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

Old January 16th, 2018 #341
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a news conference on Russian diplomacy in 2017, Moscow, January 15, 2018



15 January 2018 - 13:20








Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all I would like to wish you belated happy holidays. I wish you success, health and prosperity in the New Year. We are grateful for your participation in our traditional news conference.

I don’t think I should occupy too much of your time with my opening remarks. Just recently the President of the Russian Federation held a detailed and long news conference. Several days ago Vladimir Putin also met with heads of Russian media outlets, in particular, news agencies. I am sure you watched these major events and listened attentively to his comments, including those on foreign policy issues.

I will briefly say yet again that last year was not easy in the context of foreign policy. There were numerous hotbeds of tension in different parts of the world – from the Middle East and North Africa to neighbouring Ukraine. In the last few months the situation was seriously aggravated by Washington’s threats to resolve the nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula exclusively by force. Similar threats were made regarding the Afghan issue for which use of force exclusively was also suggested. Recent statements aimed at sabotaging implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear issue did not contribute to optimism and stability, either.

Regrettably, our American colleagues and their allies still want to operate only on the basis of dictates and ultimatums. They do not want to listen to the views of other centres of world politics, thereby refusing to accept the realities of the emerging multipolar world. The methods to which they resort to contain their competitors are, for the most part, quite dubious and conceived in bad faith, and their range is extensive – from the deployment of a global missile defence system to unilateral sanctions, exterritorial use of their own legislation and, as I have already said, threats to resolve any international issues exclusively in line with their own scenario, without stopping at anything, including the use of crude armed force. As a result, we are witnessing the devaluation of international law, diminishment of the role of international institutions and a growing number of countries placing their bets on an arms buildup which they see in the current situation as essentially the only guarantee for preserving their sovereignty.

In these conditions we did all we could to protect, first and foremost, the national interests of the Russian Federation in our work in the international arena, including the interests of our citizens and Russian businesses that are being more and more often subjected to discrimination. In parallel, we did all we could to defend international law and the international system that are based on the UN Charter. Together with other constructive actors in the international community we upheld the universal values of truth, justice and equitable and mutually respectful cooperation and also tried to prevent the degradation of the international system that is badly out of balance today. We wanted to do everything to halt the descent into chaos and confrontation.

I am prepared to speak about specific areas of our work in my answers today. I will just mention that this year we will continue acting in the same vein as I have just described. Naturally, this concerns the continued struggle against terrorism, in which we have achieved success in Syria, which is undergoing a very important stage – the transition to political settlement. In cooperation with our Turkish and Iranian partners we are organising the Syrian National Dialogue Congress that is supposed to be attended by a broad range of Syrian forces, as required by UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We will work to preserve the agreements on the Iranian nuclear programme and normalise the situation around the Palestinian-Israeli settlement process. The unsettled Palestinian issue seriously aggravates the situation in the Middle East. Needless to say, we will continue working on the Ukrainian issue that can only be resolved through the full and consistent implementation of the Package of Measures that was adopted in Minsk in February 2015.

We have a very important political event on our agenda – the election of the President of the Russian Federation. Our foreign missions – embassies, consulates general and Russian centres of science and culture are doing everything necessary to make sure that all Russian citizens abroad who want to take part in the election can do so as conveniently as possible.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, you are probably aware that the media often publishes lists of key issues and expressions at the end of the year. If you were to compile such a list in the sphere of international relations for 2017, what key stories and phrases would you include in it?



Sergey Lavrov:

I'll stay away from the phrases, or else I may be misunderstood again.

As for the stories, of course, it’s Syria. This issue is a focal point for many interests of many actors. We are trying, as I said, to use the initiative of convening the Syrian National Dialogue Congress to harmonise the interests of all Syrian parties and all external players who have influence on the situation and want to secure their interests in this region, including as part of the Syrian settlement. This is a complex process. To reiterate, we have reasons to believe that the pro-active role of Russia, Iran and Turkey will remain unchanged. It made the Astana process possible one year ago, helped create de-escalation zones, which continue to operate despite individual violations and the attempts to thwart it. It is also important that the Astana process stimulated UN activity, which, prior to the meetings in Astana, remained, in fact, inactive for some ten months. I hope that the initiative of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress will also act as an incentive for the UN to step up its activities. In any case, the Congress in Sochi is aimed at promoting the Geneva talks. We are saying it unambiguously to all our colleagues, including the UN leadership and the countries involved in the Syrian settlement process in one way or another.

The second topic, probably, includes everything else that concerns the Middle East and North Africa. The Syrian settlement process is only a part of the complex tangle of issues in this region. I will mention Libya and Yemen. I have already mentioned the Palestinian-Israeli settlement process, which has ended up at an impasse. I remain convinced that the dead-end in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement process, in moving towards creating a Palestinian state, has a part to play in radicalising the Arab street.

There is another topic - Ukraine, which is artificially inflated to make it look bigger than it is, and is seen as a touchstone in the confrontation between Russia and the West in general. I consider this approach to be erroneous and absolutely politicised. If we were to abandon the assessment, the prism of confrontation between "authoritarian Russia" and the "liberal West" through which the Ukrainian crisis is being viewed, and focus instead on what’s written in the Minsk Agreements (everything is clearly spelled out there and cannot be construed in more than one way), then, I think, the Ukraine crisis would have been settled a long time ago. This would mean that rejecting the ideology-driven interpretation of the situation as supposedly having global significance for relations between Russia and the West would allow our Western colleagues to move away from their thoughtless and reckless support of the policies pursued by official Kiev designed to shirk its commitments under the Minsk Agreements.

Of course, we can talk at length about positive trends as well – there’s no end to such conversations. They include promoting Eurasian integration, implementing the greater Eurasia project with the participation of the EAEU, the SCO, and ASEAN, its openness to new participants in the East and the West. Of course, it is also necessary to talk about integration processes on a broader scale - in the Asia-Pacific region, the activities of APEC, the G20, and BRICS. These associations embody major trends of the modern world, namely, the objective emergence of a polycentric system of international relations.

I’m sure I forgot to mention a thing or two. I was speaking off the cuff about issues that we have on our desks on a daily basis.



Question:

Before the New Year the leaders of Russia and China announced that they would like to continue cooperating in international affairs. Could you name the main international issues on which Russia could maintain effective cooperation with China this year?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am very grateful that you were given the floor second because you raised the subject that I did not mention when answering the first question about what keeps us busiest.

Of course, the nuclear problem on the Korean Peninsula is one of the most serious items on the international agenda. Russia and China are actively cooperating on this track. As you know we have a joint initiative with China on transitioning from confrontation to political settlement of the problem that has arisen on the Korean Peninsula. To begin with, we suggest that everybody calm down and freeze all confrontational activities, primarily those linked with military undertakings, whether missile launches, nuclear weapons tests or large-scale exercises that the United States has been holding in this region with the Republic of Korea and later on also with Japan. When these activities are frozen and a moratorium on hostile, confrontational steps enters in force, we will actively support direct contacts between the main stakeholders. Speaking about the nuclear issue, these are primarily Pyongyang and Washington but we will be ready to accompany their bilateral dialogue also in the framework of the six-party process with the participation of Russia, China, Japan and the Republic of Korea. This is probably the most important issue on the bilateral agenda that Russia and China are now working to resolve.

I must say that the work on this issue is difficult. I have already said that the United States is almost openly talking about the inevitability of a military solution although everyone understands the disastrous consequences of such a venture. When there were conditions for transitioning to dialogue, provocative actions were undertaken in the vast majority of cases – increasingly large-scale military exercises around North Korea, which provoked another round of tensions. We have a joint roadmap with China and we will actively promote it.

We are also cooperating on the problem posed by the Syrian settlement process. Our Chinese colleagues occupy the same positions as the Russian Federation. I am referring to the need for an exclusively political settlement on the basis of the resolutions of the UN Security Council, which provide for political dialogue without preconditions and with the participation of the full spectrum of Syrian society – both the Government and all key elements of the opposition representing the diversity of political, ethnic and religious groups in Syria.

We have one more highly important joint initiative with China on the draft treaty on the non-deployment of weapons in outer space. It was submitted at the UN Disarmament Conference several years ago. Regrettably, this treaty has not yet been discussed due to the US position. All other countries understand the urgency of this problem but the United States continues nurturing plans to militarise outer space, I mean the deployment of weapons in outer space, which will, naturally, have very adverse consequences for problems of international security. Incidentally, speaking about the Disarmament Conference, China was our co-author in the drafting of another major document – the convention on the suppression of acts of chemical and biological terrorism. This draft is also being hindered by the United States, much to my surprise.

The intensive process of consolidating integration efforts is underway in Eurasia. China has the One Belt One Road initiative. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of China Xi Jinping agreed to work toward conjoining Eurasian integration and the One Belt One Road initiative. The members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) are elaborating a treaty on trade and economic cooperation with China. In parallel, the EAEU and the SCO are maintaining contacts that ASEAN countries are welcome to join. Many ASEAN countries have already signed free trade area agreements with the EAEU or are negotiating them. What President Vladimir Putin called “the greater Eurasia project” is a very promising initiative. Needless to say, it will be necessary to take into account a large number of specific factors because too many economic interests overlap at this point. This is a winning initiative because it is based on reality. It is not being implemented via the initial formation of some framework and subsequent transition to practical action. Here is an illuminating example: pavement being laid in lawns in England. They first look where it is convenient for people to walk and then put down concrete or pave. Our processes that we call by the common name of the “greater Eurasia project” are proceeding in the same way.

I could probably spend a long time listing the joint initiatives that Russia and China are undertaking in the international arena. But for the sake of brevity I wanted to highlight these major issues.



Question:

In 1998, Russia ratified the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Ukraine. The Russian Foreign Ministry made a real effort to have the treaty signed. Since 2014, the treaty has ceased to be realistic. What are you going to do about it, given that it is automatically extended for 10 years unless it is terminated? Will the treaty be automatically extended or will it be terminated? If there is no decision as yet, what would you advise your leadership to do as an expert on international affairs?



Sergey Lavrov:

How can I advise anyone on this if I do not know what advice I should give? State Duma Deputy Konstantin Zatulin brought up this subject in public just the other day. He noted that one of the treaty’s key articles, the one about the mutual respect of Russia and Ukraine’s territorial integrity, was irrelevant now after the free expression of Crimeans’ will. By virtue of their referendum people in Crimea achieved independence and joined the Russian Federation of their own free will.

You know, this does not sound relevant to me. International legal documents are important but these matters are handled by legal experts. I believe that at a political level we continue to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine within the boundaries that took shape after the referendum in Crimea and its reunification with the Russian Federation. We have many times answered legal questions, including those about the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which was also recently brought up. Under this memorandum, Ukraine refused to have nuclear weapons while Russia, the United States and Britain pledged not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Let me remind you that we neither used nor threatened to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, so there was no violation of the Budapest Memorandum. At the same time Ukraine reaffirmed in a separate statement its commitment not to stir up anti-Russian, neo-Nazi and xenophobic sentiments. What happened after Maidan was a flagrant violation of these obligations by our Ukrainian neighbours.

I assure you that, in political terms, we are interested in that, as recently Russian President Vladimir Putin repeated yet again, that the Minsk Agreements are implemented in full, without any exceptions. This fits in with our position based on full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within the existing boundaries that took shape after the referendum in Crimea, which was held in full compliance with international law.



Question:

The treaty refers to the boundaries that existed in 1998. Is it necessary to adopt an updated document?



Sergey Lavrov:

This topic that you are touching upon is diverting our attention away from the actual theme. The real matter here is that Ukraine signed the Minsk Agreements, which have nothing to do with the Crimea issue. These agreements must be implemented. If we now instead of making the Ukrainian leaders do, at last, what they promised to do and what was later formalised in a UN Security Council decision, start mulling over how this or that line of the treaty should be read, we, as it seems to me, will only give them an excuse to further drag their feet when it comes to the fulfilment of this very important document, which, I would like to point out once again, was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. Our Western colleagues in both Europe and the United States – we know this from our talks with them – fully understand the tactics of the incumbent Ukrainian leaders regarding the Minsk Agreements. They are well aware that our Ukrainian neighbours are still trying to provoke the use of force in this stand-off in order to divert attention away from the fact they are deliberately not fulfilling the Minsk Package of Measures. Let us not theorise now – I do not want this to be seen as a lack of respect for international law. Utter disregard for it was demonstrated by those who incited, organised and supported Maidan. After all, I will remind you that in February 2014, former Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, together with the opposition leaders reached an agreement, which was certified by the foreign ministers of Germany, Poland and France. A day later the opposition scrapped the agreement. It turns out that those who on behalf of the EU signed this agreement had deceived the Ukrainian people because the agreement provided for the creation of a government of national accord but, instead, a “government of winners”, as it was named by Arseny Yatsenyuk, was formed. Just one day later, if I may refresh your memories, a congress of people’s deputies of the Southeast [of Ukraine] and Crimea was held in Kharkov, with the deputies having been elected in compliance with the Ukrainian Constitution. They decided to take control of their regions until law and order were restored in Ukraine. They did not use force against the putschists but on February 23 the putschists approved a language law. Although it was not enacted, its message was clear to everybody – it was an absolutely anti-Russian and, essentially, a Russophobic law.

A short time after this, on February 26,the putschists – those who had seized power in Kiev – directly authorised the use of force by the Right Sector, as well as such organisations as Hizb ut-Tahrir and a Wahhabite group to take the Crimean Supreme Council building by storm. Many tend to forget about this now. All this happened within five days of the European grandees’ failure to persuade members of the opposition to deliver what they signed up to on February 20. Only after that all processes were triggered. They all started when the use of force against the Crimean Supreme Council was authorised and it immediately became crystal clear that the Crimeans had nothing to do with these illegitimate authorities. This was also a violation of international law, including the Budapest Memorandum I mentioned earlier on, under which Ukraine undertook not to support xenophobic sentiments.

We entirely support [the rule of] international law but, first of all, we want all those who initiate the demolition of international legal documents to come to and behave accordingly.



Question:

Last year’s sentiments are reflected in the January poll by the Levada Centre, which shows that 68 per cent of Russians view the United States as hostile country. The figures in the United States are similar: between 64 and 70 per cent of Americans say that Russia is an adversary. Will you comment on these shocking figures? Can you also tell us who, or what, is to blame for this situation?



Sergey Lavrov:

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has spoken on this issue more than once. It is not a matter of which came first, the chicken or the egg, but rather an issue of mentality. The people in the United States firmly believe in their country’s exceptionalism. President Barack Obama spoke about this openly on many occasions. President Donald Trump has not used this term, but all actions by the US elite and the country’s activities on the international stage show that they continue to be guided by this perception. It would have been a different matter had they promoted their exceptionalism by providing positive examples of fair game and competition. Unfortunately, this is not the case. While the United States and the rest of the so-called historical West are losing the dominant positions they have held for at least five centuries, and while new centres of economic growth, financial power and political influence are emerging in the course of objective historical development, when the international system should be adjusted to involve these new centres of power in an equal dialogue and to develop constructive and widely acceptable solutions, the United States has resorted, regrettably, to illegitimate methods in an attempt to stop the curtailment of its relative role in global politics.

The UN Charter is a very important document. It stipulates a set of standards that must be respected. I do not think that this document should be modified, although we do support the ongoing reform of the UN Security Council. The key element of the UN Charter is the provision on the sovereign equality of states, mutual respect and the coordination of positions. This provision is not respected in the United States, especially under the current US administration. Whenever US initiatives produce a countermotion, if not resistance, the United States immediately and impatiently threatens the “offender” with sanctions. There are many examples of this kind.

Getting back to your question, the development of a polycentric world order takes a long time. The process is ongoing, and it will be painful for those who are losing their positions for the simple reason that the global economy develops in cycles. At present, it is not the United States or the West that are leading global growth. Of course, this takes some adjustment, and the process is rather painful, as I have said, but there is no other option. On the other hand, there is a different course of action, which the United States and some of its allies are trying to apply. It involves threats, ultimatums and punishment, including the punishment of companies and European businesses, for example, Volkswagen, which allegedly failed to comply with some standards, or other companies for failing to allocate funds to someone. This is being done through the exterritorial application of US laws. To cut a long story short, I believe that this heritage is visible in the actions of both the current US administration and the previous administration of President Obama. Regrettably, this legacy has been preserved despite President Trump’s election promises and has even become more intensive and aggressive in some cases. The actions of the US administration are evidence of the United States’ fear of honest competition in many areas, such as energy and gas supplies to Europe. I am sure you know about the attempts to replace Russian gas with US LNG, which is much more expensive. The examples in energy include resistance to the Nord Stream 2 project, which has been denounced as a politically motivated project that will split Europe and strangle Ukraine. This has been said openly in the United States. It is forcing Europe to abandon the project, although the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Germany will be 2,000 kilometres shorter and 30 to 50 per cent cheaper that transportation via Ukraine.

I think that sanctions in the defence sector, which have been adopted against Russian military exports and the companies that produce these goods, are clearly designed to prevent the strengthening of our positions to the detriment of American positions on this market. It is an understandable striving, but one should compete fairly rather than threaten developing countries with sanctions if they buy Russian weapons, something that happens more and more often.

Look at the situation in the media, with which you are familiar. We see attempts to limit competition in the attitude to Russia Today and Sputnik in the United States and France, the deportation of our journalists and the closing of our networks in Moldova, Ukraine, Latvia and several other countries. Or take the recent initiative of President of France Emmanuel Macron, who has proposed rules for fighting fake news where only one party will decide if a piece of news is fake. There will be no discussions, evidence or arguments, or at least they are not stipulated in the initiative that has been made public.

And lastly, take sports and the situation in this area in light of the upcoming Olympic Games and the decisions regarding Russian athletes. There is no doubt, as President Putin has said, and there are facts showing that some of our athletes used doping substances, but no national team has ever been collectively banned from the games before. In addition to a desire to injure Russia in some way, I also see this as fear of honest competition.

It is obvious that Russian society take note and analyse media reports on Russian-US relations and the United States – I have cited some examples of such reports made in the print media, on television and online. Public opinion is an important indicator. However, I believe that the main contribution to this situation is made by the US administration, which is demonising Russia. We have to respond to the hostile actions I have mentioned. We try to do this carefully rather than by retaliating with “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” We cannot tolerate absolutely illegal actions (I have not mentioned the unprecedented seizure of diplomatic property: we have completed preparations for launching legal proceedings). We have to react to them and to write about this, just as you are doing. Since our audiences, readers and social media users take note of the facts I have mentioned (there are many more such facts), I do not know how we can convince the Russian people to respond to a question about their attitude to the United States by saying that the US is the best country in the world and they want the same in Russia. I think I will stop for now.



Question:

What is your view of the eight rounds of the intra-Syrian peace talks in Astana and the talks in Geneva?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Astana peace process is being covered by the media quite thoroughly. As I have already said, we began the talks after the Obama administration failed to deliver on its obligation to separate the US-controlled opposition from Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorists. That agreement was reached by President Putin and President Obama after their meeting in China in September 2016. Later, US Secretary of State John Kerry and I formalised it on paper. The Americans could not fulfil it because they were either incapable or did not want to really suppress Jabhat al-Nusra. Our suspicions remain valid and are receiving more and more substantiation.

The United Nations was sitting on its hands at the time. Turkey, Iran and Russia decided to begin a process that would be based on the actual situation on the ground rather than on speculations. We started cooperating with the armed opposition and the Syrian Government, who later met in Astana for several rounds of talks. Four de-escalation zones became the provisional outcome of the talks. One of the zones was created with the involvement of Russia, the United States and Jordan. The level of violence in those zones has since decreased significantly.

Right now, however, provocateurs are trying to shatter the situation in Idlib and East Ghouta. The groups in Idlib who signed the agreement on behalf of the opposition and who are being controlled by our Turkish counterparts are subject to some external influence, as I understand it. Just recently, they carried out several raids against the Syrian troops. At the same time, there have been provocations against our base in Khmeimim. We could not but respond as those acts were direct violations of the de-escalation agreement. Our western counterparts’ current attempts to make it look like it was the Syrian army that breached the agreement are dishonest. The situation was absolutely the reverse. We do rely on our Turkish partners to finish establishing the remaining observation points around the de-escalation zone in Idlib as soon as possible. They have so far established only three out of twenty. This was discussed during the contacts between our leaders. We were assured that Turkey would accelerate its efforts. I hope this will help stabilise the situation in Idlib and prevent any further disruptions.

The status of East Ghouta is similar. Western media and politicians are sounding the alarm over the Syrian army continuing the operation in East Ghouta despite the agreement to de-escalate. All actions of the Syrian army are responsive because the militants allegedly close to Jabhat al-Nusra continue to shell residential neighbourhoods in Damascus, including the Russian Embassy area, from East Ghouta. It would be absolutely wrong to pretend nothing is happening and not to try to prevent these unlawful actions.

But the work continues. The Astana peace process produced agreements regarding additional humanitarian measures, prisoner exchange and a number of other issues that are helping to build trust on the ground and start a process of nationwide reconciliation based on the de-escalation zones at the local level. The said agreements will be put into practice.

We have repeatedly stressed that the Astana peace process is not competing with the UN efforts. There is always a UN representative at the international meetings in Astana. The Syrian National Dialogue Congress is also aimed at promoting the talks and not the other way around. UNSC Resolution 2254 states that the talks must involve a government delegation and representatives of as many oppositional groups as possible. The delegation formed by Saudi Arabia with Russia’s support that was sent to Geneva was, in my opinion, not diverse enough and mostly represented the external opposition. Those were people who live in Riyadh, Moscow, Cairo, Paris, London, the UAE or Istanbul. The Syrian National Dialogue Congress seeks to involve the opposition based in Syria in the political resolution and peace process, including not only the opposition directly opposing the Government but also the peaceful tribes whose territory has not been shaken by major military activity and who are not technically parties to the conflict but live in that country. Of course, it is important to consider the views of these tribes when making decisions on Syria’s future through its constitution or otherwise.



Question:

Do you see any changes in US President Donald Trump’s approach to the Syrian crisis as compared with his predecessor, Barack Obama?



Sergey Lavrov:

There are hardly any dramatic differences. Unfortunately, in both cases, what we see is not a desire to help resolve the conflict as soon as possible, but rather to help those who try to make practical steps to change the regime in Syria. I already said that US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, like John Kerry, has repeatedly assured me that the only purpose of the US presence in Syria, including the Air Force and special forces ‘on the ground,’ together with the coalition, is the destruction of terrorists, including ISIS. Even keeping this in mind, according to the Americans, ISIS has not been completely destroyed, that separate hotbeds and disbanded fighter groups have remained, the actions we observe now show that the US does not really want to preserve Syria’s territorial integrity.

A new US initiative was announced only yesterday, allegedly aimed at helping the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to create certain areas of border security. By and large, this means the isolation of a vast territory along the borders with Turkey and Iraq, east of the Euphrates River. These areas are now controlled by the SDF, but there are complicated relations between the Kurds and the Arabs there. The announcement that this zone will be controlled by US-led groups and forces of up to 30,000 troops is a very serious matter, which raises fears that they have taken a course for breaking up Syria. This is being done without any reasons arising from UN Security Council resolutions or earlier reached agreements from the Geneva talks. We, like our Turkish and Iranian colleagues, like many others, I am sure, now expect the US to give detailed explanations.



Question:

Over the past 24 hours, the Turkish armed forces have made at least forty strikes on the positions of the Syrian Kurds from the Democratic Union Party (PYD) in the Afrin area. What is Russia’s position on this matter?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is a common area for our work. We are working for a full compliance with the ceasefire agreements. The Kurds are definitely part of the Syrian nation and their interests should be taken into account in the work we are doing, including in the preparations for the NDC. I have mentioned the new US project to build border security forces relying on the SDF which is mostly formed by Kurdish groups. You know that this has already caused a negative reaction from Turkey. I said that this raises serious questions about respect for Syria’s territorial integrity. But there is also a problem when it comes to the relations between the Kurds and Turkey. This new one-sided ultimatum step and project does little to calm down the situation around Afrin.



Question:

The conflict between Erbil and Baghdad is still going on. Dozens of Kurdish residents have been killed in Kirkuk, and about 200,000 Kurds became refugees. What role can Russia play in resolving the conflict between Erbil and Baghdad?



Sergey Lavrov:

The answer is very simple: the role that will be acceptable and in which Erbil and Baghdad will be interested. We support the territorial integrity of Iraq, we stand for the settlement of all problems through negotiations and national dialogue. If the parties need a mediator’s efforts, if they mention Russia’s efforts as a potential mediator, then, I assure you, we will take this positively.



Question:

US President Donald Trump said in terms of an ultimatum at the end of last week that it was the last prolongation of the freeze on anti-Iran sanctions. What could the Iranian nuclear deal collapse lead to? What will Russia’s reaction be?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have already responded to this situation. We are confident that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) for the Iranian nuclear programme is among the international community’s most important achievements toward stabilising the situation in the Middle East, confirming the unacceptability of undermining the WMD non-proliferation arrangement. Our position has been repeatedly brought to the attention of the United States.

Ever since the first doubts were raised in Washington about the desirability of preserving the JCPOA, we have repeatedly, together with the Chinese and European signatories, conveyed to Washington our convictions about the detrimental nature of this step and its unpredictable consequences. Unfortunately, this did not fall on the right ground. So far, our efforts have not been crowned with success.

We will continue to work to make sure that the US recognises the reality that Iran is fulfilling all its obligations under the JCPOA. This is being regularly verified by the IAEA Director General. The IAEA has not mentioned a single problem with the nuclear programme obligations Iran had assumed.

Now the US is trying to modify the text of the agreement to include clauses that will be absolutely unacceptable for Iran. We will not support them. Access to any facility on first request is beyond the scope of the agreement, as is the indefinite nature of Iran’s waiver of the rights it has under the NPT and in accordance with the IAEA Statute. At the same time, Iran is being pressured in a broader sense. The US demands that it stop the development of ballistic missiles, which has never been negotiated. Iran has never assumed any such commitments. And in a more abstract way, the US demands that Iran cease interfering in the affairs of neighboring countries and the region as a whole, and stop violating human rights at home. A whole package of sanctions against that country is being prepared, including for its ‘transgressions’ outside the agreement’s framework. This is quite regrettable.

In a few months, there will be another review. If the US really slams the door, I do not even want to think about the consequences. Iran will no longer consider itself bound by the JCPOA. I very much hope that our European partners, whom the Americans will certainly begin to entice to side with them, will adhere to what is written in the JCPOA that was approved by a UN Security Council resolution and is mandatory for execution by all. Sadly, the United States once again gives reason to doubt its ability to negotiate.

Speaking of one specific consequence, I have to return to the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula. If Kim Jong-un is required to wrap up his nuclear military programme, in exchange for a promise to lift the sanctions, then this is precisely the essence of the agreements between Iran and the international community. If they just put it aside now and tell Iran it should stick to its obligations, and they re-impose the sanctions, put yourselves in North Korea’s shoes. They are promised that sanctions will be lifted in exchange for abandoning its nuclear programme, so they do, but the sanctions are not lifted. Or, on the contrary, an agreement is reached, and then the Americans just say the next morning that they are ‘men of their word’ – they give their word, then break their word. This is a popular joke.

By the way, a meeting on North Korea opens today in Vancouver, called by the Americans and Canadians, involving the countries that were members of the UN-led coalition during the Korean War of 1950-1953. When we heard about this meeting, we asked why this composition? Greece, Belgium, Colombia and Luxembourg. They were in that coalition. How do they relate to the efforts to resolve the current problem of the Korean Peninsula? What will they do there? The Americans told us that it was important to expand support for our common efforts, but the agenda is to develop a mechanism for additional pressure on Pyongyang. Just a couple of weeks ago now, another resolution was adopted. Two days later, it was announced that a meeting in Vancouver would be convened. We and China were not invited, but we were told that the meeting would start tonight, January 15, while the main meetings would be held on January 16; and they invited Russia and China to come and join them in the evening to hear what they had agreed on. You certainly understand that it was unacceptable. We insisted that the UN should not accept the invitations either, as the invitations had been sent to UN representatives.

A few words about the American diplomacy manners these days. As far as I know, the day before yesterday, there was a briefing at the US Department of State. The spokesperson, who actually talked about the meeting in Vancouver, was asked why China and Russia had not been invited. The answer was evasive, but essentially spokesperson said that Moscow and Beijing had been informed about the preparations for the meeting and that both countries had allegedly supported the effort. These are plain lies. We said bluntly that we considered that effort and that meeting harmful.

Let’s see how the situation unfolds. But for the time being, it is difficult for me to say what will happen to the European position on the Iranian nuclear programme. In my opinion, they are already beginning to call for certain compromises. It looks like the situation is likely to slide in a very dangerous direction.



Question:

In 2017, Russia made a huge contribution to the Syrian conflict settlement and generally acted as a peacemaker. How successful, in your opinion, was Russian diplomacy in settling other conflicts, specifically one in Nagorno-Karabakh? Are there plans to settle the conflict in 2018? Are there plans to cooperate with Azerbaijan this year?



Sergey Lavrov:

As far as a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is concerned, the Russian Federation cannot have any concrete plans to solve this problem because it can only be solved by the parties themselves. Russia, along with the United States and France as the three OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, is doing its best to create conditions for this settlement. In recent years, we have made a real effort to generalise the parties’ positions, identify converging approaches to some or other aspects of this settlement as well as we have simultaneously tried to suggest as it were the compromises that can lead the parties to a common denominator on matters in which they still diverge.

This work has been pursued in an intensive and regular manner, including over the past year. The parties have all our proposals, the co-chairs’ proposals (Russia, the US and France share a common stance). The parties know what the co-chairs think, but it is up to them to decide. Of course, we expect some positive impulses to follow from both parties.

We are glad that both countries’ presidents and foreign ministers met last year. Representatives of the co-chair countries participated in these processes. I think, it would be important now to take additional steps to induce more calm on the line of contact. This would also help a transition to a political settlement.

Let me comment generally: This problem cannot be solved once and for all by just one document. We need a stage-by-stage approach reflecting an understanding with regard to what is possible now and defining the ways of working on matters that require additional discussions in the interests of achieving a final settlement, including that of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

As for plans to promote relations with Azerbaijan, let me say that they are based on a most intensive dialogue between the presidents and the foreign ministers. This year, my Azerbaijani colleague and I have exchanged visits; humanitarian events, including a joint humanitarian forum, are held regularly; mutual trade and investment grow, and plenty more. This work is proceeding under its own steam and there is no need for any specific documents on how to regulate it. We have intergovernmental commissions in various fields and officials concerned draw up appropriate schedules. We are highly satisfied with our strategic partnership with the Republic of Azerbaijan.



Question:

Occasionally it may seem that everyone has forgotten the situation involving Julian Assange, but in reality this is not so. There is a feeling that all the legitimate efforts of the Ecuadorian authorities don’t work. At first they gave him political asylum. Not so long ago, we learned that they had granted Ecuadorian citizenship to the Wikileaks founder. The latest development was the attempt to give him diplomatic status, but London refused to go along with it. Nothing works! What is your take on this situation? Soon it will be six years since this man, regarded worldwide as a champion of truth and freedom of expression, has taken refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Would Russia do the same as Ecuador in a similar situation and grant Mr Assange citizenship?

My second question is about attempts to disrupt preparations for the Syria National Dialogue Congress. A State Department spokesperson declared the other day that the US was not going to recognise the legitimacy of this platform on a par with Geneva and Astana. Will we take cues from the United States? Will we manage to hold this congress as planned, given the huge number of difficulties – I mean differences between the guarantor countries and some even greater differences between other international players, problems with Kurdish participation and that of Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura?



Sergey Lavrov:

The question about how Russia would behave, if Julian Assange applied for Russian citizenship, is hypothetical. We regard these situations primarily from the humanitarian point of view. This was the case with Edward Snowden, who asked for asylum, which we granted, taking into consideration the consequences with which the charges brought against him were fraught. He lives and works here. His has an absolutely non-conformist position and, as you know, he comments freely on all subjects. I just cannot comment on “what would have happened, if…”. Julian Assange is not in the Russian Federation now, but I fully agree that this problem should definitely be solved in one way or another. We accept the actions taken by the Ecuadorian authorities with understanding. I hope that all other participants, too, will be guided by common sense, including our British and Swedish colleagues, who seem to be ready to display goodwill and finally resolve this problem.

As for our US colleagues’ attitude to the Astana initiatives and the Syria National Dialogue Congress, we invited the Americans and they participated in the Astana meetings, including by sending a State Department representative from Washington on several occasions. I would be glad if the Geneva process led us at full speed towards a settlement. Regrettably, the initial attempt to reduce the Geneva process to talks between the Government and the opposition émigrés, without involving opposition forces from within Syria, was doomed from the start. We attended these meetings, but we constantly said that the UN Security Council resolution, of which we invariably remind [our opposite numbers], called for the participation of the entire spectrum of Syrian society. People who have lived abroad for years can hardly be regarded as representatives of the entire spectrum.

Hence the emergence of the Astana process: people confronting the Government with arms in hand had to be brought to the negotiating table to come to terms with the Assad Government on a ceasefire and joint moves to support everyday life in these de-escalation zones.

In the same way, following the main stage in the fight against ISIS, the Syria National Dialogue Congress is due to use this opportunity to start the political process. It is aimed at involving the people not covered by the Geneva structures. And they are a majority, if we speak about the Syrian participants in all these events.

We believe the UN will thank us on seeing the results of this congress. We will expand their capabilities as much as we will the number of participants. The constitutional reform and the subsequent election rules should be such that they enjoy support from the entire Syrian people, and not just those who held secret, backstage meetings at the Palace of Nations in Geneva.



Question:

In light of the events that you’ve mentioned, with sanctions being tightened, with the loss of your diplomatic compounds, and investigations underway into alleged Russian meddling in the United States, the current relationship between Russia and the US seems possibly worse than under President Obama. After one year of President Trump and considering the possibility of additional sanctions in the coming weeks and months, do you personally ever regret that Donald Trump became president, and do you ever wish that Hillary Clinton were sitting in the White House instead?



Sergey Lavrov:

You know, this is not what diplomats do – regret something that has happened. We work with facts, and facts are what we have today, so we just do what needs to be done to advance Russia’s interests under the current conditions.



Question:

My first question is about Libya. How much could Russian diplomatic actions help in the settlement of the current Libyan crisis?

My second question concerns the Vatican. What other important events in bilateral relations can we expect after the Vatican’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, visited Russia in August 2017?



Sergey Lavrov:

Speaking about Libya, we are not playing the key role in the international efforts there. As you know, Prime Minister of the Government of National Accord Fayez al-Sarraj and Commander-in-Chief of the Libyan National Army Khalifa Haftar held a meeting in Paris. They reached some agreements that seemed promising, but failed to gain traction, though. We also welcome the efforts taken by Libya’s neighbours – Algeria, Egypt and Tunisia. We support the energetic efforts by UN Special Envoy Ghassan Salamé, who has put forward an interesting roadmap. At the least, the several rounds of talks held under his auspices in Tunisia give grounds to believe that the situation is moving in the right direction, even if slowly, including the preparations for the elections. Everyone agrees that it will be a vital stage.

Unlike many other countries, we have been working with all Libyan parties without exception from the very beginning, just as we did in any other conflict, including the Government of National Accord in Tripoli, the Tobruk Chamber of Deputies, Mr Khalifa al-Ghawil and many others. Initially, some of our Western colleagues placed all their stakes only on one of these people, but now they have taken a more balanced position – better late than never – and agree that it will be extremely difficult to reach a desired result without bringing all the key figures together at the negotiating table.

As for our relations with the Vatican, they have been rather intensive even before Cardinal Parolin’s visit. President Putin has had meetings with Pope Francis several times. We can report practical results in the area of humanitarian cooperation and exchange of exhibitions, as well as an agreement on visa-free travel for the holders of diplomatic passports, which the Vatican described as historical, became effective last year. We also have common interests, including in the context of developments in the Middle East and North Africa. We have held several conferences together with the Vatican and some of our other colleagues on the protection of Christians in these bloody conflicts on the sidelines of UN and OSCE events. The latest such conference was held on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council in December 2017. There are many more examples of our prolific relationship with the Vatican.



Question:

For many years now, the Winter War has affected the relations between Helsinki and Moscow. Perhaps it continues to affect them even today. In the past years, the Russian media have produced some publications with which Finnish historians cannot agree – specifically, some false statements. Can you give us the Foreign Ministry’s clear stance on who was responsible for the shelling of Mainila and started the Winter War of 1939?



Sergey Lavrov:

You know, I think it is for historians to establish. The Foreign Ministry is not supposed to have a stance on historic facts. The said period was not the best time in our relations. Russia and Finland are on very good terms at present, I think. Did you happen to watch the Valaam film yesterday? I believe President Vladimir Putin clearly said everything, that we are looking forward and value Finland’s role in saving the monastery together with its treasures. I don’t think it is a good idea if we go down this road and diplomats begin to argue about who started shooting first 70 or 80 years ago. Historians, on the other hand, must research this question, without a doubt. Speaking of which, Russia has joint history commissions with many countries. I would not mind if we set up one with Finland.



Question:

Exactly one year ago I asked you about Western Europe’s reaction to the development of the EAEU. You answered that the reaction is ambiguous and each country had its own response. Has the attitude shifted?

My second question concerns Uzbekistan. What are the Foreign Ministry’s plans regarding this country?



Sergey Lavrov:

As concerns Brussels’ attitude towards the EAEU, it is true, a year ago they did everything to avoid even recognising any functional value of this integration group. Obviously, for political and ideological reasons, just like NATO refuses to recognise the CSTO as an organisation with which NATO could have a dialogue, although there was certain progress at some point. Now the European Union is finally making steps toward accepting the reality and is at least ready for a dialogue between the European Commission and the Eurasian Economic Commission on regulatory issues, even if only technical ones, but at least relevant to the actual transfer of goods and, therefore, hopefully creating a foundation for additional actions toward extending cooperation. We can move this way forward taking baby steps which will get bigger as the time goes by.

Russia and Uzbekistan have been allies for many years, and this alliance was documented in a treaty. Our relations continue to follow this line. We have noted with satisfaction that in the past year Uzbekistan has been more involved in multilateral events, including the CIS and the SCO. We welcome this change. Last spring President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev visited Russia and talked with President Putin about expanding our strategic partnership and alliance. All these aspects reflect the current work of our multilateral structures in the post-Soviet space. So my belief is that our prospects are really quite good.



Question:

Canada has suggested it might be prepared to be part of peace-keeping mission in Ukraine if the peace-keeping mission involved all of eastern Ukraine whereas I believe Russia’s position is interest just along the contact line. Do you see any way of bridging those two positions?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our proposal regarding the UN mission to protect the OSCE observers is not limited to its deployment only on the contact line. OSCE observers have a mandate that says they can move, in agreement with the parties, on both sides of the contact line. They regularly visit the self-proclaimed republics in Donetsk and Lugansk up to the border with Russia, where they travel as many as twenty times a week. Our proposal is to ensure UN protection for these OSCE observers everywhere they go and patrol, in accordance with their mandate.

As for Canada’s interest, this is not up to me. It is up to the conflicting parties to determine the nations involved, in accordance with our proposal and the common UN practices, that is, this needs to be coordinated with Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk.



Question:

And I’ll come back to what you said about the North Korea meeting in Vancouver today. Do you think anything productive can come out of that without Russia there?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia was not the only country that was not invited; China wasn’t either. With all due respect to those who initiated this, I do not expect anything productive from it; I will be glad if only nothing counterproductive happens. But this looks unlikely, because the agenda sounds like “increasing pressure on North Korea”.



Question:

A question about broken promises. You have made multiple references to February 21, 2014, the date the Agreement was signed. So why is the medal for the so-called return of Crimea dated February 20, which was a day before the signing of the Agreement?



Sergey Lavrov:

Frankly, I never saw that medal. I think it was some technical misunderstanding.



Question:

Last week, President Vladimir Putin said the Russian Federation was ready to return armored vehicles and ships from Crimea to Ukraine. Mr Putin also said that Russian-Ukrainian relations will improve once the Donbass issue is resolved. How important is it for Russia to preserve those pseudo-state entities in eastern Ukraine? The Minsk Agreements say nothing about the DPR or LPR, which you mention so often.



Sergey Lavrov:

It refers to some districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Since this is not a court hearing and I am addressing journalists, I’ll permit myself to speak about events in a descriptive manner.

The Minsk Agreements refer to some districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Speaking about fulfilment of the commitments, one of the first points, after the points on cessation of hostilities and withdrawal of troops, says that direct consultations are to start between the government of Ukraine and representatives of some districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. It refers to direct consultations. Ukraine still claims that it has not made such a commitment and resorts to various configurations designed to show that it is not talking with them, but is talking with Russia, the OSCE, the Germans and the French.

As regards weapons, when it all happened, weapons began to be pulled out of Crimea at once, as early as March. When your leaders proclaimed a counter-terrorist operation describing as terrorists those who had never attacked them, we stopped transferring these arms because we realised that they could be used against the people who had categorically rejected the government coup by those who had declared anathema on the Russian language, those who, like Dmytro Yarosh, said a couple of days after the coup that Russians would never recognise Stepan Bandera and should therefore be driven out of Crimea. Look at his statements. Yarosh was at the time the mouthpiece of Maidan. I am convinced that the people of Crimea had no option but to defend their identity, their multi-national and multi-confessional culture against such thugs. They simply had no choice.

In my opinion, there can be no doubt that we are ready and interested in full compliance with the Minsk Agreements.



Question:

Russia and Poland are neighbours, but the list of Warsaw’s grievances against Moscow is vast, almost infinite. Moscow keeps saying that Warsaw is a partner. Warsaw says that Russia is an enemy. How should the relationship be built with such a tricky “partner?”



Sergey Lavrov:

One should take a philosophical view of what we hear from Poland. We have repeatedly made it clear that we would be ready for very close, mutually beneficial and pragmatic cooperation. We have always had extensive cultural ties, shared many music and film festivals, made reciprocal visits and had joint film productions. That reflected the closeness of ordinary people who are not engaged in politics, but in matters that are more interesting for the public.

Unfortunately, you are right. We have been designated as enemies. We are not going to respond in kind although we see that Russophobia is consciously, consistently and massively being spread in Poland as a national idea. The war on monuments, the claim that they have the right to pull down monuments off the burial sites although the intergovernmental agreement on mutual care of World War II monuments (the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Poland on Burial Places and Memorial Sites of Victims of War and Reprisals of February 22, 1994) clearly states that it covers all the monuments. And there is much else. We see the role Poland is playing within NATO and the European Union in opposing any suggestions concerning a more realistic attitude towards Russia.

Let me repeat that we will be ready for dialogue, but our Polish colleagues must understand that dialogue can only take place if mutual interests are taken into account, and not through attempts to dictate to us while feeling that the American and other “hawks” in the North Atlantic Alliance are behind them.



Question:

You have mentioned the French initiative on fighting fake news. If this initiative becomes law in France, will it be used primarily against the Russian media?



Sergey Lavrov:

As far as I know, only you, that is, Sputnik, plus Russia Today are unwanted at the events held at the Elysee Palace. I can presume that you were largely the cause for this French initiative.

Of course, the initiative as it has been set out by President Macron concerns all sources of fake news, and decisions on whether a piece of news is fake will be taken without any exchange of arguments or rational consideration. At the least, this is how the situation looks now and this is how the initiative was formulated. The decision will be taken by a court without any witness testimony.

The initiative has an interesting element. We have noted that there is no judgement process involved in deciding what can or cannot be regarded as fake news. The suggestion is that liberal democracies know which is which. This is not a quotation but the gist of the initiative in the context of the division of states into liberal democracies, non-liberal democracies and authoritarian states. It will be interesting to see how this initiative develops and what practical form it will take.



Question:

During your meetings with your Belarusian colleague last year, you spoke a great deal about moving towards mutual recognition of visas. Will you complete this work in time for the FIFA World Cup?

Overall, do you ever discuss Russian-Belarusian differences regarding border issues during bilateral meetings? Nearly a year ago, Russia introduced, without any notification, full-scale passport control not only at international checkpoints but also on the Moscow-Brest route. Passports are checked at airports and railway stations. Is there any hope that our border, which does not exist on paper but does exist in reality, will ever become transparent, as we agreed more than 20 years ago?



Sergey Lavrov:

It will, if the matter depends on us. But for the border to become transparent, we need to synchronise our actions, the same as we need to coordinate everything else related to living in the Union State.

We signed a special agreement on equalising the rights of Belarusian and Russian citizens, so that Belarusians staying at hotels or resorts in Russia and Russians staying at hotels or resorts in Belarus will pay the same price. We still need to coordinate some elements. But overall, we would like to have no border between us, like in the past. But when our Belarusian friends announced their decision to approve visa-free travel for citizens from 80 countries without any prior notification, at a time when Russia was facing increased terrorist threats, this created discrepancies because we had visa regimes with many of these countries. We thoroughly analyse visa requests from these countries’ citizens. A situation was created where those who needed a visa to enter Russia could freely enter Belarus and then move to Russia without any verification. This is why we had to do what we did. We have warned everyone that we will have to check all foreigners who want to enter Russia from Belarus. Foreigners travelling from Belarus to Russia by air must use only the airports that have international checkpoints. This is really obvious.

We believe that no unilateral moves should be made regarding anything that is of concern to both states. This is why we have proposed coordinating a mutual visa recognition agreement, which is almost ready. I hope it will be adopted in the near future. We are ready for this.



Question:

At the end of last week, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced that it was aware of the dark PR campaigns the British media are preparing about the 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia. Could you tell us more? Because as members of the British mass media we know absolutely nothing about this.



Sergey Lavrov:

As far as I know, today or possibly yesterday, The Guardian published a piece about the World Cup, about something being wrong here again. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said what we heard. You also write about what you heard or saw. So we heard that there is such a request.



Question:

Russia is going to hold presidential elections in March and, according to the procedure, the Government of the Russian Federation will resign. What are your future plans? If you do resign, who do you think would head the Ministry?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which clearly defines the procedure for the formation of the Government. I assure you that this procedure will be strictly followed.

As for me, I am not used to doing anything except ensuring the most effective work of our Ministry. This is my main task right now.



Question:

As you know, the Sputnik agency has a great information presence in Latin America. We communicate with regional leaders and experts. All of them agree that they want more cooperation with Russia. This is being especially highlighted now that under the current US leadership, the relations between Latin America and the United States are not developing too well, and they are looking for new partners. There is great interest in cooperation with Russia. Does Russia have an interest in cooperation with Latin America? Could you possibly cite any projects that could illustrate this?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is not only interest. We already have quite a serious potential, which is being tapped in practice. We have regular meetings at the highest level. We will soon receive the President of Argentina Mauricio Macri. We are expecting eight teams from Latin America that qualified for the 2018 World Cup. I am sure that the delegations accompanying these teams will also help us develop contacts in the political, economic and cultural spheres. We have, in fact, visa-free travel agreements with all countries except four or five in Central America and the Caribbean. I am sure that in the next 1.5-2 years, we will be able to turn the entire CELAC area into a visa free zone for the Russian Federation.

We have developed a mechanism for dialogue and partnership with CELAC; a year and a half ago, the CELAC Quartet visited Sochi, where we adopted a major roadmap for the development of partnership. We also have contacts with subregional organisations in the continent, including ALBA, MERCOSUR, the Andean Community and the Central American Integration System, under which we have requested the status of an extra-regional observer. And of course, we have quite developed bilateral relations with all countries without exception (some more, some less), but we do maintain dialogue with all of them.

Our trade with Latin American countries, if my memory serves me rightly, has already exceeded 10 billion dollars. It mainly involves high-tech products, military technical agreements, space arrangements, including ground support for our GLONASS system, nuclear power engineering, and much more.

In general, I proceed from the fact that a lot has already been done, although there is certainly no limit to perfection. We have long term plans for each of these areas.

By the way, I should especially emphasise that we also closely cooperate in the UN. We have similar positions with the overwhelming majority of Latin American and Caribbean countries on all key issues within the UN scope. We jointly promote respect for the UN Charter, and for the settlement of all disputes by peaceful means.

We particularly support the principle that Latin America has long elevated to the rank of law, that it is unacceptable to support any unconstitutional coups. This is a very important element of Latin America’s multilateral stance. I am pleased to say that for the first time, on the initiative of our partners, and with our support, this principle was enshrined in the UN General Assembly resolution in December 2016.



Question:

The First Global Forum of Young Diplomats was held in Sochi in October 2017. How do you regard the prospects of this initiative and do you think it is possible or practicable to create a World Association of Diplomats?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think such a plan exists and it was announced at the First Forum. We would only be glad if it meets with support among the young diplomats of corresponding countries.



Question:

What do you think of the US initiative and intention to hold a meeting between US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the foreign ministers of five Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union in the “5+1” format in one of these countries? Does American activity in the region perhaps have an anti-Russian undertone?



Sergey Lavrov:

The US is not the only country developing such formats. Central Asia also has a “5+1” format with the European Union, China and possibly Iran.

Naturally, we have absolutely nothing against our Central Asian neighbours and allies having the broadest spectrum of external partners. We expect that these relations will fully respect the commitments we have within the framework of the CIS, CSTO, SCO and EAEU as regards the countries taking part in this association.

We hear that the US is inclined to abuse this format a bit and to promote the ideas connected with what was known under previous administrations as the Greater Central Asia project. As you may remember, the project was aimed at focusing all the plans involving Central Asia toward the south, towards Afghanistan, while keeping the Russian Federation out of it. I am sure that if this is really the case and if our American colleagues promote these plans at their meetings with our Central Asian friends, they will all see the fallacy of these attempts which are prompted not by the interests of economic development and the improvement of transport infrastructure, but by sheer geopolitics.

Our approach, which we call the Greater Eurasia project, is informed with the opposite kind of ideology. It is not connected with cutting off someone from some part of the Eurasian continent, but with openness and a gradual advance of integration processes, eventually uniting the Eurasian continent and leaving it open for other partners to join.



Question:

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has accused Israel of putting an end to the Oslo peace agreements by its actions and described Donald Trump’s proposals for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict as the “slap of the century.” Can you comment on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have already commented on the situation connected with Donald Trump’s announcement concerning the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. We have commented even more frequently and for a longer time on the harm and the risks involved in this impasse in Palestinian-Israeli settlement. We understand very well how the Palestinians feel today. For many years they have been making unilateral concessions, step by step, without getting anything in return. As I have said, they were ready for direct negotiations with the Israelis without pre-conditions. We were ready to host them on Russian territory and to provide a venue for this purpose. So far, however, no contacts without pre-conditions have taken place. In the current situation, I am afraid the chances of such contacts happening are nil, which is sad. At the same time, over the past few months we have repeatedly heard that the US is about to unveil “a grand deal” which would put everything in place and please everyone. We have yet to come upon any such document or statement. |

Let me repeat, the fact that the Palestinian problem has not been settled is one of the most serious factors that enable radicals to recruit ever new generations of terrorists. My Israeli colleagues felt offended by these remarks, but this is objective reality. All serious analysts in the region see the relevant statistics.

Having said that, let me stress that we should not give up. We do not want to see a total halt in communication between the sides. I very much hope that we will shortly be able to consult with our Quartet partners (along with the US, they include UN and EU) and hold a brainstorm session on what to do next. The situation must not be allowed to get out of control.

I am aware that there are voices in Palestine that call for disbanding the national administration, declaring Palestine to be an occupied territory and handing to Israel full responsibility for how Palestine lives and functions, how the life support systems work and how people live there. I hope that we will be able to somehow come out of this crisis situation. I repeat, we will consult with our Quartet partners. We are planning, among other things, to have bilateral contacts with the US.



Question:

In 2017, Russia and Pakistan had intensive contacts on combating terrorism and drug trafficking, plus the issues of Afghanistan as well. What will the situation be like in 2018? What is expected in the area of relations between Russia and Pakistan?



Sergey Lavrov:

You were absolutely right to point out how actively we had collaborated in combating terrorism. We have a stake in suppressing the terrorist threat that is spreading to the territories of Pakistan and Afghanistan and “spilling over” the Pakistani-Afghan border. The agreement we made on supplying Pakistan with special equipment, such as, first and foremost, helicopters for antiterrorist units, only further confirms the seriousness of our intentions.

In addition, we are interested in promoting our economic cooperation. Like India, Pakistan joined the SCO as a full-fledged member last year. This expands opportunities for joint work in various areas, since the SCO is a structure aimed at both ensuring security in our common region, including combating new threats, and at developing economic and humanitarian cooperation. I believe that this will enrich the Russian-Pakistani ties as well.

Incidentally, with regard to the SCO’s role in fighting radicalism, let me note the important, signature nature of the document signed by the SCO leaders last year. I am referring to the Convention on Counteraction to Extremism, which has established a highly important framework, including the principle of unacceptability of using terrorist and extremist groups to put pressure on sovereign states. There are plenty of examples of this, as we know, including the mayhem in Libya, when Muammar Gaddafi was being toppled. These attempts were once made and continue to be made in Syria, too. I believe this Convention to be highly relevant. India and Pakistan will join it. Apart from the SCO member states, many other countries are also showing an interest in joining the Convention, since it is open to everyone, not just the SCO members.



Question:

It is no secret that the United States is preparing a helicopter base and an LNG terminal near Alexandropoulos in northern Greece near Russia’s planned gas hub on the Turkish-Greek border. It looks as if the United States is trying to shut the door, both symbolically and practically, on Russia’s energy cooperation with Greece, the Balkan states and Southern Europe. Do you think that this kind of pressure can complicate or worsen Russian-Greek relations?

In the next few days, dispute talks will be resumed over the name of Greece's neighbouring country, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The Greeks believe that the name "Macedonia" is unfair because the greater part of the ancient state of Macedonia belongs to Greece and that the name “Macedonia” represents a possible territorial claim over Greek territory. Russian officials said in the past that you might revise the name under different conditions. Can you comment on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russian officials said this? We have recognised Macedonia as the Republic of Macedonia, and only as this.



Question:

What if conditions change? Will a new compromise be possible then?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have spoken about the subject of gas. We see some fear of honest competition in US actions. Since it is unable to compete honestly now, the United States have started using unfair methods of competition and political pressure to force European countries to build the necessary facilities for buying more expensive gas. The choice rests with European countries. We believe that they must be aware of their economic interests. If they are willing to pay more in this situation, then this is their decision.

Our projects on the diversification of gas routes to Europe include Nord Stream 2, which I have mentioned, and Turkish Stream, which can be possibly extended to Europe. As of now, we are only building a line for the Turkish consumers. A second line will be built only if we receive ironclad guarantees from the European Commission that they will not do what they have done to the planned South Stream pipeline towards Bulgaria, which seems to be willing to discuss the possibility of hosting a second line of the Turkish Stream pipeline again. We can do anything if we are doubly sure that the European Commission will not derail this project.

Of course, we are monitoring the discussions that are underway at the European Commission to introduce retroactive rules to hinder the implementation of Nord Stream. It is a dirty game. I hope that the purely economic nature of this project, as well as the support the leading European energy companies have given this economic and commercial project, will prevent any foul play.

As for the resumption of talks and efforts to settle the dispute over the name “Macedonia”, they were in limbo for a long time and only resumed when the United States decided that Macedonia should be admitted to NATO. Since Greece is a NATO state you don't need any concessions. But Macedonia, which is being encouraged to join NATO, needs them. It is as simple as that.

No matter which name Greece and Macedonia agree on for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, it will be generally recognised if it is adopted officially and sealed in the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia. I hope that everyone can see the real meaning of the current developments. The point at issue is not to ensure respect for any common or specific features of two kindred peoples, but to ensure that one of them joins NATO.



Question:

Last year, two Russian citizens, Grigory Tsurkanu and Roman Zabolotny, were captured in Syria. There was video evidence of their captivity. My colleagues from the channel talked to Grigory Tsurkanu’s parents, who sent inquiries to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Executive Office of the Russian President, the Federal Security Service (FSB) and the Ministry of Defence of Russia. There has been no information on their fate, on what happened after their captivity. Defence Ministry sources suggested informally that, perhaps, this information has been classified, although, officially, they were not army servicemen. According to one version, they might have been members of a private military company. Do you know anything about these persons? Can you check if the inquiry reached the Foreign Ministry? Is there information on Russians taking part in operations in other countries on contract?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is nothing I can add to what you have said. We know about the reports that you have mentioned. We look into the fate of any Russian citizen wherever he or she might be, if we receive reports that he or she was either reported missing or got into trouble. The whereabouts of our two citizens whom you have mentioned is unknown. Steps are being taken, above all, by our military, to determine their location, and collect and verify corresponding information. As soon as anything becomes clear, we will readily report this.

As for other countries, this practice is widespread in many states. This was the case in Iraq and other countries of the region, where so-called Blackwater, which was renamed later, used to operate. I think that we need to clearly define the legislative basis so that these people are also covered and protected by the law.



Question:

In May of this year, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will visit Russia. Are you planning to visit Japan? What prospects, objectives, possible documents or agreements do you envisage for these meetings? When will the meeting in Tokyo take place – before the Russian presidential elections or after?

A new problem has sprung up between our two countries recently – the deployment of Aegis Ashore in Japan. Our Government explains to us that this system is different from the US antimissile defences in Europe or THAAD in South Korea. Japan will buy and control this system, while staying outside of the US global antimissile system. It was also announced that the system cannot use Tomahawk cruise missiles. What would you like to say about these statements?



Sergey Lavrov:

Let me start with the good things. In fact, we really are expecting Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. There is an understanding on a meeting between the foreign ministers ahead of this visit. The timeframe for the ministerial meeting will be determined by mutual consent at mutually acceptable dates.

Now about our concrete plans. Prime Minister Abe and President Putin will certainly consider the implementation of the agreements on joint economic activities on the South Kuril Islands. Five priorities, albeit sufficiently modest, have been outlined, but we hope that some more serious cooperation areas will be added. This is being tackled by specialised joint working groups at the level of deputy foreign ministers. We are pleased to have resumed the “2 + 2” dialogue at the level of foreign and defence ministers. Last December, Chief of Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov visited Tokyo and Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Land Forces Oleg Salyukov had been there before him. In the autumn, the Intergovernmental Commission held a meeting, while at the same time my colleague, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, visited Moscow. We held separate talks and now we will have to decide on a new meeting.

Apart from joint economic activities, bilateral economic cooperation has been developing quite well. There is Japanese investment in the Russian Federation. Japanese banks have extended sizeable credits for Yamal LNG. This is a long-term investment that adds stability to our investment cooperation.

Humanitarian cooperation is traditionally in high demand as far as our populations are concerned, along with annual festivals of Russian culture. Last year, cultural seasons were organised. We are really happy with many areas of our interaction with Japan.

One would like greater international coordination, which we mentioned during the “2 + 2” meeting. Of course, we would like to see more Japanese independence during discussions of key international matters at international organisations.

The ABM problem is darkening our relations, let me say this outright. We discussed this in detail with our Japanese colleagues and they brought up the same arguments you have mentioned, namely that the Aegis Ashore system was different from what was in South Korea and Europe. We don’t have these details. Our data say that the system to be deployed in Japan is based on universal launchers that can use offensive arms.

We heard the allegations that Japan would control this system and that the United States would have no relation thereto. We have serious doubts that this is so. We would like to receive more convincing information within the framework of the security dialogue between Security Council secretaries of Russia and Japan. We don’t know any cases anywhere in this world where the US, having deployed its weapons systems, would hand the control over them to a host country. I have strong doubts that they will make an exception in this case.

To reiterate: We are open to dialogue and have a stake in the ABM dialogue, which we proposed 11 years ago, being finally started. We have a number of questions about how this is being done by the United States, lest it becomes yet another most serious destabiliser of the international situation. So far, our American colleagues say that we should not worry and that the systems are not directed against us, as they did under both the Obama and Bush administrations. But there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.



Question:

In 2014, you signed a treaty on the border with Estonia with Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet. In 2015, the first reading for its ratification was held in the Estonian Parliament. You know well that Estonia and Russia agreed that the ratification will take place in parallel in both parliaments. Estonia has been waiting for two years now for the first reading in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly. When you had a meeting with Estonian Foreign Minister Marina Kaljurand in New York in 2015 you promised that the State Duma will soon start the process of the ratification. When will this take place?



Sergey Lavrov:

This question has more to it. Back in 2005 we signed this treaty andgenerally committed ourselves to ratifying it without any politicised reservations. However, the Estonian Parliament ratified it with a reference to the Treaty of Tartu, which directly meant the preservation of territorial claims to the Russian Federation. This was a violation of the commitment that my Estonian colleague assumed but could not abide by. We then revoked our signature under this document and said that when they revise their package of documents and cancel the reference to the Treaty of Tartu, we will be prepared to start talks and sign these documents anew. This is what happened eventually. We signed the treaty and again agreed, as you said correctly, to conduct this process in parallel. But you forgot the main condition – a commitment to ensure a normal non-confrontational atmosphere between our ruling circles. We kept our commitment. We made no attacks against Estonia as we did not before, no matter what treaty we signed or ratified. However, the Estonian Government showed no restraint. On the contrary, its Russophobic rhetoric was running high. We said honestly that in such an atmosphere our society and parliament will simply fail to understand us if we promote this treaty. At the same time I would like to reassure you that the border does exist. I hope the treaty will be ratified one day. Nobody questions the border. But for the treaty to enter into force and for us to live a normal life, it is necessary to stop being one of the three or four main activists in NATO and the European Union, which are going all out to impose unbridled Russophobia on them. I am being open about this. We have very good relations with the Estonian people. Our citizens are friendly and communicate well with each other. Apparently, the politicians should be guided by the interests of their own people rather than some opportunistic considerations that reflect the geopolitical interests of some other states.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3018203
__________________
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 21st, 2018 #342
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question regarding the tragic events near the Vilnius TV Tower in January 1991



15 January 2018 - 15:36




Question:

What is your response to the Lithuanian authorities’ continued attempts to politicise the tragic events near the Vilnius TV Tower in January 1991?



Maria Zakharova:

We cannot but regret this attitude. We have explained our position more than once: trying to reap political dividends from people’s suffering is unacceptable and amoral. Moreover, Lithuania misrepresents facts to suit its own interests and to the detriment of historical reality.

This is why the shameful trial over the January 13, 1991 case is illegal and is violating the fundamental principles of justice. In particular, criminal laws cannot have retroactive force. Yury Mel, a retired colonel of the Russian Army, is being illegally kept in a Lithuanian prison over this case.

The inefficiency of the method chosen by Vilnius to settle historical accounts with Russia is obvious. It is time to close the chapter on those tragic events at the Vilnius TV Tower and give historians the opportunity to analyse that difficult period calmly and objectively.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3018533






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the murder of Serbian politician Oliver Ivanovic in the Autonomous Province of Kosovo, Serbia



16 January 2018 - 17:24



With great sadness, we have learned about the murder of prominent politician Oliver Ivanovic, one of the leaders representing the Serbs in the north of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo, on January 16. We extend our sincere condolences to his family and friends.

We strongly condemn this heinous act. Paying off political scores in this manner could lead to a sprawling atmosphere of terror and a relapse of the inter-ethnic conflict in the region. We call for all international forces present in Kosovo to take exhaustive measures and prevent potential incidents in the province as their mandates allow.

We expect that the competent authority will conduct a thorough investigation into the incident and find those responsible, who will be appropriately punished in a way that they deserve.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3019836






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the statement of OSCE ODIHR Director Ingibjorg Gisladottir on the situation around the Guantanamo Bay detention facility



16 January 2018 - 20:44



We have noticed the press release of Ingibjorg Gisladottir, Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), on the 16th anniversary of the establishment of the infamous Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Ms Gisladottir said that “the ongoing operation of the detention facility raises profound human rights concerns and continues to undermine the effectiveness and credibility of necessary counter-terrorism efforts.” Citing disappointing statistics, the ODIHR Director said that indefinite detention without charge or trial constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. According to Gisladottir, terrorism is a crime that can be dealt with effectively through a human rights-compliant and rule of law-based criminal justice system. She believes that the existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility “casts doubts on the resolve of the United States authorities to comply with its human rights obligations and commitments when countering terrorism.”

For our part, we again urge Washington to comply with its international legal human rights obligations and to ensure the equality of every person before the law, including within the functioning of a coherent judicial system.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3019940






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the terrorist attacks in Baghdad



17 January 2018 - 15:56



On January 15, a double terrorist attack was staged by suicide bombers on the busy Tayaran Square in Baghdad. According to incoming reports, over 30 people were killed and nearly a hundred wounded. This attack was preceded by other acts of aggression perpetrated by extremists as a result of which several law enforcement officers were killed. Nobody has claimed responsibility for these barbaric crimes so far but judging by their style, it may have been staged by ISIS, which has been defeated but not completely eradicated. We express our sincere condolences to the families of the dead and wish early recovery to the wounded.

Moscow strongly denounces these attacks by militants on the long-suffering nation of Iraq, which demonstrate the inhuman character of the violent radicals. Their acts are aimed at undermining efforts to reach national accord and come at a pivotal moment for the country, which is a source of particular concern.

We reaffirm our solidarity with the leaders and people of the friendly Iraq in the face of persisting challenges and threats. At the same time, we emphasise the importance of a continued resolute and uncompromising struggle against terrorists, regardless of the slogans they use.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3020766






Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding statements by Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama on the Macedonian parliament passing the Law on the Use of Languages



17 January 2018 - 16:07



We have taken note of a statement made on January 14 by Prime Minister of Albania Edi Rama regarding the involvement of the ruling Socialist Party of Albania (SPA) in the creation of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and in the battle for Kosovo in the neighbouring Serbia, as well as the SPA’s decisive contribution to the adoption of the Law on the Use of Languages by the Assembly (parliament) of the Republic of Macedonia. This law makes Albanian the country’s second official language along with Macedonian.

These statements confirm Mr Rama’s intention to continue to promote the notorious Tirana Platform, which he helped to draft. The implementation of this document would erode the constitutional foundations of the Macedonian state and the Ohrid Framework Agreement and would consequently provoke new ethnic clashes in the Balkans. These new developments are fully in accord with the widespread Greater Albania ambitions, which endanger the territorial integrity of several countries in the region.

We attach much significance to the issue of languages and believe that such decisions must only be taken on the basis of agreement between all branches of power in any country and a broad consensus in its society.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3020780






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the Vancouver meeting on North Korea



17 January 2018 - 19:07



The results of the Vancouver meeting on the DPRK held on January 16, which are included in the statement of its co-chairs - the United States and Canada - reinforced our doubts about the usefulness of this event.

We were perplexed to see Russia and China mentioned in the document, especially given the fact that the foreign ministers of the two countries were not invited to the meeting that was supposed to focus on the Korean issue. We were particularly impressed by a passage on the importance and special responsibility of Russia and China in finding long-term solutions to Korean Peninsula issues. I would like to note that our countries have been offering such a solution and urging others to join it for a year now.

The Russian-Chinese road map for a Korean settlement outlined in the Joint Statement of the Russian and Chinese Foreign Ministries of July 4, 2017 is designed to identify a mutually acceptable solution to the entire set of issues exclusively by peaceful political and diplomatic means through the mutual reduction of military activities in the sub-region, direct US-North Korea and intra-Korean talks, and a discussion of security issues in Northeast Asia in a broad format. No one has come up with an alternative to this document, and nothing constructive has been proposed by the participants in the Vancouver meetings.

The “decision” of the meeting participants “to reflect on imposing unilateral sanctions and other diplomatic measures that go beyond the requirements set forth in UN Security Council resolutions” is absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive. Such a crude attempt by a group of states whose meeting was not based on the UN mandate to undermine the importance of Security Council resolutions demonstrates their total disrespect for this essential international institution the resolutions of which are binding on all states in their entirety. We consider it absolutely unacceptable when 17 countries arbitrarily assume the role of an “assistant” to the UN Security Council and interpret its resolutions, thereby effectively challenging the authority of the UN Security Council as the main body responsible for ensuring international peace and security.

Moreover, we noted that the conference participants didn’t think twice before breaking established rules of multilateral work in order to carry out their own propaganda agenda. These 17 states, which, on January 12, approved the joint statement of the “partners” of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to support the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions 2375 and 2397 understand perfectly well that they are not entitled to speak on behalf of or under the umbrella of the PSI or the Operational Experts Group which is its main body. However, this failed to stop them. It appears that what matters more to them is not actual equitable cooperation within the PSI, but the creation of a particular information environment around the controversial Vancouver conference.

We regret to say that such meetings, which are conducted in a hurry and which negatively affect the function of proven multilateral formats, do little to normalise the situation on the Korean Peninsula, but rather aggravate it.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3021138






Comment by the Information and Press Department in connection with Ukraine adopting the so-called Law on Re-integration and De-occupation of Donbass



18 January 2018 - 18:44



On January 18, the Ukrainian Rada adopted a draft law, in the second final reading, On the Specifics of the State Policy on Ensuring State Sovereignty of Ukraine over the Temporarily Occupied Territories in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Since it was approved in the first reading (October 6, 2017), this document, even though it was amended, has retained its main focus which is to legislatively reinforce Kiev’s commitment to resolve the “Donbass issue” by military force. In particular, it announced a reformatting of the so-called antiterrorist operation into a regular military effort and transferring command to the military, which will have all other law-enforcement and security departments subordinated to them. To this end, a “joint operational headquarters” approved by the President of Ukraine will be created, which will plan and engage armed forces against civilians throughout the country, not necessarily in southeastern Ukraine alone. And it will do so without the formal introduction of martial law. In fact, Poroshenko will receive unlimited near-dictatorial powers to suppress dissent and discontent. This is nothing short of preparations for a new war.

