Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia II

[Paul Anthony]

Alex, I'm the only one who ever replys on this thread? What or who are you waiting for??

[Alex Him]

Originally Posted by Paul Anthony

Alex, I'm the only one who ever replys on this thread?

You are the only one who systematically make posts that have nothing to do with the topics in which they appear.

What or who are you waiting for??

I expect that the forum moderators will hold an explanatory conversation with you or simply banned.

[Alex Him]

Interview by Permanent Representative of Russia to the EU Ambassador Vladimir Chizhov for Karenina.de



2 April 2021 - 20:50







Question:

Mr Ambassador, in 2019 you forecasted a new start of EU-Russian relations to be linked to a fresh EU-institutional cycle. Shortly after that, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has assumed office. How do you see the situation now?



Answer:

Actually, it was less of a prediction; it was more an expression of hope. I hoped for a new positive impetus. But let me say so: I have been here for more than 15 years, and I already saw several of these EU-cycles. There were many ups and downs in our relations. One of your colleagues has asked me once if we would need a “reload button” for the EU-Russian relations. In those days, I instead opted more for an accelerator pedal. But now, we need some magic flute literally to bring our relations back to life.



Question:

The last EU-Russia Summit took place in 2014. The meetings stopped since the Ukraine crisis. What exactly has triggered the breach?



Answer:

By January 2014 we have achieved a record of 32 summits between the EU and Russia’s delegations. I personally attended 30 of them. The next meeting was planned in Sotschi in June of that same year, but the EU delegation did not show up. Many problems had been piling up long before that, so the Maidan crisis and Crimea events served as a significant catalyst rather than a starting point. The EU then attempted to act as a mediator in Ukraine between the government and opposition but failed in this task completely. In fact, it was openly humiliated by Ukrainian nationalists and extremists who trampled on EU efforts to facilitate a compromise.



Question:

Back to the present: At the EU meetings end of March 2021, Foreign Ministers and Chiefs spoke in favour of revival of the Iran nuclear deal. Other security issues may be an area of interest for the Russian Federation, too. Are there signals to sit down again, as some EU top diplomats have already aired?



Answer:

Possible re-uptake of implementation of the Iranian nuclear deal is undoubtedly of interest for Russia, and we are cooperating with the EU External Action Service which is acting as coordinator of the JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. More broadly we believe there is urgent need for joint efforts to revive European Security both as a concept and a practical issue.

And speaking of Russia-EU dialogue, yes, I already sense slight changes in the mood towards Russia among the various Member States; now, the EU bureaucracy here in Brussels should follow. It’s not Russia that has shut any doors for dialogue, nor have we closed any venue here. Instead, the European Union has frozen almost all elements of our partnership architecture. There were two Russia-EU summits per year before, many different negotiation formats on various levels.



Question:

Moscow seems to favour bilateral talks with European Capitals over solid relations to the EU bloc. In what regard could a robust Union be of added value to the Russian Federation?



Answer:

An independent solid EU could act as a major player in a multipolar world. The paradox comes up whenever we discuss European issues with individual Member States. Then we hear very positive voices. But as soon as they gather in Brussels... you know, something odd is in the air here. Maybe it is because of the weather?



Question:

Indeed it is raining too much in the EU capital. So, what do you think is happening precisely when the EU Member States flock together as a Union?



Answer:

They produce strange things like so-called sanctions. After that, they are surprised when my Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, says that the EU cannot be regarded as a reliable partner. Do reliable partners sanction each other? Since the Biden administration came to office, many Europeans seem to have romantic emotions tied with the hope for improved EU-US relations. But these should not be at the cost of other partners, including Russia and China.



Question:

What is more relevant to the Russian Federation: a new strategic partnership with the EU, as the French President Macron has suggested or the robust economic relations with Germany?



Answer:

Surely both. Let me quote what Chancellor Merkel once said: “We are destined to share the same landmass”. I believe there is much more to share. It is a shared history, full of both good and bad experiences. We are part of the same civilization. Europeans should not underestimate our ancestors’ historic achievement, who expanded European culture boundaries to the Pacific coast and the border of China.



Question:

What is your take on a European map?



Answer:

Europe as a concept and a geopolitical entity is much larger than the EU. That is one of the misunderstandings I encounter in Brussels on a daily basis. Here, erroneously an equation mark is put between the EU and Europe. Instead, I would say Europe goes from Lisbon to Vladivostok.



Question:

Which cooperation areas would currently offer the most starting points for reanimated EU-Russian relations?



Answer:

Let’s face some of the most prominent current challenges – the common enemy number one is this pandemic. I am very sorry that the international community has failed to generate a common response to this, not ideological, not political, but a tiny little enemy. Instead, we have an unhealthy competition between vaccines and different regulations. Then, climate change will not disappear. Things might be much less complex and challenging if the EU would not anticipate new restrictions that my country and others might regard as discriminatory.



Question:

In 2005 both partners established roadmaps of four common spaces concerning external and internal security, economic and scientific, technological and cultural cooperation. Should there be a new architecture in the negotiation formats?



Answer:

There are many dots to be re-connected. We could have a lot of fruitful exchanges in the fields of science and technology, but also with cultural cooperation. Of course, we should continue the political dialogues on Iran and the Middle East. We are open for discussions on each partner’s role in the Balkans, provided the EU does not claim the Balkans as its fiefdom. Russia has century-long ties with the Balkan nations.



Question:

Foreign Minister Lavrov has complained about alleged EU attempts to shove away the Russian language and culture from Europe. Could you explain what has led him to these remarks?



Answer:

Sergey Lavrov has referred to the EU ignoring attempts to sideline Russian culture that we witness in several EU Member States, as is the case, for example, the disdain of Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic countries, but also beyond the EU, in Ukraine. In Western European countries, we see that Russian journalists and Russian media outlets face some administrative problems in France or an ongoing case with Russia Today in Germany.



Question:

Could the grant of more Schengen-visa for Russian citizens improve the mutual understanding of civil societies?



Answer:

Back in 2006 we signed a visa-facilitation agreement with the EU that is still in force today. Since then we were busy negotiating further travel freedom, but several times when we were close to success the EU backed down. And after the Ukrainian crisis this track was suspended by the EU, together with many others.



Question:

The Covid-vaccine Sputnik V has turned out very successful so far. Russia has put forward an application for it to be certified in the EU. What is your opinion about the Russian practice of a global vaccine-diplomacy with Sputnik V?



Answer:

We are not in the business of vaccine diplomacy. Russia’s primary task is to provide vaccines for the Russian population. However, being a responsible player in this medical field, as in others, we are open to cooperation. We are receiving many requests from foreign countries for samples, batches of vaccines and technology for their production. Actually, the global limiting factor is the capacity of production lines. No single country is in a position to immunise the entire world population. Cooperation is therefore desperately needed.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4664156






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on US and British plans to deploy land-based intermediate- and shorter-range missiles



5 April 2021 - 12:18



Pentagon officials have been making increasingly more statements during the past few weeks on practical actions to create and deploy land-based intermediate- and shorter-range missiles, which were previously prohibited under the INF Treaty which Washington has destroyed, around the world as soon as possible. It is a fact that the United States is working on a broad range of such weapons, including hypersonic missile systems. Progress in the R&D and trials of such weapons has been reported. In addition to this, the US military are establishing special cross-functional teams for the development and deployment of such weapons, two of them in Asia Pacific and one in Europe. The task of the missiles to be deployed in Europe will be to render air defence systems ineffective and to “punch a hole in the anti-access and area denial systems” of the adversary in conditions of a conflict with Russia.

The UK military have joined in these openly hostile and destabilising statements. They have announced the intention to upgrade the 44 US-made M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), which are currently in-service, including so that the launchers will also be able to fire the US’s Precision Strike Missile (PrSM). According to a UK Army’s press release, these weapons will have “global deep fires capability,” ready to neutralise the long-range air defence systems of hostile actors.

We have taken note of the Anglo-Saxon military commanders’ focus on targeting purely defensive systems that are protecting Russia from potential armed attacks. The information provided by the British military about PrSM, which allegedly has a range of 499km, is a clear and deliberate deception, considering the numerous statements made by the missile designers and Pentagon officials about their plans to upgrade the system so that it is capable of hitting targets at a range to up to 800km. The British presentation looks especially cynical after Brigadier General John Rafferty, the Pentagon curator of the project, said two weeks ago that they planned to test-fire the missile to see how much beyond 500 kilometres it can go.

The implementation of these military programmes is gaining momentum, which is definitely reducing the area for a political and diplomatic solution to the post-INF problem and for preventing a serious escalation in the missile sphere. This is taking place in the absence of clear signals on this topic from the political team of the new US administration and the overwhelming majority of the US’s NATO allies, which, as the INF Treaty crisis showed, have taken a conciliatory position on this topic of fundamental significance for European security.

We do not see any constructive response to the Russian initiatives based on a practical proposal to settle the sides’ concerns by adopting mutual moratoriums on the deployment of land-based intermediate- and shorter-range missiles and coordinating mutual measures to verify compliance with them.

We will continue to closely monitor the practical measures taken by the Americans and their allies in Europe and Asia Pacific to create land-based intermediate- and shorter-range missiles, including with due regard for the plans made public in Britain.

We are not closing the door to dialogue, but it cannot be ruled out in these circumstances that Russia will have to shift the focus increasingly more towards taking military-technical response measures against the arising missile threats.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4664612






Interview by Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov to Hindustan Times, April 6, 2021



6 April 2021 - 03:30



Question:

With India and Russia set to resume high-level engagements after the Covid-19 crisis, what will be priorities for bilateral agenda in 2021?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia is satisfied with the vigorous political dialogue with India on all levels that keeps on actively developing despite serious restrictions caused by the coronavirus pandemic. In 2020 we managed to successfully organize several events in face-to-face and online formats. Summits of the SCO and BRICS – a new type of multilateral associations where our countries cooperate fruitfully – are among them.

This year New Delhi holds BRICS chairmanship – we wish our Indian friends every success and are willing to contribute in every possible way in this regard. India has also joined the activities of the UN Security Council as its non-permanent member. We intend to continue close interaction within the mentioned as well as other international platforms.

We hope that the epidemiological situation would allow us to organize a bilateral summit in 2021. The dates of next sessions of the Inter-Governmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technical and Cultural Cooperation, Inter-Governmental Commission on Military and Military and Technical Cooperation and Inter-Parliamentary Commission are under consideration.

Given the need to overcome negative consequences of the pandemic for the world and national economies, our definite priorities include intensification of the Russian-Indian practical cooperation in areas such as trade, energy, agriculture, transport, finance and banking, science and technology, humanitarian ties.

I am convinced that the negotiations with my colleague Dr Subramaniam Jaishankar during my visit to New Delhi will promote further strengthening of the Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership that unites us.



Question:

During your recent visit to China, did you come away with any fresh insights from your interactions with the Chinese leadership regarding India-China relations? How does Russia currently see its relations with India and China, especially in view of Moscow’s efforts to help reduce tensions related to the border standoff in Ladakh?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are closely watching the process of normalization at the Line of Actual Control, functioning as the India-China border. We welcome the agreements reached after the telephone conversation between the Foreign Ministers of India and China on February 25, 2021, aimed at resolution of the situation.

We highly appreciate the constructive approach demonstrated by both sides. We pay due respect to the intensions of New Delhi and Beijing to act independently and within the frameworks of established multilayer bilateral dialogue mechanisms, without interference from outside. We expect both states as responsible members of the international community to find mutually acceptable political and diplomatic ways to remove existing differences at the earliest.



Question:

Russia has acknowledged India’s interests in Afghanistan and in efforts to find a solution to the situation in Afghanistan. However, India was not part of the recent “extended Troika” meeting in Moscow, and some even speculated this was done at the behest of Pakistan. What role does Russia see for India in efforts to find a settlement in Afghanistan?



Sergey Lavrov:

India is important player in the settlement in Afghanistan and undoubtedly should be engaged in international efforts supporting the Afghan national reconciliation.

New Delhi is not a participant of the extended “Troika” on Afghanistan, in the framework of which Moscow hosted intra-Afghan consultations on March 18 aimed at facilitation of the launch of peace process in the country. At the same time India is part of the Moscow format uniting the neighbouring states of Afghanistan, key regional countries and the USA. Such a composition allows to coordinate the assistance to national reconciliation process based on broad regional consensus. As the Afghan peace process moves forward, we are planning to resume the work of this mechanism.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4665351






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of External Affairs of India Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, New Delhi, April 6, 2021



6 April 202116:26

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 45:20

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 45:20

Ladies and gentlemen,

My friend Subrahmanyam Jaishankar,

Our talks were constructive, useful and trustworthy as is usual in relations between Russia and India.

By tradition, our relations stand out for mutual respect. They are intrinsically valuable and not subject to opportunistic fluctuations. We were pleased to state that our bilateral political dialogue has remained dynamic despite the coronavirus pandemic. We share the view that this emphasises the maturity and high sustainability of our relations that are described in documents, signed at the highest level, as a specially privileged strategic partnership.

We paid much attention to the need to draft the agenda of forthcoming bilateral contacts, including at the highest level. I refer to the visit by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to the Republic of India. I conveyed a verbal message to my colleague from the President to Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi on these and other issues.

We agreed to make joint efforts in overcoming the pandemic-caused decline in trade. We intend to build up our investment cooperation under the national programmes of our countries. We paid special attention to energy, including nuclear energy, peaceful space exploration and transport infrastructure projects in the Far East and the Arctic. Meetings of the co-chairs of the intergovernmental Russia-India commission on trade, economic, scientific, technical and cultural cooperation and its regular session will facilitate the implementation of these tasks.

We recognised the need to step up work on the updated intergovernmental agreement on mutual protection of investment and to increase the share of national currencies in mutual settlements.

Development of trade and economic cooperation with New Delhi is one of the priorities of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Proceeding from the previous agreements, we hope for an early start of the talks on a free-trade zone between the EAEU and India along the lines of mutual benefit.

We discussed the state of and prospects for bilateral military-technical cooperation (MTC), including the joint production of the latest weapons in India. Russia remains India’s leading external contractor in this strategically important area. I would like to note that we are the only partner that is giving India cutting-edge military technology. We are convinced that further deepening of MTC meets the national interests of both countries. That said, we respect the right of our Indian friends to diversify their ties in this area.

We praised the development of cooperation in peaceful space exploration, laying special emphasis on such areas as manned flight programmes, rocket engine production and satellite navigation.

An exchange of opinions on key contemporary themes and pressing regional issues revealed identical or similar views. In this vein, we discussed such issues as a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan, the Syrian crisis, the situation around Iran’s nuclear programme and the developments in Myanmar. We reviewed the situation in Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific Region as a whole, including our ties with ASEAN. Both ministers emphasised the importance of preserving ASEAN’s central role in the different formats that have taken shape in the region. We highly praised close bilateral cooperation in the world arena, including such venues as the UN, SCO, G20, and at BRICS, which India is chairing this year.

We noted the demand for cooperation in the RIC format and the East Asia Summit. We are grateful to our Indian colleagues for their responsible approach to world affairs and close coordination of positions on the issues that are important to our countries. India’s membership of the UN Security Council in 2021-2022 will further promote this coordination.

I am satisfied with the results of the talks and our mutual desire to expand versatile cooperation between our countries.

I invited my colleague and friend to pay a return visit to the Russian Federation. I hope to see him before too long.







Question (retranslated from English):

Political trust and military cooperation between Russia and China have been growing of late. It gives rise to rumours about the possibility of a military alliance. Does the Russian Foreign Ministry think that there is movement in that direction?



Sergey Lavrov:

No. Our bilateral documents approved at the highest level during Russian-Chinese summits have it that our relations have reached the best level ever throughout the whole of history but they are not aimed at establishing a military alliance.

It is not only in connection with Russian-Chinese relations that we hear speculation about military alliances. There are also rumours about the continuing promotion of such projects as setting up a “Middle East NATO” and recently there has even been talk of an “Asian NATO”.

Today we exchanged opinions on this matter. We and our Indian friends have a common position that this would be counterproductive. We are interested in making our cooperation inclusive and keen for it to work towards something and not against anyone.



Question (to both ministers, retranslated from English):

Is it possible that the Russian vaccine Sputnik V could be approved for emergency use in India? Have you discussed the possibility of Russia purchasing the Indian vaccine COVAXIN?



Sergey Lavrov:

We maintain close contacts with our Indian friends. The Russian Direct Investment Fund is entering into contracts with several Indian counterparties for the production of a total of 750 million doses of the Sputnik V vaccine. It has become possible thanks to the production facilities available in India. I do not rule out that further cooperation in this area could encompass vaccine production in Russia. Specialists should discuss it and proceed on the basis of the maximum effectiveness of such cooperation.



Question:

How would you comment on the latest statements made by Ukrainian officials and officers about the situation in Donbass? How close is the region to escalation? What is the United States’ and Europe’s stance on this matter?



Sergey Lavrov:

There have been many analytical articles and reports on this score. We are concerned about it. We are expressing our concerns to our European colleagues. We hope that Washington also has a similar understanding.

Unfortunately, so far, our Western colleagues’ actions and reactions to the build-up of military infrastructure and the redeployment of troops to the line of contact in Donbass have been disappointing. They continue to believe they absolutely have to support the Ukrainian government in every possible way, including its unacceptable actions and statements.

President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and the officials responsible for the work of the Normandy format and the Contact Group on Donbass keep saying the Minsk Agreements are only needed to preserve Western sanctions against Russia. Either they demand a full revision of the deal, or they propose to disrupt the agreed formats by inviting openly pro-Ukrainian representatives to the Normandy format and the Contact Group meetings. All this is regrettable. We have not seen any reaction to these statements from our Western colleagues, although Kiev has obviously been violating all the Minsk Agreements.

Now Kiev has moved from criticising the political framework for resolving the Donbass crisis to threats of military action. I hope this will finally give a jolt to the serene attitude of European capitals. I hope they will demand that Zelensky comply with the Minsk Agreements in full – in order to actually start moving (through dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk, as required by the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements) towards the elimination of security threats and the cessation of attacks on civilian facilities that continue to take lives (this is far from the first time). That direct dialogue should be an instrument for negotiating the final status of the regions in question and planning elections there on the terms agreed with Donetsk and Lugansk. This is nothing new. Unfortunately, when the Normandy format meets in one capacity or another – at the level of leaders, representatives or members of the foreign ministries – we do not see any vigorous effort on the part of our French and German colleagues to talk some sense into the Ukrainian side. There have been too many recent facts that call for this to be done urgently.



Question (translated from English):

Moscow is playing the leading role in the peace process in Afghanistan. Power can be shared with the Taliban. Will that help stabilise the situation in Afghanistan? As a major power and a major force in the region, can Russia assume responsibility as a guarantor of security in Afghanistan? In what areas can Russia and India cooperate in Afghanistan?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Taliban members are part of Afghan society. The decision on achieving a settlement in Afghanistan must include the participation of all political, ethnic and religious groups in Afghanistan; otherwise it will lack sustainability. This decision must rely on a balance of interests of these groups, including representation in government bodies. Any other approach that leaves a particular group out of the process will not lead to a realistic and sustainable agreement, and will include the risk of renewed hostilities, which is not what the participants of the current process are trying to achieve.

We hope that the agreements concluded between the United States and the Taliban under the previous US administration will be implemented, because, indeed, at some point they created a chance to reach an agreement between the warring factions. It will be sad if they fail to materialise.

With regard to ensuring Afghanistan’s security, it primarily depends on how quickly and efficiently a settlement is reached. It should cover matters of polity, representation and security. For many years now, Russia has been doing much to strengthen the potential of Afghanistan’s security forces and the Afghan army: we train personnel and supply military products, occasionally on preferential terms or even for free.

We believe that following reunification and settlement of the political issues, the international community will be in a position to do a better job of helping to strengthen Afghan security forces. Of course, we cannot ignore the region-wide implications. Concurrently with resolving intra-Afghan settlement issues, we would welcome holding consultations and talks on ways to support this agreement with confidence-building and security-strengthening actions with the involvement of Afghanistan's neighbours. We see eye-to-eye on this matter with India.

We have invariably stood for Afghanistan’s neighbours and influential countries in the region participating in creating conditions that would allow the Afghans to agree among themselves. We believe that the Moscow format is the best arrangement for bringing external players aboard. We have convened it several times. Importantly, this goes beyond Afghanistan’s direct neighbours and includes the countries of Central Asia, India, Pakistan, China, Iran, the United States and Russia. We stand ready to hold corresponding consultations if the above countries believe they should be held. We look forward to this helping to galvanise intra-Afghan talks, which, as you are aware, are underway in the capital of Qatar, Doha, but have lately run into major hurdles and came to a standstill.

To reiterate, a number of factors are piling up that need to be figured out in order to decide on the course of action in the Afghan settlement, meaning an “external contribution” to the effort to create proper conditions. Today, Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and I agreed that our special envoys for Afghanistan will continue to be in close communication on a regular basis.



Question:

Previously you noted that the United States is harshly "putting pressure" on India regarding its military-technical cooperation with Russia. Has this made it difficult to implement the existing agreements with New Delhi and negotiate new contracts?



Sergey Lavrov:

It was not me who pointed out that the United States has been putting pressure on India and on any other country that has or plans to sign contracts with Russia for the supply of weapons. This has been publicly and without any hesitation announced by the United States. Everyone knows this well. We are also well aware of the response from India.

American "calls" were not discussed today. We reaffirmed our commitment to the development of military technical cooperation. We have the Intergovernmental Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation, which has its own plans, including discussing the prospects for additional production of Russian military equipment in India as part of the Make in India and Self-Sufficient India concepts. I did not feel any hesitation here on the part of our Indian friends and partners.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4665966






Interview by Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov to a major English-language newspaper of Pakistan The News International, April 7, 2021



7 April 2021 - 05:00



Question:

Recently, another round of consultations took place in Moscow as part of the extended “Troika” on Afghanistan, which will likely to be followed by a session of talks in Doha. What are the prospects for an intra-Afghan dialogue given that the Government of President Ashraf Ghani avoids such negotiations? How will peace and security in South Asia be affected by India's unilateral actions in Kashmir, its active participation in the “Quad” (USA-India-Japan-Australia) and its dispute over the border areas with China?



Sergey Lavrov:

We expect that the meeting of the extended “Troika” of March 18, 2021 will give a necessary impetus to the intra-Afghan negotiations. We note the active role of the Pakistani side in the preparation of this event.

Moscow also hosted separate meetings between the Afghan delegation (headed by the Chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation Mr. Abdullah Abdullah) and representatives of the Taliban. We consider it important that both sides speak in favor of intensifying the intra-Afghan negotiation process.

As for New Delhi's participation in the “Quad”, we proceed from the fact that India as a responsible world power determines its foreign policy priorities by itself. At the same time we are convinced that disagreements between states in any region of the world including, of course, South Asia, should be resolved in a peaceful, civilized manner based on international law. Russia as a permanent member of the UN Security Council is ready to assist this in every possible way.

In principle we do not support the creation of divisive geopolitical structures in the spirit of the Cold War. In modern conditions there is demand for such multilateral associations, initiatives and concepts which are based on the principles of inclusiveness, collegiality and equality. It is this philosophy that underlies the activities of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, of which Moscow, Islamabad and New Delhi are members.

Russia is interested in building up cooperation with the Pakistani, Indian and other partners in Eurasia. We have common interests, above all, ensuring security and improving the quality of life of the peoples of our countries. A unifying agenda is being promoted by the initiative of Russian President Vladimir Putin to develop Greater Eurasian Partnership. Participation in it is open to all states of the continent, including the members of the EAEU, SCO, ASEAN, as well as, in case there is such interest, the European Union. Systematic implementation of the initiative will not only strengthen positive connectivity and improve the competitiveness of all participants but will also be a solid foundation in building a common continental space of peace and stability.



Question:

Your comments on the global multilateral response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the issue of equitable distribution of coronavirus vaccines. What role could the UN and other multilateral organizations play in resolving conflicts and ensuring the rule of law in relations between states?



Sergey Lavrov:

Despite efforts to curb the coronavirus infection, unfortunately, the international community has not fully coped with this dangerous challenge.

The current crisis not only reminds of the enduring value of a human life but also shows again that sooner or later most of the problems of our time become common. To tackle them efficiently we need to unite. Therefore from the very beginning we urged our partners to take joint steps. Now it is especially important to suspend trade barriers, illegitimate sanctions and restrictions in the financial, technological and information spheres.

The epidemic has demythologized the idea of superiority of the ultra-liberal model of development. It is obvious that self-sufficient countries with clearly formulated national interests demonstrate greater stress resistance. Those who took the path of ceding their independence, part of national sovereignty to others lost.

We regard WHO as the main international platform for coordinating global efforts in the fight against the pandemic. We presume that, on the whole, the Organization is coping with its functions. We will continue to provide multifaceted support to it.

Russia is one of the leaders in the field of global health care. We will continue to contribute to international efforts to combat COVID-19. We will continue to help the affected states both in bilateral formats and within multilateral structures. Our accumulated potential for countering infections allowed us to develop and launch the production of the Sputnik V vaccine in a short space of time. To date two more Russian vaccines against the new coronavirus infection have been registered.

Now the priority is vaccination of the population. Of course, the issue of an equitable distribution of coronavirus vaccines is very sensitive, especially for the poorest countries. In this regard we are ready to deliver safe and efficient Russian vaccines on a transparent basis. A lot of work is being done on this track. We have agreements on the supply of our vaccines with more than 50 states. A number of countries have launched the production of Sputnik V.

As for the second part of the question, the subjunctive mood is not entirely appropriate here. Same as 75 years ago, the UN is the "cornerstone" of the international legal architecture and its Security Council bears the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security.

Despite the growing challenges, the UN on the whole successfully copes with its responsibilities to resolve conflicts. As an example, I can mention more than ten peacekeeping operations currently deployed in various parts of the world. Even amid the difficulties caused by the pandemic, the Blue Helmets continue to fulfill their duty with dignity.

Russia as a founding member of the UN and a permanent member of the Security Council advocates strengthening the central role of the Organization in the world affairs. Our constant priority is to contribute to the formation of a more just and democratic, multipolar world order. It should be based on the UN Charter and not on dubious concepts such as the "rules-based order" promoted by Washington and its allies.



Question:

How close are the views of Russia and Pakistan on the various regional and international issues such as Afghanistan, peace and prosperity in South Asia and the Middle East? What are the plans for the development of trade and economic cooperation between the two countries especially in energy and other sectors as well as in defense?



Sergey Lavrov:

Moscow and Islamabad enjoy friendly, constructive relations which are based on the concurrence or similarity of approaches to the majority of topical issues of the international and regional agenda. Among them are the issues of strategic stability and of course Afghanistan. Suffice it to say that during the 75th session of the UN General Assembly the Pakistani partners supported all draft resolutions submitted by Russia and co-sponsored most of them. And, of course, we appreciate the contribution of Islamabad to the advancement of national reconciliation in Afghanistan, including through the mechanism of the extended “Troika” as mentioned above.

I would like to note that our states are consistent proponents of settling conflicts including in the Middle East and North Africa solely by political and diplomatic means in compliance with the principles of the UN Charter.

In the area of bilateral relations our priorities are well known. These are, above all, cooperation in combatting terrorism as well as trade and economic ties. We will continue to provide assistance in strengthening the anti-terrorist potential of the Pakistani law enforcement agencies through joint exercises including “Druzhba” (Friendship) and the “Arabian Monsoon”.

In the field of practical cooperation we also have a lot to be proud of. The past year saw a record volume of bilateral trade: it grew by 46% and reached $790 million. We are making necessary efforts to start the construction of the North-South gas pipeline – the flagship project in the energy sector. We hope that all remaining technical issues will be agreed upon in the very near future. Russian companies are ready to participate in the modernization of the energy sector and the railroad system of Pakistan.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4666211

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Islamabad, April 7, 2021



7 April 2021 - 12:14

Sergey Lavrov (E)

Sergey Lavrov (E)

Thank you, Mr Minister.

Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank our Pakistani hosts for the warm and hospitable welcome.

Russian-Pakistani relations are constructive and mutually beneficial. We have developed a trust-based political dialogue, including at the high and top levels. It is gratifying that we have maintained regular contacts despite the coronavirus pandemic.

It is encouraging that our bilateral trade reached a record-high level last year, growing by over 45 percent to $790 million. Both sides agree that this could be further improved. We should look for ways to deepen our economic cooperation still more. A crucial role in this belongs to the Intergovernmental Russian-Pakistani Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, which is scheduled to meet in Russia this year.

We exchanged views on the outlook for cooperation in energy, including our flagship project, the North-South gas pipeline from Karachi to Lahore. We signed an intergovernmental agreement on this in 2015. We are now itemising its topics before formalising them in a protocol to this agreement. I hope we will sign it and will be able to launch the project without any delay.

We reaffirmed Russia’s readiness to continue providing assistance to the strengthening of Pakistan’s counterterrorism capability, which includes the supply of relevant equipment. We believe that this will be in the interests of all regional countries. We agreed to continue the regular Friendship tactical exercises in mountain conditions and the Arabian Monsoon naval counterterrorism and anti-piracy exercises.

We agreed that we hold similar or identical views on current international affairs. We have a common interest in carrying on and strengthening the coordination of our efforts on the international stage, including at the UN. We pointed out that our Pakistani friends have been actively involved in the SCO’s practical activities, including its Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure, since Pakistan joined the SCO as a full member three years ago.

Russia, just like its Pakistani friends, is seriously concerned about the aggravation of security problems in Afghanistan. Terrorist activity is on the rise there, and ISIS is strengthening its positions in the country’s northern and eastern regions. We agreed to continue working to create conditions for the conflicting sides to find constructive solutions that would allow them to stop the civil war in Afghanistan on the basis of agreements on the establishment of inclusive power structures. This was the aim of the so-called Expanded Troika meeting on Afghanistan, which was held by Russia, China, the United States and Pakistan in Moscow on March 18, 2021.

We discussed the developments in the Middle East and North Africa, including Syria, Libya and Yemen, as well as a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. We believe that, in light of the dramatic events taking place in the region, it is unacceptable to overlook the goal of creating a Palestinian state. Russia is willing to encourage a direct dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis and will actively promote this stand.

We held an in-depth discussion on the situation in Asia Pacific. Ambiguous processes are developing there. A disruptive US-led geopolitical structure is being created there, and the strategies that are being promoted contradict everything that has been previously done in Asia Pacific. We strongly object to any attempts to create dividing lines there. We stand for the preservation of the open structures created with the central role of ASEAN.

During the talks, we also welcomed the recent steps taken by India and Pakistan to normalise bilateral relations.

We are satisfied with the outcome of our talks. We noted mutual readiness to continue to promote Russian-Pakistani ties.







Question (retranslated from English):

How do you see the future of trade between Russia and Pakistan?



Sergey Lavrov:

We saw a significant increase in mutual trade last year, mainly due to the supply of Russian wheat worth more than $200 million.

We are interested in making this upward trend sustainable. To do this, we need to diversify our relations in this area. The North-South gas pipeline project linking Karachi and Lahore is expected to play an important role here.

Some time ago now, there was a mutual interest in the supply of Russian LNG by Gazprom, Rosneft and Novatek. Appropriate proposals have been put forward. We are waiting for a response from our Pakistani partners.

Another new field in our energy ties is cooperation between Rosatom and the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. They are currently discussing specific steps in non-electric applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in particular, in medicine and industry.

These and other projects, which will also be discussed by the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation between Russia and Pakistan, will certainly add stability to our ties.



Question (to both ministers, retranslated from English):

The Russian Sputnik V vaccine has been approved in Pakistan for private use on a commercial basis. It has become widely popular, especially among young Pakistanis. Could you tell us more about the possibilities for expanding Russian-Pakistani cooperation in the production and distribution of Sputnik V?



Sergey Lavrov (answers after Shah Mahmood Qureshi):

We have indeed discussed this matter. Russia has already supplied 50,000 doses to Pakistan, and another 150,000 will be delivered soon. As Mr Qureshi mentioned, Pakistan's needs are immeasurably greater, but so far, the situation depends on expansion of production outside the Russian Federation, in countries that are our foreign partners. India and Belarus have already established the production of Sputnik V, and the Republic of Korea and a number of other countries will join them soon.

We are ready to try to help our Pakistani colleagues meet their needs using the available production capacity. But we also have obligations to countries that made requests earlier.

This is a very promising topic. Our respective experts will work on it.



Question (retranslated from English):

What is the current situation regarding the construction of the Pakistani North-South gas pipeline?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have already spoken in detail about this. There is a 2015 Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on cooperation on the North-South gas pipeline project. A protocol to it is being discussed now because some new circumstances need to be taken into account. As soon as our Pakistani colleagues are ready to sign the protocol, the project will go ahead.



Question (to both ministers):

Russia previously signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Iran and Pakistan on the Iran-Pakistan-India offshore gas pipeline project. However, we have heard nothing about this project for quite some time. Is it being discussed in practical terms? Or is it frozen due to the aggravating controversy between India and Pakistan?



Sergey Lavrov:

This topic was not discussed today.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4666612






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Deputy Prime Minister – Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Mukhtar Tleuberdi, Nur-Sultan, April 8, 2021



8 April 2021 - 14:32

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Ladies and gentlemen,

We had very constructive and fruitful talks with Deputy Prime Minister – Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Mukhtar Tleuberdi. I would like to use this occasion to once again thank our Kazakh friends for the warm welcome and hospitality. We maintain relations of strategic partnership and alliance. We regularly compare our views on the extensive common agenda, in accordance with the instructions of our presidents.

Some time ago, on September 9, 2020, we met in Moscow to coordinate our efforts during a meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers.

Today we had a detailed discussion on a number of subjects of mutual interest, primarily the upcoming events to be held at the high and top levels, including preparations for the 17th Russia-Kazakhstan Interregional Cooperation Forum, which, we hope, will be attended by our heads of state.

We expressed a high opinion of contacts maintained between our governments, parliaments and federal executive authorities, as well as between our regions and territories, primarily border ones.

We expressed satisfaction with our coordinated efforts to fight the coronavirus infection. The joint production of the Sputnik V vaccine has been launched within a matter of several months at the Karaganda pharmaceutical complex. We continue to provide the necessary components to Kazakhstan. We are very pleased that the people of Kazakhstan have high confidence in the Russian vaccine.

I reaffirmed Russia’s readiness to enrol Kazakh students (about 66,000 of them are studying in Russia), who can resume in-person studies at Russian universities. The education of approximately half, or more precisely 31,000 of them, is being financed from the Russian budget. Today we discussed ways to make the return of students as comfortable as possible, using both ground transportation and the resumed flights. We are interested in increasing the number of flights as soon as the epidemiological situation allows it.

Russia is the largest trade partner of Kazakhstan, accounting for some 20 percent of Kazakhstan’s foreign trade. We noted with satisfaction that our joint efforts helped prevent a dramatic decline in mutual trade that only decreased by 4.7 percent in 2020, to $19 billion, which is a great deal.

We believe that our mutual trade will resume growth through the active combined efforts of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation at the level of deputy prime ministers. Our trade in chemical products and agricultural raw materials increased last year. This is proof that positive results can be achieved through combined efforts within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union.

We welcomed the gradual restoration of trade and economic exchanges facilitated by the efforts of the intergovernmental commission. Despite the pandemic, a number of lucrative projects have been implemented including the construction of Kamaz factories in Kostanay, the launch of Eurochem chemical facilities in the Zhambyl Region, and a tire production project with Russia’s Tatneft in the Karaganda Region. We considered new formats and fields for industry cooperation. There are good prospects when it comes to industry, agriculture, renewable energy, banking and digital technology.
In June 2020, the Baikonur Cosmodrome marked its 65th anniversary. On October 4, 2021,the anniversary of the launch of the first artificial Earth satellite, we will pay tribute to the successes achieved by our joint efforts in peaceful space exploration. Our bilateral agenda now includes initiatives aimed at creating Kazakhstan's own space potential and at providing services to third countries using the launch site for commercial purposes. We also agreed on how we will celebrate the anniversary of Yury Gagarin’s flight into space.

We have a common stance with regard to the unfolding of integration processes in our common geopolitical landscape, the Eurasian space.

We expressed support for our Kazakh friends’ priorities and, in general, for their work as part of their chairmanship in the Eurasian Economic Union. We agreed to continue close coordination at other regional and international platforms such as the CIS, CSTO, SCO, as well as at the UN, OSCE and the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA). We praised the effective dialogue that we recently launched in the Central Asian Five plus Russia format at the level of foreign ministers. We coordinated our preparations for the fourth meeting of the C5+1 mechanism in the foreseeable future. We plan to consider the progress on implementing the statement made by foreign ministers of the Central Asian states and the Russian Federation on strategic fields of cooperation adopted at the previous meeting, on October 15, 2020.

We also discussed cooperation in the Caspian Sea region, including in the context of the preparations for the sixth Caspian summit to be held in Turkmenistan. The second Caspian Economic Forum is scheduled for August 12, in Moscow. We agreed that the joint effort of the five littoral states contributes to ensuring regional security, strengthening transport connectivity, protecting the environment, and developing tourism and scientific research ties.

We are expecting that the Islamic Republic of Iran will complete the procedure for the ratification of the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea, a treaty signed three years ago at the Fifth Caspian Summit in Aktau, as soon as possible. After that, this important document will come into force and will strengthen the foundations of our cooperation in the region of the Caspian Sea.







Question:

On Wednesday, Defence News reported that the United States had sent a diplomatic note to its partners in late March. The document says that Washington’s return to the Open Skies Treaty, which Russia allegedly continues to violate, will send the wrong message to Moscow and undermine the US position on arms control. What do you have say about this? Do you think the United States will return to the treaty?



Sergey Lavrov:

I didn’t see this note. We haven’t received any notes, although we sent out diplomatic notes officially notifying everyone that we were starting the procedure for withdrawing from the Open Skies Treaty, since we were not given guarantees that, with the United States out of the treaty, the Europeans would keep the data obtained during the flights over Russia’s territory to themselves. We asked them to confirm that they would not make that data available to the United States, and to acknowledge the fact that Russian observation flights, in keeping with the OST, would take place, including over areas that are home to US military bases in Western European NATO countries. This fully complies with the treaty.

They gave an evasive answer. They said that the treaty already provides that the observation data can only be transferred to member states, and there is no need to re-affirm what is already included in a legal document. We asked them to do so for one simple reason: we know for a fact that the Americans, during all the months following their announcement about withdrawal from the treaty, were trying to talk their allies into making a commitment to transfer such data to them secretly. So, we needed an additional guarantee which they failed to provide.

We announced the beginning of preparations for the procedure for leaving the OST. In telephone conversations between President Vladimir Putin and President Joe Biden, as well as in my contacts with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, we said that we had heard the new administration’s statements to the effect that they were considering the possibility of returning to the treaty. We also let them know that if such a decision was made, we would respond constructively and reconsider our plan to leave the OST after the United States left. We also told them that we would not wait indefinitely for them to decide. We understand that the new administration needs time to settle in, but everyone is aware of the treaty’s details, and there is nothing new to it. We expressed hope that the United States would clarify its position promptly.

Off the top of my head, all I can say about what you have just cited, “Washington’s return to the Open Skies Treaty, which Russia allegedly continues to violate, will send the wrong message to Moscow and undermine the US position on arms control” is that if returning to the treaty would undermine the United States’ position in the area of ​​arms control, then it does not want arms control in the first place. Like any other reasonable person, I can’t reach any other conclusion. So, we do not have any idea whether the Americans will return to the treaty or not. But we hope that this matter will be sorted out soon. We have set the procedures in motion. We cannot wait indefinitely.



Question:

Bloomberg reported, citing sources, that the Biden administration has completed an overview of Russia’s hostile actions, such as meddling in elections and hacker attacks, and is currently exploring the possibility of expelling Russian diplomats and imposing sanctions on persons affiliated with top Russian officials. Can you comment on this? Will Russia retaliate?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is difficult to say anything about this. We will respond to unfriendly steps, no question about it. I have to see concrete decisions. No announcement has been made. I read reports that the US administration had completed a review of Russia’s hostile actions. They did so surprisingly quickly. Usually, we are accused of so many sins that it takes them more than a couple of weeks, or even months, to do the job.

Perhaps, they will use other kinds of “punishment” on us. Clearly, because the United States is no longer part of the Open Skies Treaty, their hands are now untied, and their staff is now ready for new assignments. A special representative has been appointed to terminate the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline construction project. He will just cruise around and browbeat everyone. This kind of diplomacy goes beyond gunboat diplomacy. This is a new kind of diplomacy based on sanctions tools.

But this political course is facing more and more criticism in the United States. Even a pro-Washington entity like the Atlantic Council, a non-governmental organisation, is publishing materials criticising the absolutely dead-end (and perhaps even obtuse) US policy towards Russia, which is barren if you think about the goals announced back when the sanctions were imposed. This situation has arisen many times. These actions prove only one thing to us: we must rely on ourselves, because neither the United States, nor its allies are reliable partners. When it comes to areas that are crucial for Russia, we cannot rely on their mood swings or which side of the bed they get out of in the morning.

US State Department spokesman Ned Price put out statements to the effect that sanctions would be imposed, but Washington is interested in having stable and predictable relations with Russia. This doesn’t sound convincing. We will wait for concrete action.



Question (to both ministers):

In Russia, COVID-certificates will be bound to foreign travel passports. Kazakhstan will also adopt electronic vaccination passports. Are there any plans to introduce a single vaccination passport in the EAEU countries? If not, will such passports of the EAEU member states be mutually recognised?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Mukhtar Tleuberdi):

Our sanitary authorities are dealing with this issue. They understand the epidemiological situation and its evolution better than we do. However, there has been talk of vaccination passports for quite a long time. Initially, it started in the EU and then such discussion gave rise to controversial comments because it cannot be allowed (and I agree with this) that vaccination passports impinge on human rights, including the right to movement. Such ideas were initially discussed in the EU.

Now, this discussion is taking on a more reasonable configuration, but the question remains. As my colleague said just now, in the EAEU framework we have to work out common rules that would not limit the right to movement. Vaccination passports (or whatever would be a better term for them) should have only one objective: to show the document holder’s health status. I will say it again – sanitary authorities are working on it. As they arrive at shared conclusions, the transport authorities will step in because this issue mainly concerns movement and travel.



Question (for both ministers):

It is taking the European regulator much more than a month to register Sputnik V. Is it possible to create an international mechanism, for example, at the WHO, so as to avoid procrastination and to have common criteria?

Has the pandemic affected the development of cooperation and the pace of integration processes between Russia and Kazakhstan?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would not like to make any critical statements today. When the West claims that Russia and China are waging a hybrid “vaccine war” or that they are using their vaccines as a geopolitical tool, this is really sad. This is a reflection of the problems to do with vaccination in the West, including in the EU. We never make critical statements unreasonably, and we never rejoice at their misfortunes, including when it comes to vaccines. Our media only repost and report what the EU media write about. This is the only thing they do regarding this. If you believe that our citizens are not entitled to know what Western news agencies tell their audiences, this is not right.

As for Sputnik, the situation is not clear to us. During his conversation with European leaders, including President of the European Council Charles Michel, President Vladimir Putin provided concrete information regarding the day we submitted registration applications, who did this and the persons to whom we sent them, as well as when we provided additional documents.

We know that the EU has its own rules, customs and traditions, and we must accept this as a fact of life. We want to cooperate. People in Europe are dissatisfied with the fact that the registration of Sputnik V is taking such a long time at the European Medicines Agency. Deputy Prime Minister of Slovakia Richard Sulik mentioned this, and the sentiments are similar in Hungary, Italy and many other countries.

We only want humankind to come together against this evil. When President Putin announced last August that Russia had created the world’s first vaccine, he added that we invite all sides to broad international cooperation. We did not have any “vaccine war” in mind. Our President spoke about cooperation and the rallying of efforts. Judging by the reaction of our Western colleagues, they see the situation in a different light. We are collaborating with those who want this, who care for the health of their people. These are Kazakhstan, China, India, Belarus and many other countries.



Question:

Victory Day is just around the corner. Do you know if the traditional parade will be held on Red Square this year? If so, will foreign leaders, including from Kazakhstan, be invited to attend it?



Sergey Lavrov:

The President’s press secretary made a statement regarding this only yesterday. He said the parade would be held as usual. Since this is not a round anniversary, we do not plan, so far, to invite foreign leaders to the event. This is what the Kremlin has said. I believe that, if you are interested in this particular subject, you have probably read this news. It is available on all the social networks.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4670761






Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko’s remarks at the Northern Dimension Forum, held via videoconference, April 8, 2021



9 April 2021 - 12:37







Colleagues,

First of all, I would like to say that I am honoured to speak here at the 12th Northern Dimension Forum. It is gratifying that such meetings are not affected by political problems or by the pandemic. This confirms the relevance of our dialogue and cooperation, as well as, of course, the organisers’ dedication and willingness to tackle short-term difficulties. I would like to emphasise that we are grateful for the opportunity to have this dialogue, especially in the current difficult conditions. I would like to thank the Northern Dimension Business Council and its co-chairs, the Association of European Businesses, the Skolkovo Moscow School of Management, and the Graduate School of Management at St Petersburg State University. On behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I would like to wish the participants rewarding discussions and agreements that will facilitate the further development of the Northern Dimension.

Despite the contradictory signals we hear these days regarding the dialogue between Russia and the European Union, I would like to emphasise that, no matter what is being said in the European Union and overseas, relations between us – the Russian Federation and European countries – must have a truly strategic nature. We strongly believe that making them hostage to momentary political games is a short-sighted approach, just like the attempts to speak with Russia in the language of force, sanctions and blackmail.

I think I will not be stretching it to say that business sometimes shows more wisdom than politicians do. As we can see, economic ties remain in place despite the highly turbulent political situation. Trade and economic relations are expanding, if anything. Admittedly, they have decreased for various reasons since 2013, when trade between the European Union and Russia reached $417 billion. It later shrank to a mere $200 billion, and then rose again, and we believe this growth is driven by the efforts of the business community. This has to do with the quality of economic exchanges and investment, businesses’ interest in expanding to new markets, and their confidence that these markets will provide drivers for economic growth.

Once again, I would like to emphasise that politics cannot change the geography of neighbourhood. We remain close neighbours and important trade partners. We depend on each other, and Russia is not weighed down by this dependence. We are united by a common history, culture, and thousands of human ties. We share a common responsibility for the security of our common continent, Eurasia. And let me remind you that the vision of a common economic and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, proposed by the President of the Russian Federation, remains the underlying ideology for the development of an entire range of ties, including with the European Union.

It so happened that Brussels renounced systemic work with Russia in 2014. All institutions and the entire system of our relations that had evolved for years, including the conduct of summits, were demolished. Nevertheless, life shows that there is no alternative to reasonable cooperation. And we are ready for joint work, naturally, on the basis of mutual respect and a search for a balance of interests.

We are convinced that it is always possible to cooperate, even in the current complicated circumstances. Everyone has heard about the results of the February 5 talks between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. To be frank, it was absolutely unjust that the outcome of their talks was judged as a failure. In contrast, they discussed prospects for advancing dialogue in such significant spheres as healthcare, dealing with climate change, scientific and technological cooperation and all-out efforts to establish a “green” economy. However, little was said about this. By the way, this included prospects for introducing a carbon tax that, indeed, could create absolutely unnecessary difficulties and obstacles hampering economic cooperation.

Obviously, cooperation in digitalisation and energy, efforts to counter trans-border challenges and threats, including international terrorism, drug trafficking and cybercrime, remain in high demand. We assume that we have common interests. This concerns the situation in various regions of the world and the sphere of crisis management. The Russian Federation is ready for cooperation on an equitable basis. Of course, this also includes the fight against the pandemic which, unfortunately, has now become a stage of political and ideological confrontation. This runs completely counter to the task of coping with this common threat that knows no borders and which does not choose people in line with statehood or any other principles. And we hope very much that Russian vaccines will be certified soon, and that it will be possible to launch systemic cooperation for the benefit of all European nations in the interests of building a safe space for all its inhabitants.

Today, I would like to note that regional cooperation, first of all, within the framework of the joint policy of Russia, the European Union, Norway and Iceland (I am talking about the Northern Dimension), remains an island of stability. Our estimates show that such cooperation meets the interests of all its participants, and the experience of direct dialogue serves as a good safety net for preserving and strengthening trust; as we can see, there is now a shortage of trust in interstate relations.

As you have already said, relevant partnerships are conducting practical work to preserve the regional environment, to resolve significant transport and logistics problems and those in the area of healthcare, social wellbeing and culture. The Northern Dimension Business Council plays a special role. All of us know about its contribution to expanded economic ties between our countries, to making the region more competitive and to strengthening mutual bonds. We are confident that the Council’s active cooperation with the European Business Association makes it possible to expand the format of discussions and to advance the principles of the Northern Dimension, based on the equality, trust and mutual responsibility of partners, all over Europe.

There is huge potential, including when it comes to educating young people in this constructive spirit, in the Northern Dimension Institute (NDI) with its network that unites 33 North European universities, which can become the think tank of this policy. We hope that the connections of the DNI, which has a considerable expert capability, and of the Northern Dimension Business Council will produce increasingly greater results.

I would like to point out the diversified and multifaceted nature of regional cooperation in Northern Europe. Its important components are the programmes of cross-border and interregional cooperation between Russia and EU countries (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Sweden), plus Norway. The programmes underway within the framework of the current budget cycle involve over 500 Russian project partners, and new programmes are being prepared for the next seven-year period. You may be aware that Russia is the only non-EU country that is investing considerable funds into cross-border cooperation.

Considering that we have the same priorities – environmental protection, healthcare, transport, culture, education, SME support, smart and marine economy – it would be reasonable to consider the alignment of the Northern Dimension’s programmes and structures, especially since Russia, which is already a member of the Baltic Sea Region programme, is preparing to join the Northern Periphery and Arctic programme.

It is no less important to strengthen the ND’s interaction and unification potential of the other multilateral cooperation platforms in Northern Europe, namely, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, and the Arctic Council.

Overall, we believe that the potential of the Northern Dimension is far from being exhausted. We can still do much more together. And we are delighted that the EU, Norway and Iceland are acting on the assumption that this instrument, which turned out to be less susceptible to changes in the political situation, should be used in the interests of regional development and hence in the interests of all the nations in the ND area that can make use of the benefits of this cooperation. I would like to wish the participants in today’s event every success and constructive discussion. I hope this will help us identify new projects that will serve the interests of our nations.

I would like to mention once again that we must not only move forward in the spheres of our traditional interaction, but also try to find common language in the fields where we simply must build up our collaboration. I have already mentioned climate change and digitalisation. The lurking danger is that, unless we launch a political dialogue right now, a day may come when as a result of political activities dividing lines will appear in these spheres of crucial importance for international cooperation, the lines we do not need if we want to preserve a united Europe.

Thank you. I would like to once again wish good health and every success to all of you.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4672684






Published on April 8, 2021

Russian Deputy Chief of Mission Roman Babushkin on Russia-India vaccine cooperation

Russian Deputy Chief of Mission Roman Babushkin on Russia-India vaccine cooperation

[Alex Him]

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 9, 2021



9 April 2021 - 18:11

Maria Zakharova (E) - 01:47:40

Maria Zakharova (E) - 01:47:40

At the previous briefing we announced Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visits to Egypt and Iran. Today I have more information on his schedule.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of Serbia Nikola Selakovic

On April 16, Moscow will host talks between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Foreign Minister of the Republic of Serbia Nikola Selakovic.

The ministers are expected to discuss all aspects of bilateral cooperation and exchange views on current international and regional issues. Additional information on the talks will be published on the Foreign Ministry’s official websites and social network accounts.



Mutual support between Russia and Turkmenistan in infectious diseases response

We continue to provide information on Russia’s actions and steps to help various countries at this difficult moment in history in terms of combating the pandemic.

As part of Russian-Turkmen cooperation based on the principles of strategic partnership, on April 1, 2021, the Russian Emergencies Ministry’s plane delivered medical supplies to Turkmenistan in order to assist in the prevention of infectious diseases in this friendly state. Medicines, protective suits, masks and medical equipment (devices for ultrasound examinations and intensive care, etc.) were sent from Russia.

In turn, as a measure of mutual support, Turkmenistan donated another consignment of high-quality Turkmen goods to the Russian side, which arrived in Astrakhan on April 5. The delivered goods will be forwarded to medical institutions in the Astrakhan Region. We express our deep gratitude to the leaders of Turkmenistan for this gesture of goodwill in the spirit of friendship and neighbourliness, which is especially valuable in the difficult conditions of the global pandemic.



Opening of the 211th UNESCO Executive Board session

On April 7, 2021, the 211th UNESCO Executive Board session opened in Paris. Due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, it will take place via videoconference with the exception of the human rights procedures of the Committee on Conventions and Recommendations.

The participants will review over 30 agenda items on implementing the decisions and resolutions adopted by the Executive Board and the General Conference at previous sessions, as well as financial, administrative and personnel issues.

They will focus on discussing the projects under the Medium-Term Strategy for 2022-2029 and the programme and budget for 2022-2025, as well as a personal interview with UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay as a candidate for re-election and preparations for the 41st UNESCO General Conference in November.

The participants will listen to reports on implementing the Futures of Education initiative, progress in mitigating the impact of climate change on cultural and natural heritage items, the outcome of the G20 culture ministers meeting last November, the reform of the Memory of the World programme, the Small Island Developing States Action Plan, the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, the assessment of UNESCO’s performance in reviving and promoting the languages of indigenous people as part of the International Year of Indigenous Languages (2019) and the endorsement of new applications for the UNESCO Global Geopark designation.

The participants are expected to adopt a number of resolutions on Africa to develop the Slave Route Project, assess the operational strategy for the Priority Africa global project (2014-2021) and map out further ways of carrying out this project.

They also plan to endorse a list of commemorative days to be observed by UNESCO in 2022-2023, and to be submitted to the General Conference for consideration. It contains three anniversaries suggested by Russia: 200 years since the birth of playwright Alexander Ostrovsky (1823-1886); 150 years since the birth of pianist and composer Sergei Rachmaninoff (1873-1943); and 150 years since the birth of opera and chamber singer Feodor Chaliapin (1873-1938).

The Executive Board will also discuss draft resolutions initiated by the member countries, including a proposal to announce international days for biosphere reserves and geo-diversity, coauthored by Russia.

The session will come to a close on April 21.



Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko’s remarks at the 12th Northern Dimension Forum

Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko spoke at the 12th Northern Dimension Forum, held via videoconference on April 8, 2021. This forum has been one of the major annual events for cooperative policy carried out by Russia, the EU, Iceland and Norway since 2007.

The forum was organised by the Northern Dimension Business Council in cooperation with the Association of European Businesses, the Graduate School of Management at St Petersburg State University and the Skolkovo Moscow School of Management.

This forum was devoted to the theme: “Connectivity now. Boosting flows of people, information, energy, goods and services.” It was attended by over 400 representatives of Russian and foreign business circles, government agencies and scientific, education and non-governmental organisations.

During the plenary meeting and the parallel sessions of the working groups of the forum, leading experts of the partnerships of the Northern Dimension, its Institute and the Association of European Businesses discussed topical issues and opportunities for promoting cooperation in environmental protection, the circular economy, energy efficiency, transport and logistics, healthcare digitisation, efforts to overcome the aftereffects of the coronavirus pandemic and creative industries.

They reaffirmed their willingness to broaden versatile and mutually beneficial cooperation for the sustainable development of Europe.



The 6th Eastern Economic Forum

On September 2-4, Vladivostok will host the 6th Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) established by President Vladimir Putin in order to promote the economic growth of the Russian Far East and to expand international cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region.

Previous forums, in which the leaders of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Mongolia took part, clearly show that the forum has become a leading dialogue platform on pressing socioeconomic issues in the region. We see our partners’ genuine interest in deepening practical cooperation with the Russian Far East. Over 8,500 leading representatives of the government, expert and business circles from 65 countries of the Asia-Pacific and other regions of the world took part in the forum in 2019, resulting in the signing of 270 various agreements totalling 3.47 trillion roubles in industries such as the petrochemical, mining, timber and fishing industries, agriculture, transport, logistics, aircraft and shipbuilding, and tourism.

The upcoming Eastern Economic Forum’s agenda will be based on current developments and focus on identifying new solutions in the context of the post-pandemic economic recovery goals. The participants will focus on the potential for creating a wide integration contour in Greater Eurasia. The forum’s traditionally extensive programme is being drafted, which includes plenary and theme-based sessions, business dialogues, exhibitions and cultural functions.

We hope that the forum will help us take another major step forward in implementing our strategic course to make this part of Russia a centre of economic growth in the Asia-Pacific region.



The Foreign Ministry opens a Rutube account

We continue to expand our online presence. As you are aware, our briefings are broadcast on the ministerial website, our social media accounts and online platforms.

As is known, many gigantic internet monopolies act dishonestly and unseemly towards online resources. I’m talking about mass media and official accounts operated by government organisations. We have heard a number of Western companies saying they are unwilling to work with Russian representatives. A lot has been done and said by representatives of the “progressive” Western community. We heard them, took note of that, and will now use Rutube for our broadcasts.

As you are aware, the Russian segment of the worldwide web marked its 27th birthday on April 7. The Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department has made its contribution to the development of Runet.

In 1998, we were among the first Russian federal agencies to register our website. We were among the first to embrace digital diplomacy. We were also among the first to broadcast live events online on social media.

We are trying to maintain and expand this wonderful tradition. We are now using Rutube video hosting, which is a pilot project. Today’s briefing is broadcast on the Rutube platform, among others.

The other day, Rutube overhauled its interface, added new functionality and made a huge step towards becoming an alternative to Western video hosting platforms. The only difference is, unlike well-known American platforms, it remains free from the IT monopolists’ censorship, rigged search queries and non-transparent algorithms.

I hope that our decision and a concrete practical step in this direction will help develop the Russian segment of the internet and a new generation of domestic resources and websites, which matters a lot to us.

We are tired of the internet monopolies’ censorship. This must be countered not only with statements and demands, but concrete actions as well, which we did.

Subscribe to our channel and follow current events in Russia’s foreign policy.



Donbass update

We are closely following the situation in Donbass. Regretfully, the situation there remains complicated and is prone to escalation.

The reason for this is Kiev’s belligerent attitude, which is still based on the illusion that there can be a military solution to the conflict in the country’s southeast. Troops and military equipment are being deployed there. Reservist mobilisation plans are being updated. Ukrainian media are fanning hysteria about a mythical Russian threat and Moscow’s plans to attack Ukraine very soon. All this is happening at the prompting of Kiev’s Western sponsors, with overt public support.

We have also paid attention to the statement by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, who visited Donbass yesterday, that the country’s admission to NATO would allegedly put an end to the conflict in the region. The hypothetical membership in the alliance would, contrary to Kiev’s expectations, not bring peace to Ukraine but would result in a large-scale escalation in its southeast and may lead to irreversible consequences for Ukrainian statehood.

We are calling on the Kiev authorities yet again to act responsibly and start implementing their obligations under the Minsk Package of Measures. This package is the programme approved by the international community which should bring peace to Ukraine as a whole and to its Donbass region. No illusions, fantasies or provocations are needed. If Kiev declares its wish and desire to establish peaceful life, this should be done. The plan is on the table, and it has been there for a long time now. Instead of running around this table and making statements leading to nothing but provocations, and engaging in them, they just have to fulfil the Minsk Package of Measures.



Russia begins vaccination of OSCE Observer Mission staff at Gukovo and Donetsk checkpoints on Russian-Ukrainian border

Last week, members of the OSCE Observer Mission received the first doses of the Russian Sputnik V vaccine at the Gukovo and Donetsk checkpoints on the Russian-Ukrainian border. The OSCE leadership addressed us with such a request, and it was granted. About 20 OSCE staff members from 15 countries who work in the Rostov Region will be vaccinated with the Russian vaccine.

This is one of the first instances where a team from this international organisation – the OSCE has field missions in 16 member states – has received the opportunity to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

As a reminder, the OSCE Observer Mission has been working in Russia since July 2014. It monitors and reports on the situation at two Russian checkpoints at the Russian-Ukrainian border, a section that is not controlled by Kiev.

Contrary to stories repeatedly planted by the Ukrainian authorities, the Observer Mission has not recorded any cases of Russian military units or equipment crossing into Ukraine over its entire tenure. It is a pet subject for the Kiev regime, Western media outlets and political figures. A paradoxical situation seems to have emerged after all these years – observers who have an official mandate there have observed no such cases, while Kiev promotes a propaganda campaign suggesting the opposite. Unsurprisingly, the observers’ work is barely covered by the media. It probably did not seem like anything newsworthy from Kiev’s perspective.

I would like to remind you that creating this mission in the summer of 2014, even before the Minsk Agreements were signed, was a goodwill gesture from Russia. The motive was to promote a peaceful political settlement in the internal Ukrainian conflict, to encourage the authorities in Kiev to end the punitive operation in the southeast of the country and begin a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. Unfortunately, Kiev never properly reciprocated that decision. On the contrary, they chose armed escalation, which led to numerous casualties and destruction.

The Ukrainian authorities are still trying to evade, in every possible way, taking concrete steps to resolve the situation in Donbass peacefully. They continue to ignore the letter and spirit of the Minsk Package of Measures, which contains clear indications of the need to agree on various aspects of the settlement between representatives of the Ukrainian government and of certain parts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions through a direct dialogue in the Contact Group. Instead, statements of a “Russian threat” are released increasingly more often by Kiev, while Ukrainian troops are building up their presence at the line of contact and continue firing, affecting civilians in Donbass.

In such circumstances, one starts wondering whether goodwill gestures from Russia – such as the OSCE observers’ presence on the Russian-Ukrainian border – actually have any positive effect on the peaceful resolution of this crisis.



Unfriendly moves by Ukrainian authorities

The other day, after another bout of Russophobia, the Ukrainian authorities decided to impose sanctions on several organisations, including the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo). The Agency is forbidden from engaging in any activities in Ukraine, even in activities that it has never carried out before. This openly unfriendly move will not allow the Rossotrudnichestvo Representative Office in Ukraine and the Russian Science and Culture Centre in Kiev to function normally.

The newly approved sanctions directly contradict the effective Agreement on the Establishment and the Terms of Functioning of Information and Cultural Centres signed by the Russian and Ukrainian governments on February 27, 1998. In this connection, we forwarded a note to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, demanding that an explanation be provided regarding the position of the Ukrainian authorities on this issue, as well as whether the Ukrainian side intends to deliver on its international law commitments under this agreement.

There has been no reply so far, but we want to note that Ukraine also has its National Culture Centre in Moscow and that its activities are regulated by the same agreement. We are looking forward to receiving an answer that clarifies Ukraine’s position.



United States’ biological warfare

Prior to this briefing we have received many questions from the Russian and foreign media regarding the United States’ military-related biological activity, including near Russian borders.

Secretary of the Russian Security Council Nikolay Patrushev gave a detailed statement for the Russian media on this subject.

I would like to answer those questions and add that Russia is expressing serious concern again (we have pointed this out repeatedly over the past few years) about the US’ biological warfare both on its own territory and abroad. I would like to underscore that when we say “concern,” we mean not just a feeling, but a series of practical steps that we are taking. We contact our neighbours, meet to discuss this issue, raise questions at international organisations that specialise in this topic, and much more. Do not assume that our “concern” is just a bunch of letters and talk. This is not true. It is a set of systematic measures that our country is taking in this area.

Reasonable questions arise about the compliance of the activities being carried out in American biological laboratories with the requirements of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). In the absence of an effective verification mechanism within the BTWC, because the initiative was blocked by Washington in 2001, there is no legal requirement that the American side is to share information on the research these biological facilities are engaged in.

In this context, there have been truly indicative cases of American laboratories ending up in the centre of major international scandals. For example, an investigation into the 2001 terrorist attacks, when anthrax spores were put into letters, revealed that the scientist who mailed the poisoned envelopes through the US postal system was employed at Fort Detrick, the Pentagon’s top biodefence facility.

Russia has also repeatedly stated its position on US military biological activity in the post-Soviet countries. In particular, the activities at the Richard Lugar Centre for Public Health Research in Georgia, built with the Pentagon’s money, which houses the US Army Medical Research Directorate - Georgia, raises many well-grounded questions. This topic has been widely discussed, including publicly (1, 2, 3, 4).

In order to clear any concern about compliance with the BTWC, we consistently call for intensifying efforts to strengthen the convention regime, including through the adoption of a legally binding Protocol to the BTWC with an effective verification mechanism. This would also be facilitated by the implementation of Russia’s initiative to improve confidence-building measures within the BTWC by providing member states with information on military biological activity outside national territories. We also consider it possible to invoke Article V of the convention, which requires the member states to consult with each other in resolving any issues in relation to the BTWC.



The Hague Court of Appeal once again confirms the legality of the decision to reject the return of Dutch citizens from Syria

Russia’s Western partners are mounting a real information attack against Russia on human rights issues. They find everything that Russia does unsuitable. They express concern bordering on hysterics over the destinies of people “dear to their hearts,” whom they consider “innocent victims.”

We have repeatedly told our Western partners that we are sincere participants in all mechanisms that protect human rights in the organisations of which we are members. We meticulously fulfill our commitments. We would like to repeat that the number of human rights problems that they have in their own countries deprives them of any right to criticise anyone else for human rights violations until they resolve these problems at home.

For instance, the Netherlands regularly lashes out at Russia at all levels (government agencies, NGOs and the media) for its allegedly bad human rights record. This has become a trend in the Netherlands. Let’s see what these authorities can do about human rights protection at home.

Last week, the Hague Court of Appeal ruled that the Dutch authorities rightfully refuse to repatriate a Dutch citizen from a refugee camp in the north of Syria. The court admits that the woman is gravely ill and seriously incapacitated and has to live in inhumane conditions without enough food or drinking water. However, the Dutch Themis does not see, or to be more precise, does not want to see, the “political and practical expediency” of helping her.

She is a Dutch citizen but the authorities in the Netherlands refuse to provide her with what she is asking for. This is an obvious human rights issue.

It is claimed that for this woman’s repatriation the Netherlands would have to send a mission of experts to Syria, which has been ruled out because of the risk to their lives and safety. Moreover, The Hague has no formal ties with either official Damascus or the groups that control the north of Syria. What kind of a “democratic approach” is this? So, if The Hague has no diplomatic relations with a country, the human rights issues in that country are simply ignored, even if the rights of its own citizen are violated.

This is not the first case. Earlier, Dutch justice issued a similar verdict on the lack of an obligation to return a group of women and children, which are also Dutch citizens, from a Syrian refugee camp.

Again, these people are Dutch citizens and they are abroad. They need help. They are not simply deprived of what they would like to have. They do not have what they need to sustain their lives. The Dutch Government does not see any human rights problem here and talks about “the lack of an obligation” to help them in any way. How can they be so cynical – denying help to its own citizens while expressing endless concern over the nationals of other states?

Obviously, the repatriation of such citizens is a headache for many Western countries. However, the Dutch approach stands out even in this context. The leading propagandists of “democratic values” are closing their eyes to glaring human rights violations as regards their own citizens. Moreover, they try to deprive them of Dutch citizenship at every opportunity. Now The Hague has decided to justify this policy with the kingdom’s matching judicial practice. Such are the traditions of the world of law in one of central Western states.



Inmate abuse in the United States

Literally every day, politicians, ministries and departments at different levels, and the US administration show their concern about human rights around the world. A noble cause, but first you need to take care of your own problems, and they do need your attention.

