Zakharova:

Speaking of the overall situation, I would like to share our information on this issue. Indeed, Frode Berg, a citizen of Norway and a representative of Norwegian secret services, was arrested on December 5 in Moscow, while conducting a spy operation. He was staying in Russia on a tourist visa. On December 6, a criminal case was opened against him under Article 276 of the Russian Criminal Code (Espionage). Moscow’s Lefortovo District Court has issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Berg. The Norwegian Embassy in Moscow has been informed under the standard procedure.

Currently, Mr. Berg is at the Lefortovo pretrial detention ward, and he enjoys all statutory rights, including the right to hire a lawyer and an interpreter, to meet with consular officers and to receive medical treatment. He has not filed any complaints or claims.

I don’t think this incident will seriously impact bilateral relations. Russia and Norway develop their relations in various areas. Such unpleasant incidents happen from time to time. Russian legislation stipulates adequate measures.



Question:

President of Lithuania Dalia Grybauskaite has recently summarised the outcome of the country’s policies in 2017 and outlined Lithuania’s short-term prospects. For example, she has said that Russia remains a difficult neighbour for Lithuania but that it is, nevertheless, necessary to display flexibility. In her opinion, it is necessary to cooperate and trade with Russia, rather than fight. What is your response to this statement?



Maria Zakharova:

We have noted this Christmas interview with President of Lithuania Dalia Grybauskaite. In particular, we have seen the passage that it is necessary to cooperate and trade, rather, than fight, with Russia.

I believe you know as well as we do the attitude of the Lithuanian head of state towards Russia. If this is not a PR stunt but a truly serious and well-thought-out statement on modifying Lithuania’s traditional position, then we will, for the most part, judge this in line with real deeds, rather than statements. Quite often, statements and actions are discordant with and run counter to one another.

Earlier, we constantly heard statements concerning alleged “threats” that emanate and will continue to emanate from Russia. In particular, President of Lithuania Dalia Grybauskaite even alluded to the construction of a nuclear power station in Belarus, which she believed might sow panic in Lithuania and undermine the country’s security. We considered this logic to be rather strange.

You mentioned that Lithuanian leader Dalia Grybauskaite has stated the need to display flexibility. We don’t mind if Ms. Grybauskaite displays flexibility.



Question:

US authorities are expected to declare new anti-Russia sanctions in February 2018, this time in the banking sector. Does Moscow have any plans for a tough response to the new US sanctions?



Maria Zakharova:

Today, we have focused a lot on the issue of Russian-US relations. You could find the answer to this question in my comments; nevertheless, the question has been asked.

You know our traditional position, which is that we are forced to respond symmetrically to all aggressive action by our partners against the Russian Federation. We would like to focus on symmetrical responses to positive actions, but, unfortunately, we more often see actions by our American colleagues that are destructive to bilateral relations. In this connection, no one has abolished symmetrical reciprocal measures.

We believe that US colleagues will eventually realise that it is in their own interests to cooperate in all areas, instead of wrecking bilateral relations which are already in deep crisis.



Question:

The Western press is writing about a lack of democracy in Russia. By way of example, they are citing a decision to prevent Alexey Navalny from taking part in the elections. They write that he is the only serious candidate who could rival President Putin. Could you make clear the position of the Russian authorities?



Maria Zakharova:

This is a strange question to ask the Foreign Ministry. I can tell you for certain that this is not our issue. The Central Election Commission deals with these matters.

To be honest, I watched the Central Election Commission’s meeting on this affair several times. As I see it, the meeting was quite exhaustive in terms of the arguments presented by all sides. I advise you to watch that meeting once again and you will find an answer to your question there.

As for statements, I have already spoken about this today. We would very much like the foreign press, whether pro-Russian or Russophobic, to cover the 2018 Russian presidential elections. Regardless of the context, one way or another, this will help involve Russian citizens and eligible voters in the elections. Therefore we are happy that the Western press is covering the pre-election situation so actively and informing readers about the elections. We would like them to more actively cover specific events and to provide concrete facts. But everyone is acting in line with his or her capabilities.

Officials of Western states in Brussels and Washington will certainly voice their opinions, criticising everything linked with the elections, from legislation to procedural issues. And, as you have said, they will draw conclusions about an “incorrect” democracy. We are confident this will happen because they have already started making these statements, and we remember how the situation developed in previous years and during earlier presidential elections. I have commented on this today, and I have said that, first of all, it would be nice for them to assess their own democracies, electoral cycles and procedures. Second, such statements are nothing more than interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, i.e. the Russian Federation. Experts and media people can come here, cover the events and monitor the situation. We are ready to provide assistance. I believe we will ask senior officials and representatives of the Central Election Commission to provide information and to hold relevant news conferences at the Foreign Ministry’s Press Centre. We are ready to be completely open on this issue.

However, it is very strange that difficulties are being predicted in advance, several months before the elections. They are already predicting that democratic processes, etc. will not be up to the mark. Most importantly, while finishing my reply to this question, I would like to ask: Can we obtain concrete data if official representatives and politicians of foreign countries have any claims about this process in the Russian Federation?

The State Department spokesperson’s statement mentioned the Russian Government. The Russian Government has various agencies, departments, services, organisations and personalities. Whom or what exactly are they talking about? Can you say that the Foreign Ministry is harassing foreign correspondents and hampering their work?

All these empty phrases amount to propaganda clichés that are constantly churned out to distract attention from essential issues. We are ready to comment. Please ask your questions and tell us if you need additional meetings with experts. Draw your own conclusions on the basis of what you see and hear. A media carousel is launched time and again. Someone circulates the main points, quotes anonymous sources and makes statements. The media starts copying all this information. After that, official State Department spokespersons will produce a pile of newspapers and printouts from social networks, and they will call this expert opinion.

First, they set a trend, it is trumpeted in the media, then this same trend and the same questions are resubmitted to the Department of State in the form of questions. This is how this cycle of the media carousel ends. The situation will repeat itself here too, but we are ready for this.

I would like to once again flag up what I have already said today: We will comment on every statement by our Western colleagues as regards discrepancies in electoral processes, procedures and events. I am telling you this for sure.



Question:

The illegal presence of US forces in Syria is hindering the establishment of peace there. In addition, the United States is forming a new army out of the remaining ISIS groups in southern Syria. Is this compatible with the claim that the US is fighting ISIS?



Maria Zakharova:

This is absolutely incompatible. Of course, the destructive influence, which some Western and regional countries are exerting on the developments in Syria in one way or another (we are monitoring this), is incompatible with the statements of their good intentions or their defeat of ISIS, as Paris and Washington claim. Their deeds conflict with their noble words.

I would like to answer your inferred question – if I got it right – about what can be done to resist this. I believe that it is very important to use the opportunities we have now that ISIS has been defeated (we need to continue mopping up the country, although the process has begun and the deadly blow has been delivered to them). I call on all parties to the Syrian settlement, including the internal and external opposition, to do their best to come to the National Dialogue Congress in Sochi to reach an agreement before new terrorist groups emerge. I call on them not to use this moment for throwing endless accusations at each other, for quarrelling or acting at foreign prompting, but to see that this is a crucial historical opportunity for the revival of Syria.

The future of Syria is in the hands of the Syrians, both those who have been pro-government and those who did not support the government and are not Bashar al-Assad’s fans, to put it mildly. Syria, if they do care for it, need them to use the historical chance they can have at this platform, which Russia is offering based on the results of the Astana and Geneva talks. This is the only chance to prevent external forces from promoting the hellish scenario that has been ongoing in Syria in the past few years.



Question:

My first question concerns Russia-Japan relations. You said previously that they could be affected by the deployment of the US BMD system in Japan. Could this have a negative impact on the dialogue between President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe regarding the Kuril Islands and a peace treaty?

My second question concerns the presidential election. Have you made any arrangements with international organisations regarding international observers in Russia? If so, which organisations are they? I remember you saying that there will be no US observes. Who will you invite then?



Maria Zakharova:

Regarding your first question, I would like to repeat what I said before: the Japanese government’s decision to allow the deployment of the US Aegis Ashore missile defence systems directly contradicts the priority task of building trust in military and political areas between Russia and Japan and will have a negative impact on the general atmosphere of bilateral relations, including our talks on a peace treaty. I believe that this is an exhausting, clear and understandable position. The specific details will depend on our work going forward. We will proceed from our principled assessment of this Japanese decision.

As for observers, I will find the necessary information on this issue and will provide a comprehensive answer at my first briefing next year. Of course, this issue is also addressed to Russia’s Central Election Commission, but in one way or another it concerns the Foreign Ministry. I will provide complete information on observers and the process about which you have asked at the next briefing.



Question:

I have a question about preparations for the Sochi conference in late January. Have members of the united Riyadh, Cairo and Moscow groups sent any clear signals about possible participation in this conference? If they do not attend, will it be held at all?



Maria Zakharova:

First, we won’t comment (at least it makes no sense to comment on this at my level) on the specific details of these preparations. Second, all those who are interested in Syria’s future should realise on what side of history they stand. Do they support the need to pool efforts for developing Syria, drafting its fundamental laws and elaborating its future political arrangement or will they miss an opportunity for which the Syrian people have paid such a price? The Russian Federation and other countries that want to find a constructive settlement have made enormous efforts. It is essential to understand if this will be the conference of the future or if it follows a path of missed opportunities.

Every Syrian group and Syrian public figure and politician that is involved in this process in one way or another must decide for themselves whether it is sensible to continue listening to those that have led Syria to edge. Or is it worth making independent decisions at long last relying on the opportunities that were granted to the Syrian people at such a price. When I talk about the Syrian people, I am referring not only to pro-government forces and civilians residing in Syria but all those Syrians that are not indifferent to the destiny of their homeland. When we have full information on the participants we will forward it to you at once.



Question:

Are there plans to hold talks at the foreign minister level between Russia and the DPRK in 2018?



Maria Zakharova:

I don’t know about any specific plans. As for Russia’s global foreign policy plans, on January 15, 2018 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold a news conference on the results of 2017 and the line that the Foreign Ministry will pursue in 2018.



Question:

Russian-Turkish relations are focused on the economy. Are there plans to enhance cultural ties, for example?



Maria Zakharova:

Of course, we are planning to develop bilateral ties in all areas. Many events are being held in Turkey by Russia, including by our embassy and other foreign missions. If you want more details, I will certainly be ready to give you a more exhaustive answer.



Question:

What do you think about the opening of a Turkish university in Russia and a Russian university in Turkey? We are saying that the crisis is behind us but there are still problems. During the crisis, many Turkish citizens were deported or were denied entry. Are talks on cancelling visas being conducted?



Maria Zakharova:

As for deportations, they were carried out in accordance with the law. As regards visas, at this point the Russian side is discussing with its Turkish partners further steps on simplifying entrance to the Russian Federation for certain categories of citizens, for example those with service passports and international carriers. The sides are discussing a complete resumption of visa-free travel in the context of joint efforts to counter terrorism and prevent those who pose a terrorist threat from entering Russian territory.

As for humanitarian and cultural ties, as I promised, we will tell you about them as we learn more.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3012378
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 11th, 2018 #337
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov on the deployment of missile defence system in Japan



30 December 2017 - 11:21



We have noted a statement by the Japanese Foreign Ministry, which said the anti-missile system being deployed in that country will be controlled from Tokyo and will not threaten Russia or other neighbouring countries.