The law categorically alleges that Russia “is performing a criminal act of aggression” against Ukraine, and “temporarily occupies a portion of its territory,” governing Donbass with the help of the “occupation administration” controlled by Moscow. In fact, Kiev is trying to absolve itself of all responsibility for the destruction and suffering that the thoughtless actions of the Ukrainian authorities bring to the people, and to shift the blame to Russia.

Ukraine’s current “lawmaking” is completely at odds with the Minsk Agreements, which are a universally recognised and the exclusive basis for settling the conflict in Ukraine. There is no question of “reintegration.” On the contrary, everything is being done to continue to split Ukraine and alienate the citizens residing in Donbass. Kiev is burying the agreements reached in Minsk and the entire existing mechanism for finding mutually acceptable solutions, including the Normandy format, to overcome the internal Ukraine crisis.

Amazingly, the adoption of this law coincided in time with the announcement in Washington that the United States is willing to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine.

Unfortunately, we are witnessing the creation of a situation fraught with a dangerous escalation in Ukraine and unpredictable consequences for global peace and security.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3023218






Comment by the Information and Press Department on a new violation of Russian diplomatic missions’ immunity in the United States



18 January 2018 - 20:18



We are gravely concerned about the fact that on January 17 Buzzfeed, a website claiming to be a news portal but in fact serving as an information tool of the US security services, published another batch of classified data on transactions performed by Russian diplomatic missions in the United States and several Russian Embassy employees, both current and former. It is obvious that this information could not have been posted without the knowledge of US officials.

The website’s staff have admitted that to obtain comments from our diplomats they used contact information from their bank profiles. However, it is simply impossible to get access to such data without authorisation of US authorities. In other words, it is Washington officials who are responsible for violating the diplomatic immunity of bank accounts belonging to the Russian Embassy and its employees.

Moreover, a great deal of the published data has been intentionally falsified and again, like in November 2017, maliciously construed to fit within the framework of the United States’ campaign to accuse Russia of “interference in the US election.” However, in the case with these bank accounts, we are not just talking about fake news but about an actual criminal offence that, among other things, includes breaching the confidentiality of bank information and disclosure of personal data.

Still, even such machinations have done nothing to help the Russophobic Americans – who judge others by their own standards – to produce any real claims against us for there is absolutely nothing reprehensible going on. Unlike the US Embassies, which often practice concealed transfer of funds to various opposition groups in the host countries, including with the purpose of destabilising the domestic political situation, Russia does not engage in such activity.

That is why the instigators of this anti-Russian provocation are looking for conspiracies in ordinary payroll transactions, wire transfers by the diplomats of their earnings to accounts at home at the end of their secondments and payments to construction companies for renovation works.

Once again, we have to note that Washington is not creating the needed conditions for Russian diplomatic agencies’ operation. They continue to be under growing pressure. This is a clear and systematic gross violation of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

We call for the United States to stop this practice and resume decent conduct, reliable and honest inter-state communication. We demand that US authorities finally begin respecting their own laws and international obligations, immediately stop the unlawful distribution of confidential information that affects Russia’s interests and hold the perpetrators to account, including those who hold posts in the US administration.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3024493






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to Rossiya Segodnya’s question about Oleg Bondarenko, Director of the Foundation of Progressive Politics, being denied entry to the EU



19 January 2018 - 16:43




Question:

How could you comment on the European Union’s decision to deny entry to the EU to Oleg Bondarenko, Director of the Foundation of Progressive Politics, for a period of three years at the request of Warsaw?



Maria Zakharova:

According to the latest information, Russian political scientist and journalist Oleg Bondarenko, who had arrived on January 14, 2018 in Berlin for an event organised by representatives of the Bundestag’s Left Party, was deported to Moscow that same evening. This was done under the November 17, 2017 request of Poland to deny him entry to Schengen Area countries. The ban is evidently explained by citing some kind of “national security threat.”

Based on available information, we have no other explanation for the Polish side’s behavior, which can only be interpreted as an attempt to restrict freedom of speech of a representative of Russian civil society on the territory of EU member-countries for political reasons, in violation of democratic principles in effect in this area.

We have demanded additional explanations from Polish authorities via diplomatic channels.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3025845






Comment by the Information and Press Department on an agreement between Myanmar and Bangladesh to organise refugees’ return



19 January 2018 - 18:59



We welcome the agreements on the practical organisation of returning refugees from Bangladesh to Myanmar, reached during the first meeting of the Joint Myanmar-Bangladesh Working Group in Naypyidaw on January 15-16.

We hope that successful repatriation in accordance with conditions earlier agreed by both countries will promote stability in the sub-region.

We count on further constructive cooperation between Naypyidaw and Dhaka to solve all remaining outstanding issues and on assistance to this process by other interested counties in the spirit of respect for national sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs, which Russia invariably calls for.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3025981






Comment by the Information and Press Department on US attempts to distort Russian approaches to investigating the use of chemical weapons in Syria



19 January 2018 - 19:32



On January 9, the US delegation circulated an unofficial document, “Assessment of the Russian Federation's Positions Regarding the Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria”, at the UN Security Council with US assessments of Russia’s stance regarding the use of chemical weapons and toxic chemicals in Syria. Having studied it, we are compelled to state that this document bears no resemblance to reality and completely distorts our country's approaches to investigating such incidents.

Unfortunately, in this document, our US colleagues have stooped to outright distortions of the facts. It appears that they didn’t give a second thought to the substance of their far-fetched allegations either from the standpoint of professional ethics or basic common sense. The real state of affairs in the investigation by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the UN of continuing incidents involving extremists using toxic chemicals and full-fledged chemical warfare agents in Syria has been distorted.

Therefore, we cannot regard the document prepared by the United States as anything other than an attempt to mislead readers. Especially considering that the Russian position on the chemical incident on April 4, 2017 in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun, based on professional findings of specialists, was clearly and thoroughly described in the materials of a joint press conference of representatives of the Foreign Ministry, the Defence Ministry and the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia.

In order of priority of the claims brought against Russia by the United States, we would like to focus on the following.

1. Not a single Russian official has ever unequivocally stated that sarin used in Khan Sheikhoun was brought from Iraq or Libya.

Over the past several years, Russia, together with China, has consistently tried to draw the attention of the international community to continuing cases of chemical terrorism in the Middle East, and to push for the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution condemning these barbarous crimes in Syria and Iraq. However, each time these proposals were met with strong opposition from our Western partners who are permanent members of the Council, who prefer to accuse the lawful Syrian government of using chemical weapons without providing any proof thereof.

Russia has regularly called for conducting objective and professional investigations into incidents involving the use of poisonous and toxic substances as weapons. We have insisted on studying all scenarios of events without exception, strictly observing the procedure for preserving material evidence, establishing causal relations, and comparing the composition of chemicals and delivery channels, including in the context of signals coming from Syria about illegal imports of components for making chemical weapons.

With regard to Libya’s chemical arsenals, we know even from open sources that in 2011 a number of artillery shells with chemical warfare agents disappeared from Rabta chemical weapons storage facility, some of which were subsequently used during inter-tribal clashes.

With regard to chemical weapons in Iraq, all questions on this matter should primarily be addressed to the United States and Great Britain, which have undertaken to destroy several thousand of such munitions in that country in 2003-2009 without proper international control and in violation of the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (CWC). Instead of making groundless accusations against other states, Washington and London should have provided the OPCW with exhaustive information about these unauthorised activities and handed over the samples of poisonous substances that were eliminated in Iraq in order to conduct their comparative analysis with samples taken at the scene of the incidents in Syria.

2. The Syrian authorities have repeatedly and persistently invited experts from the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission to investigate possible use of chemical weapons in Syria (FFM) and the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) to visit Khan Sheikhoun and Shairat air base for proper investigative measures.

The day after the incident in Khan Sheikhoun, the US side requested that we assist in obtaining the Syrian authorities’ permission for an OPCW inspection at Shairat air base where, Washington claimed, sarin allegedly used by the Syrian Air Force was stored. Damascus immediately gave permission but it was not used. Instead, on the night of April 7, 2017 in breach of the UN Charter and basic principles of international law, the United States committed an act of aggression against a sovereign state by launching a massive rocket strike on Shairat.

On April 11, 2017, the Government of Syria, in an official letter to Director-General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat Ahmet Uzumcu, requested that OPCW experts be sent to Khan Sheikhoun and Shairat to investigate all the circumstances of the incident. As Head of the UN Department of Safety and Security Peter Drennan confirmed later, all necessary guarantees were obtained for OPCW experts’ visit to Khan Sheikhoun from the armed opposition that controlled it. As for Shairat, there were no obstacles whatsoever to a trip to the base.

Nevertheless, neither FFM representatives, nor JIM experts paid a visit to Khan Sheikhoun. Only half a year later did a JIM team visit Shairat just to question its staff, verify Syrian Air Force flight records and study aircraft bomb suspension devices on SU-22 planes. The JIM experts did not even try to collect samples for tests for the presence of sarin, which could, once and for all, either confirm or refute the US version of the Khan Sheikhoun incident. The impression was that they were not the least interested in establishing the truth.

Our US colleagues insist that after the samples collected by supporters of the Syrian authorities in Khan Sheikhoun and tested at the OPCW revealed the presence of admixtures allegedly characteristic only of Syria’s former chemical weapons programme, the question of whether a trip by international experts to the scene of the incident was expedient was altogether dropped. Using this strange logic, it would seem that the Government of Syria deliberately put its people at risk in a terrorist-controlled area in order to procure evidence of its own guilt.

3. The final report of the OPCW Fact Finding Mission on Khan Sheikhoun, which the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism largely relied on in its further work, directly acknowledges that this special OPCW mission could not fully guarantee the security of samples received from the Syrian opposition according to procedures required by the Chemical Weapons Convention.

We agree only with US the conclusion that the Khan Sheikhoun incident is not an exception in terms of how investigations are run. The FFM and JIM relied on the same misguided practice, fundamentally contradicting CWC provisions, in carrying out other investigations. Does not this explicit conclusion by the United States suggest that the so-called Syrian “chemical dossier” has been controversial from the start?

Moreover, the FFM’s unsubstantiated refusal to visit the accident site deprived its experts of the opportunity to talk to many real witnesses and victims, investigate the explosion crater and collect evidence. As a result, the special mission mostly had to rely on falsified “evidence” and dubious records that were received from opposition groups and non-governmental organisations affiliated with them, often defying basic common sense.

It is evident that in these circumstances we cannot expect any impartiality.

4. Following a laboratory analysis of the samples taken by the Syrian authorities from the blast crater in Khan Sheikhoun with much difficulty and risk, Russia had no doubts about the fact that sarin was used there. However, there were serious doubts about JIM’s conclusions concerning the way sarin was delivered and used.

As for specific traces of DF and hexamine in the Khan Sheikhoun samples that are allegedly typical of sarin produced under the former Syrian military chemical programme, we can say the following.

Russia so far has not received an answer to the question of whether the tests for the presence of possible microscopic traces discovered during the investigation due to the high sensitivity of the equipment were carried out in any other process where DF is used as a primary component for making sarin and if there are any scientific data to this effect. Without such information no explicit conclusions can be made.

In addition, after Syria joined the CWC, Damascus sent to the OPCW Technical Secretariat detailed information on the methods of making “Syrian” sarin, and a portion of the precursors for that substance was destroyed aboard the US Cape Ray based in the Mediterranean Sea. So, the recipe of Syria-made sarin has been no secret for a long time and could easily be used with the aim of organising another more elaborate provocation in Khan Sheikhoun.

5. It is noteworthy that both OPCW Fact Finding Mission segments were led by British subjects. Among nine people on the staff of the OPCW FFM, six represented NATO member states and one – a partner of NATO.

This can hardly be called “broad” geographic representation “from many continents,” as the US document reads. At the same time, Russia has never doubted the qualification of the experts chosen for the OPCW FFM and has only demanded compliance with basic UN rules, which would facilitate an objective investigation.

6. Since April 2017, we have repeatedly and thoroughly made the case that the chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun may have been staged. These materials were spread as official documents of the UN Security Council and General Assembly, as well as at the OPCW.

Unfortunately, as the seventh report made by the OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism in October 2017 showed, the JIM has not even begun seriously looking into whether the events in Khan Sheikhoun were the result of a staged provocation.

Meanwhile, many respected specialists from various countries have suggested the same.

It is noteworthy that some anonymous explosives experts the JIM hired for this investigation mistook a piece of pipe for an element of a chemical aerial bomb, despite the fact that there was no real evidence of an air strike in Khan Sheikhoun. However, it was probably planted on the blast site or was a part of the sarin container, which was exploded on the ground surface with an explosive device to imitate an air strike.

To prove the alleged chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, the US representatives use pieces of air ammunition the OPCW FFM received from militants and quote the report stating that the pieces had traces of “Syrian” sarin. However, it is noteworthy that these objects only appeared in autumn 2017.

To put it differently, the special mission experts have probably ordered pieces of a “chemical” bomb from the armed Syrian opposition, and it took the militants almost half a year to carry out this task. Despite such a long period, there still were some glitches, which was unfortunate for those who spread allegations about the “chemical crimes” of the Syrian authorities.

So, after the Russian experts examined photos of the fragments presented in the OPCW Fact Finding Mission report, it turned out that the overwhelming majority of them are just parts of simple aerial bombs from the arsenal of the Syrian Air Force. Moreover, the traces of severe corrosion clearly visible on the photos suggest that they were used at least five years ago. Other metal objects presented in the photos, like the deformed water pipe from Khan Sheikhoun, have absolutely nothing to do with airborne armament.

As for the flight of the Syrian Su-22 aircraft near Khan Sheikhoun, it should be recalled that the relevant objective control data graphically presented in the materials of the joint news conference of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia was first made public by Washington as an attempt to justify its missile strike at Shayrat air base. In accordance with these data and the conclusions of the Joint Investigative Mechanism’s seventh report, the aircraft did not approach Khan Sheikhoun closer than 5 km, and flew perpendicular to the place of the chemical incident that was on the opposite side of the town, that is, in total at a distance of not less than 10 km.

Consequently, the question arises: How, under such circumstances, could an uncontrolled aerial bomb be at the scene of the incident? We did not find any explanations for this either in the documents of the OPCW Fact Finding Mission and the Joint Investigative Mechanism, or from our American colleagues.

7. It simply does not make any sense for the Syrian army, which is winning, to use chemical munitions in isolated instances to gain, according to the US, an advantage in local armed clashes, while inviting a harsh response from the international community.

Attempts to impose responsibility on Damascus are devoid of any logic. At the same time, in the face of the undeniable military successes of government forces, such provocations offer a last hope for the terrorists, who are being defeated, and their supporters.

To sum up, once again we call on our partners in the UN Security Council to show common sense and objectively assess the US attempts to impose on the international community a false understanding of who is responsible for chemical incidents in Syria.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3026005






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Turkey’s use of armed forces in the northwest of Syria



20 January 2018 - 18:03



According to incoming reports, on January 20, Turkey began using its army in the area of Afrin in the northwest of Syria. The Turkish General Staff announced that the Turkish military shelled Syrian Kurds’ positions in response to provocative shelling by the militants of the Democratic Union, a Syrian Kurdish party.

This information was received with concern in Moscow. We are closely monitoring the development of the situation.

Russia holds a consistent stand on the search for solutions in Syria based on preserving Syria’s territorial integrity, respect for its sovereignty and pursuing a long-term political settlement in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the agreements on de-escalation zones reached within the Astana process. In this connection we urge the opposing sides to show mutual restraint.

After the defeat of the military political stronghold of international terrorism in the form of ISIS and the withdrawal of a considerable part of Russian troops from Syria, the major objective of the remaining Russian military in that country is currently to ensure the ceasefire in the de-escalation zones.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3026297
__________________
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 21st, 2018 #343
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 meeting with Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General and Head of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq Jan Kubis



16 January 2018 - 19:35







On January 16, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov received Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General and Head of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq Jan Kubis.

The focus of the conversation was the prospects for future developments in Iraq in the context of the completed operation to eliminate the terrorist ISIS presence, the situation around Iraqi Kurdistan, and the tasks related to the country’s post-conflict development.

Russia’s invariable support for the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq was reaffirmed, with emphasis on the need to settle all domestic Iraqi problems through an inclusive national dialogue that takes into account the interests of all ethnic and religious groups, and achieve intra-Iraqi accord in light of the parliamentary elections scheduled to take place in May.

Emphasis was also placed on the importance of the international community stepping up efforts to help the Iraqi government normalise life on the territories liberated from ISIS, rebuild the destroyed economy and infrastructure, and facilitate the return of refugees and internally displaced persons.

On the same day, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov held in-depth consultations with Mr Kubis at the Russian Foreign Ministry.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3019915






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with ambassadors of Arab states



17 January 2018 - 19:14







On January 17, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with the heads of diplomatic missions of Arab states and a representative of the League of Arab States in Moscow.

There was a thorough discussion of the situation in the Middle East and North Africa with an emphasis on de-escalating tensions in that region and overcoming crises. At the same time, the participants underscored the need to consolidate the efforts of the Arab countries and the entire international community in fighting international terrorism.

The Palestinian-Israeli settlement process was the main focus.

Sergey Lavrov stressed that final status issues related to the Palestinian territories, including the future of Jerusalem, should be determined via direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations on the well-known international legal basis, including relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly, as well as the Arab Peace Initiative. Russia stands ready to continue promoting stable political dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis on this basis both in bilateral format and at various international venues, including the Middle East quartet of international mediators.

The Russian Foreign Minister confirmed Russia's principled approaches towards resolving internal political issues and conflicts in the Arab countries by peaceful means, through an inclusive national dialogue and without outside interference. This is the foundation on which Russian is working in close cooperation with regional partners to prepare the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, which is designed to step up the Geneva process under the aegis of the UN, and to assist the Syrians in developing their new constitution and preparing for elections on its basis, as stated in Resolution 2254 of the UN Security Council.

At the end of the meeting, the participants expressed their common interest in strengthening interaction between Russia and the Arab League, including as part of the Russian-Arab Cooperation Forum.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3021156






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a UN Security Council meeting on the Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Confidence Building Measures, New York, January 18, 2018



18 January 2018 - 20:26








Mr President,

Mr Secretary-General,

The Russian Federation welcomes the initiative of President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev on holding a special meeting of the UN Security Council on the Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Confidence Building Measures.

It was a timely proposal, considering that the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the backbone of the international nuclear non-proliferation system, was opened for signature 50 years ago on July 1. We believe that the risks and threats we are facing in this sphere must be dealt with on the basis of the NPT through a balanced application of its three basic components: non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Regrettably, we are approaching the 50th anniversary of this treaty with a major burden of differences that can complicate the current NPT review cycle, which will conclude with a Review Conference in 2020.

The main goals of this cycle include the reaffirmation of our commitment to the NPT goals and related obligations, as well as the reinforcement of the NPT based on the Action Plan, which was adopted at the 2010 Review Conference. To achieve these goals, all parties must overcome their reluctance to listen to each other, which marred the 2015 Review Conference.

At that time, we saw the domination of a dangerous and delusive trend towards forcing the nuclear powers to abandon their nuclear stockpiles without any regard for their security interests and strategic realities. This trend resulted in the accelerated drafting of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty or NWBT), which is open for signature.

Russia does not intend to join the NWBT. We believe that complete elimination of nuclear weapons is only possible in the context of general and complete disarmament amid equal and indivisible security for all, including those possessing nuclear weapons, as it is stipulated in the NPT.

The provisions of the NWBT, which is open for signature, do not conform to these principles. The NWBT disregards the importance of taking stock of all the current factors that influence strategic stability. It has also provoked an international controversy and may have a destabilising effect on the non-proliferation regime.

I would like to point out that we support the goal of a nuclear-free world. However, the unbalanced methods that are stipulated in the NWBT are not good for achieving this goal.

The current review cycle has been complicated by the lack of clarity on the issue of the Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles (MEWMDFZ). We still believe in the importance of convening a conference on the WMD-Free Middle East and will continue to contribute towards this process. We see the earnest of its success in a broad regional security context. Russia’s specific proposals on this issue are well known to all the parties concerned and remain in place.

Yet another important problem is the state of affairs relative to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. As a principled supporter of this Treaty, Russia is calling on all countries, upon which depends its coming into force, to finalise its signing and ratification, as it was repeatedly promised by some of the countries concerned. In this context, it is extremely important to ensure the continuation of the moratorium on all nuclear explosions.

The concrete priority steps designed to keep the nuclear non-proliferation regime at the current stage include the pooling of efforts in the interest of ensuring a sustained implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) to deal with the situation related to the Iranian nuclear programme. The UN Security Council has unanimously supported the JCPA by approving relevant Resolution 2231, which means that it bears responsibility for its implementation. Iran has strictly abided by its commitments, which is regularly confirmed by the IAEA. The overwhelming majority of the international community recognises that the JCPA makes a tangible contribution to the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime and the maintenance of peace and security. The real achievement of multilateral diplomacy, which resulted from efforts undertaken not only by the parties to the agreement but also by many other cooperative countries, including Kazakhstan, should not be renounced to accommodate the current political demand in certain countries.

It is clear that the JCPA’s collapse, the more so through the fault of one of the P5+1members, will be an alarm signal to the entire international security architecture, including prospects for solving the nuclear problem on the Korean Peninsula. We reaffirm the urgency of the roadmap proposed by Russia and China for the purpose of solving this problem solely by peaceful means.

The mounting threat of “chemical” terrorism in the Middle East, specifically in Iraq and Syria, is evoking grave concern. The militants not only use toxic chemicals but also have technological and production capabilities of their own enabling them to synthesise full-fledged combat chemical agents. They have also established ramified channels to access their precursors.

One must not overlook the quite real risks of “chemical” terrorism spreading beyond the Middle East, given the quite sizeable segment of foreign militants among the extremists. Terrorists, who came to Syria and Iraq from abroad, have been given an opportunity to acquire an expertise in making and using chemical weapons.

During the last three years, we have repeatedly urged the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution or at least a statement by its president with a denunciation of concrete acts of “chemical” terrorism in Syria and Iraq. Regrettably, all our proposals invariably met with stiff resistance put up by a number of our Western colleagues, who prefer to close their eyes to the facts of terrorists using or even manufacturing chemical weapons and who would put forward unfounded charges against Damascus.

We think it unacceptable to speculate on the aims of fighting MDW proliferation to achieve narrowly self-serving geopolitical objectives, as was the case with the invasion in Iraq under an absolutely far-fetched pretext 15 years ago.

In recent times, we have witnessed persistent attempts to manipulate the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the now terminated Joint Investigative Mechanism. We deem it deplorable. We reiterate our proposal on forming a new mechanism to investigate cases of chemical weapons employment in Syria based on the principles that would be fully in keeping with the norms of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

We also call on all states to honour commitments following from the 2004 UN Security Council Resolution 1540, which prescribes all countries to take effective measures with the aim of preventing non-state entities, including terrorists, from acquiring MDW or any material related thereto. The urgency of Resolution 1540 was reaffirmed by the Security Council following an inclusive review of its implementation in 2016. The Security Council should react strongly to any breaches of Resolution 1540 requirements, be it in Syria, Iraq or anywhere else, particularly to facts of providing any kind of assistance to non-state entities in getting access to MDW.

Russia supports the efforts to create and strengthen national, regional and subregional capabilities for achieving these goals. We recently hosted a Training Course for Resolution 1540 National Points of Contact in Kaliningrad, which was supported by the OSCE and the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs. As part of our chairmanship of the OSCE Forum for Security Cooperation (FSC) in 2017, we organised a special meeting on this issue.

We also welcome the consensus decision taken by the OPCW Executive Council in October 2017 to prevent the threat of chemical attacks by non-state actors. We regard this decision as a step in the right direction.

Seeking to enhance the efficiency of multilateral cooperation to prevent WMD proliferation and their falling into the hands of terrorist groups and other non-state actors, Russia has proposed drafting a new legally binding document, The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Chemical and Biological Terrorism. We have submitted the draft of this convention to the Geneva Conference on Disarmament. We call for starting the talks to coordinate this draft as soon as possible.

Mr President of the Security Council,

Mr President of Kazakhstan,

Mr Secretary-General,

Considering the current situation with non-proliferation and disarmament, the international community must look for ways to overcome the growing differences while seeking to preserve effective cooperation mechanisms and strengthen the international legal framework of this cooperation based on respect for the interests of all states.

We hope that today’s meeting of the UN Security Council, as well as the initiative advanced by President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, will facilitate the achievement of these goals.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3024503






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening of documentary exhibition “The Holocaust: Annihilation, Liberation, Rescue,” New York, January 18, 2018



18 January 2018 - 22:21








Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a great honour for me to speak at the UN headquarters at the opening of the historical documentary exhibition “The Holocaust: Annihilation, Liberation, Rescue”, held ahead of the International Holocaust Remembrance Day marked annually on January 27.

First of all I would like to thank the Research and Educational Holocaust Centre and its co-chairman Ilya Altman, and the Russian Jewish Congress for organising this exposition, which contains unique archive documentary evidence of the horrible Holocaust tragedy, photographs of the inmates of the Nazi death camps and the Red Army soldiers who liberated them.

The Holocaust is one of the most hideous crimes against humanity, a manifestation of ruthless cruelty and contempt for human life. The Nazis’ mass extermination of Jews and the representatives of other ethnic groups is the result of the man-hating policy of racial superiority. It is our sacred duty not only to honour the memory of the millions of innocent victims, but to do as much as we can to avoid a repetition of such tragedies in the future.

We cannot but feel alarmed by the recent creeping rehabilitation of Nazism. Some countries, including those that regard themselves as “model democracies”, are pursuing a consistent policy of revising the results of World War II, including the glorification of Nazis and local collaborationists. A particularly immoral campaign has been unleashed in some European Union countries waging a veritable war on monuments which sees the destruction and desecration of monuments to the Soviet soldiers who gave their lives to rid the world from the horrors of the “brown plague” and made the decisive contribution to ensuring peace and stability on the European continent for many years. Such actions are blasphemous from the universal human point of view. They challenge the post-war security architecture, which is based on the UN Charter, the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and other immutable international legal documents. We must all counter these extremely dangerous trends.

Russia pays particular attention to these problems. Every year we submit to the UN General Assembly a draft special resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism and intolerance. The number of states acting as co-authors of the draft is growing steadily year in and year out. We adopted a relevant resolution a month ago, on December 19, 2017 at the Plenary Session of the 72nd UN General Assembly. The document has been approved by an overwhelming majority, although a number of countries did not back it trying to justify their position by citing the need to respect the freedom of expression. I think today’s exhibition is called upon to send yet another unambiguous signal that such attempts to interpret the theme of Nazism are absolutely unacceptable.

The exhibition is to be displayed in a number of other countries in the coming months. I am sure that this will serve to reinforce the historical truth and provide another reminder of the heroic feat of those who defeated Nazism, saved Jews and other peoples from total annihilation.

In conclusion I would like to wish the best of health and well-being to our dear veterans, including those who saved Jews by liberating Auschwitz and those who defeated Nazism in Europe.

Of course, I am very glad to see my good friend Arthur Schneier, who is one of the pillars of New York political life and who is doing very important work to prevent glorification of the people who perpetrated these gruesome crimes.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3024631
__________________
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 23rd, 2018 #344
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 at the UN Security Council session on “Formation of regional partnerships in Afghanistan and Central Asia as a model of coordinating security and development,” New York, January 19, 2018



19 January 2018 - 20:03








Mr President,

Mr Secretary-General,

Colleagues,

First, I would like to note Kazakhstan’s consistent and responsible approach to promoting Central Asian priority issues and its determination to resolve specific problems that face the region’s countries.

We welcome the initiative of our Kazakh friends to conduct today’s session on an issue that is pressing for many countries. It is acquiring special importance against the backdrop of the mounting terrorist and drug threats that are coming from Afghanistan. They have a destabilising influence on Central Asia and are spreading beyond its borders.

The north of Afghanistan is turning into a support base for international terrorism led by the ISIS Afghan wing that is building a stronghold for implementing destructive plans in the spirit of the “caliphate’s” notorious ideology. Thousands of militants of different ethnic origin, including the jihadists that have not been finished off in Syria, are gathering under the ISIS banner with obvious connivance and sometimes the direct support of external and local sponsors. They are openly proclaiming their goal of overthrowing the legitimate authorities of Central Asian states and spreading their influence to the entire Eurasian space.

Last year saw an unprecedented growth in Afghan drug production, as my Polish colleague just mentioned. It is necessary to take urgent measures to curb this threat that is undermining the stability of regional states and the health of the younger generation, and provoking crime and corruption. The international conference “MPs against drugs” organised by the State Duma of the Russian Federal Assembly last December in Moscow was devoted to the drafting of a comprehensive strategy for countering drug business. We welcome the participation of spokespersons for the UN and many Russian and international NGOs at this event.

The situation in Afghanistan requires a comprehensive approach by regional states and the international community as a whole. The experience of the last 20 years has graphically demonstrated the inefficiency of attempts to resolve Afghan problems by force. The adoption of practical steps to launch a process of national reconciliation based on UN Security Council resolutions is on the agenda today.

Guided by these considerations, we initiated a dialogue in the Moscow format, resumed the work of the SCO-Afghanistan contact group and are developing Afghanistan’s partnership with the CSTO, in cooperation with our partners and fellow-thinkers.

We welcome Uzbekistan’s initiative to convene a ministerial meeting on an Afghan settlement next spring.

We continue helping Kabul train national civilian and law enforcement personnel and enhance the combat ability of the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

We consistently advocate the start of direct talks between the Afghan Government and the Taliban as soon as possible with a view to ending the fratricidal war, based on UN Security Council-approved criteria.

Sustainable socio-economic development should become a major factor in maintaining security and stability in Afghanistan as we move forward with the resolution of security tasks. The Eurasian Economic Union and the CIS can make their contribution to this common effort by opening their receptive and promising markets to Afghanistan.

Russia is open to multilateral cooperation projects in the economy and infrastructure, including Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline and the Central Asia-South Asia (CASA-1000) energy project.

Our allied relations and strategic partnership with Central Asian states is based on a common history, a high level of mutual trust and similar attitudes to the key problems of our time.

Our trade and economic ties provide a solid basis for our relations. Russia has invested $20 billion in the region, where over 7,500 Russian companies and joint ventures are operating. Over the past 10 years, we have allocated over $6 billion in assistance to Central Asian states overall, both through bilateral projects and through international organisations, including as part of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development implementation.

We believe that problems with electricity and access to water resources in the region should be resolved through a constructive dialogue and mutual respect for the parties’ hydropower and agricultural interests to the benefit of all regional states.

The specific geography of the Central Asian states calls for enhancing transport efficiency and ensuring reliable trade and economic ties with Asian-Pacific states, including countries in South Asia and Europe. Russia is ready to facilitate this process by developing international East-West and North-South transport corridors. The implementation of this project should be promoted by the creation of a common EAEU transit system and its alignment with China’s Belt and Road initiative. This will strengthen Central Asia’s role in the continental transport system.

There is a great need for mutual cooperation based on a balance of interests in Eurasia. The external players should do their best to promote this cooperation instead of trying to involve the regional countries in a zero sum game, which is becoming apparent in the neglected concept of Greater Central Asia that has been revived recently.

The Central Asian states should not be forced to choose between the south and the north. The region needs a constructive environment and partnership on all sides. Of course, these countries’ obligations within the SCO, the CSTO, the CIS and the EAEU must be respected.

The ambitious plans, which are ultimately aimed at improving the prosperity of people in Central Asia and Afghanistan, can only become reality in conditions of a lasting peace and stability throughout Asia. Russia has been working consistently to rally efforts to create a system of equal and indivisible security in the Asian-Pacific region.

Stability, peace and prosperity in the region are closely connected with the ongoing development of a fairer and more democratic polycentric world order based on international law and respect for the cultural and civilisational diversity of the modern world.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3026028






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at a news conference held at the UN Headquarters, New York, January 19, 2018



20 January 2018 - 00:09








Question:

US representatives have said more than once that Russia is hindering the adoption of sanctions against North Korea. US President Donald Trump said this week that Russia is not helping the US at all with North Korea. The Russian Foreign Ministry has announced today that Russia has always been committed to its international obligations. What would you tell the US President?



Sergey Lavrov:

Not to trust [allegations]. Our American colleagues say that we are not cooperative, and we say that we are and ask them to provide facts of our alleged failure to implement UN Security Council decisions.

Regrettably, not a single fact has been provided in many other situations when we were accused of sins such as interference in the internal affairs of all countries without exception. They say that they do have information but it is confidential. We all remember our favourite actor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, saying “Trust me” without providing a single fact. Shall we apply this principle as well? I don’t think we will achieve much if we follow such rules.

No concrete or specific talks can be held without facts, which is also true about your question on North Korea and UNSC sanctions. A special committee has been established at the UN Security Council to deal with problems and complaints. When no specific complaints are submitted to this committee, this means that there are no specific complaints. This is all I can say on this matter.



Question:

The Pentagon has published the new National Defence Strategy today, where the focus is shifted from terrorism to inter-state competition. The key US priority is confrontation with Russia and China. In other words, Russia has been officially declared an adversary. What would you say on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe that China is named as the most aggressive economic power in that document. It next mentions Russia as a country that allegedly violates some rules of the game. According to the new US defence strategy, China and Russia are undermining the international order from within the system. The military in any country seek to justify the need for additional allocations. We should take this factor into account. In principle, we regret that the United States, instead of conducting a normal dialogue and act on the basis of international law, is trying to affirm its leadership through confrontation-based concepts and strategies. The new US defence strategy says that after WWII the United States and its allies created a new world order, which Russia and China are undermining from within. I believe they could have pointed out, just out of courtesy, that the UN, which represents the new world order, was created with direct contribution from the Soviet Union, that is, our country. But anyway, we are ready for dialogue. We are also ready to discuss military doctrines, as in the past when our militaries were working to build up confidence.

I am sure that there are many reasonable people in the United States who understand that strategic stability must be maintained, that any risks to strategic stability must be dealt with, and that this cannot be done without Russian-US cooperation.



Question:

The United States is no longer treated as an acceptable intermediary in the Middle East. Can Russia take the vacated place? Maybe Russia and China could become the new intermediaries between Israel and Palestine?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia has never shirked its responsibilities regarding mediation between Israel and Palestine both as a member of the international quartet of intermediaries and at the bilateral level.

Some two years ago we sensed the interest of Israelis and Palestinians and invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to meet in Russia without any preconditions. This proposal is still on the table. As far as I know, Mr Abbas is ready for this meeting.

Our immediate plans include contacts with the leaders of Palestine and Israel. We want to get first-hand information about possible solutions to this serious and very unpleasant situation.



Question:

You know about the attempt to undermine the activity of UNRWA. You know that the US has decided to put a freeze on its donation to the agency’s fund. UNRWA supports 5 million Palestinian refugees. What suggestions do you have? Can Russia substitute the lost donation?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia is one of the donors for UNRWA. Of course, we cannot compare our modest donation to the American one. The decision to initially stop donating, and then to pay half of the previously agreed sum, of course, seriously undermines the relief efforts for the Palestinian refugees in the region. We will consult with all interested parties and will see what can be done here.



Question:

What do you think about United Nations Envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura’s call to hold talks on the Syrian constitution in Vienna on January 25? Russia planned to discuss this matter in Sochi on January 29. Will Russia pursue this, or will you be forced to postpone the meeting until February, especially given the boycott by the majority of opposition groups, including the Moscow and Cairo platforms?



Sergey Lavrov:

I see these events as mutually supportive. The efforts that we began taking a year ago together with Iran and Turkey resulted in what is now known as the Astana process. These efforts prompted the UN to resume active work. Before the Astana meeting was announced in December 2016, the UN had not done anything for over 10 months and repeatedly postponed the planned negotiation rounds. The Astana meeting boosted the Geneva process. Last year, the UN again took a reserved position and waited for our Saudi colleagues to unite the Riyadh, Moscow and Cairo groups, which was done eventually with our support. We welcome this. But again, the new round of negotiations was announced only after we declared the initiative to hold the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

Opposition members from the three above-mentioned groups will gather in Vienna. They were successfully united by our Saudi colleagues, but not all of the delegates abandoned the initial conditions. I hope it will not happen again that the delegation leaders demand regime change before they join the negotiating table. I hope this will not happen again.

In any case, both in Geneva and Vienna the opposition is represented by three groups comprising people who do not live in Syria. If we are serious about this, then most likely we need to involve all strata of Syrian society in the development of the constitution: all religious and ethnic groups, women, civil society, etc. This is what the initiative of the Sochi Congress is aimed at. We invited over 1,500 Syrian people, including sheikhs, tribal leaders and civil society representatives who will live in the country that they have never left. Naturally, they are interested in their voices being heard alongside those of the emigres during the development of a new constitution. This is the goal of our congress. Following the congress, we want to provide Staffan de Mistura with recommendations on who can also join the constitutional commission. The decision will be taken by the UN, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2254.



Question:

Can the Sochi meeting be held without the participation of the High Negotiations Committee?



Sergey Lavrov:

They have been invited. Let’s first wait for the results, and then talk about it.



Question:

President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev has recently visited the United States. Russia-US relations were one of the issues discussed by President Nazarbayev and US President Donald Trump. Do you think Kazakhstan will be able to act as a mediator in improving the contacts between the two countries?



Sergei Lavrov:

Frankly speaking, Moscow and Washington maintain direct contacts at the level of presidents and foreign ministers. Rex Tillerson and I have met eight times during his time in office, and spoke over the phone also about eight times. So we maintain direct contacts.

Of course, we appreciate the desire of President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, as well as the leaders or many other countries, to see an improvement in Russian-US relations. But it probably does not depend on the number and quality of mediators. It depends, first of all, on the readiness of the US to conduct dialogue based on equality and mutual respect, and on the ability of Donald Trump to counteract blatant domestic political intrigues against himself, in which the anti-Russia card is played again and again. We see that the Russian Federation is blamed for everything and this Russophobic game pursues very nasty goals. But I am sure that the time of those who are engaged in it will come to an end, and the US will realise that it is in its interests to develop cooperation with the Russian Federation, including in the area of international security which we are so concerned about today.



Question:

The reaction of European capitals to the Verkhovna Rada’s law on Donbass reintegration was quite neutral. Moscow, on the other hand, had a very negative reaction. Why? What, in your opinion, could be the practical consequences of this law?



Sergey Lavrov:

The reintegration law, if we look at it from a legal point of view, crosses out the Minsk Agreements that were unanimously approved by the UN Security Council in a resolution adopted several days after the meeting of the four Normandy format leaders in Minsk. This is absolutely obvious to us.

As for the reaction, I have said it many times that there is no doubt – moreover, we know it for certain – that both Europe and Washington understand perfectly well what kind of game the current Kiev government is playing, and see its efforts to drag out its obligations under the Minsk Agreements. I hope that Berlin, Paris, Washington and the other capitals tell Kiev this in private, behind closed doors. But the West cannot publicly criticise its protégé, a government that is totally unable to agree on anything. This is regrettable. We understand that it is related to one’s own prestige and reputation, which is hard to understand sense but that’s life. Our goal is t make sure that everything stated in the Minsk Agreements is implemented. The attempts to lead these discussions someplace else and the urge to find a new agenda and new methods are unacceptable. We are going to defend, calmly and firmly, the honest package of documents signed by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and the leaders of Donetsk and Lugansk.



Question:

You said that if the US violates the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, it will have serious consequences for North Korea and for similar international agreements in general. Is there still a chance to rescue this agreement and how can it be done without the participation of the US? Is there any discussion with Europeans on finding a solution or a formula to introduce sanctions so that US President Donald Trump does not scrap the deal?



Sergey Lavrov:

This agreement cannot be implemented if one of the participants leaves it. It will cease to exist. We proceed from this. I think everybody knows this perfectly well, and first of all our European colleagues, who, as I heard, the US will try to convince to take a position similar to Washington’s. This is a decisive moment. You are right in saying that North Korea is watching the situation. The agreement with Iran was that it stops its military nuclear programme and receives relief from sanctions. The same deal was offered to North Korea. But if the deal with Iran becomes a bargaining chip in some political or geopolitical games, how can we convince North Korea to agree to the same deal if it can be scrapped at any time?



Question:

US leaders are saying that their forces in Syria are there with the sole aim of fighting ISIS terrorists. However, statements are being made claiming that if they are withdrawn from there it will make the Syrian government stronger. How do you read these mixed signals?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is not the only issue where we are receiving mixed and contradictory messages. A couple of days ago, Americans announced border security forces were being established in Syria, and today they said they were misunderstood and they weren't establishing any forces. But it is a fact that the United States is seriously engaged in forming alternative bodies of power on a huge part of Syrian territory. This, of course, absolutely violates the obligations they have repeatedly accepted, including in the UNSC, to support Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity. We are concerned about this. I have repeatedly discussed it with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. We maintain stable contacts at the expert and military levels. We raise these questions. But I agree with you that the incoherence and the absence of a principled commitment to the things we agree upon are rather typical of modern US diplomacy, including with respect to the reasons the Americans are staying in Syria and the actions of the coalition they lead. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has repeatedly told me their only goal and aim is to defeat ISIS. Now they have plans that are much more far-reaching. We have to factor this in and seek ways forward that will not allow the sovereignty of the Syrian state to be undermined.



Question:

Today the US Ambassador to Afghanistan refuted the assertion that the United States is aiding ISIS. You are well aware of the situation in Afghanistan. How do you assess this statement? Does the United States support ISIS in Afghanistan?



Sergey Lavrov:

There are many 'leaks' regarding the military in charge of the US coalition in Syria and working in Iraq to the effect that the United States often turns a blind eye to terrorist groups and allows them to escape. This, in particular, was the case with the battle for Deir ez-Zor, when our military through a communications channel with the US military pointed out that militants were approaching the Iraqi border and requested that they be prevented from escaping. However, the Americans refused to do so, claiming that those militants were not actually terrorists as they were not shooting. This was a rather strange response.

As regards Afghanistan, several months ago we made a request of the UNSC and the Americans. Many heads of Afghan provinces have claimed they have repeatedly spotted helicopters without identifying insignia that were flying towards ISIS-controlled territories in Afghanistan. We have sent such a request but never received a response, and this still remains a mystery. Obviously, those helicopters were not the ones in operational service with the Afghan army. And it is the coalition that also has helicopters. We would very much like to know what those helicopters were doing in the ISIS-controlled areas we are talking about.

While we are on the subject, I will return to the issue of Syria. Many years ago, back when this conflict broke out, I spoke with then US Secretary of State John Kerry about the numerous examples of the United States leaving Jabhat al-Nusra alone. These problems remain. The Washington-led coalition is not fighting Jabhat al-Nusra, and this is bad as Jabhat al-Nusra, just like ISIS, is on the UNSC's list of terrorist organisations.



Question:

US President Donald Trump has said that the United States would withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal unless it is renegotiated. On Monday, you said that there would be no renegotiating. Do you think that the nuclear deal with Iran is dead?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is not dead yet. As far as I understand, US President Donald Trump has said that he will make a final decision in the next review period, due to conclude two to three months from now. The following options are available: Either they meet him halfway and reformulate the deal somehow, or he will withdraw from it. I believe that we will now try hard to prevent this from happening and to preserve the deal. Understandably, Iran will find this unacceptable. I believe that the Europeans also comprehend this danger.



Question:

Could you comment on a detention of two Reuters journalists in Myanmar?



Sergey Lavrov:

To be honest, I have not been following this particular case that you have just mentioned. But I believe that it is necessary to address all issues involving ethnic minorities peacefully and in accordance with the norms of international humanitarian law.



Question:

Is Russia prepared to cooperate with the United States in the context of Washington’s concern with Iran’s activity in the Middle East?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think you might have expressed what you mean somewhat incorrectly. We are always prepared to cooperate with the United States, other external players and regional powers in resolving issues of the Middle and Near East. We value our dialogue that continues to develop even in these difficult times. But if I understand you correctly, we cannot claim that all Middle East issues boil down to the fact that Iran is hampering their resolution, because this is not true. Iran is a large power, and it is impossible to demand, if you pardon the coarse expression, that it not “stick its nose” anywhere. You see, any large power, including Iran, Saudi Arabia or even such a small power as Qatar, have their own legitimate and, maybe, not so legitimate interests. We need to deal with this issue. Time does not allow us to make simple decisions. For example, Iran is to blame, let’s contain Iran inside its borders, and the situation will take care of itself. But this is not so. We have been suggesting for a long time that efforts be made to somehow start overcoming the central rift in the region between Saudi Arabia and Iran. We suggest that members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf launch dialogue with Iran, with the support of Russia, the United States, the European Union, China, the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. This would resemble the “Helsinki process” that led to the establishment of the OSCE. It would become possible to gradually create an atmosphere, starting with confidence-building and transparency measures,that would be much more favourable for addressing this region’s issues on the basis of a balance of interests, rather than by accusing one actor of being the source of all sins.



Question:

The United States accuses Russia of many things, and you also say that yourself, including with respect to its role in the Balkans. What role does Russia play in the Balkans, and how important is this region for Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

Apart from the Balkans, it appears that they are already accusing us of meddling in Mexico and somewhere else. Balkan countries and nations have been our traditional close friends. We share a common history and struggle, including for the independence of Balkan countries, and Russia has made a very substantial contribution to this struggle. We have common spiritual roots and a common religion. Of course, we would like to maintain our friendship with Balkan countries in the future. I don’t see any other role.

Regarding Serbia, I would like to say that there is the Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Centre in Nis where eight Russians and ten Serbs work. They monitor the situation with emergencies. They help in the response to various disasters or industrial accidents; they put out fires and dispatch special planes. The Centre has already assisted many countries, not just Serbia but also Montenegro and further west. The US Ambassador in Belgrade is openly demanding that Serbian leaders must not sign an agreement on the privileges and immunities of this Centre’s employees because this is a spy nest and because they must not cooperate with them. At the same time, no questions are asked about the very same privileges and immunities for the Americans and citizens of other NATO member-countries when they hold exercises in Serbia. Everything has been so infused with ideology! Just like they are blaming Iran for Middle East developments (though we are also being blamed for these developments, just like anywhere else), they are now blaming us for all Balkan developments. By the way, people in Montenegro have already stopped talking about the Russian connection and events that they had worried about so loudly some time ago.

I believe that there will be a sobering up. We need to cooperate in the Balkans, just like we cooperated when the Dayton agreements, which still form the foundation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, were being coordinated. There are many other examples when we cooperated with our Western colleagues and other countries, including Turkey, to normalise the situation in certain regions of the Balkan Peninsula.



Question:

What do you think about Dayton 2 in view of Congressman Mike Turner’s statements?



Sergey Lavrov:

What do you mean by that? I have not heard about it. If you are asking about replacing or revising the Dayton Accords, we are against this. I think Bosnia will simply not be able to withstand it if we begin to fracture the structure of its state again.



Question:

During your remarks on Monday you mentioned the destabilising impact of US policy and ultimatums. Does Russia think that the United States is losing its global leadership on key issues?



Sergey Lavrov:

My view is that in modern world leadership can only be collective. This has already been demonstrated numerous times. The formation of the G20 indicates that it is necessary to develop a joint agenda that involves leading states of all regions in the world. The fight against terrorism also requires joint efforts. The UN is the leader of these anti-terrorist efforts, according to the resolutions we adopt in the UN. It is the Organisation that plays the coordinating role while we all are supposed to help. Of course, a powerful country like the United States can do a great deal to eradicate terrorism. We are interested in coordinating our actions. As you know, I have already mentioned this, we have established communication on Syria between our military forces. To a large extent, this communication prevented ISIS from succeeding as a caliphate and destroyed it although there is still a significant number of terrorists and militants dispersed in the area. The threat remains. We are in favour of addressing all issues together.

Speaking of how US actions look on the global stage, you will perhaps draw your own conclusions about how much these actions correspond to the country’s potential and interests rather than the interests of unilateral geopolitical projects.



Question:

There have been reports from Turkey of Russia withdrawing its observers from Afrin due to the preparations for the Turkish operation. Is it true? What do you think about the Turkish threat?



Sergey Lavrov:

These reports were later denied. Russia’s main goal in cooperation with Turkey and Iran is to ensure full-fledged functioning of the de-escalation zone in Idlib. Unfortunately, our Turkish partners have not built all the observation posts they were supposed to build under our agreement. There are supposed to be 23 or 24 posts while Turkey has built only a few. We concluded that the lack of fully-functional lookout posts that Turkey was to build has resulted in the militants becoming more active. They even tried to attack the Russian military base in Khmeimim. We spoke to our Turkish counterparts the other day. The contacts between our foreign ministries and the military continue. I think we can tackle these problems and the de-escalation zones will provide stability to this very important region.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3026144






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Kommersant newspaper, January 21, 2018



22 January 2018 - 09:00




Question:

Everyone is looking forward to reading two US administration reports: the so-called Kremlin report on high-ranking Russian officials and business leaders who are allegedly close to the government, and a report on the expediency of new harsh economic sanctions against Russia. What will Moscow do if these reports lead to the adoption of harsher sanctions?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is a hypothetical question. We have said repeatedly that we do not want confrontation. We believe that the sanctions are unreasonable in that there are no grounds for them. As for their goals, they are futile because, as their authors can see, several years of these sanctions have been unable to change Russia’s honest, open and constructive policy. Our independent and non-partisan position on the international stage is based on our national interests and cannot be changed by external pressure. Our position is determined by the President of Russia based on the interests of the Russian people. I believe that broad public support for our foreign policy is the best proof of the futility of any attempts to put pressure on our elite and individual companies in order to force the authorities to change our foreign policy.

However, although we are not interested in fanning confrontation, we cannot remain indifferent to the attempts to punish Russia by infringing on our [diplomatic] property, adopting sanctions or using sports. There are numerous facts showing that although some of our athletes used doping, just as athletes in many other countries did (these cases are public knowledge, but they have not been used to raise an uproar; instead they have been dealt with in keeping with the established procedure), there is also a pre-programmed campaign that is based on a principle that is also being used in other areas of international affairs and concerns Russia’s relations with its partners. If my memory doesn’t fail me, Richard McLaren wrote in his report that they have no evidence and do not know how it was done, but they know how it could have been done. No normal court in any country would accept such charges. However, these exotic statements have led to decisions to ban Russia from the Olympic Games.

This reminds me of the tragedy with the Malaysian Boeing, when the United States, which insisted on investigating this tragedy three days later, stated that they know who was responsible and are sure that the investigation would confirm what they know.

Or take the case of Alexander Litvinenko, when the British authorities said their investigation would confirm what they know without having to investigate this case. This anti-Russia mindset is really unprecedented. There was nothing like this during the Cold War, when the sides complied with rules and observed the proprieties. No attempt at courtesy is being made now.



Question:

Do you think the situation is even worse than during the Cold War?



Sergey Lavrov:

Manners have deteriorated, although there are also different opinions as to how close we are to material manifestations of confrontation. On the one hand, there were two rigid blocs and two world systems (socialist and imperialist) marked by a certain negative stability. There are no ideological disagreements today. Every country has a free market economy and democracy, no matter what one may think of it. But there are elections, rights and freedoms that are entrenched in the constitution.

Nevertheless, competition remains even in the absence of ideological disagreements, and this is absolutely normal. It goes without saying that each country has its own methods for promoting various interests, there are special services, lobbyists and non-governmental organisations promoting any specific agenda. This is normal. But the situation reeks of double standards when they tell us that Russia must not oppress NGOs that receive funding from abroad, and that it has no right to expect that other countries will act likewise with regard to its NGOs working elsewhere.

I would like to single out one more aspect. The military potential is being expanded in the absence of ideological disagreements. This did not happen during the Cold War.



Question:

But there was the arms race.



Sergey Lavrov:

The arms race was part of geopolitics accepted by both sides. There was a tentative boundary indicated by NATO and the Warsaw Pact for deploying their weapons. The Soviet Union eventually overtaxed itself. All those Star Wars and other inventions played their role but they were not decisive. The USSR disintegrated because the country and its ruling elite did not feel the need for change, and when it felt this need, these changes headed in the wrong direction. But there are absolutely no rules today with NATO expanding to the east. And there is no red line whatsoever.



Question:

And what about the Russian Federation’s border?



Sergey Lavrov:

If we assume that we can’t have any interests in the Euro-Atlantic region, then the Russian Federation’s border would serve as such a red line. However, we do have our own legitimate interests, there are Russian nationals who remained abroad overnight after the USSR disintegrated, and we maintain cultural, historical and close interpersonal and family ties with our neighbours. Russia has a right to defend the interests of its compatriots, all the more so as they are being persecuted in many countries, and when their rights are being violated, like in Ukraine. It was announced on the day of the Ukrainian coup that the Russian language must be infringed upon.



Question:

But they later backed down ...



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, but they said this. After the coup, members of the Ukrainian parliament passed their first law saying that the Russian language must “know its place.” To put it bluntly, the Russian language will be assigned an inferior status. Two days later, they said that Russians would never honour Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, and that they must therefore be expelled from Crimea.

After my news conference, a German newspaper printed a story that Sergey Lavrov had started distorting facts and presenting a peaceful Crimean Tatar demonstration near the Crimean Supreme Soviet as an attempt to expel Russians from the Crimean Peninsula. All one has to do is watch the videos of that period when the Supreme Soviet was surrounded by unruly hoodlums, not to mention the “friendship trains” sent by Dmitry Yarosh to Crimea.

This Ukrainian story amounts to a coup and betrayal of international law by the West when an agreement signed by foreign ministers from leading European Union countries had been simply trampled upon. After that, the European Union started persuading us that it was all right and no longer possible to change anything. To be honest, this is Europe’s disgrace. While stating this historical fact, we are not retreating into our own shell, but we are trying to implement the Minsk Agreements.

Speaking of red lines once again, that was a red line, and another red line was crossed on orders from Mikheil Saakashvili during the initial attack on South Ossetia, where Russian, Ossetian and Georgian peacekeepers were stationed. But Georgian peacekeepers were withdrawn from there several hours before an illegitimate and absolutely provocative attack.

Russia has its own interests, and people should remember this. Russia has its red lines. I believe that serious politicians in Europe realise that it is necessary to respect these red lines, just as they had been respected during the Cold War.



Question:

Let’s go back to the Americans. According to the US media, in March 2017, Russia presented the United States with proposals on mending relations in the “non-paper” format, and that these proposals contained several points. Are these proposals still in force, given the increased US sanction pressure and everything that has happened in Russian-US relations over the past 12 months?



Sergey Lavrov:

The proposals always remain in force. We never posturise; instead we try to understand the context of actions being taken by the Americans or some other of our colleagues. In this case, we realise that there is a combination of an entire range of factors motivating this unprecedented aggressiveness, as it is now customary to say, of the US establishment.

The Democrats are unable to get over their defeat, after exerting such efforts and taking so many actions, including those to remove Bernie Sanders from the election race, but they don’t like to recall this today. This is the main factor, and this amounted to directly tampering with the election process in gross violation of the US Constitution.

Second, the majority of the Republican Party’s members have found themselves in a situation when they have received an unorthodox President who did not work his way up to the top through all stages of the Republican establishment and who received votes on the Republican ticket during primaries. No matter what one may think of the US President Donald Trump, and no matter how one may interpret his actions that are not very customary for traditional diplomats and political analysts …



Question:

He is acting like a bull in a china shop and wrecking all international agreements.



Sergey Lavrov:

No matter what one may think of these actions, we are now discussing the causes of that unprecedented indignation on the part of US politicians. The Republicans also don’t like the fact that a system when two parties had established the rules of the game (that is, when one party gains power for two consecutive four-year terms, and another party engages in business, and then the two parties switch their roles) that had existed for many decades (over 100 years, to be more exact) has now crumbled to dust because Donald Trump has taken over. But he did not come to power because he is a messiah, but because society has become tired of the traditional uneventful change of leadership.

If we look at the structure of American society, we will also see that some interesting demographic processes are taking place there. It is hardly surprising that ethnic elements are now causing long and profound debates as to whether racism, which has always been present in American politics, either openly or covertly, is being revived or aggravated. These highly complicated processes will last for a long time. I want to say once again that the Democrats’ defeat, which they are still unable to get over, is one of the reasons. The destruction of the bipartisan system is the second reason. This “amicable” procedure continued throughout many election campaigns. I would like to single out the third element from among many others: there is a frustration felt among the US establishment as it comes to realise that it is no longer possible to influence all global processes in the interests of the United States. Maybe, this is a paradox, but it is true. This will be felt for a very long time.

Even during the Cold War, the United States was much more powerful in the context of its share in the world economy and, of course, in the context of its absolutely dominant position in the global currency system when there was no euro, and when nobody had even heard of the yuan and the rouble. Today, the United States accounts for 18-20 per cent of the global GDP. This is no longer 50 per cent as before, and certainly not the share it had after World War II.

A feeling that it is impossible to run everything from a single centre is also manifested in the anti-Russia campaign. There is also China and other big countries, many of which probably prefer not to notice the US excesses. In our case, this is difficult for Russia to do because the first two causes, the defeat of the Democrats and the wrecking of the system, have somehow led to someone pointing the finger at us. There were some alleged contacts between some people and certain representatives of the US political elite. Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak contacted Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. This is absolutely normal and should not have elicited such a response, all the more so as these accusations with regard to the Russian Ambassador and Embassy in the United States are child’s play compared to what US diplomats are doing in Russia.

We did not respond to a series of unfriendly measures with regard to the Russian Ambassador who refused to modify his actions, to renounce his independence and to apologise for what had never happened. And this made them even more agitated. Understandably, they started blaming us for all US sins and setbacks. They are using us as a certain lightning rod in the context of the developments in Mexico and France.



Question:

Even in Malta.



Sergey Lavrov:

Absolutely everywhere – it is Russia, Russia, Russia. This is a simple and uncomplicated method for straightforward propaganda. Voters respond to very simple CNN headlines, such as Russia has once again meddled in something. These statements will catch on, if repeated a thousand times.



Question:

It looks as if you are trying to find excuses for President Trump. However, nobody forced him to sign the bill on arms deliveries to Ukraine or the August bill approving new sanctions against Russia.



Sergey Lavrov:

I am not trying to idealise anyone. You should bear in mind, though that when a bill is adopted by a sweeping majority – 95 per cent in this case – the president no longer thinks about the essence, legitimacy or correctness of the bill or the ability to implement it, because a veto, if he decided to use it, would be overridden anyway.



Question:

What about the bill on arms deliveries to Ukraine? President Barack Obama did not sign it.



Sergey Lavrov:

The answer is the same. He [President Trump] knows that Congress will force him to sign it. If President Trump refuses to do what the overwhelming majority of Congress wants him to do, which is reality, Congress can override his veto anyway. And then we would see American mentality regarding domestic policy. When Congress overrides a presidential veto, it’s seen as a defeat for the president even if the veto was fair, justified and, in the long-term, in American interests. That’s all.

When President Trump received me at the White House, talked with President Putin in Hamburg and later on the phone, I did not see that President Trump was resolved to take any actions that would be contrary to his election promises of good relations with Russia. It has just happened this way. The current developments are the result of a combination of at least three factors – Hillary Clinton’s defeat, President Trump’s non-systemic character, plus the need to explain why the United States does not always succeed on the international stage (there are other factors as well). While the United States becomes more deeply involved in this deplorable process and sees that Russia is acting calmly and without hysterics (we have responded to some US actions, but I would describe this as the least reaction possible), we continue to act according to our plans, promoting a policy of conflict resolution and working on the markets out of which Americans would like to push us. This is irritating the proponents of the Russia-hating agenda. This is sad. There is a glimmer of hope, though, because some Congressmen and members of the US political community, as well as some diplomats have admitted confidentially that the situation is completely unreasonable and needs to be improved. On the other hand, they also blame it on those who tried to drive Russia into a corner, because it is clear that they have failed to push us into isolation, as you can see from the schedule of meetings and visits by the President of Russia and other members of the Russian Government. They admit that they have gone too far, but they suggest that we should do something that could be interpreted as a concession. Of course, this creates the impression that the US great power mentality will not do any good to it. They are urging us to do something with Ukraine.



Question:

Does a concession imply strengthening control over the self-defence forces in Donbass so as to force them to stop shooting, to withdraw their weapons completely and to start complying with the basic provisions of the Minsk Agreements?



Sergey Lavrov:

We would like all parties to withdraw their weapons and stop shooting, including the Donetsk and Lugansk forces and the Ukrainian army as well. A lot of evidence by our colleagues, including from BBC and other media outlets who have visited the contact line this year, show that battalions like Azov are not controlled by anyone except their own commanders. They don’t listen to anyone. The Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian armed forces have no influence over them, as you can see from their blockade, which President Poroshenko publicly denounced. He made a public pledge to lift that blockade, which fully contradicts the Minsk Agreements, and even sent forces to lift the blockade, but his attempt was a complete failure. After that he decided that it would be better to make a U-turn and issue an executive order to legalise the blockade. So, the shooting must stop and the weapons, including heavy weaponry, must be pulled back, but this must be done by both sides.

I talked at a news conference about the striving to limit the geopolitical palette to Ukraine and to urge us to pull a Donetsk or Lugansk self-defence battalion back so that our partners would have a reason for easing the sanctions. It is a disgrace that high-ranking officials would suggest this.



Question:

Will peacekeepers come to Donbass before this year is out?



Sergey Lavrov:

This does not depend on us. If it did they would long have been there.



Question:

What’s the obstacle now and is Russia ready to make some concessions to get it out of the way?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is only one obstacle: nobody wants to discuss our proposals in a hands-on manner.



Question:

The Americans seem to have offered some amendments. Are they being discussed?



Sergey Lavrov:

Nobody offered us any amendments though amendments are exactly what we want. I have talked with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin and with our French and German colleagues. They say it is a sound and good step, but something else is needed. OK, let us sit down, you will tell us what you have in mind and we shall see to what extent it serves the goals of implementing the Minsk Agreements. In any case, the draft resolution says that we must be absolutely committed to the Package of Measures principles which envisage coordination of all actions between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. They tell us that they need to think about what else can be done. But it’s all smoke out the chimney, nobody sits down with us to start a discussion. The ideas put forward outside the context of the work on our draft resolution follow a different direction. Our draft means that the Minsk Agreements are immutable, part of the agreements envisages a mission of OSCE observers because it does not always work in safe conditions and it needs to be protected. Wherever they go they have to be followed by armed UN guards. This is the logic of the Minsk Agreements jurisdiction. We are told that if we accept the peacekeeper concept let us make them responsible for everything that happens on the right side of the contact line, let them provide security right up to the border with Russia. Then we will hold elections and everything will be fine.



Question:

Doesn’t it make sense?



Sergey Lavrov:

You think it makes sense?



Question:

UN peacekeepers are a force that can be entrusted with maintaining security in the region.



Sergey Lavrov:

The Minsk Agreements say that first there has to be an amnesty, the law on the special status has to come into force (it has been passed but not put into effect) and be incorporated into the constitution, and only then elections should be held. The people whom they are trying to “strangle” with an illegal blockade, who have their mobile communication cables cut off to isolate them from the outside world, at least on the part of the Ukrainian state, must be sure that they are not considered to be war criminals, or terrorists, as they have been dubbed in Kiev which has declared a counter-terrorist operation although no one in these regions has attacked them. Make a note of it: it was they who were attacked. These people must be assured that, first, they are safe and that amnesty covers everything that has been done by both sides. Second, they must be assured that their status guarantees (this is written verbatim in the Minsk Agreements) the Russian language, culture, special links with Russia irrespective of what happens to the Kiev authorities, that they would have a say in the appointment of judges, prosecutors and have a local police force. These are about all the main proposals. It’s not so complicated. Especially considering that about twenty Ukrainian regions, if I am not mistaken, officially proposed to Kiev a year and half ago to start negotiations on decentralisation so that they would have powers delegated to them and there would be special agreements with the centre. In short, federalisation in the normal sense. You can call it decentralisation, because people shy away from the word “federalisation.” But when we are told that they would do all this – enact an amnesty, grant special status, organise elections – but first the whole region should be given to international forces which would “call the shots” there, we say no way. This is a red line and everybody knows it, and yet these ideas are planted with the unseemly aim of exploiting the topic of peacekeepers.

The Minsk Agreements have been approved by the UNSC. They clearly state that everything that needs to be done should be agreed between Kiev and the so-called designated parts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. We trust the UN, the OSCE, which incidentally is doing some good work in very adverse conditions. But you cannot just throw away the political part of the Minsk Agreements. The promise that they would be fulfilled later, after the UN military administration takes over all this territory, is dubious. If those who have put forward this idea persuade Donetsk and Lugansk, by all means that would be welcome. This is exactly what the Minsk Agreements envisage and what the UNSC has approved. But I believe that those who are promoting this concept simply want to strangle these two territories.

Let me remind you of something interesting. Minsk proclaims amnesty, special status and elections – in that sequence. During the work of the Contact Group, the Normandy format, Ukraine says: let us do it the other way round, let us first ensure total security, including by advancing to the border, and then take care of all the rest. We have been telling them all these years that full Ukrainian control over that part of the border with the Russian Federation is the last point of the Minsk Agreements. First, all that we’ve been discussing just now has to take place. They then say, how do you imagine a special status if they do not know who will be elected in the local elections. We ask them if they mean that they would grant a special status only to the people who suit them. They reply, yes, this is what we want. It is not very diplomatic to behave like this if your own president has signed up to a very different sequence of actions. Even so, we agreed to a compromise which is now called “the Steinmeier formula” whereby the law on special status comes into force temporarily on election day and on a permanent basis when the OSCE, which will observe the elections, issues the final report. That usually takes a couple of months. The Ukrainians agreed and said, let us proceed in this way. This was agreed by the heads of state back in October 2015 in Paris. For a whole year attempts were made to put it on paper, but the Ukrainians refused. Another meeting took place in Berlin in 2016. We asked why there was no progress on the “Steinmeier formula.” To which the Ukrainians said that they did not know what the report would contain. OK, let us put it down that the special status law comes into force on election day on a temporary basis and on the day the report is published, on a permanent basis provided the report certifies the elections as free and fair. OK. The deal was struck. More than a year has elapsed. But the Ukrainians still do not want to put this formula on paper. That’s one example. Another striking example. While the previous one has to do with politics, this one has to do with security. Under Minsk it was agreed in Berlin in October 2016 to start separation of heavy weapons and to prevent their return to the line of contact. Three pilot points –Zolotoye, Pokrovskoye and Stanitsa Luganskaya – were agreed. At Pokrovskoye and Zolotoye everything was done quickly, but in Stanitsa Luganskaya there was a hitch. Ukraine said it needed seven days of silence before they start withdrawing heavy weapons. Since then the OSCE has reported publicly more than a dozen periods when silence lasted seven days and more. The Ukrainians say that these are our statistics, and that their statistics registered two or three shots. The Germans, the French and the OSCE understand this is blasphemy. But owing to their political commitments, our Western partners, unfortunately, cannot publicly bring pressure on the Kiev authorities and cannot force them to do what they had promised the leaders, among others, of France and Germany. This is lamentable. I understand that if you have thrown your lot in with a politician and publicly back the government that came to power in Kiev after the coup, it is probably very hard to depart from that position without losing face. We understand, we do not kick up a row over Kiev’s total sabotage of the Minsk Agreements, we will calmly work towards the fulfilment of what has been agreed upon. Too many hard-won agreements are being put to the test, the Minsk Agreements, the agreements on Iran and a number of others.



Question:

On Thursday, Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada adopted the so-called “Law on the Reintegration of Donbass.” The European capitals had a neutral reaction to this, whereas Moscow was very critical. Why? What do you think about the practical consequences of the law?



Sergey Lavrov:

Speaking legally, the “Law on Reintegration” nullifies the Minsk agreements that were unanimously approved by the Security Council in the resolution adopted several days after the meeting of the four leaders in the Normandy format in Minsk. This is obvious for us.

As for the reaction, we have no doubts and, moreover, we have documented information that both Europe and Washington are fully aware of the game being played by the current Kiev authorities that are dragging out their commitments under the Minsk Agreements. I hope that officials from Berlin, Paris, Washington and other capitals are expressing this to their colleagues from Kiev during private, closed contacts. Having taken these absolutely non-negotiable authorities under its wing, the West can no longer criticise what its mentees are doing. This is sad. Understandably, it is linked with the misinterpreted feeling of one’s own prestige and reputation; but this is how things are. We will work for the implementation of everything that is written in the Minsk Agreements. The attempts “to bring down the sight” and lead these discussions astray, a desire to find new agendas, new forms and methods of work are unacceptable. We will calmly and firmly uphold the honest package that was signed by President Petr Poroshenko and the leaders of Donetsk and Lugansk.