The inhuman treatment of inmates in US prisons raises questions. Violence has become commonplace, and has transformed prisons, many of which are run by private companies, almost into torture facilities ruled by arbitrariness and impunity. I’m talking about regular prisons, not Guantanamo or flying CIA prisons.

I’ll cite just one example that clearly illustrates how defenceless inmates in US prisons are against the sadists working there. On March 20, at the Washington, D.C. Central Detention Centre, inmate Ryan Samsel, who was taken into custody as a suspect and handcuffed, was severely beaten by two prison guards. They smashed his face, broke his nose, knocked out his jaw, injured his eye and brought the man to a state of mental disorder. He spent the night following the beating in a cell unconscious, without medical help.

The detainee’s lawyer has so far unsuccessfully asked the prison administration to provide his client’s medical record and to conduct a thorough investigation of the incident, which is by no means a one-time occurrence in this or most other US prisons. Thousands of other inmates complain about prison conditions and the guards who intimidate them.

Where is the State Department? Where is the presidential administration? Briefings are held daily. Why isn’t a word ever said about the inhuman conditions in American prisons for US citizens and foreign nationals?

Viktor Bout and Konstantin Yaroshenko were convicted on fabricated charges and are retained in custody as political prisoners.

Viktor Bout was kidnapped by US special services in Thailand and sentenced to 25 years after refusing to plead guilty on suspicion of arms trafficking. He is humiliated and subjected to psychological pressure on a daily basis. Konstantin Yaroshenko was illegally detained in Liberia in 2010 and subjected to brutal interrogation as a result of which he lost teeth and received major injuries to his internal organs. He was then taken to the United States and sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges based entirely on the testimony of sham agents.

Even basic medical help for the Russians, whose health has been seriously undermined, is provided only after numerous petitions by our diplomats; requests to conduct full medical exams mostly remain unanswered.

In our dealings with the US authorities at various levels, we constantly raise the question of releasing all unjustly convicted or detained Russian citizens and letting them return home for humanitarian reasons. However, Washington, always concerned about human rights across the world, but not at home, ignores our appeals. Instead, they fabricate stories about the prison conditions in Russia, in particular Alexey Navalny, who, by the way, receives unfettered visits by human rights activists (Washington pretends not to know about this), and engages in information activities. It is impossible to imagine anything like that in the United States.

We call on the US authorities to probe into all cases of the violation of inmates’ rights as soon as possible and as transparently as possible. Ongoing developments run counter not only to the US Constitution and criminal law, but fundamental international legal and humanitarian norms as well. We look forward to hearing a public report from US officials about actions to prevent this kind of arbitrariness in the future, as well as to ensure safety and access to necessary medical help in prisons.



Russia-ASEAN anti-drug cooperation

Fighting drug crime is an important area of our joint efforts with ASEAN to counter new challenges and threats. In coordination with the Association, we defend the inviolability of the current international legal regime of drug control at the specialised UN venues. Russian and ASEAN senior officials hold regular meetings on drug-related issues.

We have been providing assistance in training personnel for ASEAN law enforcement agencies since 2012. Last year the Interior Ministry held a specialised course on detecting and investigating drug trafficking crimes. Despite the coronavirus pandemic, we managed to double the number of participants in the course due to the interest of the ASEAN members.

This is a real contribution to the Association in achieving its goal of Drug-Free ASEAN. In addition, Russia has already made a number of proposals to be implemented this year in expanding cooperation with the ASEAN G10 in the anti-drug sphere, including the exchange of operational information, joint operations and investigations, and countering the financing of drug trafficking.



New requirements for Japanese school textbooks

We have noted the new requirement of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Technology and Culture for school textbooks in geography, history and social studies for senior school students which must designate the southern Kuril Islands as “native Japanese territories.”

It is regrettable that the Japanese government instils false stereotypes in the younger generation that contradict the historical truth and the results of World War II, thereby inflating the campaign of groundless territorial claims against Russia. The Russian Federation’s sovereignty over the southern Kuril Islands is indisputable.

Japan’s actions have caused an outrage in Russian society and can have a negative impact on the atmosphere of bilateral relations.



The 60th anniversary of the first human space flight

On April 12, all of humanity will mark the 60th anniversary of man’s first space flight. This is truly an epic event which largely shaped the world we are living in today. It went down in the annals of history not just as a great scientific and technological achievement but also as a show of goodwill and a desire for peaceful interaction expressed by a great power. This holiday has no borders; it unites all generations, peoples and continents.

On April 7, 2011, the UN General Assembly declared 12 April the International Day of Human Space Flight. This day is marked each year “to celebrate the beginning of the space era for mankind.”

On the eve of Cosmonautics Day, the Foreign Ministry recalls this historic event and works to provide information support for the day. Sergey Lavrov is to issue a video address on the occasion of man’s first space flight.
On April 5, the Messenger of Peace photo exhibition by the TASS news agency opened at the Foreign Ministry. You can see the exhibition on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s site.

We are most eagerly covering the upcoming anniversary on the ministry’s internet sites and, of course, on our social network pages. We have launched a series of publications on the so-called Peace Mission whereby we speak in detail of Yury Gagarin’s famous world tour, the most interesting episodes of his trip through different countries, where he was accompanied by, among others, Soviet diplomats.

We are preparing a number of other exciting projects for April 12, which include interactive presentations and a unique data resource on commemorative places around the world connected with Yury Gagarin.

It is important to underscore that the memory of our great compatriot is still alive today. Yury Gagarin is admired in all corners of the globe, and he continues to live in peoples’ hearts.

Enormous interest in the anniversary abroad is clear evidence of this. Our diplomats hold successful photo exhibitions and film viewings wherever the epidemic situation permits, whereas in other countries online conferences and roundtable discussions are held. Most Russian missions abroad publish historical notes in social media about the life of the Earth’s first cosmonaut. Some diplomatic missions even post video addresses on their newswires by foreign cosmonauts who speak about the significance that the anniversary of this milestone event carries for them personally.

The Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the UN in New York and the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to International Organisations in Vienna in collaboration with the Russian News Service and the Russian-language account at the UN have launched an interesting thematic project, First in Space, to run from April 8 through Aril 12. As part of the project, viewers can learn about Yury Gagarin and Valentina Tereshkova’s news conference at the UN Headquarters in October 1963, and watch and listen to unique photo and audio materials including those from the United Nations archives, which were recorded during their visit to New York, excerpts from memoirs of outstanding diplomats including Andrei Gromyko who accompanied the Soviet cosmonauts on their trip abroad.

Over the past 60 years many dreams have come true – the first spacewalk, the first man on the Moon, long space flights and the launch of probes to other planets.

Russia confidently holds a leading position in space exploration, including the number of launches; it is actively expanding its satellite constellation and is working on new high-tech products.

We are committed to further cooperation with our partners and, as President Putin put it, we will choose “areas that will bring us closer. Perhaps space exploration can help us better understand each other here on Earth.”



Roundtable discussion held by the Permanent Representation of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe ahead of the 60th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin’s spaceflight

On April 15, at 4.30 pm Moscow time, the Permanent Representation of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe will hold a roundtable discussion to mark 60 years since the first human flight to space, as well as International Cosmonautics Day.

The event will be attended by Secretary General of the Council of Europe Marija Pejcinovic Buric; cosmonaut Sergey Krikalyov, Executive Director for Manned Space Programmes at the Roscosmos State Corporation; and the ambassadors of some of the Council of Europe member countries taking part in space exploration.

The roundtable discussion is expected to highlight the outstanding role of Soviet space pioneers in the development of human civilisation, the development of cosmonautics in Council of Europe member countries, and the history of and prospects for international cooperation in space, including the use of the Council of Europe’s potential.

The event will be broadcast on the social media pages of the Permanent Representation and the Foreign Ministry.

We invite everyone to watch the event. It will be exciting.



Russia's presence in the Arctic

We have received many questions about Russia's presence in the Arctic, in particular, from CNN, Euronews, the Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn magazine and a number of other media outlets. Since this is an important, interesting and pressing issue, I will share some information about Russia’s activities in this region with a wide audience.

Question (CNN):

Speaking to CNN, US officials have expressed concern about Russia building military bases and accumulating resources to the north of the Arctic Circle. Even though this is Russia’s territory, as Russia often states, the United States is concerned that this buildup of capacity is designed to impose Russia’s rules on the Northern Sea Route and impose Moscow's grip on this increasingly ice-free region. Norwegian officials have also expressed concern about the potential environmental damage that the upcoming Poseidon 2M39 tests could cause. Do you have any comments regarding these concerns?

Maria Zakharova:

Russia is not doing anything in the Arctic that is at odds with international law or puts other countries in harm’s way. Speaking about potential sources of mounting tensions in the region, it would be logical to consider the United States and its allies’ military activities in the Arctic that go hand-in-hand with belligerent rhetoric. In fact, NATO and NATO member states, including non-Arctic countries, are carrying out provocations there and are doing so on an increasingly regular basis. They have carried out several such operations in the Arctic Ocean lately in close proximity to Russia. This desire to militarise the Arctic and use the region for implementing the notorious policy of containing Russia causes legitimate concerns. Unfortunately, the facts of the Arctic Council member states’ participation in these military actions are piling up. We believe that this conduct does little to maintain an atmosphere of trust and cooperation between the Arctic countries.

We would also like to let you know that we are not aware of Norway expressing concern about possible environmental damage from new Russian weapons’ tests.

Upon receipt of an official request from Norway, we will be ready to use the existing communication channels through our defence departments to provide clarifications.

Question (Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn):

In a story that it ran recently, CNN said that Russia has been building up its military presence in the Arctic for several years at an unprecedented pace now and is testing the latest weapons there in an attempt to establish control over the region as a whole and the Northern Sea Route, in particular. What do you have to say about this?

Maria Zakharova:

The Northern Sea Route (NSR) is a historically established national unified transport corridor operated by the Russian Federation, which plays a major role in Arctic maritime traffic off its coast. It goes through maritime areas with different legal statuses, such as internal sea waters, territorial sea and an exclusive economic zone. The NSR connects the Russian Far East with Western Russia and also has a major potential for international sea shipping.

The NSR navigation rules were established a long time ago. They were developed and adopted in accordance with applicable norms of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. As it regulates navigation in this region, Russia is acting on the basis of international law. These clear and easy-to-follow rules make it possible, in particular, to provide conditions for efficient and safe navigation along the Northern Sea Route, which is known for its harsh climate and ice, as well as to prevent incidents involving major and long-term damage to the particularly fragile Arctic environment. All the while, hundreds of ships use the Northern Sea Route annually, including the ones flying foreign countries’ flags with the number of such states reaching 45 in recent years. The traffic amounts to tens of millions of tonnes per year and is growing steadily. Given these circumstances, there are no real grounds for having any “concerns” in this regard.

Russia and the United States hold different positions regarding the legal status and regulations governing the use of several Russian Arctic straits. These differences are not new. They were there in the days of the Soviet Union and, fortunately, did not result in incidents over the past decades. We urge everyone to continue to refrain from the dangerous use of this subject for purposes of provocation.

It’s a known fact that, at various times, Washington issued dozens of protests regarding the regulations governing maritime spaces under the jurisdiction of other states, including US allies, such as Canada. However, the biased theses about an allegedly impending threat in the Arctic are being persistently thrown into the public space. This is unsettling. We are clearly looking at certain dynamics here.

Overall, not being a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United States is positioning itself as a consistent champion of the freedoms of the high seas, which all states can enjoy. It is so like them not to be part of an international process, but call on everyone to implement their vision of certain “rules.” These freedoms undoubtedly include not only the freedom of navigation, but, in particular, the freedom to lay pipelines. It would be nice if the United States set an example of observing the corresponding norms of international law and finally stopped creating illegal barriers to implementing this freedom within the framework of the Nord Stream 2 project.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

In a recent interview, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced the plans to resume the Moscow Format for Afghanistan, should the peace process make progress, i.e. if the agreements between the United States and the Taliban are implemented. Is it possible to speak now of the timeframe for resuming the mechanism’s operation, given that neither the United States nor the Taliban have fulfilled the terms of their deal in full, and Taliban officials recently said that they are ready to cancel it?



Maria Zakharova:

The plans for holding the next consultations on Afghanistan in the Moscow Format are still relevant. We will advise you on the specific time later.

As for the agreement signed between the United States and the Taliban movement in Doha in February 2020, as far as we know, neither party has declared its plans to pull out. Furthermore, notwithstanding the existing difficulties about its implementation, we can see the parties’ interest in preserving the effect of the document, which made it possible to move forward in achieving a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan.



Question:

I have a question about Ukraine’s statement on the possible transfer of the venue for the meetings of the Trilateral Contact Group on Donbass from Minsk to Sweden. Have Ukrainian officials told the Russian representatives about this idea? Has the Contact Group discussed it? Where could this venue be moved hypothetically?



Maria Zakharova:

This this kind of “hypothetical” foolishness, I am sorry to say, we hear from Kiev officials on a variety of issues. Take, for example, a statement by Press Secretary of the Ukrainian President Yulia Mendel about some “Ukrainian Russian language.” These things are in the same category.

We have heard nothing new in a statement by Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine Alexey Reznikov. Representatives of Ukraine’s political establishment expressed this idea as well. Head of the Ukrainian delegation Leonid Kravchuk voiced it too. Both Sweden and Poland were suggested as possible venues. Maybe, they wanted to broaden the geography of tourism. It’s hard to tell.

Let’s discuss this idea in practical terms and look at what stands behind these statements. I would like to emphasise that the Contact Group has not discussed this idea in detail and the prospect of offline meetings remains vague primarily due to the Covid restrictions. Belarus has not raised this issue, either. In principle, it is ready, as before, to host all participants of the Contact Group in accordance with top international standards, as it has been doing for the past six years now.

What is behind this idea? Why is it planted in the public space? The answer is obvious. This is not because of the loss of confidence in Belarus, which is under Russia’s influence (as the proponents of the idea wanted to sell it to us). This idea reflects Kiev’s purposeful efforts to wreck its commitments under the Minsk Package of Measures to settle the domestic conflict in Ukraine through a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. It is easier to express permanent dissatisfaction with what is happening, to engage in continuous information provocations and to endlessly accuse everyone of wrecking the agreements than to explain what Kiev is doing to implement the Minsk Package. This is an open subversion of the adopted agreements and this policy has lead the negotiations into a blind alley.

There is more to it. Such statements reflect Kiev’s desire to demonstrate its mythical commitment to democracy by slandering and accusing Belarus, which is done, in part, to please those who are in charge of the external administration of Ukraine. We are well aware of what “democracy” means in Ukraine. This is a special phenomenon. Recent events have shown what it is all about. I am referring to the extra-judicial cleanup of Ukraine’s information space, the prosecution of dissidents, excesses of ultra-radical nationalists and absolute impunity for turning people into outcasts in their own country.

We would like to hope that the Ukrainian ruling political class will eventually realise the need to be guided by fundamental long-term national interests. These interests consist of restoring peace and tranquility in Donbass in line with the Minsk Agreements and returning to good, friendly relations. These interests primarily lie in a positive, normal attitude to their own citizens rather than the transient benefits derived by the Kiev regime from servicing foreign geopolitical ambitions.



Question:

Could you comment on the situation in Myanmar? Does Russia intend to optimise the structure of the Russian Embassy in Myanmar due to the situation in that country? Are any additional security measures being taken?



Maria Zakharova:

We are closely following the developments in Myanmar in connection with the state of emergency declared on February 1, including from the perspective of ensuring the security of our Embassy and its staff.

In light of the increased tensions, primarily as a result of clashes between the Myanmar law enforcement agencies and the irreconcilable opposition, which has moved from civil disobedience to more radical forms of protest, we have taken additional measures to strengthen the security of the Russian foreign mission. In particular, in coordination with the local authorities, the number of police personnel protecting the perimeter of the Embassy grounds has been increased, temporary barriers has been installed on access roads and other measures have also been taken.

At the same time, analysis of the current situation in major cities in Myanmar, including Yangon, where the Russian Embassy is located, shows that the situation has begun to normalise. Therefore, the Russian diplomatic mission is functioning normally.

We believe that at this stage there is no need to reduce the number of Embassy staff or evacuate Russian citizens from Myanmar. At the same time, we continue to closely monitor the situation and conduct regular assessment of possible threats against our foreign mission and compatriots. Appropriate measures will be taken if necessary.



Question:

Several days ago an amusing report surfaced in the media on a “chance” meeting in a hotel between Sergey Lavrov and US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry. I can just imagine their chance encounter during breakfast. Still, my experience suggests that such encounters don’t happen by “chance.” The minister’s security must have checked out other guests in the hotel. Could it really have been a lucky chance?



Maria Zakharova:

Can there be chance occurrences that lead to meetings? Yes, of course, they can. This is the way it often happens at major forums, the agendas for which are approved in advance.

Sometimes a meeting is held on the sidelines of an event because there is a need for it or the parties find out that they are staying in the same hotel and this is also considered normal diplomatic practice. Meetings like this are quite frequent. For example, during a UN General Assembly, which is normally attended by a huge number of delegations, the Russian minister’s schedule, as you know, includes 50 to 60 meetings within several days. Some meetings can be cancelled because of accidental circumstances, such as mismatched schedules, as well as changes to schedules, the situation, or logistics while other meetings are added for the same chance reasons, as you said, when people meet during negotiations or on the sidelines. They can talk on the go or change the format of talks to a more thorough one. So, my answer is affirmative: this is also part of the job in diplomatic practice.

We have commented on this issue. This is the way it happened. It had not been planned that the two delegations stayed in a third country – India – in the same hotel and at the same time. The meeting did take place.



Question:

A number of Russian experts express concern about the new US administration using the climate agenda and the need to protect the Earth from human impact for promoting globalisation under their own rules so as to push their mandatory agenda. Does Russia distinguish between the climate agenda and environmental protection? Which diverging and overlapping points do you see in the Russian and US approaches?



Maria Zakharova:

The issues of environmental protection and climate change are closely interconnected and have become priority issues on the global agenda in the past decades. It is not a single country’s agenda, but a global agenda. We are currently facing unprecedented environmental challenges, and the ways of tackling them open up opportunities for both balanced national development and prospects for equitable international cooperation.

Nature preservation issues are one of the areas where Russia and the United States have common interests. Indeed, the new US administration is adapting its socioeconomic policy to the environmental agenda. We infer that from the information emerging in the public domain and from official statements. So far the policy is being shaped and has not begun to be implemented. And one of the first decisions made by the new US administration was a return to the Paris Agreement.

I have to note that Russia has repeatedly voiced its readiness for a dialogue in this area. We have proceeded from the fact that addressing environmental problems and climate change should exclude politicisation. This is our principled approach. We adhere to this approach regardless of which administration is in the White House. We believe that joint efforts must be made on specialised international platforms.

We are completely committed to complying with our obligations under environmental agreements. All of us, and not just the United States, bear responsibility for preserving the diversity of the planet’s ecosystems. And we believe that not only governments but also private businesses and civil society carry the responsibility for the implementation of the environmental agenda. Mechanisms including private-public partnerships are already in place to engage business in nature preservation projects.

To be brief, should environmental issues avoid politicisation? Absolutely. Not just avoid but also root it out. Can environmental issues and politics be unrelated? Hardly. Usually, it is political leaders that lead the way, like icebreakers, to promote a certain agenda. Environmental issues are addressed by international organisations, politicians, political leaders, and public and political organisations. That is normal in this context. However, politicisation, when opportunistic and occasionally illegitimate tasks are resolved under the guise of concern for environmental issues, is unacceptable.



Question:

Reuters reported several hours ago that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are planning to link debt relief with investments to combat climate change. According to a source familiar with the initiative, which Reuters cited, this will focus on systematically changing whole economies on the basis of expert advice, presumably mostly by Western experts. Considering the climate agenda of the new US administration, it would be interesting to see where the climate agenda is fully international and coordinated with all parties, and where it fully depends on market factors, as you said, expressing the interests of not just one particular country but also of transnational corporations. For example, US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, with whom Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has met recently, said that this target cannot be achieved by countries alone and that success depends in large part on leadership from the private sector and transnational companies.



Maria Zakharova:

The solution is very simple, theoretically, but it is very difficult to apply in practice. You are asking about the line between normal cooperation, including in politics, and politically motivated actions. The answer is simple: this line is set out in the law. If we are speaking about cooperation based on legal agreements, or the charters and principles of international organisations, or bilateral treaties and agreements, the focus is on mutually beneficial and equal partnership, cooperation and joint efforts to solve problems. But if we are speaking about the domination of any one state and the use of tools outside the “legal” array, there is a big chance that these activities are politically loaded.

Until recently, we have been taught to believe that the West, in particular the flagship countries of the collective West, has the right answers to all questions, including those related to healthcare, human rights, science and technology. We were told that these countries are leading the “Western community” and all other countries into a bright future, because they know how to reach this goal and to make life beautiful for everyone. We know now that this is a myth, an illusion. There are really important and much needed achievements in this sphere, but they are not a cure-all to be applied around the world or even for treating complex problems in these “flagship” countries themselves.

Therefore, domination by any one country or its efforts to enforce its vision or solutions, including in the field of climate change, on other countries, international organisations or transnational corporations is an example of a path that is leading or can lead to time-serving politicisation of the problem at hand. As of today, no state is capable of assuming responsibility for the environmental future of the world. The world is made up of widely different regions, countries, economies, objectives, problems and targets. The domination of any one viewpoint is an indicator of the risk of politicisation. This is something that is better avoided.

Progress in addressing many current problems and finding solutions to them will be complicated without the political element, without politicians and a close relation between political efforts and issues such as climate change and healthcare.

Take the coronavirus pandemic, which is a global problem. Regrettably, is has spread across all parts of the world. The search for a solution to this problem should be conducted at the highest state political level. It is one thing to look for solutions and move forward together in the interests of nations, and it is quite another matter to put spokes in other’s wheels and to advertise, without any substantiation, one’s own exceptionalism and leadership qualities in any sphere.



Question:

Many countries in the region and in particular Turkey are actively discussing an idea proposed by Turkey’s leaders concerning the so-called revision of the Montreux Convention. How much does this decision affect Russia? What is Russia’s stand regarding these plans, including the building of an alternative canal joining the Black Sea with the Mediterranean?

Reports are coming in, with the latest one from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, that Jihadists and mercenaries in Syria were issued orders and are being sent to Eastern Ukraine. Does Russia have any information on this? Are Jihadists engaged in fighting in Eastern Ukraine?



Maria Zakharova:

As you know, the Russian Federation is a party to the 1936 Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits (Montreux Convention). Apparently, any attempts to revise it would concern our country’s interests.

We regard this convention as a key factor of stability and security in the Black Sea, especially when it comes to naval navigation.

The Montreux Convention envisages total tonnage limitations on naval ships of non-coastal states, the terms of their stay and the type of weapons allowed on certain categories of ships. It also prescribes the order for their notifying others about planning to enter the straits. The mechanism established on the basis of the Convention has proved its efficiency with regard to sustaining stability and ensuring security in the region and has passed the test of time.

We do not see any alternatives to the international law regime established under the Monteux Convention. We expect all respective states to assume a responsible approach toward observing it. Turkey has a special role in this respect.

As to the second part of your question, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has long discredited itself. The White Helmets and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights are located in the United Kingdom as is much of NATO’s disinformation arsenal. These are the structures that have totally discredited themselves. This “observatory” released such a great number of fakes and was so actively engaged in information aggression against international law and Syria proper that I see no sense in referring to it.



Question:

Last Sunday Russia and Azerbaijan marked the 29th anniversary of diplomatic relations, correspondingly, next year they will be 30. We are certainly ahead of ourselves but does the Foreign Ministry have any plans yet to celebrate that anniversary? Will there be something special to mark the anniversary of diplomatic relations with Azerbaijan?



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to once again draw your attention to the expanded interviews that took place with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko on April 2. They were timed to coincide with the 29th anniversary of establishing diplomatic relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan. The interviews offer a detailed assessment of our bilateral relations.

As to the upcoming anniversary, I’d rather we do not jump so far ahead into the future. There is plenty of time ahead of the 30th anniversary you mentioned. I can only say that the issue is being worked on. Such a momentous event will be dully celebrated with various exciting activities.



Question:

The situation with the Russian vaccine sent to Slovakia is unfolding quickly but, unfortunately, according to the worst-case and predictable scenario. The world media outlets and social networks report the most contradictory information and statements that are polar opposite to each other. The Russian media are also mistaken when they claim that the Sputnik V vaccine was registered in Slovakia. The point is that the vaccine hasn’t been registered there. And it was an unwise step by Russia to sell it there against a backdrop of EU’s demands concerning the vaccine’s registration. As a result, Russia’s goodwill is being interpreted as its desire to make money while neglecting quality, and some persons have gone even further in their statements. A sort of a paradoxical situation is emerging. On the one hand there is tremendous demand with which the producer cannot cope, while on the other hand 200,000 vaccine doses for 100,000 people were sent in the wrong direction. Broadly speaking, the vaccines delivered to Slovakia as of yet have not been used to inoculate people but rather for vaccinating mice and guinea pigs, that is, in order to build up a substantial documentary base to discredit the Russian Sputnik V vaccine. Is it just coincidence, foolishness, or is there a targeted attempt to compromise the Russian vaccine, and Slovakia has been specially selected for that?



Maria Zakharova:

Why do you treat coincidence, foolishness, pre-planned actions and disinformation separately, while in fact they are just different facets of the same – a destructive policy? If we mean that this is self-destructive policy that is not focused on national interests and is dictated from abroad. Much of what you have listed are its components.

As you are aware, RDIF made a statement to that respect. I have read and followed everything concerning the developments around the Russian vaccine in Slovakia. I only have one question and I don’t think I am the only one who wants to ask it. What do Slovakia’s leaders, its political establishment and officials actually want? What goal are they pursuing? We thought they were willing to help their citizens overcome the pandemic’s aftermath, to do everything to protect the health of their population and take part in global efforts to this end. We viewed it exactly in this way. It is logical, normal, and the right thing to do. This is what leaders and politicians in all the countries do. What we see makes us ask exactly this question – what is it that they really want? We would like to hear an answer to this question before making any political conclusions. When they answer, we will make further comments. Otherwise, it will be hard to assess such actions without an answer to this basic question.

The Russian side did exactly what should have been done under the assumption that goals and tasks of Slovakia’s leaders include the points I mentioned – protecting the population, overcoming the aftermath of the pandemic, health protection, etc. On our part, we did everything necessary for civilised, normal, mutually beneficial and equitable interaction.



Question:

It has been reported that the Russian Investigative Committee has launched criminal proceedings regarding the heinous murder of Vladik, a five-year boy who was killed in an air raid by a Ukrainian drone in Aleksandrovskoye in Donbass. The prosecutor’s office of the Donetsk People’s Republic has qualified the crime as a terrorist attack. Who can be held responsible for the death of an innocent child, according to international and human law? Is this a war crime?



Maria Zakharova:

The legal aspect of your question is for lawyers. As you have correctly mentioned, the Russian Investigative Committee has opened a criminal case. It will cover all the legal aspects. The conclusions will be made during the relevant actions to be taken by our law enforcement authorities.

As for this being a heinous crime, as you have already noted, I would like to go beyond this particular crime. Heinous crimes have been committed not just against this particular child, but against hundreds of children, who have been killed by militants in the centre of Europe in the first quarter of the 21st century with information and moral support of their Western “curators,” including the EU and, more precisely, Brussels, as well as many other international organisations, which do not see or refuse to see the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in this part of Europe. They declare their commitment to human rights every day and their concern for human rights, the rights of adult people who are not the victims of violence or any other form of inhumane treatment. Why don’t they see then what is happening to children in Donbass, in Donetsk and Lugansk? How many youngsters have been killed there? How many have been maimed? How many have acquired chronical diseases as the result of the war?

Isn’t the injury inflicted on an entire generation of children there a major problem from the viewpoint of the Western mentality, which has been going on about tolerance, human rights, and concern for each and all? Don’t they see this as a problem? We have become aware of this attitude in Syria, where the life of one child can be used as a symbol of the struggle against the allegedly “bloodthirsty regime,” whereas the plight of tens of thousands Syrian and other children is not regarded by the international community as a sufficient reason for lifting the sanctions against Syria at least for the duration of the pandemic. Lies and hypocrisy.

We see the same attitude to Donbass, although in a different situation and with different factors. The plight of the Donbass children doesn’t seem to concern those in the West and at international organisations who are exploiting these platforms for speaking about the future of humanity or the plight of a particular individual. They are not interested. We see and are aware of this, and we are fighting against this attitude. How are we doing this? You know this all too well: by supplying humanitarian aid. We have not done this once, and we are not doing this for show or as a way of reporting to international organisations. We are doing this voluntarily, systematically and regularly. We are supplying everything so that children can live, receive education and medical assistance, and, ultimately, survive in those conditions. This is our protection for the Donbass people in all meanings of the word, including in the political and humanitarian sense.

Everything we have been doing has prevented the situation in Donbass from being forgotten. This would have suited everyone in the West, first of all, the Kiev regime. Nobody would have spoken about the problem, and it would not been regarded as a problem. And ultimately they would have settled it without much ado. We are well aware how they “settle” problems, leaving an ocean of blood in their wake. The point at issue is that this is not one heinous crime but a series of heinous crimes. We are talking about children now, but what about young people, old men and women suffering from serious diseases? Don’t they deserve our concern as well in the context of these situations?



Question:

I have a question about a joint French-German statement on Donbass. According to the document, “France and Germany are concerned by the growing number of ceasefire violations in eastern Ukraine, which come after the situation had stabilised since July 2020. We are closely monitoring the situation and in particular Russian troop movements, and call on all sides to show restraint and to work towards the immediate de-escalation of tensions. We reaffirm our support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders.”

What does the Russian Foreign Ministry think about this statement highlighting the concern of Germany and France, which are watching Russian troop movements, but which do not notice the murder of children in Donbass by the Armed Forces of Ukraine?



Maria Zakharova:

We have already stated our opinion regarding such approaches and the confrontationist atmosphere now being imposed on this region. We perceive the position of Berlin and Paris as helpless. I don’t even want to make a negative or emotional assessments here. I will just point out that such statements show their inability to influence Kiev, which is duty-bound (there can be no “must” or “can” about it) to fulfil the provisions of documents that it has signed and which have been approved by a UN Security Council resolution.

Over the past few years, it has become largely obvious that all attempts to influence Kiev have failed to produce the desired result. I don’t know whether these attempts were full-fledged or half-hearted. The Minsk Agreements have not been fulfilled. It is pointless to monitor Russian troop movements in Russia. Every country has its own armed forces that move according to the particular state’s plans and strategy. Therefore, Paris and Berlin should focus on Kiev’s failure to fulfil its obligations, rather than on monitoring Russian troop movements in Russia. This would make it possible to avoid many problems.

I commented on the situation with children in great detail earlier. We are not just talking about a tragedy involving one child. It is impossible to compensate for, undo or alleviate a tragedy with one child, but we are talking about an all-encompassing tragedy involving an entire generation of children who live there. This is true of many regions, including Donbass, Syria and Libya, and not just one region. Many countries facing a dire humanitarian situation due to the Western world’s “experiments” cannot do anything about it. The biggest victims are the civilians and children. Unfortunately, many foreign countries, primarily Western countries, are doing all they can to aggravate their suffering and through this to influence the leaders of these countries. This is as an illegitimate and unacceptable approach. Most importantly, numerous international organisations have now been established, including within the UN, such as UNICEF and supra-national socio-political organisations bringing together the public, the people who care all over the world. Naturally, they are unable to influence legally binding state decisions, but they certainly exert a media impact. Their work has social significance. How can we explain that, instead of addressing specific issues, the international community does not even care about the destiny of children in these conflicts? What should be done to convert these verbal concerns into practical actions? I cannot answer this question. This all-out hypocrisy is manifested very often, and not in just these aspects.

We can see how the Western mainstream, including the presidents of these countries and media outlets, can launch media campaigns to support a single adult using digital diplomacy, social media accounts and other platforms. At the same time, it overlooks the destiny of children who need medical assistance, as well as those who were killed because they and their parents were unable to protect themselves in any way.

This is not a subject for discussion; it is a tragedy.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4675227

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's interview with the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, April 11, 2021



11 April 2021 - 23:00



Question:

You will be visiting Cairo, as you did before, almost immediately after your trip to a number of Gulf countries. Is there any explanation for this sequence, especially considering that the Israeli Foreign Minister visited Moscow the day before? Has any progress been made during your talks with the Arabs in resolving crises in the region, in particular the conflict in Yemen?



Sergey Lavrov:

Do not try to find any hidden agenda in my recent visits to several Arab states of the Persian Gulf. It is an integral part of our regular and trust-based foreign policy dialogue. Let me remind you that my colleagues, the foreign ministers of the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, visited Moscow in December 2020 and January 2021.

During our meetings and conversations, we discussed the prospects for the further development of bilateral relations. We certainly considered the situation in the Middle East and North Africa in detail, underscoring the need to overcome the crises and conflicts there exclusively by political means – through a wide-ranging dialogue with strict observance of international law and, above all, the principles of the UN Charter. This entails, in particular, non-interference in the internal affairs of the countries in the region, and respect for their sovereignty and territorial integrity. We agreed to continue to closely coordinate efforts, including at various multilateral platforms.

As for the situation in Yemen, this topic was also touched upon during my meetings with the leaders of the Arab monarchies. We are closely following the developments in that country where there has been a deep military-political crisis for six years. The bloody clashes that resumed at the beginning of February in the Marib Governorate between the Houthis and the forces loyal to the Yemeni President are of particular concern.

The agreement to create a new coalition government reached in December 2020 by the current head of Yemen and the Southern Transitional Council (STC), with Saudi mediation, was an important step towards stabilising the southern part of the country. It was the first time representatives of the southern regions received a significant part of the ministerial portfolios.

Russia has publicly welcomed the aforementioned agreements. We have expressed the hope that their implementation will lead to an increase in the level of public safety, make it possible to focus on solving socioeconomic problems in that part of Yemen, and also create favourable conditions for the launch of negotiations between a joint delegation of the official Yemeni authorities and the STC with the leadership of the Houthi movement (Ansar Allah) on the future political development of the country.

We call on the parties to the Yemeni conflict to renounce violence and embark on the path of peaceful resolution of their differences. The recent Saudi initiative we welcomed is also aimed at promoting a political settlement.

At the same time, we believe a long-term peace is only possible on the basis of appropriate consideration of the interests of all the leading political forces in Yemen. This requires starting a broad national dialogue, a reopening of air, sea and land access to Yemen, and the other urgent practical steps in the socioeconomic and humanitarian spheres.

We intend to continue to support the relevant efforts by UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths, as well as to vigorously encourage President of Yemen Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi and the leaders of the Ansar Allah Houthi movement to show a constructive approach and willingness to compromise when discussing their differences.



Question:

What do you think about the developments in bilateral relations between both countries? Can we expect that the resumption of direct flights from Russia to Egyptian resorts, primarily Hurghada and Sharm El Sheikh, will be announced during your upcoming visit to Cairo?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russian-Egyptian relations are developing steadily in many directions. We are maintaining an intensive political dialogue despite the coronavirus pandemic. In March 2021, Cairo was the venue of bilateral consultations between national foreign ministries at the level of deputy foreign ministers. The participants discussed European matters and Russian-Egyptian cooperation at the UN and also on human rights.

We also have good cooperation prospects in other fields, including tourism. For a long time now Egyptian resorts have been extremely popular with many Russian citizens. Egypt views the influx of foreign tourists as an important source of budgetary revenues.

In this connection, I would like to reaffirm our interest in resuming regular air flights between Russia and Egyptian resort cities. Over a period of the past few years, the professionals from both countries have completed substantial joint work in this direction. I hope that chartered flights will resume from Russia to Sharm El Sheikh and Hurghada in the near future.



Question:

What can you say about strategic partnership between Russia and Egypt? When will the 2+2 mechanism resume work?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Strategic Cooperation, signed by Presidents Vladimir Putin and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Sochi in October 2018 and enacted in January 2021, determines the nature of our ties with Egypt. We therefore maintain strategic relations.

Egypt ranks among Russia’s key partners in the Middle East and the African continent. Regular meetings between foreign and defence ministers in the 2+2 format are an important part of bilateral political dialogue. At the same time, specific deadlines for holding another round of consultations are coordinated with the Egyptian party, as soon as their agenda is filled with substantive content.



Question:

How would you describe relations between our countries? What can you say about the practical steps taken to implement Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry’s statement, made during his meetings with Russian officials in Moscow last October, regarding the purchase of the right to produce Sputnik V? How are we cooperating in the fight against terrorism?



Sergey Lavrov:

In addition to a close political dialogue, we are also developing mutually beneficial trade and economic cooperation. Unfortunately, the coronavirus pandemic has had a negative effect on our trade, which decreased from $6.25 billion in 2019 to $4.54 billion in 2020.

However, we are continuing with the implementation of a number of large-scale joint projects, including the construction of the Russian-designed El Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant in Egypt, the establishment of the Russian Industrial Zone in the Suez Canal Economic Zone, and the delivery of Russian-made railway carriages to Egypt. In 2021, Russia and Egypt will hold several major events within the framework of the Russian-Egyptian Cross Year of Humanitarian Cooperation.

The registration of Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine in Egypt in February 2021 has created conditions for stimulating contacts between our countries’ relevant agencies regarding the possible delivery of the vaccine to Egypt.

Moscow and Cairo have been consistently advocating the need for joint efforts to combat the global threat of international terrorism. They also maintain a close dialogue on this subject at the UN.

The Russian-Egyptian Comprehensive Partnership and Strategic Cooperation Agreement formalised the functioning of the bilateral Working Group on Counterterrorism. Our joint efforts within the framework of this group are strengthening our cooperation against terrorism. We are planning to hold a regular meeting of the group in Cairo in the near future.



Question:

What has Moscow done to develop interaction with Arab countries for a peace settlement in Syria? When can this goal be attained, in your opinion? What do you think about the possibility of Syria’s return to the League of Arab States in the context of the talks you have held in the Gulf capitals?



Sergey Lavrov:

Syria is an Arab nation that stood at the inception of the League of Arab States and has traditionally played an important role in the Middle East.

The dramatic events, which began in Syria 10 years ago and have also affected Egypt, have seriously aggravated tensions in the Middle East and North Africa. We should not forget the conditions under which the decision to suspend Syria’s membership in the League was made in November 2011. Ten years later, many Arab countries are aware of the importance of resuming ties with Damascus. For our part, we wholeheartedly support this resolve.

In particular, during my recent talks in the UAE and Saudi Arabia we reaffirmed our commitment to the sovereignty, national unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as the Syrians’ right to independently decide their future in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the outcome of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. In our opinion, these countries’ leaders feel disposed to return Syria to the Arab family, of which it has been and remains an integral part.

We firmly believe that this should be done, the sooner the better. Among other things, this will help create a favourable atmosphere for reaching an intra-Syrian agreement on a comprehensive settlement of the crisis, including its political components.



Question:

Will the Russia-Africa Summit take place in 2022? What efforts is Russia making towards the success of the upcoming summit? Which integration projects does Moscow suggest for discussion with Africa?



Sergey Lavrov:

During the first Russia-Africa Summit held in Sochi in 2019, the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum was established: a new dialogue mechanism designed to coordinate the entire complex of Russian-African relations. Meetings at the highest level, like the one in Sochi, are supposed to be its executive body. They are scheduled to be held every three years.

The second summit is expected to take place in 2022 in an African country. The date and the venue will be determined soon via diplomatic channels.

In order to consolidate the success achieved in Sochi, in May 2020 the Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum was established at the Foreign Ministry in line with President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s instructions. Its main function is to prepare Russian-African summits and coordinate the implementation of decisions taken there.

Today active work is underway to develop the concept and the roadmap for the upcoming summit. Of course, the substantive content will also reflect the priorities of our African partners. These and other issues are expected to be discussed during the upcoming consultation between the foreign ministers of Russia and the “African three” countries (previous, current and future chairs of the African Union), which are held annually.

Specific proposals to strengthen Russian-African cooperation are being developed by three councils (Coordination, Civic and Scientific councils) under the forum Secretariat. Ministries, agencies, business and public organisations taking part in developing relations with the African continent are represented there.

The Association of Economic Cooperation with African States, established last year, has begun its work with the active support of the Foreign Ministry. It includes several large Russian economic operators interested in implementing various projects and initiatives in the African region. In the coming months, the association plans to organise a series of business missions to African countries if the epidemiological situation permits it.

In order to answer the last part of your question, I would like to specify that we are not talking about integration with Africa, but about building strategic cooperation with the pan-African and regional integrational associations. Two essential documents were signed at the summit in Sochi: the Memorandum of Understanding between the Russian Government and the African Union on basic relations and cooperation as well as the Memorandum of Understanding between the Eurasian Economic Commission and the African Union on economic cooperation. A roadmap for cooperation between Russia and the Southern African Development Community is being finalised. The procedure to agree the draft profile memorandum with the Intergovernmental Development Organisation is almost complete.

We plan to continue inviting heads of the regional integration structures to take part in the Russian-African summit as part of a deepening of the interaction with them.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4677156






Video address by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's flight into space, Moscow, April 12, 2021



12 April 2021 - 00:01

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Сolleagues, friends,

This year, the whole world is celebrating a truly significant event, the 60th anniversary of the first manned flight into space. On April 12, 1961, a citizen of our country, Yuri Gagarin, for the first time in human history, orbited the Earth in a manned spacecraft.

The significance of this breakthrough into near-earth space cannot be overestimated. The launch of the Vostok spacecraft ushered in a new era in the centuries-long chronicle of civilisation. Our great compatriot made a tremendous contribution to the progressive development of humankind, and confirmed our people’s ability to effectively cope with the most challenging and responsible tasks.

Yuri Gagarin continues to be a model of heroism and dedication for billions of people around the world; he continues to inspire people to take on any obstacle and achieve the most ambitious and noble goals. It is no coincidence that ten years ago, the UN General Assembly declared April 12 as the International Day of Human Space Flight, at Russia’s initiative.

Colleagues,

We are confident that constructive cooperation in space exploration should remain among the key areas on the unifying international agenda. Over the past decades, Russia, as a leader in space exploration, has provided assistance to a number of states in launching manned flights into orbit. At the UN Committee on Outer Space, we are pursuing a consistent policy line to ensure equal access of states to outer space and to preserve it for future generations.

We consistently maintain that guaranteed prevention of an arms race in outer space is crucial to its use for constructive purposes, for the benefit of all humankind. We support the launch of negotiations on the development of an international legally binding instrument prohibiting the deployment of any type of weapon there and the use or threat of force. We propose using the relevant Russian-Chinese draft treaty submitted at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva in 2014 as a basis for the future document. To stabilise the situation while such a multilateral document remains in the works, we propose relying on the international initiative (put forth by Russia and supported by other countries) for countries to make a political commitment on no-first-placement of weapons in outer space. About 30 countries have already joined it.





Friends,

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is making every effort to perpetuate Yuri Gagarin’s memory. The Ministry building on Smolenskaya Square is housing a TASS photo display, The Messenger of Peace, dedicated to the first cosmonaut’s role in creating an atmosphere of friendship, trust and mutual understanding between countries and peoples. Russian missions around the world have also planned a series of commemorative events on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the first manned flight into space. We will continue this effort to preserve the continuity of times and generations and to raise the awareness of the unfading significance of such historic events, not only for our people, but for the entire world.

Wishing you all the best,

Happy Cosmonautics Day!




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4677728






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Foreign Minister of the Arab Republic of Egypt Sameh Shoukry, Cairo, April 12, 2021



12 April 2021 - 17:50

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 25:30

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 25:30

Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to our Egyptian friends for the hospitality and the excellent organisation of our visit. The talks with President of the Arab Republic of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi this morning were quite substantive. I just had a very productive meeting with my colleague and friend, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry.

We expressed mutual satisfaction with the way our relationship is advancing. It has reached a whole new level. The Comprehensive Partnership and Strategic Cooperation Agreement between Russia and Egypt, which was signed during President el-Sisi’s visit to the Russian Federation in 2018, entered into force on January 10.

We thoroughly reviewed the state of bilateral relations across all policy areas, noting that despite the constraints imposed by the coronavirus, we remain focused on adhering to the agreements that were reached between our departments and ministries regarding contacts that are intended to implement practical projects in a variety of areas.

We believe the Joint Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation will play an important role here. It will meet for the 13th time in Russia this year.

We reviewed progress in the implementation of major joint projects, primarily, the construction of a nuclear power plant and the creation of a Russian industrial zone in Egypt, as part of preparations for the commission’s meeting. We noted the importance of the plans that are already being implemented in transport infrastructure, including our companies’ participation in upgrading sections of Egypt’s railway.

Another round of talks is planned in order to discuss an agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and Egypt on creating a free trade zone. Clearly, we have made some progress there. Russia is a strong proponent of doing more in this area.

We have good plans for cultural and educational exchanges. The Russia-Egypt Cultural Cooperation Year will be announced in May. We agreed to continue cooperation under the 2+2 mechanism, which brings together our countries’ foreign ministers and defence ministers.

We discussed matters related to promoting people-to-people contacts. We hope that the pandemic-related restrictions will not complicate the resumption of these contacts. We covered the importance of coordinating foreign policy activities which is important for strategic interaction between us. We have overlapping or very close positions on most regional and global issues. We stand for settling all conflicts, including in the Middle East and North Africa, exclusively by peaceful means and on the basis of international law. We agreed to continue dialogue on these matters at the UN and other international platforms.

We covered in detail the state of affairs in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement process and welcomed the normalisation of relations between a number of Arab countries and Israel. We believe it is important to keep the highly important Palestinian problem from being consigned to oblivion. In this regard, we discussed resuming the work of the Quartet of international mediators. Our Egyptian friends supported Russia’s position, which we have maintained for many years now. I’m talking about the need to bring representatives of the Arab world into the Quartet, which, as you are aware, includes Russia, the United States, the EU and the UN. Once we get that done, we can proceed to creating the necessary conditions for resuming direct talks. Our focus is on advancing the principles enshrined in the Arab Peace Initiative spearheaded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia some time ago.

Regarding other conflicts, we discussed Libya in detail. We noted with satisfaction that the political and military situation in that country has somewhat stabilised, setting the stage for the country’s reunification. We support implementation of all the decisions on how to organise the transition process, as well as the preparations for a referendum on the Constitution and elections of new government bodies, that were approved by Libyans themselves in Geneva and later in Libya. Like Egypt, we believe it is important to follow through on everything that was agreed on at the meetings of the military committee, the so-called 5+5 Committee.

As for the situation in Syria, we are in complete agreement that it is necessary to stringently and fully implement UN Security Council Resolution 2254, preserve the political unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic and respect the rights of its citizens to decide their country’s future on their own.

We shared our appraisals of efforts in the Astana format and talked about our current efforts to make the Constitutional Committee in Geneva more effective. We believe that at the current stage it is particularly important that we help the Syrians deal with the aftermath of the armed conflict that had lasted for many years and help prevent the reconstruction of basic humanitarian and economic infrastructure from being hampered by illegitimate unilateral sanctions designed to put the Syrian people in a literal stranglehold in the hope that this might lead to so-called regime change.

We spoke in support of creating conditions for refugees to return home as soon as possible. Russia believes the attempts to fund refugee camps created on the territory of countries that are Syria’s neighbours, instead of allocating funds for creating conditions to allow refugees to return home, to be counterproductive and short-sighted.

We share the view that it is necessary to take additional steps towards stabilising the situation in the Persian Gulf area, as well as on the issue of establishing a zone in the Middle East free of mass destruction weapons and the means to deliver them.

We talked about the status of the negotiations between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia on the problems arising from the construction of the Renaissance Dam. Russia’s position is well known. We believe that only a decision coordinated by all interested parties that safeguards their legitimate rights and the legitimate rights of their peoples can be effective. We will do our utmost to help create conditions for a settlement like this.

We discussed the development of relations between Russia and the League of Arab States. Currently we are preparing for a regular Russia–League of Arab States partnership forum.

We also talked about the ongoing efforts to implement the resolutions of the first ever Russia–Africa Summit that took place in Sochi in October 2019. Another summit is scheduled for 2022. Today we discussed how to make preparations for this historic event as effective as possible.

I want to emphasise again that we are satisfied with the outcome of the talks. We look forward to continuing to work with our Egyptian colleagues to promote cooperation on the bilateral agenda and in international affairs.







Question (retranslated from Arabic):

The Renaissance Dam is a big problem. In 2019, you were part of the technical review team. Does Russia have a vision for how to resolve this issue in order to support the three states and to sign an agreement given that the most recent talks failed?



Sergey Lavrov:

This question has long been raised by our Egyptian friends. We are very much interested in reaching a settlement. The only way to do so is to have all three stakeholder states work together. All others must facilitate this process.

At some point, our leaders came with an offer of a technical review including, primarily, images from outer space and water-and-energy expert analysis, to the countries that are parties to this dispute. The offer was passed on. We are not claiming other roles. We were not asked to be mediators. The US, the EU, the UN and the African Union (AU) were invited to act as mediators. I believe this is a crucial matter, because all three participants of the process are represented in the AU. Also, the AU is the right place to showcase the tradition of African countries solving African problems. In this case and all other cases as well, including the ongoing conflicts in Africa, we are strong proponents of the principle of African solutions to African problems.



Question (addressed to Sergey Lavrov):

Was the issue of encouraging Syria to return to the Arab League following your visit to the Gulf countries discussed? These calls have remained just that to this day. What actual actions (perhaps, you heard your Arab colleagues say something on this account) need to be taken to advance this issue?



Sergey Lavrov:

I can reaffirm our strong conviction that Syria must return to the Arab family and fully reinstate its Arab League membership.

This kind of issue cannot be resolved overnight given the differences and emotions that have accumulated over many years. We sense that our consistent calls to create the necessary conditions for resolving it are meeting with an increasingly engaged and positive response. I can reaffirm that this is precisely the takeaway from our recent visit to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

We covered this in detail today as well. I believe it is most important for both parties – the Arab League and Syria – to appreciate the critical advantages of restoring Syria's membership in this pan-Arab organisation. If they recognise these advantages (I heard everyone I talked to say that this is exactly the case), everything else is a matter of diplomatic procedure. Arab diplomacy is known for its effectiveness, so we can count on having this matter settled and, hopefully, fast enough.



Question (retranslated from Arabic):

Russia and Egypt are getting closer on a number of regional issues. What are you doing to resolve the conflicts in Libya and Lebanon? What is Russia's position on the initiative to withdraw militants and mercenaries from Libya? Do you support it? What can you suggest doing in this area?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is no need to suggest anything. Like Egypt, we support the agreements reached, first, at the Geneva meeting, where officials were elected. Then, Libya’s interim government was approved by the parliament in Tobruk. We are also supportive of the decisions made by the 5+5 Joint Military Committee. I’m sure you know about them, so there is no need to say more about them.

Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Sameh Shoukry):

We believe that the problem of Lebanon and the ongoing political crisis can be resolved exclusively by the Lebanese people themselves with the mandatory participation of all political, ethnic and religious groups, as has always been the case in that country’s modern history, without any prescriptions imposed from the outside, even if accompanied by the promise of financial aid.

We continue to work along these lines. We are expecting Prime Minister Saad Hariri in Russia soon. We will also welcome in Moscow officials from that country’s other leading political forces. We will urge them to appreciate their responsibility to their nation and to form a government that will reflect the balance of interests of all groups of Lebanese society.



Question:

The media and various experts linked President Zelensky’s recent trip to Turkey to Ankara selling attack drones to Kiev. Is Russia concerned about the possibility of such deals?



Sergey Lavrov:

We strongly advise all responsible countries with which we are in contact (Turkey is one of them) to analyse the situation and Kiev’s continuing warlike statements. We warn them against feeding this militaristic sentiment.

It is no secret that already in 2014, the new Kiev government – the putschists – emboldened by the encouragement it received following the anti-constitutional coup, carried out an act of aggression against its own people. When officials from the Zelensky administration say that Kiev is not planning anything in Donbass, because it cannot fight its own people, they are not telling the truth. After the “revolution of dignity,” which, in fact, was an unconstitutional coup, Kiev attacked its people and has since waged a war against them, having declared its own citizens terrorists even though Donbass residents didn’t attack anyone in the rest of Ukraine, but simply asked Kiev to leave them be and let them figure out what was going on after the neo-Nazis grabbed power in Kiev and immediately came out against the rights of Russian-speaking people living in that country.

I hope that everyone, including the countries that are discussing the possibility of supplying military equipment to Ukraine, remember this history.



Question:

Is it fair to say that Washington's plans for the passage of warships into the Black Sea are adding fuel to the fire, and US actions in these circumstances are creating additional tensions in eastern Ukraine? Was Russia in contact with the United States? If so, at what level? Have we called on the Americans to act more transparently in this sphere?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for US military activities, including sending its ships to the Black Sea, this is a regular occurrence. It is being done especially pointedly now and is accompanied by aggressive rhetoric. Questions are being asked about what Russia is doing on the border with Ukraine. The answer is very simple: we live here, this is our country. But the question of what the United States is doing there with its ships and troops, never ceasing to organise all kinds of NATO activities in Ukraine, thousands of kilometres away from its own territory, remains unanswered.

I think the lessons of 2014 should have been clear by now. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We do not see any confirmation of this truth, which, we hoped, had been internalised by those who encouraged the anti-Russian and Russophobic sentiment of the Ukrainian leaders and the lack of any desire on the part of the previous and current government in Kiev to comply with the international legal agreements enshrined in the UN Security Council resolution that approved the Minsk agreements. This may end badly, because in pursuit of reclaiming its ranking, the Kiev regime may snap and take some reckless actions.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4680855






Press release on the signing of a joint statement of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Seychelles on No First Placement of Weapons in Outer Space



12 April 2021 - 18:41



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Tourism of the Republic of Seychelles Sylvestre Radegonde signed a joint statement on No First Placement of Weapons in Outer Space (NFP).

The document was the latest step towards globalising the international initiative on this issue, and confirmed the resolve of these states to work together on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS).

In their joint statement, Russia and Seychelles reaffirm the need to sign an international treaty banning the placement and use of weapons in outer space and urge the countries that are not involved in the NFP initiative to consider the possibility of joining it.

As a measure of transparency and trust intended within PAROS, the NFP initiative in recent years has made a tangible political contribution to the causes of strengthening international peace, providing indivisible security for all, and enhancing the predictability and sustainability of the peaceful exploration and use of outer space by individual states.

The consistent efforts to make the NFP initiative universal are aimed at preventing an arms race in outer space and preserving it for peaceful purposes. It is designed to stabilise the situation pending the elaboration of a legally binding multilateral document on PAROS, which would ban the placement of any weapons, as well as the use of force or its threat, from space or with respect to it.

The fundamental element of the NFP initiative is a mutual commitment not to be the first to deploy any types of weapons in outer space. As such, securing the participation of all UN members, including all space powers of any significance, would be tantamount to the adoption of this political commitment on a global scale, thereby making it inexpedient to develop space-based offensive systems.

This political commitment is the most effective, practicable and truly functional initiative, with more and more states expressing support. Russia put forward this initiative in 2004. Since then it has been fully joined by 30 states: Argentina, Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Burundi, Venezuela, Vietnam, Guatemala, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Republic of the Congo, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Seychelles, Syria, Surinam, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Uruguay, Sri Lanka and Ecuador.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4680974






Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov's interview to the Islamic Republic news agency (Iran), April 12, 2021



12 April 2021 - 21:30



Unofficial translation



Question:

Could you tell us, please, what are the main goals of your visit to Iran? How has the Treaty on the Basis for Mutual Relations and the Principles of Cooperation between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation, concluded in March 2001, influenced the development of relations between the two countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

Development of ties with Iran is one of Russia's foreign policy priorities. This year, the 12th of March marked the 20th anniversary of the conclusion of the treaty that you have mentioned. It was signed by the Presidents of our countries in Moscow. By doing this, the sides confirmed their reciprocal commitment to building relations based on the principles of equality and mutual trust. Russia and Iran undertook to respect each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence and not to interfere into each other's internal affairs.

It is, to a large extent, due to the consistent implementation of the Treaty's provisions that our countries have reached such an unprecedentedly high level of interaction, which is today intensive and diversified. We are strengthening our ties in the political, trade, economic, scientific and technological, cultural, humanitarian and some other fields. Implementation of major infrastructure projects is underway in Iran, including the construction and operation of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Cooperation in the field of healthcare and fight against the spread of the COVID‑19 infection is advancing. Iran is supplied with Russia's Sputnik V vaccine, and there are plans to organize its production in the Iranian territory.

Moscow and Teheran work closely to ensure the full implementation of the JCPOA. We successfully coordinate our efforts to achieve a Syrian settlement within the Astana format, which has proved its effectiveness, and hold regular dialogue on the situation in the Middle East as a whole. We can confidently say that the Russian-Iranian cooperation contributes to maintaining regional stability, and, more broadly, to the development of international relations on the basis of the principles enshrined in the UN Charter.

During the forthcoming negotiations with my Iranian counterpart, Mr. Mohammad Javad Zarif, I am planning to discuss ways to further enhance the multifaceted Russian-Iranian ties.



Question:

Iran and Russia have a special role to play and a special strategy to pursue in the region, particularly as regards the development of the North–South Transport Corridor. What steps should be taken by the two countries under this project and what obstacles could they face? How is this project expected to influence the transportation of goods in the region and globally?



Sergey Lavrov:

Sustainable increase in trade and economic cooperation largely depends on the developed logistics network. The North–South International Transport Corridor is a good example of multilateral collaboration. It is the key infrastructure project in the region designed to promote mutually beneficial interaction between multiple states.

Our countries play a leading role in the implementation of this initiative, as most part of the land route runs through their territories. Building modern road infrastructure is of special importance in this regard. The Russian government has approved and launched relevant plans and programs, including for the Caspian Sea region. We know that Teheran also devotes special attention to this issue. We expect that our Iranian partners will successfully finish the construction of the approaches to the Caspian port (the Anzali Free Trade Zone) and the railway to Azerbaijan. This will substantially boost the competitiveness of the North–South ITC and its attractiveness for shippers.

The development of cooperation between Iran and the Eurasian Economic Union also serves the goal of successful functioning of the transport corridor. It was formalized in 2018 by signing of the Interim Agreement enabling formation of a free trade area (entered into force in October 2019). On 11 December 2020, a decision was taken to conclude a permanent agreement on the free trade area. For our part, we will continue to assist this work in every possible way.

We hope that the North–South ITC will eventually serve as the basis for creation of a single "seamless" transport, logistics and economic space stretching from southern coasts of Iran to northern cities of Russia. Addressing such a task appears especially relevant at the moment when the recent incident with the blocking of the Suez Canal has highlighted the need for reliable land transport routes.



Question:

The new US government seems to continue pursuing Donald Trump's policy but in a new form. What do you think of it? What can our countries do to counter the use of unilateral approaches by the Biden administration?



Sergey Lavrov:

The main problem, as we see it, is Washington's persistent unwillingness to abandon its flawed course towards upholding the US's global dominance, which was adopted in the early 1990's following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today, it is obvious to everyone that such a policy is entirely counterproductive, particularly given that the objective process of shaping a fairer, more democratic and therefore more sustainable multipolar world order is gaining momentum right before our eyes.

Despite this, the United States, supported by its European allies, has been taking aggressive steps aimed at destroying the UN-centered international legal architecture and substituting it with the so-called "rule-based order." It is not that we oppose the idea of everyone following the rules, yet these rules should be developed not within a narrow circle comprising Washington and its satellites and bypassing the United Nations but within universal formats involving all key global players based on the existing universally recognized norms of international law.

In this context, I would like to highlight the phenomenon of an unprecedented extensive pressure put by the West on States that are implementing an independent domestic and foreign policy guided by their national interests. This involves all sorts of tools ranging from financial sanctions and visa restrictions to disinformation campaigns and direct forceful interventions. We are, in fact, faced with the relapse into neo-colonial thinking in foreign policy, which implies, among other things, dividing the world into the "chosen" countries and all the rest. While the former are offered an a priori pardon for any actions, the latter must presumably act in line with instructions issued by Washington. This is, of course, unacceptable for both Russia and Iran, as well as most countries of the world.

As for the second part of the question, it is important that we strengthen our foreign policy interaction, including within the United Nations and other multilateral platforms. Especially given that, as I have already mentioned, we have a lot of supporters – most of the members of the world community share the view that inter-State communication should be developed based on international law and principles of mutual respect, taking account of each other's interests. Like us, they consider zero-sum geopolitical games, sanctions and blackmail to be unacceptable, and advocate for consistent improvement of the situation in the world.



Question:

Iran has repeatedly claimed that it has never sought nuclear weapons. The United States withdrew from the JCPOA and imposed tough sanctions on Iran. Iran will resume its obligations if the US lifts the sanctions. Does the world community, and Russia in particular, have a plan to address US sanctions?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia firmly believes that there is no reasonable alternative to the JCPOA. As President Putin has repeatedly emphasized, the most effective way to maintain the 2015 arrangements is for the signatory countries to fully comply with their obligations. The launch of substantive talks on that matter in Vienna involving Iranian and US delegates gives hope – first of all, the hope that previous violations of the JCPOA and UNSC Resolution 2231 by the US will be remedied. This will create conditions for Iran to return to compliance with the requirements under the nuclear deal, in terms of both transparency and reconfiguration of the Iranian nuclear program. We do our best to help Washington and Teheran find the right solution.

As for the sanctions policy pursued by Washington, our stance remains unchanged – we will continue to reject any unilateral restrictions, which – on top of everything else – affect the most disadvantaged groups of population. Russia has been vocal about the inadmissibility of such restrictions at various international platforms, including the United Nations. I am pleased to note that our position is widely supported by members of the world community.

It is equally important to step up efforts to reduce risks associated with sanctions and potential expenses for economic operators. In particular, gradual steps should be taken to move towards de-dollarization of national economies and transition to payments in national or alternative currencies, as well as to stop using international payment systems controlled by the West. Russia has been working actively to that end. We see great prospects for cooperation in that field with all interested international partners.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4681042






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, Tehran, April 13, 2021



13 April 2021 - 14:41

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 54:20

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 54:20

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held good talks with my friend, Foreign Minister of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, in a traditionally trustful and friendly atmosphere, and our talks have culminated in a number of agreements.

Last month, we marked the 20th anniversary of signing the Treaty on the Basis for Mutual Relations and Principles of Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Treaty laid the foundation for bilateral interstate communications under the principles of international law and mutual respect. Our relations fully meet the high standards set forth in this extremely important document.

We have noted the intensive nature of bilateral political dialogue, including at the highest level. We have agreed to continue implementing trade, economic, energy, agricultural, transport, industrial and nuclear-sector agreements, reached by our leaders. We have praised the close coordination between various agencies in key areas of the diverse Russian-Iranian partnership. We have positively assessed contacts between the secret services, military agencies, humanitarian institutions and overall human contacts.

We have separately discussed expanding cooperation between the Eurasian Economic Union and Iran. In December 2020, it was decided to launch talks on signing a permanent free trade agreement that would replace the 2018 temporary agreement which is now being successfully implemented. We have agreed that full-fledged trade liberalisation will help boost mutual trade still further.

We have analysed the efforts of our countries’ specialised agencies to combat the coronavirus infection. Over 500,000 two-component doses of the Sputnik V vaccine have been delivered to Iran. This vaccine has proved its efficiency, as confirmed by our Iranian friends. We are ready to continue assisting our neighbours in fighting the pandemic, including by launching production of this vaccine in Iran.

Russia and Iran continue to consolidate their bilateral legal framework. When Mr Minister visited Moscow last January, we signed an intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in ensuring information security. Today we signed an intergovernmental agreement on the establishment and operation of Russia’s information and cultural centres in Iran and Iran’s information and cultural centres in Russia. People in our country will be glad to have this opportunity to learn more about the centuries-old authentic Iranian culture. It is good to know that Iranians are showing an increasing interest in the Russian language and the culture and traditions of our multi-ethnic and multi-faith country.

In elaboration of the steps to consolidate our legal framework, today we agreed to draft another intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in biological security, which is becoming more relevant when such threats are growing and there is an absence of control and verification mechanisms to ensure the transparency of all countries’ activities in this area. Our US colleagues are strongly against creating a multilateral universal mechanism of this kind under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BWC). We and our Iranian friends, just like many other partners of ours, believe it is necessary to follow bilateral channels in order to ensure transparency in this essential area.

Today we analysed our cooperation within international organisations and agreed to coordinate our actions further within the UN, the IAEA, the OPCW and other platforms.

We had an extensive discussion on the situation around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action concerning Iran’s nuclear programme. As you know and as we have repeatedly stressed, it is only possible to continue with the JCPOA if all the involved parties implement it fully and consistently, in strict compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 2231. We expect that the JCPOA will be maintained and Washington will resume its comprehensive fulfilment of the resolution. This will open the door to Iran meeting all the requirements of the nuclear deal. It is our understanding that our partners in Tehran have expressed readiness to move in this direction immediately, provided that the United States takes the action required from it. We support the crucial talks that are underway in Vienna and condemn any attempts to sabotage them.

We compared our positions on the current military-political and humanitarian situation in Syria. With a view to an early crisis settlement in that country, we have also agreed to interact energetically further within the Astana format, jointly with our Turkish colleagues.

Russia consistently proceeds from the premise that the accumulated differences in the Persian Gulf area can only be overcome through a mutually respectful comprehensive dialogue with due account of the interests and concerns of all parties. The sooner the talks on this subject are launched, the quicker will there be a real chance for the situation to improve.

In this regard, we drew attention to our long-standing initiative to ensure collective security in the Persian Gulf. Unlike a number of other plans promoted by some states with confrontational goals or carrying a strong anti-Iranian charge, we stand for drafting a constructive and unifying agenda and creating mechanisms of joint response to challenges and threats with the involvement of all Gulf countries, Iran and all its neighbours. The Hormuz Peace Initiative proposed by Teheran is based on similar principles.

We also discussed the Nagorno-Karabakh situation in the context of Russian mediation efforts helping to maintain a stable ceasefire. We underscored the importance of overcoming the consequences of the conflict, of achieving in general a long-lasting political and diplomatic settlement on a just basis for the benefit of the Armenian and Azerbaijani peoples. We also considered the roles that the region’s countries could play in this process.

We touched on other relevant international topics, including the situation in Yemen and Afghanistan, where our positions are rather close.

We expressed satisfaction with the results of our talks on all bilateral and multilateral issues. I am grateful to our Iranian friends for the hospitality extended to our delegation. I avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate all Muslims on the beginning of the holy month of Ramadan, and wish the peace and all good.







Question:

Iran and the five international participants of the JCPOA are currently having talks in Vienna. At the same time, we can see and hear the West confronting Iran and the Russian Federation, imposing sanctions against us. How would you comment on these measures by the European Union?



Sergey Lavrov:

Just a couple of hours ago, I was astounded to hear the news that the European Union had imposed sanctions against a number of officials from the Islamic Republic of Iran for alleged human rights violations. I have not yet seen the full text of that decision, but the very fact of more sanctions raises many questions. If there is no coordination whatsoever in the European Union, if its left hand does not know what its right hand is doing, this is nothing less than a disaster. But if the decision was made deliberately, in the midst of the ongoing talks in Vienna on ways to rescue the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, then this is not a disaster. It is the kind of mistake that, as you know, is worse than a crime.