However, everyone is well aware that Japan has long been involved in building the Asian segment of the US global missile defence system. Back in 2006, the US and Japan signed an intergovernmental agreement on missile defence cooperation; the two countries are now engaged in joint development of new generation missiles in accordance with that agreement.

This means the systems now being deployed on Japanese territory are technically and functionally identical to the American ones, precisely to those that are capable of launching both interceptor missiles and medium-range and shorter-range cruise missiles. The US deploys them at its military bases in Romania and Poland, that is, near our western border, contrary to the INF Treaty of 1987, which bans the deployment of such systems on land.

The fact that similar systems can now appear on the eastern borders of Russia creates a new situation for us, something we certainly cannot fail to take into account in our military planning. Once again, we urge our Japanese colleagues to weigh the options and decide whether it is in their interests to become complicit in a breach of the INF.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3013131






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Mezhdunarodnaya Pilorama show for the NTV network, Moscow, December 30, 2017



31 December 2017 - 00:30







[Mezhdunarodnaya Pilorama is a humorous show. - Alex Him]




Question:

We can feel completely at home only when hosted by this man, since he is even more ‘international’ than our show, Mezhdunarodnaya Pilorama (International Sawmill). This is a diplomat with an embedded detector for nut jobs. He once said that his mother did not allow him to dance with boys. Ladies and gentlemen, our host today is Sergey Lavrov.



Sergey Lavrov:

Welcome, and a Happy New Year.



Question:

This was a very challenging year. There were elections in France, a referendum in Catalonia, and Great Britain’s withdrawal from the EU is on the agenda. What elections will be subject to our meddling next year?



Sergey Lavrov:

You did not mention everything we did last year. There was also Sweden, Denmark, Montenegro, Austria and Macedonia. Of course, we had to put a lot of effort into it, and it was not easy for us.



Question:

It was quite a productive year…



Sergey Lavrov:

It is for this reason that we did not have any time left to deal with other matters that were equally important, such as promoting cultural ties with Japan.



Question:

I hope this can be fixed in 2018.



Sergey Lavrov:

We are already working on it. A major culture festival is underway in Japan, so no need to worry about that. That said, so far we have not been able to unseat the Emperor of Japan.



Question:

But he seems to be resigning on his own.



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, but only in two years. We did everything to precipitate his departure, but he was able to obtain another two years.



Question:

You speak English, French and Singhalese. Why do you need French?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is a beautiful language. I love reading French literature and French news. I understand the language, but I can’t speak it because I don’t have enough practice. Overall, French is a noble language. It is no coincidence that diplomatic passports in Russia are still issued in two languages: Russian and French. This has been the tradition since Tsarist Russia.



Question:

I thought that this was the case not just for Russia but for the whole world…



Sergey Lavrov:

I would not be so sure about that. I cannot say whether this is the case for the whole world, but in Russia French was a language of the aristocracy, of the elite.



Question:

In the 1970s you worked in Sri Lanka for several years. Have you been able to keep your suntan since then?



Sergey Lavrov:

I worked there for four years. Yes, and I maintain my suntan regularly.



Question:

By traveling to Sri Lanka?



Sergey Lavrov:

Not just Sri Lanka, but to other countries where I can sunbathe, even for a little while, for example to Austria during winter. I used to go there to ski and sunbathe.



Question:

Do you ski?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do, even though I have not had much time for this lately. I hope to be able to do some skiing in Sochi.



Question:

Sochi has become a world-famous resort. But how about rafting? After all, you are the President of the Rafting Federation…



Sergey Lavrov:

No, I am the head of the Board of Trustees of the Canoe Slalom Federation. These are related disciplines. Rafting is an activity involving an inflatable raft with paddles, and canoe slalom is about kayaks and canoes.



Question:

Do you like this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have been practicing this sport with my school and university friends since the 1980s. It’s my hobby, if you will.



Question:

In your opinion, who is currently the biggest nut job in global international politics? Feel free to use Aesopian language or vague allusions to answer this question.



Sergey Lavrov:

You know, I would prefer not to give any names so as not to offend anyone. I will just leave this question unanswered.



Question:

Your facial expressions are very eloquent, as you probably know. It is probably not very typical for a diplomat. If you look close enough, there is a lot your face can tell. How often have you had to contain yourself in order to pronounce your famous phrase about “our western partners” during news conferences while keeping a straight face?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course, we all take our cues from the President.



Question:

Is it his phrase?



Sergey Lavrov:

He also uses it. I think that everyone we talk to is a partner for us. With some partners, you can reach agreements, while with others you cannot. And there are more and more partners of the second kind in the West.



Question:

There is a saying in Armenia that can be rendered in Russian in the following way: if we add a couple partners of this kind, there will not be any need for enemies.



Sergey Lavrov:

I think that this saying also exists in Russian: with friends like this, who needs enemies?



Question:

You are an honourary citizen of Managua (Nicaragua), Guatemala, and of Moscow Region’s Noginsky District. Which one is the biggest honour for you?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have never thought about it this way.



Question:

Have you ever been to the Noginsky District?



Sergey Lavrov:

I spent the best years of my life there, from the age of three to nine. I lived with my grandfather and grandmother in a wooden house with all the usual amenities for this kind of home, one hundred metres from the Spartak stadium, where we played football in the summer and ice hockey in the winter.



Question:

Is this why you have become a Spartak fan?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes. I went to the Vladimir Korolenko School No. 2. My teacher Klavdia Goryacheva passed away only recently. I have not been there for quite a while, although my grandparents are buried there. I go there every two or three years. What I want is for Noginsk to recover its original name, Bogorodsk. This is an uphill battle for me, and I have been trying to convince Moscow Region Governor Andrey Vorobyov. There is already a welcome sign when you drive into the city with Bogorodsk written on it, although the city’s official name is still Noginsk. This has nothing to do with my views on Viktor Nogin, but still…



Question:

Bogorodsk does sound better.



Sergey Lavrov:

Bogorodsk is an old name; it is the way people called this place.



Question:

Do you mean that you were awarded the title of honourary citizen of the Noginsky District not merely as a formality, but for actually doing something? What do you have to do with it?



Sergey Lavrov:

I support a number of initiatives by the Noginsk authorities, including an annual English proficiency contest. I send a message of greetings to its participants every year. This is probably why I was awarded this title.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, do you really collect jokes or is this just a rumour?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t collect jokes but I do like them.



Question:

Political jokes?



Sergey Lavrov:

All kinds of jokes.



Question:

Have you ever heard any jokes about yourself?



Sergey Lavrov:

Not that I remember. Will you share them with me if you hear any?



Question:

Well, I don’t know. What is the latest funny political joke you have heard?



Sergey Lavrov:

Political?



Question:

A political or any other joke, it doesn’t matter.



Sergey Lavrov:

You know about our addiction to smartphones, WhatsApp and other apps. In the past, you heard a joke and you never forgot it… No, this one is not good…



Question:

Yes, it is!



Sergey Lavrov:

No, we try not to clutter up the Russian language unnecessarily.



Question:

Have you found anything?



Sergey Lavrov:

I will tell you if anything comes to mind.



Question:

You told UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson… By the way, is it Bóris or Borís?



Sergey Lavrov:

He calls himself Bóris, but he has admitted that the name comes from his Russian roots, so it should be Borís.



Question:

Does he really have Russian roots?



Sergey Lavrov:

He claims to have a Russian great-grandmother or grandmother, which amounts to 5 per cent of Russian blood.



Question:

Only 5 per cent and they named him Bóris, that’s funny. Boris Johnson received many recommendations before a meeting with you. Honestly, we even joked about this. Did you offer him any advice upon his departure?



Sergey Lavrov:

First, I asked him why he decided to stay at the ambassador's residence rather than at the hotel, because one of the recommendations was to caution him against opening the door to strange girls in a hotel. He did not answer my question, saying he was more comfortable that way.



Question:

He ducked your question.



Sergey Lavrov:

At lunch he only sipped at his drink, in keeping with recommendations. I raised that issue, but he said he was due to speak somewhere later.



Question:

It was a funny news conference. Judging by your responses – I only saw a video – you enjoyed it. Or am I mistaken?



Sergey Lavrov:

News conferences are always interesting, because they involve impromptu answers. When you hear the questions, you wonder how your partner, in this case your Western partner, will answer them. Boris is a lively, spontaneous and unselfconscious person who says interesting things. So it was not boring.



Question:

You have probably heard it said today – the RBC has made an interesting report – that a Foreign Ministry staff member receives 147,000 roubles a month during their foreign missions. Have you heard about this? And why are you in Moscow and not on a foreign trip?



Sergey Lavrov:

I read that it’s 147,000 roubles a day.



Question:

A day? No, I thought it was a month.



Sergey Lavrov:

Maria Zakharova has told me about this joke with 147,000 roubles a day (she already commented in this).



Question:

It is not a joke but information.



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t know about that. The RBC is a respected media outlet, but they should have phoned me first before making this information public.



Question:

What if you were unavailable?



Sergey Lavrov:

It’s the same as when another respected media outlet, Ekho Moskvy, said that I had begged US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson not to name the part of the street near the Russian Embassy in Washington Nemtsov Square.



Question:

I can’t imagine you begging.



Sergey Lavrov:

I have never talked about this with anyone, and I am surprised that Ekho Moskvy has reported this so-called information. Those who consider themselves to be respected journalists should have phoned the Foreign Ministry for confirmation. They say they received this information from the US State Department. Should we shut down all other sources of information and only receive information from the State Department?



Question:

Dear viewers, I suggest that we all chip in to collect money so that RBC and Ekho Moskvy journalists can phone the Foreign Ministry for information.



Sergey Lavrov:

I didn’t say that.



Question:

I did. They need to have some access to information.



Sergey Lavrov:

We are not going to banish them from Foreign Ministry events.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, which of the two is more probable in 2018: that Russia’s relations with its Western partners will stabilise, or that the Russian national team will win the FIFA Cup?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think the answer is somewhere in-between.



Question:

That’s a good, and, most importantly, a very diplomatic answer. In other words, our team will make it to the quarter-finals and the Czech Republic will lift the sanctions?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think that in-between is a bit lower than that.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, thank you for inviting us here. Have you ever given an interview under the Foreign Ministry New Year tree?



Sergey Lavrov:

Never.



Question:

We are the trailblazers then. What can you wish our audiences on New Year’s Eve?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is easy, because the New Year is probably the kindest and most enjoyable holiday. I wish happiness and health to everyone who is watching us now, as well as all other people in Russia and all over the world. I hope you will not trouble your heads over small problems and will respect and love each other. This is all I wanted to say. Oh yes, and keep joking and laughing, because this extends your life expectancy.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/vistupleniya_mi...nguageId=en_GB






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Rodina Studios for a film about Yuly Vorontsov made for the Rossiya 24 network, Moscow, December 31, 2017



31 December 2017 - 22:00




Yuli Mikhailovich Vorontsov (1929-2007).




Question:

What role did Yuly Vorontsov play in the history of Soviet and Russian diplomacy? What was it about him that made him a unique diplomat? Which of his views on diplomacy could be applied today?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yuly Vorontsov played a critical role in our diplomacy or even in the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and Russia.