Question:

My last question is about Iran that you mentioned. Can Russia stand to gain anything if the Americans pull out of the Iranian deal? In this case they will look isolated and odious, while Iran will be more pliable on some issues.



Sergey Lavrov:

Russian leaders do not follow this school of thought. Many political scientists ask us why we are worrying about these things. They say the worse the better: let the United States prove its non-negotiability and destructive role in world affairs, be it in Iran or Syria where it is also taking unilateral actions that have already provoked Turkey to anger.



Question:

And Iran will also be more pliable.



Sergey Lavrov:

That’s not the point. If the fabric of legal agreements approved by the leading countries in a conflict is destroyed, there will be a free for all where everyone defends its own interests. This would be very bad. I consider this unacceptable, whether it’s Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen or the Korean Peninsula. There is also the 2005 agreement on the Korean Peninsula, which states in clear terms what is required from the DPRK and others. Two weeks after this was written, the Americans suddenly dug out an old story with some account in a Macao bank and started seizing North Korean accounts. We can argue about the extent to which this was fair, if North Korea was right and the United States wrong but a fact remains a fact. There was an agreement to abstain from confrontation and any provocations from a particular moment. This did not happen. Speaking on the system level, the biggest problem now is negotiability.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3026359






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov remarks and answers to media questions during a joint news conference following talks with Yemen’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Abdulmalik Al-Mekhlafi, January 22, 2018



22 January 2018 - 13:25








Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held productive talks, discussed in detail the political and military situation in Yemen, the prospects for a settlement of the domestic political crisis and also reviewed some issues of the bilateral agenda.

We consider it absolutely necessary to stop the armed standoff in Yemen, as well as the need for the conflict participants to abandon the use of force in resolving the accumulated problems. We believe it necessary to not only continue, but also boost the relevant international efforts with the central role of the UN to create conditions for establishing a sustainable intra-Yemeni dialogue with the participation of all political forces in the country.

We think that the scenarios for Yemen’s political development that were prepared in other formats and forced on the Yemeni people from the outside will most probably be unviable and even counterproductive.

Only the Yemeni people themselves can define the fate of their country. Russia, which maintains contacts will all Yemeni groups, is ready to facilitate this process. We see that this approach is accepted and supported by the leadership of the Republic of Yemen.

We paid much attention to the humanitarian situation in Yemen, which remains grave. According to the UN, 22 million Yemeni people – and this is a huge number – require help, and over 2 million children are on the verge of starvation.

In this context, Russia welcomes the decision of the Arab coalition to ease the blockade of the Yemeni port of Al Hudaydah, the only transport route that connects the country’s main city and northern provinces with the outside world.

We believe that the UN should henceforth be able to deliver humanitarian aid to Sanaa without fail. It is important to strive to lift the sea and air blockade, to remove all limitations on the deliveries of food, medicines and other prime necessities to all regions of Yemen with no exceptions.

Russia is making its contribution to support Yemeni people. Last year, the Emergencies Ministry planes delivered over 40 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Sanaa and Aden. The issue on preparing another batch of Russia’s humanitarian aid for the people in Yemen is being discussed.

Unfortunately, the long-standing conflict has resulted in the freezing of almost all main bilateral projects in trade, economic, cultural and other areas between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Yemen. We will be ready (and we see that our colleagues are interested in that, too) to resume and expand our relations in all areas when peace and stability are established in the country. Our peoples are interested in it since mutually beneficial relations between the two countries have a very long history: in November we will mark the 90th anniversary of our diplomatic relations.

Yemen’s Foreign Minister Abdulmalik Al-Mekhlafi and we have agreed to maintain close contacts both directly and via our embassy in Yemen, which due to security reasons has been recently relocated from Sanaa to Riyadh. At the same time, we will continue our dialogue with the Houthis and other Yemeni political associations, as well as with all interested states, including the Arab coalition, on which the further developments in the country and around it depend. We will urge everyone who can contribute to the settlement and the transition from war to a political dialogue to do so as soon as possible.



Question:

How does Russia view the situation in Yemen after the assassination of former President Ali Abdullah Saleh?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, when it happened, we saw it as a very grave crime. Obviously, it was conceived to torpedo efforts to move toward a peace settlement. As you know, President Saleh had called for establishing contacts with the government of President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, so as to stop this bloodshed. One had the impression that Ansar Allah would soon become completely isolated, and that the situation would be quickly rectified even without any political negotiations.

But as the situation unfolds, it is proving much more complicated. Mr Abdulmalik Abduljalil Al-Mekhlafi has just mentioned the situation at the General People's Congress whose delegates either advocated talks or an even tougher line of continuing the confrontation with the country’s legitimate leadership. All this merely confirms that there is no alternative to transitioning to inclusive intra-Yemeni negotiations. We share common positions with the leadership of the Republic of Yemen on this issue. We will promote this position during our subsequent contacts with the Yemeni parties and with all external players.



Question:

The Turkish military operation against US-supported Kurds in northern Syria has been continuing for the last few days. What does Moscow think about this operation? Are you surprised at Washington’s extremely restrained response to these latest developments, and will they influence the place and role of the Kurds in the Syrian peace settlement?



Sergey Lavrov:

First, you have no doubt read the statements from Moscow following the start of Turkey’s operation in Afrin. Statements have been made by the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry. We called for restraint and for respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic. As such, I would like to recall that we have been noting for a long time that the United States is moving to establish alternative institutions of state authority on a substantial part of Syrian territory. Washington openly and covertly delivers modern weapons to Syria and provides them to units cooperating with it, primarily the Syrian Democratic Forces, which relies on Kurdish militia.

Building on this policy of flagrant interference in the domestic affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic, they announced the establishment of some kind of border protection force along the entire border between Syria, Turkey and Iraq several days ago. Rather awkward denials were later voiced, although all this activity de facto continued the process of establishing control over Syrian territory on the border with Iraq and Turkey. At the same time, the USA has long been discouraging Kurds, with whom it is cooperating, from a dialogue with Damascus. Washington has been actively stoking separatist sentiments among the Kurds, while completely ignoring the sensitive nature and regional dimension of the Kurdish issue. While trying to understand the motives of this policy of Washington, one has no choice but to assume that it is based on a misunderstanding of the entire situation, or that it is a deliberate provocation.

As concerns the Kurds’ role in the further political process, it must be secured without a doubt, but at a common platform where all Syrian ethnic, religious and political forces are called for respecting Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. On these grounds, the Kurds’ representatives were included in the list of Syrians invited to the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi next week.

Regarding the UNSC meeting initiated by France, I can say that we are somewhat concerned that it will be marked by more of the same prejudice regarding specific events in the Syrian conflict settlement process. Specifically, the Foreign Minister of France announced that the meeting will cover the situation both in Afrin, Eastern Ghouta and Idlib. For some time, our western partners have been trying to stir up a scandalous atmosphere around the situation in Eastern Ghouta and Idlib while ignoring the fact that a group of militants close to Jabhat al-Nusra remains in Eastern Ghouta and shells Damascus, including the Russian Embassy, and also ignoring the fact that only recently, thanks to the efforts of the Syrian government and the Russian military in Syria, medical evacuation began from Eastern Ghouta, including evacuation of children in need of urgent medical help.

While drawing the attention of the global community to Idlib’s humanitarian problems in the same emotional way, our western colleagues ignore the obvious fact that it was Eastern Idlib where Jabhat al-Nusra (a terrorist organisation prohibited by the UN) was ruling not so long ago. It was only recently that the Syrian army’s offensive began with our support and succeeded in surrounding the major part of the Jabhat al-Nusra group. Apparently, this fact is what’s causing so much concern to some Western countries, once again proving what we have been saying for several years: the United States and the US-led coalition are trying to spare Jabhat al-Nusra in every possible way and shield it from fire – evidently, to further their so-called Plan B for regime change. This is completely unacceptable to us and we will firmly oppose such attempts. It is indicative that while our Western partners raise the alarm about Eastern Ghouta and Idlib while clearly trying to shield Jabhat al-Nusra, they are not interested in taking a real look at the humanitarian toll of the operation in Raqqa that was literally levelled to the ground. We will keep insisting that the UN and the UNSC address this issue. The city requires massive humanitarian assistance and de-mining. Otherwise people will refuse to return there.



Question:

Moscow has repeatedly stated that there is no alternative to dialogue between all the parties involved in the Yemen conflict. You repeated this view today several times. Has Moscow’s view met with understanding during contacts with regional partners, particularly, Riyadh?



Sergey Lavrov:

As concerns the response to our view in favour of dialogue between all the Yemeni parties being the only way to resolve the crisis, I think my answer will be yes, this view is understood by all external actors, including the UN. We support the efforts of the Special Envoy for Yemen (currently Mr Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed) to establish a dialogue between the legitimate government, the General People's Congress party and the Houthis. These are the major forces and they are all objects of the UN’s attention. We welcome this and, as far as I understand, all the external actors involved in overcoming the crisis agree with this.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3029491






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with Head of the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) Nasr al-Hariri, Moscow, January 22, 2018



22 January 2018 - 20:25








Mr al-Hariri,

Gentlemen,

Welcome to Moscow. We have a direct interest in this meeting. We hoped it would be held sooner. During this important meeting, we plan to discuss all aspects of a Syrian settlement in the interests of the Syrian people.

We were ready for a meeting with your delegation immediately after the Riyadh consultations, which our Saudi colleagues organised to bring together the three Syrian opposition groups – the Riyadh, Cairo and Moscow groups. We supported Saudi Arabia’s efforts towards the result achieved, proceeding from the belief that any effort to promote the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 deserves to be supported.

We helped and continue to help achieve the goals that were formulated by the UN Security Council, including by working with Turkey and Iran to launch the Astana process. The agreements on four de-escalation zones, which were coordinated in Astana, have helped us to seriously lower the degree of violence. Despite individual instances of fighting, the situation in Syria is now much better than a year ago.

The terrorist threat has been undercut and ISIS has not created a caliphate, which was its goal, largely thanks to the Astana format and the agreement on the southern de-escalation zone between Russia, the United States and Jordan. However, there are still a few remaining pockets of terrorism that need to be suppressed. We hope that progress in the intra-Syrian dialogue and the launch of sustainable negotiations on Syria’s future will unite the efforts of all Syrians towards eliminating the terrorist threat in their country.

We believe that the success of the political process hinges on strict compliance with all provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which calls for launching an inclusive dialogue involving the Syrian Government and the broadest possible spectrum of the opposition. We would like to facilitate the achievement of this goal through the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in our “southern capital”, Sochi, which is scheduled for January 29-30. We hope that all those who can influence various opposition groups will help us ensure a truly inclusive intra-Syrian dialogue.

The main goal of the congress in Sochi is to promote the most efficient operation of the UN-led Geneva process possible, so that dialogue involving all Syrians brings the results all Syrians want. We tried to form a list of invitees that would ensure the achievement of our goal, which is to bring together representatives of all groups of Syrian society, including the Government and the opposition. Working together with our Iranian and Turkish colleagues, we invited the main regional and international actors to the congress. I am sure that if all of us act in keeping with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 we will be able to launch a sustainable and constructive process, which will allow us to reach the vital agreements for a Syrian settlement, including the constitutional reform and free UN-monitored elections, as it is stipulated in Resolution 2254.

We consider the attempts by some external actors to question the sincerity of our efforts as counterproductive. I believe that our Syrian colleagues are fully aware of the need to eliminate all external geopolitical considerations from the process of implementing the UN Security Council resolution. I am sure that the Syrian people are interested in an agreement to launch this process in Geneva based on Resolution 2254, a process that will be free from unconstructive external influence and will create conditions for launching talks on the entire range of issues related to a Syrian settlement, starting with the construction and preparations for the elections that will be held without any preconditions.

We know that you have come to Moscow following a series of meetings in the capitals on both sides of the Atlantic. We would like to hear your views on the current stage of the implementation of the UN Security Council resolution. I confirm our full commitment to the main principles of this resolution. I hope we will have constructive talks.


***


I do not want to go now into the details you preferred to spell out in the presence of the media. I hope that you have come here without bias, with a focus on a frank and honest conversation.

Before we thank our friends, the journalists, I just want to address the issue you mentioned that concerns the suffering of the civilian population.

You mentioned Raqqa. We did not hear any concerns publicly expressed by our international partners while that city was being razed to the ground. This is regrettable and suggests double standards in the humanitarian sphere.

As for Eastern Ghouta and Idlib, we are very concerned about what is happening there. For many months now, we have been calling attention to the fact that the shelling of Damascus continues from Eastern Ghouta, ​​from the de-escalation zone, including attacks on the Russian Embassy. Nevertheless, we have achieved an agreement with the Syrian Government on the delivery of several humanitarian convoys, even if not regular deliveries. We must make them more frequent. Most recently, we also started medical evacuation of those who need it.

But most importantly, Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists continue to feel at home in Eastern Ghouta and Idlib. And our Western colleagues, including members of the US-led coalition, somehow manage to shield Jabhat al-Nusra from attacks. This has been happening for several years and certainly causes very serious concern.

If the Jabhat al-Nusra problem had been resolved, if a truly united front had been created against it, including, as I said, the American coalition, I am sure that the humanitarian situation in Eastern Ghouta, Idlib and elsewhere in Syria would have been far better.

As for the Congress in Sochi, I have heard the questions that you would like to have answered. During today’s talks, we will definitely give these answers. We do not have any controversy with regard to the need to implement UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the Geneva Communiqué. What is important is to approach these documents comprehensively rather than selectively. I am sure that if this is done, we will reach an understanding.

I expect that we will discuss all this in detail once our colleagues, the journalists, leave us. They have already heard so much they will have enough material for a week.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3030579
__________________
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 23rd, 2018 #345
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Permanent Representative of Russia to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich’s statement at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting, Vienna, January 18, 2018



19 January 2018 - 23:02




Mr Chairperson,

We share the Azerbaijani representative’s concerns about the US Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

As we have repeatedly noted, this prison is the most glaring example of the United States’ double standards policy in human rights. Let me remind you that President Barack Obama made a commitment to close the facility immediately after his inauguration. Years have gone by and the promise remains unfulfilled.

The current US administration is also not demonstrating any willingness to observe its international obligations. There are still dozens of people kept in the prison and the majority of inmates are held there without charges or their cases reaching court. Meanwhile, those responsible for the torture and violent disappearances that These facts have been confirmed by ODIHR Director Ingibjorg Gisladottir. In her recent statement, she noted that “indefinite detention without charge or trial constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.” The concerns about the atrocities ongoing in Guantanamo, including torture and other inhumane forms of treatment, were set out in last year’s report by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention under the UN Human Rights Council.

We call for the United States to strictly follow its international obligations, take action for a speedy closure of the Guantanamo prison and bring to account those responsible for torture and other unlawful acts. We believe the states involved in the ‘delivery chain’ transferring inmates to this and other similar facilities must stop this practice. It is important that the OSCE’s competent bodies, particularly, the ODIHR, monitor this situation constantly rather than only on another anniversary of Washington not living up to its promises.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3026134






Permanent Representative of Russia to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich’s statement regarding the assassination of Oliver Ivanovic, at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting, Vienna, January 18, 2018



20 January 2018 - 14:16




Mr Chairperson,

We consider the murder of prominent Serbian politician Oliver Ivanovic in Mitrovica, Kosovo, on January 16, 2018, to be an act of terrorism intended to intimidate the Serb population in the north of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo. We would like to express sincere condolences to Mr Ivanovic’s family and loved ones.

We sympathise with the Serbian leaders’ view on this heinous crime. We believe it is necessary to ensure full-fledged involvement of the competent Serbian authorities in the murder investigation in line with Belgrade’s demands. We would like to stress that this measure does not in any way contravene the fundamental UNSC Resolution 1244.

We have to state with regret that the incident confirms our multiple warnings regarding the Kosovo quasi-state’s incompetence, the fragile situation in the province and rampant lawlessness. All this has created conditions for systematic anti-Serb acts and spiralling violence manifested in regular desecration of Orthodox Christian relics, assaults on non-Albanians and destruction of their property.

We want to stress that this terrorist act indicates the need for continuous close attention of multilateral bodies to the situation in Kosovo, and the OSCE and the UNSC maintaining the schedule of reports on international presence in Pristina. It is important to exercise a proactive and objective approach to the situation in the province that is increasingly causing concern and posing a threat to the region’s peace and security, which is now obvious to everybody.

Please include this statement in the records of today’s Permanent Council meeting.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3026265






Statement by Permanent Representative of Russia to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the situation in Ukraine and the need to fulfill the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, January 18, 2018



20 January 2018 - 14:38




Mr Chairperson,

Once again, Ukrainian security forces failed to fulfill their commitment and violated the ‘holiday ceasefire.’ Several towns have been attacked. There are casualties and damage.

The shelling over the past three weeks has resulted in the injury of one Donetsk civilian, and damage to buildings in Kominternovo, Dokuchayevsk, Donetsk, and Trudovskikh. There was an artillery attack on a hospital in Kalinovo.

Orders to the Ukrainian Armed Forces not to open fire have not been publicised, unlike those of Donetsk and Lugansk. Militants of nationalist armed groups are present at the contact line. The Ukrainian army’s military equipment is based in Popasnaya. A seven-day ceasefire in Stanitsa Luganskaya has already been observed 18 times. Over the three weeks of the ‘holiday ceasefire’, the Special Monitoring Mission recorded no violations within this area. Kiev is sabotaging the withdrawal of forces.

Live fire exercises continue at the contact line in the village of Kleban-Byk. There is evidence of increased military activity by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Three east-pointing military positions have been found near Petrovskoye. The Ukrainian Army’s ‘creeping offence’ tactic has repeatedly led to an escalation of tension, for example, the seizure of the Travnevoye and Gladosovo villages by the army at the end of last year. Ukraine’s military equipment is seen in the safe zone, in violation of the Minsk Agreements. Even during the holiday ceasefire, the Special Monitoring Mission spotted more than 30 Ukrainian weapons violating the withdrawal line, as well as an artillery observation vehicle in Aleksandropol, a surface-to-air missile system and containers for Strela missiles in Popasnaya.

The civil war in Ukraine is also being fueled from outside by Maidan coup sponsors, expressed through political statements, as well as through military and technical support and intelligence.

Late last year, the United States issued a license to one of its arms manufacturers to supply Kiev with Barrett M107A1 anti-materiel rifles. According to the US media, President Trump intends to approve a supply of 35 Javelin anti-tank missile systems and 210 pieces of related ammunition, worth $47 million, to the Ukrainian Armed Forces and even send arms instructors to Ukraine. Since the beginning of this year, there have been at least three recorded appearances of American Global Hawk unmanned aircraft and one sighting of a Boeing P-8A reconnaissance aircraft at the borders of several areas in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine. According to the Atlantic Council non-government organisation, the radical voluntary Azov battalion possesses arms purchased from an American company, including TOW anti-tank missiles. Since last April, US company AirTronic has been supplying Kiev with hand-held grenade launchers. By arming the Ukrainian Army, the United States and other countries are pushing Kiev to resume mass bloodshed in Donbass and becoming accomplices in Kiev’s war crimes.

The withdrawal of Russian officers from the Joint Coordination and Control Centre (JCCC) arose as a result of lack of suitable conditions for them to perform their duties. Their status in Ukraine must be legally confirmed to allow their freedom of movement and security. Our multiple proposals for an agreement on JCCC regulation have been ignored.

Meanwhile, the Special Monitoring Mission can interact with the Donetsk and Lugansk representatives who should have long since been officially reinstated in the JCCC. This will help the Special Monitoring Mission to continue its official activity and assist with the recovery work.

We welcome the Mission’s assistance in transferring the funds to pay for the water supply to several areas of the Lugansk Region via the contact line in Schastye on January 9.

It is unacceptable for the Mission to manipulate the data on restrictions on the movement of observers and to divide the said data into ‘active’ and ‘passive’ in order to play along with one of the parties to the conflict. Out of the 104 cases when the Special Monitoring Mission’s movement was restricted over the three weeks of the holiday ceasefire, 71 cases occurred in the area controlled by the Ukrainian Army. On January 12, a Mission’s drone was shelled near Pavlopol above the Ukrainian Army’s facilities.

The exchange of prisoners on December 27 was a step in the right direction. The Donbass residents who returned from captivity reported torture and said they had been subjected to inhumane treatment. In line with the Package of Measures, the Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk authorities must exchange all their captives.

Let me point out once again the direct connection between the acts of Ukrainian nationalist radicals and the sabotage of the Minsk Agreements. The Kiev leadership continues its punitive operation, which is, among other things, a matter of political infighting. The cessation of hostilities and the fulfillment of the Minsk Package of Measures are considered as defeat. Today, Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada passed a bill on re-integration of Donbass that derails the Minsk Agreements. In fact, this bill gives the Ukrainian President the right to resume large-scale military activity without parliamentary approval. This is anything but progress towards peace. We call for the Special Monitoring Mission and Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office to the Trilateral Contact Group Martin Sajdik to give a principled evaluation of this document.

On January 1, another march in honour of the Nazis’ henchman Stepan Bandera took place in Kiev. On Christmas Eve, radicals threw paint at the Russian Culture Centre building in Kiev. On January 10, Orthodox Christian churches in Odessa were covered with leaflets. On January 5, under pressure from radicals in the courtroom, an instigator of mass riots in Odessa was acquitted. The Mirotvorets extremist website continues to operate unhampered. Ukraine’s recently adopted education law is the main obstacle to teaching the native languages of ethnic minorities. More language restrictions, on television, radio and video production, are being developed. New border regulations create additional complications in contact between the two countries’ residents, who have extensive familial, cultural and economic ties.

By encouraging anti-Russian hysteria, Kiev is shooting itself in the foot, if not its own head. Tension within Ukrainian society is rising and officials prefer to ‘blow off steam’ through the conflict in Donbass, while there is great demand for peace and recovery from the destruction by Maidan.

Peace cannot be brought about through an anti-Russian frenzy but only by direct dialogue between the government, Donetsk and Lugansk, and full compliance with the Minsk Agreements. In addition to military security measures, the parties must ensure political conditions for peace. The conditions are formulated in the Minsk Package of Measures. The so-called re-integration law, which is under discussion now, contravenes it.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3026283






Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov’s interview with TASS news agency, January 20, 2018



22 January 2018 - 12:57




Question:

Mr. Morgulov, in early January South Korea and North Korea had their first top-level negotiations in two years. In the last few weeks, North and South Korean representatives have met three times. What do you think of the prospects of direct negotiations between Seoul and Pyongyang?



Igor Morgulov:

We, of course, welcome the resumption of Korean dialogue, its agenda and the agreements that the parties reached at their first meetings. I would like to emphasise that the direct dialogue between representatives of North and South Korea is part of the Russia-China roadmap for resolving the situation on the Korean peninsula; therefore, we see the resumed negotiations as a step in the right direction.

We believe that direct dialogue between Pyongyang and Seoul should be maintained and expanded to include Russia’s earlier initiative to pursue trilateral economic projects between Russia and the two Koreas.



Question:

Washington has repeatedly declared its intention to exert maximum pressure on Pyongyang. Do you think these statements could stand in the way of implementing agreements between North and South Korea?



Igor Morgulov:

As for the pressure on Pyongyang, last December the international community unanimously adopted UN Security Council Resolution 2375 to coordinate measures in response to North Korea’s missile tests. We call on Washington to strictly comply with the resolution. Coordinated international sanctions should be the only instrument of pressure on Pyongyang.

As for any additional measures, Russia has never been in favour of unilateral restrictions that bypass the UN Security Council.



Question:

Another element of the Korean resolution roadmap drawn up by Russia and China is direct negotiations between Pyongyang and Washington. Is Moscow ready to help to launch such a dialogue? Do you think such a meeting could take place soon?



Igor Morgulov:

I think the question of scheduling such a meeting should be readdressed to our colleagues in Washington and Pyongyang. Moscow is certainly willing to assist in facilitating a direct dialogue between the United States and North Korea as soon as possible.



Question:

Moscow has repeatedly emphasised that the Russian Federation and the United States have continued to keep in contact on the situation on the Korean peninsula. Your contact with US Special Representative for North Korea Policy Joseph Yun is one of the main negotiating formats on this issue. Where and when will your next meeting take place?



Igor Morgulov:

The timeframe for the meeting in this format remains to be confirmed. Joseph Yun has received my invitation but the details and the date are still to be determined via diplomatic channels.

I can confirm that my next meeting with the US Special Representative for North Korea Policy will take place in Moscow.



Question:

North Korean Foreign Ministry officials have visited Moscow several times. Will there be another visit soon?



Igor Morgulov:

I will not rule out new contact with Pyongyang’s delegates through Foreign Ministry channels in Moscow before the Olympic Games. The consultations between the heads of the relevant departments of the foreign ministries will mostly focus on bilateral issues, though.



Question:

Less than a month is left until the Olympic opening ceremony in Pyeongchang, South Korea. Does Moscow have any concerns about possible conflict escalation on the Korean peninsula during the Olympic Games?



Igor Morgulov:

We hope the situation will not be exacerbated. The resumed direct dialogue between Seoul and Pyongyang and the agreements it has produced give us reason to expect the Olympic Games to be a relatively stable period in the situation on the Korean peninsula. At least, Moscow really hopes so.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3029453
__________________
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 27th, 2018 #346
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 terrorist attack on Kabul’s Intercontinental Hotel



22 January 2018 - 13:07



On January 20, a group of militants attacked Kabul’s Intercontinental Hotel, killing and injuring several dozen people. Over 10 foreigners are among the dead. No Russian citizens were harmed. The Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attack.

We vehemently condemn this inhumane terrorist act and call upon the authorities of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to take all possible measures to ensure security in the Afghan capital and across the country.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3029481






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the act of terror in Libya



24 January 2018 - 17:56



On January 23, suicide bombers staged a double act of terror next to the Al-Radwan Mosque in Benghazi in eastern Libya. According to incoming reports, over 30 people were killed and dozens wounded in this barbarous attack.

Moscow resolutely denounces this bloody crime just as it does any instance of violence against civilians. We confirm our solidarity with the Libyan people in the face of persisting challenges and threats. We express our sincere condolences to the families of the dead and wish an early recovery to the injured.

We are convinced that the destructive forces that resort to terrorism in Libya will fail to intimidate its citizens that are striving to return to a peaceful life, trying to overcome the hardships that befell them. We believe that despite continued attempts by extremists to destabilise the situation, the process of national reconciliation in Libya must be continued and be based on a broad dialogue with consideration for the interests of all Libyans.

At the same time we reiterate our strong recommendation that Russian citizens avoid visiting Libya and Russian companies avoid sending employees to Libya until the situation returns to normal.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3033874






Foreign Ministry statement on US allegations regarding chemical attacks in Syria



24 January 2018 - 23:12



On January 23, several high-ranking US officials made slanderous statements regarding the Russian Federation and the Syrian Arab Republic, claiming that Moscow and Damascus were responsible for the chemical weapons attacks in the course of the Syrian conflict. This amounts to a large-scale propaganda offensive aimed at demonising Russia and hindering a peaceful settlement in Syria.

The fact that executive US officials have no regard for elementary ethics is old news. But they have surpassed themselves with the statements they made yesterday.

Contrary to common sense, Russia and the legitimate Syrian authorities have been declared responsible for the January 22 chemical attacks in East Ghouta, even though the fact of this attack has not been confirmed yet. The only information regarding it comes from the ill-famed White Helmets, which have long been working hand in glove with terrorist groups and have discredited themselves by staging provocations and spreading blatant lies.

Even the Americans have never gone so far as to claim that “whoever conducted the attacks, Russia ultimately bears responsibility for the victims.” But now they are trying to convince the world, contrary to logic and without providing any proof, that Russia, which, unlike the United States, has destroyed its chemical stocks, is not only pandering to but bears responsibility for chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

They have also said cynically that Russia is unwilling to investigate chemical weapons attacks in Syria, although it is the Americans that are hindering an objective investigation, which is an established fact. The United States has chosen the right and wrong based on its own geopolitical ambitions and in keeping with secret agreements with the militant anti-government forces. We see that Washington is not interested in determining the truth and rejects any and all points of view that contradict its own.

The United States and its allies deliberately destroyed the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) in November last year by refusing to adjust its operation to the international standards of professionalism and objectivity. On January 23, US representatives at the UN Security Council meeting categorically rejected the Russian initiative on a new, nonpartisan and really effective mechanism that would replace the JIM. The Americans do not need any instruments for conducting honest investigations. What they need is new pretexts for accusing the Syrian authorities and, now, Russia.

We realise that the ongoing campaign, just as many others in the past, is designed to suit the questionable backstage initiatives of the United States and its allies. The evidence used in these campaigns comprises openly fake news such as social media reports that could be written and planted from beyond Syria.

As it often happened in the past, the alleged chemical attack in East Ghouta coincided with the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, which has convened in Paris at the US-French initiative. This restricted format meeting, to which Russia has not been invited, attempts to replace the OPCW and to create an anti-Damascus bloc through the proliferation of lies. The ultimate goal of this meeting is obviously to hinder the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi in support of the UN-led talks in Geneva, as well as to derail the peace process in Syria because its parameters may be unacceptable to the Americans.

We are sure that many participants in the Paris meeting, where an attempt will be made to bind them through the signing of documents, are aware of the unscrupulousness of the authors of this “partnership.” We urge our colleagues to think hard about what the United States wants them to do and to dissociate themselves from a hazardous venture that has nothing in common with the meeting’s goals as stated by its organisers.

Washington has tried this trick many times before. Take the heinous sarin attack on Khan Sheikhoun in April 2017, regarding which the Russian Foreign Ministry has issued many detailed comments, including on January 19, 2018. The United States has put the blame for it on the Syrian government forces at once and without a second thought.

Russian and independent international experts have conclusively disproved the groundless claims by the Americans and their confederates. Unlike our opponents, we are not working from allegations but based on a full-scale professional analysis of all available circumstances of that dramatic incident, which the Americans used as a pretext for delivering a missile strike at the at the Shayrat Airbase of the Syrian government in violation of international law. It was an act of US aggression against a sovereign state.

We have pointed out repeatedly that the Americans knew the chemical composition of sarin produced within the framework of Syria’s former military chemical programme, because the United States destroyed its basic binary component DF (methylphosphoryldifluoride) aboard the specially modified US vessel Cape Ray in 2014. There are grounds to suspect that some people in Washington who were involved in that operation could have shared the recipe with the organisers of the provocation in Khan Sheikhoun.

For the past three years, we proposed adopting a UN Security Council resolution or a statement by the UNSC President denouncing chemical terrorist attacks in the Middle East. We said that the international community must open its eyes to reality, because terrorists not only use chemical warfare agents but have also acquired the capability to produce them. But the United States and its allies blocked and continue to block this Russian initiative.

Facts speak for themselves, and the allegations made by US officials will not become a reality even if they are repeated many times. The US stubborn desire to enact in Syria the scenario previously applied in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya is glaringly obvious. The international community should seriously ponder the current developments. And Washington should think about where its policy of destroying relations with Russia can lead it. Is this really in the interests of the American people?




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3033941






Main foreign policy outcomes of 2017



25 January 2018 - 17:18



In 2017, Russian diplomacy addressed multidimensional tasks to ensure national security and create a favourable external environment for our country's progressive development. Russia maintained an independent foreign policy, promoted a unifying agenda, and proposed constructive solutions to international problems and conflicts. It developed mutually beneficial relations with all interested states, and played an active role in the work of the UN, multilateral organisations and forums, including the G20, BRICS, the SCO, the OSCE, and the CSTO. Among other things, Russian policy has sought to prevent the destabilisation of international relations, and this responsible policy has met with broad understanding in the international community.

1. Special attention was reserved for maintaining stability and developing integration processes within the Commonwealth of Independent States. Russia’s CIS presidency in 2017 contributed to further strengthening economic, law enforcement, cultural and other forms of cooperation between our countries, as well as foreign policy coordination. Significant achievements of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) include completing work on the Customs Code, approving the roadmap of actions to promote integration, and adopting an action plan to implement a coordinated transport policy of the member states for 2018−2020. Completing talks with Beijing on an agreement on trade and economic cooperation was an important stage in the process of harmonising the EAEU and the Silk Road Economic Belt, which is part of China’s One Belt One Road initiative.

2. The truly allied nature of relations between Russia and Belarus was reinforced by the joint strategic exercises of the two countries' armed forces, Zapad (West) 2017, in September. Relations with other allies under the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, such as Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, have been developing dynamically. The adoption by heads of member states of the Declaration on the 25th Anniversary of the Collective Security Treaty and the 15th Anniversary of the Organisation in November was the main political outcome of CSTO activities.

Our ties with Uzbekistan have become noticeably more active. The signing of the bilateral Treaty on Strategic Partnership opened a new page in our traditionally close relations with Turkmenistan. The draft Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea was finally agreed during a December meeting of foreign ministers of the Caspian States with an eye to signing it during the Big Five summit in Kazakhstan in 2018.

3. Russia pursued a constructive policy in efforts to settle the intra-Ukrainian conflict by way of implementing the Minsk Agreements. In September, the President of Russia proposed deploying a UN mission in that region in order to protect OSCE SMM observers. In December, Russia facilitated a prisoner exchange between Ukraine, the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic.

4. On the European track, active political contacts were maintained with Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Finland, the Czech Republic, and Serbia. Russia reinforced its leading role in promoting international Arctic cooperation, having held the 4th Arctic: Territory of Dialogue forum in March in Arkhangelsk.

The upturn in high-level and top-level political dialogue and sectoral cooperation was a positive outcome in our cooperation with the European Union. There were no opportunities to constructively develop contacts with the North Atlantic Alliance, which pursues a confrontational policy with regard to Russia. The OSCE platform was actively used to assert Russia’s view of a wide range of pan-European problems. Russia participated in the work of the Council of Europe’s bodies. Russia supported the efforts of its representatives in the CoE Parliamentary Assembly to restore this body to a healthy mode of operation without any discrimination.

5. Russia's active involvement in the affairs of Syria contributed to the elimination of the main forces of the Islamic State terrorist group in that country and the formation of prerequisites for a political settlement of this conflict under UN auspices. In conjunction with Iran and Turkey, Russia acted as the guarantor of the ceasefire agreements between the government forces and the armed opposition, and worked out the parameters for holding the Syrian National Dialogue Congress with the participation of a wide range of representatives of the Syrian people.

6. Our bilateral relations with other states of the Middle and Near East, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, received a major boost. In a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry on April 7, Russia reaffirmed its commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem, recognising West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in this case.

7. With a proactive role played by Russia, India and Pakistan have become members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. In order to intensify the search for ways to achieve an Afghan settlement, Russia initiated the resumption of the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group’s activities and held a meeting of the group in October. In February and April, consultations on Afghan issues were held in the Moscow format in an effort to facilitate the process of national reconciliation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

8. Two visits by President Putin to China (the May meeting as part of the Belt and Road initiative and the September BRICS Summit) and the visit by President Xi Jinping to Russia in July reflected the positive dynamics of Russian-Chinese relations that are characterised by comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation.

Advancing a joint initiative for the peaceful settlement of the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula was one example of the strengthened mutual understanding between Moscow and Beijing on international security issues.

Dialogue and cooperation with Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines advanced at a good pace.

9. Relations with most countries of the Western Hemisphere retained their traditionally constructive quality. There were summits with Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela and Uruguay.

Contacts were established with the new US administration. Personal meetings between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump took place on the sidelines of the July G20 summit in Hamburg, as well as during the APEC forum in Danang. Interaction with Washington on the bilateral agenda and the resolution of pressing international issues was carried out to the extent that coincided with Russia’s national interests.

10. Russia met its commitments in the sphere of supporting WMD nonproliferation regimes. The process of liquidating Russia’s stockpiles of chemical weapons has been completed. Support for full implementation by all parties of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to resolve the situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme has remained a policy of principle.

11. In the context of work to preserve the historical truth about World War II, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in his speech at the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly, put forward an initiative to create an international legal framework against the destruction of memorial heritage.

12. Russia hosted major international forums, such as the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students (October), the 137th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (October), the 21st St Petersburg International Economic Forum (June), the Eastern Economic Forum (September), the 6th Moscow Conference on International Security (April), and the 8th International Meeting of High Representatives for Security Issues (May).

The FIFA Confederations Cup (June−July 2017) in Russia was the prologue to the FIFA World Cup. This major international sporting event will be held in our country in 2018.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3034243






Comment by the Information and Press Department on US representatives’ statements regarding Russia-Myanmar military-technical cooperation



26 January 2018 - 14:34



We have taken note of a statement made by the US State Department spokesperson criticising the recent Russia-Myanmar agreements on further expanding their military and military-technical cooperation. In this connection, we would like to point out the following.

Russia is actively involved in the international community’s efforts to facilitate the normalisation of the situation in Myanmar and is contributing to the search for various options to resolve the complicated issues concerning the country’s Rakhine State by political methods, while respecting the sovereignty of Myanmar and pledging non-interference in the domestic affairs of this state. Russia’s well-thought-out position helped find mutually acceptable compromises and stabilise the situation in Rakhine State. We are also providing the required humanitarian aid to the government of Myanmar.

At the same time, we believe that military-technical cooperation is a legitimate component of interstate relations, unless it contradicts the decisions of the UN Security Council. Deliveries of Russian military products to Myanmar aim to boost the country’s defence capability. Only a very vivid imagination of our State Department colleagues can perceive a link between this task and the threat of even greater sufferings of civilians.

In this connection, we would like to recall that the people of Southeast Asia have hardly forgotten the casualties and destruction inflicted on them by US weapons during numerous recent wars conducted by the United States in the region. However, this does not prevent Washington from selling lethal weapons to Southeast Asian countries and building up its military presence in direct proximity to this region.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3036433
__________________
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 27th, 2018 #347
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Article by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov: ”Russia and Australia: 75 Years of Cooperation” published in ”Australian Outlook”



23 January 2018 - 20:23



Last year marked the seventy-fifth anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and Australia. The past decades were rich in events and gave us plenty of examples of joint efforts for the benefit of our countries.

The history of Russia's contacts with the Australian continent is centuries-long. On June 16, 1807, the Russian sloop Neva called at Port Jackson (today Sydney) to replenish its stock of provisions and fresh water. The same year Lachlan Macquarie, a young officer who later became a prominent Australian politician and governor of New South Wales, visited Baku, Astrakhan, Moscow and St Petersburg on his way from Australia to London as a member of a diplomatic mission. Between 1807 and 1835, fifteen Russian vessels, including the ships on which famous Russian seafarers Faddey Bellinsgauzen and Mikhail Lazarev set sail to search for the Antarctic, called at Port Jackson and Hobart.

In the middle of the 19th century, the number of Russian immigrants in Australia started to increase. In 1857, two consular missions were opened in Melbourne and Sydney to protect interests of Russian nationals. Australian tradesmen James Damyon and Edmund Paul were appointed Honorary Vice Consuls. Later, the Russian Empire appointed Honorary Vice Consuls in Adelaide, Brisbane, Port Elizabeth, Hobart and Perth. In 1894, the Russian Honorary Vice Consulate in Melbourne was raised to a Consulate.

In London, on October 10, 1942, the USSR and Australia signed the Agreement on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations. On January 2, 1943, Australian diplomats came to Kuybyshev (today Samara) to set up an embassy, which was opened on January 26, on Australia Day. The Soviet diplomatic mission was established in Canberra in 1943.

We remember the support provided by Australia to our country during the harsh years of the war against fascism. Australia launched a broad campaign "Sheepskin for Russia", thanks to which our soldiers received about 400,000 sheepskin coats from Australia, and Soviet hospitals were supplied with about forty containers of medicine and medical equipment. The allied convoys with the participation of Australian pilots and sailors played an important role in the defeat of Nazism. For their distinguished service, they have been awarded Ushakov medals, as well as jubilee medals to commemorate succeeding anniversaries of the Victory in the 1941–1945 Great Patriotic War.

During the Cold War the relations between our countries remained mutually respectful. There were exchanges of messages at the top level on the most acute issues of international security, including the nuclear disarmament problem. The two countries signed a trade agreement (1965) and a number of other intergovernmental documents. In 1975, Edward Gough Whitlam became the first Australian Prime Minister to visit our country. Ten years later the volume of trade turnover peaked, exceeding $1 billion AUD.

Nowadays our countries maintain political dialogue, including at the highest level. President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin met Prime Minister of Australia Malcolm Turnbull on the sidelines of G20 Summits in Antalya (November 2015), Hangzhou (September 2016) and APEC forum in Lima (November 2016). Naturally, the two countries' approaches do not always coincide, but Russia is ready for broader cooperation based on mutual respect, the rule of law, non-interference into domestic affairs and regard for each other's interests.

The legal framework of bilateral relations continues to improve. Our countries signed several agreements: on the avoidance of double taxation (2000), on cooperation in the field of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes (2001) and on cooperation in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (2007).

We note considerable potential for building up interaction in trade and investment. In recent years, cooperation in mining sphere has deepened. Russian company UC Rusal has been successfully operating in the Australian market. Such mining companies as BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, WorleyParsons and Orica cooperate with Russia. Australian coal company Tigers Real Coal and its Russian partner JSC "Severo-Tikhookeanskaya Ugolnaya Kompaniya" ("North Pacific Coal Company") are jointly developing the Amaam coking coal field in the Chukotka Autonomous Region.

Cultural and humanitarian ties have been steadily enhancing. In the past two years, Australia hosted the performances of famous Russian musicians Maksim Vengerov and Denis Matsuev, as well as conductor Valery Gergiev with the London Symphony Orchestra. Russian pianists Andrey Gugnin and Arseny Tarasevich-Nikolaev won the Sydney International Piano Competition. In 2016 the annual film festival, called “Russian Resurrection”, was successfully held in five Australian cities – Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney, traditionally remains a memorable event. The State Hermitage Museum, which organized such exhibitions as "Alexander the Great" (2013) and "The Legacy of Catherine the Great" (2015), is a regular and welcome guest in Australia.

The Russian side annually allocates state scholarships for Australian citizens to study at Russian universities. A number of leading universities of our countries, such as Lomonosov Moscow State University, the Saint Petersburg Mining University and the University of New South Wales, are implementing the programmes of cooperation and student exchange.

Australia became home to many outstanding Russians, among whom was the world-renowned anthropologist and ethnographer Nicholas Miklouho-Maclay. Today more than 100,000 of our compatriots live in Australia; there are Russian language print and online media outlets, festivals of Russian culture are held.

Russia and Australia interact at the international level, primarily in the Asia-Pacific region, whose role in world politics and economy is steadily increasing. Moscow is interested in strengthening dialogue with Canberra, an active participant in regional groupings, in order to ensure stability and steady growth in the APR and build a regional architecture of equal and indivisible security based on non-aligned approach. We are ready to increase cooperative efforts to find effective responses to numerous challenges and threats, including terrorism and extremism, based on the fundamental norms and principles of international law and a central coordinating role of the United Nations.

We are convinced that there are necessary prerequisites for bringing Russian-Australian relations to a new level for the benefit of the peoples of our two states, in the interest of strengthening regional and global stability and security. What needs to be done is to put it all into practice.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3033187






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson



24 January 2018 - 16:08







On January 24, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at the US side’s initiative. The ministers discussed a broad range of issues on the bilateral agenda.

In particular, they expressed a common opinion that North Korea should strictly comply with the requirements of the UN Security Council, which repeatedly denounced North Korea’s nuclear test explosions and missile launches. At the same time, Sergey Lavrov cautioned against escalating tensions around the Korean Peninsula through aggressive rhetoric, anti-North Korean blocs and threats of a naval blockade. The Russian minister pointed out that Pyongyang had demonstrated readiness for dialogue and called for settling disputes exclusively by diplomatic means and with due regard for the related Russian-Chinese initiatives.

The two officials also discussed the settlement of the conflict in Syria, including the progress of the military operation in northern Syria and preparations for the intra-Syrian meeting in Vienna and the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, which is aimed at promoting the UN-led peace process. Sergey Lavrov repeated that only the Syrians themselves have the right to determine their country’s future.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3033597






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening ceremony of the 26th International Educational Christmas Readings, Moscow, January 24, 2018



24 January 2018 - 18:20








Your Holiness,

Your Excellence,

Colleagues and friends.

I would also like to extend my cordial greetings to the organisers, participants and guests of the 26th International Educational Christmas Readings.

It is a great honour for me to speak again at the opening of this forum that has become over the long years of its accomplishments a prestigious venue for discussing pressing issues on the Russian agenda, which are of concern to all of us. The initiatives and recommendations presented here are a useful contribution to Russia’s harmonious development and the consolidation of national civil, ethnic and religious peace and accord.

It is hard to overestimate the importance of the forum’s current theme (as was already mentioned). Speaking at the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on December 1, 2017, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin emphasised that today we are witnessing the erosion of traditional values in many countries, which leads to the mutual alienation and depersonalization of people.

Obviously, the revision of basic standards of morality, a permissive environment and tolerance reduced to an absurdity are doing irreparable damage to the moral health of people and depriving them of their cultural and civilisational roots. Thus, a number of EU countries are banning religious paraphernalia and depriving parents of the right to bring up their children in the spirit of Christian morality. There are other examples that his Holiness quoted in his opening remarks. I would like to recall that at one time the EU refused to include in its charter documents the idea that European civilisation has Christian roots. I believe those who are ashamed of their moral roots cannot respect those of other religions. Likewise, the latter have no respect of the former. This is creating a breeding ground for xenophobia and intolerance and opening the way to society’s self-destruction. It is important to vigorously oppose this pseudo-liberal policy that encourages destructive models of behavior.

Aggressive attempts to impose alien values on other nations are a source of deep concern.

The example of the Middle East and North Africa shows the consequences of irresponsible “social engineering.” Western interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – has created a political, legal and largely spiritual vacuum that has been filled by terrorists that challenge all of humanity. Representatives of all religions are being subjected to harassment and persecution. Christians are the hardest hit – being threatened with physical destruction, they have had to leave places of their historical residence on a massive scale. The situation in Syria appeared to be the most explosive.

Today, the situation in that much-suffering country is gradually improving. Owing to the support that the Russian armed forces rendered to the legitimate Government in Damascus and Moscow’s active diplomatic efforts, ISIS was routed in Syria, Syrian statehood was preserved and conditions were created for resolving humanitarian issues and reaching a real political settlement based on UN Security Council resolutions. At present we continue working on organising the Syrian National Dialogue Congress that is designed to help implement the agreements reached in the UN Security Council.

We will continue facilitating the settlement of other crises and conflicts that are, regrettably, so numerous in the Middle East. We believe that if they are overcome as soon as possible, people will be able to return home and destroyed churches will be restored. In cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church, the Vatican and our partners from Armenia, Belarus and other countries we have organised a kind of movement for the defence of Christians in the Middle East by conducting special events under the auspices of the OSCE and the UN Human Rights Council.

I cannot avoid mentioning neighbouring Ukraine that has also become a victim of highly dangerous geopolitical maneuvering. Those that came to power as a result of the coup are trying to drive a wedge between our two fraternal nations. An open battle is being conducted against the Russian language – this is the goal of the Ukrainian Law on Education that is crudely violating Kiev’s international commitments. Connivance at the seizure of cathedrals of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church and violence against its clergy and believers continues. Attempts to restrict the activities of this major religion in Ukraine and split church communities are ongoing. We demanded that the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the UN and the EU come up with a specific response to these illegal activities. We have not seen an adequate response so far.

We submitted to the UN and the OSCE a proposal to put an end to such a shameful and immoral phenomenon as the war against monuments that has been launched in Ukraine, Poland and some Baltic countries.

I would like to recall that the full and consistent implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures as approved by the UN Security Council is the only way of settling the domestic Ukrainian crisis and overcoming the dividing lines in society. The main obstacle on this road is the Kiev party of war that wants to bury the Minsk Agreements and is following in the wake of extremists, having announced the blockade of Donbass and adopted the law justifying the resolution of the domestic crisis by force by the Verkhovna Rada.

Your Holiness, dear friends.

Our diplomacy continues to uphold the moral values of international life and promote the principles of honesty, truth, kindness and justice in international relations. Despite the resistance, this policy enjoys broad support in the international community. More and more people in the world, including in Europe, are looking at this country as a defender of traditional values.

Reliance on the ideals that are common to all world religions, respect for the cultural identity and civilisational diversity of the nations of the world and their right to choose their own path of development is a major loadstar in the search for efficient answers to the many challenges and threats of our time. The Russian Foreign Ministry is ready to consolidate our productive cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church, its parishes abroad and other traditional religions of Russia.

I am sure that the Christmas Readings will make their contributions to the achievement of these and many other important tasks. I wish you productive work and interesting discussions.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3033884






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with the ambassadors of the CIS countries



25 January 2018 - 16:01







On January 25, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held the traditional meeting with the ambassadors of the CIS countries.

At the meeting the participants summed up the results of Russia’s CIS Presidency in 2017 and planned further steps to enhance CIS cooperation in a variety of areas, with an emphasis on closer foreign policy coordination.

The participants in the working breakfast exchanged views on the development of integration processes within the CIS, including the prospects for linking it with other regional organisations and discussed pressing international issues.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3034205
__________________
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 27th, 2018 #348
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 Kommersant newspaper, January 25, 2018



25 January 2018 - 10:36




Question:

What do you expect from the 2011 Russian-Georgian agreement on customs administration and monitoring of trade in goods? When will it come into effect?



Grigory Karasin:

We have high expectations of this agreement. We hope that it will give a powerful impetus to trade in the region. What has been hindering international trade since 2008? Georgia has not recognised the establishment of two independent states on its territory, which has created uncertainty regarding its customs border. The 2011 agreement has clarified this issue. This international treaty sets out the precise geographic coordinates of the sites where the Georgian customs checkpoints will be located. These sites include Kazbegi on the border with Russia, an area south of the Inguri River, beyond which lies the Republic of Abkhazia, and the area near Gori on the border with the Republic of South Ossetia.



Question:

Georgia has signed a contract with Switzerland’s SGS on monitoring the work of the Georgian customs authorities at the above checkpoints. When will Russia do the same?



Grigory Karasin:

We will do our best to complete the necessary domestic procedures before signing these documents within the next few months, and the agreement will become effective.



Question:

Is it right that Armenia will be the main beneficiary of this agreement? In other words, is Moscow doing this primarily at the request of Yerevan?



Grigory Karasin:

It is true that Armenia has asked for our assistance, but the case in point concerns a Swiss-mediated bilateral agreement between Russia and Georgia. This agreement does not stipulate any obligations by other countries, such as Abkhazia or South Ossetia.



Question:

The armed conflict in South Ossetia, which led to the severance of diplomatic relations between Russia and Georgia, happened nine years ago. Is there a possibility for revitalising dialogue between Moscow and Tbilisi?



Grigory Karasin:

First, I would like to say that the gradual revival of Russian-Georgian relations is ongoing. It began after Mikheil Saakashvili’s party lost the parliamentary elections in Georgia in October 2012. At that time, bilateral relations were in a deep crisis. It was precipitated by the consistent anti-Russia policy of the previous government that came to a head when Georgia attacked South Ossetia and Russian peacekeepers there in August 2008.

The new Georgian government stated a desire to resume dialogue with Russia. We responded to this positive signal immediately, because we have always advocated normalisation. The first meeting with the Special Envoy of the Georgian Prime Minister for Relations with Russia, Zurab Abashidze, was held as early as December 2012 in Prague and set the stage for regular contacts. Of course, we were aware of the complexity of this mission, and so we only discussed the revival and strengthening of bilateral relations in the areas where this is possible in the current situation.

It turned out that the window of the possible is quite large. Over the past five years, we have reached practical results in the interests of both countries. Georgian companies have been given access to the Russian market, contacts on practical matters are developing between Russian and Georgian bodies of power, and all restrictions on the issuance of Russian visas to Georgian citizens have been lifted. Our cultural, humanitarian and research ties are developing rapidly.

Another positive element was the participation of the Georgian team in the Sochi Olympics. The normalisation of bilateral relations has helped us secure the release and return home of all Russian citizens who were sentenced to prison terms on trumped up charges during Saakashvili’s rule. We also hope to use available cooperation mechanisms between our law enforcement agencies to secure the extradition from Georgia to Russia of Yusup Lakayev, who shot Russian diplomat Dmitry Vishernev and his wife in Sukhum in September 2013.



Question:

You did not mention tourism, which is one of the most promising cooperation areas.



Grigory Karasin:

You are absolutely right: this aspect has a tremendous potential. Russian tourists are once again visiting Georgia en masse, providing the Georgian economy with substantial profit, for that matter.

Unfortunately, the Foreign Ministry is forced to notify Russian citizens about major risks incurred during their trips to Georgia.

Tbilisi stubbornly refuses to abolish the discriminatory Occupied Territories Law, passed by the administration of Mikheil Saakashvili, which stipulates criminal liability for vising Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Violating this law carries either a fine of up to $3,000 or a prison term of up to four years. Although this repressive legislation has not been applied to Russian citizens lately, we cannot rule out this possibility.

To be honest, it is very hard to provide full-fledged consular support and, if necessary, to protect the rights of Russian tourists in Georgia at a time when our countries don’t maintain diplomatic relations.



Question:

Can Russia itself initiate the restoration of diplomatic relations?



Grigory Karasin:

It was Georgia that severed diplomatic relations. Tbilisi believes that Russia must withdraw its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as sovereign and independent states, and this is their precondition for restoring relations. But we will never agree to this. Our decision is final. We are expanding allied relations with these two young Caucasus republics. We have a substantial contractual and legal framework stipulating deeper cooperation.

We will respond positively as soon as the Georgian side voices its readiness to reinstate diplomatic relations, with due account for new realities.



Question:

You have mentioned the lifting of visa restrictions for Georgian citizens. Will it be possible to abolish visas completely, now that all Russians have been traveling to Georgia visa-free for a long time?



Grigory Karasin:

Georgia has abolished visas for people from almost 100 foreign countries, mostly unilaterally. States striving to attract foreign tourists resort to this standard practice. Of course, one should not automatically count on reciprocity in visa regulations in the modern world, since there are greater security risks. It took Georgia years of negotiations and intensive “homework”, including amendments to national legislation, to secure agreement on the visa-free regime for short trips to Schengen Area countries, although Georgia waived visas for European Union citizens in 2006.

This is a complicated issue. But the Russian side has repeatedly noted that it does not rule out the possibility of introducing visa-free travel with Georgia on a reciprocal basis.



Question:

When can this happen?



Grigory Karasin:

I don’t want to speculate on this issue today. I repeat, we want to reduce all visa restrictions to the greatest possible extent, and we are ready to think about a visa-free regime.



Question:

What prevents you from acting on it?



Grigory Karasin:

This mostly includes security considerations that I have already mentioned. I am referring to the effective efforts against terrorism and extremism – in a word, against the evil which sometimes penetrates Russia. We have also discussed these aspects at our meetings with Georgian representatives. If we establish effective contacts in this area, I see no reasons why this couldn’t happen.



Question:

The argument regarding security considerations sounds rather doubtful at a time when Russia has visa-free relations with Central Asian countries.



Grigory Karasin:

Don’t forget that these countries are members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Visa-free travel for individuals is an important aspect of intra-CIS integration processes.



Question:

Nevertheless …



Grigory Karasin:

Georgian special forces regularly arrest suspected terrorists in the Pankisi Gorge and even in Tbilisi. One such operation was conducted quite recently. Therefore, we cannot overlook these threats. This is a reality, rather than a hypothetic conjecture.



Question:

Still, what can encourage Russia to move toward ending visa requirements with Georgia?



Grigory Karasin:

We need to think, cooperate and to work together to block all terrorist and extremist channels. If we succeed in this sphere, this will fortify our confidence regarding visa-free travel.



Question:

Will Georgian football fans have any problems with attending 2018 FIFA World Cup matches in Russia?



Grigory Karasin:

Those who have tickets and Fan IDs can safely go to Russia to cheer for their favourite teams.



Question:

Zurab Abashidze has recently complained in an interview that Moscow “doesn’t intend to withdraw its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia” and that this is the reason for the deadlock in Russian-Georgian political relations. This may mean that Tbilisi hoped the revival of trade, tourism and cultural relations with Georgia would encourage Russia to revise its position on Abkhazia and South Ossetia.



Grigory Karasin:

I wouldn’t say that our relations are deadlocked. However, it is true that there is a major political obstacle that is hindering the full normalisation of bilateral relations. This obstacle is the stubborn unwillingness of the Georgian authorities to recognise the political realities that developed after August 2008 and to revise their defiant decision to sever diplomatic relations with Russia.

Tbilisi officials like to say that they normalised relations with Russia primarily to encourage Moscow to withdraw its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and that they are disappointed. Of course, they are playing a double game. As a man who was instructed, alongside Mr Abashidze, by both countries’ leadership to launch a dialogue on normalisation in December 2012, I can tell you that we started by cautioning our Georgian partners against thinking that the resumption of bilateral relations could undermine our interstate cooperation with the independent republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. These are two completely different processes.

We intend to continue working pragmatically towards improving bilateral relations. Russia will go along the normalisation path as far as Tbilisi is prepared to go. We are interested in full resumption of neighbourly relations between Russia and Georgia, but then again, not if this implies the renunciation of landmark decisions regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia.



Question:

Tbilisi claims that it wants to reconcile with its Abkhazian and Ossetian brothers. What does Moscow think about this?



Grigory Karasin:

It is more important what Sukhum and Tskhinval think about this. As far as I know, they are deeply suspicious, which is not surprising. While pretending to be a friend, the Georgian Foreign Ministry has been making titanic efforts to build a wall around Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Prompted by Georgia, Western countries routinely deny visas to the citizens of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and the United States has prevented Sukhum and Tskhinval representatives from attending meetings at the UN Headquarters so that nothing impeded the adoption of the politically charged and biased resolution on refugees and displaced persons, which Georgia submits every year. Georgian embassies issue angry protest notes even on such minor occasions as a photo exhibition featuring images of South Ossetian landscapes in a European capital. They have prevented a sporting event. The Georgian Ambassador to the UK has recently become aware a modest monument in the Scottish town of Kilmarnock in memory of the Sukhum residents who died in the Abkhazian/Georgian conflict. She demanded that the monument be removed because it was adorned with the Abkhazian flag. It should be said that the local authorities refused to succumb to this paranoia and have preserved the monument.

At the same time, the Georgian authorities promise medical and educational benefits in Georgia and even visa-free travel to Europe for Abkhazians and South Ossetians if they declare themselves to be Georgian citizens. This is self-explanatory.

In this context, I have to mention the absurd concept of “Russian occupation.” Tbilisi does not seem to realise that Abkhazians and South Ossetians feel deeply insulted by this propaganda cliché, which has nothing to do with reality. This concept is evidence of Georgian hubris and disrespect for the citizens of these two republics.

Instead of laying the blame at Moscow’s door, the Georgian authorities should ask themselves what hinders their dialogue with Sukhum and Tskhinval.



Question:

What about the talks in Geneva? What do you think about Georgia’s proposal to raise their level?



Grigory Karasin:

As Andrei Gromyko used to say, “ten years of talks are better than one day of war.” In this sense the Geneva discussions fully justify themselves. However, because of Georgia’s position, the participants cannot move towards the main goal of these discussions – to ensure reliable security for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is how this objective was formulated in the agreements of Dmitry Medvedev and Nicholas Sarkozy. The Georgian delegation has been disrupting for years even the adoption of a joint statement by the participants on the non-use of force. This is no accident considering the consolidation of Georgia’s military potential by NATO and the United States. NATO is building its infrastructure in the country. It is planning to supply or already supplying Tbilisi with the latest multi-million dollar worth weapons systems: French air defence systems and US anti-tank missile systems. The United States is launching a programme to train Georgian servicemen.



Question:

But in effect these actions are aimed at smoothing over NATO’s refusal to accept Georgia into NATO, and they do not change much in reality.



Grigory Karasin:

We are familiar with this “smoothing” approach. But the Russian Federation is primarily concerned with the real consolidation of the military-political block’s presence on our borders. It openly calls us its rival and opponent and it is not a neighbor but an external player. This is what concerns us in real earnest.

Under the circumstances, the demand for Russian defence cooperation with Abkhazia and South Ossetia is growing and is increasingly justified. We will continue strengthening it to reliably guarantee the peaceful life of these republics.



Question:

But, in turn, Russia’s intention to maintain close military-technical cooperation with Abkhazia and South Ossetia raises Tbilisi’s concerns.



Grigory Karasin:

Let me repeat: Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Georgia are our neighbours whereas NATO is an external party. The United States is actively building up its presence in Georgia, which is a source of growing concern for us. We want peace and quiet on our borders. This is why we have two military bases in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. They are not to threaten anybody but guarantee that nobody will attack these young Caucasian republics, and if someone dares attack them, they will receive an appropriate response.

As for your question about the statement of the Georgian Prime Minister on his willingness to take part in the discussions… It is the position of the participants that matters rather than their level. But as long as it isn’t constructive or realistic, we cannot expect a breakthrough in Geneva.



Question:

Tbilisi is accusing Russia of substantially consolidating the borders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with Georgia. What can you tell us about this?



Grigory Karasin:

Much has been done in the last few years to reduce tensions along Georgia’s border with Abkhazia and South Ossetia and to ensure a normal life for local residents. This is a result of the successful work of the mechanisms on preventing and investigating incidents, which were established during the Geneva discussions. The authorities of the independent republics and Russian frontier guards that are there under bilateral agreements have done much to establish these mechanisms. In 2017, the Georgian-Abkhazian border was crossed by over 1.2 million people and the Georgian-South Ossetian border by about 200,000 people. These are indicative figures. Regrettably, instead of taking part in constructive efforts to get daily life back on track in the border areas, Georgia has focused on staging propaganda shows to justify its thesis about “a new Berlin Wall.” Some of them are simply absurd: a local person has been hired for communication with foreign visitors and video tape recordings and constantly reads the same text.

Summing up, I would like to return to a bitter anniversary in centuries-long Russian-Georgian history – 10 years since Georgia ruptured its diplomatic relations with Russia. I would like to hope that this date will signify a turn for the better. This is possible if the views on the past are duly revised and if the states of the region realise the need to develop equitable and mutually respectful cooperation. There is no reasonable alternative to this.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3033992






Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov's comment regarding the Paris meeting of the so-called International Partnership Against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons



25 January 2018 - 22:26




We took note of a number of revealing circumstances connected with the meeting held in Paris on January 23 on the launch of an “International Partnership Against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons.”

Ultimately, 24 states, most of which are members of the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), took part in the event summoned by Paris and Washington. It appears that they considered it possible to join the agreements establishing the above pseudo-nonproliferation regime.

Notably, neither Russia nor, as far as we know, China were even invited to that meeting. Moreover, preparations for this clandestine “get-together” were conducted in secret. When we began to ask suggestive questions about this event, our colleagues in Paris and Washington were noticeably embarrassed and even “upset.” In a word, their original scenario went awry. That said, the anti-Syrian and anti-Russian orientation of their designs came out loud and clear.

The evil attacks against Syria and Russia during the Paris meeting went beyond professional ethics and elementary decency. The tone, of course, was set by the United States, which openly accused Russia of the continued use of toxic chemicals and full-fledged chemical warfare agents in Syria. Russia allegedly failed to comply with its share of the commitments under Russia-US agreements of 2013 on Syria's chemical demilitarisation and allegedly covers such “crimes of Damascus.”

The true intentions of the organisers of the “voluntary partnership” can be seen from the political “mutual understanding” achieved in Paris concerning the collection and accumulation of information about the perpetrators of the use of chemical weapons – “individuals and legal entities, organisations and governments” – with an eye towards imposing sanctions on them at national and supranational levels and passing judicial and legal rulings. All of this fundamentally contradicts the universally recognised international norms, runs counter to the spirit and letter of the UN Charter, and the UN Security Council’s work methods.

As a warning to those who do not share the goals of “partnership,” this approach was reinforced by an immediate decision of the French organisers to impose unilateral sanctions against 25 Syrian officials and entities. On top of this, they openly declared their “right” to impose such national sanctions, which will allegedly “help” international organisations. Literally, things were turned upside down.

The cynicism of those behind the venture with “partnership” clearly manifests itself in ongoing attempts to convince everyone of the “universal nature” of this “partnership” that is allegedly “not directed” against any country.

In fact, it is, of course, an attempt to de facto substitute the functions of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the UN Security Council. There is a real threat of erosion of the international non-proliferation regime, which took decades to form.

We call on the CWC member countries to show political will and wisdom. One cannot yield to the dictate of a group of those who are ready to use such objectionable methods of demonising the legitimate Syrian government with a view to subsequently topple it. “Partnership” is a way to “bind” its participants with political commitments to jointly promote anti-Syrian decisions in the UN Security Council and the OPCW.

We would like to remind you that the government led by Bashar al-Assad volunteered to join the CWC back in 2013 and, in the shortest term and in the most difficult conditions of a bloody war with international terrorism, refused to possess chemical weapons and ensured its complete destruction with the assistance of the international community and under close supervision by the OPCW. The United States took a direct part in this.

Unsubstantiated accusations against Syria and Russia continue to pour in amid relapses of chemical terrorism in the Middle East with the connivance of the West, brazen provocations by militants with the use of toxic chemicals, and – importantly – with Washington's unwillingness to honour at least its own commitments to destroy the US stocks of chemical weapons.

It was at the insistence of the United States that the CWC set an unrealistically ambitious deadline for the global destruction of chemical arsenals – 2007. Clearly, this deadline was not met. More than a decade passed since then. The vast majority of countries – including us – fulfilled their obligations.

However, the situation is completely different with the liquidation of chemical weapons in the United States, which undoubtedly possesses all the necessary financial, industrial, scientific and technical resources to resolve this matter. Despite this, it irresponsibly postpones, time and again, the complete destruction of its own chemical arsenal. Now, it turns out that Washington owns the world's largest stockpile of chemical weapons – more than 2,500 tonnes of the most dangerous weapons-grade poisonous substances.

Thus, the United States carefully preserves the forbidden for all others type of weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, it needs them for some reason.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3034601






Statement by Permanent Representative of Russia to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting, Vienna, January 25, 2018



26 January 2018 - 12:08



on the situation in Ukraine and the importance of fulfilling the Minsk Agreements




Mr Chairperson,

Our view of the Ukrainian conflict remains unchanged. It is crucial that the Minsk Agreements are fulfilled in their entirety through a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. We are ready to offer our assistance in every way possible.

Despite the New Year ceasefire, Kiev is building up its military activity at the contact line in Donbass and provoking an escalation of the conflict. On January 21, the Ukrainian security forces opened fire at a bus with 50 civilians near the town of Yelenovka. One person was killed, one more injured. The Special Monitoring Mission confirmed that the attack was carried out from the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ positions in its January 22 report. On January 22, an infantry combat vehicle and a mortar gun were used to attack Dokuchayevsk. Five people were injured.

Over the period between January 15-21, the observers spotted 26 military weapons of the Ukrainian Army in violation of the Minsk Agreements and 89 heavy arms of the same forces directly outside the withdrawal lines.

Fresh trenches have been discovered leading from the Ukrainian Army’s position to a water-pumping station in Vasilyevka, a crucial facility of the civilian infrastructure. The Ukrainian Armed Forces are provoking exchanges of fire near the Donetsk filtration plant as well.

The Special Monitoring Mission has recorded 450 cases of unaccounted for artillery guns, mortars and tanks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces that disappeared from their storage facilities. We are warning Kiev officials against any risky military undertakings in an attempt to set up authority over Donbass by force. We hope that the Special Monitoring Mission will intensify its monitoring, which may have a restraining effect on the Ukrainian Army.

Verkhovna Rada’s bill on reintegrating Donbass is another step towards escalation. The bill is a de jure affirmation of Kiev’s refusal to perform the Minsk Agreements in addition to their actual sabotaging. This unilateral measure on Kiev’s part will only aggravate the conflict. All the matters regarding the Donbass conflict resolution under the Minsk Package of Measures must be agreed upon between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk.

We would like to hear an explanation of how the said bill corresponds with the provisions of the Minsk Agreements on amnesty in relation to Donbass events, with the law on the special status of Donbass and with the holding of local elections, the modalities of which must be agreed with Donetsk and Lugansk representatives.

The bill qualifies the government forces’ actions in Donbass as a military operation. All security and law-enforcement services must report to the military. The President is granted the right to approve “the operation staff,” which can use force against civilians across the country without declaring martial law. Ukrainian officials are absolving themselves of responsibility for their actions as they hide behind the imaginary enemy figure they see in Russia. Representatives of several areas in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions who signed the Minsk Agreements are referred to as “occupation administration.”

Thus, Kiev is legalising its violent scenario for solving the Donbass problem and the Ukrainian President is given the right to use the army to suppress dissent in the country. Moreover, the bill in fact justifies supplies of lethal weapons to Ukraine which will be used to kill civilians in Donbass.