In my opening remarks, I underscored that in connection with this event, we condemn any attempts to undermine the process that is unfolding with difficulty in Vienna between all the participants in the JCPOA. I hope that our European colleagues will realise that this kind of action is unacceptable and will take measures to prevent a derailment of the negotiations.



Question:

The United States said it is not ready to lift all sanctions on Iran at once. How important is the lifting of oil sanctions and the unfreezing of Iranian foreign assets for the return to the full implementation of the JCPOA? Do you have any concerns that the removal of the oil sanctions could undermine the balance in the hydrocarbon market achieved due to the OPEC Plus deal?



Sergey Lavrov:

With regard to sanctions and the US’ reluctance to lift all the unilateral sanctions from Iran, our stance is clear and consistent with our Iranian friends’ approach. All unilateral sanctions imposed by Washington in direct violation of the JCPOA must, of course, be lifted. This topic is being discussed in Vienna. Once the United States fulfils that condition (that is, returns to full compliance with its obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 2231), the Islamic Republic of Iran will return to the implementation of the voluntary steps that Tehran committed to in accordance with that resolution.

As for the possibility of the Vienna talks giving a boost to the oil market, with more Iranian oil supplied once the sanctions are lifted, and how this will affect the efforts under OPEC Plus, I have a general answer. Policy should rely on the economy and should help solve economic problems in a particular country, but exclusively by legal methods – as prescribed by international law, the norms and principles of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the freedom of trade rule. If a policy aims to achieve economic benefits through unilateral illegal sanctions, moreover, in direct violation of the UN Security Council resolution, and the norms and principles of the WTO, we absolutely condemn such a policy. Economic benefits cannot be obtained by illegal methods.



Question:

Is it true that US sanctions may lead to a shortage of funding for the Bushehr project when it comes to settlements with Russian contractors, and that the construction may be stopped as early as this year? Was this subject discussed?



Sergey Lavrov:

When we speak about the necessity for the United States to resume full implementation of the JCPOA, we do not mean only the direct lifting of the illegal sanctions against Iran, but also the restrictions imposed on foreign companies for their cooperation with Iran.

The extraterritorial application of US laws (the EU has entered the same downward path, and is replacing legitimate methods with unilateral moves) must be put to an end. This is one of the subjects being discussed in Vienna.



Question:

The other day, German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer expressed regret that Moscow had not explained the goal of its military build-up on the border with Ukraine. Can you comment on that statement?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding the German Defence Minister’s statement on Russia’s alleged obligation to explain its actions on its own territory and the objectives of its armed forces’ training deployment and exercises, as well as her request that we do not keep these facts secret, I would like to say the following: we would like the Russian Federation’s right to hold any event it wants on its own territory to be respected.

As for Germany, it opened its door to Alexey Navalny under certain conditions, and our German colleagues still refuse to provide information about his health to us and have accused the Russian leadership of poisoning him on Russian territory. Not a single fact that would substantiate this claim has been provided to us.If Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer is so obsessed with obtaining information about events taking place in Russia, we would like her to reciprocate by ensuring that her government gives us the information which our German colleagues are keeping secret from us. She can play an important role in clearing up this dark and suspicious story. According to Berlin, toxic agents that are prohibited by the OPCW were found in Navalny’s samples at the Bundeswehr hospital. As we say in Russia, it’s only fitting that Ms Kramp-Karrenbauer bring clarity to the matters, which we raised with our German colleagues long ago and quite legitimately, but without any effect.



Question:

As a JCPOA participant, what does Russia think about the US decision to resume the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 for restoring the plan?



Sergey Lavrov:

The only way of restoring the JCPOA lies in the US fully returning to the implementation of all of its commitments that were approved by the UN Security Council. Washington flagrantly violated them at its own discretion. Moreover, the US adopted many laws that prohibit all other countries from implementing UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Only Washington’s full return to observance of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, without any exceptions, provides a way out of the current situation. Otherwise, we will create a dangerous precedent of treating international law in a way that may backfire on us unexpectedly in some other areas of human endeavour.

I listed the American laws aimed at introducing an enormous number of sanctions against Iran. However, Iran also has a parliament that has adopted a law on strategic measures with a certain timeframe that is taken into account during the current contacts in Vienna.

I don’t think we have a lot of time. Obviously, those who want to bury the JCPOA are resorting to various provocations just because there is a certain timeframe.

I hope common sense will prevail and our European colleagues will realise their responsibility for the JCPOA and won’t follow in the wake of those who want to wreck and bury this agreement.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4682255






Statement by the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, MOSCOW/PARIS/WASHINGTON 13 April 2021



14 April 2021 - 15:04



The Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group (Igor Popov of the Russian Federation, Stephane Visconti of France, and Andrew Schofer of the United States of America) released the following statement today:

The Co-Chairs note with satisfaction the consolidation of the ceasefire, and are closely monitoring the implementation of the agreement reached by the parties on 9 November 2020. The Co-Chairs welcome the significant achievements with regard to the return of the remains of the deceased, and the ongoing progress with regard to the resettlement of those displaced by the conflict, provision of humanitarian assistance and adequate living conditions, as well as constructive discussions aimed at unblocking transportation and communication lines throughout the region.

The Co-Chairs remind the sides that additional efforts are required to resolve remaining areas of concern and to create an atmosphere of mutual trust conducive to long-lasting peace. These include issues related to, inter alia: the return of all POWs and other detainees in accordance with the provisions of international humanitarian law, the exchange of all data necessary to conduct effective demining of conflict regions; the lifting of restrictions on access to Nagorno-Karabakh, including for representatives of international humanitarian organizations; the preservation and protection of religious and cultural heritage; and the fostering of direct contacts and co-operation between communities affected by the conflict as well as other people-to-people confidence building measures.

Having in mind the terms of their OSCE mandate and the aspirations of all the people of the region for a stable, peaceful, and prosperous future, the Co-Chairs stress that special attention should be paid to the achievement of a final comprehensive and sustainable settlement on the basis of the elements and principles well-known to the sides.

In this respect, the Co-Chairs call on the parties to resume high-level political dialogue under the auspices of the Co-Chairs at the earliest opportunity. They reiterate their proposal to organize direct bilateral consultations under their auspices, in order for the sides to review and agree jointly upon a structured agenda, reflecting their priorities, without preconditions.

The Co-Chairs also express their strong support for the continuing activities and possible expansion of the mission of the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chair-in-Office (PRCiO) and call on the sides to provide full access and support to its efforts. The Co-Chairs underscore their readiness to resume working visits to the region, including Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas, to carry out their assessment and mediation roles. In this regard, the Co-Chairs remind the sides of the requirement to provide unimpeded access and maximum flexibility of movement with regard to the Co-Chairs’ travel itineraries, in accordance with their mandate and previous practice.



https://www.osce.org/minsk-group/483416




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4683440

[Alex Him]

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 15, 2021



15 April 2021 - 21:33

Maria Zakharova (E) - 01:02:20

Maria Zakharova (E) - 01:02:20

New US sanctions

We received many requests to comment on the new US sanctions.

We have repeatedly warned the United States about the consequences of its hostile moves that are dangerously raising the level of confrontation between our countries. This course of action does not serve the interests of the people of the two leading nuclear powers that bear historical responsibility for the fate of the world.

In a telephone conversation with the President of Russia, Joe Biden expressed interest in normalising Russian-US relations but the actions of his administration suggest otherwise. The United States is not ready to accept the objective reality of a multipolar world in which American hegemony is not possible. It is placing its bets on sanctions pressure and interference in our domestic affairs.

This aggressive conduct will certainly meet with resolute resistance. There will inevitably be a response to the sanctions. Washington must realise that it will have to pay for the degradation of bilateral relations. Responsibility for what is happening fully rests with the United States.

US Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan was summoned to the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation. We will share with you additional information about the outcome of what will be a difficult conversation for him.



Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Prime Minister of Libya’s Government of National Unity Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh

................................................................................................................


Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Prime Minister of Lebanon Saad al-Hariri

................................................................................................................



Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Secretary of Mexico Marcelo Ebrard

On April 28, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Foreign Secretary of the United Mexican States Marcelo Ebrard in Moscow during his official visit to our country. Let me remind you that the Russian foreign minister visited Mexico in February 2020.

Mexico is an important partner of Russia with which we traditionally cooperate on the basis of mutual respect and equal consideration of each other’s interests. Last year our nations celebrated the 130th anniversary of diplomatic relations.

The forthcoming meeting of the foreign ministers is proof of steady progress in the extensive political dialogue between our countries.

During the talks, the ministers will discuss a broad range of issues on the bilateral agenda, including prospects for building up and diversifying trade and economic relations as well as expanding cultural and humanitarian cooperation. They will focus especially on countering the spread of the coronavirus.

There will be an exchange of views on current international and regional topics, such as our countries’ interaction at the UN, including the Security Council where Mexico will be a non-permanent member in 2021-2022, as well as at the G20 and APEC.

They will also discuss the expansion of Russia’s dialogue with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) where Mexico holds the rotating presidency until 2022.



Coronavirus update

We continue to monitor the situation with COVID-19, both politically and logistically. International organisations are working and international experts are exchanging information. By April 15, the number of people infected with COVID-19 around the world has exceeded 138 million and nearly 4 million people have died.

We have to state with regret that the overall situation with morbidity is getting notably worse as we approach summer: the number of new confirmed cases and deaths around the world has been growing steadily for four consecutive weeks. Various countries, including those that are traditional tourist destinations, have recorded a distinct correlation between the spread of the new strains of the coronavirus and the incidence rate. We urge you to keep an eye on information from the emergency response centre and relevant agencies, including Rostourism, Rospotrebnadzor and Rosaviatsia.

Given the complicated epidemiological situation in the world, we would like to repeat our warning to those who plan to travel, particularly as tourists, that currently any trip abroad is associated with high risks. If a trip cannot be cancelled or postponed, please consider all factors involved, as well as the likely scenarios of what might happen. Our previous recommendations are still relevant.



Update on southeastern Ukraine

Mounting tensions on the line of contact in Donbass continue to cause concern. According to the latest report by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM), the number of ceasefire violations in the previous two weeks has doubled compared to two weeks earlier, reaching 4,300. The shelling of towns in the Lugansk and Donetsk regions by the Ukrainian armed forces has become heavier. Casualties among civilians in Donetsk and Lugansk are growing. Kiev continues to deploy more military vehicles and troops in the region. According to SMM reports, Grad multiple rocket launchers, the use of which is banned under the Minsk agreements, have been seen in the settlement of Druzhkovka to the north of Donetsk.

The escalation of tensions was discussed at the meetings of the Contact Group and its sub-groups on April 13 and 14. Regrettably, they have again yielded no results because of Ukraine’s counterproductive approach. This proves yet again Kiev’s unwillingness to get down to concrete work and start seeking a settlement using peaceful diplomatic tools.

In a move to divert attention from its activities in Donbass and its failure to act in the Contact Group, Kiev has drawn on the active and broad support of its Western curators – which by and large amounts to a campaign – to keep pursuing its aggressive information policy against Russia. The Ukrainian and Western media are blowing the issue of Russian military activity near the border with Ukraine out of proportion. Western countries, both separately and collectively, are churning out statements to this effect. Part of this misinformation and propaganda campaign is Ukraine’s efforts to use the provisions of the OSCE Vienna document on confidence- and security-building measures, which deal, as they say, with “unusual military activity.” On April 10, 2021, this issue was discussed at the relevant consultations and on April 14, at the joint meeting of the OSCE decision-making bodies: the Permanent Council and the Forum for Security Cooperation.

It is the second week that our diplomats in Moscow and Vienna have been calling on our partners not to distort reality and not to try and interpret the planned combat training Russia is conducting on its territory as a manifestation of its aggressive intentions. The scale of these activities does not surpass that of the previous years and looks much more modest than the military exercises the Ukrainian armed forces and NATO countries are holding both close to the Ukrainian borders and directly on the territory of Ukraine.

The OSCE Vienna document provisions on the unusual military activity apply more to what the Ukrainian armed forces have been doing in Donbass since 2014, leaving 14,000 people dead and forcing 2.5 million people to become refugees and internally displaced persons. Not once have we seen the West’s deep concern about facts like these.

Once again we call on our partners, primarily Germany and France as our colleagues in the Normandy format, to stop taking part in this propaganda campaign built around Russia’s activities on its territory that are posing no threat to anyone and instead to focus on the efforts to encourage Kiev to de-escalate tensions in Donbass and implement the Minsk Package of Measures.



NATO activities in Ukraine and near its borders

The United States and its NATO allies continue accusing Russia of building up its military units and equipment near the border with Ukraine. These propaganda attacks demonstrate that the Alliance and its member countries want to justify their more intensive military activities in Ukraine and near it.

I would like to remind you that throughout this year alone NATO is planning seven military exercises in Ukraine. The active phase of the Defender Europe 2021 exercise, the most extensive exercise for many years, is to commence near Ukraine soon. This event is to involve 25 states. NATO warships are entering the Black Sea ever more frequently; the number of such visits increased by one-third last year.

US, British, Canadian and Lithuanian training missions are deployed in the country. It should be noted that Ukrainian service personnel that have been trained by NATO instructors are often sent to the zone of the so-called “anti-terrorist operation,” directed against certain districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

US strategic bombers overfly the Black Sea and Ukraine much more often than before, and they enter preset sectors for launching cruise missiles. More intensive aerial reconnaissance missions are taking place near the Crimean peninsula.

Moreover, the United States and its allies are supplying Ukraine with numerous weapons systems. Our Western partners and their countries’ media are keeping quiet about this. Since 2014, Washington has provided almost $2 billion worth of military assistance to Kiev.

All this shows it is precisely NATO countries which are aggravating the situation around Ukraine with their provocative actions. By the way, Ukraine is not included in NATO’s zone of responsibility. These provocative actions are fueling military revenge-seeking moods, as NATO builds up its military potential near this restless region.

The double standards of US-led NATO are not something new. They are also manifested in other matters, including counter-terrorism operations, rather than just in the context of Ukraine.



US double counter-terrorism standards and media reports about new ISIS leader Amir Muhammad Sa'id al-Mawla

As of late, US media outlets, including the Voice of America, Bloomberg, The New York Times and others, have published material resembling planted stories about Moscow’s alleged contacts with Islamists. To be quite frank, we are surprised that US media outlets are paying more attention to such planted stories, fake news and misinformation about other states’ ties with Jihadists, rather than to reports about support for terrorism by their own country’s representatives.

It was the United States that published reports about the new ISIS leader Amir Muhammad Sa'id Abdal-Rahman al-Mawla who worked for Washington in the past and who was a US informant. Citing his interrogation protocols, The Washington Post has published details of his cooperation and information passed on from him to the US authorities.

We assume that The Washington Post is a media resource for US readers, and that it has a high reputation in its own country. In this connection, such statements inevitably attract the closest attention and interest on the part of other US media outlets.

The just-mentioned article once again confirms that the practice of worked-out double standards permeates all strata of the US society. Unfortunately, the journalist community that should be objective and unbiased is no exception here either. In any event, they tried to persuade us that they were living in line with these declared principles.



Persecution of Russian-speaking journalists in Latvia

Systematic infringements on the freedom of speech are ongoing in the Baltics. Here is the latest example: on April 14, the Latvian State Security Service summoned five freelance employees of the Russian Sputnik Latvia and the Russian-language Baltnews news portals for interrogation as suspects.

According to our information, they signed non-disclosure and travel restriction agreements. Proceedings can be initiated against them for violating the EU sanctions, which is punishable with financial penalty or up to four years in prison.

We regard this as yet another example of the “demonisation of Russia”, persecution of Russian-speaking residents of Latvia, and double standards. We believe that criminal prosecution of journalists in Latvia is a direct violation of international law when it comes to the freedom of expression and media pluralism.

We are aware of the campaign launched by US media resources and officials, who claim to be concerned about the pressure US media outlets allegedly experience in Russia. No concrete examples have been provided, because there are none, in principle. But this pseudo-information based on rumour has been published, even though they could not provide any evidence of pressure on American journalists.

Meanwhile, Russian journalists across the world are not just being pressured but persecuted. I have provided just one of a long list of such examples. We are speaking about them at the official level. There is proof of this information. Why haven’t they attracted the interest of American journalists, human rights organisations and the specialised bodies whose job is to protect the freedom of speech and journalists’ rights? Are they not interested? I can’t believe this. There are enough facts. In fact, there are so many of them that they cannot go unnoticed.

I would like to remind you that similar proceedings were initiated against seven freelance employees of Sputnik Latvia and Baltnews in December 2020. Their homes were searched, and their computers, mobile phones and bank cards seized. We can see that “undesirable” journalists have been and are still being treated as criminals without any legal substantiation.

We urge the Riga authorities to abandon their repressive methods and media bias and to stop using the EU’s illegal sanctions to cover up their open infringements on the freedom of speech.

We hope that the concerned international platforms and human rights organisations will provide an objective assessment of the Latvian authorities’ actions.

It is impossible to think that they can escape the attention of agencies that purport to be independent, unbiased and objective.



Danish authorities’ anti-Russia statements

We have to once again bring to your notice the Danish authorities’ consistent promotion of anti-Russia approaches in the context of the preservation of the historical memory of WWII.

In particular, the Danish Ministry of Defence posted a statement on the social media in connection with the 75th anniversary of Soviet troops’ withdrawal from Bornholm, saying that Denmark became free only after the Soviet troops left the island in 1946.

This statement is an example of a deliberate distortion of truth. The special operation conducted by the Red Army in May 1945 was aimed at liberating Bornholm from Nazi occupation. A German garrison with 12,000 troops stationed on the island refused to surrender. The Danish party was notified that the Soviet troops would remain on Bornholm until all military matters were settled with Germany. Abundant proof of this is available in Soviet and Danish documents.

It appears that Copenhagen is deliberately distorting facts in an attempt to rewrite the book of history by tearing out pages that look unsuitable in the current political situation. This misrepresentation is especially cynical this year, when we will mark 80 years since Nazi Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union.

Juggling with historical facts in this manner is inadmissible.



Norwegian documentary Front Fighters

We have taken note of a documentary drama titled Frontkjempere (“Front Fighters”) that came out on April 6 on the NRK channel of the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation to mark the anniversary of Norway’s occupation during World War II (April 9, 1941). The plot of the film is rather unsightly: the film tells the story of former members of the Norwegian Legion of the Waffen-SS who fought “heroically” on the Eastern Front, including near Moscow, Leningrad, in the Caucasus and North Karelia. Notably, Norway’s Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Defence were involved in creating this so-called documentary.

Hiding behind the “benefits” of a non-politicised exchange of opinions, the film creators distorted and turned history upside down presenting war criminals and voluntary Nazi collaborators as naïve victims of Hitler’s propaganda and patriots who were resisting the expansion of Bolshevism. The creators are urging viewers to refrain from condemning the “front fighters” but instead try and understand their motives. The “veterans” are broadcasting a complete lack of remorse or repentance, while their complicity in Nazi atrocities has been left out of the script. The “heroes” are flaunting their “achievements in battle” and recall, with smiles, the efficiency of German machine guns and the heavy death toll of the Red Army.

We would like to remind director Alexander Kristiansen and other creators of the film about one fact that evaded their attention. During the Petsamo–Kirkenes offensive, including battles for liberation of Eastern Finnmark, the Soviet Union lost over 6,000 soldiers. Some 12,678 Soviet prisoners of war died in Nazi camps on the Norwegian territory. For comparison, Norway’s total casualties in World War II amounted to 10,262 people.

The film creators are not even perturbed by the fact that the activity of the Waffen-SS received a legal judgment under international law during the Nuremberg trials, the outcome of which is not subject to review.

This kind of pandering to war criminals has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It leads directly to the glorification of Nazism and is fraught with the falsification of our common history.

Until recently, Norway never made such major attempts to revisit the WWII events, with government bodies actually encouraging such distressing projects.

We remember very well the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Soviet Red Army’s liberation of Northern Norway from Nazi occupation in Kirkenes. The anniversary in October 2019 was attended by King of Norway Harald V. Sergey Lavrov headed the Russian delegation.

We praise the exemplary maintenance of Soviet war burials in Norway, installation of new monuments and Norway’s diligence in identifying the people who perished in Nazi camps on the Norwegian territory, as well as the care and attention it shows towards our veterans. As you remember, in September 2020, we commented on the ceremony at the Norwegian Embassy in Moscow where Great Patriotic War veteran Mikhail Podgursky was presented with Norway’s state medal for the participation in the defence of Norway on behalf of the King of Norway.

Broadcasting such an anti-masterpiece by a Norwegian state television and radio company is absolutely unacceptable and shameful. It is good to know that the documentary has already been criticised in Norway itself. We also expect an honest and unbiased response from official Oslo.



Second report by OPCW Investigation and Identification Team on alleged use of chlorine in Saraqib, Syria on February 4, 2018

We noticed the report on the investigation of the February 4, 2018 incident in the Syrian city of Saraqib that supposedly involved the alleged use of chlorine, published on April 12, 2021, on the internal portal of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The release of these findings shortly before the final meeting of the 25th session of the Conference of the States Parties (CSP) to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC, The Hague, April 20-22, 2021) was by no means accidental. The conference is going to consider a draft decision stripping Damascus of its rights and privileges under the CWC for the allegedly proven involvement of the Syrian armed forces in three chlorine and sarin attacks in al-Lataminah in March 2017, as reported by the Syrian opposition. This kind of politically motivated decision is unprecedented for this purely technical international agency.

This is the second report, imposed on the OPCW by Washington and its Euro-Atlantic allies in violation of the CWC, prepared by the “attributive” Investigation and Identification Team (IIT). The conclusions are absolutely identical and follow ‘the best traditions’ of this quasi-prosecution group – “there are reasonable grounds to believe that at approximately 21:22 on February 4, 2018, during ongoing attacks against Saraqib, a military helicopter of the Syrian Arab Air Force codenamed “Alpha-253”, under the control of the Tiger Forces, hit eastern Saraqib by dropping at least one cylinder. The cylinder ruptured and released a toxic gas, chlorine, which dispersed over a large area, affecting 12 named individuals.” Is this the kind of language that an international organisation based on international law should be using? Does “there are reasonable grounds to believe” sound like a conclusion underlying a major report they have been working on for so long?

This time, to make the biased, politically motivated and pseudo-professional conclusions more plausible, the team allegedly called in every expert they could dream of, including experts in meteorology, toxicology, weapons, geolocation and digital technology. Every trick in the book was used to build a solid research basis for supposedly the only possible version that involved a 120-litre cylinder with household chlorine dropped from a helicopter, apparently from a great altitude, on a piece of wasteland in the suburb of Saraqib. In a word, IIT – an illegitimately created agency – seems to be continuing the vicious reporting practice previously used by the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) and the former OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM).

At the same time, it is encouraging that the numerous forgeries and frauds used during the increasingly sophisticated preparations of such accusatory reports against Damascus are becoming public knowledge thanks to some honest and politically unbiased employees of OPCW, a once respected organisation that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013 specifically for the successful chemical demilitarisation of Syria. More confirmation of this is that Berlin Group 21, an independent association that includes a number of credible and internationally known scientists and public figures, has issued a new appeal to the leaders of the OPCW Technical Secretariat calling for all of the aforementioned original OPCW inspectors to be heard. Those people had once helped shed light on the FFM’s corrupt activities during the investigation of the chemical provocation organised by the pseudo-humanitarian NGO White Helmets in the Syrian city of Douma on April 8, 2018. They also proposed a thorough review, made by the OPCW’s Scientific Advisory Board, of what the inspectors consider to be serious procedural and scientific irregularities in producing the perverted final version of the report about that chemical provocation by the White Helmets, skilled in such staged video productions, committed by OPCW employees who were not strong enough to rebel against the politically-motivated pressure from their bosses.

We hope that justice will ultimately triumph and that the forces behind such unseemly action tarnishing the OPCW’s former reputation and the integrity of the CWC will finally see reason. Otherwise, the entire system of disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which has been formed with such difficulty over the decades, will be irreparably damaged.



Russia’s position regarding Cypriot settlement

We welcome the UN Secretary-General’s initiative to hold an informal five-plus-one meeting dedicated to the Cyprus issue in Geneva on April 27-29. We are closely following the preparations for this. It is a positive sign that all the interested parties have expressed readiness to attend it. We hope that the upcoming event will help relaunch the negotiations and find compromise solutions to problematic issues.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia is categorically against the enforcement of any external ready-made formulas and temporary solutions. The Cyprus communities must be free to choose their own future.

Our principled stance remains unchanged: we stand for a comprehensive, fair and sustainable settlement in the best interests of all Cypriots based on the generally recognised legal formula that provides for the creation on the island of a bizonal, bicommunal federation with a common international jurisdiction, sovereignty and citizenship.

The insistent advocacy by some capitals to change the current principles of a settlement from a federal to a two-state model is unacceptable. Any change of the basic parameters is only possible with the approval of the UN.

A major aspect of a settlement is the gradual demilitarisation of the island and the replacement of the obsolete system of external guarantees with the safeguards of the UN Security Council.



Russia’s activities at the East Asia Summit

We are interested in strengthening the ASEAN-centric system of multilateral relations in the Asia Pacific region and in promoting a unification agenda in the region and applied cooperation on the ASEAN-centric platforms.

In 2016, long before the COVID-19 pandemic, we submitted to the East Asia Summit our proposals on regional cooperation to prevent infectious diseases. At our initiative, the East Asia Summit leaders adopted a statement on strengthening collective capacity in epidemics prevention and response at their 15th meeting in November 2020. The statement was co-authored by Vietnam, Indonesia, China and Thailand. Our ASEAN colleagues are now considering the concept of a cooperation mechanism to address the threat of infectious dieses, which we prepared within the framework of the agreements reached at the highest level.

This year we will discuss what’s happening with the travel industry in the context of the coronavirus pandemic. The importance of this topic for ASEAN was reaffirmed at the relevant Russia-ASEAN high level consultations held on February 3, 2021. Moreover, this subject has been added to the priorities of Brunei’s ASEAN Chairmanship in 2021. We can clearly see that our Asian partners have a positive view on our initiative that the ASEAN leaders adopt a statement advocating practical steps towards this at the 16th East Asia Summit.

In light of the analysis of all aspects of the regional developments, we believe that the EAS should continue to concentrate on the matter of new threats and challenges. We have the political and legal framework for this. In particular, in 2017 and 2018, the EAS approved the Russian drafts of the final documents on countering the ideological challenges of terrorism and the threat of foreign terrorist fighters.



Online education resource Russian Electronic School

We would like to draw the attention of Russian citizens living abroad to the state education resource Russian Electronic School that has been launched by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, with the support of numerous partners. This education resource is unique in terms of its scale.

In fact, this is a real Russian school employing the best Russian teachers who use custom-made curricula. This e-school is available on any digital device, including computers and smartphones, as well as in any country. Its lessons completely meet federal state education standards and the main general education curricula. The lessons’ custom-made exercises and tests aim to make things easier for pupils and to better prepare them for the final state certification in the form of the Unified State Examination for high school graduates and for those enrolling at Russia’s higher education institutions.

This resource provides Russian-speaking citizens in Russia and abroad with an absolutely free, safe, highly convenient and effective tool for teaching high school pupils wishing to enroll in Russia’s higher education institutions and for earning education degrees in line with high Russian standards.

The Russian Electronic School’s website posts interactive lessons dealing with the entire school curriculum from Grade 1 to Grade 11, a catalogue of museums, films and music concerts, as well as a collection of the best methodological material and teaching aids for all lessons for educators.

We hope that the Russian Electronic School will become an irreplaceable educational asset for all those wishing to study in Russian, for those who are interested in this country and its culture, and who want to link their future with Russia.



Presidential elections in the Republic of Ecuador

On April 11, the second round of presidential elections was held in the Republic of Ecuador, and the winning candidate is Guillermo Lasso.

The President of the Russian Federation has sent a message of congratulations to the President Elect of Ecuador.

Russia and Ecuador are linked by traditionally close friendly ties that have been developing dynamically on the basis of equality and mutual respect. In 2020, both countries marked the 75th anniversary of establishing diplomatic relations.

We hope to further expand our constructive political dialogue and mutually beneficial cooperation in all directions. We are confident that relations between our countries will continue to get stronger in the interests of maintaining international stability and security.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

We are approaching an important anniversary for diplomacy, the 60th anniversary of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Do you think it has lost its relevance in modern conditions?



Maria Zakharova:

We attach particular importance to the upcoming 60th anniversary of the signing of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (April 18, 1961). It is one of the most relevant international treaties that secured the status and functions of diplomatic missions, privileges and immunities of diplomatic staff, the procedure for handling diplomatic mail and many other rules of diplomatic communication, thus becoming an important element supporting stability in interstate relations.

It should be noted that, under Article 51 of the Convention, the document actually took effect much later – on April 24, 1964 – 30 days after 22 instruments of ratification were deposited with the UN Secretary-General. The Soviet Union, by the way, ratified the Convention on February 11, 1964.

The Russian Federation has always highly valued the role and significance of the Convention as one of the fundamental acts of international and diplomatic law. Our country strictly follows its letter and spirit and always requires as much of its partners from foreign countries. Let me remind you that 192 states are parties to the Vienna Convention.

Overall, Russia's approach invariably involves consistently upholding the foundations of the international legal system. The erosion of this system is unacceptable, as is interpretation of international law solely to suit one’s own interests while disregarding any arguments. In this context, although the document does contain certain archaic elements, there is no reason to believe the Convention has lost its relevance. The fundamental principles contained in it are still applicable and provide a framework for the architecture of diplomatic relations. That said, reciprocity has been and remains the main principle of building relationships between states.

At the same time, we do not rule out that there may be a need, at a certain stage, to modernise the text of the Vienna Convention and adapt it to modern realities. If the international community makes a consolidated decision on this score, Russia will be ready to participate in the process.

Unfortunately, in recent years, we have been compelled to highlight increasingly frequent and serious violations of the Vienna Convention, on the part of Western countries that are trying to replace international law with their own rules-based order. We cite evidence of this at almost every briefing. One of them is a vivid manifestation of aggressive policy on the part of the United States, which is brutally destroying diplomacy.



Question:

Will Russia, in response to Washington's actions, expel American diplomats?



Maria Zakharova:

As I said, there will be an inevitable response. It will be worked out. You will find out shortly. Our experts are preparing it now.

I would also like to point out that at this very moment, the US Ambassador to Russia is at the Foreign Ministry, and he is not going to enjoy the meeting. We will certainly update you on the results.



Question:

During the recent phone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden, the two presidents agreed to give instructions to relevant agencies and offices to work out matters that they discussed. Is there any clarity regarding what kind of instructions these were? Has the process of preparing a summit of the Russian and US presidents begun?



Maria Zakharova:

Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov commented on everything that relates to the possible bilateral summit. Please be guided by this information.

As for the signals that were supposed to be sent, we have a feeling that the US party sent them somewhere else. Given what mess they have made today.



Question:

How can you comment on the recent referendum in Kyrgyzstan on the adoption of a new Constitution given that it evoked a controversial reaction in the West? In particular, independent EU observers mention breach of secrecy, the violation of election campaign rules, and bribery of voters.



Maria Zakharova:

There is not much to say about the objectiveness of EU’s assessments of electoral processes in the world. If their approaches at elections at various levels in the United States had been unbiased, it would have been worthwhile to pay attention to their comments on elections in other countries. Given that their assessments before, during and after the election in the United States cannot even be called laconic, much less unbiased, there is no point paying attention to them in other cases. First of all, they should get some experience and a reputation at being objective. It would be the first steps toward being trusted and being able to make such comments. So far, there is nothing to talk about, so let us concentrate on our own assessment of the developments in Kyrgyzstan.

On April 11, 2021, Kyrgyzstan hosted an election to the local governments and at the same time a referendum on adopting a new Constitution, which implies transition form the parliamentary to presidential form of government. According to the preliminary data of the local election commission, over 79 percent of voters voted for the new Constitution.

The referendum has been passed. International observers say that the voting was open, free and legitimate.

We hope that the will of the Kyrgyz people will facilitate domestic stability, the development of the republic under the rule of law and stable growth of its economy.



Question:

In a recent interview with Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia has been taking steps to move towards de-dollarisation of the national economy and to stop using international payment systems controlled by the West. Is this connected to the Kremlin’s concern voiced by Dmitry Peskov that Russia may be cut off from these systems any day, including as part of the sanctions policy? During the interview Sergey Lavrov said that Russia had been working actively to that end. Could you tell us more about this work? Has any timeframe been coordinated?



Maria Zakharova:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has commented on this topic many times during numerous interviews.

It is no secret that Russia has been working consistently to reduce the share of dollars in the national currency reserves and in mutual settlements with our main trade partners. You can read the statements to this effect made by the Russian Government and various ministries and agencies, including the Foreign Ministry leaders.

At the same time, we are working to create and promote an alternative payments architecture that will be aligned with analogues in other countries that do not depend on Washington’s policy. You know all too well when and why we started doing this. We understand that Washington is using its national currency and its financial system as tools for conducting its policy aggressively, not just contrary to or in violation of the international legal framework, but with a view to destroying it.

I would like to note that these actions are a forced measure taken due to the loss of our trust in the Western ability to pursue a non-politicised approach to ensuring uninterrupted access to the international financial system, the decreasing predictability of the US economic policy, uncontrollable introduction of unsubstantiated restrictions, and continued threats of their use.

Of course, this is putting in question not just the expediency of using the US national currency as a priority payment currency, but also a reliable use of the payment mechanisms controlled by the West. It is logical that due to these circumstances we have to take measures to minimise the potential economic losses and transaction risks.

As for Visa and MasterCard, they have already raised the possibility of suspending their operations in Russia. It was in response to these insinuations that we created and launched the National Payment Card System (NSPK) in 2014 to ensure the uninterrupted use, efficiency and accessibility of money transfer services. A Mir card of the national payment system was issued in 2015.

We have been working consistently to synchronise Russia’s national payment systems with those of several other countries. We are developing interaction between the Mir system and foreign analogues such as China’s UnionPay, Japan’s JCB and the international payment system Maestro. These co-branded cards are accepted both in Russia and abroad, for example, in Armenia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkey. We are also working energetically to develop the cooperative use of Mir cards in several other countries. But this is taking a great deal of time and effort.

It would be premature to speak about a concrete timeframe for the creation of comprehensive national payment instruments and their promotion on international markets, or any possible new Western restrictions against Russia in the financial sphere.

According to the statements made the bank’s management, the Bank of Russia does not envision any risks of being cut off from Western payment systems. However, our experience shows, as Dmitry Peskov has already said, that nothing can be ruled out in our current relations with the West. Therefore, we must prepare for any unfriendly moves by our co-called partners.



Question:

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said it had sent a request to Russia on the situation on the Russian-Ukrainian border, but Moscow refused to give any explanations. What is your comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

Ukraine invoked the 2011 Vienna Document on confidence and security-building measures to request that Russia, via the OSCE channels, “provide information on the purpose of Russia’s military activities near Ukraine’s border and in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation, the exact locations used for the operation, its completion dates, as well as the names, subordination, number and types of participating military units.”

We preferred to overlook the mistake made in the request about the territorial affiliation of Crimea and answered on the merits: “The Russian Federation is not engaged in any significant military activity on a scale that would require a notification under the Vienna Document. All activities carried out by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and involving redeployment of troops in the zone of application of confidence and security measures are part of routine combat training and do not warrant notification.”

On the other hand, we consider it necessary to highlight a truly alarming exacerbation of tensions around Donbass due to the provocative actions by the Kiev regime.

Kiev continues to send new military equipment to the contact line. From March 1 to March 31, the Special Monitoring Mission reported 288 cases where Ukrainian weapons (including 142 pieces of large-calibre artillery, over 100 mm) were spotted at Donbass railway stations controlled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (Rubezhnoye, Pokrovskoye, Zachatovka, Konstantinovka, and Slavyansk). The number of attacks on the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics also increased. For the first time since last July, when additional measures were taken to strengthen the ceasefire, the Armed Forces of Ukraine used artillery prohibited by the Minsk agreements against the LPR. Unmanned aerial vehicles are increasingly used, and the number of victims among the civilian population is growing. There was publicity about a case involving the death of a child in the village of Aleksandrovskoye (DPR), although Kiev tried to evade responsibility. The death was confirmed by the UN Human Rights Observer Mission in Ukraine. But this is not the only problem. In fact, over the years, hundreds of boys and girls have been killed, not just one or ten, and their deaths remain unpunished and even unnoticed by the international community. It is as if they are turning a blind eye. This is just shocking.

More and more statements and actions by representatives of the Kiev regime prove its actual departure from the Minsk agreements. By and large, there seems to be nothing left of Vladimir Zelensky's pre-election statements and promises to end the war. His most recent remarks are openly aggressive and belligerent. At the same time, Ukraine is clearly counting on the intervention of its Western supervisors. Bad idea. Any scenarios of a forceful suppression of Donbass, let alone a seizure of Crimea, are infeasible and suicidal.

We do not count on the sanity of those who took over power in Kiev and deceived the expectations of people who believed in their peaceful intentions. By the way, this is one of the reasons why the Russian side does not invoke the relevant provisions of the Vienna Document, which has been repeatedly violated by Ukraine. We appeal directly to those who, by their actions in 2014 and later, took responsibility for the anti-constitutional armed coup and are responsible for the destruction of a peaceful multinational country.

We call on Ukraine's ‘allies’ to stop inciting the Kiev regime to bloody and destructive adventures by supplying weapons, ammunition and non-lethal military products, as well as funding, and by providing intelligence, training and political support.

Russia is not interested in triggering a civil war in Donbass and will make every effort to protect its residents and ensure peace in that long-suffering region. This is our basic stance. The Russian leaders have repeatedly spoken about this.



Question:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his deputies have expressed concern that Turkey and other NATO members are encouraging Kiev’s militarist sentiments and their disappointment about the use of Turkish drones over Donbass. What operations are they involved in? Why is it a problem that NATO states and Turkey are selling combat drones? After all, Russia also engages in military technical collaboration with Turkey.



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to point out a matter of principle: a civil war is underway in Ukraine. The nationalist forces, which seized power in Kiev in February 2014, have been conducting military operations against their own citizens for the past seven years, using artillery, armoured vehicles and even combat drones. These forces came to power not through elections but by staging a state coup. It was not the first time this was carried out, and they accomplished the coup with foreign assistance, including from NATO countries, which has led to violence. This is the distinguishing feature of this situation.

Civilians are being killed. They are unable to live peacefully. We have pointed out on numerous occasions that those who are interested in the developments in that region and in Ukraine in general, primarily journalists, should visit Donbass, Donetsk and Lugansk, where they will be able to use their professional skills to form their own opinion. They should talk with local people – not necessarily the military, but ordinary civilians – and ask them why many of them are worried by the delivery of weapons to Ukraine. They will answer your questions, not based on theory but because they know about this from their everyday lives. Civilians, worse still, children go outside and never return home.

We believe that the supply of weapons, including drones, to Ukraine from NATO countries, including Turkey, will not help bring about a peaceful settlement in Donbass. The international community has been using legal means with the aim of putting an end to the civil war in Ukraine on the basis of the law. The Minsk Package was drafted and adopted by the sides. These agreements have become binding after their approval by the UN Security Council. Do they say that arms deliveries to Ukraine should be increased to attain peace? Are arms deliveries a key or additional element of the Minsk agreements aimed at restoring peace? No, they set out absolutely different measures. The Minsk Package is a roadmap for peace and normal life. It does not mention weapons. These arms deliveries run counter to Ukraine’s commitments. Why is Kiev doing so much to receive ever more weapons and nothing to implement the binding provisions of the Minsk agreements? This policy is only fostering Ukraine’s militarist aspirations and could encourage it to use military force to settle the internal conflict. This approach is diverting the Kiev regime from the implementation of the Minsk agreements.

This is extremely alarming. We will never tire in our efforts to draw attention to this and to urge Kiev to comply with the Minsk agreements.



Question:

After the talks with the Foreign Minister of Egypt, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned Turkey and other countries against providing military support to Ukraine. Did Turkey give any response about understanding the situation?



Maria Zakharova:

I have already said enough on this matter today. I can add that during contacts with Turkish leaders, we have a regular exchange of opinions on all, even the most sensitive, issues on the international and regional agendas. In particular, we inform Turkey about Russia’s stance on the southeastern Ukraine.

Of course, Ankara is well aware of the fact that we are highly concerned about foreign countries encouraging Kiev’s hostile course of action. We always stress the importance of refraining from steps, including in the military and technical cooperation, that could trigger an escalation in Donbass.

We intend to continue an engaged and professional dialogue with our foreign partners and to discourage them from stimulating Kiev’s revanchist sentiments. Instead they should use all available political and diplomatic resources to make their fair share of contribution to stabilising and improving the situation around Ukraine.



Question:

Recently, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev made two bombshell and even provocative statements. The first statement was that Yerevan and Zangezur are allegedly historically Azerbaijani territories. The second statement concerned debris of an Iskander missile that was allegedly found in Karabakh. What do these statements have to do with Russia in such a complicated geopolitical situation? What is Russia’s response to the reports of Iskander missile debris that was allegedly found?



Maria Zakharova:

As far as the Iskander debris is concerned, Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov has already commented on this matter. This is our military’s area of responsibility.



Question:

For the first time in nine years, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov paid a two-day visit to Pakistan. Islamabad considers this a big step towards friendship between the two countries that should facilitate, among other things, the peace process in Afghanistan. What is Russia’s stance on the Pakistan visit? What agreements were signed?



Maria Zakharova:

We share Pakistan’s view of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on April 6-7. During the friendly consultations between Minister Lavrov and his Pakistani colleague Shah Mahmood Qureshi as well as his meetings with Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan and Pakistani Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa, the current state and development prospects for bilateral relations were discussed in detail, including the possibility of further strengthening cooperation in trade and the economy and in counter-terrorism activity. The parties also had an in-depth exchange of views on the topical issues on the regional and international agendas with a focus on cooperation at multilateral platforms such as the UN and the SCO.

The parties specifically discussed the state of affairs in Afghanistan and expressed mutual concern about the degrading security situation, growing terrorist activity and the strengthening of ISIS positions in the north and east of the country. The minister and his counterparts also reaffirmed their shared intention to further support the contending forces towards a constructive resolution which should end the civil war in Afghanistan through agreements on forming an inclusive government. In particular, they highly praised the outcome of the Expanded Troika meeting on the settlement in Afghanistan, which was held by Russia, China, the United States and Pakistan in Moscow on March 18.



Question:

President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev said the other day that Azerbaijan was ready to work on a full-fledged peace treaty with Armenia in the future. Will Russia mediate this peace treaty? Is there any perception of its contents?



Maria Zakharova:

We cannot but welcome initiatives aimed at establishing lasting peace and neighbourly relations between Baku and Yerevan. The agreements of November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021, reached by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, serve as a reliable foundation for doing this. We are ready to continue facilitating these processes in every way.

It goes without saying that Azerbaijan and Armenia are only setting out on a difficult road towards establishing the required level of mutual trust and normalising bilateral relations. It is important that this movement take place against a positive background, including the media background.

The parties will have to overcome many difficulties and obstacles. While cooperating with our Azerbaijani and Armenian friends, we underscore the fact that the stability and sustainable economic development of the South Caucasus meet the interests of all of Russia’s regional partners.

We hope that, in their practical activities, both countries will strive to take steps aiming to normalise relations and to create an atmosphere of trust, rather than new demarcation lines.



Question:

Does the Foreign Ministry plan to request information from the Japanese party on Japan’s plans to dump radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power station into the Pacific Ocean?



Maria Zakharova:

On April 13, 2021, we already provided a detailed comment on this matter. The comment is posted on the Foreign Ministry’s official website and on social media networks.

I can repeat once again that we have voiced serious concern over the Japan’s intentions. We are expecting the Government of Japan to display adequate transparency and to inform interested states about their actions which could pose a radiation hazard. We are expecting more detailed explanations on all aspects linked with the planned discharge of radioactive water into the ocean. We assume that, if necessary, Japan will enable monitoring of the radiation situation in areas where this discharge is scheduled to take place.

We hope that Tokyo will address this important matter in a highly responsible manner, and that it will take the required action in order to minimise the negative impact on the marine environment and prevent an aggravation of the environmental situation, and that it will not hamper the economic activities of other states, including fishing operations.

We will follow this subject during our contacts with our Japanese partners.



Question:

After it was reported that President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden had held their first telephone conversation, Jen Psaki promised new restrictions against Russia. Is the US trying to provoke Russia into reciprocating by adopting new sanctions immediately after the first top-level contact?



Maria Zakharova:

No, the US is just trying to destroy our bilateral relations.



Question:

What is the reason for the new rhetoric glorifying criminal organisations such as the SS in Scandinavian countries? You have said that the Danish Defence Ministry has all but accused the Soviet Union of occupation. Is there a connection between all this and Ukraine?



Maria Zakharova:

Regarding the trend of rewriting history in Western Europe, notably Scandinavia, it is a complicated story that began long ago, even before Ukraine. For some forces, it is an attempt to take revenge, while others are trying to prevent the acceptance of the Soviet Union as a country that defeated fascism and is refusing to make compromises with the Nazi policy and ideology. The first such attempts were made immediately after the end of WWII. There are documentaries and a great number of facts proving this. We watched this happening during many decades. These attempts were not so obvious and cynical. It was an undercover struggle because the direct participants of the war were still alive. It is impossible to lie to those who defended the world from fascism and Nazism with arms in hand. While they were alive, it was impossible to bring up the young on the ideology of reincarnation and the whitewashing of those who killed their fathers and mothers. This is why that harsh and absolutely unscrupulous struggle was waged secretly, behind the scenes.

As the older generation departed and the number of witnesses and participants of those events decreased, this secret struggle came to the fore. They dropped all pretense. There was no longer any sense in hiding, and they started saying openly what they had said secretly before. It all began long ago, but now this struggle has entered an active phase.

Why these countries? It is a trend, a mainstream policy enforced by the so-called collective West – Brussels, the EU and NATO. When we say the EU, we mean NATO, because the EU does not have a sovereign and independent political policy of its own. It has long been steamrolled by the North Atlantic Alliance.

In short, it is a common trend that is being enforced through the so-called sponsor money and budgets, as well as through a ramified system of allegedly non-governmental organisations which are financed from government sources. A relevant paid-for information and political campaign is being waged against history. It takes the form of the demolition of monuments, the production of feature and pseudo-documentary films, and scientific – in fact, pseudo-scientific – conferences. Ukraine is one of the most glaring examples. It has become the territory of the experiment. How can the mentality of a nation whose fathers and grandfathers rose in arms against the Nazi ideology be changed? This is a global experiment. How can Nazi accomplices be glorified in a country which the Nazis drenched in its own blood? This seems impossible, in theory, but in reality they are succeeding. It is a question of money and effort, the elimination of Ukraine’s real national interests and their replacement with alien values. It is a matter of double standards and the distortion of one’s own history.

It is not in the past few years that Ukraine became the stage for a war against historical truth. It all began decades ago with the subversive Western operations to send former collaborators and military accomplices of the Nazis to Ukraine, and efforts to enforce the nationalist ideology and its elements, an ideology that has become the leading one now. These elements include the glorification of Nazi accomplices, the rehabilitation of criminals and, shockingly, the legalisation of the symbols that used to be unquestionably associated with Nazi supporters.



Question:

Is Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expected to visit Reykjavik for the Atlantic Council meeting on May 19-20 as part of the Russian delegation? Is there a chance that Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden will meet in Reykjavik?



Maria Zakharova:

Top-level summits are the competence of the Presidential Executive Office.

On May 19-20, a ministerial session of the Arctic Council will take place in Reykjavik, where Russia is to take over the chairmanship for the next two-year period.

The overall priority of the Russian chairmanship will be to promote the sustainable development of the Arctic region. We plan to develop cooperation in four priority areas: the population of the Arctic, including indigenous peoples; environmental protection, including adaptation to climate change; socioeconomic development of the region; and strengthening the Arctic Council as a key regional forum for intergovernmental cooperation.

Given the ongoing constraints caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the upcoming ministerial session of the Arctic Council in Reykjavik will be held in a mixed format. Some delegations from a number of countries will participate at the venue, while others will join the meetings online.

At the moment, we believe the Russian representatives should actually travel to Reykjavik to participate. The delegation is to be led by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The matter is still under consideration though. We will inform you as soon as a decision is made.



Question:

Thank you for the information about the Russian Electronic School and the Foreign Ministry supporting the project. We earnestly ask you to continue this support and even expand it. The children of our compatriots live in various countries and are familiar with the mentality of these countries. In the future, they could be support to the Russian Foreign Ministry.



Maria Zakharova:

Why don’t you describe your vision conceptually and send it to us? We will forward it to relevant experts. We will make our comments on your proposals, or we will take them into account in our work.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4687881

[Alex Him]

Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on Washington’s charges that Russia is complicit in the death of US soldiers in Afghanistan



16 April 2021 - 18:31



We noted the charges brought yet again against Russia during a briefing by the White House Press Secretary alleging that Russia had paid remuneration to the Taliban for killing American soldiers in Afghanistan. These charges are based on information that they say has a low to moderate degree of credibility.

We demand that Washington provide the concrete facts that it used to make such groundless statements. Once again, we declare that the charges brought against us are nothing more than the guesswork or the phobias of members of the American intelligence service.

Meanwhile, there are persistent reports that the US is itself giving support to terrorist groups, including ISIS, in Afghanistan, and that Washington plans to build up the presence of its intelligence service in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as it withdraws its troops from that country. We are convinced that these circumstances are giving rise to serious concern not only in Russia but in other countries of the region as well. We are looking forward to receiving explanations from the American side.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4688977






Foreign Ministry statement on measures in response to hostile US actions



16 April 2021 - 19:28



The latest attack by the Biden administration against our country cannot go unanswered. It seems Washington is unwilling to accept that there is no room for unilateral dictates in the new geopolitical reality. Meanwhile, the bankrupt scenarios for deterring Moscow that the US myopically continues to pursue only promise to further degrade Russian-US relations.

In this context, the appeals from across the ocean to refrain from escalation and essentially accept this attempt to talk to us from a position of strength sound hypocritical. We have repeatedly warned and demonstrated in practice that sanctions and any other pressure will never succeed and will only have dire consequences for those who dare attempt such provocations.

We will introduce the following countermeasures in response to anti-Russian sanctions in the near future:

- Employees of US diplomatic missions will be expelled on a reciprocal basis in numbers proportional to the actions taken by the US authorities against Russian diplomats.

- Incidentally, we noted how quickly Warsaw played up to the US administration by demanding the departure of three Russian diplomats from Poland. In turn, five Polish diplomats will be expelled from Russia.

- The US Embassy’s practice of using short-term trips by State Department staff to support the functioning of diplomatic missions will be restricted. The issuance of visas to them will be reduced to a minimum: up to 10 people per year on a reciprocal basis.

- In strict conformity with the Vienna conventions on diplomatic relations and Russian law, including the Labour Code, measures will be taken to discontinue completely the practice of US diplomatic missions employing citizens of the Russian Federation and third countries as administrative and technical staff.

- The bilateral 1992 memorandum of understanding on open ground is declared invalid due to systematic violations of rules for trips in the Russian Federation by employees of US diplomatic missions.

- Plans are in place to halt the activities in the Russian Federation of American foundations and NGOs controlled by the Department of State and other US government agencies. These consistent, long-term efforts will be brought to an end, all the more so since the United States shows no intention of scaling back its systematic subversive efforts underpinned by a wide array of laws.

- Obviously, this very tense situation objectively requires the ambassadors of our countries to be in their respective capitals to analyse developments and hold consultations.

These steps represent just a fraction of the capabilities at our disposal. Unfortunately, US statements threatening to introduce new forms of punishment show that Washington is not willing to listen and does not appreciate the restraint that we have displayed despite the tensions that have been purposefully fuelled since the presidency of Barack Obama.

Recall that after a large-scale expulsion of Russian diplomats in December 2016 and the seizure of Russian diplomatic property in the US, we did not take any response measures for seven months. We responded only when Russia was declared a US adversary legislatively in August 2017.

In general, compared to the Russian diplomatic missions in the United States, the US Embassy in Moscow operates in better conditions, enjoying a numerical advantage and actively benefitting from the work of Russian citizens hired in-country. This form of disparity frees up “titular” diplomats to interfere in our domestic affairs, which is one of the main tenets of Washington’s foreign policy doctrine.

Incidentally, soon the Foreign Ministry will publish on its website the names of eight incumbent and former high-ranking US officials and other figures involved in drafting and implementing anti-Russia policy. They will be permanently banned from entering the Russian Federation. This is our equivalent response to the sanctions against Russian officials that the US blacklisted last month.

Now is the time for the United States to show common sense and pull back from this confrontational course. Otherwise, the US will face a host of painful decisions, for instance, an order for US diplomatic missions to reduce personnel in Russia to 300 people. This will establish real parity at bilateral foreign offices because the US quota of 455 employees still includes the 155 people sent to the Russian Permanent Mission to the UN in New York. However, this has nothing to do with our bilateral mission.

There are also other options. Of course, we realise that we are limited in our ability to squeeze the Americans economically as they have us. However, we have some resources in this respect and they will also be used if Washington chooses to follow the path of spiraling sanctions.

None of this is our choice. We would like to avoid further escalation with the US. We are ready to engage in calm and professional dialogue with the US in order to find ways of normalising bilateral ties. However, the reality is that we hear one thing from Washington but see something completely different in practice. There must be no doubt – not a single round of sanctions will go unanswered.

We have obviously heard President Joe Biden express interest in stable, constructive and predictable relations with Russia, including a proposed Russian-US summit. When this offer was made, it was received positively and is now being considered in the context of concrete developments.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4689067






Press release on a ban on entry of certain US citizens into the Russian Federation



16 April 2021 - 20:06



In response to the sanctions against Russian officials imposed by the US administration on March 2 of this year, the following incumbent and former US high-ranking officials and figures complicit in pursuing the anti-Russia policy, are denied entry to the Russian Federation:

1. Merrick Brian Garland, United States Attorney General;

2. Michael D. Carvajal, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons;

3. Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, United States Secretary of Homeland Security;

4. Susan Elizabeth Rice, Director of the United States Domestic Policy Council, former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations and National Security Advisor;

5. Christopher Asher Wray, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

6. Avril Danica Haines, Director of US National Intelligence.

In addition, entry is denied to John Robert Bolton, former National Security Advisor to the United States President, former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations, and Robert James Woolsey Jr., former director of the US Central Intelligence Agency.

In view of the unprecedented complications in Russia-US relations provoked by Washington, it was decided to deviate from the usual practice of not making public the response measures taken by the Russian side.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4689150






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Serbia Nikola Selakovic, Moscow, April 16, 2021



16 April 2021 - 20:37

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 01:23:40

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 01:23:40

Ladies and gentlemen,

My Serbian colleague, Nikola Selakovic, and I had good, trust-based talks encompassing all the major aspects of our cooperation, partnership, the bilateral agenda, and regional and international affairs.

We affirmed that despite public health restrictions, our strategic cooperation continues to dynamically expand across the full range of our relations.

We devoted special attention to our joint efforts against COVID-19. Serbia is among the top nations in Europe in terms of vaccination rate which is due, in part, to the use of the Russian vaccine Sputnik V, as the Minister noted today. We agree that this cooperation should continue for the sake of protecting citizens’ lives and health. We expect the launch of Sputnik V production in Belgrade scheduled for May to make a practical contribution here. The first tests were conducted there just recently, and they were successful.

We place a great deal of importance on the continued work of the Russian-Serbian Intergovernmental Committee on trade, economic, scientific and technological cooperation. Its co-chairs have already had three in-person meetings in the past few months where a wide range of issues were discussed, including additional measures to restore the steady upward trend in trade, which diminished last year for obvious reasons.

We underscored that implementing large, landmark projects, primarily in energy, is a key area of economic cooperation. Naftna Industrija Srbije (NIS) [Petroleum Industry of Serbia] is operating successfully. Its main stakeholder and investor is Gazprom Neft. NIS is an engine of Serbia’s economy. Last year the company accounted for 13 percent of the country’s budget revenues. FDI in the company exceeds $3 billion.

The Serbian railway improvement programme is making a significant contribution to infrastructure modernisation. Russian Railways International is playing an active role in it through the use of Russian export loans.

We focused on various aspects of cooperation between Serbia and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). In the autumn of 2019, the EAEU and Serbia signed a free trade agreement. We are close to completing the procedures required for the agreement to take effect.

We talked about our plans to further develop cooperation in the defence industry and update and improve the legal framework in some areas. We noted that Serbia maintains an interest in cooperation and contact with the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), as well as the similar approaches to maintaining security and peace in Europe taken by the CSTO and Belgrade.

We discussed the international agenda. Our cooperation in foreign affairs is based on our commitment to the principles of international law and the UN Charter, including non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign countries, peaceful resolution of disputes and adherence to the principles enshrined in the Charter.

We agreed to continue to coordinate at various forums, including the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe.

We reaffirmed our commitment to continue helping our Serbian friends defend Belgrade’s legitimate rights with respect to Kosovo. We will continue to speak in favour of maintaining this issue as a priority at the UN Security Council, with a view to seeing Resolution 1244 implemented in full. The resolution provides for an agreement to be reached by Belgrade and Pristina on the status of Kosovo, which has to be approved by the UN Security Council.

We noted that thanks to Serbia’s proactive approach, and the energetic support of Russia, the illegitimate attempts to secure Kosovo’s membership in Interpol, UNESCO, the Council of Europe and other organisations were neutralised. We will continue these efforts.

During our discussion of the situation in the southeast of Europe, we voiced our support for the efforts of the Serbian leadership to forge constructive and neighbourly relations with all countries in the Balkans. We believe this balanced policy by Belgrade is contributing to the preservation of peace and stability in this challenging region of Europe.

We agreed to remain in contact at the level of ministers, deputy ministers and heads of departments at our ministries in keeping with the Plan for Consultations between the Russian and Serbian foreign ministries for 2021-2022, which was signed during my visit to Belgrade in December 2020.

I am grateful to my colleague for the positive talks.







Question:

You spoke with your colleague from Serbia about international and regional problems in the Western Balkans. I believe you also focused on geopolitical movements. Do you see the idea of a Greater Albania invoked by Prime Minister of Kosovo Albin Kurti as a real, tenable idea and a solution to the Kosovo problem? How would you comment on the alleged existence of a kind of non-paper by Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa arguing that the break-up of Yugoslavia is not over yet? What is Russia’s position?



Sergey Lavrov:

These are unacceptable, provocative and very harmful statements. Talk of a Greater Albania has been going on for years. We always call on our colleagues from the European Union and NATO, who act as Pristina’s patrons, to put an end to these sentiments and plans and not to allow this rhetoric to escalate.

As for the problem of borders in Europe as a whole, including the borders of the states that appeared in the place of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, let us recall how our Western partners, including the European Union and NATO (of which Slovenia is also a member) aggressively demand that post-war borders in Europe not be revised. But they usually do this when Russia is forced to stand up for its fellow countrymen, its compatriots. And when those who enjoy the West’s patronage have to deal with this issue, the position in Brussels and other European capitals is completely different.

I think that these are very dangerous games. There is UN Security Council Resolution 1244, it has not been cancelled. Responsible politicians (especially the heads of European governments), I believe, have no right to express any ideas that blatantly undermine the very concept of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, according to which the UN Security Council respects Serbia’s sovereignty, and Kosovo’s exact status is to be determined through negotiations between Pristina and Belgrade. As President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said, we will support any solution that is acceptable to Serbia.



Question:

Today Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov laid out Russia’s position on response measures to US Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan in Moscow. What is the gist of these measures? When will employees of Russian diplomatic missions leave Washington? Will Russia’s response be equivalent? When will Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov return to Washington? Will he return soon or not at all in the current conditions?



Sergey Lavrov:

Anatoly Antonov continues consultations. The situation is quite complicated and it is necessary to analyse it in detail, all the more so since some things in Washington are not entirely comprehensible. Today, Yury Ushakov also recommended that Mr Sullivan travel to his capital and hold serious, detailed consultations.

Literally right after the news conference, we will issue the Foreign Ministry’s statement on measures that were approved by President of Russia Vladimir Putin in response to Washington’s openly hostile, utterly unprovoked actions towards Moscow, Russian citizens, individuals and companies, and our financial system.

We have long been telling the Americans that the disparity in the numerical strength of diplomatic missions of Russia in the US and the US in Russia is unacceptable. We have discussed this topic for many years. Instead of looking for mutually acceptable, compromise solutions, the US merely obstructed the operations of our Embassy, consulates-general and the Russian mission at the UN.

In accordance with the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations and Russian law, including the Labour Code, we are initiating a process to stop the practice of hiring citizens of Russia and third countries at American diplomatic missions. This practice is fairly widespread and used by the Americans on a large scale. We do not engage in this practice, so we are introducing parity on this issue.

The second disparity in this area is as follows: in addition to their embassy and consular personnel the Americans send several hundreds of employees on short-term trips to Russia every year. In this way, they substantially increase (double or more) their capacity to work in Russia, with goals that are not always above board. We are well aware of this. Now we are putting a stop to the practice of uncontrolled and unlimited short-term trips by Department of State employees for work at US diplomatic missions in Russia. We will suggest parity in this respect, say, 10 employees going from Russia to the US and 10 from the US to Russia per year.

Speaking about the personnel disparity, I must mention another problem that is quite serious. In all, there are about 450 diplomatic and administrative employees of Russia in the US and of the US in Russia. Out of these 450, all Americans are distributed among the Embassy and the consulates-general. Our employees are affiliated with the Embassy, two consulates-general and the Russian Permanent Mission to the UN. The UN is not an office servicing bilateral relations between the US and Russia and has nothing to do with bilateral ties. Therefore, if we want parity, it would be correct not to count our employees with the UN mission – about 150 people – in the total number. In other words, we have 300 employees on the bilateral front in the US. If we are to continue this “exchange of courtesies”, we will ask the Americans to bring down the number of their diplomats involved in bilateral relations with Russia, to match the number of our employees in our Embassy and two consulates-general.

We have also wanted to regulate one more area for a long time but to no avail. Our countries have a memorandum of understanding on open ground. As for the Open Skies Treaty, a multilateral document, it is already hanging by a thread. The US has withdrawn from it and is not going to come back. As for the aforementioned bilateral memorandum on open ground, starting from a certain category of diplomats (advisers and below), it is necessary to notify the authorities of the host country when any of these employees are going to travel beyond a 25-mile radius around the city where their diplomatic mission is located. The Americans completely ignore the requirement to send such notifications. There was a recent incident when representatives of the military attache office travelled in central Russia without any notification. They simply ignored a question by an authorised representative and said they were not going to deal with this. We have decided to start the process of withdrawing from this memorandum. We will approach the trips of diplomats beyond the limits of their host cities on a case-by-case basis.

Ten diplomats were included on a list that was given to us with a request for them to leave the United States. We will respond in kind by proposing that 10 US diplomats leave Russia. Poland also announced the expulsion of our diplomats. We will respond accordingly as well.

Speaking about personalities, some time ago (before President Joe Biden announced the package the other day), the Americans added eight Russian government officials (from the Presidential Executive Office, the Prosecutor-General’s Office, etc.) to a sanctions list. Today we will publish a list of eight officials representing the upper echelons of the administration in Washington. They will be also included on our sanctions list.

Sectoral sanctions have been announced as regards Russian national debt and related transactions. For obvious reasons, we do not have comparable levers of influence on the US on such a scale. That said, our specialists think that the Russian economy can cope with this scale. I think this is what will happen. We have always found, and will find, a way out of any situation. We also have opportunities to impose painful measures on American business. We hold them in reserve.

There is one more measure. We will limit and suspend the activities of American foundations and NGOs on our territory. In reality, they are openly meddling in our domestic politics.

There is much talk about President Biden’s proposal to hold a bilateral summit. We have already responded positively to it. Now we are studying different aspects of this initiative.



Question:

Russian Ambassador to Serbia Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko said in Belgrade yesterday that Russia is ready to join the dialogue of Belgrade and Pristina on the condition that it is mediated by Russia. What kind of response do you expect from Belgrade? What kind of role in the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina should be offered for you to agree in the new format of talks?



Sergey Lavrov:

We do not impose anything. We do not force our services on anyone, especially not on our friends. Let me stress again, we are prepared to support any position taken by Serbia and to respond to any proposal from Serbia’s leaders on steps to be taken by us.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4689215






Press release on summoning US Deputy Head of Mission to Foreign Ministry



21 April 2021 - 16:13



On April 21, Deputy Chief of Mission of the US Embassy Bart Gorman was summoned to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he was handed a note saying that 10 US Embassy employees in Moscow had been declared persona non grata. These people have been ordered to leave the Russian Federation before the end of the day on May 21.

This measure is a tit-for-tat response to the hostile actions carried out by the US side against a number of Russian Embassy employees in Washington, and the Russian Consulate General in New York, who were groundlessly declared persona non grata.

Further steps included in the set of response measures to the latest wave of unlawful anti-Russian US sanctions will follow in the nearest future pursuant to the Foreign Ministry statement made on April 16.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4697710






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the US State Department’s report 2021 Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments



21 April 2021 - 18:33



On April 15, the US Department of State published the regular report 2021 Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments. The report’s lack of any conclusive evidence, its dissemination of blatantly false accusations and suppression of Washington’s own imperfect compliance with arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament agreements relegate it to the category of information noise.

Proceeding from false assumptions, the United States again accuses Russia of maintaining an offensive biological weapons programme in violation of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). This is nothing but groundless speculation. We consider these inventions to be an attempt to divert the international community’s attention from Washington’s own improper activities in this sensitive area (including outside its borders) that circumvent the BTWC.

Russia is predictably accused of violating the Open Skies Treaty. It is now clear that the purpose of this is to conceal Washington’s own destructive actions as regards this treaty. We have provided exhaustive answers to all claims and do not see any need to comment on them now that the United States has withdrawn from this treaty.

As for criticisms of Russia’s selective compliance with the 2011 Vienna Document, insufficient transparency and failure to provide information on military bases in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, we will repeat that these sovereign states are not members of the OSCE and are not included in the zone of confidence-building measures.

The rant about non-strategic nuclear weapons comes off as entirely cynical. Instead of a serious analysis of the situation, we get bad-faith attempts to expose Russia – which consistently keeps all these weapons undeployed on its national territory – as deviating from the voluntary presidential initiatives of 1991-1992. This comes at a time when the United States and its allies are honing their skill at using these weapons deployed in Europe as part of NATO’s “joint nuclear missions.” This is a direct violation of the legally binding NPT, a cornerstone of the system of arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament agreements. Meanwhile, nothing is said about the tectonic shifts in European security caused by the movement of NATO’s strategic military infrastructure nearer Russia’s borders. Likewise, there is no mention of US plans to deploy new nuclear arms contrary to the above-mentioned presidential initiatives.

The report’s assertion that “all US activities during the reporting period were consistent with the obligations set forth in the New START Treaty (NST)” is nothing short of perplexing, and the same can be said of the completely baseless charge that Russia is out of compliance with the nuclear test ban.

We no longer pay attention to these completely unsubstantiated US concoctions. The report by the State Department has nothing to do with the real challenges of arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament, and should be treated accordingly.