A man of great learning and a top professional, he was also a selfless patriot all of whose actions were guided by his love for the country. He never permitted himself to make catchy pronouncements so as to win public acclaim when you need to foresee the long-term consequences of your actions and words. As the saying goes, words are not birds, and those who play to the public gallery do this to the detriment of long-term interests. Yuly Vorontsov played the long game.

He never forgot about the importance of developing good relations with all countries. At the same time, he never turned a blind eye to the red lines that must never be crossed, acting from national pride, interests, history and culture, as well as our legitimate place in the world.

Yuly Vorontsov served in many countries, starting in the United States and moving on to India, France and Afghanistan, where he managed to pave the way for the dignified withdrawal of Soviet troops. Our military personnel pulled out of Afghanistan under the command of General Boris Gromov not as capitulating and defeated troops but with their heads raised proudly as befits representatives of a great power that made the decision.

At the end of his career, he returned to the United States, moving from New York, where he served as Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, to Washington. It was a time when the art of diplomacy was needed more than ever, because professionals were aware of the dangers of a policy that was drifting on an incline that was controlled by our Western colleagues. At the same time, Yuly Vorontsov upheld our independence without sliding into confrontation. We are pursuing this line today as well, but back then it was much more difficult to do because of the illusions that prevailed among the Russian political elite. I had the honour to replace Mr Vorontsov as Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN. As I said, he moved on to Washington and we worked for several years in two capitals, the capital of the United States and the capital of the United Nations. We often met when Russian leaders came to the United States to attend meetings at UN bodies.

Meeting that outstanding diplomat and great man was very useful for me professionally and highly enjoyable on a personal level.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3013288
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 12th, 2018 #338
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Statement by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the deportation of Russian journalists from Latvia



5 January 2018 - 14:27




As a full member of the OSCE, Russia expects OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Désir to take a public stand and practical steps regarding the expulsion of Russian journalists from Latvia. Mr Désir pointed out several times during his recent visit to Moscow that the principle of reciprocity in such matters is a path towards the devastation of the information space. Now is the time for him to prove his commitment to settling such problems.

If the OSCE Representative yet again refrains from giving a prompt and clear response, we will perceive this as the OSCE’s admission that there are no mechanisms other than response measures in these cases.

Mr Désir, we appeal to you as the plenipotentiary arbiter on such matters at a representative international organisation to prove your ability to uphold the freedom of the media in the OSCE countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3013325






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s reply to a media question on the proclamation of the WWII participant law by President of Latvia Raimonds Vejonis



9 January 2018 - 17:48




Question:

What can you tell us about the law on the status of World War II participant that was signed by President of Latvia Raimonds Vejonis on January 4 of this year?



Maria Zakharova:

Regrettably, we are already well familiar with Riga’s consistent efforts to rewrite history. Having cynically insulted the memory of 150,000 Soviet soldiers that heroically gave their lives for Latvia’s liberation, its political leaders have actually conferred the same status of participants in World War II on those who fought on the side of Nazi Germany and their accomplices and the soldiers of the anti-Hitler coalition. Obviously, this law is aggravating a division in society, playing into the hands of the forces that are interested in fanning xenophobic attitudes and ethnic discord in Latvian society.

We are outraged by this contemptuous legislative act. This overt mockery of the course and outcome of World War II is absolutely unacceptable and will have serious consequences for Russian-Latvian relations.

We urge the relevant international agencies (the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe) to provide a principled assessment to this flagrant act by the Latvian authorities.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3013609






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the outcome of a high-level inter-Korean meeting



10 January 2018 - 14:09



We welcome the agreements reached at a high-level meeting between North Korea and South Korea held on January 9 in Panmunjom, including regarding the participation of North Korean athletes in the Winter Olympics in PyeongChang, South Korea.

We hope that the implementation of these agreements will help defuse tensions on the Korean Peninsula and strengthen stability in this subregion.

We hope that all the parties concerned will support the efforts taken by the two Korean states to resume dialogue. We are convinced that dialogue is the only way towards finding a mutually acceptable solution to problems on the peninsula in a peaceful, political and diplomatic manner, just as Russia has always proposed.

This is the goal of the joint Russian-Chinese roadmap on a comprehensive settlement for the Korean Peninsula, which provides for the mutual renunciation of dangerous military activities by the United States and North Korea in the interests of creating a suitable atmosphere for launching talks that are ultimately aimed at creating a collective peace and security system in Northeast Asia. We urge all the countries concerned to join the efforts to implement this roadmap.

We hope for the further development of the nascent positive trend in the inter-Korean dialogue. For our part, we are ready to continue to provide all-round assistance to this process.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3013786






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)



10 January 2018 - 17:55



The Russian Federation has consistently attached particular importance to the activities of the UNRWA and highly values its contribution to alleviating the position of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank of the Jordan River, Jordan, Libya and Syria. Over several years the UNRWA has managed to pursue a well-balanced and unbiased approach, and despite external pressure, has avoided politicising its efforts and has generally implemented its vast mandate efficiently under extremely sensitive conditions.

Our financial aid, in the form of voluntary contributions to its budget -- $10 million during 2017-2021, also attests to the recognition of the UNRWA’s important role.

Russia’s assessments of the UNRWA’s performance are shared by the overwhelming majority of the international community. On December 7, 2017 the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/72/82 in support of it. The resolution was backed by 162 states with merely six voting against it. The resolution reaffirms, in particular, the need for the continuation of the UNWRA’s work until a fair solution to the Palestinian refugee issue is guaranteed.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3014115






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question regarding the Moldovan law amending the Code of Television and Radio Broadcasting



11 January 2018 - 10:03




Question:

What does the Foreign Ministry think about the law amending the Moldovan Code of Television and Radio Broadcasting signed by the Speaker of the Moldovan Parliament?



Maria Zakharova:

On January 10, 2018, Moldovan Parliament Speaker Andrian Candu approved a law that actually prohibits the broadcasting of Russian news, information and analytical programmes in Moldova, despite the fact that President Igor Dodon had rejected this bill twice.

We note with regret that this act of outright discrimination against Russian media is yet another anti-Russia move by the ruling parliamentary majority in Chisinau and as such entirely consistent with its aims.

The fact that the Russia-hating forces in the Moldovan Parliament have yet again forced their will on the people and infringed on the fundamental right of free access to information shows that the country is moving further away from democratic norms and towards totalitarian methods of dealing with alternative views.

We confirm our commitment to the generally recognised principle of reciprocity in international relations and retain the right to take retaliatory measures.

We believe that a response to this situation should be provided not only by specialised international institutions such as the OSCE. We would like to hear the opinion of the official representatives of European organisations on whether the Moldovan authorities’ actions to purge the national information space conform to common European values.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3015706






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the situation at the Rukban Syrian refugee camp near the Syrian-Jordanian border



11 January 2018 - 19:41



On January 7, the Foreign Ministry of the Kingdom of Jordan announced Amman’s approval of a one-time delivery of humanitarian aid across the Jordanian border to the Syrian refugee camp of Rukban, located on Syrian territory. On January 8, food and essential goods were brought to the camp. The list of goods and the amount of aid have not been disclosed.

We welcome the delivery of relief supplies to those stranded in Rukban. At the same time, we insist that the territorial integrity and independence of Syria be respected and international humanitarian law be observed during the delivery of relief supplies.

The Rukban camp is located in the 55-kilometre zone around At Tanf, which is de facto occupied by US forces. No Syrian army units or representatives of the legitimate authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic are allowed into the above area. The training of militants for illegal Syrian armed formations continues at US strongholds. Meanwhile, for UN humanitarian convoys trying to reach Rukban from Syrian territory, the “border” remains tightly sealed. According to various sources, an estimated 60,000 people in the Rukban camp are in an extremely dire situation, short of food and medicines.

We regard as unacceptable attempts by Washington to justify the use of military force against the sovereignty and territorial inviolability of the Syrian Arab Republic. Assurances by the United States that its military are allegedly staying on Syrian soil for the purpose of fighting terrorists are unconvincing and open to criticism. We demand that all restrictions on access for convoys of food and medicines be lifted and that humanitarian operations in the area be more transparent. As a reminder, the US armed forces are fully responsible for the 55-kilometre At Tanf zone they have occupied.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3015903
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 15th, 2018 #339
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Statement by Permanent Representative of Russia to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting, Vienna, January 11, 2018



11 January 2018 - 17:19



Re: Statement by OSCE Chairperson-in-Office and Foreign Minister of Italy Angelino Alfano




Mr Chairperson, Mr Minister,

We are grateful for the detailed account of the priorities of Italy's OSCE chairmanship in 2018, many of which we share.

Your chairmanship falls on a complex period in history. There is neither accord nor trust between the OSCE countries. Hopes for building a single and indivisible security system in the Euro-Atlantic area have failed. Contrary to the assurances that we heard following the Cold War, we have observed and continue to observe the eastward expansion of NATO’s military infrastructure. The foundations of strategic stability, including treaty-based ones, have been systematically eroded over years. We have witnessed the aggressive policy of the “colour revolutions,” interference in internal affairs of states, and changes of unwanted governments. The policy of sanctions and restrictions has gained currency, the true purpose of which is to create trade and economic advantages for some while holding back competitors. Instead of equitable cooperation, we see double standards and hear statements about the “exceptionalism” of individual nations and countries. All of that does not help us resolve today’s problems, but instead gives rise to more problems and conflicts, and makes us all weaker in the face of common threats, such as terrorism, illegal migration, drug and human trafficking, and organised crime.

We agree that reviving the Helsinki spirit and restoring confidence among the OSCE countries is Europe’s top priority. We hope that taking advantage of its inherent grace, insight and finesse, Italian diplomacy will be able to effectively use the OSCE's dialogue capabilities to overcome disagreements, converge positions and develop consensus answers to common challenges.

Mr Minister,

We fully share your commitment to maintain the OSCE’s efforts to resolve regional conflicts. Above all, this applies to the crisis in eastern Ukraine. We look forward to the constructive role of the chairmanship in promoting a peaceful settlement. The Contact Group, as a key format for direct talks between the conflicting parties – Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk – is in need of all-round support. Full compliance with the Minsk Package of Measures approved by the UN Security Council is the key to restoring peace in Donbass. It is necessary to achieve a ceasefire, withdraw weapons and implement the entire political package which includes providing Donbass with special status, carrying out constitutional reform, and holding amnesty and local elections. In addition, the chairmanship will need to ensure the truly objective and impartial work of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine.

We cannot relax our focus with regard to other conflict tracks, either. We are interested in a political solution to the Kosovo issue based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244. We will support the chairmanship’s efforts in the processes of the Transnistrian and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlements. We highly value the OSCE’s role in maintaining a dialogue between Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of the international Geneva discussions on security in Transcaucasia.

We are pleased that the Mediterranean matters and the migration crisis rank prominently on the Italian chairmanship’s agenda. We share your assessment of this crisis as one of the biggest challenges to European security. In fighting it, it is important to address the root causes underlying the mass population outflow from the countries of origin, to create additional channels for legal migration, to promote the social integration of migrants, and to counter intolerance and xenophobia in host countries. We support the chairmanship’s commitment to working with the OSCE partner countries.

Mr Minister,

The OSCE countries are facing the vital task of protecting citizens from transnational threats that are becoming more sophisticated and diverse with every year. We expect the chairmanship to consolidate efforts in the struggle against terrorism, especially, the propaganda of terrorism ideology.