On the contrary, to stabilise the situation it is necessary to stop the punitive operation regardless of whether it is called an ‘anti-terrorist operation’ or given another name. Orders to the Ukrainian Armed Forces that prohibit the use of weapons must be published. Nationalist armed units must be removed from the conflict zone and subsequently disbanded. Heavy armaments must be withdrawn to storage facilities. Finally, it is time to implement the disengagement of forces in the area of Stanitsa Luganskaya.

Let me remind you that the issue of Kiev regaining control of the border will be resolved only when a comprehensive political settlement is achieved as specified in the Package of Measures. It cannot be pretended that there are no political obligations under this document approved by a UN Security Council resolution.

We welcome the January 6 order from the administration of several districts in the Donetsk region that prohibits creating obstacles for the Special Monitoring Mission observers. Overall, last week the observers confronted restrictions 22 times in the government-controlled territory and 12 times beyond it.

We urge the OSCE mission leaders to strengthen cooperation with Donbass officials. It is important to use local opportunities for performing the tasks that were earlier assisted with by Russian officers from the Joint Coordination and Control Centre.

Escalation in Donbass is directly related to the political turbulence in Ukraine. Nationalistic hysteria is manifested, among other things, in the discriminatory law on education, on television and radio broadcasting, in the toughened entry rules to Ukraine, in the encouragement of attacks on the Orthodox Church and, most importantly, in the incitement of militarist sentiments.

The Special Monitoring Mission reported that during a rally in Kiev on January 16, members of the Donbass voluntary battalion and the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, wearing bulletproof vests and armed with batons, set car tyres on fire. On the same day, there was an attack on the Socialist Party’s office in Dnepropetrovsk. The other week, radicals present in courtroom forced the court in Odessa to acquit an instigator of mass riots.

This is a powerful tool to put pressure on the authorities. The nationalists are denying the rule of law and dictating their own rules to courts and local governments. They remain one of the biggest obstacles in the way of peaceful settlement. Kiev’s readiness to honestly fulfill the Minsk Agreements can be judged, among other things, by the measures it takes to restrain radical nationalists.

In conclusion, we would like, once again, to warn Kiev and its supporters against any attempts to enforce the military scenario. We must all work towards establishing peace in Ukraine as soon as possible.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3036305
__________________
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 27th, 2018 #349
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 25, 2018



25 January 2018 - 19:18








Italy’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Angelino Alfano to come to Moscow on a working visit

Talks are due to be held in Moscow on February 1 between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Angelino Alfano, who will be in Russia on a working visit in his capacity as Acting Chairman of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

During their talk the two foreign ministers will focus on the OSCE agenda for 2018, including the organisation’s role in finding collective answers to the challenges facing Europe, building indivisible security and restoring confidence on the continent. The fight against terror, drug trafficking and cyber-threats, harmonising integration processes in Europe and Eurasia, preservation of traditional values and the rights of ethnic minorities will also be touched on.

Among other topics to be discussed are promoting the settlement of regional crises in the OSCE space, including in Ukraine, Transnistria and Transcaucasia, and the priorities of the Italian chairmanship, such as the Mediterranean and dealing with the migration crisis in Europe.

Other topical foreign policy issues will also be discussed.

The two ministers will continue their trust-based dialogue with a view to further developing multi-faceted and diverse Russian-Italian cooperation in the political, trade, economic, cultural and humanitarian spheres, notably in the context of implementing agreements reached at the top level.



Foreign Minister Lavrov to take part in gala event to mark the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad

As you know, pursuant to the Russian Government’s directive of June 6, 2017 passed in accordance with President Putin’s executive order of February 18, 2017, the 75th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi troops by Soviet forces in the Battle of Stalingrad will be widely celebrated in this country.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in a commemorative event at the Foreign Ministry Mansion at 4 pm on February 1. Invited to the event sponsored by the Foreign Ministry are representatives of the diplomatic corps, both houses of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Defence, the Russian Academy of Sciences institutes, civic and veterans’ organisations.

The participants will see an exhibition of documents from the Russian Federation’s Foreign Policy Archive.



Developments in Syria

Syria is at a crossroads. The defeat of ISIS, achieved with the decisive role of the Russian Aerospace Forces, has made it possible to move closer towards ending the internal fratricidal conflict and reaching a political settlement on issues that caused a split in Syrian society seven years ago.

A solid foundation for these processes exists in the form of de-escalation zones, established with the support of the Astana format. They make it possible to take practical steps towards improving the humanitarian situation, restoring damaged infrastructure and implementing measures to facilitate the voluntary return of refugees and temporarily displaced persons.

As we have already announced, Sochi will host the Syrian National Dialogue Congress next week, on January 29-30. Apart from Russia, Turkey and Iran are actively involved in preparations for the Congress. Invitations are being sent out to 1,600 Syrian participants. UN representatives and a number of regional and international partners have been invited to attend as observers.

Our efforts are designed to bring about peace and stability in Syria without delay, put its economy back on track and enable refugees to return to their homes. We hope that all those sincerely interested in seeing an end to the armed conflict will encourage the Syrians to voice constructive positions during this unique intra-Syrian event.

Unfortunately, other scenarios exist too. A delay in restoring the unity of Syrian society is fraught with new dangerous challenges, including the current developments in Afrin, where units of the Turkish Armed Forces jointly with the Syrian opposition are conducting a military operation. As you know, the Turkish side is presenting this as a response to security threats to Turkey in northern Syria at a time when the Syrian government does not control this territory.

We have also attentively read the January 17 speech by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at Stanford University. His speech unveiled the new US strategy for Syria. Statements by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson show that, from now on, US partners intend to prioritise a political approach. This is certainly good.

At the same time, the Americans continue to state that their aim is to remove Syria’s legitimate President Bashar Al-Assad from power. Washington announced plans to maintain an open-ended military presence in sovereign Syria. For some reason, the US did not seek the opinion of Syria’s government on this matter, although that country is a full member of the United Nations.

We strongly believe that this approach is at odds with the international law and does nothing to promote the peaceful settlement of domestic issues in the country under UN Security Resolution 2254.

Following US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s speech at Stanford, US military sources have reported the establishment of US-sponsored border protection units in northern Syria, an area with a majority Kurdish population. Therefore, the US strategy with regard to that country is perceived as nothing but a line aiming to dismember the country.

We are not sure whether Washington has asked itself as to whether the Syrian Kurds or neighbouring Arabs, Assyrians, Turkomans and Circassians want this to happen.

We are certain that it is unacceptable to turn Syria into a stage for confrontation between external forces pursuing their own interests. The people of Syria themselves must determine the future of their country. We hope that the upcoming Sochi forum will become an important step along this road.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov may attend the forum.



The situation in Yemen

We are keeping a close watch on the military, political and humanitarian situation in the Republic of Yemen as fighting continues on its territory between supporters of the Houthi movement Ansar Allah and armed formations loyal to President of Yemen Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi.

In this connection, we paid attention to the latest reports about alleged agreements to hold talks in Muscat, the capital of the Sultanate of Oman, between representatives of the Houthis and a UN delegation. As we understand, these contacts are supposed to pave the way for discussions on the resumption of full-fledged intra-Yemeni consultations that have been frozen since their previous round in Kuwait City in the spring-summer of 2016.

Moscow would eagerly welcome this scenario as matching our principled viewpoint that it is up to the Yemenis themselves to determine the future of their own state and achieve national harmony on the subsequent reconstruction of Yemen with due regard for the opinions if all key Yemeni political forces.

We have taken notice of the intention of the “Arab coalition” supporting President Hadi to embark on a comprehensive humanitarian operation that envisages the delivery of relief aid to the worst-stricken areas of Yemen and the opening of land, sea and air corridors needed for these purposes. We hope that these measures will in fact help alleviate the suffering of Yemeni civilians, who are facing acute shortages of food, medicines and other essential goods.



Developments concerning the Middle East peace process

Serious tension persists in matters concerning a Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement. This tension is being projected on the security situation on the Palestinian territories where the Palestinians continue to clash with representatives of the Israeli law enforcement agencies after US President Donald Trump’s statement on Jerusalem and after US Vice President Mike Pence’s visit to the region. At the same time, the Israeli authorities continue to build new settlements on the occupied Palestinian territories.

Because of this situation, we consider the further escalation of violence and military confrontation to be unacceptable.

At the same time, we are guided by our principled position in support of the two-state formula for a Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement stipulating the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with the capital in East Jerusalem and its coexistence with Israel in peace and security. We continue to energetically encourage the conflicting parties to move towards this solution with the active involvement of the international community. For this purpose, it would be necessary to activate the potential of the Middle East quartet of international mediators.

We support intensive direct contacts with the Israelis and Palestinians and other regional parties for ensuring a long-term Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement.



Developments in Afghanistan

The situation in Afghanistan remains highly complicated despite the expanding foreign military presence there. Taliban remain combat-ready and continue to stage terrorist attacks even in Kabul.

Here is a graphic example: On January 20, Taliban members attacked the heavily guarded Intercontinental Hotel. The media provides conflicting reports when it comes to the death toll, but over 40 people, including 14 foreigners, are reported to have been killed. The figure includes citizens of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Germany and the United States. According to the available information, US special forces were involved in a special operation to eliminate the terrorists. Unfortunately, this shows the inability of the Afghan law enforcement agencies to independently ensure security at major public facilities, including hotels.

We are offering our condolences to the families and friends of the deceased and are wishing a speedy recovery to the wounded.

We are concerned about a report about the abduction of a UN mission official and her son by unknown persons on January 23 in Kabul. We are urging the authorities of Afghanistan to take all necessary action to release the hostages and to bring the criminals to account.

Obviously, the deteriorating security situation in the capital of Afghanistan does not meet the expectations of the United States regarding its new Afghan strategy. We doubt that the deployment of an extra 1,000 US service personnel by the Pentagon, in addition to 4,000 officers and soldiers who have already been deployed in Afghanistan can rectify these terrifying and disheartening trends. We remain convinced that the launching of the national reconciliation process is a key to stabilising the situation in Afghanistan. However, it appears that Washington does not prioritise intra-Afghan dialogue but continues to stake on military force instead.



Developments in connection with the assassination of Serbian politician Oliver Ivanović in Kosovo

The assassination of prominent Serbian politician Oliver Ivanović in Kosovo on January 16 is a terrorist attack directed against the Kosovo Serbs. It is an extremely grave incident, which undermines peace and stability in the area and is fraught with upheavals in the Balkans as a whole.

We support Belgrade’s demands to let the Serbian relevant authorities and police structures to join the investigation. We would like to note in particular that this step in no way contradicts UN Security Council’s fundamental Resolution 1244, which defined the international legal framework for Kosovo settlement.

We are surprised by the detached attitude adopted by the EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX Kosovo), which was deployed in the area with the approval of the UN Security Council. The EULEX heads have actually abstracted themselves from the investigation, placing the matter entirely in the hands of the Kosovo police. The question that has to be answered in this connection is where has “the EU’s key role” in the Balkans, which the Brussels bureaucrats have been doting on for years, gotten to?

In the meantime, the results of the investigation into the Ivanović case are nowhere to be seen and Belgrade’s requests for a joint effort are being ignored. One has the impression that Pristina and its sponsors have something to hide.

At the same time, we have a positive view of Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić’s visit to Kosovo on January 20-21, which made it possible to mitigate tensions in the area that had been destabilised by the assassination of the Serbian politician.

The assassination of Oliver Ivanović confirms our repeated warnings about the inadequacy of the Kosovo pseudo-state, the fragility of the situation in the area, and lawlessness that reigns supreme there. All of this has prepared the ground for systematic anti-Serb actions and spiraling violence, which is expressed in daily desecrations of Orthodox shrines, and attacks and destruction of property.

We would like to stress that this particular terrorist attack testifies to the need for multilateral organisations to constantly focus on the situation in Kosovo and adhere to the schedule for reporting by the international presences in Pristina, at the UN Security Council and the OSCE. It is important to approach the situation in the area in a proactive and objective manner, a situation that is evoking increased concern and is laden, as is now clear to everyone, with a direct threat to peace and security in the region.

We call on all parties concerned to pull efforts in order to carry out, as soon as possible, an exhaustive investigation so as to identify the culprits and bring them to justice.



Possible review of the 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina

We strongly disagree with the ideas circulating again in the US parliamentary and expert circles regarding the possible review of the 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Agreement) and convening an international conference dubbed Dayton 2. As Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted at the news conference at the UN Headquarters on January 19, we are against replacing or revising the Dayton Agreement. Even more so, because, to our knowledge, this initiative implies imposing some external new models of state structure on the Bosnian parties. In our opinion, these attempts are not just unacceptable and inappropriate but may in fact sabotage the post-conflict settlement in the country and destabilise the situation in the Balkans in general.

As one of the guarantors of the Dayton Agreement, Russia continues to consistently support strict compliance with its terms. We believe that any further development of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a decentralised democratic state may be only ensured by the strong and balanced foundation of the treaty and reliance on the broad authority of the two territorial entities (the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) set forth in the 1995 peace agreement, as well as the equality of the three constituent ethnicities (Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats).

We call for our foreign partners to respect the Bosnians’ sovereign right to independently solve all arising issues through the dialogue within the framework of the Dayton Agreement. We support the dissolution of the Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina with its protectorate presence. We intend to further proactively assist the Bosnian parties in the implementation of the Dayton Agreement, develop mutually beneficial links with Bosnia and Herzegovina and its entities in politics, trade, the economy, culture as well as the humanitarian area.



Publications in Colombian media suggesting Russia’s possible interference with elections in the country

We have noted the publications in the Colombian media suggesting Russia’s “possible interference” with the upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections.

We can see that these allegations are being planted, as if they have been commanded, in the countries where election campaigns are underway this year – Mexico, Brazil, now it is Colombia’s turn. The source of these ‘fakes’ is easy to track.

Most remarkably, nobody is even trying to hide that the source of this misinformation is far outside these states.

I think there is no point in saying and repeating that all these fantasies and reports are based on misinformation. Apparently, some countries, not far from Latin America (we suspect it is a country directly in the north of the American continent), are very displeased with the gradually developing Russia-Latin America relations, which are true cooperation, and with the warm and sincere friendship and affinity that are uniting our nations. As you know, in the past years the relations between Russia and Latin American countries have progressed both bilaterally and within international integration associations and organisations.

Frankly speaking, I would like to take this opportunity and let those who are spreading these allegations know that they should have no doubts, our relations with Latin America are stable, as I said, friendly and are not threatened by any fluctuations. Russia maintains links with all the states in the region and their governments of diverse political orientation. It is good to know that for Latin American countries, strengthening relations with Russia is also an important component of their foreign policy based on extensive internal consensus. They speak about this publicly during talks; they visit Russia or welcome us in their country and we value this, of course. Russia has never interfered and will never interfere with any elections in other countries as it goes against the fundamental principles of Russia’s foreign policy.

We understand and welcome the regional governments’ aspiration to ensure that the elections are honest, open and bring victory to a candidate who has the largest support among the voters. There is a certain pragmatic benefit for us in that because a democratic election process according to a country’s internal regulations is mandatory for steady development of Latin America.

We expect that professionalism of Latin American politicians and the media will help them avoid statements and publications that contain unveracious rumours as well as unsubstantiated accusations against Russia.



Preparation and monitoring of the presidential election in the Russian Federation

Citizens of the Russian Federation living abroad will be able to vote for a presidential candidate at one of the 365 polling stations that are being set up. As usual in such cases, we expect cooperation and assistance on the part of local law enforcement and the relevant agencies of the host countries in securing the polling stations and voters on polling day.

As regards the organisation of the work of international observers, we expect 500 observers from the OSCE, and also, on a bilateral basis, from other international structures, such as the CIS, the IPA CIS, the SCO and the PA CSTO. We are ready to cooperate with all of them in accordance with Russian electoral legislation.

We can already report some problem issues. We regret to note that not all the countries, including those that call themselves democratic, are meeting us halfway in terms of ensuring free expression of the will of our citizens. Thus, Latvia and Estonia, in a departure from previous practice, have banned voting outside the foreign missions.

We also have information about some countries’ plans for destructive interference in Russia’s internal affairs in the context of the presidential election campaign. I would like to stress again that such attempts will be aggressively shut down. If they do not stop, we will have to take corresponding retaliatory measures including a public response and disclosure of the data in our possession.



Anniversary of the liberation of Warsaw

I would like to draw your attention to a momentous event in our common history with Poland. Unfortunately, the Polish media have paid no attention to the event, just like last year. January 17 was the 73rd anniversary of the liberation of Warsaw from the Nazi occupation by the forces of the First Belarusian Front and the First Army of the Polish People’s Army. If the Polish media did not see fit to comment on this event, I’ll have to say it from Moscow. I’ll tell you how the event was marked in Poland, in what cities a consistent effort to eradicate historical memory yielded its evil fruit and where the liberation anniversary is still remembered and marked.

Unfortunately, the Polish veterans’ organisations, which held memorial events on the occasion, were prevented from laying flowers at the unknown soldier’s grave in Warsaw. Ceremonies were held at the monument to the soldiers of the First Army of the Polish People’s Army and the memorial cemetery for Soviet soldiers on Zvirka and Vigura Streets. Police officials laid a wreath at the monument to the First Polish Army on behalf of the Mayor of Warsaw, and that was all the authorities did as part of the event. I have to note that representatives of the Russian Embassy and our Belarusian colleagues took part in the ceremonies. The gala reception to mark the anniversary of the liberation of the Polish capital at the Russian Science and Culture Centre in Warsaw was also attended by diplomats from the embassies of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Against the general background of fighting the past, something certain Polish politicians have been engaging in with abandon in recent years, there are nevertheless a small number of local authorities, which manage to prevent such blatant devaluation and distortion of Polish history in their cities. Thus, on January 18, memorial ceremonies at the monument to Soviet soldiers at the Rakowice Cemetery in Krakow were led by the city’s mayor. A little earlier, similar events took place on a large scale in the city of Radom.

It is deplorable that Polish citizens are being deprived of such an important and joyous event in their history. Instead of seeking to make the younger generation proud of their ancestors, who gave their lives for their country fighting side by side with the Red Army to defeat Nazism, people are being fed values and priorities that are sometimes highly contradictory and make people forget the real past. It is heartening that in spite of everything one can still see historical justice prevail in Poland. One can only guess what pressure these courageous people have to withstand today. For our part, we congratulate all Polish veterans and our veterans (of course, we regularly congratulate our veterans) who fought on this front on their victory in the war. Make no mistake, your heroic feat has not been forgotten.



Desecration of the Monument of Gratitude to the Red Army in the Polish city of Olsztyn

We are outraged by another vicious act on the military memorial heritage immortalising the memory of the Soviet soldiers who liberated Europe from Nazism.

In the administrative centre of the Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship in Poland, which borders on the Kaliningrad Region, the city of Olsztyn, the Monument of Gratitude to the Red Army, which is under state protection under Polish law, has been desecrated. A blasphemous image with the derisive caption “Monument of Gratitude for Slavery” has been put up on the monument. It is significant that the poster is a version of a specimen of Goebbels’s propaganda dating back to 1944. It is also important to note that all this was done on January 22, the anniversary of the capture of the city (then Allenstein in Eastern Prussia) by Soviet troops.

The provocative action was reportedly staged by persons, who are well known to Polish authorities and who earlier committed repeated acts of hooliganism against Soviet war memorials in the voivodeship. Far from hiding their antics, they parade them. No actions have been taken to stop them from committing these violations of the law.

We strongly protest, and demand that the culprits be punished and that such instances of vandalism not be repeated in future.



Lithuanian website vatnikas.lt

Another wave of Russophobia and struggling to come to terms with its own history is sweeping through Lithuania. All this seems to be the total censorship of any alternative opinions. This is completely true about a new website, vatnikas.lt, containing personal data of the Lithuanian citizens who had the courage to express their own views on the events of the recent past. These ‘traitors’ have been accused of glorifying the policy of the Soviet Union and the Kremlin and blacklisted by the website.

This is an example of a bizarre ‘democracy’ and a bizarre idea of freedom of speech. It seems that it is provoking a split within society and constituting a direct fight against any nonconformity. We really hope it will not gather momentum otherwise it will look like the odious Myrotvorets website, which is absolutely discriminatory and goes against all principles of freedom of speech. It also encourages the direct persecution, including the persecution of journalists, and publishes people’s personal data.



English version of Crimean Journal

As you know, the issue of Crimea has been frequently discussed in many countries – European, Asian and African states, but without much reference to facts. These talks are often based on indirect information and data obtained from the people or public organisations who have never been to Crimea.

Therefore, we are pleased to offer you and our foreign colleagues and partners Crimean Journal. From now on, it will also be published in English for those who are truly interested in Crimea. This is a very proactive project. You can contact your fellow journalists from the magazine, organise joint events and share publications. I know they are open for direct communication. Crimean journalists representing this media outlet do not need any authorities or oversight bodies to tell the audience about current events in Crimea. They are willing to share their views in the magazine, invite partners as well as pay mutual visits.

You can get a copy of the magazine from the stand by the entrance. There is also an electronic version. Once again, your Crimean colleagues are open for cooperation.

I would like to take this opportunity and note that the Crimean media is not limited by one magazine. There are currently 446 registered news projects in the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, from periodicals, television channels and radio to news agencies and online media, including 78 in Ukrainian and 58 in the Crimean Tatar language. There are professional associations of journalists in Crimea and Sevastopol, the majority of which had operated long before Crimea reunited with Russia. Once again, I would like to recommend you to obtain information about life on the peninsula directly from the people who live there. I think it is convenient to speak to Crimean journalists rather than to dubious sources based in third countries or people who only present themselves as supporters of Crimea’s interests. You have everything to establish direct contacts.




Answers to media questions:



Question:

They say that Russia does not oppose and even supports the operations being conducted by the Turkish side. What is Russia’s position?



Maria Zakharova:

Who says this? We have just said as early as today that a political settlement should be dealt with at present. Unfortunately, it does not happen everywhere. We have also noted what is happening in Afrin proper. Can you quote any official sources which are saying what you have just claimed? There is nothing of the kind anywhere. We are being engaged in a very important, and in our opinion, unique event – the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, which should have all efforts focused on it now, in our view. I remember that even those of you sitting in this hall asked a great number of skeptical questions on postponing it or the impossibility to convene it. Everything will be fine and it will be held for the simple reason that the Syrians themselves understand this chance is one of a kind. Many of them have been “worked on”, many of them are discouraged, intimidated, promised something, they are being distracted in some way, including by those acts “on the ground” that are happening there. However, there is a major roadmap ensured by the Russian Federation. We have passed a very hard two-year-long road of fighting the terrorist threat “on the ground”. We understand that the unique chance that we have now may not be wasted. This is why our position is absolutely clear and is not rooted in a double game. Undoubtedly, there is diplomacy, understanding and nuancing, yet we urge everyone not to miss the chance. What is not clear here and which insinuations can be built on that?

I agree with you that there is, in particular, the Kurdish factor (you are understandably interested in that as you represent that part of the population) which has been constantly played for several years, including by our western partners, but not in the interests of the Kurds. There seems to be the impression that the Kurdish population is just being used when it is convenient and needed. I would like you to recall via your media and your friends who stood at the onset of the political involvement of Kurds in the Syria settlement process, who invited representatives of the Kurdish political forces to each meeting and venue and held talks with western as well as regional colleagues on the necessity of Kurdish inclusion. Those were serious talks. Where were they all back then? It appears that when it was still possible to prevent bloodshed and to form a broad coalition by uniting the Syrian opposition, the western colleagues told Kurds that they did not need them. They keep playing this card and exploit the ethnic sentiments of the people. Just ask them and yourself a question: who benefits? And then look at how consistent the Russian Federation’s position is which we do not discard.

The situation with Syria is so complicated that, to be honest, it is hard to imagine an uneasy international situation in a more concentrated way in recent history. Of course, there is the Middle East settlement and a number of other conflicts, but this situation, I think, is unprecedented in terms of the involvement of people of different ethnicities, faiths, political forces, and the engagement of the most powerful actors. The situation is not that simple to accuse Russia in a blurred articulation of our position. We voice our position very distinctly, and I have just set it out for you.



Question:

How can we speak about the final resolution of the Syria crisis when Turkey, a key participant in the Congress, has launched a long-term operation? Could you ask your partner Turkey to solve the Kurdish issue in a different way?



Maria Zakharova:

You know the number of meetings and negotiations Russia has with Turkish, as you call them, partners. You might have forgotten which crisis provoked by Turkey we only just got out of recently. Are you telling us that Turkey is a difficult partner? We know that and we do not conceal it. Indeed, it is a nation with its own interests which in many respects do not overlap with the interests of the Russian Federation, yet they are somewhat similar. Our task is to find common grounds with any partner regardless of how hard they are. It is not so easy to do even in bilateral relations. It is ever more difficult to do in the framework of the Syrian settlement. But success comes with tenacity. I could not believe until now that you could be thinking that Russia does not discuss the Kurdish issue with Turkey. Of course it does, and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and other Russian officials keep saying that. Everything has been done for several years to involve Kurdish political forces in settling the situation not just in Syria but also in Iraq. We commented on these matters more than once.



Question:

Russia’s position on Kurds is very positive and consistent, for which the whole Kurdish people is grateful. Thank you.



Maria Zakharova:

Thank you.



Question:

We know that Russia always spoke very well of Kurds and backed them, including the Democratic Union Party (PYD). What has changed recently? Why did Russia change its position on PYD in Afrin?



Maria Zakharova:

I have just fully answered this question. This is simply a déjà vu. I can repeat word for word what I have already said.



Question:

It’s just that the PYD leaders are saying that Russia has abandoned Kurds in Afrin.



Maria Zakharova:

Ask them whether we understand it correctly that from their point of view Russia should bear responsibility for Turkey’s actions. Should it? We have a foreign policy and a clear stance on engaging the Kurdish population in the political process. We have been defending this stance for years.

At present, we are fully focused on preparations for the National Dialogue Congress. As you know, invitations have been sent to Kurdish representatives. It is now up to them not just to accept the invitation, but also to take a more active part in this format. I think that you should bring our position to the Kurdish population through your mass media.



Question:

Our fellow journalists abroad, who intend to cover the National Dialogue Congress and who have already obtained accreditation, have a problem getting visas in consular departments of Russian embassies in their countries, particularly in Arab and Muslim countries where consular departments are closed on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.



Maria Zakharova:

Thank you for bringing up this matter. We have received requests for accreditation from around 450-500 journalists. These are both foreign and Russian media. They applied at different times and half of them have already had their accreditation confirmed. These confirmations contain detailed information on how and at what consular or embassy institutions they can obtain visas. Considering the urgency and the extreme importance of the upcoming event, they will be given all the necessary help in clearing visa formalities.



Question:

What if a consulate is closed?



Maria Zakharova:

It will be opened. The accreditation is over. I can say that those who will receive accreditation (if there are no violations of our migration laws, the overwhelming majority, if not all journalists, will get it) should turn to the consular department of a corresponding Russian embassy or General Consulate. Our missions abroad have been properly instructed.

To date, by 3 pm, we have foreign correspondents from 26 countries. Consequently, we will check all visa applications from the journalists who will travel to Sochi to cover the Congress. This work was, as usual, conducted at a very high level.



Question:

So, does it mean that they will be able to get visas even on Friday, a day off?



Maria Zakharova:

Actually, I have already explained, but you can say it again.



Question:

I had a phone call during your briefing. They said they got in touch with the embassy but were told that the consulate is closed and will open only on Monday. What should they do? I promised to ask you.



Maria Zakharova:

Let me repeat that today the working day is already over, but we have a working day tomorrow. If necessary, visas will be issued on the day of the departure. Let them wait for their letters of accreditation. If you have any information, please, let us know, contact us promptly. If anyone needs help, we will provide it.



Question:

Five countries have put forward some kind of a new political constitutional initiative, sidestepping the processes already in place, including as part of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. What can you say on this theme?



Maria Zakharova:

We are witnessing a very peculiar trend of creating all kinds of formats, as if to parcel the frameworks that already exist under international law into separate groups. For this reason, I asked for clarifications. Syria is not the only country concerned. For example, a working group was established by the US, Great Britain, Germany and France to discuss the Iranian nuclear deal.



Question:

A comment by the Foreign Ministry on the second format would be also welcome.



Maria Zakharova:

I will comment on the second one as well.

As for the five-party meeting on Syria, there were media reports on a meeting in Washington held on January 12, with the US, Great Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The event was devoted to Syria.

As we have always said, and our position remains unchanged in this respect, all countries involved in the settlement of the Syria crisis are free to initiate any formats or talks in order to find ways to restore peace in Syria, if these efforts are constructive and creative.

At the same time, the main criterion for meetings of this kind is their effectiveness and outcomes. Did any of you, who know the region’s issues so well, hear about any outcomes, progress or any kind of roadmap that was adopted? We have not. There are universally accepted formats. You know them. It remains unclear to us whether the Washington meeting had any added value. What were the goals of the meeting? They are also unclear. We cannot oppose any additional formats, while operating within other frameworks. After all, there is the Astana process whereby Russia, Turkey and Iran cooperate. This takes place at various levels, but there is a declared goal and a specific outcome. All these efforts take place in accordance with universally accepted international norms. In my humble opinion, these contacts are positive, and can actually bring about a breakthrough for the region.

By the way, all these peculiar formats are not just about the Middle East and North Africa. The same happened with North Korea and the Vancouver meeting, held outside of the existing frameworks. All this was far-fetched and artificial. It is possible that the goal was to create some kind of a foundation, legitimise their ideas. “You must have a bite, even if you cannot eat the entire piece,” as the Russian saying goes. I think it describes very accurately what is going on.

As for the working group on the Iranian nuclear programme, we believe that this initiative by the US and the three European countries will not facilitate any progress on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme. As we have said on a number of occasions, the way our US colleagues talk about “adjusting” this plan only complicates its implementation.

We operate based on the premise that the agreements and understandings that may be reached within this framework would not affect our overall policy regarding the JCPOA by all of its participants.

Let me remind you of a memorable and unambiguous ministerial meeting on the JCPOA implementation, with the participation of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, held on the margins of the UN General Assembly in New York this year. We discussed this at length during political discussions. All countries directly condemned, almost along the same lines, the US for its attempts to wash-out and shatter or even bury the plan. How did the world change over the few months that passed since then? Were there any changes in the implementation of this plan by Iran? Nothing has changed. But why did they change their position? Or why is it beginning to change?



Question:

Today, all experts are noting a considerably invigorated peacemaking process around Nagorno-Karabakh and are underscoring Russia’s substantial role as a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group for Nagorno-Karabakh. Does Russia plan to continue and expand its activity as a co-chair this year? Will this take the form of the OSCE Minsk Group’s greater monitoring activity? Are any specific compromise solutions possible during the peacemaking process? Although this will hardly help resolve the conflict, but still, are any results possible?



Maria Zakharova:

I will ask for experts’ advice on the latter two questions.

Regarding the first question, I can say that it is necessary to boost efficiency, rather than activity. I believe everyone will do this.



Question:

I would like to touch upon the issue of Ukraine. It is common knowledge that the Minsk Agreements are formalised by a UN Security Council resolution. The Verkhovna Rada has recently submitted a draft law on the “reintegration” of Donbass. What can Russia do after Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko signs the document? Will a meeting of the UN Security Council be convened?



Maria Zakharova:

Documents and legislative acts are not approved per se. This is not being done just for the sake of it and not for conducting a certain process. The process should be linked to the main goal, that is, achieving a peace settlement “on the ground.” The matter is different. All documents that are being approved serve a diametrically opposite goal and destabilise the situation still further, without sending a clear message to the warring parties as to whether this reintegration will become part of the state’s policy. Today, one has the impression that all of this will remain on paper. And, unfortunately, one way or another, this is adding even more fuel to the fire that has been raging for the past few years.

As you know, Russia is actively searching for a peace settlement and for ways of implementing it. But this is a domestic Ukrainian conflict. No matter how much Kiev repeats and accuses the Russian Federation, it has to speak and reach agreement with Donetsk and Lugansk, with Donbass residents. Kiev authorities need to do this, without hiding behind the completely absurd and hard-to-implement or absolutely impracticable documents they are passing. On the contrary, they need to reach real agreements because they will also have to live in real earnest.



Question:

What can you tell us about accusations of Russia regarding the Syrian Government’s responsibility for using chemical arms?



Maria Zakharova:

Yesterday the Foreign Ministry released a special statement in which we said that this is not just a new round of information aggression but is crossing the line. This is a blatant lie. This is how we qualified these accusations in our statement. We commented on the US allegations about the use of chemical weapons and all kinds of insinuations on this score. The Americans “fired from all guns” simultaneously – statements were made by Nikki Haley, Rex Tillerson and the White House. This is an absolutely obvious information offensive. It is possible to talk on end about facts and investigations (we are well aware of how they were made – or rather not made at all). We described at length that most missions and reports were not based on a collection of information on the spot but were made by proxy – through someone else. I believe that among other things, it is necessary to counter such fake reports with an attempt at logical reasoning. Who stands to gain from a chemical attack in Syria today? Who? A motive is the most important element of any crime. What motive can the government, the official authorities and the lawful President of that country have if they are about to get to the political phase of settlement anyway? Of course, the task of fighting terrorism and establishing reliable security throughout the country remains, but right now all efforts are focused on restoring the life of civilians and rebuilding infrastructure – not high-tech but very basic infrastructure. People need water, bread, medicines, schools and hospitals. These are things that the Syrian Government is trying to provide for them and Russia is actively helping as it has been doing for many years. You know well that this assistance is rendered on a very large scale. So why should the Syrian government use chemical arms in these conditions? Against whom? For what purpose? The Syrian government is well aware that chemical arms are a red flag for the West. Having been through several rounds of accusations, why do this again? With what aim in mind? This is absolutely incomprehensible. Why build schools, bring life back to the state and improve the living conditions of ordinary people and at the same time create additional problems for themselves when there are no strategic benefits “on the ground” for using chemical weapons? Moreover, I would like to remind those who monitor this situation, political scientists and experts (regrettably, their memory has become very short) that it was the incumbent government, not some of its predecessors that fully cooperated with the international community in destroying its chemical arms. In other words, the government gave away these chemical arms, disclosed all the relevant information and most actively facilitated their destruction at home. It made this decision of principle and it was carried out. This is the second important fact. A third fact is the tremendous progress towards a political settlement, and success in searching for and finding consensus. We see that large numbers of participants or representatives of the external Syrian opposition have accepted invitations to attend the National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. This is an indicative fact. This is not only the opposition that is inside the country but also those who live a prosperous life abroad and have not seen the horrors of the war. They have always fiercely opposed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but the overwhelming majority of them have still agreed to attend the congress. Now that it has all started coming together at the expense of the lives of so many soldiers, civilians, women and children and such enormous losses, why suddenly turn around and use chemical weapons? For what purpose? What is the point of this?

We hear the Americans talk about the Syrian regime in this context all the time. When I hear and speak about Syrian weapons I am always tempted to mention “the American regime” that is accusing Damascus of using chemical arms. The Americans have the motive because this is the “entry point” for destabilising the situation and wrecking the political settlement. It is no longer possible to explain to the political opposition verbally why they should not come to Sochi. Why shouldn’t they? Before, they were told that they would not be able to talk with Damascus, but they did. Before, it was claimed that mostly civilians rather than terrorists were killed there. It transpired that terrorists were killed. When ISIS terrorists were annihilated, the main part of the operation was folded up. It is no longer possible to lie for no real reason. There is a demand for action that will definitely again sow doubt in the minds of Syrians, the Syrian opposition and Syrian politicians that oppose Damascus and prevent them from accepting invitations. This is why this is being done. This is one of the reasons.

Furthermore, there is continuous information pressure aimed at destabilising the entire situation in Syria and keeping everyone “at gunpoint” as regards information coverage. This is why these salvoes are fired. I think there are also many other motives. This is yet another obvious provocation. But the problem is that these were the representatives of the American regime that were sitting with a vial in the UN Security Council. Ms Haley’s US seat – now she is accusing Syria of using chemical arms (and Russia almost facilitating this) – was occupied by Colin Powell who cheated everyone by showing his “evidence.” Just like you, we will never forget this.



Question:

The Federal Security Service’s (FSB) Border Control Directorate for the Sakhalin Region has accused the crew of Japanese fishing vessel Niko Maru 53 of violating fishing regulations. On January 18, the vessel moored in Kunashir Island for a subsequent check. When will Japanese sailors be released?



Maria Zakharova:

You should address this question to the FSB. I can ask my colleagues whether there is any headway on this issue.



Question:

The Japanese Foreign Ministry has announced preparations for consultations in Tokyo at the level of deputy foreign ministers. The consultations will deal with joint economic activity in the Kuril Islands. What is the exact date for holding them?



Maria Zakharova:

We will announce the dates separately. We have discussed this matter in great detail at our previous briefing. Please read the briefing’s transcript. The date has not been announced yet. We will certainly do so after the date is coordinated.



Question:

Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov has noted that he is inviting the US State Department’s special representatives to hold a meeting on the Korean Peninsula in Moscow. Have you received any response from the US State Department?



Maria Zakharova:

I will look into this report.



Question:

Do you see any possibility for direct dialogue between North Korea and the United States?



Maria Zakharova:

It is necessary to work out the appropriate format. The history of this issue includes various examples of such dialogue. This issue directly concerns both states. Mediation efforts have been made for many years because everyone is interested in a peaceful resolution of this issue. But, regarding dialogue between two sovereign states, it is certainly up to them to decide.



Question:

What is the future of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 on Kosovo if Belgrade and Pristina sign this legally binding agreement? This option is being discussed internally in an ongoing dialogue. Does this mean that the resolution will be automatically rescinded, or does this call for additional technical procedures?



Maria Zakharova:

No, according to UN procedures, it is impossible to annul a resolution if someone so desires. This is a binding document. Many have forgotten about it, but it remains in force, and no one has rescinded it. Certainly, political processes that you are aware of, while following other international issues, continue to develop. Resolutions are passed; they extend previous resolutions, rescind or modify them. This includes such issues as Syria, problems of the Korean Peninsula where the situation continues to develop, to some extent. We believe that Serbia itself should, first of all, state its position as to whether this dialogue continues to develop. Regarding this issue, we will certainly rely on the opinion of Belgrade and legitimately elected authorities. This is standard procedure. We have always presented this issue in precisely such a context. It goes without saying that international law offers various compromise solutions, but no one can now rescind this resolution that remains in force.



Question:

Does this mean that the process now underway in Brussels (the Brussels dialogue) will end up at the UN, no matter what?



Maria Zakharova:

For this purpose, Serbia needs to voice and formalise its position. The same concerns the process underway in the EU and the resolution. After that, the situation will develop accordingly.



Question:

In late 2017, the Atlantic Council unveiled a new draft US strategy for the Balkans. Called “Balkans Forward: A New US Strategy for the Region,” the document was published in the United States. The strategy envisions more active involvement in Balkan affairs, and this is what we are witnessing. You have commented on the Kosovo issue. Does Russia have a strategy for strengthening its relations with Balkan countries, including Bulgaria? Is it possible to say that Russia has forgotten about Bulgaria? How can our relations receive a new lease of life?



Maria Zakharova:

Regarding the Balkan strategy, Russia has its own foreign policy concept involving this issue. As you can see, the concept is being updated regularly.

Speaking of relations with Bulgaria, I will prepare extensive materials on bilateral relations for the next briefing. This material will also address the development strategy and specific present-day developments.



Question:

The United States is accusing Russia and Syria of chemical attacks and the use of chemical weapons. The other day, our Bulgarian colleague presented results of an investigation (a Pentagon document), which said that biological weapons were being developed. Medical centres have been established in more than 25 countries, with two of these located not far from Russia – in Ukraine and Georgia. Isn’t the US breaching the UN Convention by doing this? Can the relevant authorities take up the facts contained in the investigation?



Maria Zakharova:

I must check this information about the biological weapons with colleagues. In fact, I have seen the relevant materials, and not only those by the Bulgarian journalist; there were Russian journalists, too, who wrote about this. We will provide a legal assessment of these facts and announce our position of principle with regard to the situation as a whole. If it is true that the United States, as you say, has started working with biological weapons in Ukraine, this explains many things.



Question:

One medical laboratory in Georgia was created during the Saakashvili presidency. This centre is still operating under a US programme. All US employees at those centres enjoy diplomatic immunity, which means that it is very difficult to carry out inspections. But if the facts uncovered by the investigative reporting of Bulgarian and Russian journalists are confirmed, is there a threat for Russia and the world?



Maria Zakharova:

I will make enquiries and present a detailed report next time.



Question:

Representatives of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party said they would attend the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi as an autonomous area, but after the military operation in Afrin they said they would not come at all. Is there any information at this moment as to whether they will participate or not? And if they will, then with what status?



Maria Zakharova:

Right now, I cannot present the full list of those who confirmed that they would participate. I know the number. I can say that there is a great number of representatives of various Kurdish forces, which have confirmed their participation. As I was told by our experts, it is proportionate to the Kurdish population numbers in Syria, which means that it is sufficiently representative. We will say who has arrived directly before the event. This will be even more important than who has accepted or not accepted invitations. Who will come and how many of them is not a matter of our ambitious aims; the matter is the extent to which the people who are offered this venue are ready to use this unique chance. This is the crux of the matter. Russia is not holding this Congress just for the fun of it or because it wants to hold a splendid event – we hold a lot of splendid events as it is. We are providing an opportunity and giving a chance to people, political forces, politicians, opposition members and representatives of the current government to decide on their future. For this purpose, we are providing the infrastructure, political support and all the necessary conditions. This is why it is not to us that your question should be addressed. To be sure, whether someone will come or not isn’t our problem. It is a problem of lost opportunities and chances for those people who have vowed for years that Syria’s future is the priority of their lifetime. Many of them were ready to sacrifice their life with arms in hand as they upheld their convictions. Many did that without crossing the “red line,” while remaining in the political sphere. Huge efforts have been made to create all the necessary conditions for this event to become a powerful push forward. Ask them this question: To what extent are they able and willing to use this chance, to what extent is the political horse-trading that many of them are engaged in more important than the future of their country and people?




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3034475
__________________
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 31st, 2018 #350
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 expansion of US sanctions against Russia



26 January 2018 - 22:23



While continuing its attempts to pressure Russia, the United States has introduced additional sanctions against a number of Russian individuals as well as companies under the far-fetched pretext of Russia’s involvement in the Ukrainian crisis. Washington still entertains the illusion that the denial of US visas and trade bans can intimidate Russia or force it to abandon its independent foreign policy and the protection of its national interests.

If the preference of the US authorities is to sever economic and other ties with Russia, then Russia has the right to provide a response to this. However, Washington strategists should consider the possibility that their senseless sanctions policy, which has not produced and will not produce any result but will only end in financial losses for the US business, will only demonstrate US impotence to the world. Certainly, it will not help it hide its involvement in the Maidan revolt in Kiev and the kindling of the civil war in Ukraine.

It is notable that several hours before these new sanctions were announced US Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman published an article in The Moscow Times expressing a desire to improve Russian-US relations. As we see now, Washington has not supported its ambassador.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3039489






Comment by the Information and Press Department on armed clashes in southern Yemen



29 January 2018 - 17:00



According to incoming information, on January 28 the city of Aden, the main city in southern Yemen controlled by the legitimate government of the Republic of Yemen, witnessed armed clashes between Presidential Guard units and supporters of the so-called Transitional Council which stands for broad autonomy for the southern part of Yemen up to and including the creation of a separate state there. Media report about 20 killed on the both sides and several dozens wounded.

Moscow is concerned about such developments, which might cause a new round of armed conflict in Yemen and widen the circle of those participating in it. Moscow believes that the future of the Republic of Yemen, including its territory and form of government, should be decided not through the use of force, but at the negotiating table after the military-political conflict is ended, with mutual respect for the interests and concerns of all leading political forces in the country. Russia will continue to facilitate this process.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3043066






Comment by Information and Press Department in connection with the Georgian Foreign Ministry statement of January 27, 2018



29 January 2018 - 17:53



The Georgian Foreign Ministry’s protests regarding Russian-Abkhazian and Russian-South Ossetian cooperation in customs are perplexing. Instead of baselessly criticising Russia’s cooperation with third countries, they should have carefully studied the bilateral Georgian-Russian agreement on customs administration and trade monitoring of November 9, 2011. Judging by the recent public comments by Georgian officials, they are all but unfamiliar with the text of this document. Meanwhile, it will soon have to be implemented under the supervision of the Swiss monitoring company with which Georgia has already signed a corresponding contract.

Russia, as reported, is completing preparations to sign the necessary Russian-Swiss documents, which will allow us to begin practical implementation of the 2011 agreement that is so important for regional trade.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3043098






Comment by the Information and Press Department on a series of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan



30 January 2018 - 14:09



A series of bloody terrorist attacks have taken place in Afghanistan over the past few days killing nearly 200 people and injuring more than 400.

We strongly condemn these heinous acts. We hope that the masterminds of these crimes will be identified and punished as they deserve. We express our condolences to the families and friends of the victims and wish a speedy recovery to the injured.

What is happening once again confirms the futility of using the military approach to resolve the situation in Afghanistan and the need to rally the counterterrorism efforts of the entire international community. Russia will continue its uncompromising fight against terrorism in all its manifestations. We reaffirm our readiness for cooperation to help build up the capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces, and to curb the growth of international terrorism in that country.

We call upon the Afghan authorities and the Afghan armed opposition to start the national dialogue as soon as possible aimed at establishing peace and security in Afghanistan.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3044121
__________________
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 31st, 2018 #351
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 plenary meeting of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, Sochi, January 30, 2018



30 January 2018 - 14:27








Friends,

It is my honour to read out a message of greetings to participants in the Syrian National Dialogue Congress from President of Russia Vladimir Putin. Here it is:

“Ladies and gentlemen,

“I am happy to welcome the participants, observers and guests of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress to Sochi.

“Your forum is called upon to reunite the people of Syria after a nearly seven-year-long conflict that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions to flee from their homeland. This is a good opportunity to bring to reality the desire of the Syrian people to end this fratricidal war, eradicate terrorism and resume normal life.

“Russia continues its efforts to assist Syrians in the restoration of a lasting peace and stability in Syria and to strengthen its sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity. The Syrian Army, acting with support from the Russian Aerospace Forces, has defeated the ISIS terrorists, who attempted to turn the country into a base area for international terrorism. Thanks to the Astana format launched by Russia, Turkey and Iran, temporary but efficient de-escalation zones have been created to ensure a sustainable ceasefire, to improve the humanitarian situation, to start restoring the ruined social and economic infrastructure and to build up trust among Syrians.

“We can say with confidence that conditions have been created for turning this tragic page in Syria’s history. Considering the nascent positive trends, a truly effective intra-Syrian dialogue must be launched towards achieving a UN-led comprehensive political settlement based on the decisions of the international community, primarily UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

“It is with this aim in mind that Russia has advanced the initiative of this congress, which has been supported by the UN. Working with our partners in the Astana process, influential Arab countries and Syria’s neighbours, we tried to convene a forum that will be as representative as possible based on the belief that the Syrian people alone has the right to determine their future.

“At present, the constructive forces of Syrian society are facing the crucial task of formulating a common view on ways to overcome the crisis and mapping out reforms that will enable all Syrian citizens regardless of their religion, ethnicity or social status to feel safe and at peace in their own country.

I wish you fruitful work and success.

Vladimir Putin”



Ladies and gentlemen,

Friends,

I would like to express my personal sincere gratitude to our colleagues from the Islamic Republic of Iran, Turkey and the UN for their contribution to our collective efforts to prepare this forum. In view of the unprecedented nature of this meeting, which is being attended by representatives of so many ethnic, social and political groups of Syrian society, it is, of course, important to start by building mutual trust and our ability to work together.

I propose that the Special Presidential Envoy for Syria, Ambassador at Large Alexander Lavrentiev, act on behalf of the host country, that is, Russia, and the other guarantor countries – Turkey and Iran – to help us organise the work of this Congress and its panel discussions. If there are no objections, I call for a vote on this proposal.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3044184






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions on the sidelines of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress Sochi, January 30, 2018



30 January 2018 - 22:12








Question:

Are we seeing the development of a new union of the opposition forces represented by Randa Kassis, Qadri Jamil, Haytham Manna and Ahmad Jarba, a union that is quite different from the radical opposition groups that have refused to attend the congress and staged a show of protest in Sochi Airport?



Sergey Lavrov:

What we are attending today is a remarkable event that is the most significant thing that has taken place during the seven years of the Syrian conflict. Initially, there were meetings between representatives of the Syrian Government and the opposition. At first, only the external opposition attended these meetings. But then there was a breakthrough in Astana, where the delegations from the Syrian Government and the armed opposition came for negotiations. Before that, they were not represented in Geneva. Thanks to a direct dialogue between those who fought each other on the ground, we have created de-escalation zones, as you know. Whatever their drawbacks, they have helped to seriously reduce the level of violence in the country. Everyone has admitted this, including the UN Security Council.

The Syrian National Dialogue Congress has a much more ambitious goal than the Astana process, let alone the Geneva talks, which only the external opposition is attending, as I already said. In Sochi, we have rallied official Syrian representatives, such as MPs, members of the ruling party and independent delegates, as well as representatives of the internal and external Syrian opposition as well as tribes, which play a major role in the Syrian society.

Of course, nobody expected that delegates from absolutely all the Syrian groups, both those that are loyal to the Government and neutral or independent opposition groups, would come to Sochi. There is nothing tragic about two or three groups refusing to attend. This is only the beginning of a UN-led process that is designed to launch the practical implementation of Resolution 2254, primarily a dialogue about the crucial question, that is, what country Syrians want Syria to be. There must be public agreement and consensus on this question. It is this dialogue that we are launching at this congress.

Congress participants have approved a statement that sets out the main principles of Syria’s future government. There is nothing revolutionary about them. They are based on the key provisions of international law, such as respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Syria, as well as for the rights of all ethnic and religious groups, plus an inclusive political process, which will involve everyone and will allow Syrians to determine their own future without any foreign interference. It has been also decided to create a Constitutional Committee of the delegates who have been elected today, as well as delegates from the groups that did not attend the congress, for a number of reasons. This result – the establishment of the Constitutional Committee – will be forwarded to the UN in keeping with Resolution 2254. This new agency, the Constitutional Committee for the drafting of the Syrian constitution, will be based in Geneva.

We hope that the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, whom the congress participants have urged to facilitate the work of the Constitutional Committee, will organise the committee’s operation in full compliance with his authority under UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We look forward to receiving practical proposals from him as soon as possible.



Question:

How would you evaluate the “Kremlin report?” Will Russia respond?



Sergey Lavrov:

the President and the Prime Minister have already commented on this. When I saw the names included in the report on television screens, I was surprised, among other things, by the following circumstance. The instruction to draft the list was contained back in the August 2017 act. They have spent 5 months familiarising themselves with the directories with the names of the Government members and employees of the President’s Executive Office. This could have been done much faster.



Question:

The French foreign minister has said that the political process should be based in Geneva, not Sochi. We know that the US has recently suggested the “paper of the Five.” Isn’t it a spoke in the wheel? Will the Geneva process advance? It is clear that certain partners intend to hinder the process.



Sergey Lavrov:

Where our Congress is concerned, it has resolutely called for Geneva to get a second wind. Or the first wind, if you will, because up till now the work there has just somehow muddled through. This shows very strong support for Geneva and, of course, the UN role based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which means that any steps should be subject to reciprocal agreement by the Syrian Government and the opposition. There should be no doubts or apprehensions here. Nothing can be done without the Government’s consent, or for that matter without the opposition’s consent.

As for the comments we hear coming out of Paris, Washington and some other capitals, that our Congress is being held with its visor raised: It is attended by UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, observers we have invited from all permanent member states of the UN Security Council, from all Syria’s neighbouring countries and from other Arab states, as well as Kazakhstan as the host of the Astana process.

You have mentioned the document presented by the five states that assembled in Washington and later on in Paris. They came up with certain ideas and put them down on paper. I would even say that these private activities, as I see it, are at variance with the Geneva process, because this was a meeting of five handpicked countries, with the organisers failing to invite the key players involved in the Syrian settlement, let alone the Syrian parties, which were not present there. No one even thought about them. Neither did they invite Turkey, Iran and Russia as the guarantors of the Astana process that was welcomed by everyone. It even seems to me that these private gatherings are what can hinder the Geneva process, because some may get the illusion that these get-togethers are a quicker way to reach an agreement rather than holding meetings with the participation of all parties concerned without exception.

We have taken the latter path. Yes, it is much more difficult to come to terms, when opposing sides and not like-minded people as in Washington and Paris are sitting down at the negotiating table. But agreements reached by the opposing sides are much more durable and long-term than what like-minded states decide in their narrow circle on behalf of the Syrian people.

At the same time, let me stress once again that we have invited to the Congress representatives of all the permanent members of the UN Security Council and many other states as well. We are grateful to the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Kazakhstan for sending their special representatives to this event. Our Western partners have limited themselves to sending junior diplomats from their embassies in the Russian Federation. Well, as they say, at least we made an effort.

We are ready for dialogue in any format and at any level. The most important thing is that we reverently observe the fundamental principle of UN Security Council Resolution 2254: Only the Syrians themselves shall decide the fate of their country. We have aimed this Congress precisely at the creation of conditions for this. I think that this first and very important step has been generally a success. Now we will expect the UN to produce results based on agreements reached here. For our part, we will be facilitating this in every way.

The initiative for the Congress has come from the three guarantor countries – Russia, Iran and Turkey. We met with our colleagues earlier today. We have confirmed that we will do our best to promote the Congress results, when the UN asks for them, and will help Mr Staffan de Mistura and his team to reach agreements with the participation of all the Syrian sides.



Question:

Is yet another Congress possible?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are not trying to look ahead right now. We have agreed today that the Congress results will be handed over to the United Nations in the hope that they will incentivise the Geneva process. Mr Staffan de Mistura has all the powers under UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Today the Congress has voiced support for these powers and asked him to get down to work on the constitution in a proactive manner.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3046217






Final statement of the Congress of the Syrian national dialogue, Sochi, January 30, 2018



30 January 2018 - 22:42



We, the delegates of the Congress of the Syrian national dialogue, representing all segments of Syrian society, its political and civil powers, ethnic, confessional and social groups, have assembled at the invitation of the friendly Russian Federation, in the city of Sochi, with the intention to put an end to seven years suffering of our people, through the achievement of a common understanding of the necessity for the salvation of our homeland from armed confrontation, social and economic ruin, the restoration of its dignity on the regional and world stage, the provision of fundamental rights and liberties for all its citizens, and most importantly, the right to a peaceful and free life without violence and terror. The only way to achieve this particular goal is the political settlement of the problems of our homeland on the basis of the following principles:

1. Respect of and full commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of the [Syrian Arab Republic / state of Syria] as a land and a people. In this regard no part of the national territory shall be ceded. The people of Syria remain committed to the recovery of the occupied Syrian Golan by all lawful means in accordance with the UN Charter and international law;

2. Respect of and full commitment to Syria’s national sovereign equality and rights regarding non- intervention. Syria shall take its full role in the international community and the region, including as part of the Arab world, in conformity with the UN Charter, and its purposes and principles;

3. The Syrian people alone shall determine the future of their country by democratic means, through the ballot box, and shall have the exclusive right to choose their own political, economic and social system without external pressure or interference, in line with Syria’s international rights and obligations;

4. The [Syrian Arab Republic / state of Syria] shall be a democratic and non-sectarian state based on political pluralism and equal citizenship irrespective of religion, ethnicity and gender, with full respect for and protection of the rule of law, the separation of powers,judicial independence, the full equality of all citizens, the cultural diversity of the Syrian society, and public freedoms, including freedom of belief, featuring transparent, inclusive, accountable and answerable governance, including before the national law, with necessary effective measures to combat crime, corruption and mismanagement;

5. A state committed to national unity, social peace, and comprehensive and balanced development with fair representation in local administration;

6. Continuity and improved performance of state and public institutions, with reforms where necessary, including the protection of public infrastructure and property rights and provision of public services to all citizens without discrimination, in accordance with the highest standards of good governance and gender equality. Citizens shall benefit from effective mechanisms in their relations with all public authorities in such a way as to ensure full compliance with the rule of law and human rights and private and public property rights;

7. A strong, unified, meritocratic and national army that carries out its duties in accordance with the constitution and the highest standards. Its functions are to protect the national boundaries and the people from external threats and terrorism, with intelligence and security institutions to maintain national security subject to the rule of law, acting according to the constitution and the law and respecting human rights. The use of force shall be the exclusive prerogative of competent state institutions;

8. Unqualified rejection of - and active commitment to combat - terrorism, fanaticism, extremism and sectarianism in all its forms and to tackle conditions conducive to their spread;

9. Respect and protection of human rights and public freedoms, especially in times of crisis, including non-discrimination and equal rights and opportunities for all without regard to race, religion, ethnicity, cultural or linguistic identity, gender or any other distinction, with effective mechanism for their protection, which give due regard to the political and equal rights and opportunities of women, including by the taking of active measures to ensure representation and participation in institutions and decision- making structures, with mechanisms aimed to achieve a level of representation of at least 30% for women, and the goal of parity;

10. A high value placed on Syria’s society and national identity, its history of diversity and the contributions and values that all religions, civilizations and traditions have brought to Syria, including the coexistence among its various components, along with the protection of the national cultural heritage of the nation and its diverse cultures;

11. Combatting and eliminating poverty and providing support for the elderly and other vulnerable groups, including persons with special needs, orphans and victims of war, which shall include ensuring the safety and refuge of all displaced persons and refugees, as well as protecting their right to voluntary and safe return to their homes and lands;

12. Preservation and protection of national heritage and the natural environment for future generations in accordance with environmental treaties and the UNESCO declaration concerning the intentional destruction of cultural heritage.

We, the representatives of the proud people of Syria, having lived through terrible misery and having found enough strength to fight against international terrorism, herewith declare our determination to restore the well-being and prosperity of our homeland and to make life decent and comfortable for each and every one of us.

To that end we agreed to form a constitutional committee comprising the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic delegation along with wide-represented opposition delegation for drafting of a constitutional reform as a contribution to the political settlement under the UN auspices in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2254.

The Constitutional Committee would at the very least comprise Government, Opposition representatives in the intra-Syrian talks, Syrian experts, civil society, independents, tribal leaders and women. Care would be taken to ensure adequate representation of Syria`s ethnic and religious components. Final agreement is to be reached in the UN-led Geneva process on the mandate and terms of reference, powers, rules of procedure, and selection criteria for the composition of the Constitutional Committee.

We appeal to the United Nations Secretary-General to assign the Special Envoy for Syria for the assistance of the Constitutional Committee work in Geneva.

Sochi, January 30, 2018




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3046246






Address of participants of the syrian national dialogue congress, Sochi, January 30, 2018



30 January 2018 - 22:58



We, the participants of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, express our collective wish to bring the ongoing conflict to an end as soon as possible. We have all suffered more than enough from violence, bloodshed, terrorism and devastation. Thousands of houses, schools and hospitals, factories and plants were destroyed during the war, railways, power stations, irrigation systems as well as religious and cultural heritage sites were severely damaged. We all share the same goal: To see peace and stability restored in our homeland and to live peacefully side by side free from violence and terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.

As we progress with the political settlement on the basis of UNSCR 2254, we call upon the UN, international humanitarian agencies and international community at large to contribute to the post-conflict recovery and reconstruction of Syria by taking additional measures to ensure the continuous flow of rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to all our brothers and sisters who are in need as well as to provide our people with additional aid which would enable the restoration of basic infrastructure assets, including social and economic facilities, and with humanitarian mine action services.

We appeal to all friends of Syria to take all necessary steps with a view to helping our dear country reintegrate into the international community and restore its status as a distinguished member thereof.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3046227
__________________
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 February 2nd, 2018 #352
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 31, 2018



31 January 2018 - 20:09








Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s speech at the final stage of the Leaders of Russia contest

On February 7 in Sochi, Sergey Lavrov will address the participants of the Russian Leaders national management contest organised pursuant to the President’s instructions by the Graduate School of Public Administration under the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA).

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s speech and answers to media questions will be available on the Foreign Ministry web site and official accounts in social media.



Events for Diplomat’s Day

On February 10, the Russian diplomatic service will mark its professional holiday for the 16th time. This year, February 10 falls on Saturday, so most events will take place in the run-up to this day.

Festive events will be held at all Russian foreign missions and the Foreign Ministry headquarters. Our embassies, consulates general and permanent missions with international organisations will also publish corresponding materials.

On February 8, flowers will be laid at burial places of prominent diplomats at Novodevichy Cemetery: former foreign ministers and ambassadors of the USSR and Russia.

Representatives of the Foreign Ministry administration, veterans and employees of the Ministry and young diplomats will take part in the traditional annual ceremony.

As part of the festivities for Diplomat’s Day, flowers will also be laid at memorial plaques in the Foreign Ministry building. There are also plans to pay tribute to the memories of Foreign Ministry employees who perished during World War II or in the line of duty, or who fell victim to political repression.

There will also be an exhibition, which this year is dedicated to the establishment of the national diplomatic service after the October Revolution of 1917. The display of documents will encompass the activities of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs before the USSR was formed in 1922.

A traditional official meeting will take place on the occasion of Diplomat’s Day.

I would like to add that at 11 am on February 8, as part of events for Diplomat’s Day, a memorial plaque will be unveiled at the Russian Embassy in Abkhazia in memory of our colleagues Dmitry and Olga Vishernev, who died in the line of duty in September 2013.

We invite the media to all the events held at the Foreign Ministry.



Council of Young Diplomats holds gala event on Diplomat’s Day

At 7 pm on February 8, the Foreign Ministry’s Council of Young Diplomats will hold an informal meeting with the young employees of the Moscow diplomatic corps at the Foreign Ministry’s GLAVUPDK (5 Ulofa Palme Street).

The programme includes the presentation of the activities of the Council of Young Diplomats, a review of the first Global Forum of Young Diplomats that was held in Sochi in October 2017 on the sidelines of the World Festival of Youth and Students, a discussion of the plans for the second Global Forum in 2018 and the establishment of an international association of young diplomats and a Moscow diplomatic club.

We invite all journalists to attend the event. For accreditation call the Council of Young Diplomats until 3 pm on February 7 at +7 (916) 487 43 54.



18th Winter Diplomatic Games

On February 10, Diplomat’s Day, the Moscow Country Club, an affiliate of GLAVUPDK, will host the 18th Winter Diplomatic Games.

The event will be attended by heads and employees of diplomatic missions accredited in Russia, officials from the Russian Foreign Ministry and GLAVUPDK, as well as by famous Russian athletes and cultural figures.

During the event a news conference will be held with the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Belgium Jean-Arthur Regibeau, and First Deputy Chair of the Committee on International Affairs of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Olympic champion Svetlana Zhurova.

I would like to explain why the news conference will be held with the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Belgium in Moscow. The Moscow Country Club will receive the team and representatives of the Belgian delegation that will arrive for the 2018 FIFA World Club.

The referee’s board will include celebrated Russian athletes: Olympic skating champion Lyudmila Titova, Olympic bobsled champion Vladimir Kozlov and biathlete Alexander Yelizarov, to name a few.

The games will consist of competitions of about 40 teams of diplomatic missions in six sports.

The games will be crowned by a gala hockey match between the winner of the hockey tournament and the team KomAr that will include Oleg Butman, Alexander Mostovoy, Sergey Krestovsky, Kirill Andreyev, Pavel Trubiner, Vladislav Karpovich and other Russian stars of sport and culture.

By tradition, Moscow Country Club guests will be offered an interesting cultural programme and a Russian food tasting session. We invite Russian and foreign journalists to take part in the coverage of the event.

For more information and accreditation procedures go to the GLAVUPDK website.



Events at Foreign Missions section on the Foreign Ministry official website

I would like to point out that the Foreign Ministry website (we will talk about this in detail today) has an Events at Foreign Missions section. By request of our embassies, we will find a special more convenient link, maybe even on the home page, to make it easier to find. This section has been providing information and photographic materials on the activities and events of our foreign missions regularly for several years now. A large number of materials are published daily, and even more materials will be dedicated to Diplomat’s Day. You can find information there as well.

We will certainly have a special section on the website which will be dedicated to our professional day.



Developments in Syria

On the whole, the situation in Syria continues to improve. A shift to peace is particularly evident in Damascus and in other cities where the government has been firmly controlling the situation for a long time, including in Aleppo and Homs. Life is gradually getting back to normal.

In the past few days, no serious violations of the ceasefire regime were posted in the de-escalation zones in southern Syria and north of Homs, as well as along most of the sections of the demarcation line in Eastern Ghouta, except the Harasta and Jobar districts from where terrorists continue their armed incursions.

The areas still caught in conflict include Afrin, where the Turkish military, supported by the armed opposition, are conducting Operation Olive Branch (which I will talk about separately), and Idlib. Terrorists and the so-called “moderates” have so far failed to go their separate ways in this governorate. And Al-Nusra continues to feel quite comfortable there. The Syrian military continuously face provocations aiming to torpedo the creation of de-escalation zones here. The resolute actions of the Syrian Army, supported by the Russian Aerospace Forces, have dealt a worthy rebuff to Al-Nusra whose militants have fled from the Abu Duhur air base, seized by them back in 2015.The government forces have reestablished control over this air base and the Abu Duhur community.

This week, Sochi hosted the Syrian National Dialogue Congress. The event was organised on the initiative of the Russian Federation and supported by the UN as well as by Turkey and Iran, our partners in the Astana format, together with influential Arab countries and Syria’s neighbours. This highly important event will certainly influence the developments in Syria. The forum involved 1,511 Syrian delegates representing the broadest political and ethno-religious strata of Syrian society.

Of course, we deplore the position of those members of the Syrian opposition who, at the eleventh hour, for various reasons, including under the influence of external forces, have decided to abstain from taking part in the Congress. Efforts were made to convince them to change their decision. We even postponed the congress opening but to no effect. We believe it was a political mistake. Nevertheless, the refusal of these people did not mar the atmosphere of the Sochi forum.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took part in the Congress and read out a message by President Vladimir Putin to its participants and international observers.

Fifty-three foreign observers, including a UN delegation led by UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura, were accredited in Sochi and took part in the work of the Congress. There were also representatives of UK, French and US embassies in Moscow. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also mentioned this yesterday, while replying to journalists’ questions.

Regarding media representatives, the Congress participants worked until late into the evening on January 30, and over 500 Russian and foreign journalists covered the event. Those who did not take part in the work of the Congress could watch live video footage of the opening and closing of the plenary meetings. For obvious reasons, no video cameras were allowed at the event’s working session. It was necessary to create a working atmosphere.

The approval of the Final Statement and Address became a highly important result of the intra-Syrian discussion which sometimes was quite heated. The texts of these documents, including their Russian and English language translations, are on the Foreign Ministry’s official website as well as social network accounts.

It was decided to establish a Constitutional Commission involving numerous members of the Syrian Government, the opposition, civil society, independent tribal leaders and women. The UN Secretary-General is being urged to instruct his Special Envoy for Syria Staffan da Mistura to facilitate the Commission’s work in Geneva.

A broad intra-Syrian dialogue has been launched, and an important step has been made towards the restoration of peace on Syrian territory and towards overcoming the consequences of a protracted bloody crisis.

We hope that the decisions adopted in Sochi will become an asset of the intra-Syrian negotiating process under UN auspices in Geneva and at other locations to facilitate the Syrian peace process involving Syrian parties, primarily the Astana format. And we will do our best to make this possible. The voice of Sochi forum participants who have called for restoring peace on Syrian territory as soon as possible and for reorganising the country in such a way that would guarantee the comfortable coexistence of all components of the Syrian nation, as well as the country’s unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity, security and citizens’ rights must be heard.

I would like to congratulate those whose forecasts did not come true. I answered numerous questions claiming that the forum would not take place, and what we would do if it proved impossible to organise it. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s officials said the forum would take place, and it did take place. The Russian Federation has done everything possible to successfully hold it, so that it would become an important starting point for dialogue between Syrian parties.

I would also like to recall that, apart from those doubting that the Congress would ever take place and would yield any results, numerous negative events were held in the run-up to this Congress. Their participants even predicted that, if the forum did take place, everything would be torpedoed, and that it would prove impossible to reach an agreement. Apart from these materials, instead of admitting that negative forecasts did not come true, they “rained” an entire array of fake news and material. I have no choice but to quote one of them. I will not name the publication, so as not to advertise it still further. I cannot call it anything but marginal. This publication has decided to count how much time was allocated for the Congress’ work and how much for food and rest. This material gradually started attracting sufficient attention online because it claimed that only six hours had been spent on deciding the destiny of Syria, and that 32 hours were stipulated on food, beverages and transfers.

As you know, for those who were present in Sochi and watched the Congress live, the reality was different. From morning until late into the evening, representatives of various groups of the Syrian opposition and the Syrian Government dedicated their time to work. I would like to ask those who are writing this nonsense, would you like to remind yourselves and your audience how many hours the Syrian war lasted? We are ready to help. Bloodshed on Syrian territory lasted for at least 61,320 hours. Quite possibly, it would be interesting to count how many hours of telephone and direct contacts were spent on international negotiations to resolve the Syrian crisis in Moscow, Geneva, Astana, Cairo and in many other foreign capitals, as well as at the UN. How many hours did the heads of various national foreign policy agencies on all continents devote to the Syrian issue? Well, so much for the time factor. I believe that it is also necessary to rely on these statistics, while discussing this fascinating topic.