In the meantime, we advise all those who are genuinely interested in examining these matters to read the Foreign Ministry’s previous comments on the subject.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4697720






Statement by the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW A.Shulgin at the Second Part of the Twenty-Fifth Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the CWC under agenda subitem 9 d) "Addressing the threat from chemical weapons use", The Hague, April 20. 2021



22 April 2021 - 17:21







Mr. Chairperson,

Distinguished delegates,

We would like to comment on the politically motivated draft decision entitled "Addressing the Possession and Use of Chemical Weapons by
the Syrian Arab Republic," which was submitted to the Conference by a group of cosponsors.

This decision draws exclusively on the tendentious conclusions made by the "attribution mechanism" of the Technical Secretariat – the Investigation and Identification Team (IIT). This illegitimate entity was established contrary to the technical nature of the Organization, and its powers go far beyond the scope of the Chemical Weapons Convention, infringing on the exclusive competence of the UN Security Council.

The States Parties that devised and eventually pushed through the establishment of the attribution mechanism within the OPCW never intended to deal honestly and in good faith with the episodes of alleged use of chemical weapons in the SAR. Their main goal has been and remains to lend credibility to their disinformation, using the authority of the OPCW, and "rubber-stamp" accusations against the legitimate Syrian authorities, which they arrogantly call "the regime." Despite all their efforts, they failed to weaken and bring down the Syrian authorities "on the ground," so they try to discredit them by such Jesuitic methods.

In recent years, the Organization's work under the Syrian chemical dossier has been extremely politicized, and mutual trust has fallen catastrophically. Syria's openness to cooperation with the Secretariat and its willingness to seek solutions to even the most difficult issues are simply ignored. Instead, those who stubbornly refuse to remove the Syrian chemical dossier from the agenda in order to continue using it as leverage over Damascus keep tightening the pressure, further adding to tensions.

Such ill intentions are implemented through special missions operating within the Secretariat. We never question the fact that they are staffed by real professionals committed to performing the duties entrusted to them in good faith. However, as we can judge from the conclusion of the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) on the high-profile incidents that took place in Syria's Douma in April 2018, the investigation has dismissed many well-founded conclusions and assessments by honest inspectors, with official reports being falsified to suit blatant political orders. The flawed principles of work under the Syrian chemical dossier are further illustrated by the unsubstantiated reports on the chemical incidents in Al-Ltamenah and the surrounding areas such as Khan Shaykhun, Saraqib and other settlements.

The United States and its allies have repeatedly claimed that Damascus retained part of its chemical weapons stockpile. This is allegedly indicated by the findings of the Declaration Assessment Team (DAT). They are presented as a given, supposedly demonstrating violations of obligations under the CWC. This is a completely distorted picture. The DAT's reports never mentioned the discovery of undeclared chemical munitions or production facilities in Syria; they only covered those aspects of the former chemical weapons programme that remain to be addressed by the Technical Secretariat and need to be clarified. Moreover, double standards are being widely applied: we all know examples where problems with the CWC initial declarations were resolved rather quickly and without any artificial burdens, but for some reason this approach does not apply to Syria.

Attempts to accuse Damascus of violating the CWC sometimes take completely unacceptable forms. For example, consider the air strikes launched by the United States, France and Britain in April 2018 to destroy a facility at the Barzah Scientific Studies and Research Centre in retaliation for the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian troops in Douma. As it turned out, this was a gross provocation by the White Helmets. However, in order to justify aggression against a sovereign nation, it was stated at the highest political level that the target in Barzah, Syria, had been destroyed because it was deemed to be part of an active military chemical programme. But this is a cynical fiction from beginning to end. The results of several OPCW inspections showed that no prohibited activities had taken place there. The three-member coalition simply ignored all OPCW assessments and barbarically destroyed an important economic facility in Syria for no reason at all.

As for the IIT, whose first report on the incidents in Al-Ltamenah was taken as a basis for the preparation of the draft decision being discussed today, its staff members make no secret that their task is to provide assistance not only to the governing bodies of the OPCW, but also to "courts and tribunals at the national, regional or international level," including the notorious "International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Investigating Crimes in Syria." This is yet another grave violation of CWC provisions that essentially leads to the transformation of the OPCW into an instrument for the United States and its allies to exert political pressure on undesirable governments.

The professional competence of the team of quasi-prosecutors raises legitimate concerns. It has neither trained chemists nor experts in chemical weapons, ammunition, ballistics, or engineering. They have never visited Syria, as the Syrian authorities have good reasons not to cooperate with this entity or recognize its legitimacy. The Group, composed predominantly of representatives of Western countries, relies fully on outside sources and assessments by invited pseudo-independent experts, whose names are kept in secret and whose qualification and impartiality are impossible to assess.

The IIT's investigation of the supposed chemical incidents in Al-Ltamenah was based on the conclusions of questionable reports by the FFM, which had also investigated these episodes remotely and only long after the events. At the time, we gave a detailed evaluation of those documents. All their conclusions are based on data received six months after the events, on commission from NGOs that are in opposition or hostile to the official Damascus. Can we trust such conclusions that, apart from lacking due expert assessment, were drawn from an investigation that violated the established norms of the Convention, even though we are in every way being led to believe the opposite? How is it even possible to use an unconvincing statement – "there are reasonable grounds to believe" – as a reason for punitive actions against a full-fledged State Party to the CWC?

We are increasingly hearing statements regarding a disinformation campaign to discredit the OPCW, allegedly initiated by Russia. How can we even talk about sabotaging the Organization if we have consistently advocated for honest, transparent work in all areas based on the established rules and have called for making sure that all international staff perform their duties in a professional and honest way with no influence from anyone? However, everything we propose is discarded.

Thus, it seems that we should be talking about the opposite, the undermining of the OPCW foundations for the sake of geopolitical interests of the Euro-Atlantic "community." All of the above signifies that Western countries have been consistently making efforts to create a mechanism within the Organization to discredit undesirable States. The idea is simple: they use NGOs raised on sponsor funds and proxy pseudo-humanitarian organizations, like the infamous White Helmets, to carry out various provocations, large-scale information attacks accompanied by staged videos. All of the above is then actively promoted by leading Western media outlets, bold political statements are made, the required background is created. Finally, OPCW infrastructure is used to "legalize" these fakes. In the end, we have a substantial body of alleged evidence of crimes, which they start juggling with. These actions reached their climax with today's draft decision on Syria, unprecedented for the OPCW and the CWC.

We would like to appeal to States Parties that actually care about the future of this Organization, not just pay lip service to it, and have a responsible, impartial, and conscious outlook on the events that have been taking place in The Hague over the recent years. We urge them to make a careful and right choice. The adoption of the presented document would undoubtedly set a very dangerous precedent and exacerbate the already deep divide in the OPCW even further. This outcome will not only significantly distance us from the universalization of the Convention but also have a drastic impact on the prospects of a global non-proliferation and disarmament regime.

We also urge you to recognize that any country whose authorities will for whatever reason suddenly become undesirable due to their policy can end up in Syria's place and under pressure resulting from large-scale campaigns of disinformation and manipulations. Once again, think about the reasons behind all similar initiatives, behind the calls to condemn Syria for the supposed use of chemical weapons and to deprive it of the rights and privileges under the Convention.

This decision has a paramount importance for the future of the OPCW: it will either continue to be a trusted international organization dedicated to chemical disarmament and non-proliferation or turn into a platform for manipulations and fulfilment of ambitions of certain countries. In the latter case the very name of the OPCW will become a trademark for the injustice and arbitrariness of certain States. Your choice will decide the way forward, the future for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

We request that this statement be circulated as an official-series document of the 25th session of the CSP and published on the Extranet and the OPCW external server.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4698085






Joint Statement by the Member States of the Collective Security Treaty Organization at the second part of the twenty-fifth session of the Conference of the States Parties to the CWC (csp-25), The Hague, April 20. 2021



22 April 2021 - 17:24



We hereby present the Statement by the Member States of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which are Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (hereafter referred to as “the Convention”).

Being firmly committed to building a world free of chemical weapons and creating an environment that would prevent the re-emergence of these deadly weapons of mass destruction, the Member States of the CSTO are alarmed by the current situation in the OPCW, particularly by the processes that undermine the effective and well-coordinated work of the Organization.

We cannot agree with the draft decision submitted for consideration to the CSP-25 to declare the Syrian Arab Republic responsible for violating the Convention and suspend its rights and privileges under the Convention. We believe that this decision only seeks to legitimize the controversial and tendentious conclusions of the report prepared by the Investigation and Identification Team – an illegitimate entity that was established contrary to the Convention in order to exert political pressure on certain States Parties. For the first time in its history, the OPCW has embarked on a strategy aimed at declaring a full member of the Organization – without any foundation or verified facts – responsible for non-compliance with its obligations under the Convention and imposing sanctions against it.

At the same time, it is bewildering that the Secretariat has ignored a recent use in a regional conflict of a dangerous chemical agent whose impact on people and environment is comparable to that of a chemical weapon. The Secretariat has an obligation to respond to such reports from the States Parties and take immediate steps in accordance with the Convention's norms.

Such dangerous precedents will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Organization, affecting its reputation as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a respected specialized international entity whose work is focused on chemical disarmament and non-proliferation. They will also make the Convention less attractive for those countries that still have not joined this international treaty.

We believe that the use of the OPCW platform for disseminating baseless – substantiated by no real facts whatsoever – and provocative statements suggesting that certain States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention possess, covertly stockpile and use chemical weapons, including against individual citizens, poses a serious problem. It appears that these steps are aimed at promoting one's own far-reaching geopolitical interests, questioning the credibility of the Organization.

We are convinced of the inadmissibility of using the language of ultimatums and groundless allegations while ignoring the Convention's norms and procedures that prescribe cooperation and all possible efforts to resolve any issues concerning compliance with its provisions through consultations and dialogue.

We are gravely concerned about initiatives that go beyond the scope of the Convention and require amendments in accordance with Article XV for their implementation. These include the proposal to adopt, with no prior substantial discussion, a decision on some kind of "understanding" on the non‑use of aerosolized central nervous system acting chemicals for law enforcement purposes. We believe that such steps lead to the erosion of the Convention's foundations and its transformation into an amorphous mechanism allowing for loose interpretation of its provisions depending on the circumstances and preferences of particular States Parties.

The Convention contains no provisions banning the use of such substances, and many of them are widely used in medicine, pharmaceuticals industry, agriculture and other sectors for purposes not prohibited by the Convention. We suggest that definitions and a list of relevant substances should be first agreed on an expert level before we could go back to considering this issue.

We are convinced of the need to resolutely and unconditionally strive for achieving a common unifying goal of strengthening the regime of chemical disarmament and non-proliferation of chemical weapons. We need to exert maximum efforts to preserve the integrity of the Convention and prevent further destructive politicization of the OPCW work. That is the only way we can move forward and strengthen the Convention, which is one of the fundamental treaties of the international security and disarmament architecture.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4698109

[Alex Him]

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow,April 22, 2021



22 April 2021 - 21:03

Maria Zakharova (E)

Maria Zakharova (E)

Czech diplomats decided to perform a manoeuvre. After hearing our statement yesterday that the conversation would continue at the Russian Foreign Ministry, with the Czech Ambassador to Russia, they decided to speak with the Russian Ambassador in Prague before this meeting. Well, as long as Prague does not go into nosedive as it performs this manoeuvre.



Upcoming talks between Sergey Lavrov and Foreign Minister of the Republic of Honduras Lisandro Rosales Banegas

On April 25-27, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Honduras Lisandro Rosales Banegas will be in Russia on a working visit.

On April 26, the foreign ministers of the two countries will meet for talks to discuss prospects for promoting the political dialogue between Russia and Honduras, expanding cooperation in various fields and strengthening the legal framework of bilateral relations, as well as exchange views on current issues on the international and regional agendas.

Special attention will be given to the efforts to check the spread of COVID-19.



Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the State of Palestine Riyad al-Maliki

On May 4, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the State of Palestine Riyad al-Maliki will arrive in Moscow on a working visit. He is expected to meet with Sergey Lavrov for talks.

The two foreign ministers will review current aspects of the Middle East and international agendas with a focus on restoring Palestinian national unity on the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s political platform and setting the stage for Palestine and Israel to resume talks. We regard the two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli issue based on generally accepted international law as an indispensable step to achieving the comprehensive and lasting stabilisation of the situation in the Middle East.

There will also be a thorough discussion of the prospects for stepping up international efforts to support the Middle East peace process. The two officials will review in detail efforts being made by the Quartet of international mediators and ways of implementing the Russian proposal for working out the parameters of a ministerial meeting to be held by the four mediators and inviting some Arab counties to take part in its work.

There will be an exchange of views on how to improve the socioeconomic and humanitarian situation in Palestine with an emphasis on providing assistance to Palestine in fighting the coronavirus pandemic. The two ministers will thoroughly discuss practical aspects of further strengthening the traditionally friendly ties between Russia and Palestine, including steps to facilitate trade and cooperation in the economy, education, culture and other areas.



Update on Ukraine

Ukraine’s actions to destabilise the situation in Donbass continue to be a source of concern. Ukraine’s armed forces have not reduced the intensity of the shelling of civilian residential areas, which includes the suburbs in Donetsk. They are actively using weapons banned by the Minsk agreements, including large caliber mortars and artillery.

Kiev continues moving troops and equipment to the region. Ukraine’s Security Service units were put on high alert and statements were made about “large-scale anti-terrorist exercises.” These are alarming signals. All of us remember how the “Maidan authorities” launched an operation to suppress the opponents of the Kiev coup seven years ago under the pretext of fighting some invented terrorists. This operation quickly developed into an armed conflict the consequences of which have not been overcome to this day.

At the same time, trying to build up their presence at the Russian border, the United States and other NATO countries continue their provocations in the air space and water area of the Black Sea. On Wednesday, the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations approved the Ukraine Security Partnership Act that provides for an increase in annual military aid to Ukraine, including supplies of lethal weapons. Since 2014, Washington has granted Ukraine military aid valued at almost $2 billion.

To sidetrack the public’s attention in Ukraine from the deteriorating socioeconomic situation and mounting political turbulence, as well as to justify aggressive military plans, Kiev is conducting a vigorous disinformation campaign designed to portray Russia as the enemy. One example is a statement by a number of Verkhovna Rada deputies, from the Servant of the People pro-presidential parliamentary party, with an appeal to sever diplomatic relations with Russia, call out reserves and deploy NATO troops, including missile units, in Ukraine. President Vladimir Zelensky instantly replied to this by announcing a total mobilisation. It is impossible to understand how this can stop the decline in living standards, and the rapid de-industrialisation and depopulation of Ukraine. Apparently, the gist of all these actions is to save the steadily declining ratings of President Zelensky and his party. This is not a new trick. It has been repeatedly used in recent history. Those who doubt that this trick is being used and want to know how it is used can watch the film, “Wag the Dog.” It is possible to learn a lot from this movie.

Here is another example of Ukraine’s activities. President Zelensky urgently submitted a bill to the Verkhovna Rada on eliminating the District Administrative Court of Kiev. This court is known for passing independent and objective verdicts. Thus, it overturned a Kiev State Council resolution on renaming Moscow Prospekt to Bandera Prospekt, banned celebrating the birthdays of militants from the organisation of Ukrainian nationalists known as the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), and abrogated the illegal privatisation of Privatbank, to offer a few examples. Indicatively, G7 ambassadors applauded, on their Twitter accounts, President Zelensky’s actions, which are aimed at eliminating a judicial system that is independent of the West. It is predictable that as soon as Ukraine acquires a sovereign, independent government oriented towards national interests, it would stop hearing praises from the G7 and NATO. This would indicate that Ukraine has started to recover.

The results of the recent meetings in the Normandy format and the Contact Group look deplorable against the backdrop of the strictly populist activities of the Ukrainian leaders. On April 19, a video conference with the advisors to the Normandy Four leaders produced no results. Moscow prepared specific proposals on ensuring a ceasefire in the armed conflict zone for this meeting but all of them were blocked by Ukraine. The German and French representatives basically expressed solidarity with Ukraine. Instead of specific decisions, they suggested a no-address draft statement on a commitment to a ceasefire.

The Contact Group’s subgroup on security held an extraordinary meeting on April 20 at the initiative of Donetsk, with support from Lugansk, against the backdrop of the mounting number of victims among Donbass civilians. Three civilians were killed in a month there. The participants reached an agreement on some items but Kiev blocked the majority of substantial issues. It is doing all it can to avoid direct contact with Donetsk and Lugansk.

We urge Kiev to immediately stop the military escalation in Donbass, discontinue its attempts to feign a negotiating process, and start to responsibly implement its commitments to a domestic Ukrainian settlement under the Minsk Package of Measures, for which there is no alternative.

We are “happy” to hear complaints from Kiev’s diplomats and officials about Moscow “not answering” telephone calls. They explain that this attitude is preventing them from proceeding, but based on the situation in Ukraine and, in particular, Donbass, they need to be calling Donetsk and Lugansk. This would be a timely, correct and effective move.



Ukrainian extremist rally at the Russian Embassy in Kiev

In the evening of April 20, Ukrainian extremists staged yet another anti-Russia outrage at the Russian Embassy in Kiev. This time it was organised by the Agency for Democracy and Information Freedom. Its representatives blocked the central entrance to the Russian diplomatic mission, held up offensive posters and used a laser to project obscene language on the embassy facade. This is democracy and freedom Ukrainian style.

A large group of the National Guard that was dispatched to the area refrained from doing anything to stop the rally.

The Russian Embassy sent a note of protest to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry demanding that Ukraine honour its commitments under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, carry out a thorough investigation of the incident, hold the organisers and participants of that provocation accountable, and take measures to prevent a repetition of such events in the future.

We regard such extremist provocations as inexcusable and urge the Ukrainian leadership to stop pandering to their organisers and to ensure proper conditions for the functioning of Russian establishments. Alternatively, an organisation with a more true-to-life name – Leave Democracy Alone – could be used for such events.



Developments in Belarus

We believe that the current political situation in Belarus is stable, by and large. The calls made by the Belarusian opposition in emigration to step up protests have not received large-scale public support. It appears that most Belarusians are getting tired of street disorders interfering with everyday life and are becoming aware of its destructive effect on national development.

We are closely monitoring the nascent constitutional reform and modernisation of the republic’s political structure. We believe that a broad-based public dialogue is the only way to national accord and that only the Belarusian people and their legitimate representatives, rather than the self-appointed “leaders of democratic forces” and their western curators, have a right to choose their country’s future.

We have already made public our views on the recently exposed plot against the Belarusian leadership. Russia’s FSB and Belarusian KGB conducted a joint operation during which Alexander Feduta, a Belarusian citizen and political analyst, and lawyer Yury Zenkovich, a dual citizen of Belarus and the United States, were apprehended red-handed in Moscow on April 13. According to the FSB, they were planning a military coup in Belarus and the assassination of Alexander Lukashenko and his family. A footage of their conversation has been shown on television and posted online. Anyone can watch it to decide if the accusations against these individuals are substantiated or not.

The case is being investigated by the FSB of Russia, and therefore we are not in a position to disclose any other details or make conclusions about the alleged involvement of US authorities in the events that can be described as an act of state terrorism. On the other hand, it appears unlikely that an operation of this scale could have been planned without the knowledge of US intelligence agencies. It is a fact that the persons involved had consultations in Western capitals.

The detained persons have been transported to Belarus. A criminal case has been opened against them under the article on conspiracy or other actions undertaken with the purpose of seizing state power.

On April 21, an exhaustive comment on these developments was made by President Vladimir Putin during his Address to the Federal Assembly. He pointed out that this is beyond any limits. I would like to repeat what the Russian President has said for the champions of government change in Belarus, those who have been trying to cynically justify such plans. Vladimir Putin said the following: “What if there had been a real attempt at a coup d’état in Belarus? How many people would have been hurt? What would have become of Belarus?”



Developments in the Republic of Chad

On April 11, 2021, members of the large armed opposition group Front for Change and Concord in Chad left their rear bases in Libya and started moving towards Ndjamena, the capital of Chad. Government forces intercepted them, neutralised over 300 militants, captured about 150 people and destroyed a considerable amount of equipment. Some of the rebels retreated towards the border with Niger.

According to the available information, President of the Republic of Chad Idriss Deby Itno arrived at the scene of battle in order to personally supervise the counter-terrorist operation. He was severely wounded during armed clashes and died from the wounds on April 20, 2021.

In this situation, members of the Transitional Military Council that consists of fifteen high-ranking representatives of Chad’s law enforcement and security agencies assumed control of the state. Mahamat Idriss Deby Itno, the son of the deceased President, was appointed the Council’s Chairman, and Divisional General Djimadoum Tiraina, formerly the country’s Defence Minister, became the Deputy Chairman. The Council has issued a statement saying that an 18-month transitional period shall be established in the country for ceding power to a civilian Cabinet of Ministers and holding general elections. The country’s Government and Parliament have been disbanded, a curfew has been imposed, and Chad’s land and air borders have been closed.

Today, the situation in Ndjamena remains mostly calm, with military authorities controlling it. Reinforced government units have been deployed in the capital.

The Russian Embassy to Chad is taking all necessary action to ensure the safety of Russian citizens staying in the country.

The Foreign Ministry advises Russian citizens to refrain from travelling to the Republic of Chad, unless it is absolutely necessary, until the complete normalisation of the situation in the country and the provision of reliable security guarantees.



New legislative initiatives in the UK

We have noted the publications announcing a number of upcoming legislative initiatives of the UK government aimed at countering the hostile activities of foreign states – primarily, Russia and China.

Of particular interest with regards to this is the act regulating the work of foreign agents, which includes the requirement for all individuals and legal entities working on behalf of foreign countries in Britain to register their presence. Failure to do so will be a criminal offence and will entail deportation. The publications note that London plans to use the experience of its allies, primarily the United States, in this matter.

It is alarming that the drafting of new laws in the UK is accompanied by vehement anti-Russian rhetoric. We interpret this as the British political elites’ tendency to continue the policy of artificially peddling the threat of mythical ‘Russian interference’ to suit their unscrupulous interests. Allow me to remind you that so far, London has not presented any single piece of proof of such accusations against the Russian Federation.

It seems that the British side is trying to keep afloat this long obsolete and far-fetched topic to justify the restrictive measures against Russian and Russian-speaking journalists, the media, as well as our citizens living and working in the UK.

We call on the human rights community to thoroughly examine the new legislation for compliance with international legal norms and the UK’s obligations. We hope that London will avoid spy mania in the Cold War spirit and will not subject bona fide citizens and journalists to unreasonable persecution on the grounds of some imaginary ties with our country.

It's funny that it was actually London that criticised Russia harsher than others for the foreign agents laws Russia adopted and implemented. But there is one subtle detail. Russia has developed that package of laws in response to the US's application of its archaic foreign agents legislation targeting the Russian media and media outlets affiliated with Russia in one way or another. Had it not been for such moves against Russian citizens, journalists working for our media, and American citizens hired by companies associated with the Russian media, Russia would not have developed such an impressive package.

When those laws were being drafted, we made it quite clear that this was a deterrent response to US action. What makes London pass such bills? Perhaps the United States has applied its foreign agent law to the BBC, at least once? It is sponsored, supported and funded by the British government – is it not the definition of a foreign agent? Yet, there is no hint of anything like that happening to the BBC. Why, then, would London develop foreign agents bills similar to those they slammed Russia for? We will keep this topic under review, as a very important and relevant subject.



Russia joins International Organisation for Migration (IOM)

On April 5, 2021, President Vladimir Putin signed the Federal Law On Adopting the Constitution of the International Organisation for Migration by the Russian Federation. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin handed an official note about it to IOM Director General Antonio Vitorino in Geneva on April 19. Thus, our country has become a full member of the organisation.

The International Organisation for Migration is a related organisation of the United Nations and is the largest intergovernmental agency that specialises in migration issues. IOM comprises 174 member states. As a coordinator for the UN Network for Migration that consists of 38 agencies, IOM is actively involved in the implementation of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2018. The Global Compact establishes the framework for long-term multilateral international cooperation on migration.

The Russian Federation has cooperated with IOM since 1992 in the capacity of an observer state. Over the past years, migration processes have gained greater importance, which is also relevant for Russia as it is one of the major states in terms of the number of migrants. This issue to a great extent determined our country’s interest in joining IOM.

We praise IOM’s activity and its accumulated experience in dealing with various issues on the migration agenda. As a full member, Russia will be able to take its interaction with the organisation to a new level. We are going to use this platform in full to boost constructive international cooperation related to migration, searching for optimal solutions to migration problems, including based on the exchange of experience in this area, and familiarising the global community with Russian developments on efficiently managing migration processes.



Russia’s re-election to UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs and International Narcotics Control Board

On April 20, 2021, during a meeting of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Russian Federation was re-elected to the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs for 2022-2025. This confirms Russia’s leading position and authority in international anti-drug cooperation. Our country is going to continue to facilitate the policy-forming role of the commission, as well as preserve the existing global regime of drug control based on the three relevant UN conventions.

This vote has continued the uninterrupted Russia’s work in the commission, of which Russia has been a member since its establishment.

In a stiff competition with five vacant seats for 22 experts, a Russian representative, Galina Korchagina, deputy director for research at the Serbsky Federal Medical Research Centre of Psychiatry and Narcology at the Russian Healthcare Ministry, has been elected for another five-year term to the International Narcotics Control Board. Her extensive professional experience and objectivity will allow her to continue making a significant contribution to the activity of the key international agency for the oversight of compliance with interstate treaties related to drug control.



Return of another group of Russian minors from Syria

On April 19, 2021, a special Russian Defence Ministry flight brought another group of 44 children from Syria to Moscow. The youngsters were taken from shelters in Damascus and refugee camps on territories not yet controlled by the Government of Syria. This mission was accomplished under the relevant instruction of the President of the Russian Federation, following a regular trip to Syria made by Presidential Commissioner for Children's Rights Anna Kuznetsova. This comes as the first such humanitarian operation in 2021 and as the ninth operation since December 2018. This and other operations are part of the efforts to repatriate Russian children from armed conflict zones.

The Foreign Ministry and the Russian Embassy in Damascus continue to work energetically and to facilitate the fastest possible repatriation of all underage Russians from Syria. These children were brought to Syria through the fault of their parents, involved in international terrorist activities. As of today, 196 youngsters have been repatriated to the Russian Federation from refugee camps and temporary places of residence in Syria.



NATO’s decision to end its mission in Afghanistan

International media space is devoting substantial attention to ending NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. This topic was on the agenda for many years. As you remember, US presidents either withdrew or built up contingents there. We are now witnessing another stage of monitoring what is taking place.

We have noted NATO’s decision to withdraw its contingent from Afghanistan; this decision was announced following a similar statement made by Washington.

As we understand, the 20-year presence of NATO troops is ending in Afghanistan. Launched under the slogan of fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban movement sheltering it, the military campaign evolved into state development efforts in this particular Asian country. Western analysts admit that the Alliance’s Afghan mission can be described as abortive. Although experts and journalists are entitled to their own opinion, we would like other analysts also to make their assessments. It would be important to hear a report about long-term efforts by the relevant contingents at the UN Security Council that had issued the relevant mandate.

According to the most modest estimates, after two decades of confrontation, the Taliban control over 50 percent of the country’s territory and continue armed struggle with the government of Afghanistan. According to UN data, despite Al Qaeda’s diminished potential, this terrorist organisation still has its cells in 11 Afghan provinces. In conditions of NATO’s military presence, Afghanistan accommodates ISIS, a new global terrorist threat that now has around 4,000 militants in the country. They regularly perpetrate terrorist attacks, including those carried out in Kabul.

A deplorable situation has taken shape in the sphere of drug fighting. During NATO’s presence in Afghanistan, the area under opium poppy plantations has expanded more than 20-fold, to reach 163,000 ha in 2019. Afghanistan accounts for over 80 percent of the global opiates market. According to UN data, 24 out of the country’s 34 provinces produce narcotic drugs.

Despite multi-billion injections that exceed US allocations for postwar European economic rehabilitation under the Marshall Plan, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan remains one of the poorest Asian countries, with one of the highest worldwide corruption levels; and at least 33 percent of the country’s economically active population is unemployed.

Billions of dollars, allocated for training the personnel of Afghan law enforcement agencies, have been squandered. Ten years into the infamous campaign, the United States was forced to admit that there is no military solution to the Afghan problems. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed or crippled during this period of time. Many of them became victims of indiscriminate NATO attacks that the Alliance cynically describes as collateral damage (this is what they call people!), and tens of thousands more were forced to flee Afghanistan in search of a peaceful life. So far, Afghans comprise one of the largest refugee groups seeking asylum in Europe.

While leaving the country, the United States and other NATO members promised to continue supporting Afghan law enforcement and security agencies. It is a big question whether they will manage to accomplish this because, over a period of the past 20 years, the Alliance has failed to establish combat-ready local law enforcement agencies capable of independently defending the country and maintaining law and order there.



Intermediate results of JCPOA talks in Vienna

On the whole, we are satisfied with the efforts to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme, which are being held between the current JCPOA signatories and the United States. Back in January, Russia submitted to its partners the proposals on the modalities of returning the nuclear deal into the coordinated framework. Many of our ideas were accepted and are being used during the discussions.

The aim of the talks is to relaunch the implementation of the JCPOA in keeping with the approved parameters and timeframe as soon as possible. We would like to point out that all the countries involved, including Washington and Tehran, are resolved to attain a positive result, to restore the balance of interests within the framework of the JCPOA and to create conditions for the sustainable implementation of the comprehensive agreements reached in 2015. Our American colleagues do not dispute the fact, by and large, that the gross violations of the JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution 2231 by the previous US administration must be mended, at long last, to create conditions for Iran to resume compliance with the obligations it has suspended in response to Washington’s violation of the nuclear deal provisions.

The possibility of revising the comprehensive agreements reached in 2015 is not on the agenda. We regard this as proof that there is no alternative to the JCPOA. We believe that the conditions for relaunching the JCPOA in full measure are set out in the plan itself. We are convinced that the shortest path to the noble goals, which had been formulated before the JCPOA was coordinated and approved, lies through the strict implementation of these obligations by all parties. Russia has been acting in this manner, all along urging the other partners to follow suit.



Joint statement on the US Rewards for Justice Programme by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures on the Enjoyment of Human Rights and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

We have read the joint statement on the US Rewards for Justice Programme issued by Alena Douhan, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

We share the view that was expressed in the statement that this programme is not aligned with the international standards of the protection and encouragement of human rights.

First, the offers of money for information on people who have not been charged with any crimes run contrary to the fundamental legal principle – the presumption of innocence stipulated in Clause 1 of Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and Clause 2 of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). In this context, there are no clear legal grounds for the collection of information about the persons who are innocent, legally speaking, who, in the absence of due process, are actually deprived of legal guarantees, including the right to defence.

Second, the United States is using this programme for arbitrary and unlawful interference with these persons’ privacy and family, which is prohibited in Clause 1 of Article 17 of the 1966 Covenant, as well as for infringing on the right to dignity and reputation of the individuals who are designated as criminals without a fair trial.

Third, the programme also offers money to foreign individuals whom the United States claims are “involved with terrorism” if they cooperate with US authorities. Moreover, the offers of money come with threats to impose sanctions on these individuals if they don’t cooperate with the US Government’s demands. This runs contrary to one of the fundamental international standards of fair trial, the right not to testify against oneself, which is sealed in Clause 3 (g) of Article 14 of the 1966 Covenant. Furthermore, the programme actually allows US law enforcers to shift the task of proving guilt to these individuals.

We fully agree with the conclusions made by UN human rights experts that the United States should review its Rewards for Justice Programme in order to ensure that its activities are aligned with international law.



Personal data privacy scandal in the Netherlands

This story of double standards and skilful juggling of facts is not new given what the collective West is doing in their “struggle to uphold the norms of democracy and human rights.” This has become almost proverbial. We regularly hear criticism about alleged violations in Russia. However, when it comes to the situation at home, for some reason, the Western watchdogs of democratic norms, laws and principles are failing to watch them carefully enough.

The Netherlands, which has recently arrogated to itself the role of a human rights arbiter, is now manifesting the same kind of unusual selective myopia. We have witnessed more than once how The Hague does not see any violations against their own citizens. Here is one new and highly interesting confirmation.

Dutch journalists have recently revealed that the Office of the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism of the Netherlands has been illegally collecting and distributing confidential information about civilians, including leaders of political organisations, activists and religious figures, for years. They even wrote weekly reports on some of the subjects for scrutiny, which the office then shared not only with their colleagues in other security agencies, but also with foreign special services. Moreover, all this secret activity was carried out at the request of the government.

And what do you think? Did the perpetrators apologise or were they punished? Not at all. The authorities dismissed the public outcry with a promise to create a stronger legal basis for the functioning of the agency that was at fault. The country’s government did not seem to see the unauthorised collection of information about its citizens as reprehensible.

But the story did not end there. One of the officials, whose name repeatedly popped up in the investigation, was extremely displeased with the media criticism. So he decided to express his displeasure in a way that is highly atypical for a country that advocates freedom of speech. He wrote an angry post on social media in which he described his emotions and threatened the publication that he would find and punish those who “leaked sensitive information.” However, even so, despite direct threats, the case against him boiled down to a disciplinary investigation.

Such incidents are highly indicative. It is time the Netherlands got closer to reality and addressed their own problems before lecturing, criticising and accusing others.



Poland closes Russian language centres

Two months ago, we expressed regret over the closure of the Centre of Russian Language and Culture at the Krakow Pedagogical University, established in 2008 at the initiative of the Russkiy Mir Foundation. Yet, Poland has not only failed to reverse that unmotivated decision, but has continued the destructive practice of ousting the Russian language and culture. To date, the actions of the Polish side have led to the actual closure of two more Russian centres, in Wroclaw (at the Institute of Slavic Philology of the University of Wroclaw, established in 2014) and Slupsk (Public City Library, 2009). The centres were shut down even though their underlying cooperation agreements with Russkiy Mir Foundation were automatically extended for another five years in 2019. The political motives behind these moves are obvious.

We sincerely regret these steps taken by the Polish side. In our opinion, this decision made by the Polish authorities will negatively affect the right of the Russian-speaking population in Poland to preserve their language, culture and identity, and will restrict access to the necessary educational materials for students studying Russian. It would seem the humanitarian component of Russian-Polish interaction is more important than ever now that relations are strained and the political dialogue is de facto frozen, through Warsaw’s efforts, and bilateral cooperation is curtailed in many areas. However, as we can see, here the Polish side’s efforts pursue the same goal – to further complicate the opportunities for interaction between the peoples of our countries.



Poland demolishes Red Army monument in Leszno

The Polish authorities, in their bid to erase any memory of the glorious pages of the Red Army’s liberation mission, crucial for the Poles’ survival and liberation from Nazi plague, are continuing their campaign for a systematic destruction of Soviet memorial sites. The alleged reason for this is “decommunisation.”

A monument of gratitude to the Red Army, which expelled the Nazis from the town in September 1944, was dismantled in Leszno, Podkarpackie Voivodeship. The monument was erected in 1945 next to the burial place of Soviet soldiers, whose remains were later exhumed and transferred to the cemetery in Baligrod.

This egregious case provides yet more evidence of the policy of historical cynicism pursued by the Polish authorities and their campaign to destroy the Soviet war memorial legacy, contrary to their international obligations.



Our foreign partners’ requests to supply Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine

The epidemiological situation in the world remains alarming. All the Foreign Ministry’s recommendations concerning the difficulties, unpredictability and risks related of foreign trips remain in force. Please, read these recommendations carefully before deciding to travel abroad.

Many countries, including in Europe, have been hit by the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. They are also experiencing difficulties with the vaccination campaign (to put it mildly, because the vaccination campaigns in many EU countries are actually a complete failure). In this regard, the measures being taken are chaotic, disorganised and largely contradictory. These countries have been forced to tighten restrictions again and again.

Since the very beginning of the corona crisis, Russia has been consistently speaking out in favour of building multilateral cooperation to combat the pandemic and insisting that this purely humanitarian issue must not be politicised. In this context, our country has unfailingly demonstrated a responsible approach and solidarity towards its partners and especially towards the countries that have been worst hit by the pandemic.

Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine has already proved its efficiency and safety, including against most contagious strains of the virus. The vaccine is currently registered in 60 countries, including some EU countries (Austria, Slovakia and Hungary). We are exploring the possibility of participating in international initiatives to supply Sputnik V to the most affected countries. We have always stressed at all levels that we are open and ready to cooperate and have professional exchanges with our foreign partners on the prevention of and vaccination against COVID-19.

That being said, it is perplexing to hear official statements from some European capitals that are trying to politicise Russian vaccine exports. In some of these countries, it gets to the point of political battles that often lead to crises. For example, according to French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, the Russian vaccine is nothing more than a “propaganda tool.” French President Emmanuel Macron even thought it was appropriate to speak about “a new type of world war” and attempts to use the vaccines to exert influence. I don’t know, maybe France is using the vaccines to exert influence? It is never late to admit it. Who is he talking about? Not us, certainly. We would like to point out to our French and other foreign partners that Russia is not imposing its vaccine on anybody. Political speculations are absolutely unacceptable when people’s health and wellbeing are at stake.

Meanwhile, Russia is receiving more appeals from local officials, public figures and ordinary citizens abroad asking to supply the Russian vaccine. It is as if France and other countries who accuse us of politicising this issue, of waging a vaccine war, are not aware of appeals from dozens of heads of state who are asking our country to supply the vaccine and want to know when it will arrive. They are asking us to speed things up, offering cooperation and offering to produce our vaccine on their territory as a joint effort.

Recently, Mayor of Nice Christian Estrosi sent a letter to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a request for assistance with supplying the Russian vaccine to this major French city. Why is it common practice in France to ignore such facts and endlessly make up more myths? We have received similar local requests from other EU member states. We believe it means that their public does not agree with the restrictions imposed by their governments on international cooperation against the COVID-19 pandemic. So who is doing the politicising and what is being politicised? Who started a war and with whom? I can tell you honestly: the war was started by those who are prohibiting or opposing the supplies of our vaccine. If people in these countries cannot be provided with the sufficient amount of their vaccines and it is possible to supply ours (Russia has not denied anybody its cooperation) but the governments or political figures are prohibiting or blocking this cooperation, it is a war against their own people. Perhaps this is what Emmanuel Macron meant when he spoke about a new type of war? As you know, we no longer listen to the endless accusations against us without responding to them.

We reaffirm our principled readiness for genuine cooperation in this area. Obviously, a lot depends on the decision of the European Medicines Agency, which is now considering Russia’s Sputnik V application. It is a paradox. People have been using this vaccine for months. It has been administered publicly. There is a queue of countries wishing to be able to use it outside of Russia. Many foreign citizens are asking to get vaccinated (you know it yourself; it is not a made-up story but it is based on facts), they get inoculated and writing about it in the media. Still, the European Medicines Agency is not moving forward.

We expect that our vaccine will be treated objectively and purely on the scientific basis. We hope that it will. The majority of scientists are confidently assuring the public that it is successful and prompt vaccination, regardless of where the vaccine comes from, that will allow the global community to overcome this crisis of an unprecedented scale.



Russia-Italy cooperation to combat COVID-19

Russia and Italy continue to successfully and consistently develop their cooperation to counter the coronavirus pandemic.

During a videoconference on April 13, organised with the support of the Russian Embassy in Rome, a memorandum of understanding in the area of scientific cooperation and exchange of materials and knowledge was signed between the Gamaleya National Centre of Epidemiology and Microbiology and the Lazzaro Spallanzani National Institute for Infectious Diseases. The memorandum was initiated by the Italian institute, which published, last February, an expert opinion reaffirming the conclusions made by The Lancet, a highly respected medical journal, concerning high efficiency of the Russian vaccine. In addition to the two leading research centres, the Health and Social Integration Directorate of the Lazio Region and the Russian Direct Investment Fund also put their signatures under the document.

The memorandum provides for exchange of scientific data, biological materials and expert delegations. The parties agreed that during the first stage, their joint research will be focused on studying the efficiency of Sputnik V against the new strains of the coronavirus detected by the Italian institute in the Apennines. They will also explore the possibility of administering the Russian vaccine as the second dose to persons who already received a different vaccine as the first dose.

The Italian party expressed readiness to host a delegation from the Gamaleya Centre in the near future in order to start working together.

At a time when confrontational approaches and sometimes simply dishonest and illegal competition on behalf of certain states are undermining the efficiency of international efforts to counter the COVID-19 pandemic, this and similar initiatives aimed at developing fundamental scientific cooperation between Russia and Italy are much-needed and timely.

We are certain that tackling this new global challenge is only possible through broad international cooperation in healthcare for the purpose of developing and producing vaccines and improving the existing COVID-19 medications.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

We have recently witnessed active unfriendly actions by Western countries against Russia, in the form of sanctions, the expulsion of diplomats, accusations, and espionage scandals. Do you believe it is a deliberately planned campaign? If so, who may be interested in it and why?



Maria Zakharova:

President Vladimir Putin answered your question yesterday. He used many allegories, including from world literature. We have also spoken about this directly, without any allegories. We can clearly see a containment policy started by the West with respect to Russia, for a number of reasons: our country is developing and embracing a clear and transparent approach to international relations. These international relations must be based on international law and the main principles of the UN Charter, as well as a policy of peace that is intended to protect national interests in all areas.

“How can we not contain such a country?” our Western partners thought a while ago and decided to take action. I think it was a blunder on their part, even though they tried various methods. Initially they planned to isolate our country, but their plan failed. I remember very well that, as soon as the concept of isolating Russia was declared, many people, including in our country, started asking questions: “Who will come to Russia now? Who will you be talking to? Of course, now major countries and economies will never come to Russia or engage in any talks with you.” Several years went by. We have been visited by so many officials here in Moscow. Representatives from all over the world have attended so many forums hosted by Russia. So what happened to this isolation policy? It failed. It didn’t work. It was absurd to even start it against Russia.

There has been more to this containment policy: unlawful unilateral sanctions, stop lists, the persecution of Russian nationals, and what not. Now, we have reached a new stage. Russian diplomats are being expelled and accused of all kinds of nonsense, with no grounds or facts whatsoever. We have been there before. It is a seasonal thing for the West. Something happens in the political nature of these countries which causes this flare-up. No big deal, we will survive this time, too. Except that they are not damaging us but our bilateral relations. Bilateral relations are not just relations between governments and political parties. These are relations between people. People are always the main beneficiaries of bilateral relations. They are always the first to take a hit. Who stands behind this? We call them the “collective West.” Who is running the show? We all know it is the United States. They are not even hiding it. On the contrary, they are proud of it, calling it American exceptionalism and dominance, a special messianic role. There is no messianic role or domination. The United States is good at destroying things but not at creating, let alone overcoming global problems. We have seen multiple examples of that.



Question:

Why, in your opinion, is Ukraine demanding NATO membership? There have been strange statements made. Recently, the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany said that Germany should become a key player in supporting Ukraine’s bid to join NATO.



Maria Zakharova:

What makes you think that if the Ukrainian regime is acting strangely, its statements should not be strange? It is normal. Their actions and statements are both strange.

Kiev’s redoubled efforts that we have seen recently are definitely related to the upcoming NATO summit. Ukraine hopes to receive a Membership Action Plan (MAP). For a number of reasons, not all members of the alliance support this initiative. That is why the Ukrainian government, its diplomats and politicians demand, almost in terms of ultimatum, that NATO countries agree to provide them with this plan and are collecting signatures under some declaration that was written by Kiev for this purpose. All escalations are aimed at this goal. The current tensions on the contact line in Donbass have been provoked by Kiev for the same purpose of receiving the Membership Action Plan.

As is known, the objective to join NATO was fixed in the Ukrainian Constitution in 2019 towards the end of Petr Poroshenko’s term as president. We are confident that this decision is a mistake. It will not facilitate Ukraine’s stability or the settlement of the Donbass conflict. Even more so, it will not help strengthen pan-European security. Quite the opposite, it contradicts all these factors I just mentioned.

Unfortunately, Kiev follows faulty logic. To score points with the West, the Kiev regime does everything in its power to break off relations with its closest neighbours, Russia and Belarus, and withdraws from CIS treaties that are beneficial for Ukraine. But they do not care. Ruining everything is what they are good at.

President Vladimir Zelensky says that NATO membership will bring an end to the war in the country’s east, and receiving the MAP will be a signal to Russia. The current cooperation between Kiev and NATO, including seven military exercises with NATO members that are planned to be held on Ukraine’s territory this year, is openly anti-Russian. Alexei Arestovich, advisor to the Ukrainian delegation in the Contact Group, has frankly admitted that the goal of the upcoming Defender Europe exercise, which will also take place on Ukraine’s territory, “is to practice for war with Russia.”

For our part, we never tire of warning our Western partners against anti-Russian policy and against appeasing the aggressive intentions of the current Kiev regime. The path to a settlement and the end of the war in Ukraine does not lie in joining NATO. The only way is to adhere to the Minsk Agreements, consolidate society around a constructive agenda and eliminate nationalist ideology. These are just some ideas; there could be more. They can go in a different order. In my opinion, this is indeed the path to the settlement of the crisis and the end of the war in Ukraine.



Question:

Despite the ceasefire concluded with Russia’s mediation, Azerbaijan continues to hold captive not only members of the military, but also civilians. In particular, the elderly spouses Avtandilyans, 85 and 75 years old, were taken prisoner while returning to their native village in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) in a taxi because they believed in the ceasefire. Worse than this, there is a new theme park in Azerbaijan where they mock dummies of Armenian soldiers and the helmets of the dead. What is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s attitude to such actions of Baku and how can such actions affect the peace process? Aren’t they undermining Russia’s peacekeeping role? Has Moscow raised this so-called park issue in its contacts with Baku? What they are doing there is a fascist-style act.



Maria Zakharova:

Russia is making vigorous mediation efforts to eliminate one of the most powerful irritants in relations between Baku and Yerevan. We strongly support the all-for-all prisoner exchange formula. Such a step would create a favourable atmosphere for moving forward on a number of important matters.

As far as the park is concerned, we are counting on Baku and Yerevan to take more practical steps aimed at normalising relations, not at creating new dividing lines. A huge price has been paid, and that price was people’s lives. This tragic circumstance, which at the same time gives us some hope for the future, should be used for peaceful and constructive purposes – not exploited to further aggravate the situation, create dividing lines, or new irritants. This is indeed difficult, especially after an armed conflict. It is hard to move on, including psychologically. Many are discontent with the outcome; some still want to fight; others want revenge. But will creating new irritants contribute to reconciliation and a return to peace? The obvious answer is, no.

We believe the most important task at this stage is to strengthen confidence-building measures between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and to form a positive economic agenda that can provide the conditions for the sustainable future development of the South Caucasus. This would meet the interests of all our partners in the region.



Question:

President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev recently said that if Armenia refused to green-light the Zangezur Corridor project (across the Syunik region of Armenia), Azerbaijan would resolve the matter by force. What is your assessment of the military aggression threat against the sovereign territory of Armenia issued by the President of Azerbaijan?



Maria Zakharova:

We call on both parties to refrain from revanchist and militaristic rhetoric, which could once again put the region on the brink of war. We strongly believe that the statements and practical steps by Baku and Yerevan should be in line with the trilateral agreements signed by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia on November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021. This concerns, among other things, unblocking economic and transport links in the region.



Question:

On April 20, the Azerbaijani armed forces fired at Stepanakert and several villages in the Askeran region, grossly violating the November 9, 2020 trilateral agreement between the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. The roof of a residential building in Stepanakert was damaged by the shooting. How do you assess Azerbaijan’s provocative actions aimed at creating an atmosphere of fear in Artsakh and undermining Russia’s peacekeeping mission?



Maria Zakharova:

I have just commented on this. What I said is also an answer to this question.



Question:

I would like to start with Russian-US relations. A number of Russian experts believe that the role of traditional diplomacy has now gone to securocrats. After all, the preparations for the summit of President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden are conducted (or at least the discussion of its possibility) by the people from the power agencies along the Nikolay Patrushev-Jake Sullivan line rather than diplomats who are no longer in their work places. Do you think this is an exception to the rule or a new trend in building relations not only with the United States but also with other Western countries?



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot agree with this assessment for a whole number of reasons either in theory or in practice or apropos of this particular case. Summits are prepared by the Executive Office of the head of state. Each department makes its contribution to the preparations for this event within the level of its competence.

I would like to emphasise that as distinct from American securocrats as you call them, the US Department of State does not yet have a complete staff of top- and mid-tier executives. This is still work in progress. Security officials do not have such problems (this is only a sketch of the overall US political landscape).



Question:

In his Address to the Federal Assembly yesterday, President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that when the pandemic is over, as a hospitable country Russia will try to broaden its practice of issuing e-visas for those who want to visit our country. To what extent will this require changes in work of the consular service? Will the Foreign Ministry have to do additional work or is everything already in place for this?



Maria Zakharova:

Both yes and no. The consular service is being continuously upgraded and new technology is being introduced. This is not the case in the US (I am giving this example just in the context of our discussion of bilateral relations). Many visa-processing procedures in Russia have become outdated, including those that are still topical with the Americans, for instance a personal interview (even more so during the COVID-19 pandemic) and complicated transport logistics. Russian visas are issued without a personal interview unless there are some special circumstances. The Americans drag these procedures out — a personal interview, personal presence, etc. Naturally, the consular service, in particular our consular service, is being upgraded. It is becoming more dynamic to meet the modern requirements. This is life. At any rate, this was the case before the pandemic. This was the main development vector. It is being furnished with new technological capacities and is becoming more user-friendly and dynamic.

We have already issued electronic visas. This is not something new for us. There were some problems initially when this practice was launched. But this always happens because any new practice requires a trial period where it is used in practice rather than just theoretically. We soon overcame these shortcomings. At present, we live under the COVID restrictions but proceed from what President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said.

You asked me whether the role of diplomats is receding and then you switched to consular issues. I wonder how you managed to merge the two issues and make it very comfortable for me to answer your questions in one go, using the example of American diplomats again.

They directly link the number and staffing of the diplomatic and consular community, in particular, in Russia with the issue of visas. They are saying that their visa issuance technology, approvals with other departments and the sending of materials to them requires many employees, many diplomats. The Americans make the number of diplomats all-important. When they dragged out the entire procedure of issuing visas to Russians beyond any limits (now it takes up to nine months or more to get a visa), they explained this by the reduction in their staff. This is not exactly so. It is up to the Embassy or the centre to redistribute the functions within the Embassy. It is obviously not a matter for the Russian authorities. If they remove people from the consular service and send them elsewhere, this is their own decision. It has nothing to do with the Russian authorities. Another point is more important. They link the number of diplomats directly with the visa issuance service. This answers your question about whether the role of diplomacy is in decline or remains the same. The consular sector is just one example. In reality, there are many more.



Question:

Should Russia’s intention to make electronic visas for “ordinary” and “non-political” tourists more accessible be considered as a retaliatory move to the attempts to whip up political tensions? In other words, is Russia trying to introduce “people’s diplomacy” of sorts and attract citizens of countries whose politicians do not want to treat Russia as equal?



Maria Zakharova:

That is a philosophical question. One can respond with actions to certain actions. You do not have to agree with them, or accept them, they can contradict your beliefs, but you can see certain logic in them. Sometimes it is hard to find any logic in the actions of the West. Look at what is going on in Prague and what the Czech political establishment is doing now. They issue contradicting statements every hour and a half.

The question is not that we respond with actions to such actions. This is a different matter. Russia really is a friendly, peaceful country that has never been an initiator of world wars or global turmoil. Russia is a beautiful, hospitable country; many people don’t know what it is like or get a wrong image from foreign media. We want to show everything we have and make tourists see what Russia really is, what its achievements are; we want them to see its amazing cities and people, and what we do and how we live.

Do you remember when the conversation about electronic visas began? It began with the FIFA World Cup. When football lovers, tourists and fans came to Russia despite spooky stories about Russia in Western media, they were shocked by the difference between what they had read and what they actually saw. They saw that our country is truly interesting, wonderful and spectacular. Recall how many people wanted to stay here longer and extended their visas and how many of them wanted to return. It was at that time that discussions began on the need to take relevant efforts.

Another paradox is that many foreign correspondents living in Russia write radically anti-Russia articles. But I see how much they enjoy their life here and how reluctant they are to terminate their contracts. It is a real tragedy for many of them, and many try to find another job just to stay here. At the same time, I have always wanted to ask them why they write all this nonsense and create a negative image of our country.

I think the point here is not about our response to something, but about the desire to show what we really are and give people an opportunity to decide for themselves.



Question:

The pullout from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, promised by US President Joe Biden, will significantly change the balance of power in the region. What ways of achieving peace in Afghanistan does Russia see in this situation?



Maria Zakharova:

I have already commented on this in detail, but I would like to add that the only possible way to achieve peace in Afghanistan is to launch direct, meaningful intra-Afghan talks on national reconciliation. We hope that Kabul and the Taliban will refrain from escalating violence in the months remaining before September 11 but will use this time to the best advantage for reaching agreements on key issues on the agenda for resolving the conflict, including agreeing a ceasefire, completing the prisoner exchange and forming an inclusive government.



Question:

NATO’s targeted anti-Russia information campaign, the situation with the Czech Republic and previously, with the expulsion of Russian diplomats from Bulgaria, suggest that an anti-Russia information campaign has been unleashed, and that campaign has its own masterminds and goals. By the way, Bulgaria was the first country to receive NATO’s step-by-step instructions in this regard. How does Russia assess the attempt, by its Western partners, to artificially create a diplomatic confrontation between Russia and the West using Europe? If we recall White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s promise to apply counteraction and containment measures against Russia, do you think what we are witnessing is part of such measures to divert the international community’s attention from the increase in US military activity, attempts to disrupt Nord Stream 2 and the ousting of the Rosatom corporation from the Czech Republic? What can be done to curb this information campaign and preserve the Russian-European dialogue?



Maria Zakharova:

This is not a question for Russia. We strongly and clearly advocate the primacy, maintenance and development of normal relations. There may be various gradations, and there may be problems, but we are building any kind of relationships with our partners on the basis of international law. This kind of non-ideology-based approach provides the best opportunity to maintain one’s own stance and defend national interests, and even compete without overstepping the legal framework or upsetting the global balance that we all need to preserve.

Therefore, this is not a question for us. We know how to build our relations with the world – on the basis of international law, as well as respect for and implementation of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter. We are perfectly confident that we will not allow any country to encroach on our sovereignty or undermine it. We are ready to interact and resolve complex issues. We can handle the fact that our partners think differently and see things differently, but at the same time, we have made it clear that there are red lines (as President of Russia Vladimir Putin put it in his Address to the Federal Assembly yesterday). He also said that no one can cross them. We remain a peace-loving state, but we have put up with things for too long. Now we are responding without any romantic vibe, counting on anyone’s prudence. We respond, on the one hand, as we should within the international legal framework; on the other hand, we respond in line with the traditions of diplomacy; and thirdly, we respond as is best for us. But at the same time, we adhere to a truly peaceful and cooperative approach.

As for what our Western partners are doing, concerning the Czech Republic, we can state that Prague has embarked on the path of ruining relations. A response will not be long in coming.



Question:

Please comment on Czech Minister of Internal and Foreign Affairs Jan Hamacek’s call to EU and NATO countries to expel Russian diplomats in solidarity with Prague? How will the Russian Federation respond to this?



Maria Zakharova:

This call to action is not addressed to us. We respond to actions that are taken with respect to Russia. This call is not directed towards us and there is no point in responding. They appeal to each other for support every day. Following this absurd logic, they have gone to the limit of disrespect for their own citizens. They don’t care one bit about their own citizens who favour cooperation and want to resolve their problems, in part, with a contribution from the international community, including Russia. They are ignoring the needs of their own people, and I think this is the limit of how far they can go; they cannot move any further. They are stuck in this rabid Russophobia. They think it will allow them to move forward in the dialogue with their own people. Meanwhile, their citizens keep asking them questions: when will they get out of the crisis? When will they be vaccinated? When will their economic and social problems start to be resolved? But those in charge believe that by inventing more Russophobic tricks, they will be able to sidetrack their compatriots from their own pressing issues.

I would like to draw your attention, once again, to yesterday’s Address by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. Not just most of it, but almost all of it was devoted to domestic issues and internal development; how to live and overcome the consequences of the pandemic, how to move forward and develop further, how to resolve our problems and plan our tasks, how to map out goals and carry out all this. This is what interests us. We do not interfere in their domestic affairs and are not going to lecture anyone. We are focused on our own development. Of course, we do not live in a vacuum. We want to, and we know how to, build friendly, equitable relations between nations with consideration for their interests and needs. In doing so, we proceed from international law.

But look at the position of our Western partners. They reduce the discussion of their domestic problems to a minimum but talk at length about others, giving them instructions on how to live. In the process, they use endless myths and fake stories about a non-existent threat that ostensibly prevents them from making the most of it. They would have had a much better life if it weren’t for notorious Russian influence and the invented and trite “hand of the Kremlin.” They would have vaccines and no economic or migration problems. Apparently, they wouldn’t have racism, either. They would have fewer negative issues with more positive progress all around. But the problem is that Moscow is getting in the way. They cannot keep living in this paradigm; it’s an ideological impasse, and this is clear to everyone.



Question:

Will Russia open its borders with Bulgaria for the approaching summer tourism season?



Maria Zakharova:

At this point the emergency response centre is making decisions on resuming air traffic, opening borders and changing the rules for crossing them. These decisions are based on interdepartmental approval. Naturally, the centre is primarily guided by the epidemiological situation both at home and abroad.



Question:

I have a follow-up question regarding our response to the recent Czech decision to expel the diplomats. Will our response mirror this action? Can this imply the expulsion of all embassy staff?



Maria Zakharova:

Our response is coming soon.



Question:

It would be important to prevent the exacerbation of relations with some former socialist countries to avoid destroying our good ties with ordinary people. Is it possible to provide some moral comfort to those who are adamantly against these kinds of anti-Russian actions and who act in support of our country?



Maria Zakharova:

We have a good expression: “We must live according to our conscience.” If you live according to your conscience, even the most difficult trials cannot destroy you. They make you even stronger or simply help you survive the difficult moments that everyone has in life. I am well aware that this isn’t the easiest approach, but I think this is the right way to go. If you ask for my personal advice, this is it.

I think this is indeed moral support for those who are watching these actions by the Western states, which border on madness. They are destroying both bilateral and multilateral relations because these relations are no longer just bilateral.

I fully agree that many achievements, of which the Western countries are also proud, have been made owing to bilateral relations and not without the support of other countries, Russia included.

I am not talking about World War II and the role of our country in liberating Europe from Nazism. I am not talking about the recovery of a vast number of European countries and the material support in many diverse areas in the postwar period. Much has also been done in recent history thanks to our cooperation, support and genuine solidarity in difficult periods, such as the struggle against terrorism, cooperation on vaccines, and many other things. Russia was the first country to develop a vaccine. We extended our hand to Europe for cooperation, information exchange and joint work on the vaccine. This was a truly humanistic move.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4698265

[Alex Him]

Press release on retaliatory measures following the expulsion of Russian diplomats from Poland



23 April 2021 - 12:02



On April 23, Krzysztof Krajewski, the Ambassador of Poland to Moscow, was summoned to the Foreign Ministry whose officials lodged a resolute protest in connection with an unjustified decision to declare three officials of the Russian Embassy in the Republic of Poland personae non gratae under an absurd pretext of solidarising with the United States that groundlessly claims that the Russian Federation is involved in cyberattacks on US territory.

This yet again confirmed the fact that Warsaw is deliberately implementing a line to further degrade and demolish our bilateral relations. Over the past few years, contacts with Russia were virtually frozen through the efforts of the Polish authorities. An ignominious war against Soviet-era memorials was launched, attempts are being made to torpedo Russian energy projects, and a wide-scale anti-Russia media campaign is underway. History is being falsified, and the West endlessly extends its anti-Russia sanctions.

It was noted that, as a retaliatory measure in response to Poland’s provocative actions to expel Russian diplomats and based on the principle of reciprocity, five officials from the Embassy of the Republic of Poland in the Russian Federation were declared personae non gratae, and they will have to leave the territory of the Russian Federation by the evening of May 15, 2021.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4706157






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to question from the Moscow. Kremlin. Putin programme, Moscow, April 25, 2021



25 April 2021 - 14:30

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Question:

Is it true that a dialogue has begun with the Americans at a working level regarding a personal meeting between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have already said everything in our response to the latest unfriendly moves made by the US. We announced the measures we have taken and the measures we are ready to take if the escalation continues. At the same time, acting on instructions from President Putin, I mentioned US President Biden’s proposal regarding a summit meeting. We have a positive view of this proposal, which we are analysing at the moment.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4712010






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and replies to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Honduran Foreign Minister Lisandro Rosales Banegas, Moscow, April 26, 2021



26 April 2021 - 18:15

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Talks were held with my colleague from Honduras Lisandro Rosales Banegas. They were constructive, businesslike and detailed.

We discussed major bilateral and international issues and outlined our goals for future cooperation. We are united by the bonds of friendship, mutual empathy and the positive experience of cooperation.

Last year we observed the 30th anniversary of our diplomatic relations. Honduras established its embassy in the Russian capital in 2013. In 2018, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Honduras signed a treaty on the foundations of bilateral relations.

An agreement on visa-free travel for our citizens has been valid since 2015. It opens further prospects for business cooperation and development of people-to-people contacts, educational, cultural and other ties.

We confirmed out mutual desire to promote our partnership that is making steady headway in many different areas and agreed to raise it to a new level. We outlined ways to intensify our political dialogue, in part, between our foreign ministries. We planned to hold a regular round of full bilateral consultations on all issues of cooperation in the near future, as soon as the epidemiological situation allows.

We agreed to expand our trade and economic ties. Last year, we recorded a substantial increase in trade despite the pandemic. It has already exceeded $70 million; naturally, this is not the limit. We agreed to think about creating a joint chamber of commerce and industry or a business council to seek more opportunities for trade and mutually beneficial investment.

We have good prospects for deepening our cooperation in education, including educating and training people in various areas for both civilian and law enforcement jobs.

We agreed to develop cooperation in mitigating the consequences of emergencies. In the past, Mr Minister has occupied several positions in his government in this area. Hence, we have additional advantages in developing cooperation here.

We emphasised the opportunities we have for responding to emergencies through bilateral channels and at the Russian-Cuban fire and rescue specialists training center.

We will continue upgrading our contractual legal framework, in part, for countering drug trafficking and other challenges and threats.

Cooperation to counter the COVID-19 pandemic received particular attention. Russia and Honduras signed a contract last month. The first batch of the Russian Sputnik V vaccine has already been delivered; the second shipment is scheduled for tomorrow. Today, Mr Minister and his delegation will meet with the management of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, which coordinates cooperation with our foreign partners in this area.

We also emphasised that, in general, interaction in the healthcare sector requires an effort to make it sustainable and long-term. Among other things, we proposed taking a closer look at the experience of the education and advanced training of medical workers at higher educational institutions under the Russian Healthcare Ministry.

We have close positions on the key issues of our time. Our countries consistently advocate a fairer democratic world order based on international law, with a central role played by the UN as well as respect for each nation’s right to independently choose its path, without external interference.

We supported all states’ efforts to ensure universal security and the best conditions for progressive socioeconomic development.

We agreed to develop cooperation at the UN, and to continue coordinating the actions of our delegations in New York. We expressed gratitude to our colleagues from Honduras for supporting the majority of Russian initiatives on key items on the current international agenda.

We discussed the integration processes in Latin America. We noted that the region’s position as one of the important poles of the emerging multipolar world is growing stronger. Russia – we especially emphasised this – is not looking at Latin America through the prism of geopolitical interests. We oppose the region becoming an arena of rivalry between major powers from outside the region. We do not intend to advise Latin Americans on choosing their friends and foes, and do not think anyone else should.

We consistently advocate mutually beneficial cooperation with all countries in the region with a pragmatic and non-ideology based approach. We have a mutual interest in developing constructive interaction between the Russian Federation and the Central American Integration System (SICA). This is a good platform for dialogue between Moscow and all member countries of that important association, which has proven its relevance.

We have expressed gratitude for the recent decision to grant the Russian Federation observer status at SICA. As a next step, we agreed to develop a programme of bilateral cooperation.

Inter-parliamentary contacts are another important area. We appreciate the joint work as part of the Central American Parliament (PARLACEN). Over the past three years, a number of major international forums have been held under its auspices and with its assistance, with Russia involved, including meetings on cybercrime, international information security, space, Latin America-Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) interaction, as well as on the fight against the coronavirus infection.

A series of international events will take place in the Russian Federation this year. I mean, first, the Third Eurasian Women's Forum, which will take place in St Petersburg in October, as well as the Global Forum of Young Diplomats planned for this summer. We invited our Honduran colleagues to send their representatives. As far as I know, our invitation will be accepted. We will be delighted to meet the respective delegations at our events.

We are also grateful for the appointment of the new Charge d'Affaires ad interim of Honduras in Russia, Mr Martinez Rodriguez, who arrived in Moscow just five days ago and participated in our meeting today. We will provide him with every support in his work.

Finally, I would like to mention that Honduras is celebrating an anniversary this year.

September 15, 2021 marks 200 years of Honduran independence. We are ready to render every assistance for any events that our Honduran friends may be planning in the Russian Federation on this occasion.

Once again, I would like to underline our satisfaction with the results of the talks, which will certainly contribute to the consistent development of our partnership in various spheres.

Thank you.







Question:

After the contradictory statements from Prague about the incident in Vrbetica, including, I mean, yesterday's speech by President of the Czech Republic Milos Zeman, a lot of questions arise about the role of the Bulgarian arms dealer Emilian Gebrev, about what exactly was stored in the warehouses, about how the investigation is being conducted, who should be contacted for answers to all these questions and how, in general, Russia intends to react to what is happening.



Sergey Lavrov:

Much has already been said on this topic. Let me just mention a couple of points. As you know, President of the Czech Republic Milos Zeman, having familiarised himself with his statement, proposed only to continue studying all the versions of what happened seven years ago at the arms depot. Nothing more. This absolutely sensible statement was followed by a reaction, including from the leadership of the Czech Parliament, which accused President Zeman of interfering with the investigation. This speaks of only one thing: those who make such statements have already decided everything for themselves, decided that there are no alternative explanations other than the guilt of Russia. Although at the same time the top officials at the Czech Prosecutor's Office say that the investigation is ongoing.

Probably, all this, as well as other issues related to this story, should be considered by the European Union, since this is its territory. Judging by the comments of experts, this all happened in violation of a number of norms and rules in force in the European Union, and there is also a significant indication that international conventions were also violated, including the Ottawa Convention prohibiting anti-personnel mines, and the Arms Trade Treaty, to which, as I understand it, all members of the European Union are parties. So it is high time Brussels somehow explained what is happening on the territory of its member countries.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4712541






Statement by the Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation to the Vienna Negotiations on Military Security and Arms Control KONSTANTIN GAVRILOV at the 1st Plenary meeting of the 85th Session of the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC), Vienna, April 26, 2021



26 April 2021 - 22:25







Madam Chair,

Distinguished Colleagues,

In terms of discussion of the issue of current implementation of the Treaty on Open (OST) Skies, the Russian Delegation would like to announce the official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia on the situation with regard to the Treaty on Open Skies.

First of all, we note that a group of states led by the United States keeps trying - no matter what - to shift the responsibility for the deplorable situation with the Open Skies Treaty (OST) to the Russian Federation. It looks like Washington had never withdrawn from it. Claims are still being made that “the Russian Federation must come into full compliance with the Treaty” before someone somewhere might begin to consider any chances for return to the Treaty.