The creation of a global anti-terrorist front remains our common goal. We hope that the OSCE-wide Counter-Terrorism Conference you scheduled for May will help implement this goal. We also support the intention of the chairmanship to actively contribute to countering illegal drug, human and other kinds of trafficking. We will continue implementing OSCE projects in Russia to train drug enforcement police officers from Afghanistan and Serbia.

We consider it important not to let up on efforts to reduce the risks of conflicts arising from the use of information and communications technology, all the more so since OSCE has created a good package of measures in this area. It is necessary to work to implement these to enhance trust between countries and prevent unfounded politicised accusations against each other. Our approach is based on preventing the militarisation of the information space, non-interference in the domestic affairs of states and unconditional recognition of their digital sovereignty.

We have supported the main priorities of Italy’s chairmanship in the OSCE economic and environmental dimensions and your intention to focus on promoting innovation, developing human capital and improving government and corporate management. We believe the OSCE could provide a venue for the exchange of experience in the digital economy and help states to rationally use the results of scientific and technical progress.

At the same time, we hope Italy will maintain the continuity of the previous German and Austrian chairmanships and will continue the dialogue on the issues of economic interconnectedness.

We are convinced that the OSCE is capable of becoming a venue for establishing contacts between various integration associations in Eurasia and Europe. This is important for implementing the future concept of a common economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

We should not forget either about such vital areas of the OSCE’s economic work as the development of multimodal transport and transport corridors, a reduction of the risk of natural and manmade disasters, and efforts to combat corruption and money laundering.

Mr Minister,

The OSCE human dimension requires serious improvement. The persisting thematic imbalances, organisational issues and arbitrary behavior of institutions are seriously limiting cooperation and dialogue in this area. We hope Italy will manage to parry these challenges, in particular, put things in order at the Review Conference in Warsaw. Sharing the view on the substantial role of civil society and youth in the modern world, we should not forget that the OSCE is still an intergovernmental organisation.

We consider it necessary to pay priority attention to a respectful attitude towards traditional human values, social and economic human rights, the rights of national minorities, including linguistic and educational rights, the struggle against human trafficking, the unacceptable harassment of journalists and media for political reasons, the preservation of cultural and historical heritage, a reduction of statelessness, non-interference in private and family affairs, and the struggle against discrimination in sport. It is absolutely imperative to counter extremist and neo-Nazi ideology and attempts to whitewash Nazis and their accomplices, to prevent the destruction and desecration of monuments to the soldiers of the anti-Hitler coalition, the distortion of the history of World War II and revision of the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal. We believe it is time for the OSCE to adopt a comprehensive ministerial decision on the protection of children’s rights, all the more so since last year’s seminar in Warsaw was devoted to this issue.

We hope the instruction of the OSCE Ministerial Council given in Basel in 2014 on adopting declarations on fighting Christianophobia and Islamophobia will eventually be fulfilled during this year of Italy’s chairmanship. We remind you of the Russian initiative to draft working definitions for intolerance and discrimination against Christians and Muslims.

The OSCE’s agenda will retain the tasks of its institutional reform, the elaboration of the charter, the removal of themed and geographical imbalances and the creation of uniform rules for the performance of executive agencies and principles for monitoring elections.

In conclusion, let me wish Italy success on the uphill road of chairmanship. It will require hard work and skill to bring states with differing positions to consensus. We are convinced that the Italian chairmanship team has the resourcefulness of Leonardo da Vinci, the elegance of Raphael, Marco Polo’s talent to link the West with the East, and Garibaldi’s resolve. We welcome your intention to operate as openly and transparently as possible, fully taking into account the interests and positions of all states, as the chairmanship’s mandate requires. For our part, we are ready for honest cooperation and partnership support for all undertakings aimed at restoring confidence and enhancing security and cooperation in the entire OSCE space.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3015881






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova's comment on illegal acts against Russian diplomatic missions in Sweden



12 January 2018 - 17:38



On January 12, Tobias Lorentzson, Charge d'Affaires at the Swedish Embassy in Moscow, was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry to hear a statement of protest to the inadequate response by the Swedish authorities to the unlawful actions of Swedish citizen Leonid Karnyushin aimed the Russian Embassy and trade mission in Sweden.

On January 6, Karnyushin crashed through a gate to a parking lot in a car and then rammed the garage gate of the office and residential building of the trade mission. On January 8, he drove a truck into the main gate of the mission’s administrative building, damaging it. On January 10, he illegally entered the grounds of the Embassy, and ​​later on the same day, damaged the video surveillance equipment installed on the trade mission grounds. After each such incident, Karnyushin was detained by the Swedish police, who, however, released him after a few hours.

The Russian Foreign Ministry called the Charge d'Affaires’ attention to the Swedish authorities’ position, as they seemed to dissociate themselves from ensuring the safety and security of Russian diplomatic missions. The Russian Embassy in Stockholm repeatedly appealed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden asking to strengthen the physical security of Russian diplomatic facilities. However, no specific steps have been taken so far.

Karnyushin’s provocative actions are becoming more and more impudent and aggressive, which creates a direct threat to the lives and health of the diplomatic missions’ employees and their families, the Russian officials stressed.

The Swedish side was informed of the urgent need to take all appropriate measures to protect the premises of Russian diplomatic missions from any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the missions or impairment of their dignity in accordance with the obligations undertaken by Sweden under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3017793






Press release on Israel’s settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories



13 January 2018 - 11:39



On January 10, Israel announced that it had approved plans to build over 1,100 housing units in 20 West Bank settlements. According to incoming information, additional Israeli construction projects in the occupied Palestinian territories are likely to be coordinated shortly.

Moscow reaffirms Russia’s position of principle on the unlawfulness of the Israeli settlement activities in the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem. We believe that this Israeli policy is not facilitating the creation of conditions for direct talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians with the view to coming up with solutions to all final status problems. It is also clear that the continuation of Israeli settlement activities is undermining the prospects for a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, reducing the chances for achieving a just and reliable peace in the Middle East.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3017999
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 15th, 2018 #340
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, January 12, 2018



12 January 2018 - 17:44








Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to New York to take part in UN Security Council meetings

On January 18-19, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will visit New York to take part in two high-level meetings: “Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Confidence-building Measures” and “Building a Regional Partnership in Afghanistan and Central Asia as a Model to Link Security and Development.” These meetings are organized by Kazakhstan, which holds the presidency of the Security Council in January. The first meeting will be chaired by President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev and the second one by Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Kairat Abdrakhmanov.

We consider highly topical Kazakhstan’s initiative on organising these events. Their importance is determined by the high interest of the UN member-states that support the consolidation of the Security Council’s central role in searching for and elaborating efficient solutions to the main problems of international relations. We hope the participants will conduct a substantive exchange of views on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the situation in Central Asia and Afghanistan.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has plans to hold a separate meeting with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. A schedule of bilateral meetings is being compiled. We will inform you in detail about these contacts.



Remarks by David Satterfield, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs

I would like to quote remarks by David Satterfield, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, who spoke during Senate hearings. He made quite a few remarks, but I picked the ones which, I believe, are the most offensive. In particular, he said that the United States does not understand Russia's long-term strategy in Syria.

The official Foreign Ministry spokesperson holds weekly briefings, the transcripts of which are posted on the ministry’s official website. We focus extensively on Russia’s long-term strategy in Syria. The US State Department could have already introduced its high-ranking official to our statements, briefings, and transcripts of remarks made by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The Presidential Executive Office, primarily President Vladimir Putin, the Defence Ministry and the Foreign Ministry talk daily about the steps that Russia is taking to resolve the situation in Syria and achieve the long-term restoration of Syrian statehood. How is that unclear? It can be unclear only to those who have no interest in this subject whatsoever. We could not have anticipated such incompetence in an Acting Assistant Secretary of State.

In yet another statement, Acting Assistant Secretary Satterfield noted that the United States plans to act on Syria through the UN in opposition to the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. In particular, he said that the United States will use the UN, the legitimacy of the UN Security Council and Resolution 2254 in everything that the United States and the international community do. This is a counterweight to Sochi, and Russia’s initiatives designed to oversee and limit itself to its own track. We cannot and will not legitimise a settlement process that is alternative to the one that Russia is pursuing. Is he aware that Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, was in Moscow and met with the Russian Foreign Minister and Defence Ministry? Is he aware that modalities were arranged to connect the UN directly to the holding of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi? Did he not hear the statements made by the UN Secretary-General and his special envoy? Is he not aware of the efforts that Russia and the UN are undertaking to restore Syrian statehood in the long run?

It is striking that the United States openly talks about opposing the Congress. It may well be that they are trying to package the events in Sochi as something in opposition to the processes unfolding in Geneva. We have repeatedly said that all these processes are intertwined. A full-fledged settlement is impossible without Geneva and Astana, or without connecting the negotiation platforms, which have been active over the past several years. All these elements are integral parts of the general global process. What is surprising, though, is that the opposition to holding the Congress in Sochi is now stated openly, in particular, by US diplomats. It is now becoming clear why some Syrian opposition groups are saying that they do not have a clear position with regard to participating in the Congress. It is clear who is behind this and who is actively hampering this process.

In yet another statement, which seems to be no less offensive, Satterfield pointed out that while Russia announced that the fight against ISIS in Syria is over, the United States and its coalition partners do not consider this to be an end to the efforts. This is sheer lack of understanding of what Russia is doing and has been doing in Syria. Originally, Russia suggested – just in case recently appointed or yet to be appointed high-ranking US State Department officials are unaware of it – joining efforts in fighting ISIS and other terrorist groups, and doing so on an international legal basis. Shortly afterwards, when we failed to hear, first of all, from the United States – as the leader of some anti-terrorist coalitions in Syria – confirmation of its desire to work together, Russia had to start that operation to counter terrorist groups which you observed, almost openly, sometimes online, as you visited the regions. During this operation, we have repeatedly stated that the United States and the international coalition that it leads provide direct support to certain terrorist groups. Certain politicians in the United States claim that it was not Russia that scored such a truly major victory in the decisive battle against ISIS, but the United States. Now, everything is distorted and portrayed as if the United States was left there face to face with the enemy. It is just lack of understanding of what is actually happening in that region.

Now that I’m done with these destructive, odd and offensive remarks by US diplomats, I would like to turn to specific subjects.



Developments in Syria

The number of provocations by Jabhat al-Nusra militants and radical illegal armed formations, including attacks against Russian military bases, increased markedly in Syria in the first days of 2018. By the way, David Satterfield could share a lot of interesting information about the role of the United States in supporting this entity with US legislators.

The Russian Defence Ministry reported about the circumstances surrounding the bombing of the Hmeymim airbase and the attempted massive use of drones equipped with high-tech equipment against our military at Hmeymim and Tartus on December 31, 2017. Information-wise, I have nothing to add to this. Let me just pose the question again, perhaps, to David Satterfield: Where did the terrorists get these fundamentally new means of conducting military operations? And why did they appear right now, when anyone, even an uninitiated onlooker, can see that Syria shows signs of stabilisation, and favourable conditions are being created for achieving a political settlement and restoring peaceful life in that country? Is it because such a turn of events, the most important role in which is being played by Russia, does not sit well with certain influential forces? Today, we talked about this. Our American partners are talking about it openly. In particular, they are not comfortable with another critically important and truly large-scale event associated with the beginning of a political dialogue inside Syria on a fairly solid basis of considerable efforts to combat terrorism in that country. Perhaps, someone still harbours illusions about Russia's rejection of its principled commitment to promote a peaceful political settlement in Syria based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254, or of its efforts to organise the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi on January 29-30. If you have such illusions, no matter how hard you try to talk your legislators in the Senate into anything, you are not getting anywhere with that.