Summing up a certain intermediate result, I would like to recall what the Syrians and Russian representatives discussed yesterday in Sochi. I would like to once again draw attention to the fact that the decisions that have been adopted in Sochi will become an asset of the intra-Syrian negotiating process under UN auspices in Geneva and other locations that aims to facilitate the Syrian peace settlement. This primarily concerns the Astana format. I want to focus on this once again. We hope that this will, indeed, lay a very important foundation for moving forwards, and we hope that this process will be expedited.



Turkey’s Olive Branch operation in Syria

We continue to monitor the developments in northern Syria, which are a matter of grave concern.

The Turkish authorities claim that Olive Branch, the military operation they launched against the Democratic Union Party’s Kurdish popular self-defence forces in the Afrin area on January 20, is in conformity with the right to self-defence that states have under the UN Charter and seeks to eliminate terrorist units.

According to the incoming information, the number of casualties over the last 10 days of fighting has reached several hundred, including civilians.

We again are calling on the parties to practice restraint.

Moscow has also taken note of the statements made by a number of Kurdish politicians that accuse Russia, along with the “Syrian regime,” of conniving at the “Turkish aggression” and even of having “betrayed the Kurds.”

We would like to note in this connection that it is not us who have consistently created conditions in northern Syria, which Turkey has deemed a threat to its national security. It was not Russia that was responsible for preventing the legitimate Government of Syria from reestablishing its control over vast parts of that country for an indefinite period of time. It was not Russia that engaged in forming in those areas uniformed services with functions pertaining to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syrian state, thereby fomenting separatist sentiments.

The current developments show clearly that disdain for international law and attempts at its one-sided interpretation are fraught with the emergence of new challenges and threats both in Syria itself and the turbulent Middle East region as a whole.

In this context, we reaffirm the invariability of Russia’s position in support of the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic as well as the Syrians’ right to determine the future of their country themselves. To assist with the implementation of this right, we have put forward the initiative to hold the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. I would like to note again that we did our best to induce representatives of Kurdish political parties, movements and unions to join the political settlement process in Syria.

We are confident that it is necessary to speed up the progress towards settlement and normalisation in Syria based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 within the framework of the collective effort to facilitate this process at the Geneva, Astana and other venues that provide for full-scale involvement of all parties concerned and, most importantly, the Syrians themselves, who, as evidenced by the Sochi forum’s resolutions, primarily want their country to return back to a peaceful way of life, which is comfortable for all its citizens, without any foreign interference and outside diktat.



The situation in Venezuela

Venezuela has launched preparations for presidential elections scheduled for late April of this year. We hope that the organisation and holding of the ballot will conform to the internationally recognised principles and norms and proceed in a peaceful and calm atmosphere, as we could observe at the gubernatorial and municipal elections last year.

We are confident that it is an incontrovertible rule for all political forces in the country to observe the Constitution and the applicable laws. We think it premature to provide any assessments with regard to the upcoming ballot. As we note, relevant statements by certain opposition leaders evince a clear desire to introduce an element of strife as well as chaos in the domestic stand-off and prevent the campaign from being promoted by the generally accepted political methods.

We regard any attempts at outside interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs, specifically attempts to dictate from the outside the parameters of voting by the Venezuelan citizens, as unacceptable. Unilateral restrictions are even more destructive. Contrary to good intentions declared by their introducers, progressing sanctions pressure is certainly unconducive to the diffusion of social tension, improvements in the humanitarian situation, or normal development of democratic processes in Venezuela.

We are stating with regret that the North-inspired anti-Venezuelan campaign continues unabated in Latin America, a campaign that foments greater hostility between parties to the dispute and destabilises the country.

Under the existing circumstances, it seems extremely important that the Venezuelan political forces continue a constructive dialogue and persevere in efforts to reach compromises and agreements that would be in the interests of the broad strata of the population and make it possible to urgently start solving socioeconomic matters in Venezuela. In this context, it is gratifying to see the parties seek to return to talks, the outcome of which will largely determine Venezuela’s further progress towards stable and successful development.

The material on developments in Venezuela that we read are clearly inspired by the North. The constant calls for democracy that we hear suggest two questions. Firstly, what are democracy’s real aims and objectives? Secondly, aren’t the constant attempts to influence the situation from the outside a factor that discredits the concept of democracy itself?



Attacks in Colombia and Ecuador

We are concerned about the news of the attacks on law enforcement agencies in Colombia and Ecuador, resulting in the loss of innocent lives, injuries and substantial property damage. We extend our sympathy to the loved ones of those killed and wish the soonest possible recovery to the injured.

Expressing solidarity with the Colombian and Ecuadorian governments and people, Russia strongly condemns any terrorist acts as one of the highest security threats in Latin America and calls for abandoning these methods, regardless of the motives.

We believe plotters and executors of these inhumane crimes will sustain tough punishment.



British Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson’s anti-Russian statements

We have taken note of British Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson’s statements regarding Russia’s readiness to attack British infrastructure facilities and kill thousands of civilians.

It appears that when the Secretary of State for Defence was making these statements he imagined himself taking part in a new James Bond film. We understand that the UK is going through a difficult time due to its exit from the EU and an internal split within British society that also has an effect on the current developments. It is understandable that an external enemy is needed to distract public attention. They earlier tried to connect the British people’s decision to leave the European Union with the Kremlin but that did not really work out. So now, they decided to approach the matter from another angle.

This time, the claims raised eyebrows even in the United Kingdom itself. Statements of such nature are completely amateurish. Amateurism is what the British security services accused Williamson of and recommended that he stopped speculating and scaremongering.

Obviously, such absurd statements only make it more difficult to enhance our bilateral relations and our cooperation against the actual challenges facing the modern world, which the heads of Russian and British foreign affairs agencies discussed during their talks in Moscow last December.



Dutch investigative report on Russia’s alleged interference in US affairs

It is known that on January 25, Dutch media published an investigative report that claims that in 2014, the General Intelligence and Security Service hacked into computers at a Moscow “office” that turned out to be “a group of hackers with close links to the Kremlin,” and set up surveillance over the group.

The said group of hackers is incriminated with cyberattacks not only on Hillary Clinton’s election campaign headquarters but also French television channel TV5 Monde as well as the headquarters of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, the dominant party in Germany. It is claimed that for two and a half years, Dutch intelligence agents transferred the collected data “via partner channels” to the FBI and the NSA, which “minimized the damage from Russian interference during the US presidential elections.” So they dragged their feet until election day. They knew, they were tormented by it but would not publicise the information.

To put it bluntly, why has nobody told us about this for two and a half years? They could have communicated this information to us. We have been in contact with Dutch officials. Information security is one of the matters Russian diplomats discuss with their foreign counterparts. Apparently, they did wait until the elections in the US. Let’s turn to logic. If Hillary Clinton had won, the information would not have been revealed and published, even if we only assume that it is true. But, since Clinton did not win, suddenly it turns out that it happened but nobody said anything.

We noticed that, as always, the report did not produce any solid evidence. The journalists explained everything and referred to “a state secret non-disclosure order.” We consider this report to be another injection of unverified information.

Why would the Netherlands become so engaged in the matter now? It seems we have the answer. It all adds up. Next March, the Netherlands are holding municipal elections alongside a consultative referendum on extending the authority of the Dutch security services. The public in the country is rightly concerned with these plans which, once put in practice, may clear the way for more security violations on behalf of the government. Hence the attempt to shift the blame onto someone else and once again scare any Dutch subjects who are still in doubt with the “evil Kremlin.”

The fact is that not so long ago, we saw a copy of this story during the media promotion of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement ratification, when, despite the Dutch government’s efforts, citizens of the country voted the way they voted. Aren’t you afraid of the same outcome? It is so absurd and all too obvious that it does not hold water.



Statements by Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki regarding Nord Stream 2

We have taken note of the statements made by Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki in a recent interview with Polish media, according to which the Polish official said during his talks with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that Poland wants the United States to impose sanctions on the planned Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between Russia and Germany to suspend or at least hinder its implementation. They have no scruples about talking about this in public.

Poland’s extremely negative attitude to Nord Stream 2 is a long established fact. We have made numerous comments on this. Poland’s arguments regarding this matter do not stand up to criticism.

As an alternative to this project, Poland has proposed importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States, which, Poland believes, should become a major gas supplier to Europe, which would make Poland Europe’s gas hub with an LNG terminal at the Baltic Sea port of Swinoujscie. It is a medical fact that LNG costs much more than pipeline gas, including Russian gas delivered to Europe. If this is a fact and LNG prices are indeed higher, how can its import enhance Europe’s energy security, which appears to be is a matter of concern for Poland?

We would like to remind the Polish side that the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, far from threatening Europe’s energy security, will strengthen it by diversifying gas transportation routes, reducing transportation risks and increasing the reliability of gas deliveries to the end users.

The Nord Stream 2 project is not aimed at depriving anyone of the ability to transit gas on market conditions. This concerns both Poland and Ukraine. Russia has said more than once, as a matter of principle, that it is ready to continue to deliver a certain amount of gas to Europe via the existing transit routes after Nord Stream 2 starts operating, provided we coordinate stable as well as economically beneficial conditions.

As for spreading US jurisdiction to this project, many European countries have expressed concern over US attempts to use unfair trade practices. We can see now that Warsaw is trying to do the same. It is our consistent policy to prevent any attempt to hinder constructive energy initiatives that are designed to benefit the European consumers of Russian energy resources.

And one more thing regarding this subject: it has been reported that the United States has started importing LNG, including from Russia.



Differences between Belgrade and Zagreb over the exhibition on the Jasenovac concentration camp at the UN

The Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs has sent a note of protest to Belgrade over the opening of an exhibition on the Jasenovac WWII concentration camp at the UN on January 25, 2018. We wholeheartedly support the Serbian authorities’ intention to commemorate the WWII victims.

These days the world is honouring the Holocaust victims. Thousands of innocent civilians from different age and ethnic groups, primarily Serbs, Roma and Jews, were exterminated at the death camp that I have mentioned. We mourn all victims of Nazism.

We will never forget the dramatic path to the Great Victory. Consistent efforts must be taken to prevent any attempts to falsify history or revise the results of WWII. This is especially important in light of the destruction and desecration of monuments to Soviet soldiers in many countries, soldiers who died liberating the inmates of Nazi concentration camps and save Europe and the rest of the world from Nazism.

Also, I would like to remind you that UN General Assembly Resolution on the Holocaust Remembrance (A/RES/60/7, November 21, 2005) says that the General Assembly “commends those states which have actively engaged in preserving those sites that served as Nazi death camps, concentration camps, forced labour camps and prisons during the Holocaust.”



Remarks by Director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs Slawomir Debski concerning Russia's participation in the Sobibor memorial project

We took note of the remarks posted by Director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs Slawomir Debski on Twitter to the effect that the Netherlands, rather than Poland, blocked our country’s participation in the International Steering Committee of the project to create a new museum, a memorial built on the grounds of the former Nazi death camp in Sobibor.

To quote Mikhail Bulgakov, manuscripts don’t burn, and now it looks like tweets don’t burn, either. Perhaps, it is worth checking whether this information is true, because it was voiced by someone who is directly involved in the situation. Notably, different signals came from the capitals of other countries participating in the International Steering Committee.

We would like to emphasise that what matters most for us is Russia's full-scale participation in this project without any attempts to shift responsibility onto others, which is what some capitals appear to be doing.



Russian Seasons in Italy

A grand opening ceremony for Russian Seasons took place in Rome at the National Academy of Santa Cecilia on January 14. The event included a performance by the Mariinsky Theatre Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Valery Gergiev.

The Russian official delegation was headed by Deputy Prime Minister Olga Golodets. The Italian delegation was led by Undersecretary of State to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers Maria Elena Boschi. Numerous representatives of political, public and business circles, and cultural figures attended the opening, which was widely covered by Russian and Italian media.

A news conference concerning the opening of Russian Seasons was held at the Russian Centre for Science and Culture in Rome on January 15 with the participation of Olga Golodets and Undersecretary of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism of the Italian Republic Dorina Bianchi.

As a major cultural project, Russian Seasons is designed to showcase outstanding achievements in Russian culture and art, and to give an additional impetus to bilateral cooperation in the cultural sphere. I'm talking about an event that took place almost a fortnight ago, not to refresh your memory, but to draw your attention to the fact that it was the start of a large-scale project involving more than 200 events, held in 40 Italian cities, including Rome, Milan, Florence, Venice, Genoa, and Naples, to name a few.

The Italian audiences will enjoy performances by Russia’s leading theatre and dance groups with a worldwide reputation, as well as modern music and performing arts, unparalleled art collections from national museums, film festivals, and gala concerts featuring Russian stars.

In their public statements and interviews, the representatives of the Italian government have spoken highly of the Russian initiative, which, they believe, will be beneficial for every aspect of Russia-Italy relations.



Russian Foreign Ministry’s website in Arabic

Today, we are launching a section of the official website of the Russian Foreign Ministry in Arabic. From now on, our website will be available in yet another language. It will not replicate the original version in Russian as we will select news and materials that we believe are of particular interest to our Arabic-speaking users.

The Final Statement of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress held in Sochi on January 29−30 will be among the first items posted on our website in Arabic.

This represents another important step in our consistent work to popularise and expand the availability of information posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s official website.

Please note that the Arabic-language version is available from today, but will run in test mode for now. We expect our users to come up with their proposals and comments, to which we will promptly respond.

Our Arabic-speaking audiences can also use our “Russia in Arabic” image accounts on Twitter micro blog (@Russia_AR) and on Facebook (@RussianFederationArabic), which will now carry material from the new section of the Ministry’s website.



Priorities of Russian EAEU chairmanship in 2018

The integration process in the Eurasian space is actively developing. In the three years since it was founded (January 1, 2015) the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) has achieved convincing results to become one of the determining factors of economic development of its member states: Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

A thriving common market for goods is operating. Services, capital and labour markets are being formed on the basis of universal rules. A new EAEU Customs Code came into effect as of January 1.

In 2017 all the EAEU member states registered economic growth (total EAEU GDP was up 1.8 percent). Trade between the member states is growing (in the first three quarters of 2017 mutual trade within the Union grew by 26.9 percent and exports to foreign markets by 24.7 percent).

In 2018 Russia assumed the chairmanship of the EAEU bodies. Russia’s chairmanship of the Union will be based on the priorities set forth by the Russian President in his address to the EAEU heads of state on January 17. At the same time we are open to suggestions and wishes from all the Union partners and we are ready to take them into account.

Russia has an ambitious integration agenda. We see our task not only in “finetuning” the Union by developing supranational regulations and eliminating some exemptions from the common market. Russia suggests that its partners in the Union supplement the integration agenda with new relevant initiatives and projects. The formation of a common digital space of the Union will be a priority. Good opportunities are opening up for increasing the links among the five countries in the fields of nuclear energy, renewable energy sources, the environment, medicine, space exploration, tourism and sports. These were not originally part of the integration agenda, but in the modern world it is hard to imagine sustained economic development without cooperation in these areas.

From Russia’s point of view, establishing close cooperation with foreign partners is very important for the further development of the Union. A Free Trade Zone with Vietnam has been functioning successfully since 2016. We are looking towards a positive outcome of the ongoing talks to create FTZs with Singapore, Iran, India, Israel, Egypt and Serbia. The signing of a trade and economic cooperation agreement between the EAEU and the PRC promises to open up broad vistas.

Together with our partners in the Union we will explore the possibilities for closer coordination of the formats of the EAEU and the CIS some of whose member states could become observers at the EAEU. We are also committed to continued interaction with the UN and its specialised bodies, the strengthening of the positions of the member states and the Union as a whole within the WTO and working to involve the Union in the activities of other international organisations. In line with established practice, the Eurasian Economic Commission, which is the Union’s supranational regulatory body, will shortly present a plan for the implementation of the priorities of the Russian EAEU chairmanship in 2018 and will report on its fulfillment during the course of the year.



Russia’s role in possible intensification of OSCE monitoring activities on the separation line in Nagorny Karabakh and prospects for peaceful settlement in the region

At the previous briefing, our colleagues from the Armenian media asked me to comment on Russia’s role in the possible strengthening of the OSCE mission’s monitoring activities on the line of contact in Nagorny Karabakh and on the prospects for peaceful settlement in the region.

By way of answering these questions, I would like to say the following.

Russia, together with the other countries that co-chair the OSCE Minsk group for Nagorny Karabakh settlement, is actively seeking to reduce tension on the separation line and is making efforts aimed at broadening the mission of the OSCE observers in the conflict zone. This topic loomed large during the meeting between Russian President Putin and the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia in St Petersburg (June 2016). It was discussed during Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s visit to Baku and Yerevan in November last year.

The OSCE had prepared several versions of the document regulating the activities of additional observers. At the January 18 meeting in Cracow of the foreign ministers of the two countries, organised by the “troika” of co-chairs, updated proposals were handed over to the sides. The ministers agreed in principle with the document prepared by the mediators. Some technical details still need to be thrashed out by the parties before the mission expansion mechanism is launched.

As for the second question which has to do with the prospects of peaceful settlement, I would like to reiterate that only the parties themselves, by displaying political will, can reach compromises that will put an end to the long-drawn-out conflict. At the Armenia-Azerbaijan summit held in Geneva in October last year, the two presidents agreed to step up the negotiating process. Since then, the ministers have met twice. Relevant statements have been issued. The co-chairs plan to visit the region in the first ten days of February to clarify the position of the parties on the problematic issues of settlement.



Prospects for the development of Russia-Bulgaria relations

On the eve of the 140th anniversary of the liberation of Bulgaria from the Ottomans (March 3), we note certain positive shifts in Russian-Bulgarian relations. There have been intensive contacts between the parliaments, churches and various agencies. Regional cooperation has seen fruitful development. There has been some progress in trade and economic links. Trade between our countries increased by one third to $2.5 billion last year, despite the continuing anti-Russian sanctions on the part of the European Union. At the same time, the two countries are well aware that this is not the limit. There are goals to be achieved and work to be done. This fully applies to the cultural and humanitarian sphere.

In connection with the 140th anniversary of the liberation of Bulgaria from the Ottoman yoke, events were held in 2017 in Svishtov and Pleven (June and December respectively) and at Shipka (August). Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia is to visit Bulgaria in early March to take part in the main joint celebration events. The programme of his visit to Bulgaria is being worked out. For details, we recommend that those interested contact the Press Service of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In our opinion, the current Bulgarian presidency of the EU Council could contribute to progress in Russia-EU relations.

At the same time, we have yet to see any serious changes in our cooperation on energy. The parties are still working on an approach to re-launching major energy projects, i.e. the Bulgarian branch of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline and resumption of the construction of the Belene nuclear station. These projects were put on hold several years ago through no fault of ours. We believe the two sides would gain from expanding the range of cooperation and increasing the share of high-tech products. I can assure you that we will welcome any conscious wish of our Bulgarian colleagues and friends to promote dialogue with Russia.

All relations, whether between individuals or states, have prospects that become evident when the parties seek to enhance these relations. We are ready for that.



Latvia launches Language Friend mobile app

On January 24, the Latvian State Language Centre (SLC), whose inspections of the Russian-speaking community in Latvia have been dubbed the “language inquisition,” has launched a mobile application that enables any “concerned” citizen to report violations of language norms by this or that individual.

It is notable that the programme envisages feedback to the informer: the SLC will inform “conscious citizens” on the results of the complaints review they have filed.

This latest Latvian novelty that reeks of “the Orwellian world order” is becoming yet another repressive instrument aimed at pushing the Russian language out of every sphere of life and it has a manifestly discriminatory character. I cannot think of any other analogy apart from the era of the inquisition. What is implemented here is, in effect, a “language inquisition.” We expect that authoritative international organisations will make a principled assessment of this provocative sortie by the Latvian authorities.

To be honest, one more question arises. Latvia and other East European countries declare that they want to bid farewell to “the Soviet past” and “the Soviet legacy.” They call it the legacy of a totalitarian regime. But what more closely resembles an instrument of a totalitarian regime than such mobile apps that make it possible to snitch on fellow citizens who speak their native tongue?




Answers to media questions:



Question:

The West constantly accuses Russia of interfering in elections in various parts of the world. The reverse is the truth. During the last briefing, you noted that Russia has information on plans for disruptive interference by some countries in Russia’s internal affairs in the context of the presidential election campaign. You are not the only ones to come under such pressure. Azerbaijan also holds elections this year. We have already detected pressure in Baku. How can this phenomenon be dealt with?



Maria Zakharova:

What can I say? The recipe is simple. First, to record everything. Second, to make it public and present sufficient detail focusing on this topic, because it is a very serious one. Third, to provide information on interference in the internal affairs to the relevant specialised international agencies which are called upon not only to record, but to react to such interference.



Question:

If there is an expectation that the Geneva process can capitalise on the results of the Sochi Congress could you explain how the Russian Foreign Ministry envisions the participation of the Geneva Constitutional Committee considering that there are also the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) and the government delegation? How can the HNC and the Constitutional Committee relate to each other considering that a representative of the Moscow platform was a member of the presidium at the Sochi Syrian National Dialogue Congress?



Maria Zakharova:

Where do you see a contradiction? What is unrealistic about it?



Question:

Can they work in parallel or be integrated somehow?



Maria Zakharova:

Who is to be integrated with whom?



Question:

The HNC and the Constitutional Committee.



Maria Zakharova:

The first assessment was given yesterday by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. As for structuring the work of the constitutional reform body in Geneva, I think this is up to the representatives of the Syrian Government and the opposition. This work, of course, will be closely coordinated with the UN representatives who moderate the Geneva process. I can make inquiries about the interaction mechanisms, and we will send you an answer to your question.



Question:

Is the Russian Foreign Ministry commenting on the publication of the so-called “Kremlin list?”



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian Foreign Minister commented on this matter yesterday. The verbatim report was posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website around 10 pm. You must have seen the comments made by President Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, and Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov.

The thing is that, as was noted by a spokesperson for the President’s Executive Office, these clearly unfriendly steps undertaken by a certain part of the US establishment require a thorough and in-depth analysis. Of course, all of this looks absurd and odd on the face of it, but we must certainly analyse what is behind these actions, how they might really influence the situation and bilateral relations, and what their end goal is. According to the US representatives, there is an unpublished part aside from the one that has been published. All of this requires a serious and profound analysis.

The first comments from several sources, specifically by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, were issued yesterday.



Question:

Donald Trump said yesterday that the United States no longer intended to negotiate with the Taliban. Conversely, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared recently that it was necessary to establish a dialogue with the Taliban. Could you give your comment?



Maria Zakharova:

We have received a number of questions similar to yours recently, including in connection with statements made by our US colleagues. Shortly before this briefing, we were asked whether Russia was ready to mediate any peace talks between Taliban representatives and the US Government, whether Russia offered the Taliban to mediate these talks, whether Moscow was working on organising a possible Taliban-US meeting in the near future, and whether Russia supported such talks between the Taliban Movement and the United States.

This wave, which originated in the US, and generally the developments in the region you have just mentioned have raised a great number of questions. I’ll try to answer them in their entirety.

In the first place, neither of the parties that have just been mentioned has asked us for our assistance. We think there is no need for it because the Americans can contact the Taliban leadership directly. The thing is that Washington, as far as we know, views the idea of direct talks with the Taliban as unacceptable (at least this was so previously, things change fast over there), while the Taliban are prepared to negotiate with the United States only under the condition that the main topic for discussions will be the withdrawal of US and NATO forces from Afghanistan. Possibly this is also an answer to your question.

For our part, we are ready to facilitate and will continue to promote the process of national reconciliation in Afghanistan. If need be, we are ready to provide, for example, the Moscow venue for contacts between representatives of Kabul and the Taliban. We have repeatedly invited Washington to take part in the multilateral efforts within the Moscow format of consultations on Afghanistan with a view to launching a direct intra-Afghan dialogue. Regrettably, our US colleagues have shown no sign of willing to assist this process. The Washington-announced policy (although, I repeat, things change fast over there lately) – to build up its military presence in Afghanistan – can only testify to the fact that the United States is still counting on a belligerent solution, even though the developments in that country regularly reveal that this approach as untenable.

A few months ago, when the US administration announced its new strategy regarding Afghanistan, we noted that Washington’s policy towards that state was not long-term. No matter how wonderful a plan is in theory, it never serves the cause of a settlement because the US approach tends to change diametrically within a fairly brief period, specifically with regards to Afghanistan and talks with the Taliban. Of course, this less-than-long-term policy can even be described as short-sighted. All of this is a source not only of regret but also concern because the developments in Afghanistan pose a real threat to regional peace and stability.



Question:

Will you make a comment on US President Donald Trump’s yesterday statement to the effect that Russia and China are America’s rivals?



Maria Zakharova:

We have commented on such statements more than once. Other Washington officials have made statements to this effect in different forms. This view has been included in a number of recent core documents on US national security. Overall, there has been nothing new in this regard for the past few years. By and large, it is a twice-told tale, as we say. Is this a result of deep analysis? I doubt it.

Our position of principle is that we should cooperate with the United States. Frankly speaking, Beijing has not deviated from this position either. At the same time, Washington’s policy towards Russia over the past few years can be described as running contrary to the task of constructive cooperation and interaction.

There are absolutely no examples – unless you accept the Kremlin’s alleged interference in foreign elections – of Moscow exhibiting an unconstructive or unacceptable attitude to Washington. Let’s forget about the totally fake story of our interference in foreign elections, because nobody has provided or will be able to provide any proof of this because there is none. All our statements refer to cooperation with the United States as our priority in many spheres, including politics, cultural ties, the economy, information security and cybersecurity. We are not just willing but are also ready for cooperation in all spheres, from the environment to disarmament and from finance to media cooperation. Moreover, we have been developing this cooperation until recently through presidential commissions and the like. What analytical reports do leading US politicians and experts read to conclude that Russia and China are rival powers?

But President Barack Obama used the same approach – I hope CNN will not cut this part out of the briefing. It was President Obama who first told this tale, and he did not provide any substantiation for it. I presume that this question coming from a network that is clearly opposed to President Trump was designed to show that bilateral relations have not been improving as expected under him. I would like to remind you that the [previous] US administration, which your network supported very actively, has done everything in its power to bury bilateral relations. The Obama administration has done the worst things imaginable, from the expulsion of diplomats to the termination of the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission and the working groups of this vital and efficient cooperation agency, and from visa problems to demonising Russia. You know this very well. Therefore, I believe that you should look for the source of our current problems in the statements made by the Obama administration, rather than in statements made today or yesterday.

I would like to repeat that although we pointed out America’s unconstructive attitude to Russia both under the Obama administration and under the current administration, we also always said that bilateral cooperation has a future and is possible, because this is what our nations need. When you talk to people on both sides of the ocean, you hear that they are fed up with everything going on in the public sphere, including problems with US visas, when its takes a month just to file a visa application, and this in the 21st century.

We can cite many examples of smooth cooperation with Washington on the most complicated matters. We strongly hope that there will come a day when Washington will revise the tone set in bilateral relations and the public sphere by Barack Obama and his supporters. Listen to what our both countries’ citizens, people in the United States and Russia, say. Look at the disgust they feel at this wave of anti-Russia absurdities, which stems from Washington.



Question:

A little more than a year ago, Russian Ambassador to Belarus Alexander Surikov, in fact, publicly accused Belarusian citizens, Regnum news agency writers Yury Pavlovets, Dmitry Alimkin and Sergey Sheptenko of radicalism and expressed doubt that the detained journalists are true patriots of the country in which they currently live. The investigation into the case has shown that the publications by the above-mentioned writers did not, in principle, contain the word combination “inferior people,” which Mr Ambassador referred to. Considering these circumstances, do you think that the Ambassador should repent and publicly refute his false statement?



Maria Zakharova:

We have repeatedly commented on this.



Question:

What contacts with the US side through diplomatic agencies have been planned for the near future?



Maria Zakharova:

We maintain a permanent dialogue, permanent contacts with our US colleagues. Meetings are held in Moscow and Washington though our embassies. Questions are being constantly brought up, answers received and opinions exchanged. This dialogue has not been interrupted. Do not listen to the statements that are made, including those by US experts. The dialogue goes on.

True, we would like it to be more intensive and more constructive so that we do not stumble over very aggressive statements about Russia from representatives of various branches of power in the United States. We would like to address concrete, important and useful matters.

Once again, let me draw your attention to the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website, where we regularly talk about this, as well as the website of our embassy in Washington. They promptly publish clear-cut information about our contacts in the US and contacts that are conducted with our US colleagues through the diplomatic agency in Moscow. One of the examples is interaction and contacts on the UN platform, including at the UN Security Council.

So, is it possible to say that there is no dialogue between us? There is. And the time is ripe for this dialogue to become really constructive so that from accusations, which we hear from the US side and to which we constantly have to respond, we could move over to real interaction in handling world crises and matters on the UN Security Council’s agenda.

On our website, we also publish detailed information about talks between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Pay attention to the website of the Russian Permanent Mission at the UN: it, too, carries relevant information. Russian general consulates in the US also publish information about our contacts on their website.

The fact is that the level of the dialogue does not match its potential or people’s expectations. And yet, it goes on.



Question:

On Tuesday, US State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert commented on a recent incident over the Black Sea, when a Russian Su-27 jet fighter intercepted a US reconnaissance plane that was approaching our border. Heather Nauert accused Russia of grossly violating international law, including the 1972 agreement between the USSR and the US on the prevention of incidents on and over the high seas. She urged Russia to stop doing this. Our Defence Ministry has already commented on the incident, saying that everything was in compliance with international law. Still, I would like to hear your reaction.



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot help but remark that when we remind our US colleagues of the treaties signed two or three years ago, they say that they were not in office at the time and therefore cannot say anything. And here the spokesperson knows about the 1972 agreement. How come? She was only a child back then.

The Russian side commented on this at length, so I do not think that we should repeat it.



Question:

Is it possible to use the successful experience of cooperation between Russia, Turkey and Iran, which was received at the Congress in Sochi for settling the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh?



Maria Zakharova:

This is a strange question: Russia, Turkey, Iran and Nagorno-Karabakh. Do not confuse these two issues – Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh. I think these are two completely different issues and mixing them is inappropriate.



Question:

Head of the Syrian Government delegation Bashar Jaafari said the Syrian Constitution should be discussed in Damascus. How could this proposal be translated into reality?



Maria Zakharova:

I think this is an incomplete quote. It is misleading to quote this proposal like this because we know all too well that it has a much deeper meaning.

The problem is that the Syrian conflict, the intra-Syrian confrontation did not leave any opportunity for discussing, in particular, the issue of the Constitution inside Syria. Was anyone against this? Over the last several years, the conflicting sides in Syria could not find this opportunity. Therefore, this opportunity was granted in Sochi the other day – to create all possible prerequisites for launching this process that should be most active and, we hope, productive. Nobody has ever suggested that drafting the Constitution should be done by anyone but the Syrians themselves. This is an absolute priority, and Russia has always emphasised this, insisting that this should be done by the Syrians themselves.

Once again, as for geography, this question is not for us. It has arisen as a consequence of the Syrian crisis and the domestic confrontation. However, there should be no doubt that this work should be carried out by the Syrians themselves.



Question:

The Libyan issue has recently abated. It was raised for the last time at the summit of Mediterranean countries in the 5+5 format, when the participants discussed developments in Libya. What is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s take on this issue?



Maria Zakharova:

I will clarify the answer to this question and give you the information you need.



Question:

On January 29, Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu visited Moscow. What are the results of his visit?



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to remind you that comments on events involving the President of the Russian Federation and summits are made by his Executive Office. The materials on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit are published on the Kremlin website. Our functional responsibilities are divided.



Question:

In a recent interview with TASS, Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov said, when replying to a question about the nearest visit of representatives of the North Korean Foreign Ministry to Russia, that he did not rule out the possibility of consultations between the foreign ministries of the two countries in Moscow before the Olympics. The Games are just a few days away. Do you have any information on such contacts?



Maria Zakharova:

If information on these contacts is confirmed we will report it to you as we always do. At present I do not have such information.



Question:

Is there information on the visit of Director of the DPRK Foreign Ministry’s North American Department, Choe Son-Hui, to Moscow?



Maria Zakharova:

I can say that we maintain regular contact with our US, South and North Korean colleagues as well as all countries involved in settling the situation. These contacts have not been discontinued, and I can confirm this. We also maintain continuous dialogue with our Chinese colleagues on this issue. As you know, during the last year Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov repeatedly met with US Special Representative for North Korea Policy Joseph Yun both in Moscow and Washington. Mr Morgulov and Mr Yun are scheduled to meet in Moscow next time. The details and parameters of this meeting will be released later.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3051107
__________________
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 February 2nd, 2018 #353
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 answers to media questions following talks with Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano Moscow, February 1, 2018



1 February 2018 - 14:25








Ladies and gentlemen,

We have had our traditional constructive and trust-based talks with Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Angelino Alfano, who has come to Moscow on a working visit in his capacity as the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office. We devoted most of our time to this subject.

We agree that the OSCE is designed and has the ability to play a special role in finding positive collective solutions to common European challenges and can also facilitate the revival of trust in our region. We believe that the strategic goal of the organisation, which was reaffirmed at the Astana summit in 2010, is the creation of a free, democratic, common and indivisible security community stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok.

This year, we will need OSCE assistance to settle the internal Ukrainian crisis, which we discussed at length today. We believe that strict compliance with the Minsk Package of Measures is the only option, contrary to Kiev’s attempts to prevent a peaceful future by staging provocations such as the full blockade of parts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions last spring, or the recent law on the reintegration of Donbass, which actually derails the Minsk Agreements, or the notorious Law on Education, which not only infringes on the language rights of Russians but also on the rights of all other ethnic minorities in Ukraine. My Italian colleague and I have agreed to continue to facilitate OSCE efforts to maintain the operation of the Contact Group and the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

Through our combined efforts, the OSCE will continue to contribute to the settlement of the Transnistrian and Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts, co-chair the Geneva Consultations on Security and Stability in the South Caucasus and work in the Balkans. First, we would like to see the OSCE’s active contribution to settling the remaining questions regarding Kosovo in strict compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

We support Italy’s intention to prioritise Mediterranean challenges. We share Rome’s resolve to work energetically with the OSCE partner states from this vital part of the world.

Russia is interested in promoting close cooperation with the Italian Chairmanship on crucial OSCE issues, such as the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking and cyber threats, the alignment of integration processes, the protection of traditional values and the rights of ethnic minorities, as well as the fight against anti-Semitism and intolerance of Christianity and Islam. We discussed this year’s plans for OSCE events on these and other subjects. We spoke in favour of the continued improvement of the work of the OSCE’s executive agencies and field missions. As for the planned reform of various areas of OSCE activity, Russia and its partners have long submitted their proposals.

Of course, we have reaffirmed Russia’s willingness to have OSCE observers at the presidential election in March 2018. The OSCE has been in contact with Russia’s Central Election Commission. All the issues related to monitoring the elections have been coordinated. At the same time, we will also have observers from the CIS, the CIS Interparliamentary Assembly and the CSTO. We hope that the Election Observation Mission of the OSCE and PACE will closely cooperate with other observers invited to the upcoming elections from the above organisations.

We have confirmed the ongoing implementation of crucial projects within the OSCE framework, such as drug enforcement training for Serbian and Afghan police officers at Russian Interior Ministry courses.

Without a doubt, Russia and Italy have an extensive bilateral agenda. We are satisfied with how the agreements we have reached at the highest level are being implemented and how contacts are progressing between legislative and judicial authorities as well as inter-departmental and inter-regional exchanges.

I am happy to say that last year trade began to grow after a rather long decline: during the first 11 months, growth was 18 per cent, reaching $21.4 billion. We will try to promote this positive trend as well as our work in the framework of the Russian-Italian Council on Economic, Industrial, Currency and Financial Cooperation, to boost industrial cooperation and production localisation of Italian companies in accordance with Russia’s policy to develop investment exchange.

Our cultural and humanitarian ties are also developing successfully. Two weeks ago, the Russian Seasons project opened in Italy with a concert by the Mariinsky Theatre’s Symphony Orchestra conducted by Valery Gerviev. There are plans to hold over 250 events in 40 Italian cities as part of the Russian Seasons. Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Angelino Alfano told us Italy is planning to participate in the St Petersburg International Cultural Forum as a guest this year. We welcome this decision.

We exchanged views on key global and regional issues. Both Russia and Italy are in favour of collective action, united efforts to effectively combat international terrorism and settle various crises.

We have informed our Italian friends in detail about the Syrian National Dialogue Congress that took place two days ago in Sochi and helped promote a comprehensive intra-Syrian dialogue based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We believe the results of this Congress will help the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura enliven the Geneva process of negotiations between the Syrian government and a broadly representative opposition delegation, first of all, in order to develop constitutional reforms.

We have a good dialogue with our Italian partners on the need for international support of a UN-sponsored political settlement in Libya. We support the steps taken by Special Representative of UN Secretary-General for Libya Ghassan Salame on the basis of the Plan of Action he has drafted.

Russia and Italy have similar approaches with respect to the need to preserve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.

In general, I believe the talks were very useful. We will continue close cooperation with our Italian friends, including as OSCE Chairperson-in-Office and as our close partner on all the issues we have discussed today.

I would like to thank Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano for the valuable conversation today.



Question:

The ministers mentioned the meeting in Sochi, and many of our colleagues here have also been there. In this regard, I would like to ask a question about Libya. Given Italy's relations with Libya and Russia's relations with the parties in Libya, can we expect a Libyan people’s dialogue congress similar to the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi to be held any time soon?



Sergey Lavrov:

I fully support what Mr Alfano just said. From the outset of international efforts to bring things to order in Libya, that was torn apart by NATO aggression, which was illegal and was perpetrated in violation of the UN Security Council resolution, we have been in favour of using a national dialogue if we want to overcome the current unbearable situation. Libya has turned into a “grey zone” that is used by militants for weapons smuggling and moving further to the Sahara-Sahel region, and in the opposite direction – from south to north and further to Europe – waves of illegal migrants are moving, which has created enormous problems for many European countries, including Italy, and fairly serious tensions inside the European Union. We very much hope that we will join efforts in looking for ways to overcome the crisis in Libya, including taking into account the many problems that were created in the wake of the North Atlantic alliance changing the government in that country through bloodshed.

Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Libya Ghassan Salame puts forward the right ideas, such as national reconciliation and unification, which Mr Alfano just mentioned. Like most other countries, we support them. I can see an analogy with the Congress that took place in Sochi, although at this point the Congress asked the UN to use the results achieved in Sochi primarily from the viewpoint of the beginning of the functioning of a constitutional committee. The Libyan conference could take a little more time since everything depends on the agreements that will be reached. Importantly, it is necessary to drop the attempts that were observed at the early stages of the settlement effort where bets were made on one intra-Libyan group while trying to marginalise the other participants of this drama.

An inclusive dialogue is the only way to resolve Libyan problems, which are plentiful. As I said, Libya has become a gateway for all kinds of murky and criminal activity. Libya continues to present a terrorist threat. ISIS emissaries have made a home for themselves there, creating problems for neighbouring countries. The smuggling and migration crises continue unabated. Importantly, when the Libyans begin to determine the future of their country and the format of new bodies of power, they should be guided by the understanding that these new authorities should be able to resolve all these issues. I hope that the external players, too, will not be guided by their personal subjective preferences, but will help the Libyans form a government that will be capable of responding to all these challenges.



Question:

Despite Moscow's efforts to organise a Syrian dialogue in Sochi, some of the invited opposition groups never made it to Sochi. What will the attitude to the opinion of this part of the opposition be in light of the forthcoming political changes in Syria, especially with regard to constitutional reforms?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, despite the unprecedented level of representation of all social groups of Syrian society, the Sochi forum was not completely inclusive. To be specific, two opposition groups did not participate in full. First, this regards the mechanism that was created by Saudi Arabia and combined the Riyadh, Moscow and Cairo groups. This group was invited in full and as a single body. We held in-depth talks with its chairman, Nasr Al-Hariri, but in the end he chose not to respond positively to our invitation. He explained this by saying that there were some disagreements within this negotiating commission created by our Saudi colleagues. However, of the 34 members of this group, about a third took part in the Sochi Congress thereby showing that this commission, too, has great interest in participating in such all-Syrian events.

The second group is the opposition that is based in Istanbul. It arrived in Sochi but, for rather artificial reasons, which have no relation to a settlement, refused to participate in the Congress and went back to Istanbul. However, at the same time, these opposition members delegated their authority to Deputy Undersecretary for the Middle East and Africa at the Foreign Ministry of Turkey Sedat Onal, who participated in the Congress from beginning to end, thereby ensuring its inclusive nature in part concerning the representation of the opposition from Istanbul.

We are not claiming that all the Syrians, without exception, who must ultimately participate in resolving issues concerning the future of Syria, were represented in Sochi. However, I would like to stress again that there has been no other meeting that has been even remotely as representative as the one in Sochi, which included all the groups of Syrian society without exception. UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, underscored this. In our conversation, he expressed his particular satisfaction with the fact that such lively discussions, which occasionally took place at the Congress, indicated that it was not a staged event, but a true democratic presentation of the views of the various representatives of Syrian society. I think (and Mr de Mistura also told me) that this Congress significantly helps him in his efforts to reinvigorate and make the Geneva talks viable.



Question (addressed to Angelino Alfano):

It is continuously emphasised that the implementation of the Minsk agreements is very important. However, we see that tensions between Russia and Ukraine are going up. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov explained why this is happening. Isn’t it time for Europe to say in no uncertain terms that Kiev should do more on its end to promote this process?



Sergey Lavrov (adds after Mr Alfano):

I would like to add a few words. Needless to say, the Minsk agreements must be carried out. They make it clear what each party must do and when. The sequence is very important. Nonetheless, in the work in the Normandy format and the Contact Group, Russia and the newly-proclaimed republics are prepared to accept a certain amount of flexibility. This applies, in part, to the entry in force of the law on the special status of Donbass on the basis of the formula of Frank-Walter Steinmeier that was negotiated by the Normandy format leaders way back in October 2015 but cannot be put on paper because of Ukraine’s position. This is one of the many egregious facts that characterise Ukraine’s position. Today we informed our Italian colleagues of these facts.

Mr Alfano said that nevertheless the sides may come to terms when they display the political will. I agree with this. One of the confirmations of this was the prisoner swap ahead of the New Year. Now the Contact Group is discussing the continuation of this process. We also hope that Ukraine will adhere to the agreements that have been reached because the swap ultimately took place owing to the constructive position of Donetsk and Lugansk because contrary to the initial agreements the Ukrainian Government transferred to Donbass fewer people than it was committed to.

However, speaking about the ceisefire, we all had high hopes when “the school truce” was announced on the eve of the start of the school year and “the Christmas truce” mentioned by Mr Alfano was declared during the holidays.

There is serious concern over the violations linked with the fact that Ukraine continues to keep illegal armed formations, the so-called volunteer battalions that are “squaring their shoulders” and gaining in strength. There were attempts to integrate them partially into the National Guards and the armed forces. Yet, they do not disappear. None of these battalions or their commanders that are still in “free flight” follow orders from the Ukrainian central authorities, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief – the President, the heads of the armed forces and the Ministry of the Interior. A few days ago a new radical, overtly neo-Nazi structure was established there. It was called the National Corps or the National Squad.

We are deeply worried by this trend. The monopoly on using force is eroded and cannot be restored when radicals with neo-Nazi sympathies start calling the shots and dispensing justice. They continue making provocations, including along the contact line with the newly-proclaimed republics. We hope our European colleagues, primarily France and Germany will pay attention to this as participants in the Normandy format.

This phenomenon is becoming open and overtly undermines the ability and capacity of the Ukrainian authorities to carry out the Minsk agreements. It is important to bear this in mind, not to mention the alarming trends that are gaining momentum in some other European countries on a broader scale. I am referring to the attempts to whitewash Nazi criminals and revive neo-Nazi sentiment.



Question (addressed to both ministers):

Mr Alfano said previously that Italy would focus on the so-called protracted conflicts, including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, within the framework of its OSCE Chairmanship. Do you think the anticipated expansion of the office of the Chairperson-in-Office personal representative on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will promote a settlement? Do you plan to visit the region this year?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Angelino Alfano):

As far as I know, the idea is not to expand the office of the Chairperson-in-Office personal representative on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict but to increase the number of OSCE observers at the contact line.

This began some time ago. Back in early 2010, talks were held on confidence-building measures in this conflict zone. However, following the flare-up of violence on the contact line in April 2016, the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan held a meeting in Vienna that was attended by the foreign ministers of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. In June 2016, the presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia held a trilateral meeting in St Petersburg. It was also attended by representatives from the co-chair countries. An agreement was reached at that meeting to reinforce the group of OSCE observers at the contact line with several people, not more than six or seven, as a practical confidence-building measure.

Work went on after that, and I believe that the parties are now close to coordinating the practical parameters for implementing this agreement. We hope that the OSCE will be able to implement it without delay. Some people wonder if the decision to increase the number of observers and consolidate security at the contact line could result in the perpetuation of the conflict and remove the impetus for a political settlement. I believe we should remember that the settlement of any conflict, whether it is Nagorno-Karabakh or Donbass, should include parallel and synchronised comprehensive processes comprising measures to strengthen security and bring about a political settlement.

Anyway, the logic of “the more they shoot, the sooner they will accept an agreement” will hardly accomplish anything in reality.

I hope that the decisions that the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia have coordinated and that the Minsk Group co-chairs and OSCE representatives have supported will be carried out.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3051845






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a commemorative event dedicated to the 75th anniversary of victory in the Battle of Stalingrad, Moscow, February 1, 2018



1 February 2018 - 17:43








Comrades, friends, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

This year marks the 75th anniversary of victory in the Battle of Stalingrad. This memorable date is widely commemorated in our and many other countries of the world.

No doubt, the Battle of Stalingrad, which was the turning point in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 and WWII in general is part of the key events in world history. It became a vivid manifestation of the courage, fortitude, and self-sacrifice of all the peoples of the former Soviet Union, which thwarted the criminal, evil intentions of the Nazis, and prevented a global catastrophe. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the heroes.

The feat of the Soviet soldiers generated an enthusiastic international response, and raised the international prestige of our country, as evidenced by the display of documents from the Foreign Policy Archives of the Russian Federation presented here. Our victory at Stalingrad had a special significance for the fighting spirit of our Allies. On February 5, 1943, three days after the end of the Battle of Stalingrad, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called it an epic struggle, the decisive outcome of which is celebrated by all Americans. The scroll he later sent to Stalingrad on behalf of the people of the United States reads: “To commemorate our admiration for [Stalingrad’s] gallant defenders whose courage, fortitude, and devotion…will inspire forever the hears of all free people.”

The King of Great Britain presented Stalingrad with a sword, the blade of which had a dedication engraved in Russian and English: “To the steel-hearted citizens of Stalingrad from King George VI in token of homage of the British people.”

The victory at Stalingrad changed the strategic situation on other WWII fronts, inspired resistance fighters in Europe, who, influenced by the events on the Soviet-German front, stepped up their fight against the occupiers.

It is deeply meaningful that many streets and squares in European cities have been named after Stalingrad. It is a tribute to the unparalleled bravery and courage of its heroic defenders.

The Soviet foreign policy service, the activities of which from the first days of the war were aimed at forming and consolidating the Alliance, and providing uninterrupted supplies of military equipment, food and other necessary goods, made its contribution to the common efforts to defeat the enemy. Intense diplomatic work went on literally day and night. One of its important outcomes was holding in late 1943 the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers and the Teheran Big Three summit.

Ladies and gentlemen, friends, comrades,

Our key lesson from the events of those years should be that we must do everything we can to ensure that such tragedies never happen again. We cannot forget the disastrous consequences of the aspiration to achieve world domination based on ideas of exceptionalism. The destiny of the world cannot be determined by one state or a small group of “elect.” Security should be equal and indivisible for all participants of international life. Erecting a sturdy barrier to the spread of ideas of intolerance, xenophobia, racial, national or other superiority is our sacred duty to those who paid with their blood and lives for saving mankind from the horrors of the fascist scourge.

Unfortunately, immunity against the Nazi virus in some countries has significantly weakened. Today, we are witnessing unscrupulous attempts to falsify history, denigrate the liberator soldiers, invent ways to whitewash Nazis and their henchmen. We are deeply concerned by the situation in Ukraine, where neo-Nazis and radicals have reared their heads. A campaign has been launched in a number of European countries to demolish monuments to soldiers who died for peace and freedom on our continent, who gave their lives to save many nations from disappearing under the Nazi boot.

Russia will continue to strongly oppose this vicious policy. In our interactions with other states, we will uphold historical truth, and the ideals of good and justice. The honour and good name of the victors and the outcome of World War II are inviolable.

The experience of alliance and brotherhood in arms during World War II is especially important in the current circumstances, where the international community is faced with many dangerous challenges, including those posed by international terrorists who, like Nazis, completely disregard human life in order to achieve their maniacal goals. Clearly, it is only possible to cope with this and other threats if we stand together on the basis of solidarity and mutual trust, international law and the central coordinating role of the UN.

I would like to emphasise that Russia stands ready to work together in mutually respectful cooperation, to unite efforts and jointly search for solutions to all existing problems in the interest of securing peace, stability and security.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3052260
__________________
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 February 5th, 2018 #354
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Pankin’s interview with the Interfax news agency, February 1, 2018



1 February 2018 - 17:20




Question:

Will the new sanctions imposed against Moscow under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act passed last year affect Russia’s trade, economic and investment cooperation with other countries? Are the negative consequences being assessed and are steps being planned to minimise them, including within the framework of the WTO?



Alexander Pankin:

Although Donald Trump has repeatedly spoken about the need for and his administration’s readiness to normalise political dialogue between our countries and to restore bilateral trade and economic cooperation, Washington’s policy vis-à-vis Russia is not changing. We are constantly witnessing the toughening of US sanctions against us. Government-to-government dialogue on economic problems remains frozen because of the relentless efforts of the anti-Russian lobby in the US and the pressure of sanctions has been stepped up with the enactment, on August 2, 2017, of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. The document codifies earlier restrictions imposed against us and provides the basis for new ones targeting mainly the Russian energy, defence industry and financial spheres.

Some of these restrictions have been declared to be exterritorial, i.e. covering physical and legal persons from third countries. This involves some pipeline projects, “substantial” (without getting into specifics of the term) transactions with Russian defence sector enterprises and security agencies. Washington intends to “thoroughly review” and if necessary impose sanctions on the participants in the process of privatisation of our state property as well as those involved in “cyber-transactions in the interests of the Russian authorities.”

It looks as if the US is determined to steadily impede the development of Russia’s mutually beneficial ties with foreign countries and companies while using these unseemly strong-arm competition methods to further its own commercial interests. The introduction of sanctions against our partners from third countries or the mere threat to do so are meant to confront them with a painful choice between giving up cooperation with us or facing excommunication from the American market and the dollar. Unfortunately this may be a real impediment to the implementation of joint projects. Especially since the above-mentioned act has a framework character which means that the parameters of future sanctions as well as the terms of their application are unclear.

It has to be noted that the exterritorial provision of the act has met with a negative reaction in the camp of the US allies. Brussels, as far as we know, has mounted a vigorous lobbying effort in Washington to safeguard European businesses against any possible reprisals for engaging in projects with Russia, in the first place in the field of energy.

Incidentally, the Europeans have previous experience of using the mechanisms of legal non-recognition of American exterritorial legislation. For example, back in 1996 Europe adopted a “blocking statute” declaring null and void the American act imposing a trade embargo against Cuba and sanctions against its “offenders.”

As regards “assessment of the negative consequences,” the Russian Government of course is working on this actively, planning measures to minimise any potential damage. With the modalities and scale of possible new Washington sanctions still unclear, this is all I can say at this point in time.

Internationally, Russia is using various authoritative forums, including the UN, G20 and the WTO to systemically counteract unilateral sanctions. Thus, at the WTO we consistently highlight the danger of illegitimate economic restrictions as hidden forms of protectionism aimed at gaining unfair trade, competitive and other advantages. Jointly with the Economic Development Ministry which oversees Russia’s participation in the WTO we have used the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference held in Buenos Aires in December 2017 to stress the destructive character of unilateral economic restrictions for the world economy and multilateral trade system.

Finally, I would like to point out that past experience shows convincingly that the US sanctions policy fails to achieve its goals. The Americans lose more than gain from sanctions, especially in the longer term. At the same time the Russian economy has positive dynamics in spite of the obstacles being set in its way.



Question:

Could the US sanctions affect the EAEU and the CSTO, considering that the member countries and their companies risk being subjected to US restrictive measures?



Alexander Pankin:

It is our strong belief that unilateral sanctions are a wrongful and illegitimate way of solving international matters. We have consistently been in support of clear and transparent rules in global economy and politics. Moreover, life has shown that such politically motivated sanctions do not succeed. Instead, unnecessary chaos is created on the global market, upsetting the system of economic relations as well as clearly crippling them.

Obviously, the Western sanctions have hit everybody, both Russia and those who introduced these sanctions, as well as the countries with which we closely cooperate, including our partners in post-Soviet integration associations.

In the context of unfair competition due to the pressure of the sanctions on behalf of the United States and its allies, Russia will go about even more actively promoting measures to encourage import substitution, expand the EAEU’s trade and total export potential within the EAEU, develop new process flows and so forth, in order to reduce the vulnerability caused by unfriendly actions of third countries.



Question:

Is Russia discussing these matters and possible collective measures to curb the consequences of the US sanctions, with its EAEU and CSTO partners?



Alexander Pankin:

Yes, our integration associations discuss the US sanctions in terms of their exterritorial effect and possible consequences. Our partners, especially in the Eurasian Economic Union, are obviously concerned with this problem. And it is natural, since our economies are closely connected.

It is too soon to speak about any specific collective response. Overall, we are responding with consistent development of our integration project according to our long-term plans and the priorities of Russia’s chairmanship of the EAEU in 2018 outlined by the Russian President.



Question:

The oldest association in the post-Soviet space is shrinking; it has actually lost two of its members. Is there a chance that the CIS could grow stronger and expand, given the new compact, dynamic and field-oriented associations that are emerging? Is it possible that Abkhazia and South Ossetia join in?



Alexander Pankin:

First of all, I would like to point out that the Commonwealth of Independent States is not only the oldest, but also the largest integration association in the post-Soviet space.

I cannot agree that the CIS is shrinking and losing its members. At present there is no real alternative to it in terms of the number of members and the diversity of interaction forms and areas. New areas of interstate cooperation are emerging, such as innovation, information technology, green economy, etc. Integration is a vibrant and developing process.

The organisation’s activity is based on versatility, voluntary involvement, equality, mutually beneficial partnership, flexibility and respect for each other’s interests. The CIS includes countries that in spite of their declared neutrality are actively developing their involvement in the association, while those that abstain from political interaction continue working in specific agencies that are of interest to them.

Even Georgia, which has left the Commonwealth, remains a party to a series of economic agreements reached within the CIS and also takes part in the activity of some field councils (related to transport and tax investigation). Therefore, it all depends on practical and pragmatic interests. If, in spite of these interests, political reasons prevail, it affects first of all these countries that leave the Commonwealth or refuse to cooperate within the association.

As for the expansion of the CIS, its Charter provides for this. Any country that shares the organisation’s goals and principles can become a member. As of today, the expansion is not on the agenda, but if any country is interested in joining, all participating countries will make a decision on this matter on the basis of consensus.



Question:

The CIS was initially conceived according to the EU model. Is this still the case or has Brexit aroused doubts about whether it is in fact so successful, and if the EU can be used any more as an example?



Alexander Pankin:

In my opinion, it would be somewhat incorrect to say that the CIS was conceived along the lines of the EU model. Certainly, the experience of other interstate integration associations, including the EU, was taken into account during the establishment of the CIS. However, these two associations were established in line with diametrically opposite goals. The European Union was established for the purpose of in-depth cooperation between states. And the CIS primarily aimed to ensure a “civilised divorce” between post-Soviet republics after the breakup of the Soviet Union and to preserve the longtime experience of their mutual political, economic, cultural and humanitarian as well as other cooperation.

During large scale geopolitical changes linked with the breakup of the USSR, the CIS played a positive role and helped our nations to preserve close friendly ties and to build a new model of regional cooperation. After apparently accomplishing its historical mission, the CIS did not lose its popularity, but on the contrary, enhanced its relevance as a platform for diverse cooperation between its participants that now encompasses virtually all areas. Today, the CIS is a flexible versatile platform for maintaining proactive political dialogue and diverse cooperation. Member states independently determine the extent of their involvement in various fields of cooperation on the basis of their national interests. It is precisely these fundamental principles that help maintain a stable interest in expanding cooperation within the CIS.

A solid socioeconomic foundation and painstaking development of integration, rather than the ambitious nature of declared goals is a key factor when it comes to any integration structure’s viability. If we draw any parallels with the EU, we’ll see that problems now confronting the European Union, such as Brexit, are largely linked with the fact that the time-serving political considerations of some countries prevail to the detriment of fundamental interests of other EU members.



Question:

Does the youngest association in the post-Soviet space – the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) – have potential for expansion? Who will join it next? With what countries are free trade agreements ready or about to be signed?



Alexander Pankin:

The EAEU is becoming increasingly more attractive every year. It is becoming a centre of economic appeal in the region, and we are open to mutually beneficial and equitable cooperation. In developing relations with third countries, the EAEU adheres to a flexible approach and resorts to different formats of cooperation. Every state has the right to assess the benefits from its potential joining the integration processes in Eurasia, choose a convenient format of cooperation and independently regulate the speed of integration. We admit that not everything is problem-free in this respect, but the main goal is to understand these problems and eliminate them methodically, taking into the account the interests and specific features of all EAEU members.

At present, experts are working on the regulation on the status of an observer state, which will allow the EAEU to formalise relations with those countries that are interested in establishing special ties with it. This status will allow interested countries to better understand the EAEU’s work on forming common standards, requirements and rules, which is important for steadily building trade and economic relations during the gradual transfer of supranational competences to the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC). This does not oblige any country to join the EAEU in the future but amounts to certain adaptation.

As for trade and economic cooperation with third countries, the EAEU already has a free trade area agreement with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, which has been valid since October 2016. This agreement tangibly consolidates trade and economic ties of its participants. The participants in the first meeting of the Joint Committee under this agreement, which was held in Moscow in June 2017, noted a 28 percent increase in the EAEU’s trade with Vietnam over the relevant period of the previous year, in just seven months since the agreement’s entry into force. Russia has substantially enhanced its opportunities to increase supplies of domestic goods and services to Vietnam. The protocol on industrial assembly of Russian vehicles on Vietnamese territory is being carried out (it became valid on October 5, 2016).

We consider one of the priorities of Eurasian economic integration to be the idea of linking the EAEU with the Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB), and the signing of a trade and economic cooperation agreement between the EAEU and China, the talks on which were completed last October.

This document is non-preferential and does not provide for the liberalisation of trade in goods. At the same time, it lays a good foundation for productive cooperation between the EAEU member countries and China in different industries, customs administration, competition, technical regulation, intellectual property rights protection, e-trade, state purchases, steps to protect domestic markets and sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures.

We hope that the EAEU’s alignment with the SREB and its trade and economic agreement with China will become the backbone of a new integration track – Greater Eurasian partnership with the participation of EAEU, SCO and ASEAN countries.

Free trade area talks are underway with Singapore, Iran and Israel and will start with India and Egypt in the near future.



Question:

What role does Russia assign to the CSTO in the wake of ISIS expanding its activities in Afghanistan? Are there discussions of the possibility of using the CSTO Collective Rapid Response Forces in case ISIS attempts to cross into Central Asia?



Alexander Pankin:

Unfortunately, you are absolutely right about expanded ISIS activity in Afghanistan. We are very concerned by attempts of this terrorist group that is outlawed in Russia to take root in northern Afghanistan, which borders directly on the CSTO area of responsibility.

The Organisation is doing much to improve its counterterrorism policies. The Working Group on Afghanistan under the CSTO Foreign Ministers Council meets on a regular basis. The heads of the member states of the Organisation have adopted a number of important documents in this sphere.

In September 2017, in New York, during the meeting on the sidelines of the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly, the CSTO Foreign Ministers adopted, in this regard, a joint statement, “On the Situation in Afghanistan and the Threat of International Terrorist and Extremist Organisations Expanding their Presence in the Northern Provinces of that Country”. This matter was also reflected in the main political document of the recent CSTO summit in Minsk – the anniversary Declaration of the Heads of the Member States.

Strengthening the external borders of the CSTO area of responsibility, including from the perspective of deterring the terrorist threat, which is manifested most clearly in Central Asia, is, without any exaggeration, the Organisation's key priority. Over the past few years, the CSTO has adopted a number of important anti-terrorism decisions.

Three years ago, in Dushanbe, at a session of the CSTO Collective Security Council, as they discussed the situation in Central Asia and the threats coming from Afghanistan, the leaders of the CSTO countries emphasised the importance of fine-tuning the collective response mechanisms. Tajikistan received confirmation of the support and readiness on the part of Russia and all other CSTO members to provide the necessary assistance in case the situation is aggravated. A special role is assigned to the CSTO Collective Rapid Response Forces (CRRF), which were created in 2009 and include about 20,000 service members. They include military contingents and special operations formations of all member states of the Organisation. The troops are in a state of constant combat readiness.

A surprise inspection of the CRRF’s combat readiness was conducted in Tajikistan in 2015. It focused on interaction of forces under a scenario of repelling terrorist aggression from bases in neighbouring Afghanistan. The exercise, Combat Brotherhood-2017, was organised under a single plan in Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan. Its final stage, as in 2015, focused on neutralising possible aggression on the part of ISIS militants. Russian strategic aircraft, Iskander missile systems, as well as psychological and information warfare units were used for the first time during these exercises. As you can see, the capacity of the CSTO to counter possible attempts of the terrorist groups, including ISIS, to cross our borders, is fairly significant.

Russia's military presence in Tajikistan – the 201st Russian military base – remains an important element in ensuring security and stability in Central Asia. President Vladimir Putin noted that in the event of a critical situation and with a corresponding request from our allies, we will, in accordance with Article 4 of the Collective Security Treaty, be ready to use all our capabilities to repel terrorist threats.



Question:

How do Russia and other CSTO member states see the increase in the US and NATO military contingent in Afghanistan, as well as the US weapons and military equipment supplies to the Afghan army? Are Russia and the CSTO ready, in general, to build cooperation with NATO and the US in the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking in Afghanistan?



Alexander Pankin:

As for Afghanistan, it is important to understand that the main threat is not the increase of the US and NATO military contingent there, but the increase in the scale of terrorism and drug threats emanating from that country. In 2017, opium production in Afghanistan increased by 88 per cent, from 4,800 tonnes to a record 9,000 tonnes; the chain of labs is expanding. As you can see, the problem has not been solved despite the long-term Western presence, but grew more acute if anything. It needs to be eliminated, which is only possible through joint efforts.

The CSTO is actively involved in international anti-terrorism and anti-drug cooperation. Close cooperation has been established with the CIS Anti-Terrorism Centre, the SCO RATS and the CIS Coordination Service of the Council of Commanders-in-Chief of Frontier Troops, including information sharing on the situation in the CSTO regions bordering on Afghanistan. We are developing intensive cooperation with relevant units of international organisations, primarily the UN and the OSCE. Unfortunately, the US and NATO are reluctant to engage in any practical interaction with the CSTO. This raises many questions about the sincerity of Western leaders when they say they are prepared to make every effort to curb transnational challenges and threats.

The CSTO countries’ strategic goal is to move towards a world free of drugs, in accordance with the UN anti-drug conventions. In particular, the Declaration of the CSTO Heads of State on the 25th anniversary of the Collective Security Treaty underlines the importance of rallying the efforts of the international community based on an integrated and balanced approach to resolving this problem, eliminating global drug production, creating an effective system of fighting illegal trafficking of new synthetic drugs and other psychotropic substances.

To stabilise the drug situation in the region, the CSTO has been regularly conducting anti-drug Operation Channel since 2003. In its annual reports, the UN International Narcotics Control Board has repeatedly noted that Operation Channel is the largest and most effective effort in stopping drug trafficking from Afghanistan. Stakeholders, relevant international agencies and NATO member states were involved in it in various years.

In 2017, as a result of coordinated actions by the CSTO member states’ law enforcement agencies, about 22 tonnes of drugs were seized and removed from illegal circulation; more than 11,500 criminal cases were opened, and illegal activities of 36 criminal groups were documented. Along with the CSTO member states, the competent bodies of Afghanistan, Iran, Lithuania and Poland, representatives of the OSCE, CARICC and Interpol, took part in Operation Channel-Western Barrier in 2017. This once again confirms the CSTO’s openness to cooperation with the international community in eliminating this evil.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3052966






State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin's interview with TASS News Agency, February 1, 2018



2 February 2018 - 10:01




Question:

Mr Karasin, earlier you had a meeting in Prague with the Georgian Prime Minister's special representative for relations with Russia, Zurab Abashidze. How did the meeting go? What issues were raised at the meeting?



Grigory Karasin:

The meeting was constructive and open. We discussed practical issues and some political aspects of our relations. As is known, problems of fundamental nature between Russia and Georgia still remain. These problems are fairly complicated, and are primarily connected with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, they were not the subject of our discussions in Prague. Those problems are dealt with at the Geneva discussions on the South Caucasus. The next meeting in that format is due in late March, and this is where we will discuss all that in detail.

Mr Abashidze and I summed up the major results of 2017, and agreed that they look rather impressive. Thus, mutual trade grew by 34 per cent. Russia has become Georgia’s second largest trade partner: we buy two-thirds of Georgia’s wines and sell them in the Russian market.

There are also very good results in the area of transport. Work is currently underway to expand the Verkhny Lars border checkpoint. I think it will considerably simplify the procedure itself and, crucially, it will increase the number of vehicles passing through the checkpoint. Air transport also posted some positive changes.

One of the results of 2017 became a significant increase in the number of Russian nationals visiting Georgia as tourists reaching about 1.4 million people.



Question:

Was the implementation of the 2011 Russian-Georgian Agreement on customs administration and trade monitoring discussed at the meeting? Apparently, there is a misunderstanding between the parties on this issue.



Grigory Karasin:

There was a heated discussion on the implementation of the customs agreement. Indeed, it follows from a number of public statements made by the Georgian and Russian sides that they interpret the content and the wording of the document differently. Therefore, today we had to review the text of the document and agree on the fact that whatever interpretations might be, the main thing is to start properly fulfilling all the clauses of the document.

As for Russia, we are completing our procedures and will make a report to the Government, which will be followed by signing a respective contract with SGS, the Swiss company that will ensure the monitoring of cargo within the framework of the document’s implementation.



Question:

Did the talks cover the issue of the agreement between the Russian Federation and South Ossetia on incorporating some South Ossetian military units into the Russian Army, the agreement that was approved the other day by the Federation Council? Tbilisi earlier voiced concerns over the agreement.



Grigory Karasin:

We spoke briefly about that agreement at the initiative of the Georgian side. I am confident that there is no urgency about it since the agreement was signed in pursuance of the broad treaty between Russia and South Ossetia. It is aimed exclusively at enhancing the defence capabilities of the young republic and presents no threat to anybody. We will continue this work, especially in view of NATO’s increased activities in Georgia.



Question:

And for the record, regarding NATO – what does Moscow think of the close cooperation between Tbilisi and the North Atlantic alliance? Do you think Georgia can join NATO in the near future?



Grigory Karasin:

We see the United States and NATO stepping up their activities in Georgia. I will not give the numbers but weapons supplies have noticeably increased. We see the transformation of Vaziani into a modern training centre for Georgia’s regular army. It is a cause for concern for us and our neighbours in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Regarding the possibility of Georgia joining the alliance, let us not run ahead of time, let us remain optimistic. Russia, for its part, will continue work to ensure that out-of-region military and political blocs do not approach our borders and aggravate problems which already exist with our neighbours.

Russia and Georgia should develop bilateral relations with a positive agenda in mind.



Question:

You said earlier that as soon as Tbilisi is ready to restore diplomatic relations in the light of new realities, Moscow will immediately react positively to this. Are there any positive signals from the Georgian side today?



Grigory Karasin:

We are not inclined to simplify the situation. We still do not have diplomatic relations. And judging by unfolding events, it is hard to believe that these diplomatic relations, severed by Georgia in 2008, will be restored soon. Nevertheless, we continue dialogue and we are ready to give open and objective assessments of the situation in the region, including through the lens of our bilateral relations.



Question:

If you will allow me, a few questions about Ukraine. Kurt Volker, the U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine, called earlier for a prompt return of Russia to the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination (JCCC) of Ceasefire in Donbass. When might Russian officers resume activities at the JCCC and what does the date depend on?