We have repeatedly stated our position in response to such claims. Those who wish so may familiarize themselves with it, inter alia, on the MFA website.

Meanwhile, we draw attention to the fact that some time ago we introduced a set of ideas how to resolve the problem of observation flights over Georgia and over 10-km zones along the Russian border in the Caucasus. Nonetheless, these ideas were rejected by those who are indifferent to the future of the OST.

Moreover, last year we gave permission to conduct an observation flight over the Kaliningrad region at a distance that exceeded the 500-kilometer limit, and also created all necessary conditions for a successful flight over the area where the Kavkaz-2020 (Caucasus-2020) military exercise was held.

Both were strong political signals, but unfortunately, no adequate response followed.

In turn, we maintain several concerns regarding the implementation by the NATO allies of the US, and also by Ukraine and Georgia, of their obligations under the OST. These concerns were emphasized, inter alia, by our delegation at the fourth Review Conference of the Treaty on 7 October 2020 and 9 October 2020.

We made very serious points on the US record of non-compliance prior to that country’s withdrawal from the Treaty. They were summarized in the Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia dated 22 November 2020. As is a usual way of our opponents nowadays, these points were disregarded and were not even responded to.

We expressed our readiness in principle to address all these issues, including the concerns of the Russian Federation and those of our partners, in a comprehensive way, at a “small group” on the margins of the Open Skies Consultative Commission. To turn this expression of readiness into practice will only be possible after the United States sends a clear and unambiguous message about its decision to return to the Treaty.

Meanwhile, the Treaty moves to a point where it will fall apart. One should not expect Russia to offer unilateral concessions. If the status quo is maintained, our internal procedures necessary prior to the notification of Russia’s decision to withdraw from the Treaty will be completed by the end of May.

The Government of the Russian Federation will present the draft law on the denunciation of the Treaty on Open Skies to the President; it will then be submitted to the Chambers of the Federal Assembly for review.

I thank you, Madam Chair, and request that this statement be attached to the journal of the day.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4714306






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Director General of Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency Dmitry Kiselev Moscow, April 28, 2021



28 April 2021 - 10:15

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Dmitry Kiselev:

Our relations with the United States are really “hell”. Personally, I don’t recall them being at such a low ebb ever before. This is even worse than the Cold War times, in my opinion. Ambassadors have returned back to their home countries. What’s going to happen next? What is the possible scenario?



Sergey Lavrov:

If it depended on us alone, we would gladly resume normal relations. The first possible step towards this, which I regard as obvious, is to zero out the measures restricting the work of Russian diplomats in the United States. It was as a response measure that we restricted the operations of American diplomats in Russia.

We proposed this to the Biden administration as soon as it had taken the oath and assumed office. I have mentioned the idea to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. I did not try to press it; I just said that an obvious way to normalise our relations would be to zero out the measures initiated by Barack Obama. Several weeks before leaving office, he was so annoyed he virtually slammed the door by seizing Russian property in violation of all the Vienna conventions and throwing Russian diplomats out. This has caused a chain reaction.

We patiently sat back for a long time, until the summer of 2017, before taking any response measures. The Trump administration asked us to disregard the excessive measures taken by the outgoing Obama administration. However, Donald Trump’s team failed to normalise the situation, and so we had to take reciprocal measures. But the Americans have not stopped there.

We can see that the Biden administration continues to go downhill, although US President Biden said during his conversation with President of Russia Vladimir Putin soon after his inauguration, and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told me that they are thoroughly reviewing their relations with Russia, hoping that this would clarify many things. However, instead they adopted new sanctions, which triggered not simply a mirror response on our part. Our response was asymmetrical, just as we had warned them on numerous occasions. It has to do, in part, with a considerable disparity in the number of diplomats and other personnel of the US diplomatic missions in Russia, which is way above the number of Russian diplomats in the United States.

As for the strategic picture of our relations, I hope that Washington is aware, just as Moscow is, of our responsibility for global stability. There are not only the problems of Russia and the United States, which are complicating our citizens’ lives and their contacts, communications, businesses and humanitarian projects, but also differences that are posing a serious risk to international security in the broadest possible meaning of the word.

You remember how we responded to the outrage that took place during Joe Biden’s interview with ABC. You are also aware of how President Putin reacted to President Biden’s proposal of a meeting. We have taken a positive view of this, but we would like to understand all aspects of this initiative, which we are currently analysing.

Nothing good will come out of this, unless the United States stops acting as a sovereign, as President Putin said during his Address to the Federal Assembly, accepts the futility of any attempts to revive the unipolar world or to create an architecture where all Western countries would be subordinate to the United States and the Western camp would work together to “rally” other countries across the world against China and Russia, admits that it was for a purpose that the UN Charter sealed such principles as respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and sovereign equality of states, and simply honours its commitments and starts talking with us, just as with any other country, on the basis of respect for each other and for a balance of interests, which must be established. President Putin said this clearly in his Address, pointing out that Russia is always open to broad international agreements if they suit our interests. But we will harshly respond to any attempts to cross the red line, which we ourselves will determine.



Dmitry Kiselev:

Would it be realistic to expect them to become aware of this and stop acting as a sovereign? Hope is fine, but the reality is completely different.



Sergey Lavrov:

I have not expressed any hope. I just mentioned the conditions on the basis of which we will be ready to talk.



Dmitry Kiselev:

And what if they refuse?



Sergey Lavrov:

It will be their choice. This means that we will be living in conditions of a Cold War, or even worse, as you have already mentioned. In my opinion, tension did run high during the Cold War and there were numerous high-risk conflict situations, but there was also mutual respect. I believe that this is lacking now.

There have been some schizophrenic notes in the statements made by some of the Washington officials. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said just a while ago that sanctions against Russia would be continued, that they are producing, by and large, a desired effect, and that their objective is not to “escalate” with Russia. Even I am at a loss about how to comment on this. I hope anyone can see that such statements are doing no credit to those who are upholding and promoting this policy.



Dmitry Kiselev:

I had a chance to hear an opinion – perhaps even a commonplace opinion, to some extent, in certain circles – to the effect that diplomats are doing a poor job, that we are constantly digging in our heels, that our position is inflexible and non-elastic, and this is the reason why our relations are poor.



Sergey Lavrov:

Are you alluding to circles inside this country?



Dmitry Kiselev:

Yes, inside this country.



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, I also read these things. Thankfully, this country protects freedom of speech much better than many Western countries, including the United States. I read the opposition’s online resources and newspapers, and I think that perhaps these people have a right to express their point of view that consists in the following: “If we refrained from disputing with the West, we’d have Parmesan cheese and lots more things that we are sincerely missing; but for some reason, they have cut short food purchases in the West [they do not even explain that this was done in response], they have stopped buying food and gone into import substitution, thus increasing the price of food.”

You know, this is a narrow, lopsided view taken entirely from the standpoint of creature comforts, a choice between a television set and a fridge. If they think it essential to accept US values, I would like to remind them about what US President John Kennedy, the greatest US President to my mind, once said: “Don’t think what your country can do for you. Think what you can do for your country.” This is a radical distinction from today’s liberal views, where personal wellbeing and personal feelings alone are the things that matter.

The promoters of these philosophical approaches, as I see it, are not just unaware of what our genetic code is all about, but are trying in every way to undermine it. For, apart from the desire to live well, to be well-fed, to be confident that one’s children, friends and relatives are well too, a feeling of national pride always played an equally important role in what we did throughout our one thousand years’ history. If someone thinks that these values are of no importance for him or her, as it is [politically] correct to say now, it is their choice, but I am certain that the overwhelming majority of our people have a different opinion.



Dmitry Kiselev:

Are you counting on a meeting with Antony Blinken? When can this meeting be held, and will it take place at all in the foreseeable future?



Sergey Lavrov:

When we were talking over the phone, I congratulated him in keeping with the diplomatic etiquette. We exchanged a few appraisals of the [current] situation. The talk was, I feel, well-meaning, calm and pragmatic. When our US colleagues have completed staffing their Department of State, we will be prepared to resume contacts – naturally, on the understanding that we will engage in a search for mutually acceptable arrangements on many problems, starting from the functioning of the diplomatic missions and ending with strategic stability and many other things. US and Russian business communities are concerned with expanding their cooperation, something that the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce has recently told us. We have concluded by stating that there will be some joint multilateral events, on whose sidelines we will be able, as chance offers, to talk. But no signals have come from the US so far. Speaking about the schedule of events, Russia will be taking over the Arctic Council chairmanship from Iceland three weeks from now. An Arctic Council ministerial meeting is scheduled to take place in Reykjavík on May 20-21. If Secretary Blinken leads the US delegation, I will, of course, be prepared to talk with him, if he is interested. Given that we will chair the Arctic Council for the next two years, I have informed our Iceland colleagues that I will attend this ministerial meeting.



Dmitry Kiselev:

Is there any certainty as to who will definitely join the list of unfriendly states?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Government of Russia is attending to this on instructions from President of Russia Vladimir Putin. We are participating in this work, as are other respective agencies. I would not like to jump the gun right now. We are reluctant to be indiscriminate and put on that list just any country that will say somewhere “something wrong” about Russia. Our decision will be based, of course, on a deep-going analysis of the situation and on whether we see opportunities to have a dialogue with that country in a different way. If we come to the conclusion that there is no chance of this, then, I think, the list will, of course, be periodically extended. But this is not a “dead” paper. As is only natural, it will be revised in tune with how our relations develop with this or that state.



Dmitry Kiselev:

When will the public be able to read this list?



Sergey Lavrov:

Soon, I think. The Russian Government has concrete assignments. We understand the criteria that are guiding us in this work. So, I think, the wait will not be very long now.



Dmitry Kiselev:

Will the unfriendly states be banned from hiring local workforce?



Sergey Lavrov:

There will be a ban on hiring any physical persons whether Russian or foreign.



Dmitry Kiselev:

Is this the only measure with regard to unfriendly states or some others are in the offing?



Sergey Lavrov:

At this stage, this is the concrete aim set in the executive order signed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin.



Dmitry Kiselev:

Donbass is another subject. Tensions have continued to escalate there since early 2021, and it appears that they have subsided a little since US President Joe Biden called President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. In my show News of the Week, I noted that US military guarantees to Ukraine had turned out to be a bluff. Nevertheless, shootouts continue, and they are using banned large-calibre weapons. It seems like this peace is not very different from war, and that the balance is highly unstable. Over 500,000 Russian citizens now live in Donbass. Will there be a war?



Sergey Lavrov:

War can and should be avoided, if this depends on us and on the self-defence fighters, as far as we understand their principled approaches. I cannot speak and make guesses on behalf of the Ukrainian party and President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky because, by all indications, his main goal is to stay in power. He is ready to pay any price, such as pandering to neo-Nazis and ultra-radicals who continue to brand the Donbass self-defence fighters as terrorists. Our Western colleagues should reassess the developments that have taken place since February 2014. None of these districts attacked the rest of Ukraine. They were branded as terrorists, and an anti-terrorist operation was launched against them and then another operation involving “joint forces.”. But we do know for sure that they have no desire to make war on representatives of the Kiev regime.

I have repeatedly told our Western colleagues, who are totally biased in their assessment of current developments, and who unconditionally defend Kiev’s actions, that Russian journalists and war correspondents working on the other side of the demarcation line show an objective picture. They work in trenches there almost without respite, and they provide daily news reports. These reports show the feelings of the people living in these territories that are cut off from the rest of Ukraine by an economic blockade, where children and civilians are being regularly killed, and where the civilian infrastructure, schools and kindergartens are being destroyed. I asked our Western colleagues why they don’t encourage their media outlets to organise the same work on the left side of the demarcation line, so that the scale of damage there can be assessed and to see which facilities have been the hardest hit.

As for the recent developments, when we openly announced the military exercises in the Southern and Western military districts – we made no secret of that, you remember the shouts about the alleged Russian build-up on the border with Ukraine. Just take a look at the terms used: we speak about drills in the Southern and Western military districts, while they say that Russia is amassing troops on the Ukrainian border. And when the drills ended and we made the relevant announcement, the West claimed maliciously that Russia had to back off, to withdraw. This is an example of wishful thinking.

This is reminiscent of the situation with the G7: every time they meet they announce that Russia will not be invited to the group. We have stated on numerous occasions that we will never re-join it, that there will not be any G8, and that this is a thing of the past. However, continued references to this subject, as well as claims that Russia has “rolled back” and has ordered its troops to “return to their barracks” shows, of course, that in this instance the West wants above all to take advantage of this situation to prove that it has the last word and the dominant place in modern international relations. This is regrettable.

The subject of a settlement in Ukraine has been discussed by President Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The other day President Putin spoke about it with President of France Emmanuel Macron. The issue was also raised during a recent conversation with US President Joe Biden. The situation is clear, as I see it. The patrons of President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team refuse to make him honour the Minsk Agreements, even though they are aware of the futility of trying to use military force; they have heard the signals sent from Donetsk and Lugansk about their readiness to defend their land, their homes and their people who refuse to live by the laws being enforced by neo-Nazis.

President Putin has said clearly that we will never abandon the people of Donbass, who are standing up to the openly radical neo-Nazi regime. President Zelensky keeps saying in his interviews that there are no problems with the Russian language or the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, and that he is willing to discuss all these subjects with President Putin. It is a shame perhaps that a person I have always regarded as clever says that the Russian language and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church have no problems in Ukraine. I have no doubt that he is very well aware of the situation. Maybe nothing at all is being reported to him, but in that case he is living in a dream world. But the West has definitely sent its signals to Zelensky.

As you have mentioned, it would be senseless to pin hopes on US military assistance. This has always been clear to everyone. If anyone entertained such illusions, such advisers are good for nothing in any government, including the government of Mr Zelensky. Regrettably, the West continues to try to convince us that the Minsk Agreements should be mitigated and the sequence of the actions set out in them changed. Zelensky says he likes the agreements, but only if it is all the other way round, that they first take full control of these territories, including the border with Russia, and only then deal with the elections, amnesty and a special status for these territories. It is clear that if they did this, if they were allowed to do this, there would be a massacre. The West is unable or unwilling to force Zelensky to comply with the Minsk Agreements strictly in accordance with the sequence set out in them, which does not permit any double interpretation and has been formulated unambiguously from the first to the last step. Control of the border is the very last step to be taken after these territories receive a special status, which must be sealed in the Constitution of Ukraine, after free elections are held there and their results are recognised as such by the OSCE.

Of course, there must also be total amnesty. Not in the way envisaged by the Poroshenko government or the current regime, which only want to approve an amnesty on an individual basis for those who are proved to have committed no crime. This is yet another misinterpretation. The Minsk Agreements stipulate an amnesty for those who took part in fighting on both sides, without any transitional justice process, which our Western colleagues are now beginning to discuss.

I believe that the brunt of responsibility lies with the West, because only the West can make President Zelensky honour the commitments which his predecessor signed and he himself signed in Paris in December 2019 when he, the presidents of Russia and France and the Chancellor of Germany reaffirmed the absence of any alternative to the strict observance of the Minsk Agreements, and he pledged to amend the legislation and the Ukrainian Constitution to formalise the special status of Donbass on a permanent basis.



Dmitry Kiselev:

Many people are wondering why Russia fails to recognise Donbass. It did recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia. There is an inner “lobby” in Russia, even among my fellow journalists, who are demanding that we recognise Donbass – the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic. Why are we failing in this?



Sergey Lavrov:

You are right that there is an analogy with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But there is just one exception: no agreements similar to the Minsk Package of Measures were signed in those countries, when Saakashvili’s aggression against Tskhinval and the positions of peacekeepers, including Russian peacekeepers, occurred. The Medvedev-Sarkozy document was discussed there, and it implied a number of steps. But it was not signed by Georgia. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, after reaching an agreement with us in Moscow, took a plane to Tbilisi to ensure Saakashvili’s support for the document. Saakashvili signed it, but he deleted all the key provisions. Mr Sarkozy attempted to represent this as a compromise, but everyone understood everything. It had a preamble saying that the Russian Federation and the French Republic, desirous of normalising the situation in South Caucasus, propose to Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia the following: a ceasefire. Saakashvili crossed out the heading, leaving just the first and subsequent items. Since then, the West has been demanding that we comply with these agreements. This is just an example.

In the case of Donbass, the situation was different. The 17-hour long negotiations in Minsk involving the Normandy format leaders (President Franсois Hollande of France, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Petr Poroshenko of Ukraine, and President of Russia Vladimir Putin) produced a result, which was endorsed, two days later, by the UN Security Council without any amendments or doubts that it should be implemented.

Today, the moral and international legal truth is on our side and on the side of the Donbass militias. I think that we must not let Mr Zelensky and his entire team “off the hook,” writhing as they might. Mr Zelensky’s statement is a fine specimen (made when he had all but given up hope of turning the Minsk Agreements upside down) to the effect that they are no good, albeit necessary, because the saving of the Minsk Agreements guarantees that the sanctions against Moscow will be preserved as well. We asked the West, what they think about this. They just look aside shamefacedly and say nothing. I think it is a shame and a disgrace, when an international legal document is held up to mockery in this manner. The West, which has co-authored this document and supported it at the UN Security Council, is demonstrating absolute helplessness.



Dmitry Kiselev:

President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky cannot get a call through to President of Russia Vladimir Putin, who is not picking up the receiver. Your Ukrainian counterpart, Dmitry Kuleba, cannot get a call through to you. What does this mean? Why is this?



Sergey Lavrov:

This means that they are seeking to revise the Minsk Agreements and represent Russia as a party to the conflict even in this area of their activities.

Requests that came in until recently both from my counterpart Kuleba and President Zelensky dealt with the topic of settlement in Donbass. We replied that this [topic] should be discussed not with us, but with Donetsk and Lugansk, as you agreed under the Minsk Agreements. The agreements say in black and white that the key stages of settlement should be the subject of consultations and coordination with Donetsk and Lugansk. When they say that a “nasty situation is looming large” at the line of contact and want to talk to Minister Sergey Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin, they are barking up the wrong tree. Meeting with President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko in the Kremlin the other day, President Putin made it amply clear that if they wanted to talk about this, the address should be different. If our colleagues, including President Zelensky, want to discuss how to normalise bilateral relations, they are welcome. We are always ready to talk about this.



Dmitry Kiselev:

There is no reply or acceptance so far, is there?



Sergey Lavrov:

I heard that Mr Zelensky instructed the chief of his office, Andrey Yermak, to come to terms on the timeframes. The location is of no importance, because each day of delay means new deaths.

Incidentally, let us take the fact that people are dying and what is happening at the line of contact. Over the last couple of weeks, Kiev has been insisting quite aggressively on the need to reaffirm the ceasefire. All of its Western patrons have also been urging us to influence Donbass so that the ceasefire takes hold in earnest. Speaking on the phone with President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Angela Merkel last week, President Putin reminded them of the facts. And the facts are as follows: In July 2020, the Contact Group reached what was perhaps the most serious and effective ceasefire agreement, because it contained a verification mechanism. It implied a sequence of actions, primarily each side’s commitment not to return fire immediately on the spot but report the violation to the top command and wait for its order on how to act, to wit, whether to respond in kind or to negotiate an arrangement under the mechanisms created for commander-to-commander liaison on the ground. This agreement, as it was implied, was translated into military orders issued by the DPR and the LPR. These orders were published. Kiev pledged to do the same, but did nothing. Instead it started fiddling with words again. Instead of performing the obligation to report each shelling attack to the top command and get orders from them, they began replacing this clear-cut arrangement with confused formulas, although they were blamed for this by Donetsk and Lugansk at all subsequent meetings, and Russian representatives in the Contact Group, too, repeatedly said as much. The same happened in the Normandy Format. This is what Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Dmitry Kozak has been doing all these months in contacts with his French and German colleagues. The head of President Zelensky’s Office, Andrey Yermak, was representing Ukraine. I read transcripts of their talks. It was like talking to a brick wall. They were at cross purposes: the Ukrainian leaders had obviously decided that it was necessary to revive the ceasefire story. It was shameful and unseemly.

It was a great pleasure to watch the Servant of the People series, when no one suspected that its main character would follow this path in real life. But he took the wrong path. If Mr Zelensky watched the series again today and tried to fathom the convictions of the person he had impersonated so well on screen, and later compared those convictions with what he is doing now, he would, perhaps, have achieved one of the most effective transformations. I do not know when he was himself and when he underwent a transformation. But the contrast is striking.



Dmitry Kiselev:

Another subject is the Czech Republic. What was it? How are we to understand it?



Sergey Lavrov:

I cannot speculate on this because I do not understand intellectually what they wanted. One can watch it like a not too elegant television series.

This story is full of schizophrenic components. Czech president Milos Zeman says it should be sorted out, not denying the possibility of a subversive act by foreign agents, but suggesting taking into account the story told by the Czech leadership, including the incumbent Prime Minister Andrej Babis (the then Minister of Finance, in 2014), that it was the result of negligence by the depot owners. President Zeman only suggested that consideration should be given to the case that has never been disproven over the seven years. He is accused of high treason now. President of the Senate Milos Vystrcil said that by stating the need to investigate all the leads President Zeman had disclosed a state secret. Is this not schizophrenia? A pure case, I think.

There needs to be an investigation into what was stored in the depot. The German media said that they kept antipersonnel mines prohibited by the convention signed, inter alia, by the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. A lot of questions remain.



Dmitry Kiselev:

Indeed, how could it happen that a certain Bulgarian citizen supplying antipersonnel mines (by all appearances they were found there), controlled a depot in the Czech Republic which was not then under the control of the government?



Sergey Lavrov:

It so happens.



Dmitry Kiselev:

Maybe the Czechs would be better to start with themselves?



Sergey Lavrov:

Probably. Or follow the example of Ukraine where too a vast number of armed people, weapons and ammunition are controlled not by the Ukrainian armed forces, but by “volunteer battalions.” It is a trend where the state proves its inability to ensure, if you like, its monopoly over the use of force.





Dmitry Kiselev:

Ukraine is one thing but the Czech Republic is a member of the EU. It is bound by other international commitments than those of Ukraine and presents itself differently.



Sergey Lavrov:

Above all, in addition to the aforementioned conventions (Ottawa Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, they are all parties to it), the EU has its own quite strict rules that do not encourage but rather prohibit any actions like supplies and sending forces to regions where there are conflicts.



Dmitry Kiselev:

What do you think about the so-called British files? This looks like an orchestrated information campaign against Russia.



Sergey Lavrov:

As before, the British continue to play a very active, serious and subversive role in relations between Russia and Europe. Britain has withdrawn from the EU but it has not slackened its activities there. On the contrary, it has been trying to exert maximum influence on the EU countries’ positions towards Moscow. This is not surprising at all.

You don’t even need to go very far back in history. In 2006, Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium. The inquest began in one way, and then the process was classified because it was necessary to analyse the materials of intelligence services. And then they announced the verdict, but the materials involved in the case have never been made public. As Arnold Schwarzenegger used to say, “Trust me.” I would rather side with Ronald Reagan’s “trust but verify.” But they don’t allow us to verify; they only demand that we trust them.

In 2014, the Malaysian Boeing was downed. They formed a team comprising a narrow group of four countries – the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia and Ukraine. They did not even invite Malaysia, the country that lost the plane. These four countries have agreed, as it has since transpired, that any information would only be revealed on the basis of consensus. Ukraine, where the disaster took place, was given the right of veto, while Malaysia was invited to join the group only six months later. The black boxes, which the self-defence forces provided to Malaysia, were analysed in London. I don’t recall them making the information public.

In 2018, there were the Skripals and the “highly likely.” Nobody knows to this day how the Skripals survived the alleged poisoning, why the police officer who worked with them did not display any symptoms of poisoning, and why the woman involved died while her partner did not get sick. There are very many questions.

In 2020, we had the case of Alexey Navalny. He was flying from Tomsk to Moscow, but the plane landed in Omsk. Nobody on board the plane or in the Omsk hospital got sick. A bottle of water [from his hotel room] was taken by Maria Pevchikh to Germany on the plane that transported Navalny – nobody knows anything. Doctors at the Charité hospital did not find any traces of poison, but they were found at the Bundeswehr. German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer demanded transparency in connection with our recent military drills in the southern and western regions of Russia. But we announced the drills beforehand, whereas the Bundeswehr, whose experts allegedly found traces of Navalny’s poisoning, is keeping information from us. Our request for the results of tests and biomaterials has been denied.

After that there was a long story involving the OPCW. It allegedly took part in collecting samples from Navalny. According to the remarkable information from Berlin, German experts were present during the collection of the samples, but OPCW experts are not mentioned at all. We are trying to sort this information out. Nobody wants to explain anything. Germany is directing us to the OPCW, which says that the request came from Germany and so we should ask them. It is a conspiracy of silence. We have seen this happen in crime movies about bandit groups operating all over the country after the war. This is regrettable.

Getting back to Britain, we can see that London is continuing its anti-Russia policy. Chief of the UK Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) Richard Moore said a few days ago that Russia is “a declining power” whose allegedly “reckless behaviour” needs to be dealt with. This is inherent arrogance and a belief that they continue to rule the world. They are sending “signals” to us and propose establishing ties. In other words, they are not against communicating with us, but they are trying to discourage others from doing the same. This could be an aspiration for a monopoly of contacts and a desire to prove that they are superior to others.



Dmitry Kiselev:

Speaking about decline, Britain is a perfect example of a declining empire “on which the sun never sets,” a small island in the North Sea with clouded prospects. To return to the Czech Republic, opinions within the country on the latest developments are totally inconsistent. There is no consensus, and nothing has yet been proven, but diplomats have been expelled. There has already been a result.



Sergey Lavrov:

They claim that this is not the reason why our diplomats were expelled. Two statements were made on the same day. They appeared to be interconnected. Prague is now trying to prove that there is no connection between them. They have announced that the explosions were organised by Petrov and Boshirov, the ubiquitous Russian suspects. It’s like blaming them for the sinking of the Titanic. The same day it was announced that 18 diplomats would have to leave the country. The majority of people accepted this as “punishment” for the 2014 explosions. After that, the Czech authorities said they would track down Petrov and Boshirov and issue an arrest warrant for them. As for the 18 diplomats, they identified them as spies. They expelled them because they turned out to be intelligence agents. No proof that any of these 18 diplomats are guilty of illegal activities has been provided. It is not surprising that former Czech President Vaclav Klaus said that the country’s authorities were like a tiny pooch barking at a huge dog, hoping that the big boys (the United States and Britain) would throw their weight behind them. Do you remember a time from your childhood when local bullies waited until dusk to demand 15 kopeks from a smaller kid, and if he refused they summoned the “big boys.” The logic is very similar. This is regrettable.

We never schemed against our Czech colleagues. Why would we need to blow up that warehouse? Some people say that the Russians were angry that the Bulgarian planned to send munitions to Ukraine. This is a completely schizophrenic view of the situation. This is impossible to imagine. But the machinery has been set in motion. I hope our Czech colleagues will come to their senses after all and will take a look at what they have done. If reason prevails, we will be ready to gradually rebuild the conditions for our diplomatic missions to function normally. If not, we will make do. We know how we will be working. We don’t have to ingratiate ourselves with anyone.



Dmitry Kiselev:

Working on what?



Sergey Lavrov:

We know how we will be working in the Czech Republic and other countries. Pinpoint attacks are being made against Russia in the Baltics, Poland and, recently, Romania. Bucharest has added, though, that its decision was in no way connected to the EU’s position. This came as a surprise. They just decided to send that Russian diplomat back home. Why? They have not explained.



Dmitry Kiselev:

It is notable that Germany has not supported the Czech Republic.



Sergey Lavrov:

I have read the relevant statement by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas. He spoke like a responsible politician. It is not always that the German Foreign Ministry takes such a balanced and astute position. Many of its other statements have indiscriminately supported injustice, for example when Ukraine adopted sanctions against the Opposition Platform – For Life political party, its leader Viktor Medvedchuk and several of his associates, all of them Ukrainian citizens. The German Foreign Ministry expressed its approval, saying that this was fully in keeping with OSCE principles. This is absurd.

Therefore, what Heiko Maas said the other day is a responsible political statement. It has not smoothed over differences but pointed out the importance of maintaining dialogue and looking for agreements, since we live side by side.



Dmitry Kiselev:

Recently in China, you said we needed to look for alternatives to the SWIFT international payment system, and Russia was preparing for this. Is there a specific timeframe, and what stage of the preparations are we at?



Sergey Lavrov:

Many have already spoken about this. This is happening because in recent years, the West has been looking for more ways of infringing on Russia’s legitimate interests. Now they are openly mentioning the possibility of disconnecting our country from SWIFT. Responsible politicians just have to think of ways to play it safe.

In addition to these statements, the United States is increasingly abusing the role of the dollar in the international monetary system, using certain countries’ dependence on dollar settlements to limit their competitive opportunities – China and other states they dislike. China, Russia, and Turkey are now looking for opportunities to reduce their dependence on the dollar by switching to alternative currencies, or even better – by making settlements in their national currencies. The responsible agencies, including in our country, are thinking about how to prevent damage to the economy and the financial system if some hotheads actually disconnect us from SWIFT. Russia launched a national payment card system a few years ago; MIR cards have been in use in Russia since then. The system is already developing ties with its foreign counterparts, as similar cards are being issued in China and Japan. It is also building ties with the internationally accepted payment card Maestro.

As regards the SWIFT system, specifically, the Central Bank of Russia recently introduced and continued to develop a system for the transfer of financial messages. It is quite popular. I think we need to support and strengthen this in every possible way to ensure we do not depend on anyone. Let me emphasise that we are not trying to self-isolate. We want to be part of the international community. Part of a community where justice and democracy work. We have discussed the problems of democracy with the West. But once they are asked to come to an agreement, to declare that democracy should triumph in international relations, too, they lose their enthusiasm. They are full of lectures on internal democratic processes, but when it comes to the international arena, we get raised eyebrows. Here, allegedly, there are established ‘practices’ that ‘Russia and China are trying to implement’ (it’s about this). But in reality, Moscow and Beijing only want to preserve the principles of the UN Charter, according to which everyone is equal and must seek agreement.

One needs to have a safety net in terms of payment systems and transfer of financial messages. We have one. I hope it will grow stronger and be able to provide a guarantee if suddenly, contrary to our desire to cooperate with everyone, the West discriminates against Russia, abusing its current position in the international economic and monetary systems, in this situation, we really cannot afford to depend on anyone.



Dmitry Kiselev:

So the Central Bank’s system for transfer of financial messages is the budding alternative to SWIFT?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am not an expert. I don’t know how reliably and effectively it provides a full warranty. But the groundwork is already there. I am confident that the Government and the Central Bank must do everything to make it reliable and guarantee us complete independence and protection from more damage that might be inflicted on us.



Dmitry Kiselev:

In a conversation with your Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, you proposed an initiative to create a coalition of countries affected by illegal sanctions. To what extent has this project progressed? What countries could join it?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would not put it like that. We have been working at the UN for a long time to end the practice of unilateral illegitimate sanctions such as embargoes, blockades and other restrictions. We have been working for a number of decades to lift the embargo the United States declared on Cuba. The respective resolution is supported by more than 190 votes annually, with only the United States and one small island nation voting against it.

However, since this practice of unilateral restrictions began to be widely used (started by Barack Obama, expanded by Donald Trump, and applied to this day), a large group of countries voted in the UN to establish the position of Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of the unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights and their impact on the civilian population and the socioeconomic situation in a particular country. Special Rapporteur Alena Douhan is a citizen of Belarus. This institution, created by the UN General Assembly, is working and circulating reports. I think it is a very useful step.

Another specific course of action is now being developed in New York to the same end, as you mentioned, to counter illegal unilateral measures. It is a group in support of the UN Charter. Nothing revolutionary – just in response to our Western colleagues forming flagrantly non-universal groups.

US President Joe Biden has put forth the idea of ​​holding a Summit for Democracy. Naturally, the Americans will recruit the participants and will judge who is worthy to be called a democracy and who is not.

Also, in recent years, our French and German colleagues have being making calls to ensure freedom of the media through the Alliance for Multilateralism, a group they announced outside the framework of universal institutions. They rallied more than thirty states under its banners even though there is UNESCO, where the same topic is discussed by everyone.

Or, there was an appeal in support of international humanitarian law. Law is universal. It is the responsibility of the UN bodies. But again, they recruited about 50 states.

Such appeals have nothing to do with universal bodies, but they cover the agenda that is discussed at a universal level. They place that agenda into a framework where they are more comfortable negotiating with those who obey, and then they present it as the ultimate truth.

This movement against illegitimate unilateral actions is much broader than just sanctions.



Dmitry Kiselev:

Can this movement be formalised by membership?



Sergey Lavrov:

The membership is in the UN. This is the difference: we are not creating anything against anyone. In the Asia-Pacific region, we would like to leave everything as it is. ASEAN has its partners, while anyone else can join security discussions. The logic of the West acts against this. They are implementing the Indo-Pacific Strategy with its declared goal of containing China and isolating Russia.

The same is happening at the UN. They create various partnerships on topics that need to be discussed as part of the UN agenda. We insist that everyone must fulfil their obligations under the UN Charter, not scatter the global agenda across their compartments, only to present it later as the international community’s opinion.



Dmitry Kiselev:

A recent update: the Americans confirmed they had made efforts to prevent Brazil from buying the Russian Sputnik V vaccine. Brazil indeed refused, even though the coronavirus situation in that country is simply awful. What is your assessment?



Sergey Lavrov:

This does not surprise me. The Americans are not even embarrassed to do things like that; they are not hiding it.

When former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo travelled to Africa, he openly and publicly called on his colleagues at a press conference to cut off trade with Russia and China because these countries pursue selfish goals. Right, the United States trades with African states for the sole benefit of their peoples, of course.

As for the vaccine issue, a protest movement kicked off in Brazil against that decision. If the Americans have admitted they were behind it, that means they are true to their logic and believe everything is possible and permitted, and they can now openly dictate their will.

Not so long ago, French President Emmanuel Macron warned of a new type of world war, and that Russia and China were using vaccines as a weapon and means of propaganda. That rhetoric is now receding. Germany, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, is already seriously talking about the possibility of using the Russian vaccine.

We are not going to force anyone. I think life itself will set things straight. Vladimir Vysotsky said: “I always try to find the good in people. They will show the bad themselves.”



Dmitry Kiselev:

A year ago, in an interview with our agency in the midst of the pandemic, you said you missed football. Are you back to sport yet?



Sergey Lavrov:

In fact, I am. I did miss playing for a couple of weeks. We took a break and kept it low-key. But later, when we realised what precautions we could take, the games resumed. We play every Sunday.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4715136






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and replies to media questions at a joint news conference with Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the United Mexican States Marcelo Ebrard following talks, Moscow, April 28, 2021



28 April 2021 - 16:30

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 49:30

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 49:30

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held trust-based and constructive talks with my colleague, Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the United Mexican States Marcelo Ebrard.

We called for further unlocking the substantial and rich potential of Russian-Mexican partnership in the most diverse fields. We have agreed to intensify our political contacts. Our presidents hold regular telephone conversations. It will be possible to plan the resumption of in-person highest-level and high-level meetings as soon as the epidemiological situation returns to normal.

The Russian Government has been invited to attend official festivities in Mexico City marking the country’s 200th anniversary of independence and other anniversaries, including the 700th anniversary of the founding of Mexico City, the capital of Mexico. We are assessing various formats of our involvement. We will certainly make our own contribution to these celebrations, and we will ensure the Russian party is well-represented.

We discussed joint efforts to contain the spread of the COVID-19 infection and to ensure epidemiological safety. So far, Mexico is the first and only country on the North American continent to approve Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine. The Foreign Secretary and members of his delegation have plans to meet with officials at the Russian Direct Investment Fund, where contacts have already taken place. Today, they will also hold meetings at the Gamaleya Scientific Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology. We agree that regular vaccine supplies to Mexico will continue unabated under the contract that has been signed.

We agreed on additional steps to expand our trade and economic ties. Resuming the work of the Inter-Governmental Russian-Mexican Joint Commission on Economic, Trade, Scientific and Technological Cooperation and Maritime Navigation as soon as possible is a priority. The relevant agencies are working to hold the Commission’s sixth meeting in the next few months.

We believe that the more active involvement of Mexican entrepreneurs in international economic forums held in Russia will help boost mutual investment. First and foremost is the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, scheduled for June 2-5. We are expecting a large Mexican delegation to attend this event. We praise the efforts of the Russia-Mexico Entrepreneurial Committee, which was established at Russia’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

We discussed the condition of our legal and contractual framework and agreed to expedite the agreement of some bilateral documents of great practical importance: a treaty on cooperation in peaceful uses of outer space, on establishing a Russian Centre of Science and Culture in Mexico City, and on mutual recognition of education degrees. We also touched on an issue discussed previously as well, to the effect that a mutual visa-free travel provision for the citizens of our countries, as has been done in most Latin American and Caribbean countries, would promote business, increase cultural, humanitarian and education exchanges, and enhance mutual tourist flows.

We repeated to our Mexican partners our appreciation for the close cooperation in ensuring good conditions for the operation of our diplomatic missions in Mexico. We reciprocate this approach to our colleagues here in Russia. We are grateful for the agreement to our candidate for the position of honorary Russian consul in Puebla as well as for the support in establishing such a position in Merida. Cooperation with respect to honorary consuls is especially important amid the pandemic where there is a need for responding to the needs of Russian citizens in Mexico and Mexican citizens in Russia.

We thanked our friends again for their assistance in arranging evacuation flights to return our citizens who found themselves in Mexico at the height of the pandemic last year.

We emphasised our interest in increasing the activity of the Joint Commission on Cooperation in Culture, Education and Sports. The commission is preparing another programme of cooperation for the next three years.

Early this year we signed one more document in the humanitarian area – the Memorandum on Cooperation in Cinematography. We are satisfied that the interaction between Moscow and Mexico City is being carried out as planned.

We welcome the traditionally high interest of Mexican young people in studying at Russian universities, including medical schools. At the request of our partners, we have allocated an additional 10 scholarships for the Pulmonology programme for the next academic year beginning September 2021.

Mexico is our important partner in international and regional affairs. We highly appreciate our two countries’ coordination at the UN Security Council, UN Human Rights Council, ECOSOC, the G20 and APEC. We, like our Mexican partners, are consistent supporters of enhancing legal and democratic principles in international affairs. We support unconditional observance of the principles of the UN Charter.

In order to improve coordination between our foreign ministries, we have just signed the Plan for Ministerial Consultations for 2021-2024.

We welcome Mexico’s efforts to advance the integration processes in Latin America, including as the current chair of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). We regard the Russia-CELAC format dialogue, now temporarily suspended, as an important component of our foreign policy course. It reflects our interest in contributing to a unified, politically and economically stable Latin America as an important pillar in the emerging multipolar world order. The minister has reaffirmed his interest in resuming regular ministerial meetings between Russia and the CELAC Troika.

I would like to emphasise that Mr Minister’s visit is taking place shortly before Victory Day. We remember (and we mentioned this to our friends today) the contribution that Mexico made to that huge achievement of humanity – the victory over Nazism. I will only mention that the Aztec Eagles, a Mexican Air Force fighter squadron fought the Japanese alongside Allied forces on the Pacific Front. Two Mexican citizens, the Vivo brothers, survived the siege of Leningrad. One of them died in battle and was buried near St Petersburg. The other one continued fighting throughout the war and participated in the partisan movement. He later returned to his homeland and lived a long and happy life. He is not with us anymore, but we will remember this profound contribution by our Mexican friends to the victory over our common enemy. Throughout the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, Mexico conducted numerous campaigns to raise funds, to send grain and cotton to help the Red Army and the Soviet people. We will never forget this, just as we will not forget the rallies of solidarity with our fight in those years, and calls to open a second front as soon as possible.

I think we have had a good meeting. I am happy that my colleague and friend found the time to accept my invitation. In return, my colleagues and I had a chance to reciprocate the hospitality extended to our delegation during our visit to Mexico in February 2020.

Thank you.







Question:

The media have reported that Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia will allegedly be put on Russia’s list of unfriendly countries. It has also been reported that there is a possibility of including the United Kingdom, Canada, Ukraine and Australia. Can you confirm that this list does exist? When will it be released?



Sergey Lavrov:

I already answered this question recently. As instructed by President Vladimir Putin and in accordance with his executive order, the Government is working on this list.

As you remember, this step was prompted by inappropriate actions on behalf of some of our partners towards the Russian diplomatic missions on their territories.

We have drawn attention to the fact that, if somebody wants to establish parity, this parity will also apply to the recruitment of Russian citizens (individuals) and third country nationals in our country because there is no parity existing in this area whatsoever. This practice is non-existent.

When it comes to the United States, some time ago (during my visit to Washington, DC in late 2019), they waited until the talks were finished, so that nothing could be done, before informing us that the United States was soon introducing a new practice with respect to the work of Russian diplomats on US territory. Specifically, our diplomats would be able to work in the United States for a maximum of three years. When we asked why and how that rule correlated with the United States’ obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, we were told that the Vienna Convention is an independent document and it is customary for US diplomats to serve abroad for around three years; therefore, we must do accordingly. We warned them a long time ago that, should this be the case, we would also transfer our own practices into the relations between our countries with respect to the operation of diplomatic missions.

It is not our practice to hire citizens of the countries where Russian diplomatic missions are based. We also have every right to transfer this practice to the rules regulating the operation of the US embassies and consulates general in the Russian Federation.

I want to stress once again that the list is in development. I would not jump ahead. This matter will not take much time. But the list will soon come out and you will know everything.



Question:

Could you comment on today’s statement by Bulgarian prosecutors regarding allegations against Russian nationals who are suspected of organising, between 2011 and 2020, explosions at Bulgarian arms depots that were storing products owned by arms trader Emilian Gebrev?



Sergey Lavrov:

At least we have not been accused of assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, not yet. It may come to that, by the sound of things.

As for Bulgaria’s statements concerning the Russian nationals suspected of organising explosions at some arms depots where trader Emilian Gebrev’s products were stored, since 2011, the very timeframe of the past ten years raises questions. Either Bulgaria had no clue and only now, after the Czech Republic suddenly remembered events from 2014, decided to upstage the Czechs and plunge even deeper into history; or Bulgaria knew what was happening all along but did not make it public for some reason.

I can imagine that the European Union will eventually look into the fact that private entrepreneurs have been involved in storing arms and ammunition in the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. The European Union must answer the question we asked, which is how the EU is overseeing the fulfilment of its members’ obligations under various arms trade documents, especially because there are plenty of materials on this subject in the Western media.

It was declared that no anti-personnel landmines were stored at Czech depots and that there were “only” landmine casings. Still, the media have reported several instances when Emilian Gebrev exported those landmine casings to a country where they were promptly “filled.” Numerous combinations are possible here. Knowing the disingenuity of people who trade weapons in violation of laws and international conventions, I would still suggest that the European Union take these media reports seriously. It would not hurt the EU to explain to the international community how all this correlates with the international conventions and treaties that all the EU members signed.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4716100

[Alex Him]

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 29, 2021



29 April 2021 - 19:44

Maria Zakharova (E) - 01:03:40

Maria Zakharova (E) - 01:03:40

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Palestinian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Riyad al-Maliki

At the previous briefing, we spoke in detail about Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Palestinian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Riyad al-Maliki. I would like to add that they will meet on May 5 rather than May 4, as was planned initially.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s forthcoming visits to Armenia and Azerbaijan

In accordance with the agreements, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay working visits to Yerevan on May 5-6, and Baku on May 10-11. The agreements provide for his talks with the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

During the meetings, Mr Lavrov plans to discuss in detail a broad range of issues of bilateral and regional cooperation and joint efforts in the world arena. The sides will focus on practical aspects of implementing the statements by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia of November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021.



Mr Lavrov’s participation in the UN Security Council meeting on the maintenance of a multilateral and UN-centric system of international relations

On May 7, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in a UN Security Council meeting on the maintenance of a multilateral and UN-centric system of international relations. It will be held via videoconference under the PRC’s chairmanship of the UN Security Council.

The participants will discuss ways of expanding international cooperation for resolving key global challenges. They will focus on increasing the efficiency of the UN as the only venue for searching for collective responses to the challenges of our times.

As a founder of the UN and permanent member of the Security Council, Russia will continue its consistent line towards strengthening the central coordinating role of the UN in international affairs. In cooperation with our associates, we intend to do all we can to build a fair and equitable world order based on the goals and principles of the UN Charter.



Sergey Lavrov’s talks with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres

As part of his working visit to Moscow, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres will have substantive talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on May 12.

The meeting will focus on strengthening multilateral interaction in resolving key global challenges, as well as enhancing the effectiveness of the UN in view of its central coordinating role in international affairs. The talks will also include a discussion of a number of urgent items on the UN agenda, primarily its Security Council.



Ceremony to hand over compatriots’ memorabilia to the Alexander Solzhenitsyn House of Russia Abroad

On May 14, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend a ceremony to hand over archival documents and personal belongings of two of our outstanding compatriots to Director of the Solzhenitsyn House of Russia Abroad Viktor Moskvin.

The Russian Foreign Ministry, following a request from the museum’s management, worked with the Russian embassies in the United States and Latvia to help return to Russia archival documents, photographs and the cavalry sword belonging to General Nikolay Baratov, Knight of the Order of St George, who in 1916-1917 commanded the Russian Expeditionary Force in Persia and later, while in emigration, instituted the Union of Disabled Russians Abroad. Nikolay Baratov is a prominent figure in the history of Russian emigration; he did a lot to preserve the centuries-old traditions of Russian officers abroad.

In addition, the House of Russia Abroad will keep an archive of documents by Andrey Rakityansky, a journalist, local history and lore expert, president of the Baltic branch of the International Pushkin Society and editor-in-chief of the Riga Bibliophile anthology. The archival documents are related to the history of our compatriots in Latvia.

We believe that this event will be positively received by the descendants of the first wave of emigration and will contribute to the further consolidation of the Russian diaspora abroad.



Ahead of the 76th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War

Seventy-six years ago a great victory was secured in defeating Nazi Germany. In our country the memory of the severe trials during those years has been passed down to the younger generations. Almost every family suffered loss in the Soviet Union, a country which the Nazi war machine attacked with all its might. The memory of the tens of millions of lives lost will be kept alive forever.

Russia played a decisive role in the defeat of the Nazi horde and the liberation of Europe and the world from Nazism. Owing to the courage, heroism and self-sacrifice of Soviet soldiers and all peoples of the former Soviet Union, Europe was able to embark on a path of creative development and partnership.

Our Foreign Ministry also made a significant contribution to the Victory. Back then, as was always the case when our country lived through its crucial moments, diplomats struggled to perform their patriotic and professional duty in full, including with arms in hand. In the early days of the war, the defenders of the country from the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs fought the Nazis near the town of Yelnya. In all, 237 employees of the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs volunteered to join the peoples’ volunteer corps or were drafted into the Army. The names of our comrades who were killed in action have been perpetuated on a memorial plaque installed in the lounge of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Today, it is extremely important to not forget the lessons of the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) and World War II. Seventy-six years ago, the members of the anti-Hitler coalition managed to join efforts to defeat their common enemy and annihilate criminal Nazi ideology. This is why we need so much to work together to counter the numerous challenges of today. One country or a narrow circle of countries cannot decide the fate of the world. True security is security that is equal for all and indivisible, and can only be ensured through a collective effort, the way it is expressed in the UN Charter.

The main duty we owe to our war veterans and present and future generations is keeping a credible historical memory and preserving the truth about the events of the Great Patriotic War and the heroism and courage of the Soviet people.



Upcoming Immortal Regiment events to be held by organisations of Russian compatriots abroad

In 2021, as part of the celebration of the 76th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, Immortal Regiment events are planned all over the world. According to preliminary data, they should be held in more than 120 countries. Traditionally, their main organisers are our compatriots, and Russian foreign missions, the Russian Foreign Ministry and all subordinate organisations provide them with the necessary assistance.

Of course, the coronavirus pandemic and the related health restrictions in force in most countries are making adjustments to the format of the event. Where the epidemic situation remains difficult, compatriots will organise online Immortal Regiment events on social media and other information resources in various forms. In some places, for example, in Belarus, Bulgaria, Hungary, Israel, Italy, China, Mexico, Latvia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, people are preparing for in-person marches. On the eve of the holiday and on May 9, other accompanying events will take place, including St George’s Ribbon, Candle of Memory, wartime song festivals, photo exhibitions, motorcycle rallies and much more.

We hope that locals, war veterans and representatives of anti-Nazi organisations will actively join these events in a number of countries, along with our compatriots, as happened last year. We hope that the authorities of countries where these solemn and memorable ceremonies will be held will not interfere with the events, but, on the contrary, will themselves pay tribute to the memory of the victors over Nazism.

Many events are scheduled, and some of them have already begun. Of course, we will update you on them, including via our social media accounts.



Monument to Hero of the Soviet Union French flying ace Marcel Albert in the United States

On May 7, the Washington County Historical Museum in Chipley, Florida, will unveil a monument to Hero of the Soviet Union, French ace pilot, Marcel Albert.

Like other pilots, Marcel Albert was sent to the USSR by the French Committee of National Liberation to help in the fight against Nazi Germany and its allies. Under a bilateral agreement a French fighter squadron, later changed to the legendary Normandie-Niemen Fighter Regiment, was formed in the Soviet Union.

The Normandie-Niemen Fighter Regiment took part in the Battle of Kursk, liberated Belarussia and Lithuania and defeated the enemy in East Prussia. By the end of 1944, Marcel Albert alone shot down 23 enemy planes. For his valour he was given the highest Soviet award – the Hero of the Soviet Union title. We honour our common heroes, those who fought against the Nazi invaders shoulder to shoulder with us, who liberated our Homeland and European countries.

Monuments to Marcel Albert have been erected in a number of Russian cities, including Moscow, Tula, Tambov, Lipetsk and Kozelsk. The bronze bust presented in the United States is an exact copy of those monuments. It was made by Moscow sculptor Yelena Cherapkina and presented by Mikhail Serdyukov, a patron of the arts and the initiator of the Russian Glory Alley project.

The monument was delivered to Chipley (where Marcel Albert is buried) last year through the efforts of the Russian Embassy in the US and compatriots. Its unveiling was scheduled for August 22, 2020, the 10th anniversary of his death, but because of the pandemic restrictions and the ban on public events the ceremony was postponed to 2021.

In view of the remaining health restrictions Embassy diplomats will participate in the ceremony online.



Update on coronavirus

The global spread of the novel coronavirus infection is not cause for optimism. A world record in coronavirus cases was recorded on April 23 of this year, when 886,000 people were officially diagnosed. As of today, the total number of infected people is close to 150 million, and the number of deaths exceeds 3.15 million. According to the WHO, the virus is spreading faster than in the spring and autumn of 2020.

At his regular briefing held recently, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus spoke about the more intensive dynamics of the pandemic in the world. He said the number of infected people last week was the same as during the first five months of the pandemic.

International experts explain the current increase in the epidemic by the rapid spread of new coronavirus strains – Indian, British and South African, to name a few, and the unjustified or premature easing of domestic restrictions by some national governments.

Having confirmed the urgent need for universal vaccination, Mr Ghebreyesus noted that the process of immunoprophylaxis has stalled in many countries for different reasons. As before, the distribution of immunomodulating substances is unfair and many countries are deprived of free access to them.

Against the general disappointing background of the global COVID-19 pandemic, we would like to draw your attention to the tremendous deterioration of the epidemiological situation in tourist destinations that are popular in Russia. In this context, we again urge our citizens who plan to travel abroad to thoroughly analyse the potential risk. In fact, today the risk is already higher than mere potential. The authorities at popular tourist destinations are imposing additional emergency measures and tougher lockdowns than even a month ago. Once again we are asking you to weigh the risks associated with such trips and to follow closely the sanitary requirements when crossing borders. These requirements are regularly updated and are becoming tougher.



Kyrgyzstan to receive its first consignment of the Russian Sputnik V vaccine

The first batch of 20,000 doses of the Russian two-component Sputnik V vaccine arrived in Kyrgyzstan on April 22 this year. The transfer ceremony took place at Bishkek Airport with the participation of First Deputy Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan Artyom Novikov and Russian Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan Nikolai Udovichenko.

The Russian vaccine will primarily be designated for teachers, medical workers, people over 65 and people with chronic diseases.

The Russian Federation will continue its assistance to the friendly nation of Kyrgyzstan to help in controlling the coronavirus pandemic in that country.



Medical aid to India

As per the Russian President’s decision in the spirit of friendship and the special privileged strategic partnership status between Russia and India, and for the sake of fighting a sharp rise in coronavirus cases, a large shipment of medicines and medical equipment was delivered to India yesterday.

Overall, two Russian Emergencies Ministry planes (the first one landed in New Delhi at 11 pm local time on April 28, and the second plane arrived in the Indian capital in the early hours of April 29) sent 22 tonnes of cargo to India including 20 oxygen units, 75 fans, 150 medical monitors and 200,000 packages of medications.

The consignee is the Indian Society of the Red Cross which will distribute the items among medical facilities.



Vladimir Zelensky’s remarks on the need to amend the Minsk agreements

We certainly could not overlook Vladimir Zelensky’s interview with the Financial Times which called for amending the Minsk agreements and “adjusting” the current negotiating format by engaging the US, Great Britain and Canada, or changing the format altogether.

In fact, the remarks do not offer anything new. Similar ideas have repeatedly been expressed by different Ukrainian officials. The difference is that these statements, made for the first time at the presidential level, can be taken as nothing but confirmation that a refusal to comply with the Minsk agreements is now becoming Ukraine’s official position rather than the personal opinions of certain leaders, which have served as a justification, including by our European partners in the Normandy format, for this kind of “brain storming.” Obviously, it causes concern.

If the Ukraine’s representatives in the Normandy format and the Contact Group follow this approach in the negotiating process, which is stalled anyway by Kiev’s insistent sabotage of the Minsk agreements per se, then we can hardly expect any progress in a Donbass conflict settlement.

Nevertheless, we believe the opportunity remains to exit the current alarming situation. What is important is to not aggravate it, something Kiev seems intent on, but rather start honest and conscientious implementation, on the basis of a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk, of their obligations under the Minsk Package of Measures, approved by UNSC resolutions, in all their entirety and consistency. Apparently, it requires courage and political will on the part of Ukrainian leadership. They must be presented as available if only because they were declared before the election since these promises underlie the election campaign.

Only this approach will make it possible to restore peace and calm in Donbass and in all of Ukraine. There is no alternative to this, whatever tricks they might make up in Kiev. We have heard many times from our Western partners that the Minsk agreements have no alternative. We wish they would not forget this approach.



Ratification of Russian-Estonian border treaties

Political discussions on the ratification of border treaties with Russia are ongoing in Estonia. The two countries’ foreign ministers signed the treaties in 2005, but the Russian Federation later revoked its signature when Estonia added unacceptable references to invalid documents, including the 1920 Treaty of Tartu, to its ratification law. The treaties were signed again in 2014, but Tallinn prevented their enforcement once again.

We believe it would be appropriate to reaffirm Russia’s position of principle on this issue, which we have put forth openly and in our contacts with our Estonian colleagues. The ratification of the border treaties will only be possible if the Estonian Government abandons any and all territorial claims to the Russian Federation and political appendices.

In addition, we expect Tallinn to take practical steps towards normalising the atmosphere of bilateral relations, in particular, settle the problem of numerous non-citizens, stop pushing the Russian language out of the educational and information space, stop the persecution of Russian-language media outlets, journalists and human rights activists, and abandon anti-Russia rhetoric, including at international venues.



Biden’s address to a joint session of Congress

US President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address to Congress leaves a dual impression. Of course, we welcome once again the declared intention not to seek escalation but to cooperate with Russia “when it’s in our mutual interest.”

Regrettably, the current US administration’s rhetoric doesn’t match its deeds. And the US President’s traditional address to lawmakers, although it was delivered for effect, confirms that Washington is not ready to abandon its futile efforts to use pressure and unsubstantiated allegations of Russia’s “malicious activity.”

If the United States really wants to talk, it’s time to abandon confrontational rhetoric and to take practical measures to improve the abnormal situation in bilateral relations, for which the United States is to blame. Otherwise, they will continue to slide down.

We would like to hope for a more positive scenario suited to the logic of the modern-day multipolar world.



Signing of Norway-US revised defence cooperation agreement

We have taken note that the Supplementary Defence Cooperation Agreement signed by the United States and Norway on April 16 will allow the Americans to use the “agreed facilities and areas” in Norway for the deployment of US troops and military equipment, military drills and exercises, and the maintenance of equipment. Norway described the agreement as a vital contribution to the strengthening of ties with its main NATO ally.

Oslo’s enthusiasm over any US steps to strengthen its military presence in the Kingdom is old news. Every time this happens, just as in the case of this agreement, the Norwegian authorities do their best to assure the public that this is normal and to reaffirm their commitment to the “no foreign bases” policy that precludes the deployment of foreign bases in Norway in peacetime. At the same time, they say that these activities should not provoke Russia’s negative reaction because they are open and predictable. This is not so.

This is yet another proof that Oslo is gradually abandoning the policy of “self-imposed restraints.” This is fully in line with the policy of military build-up and an active involvement of NATO in the Arctic. Since 2013, when Erna Solberg became Prime Minister, Norway’s defence spending went up by 30 percent.

We regard such activities, especially in direct proximity to the Russian border, as Oslo’s deliberate and destructive line towards aggravating tensions in the Euro-Arctic region, and destroying Russian-Norwegian relations. This is not our choice. Russia remains open to an equal and constructive dialogue on building confidence and security in the region, as we pointed out to the Norwegian authorities on numerous occasions.



East Jerusalem update

High tension persists in East Jerusalem and its holy sites since the beginning of the holy month of Ramadan on April 13, 2021. According to media reports, the Israeli side has limited the access of the Palestinians to the Al-Aqsa Mosque complex. Under the pretext of preventing overcrowding, as part of the efforts to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, the Israeli authorities have put up metal fences near the Damascus Gate. On April 26, 2021, these fences were removed following protests by Jerusalem’s Arab population.

Against this backdrop, Israeli ultra-radicals have started more actively calling for killing Arabs and expelling them from the city. Moreover, Israeli extremists are more frequently visiting the Al-Aqsa Mosque complex under the protection of Israeli police officers and without prior coordination with the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf religious trust that manages the holy sites. These visits are downright provocative.

We denounce any manifestations of racial, national, ethnic or religious intolerance. We are urging the concerned parties to honour the status quo regarding Jerusalem’s holy sites, formalised in the Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty of 1994.

We believe that compliance with all historical understandings and the renunciation, by all parties, of all actions that further aggravate what is happening around Jerusalem and cause a new spiral of tension between the Palestinians and the Israelis are the most important thing today.



Federal Republic of Somalia update

We continue to closely follow the situation in Somalia that has become aggravated following a decision to put off the February 2021 general elections. On April 12, the lower house of parliament passed a decision to extend the tenure of President of Somalia Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed by two years, and this has triggered a wave of critical remarks from the country’s socio-political circles as well as the international community.

More frequent calls are being made for a civil disobedience campaign directed against the federal government. Against this backdrop, armed militant units, linked with the opposition, have seized several districts in northern Mogadishu, the country’s capital, where many government agencies are located, and continue to hold them. According to the incoming reports, the situation in Mogadishu has now somewhat stabilised, though.

We are noting the April 27, 2021 statement made by President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed on his readiness to address the national Parliament on May 1, 2021 and to voice a number of conciliatory proposals to further advance the nationwide electoral process.

We believe that it is necessary to resolve all current disagreements on the basis of earlier compromise agreements. We consider it essential to continue the search for mutually acceptable solutions in order to establish a stable federal system in Somalia.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia is determined to continue taking part in the agreed-upon international efforts to provide all-round support to Mogadishu.



60 years of Sierra Leone’s independence

On April 27, 2021, the Republic of Sierra Leone marked the 60th anniversary of gaining independence from its former metropolis, Great Britain. Even the name of its capital city, Freetown, says it all. Sierra Leone was built by the hands of former African slaves who chose their path towards freedom and the right to independently determine their own future.

Europeans’ penetration into the Sierra Leonean territory began in the 17th century. The colonialists captured indigenous people in huge numbers and sold them as slaves in the West Indies as well as in North and South America. Having established dominion over Sierra Leone, the British actually turned the land into a raw material appendage and the outflow of human commodity never stopped. The local population strongly resisted the invaders. A major uprising occurred two years after the establishment of a British protectorate over Sierra Leone in 1896. The national liberation struggle of the Sierra Leonean people against the British became more organised and persistent over time, and eventually led to the proclamation of independence in 1961.

At present, Sierra Leone is purposefully moving along the path of building a modern democratic state, consistently working to achieve the goals of sustainable socioeconomic development.

Russia and Sierra Leone have traditionally friendly ties that rely on the principles of equality, mutual respect and consideration for each other's interests. An active political dialogue is maintained between Moscow and Freetown. Mutually beneficial joint economic projects are being implemented, including in the mining industry.

We would like to wish all the best to the leaders and people of the friendly Republic of Sierra Leone on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of their independence. Wishing them new achievements, peace, prosperity and happiness.



The conference Russia - Africa: Building the future together

On May 18, the Russian Foreign Ministry's Diplomatic Academy will be the venue of a conference, Russia-Africa: Building the Future Together.

The purpose of this event is to prepare proposals for the further development of relations between Russia and African countries in the context of the preparations for the Russia - Africa Summit in 2022.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will deliver a welcoming address.

Invitations to participate and speak have been sent to the ambassadors of African countries accredited in Russia, the leaders of the Federation Council and the State Duma, ministries and departments, state and private companies, as well as public organisations.

The conference programme will be published on the Diplomatic Academy’s website.



Fourth Leaders of Russia competition

On March 26, 2021, President Vladimir Putin launched the 4th Leaders of Russia national management competition. It is the biggest management competition in the country and the only competition of this kind in the world. Participants benefit from the mentorship by the Prime Minister and his deputies, federal ministers, top managers of major state-run corporations and large businesses, and so on. More than 660,000 people have taken part in the competition over the three years.

This year, an international section was established for Russian-speaking nationals of other countries. Non-Russian citizens aged 55 years and younger with managerial experience of at least two years and whose command of Russian is sufficient for performing tasks are welcome to register for the competition.

Citizens of 80 states have signed up to participate in the international section of Leaders of Russia. The majority of these participants represent Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine, the Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Germany and Tajikistan.

A remote stage of the competition will run from May 20 to July 1, 2021. Contestants in the international section will demonstrate their intelligence and management potential; they will also compete in their knowledge of Russian history, culture, geography, economy and law. The leaders will compete in the offline finals, which will be held in Moscow in late August and early September.

In addition to the main prizes such as study grants, mentorship and participation in the super finals in March 2022, winners in the international section will be given the opportunity to fast-track their Russian citizenship and all finalists will be granted permanent residence.

Applications are open on the Leaders of Russia official website through May 17, 2021.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

Recently, you have had to frequently comment on events related to Poland. This week, our countries marked the 100th anniversary of diplomatic relations. How do you see the development of these relations up until now? Could it be said that Moscow and Warsaw are reaching an impasse or is there hope for normalising relations?



Maria Zakharova:

First of all, I would like to draw your attention to a full-fledged and in-depth interview by Russian Ambassador to Poland Sergey Andreyev that was published in the context of this anniversary. On my part, I would like to add that the history of Russia-Poland relations is, obviously, much longer and the establishment of the diplomatic relations between the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and Poland in 1921 was just one more chapter for our bilateral links. Last century was quite intense for our relationship, from early difficulties to coordinated action by the Soviet Union and Poland against Nazi Germany, the liberation of Poland by the Red Army and alliance during the post-war period.

The Russia-Poland relations have seen both positive and negative developments in the past 30 years. There have been attempts to build a constructive dialogue. However, at Poland’s initiative, our bilateral relationship has been essentially frozen since 2014. The country’s leaders in Warsaw continue the course for winding down our bilateral contacts even further. More recently, Poland has launched a campaign against Soviet memorials, which we are forced to talk about constantly. Poland is pursuing an aggressive historical policy, making attempts to sabotage Russia’s infrastructure projects and insisting on expanding NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe under the pretext of a bogus “Russian threat.” Russophobic sentiments have been perpetuated at the official level and in Polish media.

That being said, if we put aside our disagreements on a number of historical issues and refer to professional historians for answers, there will be no major problems left at the bottom that cannot be resolved if both sides have the political will to resolve them. Unfortunately, right now we do not see any such intention on behalf of Polish officials.



Question:

What comments could you make on the leaked tape of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s confidential conversation?



Maria Zakharova:

It should be noted that the Islamic Republic of Iran, a country friendly to Russia, is apparently living through hard times nowadays. Unlawful US sanctions are exerting all-out pressure on the country’s economy, and the COVID-19 pandemic is impairing the health of ordinary people and their well-being. The new presidential elections, a crucial political event, are looming on the horizon. Consequently, it is our opinion that any media upsurges should be analysed through the context of these circumstances. We personally know those who would like to manipulate them to the detriment of Russia’s interests and long-time ties with Iran.

On the whole, we are always guided by Tehran’s official position that has been repeatedly voiced. For example, on January 26, 2021, Mohammad Javad Zarif expressed sincere gratitude to the Russian Federation for its principled and constructive views and stances on the JCPOA, stressing the need to continue close cooperation between the two countries over the nuclear deal and to maintain our consensus in order to save this extremely important agreement in connection with specific risks and apprehensions that have arisen following the US withdrawal from this plan.

On April 13, 2021, President of Iran Hassan Rouhani noted that Iran praised Moscow’s support of the negotiating process on the nuclear deal and a striving to preserve and reinstate the JCPOA.

Moreover, on February 7, 2021, Speaker of the Parliament of Iran Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said the country’s Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) always underscored the strategic nature of bilateral relations and prioritised Russia as the venue for his first foreign visit.

Speaking of the facts, it would have been impossible to completely eliminate all IAEA questions with regard to Iran and to guarantee the transparent and completely peaceful nature of its nuclear programme without the Russian Federation’s decisive assistance. This would have prevented the approval of the JCPOA in 2015, and the plan would have certainly gone under in 2018, following the then US president Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the deal.

I don’t even want to repeat the interpretations just mentioned in your question to which you refer. By the way, these interpretations were made at the height of the Vienna talks between countries, parties to the JCPOA, and the United States on preserving the nuclear deal. This only served to hamper the process. We will continue our efforts to revive the JCPOA, so that the nuclear non-proliferation regime would be consolidated, and the economy of the Islamic Republic of Iran would reap the required benefits.

We need a powerful and independent Iran conducting a responsible regional line on the basis of international law. Russia has always emphatically opposed US interference in the sovereign affairs of our southern neighbour, US pressure on Iran and arrogant threats about all options still on the table, as they like to say.

We will expand the entire range of cooperation with Tehran, and we will act to help the people of Iran fight the pandemic. It is common knowledge that we do not sell off our interests and partners, that we act in strict compliance with international law, and that we always remain loyal to our word and obligations, including the JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution 2231. We are expecting the same sincere and responsible attitude from those with whom we cooperate on an equitable basis, and we would prefer to judge them by their deeds, rather than by certain ill-conceived or impermissible statements.