In response to numerous provocations by terrorists, Syrian government troops began to actively advance in the southeast of Idlib province and in the southwest of Aleppo province towards the Abu Duhur airbase, which, since September 2015, has been controlled by Nusra. Government forces are currently close to liberating it.

On the eve of New Year, Nusra, together with Ahrar al-Sham and Failak-ar-Rahman staged a raid in the Damascus suburb of Harasta. In its scale, this attack is comparable to the attempt by the jihadists to break through the blockade of the capital district of Kabun in March 2017. The situation in Harasta stabilised on January 4. However, the hostilities that took place in this area had a negative impact on the overall situation in the de-escalation zone of Eastern Ghouta, and suspended the implementation of a set of confidence-building measures in the area.

Things are much better in the de-escalation zones in northern Homs and the southern zone on the Syrian-Jordanian border. There are almost no violations of the ceasefire there. This allowed the Syrian government to begin practical work to restore the destroyed power transmission lines and, in general, resume normal power supply to the Rastan and Talbis districts.

In the first days of 2018, 69 former members of illegal armed groups took advantage of the Syrian President’s executive order on amnesty. In Damascus, 650 insurgents were put on record, and 50 medium- and heavy-duty weapons were turned in. Another 500 fighters settled their status in the newly opened special centres in Palmyra and the town of Furqlus in eastern Homs for dealing with draft dodgers and deserters.

According to Syrian human rights activists, in December 2017, 89 civilians died in mine explosions in the province of Raqqa, which was liberated by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces led by Kurdish militia. Activists are complaining that the Americans and the local authorities that they support either completely ignore this matter, or try to charge local residents for disposing of mines and improvised explosive devices left behind by ISIS. This is what a high-ranking official of the US State Department, David Satterfield, meant when he said that the United States will now fight ISIS on the territory of Syria. How? By charging local residents for demining their land? We have repeatedly called for collective efforts to help Syria with humanitarian mine clearance. The situation in Raqqa, where civilians are actually unable to return, is additional confirmation of the importance of our appeal.

Russia continues its efforts to provide humanitarian aid to the Syrians. The Russian military regularly deliver food and medicines to the worst off areas of Syria. The centre for the reconciliation of opposing sides in Syria is working to normalise the humanitarian situation. Regular reports on the work of the centre’s officers are posted on the website of the Russian Defence Ministry.

On January 6-7, drinking water was delivered to the residents of the towns of Salihiya and Hatla in the province of Deir ez-Zor, and medical assistance was provided, including to 32 children.

Safe and unhindered passage of UN humanitarian convoys to the villages of Tayyib and Tell-Gehab in the province of Deraa was effected. The residents were provided with food and household items, with a total weight of 180 tonnes and 240 tonnes, respectively.

The Russian military delivered several tonnes of humanitarian aid to the town of Zabadani in the Damascus region, and deployed a mobile medical unit there.



The humanitarian situation in Raqqa

The humanitarian situation in Raqqa remains extremely difficult, continuing to give rise to serious concerns. Large parts of the city are still mined, and there is a huge quantity of unexploded ordnance. Over 80 percent of buildings have been damaged. The city’s water supply system is out of operation, and electricity is only available in some districts. A great number of dead people are still under the rubble. The city faces a serious threat of epidemics. Relevant UN bodies are yet unable to duly assess the situation there. Conditions have not been put in place for civilians to return to the city.

The reason for this situation is obvious. It is the indiscriminate use of force by the so-called US-led international coalition that used to fight ISIS, followed by manipulations to form a certain type of local government beyond the control of Syria’s legitimate authorities in Damascus.

It is noteworthy that amid these developments, a conspiracy of silence between the Western media and political circles around the real state of affairs in Raqqa is taking shape. This is done so as not to discredit the actions of Washington and its allies in Syria, which, I would like to remind you again, are not based on international law. At the same time, there are ongoing attempts to blow out of proportion and distort the situation around Eastern Ghouta and Idlib, which are parts of the de-escalation zones in Syria.

Incidentally, what materials has the high-profile London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights released on the situation in Raqqa? I do not think I remember any. The guys are keeping mum. We should find out whether they are feeling all right there.



Anti-Russian developments in Ukraine

The New Year holiday season was marked by unrest not only in Syria. Unfortunately, we have witnessed once again that December and January are a critical time for a number of political forces in Ukraine. For some reason, the New Year holidays and Orthodox Christmas is a time for some politicians and a large number of extremists to show off. It has been like that for a number of years. This year they showed off their Russophobia. To be honest, we were shocked by the developments.

In his TV address, Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko wished Donbass residents peace and as a testimony of the sincerity of his words, welcomed the US decision on the supplies of lethal weapons to his country. Isn’t this hypocrisy? Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin, apparently after clicking through the channels on his kitchen TV, began to publicly bewail the domination of Soviet films on local TV on New Year’s Eve. All that definitely provoked a specific atmosphere. On top of that were declarations by scandalous Ukrainian historians, aka falsifiers of history, who reduced themselves to suggesting that Ukraine’s time as part of the USSR should be called “Soviet occupation” and modern Ukraine should be regarded as an heir to the Ukrainian People’s Republic that had existed for just a few months in post-revolutionary Russia. The question arises: Why during the holiday season? Where does this maniacal passion come from to ruin a few days off, both for themselves and for the people who have been living through hard times for years?

I cannot ignore the acts of hooliganism by Ukrainian nationalists who threw paint at the Russian Science and Culture Centre in Kiev. Radicals from the far-right group S-14 also showed up as they blocked the Kiev Pechersk Lavra under the pretext of searching for some “FSB centre” there. Next time you feel like crashing something, check with us. We will tell you where the CIA centre is located in Kiev, and you can pelt it with paint.

The New Year “surprise” from the Maidan authorities was awaiting Russians who came to Ukraine on those days to visit their relatives and friends. They were forced to give fingerprints at the Ukrainian border.

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry showed a very original way of caring for its compatriots by warning them that a trip to Russia for the New Year holidays could become a “one-way ticket.” It is hard to dismiss this statement as it is very realistic. I can tell you for sure that many of those who came to Moscow from Ukraine for the holidays and saw how well decorated our capital was, how heartily guests are welcomed here, indeed showed a desire to stay here longer. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry’s statement is realistic here. The Ukrainian Security Service was scaring the country’s residents with “anti-Ukrainian provocations” by Russian special services. Apparently, some persons disguised as Father Frost were supposed to kidnap people on Tverskaya Street.

What was going on in the media and public spaces of Ukraine regarding Russia during those holidays is complete absurd. They managed to politicise even the New Year and Christmas holidays by filling the festivities with Russophobic propaganda.



Recording biometric data of Russian citizens crossing the border with Ukraine

Starting January 1, 2018, the Ukrainian border service will require the recording of biometric data, including a fingerprint scan, for citizens of the Russian Federation. Probably Ukraine has found additional money it does not know how to spend. All other issues have been resolved, but the country cannot do without Russian fingerprints.

According to the information received from the Ukrainian authorities, these procedures will be performed at border crossing checkpoints – passport control points, transport vehicles, parking areas for vehicles crossing the border and offices of the Ukrainian Border Service; as well as outside border crossing checkpoints – at the special areas designated to control traffic at sea (river) ports, fisheries, wharves (piers) and at offices of the Ukrainian Border Service.

Exempted from these procedures are heads of state and government, members of parliamentary and government delegations, support personnel accompanying such delegations (persons) and members of their families; people under 18; tourists on a cruise; crews of military ships (aircraft) who arrived in Ukraine according to established procedure; crews of non-military ships; crews of civil aircraft on international flights and international trains if staying at airports or railway stations indicated in their working timetable; heads of diplomatic missions and consulates, diplomatic personnel, consular officials, administrative personnel of diplomatic missions and consulates, members of military attache offices and trade missions, as well as their spouses, children and parents supported by these persons; employees of foreign affairs agencies holding diplomatic or service passports who arrived in Ukraine on business trips and members of their families; officials of international organisations who arrive in Ukraine on business trips or working at branch offices of such organisations situated in Ukraine and having diplomatic privileges and immunity in accordance with charter documents of such organisations or corresponding international agreements, as well as members of their families.

If any person refuses to scan their fingerprints, they will be subject to the second-line control. The decision on permission to cross the state border will be taken based on the results of this control.



Upcoming meeting on the DPRK in Vancouver

We are aware of plans to hold in Vancouver a meeting of representatives of the member countries of the coalition of the Korean War of 1950-1953. We cannot help but regard this idea as a relapse of the Cold War mentality, which is especially inappropriate against the backdrop of recent signs of movement towards dialogue between the North and South of the Korean Peninsula.

The goal of the event, announced by the Canadian organisers – the discussion of possible steps to further increase pressure on North Korea – is debatable. This is especially interesting in the context of statements made by US President Donald Trump several hours ago that he has very good relations with the leader of North Korea.

We would like to recall that less than a month ago, on December 22, 2017, the UN Security Council approved by consensus Resolution 2397, which provides for new restrictions on the DPRK over the nuclear and missile programmes carried out in that country. But in contrast to the UN Security Council, which takes legitimate and binding international legal decisions, a decision to increase pressure, sanctions introduced unilaterally or by a group of countries are not based on law.

We have repeatedly stressed that the only way to reach a mutually acceptable solution to the complex problems of the Korean Peninsula is direct dialogue between all the parties involved. Instead, a gathering of former participants of one of the sides in the war is being convened. It is unclear what kind of message they want to send to the world community. We do not exclude the possibility that the initial idea was transformed into something different during its implementation. Unable to keep track of recent developments, this ponderous idea turned into something quite strange.

We do not consider it possible to support an event that could aggravate the already tense situation on the Korean Peninsula.



Developing Russia-Japan cooperation in 2018

For Russia-Japan relations, 2018 will be a significant year. According to summit-level agreements, for the first time in the history of bilateral relations, the Year of Russia in Japan and the Year of Japan in Russia will be organised. The opening ceremony for the bilateral year is scheduled at the Bolshoi Theatre on May 26. We see this large-scale project as aimed at giving a strong positive impetus to cooperation between our countries in politics, the economy, science and technology, culture and other fields. In particular, we hope to pursue major business initiatives capable of laying the foundation for mutually advantageous cooperation for an extended period.

In 2018, we also plan intensive contacts between the foreign ministries of both countries. During talks between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Japanese counterpart Taro Kono in Moscow in November 2017, the two ministers agreed to hold their next meeting in Japan this spring. There will also be new rounds of the Russia-Japan strategic dialogue between first deputy foreign ministers and consultations between first deputy foreign ministers on strategic stability.

As for developing joint business activities on the southern Kuril Islands, both task forces (for business and logistics issues) are coordinating projects in five areas of activity approved by the two leaders, such as mariculture, wind power, greenhouse facilities, waste recycling, organising package tours and also the possible launch of local cross-border transit between the Sakhalin Region and the Hokkaido Prefecture. The next round of talks between deputy foreign ministers, on the basis of the results of this work, is planned for February.