Grigory Karasin:

We are in favour of ensuring normal guaranteed conditions for our military’s work and stay at the JCCC. Such conditions were not provided despite Russia sending four notes via diplomatic channels. Apart from that, the Joint Centre must have a mandate, that is, a prescribed and approved procedure for execution of documents and arranging their effects; in a word, a document that would determine and guarantee the presence of the Russian military at the centre.

So far, we haven’t had any response from Kiev. I think we are entitled to demand that normal civilised conditions be provided for our representatives. We also think it necessary for Lugansk and Donesk to be represented there. This is an important condition.



Question:

How would you comment on Kurt Volker’s statement that Russia has done “absolutely nothing” for the settlement in Donbass?



Grigory Karasin:

In this case, we are talking about a serious domestic Ukraine conflict, and it would be very unfair to accuse us of doing nothing to settle it. We were, in fact, the initiators of the Minsk agreements. Our President Vladimir Putin spent 17 hours discussing the document back then. We are also actively engaged in the Contact Group and the Normandy format. But everything will ultimately depend on Kiev’s ability and readiness to build bridges with Donetsk and Lugansk, to start dialogue with them, and the key thing – to fulfill the obligations contained in the Minsk agreements. I think Kiev will be unable to hide behind new schemes and formats. There is an awareness in the world that Kiev is actively avoiding volitional positive solutions.



Question:

Is it possible to hold a meeting of the Normandy format nations’ foreign ministers on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference on February 16?



Grigory Karasin:

Yes, work is underway on holding such a meeting but it is too early to confirm it.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3052956






Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich’s remarks at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on International Holocaust Remembrance Day Vienna, February 1, 2018



2 February 2018 - 11:36




Mr Chairperson,

I would like to use this occasion to express our support for the successful OSCE conference on anti-Semitism in the OSCE area, which was held in Rome on January 29. We are grateful to Mr Michele Galizia (Switzerland) for the report he has delivered on behalf of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which is currently chaired by Switzerland.

The Red Army liberated the Auschwitz (Oswiecim) death camp 73 years ago. In 2005, the UN officially proclaimed January 27 International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust. I would like to mention that on January 27 we also marked the 74th anniversary of the lifting of the Nazi siege of Leningrad. This was yet another act of heroism by Soviet soldiers that we will never forget.

On January 27, 1945, the Soviet Army liberated one of the death camps where some 4 million people, including 1 million Jews, were systematically exterminated. Overall, there are over 6 million Holocaust victims. Honouring the memory of those terrible events is a national priority for the people of Russia, as well as for the other people of the multinational Soviet Union, which lost over 26 million lives fighting for victory in the Second World War.

Jews themselves made an invaluable contribution to victory over Nazism. Over half a million Jews fought for the Red Army, and more than 40,000 Jews joined the ranks of Soviet partisans. I would like to tell you about the heroic feat of Lieutenant Alexander Pechersky, who organised an uprising in the Sobibor death camp on October 14, 1943. It was the only successful uprising of prisoners in a Nazi concentration camp in the history of World War II. This year, we will mark the 75th anniversary of that event. Russia will continue working to ensure that its historical right to contribute to the renovation of the museum that was built in place of the concentration camp be respected.

A Commemoration Week for Holocaust Victims is held in Russia every year within the framework of International Holocaust Remembrance Day. One of the week’s events this year was the Yellow Stars concert organised by the Russian Jewish Congress with the support of the Moscow City government and Israel’s Nativ Liaison Bureau. The revenue will be invested in the Restoring Dignity project, under which 26 monuments to Holocaust victims are to be unveiled in Russia in 2018. The cornerstone for the first monument, which will commemorate resistance fighters in Nazi camps and ghettos, was laid by Russia’s Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar on January 29.

The Holocaust: Devastation, Liberation, Salvation historical exhibition, which was recently presented at the UN Headquarters in New York by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, opened at the Federation Council.

The event high point was a Moscow visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during Holocaust commemoration week on January 29. The leaders of Russia and Israel visited the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Centre and toured the exhibition, Sobibor: Those Who Defeated Death. Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu also attended the first screening of the Russian war drama film Sobibor. The Israeli Prime Minister said that “Jewish life in Russia is thriving, largely owing to the support of the authorities and your personal support.”

I would like to point out that Israel’s Ministry of Jerusalem and Diaspora said in the anti-Semitism report for 2017 that last year “saw a continuation of the downward trend in the number of anti-Semitic attacks recorded in Russia.” Also, I would like to quote President of the World Jewish Congress Ronald Lauder, who said three days ago at the Rome International Conference on the Responsibility of States, Institutions and Individuals in the Fight against Anti-Semitism in the OSCE Area that Russia is one of the safest places for Jewish people, and thanked Vladimir Putin for this.

We must always prevent a repetition of crimes like the Holocaust. Attempts to rewrite the history of World War II, to justify the crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators and to equalise the rights of victims and executioners are opening the door to a revival of a deadly ideology. A creeping rehabilitation of Nazism is underway in some OSCE countries. These activities challenge the post-war security architecture, which is based on the UN Charter, the decisions taken at the Nuremberg Trials and other inviolable international legal documents. Of special concern is the situation in Ukraine, where we again see the flags of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), which were involved in the violent executions of Jews and people from other ethnic groups, including the gruesome Volhynia Massacre. Their criminal leaders – Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevich – are hailed as national heroes, along with members of the volunteer punitive division Waffen SS Galicia.

The cynical law on the status of World War II participants has become effective in Latvia, where marches of the Latvian Legion, part of the Waffen SS, are held every year.

Monuments to SS men have been opened and meetings of Waffen SS veterans and their followers are held annually in Estonia.

Monuments to the Red Army soldiers who died to put an end to the Holocaust have been dismantled or vandalised in Poland.

All this is a disgrace to the memory of the millions of victims of Nazism and fascism. President of the European Jewish Congress Moshe Kantor spoke about the rise of Nazism in EU countries in his speech at the annual ceremony marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day in the European Parliament on January 25.

Russia submits a resolution on combatting the glorification of Nazism to the UN General Assembly every year. The number of this resolution’s co-authors continues to grow. In 2017, only two countries, the Unites States and Ukraine, citing far-fetched pretexts, voted against a resolution that condemned the murderers of Jews and other ethnic groups. This reveals the true essence of Washington and Kiev’s policies.

It is our sacred duty not only to commemorate innocent victims but also to do our utmost to prevent a repetition of such tragedies.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3052994






Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich’s remarks at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, February 1, 2018



2 February 2018 - 16:11




Mr Chairperson,

With the support of sponsors overseas, the Ukrainian Government continues to bury the Minsk Agreements.

The so-called law on the “reintegration” of Donbass adopted by the Verkhovna Rada directly contradicts the Minsk Agreements. Statements made by Ukrainian representatives, suggesting that it does not, are unconvincing. In particular, according to article 2 of this law, “all persons involved in the aggression or working in administrations of the occupation are liable to criminal prosecution”. Kiev’s obligations described in paragraph 5 of the Minsk Package of Measures include “pardon and amnesty by enacting a law prohibiting the prosecution and punishment of persons in connection with the events that took place in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.”

This kind of lawmaking represents another unilateral measure that conflicts with Kiev’s obligations, in addition to the distorted “special status” law, trade and transport blockade, termination of mobile and internet services, and abandonment of Ukraine’s social obligations toward its citizens.

The direction that the Ukrainian lawmakers should have taken if they adhered to the Minsk Agreements is described in the Package of Measures, in particular, in paragraph 11 and the footnote. This includes the “right to language self-determination”, formation of local police and so forth.

On the contrary, Kiev is currently developing discriminatory legislation in the sphere of education – this time, in the sphere of general secondary education – which infringes on the right of Russian-speaking people and ethnic minorities to tuition in their native language. Another piece of discriminatory legislation on citizenship is currently being developed as well.

All of this is taking place against the backdrop of permanent pressure on freedom of expression, harassment of journalists. The latest example is Igor Guzhva, Strana.ua editor-in-chief, who fled Ukraine and requested asylum here, in Austria.

The most recent meeting of the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine on January 31 has shown that Kiev is unwilling to discuss fundamental issues related to the enforcement of the law on the special status of certain districts in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions and to coordinate local election modalities.

The release and exchange of prisoners has been delayed by Kiev’s inability to honour the agreements on the list of such persons, which have been achieved at the Contact Group.

Despite the repeated calls by Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Ertugrul Apakan and the agreements reached in the Contact Group, the ceasefire orders issued in the Ukrainian Army have not been published or implemented. The SMM has reported the continued indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian Army at residential areas where self-defence forces are in control. Four peaceful civilians were injured and two residential blocks were damaged in Dokuchayevsk on January 22, and four buildings were damaged in Sakhanka on January 24.

It is notable that Ukrainian representatives in the Contact Group have not accepted the invitation to hold an on-site investigation of the shelling of a civilian bus near Yelenovka on January 21.

OSCE monitors have pointed out the increased military activity of the Ukrainian Army. Between January 22 and 28, OSCE observers have reported sighting 12 artillery guns in Severodonetsk and four guns in Mariupol, four howitzers in Karlovka and an air defence missile system in Kalinovo, in violation of the Minsk Agreements. The observers have spotted 89 heavy arms of the Ukrainian Army directly outside the withdrawal lines, including 22 MLRS. The SMM spotted 11 self-propelled howitzers in a residential area in Novoolenovka and five air defence systems in Spornoye.

According to SMM data, the mine threat is cited as the reason for the majority of restrictions that take place in the government-controlled area. There are also direct obstacles to SMM operation, such as shooting at an SMM unmanned aerial vehicle near Pavlopol on January 12 or refusal to allow SMM observers enter an arms depot on January 26.

The planned disengagement of forces in Stanitsa Luganskaya is still being prevented. SMM observers have not reported any ceasefire violations in that area since December 25 last year. The self-defence forces have clearly indicated their readiness to start the disengagement process.

There is strong need for at least local ceasefires and repair and restoration work. The SMM has the capability to develop closer contact with persons in charge at the self-defence forces. Back in 2015, representatives of the self-defence forces took part in the work of the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination (JCCC). Their work at this or any other similar agency should resume.

In order to return Russian officers to the JCCC, the new JCCC regulations should be coordinated and approved, sealing the legal status of its members. Like SMM observers, the JCCC staff must have normal working conditions, including a normal procedure for entering or exiting Ukraine. And lastly, Russian officers will not work in Ukraine if they are treated as representatives of the “aggressor country.”

Esteemed Mr Chairperson,

We regard the statements by Ukrainian and US officials about the conflict “initiator” as an attempt to disclaim responsibility and wishful thinking.

It was not Russia that started the bloodbath on Maidan, as Kiev and Washington know only too well. It was not Russia that supported and nurtured nationalist groups. The Kiev leadership launched the punitive operation against the population of Donbass in April 2014 with full support and orders from the other side of the ocean. The fire in Odessa on May 2, 2014, in which a lot of people were burned alive, is also on the conscience of those who condoned and even encouraged radical Ukrainian nationalism.

According to OHCHR data, in several districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, 5,872 civilians, including 109 children, have been killed since the conflict began. Most of them were killed in 2014–2015 during the shelling and bombardment of residential areas.

We remember well who passed out sandwiches and cookies on the Maidan, who paid for the nationalists’ rallies and who is behind the current Kiev leadership.

Several days ago former US Vice President Joe Biden spoke about the effective pressure he put on the Ukrainian leadership in April 2016. By threatening to cancel a $1 billion loan, in just six hours he got the undesirable Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin dismissed in April 2016. Joe Biden admits in his memoirs released in November 2017 that at the height of public unrest he pressured the legitimate President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich to leave office. There will be many more revelations like that. The main thing is to use this information to draw the right conclusions.

Washington and Kiev have the keys to a peaceful settlement. As we can see, our US colleagues have enough leverage on the Ukrainian leadership. It is only political will that is missing.

On a practical level, it is important to eliminate the destabilising factor of radical Ukrainian nationalists who actively oppose the Minsk Agreements. The nationalists deny the principle of rule of law, dictate terms to courts and local administrations, glorify Nazism, distort history and attack the church and dissenters. The National Squad established in Ukraine is an openly neo-Nazi group.

On January 8, 30 C14 extremists blocked the entrance to the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra shouting anticlerical and anti-Russian slogans. They also continue to bully priests.

On January 29, the nationalists disrupted a concert commemorating the anniversary of lifting the siege of Leningrad in Dnepropetrovsk. Veterans of the Great Patriotic War and children who came to congratulate them were stuck in the concert hall. These are the people the nationalists are fighting.

In conclusion, we would like to say once again that the implementation of the Minsk Agreements through direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk does not mean Ukraine’s capitulation. On the contrary, it means a chance to reach true national accord, to restore neighbourly relations and to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity in its current borders.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3053402
__________________
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 February 5th, 2018 #355
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 interception of a US reconnaissance aircraft over the Black Sea



1 February 2018 - 21:19



The Russian Defence Ministry has commented on the incident involving a US reconnaissance plane off the coast of Crimea on January 29, providing the necessary explanations in response to the Pentagon’s concerns regarding its “unsafe interception.”

For our part, we took note of our US partners’ unending attempts to play up what have become basically routine cases of mutual escorting. We see this as a wish to foment Russia-hate sentiments in the media, accusing Russia of aggressive behaviour. We shall only note that this practice is hardly compatible with the desire to solve emerging problems in a civilised manner.

It is for this purpose that the Agreement Between the Government of The United States of America and the Government of The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas has been in effect since 1972. It will be recalled that Russia has repeatedly invited our US partners to specify its provisions precisely with the aim of concretising the minimal permitted closing distance for military aircraft. We had some other suggestions too. But each time the US evaded any professional discussions.

We call on our US colleagues to get down to dealing with the existing concerns at the negotiating table.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3052593






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the new US Nuclear Posture Review



3 February 2018 - 16:02



We are deeply disappointed with the new US Nuclear Posture Review, which was made public on February 2. The first impression is: the document is focused on confrontation and is anti-Russian. It is regrettable that the United States justifies its policy of massive nuclear build-up with references to Russia’s policy of nuclear modernisation and the allegedly increased reliance on nuclear weapons in Russia’s doctrines. We have been accused of lowering the threshold for the first use of nuclear weapons and aggressive strategies.

None of this has any connection with reality. Russia’s Military Doctrine clearly limits the possibility of using nuclear weapons to two hypothetical defensive scenarios: first, in response to an aggression against Russia and/or its allies involving the use of nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction, and second, in response to a non-nuclear aggression, but only if Russia’s survival is endangered. The 2014 Military Doctrine introduced a new term, the “system of non-nuclear deterrence,” which implies preventing aggression primarily through reliance on conventional (non-nuclear) forces.

Therefore, readiness to use nuclear weapons to prevent Russia from using its nuclear arsenal, expressed in the new Nuclear Posture Review, amounts to putting in question our right to defend ourselves against an aggression that threatens the country’s survival. We would like to hope that Washington is aware of the high level of danger when such doctrinal provisions move to the level of practical military planning.

We are deeply concerned about Washington’s no-limits approach, under which it might use nuclear weapons in “extreme circumstances,” which are not limited to military scenarios in the new US doctrine. Moreover, even military scenarios are presented so ambiguously that it seems like the US planners may view practically any use of military capability as a reason for delivering a nuclear strike against anyone they consider an “aggressor.” If this is not the doctrinal enhancement of the role of nuclear weapons, what then does Washington imply when it uses the term with regard to Russia?

In addition to this, the new Nuclear Posture Review sets out sweeping nuclear modernisation plans. Of special concern are the US plans to modify existing SLCMs to “provide a low-yield option” and also to create a low-yield warhead for the Trident II SLBMs. Nuclear weapons with such options are clearly designed as battlefield weapons. This will greatly increase the temptation of using them, especially considering the right to a disarming first strike as set out in the new US doctrine. Assurances that the implementation of these plans will not lower the nuclear threshold can at least be interpreted as a desire to delude the international community. It is even more frightening that the US military and other national security professionals firmly believe in their ability to model conflict scenarios that involve low-yield nuclear opinions. Quite to the contrary, we believe that this dramatic lowering of the threshold conditions can provoke a nuclear missile war even in a low-intensity conflict.

Of course, we will have to take into account the new US plans and to take measures to enhance our security.

The US nuclear doctrine abounds in anti-Russian clichés, from allegations of “aggressive behaviour” and interference to ungrounded accusations of alleged violations of a long list of arms control treaties. Washington has been lately producing an uninterrupted stream of such hackneyed allegations. We see this as a malevolent attempt to blame others for the deteriorating international and regional security situation and the unbalancing of arms control mechanisms due to a series of irresponsible US actions.

Russia honours its obligations under all international treaties. We strictly comply with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) and the Open Skies Treaty. We have never violated the 2011 Vienna Document on confidence and security-building measures or the Budapest Memorandum. We have laid bare the slanderous allegations regarding this more than once. As for the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), Russia cannot be accused of violating it because it suspended its participation in the treaty back in 2007. We did this because the treaty, which was drafted in the era of confrontation of two military-political blocs – the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and NATO, no longer served the new realities. One of these two blocs has long been dissolved, while the other continues to build up its capability as well as expanding its deployment area. These new realities were formalised in the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, which the US-led NATO countries refused to ratify, unlike Russia.

Likewise, it is untrue what the new US Nuclear Posture Review says about Russia’s alleged refusal to implement the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives (PNIs) of 1991-1992, which concern the two countries’ political commitments to withdraw and reduce non-strategic nuclear weapons (tactical nuclear weapons, or TNWs). Acting in keeping with the PNIs, Russia has reduced the greater part (75 per cent) of its TNWs and has removed the rest from their delivery vehicles for storage at the central storage facilities in the national territory. It was an unprecedented reduction of the operational status of nuclear weapons and a major review of their place and role in the national military doctrine. Although the PNIs are not a legally binding international agreement, they continue to be relevant to us up to this day.

It is notable that the United States still has TNWs in Europe and is even modernising and deploying them in direct proximity to Russian borders. Moreover, NATO maintains the practice of nuclear sharing, or joint nuclear missions, when non-nuclear European bloc members are involved in planning for the use of US nuclear weapons and in training in their use, which is a gross violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Another example of fact-juggling is the claim that Russia has refused to continue to reduce its nuclear weapons. We repeatedly confirmed our commitment to our obligations under Article VI of the NPT. We expressed our readiness more than once to discuss any questions related to the strengthening of international security. We pointed out, including to our American partners, that the conditions for the continuation of nuclear disarmament can be created through the settlement of key strategic security problems, such as the unilateral and unlimited deployment of US BMD systems, the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) concept, as well as the US refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) or to pledge not to deploy weapons in space.

It is also obvious that disarmament efforts should involve all nuclear-capable states, primarily the UK and France as Washington’s nuclear weapons allies. The latter is especially important considering the intention, which has been proclaimed in the Nuclear Posture Review, to use NATO’s overall deterrence and defence posture, including its nuclear forces, against Russia. We point out that our American partners have not mentioned their obligations under Article VI of the NPT in this review.

In light of the above, the claim that the United States “seeks stable relations” and looks forward to resuming “constructive engagement” in order to manage nuclear risks sounds utterly hypocritical.

Russia is indeed ready for such engagement. We urge the United States to join forces with Russia in order to find solutions to the growing number of problems in the area of strategic stability.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3054726






Foreign Ministry statement



5 February 2018 - 10:51



According to Article II of the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, Russia and the United States were to meet the following aggregate limits on strategic arms by February 5, 2018:

- 700 deployed ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments;

- 1,550 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments;

- 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

The Russian Federation has fully complied with its commitment to reduce its strategic offensive weapons. As of February 5, 2018, Russia’s aggregate potential is the following:

- 527 deployed ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments;

- 1,444 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments;

- 779 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

The United States will shortly receive an official notification confirming these figures.

The Russian Federation acknowledges the United States’ statement regarding meeting its aggregate limits on strategic arms. At the same time, it has to be noted that the United States has reached the set limits not only by actually reducing the arms but also by reconfiguring a certain number of Trident II SLBM launchers and В-52Н heavy bombers, to the extent that the Russian Federation cannot confirm that these strategic arms have been rendered incapable of employing SLBMs or nuclear armaments for heavy bombers as specified in Part Three Section I paragraph 3 of the Protocol to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, as well as by arbitrary converting underground missile launch facilities designated for training into “training launch facilities,” a category not specified by the Treaty.

The Russian federation confirms its adherence to the New START Treaty while insisting that the United States continues a constructive search for mutually acceptable solutions to the matters concerning reconfiguration and the removal of strategic arms from the total count as well as any other issues that may arise between the parties under the Treaty.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3054864
__________________
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 February 11th, 2018 #356
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 at a joint news conference following talks with Chair of the CoE Committee of Ministers and Foreign Minister of Denmark Anders Samuelsen, Moscow, February 6, 2018



6 February 2018 - 15:53








Ladies and gentlemen,

The talks with Chair of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and Foreign Minister of Denmark Anders Samuelsen are being held in a friendly atmosphere. This is our second contact. Last year, we met on the sidelines of the 4th Arctic: Territory of Dialogue international forum, in Arkhangelsk.

Today, we focused on the efforts of the Danish chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the overall state of affairs in this international organisation, and the upcoming reform of the European Court of Human Rights. We believe that the well-balanced policy of the Danish chairmanship is designed to help overcome the crisis situation that pertains in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which negatively affects the activities of the entire Council of Europe, and is not conducive to promoting trust on our continent.

We share the view that Denmark, as chair country, can make a useful contribution to resuming normal work at PACE. At least, we have made such a request. We consider it important that representatives of parliaments of all the Council of Europe’s member states without exception can work on an equal footing without being subjected to any kind of persecution for dissent. We hope that common sense will ultimately prevail.

We reviewed some of the issues pertaining to the Council of Europe's current activities. Our colleagues touched on the developments in Ukraine. Russia is interested in an early settlement of the internal Ukraine crisis on the basis of the Minsk Package of Measures. Regarding the role of the CoE in this process, we would like to receive additional information on how the CoE Action Plan for Ukraine, which was adopted long ago - shortly after the onset of the crisis - is being implemented. Among other things, it provides for the need for an impartial and objective investigation into what happened during the Maidan protests in February 2014, in Odessa on May 2, 2014 (when dozens of people were burned alive in the House of Unions), and, in general, concerns the contribution of the CoE to normalising the Ukrainian state’s structure. We are aware that decentralisation was discussed, and we believe it is an important issue. The CoE Secretariat is currently working on a second action plan for Ukraine. We expect it to be more focused on achieving a practical result. So far, Kiev has made very little progress toward full compliance with its international obligations.

Of course, we touched on the key areas of Russia-Denmark relations, including trade and investment. In conjunction with Russian Co-Chair and Minister of Transport Maxim Sokolov, Mr Samuelsen will participate in the 11th session of the Intergovernmental Russian-Danish Economic Cooperation Council tomorrow, which is being held in Moscow after an almost five-year break. We both think that resuming this Intergovernmental Council’s activities is a positive development, and we believe that its outcomes should help expand practical cooperation between the two states.

For our part, we raised the matter of Copenhagen reviewing an application for building the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline in the territorial waters of the Kingdom of Denmark. We underscored our principled position that this application should be considered based on the legislation that existed in Denmark and the EU in general at the time of filing in April 2017.

We positively assessed cooperation between our respective ministries. We just signed a Plan of Cooperation for 2018-2019. I am confident that if implemented, it will help promote a constructive dialogue on current issues, including the military-political situation in Europe, security in the Baltic region, the Arctic, human rights, or any other topics of concern to one side or the other. Today, our colleagues raised a number of their concerns regarding our relations. We have our own assessments of current developments. I am convinced that overcoming differences is best done not through a microphone, but exclusively through contacts and a dialogue, by understanding each other and seeking generally acceptable solutions. I am pleased that out talks today are being held in that kind of atmosphere.

We will continue to exchange views. We hope that the results of this meeting will serve to strengthen mutual understanding between our countries, and help resolve the pressing challenges facing the Council of Europe.

I thank Chair of the CoE Committee of Ministers and Foreign Minister of Denmark Anders Samuelsen.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3058234






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at a meeting with the finalists of the Leaders of Russia contest Russian Diplomatic Leadership in Today’s World, Sochi, February 7, 2018



7 February 2018 - 20:29








Dear friends, colleagues,

First of all, I would like to thank the organisers of this new project, the Leaders of Russia national contest for government and business executives, for the invitation. Honestly, it is a great honour for me because, without exaggeration, I see this project as one of national significance.

At a time when Russia faces formidable challenges in many areas, novel and creative ideas and innovations in management are of great importance. I am sure that a lot was said about this when my colleagues spoke here.

After learning a bit about what is discussed here and the kind of questions asked, I can say that I am convinced that this work is within your scope of abilities. As far as I understand, everyone in the audience has passed very serious tests. This testifies to the high level of your professional training.

I will be talking about the diplomatic profession, of course. I believe that it is one of the most interesting professions. It is perfect for displaying one’s leadership qualities already at the low and medium levels of your career. Negotiations are now held in a huge number of areas, and Foreign Ministry employees, starting with relatively low-ranking ones, are involved in them one way or another. As you know, negotiations offer an opportunity for self-assertion, for gathering experience and learning to straighten out very serious problems.

Trust me, no information or communication technology, however advanced and super-modern it may be, can replace personal interaction when diplomats get together with their partners to work out solutions concerning national security matters, protect national interests in all spheres, strengthen international security and find balanced solutions in widely different areas of the global agenda.

I don’t want to sound immodest, but Russian diplomacy is widely acclaimed in the world to be highly professional and among the best on the international arena. We have attained these high standards exclusively by relying on the glorious centuries-old traditions as well as the experience of our predecessors.

If you ask me how you can succeed in the sphere of diplomacy and become a real professional, I can give you one simple, though not the fullest possible, recommendation, which you must act on in earnest. Here it is: keep on learning and enhancing your greatest asset; do not rest on you oars, and stay up to date. As I said, international affairs are becoming increasingly multifaceted. Therefore, a diplomat must be a kind of person of great learning with a wide range of human knowledge, possibly, or rather, primarily in areas beyond the scope of so-called classical diplomacy.

When classical diplomacy originated centuries ago, it was dealing primarily with the questions of war and peace: how to begin and end wars, what to do with the conquered territories, and how to divide them. Modern diplomacy, although it also deals seriously with the questions of war and peace, is not so concerned with the context of who conquers whom and who will meet whom to discuss post-war peace. Rather, it concerns ensuring military and political stability, which is also referred to as strategic stability. In addition to this, there are many new questions that have become a fixture on the agenda of international talks on the economy, the environment, culture, high technology (from nuclear technology to ICT), as well as the matter of the destruction of chemical weapons under the relevant convention. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has been pondering the question of internet governance for years. In short, the range of knowledge needed to protect Russia’s interest is extremely wide.

Another quality that is really important for a diplomat at the personal level is stress tolerance. You must be ready to work very hard and long hours. You must be ready for physical and psychological overload, as well as for long foreign missions, including in countries with an adverse climate and military-political situations. Our profession involves living in a foreign culture far away from your home, and sometimes even family, when the given country is at war or amid an internal conflict. For example, our colleagues who are working in Iraq and those who worked in Yemen some time ago did not have their families with them. Working abroad means separation from you social circle. Overall, diplomats work around the clock, because events that call for a prompt expert reaction, which must be based on an express analysis, can happen anywhere in the world at any moment.

But the most important element of our work is the feeling of patriotism. You can effectively uphold your country’s foreign policy interests only when you are concerned with its future and consider yourself an integral part of your country.

There is yet another reason for placing high standards on the diplomatic profession: As you know full well, the situation in the world is not growing any less complicated. A polycentric international architecture is being formed, a process accompanied by the emergence of new centres of economic growth and financial power as well as political influence centres consequential upon these advances in the financial and economic sphere. This is a natural process that reflects the modern world’s cultural and civilisational diversity and peoples’ natural right to decide their destiny for themselves. Regrettably, this process is running into stubborn resistance offered by many of our Western partners, primarily the United States, which is supersensitive to the fact that it is no longer able to deal with all problems on its own or dictate its will to everyone after many centuries of dominating, if with certain nuances, the global scene. The polycentric world’s emergence will not be rapid, although possibly also relatively brief by historical standards, since it has been on and progressing as a new reality for several decades. The resistance it is meeting with will also continue, of course, and involve some rather specific illegitimate methods like using force in circumvention of the UN Charter and bolstering up one’s own security at the expense of other countries. All of this is leading to the erosion of international law. We are trying to tone down these tendencies and to achieve a negotiated return to the firm ground of the rule of law.

Russia’s current relations with the West are a separate and highly specific theme. In the context of what I have been saying, the present-day world is witnessing the end of an epoch dominated by what we call the “historical West” and a transition to a multipolar era. Many of our overseas and European colleagues are allergic to the successes achieved by our country on the internal and external “fronts.” The coup d’etat that was staged in Ukraine in February 2014 was a consequence of and a new step in years-long policy of containing Russia and revealed the radical and profound differences between us and the Western community over the ways of establishing relations between states. You may know that after the end of the Cold War the West was quite outspoken, proclaiming the onset of a new epoch, where as a winner in the Cold War it should have all the advantages. At the very start of New Russia’s existence, after the USSR had ceased to exist, its leaders were nurturing the illusion that an era of sweetness and light was round the corner and that now Russia should accept all the liberal values of the Western society.

As you may know, Russia’s key economic and financial ministries were employing foreign specialists, mostly those from the West. Russia’s foreign policy was based on the assumption that it needed to “merge” with the West in all key aspects of international life, while its eastern and southern neighbours were clearly neglected. In 2000, with the coming of President Vladimir Putin, Russia started drifting away from the line of indisputable acceptance of Western advice (for all the exceptions that occurred in the 1990s, the main course was for a merger with the West). Problems began when Russia returned to its basic interests and traditions and, not content with the situation where the West believed that Russia was, in effect, “in the bag,” called for an equitable dialogue.

You remember the Russian President’s Munich speech back in 2007 when, without being confrontational, he simply identified the problems awaiting a solution on the basis of an equal dialogue, and not on the basis of ultimatums, diktat and violation of all the pledges given at the time the future of Germany was decided and after the demise of the USSR. At the time the principles of indivisible security were solemnly declared at the highest level. Assurances were given that no member of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) would strengthen its security by infringing upon the security of others and NATO vowed not move an inch eastward. That these assurances were given is corroborated by the documents only recently published by the US national archives. At the time they had not been put on paper, perhaps not everything could have been foreseen at the time, though of course it would have been more effective to take up our Western colleagues on their word then rather than believing their words. You know our people, they tend to think that if they shake hands the deal is done and each party should do what has been agreed upon.

We should draw conclusions and learn lessons from past mistakes. Instead of fulfilling the whole gamut of obligations – indivisible security, equal approach to the security of every country − contrary to the promises that were given, NATO started advancing to the east deploying its military infrastructure literally on our borders. In its final declaration the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008 put it down in black and white that Ukraine and Georgia would be NATO members. We warned them at the time that the decision was fraught with complications, that it would create illusions in the inflamed minds of these countries’ leaders. That is certainly what happened in Georgia when Mikhail Saakashvili decided that now he could get away with anything and proceeded to send his troops to South Ossetia against the peacekeepers who were there and against civilians. The rest is well known.

Incidentally, the European Union, although a far more helpful structure because it is dedicated to improving the well-being of its members in the economic and social spheres, also contributed to the attempts to drive a wedge between Russia and its neighbours. It invented a programme called Eastern Neighbourhood based on the principle that Eastern Europe should choose whether it was with Russia or with the EU. This was said in as many words. In 2004, at the height of the first Maidan in Ukraine when the EU tried to bring about a reconciliation between the then president of Ukraine and the opposition, when there were demonstrations in Kiev’s squares, the then Foreign Minister of Beligium, Karel de Gucht, declared publicly in his official capacity that Ukraine had to choose between Russia and the EU. It is well known what this led to.

Russia backed those who refused to accept the results of the Ukrainian government coup in 2014. The West said, without batting an eyelid, that what took place happened although the foreign ministers of Germany, Poland and France were guarantors of the agreement that the opposition tore up. It was announced that everyone should submit to the new government that had come to power in Kiev effectively on the bayonets of radicals and neo-Nazis who are still having a field day there and are increasingly calling the shots. We backed those who refused to recognise the results of the unconstitutional coup, those who asked to be left alone to see what the outcome would be (after all, they did not attack anyone, but they were proclaimed to be terrorists and were themselves attacked). We were fully behind their aspiration to secure their rights within the Ukrainian state, behind the aspirations of the Crimean people who, unlike Kosovo that declared independence unilaterally without any popular vote, held a referendum (you know the turnout and the figures reflecting the result) on their independence and subsequent accession to Russia in full accordance with the UN Charter and the ruling of the International Court on the Kosovo case. The West then set about punishing us and trying to make us admit to our mistakes.

These attempts continue up until this day, we’ll talk more about this today. Having said that, more and more people realise the futility of any attempts to punish Russia and impede its socio-economic development. The list of measures used for this purpose is huge including sanctions, deployment of a global anti-missile defence around our western and eastern borders, information wars, ungrounded accusations of “cyber aggression” against almost the entire West, plus of course the discrediting of our Olympic athletes without presenting any concrete facts. In general, the West today does not bother to present facts.

Let me cite just one example. The US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said early this year shortly after he assumed office that the US had irrefutable proof of Russian meddling in the US presidential elections. When we met I asked him to present these facts. He said these were facts obtained through confidential channels and that he was sure that our special services knew very well what it was all about. If this is a a serious dialogue then I don’t know anything about relations between states.

Now we are told, again without having been given any facts, that the sports arbitration court in Lausanne has cleared all our athletes on the list of 32 athletes and coaches, but the decision is not binding because the IOC is not convinced that the athletes had not taken dope. In short, there is no proof, but there are doubts and suspicions. This is reminiscent of 1937 when the Prosecutor General of the USSR, Vyshinvsky, said that “confession is the queen of evidence.” Now we see that there is even no need for a confession, that suspicion is the queen of evidence. This is not the correct or right way to do things. We try to engage our Western colleagues in a more constructive relationship.

I think there is a growing feeling in and outside our country that it makes no sense to try to isolate Russia, and any attempts to cobble together a broad anti-Russian coalition are also failing. No one has yet succeeded and no one will ever succeed in achieving narrow selfish aims of a certain group of countries at our expense. Today we have a constructive dialogue with the majority of foreign partners on all the continents, a partnership that is based on respect of each other’s interests and commitment to further democratisation of international life.

Incidentally, our Western colleagues are constantly interfering in the internal affairs of other states demanding that every country respect human rights, follow the principle of rule-of-law and democracy. We suggest that the same principles of the rule of law and democratisation be applied in international life. They avoid discussing these matters because to democratise international life means to stop dictating to all and sundry and to start working towards an agreement.

There are many matters on which our colleagues are not yet prepared to play ball. Even so, we constantly invite the West to engage in talks. We are ready for a dialogue on the basis of equality and respect of each other’s interests.

We feel our citizens’ support regarding Russian diplomacy operations. This helps us a lot in our work. Public trust is the most reliable asset guaranteeing that no amount of threats, blackmail, sanctions or pressure will make us renounce what we think is right and fair, the more so that for us state sovereignty is not luxury but the necessary condition of our existence as a state.

Russia’s centuries-old great history and its unique geostrategic position established by our ancestors, coupled with its military-political, economic and cultural potential preclude its playing the role of a peripheral state or a “regional power,” to quote former US President Barack Obama.

But, unlike certain colleagues, we have never used our natural advantages to the detriment of others. We stood at the origins of the postwar security architecture and are acting today in a responsible and predictable manner, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council should behave. Our moves are based on the central role of the United Nations and the values of truth and justice; they are aimed at promoting a unifying international agenda rather than master-slave relationship.

During our contacts, many, if not the majority, of countries today say that they see Russia as one of the key guarantors of stability and defender of international law and traditional moral ideals.

We continue to focus on rallying the international community in the face of the terrorist threat. This threat is unprecedented. Our country ran into it way back in the mid-1990s. Tragic developments took toll of thousands of lives in Russia. We will continue to act consistently and resolutely in the fight against this evil. As part of the crucial task of cutting short the ideology of terrorism, we have been sharing with partners the experience of our society that is historically based on peaceful coexistence of cultures, religions and ethnic groups.

We are in favour of forming a united antiterrorist front based on common interests and the coordinating role of the United Nations; it should be free from double standards and prioritise compliance with the fundamental principles of international law and respect for sovereignty of nations and originality of peoples. The appointment of a Russian diplomat, Vladimir Voronkov, to the post of 1st Under-Secretary for the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Office has confirmed recognition for our contribution to the fight against terrorism.

The main ISIS stronghold in Syria has been destroyed, with the Russian Armed Forces playing a decisive role in this respect. A year ago, Russia, Turkey and Iran launched the Astana process, which made it possible to establish four de-escalation zones. The situation is not completely calm in all of them, and there are some relapses because surviving terrorist groups affiliated with the so-called Jabhat Al-Nusra, rather than ISIS, continue to operate there. On the whole, everyone admits that the level of violence has dropped sharply since the establishment of the de-escalation zones.

Today, we are addressing issues of delivering humanitarian aid and launching a political negotiating process under the auspices of the UN. We are trying to help and to induce the UN to work more actively. On January 30, Sochi hosted the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, which was supported by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and his Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura. Mr Guterres and Mr de Mistura recognised the Congress as a factor helping the UN to implement the UN Security Council’s decisions on Syria.

We continue our efforts to defuse the situation in the Korean Peninsula. Russia and China firmly believe that there is no alternative to political dialogue and have advanced their own joint initiative. We can see that the United States is trying to escalate sanctions time and again and to threaten the use of force. According to experts, this scenario could claim at least one million lives or more. We hope that it will never become reality, and that the United States will consult the countries affected by this situation, primarily the leaders of the Republic of Korea and Japan.

I have already mentioned the situation in Ukraine. We demand that all agreements that have been reached must be honoured, no matter what. The ability of our partners to honour agreements is among the most pressing issues and calls for work. It is necessary to fulfil the Minsk complex of measures to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine. The “war party,” which is being pressured by radicals, including neo-Nazi groups that are feeling quite comfortable in Ukraine, is doing its best to shy away from obligations to launch direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk and has not renounced the use of force for resolving this problem. This “war party” is the main obstacle along this road. Notably, an initial version of the draft law on the reintegration of Donbass that allows the use of the armed forces has been passed recently. In January 2017, Ukraine imposed a complete trade and economic blockade of these districts in Donbass. This was done in rude violation of the Minsk complex of measures, approved by the UN Security Council. We are urging our Western partners, primarily the United States which exercises tremendous influence over Kiev, as well as France and Germany, as co-authors of the Minsk Agreements, to persuade Kiev to fulfil its obligations as quickly as possible.

Our unconditional priorities include deepening Eurasian integration. Chaired by Russia this year, the Eurasian Economic Union is picking up momentum. It already has several dozen partners who are interested in creating free trade areas with the EAEU, or concluding cooperation agreements.

Cooperation is getting stronger within the Union State of Russia and Belarus, the CIS and the CSTO, which promotes stability in Eurasia and helps counter international terrorism, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration. Joint work has been established with the CSTO countries at international venues, including coordination of positions in the UN and the OSCE.

For us, the Asia-Pacific region is a strategic priority for the rest of the 21st century, as President Vladimir Putin said. As a Pacific power, Russia will make full use of the vast potential of this region’s rapid development, including for lifting the Russian Far East and Eastern Siberia.

Our current relations with China are at their all-time best. The Foreign Ministry is focusing on further strengthening and developing Russia-China foreign policy coordination. Our common policy is aimed at strict compliance with the fundamental norms of international law and the UN Charter, be it in Syria, on the Korean Peninsula, or elsewhere, and plays an important stabilising role in global and regional affairs.

We are expanding strategic partnership with India and Vietnam. We maintain various ties with the overwhelming majority of states in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.

We are working to implement President Putin’s initiative to form a major Eurasian partnership, which involves the member states of the EAEU, the SCO, and ASEAN. In the long run, this project will also be open to the EU countries.

Notably, the talks on inter-party agreement in Germany ended today. The CDU, the CSU, and the SPD have agreed on coalition principles, such as a focus on promoting a common economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok. This is Russia’s long-standing idea and initiative. I believe it is important and significant that such a statement came from Germany amid the attempts to punish us and to impose more sanctions on us.

In the context of Eurasian integration, we are taking vigorous steps to harmonise the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) with China’s One Belt, One Road strategy. An agreement on trade and economic cooperation between the EAEU and China has been coordinated, and agreements on cooperation in trade, investment, and services between the EAEU and ASEAN member countries that were reached in Sochi in May 2016 are being implemented.

Russia, India and China represent a relatively new format, which was initiated by late Yevgeny Primakov, and has been yielding positive results to date. These meetings are held at the level of foreign ministers and industry-specific ministries and departments. This troika gave an impetus to the birth of BRICS.

The activities of the SCO, joined by India and Pakistan last year, are in full swing. The accession of new members has made it an even more effective body. On a separate note, I would like to mention our work at the Group of Twenty, which was formed in 2009-2010. Its formation as an entity that meets annually at the highest level showed that, notwithstanding its desire to retain the leading positions in international affairs, the West has to reckon with the realities of a polycentric world that is taking shape, as the G-20 includes Western G-7 countries and the key countries of the developing world and all BRICS members. The key issues that need to be addressed in the sphere of international finance and international economic relations are first tried out precisely in this format on the basis of the principle of consensus. This is unequivocal recognition of the realities of the emerging multipolar world order.

I have already said that we are ready to build our relations with the West, the United States and the EU, based on the principles of mutual balance of interests and mutual respect. There is no other way. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stressed that we are open to a constructive dialogue with Washington. Unfortunately, we do not see any significant attempts to meet us halfway. Last year, the United States undertook a number of blatantly anti-Russian measures under completely contrived pretexts, in addition to what had been done by the Obama administration. I will not go into detail as you all follow the events and these measures are quite well known. We are not interested in further confrontation, all the more so because Russia and the United States, as the biggest nuclear powers, have a special responsibility for maintaining strategic stability. Russia-US cooperation for the sake of eliminating acute regional crises and combating terrorism remains very important. We do have certain communication channels on strategic stability, the Korean issue, Syria and some other matters. Unfortunately, so far, in most cases our American colleagues have used these channels to prove that their view on any issue is absolutely right and, instead of looking for a compromise between our approaches, they expect us to take their stance. Nevertheless, we are keeping these channels open. They have been of some use, as is proved by the agreement between Russia, the United States and Jordan regarding the de-escalation zone in southwestern Syria. The zone is operating quite well although there is still a number of issues that we are trying to resolve with the help of the military.

We are ready to cooperate with the EU as intensively as our EU partners see fit and we are hearing more and more sensible voices from those in Europe who are in favour of improving our relations. I have already mentioned the agreements reached while establishing the coalition government in Germany. There are more and more people who understand that building a greater Europe without Russia – and especially bypassing it completely – in terms of security and the economy, will not succeed. It would certainly be to our advantage if the EU strengthened its international independence as this would ensure more transparency and predictability in our relations.

Despite the complicated security situation, as I have already said, we will continue the dialogue on strategic stability with the United States. Russia has fulfilled its obligations regarding the destruction of chemical weapons. The United States is still to do a great deal in order to reach the set goal. We are delivering on our obligations under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and continuing the dialogue with the United States on eliminating certain issues related to the United States’ implementation of the treaty. We want to maintain the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty fully viable. We are ready to reject any attempts by the United States to cast doubt on our honest approach to this treaty as well as to explain ourselves and agree on maintaining the validity of the treaty as long as our very serious and specific grievances against our American partners, which were presented clearly and publicly, will also be met by the United States as an invitation to resolve our concerns. Once again, this dialogue will continue.

Of course, we will insist that all the parties honestly carry out the joint comprehensive action plan to resolve the situation around Iran’s nuclear programme. Failure of this agreement may result in adverse and hardly predictable consequences for the entire non-proliferation system and the entire world order.

Among other relevant matters I would like to point out the importance of further action against glorifying Nazism, measures against nationalism, racism and xenophobia. Every year, we promote a draft resolution on this subject at the UN General Assembly and it is getting more support each time. It received around 140 votes at the latest UN General Assembly. Only two countries, the United States and Ukraine, voted against while, rather inexplicably, the EU abstained referring to freedom of speech. But freedom of speech cannot apply to the activity prohibited by the Nuremberg Trials.

Another strategic priority of ours is fighting cybercrime. We are advancing this issue at the UN. Resolutions have been adopted on international information security. A second group of experts has been established to deal with further research into the matter. A long time ago we suggested adopting a universal convention on cooperation in countering information crimes, including hacking. The United States, while blaming us for exactly the activity against which we propose fighting together, is avoiding any specific talks on the problem. But we are not losing hope. We are ready any time, not in words but in deed, to engage in practical discussions of the most important tasks – how to fight cybercrime and prevent the use of cyberspace for criminal purposes, including terrorism, child abuse, human trafficking and other things.

We are strengthening the international front in support of Christians and representatives of other religions that are suffering right now – mainly in the Middle East and North Africa. Pursuing these goals, we are promoting a mutually respectful dialogue between different faiths and civilisations. We are doing this together with the Russian Orthodox Church and other traditional religions in Russia, in cooperation with the Vatican and such countries as Belarus, Armenia and Lebanon. Every year in Geneva, the UN Human Rights Council holds a special conference on the protection of Christians and representatives of other faiths in the Middle East.

We are focusing on the protection of the rights and interests of our compatriots, expanding international humanitarian exchanges, supporting the interests of the Russian business community on the global markets – particularly, in conditions of tough competition that is very often dishonest.

Needless to say, we are working against corrupt and illegitimate practices of some countries that are persecuting Russian media and are forcing them out of the media environment. We have submitted initiatives regarding the matter to the UN’s relevant committee, the OSCE and the Council of Europe.

Of course, we are facilitating broader inter-regional cooperation, i.e. cooperation between neighbouring regions of two or several countries that engage in joint, pragmatic and non-politicised projects thus contributing to the general palette of Russia’s relations with other countries and helping build trust and mutual understanding.

We will further follow the course of action outlined by President Putin in the Russian Foreign Policy Concept approved in November 2016. I assure you that the difficulties that the country in general and the diplomacy are facing are merely driving us towards a more creative and productive approach to work. This was pointed out by the President and the Prime Minister. We are guided by this when solving the diplomatic tasks set to us. Russian citizens must have no doubt that, no matter what the circumstances are, we can protect our country’s interests, security and sovereignty.



Question:

You have mentioned our relations with the United States. It appears that we have become an image of the enemy for the United States, which, in a certain sense, has become an image of the enemy for us due to efforts by mass media. What positive agenda, aside from common efforts against terrorism and attempts to settle the situation in Syria, could be offered for rapprochement? Are there any other ideas that could help this to happen?



Sergey Lavrov:

I absolutely agree that many are thinking about this, and we need to think about this. Recently, I read an article in the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper by journalist Mikhail Rostovsky, whom I respect. He shared his perspective on our relations with the United States, and said that it is absolutely clear that amidst such assaults on Russia we have to preserve our dignity and integrity and prove our point. Yet he noted that given the immense role that Russia-US relations play not only for the two countries but for the whole world, we should seek some constructive steps. We didn't discuss everything in public, but we have made no secret of this. Since the very beginning of the new US administration's term in office, we offered a number of steps that would allow for gradually restoring mutual trust, with no illusions that this could be done in one fell swoop. Back in April, I handed a list of questions to US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and offered to take stock of them and start exchanging opinions on the issues on our bilateral agenda. There are many complicated matters there, including the actual kidnapping of our citizens on suspicion of cybercrimes, ignoring the Russian-US agreement on legal assistance in criminal matters, which has to be applied in case of suspicions of our nationals' criminal activities (under the agreement we must obtain information and conduct consultations), adoption of children, when Russian children die in US foster families and courts acquit parents who were obviously involved in immoral and criminal actions, and our diplomatic property that was, in fact, expropriated, as well as many other things. We passed over the list of questions without any politicisation and ideology involved. We just suggested we should sit down and begin discussing them. There were a couple of formal meetings that yielded no results. Our US partners cannot, and refuse to assume any commitments and come to any essential agreements. So the list of questions remains intact so far.

A couple of months later, when Russian President Vladimir Putin had a meeting with US President Donald Trump in July, we suggested that if they had any suspicions of Russia's illegal activities, including our alleged interference in the US presidential elections, we could revive a [joint] working group on cybersecurity, which was formally set up back during Barack Obama's term in office but never convened as that administration did not have any interest in talking to us on this subject despite the agreement. We believed that in Hamburg the US side supported this idea. Later, however, when this was publicly announced, the US Congress came down on the White House, claiming that the United States cannot cooperate with Russia on cybersecurity after our alleged hacking and interference in US matters. The Congress insisted that there was no point in talking to us about this.

We also recalled that back in 1933, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union Maxim Litvinov, while establishing diplomatic relations, exchanged letters. This was done at the insistence of the American side. In the letters, each party, in identical phrasing, undertook not to interfere in each other's internal affairs and not to encourage any movements on the territory of the country that could sympathise with the other party thus serving as proxy for its interests, and many other things. In fact, things we are being incriminated for, were included [in that document] as unacceptable in Russia-US relations. We offered that, if they had such suspicions, we should revise what was done in 1933 and exchange similar obligations in some form. They said it was not suitable for them as we were interfering in their matters.

So, probably, we could be reprimanded for not putting enough creative effort, but our attempts at starting a depoliticised dialogue have not yielded any result so far. That said, as I have already mentioned, a dialogue on strategic stability is underway although there are issues that require professional assessment without any politicisation. This is not always easy to achieve but we are ready for this.

There is a dialogue regarding the Korean Peninsula and Syria, although I should say again that the US side believes this dialogue should come down to us agreeing to all their approaches. But we will not close the door; hope is the last thing to die, all the more so since we have things to show in support of our approaches.



Question:

The public in European countries believes that the United States’ attempts to divide Europe and Russia are harmful for European countries as well. European politicians’ official stance is well known. I would like to hear about their off-the-record opinions. Do they realise that it is the United States and in no way Europe that gains most from this? Perhaps they are not afraid to tell you this off camera?



Sergey Lavrov:

The cameras are always there. I said in my opening remarks that we really want to see an independent Europe on the international stage. It is a fact that Europe does not agree with everything the United States undertakes against Russia and this is stated publicly. This includes the sanctions, when the Europeans insist that the United States’ steps were discussed and agreed with them and did not harm European companies. This also includes more acute issues that could escalate into a crisis, such as Iran’s nuclear programme. Europe is anything but thrilled by the US demands to make drastic changes to this programme and by its promise to withdraw otherwise, as it will undo all the compromises reached during the negotiations of this approach. Once again, this may have unpredictable consequences.

The Europeans who were involved in the P5+1 talks with Tehran – that is, the UK, France and Germany – agreed to participate in a working group with the United States to which neither Russia nor China were invited although we were also involved in that work. Washington says that the working group is reviewing the agreement in line with the United States’ requests. Iran will not accept this. Russia and China believe that it will also be extremely counterproductive because the balance reached under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is very fragile. The action plan was secured by a unanimous UNSC resolution and basically has the force of an international law. Trying to dissect its components is extremely dangerous. The Europeans feel that they need to defend their interests because the United States does not always take them into consideration. But at the same time, the ‘transatlantic bond’ as it is often called is still working to the effect that Europe wants to find a compromise with the United States. We do not mind, as long as these compromises are not at the expense of others or at the expense of such vital agreements as the one on Iran’s nuclear programme.



Question:

Diplomacy, as I see it, is a chess game, where each player defends his or her own interests. What makes people in our public age, when information technology makes it possible to disseminate information in an instant, make ungrounded claims without providing any evidence? What is the United States hoping for and how does this fail to spoil its reputation at home?



Sergey Lavrov:

I find it difficult to answer this question. I have mentioned how they respond to our requests to “provide irrefutable facts of our interference in the United States’ internal affairs,” to quote US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. I have also mentioned that in situations of this sort we always ask to be given some facts, some concrete things, be it the anti-doping agenda or something else. For example, there was a series of episodes just the other day, which involved, according to NGO reports, alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria. Short of any investigation, the United States immediately claimed that the blame should be put on President Bashar al-Assad and Russia, because we are responsible for the Syrian Government (or the Syrian regime as they call it). US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley immediately started hurling invectives at us in her peremptory manner. We suggested to the Americans that the related organisations should hold an investigation and visit the site in question. They replied that they had reliable data but could not disclose their source because it would be targeted by the illegal regime in Damascus. And it ended at that.

It is very difficult, of course, to maintain a sensible dialogue under these circumstances, but the majority of countries do understand our position and are not taken in by the United States’ ungrounded accusations, be it Syria, Iran or whatever. Iran is being accused of terrorism. Out of 15 terrorist groups listed as such under US laws only one can be somehow associated with Iran. The rest have declared Iran their enemy. Our attempt to talk to the Americans on this topic and understand their logic is also meeting with a lack of enthusiasm. In any event, these things should be discussed, including in the context of what is going on in Syria, where the Americans seem to have set on the course of partitioning the country. They have simply thrown overboard the assurances they had given us that the only aim of their presence in Syria (without an invitation from its legitimate Government) was to defeat ISIS and terrorism. Now they are saying that this presence will endure until the moment they make sure that Syria is stably on course for a political settlement that should culminate in a regime change. You know what they are talking about. That they are making overtures to various segments of Syrian society that oppose the Government, including with arms in hand, is leading to very dangerous results. There are plans for an actual partition of Syria; we know about this and will be asking our US colleagues how they visualise all this.



Question:

Our country is always deceived by everyone – the Americans, the United Nations, the IOC… What should be done to put an end to this and when will it end?



Sergey Lavrov:

It’s a cinch that we should not go to war. After this event, I will have a meeting with three finalists, who asked me to be their tutor. We have selected three persons from a group that has signaled similar desires. They have provided very interesting and creative answers to our assignments. One young woman, a member of the three, with whom I will be meeting, has suggested a brand describing Russia’s position in world affairs. It sounds quite simple: “Russia’s strength is in truth.” Remember “Brother-2?” “God is not in strength but in truth.”

Thank you very much.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3060472






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a ceremony on the occasion of Diplomats’ Day, Moscow, February 8, 2018



8 February 2018 - 18:56








Colleagues, friends,

We are grateful to our guests and comrades for accepting our invitation. I have the honour to declare this ceremony devoted to Diplomats’ Day open.

(Anthem of the Russian Federation)


* * *


I would like to again express our gratitude to all those who have joined the Foreign Ministry staff and veterans on this occasion, including our colleagues from the Presidential Executive Office, the Government Executive Office, the Russian Security Council, ministries, agencies and other offices with which we maintain close and fruitful cooperation. My special thanks go to Valentina Matviyenko, Speaker of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of Russia and Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary.

I believe that the presence here of the people with whom we cooperate in a wide range of spheres is fresh evidence that professional solidarity is crucial for the successful achievement of the goals set by President of Russia Vladimir Putin in important sectors of foreign policy.

Time moves on inexorably. Over the past 12 months, several of our colleagues have passed away, some of them in the line of duty, such as Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin, Ambassador to Sudan Mirgayas Shirinsky and Russia’s Permanent Representative to FAO and WFP Alexander Gorban. Let us honour their memory with a moment of silence.


***


We have received many greetings on Diplomats’ Day. I would like to read out the message we have received from President Vladimir Putin.

“To the staff and veterans of the Foreign Ministry

Friends,

I would like to extend my most sincere greetings to you on your professional holiday, Diplomats’ Day.

There are many brilliant victories in the centuries-long history of Russian diplomacy and outstanding people who are the pride of the nation. The current Foreign Ministry staff continues to protect the country’s interests based on the good traditions of the past.

In the current complicated international situation and amid numerous problems, you are working hard to create favourable foreign policy conditions for Russia’s sustainable socioeconomic development and to protect the rights of Russian citizens and compatriots outside Russia.

The central apparatus and foreign offices of the Foreign Ministry are dealing with formidable challenges connected with the development of truly equitable and mutually beneficial cooperation with all our foreign partners. Our continued priorities are to uphold the UN’s key role in global affairs, to consolidate the international community in the fight against the terrorist threat and to strengthen the foundations of strategic stability and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The defeat of the main terrorist forces in Syria has created conditions for a peaceful settlement in that country, which the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi has confirmed. Of course, there is still much work ahead to resolve the Syrian crisis and several other regional conflicts.

It is vitally important to continue to promote the further development of mutually beneficial integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union and to enhance the efficiency of multilateral cooperation organisations, which have been established with proactive contribution from Russia, such as BRICS, the SCO and the CSTO.

I hope that Russian diplomats will continue to work creatively and in earnest. Your achievements are certainly fostered by the broad support given to our foreign policy in Russian society.

I wholeheartedly wish success to the Foreign Ministry employees and health, long life and courage to the veterans.

Vladimir Putin.”


***


As I have said, greetings to the Foreign Ministry staff and veterans have come from many Russian officials, including Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. They praise the success of the foreign policy department in protecting national interests and express confidence that the ministry staff and its embassies and consulates abroad will continue to work consistently and efficiently to help strengthen Russia’s standing on the international stage.

We have also received greetings from Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko, State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, the heads of parliamentary committees, MPs and the heads of ministries and departments who have sent their delegates to this meeting, as well as the heads of Russian regions and members of the business community.

We are truly honoured to receive a high assessment of our diplomatic efforts to protect national interests and to promote broad international partnership on the basis of equitable and mutually beneficial relations. On the other hand, there are no, nor can there be any grounds for complacency. I hardly need to tell this highly professional audience that the global situation is becoming increasingly unstable. The so-called historical West, which is concerned about the loss of its influence, is trying to maintain its domination and to hinder the objective development of a new polycentric world order and the rise of new global centres, including Russia. The conspicuous anti-Russia campaign, which Washington has initiated, has acquired a truly unprecedented scale. It is designed to reduce Russia to the state of a puppet.

These attempts will not succeed. Russia will not be isolated or forced to forgo its principles, and attempts to solve one’s problems at Russia’s expense will run aground. We have faced many external challenges in our history, but we have dealt with all of them successfully with active contribution from the country’s diplomatic service. And this is how it will be in the future as well.

Today Russia is a key player in promoting a positive future-oriented international agenda. We have regained our historical role as one of the main guarantors of global stability and a country upholding the values of truth and justice in international affairs. It is a role the international community needs very much. The overwhelming majority of countries support our foreign policy. Historically speaking, they are our allies alongside the Army, the Navy and the Aerospace Forces. By developing multifaceted relations with these countries, which have some 80 per cent of the world’s population, we are creating favourable external conditions for Russia’s development and for strengthening its economic, research and technological capability.

We will continue to steer an independent, open and honest foreign policy, which is rooted in Russia’s centuries-long history and unique geostrategic location. Europe in the west and the dynamic Asia-Pacific region in the east determine the central place of the Eurasian factor in our development.

I will repeat what President Vladimir Putin has said: We are ready to cooperate with all countries without exception based on equality, mutual benefit and a balance of interests.

Colleagues, friends,

On March 4, 1881, Nicholas de Giers, who succeeded Alexander Gorchakov as the Foreign Ministry Governor and was subsequently appointed Foreign Minister, sent a letter to Russian representatives abroad on the ascension of Alexander III to the Russian imperial throne. In this letter, Nicholas de Giers wrote: “Russia will always reciprocate good feelings for all states, but it will not forgo its rightful place among the world’s powers and will not stop working to maintain a political balance. Russia believes that its goals are closely connected with global peace, which is based on respect for law and agreements. It must primarily take care of itself and should only withdraw attention from internal matters to defend its honour and security.”

It is obvious that these words, although uttered nearly 140 years ago, are completely in sync with modern realities. We will rely on the rich legacy of our predecessors to improve the range of diplomatic tools and make use of all opportunities created by modern technology.

I hope that all ministry employees will continue to show initiative and will work efficiently and consistently. We must do our best to fully justify the trust placed in us by the country’s authorities and people.

Congratulations on our professional day. I wish you and your loved ones good health and success in your service to the Motherland.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3062887






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the ceremony of laying wreaths at memorial plaques, Moscow, February 9, 2018



9 February 2018 - 11:15








Colleagues, friends,

We traditionally hold a wreath laying ceremony on Diplomats’ Day to commemorate all our colleagues, as well as our partners from the foreign trade sector who have perished during the Great Patriotic War, died in the line of duty or were victims of political repressions.

We don’t lay wreaths only at the Foreign Ministry building in Moscow. The ministry leadership and staff also lay wreaths at our comrades’ graves in the capitals of other countries. These events are organised at a high level in accordance with the rules. We will continue doing this to the best of our ability.

This year we will mark many important events. Just recently we marked the 75th anniversary of victory in the Battle of Stalingrad, which marked a tipping point in the Great Patriotic War and even the entire Second World War. This year we will also mark the 75th anniversary of two other important events that happened in the autumn of 1943: the Moscow conference of the foreign ministers of the Soviet Union, the United States and Great Britain and the Tehran Conference of the Big Three, who discussed and largely coordinated the fundamental principles of an international organisation to be known as the United Nations.

The experience of allied relations and cooperation to which I am referring, as well as the feeling of a common enemy and a common threat encouraged countries on the opposite sides of the ideological barrier, countries with different world outlooks to join forces to attain a historic victory.

I am convinced that we must make use of this experience now. Regrettably, there is a tendency to bury many of the achievements we have attained through joint efforts. The renunciation of collective efforts and the striving to promote a self-serving and unilateral agenda and to settle one’s problems at the expense of others can have predictably bad consequences similar to those of the shameful Munich Pact in 1938.

We will never refuse an honest discussion. We are aware of the need to join forces against terrorism and other threats facing the humankind. We will work to strengthen our partner, working and comradely contacts with all countries that share our views and that put peaceful coexistence and the creation of conditions for their efficient development over geopolitical games. We will always remain open to close and honest interaction based on equality, mutual respect and a balance of interests.

I would like again to thank you for attending the ceremony held to commemorate our comrades ahead of Diplomats’ Day.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3065024
__________________
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 February 12th, 2018 #357
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov interviewed by Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, February 8, 2018



8 February 2018 - 10:39




Question:

The Russian side has noted the need for coordinating Russian-US counter-terrorism efforts and for launching closer cooperation between both countries’ secret services. Are any meetings on this issue expected soon? When are they scheduled to take place, and at what level?



Oleg Syromolotov:

Russia and the United States, the largest nuclear powers and permanent UN Security Council members, assume special responsibility for resolving global problems s linked with protecting states, nations and ordinary citizens from terror and other types of violence.

However, our counter-terrorism cooperation has evolved in various ways. In 2011, long before the April 15, 2013 terrorist attack in Boston, the Russian side repeatedly informed the United States through partner channels about the activities of the Tamerlan and Jokhar Tsarnayev brothers. At first, the US side did not respond and later said it would independently deal with its citizens. As a result a tragedy took place.

At the same time, we have some positive experience of cooperating with the United States in this area, including during the preparations for the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi and during the Games themselves. At that time, the US secret services established really business-like and partner relations with their Russian colleagues and helped maintain security. On December 17, 2017, it became possible to prevent terrorist attacks in St. Petersburg, after the Russian side received CIA intelligence data. This is another example of constructive, and what is particularly important, efficient counter-terrorism cooperation.

However, I regret to say that Washington now prefers dual approaches towards US-Russian counter-terrorism cooperation and towards collaboration on other aspects. On the one hand, the Americans are interested in practical cooperation, as confirmed by specific results of contacts between secret services. On the other hand, the US administration diffidently hushes up specific examples of bilateral counter-terrorism cooperation in an atmosphere of Russo-phobia that has now engulfed Washington. Only those situations when top-level bilateral contacts on counter-terrorism issues were maintained did not match this context. On December 17, 2017, the White House issued a rarely positive press release after a telephone conversation between the leaders of both countries that praised the combined efforts between secret services to prevent the terrorist attack in St. Petersburg.

Judging by the latest well-known initiatives of the US side, comprehensive Russian-US counter-terrorism dialogue, including its past-time format, is hardly possible in the near future. Too many bridges have been burned. This is not our fault. Too much has already been said about this.

You are right in saying that we have repeatedly stated our readiness to negotiate the most topical counter-terrorism issues with the United States. But we have never imposed ourselves on anyone. We believe that Russia does not need cooperation in this area more than other states. We have accumulated rich, unique and successful experience for dealing with terrorism by force and for preventing these attacks. Many foreign partners request assistance from us, Russian military and law enforcement agencies, and they receive the required assistance or advice.

The Americans “knock” on our door only when they face something urgent or some critical situations. Today, Washington has virtually tabooed ordinary official and working contacts with Russia.

Nevertheless, officials in charge of security matters sometimes hold bilateral meetings even in these difficult conditions, and their participants may also discuss the subject of counter-terrorism. This is proved by several examples, including meetings held earlier on this year between heads of national secret services and consultations on issues of countering the financing of terrorism. New contacts are being planned and prepared. However, I will not anticipate them. Quite possibly, our US partners will find it more preferable not to widely publicise these contacts.



Question:

Won’t Turkey’s military operation in Afrin impair Russian-Turkish counter-terrorism cooperation?



Oleg Syromolotov:

Operation Olive Branch being conducted by the Turkish Armed Forces and militants of the “Free Syrian Army” against Kurdish terrorist elements in northern Syria currently ranks among the main global news stories.

We regret to say that another hotbed of tension continues to expand in Syria. US and Turkish interests in the region are becoming more and more differentiated. In effect, both NATO allies are virtually confronting each other.

Ankara is assuring us that the efforts of the Turkish military don’t run counter to Turkey’s current and future efforts in the area of the Syrian political settlement. At the same time, developments in Afrin that have, among other things, been provoked by the actions of the Americans (the United States is planning to supply more weapons to US-controlled groups in Syria, allegedly for combating ISIS) might, indeed, destabilise this region still further.

It would be no exaggeration to say that Russia and Turkey are playing a key role in the context of stabilising the situation in Syria. This is proved by our practical cooperation at all levels and by daily inter-departmental working contacts. It is precisely the joint efforts of Russia, Turkey and Iran that have made it possible to completely rectify the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, to eliminate substantial pockets of resistance of ISIS, Jabhat Al-Nusra and other terrorist groups, to create the required conditions for a detailed and interested intra-Syrian dialogue on issues concerning the country’s future political system. The Astana agreements regarding specific parameters of Syrian de-escalation zones’ operation and consolidating the ceasefire regime are an example of productive cooperation between our countries. Turkey supported Russia’s initiative to hold the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi and exerted efforts to facilitate its successful work.

We are determined to continue an in-depth exchange of opinions and our intensive work with Turkish partners, primarily for the purpose of countering international terrorist organisations in Syria. This will make it possible to gradually improve the situation in that country and the entire Middle East.

Regarding Operation Olive Branch, it is certainly our principled and consistent position that the fight against terrorism in any sovereign state, including the Syrian Arab Republic, must be conducted in full compliance with the UN Charter and the norms of international law. Our position is based on the statements of Turkish leaders that Turkey has no claims to Syrian territory.



Question:

Earlier, Uzbekistan and Kabul proposed holding an international ministerial conference in Tashkent. Conference participants are to discuss such topics as resolving the situation in Afghanistan, combating terrorism and maintaining security cooperation. Will Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov attend the event? Will the Russian side voice any initiatives?



Oleg Syromolotov:

In mid-January 2018, Foreign Minister of Uzbekistan Abdulaziz Kamilov proposed holding a ministerial meeting on the Afghan peace settlement in late March 2018 in Tashkent. He made this proposal on the sidelines of the UN Security Council meeting in New York City. Just like Central Asian states, Russia is worried about processes in Afghanistan that directly influence regional security.

Despite numerous international formats, the issue of the Afghan political settlement remains unresolved. So far, it has proved impossible to involve the warring parties in peace talks. We are reviewing Tashkent’s initiative in the context of elaborating on the Moscow format of consultations on the Afghan peace settlement that involves 11 regional countries and which leaves the doors open to the United States. Indicatively, the lineup of the planned meeting’s participants virtually duplicates the Moscow format. Apart from the 12 above-mentioned countries, the conference is to involve Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, as well as UN and EU representatives.

Obviously, it is necessary to conduct a dialogue with the Taliban Movement as part of the Afghan society for the purpose of establishing peace and security in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. We are confident that diplomatic efforts to launch the process of national reconciliation are a highly important element of stabilising the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Russia advocates equitable cooperation between international partners, with due consideration for the national interests of all regional countries without exception. In this connection, we perceive the Moscow format and the mechanism of the upgraded SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group as optimal venues for conducting specific and detailed talks to facilitate national reconciliation in that country.

We are also planning to stick to the above-mentioned line during the Tashkent conference. Speaking of practical issues, including the level of Russian participation and the above-mentioned conference’s agenda, it is still too early to talk about this.



Question:

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin said recently that Kiev is holding talks with football federations and fan organisations on staging protest actions during the FIFA World Cup in Russia as explicit reference to act? What will be Russia’s response?