Question:

Certain political forces in Ukraine have recently been active in discussing the country's NATO membership. But there is another point of view. As an alternative to membership in the alliance, Ukraine could obtain nuclear weapons to defend itself against the alleged Russian threat. To follow-up on this topic, the German newspaper Die Welt in its article Nuclear power Ukraine? Not so absurd at all analysed the hypothetical possibility of ‘restoring’ Ukraine’s nuclear status. The Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany does not rule out this possibility either. Can you comment on whether such a scenario is likely? Do you think it is a possibility?



Maria Zakharova:

If we judge Ukrainian officials by their statements, the Ukrainian ambassador to the FRG sounds nothing less than an odious character. You might want to reread his statements. I do not think that Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany Andrey Melnik’s statement about the possibility of Kiev creating nuclear weapons should be taken seriously, especially since it has already been disavowed by the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry. But I will say it again: this is what their diplomatic service is like, and their public diplomacy and rhetoric.

At the same time, given the scale of the response and the seriousness of the issues raised, we believe appropriate assessments should be given to such irresponsible behaviour in the information landscape. After all, it is nuclear weapons we are talking about. There must be at least some kind of legal framework in which such statements are made.

We regard the Ambassador's statement as an unwise attempt to blackmail the Western countries with Kiev’s mythical nuclear potential to once again try to extort some preferences in relations with NATO.

The reason for this blackmail is highly unfortunate. Firstly, even in the current difficult time, when the arms control and non-proliferation agreements that seemed unshakable are falling apart, some fundamental elements of the existing world order still remain, something that no one would destroy for the sake of the Kiev regime. One such element is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), an agreement Ukraine joined voluntarily forever renouncing the possibility of possessing nuclear weapons. Secondly, Kiev's illusive potential to create nuclear weapons should not be exaggerated. Its possession of uranium mines or nuclear reactors, either inherited from the Soviet Union or built by Russia after its collapse, does not equal the ability to develop nuclear weapons.

It should also be noted that even the statements about the prospect of ‘restoring’ Ukraine's nuclear status are incorrect. I know the Ukrainian side has trouble with this, but one should at least try to stick to facts. Ukraine has never had the status of a nuclear power. It so happened that after the Soviet Union collapsed, a significant number of nuclear warheads remained on the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. Kiev, I would like to emphasise this again, has never exercised any actual operational control over those weapons, either before 1991 or after. Control has always remained with Moscow. Returning them to Russia was a necessary condition and the only possible step that could enable Ukraine to continue as a sovereign state. So it is absolutely wrong to talk about any prospects, as they put it, for ‘restoring Ukraine's nuclear status’ or claiming it previously had nuclear weapons ‘of its own.’

We constantly hear similar statements from Ukrainian leaders. The absurdity of their statements is no longer a secret, I would say. Consider the ‘Ukrainian Russian language,’ or the alleged absence of neo-Nazi trends in Ukraine, or freedom to speak any language in Ukraine. Yet, they continue to make such absurd statements in abundance. This is just one of them.

I would also like to point out that Russian Ambassador to Germany Sergey Nechayev regularly comments on such statements made by Ukrainian diplomats in Germany. And he does it brilliantly.



Question:

Russian Ambassador Eleonora Mitrofanova has been summoned to the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry today. It turned out that Sofia has decided to expel one more Russian diplomat, an assistant military attaché. This is obviously connected to yesterday’s statement by the Prosecutor-General’s Office spokeswoman, who said Bulgaria suspected that six Russians had been involved in a series of four explosions at four arms depots in Bulgaria between 2011 and 2020. Is Russia willing to provide help to the Bulgarian authorities to investigate these blasts, which Bulgarian Acting Foreign Minister Ekaterina Zakharieva has requested at the meeting with Ambassador Mitrofanova? What will be Russia’s response to the expulsion of the diplomat? Will Bulgaria be put on the list of unfriendly countries, which will be made public soon, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said yesterday?



Maria Zakharova:

Let’s start at the beginning. Your first question concerns possible assistance to the Bulgarian government agencies. If the relevant Russian agencies receive such a request, they will consider it in accordance with the established procedure based on bilateral agreements.

Your second question concerned the expulsion of a diplomat. The Russian Foreign Ministry has issued a comment on this matter. I can only repeat that such actions do not remain unanswered.

The third question was about a list of unfriendly countries. There is nothing I can say in addition to the numerous statements made by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The list is under consideration. Please, be patient and wait until its approval.



Question:

Is it true that the Russian Embassy is Skopje is trying to set Macedonians against Bulgaria? On April 26, the Russian Embassy in North Macedonia posted a tweet accusing Bulgaria of attacking Macedonia in April 1941. The tweet ended with the phrase “Eternal glory to the Russian, Macedonian and other soldiers” who had fought against the Nazi plague. Public attention to that tweet was attracted by Bulgarian MEP Andrey Kovatchev.



Maria Zakharova:

That tweet posted by our Embassy in Skopje provided the bare facts. It hardly deserves such an emotional assessment. As I have said, it only provided bare facts.

I would like to point out that our embassies also post many tweets about Bulgaria’s activities on the side of the Red Army in the final period of WWII. Unlike the current Bulgarian authorities, we also often write in the social media about the participation of Bulgarian General Vladimir Stoychev in the 1945 Victory Parade in Red Square.



Question:

Do you think that Russian-Bulgarian relations have reached a deadlock and need a new symbol of friendship? What could it be?



Maria Zakharova:

I wouldn’t like to speak about deadlocks now. I would rather focus on the second part of your question, that is, our vision for a way out of the current deadlock. We have not led our relations there. We had no such intention. We proceeded from the priority and primacy of interaction, cooperation and the development of relations in various spheres, which are based on the principles, of course, that constitute the foundation of international law, with the leading role played by the UN and its Charter, and which are regulated by bilateral arrangements and agreements. This is what we proceeded from. This has always been our principled stance. It is another matter that we also respond to actions that are either unfriendly, or hostile, or evidence of an illegal, unequal or unacceptable attitude to bilateral contacts and ties. Our principled stance in relations with other states has always been clearly outlined. I have set it out once again right now.



Question:

Director of US National Intelligence Avril Haines earlier mentioned a serious threat posed by Russia in cyberspace in the wake of the December hacker attacks, of which Washington accused Russia. The Politico reported that the US will now create a Centre to protect against malicious cyber activities by Russia and China and that the Centre will collect intelligence about malicious activities by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. On April 24, President Vladimir Putin signed an executive order on actions against states taking unfriendly moves against Russia. Given the latest steps by the United States, including its belligerent rhetoric and continual accusations, will Russia take action against the US authorities in accordance with President Putin’s executive order? If so, are there any specific actions in the works that are designed to prevent further unfriendly moves by the United States?



Maria Zakharova:

I think you have answered your own question. President Putin’s executive order is binding on our country’s authorities. If you are talking about this particular executive order, then, as you are aware and as we mentioned, a government resolution will shortly be adopted to ensure its implementation. It is being worked on. As soon as it is released, the authorities will know what to do in order to implement this executive order.



Question:

Alongside The Insider and with the involvement of the German Der Spiegel and Czech Respekt, the pseudo-investigators from Bellingcat have released another portion of their “probe” into the situation in the Czech Republic and Emilian Gebrev's assertion that “the explosions at the Bulgarian ammunition depots in 2015 are interconnected and were part of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate’s operation to make it hard for Ukraine to obtain the necessary weapons to use in the Donbass conflict against Russia-backed separatists or the Russian military.” The second part of this quote is quite notable. Is this some kind of involuntary admission by our Western partners that they illegally armed the Ukrainian Armed Forces during hostilities? Will Russia demand an international investigation into the supply of weapons to Ukraine for use against the civilians in Donbass and the identification of the countries and persons involved in illegal arms supplies? Can it do so?



Maria Zakharova:

We have taken note (Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated this in his interviews and Q&A sessions with media outlets) that we are witnessing yet another round of the anti-Russia campaign in progress. Just look at the surprising sequence of actions by NATO members right after the United States imposed another round of sanctions on Russia and expelled Russian diplomats. Shortly after that, the media and political space were overcome with reports about our country’s involvement in an alleged explosion in the Czech Republic in 2014. After this story ran its course, they moved on to explosions in Bulgaria.

All of that is clearly interconnected and represents a single chain of events in the information space that no one is even trying to conceal. This is yet another information campaign centered on accusing Russia of something. All of this is unfolding without the provision of any evidence (there is no evidence) and without establishing any interaction with the Russian authorities through available channels. This is why we can say that we are witnessing a multi-vector information and political campaign that is being conducted as part of a common global policy aimed at containing our country. It is a mechanism for implementing this collective West’s approach. There are easily understandable and clearly articulated procedures and provisions on how countries should interact in the event of alarming information, developments, etc. coming to the surface. There are communication channels that have been in existence for years. Everyone is well aware of them. However, they are not being used. Everything goes to the political dimension immediately. No one is asking for the provision of facts or evidence. Everything is based solely on statements, information leaks or references to one another’s words.

With regard to the Czech Republic, I believe the campaign has failed. The officials from various branches of government, bodies and the establishment made contradictory statements. This campaign may have been aimed against our country, but turned against the Czechs, because they do not deserve such insulting treatment with the authorities lying to them on questions that need to be answered. The investigation lasted seven years. Coming up with a concept in a matter of three to four days and imposing it on society is nothing short of offending your own people.

The second part of your question was whether the countries involved in this staged “racket” should answer the legitimate questions, including regarding uncontrolled arms depots, trade and cross-border movement of weapons that is not overseen by the state, possible smuggling and unchecked supplies of weapons to the scenes of hostilities. The Russian government officials spoke about this. The countries and their associations must answer the questions that have arisen or been raised in these states. They need an international response. We must clearly understand how arms control works in these countries and how these countries’ authorities comply with their international commitments (since they are parties to a large number of relevant restrictive agreements), what happened to the weapons and warehouses, who conducted the investigation and how did they go about it, and why this investigation has been grossly politicised. It led to nothing but political conclusions. By the way, there must be a separate answer as to why the politicians are clearly influencing and putting pressure on the course of the investigation. They have no right to do so. They (political institutions) are not just expressing their version of the developments, which can have an influence in one way or another, but they directly articulate accusatory verdicts and completely replace the legal institutions that should engage in investigative activities. I'm not even talking about the courts. So, it appears that, by and large, politicians in the Czech Republic and other countries you mentioned have come up with a ready-to-go guilty verdict. Moreover, they have made a decision and started acting upon it. Where are their law enforcement agencies that have been investigating this case for many years now? Where are the courts? This is direct violation of the democratic principles underlying these states that are built on principles of democracy and separation of powers, which they love to teach us to treat with respect. Where has this division gone now when politicians, whose scope of duties lies far from that of the investigating authorities, feel free to pass guilty verdicts?

Many questions have been brought up. Since they are members of numerous international treaties, conventions and agreements on restrictions in this area, they must provide answers to their own people and the international community.



Question:

Our compatriots are proud of the Foreign Ministry, the Minister and you personally. Well done! Thank you for taking care of journalists from different countries. Thanks to everyone who makes our work more productive, and to your entire team. This is the smartest, most honest, and kindest team ever. Happy holidays!



Maria Zakharova:

Thank you for the holiday greetings. I cannot fully accept this panegyric here though. We must maintain a critical attitude, primarily towards ourselves. But I will take this as an encouragement to further improve our work.



Question:

Slovakia was the first country in the EU to receive a large batch of the Russian vaccine. It was also the first to support the Czech anti-Russia campaign. The Slovak Republic expelled three Russian diplomats, although it was not a concerned party in the Czech ammunition depot explosions. The Slovak government sited solidarity as justification for this step. Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia’s response would be asymmetrical, swift and tough. Russia also expelled three Slovak diplomats and banned the import of chickens, eggs, and other foods from Slovakia. Will there be any more steps from Russia? Will the Russian Federation continue to cooperate with the Slovak Republic? We do remember the President’s legendary warning that one country would not get away with just “a ban on tomato imports” as well as his brilliant answer about his plans to hang another country’s president by “a certain body part” – “Why just one?” Is Slovakia going to get away with just chickens and eggs now?



Maria Zakharova:

This is a creative question you just asked. I will try to stick to diplomatic vocabulary.

We have responded to the expulsion of Russian diplomats, as you just said.

As for the agricultural products, to be honest, I cannot agree with you. That ban was unrelated to the recent events. You might need to contact our regulators responsible for agricultural products. This is a totally separate story. I wouldn’t link them together.

What I think is important is that you noted in your question our constructive and fruitful interaction with Slovakia in the interests of the Slovak people. Amid the complete chaos with vaccines, vaccination programmes and other areas reigning across the so-called collective West, we can see how much the population of these countries needs help. Strange as it might seem, the countries that declared themselves advanced and proved that with a number of indicators, have not coped with the pandemic as they should.

What do I mean by coping as they should? First, I mean developing an appropriate policy, and taking measures that would be adequate to the situation. But the most important thing is to preserve solidarity, which they like to talk about, but which does not seem to be really working. There is no solidarity. It has been replaced by a kind of “vassal ideology.” In reality, in situations where they really should have shown solidarity, mutual assistance and support, should have lent a helping hand to others, they have sadly failed. We, on the other hand, for all the differences with the EU (which we did not initiate), with NATO or in relations with specific countries, have risen to the urgency of the challenge, offering constructive cooperation and true solidarity. We never kept our vaccine projects a secret. Quite the contrary, we made various offers and tried our best to involve countries in a dialogue between scientists, businesses, and entrepreneurs in this area, always keeping in mind the interests of the people in our countries.

Whatever happens, no matter how life (or malicious intentions, which is unfortunately more often the case) tries to diminish the importance of such interaction and cooperation and to reduce it to nothing, it should be put first anyway, as you did today in your question. This is the most important thing, and a reference point for us. This should also be a reference point for the real and genuine perception of our country on the international stage. That is why, I think, so many of our Western colleagues and partners are desperate to invent something to divert attention from the constructive experience Russia now has, in particular in this area. Myths are being invented about Russia’s alleged involvement in some events in these countries many years ago, that Russian representatives were somehow involved in such actions.

As you can see, this machine generates myths on a massive scale. But we should be guided by what you outlined in your question and what I said – the experience of productive cooperation that yields tremendous results in the most difficult situations, be it an infection outbreak or a political crisis. Despite this, we can and know how to lend a helping hand because our underlying attitude towards the world, towards building ties with other countries and associations is invariable – equal interaction, mutually respectful dialogue in the interests of the people in our countries, based on international law, bilateral agreements, arrangements, and mutual benefit.



Question:

I would like to highlight legal aspects of the actions taken by the European Union, the Czech Republic and Slovakia related to the Vrbetica incident in 2014. There is a ban on selling or moving weapons that may end up in Syria or notorious formations in Ukraine. How can this be accounted for? Is this being done against Nord Stream 2 and the Sputnik V vaccine?



Maria Zakharova:

In order to be able to provide comments on legal aspects, we must have an understanding of what was stored in these warehouses. We must find out who oversaw them. By “oversaw” I mean who owned the grounds and the ammunition and what agreements and contracts were used to move them.

Do you have any idea of what transporting ammunition is? It is carried out, as we now know from available materials, by private companies across the country. Do you know how many permits you need in order to get at least one lorry loaded with ammunition on the road across the country and then over the border to another country? Do you know how many permits, certificates and documents need to be obtained? Among other authorities, the state is involved in this as well. All these certificates and documents must be verified by the state, its government agencies. Accordingly, these documents must now be made available to the general public, because the current craziness in the public space, in particular, in the Czech Republic, leaves no room for hiding any data. Loud statements, comments and accusations were made which give rise to the need for answers to a number of specific questions that I have listed.

After that, we will need to talk about compliance with domestic legislation by individual countries (Czech Republic, Bulgaria, etc.) and with the EU legislation (there are a number of provisions which the states must comply with), and then with international law – outside the EU borders – the agreements and arrangements to which the countries you mentioned in your question are parties.

Lately, government officials, in particular from the Czech Republic, have denied allegations that anything has been violated. If the violations are to be proven not to have taken place, we need to find out what was actually there and in what quantities. Saying that it was just a warehouse that was run “properly” will not work. Questions must be answered.

The investigation lasted seven years. Can you believe that no documents were provided in seven years showing what exactly was stored in these warehouses, in what quantities and where? If there are no answers or materials, then what were the investigative authorities doing all that time? Perhaps, the investigation was politicised from the word go? Perhaps, it was conducted by politicians rather than investigators and competent authorities? Perhaps, these were not Czech politicians, but people from other countries who were involved in the investigation-related events? What I mean is they were putting pressure on the investigation and were in charge of it to begin with.

All these questions must be posed one-by-one and thoroughly not only by us, but by life itself. We need to get concrete answers. There must be established facts.

In addition to the investigation, we are dealing with the democratic states (at least, this is how they present themselves). These states respect freedom of speech and have signed a large number of international acts regarding respect for freedom of speech, and interaction with the media, and they have adopted domestic legislation in the sphere of relations with the media. They must answer the questions at hand. They can’t hide these data.

This concerns not only the investigation, but the democratic foundations of this state as well, when the time comes to answer these questions. Only after we get the answers, will we be in a position to discuss conformity or lack of it.

Based on the currently available materials, it is clearly possible to conclude that there is no compliance with the agreements whatsoever. To reiterate, these materials were published in the media. Refuting them just like that, especially given that the Czech politicians started this, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, “schizophrenic” debate, not answering them or simply responding with one or two political statements is not enough. There must be specific information.



Question:

Is the fact that they have dragged this topic into the spotlight related to Nord Stream 2 and Sputnik V?



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot say that they have dragged it into the spotlight. If the investigation had been completed and they had a court decision, they could have said that the story was over; instead, they suddenly reanimated it. But it was not over. Was there a court hearing? We don’t know. As I understand, there was no trial. The story is not over. They have tried to finish it in this manner, and that is a fact.

I have a feeling that they have decided to use media campaign to close the investigation that should have identified those who were really responsible.

I have already answered what this is related to.



Question:

Have you heard the latest news about the clash on the border between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan? Would you comment on this incident?



Maria Zakharova:

Considering that the situation continues to develop at that very moment, I have only seen news in the media. I can say that we are examining it.



Question:

The settlement process in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone was discussed in President Vladimir Putin’s recent telephone conversation with President of France Emmanuel Macron. Later the President of France made a statement that a joint proposal was being developed to settle this conflict. Perhaps you are not yet ready to disclose it, but what is this proposal’s format? Will it be within the OSCE Minsk Group, between the two presidents, or between the foreign ministries? Experts are speculating that the possibility of expanding the peacekeeping troops is certainly being considered in order to prevent an escalation and strengthen the ceasefire. There are also many assumptions that the mechanisms for establishing the status of Nagorno-Karabakh have already been set, considering that France is consistent in this matter. The French Senate has adopted a resolution on recognising Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country. Would you comment on this, please?



Maria Zakharova:

A detailed press release on the two leaders’ telephone conversation is published on the Kremlin website.

Speaking about your entire complex of questions, I can say that work continues between the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.



Question:

So this is a proposal within the OSCE Minsk Group?



Maria Zakharova:

I have no more to say about this. I will share with you if there are any updates, but right now this is all I can say about this issue.



Question:

In his address to the Federal Assembly, President Putin noted that certain countries that engage in diplomatic attacks on Russia are not acting of their own accord. We understand that this is about the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland. Maybe it’s time to make this lack of independence felt in the diplomatic sphere? Historically, these Visegrad Four countries are from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Russia can lower the diplomatic status of these republics and close their embassies in Moscow. The Embassy of Austria (we have excellent relations with Austria) or Hungary could then act as their representatives in Russia. We could then ask the Czech Republic and Slovakia to vacate the vast grounds allocated for their embassies in Moscow. The same goes for Poland with its large embassy grounds. What are your thoughts on this?



Maria Zakharova:

Your question sounds more like a political statement. I think this would be the correct way to approach it.

I would like to note that an embassies’ main purpose is not to punish each other, but to advance relations in the economy, culture, defence, healthcare, security, etc. Of course, working with the public is a separate area, which includes consular and visa services or legalising documents, in a word, a long list of what citizens of one country may need when in another country. This is the purpose of embassies, consulates general and consular departments at embassies. We believe embassies should focus on these matters. This is what the Vienna Conventions clearly say about diplomatic and consular missions’ status and activities.

The true purpose of a given state’s embassy in another country is to promote relations and to provide assistance to citizens of their country who are in a state of the embassy’s accreditation.

Of course, there may be situations where the staff at embassies, consulates or consulates general have to leave the country on charges of activities that run counter to their status. This is a decades-long practice. These cases are also regulated. It is another matter when this is used in a political game and transcends the level of a routine approach to doing business to become a genuine natural disaster. In this case, the very relations that the embassies and consulates should develop are dealt a blow. We focus precisely on this mission in our work.

During the pandemic, the diplomatic services of all countries were confronted with new challenges. As you may recall, during the lockdown in 2020, they provided assistance in bringing home citizens who were unable to do so themselves. The bulk of this work was done by the diplomatic missions of all countries. They tackled a vast number of logistic and humanitarian issues. Many embassies and diplomats not only from our country, but other countries as well, were forced to not only refresh their memories on how to go about this, but to create, from the ground up, response procedures for the new challenges that the world had not seen in a long time. Remember how many countries imposed border crossing restrictions with families scattered all over the world, unable to reunite.

It is all the more important to keep in mind the embassies and consulates’ true mission. We have a very clear understanding of this. This is how we arrange the activities of our foreign missions. We make it clear that manipulations in the form of expulsion of diplomats under the pretext of them allegedly carrying out activities that are incompatible with their status, when, in fact, the issue is about political pressure and show of attitude to particular matters or pressure methods, rip the fabric of international relations and are certainly at odds with the interests of the peoples of the states involved. These are dirty political games that have nothing to do with the objectives set for diplomats and foreign missions.

I would nevertheless draw a line between your political statement and the true goal of diplomats in all countries, which they are striving to fulfill. Of course, we see that expelling diplomats has become one of the few tools used by a number of countries. They have mastered the use of illegal unilateral sanctions, the expulsion of diplomats, the closure of diplomatic missions and hostile takeovers of diplomatic and consular property. Instead of expanding the diplomatic and consular service and using innovation technology in their work, they have mastered this primitive, not even archaic (because there was no such thing before), out-of-place toolset.



Question:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with the Rossiya Segodnya information agency that if no changes occur in US-Russian relations, both countries will lapse into another Cold War or even worse. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also made an interesting statement that negotiations between Moscow and Washington on a number of issues would be possible only if there is no escalation from Moscow.

US President Joe Biden said if Russia “acts recklessly, or aggressively,” there will be “consequences.” He also said the US would prefer a more stable and predictable relationship, but ultimately it depends on Mr Putin.

How does Russia assess this statement? In what conditions is a Russian-American dialogue possible?



Maria Zakharova:

I do not want to comment on separate statements. I would rather make a general comment about their demands for predictability. Such demands could be addressed to anyone but definitely not to the Russian side. I cannot cite a single major international action, move or event that would show Russia’s unpredictability in international affairs. We have the Concept of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, and our foreign policy practice. Look how systemic and interconnected everything is in this policy. The same cannot be said about the United States. I am not referring to empty rhetoric or attempts to shift responsibility. Not at all. This is solely about facts. If we take the key, fundamental issues – not circumstantial aspects dependent on the changing international situation, but matters of principle – the United States has drastically changed its approach over the past decade. It had nothing to do with any major changes in, say, the internal arrangement of the United States. Those were its international obligations, something that country had made a commitment to fulfill. But the United States reversed its approach even to those obligations as well.

Climate change, the Iran nuclear programme, humanitarian cooperation and the attitude towards international organisations on this track, in particular UNESCO, and even the United Nations – Washington’s attitude to the UN is controversial, too – the Middle East, Afghanistan – their attitude has been changing so much there is no chance of finding any predictability in US actions.

So no, we are not accepting this argument whoever uses it – our partners in America or elsewhere. If you have any specific facts confirming Russia’s unpredictability, please, present them. Only, they do not exist. This is how I would answer globally, without going into particulars.

As for further contact, a lot has been said about this. We have listed the principles on which we will build our relations with the United States from now on.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4718779

[Alex Him]

Foreign Ministry statement on Russia’s response measures to more EU sanctions



30 April 2021 - 18:00



The European Union continues a policy of imposing unlawful unilateral restrictions on Russian citizens and companies. Six Russians were subjected to them in March 2021 alone.

This practice runs counter to the UN Charter and fundamental standards of international law. It is accompanied by anti-Russia hysterics fuelled by the Western media. There are no grounds for this attitude. However, all our proposals to resolve any problems in Russia-EU relations through a direct professional dialogue are ignored or rejected.

These EU actions leave no doubt that their real goal is to restrain the development of Russia at all cost and to impose a unilateral concept of a “rules-based world order,” something that undermines international law. The independence of Russia’s foreign and domestic policies is being openly challenged. This is being done deliberately and with encouragement from the United States that is not concealing its interest in turning Europe into an arena of serious geopolitical confrontation yet again.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation is authorised to announce that in response to the EU Council’s March 2 and 22, 2021 restrictions on six Russian citizens, Russia bans the following citizens from EU countries and EU officials from entering Russian territory under Federal Law No. 114-FZ “On the Entry to and Exit from the Russian Federation” of August 15, 1996:

1. Ivars ABOLINS, Chairman of the Republic of Latvia National Electronic Mass Media Council;

2. Maris BALTINS, Director of the State Language Centre of the Republic of Latvia;

3. Jacques MAIRE, member of the French delegation at the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly;

4. Jorg RAUPACH, Head of Berlin’s Prosecutor’s Office, Federal Republic of Germany;

5. David Maria SASSOLI, President of the European Parliament;

6. Asa SCOTT, Head of the laboratory of Chemical, Biological, Radiation and Nuclear Security at the Total Defence Research Institute of the Kingdom of Sweden;

7. Ilmar TOMUSK, Head of the Language Department of the Republic of Estonia;

8. Vera JOUROVA, Vice-President of the European Commission for Values and Transparency.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4719537






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on EU Ambassador to Russia Markus Ederer being summoned to the Foreign Ministry



30 April 2021 - 18:49



On April 30, Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the Russian Federation Markus Ederer was summoned to the Foreign Ministry where he was notified of Russia’s response measures to the anti-Russia sanctions by the European Council on March 2 and 22, 2021.

Eight citizens of EU countries and representatives from EU agencies were banned from entering the territory of the Russian Federation in a reciprocal response. Their names have been published due to the EU-initiated unprecedented difficulties in Russia-EU relations.

Mr Ederer was told that we consider the EU’s unilateral restrictions a violation of international legal standards. They run counter to the principles of equitable and respectful cooperation between countries. We reserve the right to continue responding to any unfriendly actions on the part of the EU.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4719547






Joint Statement of extended “Troika” on peaceful settlement in Afghanistan, Doha, 30 April, 2021



30 April 2021 - 21:35



On 30 April, representatives of the extended “Troika”, comprising the Russian Federation, the United States, the People’s Republic of China, and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, met in Doha, Qatar to discuss ways to support intra-Afghan negotiations and help the parties reach a negotiated settlement and a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire. The extended “Troika” met with representatives of the Islamic Republic negotiating team and of the Taliban, as well as Qatar, who graciously hosted the participants.

In the spirit of the discussions, as well as provisions of joint statements on the outcomes of previous “Troika” meetings and discussions held on 22 March, 25 April, 11 July, and 25 October, 2019; 3 June and 30 November, 2020; and 18 March, 2021; the four states participating in the extended “Troika” have affirmed as follows:

1. We acknowledge the widespread and sincere demand of the Afghan people for a lasting and just peace and an end to the war.

2. We reiterate that there is no military solution in Afghanistan and a negotiated political settlement through an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned process is the only way forward for lasting peace and stability in Afghanistan.

3. We take note of the 14 April announcement by the United States and NATO that U.S./NATO forces will begin a responsible withdrawal from Afghanistan by 1 May, 2021 that concludes by 11 September, 2021. We reiterate that the withdrawal of foreign troops should ensure a steady transition of the situation in Afghanistan. We stress that, during the withdrawal period, the peace process should not be disrupted, no fights or turbulence shall occur in Afghanistan, and the safety of international troops should be ensured.

4. We expect the Taliban to fulfill its counterterrorism commitments, including preventing terrorist groups and individuals from using Afghan soil to threaten the security of any other country; not hosting these groups and preventing them from recruiting, training, and fundraising. We expect the Afghan government to continue counterterrorism cooperation with the international community.

5. We reiterate our call on all parties to the conflict in Afghanistan to reduce the level of violence in the country and on the Taliban not to pursue a Spring offensive. We condemn in the strongest terms any attacks deliberately targeting civilians in Afghanistan and call on all parties to respect their obligations under international humanitarian law in all circumstances, including those related to protection of civilians.

6. We reiterate that diplomatic personnel and property shall be inviolable, and the perpetrators of any attack or threat on foreign diplomatic personnel and properties in Kabul will be held accountable.

7. We urge the Government of the Islamic Republic and the High Council for National Reconciliation to engage openly with their Taliban counterparts regarding a negotiated settlement. We do not support the establishment in Afghanistan of any government imposed by force, consistent with the Joint Statement of the 18 March Expanded “Troika”.

8. We support a review of the status of designations of Taliban individuals and entities on the UN 1988 sanctions, as stated in the UNSC resolution 2513 (2020). Practical measures to reduce violence and sustained efforts to advance intra-Afghan negotiations by the Taliban will positively affect this review process.

9. We note the preparations by Turkey to host a conference of senior leaders of both Afghan parties in order to accelerate the intra-Afghan negotiations, and we also welcome the United Nations and Qatar’s roles as co-conveners of this dialogue. We call upon the negotiating parties to make progress toward an inclusive political settlement and a comprehensive and permanent ceasefire.

10. We appreciate the long-standing support of the State of Qatar to facilitate the peace process, and we support the continuation of discussions between the parties’ negotiating teams in Doha.

11. We welcome an expanded role for the United Nations in contributing to the Afghan peace and reconciliation process, including by leveraging its considerable experience and expertise in supporting other peace processes.

12. We strongly advocate a durable and just political resolution that will result in the formation of an independent, sovereign, unified, peaceful, democratic, neutral and self-sufficient Afghanistan, free of terrorism and an illicit drug industry, which contributes to a safe environment for the voluntary, expeditious and sustainable return of Afghan refugees through a well-resourced plan; stability; and global security.

13. We call on all Afghans including the Government of the Islamic Republic and the Taliban to ensure that terrorist groups and individuals do not use Afghan soil to threaten the security of any other country.

14. We reaffirm that any peace agreement must include protections for the rights of all Afghans, including women, men, children, victims of war, and minorities, and should respond to the strong desire of all Afghans for economic, social and political development including the rule of law.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4719614






Answer by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova to a RIA Novosti question on the build-up of the United States’ global missile defence system and its readiness to discuss the missile defence agenda in a dialogue with Russia



3 May 2021 - 10:00



Question:

What is the Foreign Ministry’s attitude towards the US building up its global missile defence system and its readiness to discuss the missile defence agenda in a dialogue with Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

In 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty, the cornerstone of strategic stability and the foundation on which further agreements on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms were based. Since that time, Washington has significantly expanded the development of mobile and stationary anti-missile weapons and started a large-scale deployment of those weapons in various regions of the world, integrating them into the US global missile defence system.

They are using various far-fetched pretexts to deploy ground-based anti-missile systems in close proximity to Russian borders. Projects are rapidly unfolding to develop marine vessels, which regularly appear near the Russian coast. The United States is also implementing plans to develop the space segment of its global missile defence system, which actually envisages the deployment of anti-missile strike weapons in space in the future. In addition, in the context of their missile defence efforts, Washington included, at the doctrinal level, the possibility of carrying out “disarming” strikes against the missile capabilities of those countries that the United States considers to be its adversaries.

It should be understood that attempts to present the global missile defence system as a purely defensive project are nothing more than a smoke screen. By building up its anti-missile capabilities, the United States mainly seeks to gain a decisive advantage by creating conditions for dealing the first strike to the enemy and protecting itself from retaliatory actions. This can and is already leading to serious consequences in the security sphere. It is upsetting the strategic balance of power in the world and spurring an arms race, including missiles.

Russian representatives at various levels have repeatedly pointed out to the American side the dangers associated with the unrestricted development of the US global missile defence system. However, the Americans do not accept our arguments. At the same time, they reject the possibility of putting any restrictions on their missile defence activity. In fact, they are deliberately enhancing it, continuously raising the spending on the project. The $18 billion mentioned in recent media reports is the amount the Pentagon is going to spend on just one programme to develop, produce and support its new promising interceptors to replace the strategic silo-based interceptors now deployed on American territory, mainly in Alaska.

The United States is striving for absolute dominance in the military sphere and is banking on a depletion of Russia's nuclear deterrent potential, with an emphasis on creating a global missile defence system. Their other efforts towards the same goal include the expansion of their military space capabilities and the creation of “prompt-strike non-nuclear high-precision weapons.”

For our part, we intend to act in accordance with the task set by the President of Russia to ensure a conflict-free coexistence by maintaining the balance of power and strategic stability.

In our dialogue with Washington on this track, we promote the concept of a comprehensive review of factors affecting strategic stability, embracing all weapons capable of solving strategic problems – nuclear and conventional, offensive and defensive. At the same time, when we discuss strategic defensive systems, we primarily mean due consideration of the missile defence factor.

We do not yet know what positions the Biden administration will take on various aspects of arms control, including the missile defence agenda. At the same time, we are receiving signals from Washington about their intention to discuss strategic stability with us. I hope Washington will adhere to a balanced agenda.

We are ready for a substantive and constructive dialogue. However, we will not agree on anything unless our interests and concerns are taken into account, including in the missile defence sphere. If we succeed in jointly finding a balance of interests, we will then start discussing agreements. Our colleagues in Washington should understand and take this into account.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4719864






Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s interview with the RT television channel, May 3, 2021



3 May 2021 - 14:30



Question:

What impact have the sanctions had on the state of relations between Russia and the West?



Maria Zakharova:

Unfortunately, the growing use of politically motivated, unilateral restrictive measures by a number of Western countries, primarily the United States, has become a reality of our time. We increasingly view the sanctions against Russia as a “gesture of despair” and a manifestation of the local elites’ inability to accept the new reality, abandon the stereotypes of their bloc-based thinking, and recognise Russia's right to independently determine its path of development and build relationships with its partners. Apparently, they find it difficult to handle the obvious successes of the Russian economy, which is growing more competitive, internationally, and the greater presence of high-quality Russian goods and services in world markets.

The vicious practice of imposing unilateral political and economic restrictions, especially the extraterritorial application of such measures, is an infringement on the sovereignty of states and interference in their internal affairs aimed at keeping, at any cost, their dominant position in the global economy and international politics, which they are gradually losing. Diplomacy is being replaced by sanctions; sanctions help mask trade protectionism and attempts to divert attention from internal problems as well.

Indicatively enough, the West has ignored the calls of the UN Secretary-General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to suspend unilateral, illegitimate sanctions on the supply of medicines, food and equipment necessary to fight the coronavirus during the pandemic. We also have not seen any interest from our partners in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s initiative proposed during the G20 summit to create green corridors in international trade, free from sanctions or other artificial barriers.

The restrictions introduced against our country undoubtedly have had a negative impact on our relations with the collective West. They are undermining mutual trust, and darkening the prospects for normalising relations. Although we do not at all support pushing the sanctions spiral upward, we nevertheless accept the challenge and respond promptly and in a targeted manner. Given the obvious fact that anti-Russia sanctions are a double-edged weapon that inflicts no less damage on the one wielding it, we do hope that common sense will prevail, and our partners will return to building ties with us, relying on the principles of justice and equality and relinquishing the “right of the strongest” and the invasion of sovereign affairs of other states. We have repeatedly made it clear that we did not start this sanctions war, but we are ready, at any point, to do our part in order to end this pointless confrontation, in which there will not be and cannot be any winners.



Question:

How strong is the impact of the Western actions on the Russian economy?



Maria Zakharova:

The escalation of reciprocal sanctions pressure is having an all-around negative influence both on the Russian and Western economies. Assessments of the reciprocal damage vary due to their objective nature but are still running into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Under the circumstances, we continue responding to restrictions in a balanced, appropriate manner, being guided by the interests of national economic development and domestic economic operators. In these actions, we proceed from the principle of “doing no harm to ourselves.” In part, we retain our special reciprocal economic measures, that is, restrictions on the import of certain products from the countries that have introduced anti-Russia sanctions. We are consolidating our national financial system and searching for new international partners, including regional ones. We are also taking other measures aimed to diversify our foreign economic ties. We are working on economic and legal mechanisms to reduce the negative impact of restrictions on the development of bilateral trade and investment cooperation. We have drafted legislation providing for measures to counter new potential unilateral steps by the United States and other countries. We have largely managed to adapt to the external challenges and turn the situation in our favour, as well as launch programmes for import substitution and the development of advanced, competitive domestic industries.



Question:

What steps is Russia taking to reduce its dependence on Western financial systems?



Maria Zakharova:

The discussion on the need to reduce dependence on the dollar as the world’s leading currency has been going on for at least a decade. The previous upheavals in the US financial market and the subsequent global financial and economic crisis exacerbated the vulnerability of the global economy to the dollar domination and called into doubt the sustainability of the world currency system based on the supremacy of one national monetary unit. Washington’s current sanctions “voluntarism” is making even more dubious the reliability of dollar transactions. In these conditions, the task of consolidating the independence and sustainability of the financial system to external threats is increasingly becoming a priority for any state.



Question:

Is Russia always destined to be dependent on the US dollar?



Maria Zakharova:

In order to reduce excessive dependence on foreign means of payment, states and financial market participants have to adapt to new realities, including by finding and developing alternative settlement mechanisms. From this perspective, the gradual departure from the US-centric configuration of the world monetary system is an objective response to a combination of factors. Consistent steps in this direction in coordination with our trading partners would help strengthen the national currencies, as well as minimise the potential economic damage from new restrictive measures Western countries might introduce. This work will undoubtedly require significant effort to reformat the established models of cooperation, to create mechanisms for the support and functioning of new systems of mutual settlements and pricing in the market. Russia has recently signed agreements to expand the use of national currencies in mutual settlements with China and Turkey. There are similar agreements within BRICS. Positive trends are observed in the EAEU, with a growing share of national currencies in mutual payments, as well as in trade and economic cooperation between Russia and the countries of the Asia-Pacific region and Latin America.

Russia’s possible disconnection from SWIFT is so far considered a hypothetical scenario. Nevertheless, interdepartmental work is underway to minimise the risks and economic damage to our country from restricted access to the usual international financial instruments and payment mechanisms. The Central Bank’s Financial Messaging System is one example of alternative instruments. Options are also being discussed for adding interface with its foreign counterparts, such as the European SEPA, the Iranian SEPAM and the Chinese CUP and CIPS.

Cooperation is growing between the Russian MIR payment system and its foreign counterparts, in particular, the Chinese UnionPay, the Japanese JCB and the international Maestro card. Such co-branded cards are accepted both in Russia and abroad. In particular, various operations with them are already possible in Armenia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkey. At the same time, it is a long and laborious process. And it is too early to talk about any specific dates for putting together a comprehensive national toolkit for payment transactions or for its promotion to international markets.

At the same time, Russia is vigorously exploring the opportunities provided by modern digital technologies and the potential of their use to increase the sustainability, stability and independence of the national financial system and means of payment, with a clear understanding that digital money can become the foundation of an updated international financial system and cross-border transactions in the future.



Question:

Can Russia ever truly insulate its economy from a hostile foreign policy?



Maria Zakharova:

Only a small group of countries – to their own detriment – are pursuing a hostile policy towards Russia. In response, Russia will continue to use external challenges as additional incentives to increase the stability of its economy, mobilise the creativity of national business, modernise production, and diversify economic ties.

We will not shut out the outside world, which is something the initiators of the sanctions are persistently pushing us to do. On the contrary, we are always open for dialogue on all problems or concerns, and are ready for equal and mutually beneficial cooperation with all countries, but only on the basis of the principles of equality and mutual consideration of interests. This is how we actually see stable international relations.

For our part, we strongly support a broad international discussion of ways to counteract the illegitimate unilateral measures. We are confident that a systematic dialogue should help reduce the business community’s concerns regarding the uncertainty and instability in global affairs, which are provoked by the West’s one-sided and inconsistent policy. Even today, we can see that the initiators of the sanctions are starting to realise, albeit slowly, that any unilateral steps cause unacceptable damage to those taking them, and are pointless and counterproductive.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4719893

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions during a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the State of Palestine Riyad al-Maliki, Moscow, May 5, 2021



5 May 2021 - 15:52

Sergey Lavrov (E)

Sergey Lavrov (E)

Ladies and gentlemen,

My Palestinian counterpart, Riyad al-Maliki, and I had detailed and useful talks on bilateral, regional and international affairs. We have friendly relations with a positive history. We appreciate everything that has passed between Russia and the Palestinians.

Understandably, we focused on countering the coronavirus. At the end of last year, a group of Russian doctors worked effectively in Palestine. Back then, we sent supplies of test kits and other equipment helpful in combatting COVID-19. At the start of this year, we sent another humanitarian shipment of the Sputnik V vaccine. Moreover, now the Russian Ministry of Emergencies and the WHO are discussing a new project that will also be helpful in countering coronavirus but takes a broader approach to cooperation in order to improve the public health situation. It involves sending 10 treatment and 10 surgical modules to assist the Palestinians in treating infectious diseases, among other things.

We continue to provide assistance in other humanitarian areas as well. Since 2014, we have traditionally sent grain and flour from Russia to our Palestinian friends via the World Food Programme. Over seven years, such deliveries have added up to $20 million, including five million over the past two years.

We have agreed to continue training Palestinian personnel at the expense of the federal budget via the Russian Ministry of Science and Higher Education. We also assist in training Palestinian law enforcement officers.

Our figures are quite modest in the economy. We share the opinion that it is necessary to step up the activities of the Intergovernmental Russian-Palestinian Trade and Economic Cooperation Commission as soon as the public health situation improves. We have agreed to search for ways to implement mutually beneficial joint projects in all areas of mutual interest.

We have also discussed assistance to the Palestinian Foreign Ministry in training diplomats and special courses on various aspects of diplomatic activities. Such assistance will surely be provided soon.

We have had an in-depth discussion of developments in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. We have serious concerns about the escalation in East Jerusalem and around the Gaza Strip. Several days ago, we gave a detailed statement with our assessment of the developments there. We believe that prompt de-escalation is necessary, which would meet the interests of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. We believe that the normalisation of relations between several Arab countries and Israel that we have seen over the last 12-18 months should not sideline the Palestinian problem and distract attention and lower the responsibility of the international community for implementing the corresponding UN decisions. Both Russia and Palestine are firmly committed to them. They constitute the generally recognised international legal basis for the peace process.

We have stressed our readiness to provide comprehensive assistance in establishing a direct dialogue between the Palestinians and Israelis to resolve all fundamental issues around the final status. We will do this both bilaterally, using our ties with the parties and other countries in the region, and as a member of the Middle East Quartet of international mediators, which, as we and our Palestinian friends believe, remains the most effective multilateral mechanism for supporting the Middle East settlement process approved by UN Security Council resolution. Together with the other Quartet members, we are now examining the possibility of arranging a meeting of the Quartet’s foreign ministers in order to encourage the platform’s activities. We continue to promote Russia’s view that it is necessary to establish more stable and concrete contacts between the Quartet members and representatives of the Arab League.

I believe that our talks were quite useful. I would like to thank the Minister and his team for the good conversation. I reaffirm our commitment to implement the agreements reached at the highest level, between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas. We have discussed this today. We have an understanding of how to proceed in these areas.







Question:

The Palestinian people have lived under oppression and occupation for over 70 years. How do you think the settlement process of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can be accelerated and the relevant UN decisions implemented? How can Russia help?



Sergey Lavrov:

Over the last decades – in fact, since the very moment the corresponding UN General Assembly resolutions on establishing two new states, a Jewish and an Arab one, on the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine – we have spoken in favour of respecting and implementing these decisions. I will not go into detail about the history of the changes in the two states’ original borders. Today we are speaking about a somewhat different configuration. The current circumstances require that the decisions made by the UN Security Council after the Madrid Conference as well as the Oslo Accords (Oslo I and Oslo II) be put into effect. They mean acknowledging the reality: these are two states, which means that a Palestinian state must be created. All issues around the final status, including Jerusalem, refugees and water resources, must be exclusively addressed in direct talks.

Since the very beginning, Russia has played an active role in developing and adopting these decisions. Russia is among the countries insisting on their implementation. Direct dialogue and the resumption of talks are necessary in order to do this. This task has been central to our position for over 20 years, almost since the adoption of the UN decisions I have mentioned.

Among other initiatives to achieve the goal of resuming direct talks and ensuring that they yield results, we have proposed holding an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow. This initiative was also approved by the UN Security Council. It was a long time ago, but this decision is still in force. After the Administration of US President Joe Biden came to power, the United States returned once again (at least, this was announced) to recognising the two-state framework. As such, it was possible to resume the work of the Middle East Quartet of international mediators, although at the level of experts and special representatives as yet. However, such contacts did already begin. We consider it fundamentally important, given the number and complexity of the problems that have piled up recently, to hold a Quartet meeting at the ministerial level in order to reboot efforts to implement decisions on a two-state settlement.

Russia has also supported the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative approved by the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. It envisages normalising relations between all Arab countries and Israel after the creation of a Palestinian state.

In this context, today we have discussed the normalisation of Israel’s relations with several members of the Arab League and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC). These processes were accompanied by statements to the effect that this does not mean shifting the Palestinian problem to the background and revising the two-state solution.

Together with our partners in the Quartet and the parties, Russia dedicates all its efforts to strengthening these approaches. We support President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas’s initiative to hold an international conference. Back at the time, this initiative was put forward by Russia and essentially approved by the UN Security Council. It requires thorough preparations. I believe they can be handled by the Quartet in cooperation with the Arab League.

Let us hope that nobody will use pretexts to drag out this work. The situation on the ground requires prompt and responsible solutions.



Question:

Palestinian leaders still refuse to accept the US as the sole mediator in the settlement process. On the contrary, they supported Russia’s proposal that this role should be played by the Middle East Quartet. You have started to talk about Russia’s proposal; what is its fate? What obstacles are there to its implementation? Which countries support the holding of a peace conference, and which ones are blocking it? Why are conditions not right to create and convene one?



Sergey Lavrov:

Everything I said in response to the previous question reflects our commitment to achieve concrete results, to resume direct talks. The Palestinians have always spoken in favour of the Quartet playing the crucial role in mediation. There are no changes in this position. We have always supported it. Such members of the Quartet as the EU and the UN share this opinion.

We are satisfied to see that the Quartet has resumed its work at the level of special representatives. There is interest in a meeting between ministers. Such a meeting requires thorough preparation.

It is an old proposal of ours, to hold a conference. However, now this is President Abbas’s initiative, which we support. A special process within the Quartet must be dedicated to it. We are working on this.

I will not speak about which countries support this or not. The proposal has been made and discussions are underway, and those in doubt need to be persuaded. I hope that this will not take long. Anything can happen in Palestinian-Israeli affairs. But we will try to avoid pauses, having learned lessons from past experience.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4720797






Excerpt from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Kazakhstan’s Khabar news agency, Moscow, May 6, 2021



6 May 2021 - 07:00

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Question:

I think you will agree that Kazakhstan is today one of Russia’s most friendly and strategic partners. Still, Russian politicians make provocative statements at times. What is the purpose of this? Can you comment on it?



Sergey Lavrov:

Politicians choose different ways to advance their careers. Some go for the sensational, others believe that asking hard, even controversial questions will draw attention to them and keep them in the public eye. It is, as we say in Russia, important for them to make the headlines, whether good or bad. Maybe the politicians you mentioned are of this ilk. But no policy maker with a bearing on Russia’s relations with Kazakhstan has ever made or will ever make statements that cast into doubt any of our agreements that promote friendly bilateral relations. These agreements are rooted in our unconditional respect for each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. We are developing our friendly relationship based on the agreements that have been reached, signed by heads of state, approved by parliaments, and passed into law to become part of international law. I believe that controversial and provocative statements by certain politicians and lawmakers are an inevitable part of life in a democracy. It is imperative however that such statements that do nothing to strengthen healthy bilateral relations remain within the confines of debating clubs. I can assure you that statements that undermine the existing international legal framework of our bilateral relations will never be steeped in real policy.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4720993






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with Acting Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia Ara Ayvazyan, Yerevan, May 6, 2021



6 May 2021 - 12:37

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Mr Ayvazyan, Friends,

First of all, I would like to say that we are happy to be in Yerevan again. We appreciate traditional Armenian hospitality and the excellent organisation of our meetings.

Today’s talks are a continuation of the intensive political dialogue between Moscow and Yerevan. This year President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan met for two rounds of full talks in Moscow in January and in April. A few days ago, on April 29, in Kazan, the heads of government of our two countries discussed a number of bilateral cooperation issues on the sidelines of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council meeting. The co-chairs of the Russia-Armenia Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk and Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Mher Grigoryan, maintain close interaction.

With regard to our foreign ministries, we have regular trust-based consultations on interaction issues within the CIS, CSTO and the EAEU. Talks have been scheduled on European and Euro-Atlantic topics as well as our countries’ relations with the countries of Latin America, the Caribbean, and the issues of the Middle East and North Africa.

We have been cooperating closely since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Russia is assisting Armenia in stopping the spread of the coronavirus infection. A Sputnik V vaccine shipment has been delivered at no cost. Last month another shipment of 15,000 doses of this vaccine arrived. More shipments are planned, and our Armenian friends’ request regarding the supply of one million doses is under consideration.

Russia remains Armenia’s major trade partner. Last year trade exceeded $2.3 billion, Russian investments total about $2.1 billion, which is 40 percent of the total foreign investment in the Armenian economy.

Humanitarian cooperation is traditionally an important area of bilateral cooperation. At present, over 5,000 Armenian nationals study in Russia, with about 2,000 of them on Russian state grants. In addition, around 5,000 students study in Yerevan – at Russian-Armenian University and six branches of Russian universities. Regarding humanitarian cooperation, let me note that the regular, seventh Russian-Armenian Youth Forum is scheduled for June 8-11 in Moscow.

The coming year marks the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations and the 25th anniversary of the basic bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. I hope that today we will discuss steps to properly celebrate these two anniversaries.

We welcome the idea to install a monument in Yerevan to Russian and Armenian peoples’ friendship. Two weeks ago, a memorial to Soviet architect Karo Alabyan was unveiled in Moscow as a token of our peoples’ closely intertwined destinies.





We have been witnessing progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. The situation on the ground has significantly improved. The Russian peacekeeping contingent serves as a guarantor of security. It is deployed along the line of contact and along the Lachin Corridor. Insignificant incidents, which are an invariable part of any operation, are promptly and effectively settled by our service personnel. They continue to make progress in the POW swap. Almost 53,000 refugees went back to their homes in Nagorno-Karabakh. Inter-agency humanitarian response centre staff render medical assistance to the population, and help to restore buildings and destroyed infrastructure.

The objectives set by the leaders of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan to lift the blockade from transport and economic ties in the region, are being successfully pursued. The trilateral task force at the deputy prime minister level has been operating effectively and as scheduled. We are interested in continuing this work to contribute to establishing a dialogue between Baku and Yerevan and providing for the sustainable economic development of the South Caucasus.

At your request (you mentioned this in your opening remarks) the Government of the Russian Federation is considering the issues of delivering, transporting and assembling prefabricated houses for the refugees.

We are closely interacting within Eurasian integration mechanisms. This is being assisted by the implementation of the conceptual documents that have been adopted within the CIS and EAEU – the CIS 2030 Economic Development Strategy and the Strategy for Developing Eurasian Economic Integration until 2025.

In November, Armenia will assume the presidency at the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). We shall give you any support for your plans to enhance our military-political and military-technical cooperation.

I would like to emphasise our satisfaction with the traditionally close interaction with our Armenian allies in international and regional venues. I believe that continuing our foreign policy coordination is an important challenge under today’s escalating international processes.

Thank you again for this meeting and for your hospitality. I am sure that our talks will be useful.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4721264






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Acting Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia Ara Ayvazyan, Yerevan, May 6, 2021



6 May 2021 - 15:51

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 26:00

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 26:00

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to once again express gratitude to Mr Ara Ayvazyan and all our Armenian friends for their hospitality and for the warm welcome accorded to our delegation. During our talks today, as well as during a detailed conversation we had with Acting Prime Minister of Armenia Nikola Pashinyan, we discussed a broad range of issues of mutual interest.

We are time-tested allies and strategic partners. I would like to use this occasion to congratulate the people of Armenia, all our friends in this country on our upcoming Day of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. This is a sacred date and a shared heritage of our nations, of all nations of the Soviet Union. Together, we hold dear and sacred the memory of the Red Army, which saved the world from the Nazi plague.

We pointed out that the political dialogue is developing actively between Russia and Armenia at the highest and high levels. This year alone, our leaders have held two full in-person meetings and eight telephone conversations. Our prime ministers have met twice as well. We maintain active interaction between the relevant ministries and agencies.

We are also strengthening ties between our parliaments. On April 24, a delegation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation attended the events held to commemorate the 106th anniversary of Armenian Genocide. On May 16-18, President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia Ararat Mirzoyan plans to visit Moscow.

In the next few months, we in Russia expect to host a number of Armenian delegations, which represent the widely diverse aspects of our governments’ activities.

There are landmark events on our calendar. Next year, we will mark 30 years of diplomatic relations and the 25th anniversary of the basic bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. We have agreed to coordinate a programme for these jubilee events, which should highlight the strategic and allied nature of our relations. I hope that they will be well received by the citizens of our countries.

We highly appreciate the quality of interaction within the framework of integration associations such as the EAEU, the CIS and the CSTO. We discussed the entire range of trade and economic matters. Russia remains the leading business partner and investor for Armenia, even though our trade declined slightly last year. We hope to restore our economic growth trends within the framework of the meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation, which is scheduled to take place this year.

We noted the importance of our military and military-technical cooperation. Security in the South Caucasus is protected by the 102nd Russian Military Base, the Russian-Armenian Joint Group of Forces, and the FSB Border Guard Directorate in Armenia.

Today we have signed an intergovernmental memorandum on biological security. Implementation will make a vital contribution to the further development of cooperation in this sensitive and increasingly important sphere and will help strengthen our common biosafety space. We will also promote this important subject in multilateral platforms, such as the CSTO and the CIS.

We discussed our common efforts against the coronavirus. Russia has sent tens of thousands of Sputnik V doses to Armenia. We are currently discussing the acquisition of another million doses and vaccine production in Armenia.

Our collaboration in education is moving forward. About 5,000 Armenian citizens are studying in Russia, including over 2,000 on federal grants. Approximately as many young people, that is, about 5,000, are studying at six branches of Russian universities in Yerevan and at the Russian-Armenian University. We have great expectations for the 7th Russian-Armenian Youth Forum, which is scheduled to take place in Moscow in early June.

We discussed and confirmed that we have similar views on a number of international and regional issues. We have agreed to closely coordinate our activities at international associations, including the UN, the OSCE, the OPCW, the Council of Europe, the BSEC and several other formats. We will support each other’s initiatives and candidates in international organisations.

We had an in-depth discussion on Nagorno-Karabakh, pointing out the progress and stabilisation achieved there. We will not relax our efforts to ensure the return of all the detainees to their homes, clear mines, protect cultural and religious heritage sites and launch the operation of the relevant international organisations in Nagorno-Karabakh. The Trilateral Working Group on resuming economic ties and transport links, co-chaired by the Russian, Azerbaijani and Armenian deputy prime ministers, is greatly contributing to normalisation in the region. The success of this job will be decisive for creating the conditions needed to normalise the overall situation and launch creative cooperation in the post-conflict period. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group should continue working as well, primarily to promote an atmosphere of trust.

The outcome of our talks has once again demonstrated that Russia and Armenia are firmly resolved to strengthen their allied and strategic partnership. We regard these relations as a major factor of peace and stability in the South Caucasus and as a guarantee of our countries’ successful socio-economic development.

I have invited my Armenian colleague to visit Russia again to continue our close contact on foreign policy and other topics.







Question:

You mentioned the 30th anniversary of our diplomatic relations and the 25th anniversary of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. Do you plan to dramatically boost our cooperation this year? Are you working on new roadmaps?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our partnership is so broad that it would be physically impossible to boost it dramatically. We will plan and hold special talks and several major, landmark events dedicated to the anniversaries of our diplomatic relations and the basic treaty. We are working on a programme for next year. We have agreed that our staff will prepare the relevant initiatives. I can assure you that the citizens of our countries will welcome these events.



Question:

During a meeting of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council in Kazan on April 29, Acting Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan and Prime Minister of Russia Mikhail Mishustin noted a 10 percent decrease in bilateral trade because of the pandemic and the need to discuss proposals for increasing it. Have you discussed this issue?



Sergey Lavrov:

Although our bilateral trade fell by 9.6 percent, it nevertheless amounted to $2.3 billion. This is a substantial sum. There is no doubt that it will be increasing rapidly as we emerge from the pandemic.

The Intergovernmental Commission is responsible for the practical aspects of resuming growth in our trade. Its co-chairs, Deputy Prime Minister of Russia Alexey Overchuk and Deputy Prime Minister of Armenia Mher Grigoryan maintain close contact and are in agreement on ways to promote additional spheres of cooperation.

The efforts undertaken by the Trilateral Working Group, co-chaired by the Russian, Azerbaijani and Armenian deputy prime ministers, are creating new possibilities for unblocking economic ties and transport links in the region. These agreements, when they are reached, will allow us to greatly build up Russian-Armenian cooperation and Armenia’s interaction with its neighbours in the region.



Question:

On April 13 and May 5, the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group issued statements in which they mentioned, inter alia, the importance of a final comprehensive and sustainable settlement in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Can we presume in this context that the co-chairs have reached an agreement on the resumption of the peace process? What is Moscow’s view of the co-chairs’ interaction on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement?



Sergey Lavrov:

The peace process, which was launched on November 9, 2020 by the signing of an agreement on ending the war, launching a peacekeeping operation and unblocking economic ties and transport links, has been ongoing for six months now. Therefore, describing the situation as “the resumption of the peace process” would be distorting reality.

The Trilateral Group is working on practical solutions to the problems that are directly connected with the peace process: when the people eliminate the blockade, embargo and obstacles to equal and mutually beneficial cooperation within the framework of international organisations, they will be able to enjoy the direct benefits of the advantages of this geopolitically and geo-economically important strategic region.

We played the decisive role in the drawn-out talks between the three leaders on ending the hostilities and using the peacekeeping contingent as a ceasefire verification mechanism, and we are probably more interested than others in implementing the agreements reached by the presidents of Russia and Azerbaijan and the prime minister of Armenia. I have no doubt that when they called for a final comprehensive and sustainable settlement, the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group had in mind the actions that must be taken to attain this goal.

There is no doubt that when the people see the benefits of a peaceful life and the lifting of the restrictions, sanctions and the blockade, they will take a different look at the subjects which our colleagues are highlighting and making such a big fuss about. There is no need to politicise the matter. The process is proceeding with difficulties as it is, because we are dealing with issues that concern the routes interconnecting the region, the connectivity of regional relations, the contact line, and the delimitation and demarcation of the border. These are clear and practical matters which must be dealt with so the region can breathe freely and resume a peaceful life. Those who attempt to postpone these matters and to prioritise political matters instead are turning the process upside down. It will be easier to settle the political problems when Azerbaijanis and Armenians live peacefully side by side with each other “on the ground” again, as they did for centuries.



Question:

The European Commission has stated that the EU reserves the right to take appropriate measures in response to the Russian sanctions, which Russia has imposed in response to the unfriendly EU actions towards Russia. How would you describe current Russian-EU relations? Which of the sides has the ability and power to direct these relations towards a more constructive path?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already commented on this subject. As for Russian-EU relations, the architecture, which used to be extremely well developed, has been destroyed by Brussels, which actually stimulated the anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine.

After that, when the Russian-speaking people in Ukraine, including Crimea, rose up against these atrocities and people in Crimea voted for independence in light of a direct military threat from the neo-Nazis, we were accused of violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The exchange of these measures began when the EU, seeking to camouflage its helplessness before the ultra-radicals who had seized power in Kiev contrary to the EU-approved agreements, tried to shift the blame. This exchange of sanctions, which has been initiated by EU members and other Western countries, including the United States, is ongoing.

We will not leave unanswered such attacks on Russia, its leadership or members of our parliament, as well as our companies, which, according to the EU, are guilty only because they have been registered in a country which the EU decided to denounce as an aggressor, without any reliable substance and absolutely illegitimately. This manner of using unilateral restrictions in contravention of the UN Security Council is becoming a trend. The United States introduced it, and the EU has taken it up quite eagerly, in my opinion.

As for the latest developments, we clearly announced that we had declared persona non grata those officials of the EU and EU members who played a crucial role in the latest round of sanctions against our officials and members of our parliament. The EU statement to the effect that our decision is illegal and contradicts international law means only one thing: the EU believes that it can get away with anything. When the EU threatens us with more sanctions, I wonder if its feeling of omnipotence and infallibility is being complemented by yet another belief: that it can act with impunity. This is a dead-end street. I know that a number of EU members think so as well, but the aggressive anti-Russia lobby in the EU is doing its job very well. Reasonable forces in the EU are unable to do anything about it and just go along with it. This is regrettable. But it is not our choice. I would like to say once again that a look at the facts of the events that took place after March 2014 will show who began the sanctions and why we have no choice but to respond to these acts of hostility.



Question:

One of the main issues on the agenda of your visit is the unblocking of economic ties. But President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev said on the subject of transport links that they are establishing the Zangezur Corridor, and if Armenia objects to it, the matter will be decided by force. This is basically a threat against the territorial integrity of Armenia. Can you comment on this? Does this idea fit in with the trilateral statements?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our talks were devoted to more than trilateral cooperation and to unblocking economic ties. This was only one of the subjects we discussed. Today we talked about all aspects of the post-conflict settlement, including military, military-political, humanitarian and many other matters.

As for trilateral cooperation at the deputy prime minister level, this mechanism was created by decision of the presidents of Russia and Azerbaijan and the prime minister of Armenia following their meeting in Moscow on January 11, 2021. It includes reaching agreements that can only be exclusively voluntary and mutually beneficial, and does not stipulate anything other than diplomatic accord and arrangements that will unblock economic ties. Any other initiatives that contradict these agreements of the three leaders cannot be regarded as an alternative to the agreements reached.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4721620






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with Acting Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Nikol Pashiyan, Yerevan, May 6, 2021



6 May 2021 - 15:58

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Thank you, Mr Pashinyan,

We have been feeling the warmth of the Armenian people and our friends since the moment we arrived in Yerevan. Thank you for your personal attention to our delegation.

Today, in our continuing contact, we have had detailed, substantive and trust-based talks on the entire range of bilateral relations, regional issues, and cooperation in international organisations. Once again we reaffirmed the special significance of our allied ties and strategic partnership in all areas of our interaction.

Your political dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin has been very intensive even during the pandemic year. You had detailed conversations during your two meetings in Moscow and spoke on the telephone a number of times. President Putin conveys his warmest wishes for success in your efforts to develop your country and implement the agreements on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement.

Next year we will celebrate 30 years of diplomatic relations and 25 years of the basic, groundbreaking Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. This is a key document which determined our relations for many years and is being consistently implemented in all areas – the economy, political ties, military and military-technical cooperation.

We are committed to ensuring the security of our ally, the Republic of Armenia. This was covered both by you during your meetings with President of Russia Vladimir Putin and through interaction between our defence ministries. There can be no doubt about this.





We appreciate reaching the agreements on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. We are grateful to you for noting the role of Russia and personally President Putin in the efforts that made it possible to stop the hostilities and agree on a stable framework for further moves by all parties. We are supporting the activities of the Trilateral Working Group at the level of the deputy prime ministers of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan who are dealing with the important practical, maybe even the most important at this point, issues of unblocking the economic and transport links that will make it possible in practice (and not only at the political level, which has already been done) to lift the blockade of Armenia and ensure the mutually beneficial cooperation of the region’s countries to the benefit of all.

Obviously, our peacekeeping contingent will keep up its efforts in Nagorno-Karabakh.

The Trilateral agreement provides for the peacekeeping mandate for the security of the people in Nagorno-Karabakh and the operation of the Lachin Corridor. Our peacekeepers will do their best to resolve the remaining issues related to the exact demarcation of the contact line and ensure mutually advantageous agreements on crossing it. It will be possible to delimit and demarcate the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan as soon as these steps have been taken.

Together with the other co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, we continue to advocate the resolution of humanitarian questions including finalising the process of returning the detainees. We understand the symbolic and emotional significance of this step. We believe that we will able to resolve this issue shortly. It will create a positive and constructive atmosphere for promoting the other issues of a final settlement. We will do our best to assist in solving these issues in all formats through the realisation of the Trilateral Statements of November 10, 2020 and January 11, 2021. We will in every possible way encourage the engagement of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs in creating a most positive environment for resolving the remaining issues.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to meet with you. I know that the results of today’s meetings, both at the Foreign Affairs Ministry and with you personally, will allow us to move our allied relations forward in all areas.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4721639

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the meeting of the UN Security Council, “Maintenance of international peace and security: Upholding multilateralism and the United Nations-centred international system,” held via videoconference, Moscow, May 7, 2021



7 May 2021 - 17:31

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

First of all, let me thank Mr Wang Yi, State Councillor and Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China, for organising today’s debates. Maintaining multilateralism and the UN-centred international system is as topical as ever and demands the UN Security Council’s constant attention.

Today the world finds itself in a critical stage of development. The coronavirus pandemic has posed a grave challenge to everyone without exception. Normal life has been completely upended. It is difficult to predict the long-term or deferred consequences of the crisis, although we can see some positive trends thanks to the massive deployment of coronavirus vaccines.

The pandemic broke out in a world that was already far from perfect. In recent years, we have seen growing international tensions, as well as escalating regional conflicts and cross-border challenges and threats. The entire architecture of global governance created after the Second World War is being tested.

It is clear that the prospects of the international community’s sustainable and predictable development are directly connected with our ability to find effective solutions to common problems and our readiness to exercise collective leadership in order for true multilateralism to prevail.

Russia, like the majority of countries, is convinced that such work must be carried out solely on the basis of universally recognised norms of international law. The United Nations must serve as the key platform for coordinating efforts: it is the backbone of the modern global order, where all independent states are represented. Today, its unique legitimacy and unique capabilities are especially needed.

The core tenets of international law enshrined in the UN Charter have withstood the test of time. Russia calls on all states to unconditionally follow the purposes and principles of the Charter as they chart their foreign policies, respecting the sovereign equality of states, not interfering in their internal affairs, settling disputes by political and diplomatic means, and renouncing the threat or use of force. This is especially important at the current stage in the difficult process of forming an international multipolar system. At a time when new centres of economic growth, financial and political influence are gaining strength, it is necessary to preserve the internationally recognised legal basis for building a stable balance of interests that meets the new realities.

Unfortunately, not all of our partners are driven by the imperative to work in good faith to promote comprehensive multilateral cooperation. Realising that it is impossible to impose their unilateral or bloc priorities on other states within the framework of the UN, the leading Western countries have tried to reverse the process of forming a polycentric world and slow down the course of history.