On the celebration of the 140th anniversary of the Liberation of Bulgaria from the Ottoman yoke

[This part of the text the translators forgot to translate - Alex Him]



The act of vandalism against the memorial to Soviet soldiers who liberated Vienna on the city’s Schwarzenbergplatz Square

We are outraged by yet another incident of vandalism against the memorial to Soviet soldiers who liberated Vienna on the city’s Schwarzenbergplatz Square. On the night of January 10, paint was splattered over the base of the monument.

The Russian Embassy in Austria has sent a note of protest over this fact to Austria’s Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs, demanding that the damage be promptly rectified and the persons who committed this offensive action be identified and punished.

We are deeply disappointed by the fact that despite a series of similar cynical acts of vandalism, including those that took place ahead of memorial dates and planned wreath-laying ceremonies, not a single offender has been identified as yet.

We have repeatedly spoken with our partners about the need to improve the protection of the monument from vandals by introducing guards or installing CCTV cameras on the square. Unfortunately, we must say that our calls have gone unheeded in Vienna so far.

Hopefully, this time Austrian authorities will give attention to this issue and will promptly take appropriate measures to ensure the due protection of the monument and preclude similar incidents from happening in the future.



Archive materials published in the US deal, among other things, with the commitments not to expand NATO to the East

The recent years have seen the Alliance act aggressively to expand to the East, citing an alleged “Russian threat” as justification for such actions. Unfortunately, as we have seen on many other occasions, the words of our Western counterparts often diverge from their actions and from reality, and absolutely ignore historical facts and agreements.

In December 2017, the National Security Archive (a non-governmental organisation under the George Washington University, USA) published documents pertaining to the negotiations on German reunification in 1990. They unambiguously show the commitment of the West not to advance NATO to the East. Copies of public speeches, the Gorbachev Foundation papers and telegrams, letters and transcripts of talks declassified by the State Department and the foreign ministries of other states speak directly or indirectly about commitments of the Western leaders not to expand the Alliance towards the Soviet borders.

For example, German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, speaking in Tutzing on January 31, 1990, said that “changes in Eastern Europe and the reunification of Germany must not infringe upon the security interests of the USSR.” Mikhail Gorbachev received reassurances that NATO posed no threat to the USSR from British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd (April 11), French President Francois Mitterrand during his visit to Moscow (May 25), and US President George Bush in a telephone conversation (May 31). These are just some of the talks that were held.

During his meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, US Secretary of State James Baker famously said that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” This is one of the many examples of a flurry of assurances by Western leaders that the Alliance would remain within its borders after the reunification of Germany that were constantly made at the very beginning of the 1990s.

We find similar passages in the conversations held at the time between German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher and US Secretary of State James Baker and British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd. This was said during the meetings of Mikhail Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze with the US Secretary of State, during the talks between Vladimir Kryuchkov (head of the KGB) with Robert Gates, Deputy National Security Advisor to the US President.

All these numerous documented facts of pre-existing agreements demolish the attempts of our Western partners today to deny the obvious. The materials published by the Alliance demonstrate a gross violation by the Alliance of what was essentially “a gentlemen’s agreement” with the USSR on respecting its security interests and NATO’s commitment not to expand to the East. The question is whether there were any gentlemen among our Western colleagues who made these “gentlemen’s agreements.”



RIA GLOBAL designated as foreign agent in the USA

Reports from the United States on January 10 said that next to Russia Today, RIA Global, the content provider for Sputnik’s US branch, will now be designated as a foreign agent.

I would like to make it very clear that this measure is not an innocuous formality, as some might think, something that has been mentioned more than once. In fact it blocks the work of our media in the US, as was highlighted by the case of RT when its journalists were stripped of their accreditation with Congress. In addition to these steps, Russian media representatives have had their visas cancelled, are being expelled from the country and, moreover, have come under pressure from foreign security services.

We have to state again that Washington has no intention of revising its policy of whipping up anti-Russian hysteria and an atmosphere of confrontation. Instead a campaign is unfolding to crack down on the media space. All this, unfortunately, is reminiscent of various episodes that took place in the West in the past. We thought that the Western states had long turned that page in their history, but that is not the case. Old templates are being actively used.

Such measures are absolutely unacceptable. We see these measures as instances of outright discrimination against Russian media outlets, and in general as an attack on the freedom of expression. Of course, these steps totally contradict the basic norms of international law in the field of providing equal access to information for all and the freedom of expression.

Most interestingly, while choosing the Russian media as its enemy, the US authorities continue to show a benign attitude to the Mirotvorets centre, which publishes personal data of thousands of media professionals who covered the events in Ukraine, including in Donbass, thus putting their lives under threat.

To be honest, we would like, at long last, to see compliance with obligations to ensure the rights and freedoms of journalists by the relevant international organisations, in the first place the UN and the OSCE, and a reaction from human rights NGOs, including those in the West who use any pretext to criticise the situation in Russia. Where are you now that the Russian media are being discriminated against?



Continuing Western pressure on social networks

The Western democracies continue to tighten control over the social networks. Thus, in December of last year the British Parliament’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee held hearings on “fake news” and misinformation in the social networks and its impact on public life in Western countries. During the hearings serious concern was voiced over the fact that the companies that administer the social networks are too slow in removing “undesirable content”, are off limits to the public and parliamentarians and are too independent.

We have the impression that by organising such hearings the British MPs are laying the ground for the introduction of elements of internet censorship. It cannot be ruled out that UK authorities may choose to pass tough legislation to strengthen control over the social networks. They have an example to emulate: as of January 1 the law on Improving Enforcement of the Law in Social Networks, also known as the Facebook Law, came into force in Germany. Under the law the operators of social networks are obliged within 24 hours to limit access to “obviously unlawful” content at the request of the authorities. Legal entities breaking this law may be fined up to 50 million euros. The reaction to the law has been mixed. The media accused the authorities of introducing censorship and media control.

Thus, the global social networks still come under heavy pressure on the part of the authorities in the Unites States, Germany and Britain, which, under the banner of fighting extremism, are trying to suppress the social networks and turn them into propaganda weapons reporting to the government. The aim is clear and understandable: to reformat the social networks to fit their selfish interests, to block out voices that contradict the “mainstream.”

One observes an interesting trend in the interaction and relationship between the social networks and the traditional media. We understand that in the Western world the media are in one way or another under financial or administrative control. There is a sense that uncontrolled publication of materials and information in the social networks, which, incidentally, has for many years been equated to the work of the media in the Western world, is beginning to pose a direct threat to the existence of the traditional mainstream media that catered to the interests of the Western political elites. That is why an onslaught on the freedom of expression in the social media is being launched.

We believe this explains the increasingly frequent reports of the shutting down of accounts in the networks without stating the reason. We see that sometimes the rules of moderation are bent to suit political expediency.

I would hazard a prediction that in 2018 we may see continued tightening of the screws in the social network mechanism. Next in line is France, as French President Emmanuel Macron has unambiguously declared in public. There are grounds for fearing that the example will be followed by other Western countries (sometimes of their own accord and sometimes under pressure from the “heavyweights”).

That trend should be closely watched, which we intend to do.



US State Department recommendations concerning trips to Russia

On January 10, the US State Department published recommendations to American citizens that are extremely puzzling. Russia is described as a country to stay away from because of “increased risks”, a country where the situation may change at any moment. I wonder if the State Department has taken a leaf out of Ukraine’s notebook. Ukrainians speak of “a one-way ticket” and here we are warned that the situation may change at any moment. What they mean by that is a mystery.

In our opinion, this is another unsubstantiated claim aimed at ratcheting up anti-Russian hysteria in the US and cultivating a visceral fear of Russia among Americans.

American tourists are told that the main potential threat to them is terrorism. I would like to ask the US State Department if, going by that criterion, it is safe to go to downtown New York. This is hypocrisy pure and simple. This is a common problem – think of the UK, France, Spain and Belgium. These countries have seen horrendous mass terrorist attacks, but the US State Department for some reason considers them to be safer. From the viewpoint of the US State Department, there is no such threat. But that is absurd.

The same document says that Americans in Russia are often victims of harassment. Name the place in Russia where Americans became victims of harassment, or were hurt or simply uncomfortable. Can anyone cite a single example involving US citizens? We have delved in all the archives. We do not know of such facts. What does the State Department have in mind? Who wrote it all for them is a big mystery.

By contrast, such incidents involving our countrymen in America occur all the time. Thus, a Russian citizen Anton Kemayev, who was in Pittsburgh on December 19, was caught in crossfire in a street shootout and was shot in the head.

Incidentally, Ukraine, where hostilities are taking place and the internal political situation is indeed unstable and may certainly change at any moment, is regarded by the State Department analysts as being a safer place. What does one make of it all? Who writes all this stuff for them?

We are truly dismayed by the fact that US authorities earlier created artificial problems for Russians getting American visas and now are trying to talk their own citizens out of traveling to our country under absolutely mystifying and absurd pretexts.

Incidentally, statistics show a steady growth in the number of Americans traveling to this country as tourists (to 207,000 in the first nine months of 2017). Welcome to Russia. And don’t listen to the US State Department.



Situation around Viktor But

The fact that timely medical assistance has not been rendered to Russian citizen Viktor But, who is serving a 25-year prison sentence in the US for an unjustified charge, is extremely worrisome. When he caught the flu, with a high fever and violent cough, the prison authorities said there was no doctor in the correctional institution and suggested that he wait two weeks.

Only after the Russian Embassy in Washington intervened the ball got rolling. Thanks to the efforts of our diplomats, who immediately contacted the prison administration, the US Federal Bureau of Prisons and the State Department, and also sent a note to the foreign ministry of the host country with demands for action, adequate treatment was finally provided. The Russian citizen was given a medical examination and began to receive the proper medicine.

This is not an isolated case. Pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko, convicted in the United States and serving a twenty-year sentence, has very serious health problems, including those resulting from the beatings he took during his abduction by American agents from Liberia. And he too was denied medical treatment for a long time.

From the very beginning of these stories, we can see a prejudiced attitude towards our compatriots and carbon-copy actions. Both But and Yaroshenko were seized by Americans in third countries, forcibly moved to the US, convicted without real evidence and given long sentences. Their appeals are regularly rejected, and they do not receive timely medical assistance when it is needed.

This is just outrageous from a legal standpoint! We seriously fear for the lives of our citizens, as Washington is incapable of meeting their basic needs while they are being imprisoned. We will continue to take all possible measures to protect their rights and legitimate interests. We insist that they be given an opportunity to return to their homeland as soon as possible.



US Senator Benjamin Cardin’s report Putin’s Asymmetric Assault on Democracy in Russia and Europe: Implications for US National Security

Regarding Senator Cardin’s speculations about Serbia, we would like to point out Washington’ persistent lack of a civil attitude to its foreign partners.

When President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic visited Moscow in December 2017, he spoke openly and sincerely, which is in line with the traditions of partnership and friendship between our countries, and expressed readiness to further strengthen multifaceted cooperation with Russia. At the same time, he confirmed Belgrade’s policy of integration with the EU as well as its intention to maintain military neutrality. We respect the foreign policy priorities of our Serbian friends and act based on our mutual willingness to strengthen bilateral cooperation. We would like to stress that our cooperation with Belgrade is fully in compliance with international law and is based on respect for the entire range of factors that influence the situation in the Balkans.