Oleg Syromolotov:

Moscow paid attention to the recent provocative statement made by the Ukrainian minister who tried to incite representatives of the inadequate public to anti-sports extremist actions. In conditions when the Ukrainian team failed to qualify for the World Cup we did not expect anything from the Ukrainian authorities but the attempts to spoil a universal sports festivity.

As for the World Cup, I would like to assure all the fans that we are taking all necessary measures to ensure the highest level of security for both the athletes and the spectators. Russian law enforcement and special services are conducting large-scale preparatory work aimed at preventing any excesses, attempts to violate the law or cause disturbances during the World Cup.

I will quote just several examples of such activities. First of all, by analogy with the 2017 Confederations Cup, we have established an interdepartmental operational headquarters on ensuring security during the World Cup that is operating regularly to coordinate these activities. We are also actively cooperating with the relevant services of foreign states. The international police cooperation centre will function during the World Cup. It will include representatives of the law enforcement bodies of the participants in this event. One more channel of cooperation are national football information centres the formation of which is envisaged by the Council of Europe convention on integrated safety, security and service at sports events. Each of these centres has access to the official website on which information can be shared on people of interest to law enforcement. The Russian centre is integrated into the European network and its representatives are taking part in the work of the European Expert Group on security during football matches.

We are confident that the World Cup will take place at the highest level and bring a lot of positive emotions to Russia’s guests and all football fans.



Question:

Did Russia share with South Korea its experience on ensuring security at the Winter Olympic Games?



Oleg Syromolotov:

Of course, the successful conduct of the Olympic Games in Pyeongchang is the main goal for the Republic of Korea. The task of ensuring security is of key importance in this respect. We are sure that the South Korean authorities will do everything for this important event to be held at the highest possible level and with proper security.

Russia has good experience when it comes to conducting such events. The international Olympic and Paralympic committees, delegations of the participating countries and the international sports public highly praised our Winter Olympics in Sochi. Russia also took impeccable security measures at the Confederations Cup last year. The Russian and South Korean relevant bodies have a solid communications channel for intensive exchange of experience. We are always ready to share it with foreign partners to ensure security during both large-scale entertainment and sporting events.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3060698






Russian Ambassador to the Republic of Korea Alexander Timonin’s interview with TASS News Agency, February 5, 2018



9 February 2018 - 12:25




Question:

How has South Korea changed since preparations for the Olympics began?



Alexander Timonin:

The South Koreans have done a lot to prepare for the XXIII Olympic Winter Games in PyeongChang and to create the required infrastructure. In all, 12 sport facilities due to host the competitions have been built and upgraded in PyeongChang and Gangneung. Last year, they completed the Olympic Village, and opened large hotels, an international media centre and new motor roads. Construction of the Korea Train Express (KTX) linking the capital with South Korea’s eastern coast and making it possible to travel the 270-kilometre distance between Seoul and Gangneung in less than two hours should be mentioned separately.



Question:

What do the Koreans themselves think about the upcoming event and substantial spending on the preparations? Do they see the Olympic project as the national idea, just like the people of Russia viewed the Olympics four years ago?



Alexander Timonin:

The people of the Republic of Korea have different opinions of the upcoming Winter Olympics. It goes without saying that many people are looking forward to this event. But it appears that now there is less excitement than in the run-up to the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul. Quite possibly, this can be explained by the fact that, as compared to summer sports, winter sports are less popular here. Many people here don’t consider the spending to be exorbitant. Moreover, the Koreans realise that costly Olympic infrastructure projects, including the previously mentioned express railway and a new high-speed motorway, will continue to operate after the Games, and that they will make the Gangwon-do province, a popular tourist destination in the Republic of Korea, more accessible.



Question:

How many Russians are planning to go to the Olympics?



Alexander Timonin:

The Embassy has no exact data. We know that the Russian national ticket quota is selling well. In turn, we have done everything possible to be ready to provide consular and other assistance to Russian athletes and fans due to arrive in South Korea for the Olympics. However, the International Olympic Committee’s decisions with regard to leading Russian athletes and a substantial reduction in the Russian team’s lineup may induce some fans not to visit South Korea. This possibility should not be ruled out.



Question:

What should Russian athletes arriving in Korea for the first time know, above all? And what should the fans know?



Alexander Timonin:

I believe that a separate interview would be needed to fully answer this question. I will only say that, on the threshold of the Olympics, our officials working in cooperation with the Foreign Ministry’s Consular Department compiled special reference guide for Russian fans arriving in Korea. It is posted on the Embassy’s website (https://korea-seoul.mid.ru/spravocna...la-bolel-sikov). In this document, we tried to compile information on all issues that may interest foreign and Russian tourists, including the specifics of etiquette, currency exchanges, tips on public transit, the healthcare system and specifics of national legislation. I advise all people planning to visit PyeongChang to closely study this material; we tried to make it as useful and informative as possible.

I would like to use this opportunity to remind our fans that, on January 1, 2014, visa-free travel came into effect between Russia and the Republic of Korea. However, to avoid any unexpected situations, our compatriots should have documents confirming the purchase of Olympic tickets, hotel reservations and return tickets to Russia. To avoid any complications, they should present them to immigration control officers.



Question:

Are there any pitfalls or surprises that our compatriots might encounter in a foreign country?



Alexander Timonin:

The recommendations here are standard for any foreign trip. First of all, it is necessary to observe the laws and traditions of the country where you stay, which will help you avoid any unpleasant surprises that could cloud your trip. The Republic of Korea does not have a high crime rate and usually there is no need to take special precautions. At the same time, the conduct of such a large-scale international event as the Olympic Games raises the risk of unforeseen situations. In this context I would like to recommend that fans report their trip to the Foreign Ministry’s Crisis Management Centre through a special mobile app (Assistance Abroad). This will allow the employees of the centre or the Russian Embassy in Seoul to contact you promptly and help.



Question:

How many Russians live in South Korea now? Will they support our team during the Games?



Alexander Timonin:

There are over 20,000 of our compatriots who have long lived in South Korea. Many have expressed a desire to attend the Olympics and support Russian athletes who found themselves in a predicament because of the unfair and politically motivated decision of the IOC. I can say with confidence that our team will not be neglected in PyeongChang and Gangneung. Communicating with our compatriots and via social media we have recorded their high interest in the upcoming Games. The Embassy is cooperating with the associations of compatriots and Russia’s friends in Korea. We will not just support our Olympic athletes in the stadiums of PyeongChang and Gangneung but will also organise gala receptions and farewell ceremonies for them at the airport and Olympic facilities.



Question:

Female representatives of several sports federations have noted that they have encountered sexism in South Korea. They say that women are treated with contempt, as if they are not equal to men. Do you think this problem exists?



Alexander Timonin:

I do not think so. The Koreans traditionally treat foreigners, especially women, with respect.



Question:

Is it true that the Koreans tried to diversify the menus at restaurants for the Games, taking into account the tastes of foreign guests?



Alexander Timonin:

As far as I know, the Koreans are preparing to meet their foreign guests and would like to surprise them not only with Korean cuisine but also with dishes from other countries, including Russia.



Question:

It has been reported that a new outbreak of bird flu has been detected in South Korea. A similar situation took place before the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro when tourists were scared with the Zika virus. Can you comment on this?



Alexander Timonin:

According to the relevant services of the Republic of Korea, this threat does not exist. The Russian Healthcare Ministry has not put South Korea on the list of countries with an increased threat of epidemics. Furthermore, the country’s quarantine services are preparing for the influx of foreign tourists and promise to do everything to prevent the outbreak of infectious diseases.



Question:

Who should Russian fans contact in case of health problems?



Alexander Timonin:

Olympic organisers report that during the competitions, any health issues with the official delegations, participants or fans will be monitored by 2,355 medical workers. Medical stations will be at all competition venues without exception. If necessary, visitors will be able to receive medical aid there. As for traumas requiring urgent medical assistance, patients will be taken to hospitals by specially equipped helicopters. Two hospitals have been designated for Olympic status for the Games – the Christian Hospital in the city of Wonju and the Asan Hospital in Gangneung. In addition, Incheon International Airport already has four medical stations for the arriving guests.

For my part, I would strongly advise fans going to the Republic of Korea not to forget about medical insurance.



Question:

Is the Embassy cooperating with the Russian Olympic Committee in preparing the Russia House for fans? If so, what will it look like? Where will it be located and what will it be called?



Alexander Timonin:

Embassy representatives are closely cooperating with the Russian Olympic Committee and other interested agencies in preparing the Russia House for fans, which will be located in Gangneung. Preparations for the opening are now underway.



Question:

What is your attitude towards the decision to ban our athletes from performing at the Games under the Russian flag? What do South Koreans think about this? Are embassy employees planning to support our team with the tricolor at the stands for fans (Is this not prohibited?)



Alexander Timonin:

I consider the IOC’s decision to ban our athletes from performing at the Games in Pyeongchang under the Russian flag an example of discrimination. It is politically motivated and humiliating for Russia and its citizens.

Many South Koreans express sincere regret as regards this unfair decision by international sports officials. Many of them believe that only the participation of the Russian athletes can make the Olympics spectacular and successful. Recently, not only some rank-and-file Koreans but also representatives of South Korean political and public organisations were offering support for Russian athletes and said they would create the necessary conditions for the successful performance of Olympians from Russia. Naturally, all employees of the Russian Embassy, and Russians living in South Korea are getting ready to provide support for our athletes from stands for fans, using all Russian logos and the national flag.



Question:

What winter sport do you like? What role does sport play in the lives of embassy employees and in your life?



Alexander Timonin:

I cannot say I am an avid fan but I try not to miss our hockey matches at international tournaments. Many embassy employees go in for different sports during their free time. We have hockey, volleyball and basketball teams. In the past few years, alpine skiing and snowboarding have become particularly popular. South Korea has the infrastructure for these sports.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3065527






Permanent Representative of Russia to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich’s remarks at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council, Vienna, February 8, 2018



9 February 2018 - 14:09



In reference to the reports by Head of the OSCE SMM in Ukraine Ertugrul Apakan and Special Representative of OSCE Chairman-in-Office for Ukraine and in the Contact Group Martin Sajdik




Distinguished ambassadors Martin Sajdik and Ertugrul Apakan,

Your activities seek to achieve peace and harmony in Ukraine. We appreciate this and wish you success. The key condition is full compliance with the Minsk Package of Measures. This cornerstone document, approved by UN Security Council resolution, will turn 3 years on February 12. None of its provisions have been implemented so far. An impartial analysis makes it possible to understand who is to blame for this.

As you know, the conflict in southeastern Ukraine began with Kiev’s punitive operation against its own people, which brought untold suffering to the people in that region. Many were forced to flee, including to Russia. Since April 1, 2014, about 1.7 million Ukrainian citizens have applied to the authorities in Russia for legal status, including Russian citizenship, refugee status, temporary asylum, temporary residence permit, etc. Even more Ukrainians regularly go to Russia to work. The authorities there come up with propaganda labels like the “aggressor country,” but the people vote with their feet.

Futile attempts to portray Russia as a side in the intra-Ukrainian conflict constitute an integral part of the policy of sabotaging the Minsk agreements, prolonging the conflict, maintaining a hotbed of tension on the borders of the European Union and Russia, and creating competitive advantages for extra-regional powers. All this is being done at the expense of the peoples of Ukraine.

Kiev completely ignores the political part of its obligations – the law on the “special status” of Donbass was not put into effect because of conditions which were not provided for by the Package of Measures. Kiev must agree the conditions for holding local elections with Donetsk and Lugansk. This is not happening. Even the Steinmeier formula, which combines these two key issues, is going nowhere.

The law on non-persecution in connection with the Donbass events remains on the back burner. Kiev is blatantly cheating with the lists of individuals subject to exchange, and is not conducting a proper legal “cleaning” of the released persons. We have not heard much in a while about the constitutional reform envisaged in Paragraph 11 of the Minsk Package of Measures.

The shelling of Donbass towns and villages continues in violation of Paragraph 1 of the Package of Measures. The SMM has reported on some incidents. The most recent shelling of a civilian bus in Yelenovka on January 21 and blocks of flats in Dokuchayevsk on January 22 resulted in casualties among civilians. The continuing concentration of forces and means of the Ukrainian armed forces is a cause for concern for us. In violation of the Package of Measures, Ukraine keeps increasing the number of large-caliber artillery units at the contact line, bringing 57 artillery units last week alone. Poorly controlled formations of militant nationalists can still be found in Donbass. Kiev has so far failed to issue ceasefire orders.

The September 21, 2016 decision of the Contact Group on disengagement of forces and means is not being complied with, whereas it is one of the key elements of de-escalation at the contact line. Kiev refuses to fulfill the obligations it assumed at Stanitsa Luganskaya (seven-day complete ceasefires were recorded at least 20 times at this SMM section).

The Ukrainian armed forces continue to use provocations, seizing villages in the “gray zone” close to the contact line, such as Novoaleksandrovka, Gladosovo and Travnevoye. This leads to a dangerous rapprochement of positions and the risk of escalation.

Kiev’s representatives consistently dodge a direct coordination of measures to resolve the crisis with the other parties to the conflict, Donetsk and Lugansk, although such coordination is explicitly stipulated in the Package of Measures. The Contact Group was formed precisely for this purpose, in which Ukraine is represented by all the parties to the conflict. We expect that Ambassador Martin Sajdik will still be able to fulfill the key task – have all the parties engage in an effective dialogue.

The developments on the economic and humanitarian tracks are depressing. The central authorities, along with the extremists, are making every effort to further isolate Donbass from Ukraine. Social payments are a big problem (in direct violation of Article 8 of the Minsk package); there is a trade and transport blockade; the region is frequently cut off from water and electricity, and now also from Ukrainian mobile phone networks.

Instead of making good on its commitments, Kiev has drafted the so-called reintegration law, which is in conflict with the Minsk package.

Kiev’s destructive actions have made it impossible for Russian officers to remain in the Joint Centre on Control and Coordination. The SMM needs to work directly with representatives of local authorities in Donbass.

Mr Chairperson,

As follows from the OSCE SMM reports, observers regularly visit the border areas. More attention should be given to the rear of the Ukrainian armed forces, where a concentration of weapons has been observed. Many government-controlled areas are closed to the SMM under the pretext of mine danger – in fact a purposeful tactic used by Kiev to blind the observers, which was evidenced by the January 31 incident, when the Unsafe Mines, Keep Out sign was put on a Ukrainian forces’ facility gate. However, that facility seemed to be overlooked by the statistics of obstacles hindering the SMM work, which looks like skewing the facts in the interests of one party to the conflict. In the meantime, pro-government forces have fired at the SMM UAV twice over the past week. On February 2, an observer patrol also came under fire in the vicinity of Yasinovataya.

The SMM should act objectively, transparently and impartially. This largely depends on you, Mr Apakan.

It is hard to overestimate the deterrent effect that the presence of observers on the contact line has. We support more intensive observational activities in this key area, including with the use of equipment. The SMM plays an important role in the early warning of military escalation, all the more so as there are reports of the Kiev military leadership’s offensive plans.

There is an obvious connection between the political situation in Ukraine and the Donbass conflict. The government has repeatedly tried to divert attention from domestic problems, including economic problems, by fueling tensions in Donbass and escalating empty rhetoric.

Radical Ukrainian nationalism is the preferred tool of the war party. We expect the SMM to pay closer attention to the socio-political developments in the country outside the conflict zone.

The Russian language and minority languages issue requires constant monitoring. As you know, in 2014, this issue came to the fore in fueling the crisis, along with Ukraine’s policy toward historical memory.

It is worth paying special attention to the education law, which directly violates Paragraph 11 of the Minsk Package of Measures, as well as regulatory acts on broadcasting, on artistic performances, on print and audio products (Ukraine again has banned a number of books, including children’s books). The harassment of journalists in Ukraine requires a prompt reaction from the SMM – the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media does not seem to always have time to address this. We have already mentioned that editor-in-chief of the Country.ua website Igor Guzhva has asked for asylum in Austria because the Ukrainian authorities have threatened him with a prison term.

In accordance with Paragraph 3 of its mandate, the OSCE mission has to report violations of the rights of ethnic minorities in Ukraine.

The current Ukrainian authorities’ expectations that non-organised nationalist groups would help resolve the important issues facing Ukrainian society through the street riots; the extremist forces’ claims on involvement in law enforcement activities, including by criminal methods such as forceful actions against their opponents, create an alarming environment in the country and unintentionally evoke an allusion to Germany in the 1930s.

The Mission should especially look at the activities of neo-Nazi movements, the so-called national vigilantes who come from the Azov Batalion, admirers of Stepan Bandera, as well as the nationalist organisations responsible for crimes against humanity during and after the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.

More and more representatives from other ethnic groups living in Ukraine suffer from the militant nationalists. On February 4, extremists tried to set fire to the office of the Transcarpathian Hungarians Union in Uzhhorod.

Nationalist forces continue their attempts to give the conflict a religious dimension. On February 3, St Vladimir’s Church in Lvov was burned down. On January 25, an attempt was made to burn the Desyatinny Monastery in Kiev, and on February 3, extremists staged a demonstration of force in front of this church during a service.

The manifestations of neo-Nazism and fascism, radical nationalism, xenophobia, and religious intolerance, which have become common in modern Ukraine, require consistent and concerted efforts on the part of the international community to counter these extremely dangerous trends. They threaten not only stability in Ukraine and a potential political settlement in Donbass, but also peace and security in Europe.

In conclusion, allow me to wish all of you success, endurance and good health.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3066165
__________________
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 February 12th, 2018 #358
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 Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s speech at the University of Texas on US policy in Latin America



5 February 2018 - 19:58



We noted US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s speech at the University of Texas on US policy in Latin America. The main takeaway is that the Monroe Doctrine continues to hold sway in Washington, even though it will turn 200 years old fairly soon, in 2023. The world has changed significantly over the years, but the America-for-Americans principle appears to be alive and well.

Like President James Monroe in his time, Secretary Tillerson cited Russia to justify his conceptual framework, and so we would like to express our view of the region without arguing “by contradiction.”

We have also noted Latin America’s growing role in the modern world. We consider the region to be a distinctive civilisational component in the polycentric international order that is emerging. Latin America is increasing its participation and influence in current institutions of global governance – the UN, the G20, BRICS, and APEC. The Latin Americans are leading such important global forums as the WTO and FAO.

During recent talks in the Kremlin, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Argentina Mauricio Macri discussed in detail our priorities for the activities of the G20. We sincerely wish success to Argentina during its Presidency.

Russia’s relations with Latin American countries are based on substantial shared interests, such as the commitment to the principles of multilateral diplomacy embodied in the UN’s activities, protection and assertion of national sovereignty, and promotion of sustainable development. Russia and Latin American countries consider the deployment of weapons in space to be unacceptable, and reject any and all attempts to glorify Nazism.

We are united in our belief that the unconstitutional change of government, extraterritorial application of national legislation, and sanctions pressure are unacceptable. We supported UNGA Resolution 70/149, “Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order”, and we are for the universal application of the democratic principles enshrined in the fundamental documents of integration associations in the Western Hemisphere.

Respect for the sovereign equality of states and non-interference in internal affairs is an important part of democracy. The liberator (as he is referred to in Latin America) Simon Bolivar said that all states have the right to choose their own particular system of government, and other states must respect this choice. The Secretary of State will have the chance to read this eternally relevant quote, when he is in Bogota, at the main entrance to San Carlos Palace, which now houses the Colombian Foreign Ministry. It rings as true as ever today, including in relation to the situation in Venezuela and the dynamics of internal life in Cuba. The experience of half-a-century of US embargo failed to convince only the most obstinate individuals that sanctions pressure will not work against freedom-loving countries and peoples.

Our policy towards Latin America is open and not driven by ideology. There is no hidden agenda, and it is not directed against anyone. Latin American is an inherently valuable component of our country’s international activity.

Our relations are multidimensional. We work together in the political arena. We promote trade and economic relations, including in high-tech areas, such as energy, transport, infrastructure, biotechnology, etc. We help train and provide advanced professional training to civilian specialists and law enforcement and first responders to natural disasters to raise the level of civil preparedness, combat illicit drug trafficking and transnational organised crime, and provide relief after emergencies. We are also developing cultural ties. We look forward to hosting national teams from eight Latin American countries during the World Cup.

We are developing defence industry cooperation to the extent that there is mutual interest. Our approach is based on respect for the balance of forces in the region. Disrupting military-political stability, or provoking mistrust and conflict is unacceptable.

We appreciate the region’s independence, the fact that its relations with Russia are based on a consensus of a wide range of political forces regardless of who is currently in power. For us, it is important for Latin America to be strong, economically stable and politically "united in its diversity." We will continue to work in the interest of promoting cooperation, building not walls but bridges for the benefit of our countries, their stability and sustainable development.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3055639






Press release on the declaration of a state of emergency in the Republic of Maldives



6 February 2018 - 13:48



On February 5, Maldives President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom declared a 15-day state of emergency in the country amid a worsening political situation after the Maldives Supreme Court ordered the release of several opposition party leaders.

The confrontation between the authorities and the opposition is confined to the capital only. The situation on the archipelago islands is quiet. The transit infrastructure, including the Male airport, is functioning as usual.

Given the above, Russian nationals are recommended to thoroughly consider if they should travel to the Maldives before the state of emergency is lifted. We strongly recommend those people who cannot postpone their trips to this destination to go straight to resorts from the airport, without driving into Male, and exercise maximum caution.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3057928






Press release on the shelling of the Russian trade mission building in Damascus



6 February 2018 - 20:14



A 120-mm mortar shell hit the Russian trade mission building in Damascus (currently mothballed, but still under diplomatic immunity) on February 6 at approximately 4 pm local time. No casualties have been reported. The building was badly damaged.

We strongly condemn this latest terrorist attack against the diplomatic mission of the Russian Federation in Damascus, which is part of a string of recent crimes committed by terrorists against civilians in the Syrian capital.

As you may recall, a Russian non-governmental delegation was caught in mortar fire in the Old City of Damascus shortly before that and had to be promptly evacuated from the scene. The targets were humanitarian aid distribution stations set up by Christians and Muslim figures from Russia who brought supplies paid for by parishioners from churches and mosques located in various Russian regions. Two Syrian civilians died in the attack. More than 10 people have been killed or wounded by terrorist mortar fire in Damascus over the past two days.

We urge our international and regional partners to take an objective look at these developments and to give a proper and principled assessment of the terrorist attacks directed against diplomatic missions, religious buildings, and humanitarian missions.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3058486






Comment by the Information and Press Department on false accusations of Russian interference with the Winter Olympic Games in the Republic of Korea



7 February 2018 - 19:50



The information war against Russia continues unabated. The world has witnessed several rounds of it already. One gets the impression that a number of states have already grown accustomed to attributing all of their domestic political problems to Russia’s alleged cyber interference.

Now we have entered a new stage of the information war, featuring an even more far-reaching and unsubstantiated accusation: that Russia is planning to attack the ideals of the Olympic movement.

We are aware that Western media are planning to plant stories based on pseudo-investigations that reveal a “Russian trace” in hacking attacks on information resources related to the Winter Olympic Games in the Republic of Korea. As usual, no evidence will be presented to the world. This anti-Russian campaign may involve not just politically motivated media, such as Washington Post or BuzzFeed, but also IT security companies, such as ThreatConnect, TrendMicro, or Eset, which have deep ties to the CIA and the NSA.

We suspect that these are the contours of the next provocation against Russia. It follows a familiar pattern. Russia was also accused of staging an attack on its own peacekeepers in South Ossetia on the day the Olympic Games opened in Beijing in 2008. A later investigation showed that Georgia was the attacker. Clearly, the same playbook is being used all these years later. Certain forces are again claiming there is a “Russian threat” to the Olympic movement.

Accusing Russia of undermining international information security (IIS) looks doubly absurd given that our country, for over 20 years now, has been promoting a number of specific constructive proposals that could improve IIS and help the world address threats in the digital sphere.

First, an initiative to develop global rules and principles governing responsible behaviour of states which was supposed to regulate what can and cannot be done in the information space.

Second, the idea of ​​adopting a universal international legal instrument which would help eradicate cybercrime. This refers to Russia’s draft of a UN convention on combating information crime, which is designed to provide states with specific legal tools to fight this threat. Ironically, it is our Western partners who refuse to support this proposal at a time when they not only incur enormous losses from cybercrime themselves, but also accuse Russia of cybercrime.

Despite all the Russophobic attacks, we have invariably declared our willingness to establish pragmatic cooperation in the sphere of IIS with any interested state. Russia is ready to help investigate cyberattacks against any affected country, be they crimes or any other incidents, provided that the issue is about actual cooperation, not just going through motions.

Russia’s current approaches to IIS are shared by the vast majority of states. However, there are some out there who hold other positions. It appears that our opponents prefer the absence of any international regulation in the digital sphere where they can enjoy full freedom of action.

Notably, precisely those states that are building up their own military cyber capabilities, conducting illegal spying and violating human rights are the ones that hype the imaginary “Russian threat.”

At the same time, they tend to forget that the anti-Russian information wave can backfire at its masterminds by providing cover to international terrorist and criminal groups to expand their activities.

Russia and the Republic of Korea enjoy close and constructive cooperation in the sphere of information security. Our experts conduct regular interdepartmental consultations on this topic, the next round of which is scheduled to be held in spring. The Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea actively cooperate in the UN, including in developing rules of conduct for states in the information space.

For our part, we are prepared to expand this cooperation. It is of fundamental importance to us to preserve the essence and the spirit of neighbourly relations with the Republic of Korea, including in the sphere of maintaining mutual information security.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3060455






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the humanitarian situation in Syria



8 February 2018 - 17:09



The humanitarian situation in Syria remains difficult. Given these circumstances, Russia continues to deploy multidimensional efforts to provide aid to the civilian population, both by directly bringing in humanitarian supplies, and facilitating the work of international humanitarian bodies.

In this context, we paid attention to a statement issued by the UN agencies in Syria released on February 6 regarding the humanitarian situation in a number of areas, including Afrin, Hasakah, Raqqa, Idlib, Rukban camp, and Eastern Ghouta, with a call for a month-long break in hostilities in order to deliver humanitarian aid and evacuate wounded and sick people.

We share this concern. We have repeatedly called on all parties to stop the hostilities. This is the goal of the agreements by guarantor countries under the Astana process – Russia, Turkey and Iran. Efforts are underway to implement these agreements. However, such work is not going smoothly because of active resistance by terrorists and extremists who are trying as best they can to disrupt the processes of establishing peaceful life and who do not want to see Syria a united, sovereign and independent state.

We hope this statement by the humanitarian agencies will not be used to stage more politically motivated attacks against the legitimate Syrian government or to foment hysteria in order to please those who have long called for a regime change in Damascus.

Clearly, the situation in each of the above problem areas has its own specifics. The attempts to put the entire burden of responsibility solely on the official Syrian authorities are groundless. We know from past experience that many of our Western colleagues tend to avoid thoughtful analysis of developments in Syria. They already know in advance who is to blame for everything.

As you may be aware, Raqqa has turned into a ghost city in the wake of massive bombardment by the US-led “anti-ISIS” coalition in the autumn of 2017. More than 80 per cent of the buildings in this city have been destroyed. The mine clearance effort is moving very slowly. In fact, no one is doing it. Dead bodies remain under the debris. Up to 50 injuries caused by explosive devices left behind by ISIS are put on record every week.

Rukban camp located next to the border with Jordan cannot be accessed, because it is located inside a “security area” which was illegally and without prior arrangement created by the United States. In fact, the US troops have this area under their control.

The escalation of tension outside ​​Afrin, where no Syrian government troops are present at the moment, was caused by the United States supporting its “clients” despite Washington's assurances of supporting Syria’s territorial integrity.

Expanded air strikes on the province of Idlib is a response to the terrorists’ desperate attempts to regain lost ground. On February 6 alone, government forces fought off five massive attacks on Abu al-Duhur. The prospects for actual de-escalation there largely depend on how quickly the Turkish observation posts will be put in place along the internal perimeter off the contact line. This work is currently underway. In addition, as far as we know, the entry of humanitarian supplies into this province is fairly unfettered.

Fighting in Eastern Ghouta was provoked by militants attacking the Syrian Armoured Vehicle Department in a Damascus suburb of Harasta in November 2017. The militant attempts to cut off and seize this site continue until now. On February 6 alone, several massive attacks were disrupted. Damascus has been under mortar fire from this area to this day. It intensified in the past few days, and the number of dead and wounded among civilians has increased dramatically.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3062798






Press release on the unveiling of a memorial plaque to Dmitry and Olga Vishernyov at the Russian Embassy in Abkhazia



9 February 2018 - 11:41







On February 8, as part of Diplomat’s Day events, a memorial plaque was unveiled at the Russian Embassy in Abkhazia in memory of our colleagues Dmitry and Olga Vishernyov, who died in the line of duty in September 2013. The ceremony was attended by the leadership and officials of the Abkhazian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, diplomats from the Russian Embassy, friends of the Vishneryosv and Father Superior of the Kaman Monastery Ignatius (Kiut).

During the unveiling ceremony, Russia’s Ambassador to Abkhazia Semyon Grigoryev stressed that the outrageous murder of the Vishneryovs was a tragic loss for the Russian diplomatic service and for everyone who knew the talented young diplomat. Dmitry and Olga were posthumously awarded Russian and Abkhazian Orders of Courage and their names are engraved in gold on the memorial plaque at the Russian Foreign Ministry. The Vishneryovs are also eternalised at the recently built Russian Embassy complex in Sukhum.

In his speech, Abkhazian Deputy Foreign Minister Kan Taniya said the Vishneryovs’ killers tried to attack the brotherly relations between Russia and Abkhazia but failed.

The memory of Dmitry and Olga Vishneryov will live forever.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3065223






Press release on Israeli air strikes in Syria



10 February 2018 - 14:37



According to incoming information, Israeli aircraft delivered several missile strikes at targets in Syria, including those at the border of the southwestern de-escalation zone, in the night and morning of February 10. Syrian losses and material damage are being specified. Reports say one Israeli military aircraft was shot down in the area of the Golan Heights.

Moscow is gravely concerned over the latest developments and the attacks on Syria. A matter of special concern is the danger of a new escalation of tension within and around the de-escalation zones that have become an important factor in reducing the violence on Syrian soil. It will be recalled that the Syrian governmental forces have been honouring all existing agreements designed to ensure the stable functioning of the de-escalation zone in southwestern Syria.

We are insistently calling on all parties involved to display restraint and avoid any actions capable of leading to an even greater complication of the situation. We consider it necessary that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria and other countries in the region be respected unconditionally. Creating threats to life and security of Russian service personnel, who are in the Syrian Arab Republic at the invitation of its legitimate government in order to assist the fight against terrorists, is absolutely unacceptable.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3068784
__________________
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 February 12th, 2018 #359
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, February 8, 2018



8 February 2018 - 17:09








Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the Munich Security Conference

On February 16-18, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend the regular 54th meeting of the Munich Security Conference.

The Munich forum is an important discussion venue for current Euro-Atlantic and global security problems. By tradition, the conference is attended by heads of state and government, foreign and defence ministers, representatives of international and regional organisations, as well as prominent political scientists and economists.

The participants are planning to discuss the current state and prospects for European security, counteraction to international terrorism, and the situation in the Middle East and on the Korean Peninsula.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold prescheduled bilateral and multilateral meetings on the sidelines of the forum. Tentatively, his address has been planned for February 17.

We are studying the possibility of arranging meetings with OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukri, Croatian Foreign Minister Marija Pejčinović Burić, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, a traditional meeting with representatives of Russian and German business communities, with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, as well as a number of other bilateral and multilateral meetings. We are also looking into whether we can hold a Normandy format meeting. We will continue to update you on the Russian delegation’s presence and work in Munich.



Developments in Syria

The developments in Syria last week unfolded in the wake of the successful Syrian National Dialogue Congress, held between January 29-30 in Sochi, despite the salvo of negative publications from the Western media. I have just received another article with a negative view of the Congress. To be more specific, the presumably respectable and impartial Foreign Policy magazine published an article saying that “Russia's highly-touted peace conference to end the war in Syria was an utter debacle.” This is what this impartiality is worth when it comes to summing up the results of the meeting between representatives of the Syrian society.

Together with its partners in the Astana process, Iran and Turkey, as well as the UN, Russia helped them make the first, and maybe the most challenging and important step with the view to bringing about a political settlement and stability in Syria. This was the actual outcome of the forum.

Judging by the reaction (I already gave you an example), the outcome of the Sochi forum did not please everyone. However, no one dared to ignore this event, the first gathering to be held on such a large scale and with a high level of representation in the seven years since the beginning of the Syrian crisis. This is also an important outcome. Terrorists and various radicals also responded, since they saw the decisions adopted in Sochi by fifteen hundred representatives of the Syrian people as a threat and tried to respond by staging new bloody attacks, acts of terror and provocations. The most horrible and ugliest attacks of this kind were the shelling of humanitarian aid distribution centres and Christian churches in the historic centre of Damascus. By a happy coincidence no members of a Russian non-governmental delegation visiting the Syrian capital at the time, which included both Christians and Muslims, were hurt in the shelling, although a mortar bomb exploded just one hundred metres away from them. This delegation distributed aid from across Russia to the Syrian people both in churches and mosques.

This barbarous shelling by terrorists was conducted from Jobar in Eastern Ghouta, killing at least ten Syrian civilians.

On Saturday, a Russian Su-25 fighter jet was shot down near Saraqib, a terrorist stronghold in Idlib Province. We bow our heads to the heroic act by the pilot, Major Roman Fillipov, who once on the ground resisted the terrorists who encircled him until his bitter end. The Defence Ministry provided an extensive report on this tragedy. As you know, the Russian pilot was posthumously awarded the title of Hero of Russia. He shall stay in our memories forever. His heroic deed will never be forgotten.

The illegal military presence of the US on Syrian territory remains a major challenge to promoting peace in Syria and preserving its unity and territorial integrity.

In the southern part of the country what is left of ISIS fighters use the 55-kilometre zone created unilaterally by the US around its military base near Al Tanf for hiding from Syrian government forces, regrouping and getting arms in order to carry out new attacks in the Syrian desert. ISIS fighters operate without any constraints near Al Tanf, and used to be able to carry out long-distance raids reaching as far as the Aleppo Province. They still threaten a number of transport roads. The US still blocks the road connecting Damascus to Baghdad.

From Russia’s perspective, this situation proves that the instability in Syria is by and large sustained artificially. There are influential actors who are clearly unwilling to use the available opportunities to promote a political settlement in Syria and do away with terrorists in the country. Instead, what we see in Syria is a continuation of attempts to advance a geopolitical agenda in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which clearly runs counter to the will of the Syrian people expressed without any ambiguity at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress to live in peace in a unified and sovereign country.

We understand where this salvo of negative press on the Sochi Congress comes from and who is behind it, including the Foreign Policy article I quoted today.



The origin of the anti-aircraft missile system that shot down the Russian Su-25

As you know, Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov commented on the issue and a corresponding assessment was made by the Ministry of Defence.

As for the origin of the portable anti-aircraft missile that shot down the Russian Su-25, I would like to advise everyone to follow information released by the Russian Defence Ministry.

I can say that at present the necessary work is being carried out by experts, which will make it possible to say where the anti-aircraft missile launcher was produced.

Let me draw your attention to the fact – and this was also pointed out by experts – similar high-tech weapons, as you understand, virtually cannot get into areas of hostilities in Syria and into the hands of terrorists, except with serious outside support and assistance. Such is the reality. We are expecting precise information from our military, who have repeatedly announced that corresponding investigations are being conducted. At the same time, we are perfectly aware of the trends that are unfolding on the ground.



Situation with the Syrian chemical file at the UN Security Council

We have taken note of continued anti-Syria activities at the UN Security Council, including open allegations of Russia’s connivance at the suspected chemical attacks by Damascus. By a bad tradition, these accusations are made at a time of important international events held to find a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis. This time, new allegations of chemical attacks in Eastern Ghouta and the Idlib Province in Syria were in sync with the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. It has been done to block out information about the congress participants’ attempts to coordinate an agreement and the results of these efforts. When a practical opportunity to boost the intra-Syrian peace dialogue appears, the other side hurries to plant allegations, for example, about chemical attacks. Why do they do this? Why do they continue to harp on the issue of chemical weapons? Very simple: they do this because this can really split the Syrian opposition and prevent the nascent dialogue between the opposition and the Syrian government. Chemical attacks are the red line for many and also what the people can understand. The people who read about the Syrian crisis understand that chemical attacks against civilians are unacceptable. This topic is often used in information confrontation with regard to the Syrian settlement.

The three Western permanent members of the UN Security Council eagerly took up the allegations about chemical attacks provided by their own media (the information merry-go-round, which we mentioned before), which quote certain sources, none of which are reliable, including NGOs affiliated with the militants. The US and its allies have used these allegations, which are not based on hard facts but have been supported by their representatives at the UN Security Council, to initiate the discussion of yet another anti-Syria statement by the UN Security Council. The Russian party has proposed amending this statement with due regard for the growing challenges and threats of chemical terrorism in the Middle East. Our Western colleagues have rejected this proposal outright.

We would like to say in this connection that Russia and China have been talking about the need for a statement on chemical terrorism as well as a relevant UN Security Council resolution for over four years. However, our Western colleagues disregarded and continue to disregard these appeals. They prefer to blame these chemical provocations, without any good reason, on the Assad Government and Russia.

Instead of engaging in speculation over the latest fake news, those who claim to be Syria’s friends should wait for the completion of a professional and politically nonpartisan investigation of these attacks by the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) in Syria. By the way, FFM experts went to Syria on February 1 to inspect the caches of chemical weapons the Syrian Army has found in the territory liberated from terrorists.

In this context we again call on those who have shown increased interest in this subject and claim to be acting in the interests of the Syrians to convince the Syrian opposition groups they arm and finance to give the international inspectors access to the areas which the notorious White Helmets have indicated as the sites of the supposed chemical incidents in Eastern Ghouta and Idlib.

I would also like to remind everyone that the White Helmets are the darlings of the very same countries that are waging such information campaigns. As we said more than once, the White Helmets are directly connected with some of these countries’ intelligence agencies.



Russia’s position on the 5+5 meeting on Libya

At my last briefing, I was asked about Russia’s position on the 5+5 meeting on Libya. I would like to say the following.

Libya-related issues are still the focus of international attention. Libyan settlement is a permanent fixture in the contacts between the senior officials of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the regional and international partners involved in Libyan affairs. The situation in that country and possible ways of its settlement were discussed in detail by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano at their talks in Moscow on February 1. The Russian position was presented at a joint news conference after the talks. The verbatim report has been posted on the Foreign Ministry’s official website.

Practical efforts to lead that country out of its protracted political crisis have been undertaken as well. UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative and Head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya Ghassan Salamé has been holding daily intensive consultations with various Libyan parties to find compromise solutions to all the outstanding problems on the current intra-Libyan agenda.

As far as the abovementioned 5+5 ministerial meeting in Algeria on January 21 is concerned, this informal “club” that includes ten Mediterranean countries (France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Malta, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Mauritania) has been in existence since 1990. Its proclaimed aim was to establish cooperation in various areas, including the security sphere. As of today, it focuses on economic interaction and migration problems. I think time will tell how effective this format will be in dealing with pressing issues. Russia has never attended events held by these countries throughout the entire period that this format has been in existence.

The Mediterranean countries are justly concerned over the situation that has taken shape in Libya and the threats emanating from its territory (terrorism, illegal migration from Africa to Europe). There is nothing surprising in the fact that Libya was high on the agenda of the Algeria event.



Anti-Russia statements by US officials

We have again taken note of the statement by official US spokespersons, including the State Department’s press service, to the effect that Russia bears responsibility for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. I think this can be characterised by just one word – insinuations.

I would also like to say that in these latter days the United States has been cranking up unconfirmed information plants on Damascus using chemical agents. There are no facts [to back these allegations]. I have dwelled on this theme in sufficient detail. I can say once again that we are witnessing a classical stage-managed propaganda campaign on the part of Washington and its officials. This, mildly speaking, does nothing to promote, but rather contradicts the United States’ declared goals in the context of Syrian settlement.



Developments in Ukraine

Turmoil continues to rock Ukraine. The situation is far from stable. One gets the impression that the current Kiev authorities, instead of looking for ways out of the crisis, are making every effort to finally drive the country into a dead end.

It seems that Ukraine has timed the final adoption of the so-called Donbass reintegration to coincide with the three-year anniversary of the signing of the Minsk Package of Measures (February 12, 2015) – a bill that is in direct conflict with the Minsk letter and spirit and is aimed at the disintegration rather than unification of the country. Coupled with the policy of total Ukrainisation of society and egging on the neo-Nazism, which is increasingly gaining momentum and whose supporters are openly marching the streets and declaring their intention to establish “Ukrainian order”, this creates a grim and highly explosive mixture.

In this environment, Kiev seems to have nothing better to offer than to approve its very aggressive plans under the pretext of carrying out “manoeuvres”. On January 29, President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko signed the law on access of units of other countries’ armed forces to the territory of Ukraine in 2018 to participate in multinational exercises. These exercises will actively involve foreign military personnel and military equipment. At the same time, the current foreign military presence in Ukraine is not reducing either: the number of NATO instructors who “train” Ukrainian fighters in the “art of war” is not going down.

On the one hand, the current Ukrainian leadership is really in a hurry to “integrate” or “be integrated”, primarily into military blocs. On the other hand, they do not show any zeal to do the job that is a priority for the integration of its own regions, but on the contrary, they seem to make efforts to make it impossible.



Issues with US military biological activity

At the last briefing, I was asked a question concerning the US military biological activity. I would like to say the following.

We have certain concerns about US activities in the military-biological sphere.

First of all, they are connected with Washington’s behaviour with regard to the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological and Toxin Weapons (BTWC). I would like to remind you that over the years, Washington has stubbornly opposed the development of a legally binding protocol to the Convention that would contain elements of its verification mechanism.

It is obvious that the 1972 convention no longer corresponds to the level of biotechnology development of the second decade of the 21st century. Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, efforts were made to address this issue by developing a verification mechanism under the Convention. However, the US unilaterally blocked the work then. Since then, the US position has not undergone qualitative changes, and Washington continues to block full-format activities in this area. For example, the BWC Review Conference in 2016 failed to adopt any meaningful programme of work for the next inter-session period, in fact due to the US actions. That deadlock could not be overcome until 2017, when a thematic programme of substantive work of experts was finally adopted for the remaining period 2018-2020.

A more detailed expert assessment of US actions on the BTWC issues can be found in the dreport of the relevant Ministry of Industry and Trade department hea, Viktor Kholstov, presented at the August 13, 2015 Meeting of Experts to the BWC in Geneva. This report, like many other eloquent materials, is posted on the Internet portal of the Geneva branch of the United Nations (www.unog.ch).

In recent years, another very serious problem added to our concerns, stemming from the growing medical and biological activity of the US Department of Defence along the perimeter of Russian borders. Microbiological research labs are being quickly built, equipped or modernised with the US DoD money in many former Soviet republics. They carry out a wide range of research on pathogens of especially dangerous diseases with the constant involvement of American military biologists. This certainly causes the concern that Washington, offering what at first glance appears to be charitable assistance in the sanitary and epidemiological work, simultaneously increases the uncontrolled potential of a secretive and unexpected intervention in the biosafety situation development, not only in those countries, but also far beyond their borders.

We continue to seek to resolve all these acute problems through dialogue with the US and our other partners to the BTWC.



US illegally blocks Russia’s international money transfers

As of late, we have discussed in great detail US attempts to put pressure on Russia. In reality, these attempts which don’t seem to be very effective take on odd forms and evoke serious questions about the motivation of such actions.

The other day, the US Department of the Treasury blocked a $20,000 transfer from the China National Fishery Association for the services of Russian border control inspectors on monitoring compliance with paid quotas for fishing in Russia’s exclusive economic zone. A US bank handled this money transfer. It appears that the Americans are already afraid that fish will meddle in US domestic affairs. The money transfer made by Chinese fishermen was blocked under the pretext that Russian border guards are affiliated with the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) on which the Obama administration imposed sanctions back in December 2016. This is a powerful argument!

This not the first time such an outrageous situation has arisen. This is just one example. I can mention several other examples. Between 2016-2017, the US banking system blocked Russian Defence Ministry assets to finance fuel shipments for refueling Russian planes fighting terrorists in Syria. This $5 million-plus sum has not yet been returned. And here is another example: In 2017, US authorities blocked the transfer of a $200,000 Russian contribution to the account of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a member of the UN family. This sum was to have been spent on IAEA’s cancer treatment research programme.

How do US assurances that Washington is committed to eradicating terrorism correlate with its longtime and obvious efforts to hamper the Russian Aerospace Force’s counter-terrorism operations in Syria? Apart from making political assessments, the Americans have stolen our money.

How do Washington’s appeals to thwart high-seas poaching tally with the blocking of the above-mentioned account? It appears that, apart from some bilateral claims being voiced with regard to Russia all the time and permanent US efforts to hamper bilateral cooperation, they have already started encroaching on our bilateral cooperation with other states.

Our US colleagues’ hampering IAEA efforts to find cancer treatment options is beyond comprehension. It is impossible to understand this.

This amounts to some frantic desire to prick Russia all the time, to hurt it and to make it feel uneasy. Most importantly, all this is explained by the policy of sanctions, one way or another, and this confuses the logic of actions of the US establishment representatives to an increasingly greater extent.



Moskovsky Komsomolets article on Russia-US relations

At the Foreign Ministry, we are always very attentive to what the Russian media, experts and political observers write or say. We are grateful for specific proposals and thoughtful views on our work and developments around the world, including critical observations that we always analyse and take into consideration. This fully applies to the topic of Russia-US relations which as you know are facing some challenges.

We took note of the article that appeared in Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper on February 2 on the dialogue with the United States. The author, Mikhail Rostovsky, asked: “Is Russian diplomacy taking a back seat?” He expressed regret over Russia’s failure to come up with ways to overcome the current deadlock where Washington has led its relations with Russia.

I would like to elaborate on this subject, since there are things that deserve our attention. Those who follow the releases of the Foreign Ministry know that we constantly offer our US colleagues specific proposals designed to improve our relations, put them on a stable footing, and against all odds propose expanding our cooperation in the interests of our peoples and the world, since the state of bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington has a direct bearing on the international landscape.

Let me dwell on this. For example, soon after the Trump administration came to power, it received a detailed plan on measures to put the dialogue back on track. Among other things, it stipulated the need to promote close cooperation on counter-terrorism and overcoming urgent regional crises, including Syria, Afghanistan, eastern Ukraine, and around the DPRK. So far, Washington’s response leaves much to be desired, although there is interaction in some of these areas, and some efforts have actually yielded tangible results. Let me emphasise that this initiative came from Moscow.

It was our initiative to resume dialogue on strategic stability matters after it was halted by Barack Obama. As part of this effort, and despite all the obvious challenges, we discuss the state of affairs in arms control and prospects for further arms reductions, and have the opportunity to explain our respective defence and nuclear doctrines. There are special consultative formats for discussing the implementation of the START Treaty. In our contacts with Washington we also stressed the need to abide by the INF Treaty in good faith. We have proposed on a number of occasions beginning a conversation on the global missile defence system that is being deployed by the US, arguing that it could be seen as being part of its offensive capability.

Everyone has heard about the recent interceptions of military ships and aircraft, and in this context we call insistently for amending the bilateral Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas (1972) by adding provisions detailing the closest distance of approach that would be acceptable. Our US colleagues like to complain about the interceptions but have been showing little appetite so far for discussing additional rules to ensure flight and navigation safety. US combat aircraft also like to approach Russian airspace with their transponders turned off, despite our initiative to find a mutually acceptable solution.

I can provide another example of an area where we were insistent and proactive in calling for cooperation on resolving specific issues.

Last year, Russia proposed setting up a joint working group on cyber security, and shared its professional thoughts on ways to cooperate on preventing threats related to ICTs and building bilateral trust in this area. Our proposal on holding consultations on countering criminal hacking activities remains valid. However, there has been no response, which shows that the so-called Russian hackers are not a matter of great concern for the US secret services, despite their misgivings concerning the US election system and Russian meddling.

The disingenuous nature of this denigration campaign against Russia is further emphasised by Washington’s refusal to exchange letters, for example at the level of foreign minister, to affirm the commitment to refrain from interfering in each other’s domestic affairs, just as the USSR and the US did in 1933 when they established diplomatic relations. We have communicated extensively on this initiative. We have provided detailed reports on this exchange of letters in 1933, published archives and explained how this could be done today, and what the response could be. Let me repeat once again that six months have passed since we put forward this initiative.

On several occasions over the last 12 months we proposed establishing an implementation mechanism for the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, in order to do away with the irritants like the secret arrests of Russian nationals in third countries and the US harbouring terrorist accomplices on the run, which weighs on Washington’s image. We said that we were ready to resume inter-parliamentary exchanges, including reciprocal measures to lift the sanctions imposed on the members of parliament. We are waiting for the approval by our partners of a bilateral treaty on the protection of valuable cultural artefacts, which would enable us to delight Americans with Russian exhibitions. This is not an option right now, because exhibition items can be seized.

Of course, we insist on the restitution of Russia’s five diplomatic facilities that were illegally confiscated by the US authorities in 2016 and 2017. We have come up with a number of ideas and proposals on ways to get past this impasse.

To sum up, it would be fair to say that we have deployed serious efforts using a number of channels, searching for opportunities to improve relations with the US. We are not hiding this, and are open about this activity. Time and again, while opposing and countering critical statements against us, we have emphasised that our priority was all about cooperation. If there are issues, we are ready to resolve them. Let me reiterate that Russia is open to cooperation, if based on an equal partnership, of course. We are not giving up on our positions or making any unilateral concessions and will do no such thing. The threat of US sanctions cited by the author of the Moskovsky Komsomolets article, among other things, as some kind of an important argument, does not change anything.

This was an interesting article. We cannot agree with some of its points, and I think I was quite clear about that. But if the newspaper or the author has any other ideas, we will be glad to discuss them. We are always open to dialogue of this kind.



United States’ presence in Eurasia

Also, I would like to draw your attention to the statement by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who said that the United States is concerned about Russia’s growing presence in Latin America and the fact that Moscow is selling weapons to the countries that are not amicable towards the US. We have already commented on that statement. I would like to specifically note the part where he accuses us of selling weapons and where he says that there is too much of Russia everywhere and Washington is so concerned about it.

Let me give you some background on the United States’ presence in Eurasia so that quotes like this are not left without a response. We hear statements like the one made by Secretary Tillerson all the time, that there is growing concern about Russia’s ambition to restore its clout on the international arena, reinforce its military potential, pursue an independent foreign policy that does not conform to the world order as the US sees it. What is more, in addition to public statements, such claims are documented in the US’s fundamental doctrines, in which Russia is presented as a challenge to America’s aspirations and as a threat to its security and prosperity.

As they explicitly deny Russia’s right to a role of a powerful state that stands up for its national interests, our American colleagues are talking about an intention to persistently promote their own influence in the world – preeminently by force. In particular, this attitude is a core idea in the recently published US National Security Strategy.

In line with its ambition to maintain its status of the only superpower, the status that has been rapidly losing its incontestability over the past years, the United States intends to achieve a dominant military advantage, enhance its missile defence system, maintain and upgrade its nuclear arsenal. Basically, the Trump Administration has formalised a course of action that Washington has followed for years, which is strengthening its military power in order to ensure guaranteed superiority over any rival and an unimpeded projection of force in various regions of the world.

With this goal in mind, Pentagon is consistently building up its presence in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific Region. In cooperation with its NATO allies, Washington is drawing its military forces closer and closer to Russian borders and deploying non-nuclear arms in the regions that are sensitive for Russia’s security, thus de-stabilising the situation there.

On a completely contrived pretext and based on non-existent facts, which allegedly indicate a threat of potential aggression from Russia, the United States is building up its military presence in NATO’s eastern flanks, including aviation, heavy armoured equipment and respective infrastructure. This activity is endorsed by the European Reassurance Initiative approved by US President Trump, whose budget grew from $3.4 billion to $4.6 billion in 2018.

Provocative passes of US Navy ships through Russia’s adjacent waters have become more frequent, along with intensive reconnaissance flights near our borders. An extensive programme of military exercises, increasingly often involving American strategic bombers, is underway in Central and Eastern Europe. There are still US nuclear weapons kept in Europe and nuclear drills involve non-nuclear NATO members in violation of existing international agreements.

In other words, the United States is diligently exploring the areas in direct proximity to Russia. The Pentagon has additionally delivered mechanised brigades to Eastern Europe, including 3,300 troops, around 90 tanks and 150 armoured personnel carriers, other heavy machinery, over 2,000 military aviation personnel and technicians, and around 80 helicopters. The total deployment of the US Armed Forces on the European continent amounts to 65,000 troops serving in ground, air and naval forces. The infrastructure required to accommodate all these reinforcements is being urgently upgraded.

The US is also steadily building up its global missile defence system in Europe and Asia. Construction of a missile defence facility is nearing completion in Poland in addition to another one operating in Romania. The THAAD anti-ballistic missile defence system has been deployed in South Korea.

US Army’s forward-based system stretches through Eurasia along the entire perimeter of the Russian border. In the Far East, the United States is well established in Japan (around 60,000 troops) and South Korea (around 30,000 troops). Backed by these troops and under a pretext of a threat from North Korea, the US has intensified military activity in Northeast Asia. In the Middle East, US military facilities and personnel are based in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE, Qatar, as well as in Syria, where they are present without the legitimate government’s consent. And this is not nearly the end of the list.

The scale of Russian military presence abroad is incomparable to that of the United States, including in terms of its growth. I would like to say that we do not have any bases or any other form of military presence in direct proximity to the United States, whereas the activities of the Pentagon and its allies near Russia’s borders is growing at a perilous rate.

By cranking up the subject of the mythical Russian threat, Washington is trying to rally its allies. Doubts regarding the importance of putting pressure on Russia have grown stronger over the past few years, and so an information campaign alleging the possibility of a Russian attack, aggression or take-over has been launched to encourage US allies to close ranks.

There is also a commercial element involved. The US wants its allies to dramatically increase military spending and to buy large batches of US-made military equipment. All this is apparent to the naked eye.

We have also taken note of Washington’s special interest in Central Asian states. It has used the return of US troops to Afghanistan as a pretext to resume talks on closer security cooperation with the regional countries. In the past, NATO military and logistics facilities were set up in Central Asia for the so-called Afghan operation. The United States had an air base in Kyrgyzstan that was closed to the scrutiny of the republic’s authorities. When the base was ordered to pack up, Washington threatened to reduce its assistance to Kyrgyzstan through US-controlled international bodies. The Americans used diplomatic immunity to airlift hundreds of tonnes of unidentified cargo via that base. During the Kyrgyz parliamentary elections in October 2015, 150 tonnes of “special cargo” marked “diplomatic mail” were delivered to the country. Many articles and comments were published on this matter in Kyrgyzstan at the time. In 2017, it was reported that the United States attempted to influence the presidential election in Kyrgyzstan. Shortly before the presidential campaign began, the US Department of State launched a project designed to establish mechanisms for permanent interaction with Kyrgyzstan’s opposition parties, to monitor their activities and to consult them on issues related to the election campaign. The situation went so far that in May 2017 the republican authorities had to make a formal protest to the US ambassador over Washington’s interference in the internal affairs of Kyrgyzstan by means of supporting destructive opposition forces that were working to destabilise the country.

The United States is working actively with the so-called undercover opposition in the region.

When a crisis developed in Ukraine, substantial funds were transferred to the accounts of the NGOs that were operating in the region. Those NGOs were involved in all manner of lobbying activities, including attempts to influence the adoption of laws on the financing of foreign NGOs. It was hinted that the allocation of foreign funds to Central Asian states depended on the decisions taken on issues of concern to Washington.

Digital technologies are being widely used in the social media to encourage critical public sentiments. Financial assistance is provided to online opposition publications, especially those that criticise Kazakhstan’s and Kyrgyzstan’s choice in favour of Eurasian integration and close ties with Russia. They look for negative elements, which are blown out of proportion to prove that Eurasian integration and ties with Russia are not what these countries need, and that they should choose a different path and abandon their interaction with Russia.

Assets have been blocked and property seized to pressure the sovereign authorities in the region. In December 2017, BNY Mellon in the Netherlands froze $23 billion in assets held by Kazakhstan’s National Wealth Fund (Samruk-Kazyna). This information is available in the publications, whose authors can be held accountable.

Also, it is reported that Afghan extremists receive assistance from those who actually control the situation in and the airspace over Afghanistan. The policy of controlled chaos is gradually turning northern Afghanistan into a bridgehead for terrorist raids on Central Asian states.

We urge a wary attitude towards US military-biological activities, about which we have spoken today. These activities are also a factor of influence.

This concludes my short reply to the latest allegations made by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson regarding Russia. We can provide a more detailed comment. We will also do this regarding any other allegations. Regrettably, we see no end to them.



The situation in Venezuela

We regularly comment on the situation in Venezuela. We receive questions as the situation there is not static, but is developing. Today, we would like to return back to this problem.

The internal political situation in Venezuela has got a new impetus. According to reports coming from Caracas and Santo Domingo, during talks between the Government and the opposition the sides managed to coordinate a final document. It reflects positions that are mutually acceptable for the sides, including on the most complicated matters. This document was signed by the government delegation and subsequently by President Nicolas Maduro. The opposition delegation, for its part, took a pause and the dialogue, as follows from a statement made by President of the Dominican Republic Danilo Medina, was “suspended for an indefinite time.” This is a quotation. In this situation the National Electoral Council of Venezuela announced that the presidential election will be held on a compromise date as stipulated by the draft agreement – on April 22 of the current year.

In this connection, let me point out a few things.

As regards the developments in Venezuela, we have proceeded and proceed from the fact that the talks in Santo Domingo are a difficult, yet extremely useful and important dialogue for the country’s future. We are convinced that it is up to the Venezuelans themselves to determine their own future and the development ways for their country.

We deeply regret that this approach, which seems natural, is not obvious to all countries. Statements are being made that holding a presidential election in April is a priori unacceptable. The tactics of part of the Venezuelan opposition, which opts for boycotting a peaceful settlement of the internal differences, is being openly encouraged from the outside. Statements made by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who did not rule out that the military could participate in deposing the Government in Venezuela through the use of force, look utterly provocative from our point of view. This contradicts the statements on adherence to democracy and the commitments assumed by countries of the western hemisphere with regard for the unacceptability as well as impossibility of an unconstitutional change of the political system in Venezuela. Fortunately, the command of the Venezuelan Armed Forces firmly and intrinsically refuted this option.

We would like to reaffirm Russia’s position, namely that matters concerning the internal development of Venezuela must be resolved exclusively by the people of that country in line with the existing constitutional and legal procedures on the basis of democratic norms and without destructive outside interference. We suppose that the best manifestation of free choice would be voting at polling stations. We believe that the task of all responsible political forces is to promote an organised and peaceful expression of the will of the people in Venezuela.



Statements by Foreign Minister of Japan Taro Kono on Russia’s “destabilising” role

We took note of the statements made by Foreign Minister of Japan Taro Kono on Russia’s destabilising role. These statements resonated in the Japanese media, including in print titles. The Japanese Foreign Minister said this during hearings in the national parliament, echoing Washington’s well-known message on Russia allegedly seeking to “destabilise the world with nuclear weapons by developing and seeking to make use of tactical low yield nuclear warheads.”

The affirmation that Russia develops weapons of this kind is perplexing. It is unclear what is there to back the Japanese Foreign Minister’s statement. The US, not Russia, is developing low yield nuclear warheads. It is the US that is creating an updated version of the B61-12 nuclear bomb with a variable yield that can be reduced to a minimum. Under its recent nuclear doctrine, the US develops low yield warheads for its new Trident II submarine-launched cruise and ballistic missiles.

Allegations that the US was forced to develop weapons of this kind in order to respond to steps undertaken by Russia would be a profound failure to understand what is going on, a distortion of facts and an attempt to justify the future actions by the US by far-fetched pretexts, while the US is purposefully seeking to undermine the foundations of international security and stability.

I would like to remind you that the use of nuclear weapons by Russia has been subject for many years to clear restrictions under its Military Doctrine. In fact, nuclear weapons can only be used in two extraordinary scenarios and in an exclusively defensive context: to respond to aggression against Russian and/or our allies using nuclear weapons or other WMDs, or to respond to a conventional aggression, if the very existence of the Russian state comes under threat. In addition to this, the Military Doctrine provides for a “system of non-nuclear deterrence,” which highlights the commitment to preventing military conflict by primarily relying on conventional forces. Against this backdrop, attempts to justify the US policy to expand its nuclear arsenal by referring to the increased role of nuclear weapons in Russia’s doctrines should be viewed as either a purposeful distortion of facts or just a failure to understand what is going on.

Statements of this kind made by Tokyo are at odds with the priority goal of building trust between Russia and Japan in military and political affairs, and affect the overall atmosphere of bilateral relations, including the peace treaty talks.

We also have to say that we deeply regret and are concerned about the recent decision made by the Japanese Government to have the US deploy its Aegis Ashore missile defence system on its territory. It is clear that the deployment of this system is yet another step toward the creation by the US of the Asia-Pacific segment of its global missile defence system, which runs counter to efforts to promote peace and stability in the region.



Situation with Russian language education in Estonia

According to reports from Estonia, the authorities in Keila are trying to close down the town’s only local Russian language school. Unfortunately, we have to comment on this due to a large number of questions. We consider this to be a conspicuous example of the consistent discriminatory policy pursued in Estonia towards Russian language education.

We have repeatedly pointed out the adverse impact of such an approach that essentially forces Estonian language education on the people in the country.

We expect the final decision on the school’s future will take into consideration the needs of the Russian-speaking residents who make up one third of the city’s total population, and also recommendations from the relevant international organisations on ensuring ethnic minorities’ rights to preserve and develop their language.



Closure of Lithuanian website vatnikas.lt

We have read media reports about the closure of Lithuania’s vatnikas.lt website, which we talked about two weeks ago.

Let me remind you that the website was designed to identify Lithuanian citizens who were allegedly “disloyal” to the current authorities and the country’s foreign policy course, and those who sympathised with Russia against expectations and did not think that Lithuania’s Soviet past was “years of occupation.”

This website was created in a similar way to the Ukrainian nationalists’ portal Mirotvorets (Peacekeeper) as “a black list of enemies.” The website lists included 155 people in total. There have been multiple appeals and comments on this issue, which must have resulted in the website’s closure. We inform you about this because we have been covering the subject.



Situation around Russian citizen Pyotr Levashov

You have seen numerous reports, statements and comments made by the lawyer of Russian citizen Pyotr Levashov regarding his arrest. We would also like to say a few words in this connection, although the Russian Embassy in the United States has already issued a comment. But the Foreign Ministry also needs to state its official position.

The Foreign Ministry is closely following the situation around Russian citizen Pyotr Levashov (born 1980), who was arrested in Spain at the request of the United States in April 2017 and who was extradited by Spanish authorities to the United States on February 2, 2018.

Today, he is being detained in a prison in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The Russian Consulate General in New York maintains contacts with his lawyer, Igor Litvak, and its officers managed to meet with Mr. Levashov on February 6.

Mr Levashov complained about his detention conditions. There is no light in his cell, as well as no elementary personal hygiene items, no bed linen, not even a pillow. Permanent noise outside the cell is affecting his physical condition. Mr Levashov is not allowed to walk, nor does he receive any medications.

We perceive this situation as an attempt to pressure the Russian citizen and to make him more compliant in his dealings with US investigators. We have already demanded that the prison administration stop humiliating him and create humane conditions. We will demand that the rights of our compatriot be guaranteed in full.

Unfortunately, more and more Russian citizens are being arrested in third countries at the request of the US side and with its direct involvement. Eleven cases, a real upsurge, were recorded in 2017. A week ago, the Foreign Ministry was forced to issue another warning to Russians travelling abroad.

The most interesting thing is that when the Foreign Ministry issues such warnings (this concerns the arrest of Russian citizens at the request of the United States, as well as emergencies and the military-political situation in certain countries), numerous funny pictures and posts dealing with the motives behind such warnings, etc., appear the very next day.

I don’t think there is anything amusing about such warnings considering the large number of complaints we receive from the relatives of people who are arrested, as well as the letters of parents, children and friends urging us to help and to save Russian citizens and after so many letters requesting evacuation in emergencies. Indeed, you can let your imagination run free, as we are free people living in a free country. But when such information is published, people should always think that they, too, might face similar circumstances. Should that happen, their relatives and friends will write to us and ask us to do something, to provide assistance in a difficult situation, to help them return home or to provide emergency medical treatment. Most importantly, the Foreign Ministry was criticised by journalists several years ago that such information was scarce. Today, there is enough information, but it sometimes gives rise to laughter.

However, this danger is absolutely real. Russian citizens targeted by US secret services are often deliberately lured abroad under various pretexts, arrested and extradited to the United States. We know all these cases well. In an effort to force the arrested persons to plead guilty on at least some counts, US authorities resort to threats and other methods, like the ones to which Mr Levashov is now being subjected.

Naturally, we demand that the United States provide all the necessary assistance, including medical treatment, to the Russian citizen under US legislation and international provisions. We also unconditionally demand that the United States stop the unacceptable practice of “manhunts” targeting Russian citizens all over the world. Unfortunately, the United States has not displayed this readiness so far.



Information resources of the Council of Young Diplomats

We often quote materials of the Council of Young Diplomats, and we invite you to attend their events. They have their own information resources, and we are ready to list them today. They include the relevant section of the www.smd-mid.ru website, as well as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and VKontakte accounts. Please come, subscribe and follow their accreditation announcements and invitations to their events.




Excerpts from answers to questions:



Question:

2017 marked the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Azerbaijan. An exhibit devoted to this anniversary opened in the State Duma building. What role, do you think, cultural ties play in diplomacy? How do they help? After all, there are situations (this does not apply to us), when cultural ties form the basis of relations, even when such relations are not too good.



Maria Zakharova:

We marked this anniversary at our respective ministries and embassies and, most importantly, in our respective communities. Formal events and ceremonies don’t matter that much. Most importantly, the people in our countries who are connected by common history, culture, traditions and shared life, should be aware that everything is being done for their benefit.

With regard to culture, it is, of course, a critical link between people and nations. I didn’t see the exhibit, but I read about it. It is a most welcome event. I think there should be more events like this. Russia and Azerbaijan maintain an excellent cultural dialogue, including concerts, exhibitions, and various other cultural exchanges. Once again, these events are most welcome. For our part, we will do our best to facilitate and promote such events.



Question:

What can you tell us about the US-led coalition’s strike on Syrian pro-government forces? Is the information available to Moscow close to the facts provided by the United States to the effect that the Syrian pro-government forces had attacked the Syrian opposition forces the day before? Is information provided by the United States that the Russians had been warned about the retaliatory strike true?



Maria Zakharova:

Questions about information exchanges in the context of military operations in Syria should be posed to the Defence Ministry.

With regard to your question in general, we are currently analysing the information regarding yesterday's incident on the Euphrates River. This information is now being verified for us to be able to provide an official assessment and share our comments with you.

A lot of questions arise regarding the portrayal of the events by the United States. First, how can an attack on a headquarters by a unit of 500 men with the support of tanks and artillery wound only one defender? How were those in this headquarters able to hold out for at least half an hour to allow for the arrival of aviation? How, in such a short time, could a decision be made to open massive fire to destroy the Syrian armed forces? Proper information is now being collected by our military experts and the Foreign Ministry in order to clarify these issues and to obtain a full picture of what happened. We will share our official assessments once we are done analysing it. To reiterate, there are lots of questions.



Question:

Presidential candidate Ksenia Sobchak is in the United States now. She has already taken part in several events, during which she openly criticised Russia and its foreign policy, which some experts believe is an appeal to renounce our sovereignty. Do such events in another country with the participation of a registered presidential candidate constitute an attempt to interfere in our domestic affairs and electoral sovereignty?



Maria Zakharova:

I believe I covered US interference in the internal affairs of various states at length today.



Question:

Did Russia discuss the possible link between Secretary of State Tillerson's trip to Latin America and developments in Venezuela with the CELAC?



Maria Zakharova:

I do not have this information. I can make inquiries. I described our position on Venezuela. Indeed, we are closely following the developments in that country. As I mentioned during previous briefings, we operate on the premise that the democratisation processes, which our Western partners insist on when speaking about the situation in Venezuela, should improve the situation in the country rather than aggravate it.



Question:

Are Russians travelling less to the United States since the relations between the two countries worsened and the Foreign Ministry issued a warning?



Maria Zakharova:

Some briefing material contains visa issuance statistics. You can refer to that data. I can say that, if there has been a decrease (and to confirm this, I need the statistics, which I do not have at the moment but I can find out) it was only due to longer visa processing times. Unfortunately, our American colleagues prolonged the processing in two steps, first more than six months ago, last spring and summer, when the processing times were extended, and then again several months ago when the times were extended and the application procedure became more difficult. This is what I can confirm because many Russian citizens have reported this to us. They are not asking anything, just reporting to our public inquiry department about the US visa application process which is not meeting the modern standards of encouraging communications between peoples. However, this is not up to us. Our standards for issuing Russian visas to US citizens remain the same despite the massive blow at our diplomatic service and the staff of our foreign offices in the US. You remember the deportation of Russian diplomats. Many were sent home. The Consulate General was closed. Despite this, the processing time for Russian visas is unchanged for US citizens.