Toward this end, the concept of the rules-based order is advanced as a substitute for international law. It should be noted that international law already is a body of rules, but rules agreed at universal platforms and reflecting consensus or broad agreement. The West’s goal is to oppose the collective efforts of all members of the world community with other rules developed in closed, non-inclusive formats, and then imposed on everyone else. We only see harm in such actions that bypass the UN and seek to usurp the only decision-making process that can claim global relevance.

The well-known idea to convene a Summit for Democracy proposed by the US Administration is in the same vein. The establishment of a new club based on interests, with a clearly ideological nature, has the potential to further inflame international tensions and deepen dividing lines in a world that needs a unifying agenda more than ever. Of course, the list of democracies to be invited to the summit will be determined by the United States.

Another initiative with the goal of global leadership that bypasses the UN is the French and German idea to create an Alliance for Multilateralism. What could be more natural then discussing the tasks of strengthening multilateralism at the UN? However, Berlin and Paris think differently and issue joint documents declaring that “the European Union is the cornerstone of the multilateral international system” and promote the conclusions of the Council of the European Union under the title “The central role of the European Union and European institutions in promoting multilateralism.” Presumptuous, you might say. The EU does not think so and declares its own exceptionalism despite all its invocations of equality and brotherhood.

By the way, as soon as we suggest discussing the current state of democracy not just within states but on the international stage with our Western colleagues, they lose interest in the conversation.

New ambitious initiatives to create narrow partnerships are emerging all the time within the Alliance for Multilateralism, on issues that are already being discussed at the UN or its specialised agencies, for example, on cyber security (with 65 member countries), respect for the international humanitarian law (43 member countries), the Information and Democracy Partnership (over 30 countries), etc.

This also reveals the West’s true attitude toward multilateralism and the UN, which they do not regard as a universal format for developing solutions acceptable to everyone, but in the context of their claims to superiority over everyone else, who must accept what is required of them.

Another example of the dictatorial methods introduced by the West is the practice of imposing unilateral sanctions without any international and legal grounds, with the sole purpose of punishing “undesirable regimes” or sidelining competitors. During the pandemic, such restrictions have limited the capacity of a whole range of developing countries to counter the spread of the infection. Despite UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s call to suspend such unilateral sanctions during the pandemic, we mostly see them becoming harsher.

We believe such efforts to impose totalitarianism in global affairs to be unacceptable, yet we see it more and more from our Western colleagues, above all the United States, the European Union and other allies, who reject all principles of democracy and multilateralism on the global stage. As if to say, either it’s our way, or there will be repercussions.

It is striking that Western leaders, while openly undermining international law, do not hesitate to argue that the main task of world politics should be to counter the attempts of Russia and China to “change the rules-based order.” Such statements were made the other day following the G7 ministerial meeting in London. In other words, there has already been a substitution of concepts: the West is no longer concerned with the norms of international law and now requires everyone to follow its rules and observe its order. What’s more, US representatives freely admit that the USA and Great Britain have had the biggest hand in shaping these rules.

I am not saying all of this to ratchet up the confrontational rhetoric or advance an accusatory agenda. I am simply stating facts. But if we all support multilateralism in word, let us honestly search for ways to ensure that there is fairness in deed, without attempts to prove one’s superiority or infringe on another’s rights. I hope that this approach to maintaining multilateralism and the UN-centred system will guide the activities of the UN Secretary-General and his team.

I am convinced that the time has come to do away with medieval and colonial habits and recognise the reality of today’s interconnected and interdependent world. Honest and mutually respectful cooperation based on equal partnership between all states, guided by pragmatism and devoid of any ideology or politicisation, is what is needed now. It is the only way to improve the atmosphere in the world and ensure predictability in the advancement of the human race. That is especially true of such global challenges as the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of WMDs, climate change, new infectious diseases, and protecting human rights, starting with the most important one – the right to life.

I agree with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken who stressed recently that no country can overcome such global threats to the lives of our citizens alone, not even the United States.

The permanent members of the UN Security Council are called on to play a key role in fostering open and direct dialogue about the most pressing problems of our time. According to the UN Charter, they bear special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. President of Russia Vladimir Putin proposed convening a summit with the leaders of the five permanent members. We hope to make this idea a reality once the epidemiological situation in the world stabilises.

In conclusion I would like to emphasise that the UN, as the main multilateral platform, must keep pace with changes on the global stage. The organisation must constantly adapt to ever-changing conditions, while continuing to fully respect the division of labour between the main UN Charter bodies and maintaining the support of all the member states. At every stage of change, our actions must be measured by the improvements made to the United Nations’ real-world effectiveness.

Russia stands ready to continue working constructively with all partners who share these approaches in order to bolster the authority and fully unlock the potential of the UN as the true centre of multilateralism.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4721942






Joint statement of the Envoys of the Middle East Quartet on the situation in East Jerusalem



9 May 2021 - 00:14



The Envoys of the Middle East Quartet from the European Union, Russia, the United States, and the United Nations are closely monitoring the situation in East Jerusalem, including in the Old City and Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood.

The Envoys express deep concern over the daily clashes and violence in East Jerusalem, in particular last night’s confrontations between Palestinians and Israeli security forces at Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount. We are alarmed by the provocative statements made by some political groups, as well as the launching of rockets and the resumption of incendiary balloons from Gaza towards Israel, and attacks on Palestinian farmland in the West Bank.

The Envoys noted with serious concern the possible evictions of Palestinian families from homes they have lived in for generations in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and voice opposition to unilateral actions, which will only escalate the already tense environment.

We call upon Israeli authorities to exercise restraint and to avoid measures that would further escalate the situation during this period of Muslim Holy Days. We call on all sides to uphold and respect the status quo at the holy sites. All leaders have a responsibility to act against extremists and to speak out against all acts of violence and incitement. In this context, the Quartet Envoys reiterated their commitment to a negotiated two state solution.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4723085






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during a meeting with President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev Baku, May 10, 2021



10 May 2021 - 23:48

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Mr President,

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to meet with you again. This has become a good tradition of my visits to Azerbaijan, which are becoming increasingly more regular. For my part, I am always glad to welcome my Azerbaijani colleague and friend.

The developments in the region and the tasks set to us by you and by President of Russia Vladimir Putin concerning bilateral relations call for a more regular interaction at all levels. You maintain regular contact with President Putin; you had yet another telephone conversation with him today.

I would like to emphasise once again the importance of preserving the historical memory. It so happened that I have come to Baku on the 98th birth anniversary of your father, Heydar Aliyev, an outstanding leader of Azerbaijan. Soviet people will never forget him. Regarding the victory over Nazism, Heydar Aliyev made a huge contribution to the development of our common Fatherland, which ultimately helped us defeat the Nazi plague. We will never forget Heydar Aliyev’s contribution to dealing with these problems and, in general, to the creation of the Soviet Union’s industrial foundation.

Regular contacts between our presidents are complemented with ties between our heads of government. We are looking forward to the visit of Prime Minister of Azerbaijan Ali Asadov to Russia later this month. The Intergovernmental Commission, co-chaired by Deputy Prime Minister of Russia Alexey Overchuk and Deputy Prime Minister of Azerbaijan Shahin Mustafayev, continues working. Its co-chairs have quickly found a common language and are energetically coordinating measures to restore the upward trend in our mutual trade, which decreased slightly during the coronavirus pandemic but still amounts to nearly $3 billion, which is an impressive result.

We are committed to developing humanitarian, educational and cultural projects. We appreciate your personal attention to the Russian language in Azerbaijan, the operation of Russian universities’ branches and the joint projects being implemented by our universities, including with the involvement of our alma mater, MGIMO University. This is very important.





I would like to stress our sincere desire to promote more effective cooperation in the fight against the coronavirus infection. On May 2, 2021, the first batch of the Sputnik V vaccine was delivered to Azerbaijan. An even larger batch is due later this month. Our relevant agencies are holding practical discussions on localising the manufacturing of the vaccine in Azerbaijan.

We are fully committed to the implementation of the agreements on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement in accordance with the statement by the three countries’ leaders made on November 9, 2020 and the results of the in-person meeting held in Moscow on January 11, 2021. The Russian peacekeeping contingent is working to implement the tasks which you coordinated during these contacts with the leaders of Russia and Armenia. I would like to thank you for your high assessment of the Russian peacekeepers’ efforts. We will continue to do our best to show everyone that the military aspects of the problem have been settled. We must now address our objectives on the ground, namely, delimitation and demarcation. This is not an easy mission, but it can be accomplished. Our military experts and diplomats can come to an agreement on mutually acceptable solutions.

The Interdepartmental Humanitarian Response Centre continues working. The Russian Emergencies Ministry and its Azerbaijani colleagues are helping settle humanitarian problems, rebuild housing and transport infrastructure. The process is ongoing, and people should eventually feel the real improvements on the ground. The deputy prime ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia regularly meet within the framework of the relevant working group to discuss the practical aspects of the three leaders’ agreement regarding the unblocking of economic ties and transport links in the South Caucasus. This mission involves a highly substantive coordination of various routes. Considering the need to balance the interests of all South Caucasus states and their neighbours, which could result in the establishment of a major transport hub of extra-regional significance, there is no doubt that this would greatly strengthen our common positions in the global economy and the logistics network.

We are sincerely interested in normalising relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia. We believe that our joint efforts to focus on the economic aspects of settling this drawn-out conflict provide a solid ground for this. We would like to help settle the humanitarian consequences of the war as constructively as possible, including prisoners of war and the protection of historical and religious heritage sites. UNESCO, whose mission is to protect the international cultural heritage, is earnestly contributing to these efforts. We are ready to help create conditions for implementing this mission. Other international organisations are ready to help as well. Relevant agreements must also take into account the positions of the concerned parties.

As for the general context of relations, at this stage, just as in any other conflict or post-conflict situation, some aspects of the current developments are influencing internal political processes. I fully agree with you that unfriendly rhetoric is not helpful. We will try to help create conditions conducive to a successful implementation of the agreements reached by our presidents and the prime minister of Armenia. I hope that today and during our talks in the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan tomorrow we will be able to hold a detailed discussion on all aspects of our bilateral relations that can contribute to the most conscientious and scrupulous implementation of your agreements with President Putin. We will exchange views on the post-conflict settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh and around it. We are ready to encourage our companies to join the reconstruction projects and other planned programmes. We will also discuss a broader regional agenda, including issues related to the Caspian Sea based on the decisions that led to the signing of the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea. We have been working together on a multitude of issues at the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the BSEC. I would also like to thank you as the head of state that currently holds the Chairmanship of the Non-Aligned Movement for supporting our application for observer status at this organisation.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4725585






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramov, Baku, May 11, 2021



11 May 2021 - 15:30

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 32:20

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 32:20

Mr Bayramov,

First, I would like to thank you for expressing condolences and sympathy over the tragedy in Kazan. The authorities in Tatarstan have declared tomorrow a day of mourning. We appreciate the solidarity of our Azerbaijani friends.

This is taking place during a visit that was largely devoted to the confirmation of our common commitment to the results of World War II and the Great Patriotic War. We discussed this in detail during talks with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev yesterday and with you today. The leaders talked about this issue during yesterday’s conversation.

We appreciate that people in Azerbaijan, like in Russia, hold the memory of the events of these years and of those who gave up their lives for our freedom, the future of the world and for ridding Europe of Nazism.

We reviewed the entire range of our relations during yesterday’s detailed talks with President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and in today’s talks with Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov. We noted the steady character of our strategic cooperation and the good prospects for further development both as regards our bilateral agenda as well as regional and international issues.

It is difficult to overrate the importance of a regular dialogue at the top level. In the four months of this year, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev have already met and had five telephone conversations during which they compared the results of implementing the current important agreements.

We also maintain regular contact with Mr Bayramov. We held a regular meeting in Moscow just a month ago. Today, we signed a plan for consultations between our foreign ministries in 2021-2022. It is intensive and covers all major international and regional issues.

We hope relations between our countries will return to normal face-to-face interaction. Incidentally, this is how our foreign ministers work, as well as the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation. I am referring to Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Alexey Overchuk and Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Azerbaijan Shahin Mustafayev. Our prime ministers will also meet in person this month. The head of the Azerbaijani Government will visit the Russian capital.

Inter-parliamentary work is an important part of our dialogue, our cooperation. We support contact at this level and between all ministries and departments of our governments.

The plan of action to 2024 is a general document that determines our current tasks. It includes six roadmaps on trade, transport, infrastructure, science-intensive production, innovation, the digital economy, ways to enhance the efficiency of economic processes, and tourism.

Our trade is going well. It dropped a bit during the pandemic but still amounted to $3 billion last year. We have reached an understanding on ways to restore the steady trend in the framework of the intergovernmental commission. We are confident that expanding cooperation on major projects will facilitate these efforts. Speaking about these projects, I would like to mention the production of GAZ trucks in Azerbaijan. This has already been established. The Helicopters of Russia service centre is under construction. The Russian Export Centre has provided $2 billion in financial aid for bilateral projects. I’d also like to note that the assembly of Rostselmash harvesters is about to be launched in Azerbaijan. Our companies are willing to take an active part in the privatisation programme started by the Azerbaijani leaders, and are generally interested in the closest cooperation.

We also continue to develop cooperation in countering the coronavirus infection. The first consignment of the Sputnik V vaccine was delivered this month. The second shipment will also arrive in Azerbaijan before the end of May. We are discussing the possibility of producing our vaccine in the republic.

Humanitarian contacts, cultural and educational exchanges are important factors in relations between the two nations. We have a common language space. We appreciate the attitude towards the Russian language shown by the Azerbaijani leaders.

Last year, some of the events we are now planning had to be cancelled due to the pandemic – the Interregional Forum (to be held in Baku), the Days of Azerbaijani Culture in Russia and the Forum of Youth Initiatives.

We have strong potential for greater cooperation in higher education, expanding the presence of Russia’s leading universities in Azerbaijan. We can feel the support from the republic’s government, and more than that, their direct and enthusiastic interest.

Next year, we will mark the 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations. We agreed to compile a list of events to celebrate this important date with due solemnity. We believe it will be a solid milestone in the development of our relations, and will give them a new quality.

We spoke in detail about the progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. We have a shared opinion that the key to further normalisation in the region is full compliance with the agreements reached by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia on November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021. These agreements provide all the necessary mechanisms to support the cessation of all hostilities and are aimed at unblocking transport and other links. This situation has been hampering the high transit and economic potential of this geopolitically important region for years.

We are grateful to our Azerbaijani friends for their appreciation of the Russian peacekeeping contingent’s efforts. Our service members operate in close contact with their Azerbaijani counterparts. We generally assess their activities very positively. They are really contributing to the restoration of a peaceful life.

The Trilateral Working Group co-chaired by the Deputy Prime Ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia is making an important contribution to the implementation of our agreements. It is dedicatedly working on ways to unblock transport and economic ties. This will make it possible to unite the South Caucasus states and their neighbours into a single transport and logistics network.

The activity of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs remains relevant, primarily in helping resolve humanitarian problems and promoting confidence-building measures between the parties.

We discussed the main regional and international topics. I would especially like to note that our Azerbaijani friends support all the key draft resolutions that Russia is promoting at the UN General Assembly. In turn, we are always attentive to Baku’s initiatives.

We agreed to deepen coordination at all multilateral associations such as the UN, the CIS, the OSCE, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Council of Europe, and the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organisation (BSEC).

As Jeyhun Bayramov mentioned, Russia applied for observer status in the Non-Aligned Movement during Azerbaijan’s chairmanship; the decision is almost ready and will be adopted at the earliest opportunity. We are sincerely grateful to our Azerbaijani friends for this support.

We noted with satisfaction the dynamic development of interaction between the Caspian states on the implementation of the agreements concluded in the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea and the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment in the region.

We reaffirmed our commitment to a consistent, progressive development of relations and giving them a new quality. I believe we made serious progress on this path during yesterday's and today's talks.

We are deeply grateful to our Azerbaijani hosts for their traditional hospitality.







Question:

Last week President of the United States Joe Biden reaffirmed his wish to hold a summit with President of Russia Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, the United States has adopted another set of anti-Russian sanctions. It looks like Washington is sending Moscow conflicting signals. If the meeting takes place, could it become, in your opinion, the start of a complete reset in relations between Russia and the United States? Have you got a good feeling about it?



Sergey Lavrov:

We regarded this proposal favourably. President Vladimir Putin repeatedly underscored that Russia and the United States, as two leading nuclear powers, bear special responsibility for the situation in the world. At a time when Washington has practically destroyed all mechanisms of arms control, one after another (leaving only the new START), a dialogue is necessary.

We told our US colleagues about the need to draw up an agenda. We believe that the issues that I have just mentioned should be given priority. Our suggestion is to consider the problems of strategic stability taking into account all factors and systems without exception, offensive and defensive, which have a direct influence on this strategic stability. Our proposals were conveyed way back in the last year of Donald Trump’s tenure and were reaffirmed when the White House changed hands. We are waiting for the reaction. However, judging by the first signs, the Americans would like to considerably narrow the agenda of discussion on strategic stability and include far from all the factors that dramatically affect the current situation in this area.

We would also like to understand how our US colleagues are going to proceed. We asked this question. We have received no answer on the sequence of steps. First, Washington suggested that the presidents should meet without preparation and determine the main areas of our subsequent work. Later they mentioned that it would be better for experts to meet before the summit. A lot is still unclear. Given the generally favourable attitude to this initiative, we are studying all the related aspects.



Question:

What about the implementation of the items in the November 9, 2020 joint statement, specifically, those on the opening of communications? Are there any obstacles in the way of completing them?



Sergey Lavrov:

We very much value the efforts of the Trilateral Group made up of the deputy prime ministers of the three countries. I won’t jump ahead and speak on their behalf. They are doing a good job. There is every reason to hope that we will soon see the first results of these efforts.



Question:

Is there an understanding on when the sides will be able to move from discussing ways of unblocking communications in the Trilateral Group, and at other levels, to the actual work on the ground, specific projects with estimated costs, deadlines and routes, that have not been completely agreed on yet?



Sergey Lavrov:

I can confirm what Mr Bayramov said. If the sides have not yet decided how to do this and on what routes, it is not very productive to indulge in guesswork on when this will happen. This issue is being resolved as a package with due account for the interests of the parties concerned, not just Armenia and Azerbaijan but also Russia, Turkey and Iran as the neighbouring countries that would also like to see a package reflecting a balance of interests of the states in the region. We believe there is progress, it is very specific and it is going in the right direction.



Question:

What is Russia doing to obtain the maps of minefields as a mediator in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement?



Sergey Lavrov:

We want the humanitarian issues (live mines kill people) to be resolved as soon as possible and without any preconditions. I am referring to the need to return the POWs and bodies of the dead, find out what happened with the missing and settle problems related to the war’s material leftovers including mines.

This issue was discussed in Yerevan on May 5-6, 2021. I believe the Armenian leaders are aware of the need to resolve this problem. The first tentative steps in this area have already been taken. I have also informed the Azerbaijani leaders about them. We hope this process will be expedited quickly and the problem will be fully resolved.



Question:

The world celebrated the anniversary of the Great Victory over Nazism on May 9. What do you think about the attempts to glorify the Nazis in Armenia?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have a very clear and explicit position on manifestations of Nazism and attempts to glorify the Nazis. We resolutely denounce them no matter where they are taking place. In this context, we are seeing special problems in the European Union and NATO, especially the Baltic states, Ukraine and some other countries.

It is Russia that initiates a resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism every year, which is adopted by the UN General Assembly. We hope all those who vote for it – the overwhelming majority – will strictly follow its requirements. Azerbaijan and Armenia are co-authors of this resolution. There is no need for further explanation.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4727246






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Moscow, May 12, 2021



12 May 2021 - 22:50

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 01:06:30

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 01:06:30

Ladies and gentlemen,

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and I had substantive and fulfilling talks centred on the situation in international relations, which is quite challenging. We used the opportunity to discuss our cooperation and the assistance that Russia, under the UN Charter, can additionally provide to the UN to help it fulfil its goals.

We noted that Russia sees some Western countries’ attempts to promote unilateral approaches in circumvention of the established collective mechanisms for developing international law-based solutions as one of today’s key challenges. We consider developing certain “rules” behind the back of the greater part of the international community and then imposing them on others as universal norms unacceptable and dangerous practice.

We are witnessing situational coalitions and partnerships being created outside the UN, which arrogate to themselves the right to speak and act on behalf of everyone else, accompanied by criticism of the UN for its allegedly low efficacy.

We emphasised that, in the opinion of the Russian Federation, the “rules-based order” concept promoted by our Western colleagues is unrelated to either law or universal morality and runs counter to the objective trend for democratising interaction between states and creating a fair, inclusive and polycentric world order. The voice of every country, regardless of its size, military or economic capacity, must be heard within the framework of this democratic world order. The “rules” concept is causing tangible damage to the central coordinating role of the UN in international affairs, leads to an imbalance in the architecture of global governance and directly contradicts the interests of the international community.

We see no less serious risks in other illegitimate actions in circumvention of the UN, primarily, the use of force without the approval by the UN Security Council and unilateral economic sanctions, which usually affect the most vulnerable groups in society and lead nowhere.

As a founding state of the UN and a permanent member of the Security Council, Russia stands strongly with the UN. We operate on the premise that the UN is the pillar of the international legal system that emerged in the wake of World War II. This is the only truly universal interstate mechanism capable of expressing the will of entire humankind, which has unique legitimacy in this regard. We are convinced that the overwhelming majority of the nation states share this point of view.

Russia reaffirms its position in favour of taking practical action to strengthen the UN. Russia’s foreign policy undertakings are, as a rule, UN-centred, which can be seen in President Putin’s initiative to convene a summit of the leaders of the states that are permanent members of the UN Security Council, which, we hope, will take place after the epidemiological situation normalises worldwide.

We share the Secretary-General’s conviction that the international community can deal with modern challenges and threats, regional conflicts, pandemics similar to the COVID-19 infection, terrorism and other transnational crimes and, of course, such phenomena as climate change only through joint efforts. We also have to accomplish socioeconomic development tasks, primarily in developing states. Member states should pool their multilateral efforts on the basis of the UN Charter’s goals and principles. This is our common position.

We discussed specific conflict situations, part of the UN and Security Council agenda, in great detail, including what is going on in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and Yemen. We also reviewed the rather complicated problem of the Cyprus settlement.

Russia fully shares the UN Secretary-General’s striving to resolve crises by political and diplomatic means, including through mediation. We are also content with the aims of the UN Secretary-General to overcome disagreements through an equidistant and unbiased approach towards the conflicting parties and by heeding all opinions of the member states. We intend to support Antonio Guterres’ efforts in every way possible. We are grateful to the UN Secretary-General for his readiness to accept Russia’s contribution to his efforts.

We agreed that it was in our common interests to facilitate the effective and unbiased work of the UN agencies. The UN Secretary-General agrees that it is important that top UN executives, especially its Secretariat, adhere to well-balanced approaches, and that they act solely on the basis of collective decisions made by the member states.

We came to an agreement to continue expanding the number of the Russian Federation’s officials in the UN Secretariat. Specific steps have already been taken in this direction. We are grateful for this.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the UN Secretary-General for his many years of cooperation and to wish him every success in the future.







Question (addressed to Sergey Lavrov):

Russia enjoys good relations with both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. What can Moscow do to de-escalate the tensions? Earlier, you also pushed for combining the efforts of the quartets of international and Arab mediators. How relevant is it at this point?



Sergey Lavrov:

We covered this in depth today. Indeed, problems have piled up in the region, and many of them are intertwined. Addressing one and ignoring the others is not an option.

We welcomed the beginning of a process for normalising relations between the Arab countries and Israel as any other progress in relations between the international community members. But, like other countries that observed this process, we emphasised that the normalisation of relations between the Arab countries and Israel should not take place at the expense or to the detriment of resolving the Palestinian issue in accordance with the two-state principle enshrined in the UN Security Council resolutions.

The developments that broke out several days ago are, unfortunately, still underway. People are dying on both sides. The unilateral actions have begun, which the UN Security Council and the Quartet of international mediators have repeatedly urged the sides to avoid.

Today, we have come to a common understanding that convening a Quartet of international mediators, including Russia, the United States, the UN and the EU, is the most important task at hand. We put our trust in the Secretary-General as the coordinator of the Quartet to work with the parties and to try to set up this meeting as soon as possible and hold it preferably at the ministerial level.

We stand for establishing a dialogue between the Quartet and the Arab countries that normalised their relations and established diplomatic ties with Israel. Plus, the Palestinians and Israelis themselves. We had Saudi Arabia, which pushed forward the Arab Peace Initiative, join this group as another participant of this meeting. At this point, convening the Quartet is the simplest and the most urgent move we should make. It is easier to do this now than to make arrangements for larger configurations. I hope that the Secretary-General’s experience and diplomatic skills will help create proper environment to get this process underway.



Question (addressed to Antonio Guterres):

You have criticised a lot the “vaccine nationalism.” Is there any discussion worldwide of the possibility that all the major manufacturers of the vaccines may suspend their rights in order to distribute the knowhow and make the vaccine accessible worldwide? And a related question: what are the prospects for the Russian vaccine to be approved by the European regulator?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Antonio Guterres):

Several dozen agreements have been signed, and Sputnik V has been registered in more than 60 countries, most of which are already receiving the first batches. We have repeatedly made it clear that we are open to cooperation with other vaccine manufacturers. We can both enjoy a positive process of interaction if they show similar interest.

The other day, President Vladimir Putin spoke positively about the idea of ​​dropping patent protection by all vaccine manufacturers for some time so that the generic drugs could quickly saturate the market.



Question (addressed to Antonio Guterres):

I would like to take use this opportunity to draw your attention to the situation in Latvia. Since 2020, Latvian authorities continue to persecute journalists who cooperate with Russian media outlets. This is all-out persecution: a criminal case has been opened against over a dozen people, their homes have been searched, their documents and office equipment have been confiscated, and they have signed pledges not leave their city of residence. Technically speaking, they are being accused of violating the sanctions regime, although no sanctions apply to them, and these journalists have nothing to do with any sanctions. In my opinion, this is political persecution. On May 3, 2021, on World Press Freedom Day, we sent you a video address by one of the journalists. Are you aware of the situation in Latvia? Are you ready to monitor these developments and to ensure that Latvian authorities comply with the fundamental UN documents, at least the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and therefore do not create administrative and criminal barriers hampering the work of journalists in Latvia?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Antonio Guterres):

Apart from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Secretary-General has an assistant on human rights who is from Latvia. I believe that, if he receives your video, this will be instrumental for processing your request.



Question (addressed to Antonio Guterres):

In the past few years, the United States has expanded its blockade against Cuba. What is your opinion of the US policy with regard to Cuba?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Antonio Guterres):

Apart from the specific situation caused by additional challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a systemic problem regarding the US blockade of Cuba. Each year, the UN General Assembly passes a resolution by an overwhelming majority of votes. Two or three countries and the United States do not support it, while all others vote in favour of the document. These resolutions reflect the UN policy.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4731315

[Alex Him]

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, May 13, 2021



13 May 2021 - 21:20

Maria Zakharova (E) - 52:30

Maria Zakharova (E) - 52:30

Condolences over Kazan tragedy

A horrible tragedy occurred on May 11 at School No. 175 in Kazan, an outrageous crime – the shooting of children. You know the details.

We are receiving a huge number of messages of support from around the world. Words of condolences, sympathy and understanding keep pouring in. The list grows by the minute. Let me name just a few: UN Secretary-General, President of the European Parliament, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Secretary General of the OSCE, heads of state (Abkhazia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Turkmenistan, Finland, South Ossetia and others), prime ministers and foreign ministers (Lithuania, Serbia, Turkey, Finland, Sweden, Estonia and others), ambassadors and embassies of foreign nations accredited in Russia – they are all sending us words of sympathy and support.

Ordinary people and public figures are also getting involved. They bring flowers, candles, toys and drawings to Russian embassies and consulates abroad, leave entries in electronic condolence books or write messages on their social media pages.

We are united in our condemnation of such crimes, we stands with the families and friends of the victims and the wounded. We feel the support from all over the world. I would like to thank everyone who sent such sincere and touching words to our country and people. Thank you!



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s forthcoming talks with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Sierra Leone

On May 17, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will have talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Sierra Leone David John Francis who will be in Moscow on a working visit on May 16-18. There will be a substantive discussion of ways to boost bilateral cooperation in politics, trade and economic relations, cultural ties and other areas.

The spotlight will be on issues related to strengthening the partnership between Russia and Sierra Leone in mineral resource extraction, the fuel and energy complex, infrastructure and fishery.

There will be a detailed exchange of views on current topics on the global and regional agendas, such as settling crises and combatting terrorism in Africa, and countering the spread of dangerous infectious diseases, including COVID-19. The ministers will discuss prospects for reforming the UN Security Council in view of Sierra Leone’s chairmanship of the African Union Committee of Ten on UNSC reform, as well as issues related to further advancing Russian-African cooperation in the context of preparations for the second Russia-Africa Summit in 2022.



Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with CEOs of French companies working in Russia and their Russian counterparts

On May 17, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with the heads of French companies working in Russia and their Russian partners that are members of the Franco-Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

The participants will discuss the current state and development outlook for bilateral trade and economic relations amid Russia-EU tension, as well as ways to moderate the socio-economic consequences of the coronavirus infection.

This will be the Minister’s second meeting with French and Russian business leaders held in this format. The first such meeting was held in May 2015.



Sergey Lavrov’s participation in CSTO Foreign Ministers Council meeting

On May 19, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend a regular meeting of the CSTO Foreign Ministers Council held in Dushanbe. Tajikistan assumed the chairmanship of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation this year.

The ministers will exchange views on international events and their potential development, their influence on the member states’ security and ways to strengthen their multifaceted cooperation within the framework of the CSTO.

The heads of the delegations are expected to approve decisions that will be submitted to the CSTO Collective Security Council meeting, scheduled to take place in the autumn. They will also adopt several joint statements on current international topics and on cooperation between the CSTO and interested states and international organisations.



Sergey Lavrov’s participation in May 20 Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Reykjavík, Iceland

On May 19-20, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will make a working visit to Iceland, which will be the venue of a meeting of foreign ministers of the Arctic Council’s member states.

The ministers will discuss the strengthening of cooperation and the coordination of efforts for the region’s stable development, environmental protection and the maintenance of the culture, traditions and languages of the indigenous peoples of the North. The events also include a presentation of the Arctic Council’s and its auxiliary bodies’ activities during the past two years.

The participants are expected to sign a declaration reaffirming the Arctic countries’ commitment to peace, stability and constructive cooperation across the high latitudes and outlining the main spheres of further efforts to promote international interaction in the interests of stable development in the Arctic. Particular attention is to be given to environmental protection, ways to enhance the region’s adjustment and stability amid climate change, and the implementation of the planned cooperation projects.

The first ever strategic plan of the Arctic Council for the next 10 years is to be presented at the meeting.

The event will take place in a historic year for the Arctic Council, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary in 2021. Following this, the two-year Chairmanship of the Council will be passed over to the Russian Federation, which will highlight the region’s sustainable development in three areas: the economy, environmental protection and the social sphere. The Russian Federation will maintain a strong focus on improving the quality of life of the people living in the Arctic and creating conditions for the preservation and further development of indigenous cultures, traditions and languages.

Sergey Lavrov plans to hold several bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the event, including with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, which has been scheduled following the ministers’ telephone conversation. As for Sergey Lavrov’s other potential meetings, we will share information when we have it.



Sergey Lavrov's upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria

On May 21, Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Algerian Foreign Minister Sabri Boukadoum in Moscow. As part of continuing political dialogue, the foreign ministers will review pressing bilateral issues and items on the regional agenda.

Much has been done to strengthen Russia-Algeria cooperation in the 20 years since the bilateral Declaration on Strategic Partnership was signed in 2001, which underlies successful Russian-Algerian cooperation that continues to grow strong in trade, the economy, defence, science and culture.

Algeria is making a weighty contribution to ensuring regional stability in North Africa and fighting terrorism in the Sahara-Sahel area. We highly appreciate the mediating potential of this country in the peaceful settlement of the most dangerous conflicts in Africa, including Libya and Mali.

We believe that the upcoming talks will result in further strengthening the multifaceted Russia-Algeria interaction.



Russian foreign missions celebrate Victory Day

On the occasion of the 76th anniversary of the Great Victory, the Foreign Ministry and our foreign missions hosted numerous functions with the participation of Russian diplomats and our compatriots living abroad. Since the coronavirus pandemic continues to remain a challenge in many countries, a significant number of the scheduled events took place online. Also, according to tradition, officials from Russian diplomatic missions visited the veterans living abroad.

Much was done to prevent the attempts to distort the historical truth about the Great Patriotic War. Some of our partners tried to change the focus of the holiday and add a fly in the ointment, so we were proactive in our work using modern technology and the social media. We covered in depth the real events and the underpinnings of World War II and the importance of Victory Day for our international audiences in English, Spanish, Arabic and other languages​. This work is carried out non-stop all year round, and additional series of publications are released by May 9, including ones based on archival materials.

We focused particularly on the Faces of Victory project, and Russian embassies, consulates general and permanent missions shared stories about our dear veterans who celebrate Victory Day abroad. Video interviews were recorded with some of them in order to preserve for future generations the precious first-hand accounts and memories of the events of those years. You can watch these interviews and read our historical notes about the war on our pages on social media.

The international campaign, Garden of Memory, was also held with the participation of our diplomats. In the presence of high-ranking foreign officials, the heads of Russian diplomatic missions planted trees to commemorate those who died during the Great Patriotic War. These trees and plaques will now serve as a reminder for many years to come of our country’s role in Victory over Nazism.

I’d be remiss not to mention the joint performance of the legendary song Katyusha by Russian diplomats from 54 foreign missions, which was appreciated not only in our country, but also abroad. We saw many materials from foreign media about it. I think we will continue this tradition.

Importantly, this year we managed to demonstrate again, together with our friends and partners from the CIS countries (and not only) the unity of positions regarding the Great Patriotic War and our common heroic past, including on international platforms.

So, at Russia’ initiative, the permanent missions of a number of CIS countries at the UN have implemented The Art of Victory project. The Victory Museum in Moscow, the Russian News Service and the Russian-language UN accounts in social media joined the traditional initiative on the UN platform. The aim of the media campaign is to tell a story about the crucial role of culture during the Great Patriotic War, as well as about the works of art created in memory of its heroes and victims. The project participants shared with the international audiences stories about cultural figures from all Soviet republics who supported patriotism and helped strengthen the will to overcome the enemy on the frontlines and on the home front. Rare archival videos, photographs and documents were published as part of the initiative, including from the collections of the national memorial museums.

A traditional joint article by the heads of diplomatic missions of the CIS countries was published in Washington on May 9 on the occasion of the 76th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. This was a joint reminder that “our sacred duty is to preserve for the present and future generations the historical truth about the common battle to free the world from Nazism and to prevent recurrence of the ideology of hatred and extremism.”

The commonality of approaches was also underscored by a statement of the permanent representatives of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Serbia, the Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan at the OSCE: “We proceed from the need to strictly comply with the rulings of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, which have no statute of limitations. We strongly condemn the attempts to rehabilitate and glorify Nazi criminals and their accomplices.”



Immortal Regiment campaign

More than 110 countries held memorial events marking the 76th anniversary of Victory in the 1941−1945 Great Patriotic War, including the extremely popular Immortal Regiment campaign. In view of the epidemiological situation and in line with the requirements of local authorities, our compatriots abroad organised street marches in more than 35 countries, supported by Russia’s foreign missions. In several countries, the campaign coincided with flower-laying ceremonies at monuments to Soviet soldiers (in the UK, Norway, Uzbekistan and Cuba). The biggest events took place in Australia, Bulgaria, China, Tajikistan, Germany and South Ossetia. Belarus organised celebrations in Minsk, Brest, Vitebsk, Grodno, Novopolotsk and Polotsk. In Israel, almost 23,000 people participated in the campaign held in more than 40 cities. In Kyrgyzstan, Moldova (with up to 10,000 people participating in the Immortal Regiment marches), Serbia, Slovenia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, the countries’ leaders attended the events as well. In Austria, President Alexander Van der Bellen and Federal Chancellor Sebastian Kurz delivered their commemorative remarks.

Motor rallies featuring patriotic symbols and portraits of Great Patriotic War veterans were held in Kyrgyzstan, the Czech Republic, the United States, Ukraine and on the Seychelles. As part of the Journey of Heroic Flame campaign, activists delivered the torch lit from the Eternal Flame at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Moscow to the Soviet memorials in Slovakia and lit it at Slavin in the early hours of May 9. In Panama, participants laid flowers at the Panama Canal in memory of the Soviet submarines’ passage through it in 1942.

Attempts of several Baltic governments to downplay the significance of this celebration and, in some cases, to openly obstruct the festivities did not stop our compatriots. Despite police cordons around the Monument to the Liberators of Soviet Latvia and Riga, our compatriots brought flowers and portraits of veterans. On the night of May 9 to May 10, volunteers created a flower composition in the shape of a red star around the monument. Come the evening of May 9, the Bronze Soldier in Tallinn was also drowned in flowers, visited by at least 35,000 people. Despite the current restrictions in Lithuania, the Russian community and Lithuanians laid flowers at Soviet military burials at the Antakalnis Cemetery in Vilnius and other cities.

In the countries where the epidemiological situation remains difficult, thousands of our compatriots joined the online Immortal Regiment on social media and other platforms.

In the run-up to the holiday and on May 9, representatives of the Russian community held other commemorative campaigns around the world, offline and online, including the Garden of Memory, the Candle of Memory, the St George’s Ribbon, the Victory Dictation, as well as other festivals, exhibitions, videoconferences, sports competitions, and lessons of courage for children and teenagers. I have just mentioned some of the events. Full details can be found on the Foreign Ministry website and on our social media accounts.



Unveiling a monument to Red Army soldiers in the Municipality of Ajdovscina, the Republic of Slovenia

A monument to Red Army soldiers who fought together with Slovenian partisans during WWII was unveiled in the Municipality of Ajdovscina, the Republic of Slovenia.

Azerbaijani historian Ilham Abbasov carried out research in Russian archives and established the identities of 16 Red Army soldiers who were killed in the spring of 1945 near Ajdovscina. They were buried in a common grave together with other members of the Slovenian anti-Nazi Resistance movement. Their names are now engraved on the upgraded memorial.

Russian Ambassador to Slovenia Timur Eyvazov, Ajdovscina Mayor Tadej Beocanin as well as representatives of local authorities and senior officials from the Union of Veterans Associations for Supporting the Values of the 1941-1945 Popular Liberation Struggle in Slovenia attended the official ceremony.

We see this event as a tribute to the common history of Russia and Slovenia and also as confirmation of our coinciding positions in the protection of historical memory. This is particularly important during a time when attempts to falsify history are becoming increasingly frequent in Europe. The people of Slovenia care for and look after Russian military memorials and burial sites containing the remains of both WWI and WWII soldiers. This highlights the friendly and forward-looking nature of Russian-Slovenian ties. We would like to separately thank historian Ilham Abbasov, our friend from Azerbaijan.

All this year, we are working with our compatriots, many of whom submit their proposals on how to perpetuate the memory of the Great Patriotic War’s heroes in various countries, and who take care of the graves of the Red Army soldiers and victims of those tragic events, including prisoners of war, inmates of concentration camps, etc. We are sincerely grateful for this dedicated attitude. Each request is dealt with one-by-one, so we thank the people responsible for this because this is a separate “component” of our real unity.



COVID-19 update

The situation with the global coronavirus pandemic continues to evoke well-justified alarm, and global statistics are readily available.

Over a period of the past few weeks, certain Asian and Latin American countries posted high infection rates. What is happening on the African continent is also a reason for certain concern.

Some countries and multi-national associations have suggested that producers waive patents for COVID-19 vaccines on a voluntary basis. President of Russia Vladimir Putin supported this idea and said it “deserved consideration.” “As far as I know, this would not contravene but actually comply with certain WTO rules which envision lifting such patent protection in emergencies,” he said. Vladimir Putin noted that the pandemic was precisely such a situation.

We are noting that certain countries, including those in Europe, are voicing restrained optimism on the epidemiological situation’s development. They are moving to reduce anti-COVID restrictions and to introduce more lenient entry regulations for foreigners, including tourists.

We would like to point out the following aspect: When they announce their decisions to lift or mitigate COVID-related restrictions, they can also reverse such decisions. As a rule, this happens rapidly without any prior notice, just like in a case of an emergency. It is almost impossible to prepare for this. They give people just a few days to change their logistics, etc. In this connection, it is necessary to assess the epidemiological and logistic risks.

Many European countries make these decisions for economic considerations, while relegating epidemiological safety matters to the background. We would like to once again remind Russian citizens planning to take holidays abroad of the need to carefully consider all possible risks linked with trips to any specific country. Apart from warnings and current updates, they should realise that the situation can change, the way it changed in Nepal several days ago. People were stranded there and are unable to leave this state because its borders are closed, and because there are no regular flights. Many people visiting there say that they had heard warnings but had ignored them because they believed that the situation would somehow get sorted out. It did not. Please consider all the risks at a time when the global situation is changing regularly, almost every day.



Internal political situation in Moldova

We continue to closely follow political developments in Moldova, where an early parliamentary election will be held on July 11. We hope that it will be held in an atmosphere of fair and free competition and that its outcome will reflect the will of the people in full measure. We intend to take part in observing the voting at the bilateral level and also as part of observer missions of international organisations, including the CIS and the OSCE.

We note with regret and firmly condemn the growing interference by the US and EU countries in the internal political processes in Moldova. These countries’ ambassadors in Chisinau are openly trying to exert a direct influence on the Moldovan leadership and the government institutions, including the Central Electoral Commission, while pursuing their countries’ political and economic interests in the republic. Regular public statements are being made, including on international platforms, criticising the Moldovan political forces that favour maintaining ties with Russia and cooperation with Eurasian integration associations. This is nothing other than direct interference and attempts to influence voting results.

Double standards are obviously being applied by the United States and EU countries to the activities of the current President of Moldova, her predecessor and various political groups in the Moldovan Parliament. This is evidence of their disrespect for the people and sovereignty of Moldova, which is fraught with the danger of increased polarisation and destabilisation of society.

We once again urge our Western partners to abandon the practice of double standards and to stop their undisguised interference in the internal political processes in Moldova, which could have an especially negative impact during preparations for an early parliamentary election.



Developments in Venezuela

We have taken note of the evolution of the situation in Venezuela. We note with satisfaction that the Venezuelan Government has been working consistently and systematically to stabilise the situation in the country and to transform confrontation between the country’s political forces into constructive joint efforts. A constructive dialogue is developing between the authorities and a broad range of political parties aimed at addressing the country’s urgent needs, in particular, at ensuring an acceptable level of socioeconomic development amid the illegal US restrictions imposed on the country. We strongly condemn these inhumane restrictions, which are limiting the capability of the Venezuelan authorities to effectively combat the pandemic and to supply the domestic market with the required amount of food and pharmaceutical products.

We welcome the Parliament’s approval on May 4 of the main body of the national election system – the new Electoral Council – in accordance with the Constitution. We hope that its full-scale operation will ensure the timely preparation and holding of the regional and municipal elections this year, which will strengthen democratic local governments.

We will continue to provide all-round friendly assistance to Venezuela and to strengthen mutually beneficial multifaceted cooperation in the interests of our nations.

The reopening of direct Moscow-Caracas flights on May 1 was yet another step taken towards this goal. We hope that this will help revitalise bilateral trade and economic cooperation and promote business contacts and tourist exchanges. On May 15, a festive ceremony will be held at Vnukovo Airport to celebrate the arrival of the first flight by the national airline Conviasa, which will operate flights between Russia and Venezuela.

Regrettably, some actors are not pleased with the Venezuelan authorities’ commitment to a peaceful and consistent development of relations and the settlement of disputes through negotiations. In this context, we are seriously concerned about the aggravation on the Venezuelan-Colombian border, where the Venezuelan armed forces have been trying for the past few weeks to prevent illegal armed units and drug-trafficking groups from breaking into the country. These armed clashes, which have become more intensive in the past few days, have led to numerous casualties. A potential deterioration in the situation could have extremely negative consequences for regional stability and security.

We are convinced that normalisation in the border regions could be promoted by direct contacts between the relevant authorities in Venezuela and Colombia. The Government of Nicolas Maduro has appealed to the Colombian leadership with such initiatives several times, but to no avail. We call on the Colombian authorities to respond with good will to the proposals of their Venezuelan partners.

There is no doubt that this will also ultimately meet the interests of Colombia, where public protests have been growing recently. We share the alarm expressed by the Organisation of American States, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the EU, the United States and other members of the international community over the Colombian law enforcers’ disproportionate use of force against protesters, as the result of which dozens have been killed and hundreds injured.

We expect these events to be thoroughly investigated and hope that the Colombian authorities will take measures to preclude a repetition of these tragedies.



Situation around the Open Skies Treaty (TOS)

At the end of April, Russia sent its position paper to the States Parties to the Open Skies Treaty. Its content was also reflected in the Russian delegation’s report to the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC) on April 26, 2021, available on the Russian Foreign Ministry website. Here are its highlights.

A group of states led by the United States (just a reminder the US has withdrawn from the TOS) is trying to hold Russia responsible for the deplorable situation around the Treaty. They insist that Russia ‘rectify its violations’ before anyone even contemplates returning to the Treaty.

Our position has been stated and argued repeatedly in response to these claims. We have taken a number of steps with due account of other states’ concerns. However, there was no adequate response to these political signals.

We continue to have a number of concerns regarding the US NATO allies’ as well as Ukraine’s and Georgia’s fulfilment of their obligations. We voiced our serious concerns to the United States as well, prior to its withdrawal from the Treaty. However, those were never taken into account or commented on. This has already become a miserable tradition.

We are ready to address all mutual concerns, but this discussion can only happen after the US announces its decision to return to the Treaty.

No one should expect unilateral concessions from Russia. If the status quo is maintained, our internal procedures preceding Russia’s notification of a decision to withdraw from the Treaty will be completed shortly.

Two important events occurred in the first ten days of May. First of all, the Government of the Russian Federation adopted a Resolution on submitting to the President a proposal to denounce the Treaty on Open Skies, and then the President of the Russian Federation sent a corresponding bill to the State Duma. Its consideration there is scheduled for next week.

The time when it is still possible to save the Open Skies Treaty is running out. If our colleagues are truly interested in preserving the Treaty, they should convince the White House to immediately reconsider the previous administration’s decision that does not meet the interests of European security.

This is a short account of our detailed argumentation, which is available on the Foreign Ministry website and elsewhere.



US Navy nuclear submarine calls at the port of Tonsnes in northern Norway

The port call made by USS New Mexico to Tonsnes harbour facility just 50 km north of Tromso on May 10 has raised our concerns. The civilian port Washington has paid for modernising specifically for such calls, in the immediate vicinity of the Russian-Norwegian border, is clearly becoming another NATO outpost on Norwegian territory.

There is no reason to trust the Norwegian military leaders’ assurances the US submarine was carrying no nuclear weapons, which are partly aimed at pacifying their own citizens in northern Norway. Moreover, they admitted they had no reliable information on that score or control mechanisms over the Americans’ actions.

The Norwegian authorities’ tendency to attribute some sort of ‘stabilising’ role to such port calls made by submarines potentially capable of carrying nuclear warheads see them as ‘transparent and predictable,’ if anything, raises eyebrows. What could be more ‘transparent and predictable’ than a submarine's port call? These are false messages that have nothing to do with the dangerous reality.

It is especially regrettable that Oslo has adopted a harsh policy line to build up the militarisation of the Arctic and heighten tension in this traditionally peaceful region. Norway seems to place its interest in pleasing its ‘senior partners’ in NATO above its own population’s safety or years of neighbourly ties with our country.



The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe’s decision on the human rights situation in the Republic of Crimea and the city of federal significance Sevastopol

On May 11, 2021, European Union countries made yet another step towards escalating relations with Russia, despite the recent assurances by High Representative Josep Borrell. In another abuse of majority in the Council of Europe, they approved Ukraine’s draft decision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the human rights situation in Crimea.

I do not see any point in elaborating on this list of false statements and absurd accusations against Russia. All these trivial claims of “occupation” and “discrimination” against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians are much too familiar and have nothing to do with the actual state of affairs in Russia’s Crimea.

We are disappointed with Germany’s Presidency in the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for it is directly responsible for this attack on our country. For the entire six-month term, Berlin has been acting not as a leader of this pan-European organisation but as a flagship of anti-Russian forces, prioritising bloc interests over the Council of Europe’s statutory goal, which is to strengthen the unity of its members. It will take a great deal of efforts on behalf of more sensible states to dispose of such “legacy.” Will it be possible to return to the unity agenda or is there another crisis waiting ahead? This question remains open. It is regrettable that Germany is finishing its Presidency on such a disturbing note.

We regret to see that the Western majority is becoming more and more unapologetic in its use of Strasbourg institutions for containing Russia. This policy is causing irreparable damage to the Council of Europe, undermining its authority and prospects as a pan-European organisation.

We have repeatedly urged our Western colleagues to abandon their double standards and stop turning a blind eye to the actual problems that require a response from the Council of Europe. Still, the council prefers to ignore the peninsula’s water blockade and other humanitarian crimes committed by Kiev officials, who believe they have the right to subject the Crimean population to collective discrimination for the choice they made in 2014 in favour of reunification with Russia. If the Crimean people are “victims of occupation,” as the decision of the committee states, then what are they being punished for with economic and visa restrictions? Is this a rhetorical question or a dead end in the ideology imposed by the pan-European institution and the big brother?

Most importantly, we cannot help but see this verdict of the committee as an infringement on Russia’s territorial integrity. The Council of Europe crossed the line and, with its own decision, created artificial obstacles in the way of this organisation’s normal operation on the territory of these constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Decisions of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe only serve as guidelines. However, we refuse to recognise this decision even as a guideline.



The US administration’s allegations about “abuse” of Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe

The constant claims by high-ranking US officials that the right of journalists to professional activity is allegedly being violated in Russia have come to our attention. They are citing Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe as an example.

The complaints about the obstruction of journalistic work in Russia are a fiction and a lie. We welcome the activities of the US media in our country along with other foreign media bureaux. We are doing our best to ensure that media pluralism remains, in practice, an integral part of a truly free society as opposed to the unanimity of thought that is being imposed in the United States with its “cancel culture” and other “delights” of modern liberal dictatorship.

All that the journalists are required to do is to comply with the Russian legislation regulating the activities of foreign agents (please pass this information on to the head of the State Department). This was developed in response to the United States using its Foreign Agents Registration Act against Russian journalists since about 2017. In particular, American journalists need to properly label their publications. We consider these requirements to be easy to follow in light of the provisions of US laws in this area, which provide for much stricter conditions for registration and reporting by foreign agents. Their requirements make the life of the foreign and local media, which are recognised in America as foreign agents, unbearable. I think their position will change when the US leadership is made aware of this. I’d be hard pressed to believe that the State Department knows all this and is drawing such false conclusions.

The above attacks by US officials seem strange to us and are inconsistent with the actual situation. Unfortunately, the more statements, the more they demonstrate the true role of Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe as a mouthpiece for US state propaganda. Once again, they confirm that the foreign agent “title” was conferred upon them correctly, and there were grounds to do so.



Russia is accused of hacking SolarWinds

This is a clear case of groundless accusations against Moscow which look increasingly absurd. Following the notorious “highly likely” approach and the tradition of accusing Moscow of all imaginable and inconceivable sins, the Biden administration justified the “95th wave” of anti-Russian sanctions on the basis of a hack of the SolarWinds software company that is used by US government agencies.

Let's see what is really happening there. Of course, those who doubted this - and they do exist despite the tough pressure from the US media propaganda front - were immediately pegged as “agents of the Kremlin” and “agents of Putin.” But what about the top executives of the leading IT corporations in the United States who at the February hearings in both chambers of Congress actually disavowed the administration’s vocal statements, which served as the basis to impose sanctions on obscure “Russian hackers?”

Answering the lawmakers’ leading questions, the SolarWinds CEO Sudhakar Ramakrishna denied the involvement of state agencies that acted with premeditation. According to Kevin Mandia, head of the FireEye company, who was the first to discover the cyberhack, the majority of SolarWinds users believe what the special services say about it as they are unable to find out who was behind the attacks. George Kurtz, the CEO of the leading corporation in the field of information security CrowdStrike insisted that his experts could not identify the offenders.

No one, of course, dares to assume that the US intelligence community is simply using a “foreign flag” (as they say in this community) for provocations attributed to the “enemies” in order to drum up more money from the budget while addressing operational tasks. Although, I believe, this is a “dignified” way to conduct journalistic investigations.

Many are simply afraid to go against the official policy and risk their business or even their freedom, like Julian Assange who is sitting behind bars in Britain, or Edward Snowden, who narrowly escaped Big Brother’s revenge. Apparently, everyone has learned the lesson of the reprisals unleashed by the American system against people who allow themselves even slightest dissent.

Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984 come to mind. We were persistently told that these books were about the USSR. This is not true. This is just another fake statement. This ingenious foresight was about modern liberal dictatorship with its total control over minds and doublethink, when people prefer to keep their doubts to themselves or only timidly refer to them in small doses like the above IT companies.

This is another example of a vast gap between reality and accusations. No one wants to make even one step in search of the truth because of the paralysing fear of the possible actions of the corresponding US services.



Update on the Sergey Seredenko case in Estonia

The Estonian authorities continue to pursue a policy of using punitive justice for political purposes. On April 30, 2021, Sergey Seredenko's detention was extended for another two months. As we noted earlier, the accusations against him are absurd and unsubstantiated.

Russia has stated its assessment of these malicious actions by Tallinn against the Russian-speaking human rights activist in our bilateral contacts as well as in specialised international organisations. As we can see, our principled position is shared by respected politicians and public figures in the Baltics and other states, who, in particular, sent letters to the Estonian government demanding they put an end to political persecution.

Sergey Seredenko's release could be a positive signal from the authorities in Estonia to start a dialogue and pull bilateral relations out of the deadlock they created.



Aalborg district court in Denmark convicts Russian citizen for espionage

On May 10, 2021, the district court of Aalborg sentenced Russian citizen Alexey Nikiforov, who was arrested in Denmark on charges of working for Russian security services, to three years in prison. Russian diplomats were present in the courtroom when the verdict was announced.

The defendant appealed the court ruling. The Russian Embassy in Denmark continues to provide Mr Nikiforov with the necessary consular and legal assistance and maintains contacts with his lawyer.

We regard the court's decision as a vivid example of the anti-Russia campaign that has recently engulfed official Copenhagen and the West in general. Our compatriots who are legally engaged in scientific activities on the kingdom’s territory become collateral damage to the Danish government’s attempts to find the so-called Russian trace in every incident.

This activity by the Danish special services uncannily resembles a witch-hunt. It jeopardises the work of Russian scientists in Denmark, damages scientific and technical cooperation and will inevitably have even more negative implications for bilateral relations already darkened by Copenhagen’s unconstructive position.



Russia and Africa: Building the Future Together international conference

On May 18, 2021, at 3 pm, the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry will host an international conference, Russia and Africa: Building the Future Together, held as part of the preparations for the Second Russia-Africa Summit scheduled for 2022.

State Duma deputies, top Foreign Ministry officials and representatives of other interested agencies will attend the conference, as well as leading Russian economic operators, representatives of the diplomatic corps, academia, the public and the media.

Almost all ambassadors of African countries accredited in Moscow will take part in the event.

They plan to discuss a wide range of aspects of Russian-African cooperation in economic projects, science, education, innovation and humanitarian exchanges. Proposals on current aspects of Russia's partnership with African countries, especially its economic component, will be an important part of the meeting’s agenda.



Opening the Year of Humanitarian Cooperation with Egypt

On May 4, in Moscow, Deputy Minister of Culture of Russia Olga Yarilova and Ambassador of Egypt to Russia Ihab Ahmed Talaat Nasr signed the Declaration of Intent on cooperation between the ministries of culture of Russia and Egypt on holding the Year of Humanitarian Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Arab Republic of Egypt in 2021.

In June, the Cairo-based Russian Centre of Science and Culture is planning to hold a ceremony to open the Year. Its programme includes a number of events in fields such as culture, education, tourism, youth policy, and archeology, as well as related information and expertise exchanges.

We proceed from the assumption that the Russia-Egypt Year of Humanitarian Cooperation will further promote the multifaceted Russian-Egyptian interaction and rapprochement between the two countries’ people.



The 30th anniversary of the launching of the State Television Company “Television Channel Rossiya” and Vesti programme

Thirty years ago on the dot, at 5 pm, the first Vesti programme went on the air on the RTV channel, which is now the Rossiya Television Channel. This is something that marked the beginning of a new period in the development of not only Russian television broadcasting but also the entire Russian media industry. I would also say, the world media industry too.

Vesti today is an astonishing team of professionals, masters of their trade, whose correspondents operate in the most difficult hotspots, often at risk of their lives, covering conflicts, wars, and emergencies. They put above everything else the true values of journalism – honesty, objectivity, authenticity and, most importantly, the provision to the public of unbiased information on the most important events in this country and the world. And this is what true professionalism is all about.

Vesti is very popular with both viewers in Russia and multi-million audiences of Russian compatriots elsewhere, and it is a bridge that connects all people who are not indifferent to the Russian world.

We put a high value on our close cooperation with this journalistic team and on the existing truly comradely relations, something that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has also noted in his message of greetings to the channel. We hope to continue our cooperation “with the aim of shaping an objective image of Russia on the international arena.” This is a quote from Mr Lavrov’s congratulations posted on the Foreign Ministry website.

I would like once again to wish our colleagues creative inspirations, conquests of new professional heights, and all the best.



The European Commission’s decision vindicating Latvia’s suspension of broadcasts by Rossiya-RTR TV channel in its territory

On May 12 of this year, it became known that the European Commission had passed a decision reaffirming conformity of the Latvian authorities’ actions towards Rossiya-RTR television channel to the EU laws. It will be recalled that the television channel, popular with Russian speakers in Latvia, was blocked, on February 15, under a far-fetched pretext.

We have repeatedly commented on the Latvian authorities’ attacks on this Russian media outlet, which had been blocked for politically motivated reasons for a shorter period of time somewhat earlier. Once again, the anchors of a popular political talk show, 60 Minutes, were blamed for “inciting hate” and for “slander.” They did not heed the fact that the show’s format was a discussion characterised by biting assessments, debates and polemic. This is the entire gamut distinguishing mainstream propaganda from a situation where different points of view are not only voiced but are also conveyed to the public.

In a democratic environment – I would like to remind our partners of this at European institutions – pluralism and freedom of expressing a view are sine qua nons for the functioning of not only the media but also a normal society as a whole. We believed that the EU leaders should be well aware of this well, but, judging by the said decision, it is more important for them to persist in their aggressive actions with regard to Russian media in EU member-states. There is only one explanation: the EU has proved unprepared for the truth and pluralism, which it took them so long to inure us to. In this particular case, the truth of the matter is that freedom of speech is found much more often on Russian television channels than in the European media, constrained as they are by self-censorship and the political order, media that the European officials keep tabs on.

We think that the EC is once again conniving at the Latvian leaders’ discriminatory policies; they seem to regard Russian speakers as people, who, from their standpoint, are not worthy of having a view of their own on developments in the country and elsewhere and who have no right of having their own point of view. This is certainly a crackdown on their rights.

In this connection, we estimate the said decision as politically motivated, non-objective and, of course, running counter to all those obligations that Latvia as a state has assumed and undersigned.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

First Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council Yury Averyanov said in a recent interview that dangerous microorganisms from the US and NATO laboratories near Russia’s border could potentially be released into the environment, allegedly by mistake, leading to a massive destruction of the civilian population both within the country and in neighbouring states. Since the early 2000s, Russia and the majority of other states have called for preparing a protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) that would stipulate the creation of a mechanism to verify the convention signatories’ compliance with their pledge not to create biological weapons. How far have the preparations of this protocol progressed, and which countries are involved? Can Russia take any other measures to protect itself from this possibility?



Maria Zakharova:

The drafting of a legally binding protocol to the BWC with an effective verification mechanism is one of Russia’s priorities in this sphere. The protocol would guarantee reliable compliance with the BWC obligations and the predictability of the member states’ activities in the medical-biological, sanitary-epidemiological, veterinary and phytosanitary spheres.

A special Ad Hoc Group of the BWC member states was working on the protocol from 1994 until 2001, when the United States prevented unilaterally its approval shortly before the Fifth BWC Review Conference. Since then, Washington has been consistently blocking the resumption of talks on the protocol, although the mandate of the Ad Hoc Group has officially not expired. The protocol drafted by the expert group in 1994-2001 stipulates the member states’ obligation to make public specified biological activities, verification measures (including visits to the relevant facilities and investigation of any suspected BWC violations), as well as measures designed to promote cooperation and scientific and technical exchanges.

Russia has been working consistently to ensure the resumption of the drafting of a legally binding protocol to the convention. During a meeting of states parties to the convention held in 2015, Russia submitted an initiative to this effect, which was co-authored by Armenia, Belarus and China. We intend to submit a draft decision regarding talks on the protocol to the convention so that it can be adopted at the BWC Review Conference in 2022.

We hope that common sense will also take priority in the United States as a depositary of the convention and that the United States, instead of blocking any further efforts, will make a constructive contribution to strengthening the BWC regime.



Question:

During his visit to Pristina on May 6, Croatia’s Foreign Minister Gordan Grlic Radman announced Croatia’s plans to establish a military base in Kosovo. Does this tie in with the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 on Kosovo and Metohija, which regulates, among other things, the procedure for the deployment of foreign troops in the southern Serbian province?



Maria Zakharova:

We have no information about Croatia’s plans to establish any base in Kosovo. As for foreign military presence in the province, the UNSC resolution assigned this function exclusively to the Kosovo Force (KFOR).



Question:

It was reported today that President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic has told Serbian media that, judging by the intelligence data at his disposal, an influential state will soon demand the KFOR mission’s withdrawal from Kosovo and Metohija. What are Russia’s views on the possibility of ending the KFOR mission there?



Maria Zakharova:

There are relevant organisations that authorise special missions and send them to various regions. This does not happen spontaneously, and this process takes place following its coordination, assessment, etc. by the concerned parties. These decisions are thoroughly discussed and adopted within these mechanisms. They are made collectively, in line with international law, rather than unilaterally. We should discuss any similar matters in this context.



Question:

What comments would you make regarding the more frequent attacks on Orthodox churches in Kosovo and Metohija lately?



Maria Zakharova:

The just mentioned Kosovo Force (KFOR) and international civilian missions in the territory, primarily the UN Mission and the EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, have the relevant mandates and must take action to protect religious facilities as well as the believers. We are constantly urging them to do this.

We resolutely denounce incidents and violence on the part of Kosovar Albanian radicals against the Serbs and Orthodox Christian shrines that have been taking place for many years now, not just lately. What is happening at the moment shows that the Kosovo quasi-statehood is bankrupt, and that the territory has turned into a European criminal “black hole.”



Question:

I would like to learn about the situation concerning Palestine and Israel. We are receiving alarming news about the escalation of the conflict linked with the mosque on Temple Mount. It appears that the conflict is escalating into a regional war. Could you comment on the legitimacy of the Israeli authorities’ actions and possible options for resolving the conflict? Does Russia work there on its own or together with the Quartet of International Mediators? Or does Russian diplomacy act unilaterally because it has ties with all the parties to the conflict?



Maria Zakharova:

Only the other day, we commented on virtually all of your questions in great detail. The relevant material was posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website on May 11, 2021, and you can read it. A detailed Rossiya Segodnya interview with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin on this precise subject was posted yesterday.

I can repeat and underscore the following aspects though: We resolutely denounce attacks on civilians, regardless of their ethnic and religious affiliation. We also advocate unconditional respect for the status quo of Holy Sites, as well as the immediate and complete cessation of all settlement activity on occupied Palestinian territories under numerous UN General Assembly and UN Security Council resolutions.

The majority of the international community, including member countries of the UN Security Council, share similar views on the current developments.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a member of the Quartet of International Mediators on the Middle East peace settlement, Russia, in cooperation with regional and international organisations, continues to consistently advocate a comprehensive and stable settlement in line with UN Security Council resolutions stipulating the creation of two states – Palestine and Israel – that would co-exist in peace and security.

We are also in contact with all the stakeholders on a bilateral basis. This subject was also mentioned during a telephone conversation between Russian and Turkish presidents and foreign ministers. It is also on the agenda of the consultations with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres who is visiting Moscow.



Question:

The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry requested Russia’s assistance in investigating the arms depot explosions in 2011-2020. The accusations the Bulgarian Prosecutor’s Office has brought against Russia are not supported by any evidence, which is a common European tradition now. Has the Russian side considered this? Have you received a relevant request? Are there any contacts between Bulgaria and Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

We have not received any requests through diplomatic channels. Moreover, no facts have been presented yet to support the versions being spread in the public domain. We see only groundless and unfounded stories planted to put head-on, speculative pressure on Russia, as well as all kinds of hoaxes that justify the levelling of incessant new accusations against our country, and the imposition of illegal sanctions. This is something we call an information and political campaign.

We believe Sofia as well as other European capitals involved in these information and political games are well aware that such actions cause serious damage to their bilateral ties with Russia, and to international relations in general. They are destroying the remnants of mutual trust with their own hands.



Question:

After the talks between the Russian and Armenian foreign ministers on May 7, it was announced that the two countries had signed an intergovernmental memorandum on biological safety. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted, Russia and Armenia will promote biosafety on multilateral platforms, including the CSTO and the CIS. Given the sensitivity and importance of this matter and the large number of US military biological labs still operating uncontrollably and non-transparently in post-Soviet republics, will Russia invite other countries to sign similar documents or make other contacts to ensure biosafety in the region? When will the new memorandum take effect?



Maria Zakharova:

I have already said a lot about our biosafety initiatives and our stance on international platforms. There is no need to add anything on international cooperation in a broader context, but I will focus on the document you mentioned.

Reducing the risks associated with the possibility of a deliberate spread of infectious diseases, or the use of biological agents as weapons, is a priority of Russia’s biological security agenda. One of the key elements of our work, not the only one, but one of the central ones, is creating an appropriate legal framework with the CSTO/CIS states.

To this end, we are pursuing a policy of concluding bilateral intergovernmental memorandums on biosafety with the member countries. Such documents have already been signed with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Armenia. We believe this makes a significant contribution to strengthening friendly relations and the biological security of our states, and also contributes to promoting cooperation in the medical and biological, sanitary and epidemiological, veterinary and phyto-sanitary fields.

We also plan to create bilateral consultative formats on biosafety matters to optimise and increase the efficacy of the implementation of the said memorandums’ goals and provisions.

We look forward to signing similar documents with all CSTO/CIS states and believe that this will contribute to strengthening the security of our countries in a common biosafety space.



Question:

British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab recently said that with their activity in cyberspace, Russia and China “want to undermine the very foundations of <…> democracy.” In his remarks, he also proposes a theory, according to which authoritarian regimes including Russia, North Korea, Iran and China use digital technology to sabotage and steal data. What is Russia’s stance on such allegations?



Maria Zakharova:

Today I spoke at length (even if with regard to the United States) about fabricated stories about so-called cyberattacks which demonstrate how divided the American community is, to the point of contradicting itself. They start by making unsubstantiated accusations and then separate group proceed to deal with them. Each of these groups – IT companies, the intelligence community and political groups – has its own account which they cannot corroborate. They either create more confusion or contradict each other. Then this pile of mixed-up testimonies develops into political scandals, etc.