At the same time, we have never advocated a negative agenda or urged our partners to take actions that would be directed against any other party. On the contrary, we and our Serbian partners are open to discussion of current matters of concern for the situation in the Balkans with any interested parties. The above report has shown, regrettably, that not everyone shares this inclusive approach. Instead of the promotion of a broad dialogue aimed at settling existing problems, such attempts are only aggravating differences in the Balkans and are provoking additional tension.



UK’s intention to discredit FIFA World Cup Russia

We have quoted more than once and otherwise demonstrated materials that our Western partners and the media outlets they control publish with the aim of tarnishing Russia’s reputation as the host of international events. Yesterday I commented on the fresh attempts to blame Russian diplomats for interfering in the US elections. We have commented on these allegations more than once, yet they are reprinted again without any mention of our statements.

I would like to speak now about what we expect to happen during the FIFA World Cup. I think that you remember all the mud-slinging in relation to the Sochi Olympics. Now we expect a growing amount of negative media reports ahead of the FIFA World Cup Russia. We have grounds to assume that it will become one of the very important and possibly even the main theme of publications in the Western media. We have talked about this subject more than once during our briefing, exposing staged news, including by British media outlets. However, it was only the tip of the iceberg. We have found out that British journalists have received “a state order” to create a negative backdrop for the FIFA matches in Russia. The plots, subjects and methods of doing this have been worked out in detail. The media have not been told to look for breaking news. Instead, they have been issued the theses for use in their publications, such as the lack of the necessary infrastructure and conditions for holding the matches, the alleged aggressiveness of Russian fans and unprofessionalism of Russian law enforcement agencies, which allegedly cannot guarantee the safety of foreign tourists. By the way, it cannot be ruled out that travel warnings issued to those who plan to visit Russia are connected one way or another with the upcoming sports event.

We have a clear view of the structure and mechanism of influencing journalists, including in the UK, which is why we do not expect any feats of heroism from them. We understand that they need to earn their pay. However, we again urge foreign fans not to believe this smear propaganda but to talk with football fans who regularly travel to Russia and have enjoyed our hospitality and had a chance to assess our infrastructure as well as to see its drawbacks with their very own eyes rather than through the eyes of propaganda masterminds.

Refresh your memory about the Sochi Olympics. Let’s try and remember who tried to scare the people and through which media outlets, and what they wrote after the games. For example, the Daily Telegraph’s Ian Chadband wrote that the opening ceremony was “a visual journey through [the] country’s history.” Jonathan McEvoy wrote in the Daily Mail that “for Russia [the opening ceremony] marked its revival as a post-Soviet powerhouse, confident of its seat at the top table after two decades of doubt and despondency.” Italy’s La Repubblica wrote that the ceremony was magnificent as predicted, as inclusive as Russia itself, and with each classical episode unforgettable.

This time again, it will be interesting, done professionally and on a large scale.

Once again, we point out that the British media have launched an active smear campaign with regard to the upcoming FIFA World Cup in Russia.




Excerpts from answers to questions:



Question:

The US Department of State advises American citizens not to visit a number of countries, including Russia and Azerbaijan …



Maria Zakharova:

Are you also mocking the Americans? Do you also have some places where they can get hurt?



Question:

The motives of this statement are unclear.



Maria Zakharova:

I know what the real motives are. Azerbaijan has successfully organized numerous international sports and cultural events. Countries that accomplish a lot, including tourism, should always be “kept on their toes,” so that they would not forget that it is always possible to create a certain dangerous image through propaganda. This is what our Western partners probably believe.

To be quite honest, I have not read about the inadvisability of visiting Azerbaijan in the original document, but I have seen this in news reports. I believe that only those people who have never been to Baku could have written something like this. I often visit Azerbaijan and Baku, including the city’s old central district, restaurants, museums, with great pleasure; and I also call on my friends there. Therefore I can say it is sheer rubbish to write that tourists are not advised to visit Baku and Azerbaijan.

I repeat, only those people who have no idea about Azerbaijan, its culture and political realities could have written this. It is highly unlikely that they even know where this country is exactly located.



Question:

I have a question about the Syrian National Dialogue Congress. How are the preparations for this event proceeding? Have all the Syrian parties, including the Kurdish parties, been invited to attend the Congress?



Maria Zakharova:

You know, we are not talking about whether everyone or not everyone has been invited. It is now necessary to coordinate all aspects, issues, deadlines, and the list of invited guests and participants. Therefore it is still too early to say who have been invited, and who have confirmed their decision to attend. Very active work is underway. I can say once again that, as soon as we receive detailed information, we will share it with you. Right now, I can assure you that the preparations are underway.



Question:

Can you confirm reports that a delegation of the Foreign Ministry and the Central Election Commission will visit Syria and organise Russian presidential elections there?



Maria Zakharova:

Regarding the organisation of the Russian presidential elections in 2018, we will, of course, focus on Syria where many Russian citizens, including service personnel and specialists involved in rebuilding the country, are staying. Foreign Ministry employees visit the Syrian Arab Republic on a regular basis. I will additionally brief you on a possible joint trip involving representatives of the Foreign Ministry and the Central Election Commission.



Question:

What would you like to say about the response of Ukrainian media outlets to a decision to give the rank of full state councillor 3rd class of the Russian Federation to Inal Ardzinba?



Maria Zakharova:

I have seen their response. I would like to tell those who are probably unaware of the situation that, in early December 2017, the President of Russia issued his executive order on giving the rank of full state councillor 3rd class of the Russian Federation to Inal Ardzinba, a department chief with the Presidential Directorate for Social and Economic Cooperation with the Commonwealth of Independent States Member Countries, the Republic of Abkhazia, and the Republic of South Ossetia.

This caused an absolutely inadequate response on the part of Ukrainian media outlets. Russian media outlets also pelted us with questions and asked us to comment on this matter because the Ukrainian media outlets employing professional experts on black propaganda equated this rank with the military rank of major general, and Mr Ardzinba reportedly received this rank for conducting certain counter-terrorist operations in Ukraine.

This is absolute gibberish! Ukraine remains quite “indifferent” towards Mr Ardzinba. This manic desire to monitor the lives and careers of Russian officials is probably motivated by their own personnel shortages or by their permanent desire to find some external enemies. We have been noting this many times now. In this case, I can only advise Ukrainian media outlets to, at long last, focus on their country’s domestic political economic and social matters, not to look for external enemies and not to invent news which is later widely circulated. It would be better to analyse Kiev’s compliance with the Minsk Agreements. I believe that this is always beneficial.

Inal Ardzinba has become a popular hero of Ukrainian epic literature.



Question:

Yesterday President Vladimir Putin visited the Komsomolskaya Pravda editorial office. He made a number of foreign policy statements, including the one that denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula must proceed through a dialogue. At the same time, this dialogue has continued for years. Is it possible to speak about any progress and measurable results concerning this matter?



Maria Zakharova:

I have already commented on this theme at length today. I told you about the obvious progress that we – and other parties – have seen. I think the footage of the dialogue between the South and the North has been seen across the globe. We proceed from the premise that this very complicated issue (we do realise its complexity) can and must be resolved in a calm and composed fashion at a negotiations table. Definitely not by military means, not by demonstrating one’s military power, whoever is doing it; not by intimidating civilians, to say nothing about using nuclear weapons for intimidation. The elements of the negotiation process that we have seen must send a very important signal and indicate the manner in which this matter can as well as must be resolved.

Russia, on its part, has repeatedly stated that it is willing to provide help in the talks and in settling this situation, and has answered the question on whether the help can be formal or informal. We assume that no formal status is required for this. In our contacts with our western partners, with South and North Korea, we promote the idea of an exclusively political and diplomatic resolution of the situation, and we are doing our best to prevent any escalation of the situation and to reduce tension.



Question:

Between January 22-23, President of Argentina Mauricio Macri is visiting Russia. Will the Russian and Argentine foreign ministers meet ahead of this visit?



Maria Zakharova:

I do not have any detailed information concerning the events on the sidelines of the UNSC meetings during Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s current visit to New York. I will find out and get back to you. I do not have this information at the moment.

As you know, the ministers met only recently. Their meeting was extensively covered on the ministry’s website.



Question:

Earlier today, you have dwelled on media persecution and US sanctions against RT and Sputnik. The day before yesterday, the Russian Embassy in Washington declared that the US continued to put pressure on the Russian media in that country. I must say in this connection that now it is the turn of the Iranian Television and Radio Company. What assessment could you give to the conformity of freedom of expression with the US model of democracy?



Maria Zakharova:

I gave this assessment regularly and I did so today. I certainly can reiterate that it is unacceptable to persecute the media, where the case in point is not a threat to peace and stability or involvement in terrorist activities (all of this is regulated by law), but a clear political bias, domestic political squabbles in this or that country (as we can see now in the US), expulsion of journalists, accreditation denials, and continuous public harassment.

One more point I would like to draw your attention to, sir, is that you said: “Now it is the turn of the Iranian Television and Radio Company.” This is something everyone should remember. No one can be sure that he/she will not be the next. If you tacitly agree with what is being perpetrated against your colleagues, you should know that the lack of a response from the professional community gives a green light to all those who are experimenting with your colleagues.

The entire world of journalists should rise, when inadequate, unjust and unlawful actions are taken with regard to no matter what media – Russian, Brazilian, Cuban, Iranian, or any other – and react thereto via country and international professional associations, journalists unions, or individually. They should make it clear that this is unacceptable. Then everyone will understand that the international journalistic community has a powerful voice and that these experiments are just inadmissible.

Another important point is this: When these experiments affect your media, I assure you that a similar reaction of non-acceptance with regard to this media persecution policy will be forthcoming and a similar strong voice will be raised in defence of your media and journalists.

Regrettably, it takes a lot of effort to wake up the journalistic community, when this inadequate wave engulfed Russian media and journalists, who are banished from Latvia, denied accreditation in France, called propagandists at US officials’ briefings, interrogated for hours on the border after their arrival to Ukraine, or even manhandled for example like in Moldova. Where is everyone? A response is needed. You will be given ten times stronger backing, if you find yourselves in a similar situation. I think all international journalists should wake up. These international experiments on Russian media are likely to be just a trial balloon, the testing of a model to restrict the national media. If you let it pass today, the same might happen to you tomorrow.



Question:

Can you confirm the dates of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress? Do you know who will attend it?



Maria Zakharova:

We believe the congress will be held in late January. We are working now to compile a list of those invited. We will confirm the timeframe and the list of invitees as soon as we can.



Question:

A Defence Ministry representative said yesterday that they believe that drones were supplied to terrorists in Syria by a foreign country, most probably the United States. Do you think this has been done to disrupt the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi? Will this delay the congress?



Maria Zakharova:

It is certainly true that destabilisation in the region, including in Syria and on its borders, is not simplifying the process of preparing for the congress. As I have said today, the counterterrorist and anti-terrorist efforts of Russia, the Syrians themselves and all those who helped fight terrorists in Syria have created a firm foundation [for the congress]. It was very important to use this opportunity to launch a comprehensive and even global process, involving not only a dialogue but also practical efforts by all political forces in Syria and beyond towards consolidating the country and finding the main development modalities for it, as well as for working on the possible structure and the main documents that would regulate the country’s activities. In other words, we tried to map out a path to the future. Those who are promoting destabilisation are seeking to hinder a political settlement by undermining this achievement, which has been created through years of hard work. Since a political settlement in Syria is the task of the congress in Sochi, the congress has also been targeted by those who are trying to destabilise the situation.