Question:

Despite the fact that Russia has repeatedly denied any assistance to the Taliban, several days ago Director of Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security Mohammed Stanekzai said that Russia supports the Taliban under the pretext of their fight against ISIS. What do you think about this? Could these claims affect the relations between the two countries?



Maria Zakharova:

No matter how many attempts to distort our view of the issue, it remains clear and unchanged. We make comments about this on a regular basis. I would like to point out that Special Presidential Envoy for Afghanistan and Director of the Second Asian Department Zamir Kabulov also comments on it regularly. I think there should not be any doubt that the stance has not changed. It remains the same.



Question:

Co-chairpersons of the OSCE group on Nagorno-Karabakh are visiting the conflict region again. Yesterday they met with the President of Azerbaijan in Baku. Today they are having a meeting with the President of Armenia in Yerevan as they try to maintain the increasing pace of the peace process. Meanwhile, it was reported that Azerbaijan has pushed the presidential election forward by six months and instead of autumn it will now be held in spring, basically in two months. Some experts suggest that, in addition to domestic reasons, there may be some foreign policy issues at the heart of the decision. Do you think the re-scheduled election in Azerbaijan may somehow affect the course of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement? For example, stall the process or, on the contrary, accelerate it?



Maria Zakharova:

I think Azerbaijan’s presidential election is this sovereign state’s domestic business. In my opinion, you should request comments on the motives, reasons and format of the election directly from Azerbaijan representatives. These comments have been made.



Question:

The Russian Foreign Ministry has issued a warning today regarding the possible developments in Afrin, Syria, in the context of US plans to increase arms deliveries to the groups it controls in Syria, allegedly for fighting ISIS. Yesterday in Sochi, Sergey Lavrov said it appears that the United States has plans for an actual partition of Syria. What could be the result of these plans and scenarios? Should Russia do something to prevent these plans? What measures can it take to prevent this?



Maria Zakharova:

Regrettably, your question is not as good as usual. You have said what is happening in the region and what these developments entail for Syria. For my part, I can say that Russia is indeed acting politically and also at the military level to prevent the possible result you have mentioned, that is, the partition of Syria, which would make it the breeding ground of terrorist groups and terrorism, and further destabilisation in Syria and the region as a whole. As I have told you, Russia is doing this politically and at the military level, by supporting the Syrian Army’s struggle against the remaining terrorist groups. As for exactly how we do this, read the regular Defence Ministry updates.

The Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi has had a huge political effect. Its results, although obvious, still need to take a practical shape at the talks and other events that are taking place in Geneva, where the focus of the Syrian political settlement has been shifted. There is work ahead on the Constitutional Committee. Work on the new constitution highlights dialogue with all the leading international and regional actors, that is, countries and international organisations. We are doing our best to stimulate movement towards a settlement in Syria. I believe that Munich will be a politically important venue, where Sergey Lavrov will have bilateral contacts and deliver a speech, in which he will definitely speak about this.



Question:

Does Moscow view US actions as an obstacle to Russia’s policy of normalisation in Syria?



Maria Zakharova:

You know, I have said a great deal on this issue today and have provided concrete examples. Attempts have been made to distract public attention from the results of the congress in Sochi, and the allegations of chemical attacks have been used to undercut the results of the congress and to encourage a negative attitude to Russia’s actions. Regrettably, efforts are also being made to convince the remaining “moderate” militants and militant opposition groups (everything is so mixed up there) to reject peaceful solutions. Also, direct and indirect attempts are being made to create conditions for the survival of the remaining ISIS groups in Syria.

I believe it is a matter for military experts. As it has been said today, the conditions allow terrorists to wage fierce and bloody battles and to stage provocations and terrorist attacks against civilians and military personnel. Many different things are happening. However, we maintain dialogue with the United States to coordinate our positions within the framework of a political settlement.

I would also like to say the following. It has been said at the US State Department that Washington ignored the congress in Sochi. No, they did not ignore but sent official observers to it. If you want to know more, we will provide the name of the person in question. He was not a high-ranking official, but it was the choice of our American partners. In other words, they continue to prevaricate even on trifling matters. They continue to tell tales even when we can call their bluff. I repeat that the US State Department’s statements about no US observers attending the congress in Sochi are a lie. They did attend it. As I have said, we can provide the name, if you want, but I think it would be better if you asked the US Embassy in Moscow for it.

There have been many such things, both on a large scale and on a relatively small scale. All this is certainly hindering our movement towards a goal that has also been described as a common goal in the United States. But we still hope for the best.



Question:

On February 6 in Moscow, the Foreign Ministry held consultations with a delegation from the North Korean Foreign Ministry headed by Director of the First European Department Im Chon Il. What was the outcome of the meeting? What issues were discussed? Is there a programme of joint events marking the 70th anniversary of Russia-North Korea diplomatic relations?



Maria Zakharova:

Yes, consultations did take place on February 6, according to the plan of foreign ministerial exchanges between the directors of the territorial departments of the Russian and North Korean foreign ministries. Andrei Kulik is the head of the respective department in Russia. Im Chon Il is at the helm of the department in North Korea.

The consultations concerned current issues of Russia-North Korea interaction, including preparations for the 70th anniversary of our diplomatic relations and the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Regarding the plan of events, I will gladly share the agenda with you next time. I think it is still being finalised, but I will gladly tell you about the events that are scheduled.



Question:

Do you know any details on the Constitutional Council’s status? Is there a deadline for the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy Mistura’s decision regarding its composition?



Maria Zakharova:

The council’s scope of operation, authority and mechanisms are currently in development. Just before the briefing I talked to our experts about this. They said that as soon as we can publicly share our final view we will do so. The work continues, by all means together with the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and the UN. We hope to shed more light on this matter for you shortly.



Question:

Yesterday, when asked to comment on the situation regarding pro-Russian observers in Belarus by Radio Svoboda, Russian Ambassador to Belarus Alexander Surikov said the following: “I personally get to talk to different people as an ambassador, including to journalists. When I encounter anger and rudeness I immediately stop the conversation. One should stay away from those who stink.” Is this statement in line with the Russian Foreign Ministry’s attitude?



Maria Zakharova:

If you have additional questions perhaps you should address them to the ambassador himself. I honestly do not understand the point of your question and what there is to comment on. Is there something you do not like or question about these words? What prompted you to ask this question?



Question:

The words seemed a little too harsh to me.



Maria Zakharova:

How exactly?



Question:

A journalist is a journalist, you have to talk to him. But saying that he “stinks”…



Maria Zakharova:

I think the meaning was different. The ambassador did not mean what you read in the sentence. Do not try to look for something that is not there.



Question:

Last time, you spoke very positively about Bulgaria. If our countries are on such good terms why does petrol in Bulgaria cost 1.5 euros? Why did TVTs channel broadcast the film ‘Bratozameshcheniye’ (‘Brother substitution’)? Who ordered that? And also, a question about the Syrian National Dialogue Congress. The Syrian opposition is fighting in Syria but dancing in Sochi. How can you comment?



Maria Zakharova:

Bulgaria’s pricing policy is a question for your country’s government.

As concerns films on TVTs, please address the question to the channel’s executives. I have not seen the film. If you have complaints, tell about them. I do not know what you are talking about.

As concerns the events in Sochi and who was dancing, this is definitely not a question for me.



Question:

I’d like to join the others in thanking you for your positive comments on the prospects of Russian-Bulgarian relations. This is very important for Bulgaria. Will Russian President Vladimir Putin attend celebrations of 140 years of Bulgaria’s liberation from the Ottoman Yoke?



Maria Zakharova:

It is usually the Presidential Executive Office, in particular, the press service, that comments on the Russian president’s schedule.

As for the comments on Russian-Bulgarian cooperation, I am ready to do this on a regular basis. Please send your questions and I will be happy to cover this topic.



Question:

What is Russia’s role in putting an end to the Turkish air strikes on Afrin? Media reports say Russia closed the airspace above Afrin to the Turkish Air Force.



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian Defence Ministry should comment on this. As for the political assessment, we have repeatedly expressed concerns about the developments in that area.



Question:

This week, the European Commission published the EU’s expansion strategy in the Western Balkans. What does the Russian Foreign Ministry think of this? How might it affect Moscow’s relations with the countries in the region and with the EU?



Maria Zakharova:

We have to study this EU strategy first, and then I will share our opinion. As for our cooperation with the Balkan and EU nations, for us, this has value in itself. We continue to develop relations with these countries and with the integration alliances they are part of.

Our position on the matter has always been clear. We are, of course, aware of the EU membership status and the relevant commitments of EU countries, but we also promote harmonious development on several tracks in both bilateral and association formats. As for countries that are not part of the EU and are considering joining it or cooperating more closely with the EU, we do not see this as an obstacle for developing our relations with them and we never ask them to choose whether they are “with us or against us.” We are always in favour of harmonious relations. Our practice and experience show that this can be done.



Question:

Can you please comment on the deportation of North Korean workers?



Maria Zakharova:

Russia is strictly committed to implementing the decisions of the UN Security Council, including in terms of sanctions. These are the only sanctions that we recognise as legitimate and as a lever for resolving the international situation. UN Security Council Resolution 2397 adopted in December 2017 provides for repatriating all migrant North Korean workers within 24 months since its adoption. Russia has been acting in strict compliance with the provisions of this document. We believe that legal North Korean migrant workers can continue to work in the Russian Federation until the deadline set by the UN Security Council Resolution.

Only six weeks ago, we received a lot of questions, mostly from Western media, as to why North Korean workers were allowed to stay in the Russian Federation in alleged violation of the UN Security Council Resolution. We said we were acting in strict accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution and that the workers were here on a contract basis. Now that we have started implementing the UN Security Council Resolution as the contracts are expiring, we are being asked by the same media why we comply with the UN Security Council Resolution. There are question in both cases. It is just astonishing! But this is our world today.



Question:

Trilateral meetings Russia-Azerbaijan-Turkey, Russia-Iran-Turkey and in other formats became a trend in 2017. Will this tradition continue in 2018? What is your general assessment of the trilateral formats’ effectiveness?



Maria Zakharova:

These are the formats that are dictated by necessity. There are many other formats – troikas, quintets, sextets, groups of twenty and others. These tools are applied to concrete cases to address some problem or another. It is a matter of pragmatic expediency. New mechanisms will be formed, if necessary. Once they are exhausted, having completed their mission, they will be inscribed in golden letters in the history of international relations. This is routine work. Such formats are created when the need arises. I do not think that a trilateral format is symbolical. It all depends on what is really needed when it comes to solving this matter or another matter.



Question:

A number of countries, including in the West, slammed the legislative amendments adopted by Poland concerning the Holocaust, as well as the activity of Ukrainian nationalist organisations. For example, the United States sees it as an infringement on the freedom of speech. How does Russia view this legislative initiative of Poland?



Maria Zakharova:

In this matter, we proceed not from the current considerations, but from our fundamental approaches that any attempts to revise the results of World War II are unacceptable, as well as from our vision of and the need to support, safeguard and protect historical memory.

Our uncompromised condemnation of the criminal ideology of the German Nazism and its allies, including Bandera supporters, is well known to everyone, and so is our attitude to the Holocaust tragedy. It seems to me that our fundamental attitude to the results of World War II cannot cause any doubts whatsoever.

We are certainly aware of the serious criticism of the above-mentioned law by Israel and a number of international public organisations, Jewish organisations.

In reply to your question, I will say that, in our opinion, any attempts to divide the history of World War II into “ours” and “not ours” are absolutely wrong, counterproductive and fraught with very regrettable consequences for those who are seeking to rewrite the results of this colossal global tragedy. We must proceed from the assessments of those historical events, of the ferocities of the Nazi invaders, of collaborationists and of the role of the Red Army in liberating humankind from the “brown plague”, the assessments made by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the international trials, which were based on international law and laid foundations for modern international law and modern international relations.

I would like to remind those who, unfortunately, very often forget it nowadays, that the Nuremberg conclusions were recognised by all of humanity. The whole world accepted them. This is what we proceed from.

Frankly speaking, there is much to be said on this issue. Perhaps, this is not a direct answer to your question, but it definitely concerns attempted revisions of World War II results and how attempts are being made to divide the history of that war into “ours” and “not ours” and thus segment that history. There is one more problem. It has to do with the illegal dismantlement of the monument of gratitude to the Red Army in Poland. I cannot think of any other word to describe our emotions evoked by these reports, except outrage. This is absolute lawlessness towards Soviet war memorials. A few days ago, in the Polish city of Debica (Podkarpackie Voivodeship), the local authorities’ demand to dismantle a monument erected in 1964 to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the city’s liberation from the Nazis was carried out. Everything was torn down.

This is, of course, yet another act of vandalism, this time at a state level. We often take note of and make proper assessments of cases when monuments are desecrated by individuals, unidentified persons or so-called public organisations. But in this case, the state is behind all that. Such actions are aimed, of course, at destroying the Soviet memorial heritage in Poland. We are aware of that. The global or intermediary goal is also clear, namely to reformat the memory of the Polish people about the true events of World War II, wipe off their memory of the Red Army’s liberating role in the Polish land.

Despite everything, we will remember this. We will speak about this. We urge a very tough response to utterly outrageous cases like this one. How else can we interpret this if not as attempted or real efforts to revise the results of World War II? A small and straightforward move towards reviewing those results.

We want to stress that the ongoing campaign in Poland to dismantle the monuments commemorating the feat of Soviet soldiers contradicts Poland’s international commitments and is an immoral and inadmissible action from a humanistic point of view.

Official Warsaw bears responsibility for similar incidents, which, apart from continuing to erode Russian-Polish relations, hurt the memory of the descendants of hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers who sacrificed their lives for the liberation of Poland and the whole of Europe.



Question:

I would like to ask a question about illegal arms deliveries to Syria. Our Bulgarian colleague has done some investigative reporting on this matter. After that, the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (PACE) decided to initiate an investigation and to find out how 33.8 per cent of all weapons arrive in the Syrian Arab Republic from Eastern Europe. The investigative report notes that all those involved in the arms shipment connection were under CIA cover.



Maria Zakharova:

Did they reinstate the female journalist? Why doesn’t the Council of Europe want to deal with this issue? As I see it, there is something to work on here.



Question:

She was illegally fired after exposés on the role of Azerbaijan and on the use of diplomatic flights for arms deliveries. The United States considers it possible to plant numerous news stories and to make many accusations regarding Russia. Some of the facts contained in the journalist’s investigative report are posted online. The Russian Defence Ministry has repeatedly provided facts about US complicity in arms deliveries to terrorists.



Maria Zakharova:

Why are friendly representatives of no less friendly Bulgarian media outlets asking their questions in the form of statements? Can you be more specific and say clearly what interests you?



Question:

An investigation is now underway with regard to Bulgaria and Romania. Is it possible to launch an investigation of US involvement in all this? It is very easy to accuse Bulgaria of allegedly supplying weapons to Syria.



Maria Zakharova:

May I work on this at home? I will provide you with detailed comments at our next briefing.



Question:

China will celebrate the New Year on February 16. We know that you wrote a thesis on this special event. Will you celebrate it this year? If so, how will you celebrate it? Could you say something to the people of China in Chinese and Russian in the run-up to New Year celebrations?



Maria Zakharova:

Thank you for this pleasant question. I try to positively celebrate all occasions even if I am staying far away from the homeland or a country that celebrates them as national events. This time, the Russian delegation will be in Munich on February 16. But I promise you that I will certainly order dumplings, which must be on the table during the Feast of Spring, as the traditional Chinese New Year is also called.

I would like to congratulate our Chinese friends on this extremely joyful and bright occasion that unites Chinese nationals all over the world from the bottom of my heart. Since you have asked me to send greeting in Chinese, I will be happy to do so (Extends holiday greetings in Chinese).




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3062808
__________________
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 February 19th, 2018 #360
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s greetings on Diplomats’ Day Moscow, February 10, 2018



10 February 2018 - 00:01








Friends,

First of all, I would like to congratulate Russian diplomats and veterans on their professional day.

Russia’s foreign policy department was established centuries ago and has very strong traditions. It has always had relented people, true patriots and professionals. Many of them went down in the history of the Russian state, including Nikita Panin, Alexander Bezborodko, and Alexander Gorchakov, Nicholas de Giers, Andrey Gromyko and Yevgeny Primakov. The ministry staff also included literary luminaries, such as Alexander Pushkin, Alexander Griboyedov, Fyodor Tyutchev and Alexey Tolstoy. On our professional day we also commemorate our comrades who died during the Great Patriotic War and in the line of duty. We will always hold them dear to our hearts.

The heritage we received from them imposes serious obligations upon us, the more so since the global situation is not improving.

While working to implement the multidirectional foreign policy, which has been approved by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, our diplomats contribute to protecting Russia’s sovereignty and security.

Our independent policy meets national interests and enjoys broad support in Russian society. No threats or pressure will force us to revise it. The overwhelming number of states view Russia as the only guarantor of global stability as well as the defender of the fundamental principles of interstate relations, such as the primacy of international law, the central role of the UN, the sovereign equality of states and respect for their national identity and the right to independently choose their development paths.

We are promoting constructive interaction with our numerous foreign partners on all continents and in a variety of fields, which helps us to create favourable international conditions for our dynamic national development. We are advocating a constructive agenda aimed at pooling the efforts of the international community against the threat of terrorism and other global challenges.

I am convinced that in this responsible period in Russia’s history all employees of the central office, foreign missions and offices in Russian regions will continue to show initiative and work creatively and efficiently. I wholeheartedly wish Russian diplomats and their loved ones, together with our veterans, health, prosperity and success in their service to the homeland.

Friends! Once again, congratulations on our professional day.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3068620






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview for the show Main Actors with Nailya Asker-Zade on Rossiya 1 Moscow, February 11, 2018



11 February 2018 - 16:57








Question:

We are meeting ahead of Diplomats’ Day. Do you have any traditions of celebrating your professional day at the Foreign Ministry?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, we hold an event on February 10 every year or before it if February 10 is a day off, during which those diplomats who worked especially well last year are decorated with government and state awards. A presidential executive order is usually signed by that time with the names of those who have been awarded state orders or other decorations. We always invite our veterans to these events. After the ceremony, we continue to mingle unofficially at a reception, during which our veterans speak about their experience and give advice to our young employees. These office parties are always very homelike, in the best meaning of this word. Of course, our foreign missions and our offices in Russian regions hold official events to which foreigners, members of the diplomatic corps and representatives of the host country are invited.



Question:

Let us talk about Russian-US relations. You are No. 65 in the so-called Kremlin Report. You are the first foreign minister to be blacklisted. What did they do this for?



Sergey Lavrov:

To tell you the truth, I don’t care about the developments concerning the Kremlin Report or any other goings-on in Washington that are associated with the so-called Russia File. The report and the lists you have mentioned are simply ridiculous. They could be compiled within a matter of 30 minutes. I agree with the former US Ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul, who has said that his research assistant could have done it in less than an hour, that is, copied the names from the Russian Government and the Presidential Executive Office phone books, as well as from the Forbes magazine.

When it all began, I had a very bad feeling. I couldn’t believe my eyes and ears, considering that I am personally acquainted with very many officials from the Washington administration and the Congress. They are serious, smart and reasonable people. Therefore, I was shocked to see that this mass psychosis has swept their rationality clean. But as this trend continued, and it has been for over a year now, I gradually lost any interest in it. I only monitor it so I can get the facts in my line of duty, but I don’t know what to make of all this. I have read articles by your colleagues who write that we need to find a way out of this dead-end. [Presidential press secretary] Dmitry Peskov has described our relations as “collapse,” and I can offer many other synonyms. I can tell those who urge us to look for a way out “creatively” that we have been doing this and will continue to do this.

We have offered many practical solutions to our American partners. During my regular contacts with Rex Tillerson, we proposed ways to move back from the dangerous and rather silly line. There was no reaction in most cases. The only positive exception is our professional work on amendments to the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, or New START. We were to verify the implementation of this treaty by both sides on February 5, 2018, and we verified it. At the same time, the sides expressed mutual readiness to continue professional and technical consultations to clarify a number of matters regarding signatories to this treaty.

I can cite other examples. We are working quite well in Syria at the military level to prevent unforeseen and unintended accidents. More than that, there are signs indicating that the United States is aware of the real situation in Syria and is willing to listen to us and to take into account our methods of working with the legitimate Syrian government. We also maintain contact on the Syrian question, on regional matters and at the level of foreign ministries.

As for normalising our relations in general, our American partners say they are willing to do this after we take the first step and repent. This has become a philosophy. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which is ruled by US, British and other Anglo-Saxon representatives, wants us to repent as well. We must repent of all other sins. And then our Western partners will generously agree to gradually normalise relations. However, they refuse to accept objective reality. They refuse to see the impossibility of the situation where one side is always to blame and the other side is always innocent. Not that we are sinless, but we always offer practical solutions to situations that could develop into a crisis. A case in point is the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. By the way, I am glad that a communications channel has developed between the Russian and US envoys on Ukraine, Vladislav Surkov and Kurt Volker. They have recently held a regular meeting. I would say that the situation is not hopeless. They have agreed to continue their consultations.

So, we are open to any form of interaction our American colleagues are willing to use, but only on the basis of equality and without any preconditions, such as “you must repent for interfering in our internal affairs and our elections before we start.”



Question:

Is it possible that they are provoking us into responding?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe they would be glad to see a situation in which Russia will take some nervous or dramatic measures. But we have a balanced policy, which has been formulated by the President and is not based on such improvisation or impromptu actions. We have a consistent line. We pursue it regardless of the external situation but based on the need to create as favourable conditions for our development as possible in terms of security, economic operation and economic conditions for our security, as well as non-discriminating attitude to our citizens abroad. Some people would certainly like to provoke us into taking actions that would allow them to increase the sanctions pressure on us and to take other coercive measures, although they continue to increase pressure on us even without any dramatic reciprocal steps on our part. It is an additional reason for wondering at the abilities of those who continue to mindlessly increase the sanctions. I believe that those who know at least something about international affairs, or life, for that matter, should have long seen that no sanctions will force us to change our policy. We are always ready to discuss our partners’ questions regarding their legitimate interests. But as Americans say, it takes two to tango, which is also applicable to negotiations. It takes two to negotiate.



Question:

It was said last year that Russian-US relations hit rock bottom. What next?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am not going to talk about rock or any other bottom, which is a popular phrase. I am against making any wild guesses. I am for acting openly and honestly so as not to punish anyone but to bring together all countries that can really and effectively deal with global problems, primarily terrorism as well as other global threats such as drug trafficking, organised crime and illegal migration. There are many problems that have no borders and cannot be driven into a cage around which the other countries will stand rejoicing that this particular problem does not affect them. This is impossible. There are no borders, and so we can only fight this or that evil together. This is what our policy is aimed at. We can protect any aspect of our international activities. We have no secret plans. All our actions are transparent and are based on international law and the UN Charter.



Question:

There is a time difference between Moscow and Washington. Do you wake up calmly in the morning or wondering what happened in the US during the night?



Sergey Lavrov:

Why should I? I read and watch news in the morning. In most cases, you can expect something will have taken place. For example, there have been hints. There are some surprises, but only very rarely. I was pleasantly surprised when the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld our athletes’ appeals. But it did not come as a surprise when the WADA and USADA leadership said that this outrageous CAS decision had cast a shadow over all “clean” athletes and undermined the Olympic principles.

You see, when people fail to contain their negative or evil emotions, they give themselves away. When the leader of an anti-doping organisation has a nervous breakdown over a court decision, considering that the court is sacrosanct in the US, it is proof that this campaign, even despite the negative facts regarding some of our athletes, is politically charged and designed to demonise Russia through the Olympic movement.



Question:

Will the agreement on Iran be honoured, including by our West European allies, if the United States refuses to do so?



Sergey Lavrov:

The US has not refused to implement the agreement but has demanded that it be revised, which is absolutely unrealistic. But this is what the US demands. It also wants the European signatories – Britain, France and Germany – to start working with Washington on this matter. The three European parties to this agreement have agreed to establish a working group with the US, adding that the deal cannot be renegotiated but they are ready to discuss other concerns regarding Iran. The main concerns are Iran’s ballistic missile programme, which has not been prohibited, the human rights issue and Iran’s behaviour in the region, meaning allegations of Iran’s negative effect on conflict situations. It is notable that neither Russia nor China has been invited to join in this work, although they are party to this agreement as well. I don’t think we would have accepted the invitation, but it has not been extended anyway.

We can hardly accept their logic, because the agreement that was reached with Iran in 2015 has been formalised by a unanimous UN Security Council resolution and is being implemented by Iran unfailingly. The IAEA is responsible for verifying compliance with this agreement. The IAEA Director General says in his quarterly reports that Iran is implementing its nuclear commitments under the deal. The Americans say, “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” The deal with Iran is not broken. Moreover, it is very effective. But attempts have been made to fix it, and before fixing it, they are trying to break it. This is very bad.

If there is a desire to discuss Iran’s ballistic missile programme, do it. Those who consider Iran’s missile plans to be of a destabilising nature must provide reliable arguments. Iran is not the only country with a ballistic missile programme. There are other countries with such programmes in the region. This question should be addressed as a package. It is not justifiable to mix nuclear matters with human rights and demand that Iran stop doing something in the region. Iran is an influential country, just as its neighbours such as Saudi Arabia, and even relatively small Qatar has its own interests and international affairs in the region.

I believe that these US actions are openly discriminating, biased and unreasonably exacting. We proposed an alternative solution many times. The idea is that we should start building bridges between the Gulf countries and Iran. Like the confidence- and security-building measures that were adopted as a result of the Helsinki process, so the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf and Iran, plus the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the EU and the UN represented by its Secretary-General, together with the Arab League could convene for a conference or meeting, whatever you call it, to start with the simple goal of building up trust through the exchange of information and military transparency. This may be followed by some joint events, visits to military facilities and invitations to military exercises. The procedure is apparent. Regrettably, this initiative has been gathering dust for years because of the persisting bias regarding Tehran, and because of the many problems in relations between Iran and the Arab countries, which our partners cite to prove that this is no time for such a conference. But I think it’s very much the other way around. These problems will stay unless we start discussing them. Therefore, we will continue to advocate this initiative, of course, if all the parties concerned agree on the need for such a conference.



Question:

Which compromise between the US and North Korea would reduce the nuclear threat?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t even know. We have moved from Iran so smoothly. Iran’s nuclear deal was very clear: Iran renounced the military aspects of its nuclear programme in return for the lifting of UN and unilateral US and other western sanctions. That was the deal. Today, the United States is demanding the same from North Korea: suspend its military nuclear programme in return for security guarantees and the lifting of sanctions. But the US is now trying to revise or terminate the deal with Iran, which the North Korean leaders might see as a telling sign.

However, we must not lose heart. The nuclear problem on the Korean Peninsula is very serious, and not only because we stand for compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation regime, but also because the US military presence in the region is being increased out of all proportion to the problem of North Korea’s nuclear might. The United States is looking not only at North Korea, which is being used to justify the growing US military presence, but also at the South China Sea, where China and ASEAN economies are holding negotiations on territorial disputes through diplomatic channels. The build-up of the US naval and air force presence in the region can objectively, even if unwittingly, move these territorial disputes to a military plane. I view this as a very dangerous game.

Overall, the North Korean nuclear problem has been used to deploy US BMD systems in South Korea and, recently, in Japan. You can see on the map that the US BMD network, together with its European segment, has nearly surrounded Russia, wittingly or unwittingly, and has recently been targeted at China. It is in our interests to keep the other side from strengthening this trend, which is why we need to conduct negotiations.

Some time ago, Russia and China advanced the freeze-for-freeze or dual suspension initiative, under which North Korea would freeze its nuclear and missile tests, while the US and its South Korean partners would freeze or at least dramatically reduce the scale of their military drills. The Americans rejected the idea as unacceptable because nobody has banned military exercises as they are part of legal international practice, whereas the UN Security Council has put a ban on Pyongyang’s nuclear tests and missile launches. Speaking pedantically or legalistically, this is true. But we are not perfectionists. We have to settle problems, rather than prevent their settlement because of our irreconcilable self-righteousness. I have told Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and before him, his predecessor John Kerry who said that dual suspension was unacceptable, that the one who is stronger and wiser should be the first to step back when the problem comes to a dangerous line. We still hope that tension can be eased, although there is little chance of that, considering the mood in Washington. North Korea and South Korea have agreed that a North Korean delegation, athletes and dance groups would attend the Olympic Games. At the same time, the two Korean states have agreed to resume contacts between their militaries. In fact, this amounts to dual suspension. At least, North Korea does not intend to make any sudden harsh movements before and during the Olympics. It has also been said that no US-South Korean military exercises will be held until March at the soonest. If this objective process of mutual restraint regarding military drills and test explosions gains traction, there will be a chance for the resumption of the talks. We will do our best to promote this possibility.



Question:

Are China-US relations doomed to deteriorate, since both these countries will vie for the status of economic and political superpower in the coming years?



Sergey Lavrov:

Competition isn’t going anywhere. As we know, competition is the driver of progress, just like private entrepreneurship, as famous literary character Ostap Bender once said. However, competition must be fair. There are rules enshrined in the UN Charter, which govern international political and military-political matters, and the World Trade Organisation documents, which govern investment, trade in goods and services, and labour migration. There are many other international conventions which regulate particular spheres of human activity, including in the economic sphere.

It starts with the cyclical growth of the global economy propelling one country to the top. Then after a fairly long historical era, other countries catch up with it on economic development. As, for example, was the case with the United States in the wake of the two world wars which did not affect its territory. Its economy grew rapidly, and the United States has maintained the dominant position for quite a long time. I wouldn’t say that the United States has lost much of its standing or clout. However, other centres of power have emerged, such as the European Union, if we take it as a collective association, and if it manages to overcome its current internal squabbling which, of course, weakens it. We have an interest in seeing the EU overcome this confusion and become united and strong. This, of course, includes China and India and, to a certain extent, Russia. Our economy is small compared to that of the United States, China or India. Still, Russia is a geopolitical player, given that, in addition to our own economy, we have the Eurasian Economic Union and the CIS Free Trade Area. Russia is an active participant of associations such as the SCO and BRICS. All of that combined with a pro-active and very concrete foreign policy makes us one of the centres of global influence and one of the centres of what we refer to as the emerging polycentric world order.

However, neither we nor China have ever called anyone our enemy in our doctrinal documents. The United States started doing so during President Obama’s watch. I believe it was in 2014, when, speaking at the UN General Assembly, President Obama called us a threat, placing ISIS next to us. This shows the train of thought of US foreign policy makers. Under the Democrats, and now with the Republicans, a gamut of fundamental doctrinal documents (the US military doctrine and the US nuclear doctrine) designate China and Russia as "adversaries." The same word was used in the law to curb the influence of Russia, including through sanctions. If you want to establish honest cooperation, perhaps, you can, deep down, consider someone an enemy or an adversary, some country that you need to suppress and to isolate, as they write about us openly. However, probably, there must be some generally accepted methods of competition. However, wherever you look ... For example, sanctions against our defence industry unquestionably represent unfair and unscrupulous competition, because, in addition to these sanctions, the United States trots around the globe and demands, through their ambassadors, that Latin America, Asia, and Africa refuse to buy military equipment and weapons from us, promising that the United States will compensate for the equipment shortages in a particular country. This is nothing short of driving competitors out of the market using blackmail and ultimatums.

You just mentioned the Olympic Games. I believe they also represent unfair competition. It appears that the Americans can no longer beat us in a fair sports competition. They believe that in order for them to regain and retain the unconditional title of a world sports leader, competitors should be gradually taken out of their way. Now, an anti-Russian campaign, "interference in the elections," came about and things like it. Anything goes.

I can see such an approach in a number of areas, namely the use of unilateral coercive, illegitimate and illegal measures to achieve unjustified and unfair advantages.



Question:

Which areas in particular? You have already mentioned sports, politics and economy. What's next? Will they get to the culture?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t think they will get to the culture. By the way, culture is the sphere where we are now also becoming competitive, but we are doing so in a fair manner. Take cinema, for example. The share of Russian films has grown significantly and continues to grow. Our films are of high quality, and they beat box-office records. This is an example of fair competition. We started making films that our people enjoy watching.



Question:

Do you watch them?



Sergey Lavrov:

I did.



Question:

What was the last film you saw?



Sergey Lavrov:

Unfortunately, I didn’t have the chance to watch The Upward Move, but some time ago I watched Legend Number 17 and Stalingrad. I rarely get the chance to go to the cinema, so I mostly watch films on disks or online.



Question:

We are now clear about the enemies of the United States. Who are our enemies and friends in the world?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are not calling anyone enemy, and we are absolutely sincere about it. The Foreign Policy Concept approved by President Putin a couple of years ago says that we plan to honestly and effectively cooperate on the basis of a balance of interests, equality and mutual benefit with any country which is willing to cooperate with us based on the same principles.

The United States, too, is interested in continuing to cooperate with us in outer space exploration (the International Space Station and rocket engine purchases). We do not want to shoot ourselves in the foot and do harm to ourselves just to spite someone, so we are implementing this mutually beneficial project. We have several more projects. Speaking about our energy plans and prospects a short while ago, President Putin mentioned that the first tanker carrying liquefied natural gas from Yamal LNG went to the United States. This means that they also see certain benefits for themselves in that. I think that the more such concrete transactions we have, the more chances there are for us to gradually overcome our abnormal political relations. We know from practice that relations between states need a solid economic foundation. When this foundation is solid and the volume of economic interaction is large, then those wishing to make abrupt political moves will think twice before "punishing" or "forcing" anyone to do anything.



Question:

So, our friendship with China is not rooted in opposition to the United States?



Sergey Lavrov:

No, it is not. China doesn’t want to use our friendship against United States, either. We have never been friends with anyone in order to oppose someone else. Take, for instance, the North Atlantic Alliance. Every day, the Americans give a pep talk to its members to promote solidarity and the claim that Russia is a threat. They have been saying these things on a daily basis for many years now as they continued to expand the presence of NATO military infrastructure on the territories of their Eastern European members next to our borders. There are already American, Canadian, German, British and Italian brigades deployed next to our borders. This is nothing short of heavy-handed discipline. Meanwhile, in bilateral contacts, many members of NATO and the European Union tell us that they realise the nonsensical and counterproductive nature of this situation. However, solidarity and the consensus principle compel them to follow a path which they do not particularly like.

We are not prohibiting any member of the Collective Security Treaty from doing anything. We have commitments that the CSTO member countries together provide stability in our common region, suppress threats of terrorism and organised crime, and ensure the inviolability of the constitutional order in our respective states. However, all the CSTO countries are taking part in the programme of interaction with NATO. Russia is also a formal member of the Partnership for Peace Programme. We even have a Russia-NATO Council. We have no intention to bar our partners from communicating with anyone, if there is mutual interest.

Of course, commitments must be honoured. This is a general rule, be it the Collective Security Treaty, the Eurasian Economic Union, or any other multilateral treaty. However, in all other areas, each country independently determines its foreign policy. This makes a big difference between us and the United States, which, I reiterate, has been obsessed, in recent years, with the idea of forcing not only their allies, but many other countries across all regions to adopt hostile position with regard to Russia or to stop maintaining good relations with us. It's sad. A great power and a great nation, but its behaviour is not befitting the status of a great power.



Question:

Aren’t we afraid of the Chinese?



Sergey Lavrov:

We shouldn’t be afraid of anyone.



Question:

1.5 billion people...



Sergey Lavrov:

Numbers don’t matter. An approach based on arithmetics will not get us far in international relations. We must rely on concrete facts. We have unprecedentedly good relations with China now. Our relations have never been so good throughout history. Our plans are absolutely honest, open and mutually beneficial. They rely on mutual respect and our mutual interests.

There are people out there who are willing to turn the matter that you have just mentioned to their advantage. Life proved that such reasoning is untenable. For example, take the specific example of our economic interaction with China in the Russian Far East and Eastern Siberia. If we look at the statistics and the specific projects, it becomes clear that we are simply developing mutually beneficial projects that in no way jeopardise Russia’s territorial integrity. Such a policy will continue. We have ambitious, profound, far-reaching, and promising plans for cooperation with China across all areas.



Question:

And what about planned cooperation with Japan? Is the territorial problem the main issue so far?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, Japan perceives it as the main issue, but Russia does not. We would like to sign a peace treaty, as had been agreed in 1956 when the Soviet Union and Japan passed the Joint Declaration. We believe that it is possible to resolve any problem, including the peace treaty (the Japanese side directly links the resolution of the so-called issue of the “Four Islands” called the “Northern Territories” in Japan, but, in reality, this is the South Kuril Islands), on the most favourable terms being created by deeper cooperation between the concerned countries in all areas without exception, including trade and economic cooperation, political cooperation, cultural and humanitarian cooperation, and international cooperation.

It took Russia and the People’s Republic of China over 40 years to resolve the issue regarding the jurisdiction of two islands on the Amur River. In the long run, we resolved this issue only when our relations attained a truly unprecedented, strategic and partner-like level.

President Vladimir Putin repeatedly told Japanese prime ministers, including Shinzo Abe, that we must create an atmosphere in our societies that would make it possible to address all these issues on a mutually acceptable basis.

Trade and economic relations have very significant potential that is far from being fully tapped. Japanese companies invest a lot in Russia. President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe have agreed to pursue joint economic activity on the four islands. Five specific projects, including aqua-culture and tourism, have been approved. These so far rather modest projects are important, interesting, and they also create jobs. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s eight-point programme stipulates more ambitious plans, as well as some interesting projects. But these are only the first steps. I am confident that the mutually complementary nature of our economies, raw materials, geographic potentialities and Japanese technologies offer infinite potential for further mutual progress.

It goes without saying that we maintain very good humanitarian and cultural ties. Japan annually hosts the Festival of Russian Culture. Last year, Cultural Seasons were held in addition to the festival.

Of course, foreign policy is one of those areas where we need to dramatically expand our partnership.

Japan’s relations with the United States also matter. Japan and the United States have signed a bilateral treaty. President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe have repeatedly noted this aspect. A discussion involving foreign ministers and security councils’ secretaries also took place. In 1960, the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States of America and Japan was signed. Under this treaty, the United States has the right to deploy its military bases on any part of Japanese territory. We would simply like to understand how all this influences the overall security situation in this region. It is very hard to discuss peace treaty issues without comprehending these aspects. The inviolability of the outcome of World War II, the very first issue that arises when the sides start discussing the peace treaty issue, is probably the most crucial aspect for Russia, and we have repeatedly discussed this issue with our Japanese friends. Our Japanese colleagues don’t recognise the inviolability of the outcome of World War II with regard to these four islands. They are openly telling us that this amounted to an injustice. But the UN Charter states clearly that everything accomplished by the victorious Allied powers is inviolable and is not subject to any revision. This issue is also directly linked with this subject matter because we have noted repeatedly that Russia as the legal successor to the Soviet Union is committed to the Declaration of 1956 that contains an obligation to transfer, not return (as our Japanese colleagues are asking), the two southernmost islands to Japan as a goodwill gesture after the signing of the peace treaty. By the way, various issues regarding this transfer’s deadlines and their terms are, of course, subject to additional discussion. But the essence of this declaration that we have repeatedly confirmed (in the person of the President of the Russian Federation) is that it relies on the inviolability of the outcome of World War II. Of course, we and our Japanese colleagues will have to conduct serious consultations and discussions on this score.



Question:

But are we really making any headway on this issue? You see, it appears that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe comes to Vladivostok only once each September and says that they are ready to address this issue somehow, and that’s it.



Sergey Lavrov:

No, he also visited Moscow. I believe that he will come again, I have listed those things which, it appears, help create a background. It goes without saying that this issue cannot be resolved at one go. But, for example, joint economic activity is a step towards launching joint work on these islands. We are drawing the attention of our Japanese colleagues to the fact that the Russian Federation stipulates a number of attractive privileges, including the territory of ahead-of-schedule socioeconomic development and the Free Port of Vladivostok. There is no need to establish some supra-national body as some of our colleagues had suggested some time ago. We are also ready to sign an intergovernmental agreement on how to expand this joint economic activity more effectively, if it turns out that Russia’s numerous privileges are not enough.

I would not say that we have failed to make any headway here. We have considerably advanced our relations, primarily the top-level political dialogue which is, indeed, candid and honest, and based on trust. Much is being done in the economic sphere, but we can accomplish much more. Humanitarian ties and tourist group exchanges remain at a very good level. So far we see a need for expanded cooperation; ideally speaking, we should aspire to foreign policy coordination.

We have noticed that our Japanese colleagues have resumed the work of the 2 + 2 mechanism. Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu and I visited Japan last year and met with our colleagues, Japan’s Foreign Minister and Defence Minister, there. This is another step towards strengthening trust and raising the quality of the political dialogue.



Question:

The USSR was very influential in Latin American countries and in Africa. Can Russia restore it? Do we need this?



Sergey Lavrov:

You know, it should be natural. The influence of the USSR to a large extent was based on the socialist and communist ideology. The countries which chose the left, socialist way, even if they only declared it, were favoured by the USSR. To be fair, I must say that in the majority of these countries the USSR really created the basis for the modern national economy. Many infrastructure facilities were built, mostly in Africa and Asia, fewer in Latin America. With Cuba and Nicaragua, relations were excellent from the very beginning. When the USSR collapsed, the country did not have time to pay attention to foreign countries, especially to the remote ones in Africa, Asia and Latin America. We had to deal with our close neighbours, face challenges when the borders were not defined and various terrorists from the Middle East began to creep in. Russia was in turmoil itself and long-distance foreign policy projects were forgotten. But we overcame our domestic issues and strengthened Russia, built relations with the neighbouring countries and began developing business energetically; state and private companies started emerging. These companies got interested in additional projects. In search for such projects it was logical to use what remained from the Soviet times. Now this “legacy” is actively being used in Africa, Latin America and in Asian countries such as Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. It is not an artificial thing promoted by “a Politburo decision to move business to Africa.” It is lively interest in business. Sometimes businesses ask for state support. In any case, we provide political support and sometimes provide state export loans.

In the next two-three weeks I will again visit Africa. I will see how things are going in our partner countries: Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe. Our companies are involved in a lot of interesting projects there.



Question:

We have already broached the subject of Syria. Is stability in Syria for a long time or are we ready to resume military operations in case it is necessary?



Sergey Lavrov:

It was stated that if ISIS, which had been defeated in its plans to establish a caliphate but is still present somewhere in the region in the form of separate groups, “raised its head” in Syria again, then the remaining part of our contingent at the Khmeimim Airbase would help the Syrian army to suppress these outbreaks.



Question:

It is not a secret that the US is supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine. Why is Europe keeping silence?



Sergey Lavrov:

Europe is not keeping silence, it is objecting quietly and in ways other than publicly. As far as we know, in conversations with the United States they express disagreement in reply to Washington’s insistent demands that Europe join these supplies. The US is attempting to lure into their schemes the countries that are characterised by Russia hate tendencies – our Baltic neighbours, and they are trying to lure Poland as well. According to our information, major, respectable European states are well aware of the danger of these actions and are trying to bring their neighbours to their senses, because the Americans and the Canadians have already started these supplies. This is deplorable.



Question:

How will we respond?



Sergey Lavrov:

We can’t forbid the Americans supplying anything anywhere, but, of course, we will draw conclusions. That this is watched closely by representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk, which have the wherewithal to stand up for themselves, is also an objective fact. I think this also should be kept in mind.



Question:

Could we perhaps move from words to deeds and, for example, recognise the Lugansk People’s Republic and the Donetsk People’s Republic?



Sergey Lavrov:

Unlike some of our international colleagues, we are people of our word. We always keep and act upon the word we gave, especially when it became a subject of talks and was approved by the UN Security Council. The Minsk Agreements have not been abolished by anyone. I think that anyone who takes the first step to break off the Minsk Agreements will be making a huge mistake. Properly speaking, the Kiev authorities are within one pace of this mistake, if they finally sign into law the reintegration bill that has gone through the second reading. We will wait and see.

I think the West is increasingly certain of the need to bring President Petr Poroshenko and his fellow Ukrainian leaders to their senses in what concerns the provocative reintegration bill, which is a draft so far, as well as the education law, which was already adopted, although the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe has tried to change its clauses that discriminate against all minority languages. As far as we know, visiting European emissaries transmit these messages in Kiev and insistently recommend them to realise that their approaches are counterproductive and their actions need to be corrected. So far, they cannot say so in public, but if the current regime in Kiev continues to behave the way it does, public statements will appear soon too, because Europe is quite wary of the processes in Ukraine, particularly the dramatic growth of influence enjoyed by the radicals and neo-Nazis.



Question:

During the rare telephone conversations and meetings you have with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin what language do you speak?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russian.



Question:

And your counterpart too?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes. He was born in Kursk.



Question:

What do you think is the reason behind such Russophobia in the world? Did it come as a surprise to you? Did you expect such ‘bullying’?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have already commented on this matter as did President Vladimir Putin. In short, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union those who were at the helm in new Russia, with their actions, policy towards the West, their publicly expressed willingness to become part of the civilised world, created the impression in the West that that willingness was due, firstly, to the fact that our country had never been part of the civilised world and, secondly, to the fact that the civilised world meant the West and Russia was dying to get there. That illusion grew stronger during the turbulent 1990s when we had Western, American and European advisors in various key ministries and privatisation was based on their models.

In the 2000s, Russia started increasingly more to rely on its own traditions together with its place in history and to realise that it was not a country without roots but a country with a history which goes back a thousand years. Our people felt the influence of that history and they were proud of it and they wanted to continue their journey through life and build their state through the perspective of that history. This came as a shock to those who were disillusioned and believed that Russia would take anything. I think they are still recovering from that shock. When they realised that their attempts to keep us in check had failed, it was then that all the ‘bullying’ and ‘intervention’ started.

It began much earlier than the notorious ‘election interference.’ It began with the Magnitsky Act when nobody wanted to get to the bottom of that incident and speculated on a personal tragedy, on a person’s death in order to legitimise that bullying of Russia. Later on our American colleagues inappropriately reacted to what happened with Edward Snowden as Barack Obama cancelled his visit to Moscow where he was going before the G20 Summit in St Petersburg. There was much more, too. Then new sanctions followed. And only after that, Ukraine became the excuse for putting more pressure on us. And now there is also ‘election interference.’ After over a year of investigations, there is not a single fact, not a single bit of proof confirming those allegations. It is impossible to get them. If there was evidence it would eventually ‘leak.’ I know how this system works in the United States. Everything ‘leaks’ when a great number of people is involved in all kinds of hearings, inquiries, you name it. They are trying to use the hysteria to distract attention away from the actual events. For the health of the American system, I believe it is necessary to investigate what happened in the Democratic Party both in relation to Bernie Sanders (against whom the Democratic Party leaders conspired) and, what is now being investigated, the so-called ‘Nunes memo’ that is, what was the FBI’s role in the political infighting between the Democrats and the Republicans. I am certain these are unpleasant facts for many. I hope they will throw cold water at many and those who still have some sanity in them will withdraw from the Russophobic campaign that does no credit even to the politicians in Washington.



Question:

You have been through both successful and not so successful talks. Is there anything that could still surprise you?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have never evaluated any events in terms of whether they surprise me or not. I have long taken everything happening in the world at face value. Perhaps at the early stage of my diplomatic career there were things that were particularly curious or, as you said, surprising. Now, after so many years in the diplomatic service you already know what to expect. Now we already understand that we can expect much more from the United States than we expected before. You get used to everything. It is important to consider your country’s interests when you decide whether to react to certain events in other countries or their actions. Do they concern our basic interests or is it better to ignore certain steps taken clearly in the Russophobic frenzy? Therefore, I just try to be objective. Life is life. It is important to analyse what happens.



Question:

How many years does it take for a diplomat to become a psychologist?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t think a diplomat must necessarily become a psychologist. You can be a born psychologist or study to become one. But knowing psychology is useful for a diplomat, because diplomacy is the art of reaching agreements. It is much more interesting when you see your counterpart not just as another human being but as an individual whose soul you begin to understand and whose thoughts you can read, or think that you can read. It helps when you can take into account your counterpart’s personal qualities, disposition, hobbies and interests.



Question:

Is there any difference between men and women in diplomacy? You often deal with women. Do you make allowances for women?



Sergey Lavrov:

I cannot make allowances for them, because this would be politically incorrect. We respect women just as we respect men. Women are the better half of humanity.



Question:

It is said that you once made former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland cry. Are you sorry about this?



Sergey Lavrov:

That never happened. It’s a lie.



Question:

You often make jokes. Nobody takes offence at your jokes, which quickly go viral. Do you do this on purpose?



Sergey Lavrov:

No, I never try to make a joke. But I don’t think it is a crime when a phrase pops up during a conversation.



Question:

Some of your statements are very emotional. For example, you have taught ethics to journalists and have talked about US pencil-pushers. How have the pencil-pushers responded to this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t know. See, we are already talking about my relations with journalists. I respect journalists very much. I sometimes tease them, but they also tease me. I see this as normal. It helps strengthen good relations between diplomats and journalists. We always talk with our ministry’s pool of journalists during business trips. It is very interesting to see which questions come to their mind during the talks. Some questions include hints, which we later use.



Question:

A recent joke concerned UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s coat. You said there was nothing in the pockets of Boris’ coat. What do you have in your pockets?



Sergey Lavrov:

Nothing but my hands.



Question:

What do you need during talks: your assistant, a pen or a notepad?



Sergey Lavrov:

There are pens on the table, and I also have one in my pocket. Notepads are placed on the table by the organisers. In 90 per cent of cases, I have my deputies, department directors and other personnel with me at the table. Sometimes our foreign colleagues ask for one-on-one talks, and we try to satisfy this request. This usually happens before or after important talks. It is a normal diplomatic practice when you need to send a confidential signal or ask a delicate question.



Question:

You were attending a reception in the Foreign Ministry Mansion in December 2016 when you learned that Russian Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Turkey Andrey Karlov had been shot. Diplomacy changed from a socially pleasant profession to a dangerous occupation in the blink of an eye. How do these disparate things go together?



Sergey Lavrov:

We thought that times had changed, and that what happened to our Ambassador Alexander Griboyedov long ago would never happen again. But it did. There are still many risks in the profession of diplomat. There are more risks in the countries where conflicts are underway (this is how US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens died when he was in the US Special Mission in Benghazi). But we never expected this to happen in Turkey. There were no protests or civil war there, unlike in Iraq, Syria, Libya or Yemen. Our colleague, comrade and friend, Andrey Karlov was addressing a friendship society at the Ankara Centre for Contemporary Art.

I am grateful to all those who remember him. A street has been named after Andrey Karlov in Turkey, and a street will be also named after him in Moscow, the sister city of Ankara and the city where Andrey Karlov was born.

Regarding Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin, who died a natural but unexpected death, measures are being taken to perpetuate his memory. I would like to thank people for their kind-hearted response to this tragedy.



Question:

There is an expression “the talks continued over lunch.” Do you eat during talks?



Sergey Lavrov:

We do, everybody does. When I graduated from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), I immediately left for Sri Lanka, where as a young diplomat I worked as assistant to Ambassador Rafik Nishanov, whose 90th birthday we have celebrated recently and I wish good health to him. I was not only responsible for writing up reports on correspondence, and also translating it. When the ambassador and his wife gave breakfasts or dinners, I sat at the table. In Russia, interpreters sit at the table. In some countries, they sit behind the people who dine. Here, interpreters also sit at the table: it is a part of our diplomatic etiquette. I was young and hungry and I understood that I had to find time both to interpret and to snack. I learnt how to do that.



Question:

Do interpreters eat now?



Sergey Lavrov:

They sit at the table, but most of them ask not to be served food, because they want to concentrate on interpretation. I am not discouraging them, but it is possible to find time for both things.



Question:

There is a fireplace at the Foreign Ministry Mansion where business lunches are held. Who sits with their backs to it?



Sergey Lavrov:

Guests.



Question:

Is this a way to warm them up for talks?



Sergey Lavrov:

No, it is just the way the hall is constructed. It is customary for the host to face the door.



Question:

To keep an eye on things?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is a custom.



Question:

What other nuances are there? For example, do you give chopsticks to your Asian partners?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is not a question of where our partners are from, but what they eat. If our Asian partner were served borshch and chopsticks, it would not be very polite.



Question:

Do you offer alcohol to your quests?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, we do, and so do everyone except Muslim countries; and even some Muslim countries offer wine.



Question:

Have you offered Crimean wines?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, we have.



Question:

How do guests find them? Do they drink them?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, they do.



Question:

Do you read newspapers in print or on your iPad?



Sergey Lavrov:

Both ways.



Question:

Do you have time to read anything else besides documents?



Sergey Lavrov:

Seldom.



Question:

Are voices ever raised during talks?



Sergey Lavrov:

That depends on the person. There are no rules that we must negotiate at a 0.3 decibel level. Some people have a soft voice and some speak louder.



Question:

Have you had to raise your voice?



Sergey Lavrov:

You could say so. Because when you discuss and prove something, present your arguments, especially if it is your proposals or amendments to some documents, of course, you defend your point of view and become more emotional. Sometimes emotions are needed to make your thoughts clearer.



Question:

It would be strange to ask you what country you want to visit. But is there any place you would like to go back to?



Sergey Lavrov:

Lake Baikal.



Question:

Recently, a football tournament for the diplomatic corps took place. Was it your idea?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have associations of Russian diplomats as well as the Council of Young Diplomats and the Main Administration for Service to the Diplomatic Corps (GlavUpDK); and many embassies enjoyed their joint initiative.



Question:

Do you like playing football?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do like and I also play.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3070334






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at a joint news conference following talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Kingdom of Belgium Didier Reynders, Moscow February 13, 2018



13 February 2018 - 16:09








Ladies and gentlemen,

We conducted very substantial talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of Belgium Didier Reynders.

We met not so long ago, last summer, in Brussels. I thanked my counterpart for his hospitality and I am glad to be able to receive him in Moscow ahead of tomorrow’s meeting of the Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Belgian-Luxemburg Economic Union, which is co-chaired by Mr Reynders on Belgium’s part and Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Dmitry Rogozin on our part.

We pointed out the long-standing and good history of relations between our countries. As you know, in April it will be 165 years since we established diplomatic relations. We agreed to observe the upcoming anniversary at a proper level.

We appreciate, and reaffirmed this today, the Belgian Government’s willingness to develop dialogue with Russia. We welcomed efforts by our Belgian partners to ameliorate the current situation in relations between Russia and the European Union and in Europe at large.

We discussed in detail the state of and prospects for our bilateral cooperation, above all, in keeping with the results of the recent visit to Moscow by Prime Minister of Belgium Charles Michel and his talks with President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. We agreed to work vigorously so that all the agreements reached during the top-level talks could be implemented.

We stated the good dynamics in our bilateral trade. Last year, it grew by 20.1 per cent to $8.9 billion. We proceed from the assumption that tomorrow’s meeting of the Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation will help bolster this trend.

We pay much attention to promoting direct ties between business circles. We expressed satisfaction that last year (like in the previous years) Belgian representatives visited the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. The same year, Belgian entrepreneurs participated in a relatively new format – the Eastern Economic Forum, which was held in Vladivostok for the third successive year. We hope that further events in St. Petersburg, Vladivostok and other Russian regions will be of interest to the Belgian business.

We welcome sustainable inter-parliamentary exchanges. Our people traditionally have considerable interest in cultural relations. Last year, the Igor Moiseyev Ballet, the Mariinsky Orchestra and Conductor Valery Gergiev and young soloists of the Bolshoi Theatre gave guest performances in Belgium. The public flocked to the exhibition of paintings by young Belgian artist Jan Fabre at the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg.

We pointed out a very important trend, which I see as promising, for the development of direct ties between the two countries’ universities. Last year, Russia hosted delegations from the Free University of Brussels and Ghent University, which had contacts with the universities of Moscow, St Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Volgograd and Petrozavodsk. We will continue to encourage this trend. It is very important to promote contacts between students and the general public.

We held detailed discussions on the situation in the Euro-Atlantic region, including Russia-EU and Russia-NATO ties. We appreciate Brussels’ consistent policy for overcoming current problems between Russia and the West, for restoring and strengthening mutual trust and for promoting a constructive dialogue, because we are facing common threats and challenges anyway.

Regarding the concrete crises, we discussed the situation in Ukraine and confirmed the absence of any alternatives to a full and consistent implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures. We informed our Belgian partners about Russia’s efforts taken within the Contact Group and the Normandy format to resolve acute humanitarian problems, to lift the economic blockade that has been imposed on the Donetsk and Lugansk regions contrary to the Minsk agreements, as well as to ensure the full implementation of the political provisions of the 2015 Minsk Package together with urgent measures to strengthen security and the ceasefire regime and to put an end to any ceasefire violations.

We expressed our serious concern about Kiev’s actions, including the submission of the law on the reintegration of Donbass to the Verkhovna Rada, a law that not only contradicts the Minsk agreements but cancels them. We are also concerned about the strengthening of radical forces in Ukraine, including open neo-Nazi groups. We will continue working to cut short these trends and to ensure strict compliance with the Minsk agreements and Ukraine’s commitments under the Council of Europe and OSCE conventions.

In particular, we have drawn our colleagues’ attention to the fact that the Venice Commission’s valid criticism of the law on education that was adopted and enforced in Ukraine and which contains discriminatory provisions against all minority languages must be taken into account. For now, we do not see that Kiev is willing to consider the commission’s criticism.

Speaking about European security, we want to promote a constructive agenda in the OSCE. In 2010, Astana hosted a summit that set the goal of moving towards creating a community of equal and undivided security in the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasia. Now, after several years of stagnation, the OSCE’s interest in building an equal and mutually respectful dialogue on military and political issues is re-emerging. A structured dialogue on security is a specific kind of work. We welcome the agreement to appoint a Belgian diplomat, Belgium’s permanent representative to the OSCE, to head up this dialogue. We hope that in this capacity he will be guided by common interests, the Helsinki Final Act and the principle of consensus.

We have common concerns regarding the crises in the Middle East and North Africa. Russia and Belgium are both interested in finding a political solution to the crises in Syria, Libya, Yemen, and overcoming the problems persisting in Iraq. Certainly, all this is becoming particularly significant in view of the risk of terrorists expanding beyond the region, which is already happening. This is a threat to all of us.

We have informed our colleagues about the outcome of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. One of its main achievements was the final statement consisting of 12 principles of state-building in the new Syria, as well as a call to set up a Constitutional Committee. We believe it is a very important instrument for the UN Secretary-General’s Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura in the implementation of UNSC Resolution 2254 that requires establishing an inclusive intra-Syrian dialogue involving the Syrian government and the entire opposition, and overcoming the crisis based on mutual agreement by the government and the opposition.

There is an entire range of other topics we have discussed today. They all help us understand each other better. Our dialogue has a very busy agenda. I think regular contacts between foreign ministers are quite helpful.



Question:

You met with some of your European counterparts. Did you notice any change in their attitude to the sanctions introduced by the EU over the Ukrainian issue?



Sergey Lavrov:

Actually, we never ask any questions about the attitude of our colleagues from the European Union, from those countries that introduced sanctions against us, what they think on this issue. We read assessments, which are, in fact, unanimous in saying that the sanctions are doing harm to our bilateral relations. There is work by authoritative research institutions showing that those who imposed sanctions suffer a greater impact through them. But as we have repeatedly said, we will not ask anyone to change this policy. We hope, as President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly underlined, that common sense will prevail. A policy driven by ideologically charged goals that set political and geopolitical considerations above economic interests will take us nowhere. We welcome the awareness that this course will lead nowhere.

In the meantime, while this course continues, we are preoccupied with our own economy, advancing our own capabilities to enable us to be independent of similar excesses, because in the western camp there is a small, yet aggressive minority trying to disrupt attempts to normalise relations with Russia. Quite often, this minority leads the others by the nose. We can still see this. However, we are always ready to resume mutually beneficial dialogue on the basis of equality and mutual respect, without ultimatums or demands to repent or apologise. We openly explained all our actions on the basis of international law. All those, who wanted to hear, heard us.

Today, we certainly spoke about Ukraine and Crimea. More and more western politicians, including members of parliament from Belgium and other EU countries, visit the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, both entities of the Russian Federation.

All those, who really want to understand what is happening there, can do it directly, go there and see everything with their own eyes, rather than criticize from a distance. Today, there is a tendency to address problems remotely, especially when it comes to accusing some states or other that displease our western colleagues. Similar “remoteness” applies to the view that is critical of the situation in Crimea and sees it as annexation in spite of the objective fact of the free expression of the will of Crimeans. Similar remote verdicts are handed down in the case of chemical weapons used in Syria. This has become a tendency of sorts. It is better and much more honest to see everything with one’s own eyes and visit the site in question. With respect to chemical weapons in Syria, one must visit the scene of the incident, rather than rely on fake videos. If the case in point is whether human rights in Crimea are being violated or not, one must travel to Crimea, rather than listen to falsehoods spread by certain countries, including, of course, the Ukrainian leadership.

In my opinion, the answer is clear. I slightly expanded the scope of my analysis, but I hope that this was not useless.



Question:

What do you think about the Pentagon plans to allocate $550 million to train the “Syrian Democratic Forces” and to establish border security forces? How will this affect the political settlement amid current tensions?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have always, especially recently, had many questions regarding the US activities in Syria, which are being carried out without an invitation, as are, strictly speaking, the actions of the entire US-led coalition. Nevertheless, in the interest of fighting terrorism, as you may be aware, we went ahead and reached some agreements with the US military. Our Aerospace Forces have a communication channel with them, which is mostly used for de-confliction purposes and also for coordinating important missions to eliminate terrorist groups. We agreed to such cooperation based on the assumption that our US colleagues at the highest level, including US Secretary of State Tillerson, formally told us that the only goal of the US Armed Forces in Syria is to defeat ISIS.

It is now clear that ISIS failed as a caliphate project, primarily owing to the efforts of the Syrian army acting with the support of the Russian Aerospace Forces. However, we do not deny the US-led coalition's contribution to this accomplishment. Nevertheless, having defeated the caliphate concept and its rudiments created on Syrian soil, we are still not through with them and have yet to destroy the scattered terrorist units that spread across Syria and try to crawl into neighbouring countries. This remains an important part of our work.

Now, our American colleagues are providing different explanations for their presence in Syria. They are saying they must stay there not only until the military goals are achieved, but until a stable political process gets underway, which must end in a stable transfer of power that is acceptable for all (read, for the United States), which means regime change. In general, judging by other signs, which I will now disclose, we have a suspicion that the United States wants to stay there for a long time, if not forever.

You mentioned the creation of border security forces, the allocation of large amounts for training the Syrian Democratic Forces based on the Kurdish militia. This was done in a situation when many questions arose about Turkey having such plans, especially when the creation of security areas along the entire border between Syria and Iraq was announced. We are all aware of what Turkey thinks about particular units of the Kurdish militia. One can have different assessments of this position, but it is something that is quite real. Ignoring this position would be at least short-sighted. We are now witnessing the results of such short-sightedness, including in the area of ​Afrin. I would like to point out right away that Russia, from day one, has remained a supporter of the Kurds’ direct participation in all efforts that seek a settlement for Syria. Kurds are an integral part of Syrian society. Resolution 2254 of the UN Security Council is based on this premise, as it calls for the creation of a settlement process with the participation of the Government and the entire spectrum of the opposition and Syrian society. Without the Kurds, we will not be able to resolve the Syrian crisis once and for all. However, moving towards such an inclusive, with the participation of the Kurds, settlement involves achieving general consensus between all Syrian players inside the country and all external participants of the processes that are unfolding in and around Syria.

I believe that the United States is constructing its policies around dangerous unilateral steps rather than painstaking work towards consensus. These steps are increasingly looking like part of a policy to create a quasi-state on a large part of Syrian territory on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River all the way to the Iraqi border. This is increasingly reminiscent of a plot to undermine the territorial integrity of Syria. Local authorities that act independently from Damascus are being created in this area. Funds are being sent there to ensure proper functioning of these authorities and to supply them with weapons. The United States helps create law enforcement agencies there. We asked these questions many times, but we never got any specific answers, just general talk about how we should not worry and that they support the territorial integrity of Syria. However, in fact, things don’t look that way.

I very much hope that the UN, which is responsible for implementing UNSC Resolution 2254 and for establishing an inclusive Syrian dialogue, now, after the powerful impetus given by the Syrian National Dialogue Congress held in Sochi on January 30, will take full account of the need to prevent any steps by external players that undermine the settlement principles enshrined in UN Security Council Resolution 2254.



Question:

You spoke about Syria at length. My question is how the congress in Sochi can be integrated with the Geneva peace talks? Are these two parallel competing forums or do they have a common goal?

How are you going to engage all international actors in order to achieve success in the talks? What might be the role of the EU and, particularly, Belgium? Do you have any specific proposals for your Belgian counterparts on how to include them in these political negotiations?



Sergey Lavrov:

Getting the answer to the first question is easy by just reviewing the final statement of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. Anyone, even someone not much involved in these efforts, will see the connection between the Sochi congress and the Geneva talks. It is clearly said in the statement that the congress participants and all Syrians are asking the UN Secretary-General to instruct Staffan de Mistura to assist with further work on constitutional reform, finally approve the composition of the Constitutional Committee, its powers and rules of procedure. I thought you had already reviewed the results of the congress. They are published on the Foreign Ministry website. I will not go into too many details. I hope after the news conference you will read the document carefully. It has long been available.

As concerns international actors and their involvement, we invited a great number of observers to the congress based on the following criteria: all UNSC permanent members, for obvious reasons, all Syria’s neighbours (Iraq, Jordan, Libya) and Egypt as the country where the Cairo opposition group was formed at the time. Another group was formed in Riyadh, therefore, we also invited Saudi Arabia. The third group, the one mentioned in UNSC Resolution 2254, is the Moscow group. Russia was, naturally, represented in Sochi. We also invited Kazakhstan as the host country of the Astana process.

All the invited parties sent high-level representatives as observers, except for our Western partners. The United States, France and the United Kingdom, who claimed they were not present in Sochi in any capacity, did not tell the whole truth. All the three countries sent diplomats from their embassies to Sochi even though they said that the diplomats would not be serving as observers but only work on the sidelines. However, this was the logical, I think, circle of external actors attending the congress in Sochi. What happens next is up to Staffan de Mistura.

There is a support mechanism created long ago, the International Syria Support Group, co-chaired by Russia and the US. It has been a long time since the group convened at the ministerial level but its two targeted sub-groups, on the ceasefire and humanitarian issues, meet on a regular basis, every week, in Geneva. The meetings are attended by representatives of European foreign policy agencies from a large number of EU members. I assume that Belgium, as one of the key EU members, regularly receives information on how your colleagues in the EU see the situation within the said formats.

Certainly, when the constitutional process begins we will proceed from the premise that our UN colleagues will ensure its transparency and keep all the involved members of the international community up to date.

Russia, for its part, will continue to support these efforts through its participation in the Astana process along with Turkey and Iran. In late 2016, this process managed to spur on our UN colleagues’ relaxed efforts. With the exception of the first two months, the UN platform remained empty throughout 2016. But as soon as we announced the formation of the Astana platform, the UN immediately took the initiative. I am glad we managed to shake them up, just like the congress in Sochi shook up our counterparts. We are grateful to Staffan de Mistura for that. He participated in the Sochi Congress in person and it will give a helpful boost to his further efforts.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3073659






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the signing of a cooperation agreement between the Foreign Ministry and the Russian Military History Society, Moscow, February 14, 2017



14 February 2018 - 18:08








Mr Medinsky, friends,

A truly important step was taken today to promote cooperation between the Foreign Ministry and the Military History Society. As my colleague, Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky, said, we have many years of experience working together to preserve the memory of our heroes and Russia’s military history in order to prevent attempts to question our role. Unfortunately, such attempts are being made.

What is being done to preserve existing monuments and open new ones is an important and concrete contribution to our common national cause. Our embassies and consulates will continue to actively cooperate with representatives of the Military History Society to make sure that this work not only continues, but becomes even more effective.

As Mr Medinsky mentioned, this agreement enshrines our current relations, creates a certain regulatory base for promoting and strengthening them, and opens up new areas of joint activities, above all, opportunities for military history tourism. We will make sure our tour operators have maps of these monuments. I am confident that when our tourists go to Europe or other countries with such monuments, they will not miss the opportunity to visit such monuments and pay tribute to the heroes who brought glory to themselves and our Motherland.

Of course, we will continue - it does not require any additional efforts on our part - to oppose attempts to rewrite history, including World War II. These attempts have become rife, including in the "civilised" EU countries, as they refer to themselves. This is an important mission.

I would also like to say that the Foreign Ministry will engage Rossotrudnichestvo, the Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations in this joint work - they are already participating in it, but we will make this effort more systematic.

Once again, I would like to congratulate everyone here on the signing of this agreement.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3076877
__________________
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 11:54 PM.
Page generated in 3.70425 seconds.