Question:

White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster yesterday had a meeting with members of the Syrian opposition. What is your attitude to such meetings, considering that the White House has recently said it had little hope for the venue in Sochi?



Maria Zakharova:

It was probably said by those who are still aware of diplomacy. Today, I quoted a statement by a US official, according to which the Syrian National Dialogue Congress all but contradicts the relevant UN Security Council resolution and definitely contradicts the efforts taken at other venues. This is what a high-ranking US State Department official said. A diplomat, who should use diplomatic language, has said openly that the United States is opposed to the idea of the congress in Sochi. He also resorted to absurd arguments to try to prove his point, because in fact Russia is very much interested in the implementation of the relevant UN Security Council resolution.



Question:

Do you think in this regard that efforts are being made to wreck the talks?



Maria Zakharova:

Why think? You just need to read. I have more than read this; I have quoted a high-ranking diplomat who is a professional in his field. If this statement were made by a diplomat with a specialisation in Eastern Europe, Africa or Asia, it would have been understandable, because the diplomat would not have been an expert on the relevant matters. We would have then regarded such a statement as a mistake, a shortcoming or an inaccurately expressed view. But the statement was made by a professional who testified in the Senate on this very question. He said that the congress does not fit into the US vision of the situation in the region, and that the event is evidence of Russia’s cunning. He added that Russia has well-nigh outmanoeuvred everyone. If they say this in public, I shudder to think what they say behind closed doors.

I said in response to the previous question that the cutting-edge weapons which are in the hands of the terrorists, which are used in terrorist attacks, and the terrorists’ redeployment, which our Defence Ministry is monitoring, are definitely destabilising the situation. Taken together, this cannot have a positive effect on the upcoming congress or any other efforts to consolidate the Syrian opposition.



Question:

Can UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura influence the US position to change the Americans’ views on the new meeting? Russia and other parties have done a great deal to bring representatives from the various sides in the Syrian conflict to the same table.



Maria Zakharova:

Mr Staffan de Mistura is an intermediary who is mediating between the conflicting parties in Syria, but he also deals with the main international players who are involved in the Syrian settlement. You are right in saying that the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy has many powers in accord with his position and so has the capacity to speak about the importance of the Sochi congress and to promote its success. This will not be the success for Russia but the success for Syria and the Syrians. When we speak about Syria today, we imply a Syria for all Syrians, that is, those who support the government and those who have been fighting it for years, including, regrettably, through military methods. We are talking about a future Syria that will be home to all Syrians.

We believe that the special envoy’s mediating powers should be applied to help the Syrians themselves and to promote the success of all Syrian citizens, groups and political forces that have agreed to use exclusively political and diplomatic means to achieve their country’s consolidation and restoration.



Question:

Can you comment on the recent inter-Korean talks? You have mentioned them, but how would the Foreign Ministry assess them? Are they the first positive move towards a new agenda and possible talks between the United States and North Korea? Or is it more accurate to regard them as talks between the two Korean states on the Olympic movement?



Maria Zakharova:

We published a commentary on our website with our views on this issue immediately after the talks. It was very detailed. Do you want forecasts or assessments? If you want assessments, read the commentary. I have spoken about this again today. As for forecasts, frankly, we do want our forecast and those made in other capitals to become a lasting reality. We would not want this [the inter-Korean talks] to be a single event held in the context of the upcoming Olympic Games in South Korea, followed by the resumption of indifference, accusations and, worst of all, threats. We hope that these talks will show that both parties can interact constructively and maintain a dialogue, in which case the situation could lead to prospects for a political and diplomatic settlement.



Question:

Will the foreign ministers of Russia and Japan and their deputies meet in Tokyo or in Moscow?



Maria Zakharova:

I will inquire about this and let you know.



Question:

With the Olympic Games in South Korea approaching, more publications are focusing on sports topics. Several media outlets have reported that a number of US athletes are using vaccines to conceal traces of doping. What is your response to this?



Maria Zakharova:

I have seen reports that, in connection with American athletes preparing for the upcoming Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in South Korea, the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention have developed recommendations on vaccination, reportedly, against a wide range of communicable diseases.

We have looked more closely at this topic to understand the implications. Apparently, according to experts, the recommended vaccinations could be used to defend US athletes who would otherwise be caught doping. This is one opinion. There are certain loopholes in the anti-doping code. The fact is that antiviral vaccines are not considered prohibited substances.

Therefore, I would like to remind you of the incident involving several US athletes who participated in the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Their doping tests revealed traces of clenbuterol, which had been banned in sports since the late 20th century. Anti-doping agencies did not see any problem with this finding, explaining that the athletes may have consumed a corresponding amount of the substance with food.

It should be emphasised that this is by no means the only case. This implies that there is room for legalised doping which, although not being supported by law, remains unpunished if the athletes are deliberately guided and provided with substantial support from experts. All this constitutes very important material for study by relevant specialists since the doping issue has become fatal in recent years.



Question:

On New Year’s Eve, a prominent Russian political scientist, Director of the International Institute of Newly Established States Alexei Martynov was detained in Italy and ordered out of the country as a “national security threat.” He had a three-year multi-entry Schengen visa issued by France. He was also prevented from entering Poland. Since he uses a Schengen visa, he is unable to enter the whole area covered by this framework.

After New Year, there was a story about Russian journalists in Latvia, and in all the reports it is a question of a national security threat. What can we do? It is obvious that these Russian nationals are not terrorists, drug traffickers or arms dealers. Why are they being treated as a threat to national security? The use of this wording is clearly abusive. The rights of these people are being violated.



Maria Zakharova:

This is not abuse, but a magical wand that can change the laws of physics. It took our European colleagues (and Western colleagues in general, but in this particular question you are asking about the European Union) decades to work out and adopt norms regarding the freedom of the media and journalists. They wanted the rest of the international community not just to join these efforts (which would have been more or less fair), but to try and adopt these high standards in all countries without due regard for their national identity, traditions, political stability or lack of it, or in general for the developments in one country or another. They set extremely high standards regarding the freedom of speech, and used them as a template not for teaching others or helping them reach these standards, but for criticising specific countries that wanted to be free from any outside political control, where political elites and leadership had to be trolled, and where instability had to be maintained in Europe’s interests.

We are now faced with a paradox. On the one hand, many countries have reached this high standard in terms of freedom of speech, and their media within their national information space are totally free, serve as genuine mass media outlets and compete in the information space with Western media and titles with much more superior budgets. In this situation, everyone became equal in the media. The paradox of today’s media landscape is that you no longer have to invest huge sums of money in order for your message to resonate and be heard. For that, you need talent, professionalism and an unbiased perspective. And the technology is there for that. As it turned out, faced with real, Western-style competition, many traditional Western media started losing out to the competition. When this happens to national media outlets, the political elites of these countries also stand to lose in one way or another. The audience can opt for media products offered by foreign media, not only national outlets. This is when Western elites started asking themselves how they could support their national media resources, while pushing or driving out this new breed of competing media organisations that were established in keeping with their own legal framework and shaped by it. For many years now they have been inviting young journalists from across the post-Soviet space on so many occasions, and invested so much money in developing the information space in Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and other countries of the post-Soviet space. This led to the emergence of professional journalism.

There is hardly any way out of this situation. On the one hand, they were the ones who introduced these high standards and sought to implement them in other countries, but now it turns out that they would have to apply them to themselves. On the other hand, there is now a competitive environment in which their own media are starting to lose out to the competition, for a number of reasons. What they needed was some kind of a magical tool to legalise everything that had to do with restricting the activities of the undesirable media outlets, while also guaranteeing one hundred percent that the high standards regarding the freedom of speech remain intact. This is how the magical wording “national security” provided a pretext for denying accreditation to journalists, and denying them visas. People are being ordered to leave countries, unable to enter foreign territory or unable to communicate. There is absolutely nothing behind these claims. Russian journalists were designated as national security threats in the US, Europe and some other countries without any further explanations. However, this is deemed sufficient in terms of domestic policy or even for saving the face in international organisations, where they can just say that this is a matter of national security, not censorship or restrictions. This is the only way out of this situation for our Western partners. At least this is how I see this.

That said, I do believe that the professional community should come together to think of the possible ways out of this situation and discuss it. Tomorrow this could become everyone’s problem. We have Prensa Latina with us at this briefing. Every year, this agency raises the subject of the media and informational inequality in the world within the UN Committee on Information. It has long been assumed that money is the key factor behind inequality. The Western world had no reason to be worried: they had more money, television sets and radio receivers. Developing and other countries were not part of this information competition, not even close to it.

Today, partly thanks to the internet, new information technology and the media, everyone can now be an actor in the information space. This is a paradox: on the one hand, there are many conventions, documents and agreements saying that interfering with the media is unacceptable, while on the other hand, they are no longer able to keep up with the competition.



Question:

The matter concerns not only journalists. The list of persons who allegedly pose a threat to national security includes political analysts, academics and Russian human rights advocates.



Maria Zakharova:

The information sphere has broadened. As I have said, not only journalists are presented as actors. This thesis is being actively promoted by our Western colleagues. At all international events for the past seven years, I have heard it said that bloggers and journalists are equal. Our Western colleagues told us that bloggers have a different sphere of activity, level of responsibility and traditions. Today, they are becoming hostages to their own model. But I think that this issue should be discussed in the professional journalistic community. It is a very serious question.



Question:

What if Russia starts acting likewise with regard to journalists, political analysts and other groups of citizens from the United States and other unfriendly countries?



Maria Zakharova:

The principle of reciprocity has not been cancelled in international relations. But we also say that this will not do any good. This policy of our Western partners is completely wrong.



Question:

We are grateful to you for speaking about the celebration of Bulgaria’s liberation from the Ottoman yoke. This is very important for Bulgarians. Many people say jokingly that this event features more prominently in the news than Bulgaria’s presidency of the Council of the EU.

Is it possible that the growing anti-Russia rhetoric is revenge by the United States and some other Western countries for Russia’s victory in Syria? Is there a tendency for Western states to prevent small countries from developing relations with Russia? A recent case in point is Moldova.



Maria Zakharova:

Don’t say that Moldova is a small country, or they’ll take offence.

This concept concerns not just specific events; it is part of the doctrine of deterrence. We have spoken a great deal about this. The facts are obvious. Regrettably, our Western colleagues, specifically Washington, put pressure on countries that are unable to pursue an independent policy to make a choice in favour of consolidating their positions with the West and to stop developing relations with Russia. This implies natural relations rather than some invented relations. I am referring to historical ties, cultural closeness and numerous scientific and humanitarian ties.

We have seen this happening over the past few years. It did not begin with Syria, and definitely precedes the operations by the Russian Aerospace Forces there, and even dates back to before Ukraine. Possible reasons for this are Russia’s changing role and weight on the international stage, the personal views of some Western leaders, the rejection of the idea of multipolarity, as well as the concept of one’s exceptionalism and the denial of other states’ independence, let alone their leading or main roles, in international affairs. All of this can be regarded, to some extent, as part of a comprehensive deterrence concept.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3017813
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:14 AM.
Page generated in 2.68873 seconds.