I think it is pointless to comment on each particular accusation against alleged Russian hackers. We need to learn to step back and look at the whole picture. This is a politicised information campaign that follows not one but several directions. The goal is clear: to create an endless chain of reasons to impose more sanctions and restrictions, to demonise and, therefore, contain our country as well as to pursue certain internal objectives. There are many moves in this game; it is rather primitive and not too sophisticated technology-wise; still they believe that their own people are convinced by it. Any comments on our part are in fact unnecessary because there is a macro view of this situation.

What can I say about the quotes you gave? This situation is completely absurd and has no evidence to support it whatsoever. No evidence was provided by either the UK or the United States – or by any countries whose strings they pull to bring this puppet of solidarity to life.

More unsubstantiated and empty allegations were made with respect to the attack on the Colonial Pipeline system in the United States. US President Joe Biden himself recently stated that “there is no evidence that Russia is involved” in the attack.

It is a dead end. When they hit a wall, they begin to prevaricate, make up new versions of events but cannot really come up with anything solid.

Since 2016, we have repeatedly suggested that the United States get its act together, sit down at a negotiations table at the level of experts and figure out what is happening in cyberspace.

I would like to remind you that back in days of President Obama, when Joe Biden was Vice President, Russia and the United States created competent agencies to deal with cyber incidents. Unfortunately, our countries have not been able to have constructive discussions and it is not Russia that is stymieing this dialogue.

Once again, we call on our Western partners to use official channels to discuss any sensitive issues instead of planting stories in the media and resorting to contrived methods of setting this mechanism of false claims in motion.



Question:

Recently, a member of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs expressed an assumption regarding a sudden anti-Russia attack by Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis. He has never been a Russophobic zealot or an “Atlanticist,” but suddenly he exhibited Russophobic behavior that could put an end to his political career. The point is that Mr Babis is also a businessman and a billionaire. He is likely to have been subjected to trivial blackmail and had to make a risky political statement in US interests in exchange for the security of his business assets. Do you think the Foreign Ministry would ever publicly describe these kinds of methods of how the US-led unipolar world works, including “European unity” for the US’s sake?



Maria Zakharova:

I do not wish to comment on such scenarios or assumptions. I am reluctant to drop down to the level of our Western partners who make groundless accusations without quoting facts. The United States has repeatedly hurled politically motivated threats at private individuals, businesspeople, associations, trade, industrial and banking organisations, corporations and international financial institutions. There are plenty of quotes and detailed materials with direct threats in the form of warnings or intimidations. They have been doing this for many years. I don’t think our US partners would make exceptions in some separate cases if they could benefit from it. This is not a supposition but a statement of fact. We see this being done with respect to Nord Stream 2, for example, and the sad plight of many European corporations and banking institutions. The US has not limited itself to statements and aggressive rhetoric against them in public but resorted to pressure that ranges from sanctions to all but special operations. These are facts. You can read about them and not just in conspiracy-theory sources but on websites containing remarks and statements by American officials. What’s fantastic is the fact that at the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, this approach is not disguised, on the contrary, it is being demonstrated for all to see (as an element of preventive deterrence of sorts).

As for the accusations against Russia made recently by Czech representatives, they are groundless, and contradictory. This looks like endless internal confusion under external influence.

At first, when several weeks ago these Czech representatives made numerous statements against Russia, we would comment on every one of them. Later we realised that it was impossible to comment on them from the outside since Czech society itself had become completely confused by the various versions, statements and rhetoric that it hears every day from Czech politicians. They come from official heads of government agencies rather than some freelance commentators. Apparently, Czech society needs to overcome the internal crisis that was created partly with outside influence.



Question:

Other events pale into insignificance when compared with the awful tragedy in Kazan. Evil appears to be much closer to us and children can die in peacetime. More children could have been killed if it weren’t for their teachers. Elvira Ignatyeva fearlessly protected a child with her body.

There were hero-teachers in the immortal pedagogical regiment, including Polish teacher Janusz Korczak who went together with children under his care to a gas chamber in 1942; a teacher from Czech Brno Ivo Stejskal who was killed by modern Nazis in Donbass in August 2014 and now Elvira Ignatyeva, an English language teacher. How many teachers do we have like them? Those whose power lies not in filling out forms or compiling meaningless academic plans or paperwork but in their selfless commitment to their students and their pedagogical mission. Some are willing to sacrifice their lives for their children.

Some of our compatriots propose declaring an International Day of Teacher-Patriot, Defender of Children against Terrorism.



Maria Zakharova:

This is not a question. This is your initiative. It must be submitted formally and promoted as a civilian, public initiative. This is not advice from the Foreign Ministry, but a comment on your remark.

If you need our advice, information support, I will be happy to provide it. Send us your ideas; we will forward them to the related officials and will certainly send you a response.



Question (retranslated from English):

The war between Israel and Palestine continues. Ten children have been killed. What can you tell us about this?



Maria Zakharova:

I just commented on the situation there, the aggravation of the conflict. The Foreign Ministry published two large pieces on this. They describe our position in detail. I also talked about this in replying to your Icelandic colleague’s question today.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4732116

[Alex Him]

Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the statement by the US Embassy in Moscow



14 May 2021 - 19:27



As everyone is well aware, in response to the hostile actions of the United States, the Russian authorities have decided to curtail, up to a complete ban, the employment of citizens of the Russian Federation and third countries by the embassies and consular departments of unfriendly states. This measure, which was explained in the Foreign Ministry statement, issued on April 16, 2021, was approved by the Presidential Executive Order on April 23, 2021.

In accordance with the Government Directive of May 13, 2021, issued in pursuance of the Presidential Executive Order, US diplomatic missions have been prohibited from employing private individuals residing on the territory of the Russian Federation. Since the implementation of this decision will take time, the Foreign Ministry of Russia expects that the US Embassy and consular departments in Russia will adjust the structure of their personnel to these requirements no later than August 1, 2021.

The necessary explanations, which are regularly provided to the United States, leave no room for any misunderstandings. This matter has been decided once and for all.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4733137






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on new information regarding explosions at the Czech arms depots in Vrbetice



15 May 2021 - 13:24



We have taken note of the item published in the Czech newspaper Dnes on May 14 regarding the disappearance of a large number of armaments from the Vrbetice ammunition depots immediately after the explosions in 2014. The matter concerns hundreds and thousands of munitions, weapons and spare parts.

Representatives of the IMEX Group, the leaseholder of the depots which the Czech law enforcement authorities have accused of failing to prevent “Russian GRU agents” from entering the warehouse in 2014, have filed a suit the other day over the theft of the company’s property. The IMEX Group management is convinced that such a large number of weapons could not have been fully destroyed in the explosions.

According to Dnes, the Czech General Inspectorate of Security Forces, the National Centre for Combating Organised Crime and the investigators involved in this case have all refused to comment.

It appears that the Czech authorities are not only unable to conduct an objective investigation but also cannot logically analyse the outrageous incidents taking place on the country’s territory.

There is only one undeniable fact in this story: amid total chaos, Prague has failed to find any solution other than to attempt to shift the blame for this to the notorious “external enemy,” that is, Russia.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4733178






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Republic of Sierra Leone David John Francis, Moscow, May 17, 2021



17 May 2021 - 19:08

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 38:40

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 38:40

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to thank Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Republic of Sierra Leone David John Francis for the substantive and productive talks that took place during his first foreign visit after being appointed head of his country’s foreign affairs department two weeks ago.

Mr D J Francis has visited the Russian Federation before, and among other things, participated in the first ever Russia-Africa summit in October 2019.

Today, we discussed ways to expand our relations going forward. I would like to congratulate the minister, the delegation, and all the people of Sierra Leone on the 60th anniversary of independence, which was marked on April 27. Russia, and the Soviet Union, made a decisive contribution to supporting the battle against colonialism and spearheaded the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.

Our countries maintain traditionally friendly relations which rely on equality, mutual respect and consideration for each other's interests. Diplomatic relations between Russia and Sierra Leone will see 60 years in January 2022. We agreed to hold a number of events dedicated to this anniversary in order to have a proper celebration.

The minister has quite a busy schedule during this visit. He will meet with Russian businesspeople - those who are already working in Sierra Leone and those who plan to invest in this promising economy. He met with representatives of the academic community and NGOs engaged in relations with Africa. He will have a meeting at the Moscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry and with Sierra Leone students studying at RUDN University. We continue to provide assistance in this area to our friends through higher education grants each year.

We both want to lift our trade, economic and investment cooperation to the level of our political dialogue. So far, our achievements in trade have been modest, but as I said, we have specific plans in mind. I hope this visit with the delegation, led by the minister, will expedite the implementation of this. I’m referring to the prospects offered by mutually beneficial projects in mining, the fuel and energy complex, infrastructure, and fishing. We will continue our discussions to ensure that Russian businesses enjoy a favourable working environment in Sierra Leone. D J Francis reaffirmed that this matter will be on his list of priorities.

We agreed, the coronavirus situation permitting, to resume the activities of the Working Group on Energy, which was created following President of Sierra Leone Julius Maada Bio’s attendance at the Russia-Africa Summit held in Sochi in 2019. The group has already held its first meeting. This year, we are planning its second meeting.

We signed an agreement to waive visa requirements for holders of diplomatic and service passports and discussed the practicality of expediting the signing of several more documents that are still in the works.

I mentioned our cooperation in education. We are interested in expanding humanitarian and cultural exchanges. We will continue to provide assistance to Sierra Leone as it strives to overcome humanitarian challenges, including food supplies through the World Food Programme. Just a few days from now, a Russian Emergencies Ministry ship will make yet another delivery to the port of Freetown.

We spoke about foreign policy cooperation. It is developing systemically. In 2017, we signed a memorandum on cooperation between foreign ministries. In accordance with this memorandum, we hold detailed consultations on many regional and global issues every year. Our bilateral foreign policy contacts are based on respect for the fundamental principles of international law. This primarily applies to respect for the sovereignty of states, non-interference in internal affairs, peaceful settlement of any disputes or conflicts and respect for the right of nations to decide their destiny and choose their own development path.

Sierra Leone chairs the African Union Committee of Ten that was established to promote Africa’s position on reforming the UN Security Council. We spoke in detail about this today. We confirmed our conviction that such a reform should increase the representation of the developing nations in the UN Security Council. All of us should work for greater participation from the Asian, African and Latin American countries. In this way we could restore justice in this central UN body that oversees the maintaining of peace and security. We agreed to develop further coordination in the UN where Sierra Leone supports key Russian initiatives (for which we are grateful), including the unacceptability of glorification of Nazism, prevention of an arms race in space, development of a dialogue on confidence building measures in space, arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, and many others. Sierra Leone has traditionally voted with us. We also have a good practice of supporting each other’s nominees for elections to different UN bodies.

We focused on the situation in Africa. This is a traditional topic for discussion with our African friends and the African Union. Our position is clear: an African solution to African problems. All external actors must create the best conditions for the African countries, their sub-regional organisations and the African Union to draft common solutions on overcoming crises in the most effective way.

There is one more area in which we enthusiastically support our African friends. I refer to the need to strengthen their potential in countering the threats of terrorism, illegal weapons trade, drug trafficking, and other forms of organised crime. We share Sierra Leone’s approach to the current situations in the Sahara-Sahel Region and West Africa, the Horn of Africa and the Central African Republic. As a permanent UN Security Council member and a friend of Africa, Russia will contribute to the strengthening of regional security and stability by supporting, let me emphasise this again, the efforts of the African countries themselves.

We have very good impressions that we exchanged today on the results of the first Russia-Africa summit in Sochi in October 2019. We described the measures taken by the Russian Federation to implement the summit’s agreements and create systematic, permanent mechanisms for cooperation through political dialogue and encouraging economic and investment cooperation. We hope the second Russia-Africa summit, as agreed to in Sochi, will take place in Africa in 2022. We hope that President of Sierra Leone Julius Maada Bio who attended the first summit will take part in the second one as well.

I consider our conversation useful. I am sincerely grateful to Mr Minister for visiting the Russian Federation at our invitation.







Question:

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan accused Baku of encroaching on Armenian territory. Is there a new threat to the ceasefire agreement in Nagorno-Karabakh?



Sergey Lavrov:

After this incident occurred, Azerbaijan issued statements explaining the incident by a misunderstanding, and most importantly, by the absence of a delimited and demarcated border. Nobody there ever thought about it. We suggested that the parties start working on this. We stand ready to assist them in providing cartographic material and consultations.

Not a single shot was fired. No skirmishes took place. We sat down and started talking calmly about how to defuse this situation. They asked for assistance. Our military provided it. An agreement has been reached.

I see no reason to stoke emotions with regard to an issue that has been settled in a calm manner.



Question:

A list of unfriendly states, which includes the Czech Republic and the United States, was released recently. What does this mean in practical terms?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have already provided clarification on this. These countries have exhibited an extremely unfriendly approach to the Russian Federation by accusing us of all manner of transgressions without providing any evidence whatsoever.

You can see the disgrace the Czech Republic is now facing as it tries to sort out the explosion-related incident that took place seven years ago. Until now, no one has been able to tell what the investigators have been doing all those years. They are providing mixed evidence and coming up with more scenarios. First, you must sort such things out at home, and do that before expelling diplomats or declaring charges against them before the investigation is completed. Judging by the way they are going about it, it is unlikely that it will bring any concrete results.

As you know, the United States seized our diplomatic property. For many years now we have been denied access to that property, Russian state property, which was taken from us illegally. Our diplomats are expelled from that country on a regular basis.

We have made clear many times that this has to stop. In this case, these unfriendly moves served as a reason for making a decision to create a level field for diplomatic missions, Russian mission in the Czech Republic and the United States, and Czech and American missions, respectively, in the Russian Federation. As a concrete step, which has already been announced, we asked them to bring the number of local staff hired from among individuals (both Russian citizens and citizens of third countries) to the number of employees of the same category that we have in the Czech Republic and in the United States, respectively. In the Czech Republic, that’s 19 people, in the United States, zero. At this point, a decision has been made.



Question:

The death toll has exceeded 200 in Israel and the Gaza Strip, and thousands have been wounded. Meanwhile, the parties, as we hear them say, do not plan to retreat. What can turn the situation around and put an end to the bloodshed? Do you agree with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres that only talks that focus on a two-state solution with the capital in Jerusalem can change the situation in the region?



Sergey Lavrov:

I agree with what Antonio Guterres said about the need to create two independent states – Israel and Palestine. But these were not his exact words. He just cited numerous UN Security Council resolutions. The two-state solution is part of the resolutions that point to an integrated and sustainable approach to resolving the Palestinian problem. It also mentions the need to observe and in no way violate the status of holy places; it covers settlement activities, which are illegal, especially when it takes on extreme forms such as throwing people out into the street.

Direct talks are the only way forward if we want to agree on creating a Palestinian state, which, in accordance with UN decisions, would live side by side in peace and security with Israel and other countries in the region. For these talks to start, it is imperative to end the violence on all sides. We condemn the bombing of residential quarters from the Gaza Strip. Strikes against civilian targets on Palestinian territory are totally unacceptable. I think enough calls have been made to put an end to this situation immediately and to start talks.

We highly appreciated Egypt’s mediation efforts. Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry has kept us informed about his exchanges with the parties. At some point, we thought he was close to achieving a result, but for some reason the desire to continue punishing people prevailed.

We operate on the premise that the international community should not be watching what’s going on listlessly. There’s a quartet of international mediators who are directly responsible for facilitating a solution to the Palestinian issue. The UN Security Council met yesterday. Several days have been wasted because the United States said it wasn’t ready to discuss the situation when it erupted. Nevertheless, the UN Security Council discussed the problem, opinions were expressed and messages sent. Now, everything depends on the parties’ ability to reach an agreement and their goodwill. We will do our best to help them reach an agreement on how to appease the ongoing dangerous phase of the conflict and to start direct talks as soon as possible.

For several years now, including at the request of the Israel, we have been standing ready to host direct talks between the leaders of Israel and Palestine on our territory. The other day I read an interview with the Ambassador of Israel to Russia Aleksander Ben-Cewi. He said Israel has always been ready for direct talks between the Prime Minister of his country and the President of the Palestinian National Authority, without any preliminary conditions. He said so publicly. I would also like to publicly remind the Ambassador that, with our assistance, an agreement to this end was reached several years ago. It was not acted upon back then, and it was not our fault.



Question:

The United States considers your talks with Secretary of State Antony Blinken a step towards stability in bilateral relations. At the same time, they are worried about the consolidation of a Russian military presence in the Arctic. Isn’t this a discrepancy? What will the main issue be at the talks with Mr Blinken?



Sergey Lavrov:

Apparently, a decision was made to promote stable, predictable relations with Russia. However, if this includes constant and predictable sanctions, that’s not what we need. Our attitude towards the US includes the hope that normalised relations will be based on specific actions rather than words (of which we have heard too many). I reminded Mr Blinken of this during our telephone conversation. As far as I know, he has the same approach. We want to look at areas of bilateral relations, international life where our interests may coincide, and search for a balance along the lines of equality and mutual respect.

As President of Russia Vladimir Putin emphasised recently, we will determine which issues we want to cooperate on, as well as the forms of cooperation. Russia will also determine the lines that we will not cross during discussions on the international agenda. This fully applies to the problems of strategic stability. We have repeatedly described our approach to this important issue. Everything that affects strategic stability (nuclear and non-nuclear arms, offensive and defensive weapons) must be on the negotiating table. The Americans know our approach. We have already sent the relevant unofficial paperwork to the new administration. I hope for a professional conversation that will allow us to clear up the US’s specific intentions in its relations with Russia and their position on international issues that affect our interests in various ways.

We are hearing grievances about Russia’s enhanced military activities in the Arctic. It has long been common knowledge that this is our territory, our land. We are in charge of keeping the Arctic coast safe. Everything Russia is doing there is absolutely legal. When NATO tries to justify its “offensive” in the Arctic, it’s a slightly different situation.

We have questions for our neighbours, for instance, Norway, that tries to justify the need for a NATO presence in the Arctic with different reasons. We will openly discuss this issue at an Arctic Council meeting in Reykjavik. If someone wants more predictability and less military risk, I suggest returning to our long-standing proposal to resume the mechanism of regular meetings between the Arctic Council members’ armed forces’ general chiefs of staff. Our Western colleagues decided to suspend this about seven years ago. After deciding this, they shouldn’t take offense at the lack of a dialogue. We didn’t suspend it, but we are once again proposing that we resume these meetings. As a first step, we could start with the military experts from the Arctic Council’s eight members rather than the chiefs of staff. This proposal is on the table. We will hear what the others, including the United States, think about it in Reykjavik.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4736245






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s address to organisers and participants of the Potsdam Meetings, May 18, 2021



18 May 2021 - 11:15

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Mr Matthias Platzeck,

Colleagues, friends,

I am delighted to welcome the organisers and participants of the anniversary, 25th session of the Potsdam Meetings.

Your forum has become a respected dialogue platform for open and free discussions on the main bilateral and international issues. Of course, its success has been ensured, in a large measure, by the energetic participation of prominent political and public figures, business leaders and experts in our countries.

The theme of our meeting today is Partners in Difficult Times: Russia and Germany in the Post-Coronavirus Era. This is a very topical theme. Although the pandemic is not over yet, there is no doubt that it has become a huge challenge to the entire humanity, and we will feel its negative consequences for the global economy and politics, let alone everyday lives of people, for a long time yet.

Regrettably, this shared trouble has not brought the international community together. We are also at a difficult period in Russian-German relations. We have to say that Berlin has intensified its policy of system-wide containment of Russia. Highly placed officials regularly present Russia as almost a threat to European security. Unsubstantiated and, increasingly often, absurd accusations are being made against Russia. The anti-Russia sentiments of some German media outlets have risen to a fever pitch. This is eroding mutual confidence and the very foundations of our relationship.

I would like to assure you once again that Russia is not interested in confrontation. While taking the necessary measures to protect our national interests, we also call for developing a positive Russian-German agenda on a wide range of issues. One of the most stable and pragmatic spheres is trade and investment cooperation. There is a positive outlook in such spheres as energy, technology transfer, digitalisation and the localisation of German producers in Russia.

It is notable that German business leaders invariably reaffirm their commitment to carry on mutually beneficial cooperation with their Russian partners. We will continue to support their activities, including within the framework of the Russian-German Economic Council, which was established in December 2020 at the initiative of the Russian Government and the Eastern Committee of German Economy.

Russian-German cross initiatives have proved their worth. The Russian-German Year of Scientific and Educational Partnerships 2018-2020 has been a great success. We are implementing the next joint initiative now, the Year of Economy and Sustainable Development 2020‑2022.

We are ready to increase the scope of interregional and inter-municipal exchanges. Of course, we still need to combine our efforts against the coronavirus infection.

Colleagues,

Moscow continues to regard Berlin as an important international player and remains open to dialogue, but a dialogue that is honest and mutually respectful. We know that in Germany, too, there are many of those interested in promoting relations based on the principles of equality and regard for each other’s interests. I am referring to prominent German politicians, parliamentarians and representatives of business and expert circles. Many of them also agree with us that the policy of sanctions has been a complete fiasco; more than that, it is inflicting serious damage on its own originators. I hope that common sense will prevail and that the forces that put national interests above ideological schemes and bloc discipline in the spirit of the Cold War will gain the upper hand.

Coming to the fore today are some truly large-scale tasks involved in overcoming the economic recession and achieving a post-COVID revival. I am confident that a successful solution to these problems would be promoted by joining the potentials of various integration projects that are being carried out on our shared continent, Eurasia. This is the ultimate goal of President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to form a Greater Eurasian Partnership based on the principles of international law and transparency and open to all countries in Europe and Asia without exception. Work is underway in this direction, primarily by way of aligning the development plans of the Eurasian Economic Union and China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Ties in the EAEU-SCO-ASEAN triangle are developing and growing increasingly detailed. I think that our German colleagues, as well as other EU members, will only profit by joining the efforts that are being undertaken. A start could be made by establishing stable contacts between the Eurasian Economic Commission and the European Commission.

Friends,

Today, the existing mechanisms of Russian-German society-to-society dialogue have a special role to play in the matter of preserving the positive, unifying principles in bilateral affairs. After all, they have been originally created as “all-weather” arrangements independent of the changeable political situation. These include, among others, such a prestigious venue as Potsdam Meetings.

I am confident that this time as always your meeting will be constructive, contribute to greater mutual understanding, and make it possible to identify new points of contact.

I wish you fruitful discussions and all the best.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4736382






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Tajikistan Sirojiddin Muhriddin, Dushanbe, May 19, 2021



19 May 2021 - 12:11

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 06:02

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 06:02

Ladies and gentlemen,

We held very good, substantive talks. I would like to express gratitude to our Tajik friends for their hospitality and excellent organisation of our work and the upcoming meeting of the CSTO Council of Foreign Ministers.

During our bilateral talks today, we focused on the issues which the presidents of Russia and Tajikistan discussed during Emomali Rahmon’s visit to Moscow on May 8-9. We reaffirmed that the essence of our relations at the current stage fully corresponds to the spirit of our strategic partnership and cooperation. We had an in-depth discussion on all bilateral issues on our agenda, highlighting the CSTO and SCO summits scheduled to be held this year. Tajikistan holds the rotating chairmanship of these organisations in 2021. We are helping to ensure the success of this important mission.

Russia remains the leading trade and investment partner of Tajikistan. We pointed out that our bilateral trade had decreased only slightly despite the negative consequences of the coronavirus. It is already recovering and even growing. The implementation of the measures outlined during the February 8-9 meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission will enable us to strengthen this positive trend.

We noted the dynamic dialogue we maintain at the level of our foreign ministries. Its further development will be promoted by the programme of cooperation the ministries have recently signed for 2021.

We have a positive view on our interaction in the sphere of migration. On April 19-20 of this year, we held comprehensive talks on all aspects of the migration issue. This will help us to complete the improvement of the legal framework and organise our efforts in this sphere as soon as possible. Our Tajik friends have promised to take additional measures to explain the importance of complying with Russian law to the Tajik migrants in Russia so as to prevent the incidents we are having to deal with today.

Our cultural and humanitarian ties are improving. We have called for their all-round development. During the 17th meeting of the Russian-Tajik Intergovernmental Commission, it was decided to establish a working group on culture at the commission and to hold its first meeting. I see this as a major step towards the further development of our cooperation.

We are implementing a number of education projects. As of now, 50 Russian teachers from 18 Russian regions are working in Tajikistan to share their experience with local Russian language professionals. We are implementing a project to build five schools where education will be adjusted to Russian standards. We hope that the ground-breaking ceremony for them will be held as early as next month and the schools will open on September 1, 2022.

We would like to resume the frequency and number of regular flights as soon as possible, including to help Tajik students – there are about 20,000 of them – resume their studies at Russian universities.

We also discussed our joint efforts against the coronavirus infection, including the free delivery of the Sputnik V vaccine to Tajikistan, as agreed by our presidents in Moscow on May 8, 2021.







[Here the translation breaks off and I have to translate the end of the text myself.]

We reviewed the implementation of the agreement on cooperation in the military and military-technical spheres, including Russia's assistance in the modernization of the armed forces of Tajikistan. We agreed to continue to fully implement the outlined plans in compliance with the agreed deadlines. This is especially important, given that threats to our common security persist, primarily in the context of the situation in Afghanistan in the light of the begun (at least announced) withdrawal of US and NATO troops from this country. We are concerned about the activation of militants of international terrorist organizations in the northern provinces of Afghanistan. We are ready to provide Dushanbe with all the necessary assistance in the fight against terrorism, extremism and drug trafficking.

We have a common opinion that the 201st Russian military base in Tajikistan is an essential factor of stability and security in the Central Asian region. We discussed the steps being taken to strengthen the Tajik-Afghan border both in the context of the CSTO activities and bilaterally. With the participation of the Russian Armed Forces, counter-terrorist exercises are regularly held. In the near future we expect to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement, according to which Russia will provide financial assistance in the construction of a modern border post on one of the sections of the Tajik-Afghan border.

We agreed to continue close coordination in international organizations: UN, CIS, CSTO, SCO, OSCE. We welcomed the regular dialogue in the Central Asian Five plus Russia format at the level of foreign ministers. Three meetings have already taken place in this format. Today we discussed the preparation of the next such event. We plan to hold it in the coming months.

Yesterday, in an informal mode, we already started the work of the CSTO Foreign Ministers. During the meeting, we considered the request of our Armenian colleagues, in accordance with which we discussed the situation in relations between Yerevan and Baku. We informed our friends in detail about the efforts undertaken by Russia to resolve the incident that arose due to the lack of international legal registration of the state border.

By prior agreement with both sides, Russia offered to assist in the delimitation and demarcation of the border, having come up with an initiative to establish a joint Armenian-Azerbaijani commission for this purpose, in which Russia could participate as a mediator.

We spoke yesterday about a positive example of the transition from confrontation to cooperation, which is being presented by the Republic of Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic. We are glad that the hot phase of the recent conflict is over. The main thing is that the countries have started to work on delimitation and demarcation. This is a good example for the entire post-Soviet space, where, for well-known reasons, the borders were not finally and reliably formalized in legal terms. Now it is necessary to intensify this process in every possible way.

Once again I want to express my gratitude for the organization of our work.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4737183






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the Arctic Council, May 19, 2021



19 May 2021 - 17:00

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

The Arctic is becoming a fixture on the international agenda as a region of fruitful cooperation. It comprises a unique and extremely fragile ecosystem, the people who live and work there, and the huge potential for joint development. The polar region can only be managed responsibly based on a real partnership of the countries that bear special responsibility for its future. It is notable that interstate relations in the high latitudes continue to develop consistently despite a difficult international situation.

Tremendous credit goes to the Arctic Council for this. During the past 25 years, we have attained substantial results in the strengthening of this organisation. A quarter century of painstaking and scrupulous efforts to develop a system of cooperation is yielding fruit. Three legally binding intergovernmental agreements have been signed, and the Arctic Economic Council and the University of the Arctic (UArctic) have been established. We have also established close ties with the Arctic Coast Guard Forum and synergy with other regional organisations.

The Arctic Council is a unique forum where the member states are not divided into “us and them”; decisions are adopted by consensus, and the interests of the indigenous people of the North, who sit at the same table with representatives of the member states, are taken into account. The council’s creative activities are proof of its efficiency.

A network of auxiliary agencies contributes to attaining the goals set before the council. These include, first, the working and expert groups, which are focused on a broad range of sustainable development goals and thereby ensure a comprehensive expert analysis of the initiatives and recommendations that are translated into practice.

The solutions to the growing problems in the Arctic region often require international assistance from outside the region. That is, states and organisations that have observer status in the council; at present, there are 38. This is not a small number. The council will still have to evaluate the efficiency of this mechanism of cooperation and improve it. However, as I noted, the main point is not to interrupt the ongoing multi-level dialogue or push it to a confrontation-based approach with outside tensions.

Russia is starting its Arctic Council chairmanship in an anniversary year. Our country accounts for almost a third of the Arctic with a population of over 2.5 million people. We are carrying out a comprehensive programme for developing this territory. As council chair, we will promote balanced and sustainable development in the social, economic and environmental areas. In the process, we will focus on the need to improve the wellbeing and living standards of the local people.

Russia intends to increase the adaptation and sustainability of the Arctic Region, as well as its resilience to global climate change, and to minimise the anthropogenic impact on its environment. We will approach this work, among other things, as part of our national commitments under the Paris Agreement and the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development goals. We are focusing on preserving biodiversity, unique bio-systems, preventing pollution and developing practical cooperation among the Arctic states through joint response efforts.

We are planning a number of events and projects on preserving the cultural, historical and linguistic heritage of the North. These activities are particularly important in the context of the UN-declared International Decade of Indigenous Languages in 2022-2032.

We hope Russia’s Arctic Council chairmanship will help promote further regional cooperation. The challenges all of us meet in the high latitudes require truly collective approaches.

The Arctic is our common region, and we are directly responsible for preserving it for current and future generations.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4737517

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the sidelines of the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, Reykjavik, May 19, 2021



20 May 2021 - 01:40

Sergey Lavrov (E)

Sergey Lavrov (E)

First of all, I would like to thank you for your proposal to meet here. This is important for our relations and for deciding how we should move forward, just as our presidents want us to do. I believe that it is clear to everyone why this routine meeting between Russian and US representatives held on the sidelines of the Arctic Council’s meeting has created a sensation and attracted so many people. Our goal is to determine, on the basis of the telephone conversations between our presidents, how we can further develop our relations.

There are serious differences in our views on the international situation and in our approaches to the tasks that need to be addressed to normalise it. Russia’s position is simple: we are ready to discuss all issues without exception if the discussion is honest, with facts on the table and based on mutual respect.

The diplomatic procedure provides for reciprocity, including with regard to unfriendly actions. The main thing is for us to try to use diplomatic options as much as possible. I appreciate your resolve to act in exactly this manner. You can always expect us to reciprocate your efforts.





As you have said, the global situation to a large extent depends on relations between Moscow and Washington. As far as I can see, our presidents, who have had two telephone conversations, agree that we should cooperate on the issues where we have similar interests, when we can reach positive results regarding conflict situations and, most importantly, on issues of strategic stability. In this context, the Korean Peninsula, the situation around Iran’s nuclear programme and Afghanistan are the issues on which our representatives have been collaborating actively. I hope we will be able to review these efforts today.

We are ready to clear away the obstructions we inherited from the previous US administrations as regards the functioning of US diplomatic offices in Russia and Russian diplomatic missions in the United States. Unless we create normal working conditions for our diplomats, we will undermine the very essence of diplomacy, which boils down to creating and maintaining bridges and dialogue.

Thank you for this meeting. I hope it will be a constructive dialogue.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4737957






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s press point following talks with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Reykjavik, May 19, 2021



20 May 2021 - 03:25

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

As you can see, we talked longer than planned. The talks seemed constructive to me. There is an understanding of the need to overcome the abnormal situation that took shape in relations between Moscow and Washington in the previous years. There are numerous roadblocks. It is not easy to clear them. But I felt that Antony Blinken and his team are determined to do that. As for us, we will not be found wanting. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stressed, we are ready to consider and address any issues on our bilateral agenda, including regional and global problems, conflicts and crises, based on equality, mutual respect and a search for a balance of interests.

We broached the topic of the diplomatic presence of Russia in the United States and the United States in Russia. The vicious circle of tit-for-tat blows was initiated by former US President Barack Obama. When he was leaving the White House, they confiscated our diplomatic property in the United States in what was in effect corporate raids and expelled Russian diplomats and their families in an unseemly and rude manner. We tolerated this for quite a long time. We thought that the Trump administration would revise these decisions. But this failed to happen. On the contrary, in 2017, the United States adopted new anti-Russia, anti-diplomatic decisions. Then we were forced to respond. This chain reaction can please no one. Today I felt that our US colleagues shared this view. We will be preparing proposals for our presidents on these issues and on ways to promote our dialogue on strategic stability – this is the key problem whose solution is a matter of concern for the majority of states in the world community. It is also the duty of Russia and the United States as the major nuclear powers. We have reaffirmed our proposal to start a dialogue by considering all factors influencing strategic stability: nuclear and non-nuclear, offensive and defensive. I did not see this concept being rejected, but experts have a lot of work ahead in this regard.





We have agreed to continue joint efforts, ones that are going ahead with sufficient success, on regional conflicts, where Russian and US interests coincide: the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula; the efforts to restore the JCPOA on the Iranian nuclear programme; and Afghanistan, where an extended Troika, including Russia, China, the United States, and Pakistan, is operating actively. We discussed how we could make all our joint actions more effective at this stage.

I think this was a very useful discussion. We will report to our presidents. The meeting was held following the telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden in April of this year. I hope they will map further ways for joint efforts to rectify the clearly abnormal situation in bilateral relations.



Question:

Has Russia cleared the summit?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are not a customs office to clear anything.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4738018






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement at the 12th Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, Reykjavik, May 20, 2021



20 May 2021 - 14:55

12th Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting convenes in Reykjavik - 15:30

12th Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting convenes in Reykjavik - 15:30

Mr Chairperson,

Colleagues,

This year we will mark the 25th anniversary of the Arctic Council, which remains the leading intergovernmental platform for a depoliticised dialogue in the high latitudes. It is gratifying that today we are holding an in-person meeting. We regard this demonstration of unity on issues related to the development of the Polar region as very timely. We would like to thank our Icelandic hosts for their hospitality and excellent organisation of this event.

Iceland is concluding its extremely eventful chairmanship. A great deal has been accomplished despite the pandemic. Our biggest achievement was the coordination of the Arctic Council’s strategic plan, its first ever document of forward-looking planning, which reflects our common vision of the tasks our countries will face in the next decade.

Russia, which is taking over the baton from Iceland, intends to maintain the spirit of cooperation, strengthen constructive interaction among all the member states and reinforce our readiness to search for the best possible solutions for the Arctic and the people who live there. We consider it crucial to ensure the continuity of the council’s agenda in the upcoming period and to carry on the ongoing projects and initiatives.

All of us agree that the council’s member states bear special responsibility for the developments in the region. We support the idea of holding a summit of the Arctic states when the necessary conditions are created for this. If this happens during Russia’s chairmanship, we will be ready to convene this summit. In any case, a summit, if prepared properly, will be a major factor for outlining the long-term strategic goals of Arctic cooperation.

Russia, as the largest Arctic power, believes that its priority at the Arctic Council is to promote the region’s balanced and sustainable social, economic and environmental development. We believe that the council should play a greater role in the collective efforts to ensure a responsible management of the region and the solution of its problems. At the same time, it is important to promote synergy with other regional platforms.

The Arctic is a territory of peace, stability and constructive cooperation. We are pleased to say that our partners support this view. I have no doubt that cooperation is the only path towards prosperity in the Arctic. It is vitally important to extend the member states’ positive interaction experience to the military sphere as well, first of all through the relaunching of the multilateral dialogue of the Arctic states at the level of general staffs of their armed forces.

Russia calls for applying our common efforts primarily to improve the well-being and the quality of life for the Arctic peoples, enhance the accessibility of education and healthcare, increase humanitarian exchanges, including among our young people, and support initiatives aimed at preserving the identity and heritage of the indigenous people of the North in keeping with the goals and objectives of the UN International Decade of Indigenous Languages 2022-2032.

I would like to point out in this connection the project that has been proposed by Russia and approved by all members of the Arctic Council: the digitalisation of the language and cultural heritage of the indigenous peoples of the North. This platform is scheduled to become available online next year.

Russia intends to make every effort to promote the region’s further adaptation to global climate change. This requires continuously improving the environment monitoring system, striving to minimise anthropogenic impact on nature, and working to implement the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is important to focus on preserving the biodiversity of the Arctic and its unique ecosystem, and to prevent pollution at sea and on land. We are ready to practice hands-on interaction in jointly responding to these and other challenges; we consider it important.

Ensuring sustainable and safe maritime activities in the Arctic is of particular relevance in the context of climate change. Shipping is rapidly developing here, contributing to the diversification of transport routes between the Atlantic and the Asia-Pacific region. There is a growing role for the Arctic in ensuring global energy security and in the overall effort to transition to a climate-neutral economy.

I would like to underscore the need to place emphasis on efforts to implement the Polar Code and the agreements reached by the International Maritime Organisation as part of the Arctic Council bodies. We support further cooperation at the Arctic Coast Guard Forum, expanding its ties with the Arctic Council in order to strengthen the overall capacity to respond to emergencies.

We consider it important to make a decision on the modalities of the mechanism for financing project activities aimed at reducing environmental pollution in the Arctic and at expanding environmental cooperation between the Arctic states.

We also support an expeditious enactment of the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated Fishing in the High Seas of the Central Arctic Ocean signed three years ago. We regard this as a serious step towards promoting an ecosystem-based approach to the management of marine resources in the region.

The key to a more complete unlocking of the Arctic’s economic potential is the creation of a favourable environment for investment. At the same time, development of the Arctic should meet high environmental standards and take into account the local specifics and traditional lifestyles. It is important that business representatives working here show social responsibility and contribute to the strengthening of relations with the indigenous peoples of the region.

We support further cooperation between our forum and the Arctic Economic Council. We support the expansion of ties between the Arctic regions of our countries, and the establishment of contacts through local chambers of commerce and industry.

We place emphasis on the promotion of scientific cooperation, including through the expansion of joint high-latitude marine research projects.

Russia has consistently advocated strengthening the Arctic Council as a key format for intergovernmental cooperation in the Arctic, continuing the practice of regular contacts between the council and other organisations operating in high latitudes.

I would like to reaffirm that Russia is open to constructive cooperation with all Arctic Council member states, permanent participants, and observers, as well as other interested non-regional partners. We are confident that the strong spirit of cooperation inherent in the Arctic Council will contribute to strengthening trust and mutual understanding in the region as a whole.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the kind words addressed to the Russian chairmanship and for your support for the Programme approved by the Government of the Russian Federation and containing more than a hundred events. The slogan of our biennium in the Arctic Council will be Responsible Governance for Sustainable Arctic.

A more detailed presentation of our Programme can be found in the handouts, so this concludes my report, and I will assume you all have the presentation.

Thank you.





***


We are grateful for the appreciation of our proposals from the Russian Chairmanship Programme, for the support of Russia’s efforts we have heard from all delegations today. We will try not to disappoint our partners.

The presentation has been distributed in hard copy. We will make it public.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4738773






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening of the UNCTAD conference, May 20, 2021



20 May 2021 - 15:08

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Ladies and gentlemen,

The world today is facing numerous challenges. The negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global socioeconomic situation is being aggravated by political factors, such as growing confrontation, centrifugal tendencies in multilateral trade, abuse of protectionist measures, and the use of illegitimate unilateral restrictions. There is an escalation of various interstate contradictions, which is fraught with the most serious consequences for the world economy.

We are witnessing the fragmentation and disintegration of long-standing trans-border chains of cooperative ties. People’s prosperity is being damaged and prospects for global economic growth are being undermined, as are the chances for an effective implementation of the development goals envisaged by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Agenda 2030). The choice of the UNCTAD venue to discuss these acute issues seems justified. The topicality of this event has been dictated by the preparations for the UNCTAD 15 Ministerial Conference, one of the most important objectives of which seems to be the formation of a wide-ranging unifying global agenda on issues of trade and development in the short term.

We are firmly convinced that the world community will only be able to effectively combat global threats by strictly following the multilateral trade rules agreed within the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), renouncing protectionist measures and taking collective interests into account to the greatest possible extent. In this context, any multilateral anti-crisis initiatives should be agreed upon, should avoid affecting aspects of national sovereignty, and need to be implemented with the United Nations playing a coordinating role.

Russia supports the implementation of Agenda 2030, which was approved thanks to the commitment to multilateral cooperation, principles of equality, and common responsibility and solidarity displayed by the countries involved.

My country is implementing Agenda 2030 successfully and is confidently advancing towards the fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the national level. Last year, Russia presented its Voluntary National Review on the SDGs that contains information on our main achievements in the economic, social and environmental areas during the first five years since the global goals were coordinated.

Russia is also contributing to the implementation of Agenda 2030 by giving financial and technical assistance to the countries concerned; the annual amount of this assistance exceeds $1 billion. The priority recipients of Russian aid are CIS states.

Given the growing number of regional integration associations and their increased weight in world politics, it seems important to establish a mechanism of coordination and exchange of experience between them. The integration associations possess powerful resources for implementing the SDGs and overcoming the negative consequences of the pandemic, as well as for an early post-COVID revival of the world economy. Establishing inter-regional dialogue seems a constructive step preventing a rollback to bloc confrontation and making it possible to effectively fight the distortions related to the abuse of unilateral restrictive measures and the rule of force.

In this connection, we regard the initiative by our Belarusian and Barbadian partners to launch a dialogue mechanism between integration associations and have UNCTAD join this process as quite timely. It is fully in conformity with the Conference’s mandate: its authoritative expert potential seems highly necessary in the context of the task to enhance the role of regional economic ties in the global efforts to implement the SDGs.

Regional integration, primarily within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is an important driver in ensuring Russia’s sustainable and inclusive economic growth. One of its main goals is to create the conditions for the steady economic development of its member countries with a view to improving their living standards. We are pleased to note that the EAEU countries are moving towards the SDGs at an accelerated pace in the areas that are within the competence of the Union’s supranational bodies.

The common market and its four freedoms – the movement of goods, services, capital and workforce – are giving the EAEU countries indisputable competitive advantages on the road to reaching such SDGs as the complete eradication of poverty, food security, sustainable economic growth and comprehensive industrialisation.

By now, the EAEU has completed its initial development stage as an efficient international organisation of regional economic integration and is now revealing its potentialities as a key instrument in ensuring sustainable economic development, building up cooperation ties, enhancing the competitiveness of the EAEU countries and promoting their economic interests in the world arena.

The EAEU has passed the endurance test during the coronavirus pandemic, thereby demonstrating that inclusion into integration processes makes it much easier to maintain economic sustainability in an emergency, including a non-economic one. The recent statistics from international agencies bear this out. The indicators of the GDP growth are expected to be better than those of the past year in all EAEU countries.

It is worth mentioning separately the final SDG, the 17th, which in our opinion is of great importance. It urges the participants to revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. This is a task for effective financial institutions operating in the Eurasian area, designed to even out the differences in the levels of economic development between the member countries and their regions and create a foundation for further sustainable growth. These include, in part, the Eurasian Development Bank (EDB) and the Eurasian Fund for Stabilisation and Development (EFSD).

At the same time, we must note that to increase the benefits from regionalisation and achieve better results, it is important for integration associations to develop ties with other economic blocs that are also striving to improve the wellbeing of their people and go over to sustainable development. In this context, we welcome the EAEU’s evolving cooperation with other integration associations, such as the Andean Community, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, the Pacific Alliance and the African Union, to name a few.

Institutionalisation of the EAEU’s ties with the Eurasian countries and associations is one of the elements of promoting the initiative of the Greater Eurasian Partnership (GEP) put forward by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin in 2015. It provides for the formation of a broad pan-Eurasian integration framework linking national and regional development strategies in Eurasia with a view to building a common space of cooperation and confidence along the lines of equality, mutual respect and consideration for each other’s national features.

The EAEU has six major international trade agreements: with Vietnam, Iran, Singapore, Serbia and two with China. Similar agreements are now being discussed with Egypt and Israel and preparations for talks with India are underway. New negotiations with promising trade partners are under discussion. The EAEU has developed cooperation through the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) with a number of other Eurasian countries and integration associations, in part, with the CIS Executive Committee and the ASEAN Secretariat.

The Eurasian Economic Commission and the European Commission maintain mostly technical contacts. The EAEU is willing to make them more systematic and meaningful.

We believe the activities of UN regional economic commissions have a big potential for developing interregional integration in the context of the implemention of the 2030 Agenda. The UN European Economic Commission and the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), in which Russia takes part, have a broad contractual foundation in areas such as transport, energy, trade and environmental protection. Their relevant bodies are actively developing the transit potential of the participants and connections between them and harmonising their industry-specific standards. These entities hold annual forums on sustainable development, which allow them to assess the implementation of the 2030 Agenda at the regional level, taking into account the existing and would-be economic integration associations.

I wish you success in your work.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4738800






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Foreign Minister of Iceland Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson following the 12th Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, Reykjavik, May 20, 2021



20 May 2021 - 18:45

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 14:00

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 14:00

Mr Minister,

Ladies and gentlemen,

As outgoing Chairman of the Arctic Council Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson said, we held a productive and useful ministerial session. It was constructive and focused on analysing the outcome of Iceland’s Arctic Council Chairmanship and drafting plans for the next two-year period. I want to note Iceland’s huge input, primarily intellectual, over the previous two years. The result is obvious, that is, the first ever strategic planning document, the plan for the next ten years. The Arctic Council has never before approved a decision for a term this long. This is very important for stable planning. The credit for this largely goes to Iceland’s chairmanship. I want to thank our Iceland hosts for their hospitality and their efforts to hold the event at the highest level.

We discussed in detail a number of current issues related to the Arctic, including efforts to expand cooperation between the Arctic states and coordinate their activities in order to ensure the sustainable development of the region, protect the environment, preserve the culture, traditions and languages of the indigenous peoples of the north and build relations between people.

Along with the Arctic Council Strategic Plan, we approved a detailed declaration, in which we reaffirmed our commitment to peace, stability and cooperation in the high latitudes and outlined the guidelines for promoting further international cooperation in the Arctic.

We are very pleased by our Iceland partners’ efforts during their country’s chairmanship of the Arctic Council. Russia, the largest Arctic state, has taken the baton from Ireland for 2021-2023. In our speech, Russia’s highest priority was emphasised, which is assistance in the comprehensive development of the areas beyond the Arctic Circle in the social, economic and environmental aspects. The slogan of our programme, which was approved by the Russian Government and includes over 100 initiatives, is Responsible Management for a Sustainable Arctic. Primary attention will be given to creating favourable conditions for improving living standards, modernising the economy, ensuring the region’s attractiveness to investment while efficiently managing the region’s scientific and innovation potential and resources, and exercising a very considerate attitude towards the impact that human activity can have on the region’s environment.

We intend to facilitate the Arctic’s adaptation to global climate change and the minimisation of the anthropogenic impact on the environment partly by implementing the Paris Agreement and the UN 2030 agenda. Relying on ecofriendly technology, we will focus on such areas as the transition to a circular economy, the use of climate-neutral fuel in the transport and energy sectors and the development of renewable energy sources.

We believe the Arctic must remain a territory of peace, stability and constructive cooperation. We do not see any potential for conflict here, nor the need to launch programmes by military-political blocs. We are pleased that the majority of our partners share these positions. We are convinced that we can only ensure the region’s prosperity through cooperation. To promote peace and stability, we reaffirmed our readiness for a constructive dialogue with our colleagues in the Council in various formats and at different levels, including the highest level.

In conclusion, I would like to once again emphasise: Russia wants to develop its relations with all member countries, the permanent participants, the observers and other interested extra-regional partners. The number of observer countries and organisations is five times higher than that of the Arctic Council members. We agreed to determine the best ways of using the sincere desire of the extra-regional countries and various structures to ensure the interests of the Arctic nations. We will do all we can to strengthen the spirit of cooperation and promote trust and mutual understanding, which have always distinguished the activity of the Arctic Council.







Question:

You emphasised in your remarks that the Arctic Council remains a venue for depoliticised dialogue. Do you have apprehensions that the current confrontation between Russia and the Western countries in other areas could spread to this venue? How can this be avoided?



Sergey Lavrov:

We believe the Arctic Council (AC) has its own policy documents, including those that determine not only the content of the agenda but also the applicable procedures. This is the consensus that must apply to all issues discussed in the Arctic Council. I think it is one of the unique organisations where a consensus is always reached owing to a sincere striving to consider the position of a partner rather than through arm twisting and ultimatums. This is an important distinctive feature of the AC. Iceland has brilliantly preserved this tradition. I hope we will ensure continuity.



Question:

You have suggested resuming the discussion of issues by the Arctic countries at the military level. Have you received a response to this from your partners, based on the meetings here?



Sergey Lavrov:

At the informal dinner, I raised the issues in connection with an interest that is not so much displayed by NATO as it is encouraged by its individual members as regards the launching of NATO programmes and actions in the Arctic. I quoted examples: a permanent rotation-based presence, including US troops, is being established near our borders; moreover, our neighbours have even changed their legislation to move to the more active deployment of foreign troops and arms on their territory. A “seminar on security in the Arctic Region” was held recently with a very interesting lineup of participants: the AC minus Russia, plus four NATO countries (France, Germany, Britain and the Netherlands). Our colleagues did not know about it. Apparently, it has not yet received much attention. Nevertheless, I asked our AC partners to look more attentively at this and to prevent a situation where security issues will be withdrawn from our common agreement to the effect that eight countries are responsible for everything in the Arctic latitudes.

There was an important mechanism for regular meetings between the chiefs of general staffs of the Arctic countries’ armed forces until 2014. They discussed issues of safe navigation, measures to counter oil spills and other manmade or natural disasters, and also search-and-rescue issues. For obvious reasons, in 2014, the West began to throw out many instruments of partnership between us. It suspended this mechanism as well. We believe that we can agree on the resumption of this. We suggested starting with meetings of military experts from the general staffs of the eight countries if some partners feel uncomfortable about going so high. We have not heard a negative response, but there has been no positive reaction yet either. We left this proposal with our partners. I hope that during the next two years we will continue creating conditions for the return of this mechanism of collective security to the Arctic Council activities.



Question (addressed to Sergey Lavrov):

Minister Lavrov, Russia has expressed concern about the reinforced military cooperation between the NATO country Norway and the United States. What does Russia think of the US military engagement in Greenland, an island that is of great strategic importance? And is Russia willing to invest in Greenland at a time when the Chinese are wanting to invest as well as the Americans? So, is Russia also willing to invest in Greenland?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have commented more than once on the problems related to the buildup of a military presence near our borders. We’ve discussed this and I will raise this issue today during our talks with Norway’s Foreign Minister.

Our Norwegian neighbours, who have never had the principle of the permanent presence of foreign military personnel enshrined in their laws, are now amending their legislation. In fact, things are moving towards what US Secretary of State Antony Blinken once called “presence on a persistent rotational basis.” We see this presence in other parts of Europe as well.

Mainly, we are worried about what is happening near our borders. Norway is our close neighbour with which we enjoy good relations. But the problems associated with the escalation of military and political tensions due to deployment of foreign troops in Norway and the Baltic states remain. In addition to our legitimate concerns about ensuring our security, there are also commitments that we assumed as part of the Russia-NATO Council in 1997 to the effect that NATO contingents and weapons would not be permanently deployed on the territories of new NATO members. Now, using this play of words, there should be no significant fighting forces on a permanent basis. We are being told that there may be “presence on a persistent rotational basis,” in particular, plans are being discussed openly in Washington (I specifically asked US Secretary of State Antony Blinken about this yesterday) to deploy additional, substantial forces in Poland, which would constitute a direct violation of the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation. I hope that the countries of the alliance understand that this is not an internal issue and that it directly affects the bloc's multilateral obligations to the Russian Federation.

As I told Secretary of State Blinken yesterday, we are interested not only in conducting a dialogue on strategic stability, but also in discussing the overall situation in arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation. I hope that acting within the OSCE, which has a Forum for Security Co-operation, the West will show a responsible approach and stop constantly declaring its unilateral actions and exercises on the borders of the Russian Federation, in which tens of thousands of foreign troops and materiel, which have been brought here specifically for that purpose from the United States and Canada, are participating.

We want to establish a dialogue, something that was initially discussed within the OSCE. Back in the 1990s, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the Istanbul OSCE Summit Declaration clearly stated that security issues must be discussed with the participation of regional organisations in the sphere of military-political cooperation that were created within the OSCE space. NATO and the CSTO were directly mentioned. One time there was a half-hearted attempt, under Greece’s chairmanship, to hold a ministerial meeting and invite the secretaries general from NATO, the CSTO, the CIS, as well as officials from the European External Action Service. Since then, nothing like that has been effectively organised.

Unfortunately, everything comes down to the fact that NATO does not consider itself equal to everyone else and presumably operates on the premise that it cannot stoop to the level of a dialogue with the CSTO, for example. This is not the only example of arrogance that our Western partners have been actively and with great enthusiasm demonstrating in the international arena in recent years. We have learned our lesson. We will take the necessary actions to ensure our security in a reliable manner, no matter what. But dialogue remains our priority and the preferred approach. This came up in yesterday’s conversation with Secretary of State Blinken.

As far as Greenland is concerned, it is not exactly close to our borders. This is the decision, as I understand it, of the Danish government as to what forms it should use to fulfill its allied obligations to the United States, taking into account, among other things, the internal state structure of Denmark and Copenhagen's relations with Greenland.

We have economic ties. I have just spoken with representatives of Greenland and the Faroe Islands who, as members of the Danish delegation, participated in this session of the Arctic Council Foreign Ministers. We are not making impressive investments like the PRC, which you mentioned, but there are economic and trade projects and there is an interest in expanding them. In particular, I suggested that representatives of Greenland and the Faroe Islands consider the possibility of attending the economic forums held in Russia, including the SPIEF.



Question (addressed to both ministers):

I would like to follow up on two questions that have already been asked, and also give the outgoing chairmanship the chance to comment on security and the fact that many people in the high north feel unease at being in the centre of an increasing strategic competition and the military buildup in the Arctic. So I want to ask both of you, how do you address these worries and maybe you can elaborate on ideas of how to ease these worries among the people living up in the north? Thank you.



Sergey Lavrov:

Like you said, these questions have already been asked, and we have answered them. I can reaffirm that we do not see any problems in this region that would require a military solution. The Arctic Council does not deal with “hard security” issues, but it used to have a useful mechanism at the general staff level, which reviewed matters of maritime security, providing relief to natural disasters and industrial accidents, and search and rescue operations. We are in favour of restoring this practice.



Question (addressed to Sergey Lavrov):

You mentioned that you would like to see the heads of the armed forces convene to discuss military-related matters in the Arctic. What could be the desired outcome of such a meeting? Secondly, have you set up a date and location for the summit meeting between President Putin and President Biden?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is the third time you have asked a question that I have answered four times already.

Regarding the proposal to consider military-related matters in the Arctic Council, I noted that there was such a practice. We are not offering anything new except to reinstate it. Chiefs of general staffs or staff members would be engaged not in military activities, but use instead the armed forces’ capabilities to tackle day-to-day matters which determine the quality of life, including dealing with the aftermath of various disasters, ensuring comfortable environment for maritime activities, and search and rescue operations in situations where people need help.

As for my meeting with Secretary of State Blinken yesterday, both he and I shared with the media everything we had to share. You can find these materials on social media and online.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4739617

[Alex Him]

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, May 21, 2021



21 May 2021 - 13:51

Maria Zakharova (E) - 22:20

Maria Zakharova (E) - 22:20

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the New Knowledge federal educational marathon

On May 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the New Knowledge federal educational marathon, which is being held between May 20 and 22 in several Russian cities, namely Moscow, St Petersburg, Vladivostok, Novosibirsk, Kazan, Sochi, Nizhny Novgorod and Kaliningrad, in an online and offline format.

The main goal of the event is to demonstrate Russia’s achievements and leading representatives in various spheres, such as state management, culture and arts, science, business and sports. The marathon is expected to rally as many as 5 million young people throughout the country, from megacities to small towns and villages. The marathon will focus on history and culture, science and technology, ICT, medicine, the economy, environmental protection, sports and a healthy lifestyle. It will demonstrate recent achievements and new technologies, as well as ongoing projects. The participants will get to know the authors of these achievements and learn about their life stories and how they developed as professionals.

Sergey Lavrov will give a lecture on Current Lessons of International Relations, which will be followed by a Q&A session that will be attended by general school pupils and university students attending the event, as well as students from the Russian regions taking part in the marathon online. The event will be streamed by Russian television channels and will be available on the Ministry’s official website and social accounts.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of Greece Nikos Dendias

On May 24, Sergey Lavrov will meet in Sochi with Foreign Minister of the Hellenic Republic Nikos Dendias, who will be in Russia on a working visit.

The ministers will discuss the further development of political dialogue, economic cooperation amid the coronavirus restrictions, as well as cultural and humanitarian ties in the context of the joint initiative to hold the Russian-Greek Year of History in 2021.

The ministers will exchange views on a broad range of international and regional topics of mutual interest, including the Cyprus settlement and the developments in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Minister for Foreign and European Affairs of the Republic of Malta Evarist Bartolo

On May 25, Sergey Lavrov will meet in Sochi with Maltese Minister for Foreign and European Affairs Evarist Bartolo, who will be in Russia on a working visit.

They will exchange views on the current state and further development of Russian-Maltese cooperation and will also hold an in-depth discussion regarding the international agenda.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Minister of Foreign and Expatriate Affairs of Yemen Ahmed Awad Bin Mubarak

On May 26, Sergey Lavrov will meet in Sochi with Minister of Foreign and Expatriate Affairs of the Republic of Yemen Ahmed Awad Bin Mubarak, who will be in Russia on a working visit.

The talks will focus on a comprehensive peaceful settlement of the acute military-political crisis, which began in Yemen in 2015, first of all the necessity of ending the hostilities and launching a broad-based national dialogue on the future political government in Yemen.

In light of the complicated socioeconomic situation in Yemen, the ministers will discuss the practical measures to be taken to prevent any further aggravation. They include the conflicting parties’ strict compliance with international humanitarian law, the lifting of all kinds of blockades in the territory of Yemen, and the provision of emergency humanitarian aid to the Yemeni civilians, who are experiencing serious shortages of food, medicine and other vital necessities.

The ministers are expected to reaffirm mutual resolve to resume full-scale multifaceted Russian-Yemeni ties after stability is restored and bodies of power are established in the Republic of Yemen. This cooperation has been suspended in the majority of spheres due to the ongoing hostilities and the actual split within the country.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of Gabon Pacome Moubelet-Boubeya

On May 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Foreign Minister of the Gabonese Republic Pacome Moubelet-Boubeya, who will pay a working visit to Moscow on May 26-28. There are plans to discuss ways of invigorating Russian-Gabonese political, trade, economic and humanitarian relations. Notably, the parties will review prospects for strengthening the business partnership in mining, the fuel and energy sector and in implementing infrastructure projects.

The ministers will hold an in-depth exchange of opinions on topical matters of the global and regional agenda, cooperation within various multilateral formats, including the UN, the African Union and other regional organisations. The parties will also discuss the resolution of crises and peacekeeping operations in Africa, and efforts to counter terrorist threats and piracy in the Gulf of Guinea. They will hold a separate discussion on the preparations and the agenda of the 2nd Russia-Africa Summit, scheduled for 2022.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria Sabri Boukadoum

At the previous briefing, we announced Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of Algeria Sabri Boukadoum and discussed them in detail. This meeting has been postponed until May 27.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Slovenia Anze Logar

On May 28, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is to hold talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Slovenia Anze Logar, who will be in Russia on a working visit on May 27-29. The parties are expected to sign a plan of consultations between the two countries’ foreign ministries for 2021-2022.

The agenda includes exchanging opinions on bilateral cooperation, a discussion of bilateral steps to deepen political, trade, economic, cultural and humanitarian cooperation, including work on historical memorials.

The ministers will hold a detailed discussion on Russia-EU relations and their future in the context of Slovenia’s chairmanship of the Council of the European Union from July 1, 2021.

They will also review the situation in Southeast Europe and topical international matters.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of Portugal Augusto Santos Silva

On May 31, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold detailed talks with Foreign Minister of Portugal Augusto Santos Silva, who is due to arrive in the Russian capital on a working visit. This is his third trip to Moscow as Foreign Minister of Portugal. The last time he visited Moscow was in February 2018.

Russian-Portuguese relations are traditionally based on a mutually respectful partnership and constructive cooperation. The upcoming talks will promote the positive trends in Russia’s political dialogue with Lisbon. At their meeting, the ministers will discuss the bilateral agenda and chart ways of further expanding Russian-Portuguese relations.

While reviewing trade and economic matters, the ministers will focus on more actively using the two countries’ potential in investment and research and development during the implementation of joint projects, with due consideration for promising achievements in the area of high-tech cooperation. This subject will be in the focus during preparations for the regular eighth session of the Mixed Commission on Economic, Industrial and Technological Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Portuguese Republic.

Portugal ranks among Russia’s most important European partners. Considering Portugal’s current six-month chairmanship of the Council of the European Union (January-June 2021), there are plans to hold an open and constructive exchange of opinions on a wide range of international and regional matters.

The Portuguese Foreign Minister and Sergey Lavrov will attend the opening ceremony of a conference on Russia-EU relations, organised by the Russian International Affairs Council together with the Portuguese Embassy and the Delegation of the European Union in Moscow. This will become an important aspect of the visit.

The parties will also conduct a detailed discussion of bilateral cultural and humanitarian cooperation. They will touch upon the possibility of holding a bilateral Cross-Year of Culture, Education, Science and Youth Exchanges in the future.



Developments in Afghanistan

Regrettably, military tension is on the rise in Afghanistan as the US and NATO pullout gets into a high gear. Announced last week, a short Eid al-Fitr ceasefire failed to influence in any significant way the overall trend towards an escalation of violence. Active warfare is being conducted in the majority of the country’s provinces. We see as indicative the recent seizure of Narkh District, Maidan Wardak Province, which is located a mere 50 kilometres away from Kabul. A high level of terrorist activity in Afghanistan is also a matter for concern. Every day, terrorist attacks killing dozens of civilians are registered in the capital and other cities. ISIS and other terrorist groups are using the armed conflict to strengthen their positions and to intensify violence, including in northern Afghanistan that adjoins Central Asia.

In this connection, we call on the opposing Afghan sides to reduce the level of combat activity in the interests of their country’s prosperity and the future of its statehood and to use the time remaining until the full withdrawal of foreign troops to start talks on the key issues of national reconciliation.



Cases of continued Western interference in Moldova’s internal political processes

The Foreign Ministry has repeatedly focused on the continuing attempts made by the United States and EU member-states to interfere in Moldova’s internal political processes. We have to state once again that the aggressive Western rhetoric is picking up momentum in the run-up to the early parliamentary elections in the republic scheduled for July 11, 2021.

Here is yet another case in point. Attending a local television show Expertise Hour on May 18, head of the EU delegation to Moldova Peter Michalko reiterated criticism of the Moldovan bodies of state power, criticism impermissible for a diplomat. Specifically, he focused on the “imperfection” of the judiciary in the Republic of Moldova and claimed openly that the new Moldovan parliament “should be trustworthy.” As if they are unable to sort it out for themselves without him in Moldova.

This manifestation of disrespect for Moldova’s political institutions and selectivity in choosing targets for criticism, which targets are always the forces favouring dialogue with Russia, has become the usual practice for Western countries.

Russia is in favour of truly equal and friendly relations with the Republic of Moldova, based on the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, respect for the Moldovan people, and readiness for a dialogue with the institutions of power to be formed as a result of its vote.

We are calling once again on the United States and the EU countries to renounce their policy of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states and of influencing their internal political processes.



Ukraine update

President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky reviewed the results of his second year as president at a news conference yesterday. It turned out that there is nothing to brag about again. His pledge to launch real reform, restore peace in Donbass and change Ukrainians’ lives for the better has not materialised. Socioeconomic problems continue to accumulate in Ukraine. The country’s public debt has reached $125.7 billion (up $4 billion in 2020), and the shadow economy accounts for 30 percent of the GDP. Political turbulence is growing, and political opposition is being persecuted. Undesirable media are also being persecuted, and the rights of ethnic minorities and the Russian-speaking population are violated on a large scale. At the same time, local radical nationalists, the ideological heirs of the Nazi accomplices are terrorising civil society and feel at ease because the authorities are wary of them.

Unfortunately, apart from the usual rhetoric, Ukrainian citizens did not hear their president say that he was ready to take any practical steps to resolve the accumulated problems. I am referring to the conflict in Donbass and Kiev’s fulfilment of its obligations under the Minsk Package of Measures. Mr Zelensky again avoided being specific and tried to blame Russia for the lack of progress in the negotiations. The Ukrainian president did not even mention any dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk.

We noted a security forum held in Kiev last week. The participants, including representatives of the Ukrainian government, defined the country’s main security objective as preparing to fight against a non-existent Russian threat. This idea is in line with Zelensky’s previous demand to keep defence spending at least at 5 percent of GDP in 2021-2022. Today Ukraine spends $7.5 billion annually on military projects, which is the fastest growing military spending in the world.

Kiev’s militaristic plans are in line with the buildup of NATO’s military activity in Ukraine and in the Black Sea. The largest military exercise in the last 25 years, Defender Europe 2021, has begun this spring, with 28,000 total troops from 27 NATO countries and its allies taking part. Next in line are equally large-scale manoeuvres: Cossack Mace, Silver Sabre, and Sea Breeze. A total of seven joint military exercises with NATO countries are planned on the territory of Ukraine in 2021. That means military manoeuvres are staged every six to eight weeks.

All this does little to advance intra-Ukrainian reconciliation. The May 19 regular meeting of the Contact Group once again showed that Kiev negotiators have no interest in finding a compromise or acting in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Minsk agreements.

There was an unexpected twist in the Donbass topic amid the aggravation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Radical nationalists from Ukraine’s infamous National Corps used the Middle East situation as an opportunity to carry out a provocation outside the Russian Embassy in Kiev. Its participants protested against Hamas allegedly receiving assistance from Moscow, like Donbass. What gruesome logic. Our neighbours, at least the radical part of the Ukrainian state, seem to live in this paradigm. The protesters shouted anti-Russia slogans and insults, and blocked the entrance to our diplomatic mission’s grounds. The embassy sent a note of protest to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry.

Once again, we call on the Ukrainian authorities to focus on fulfilling their international obligations, both to resolve the conflict in Donbass, and to respect human and minority rights and freedoms, and to combat xenophobia and aggressive nationalism. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations can also be recalled here.



Lvov district court sentence to the student who threw paint over monument to Stepan Bandera

We have taken note of the verdict passed on April 29 by the Galician District Court in Lvov on the student who threw red paint over the monument to Stepan Bandera on February 5. I am not going to judge the overall situation: there is the law and jurisprudence for that. Ukraine is a sovereign state. However, the case has an important aspect concerning double standards of applying the law. The young man was sentenced to four years in prison for his actions (the punishment was replaced by two years probation). We see this decision as yet another example of selective justice and persecution of those who reject Kiev’s policy of whitewashing and glorifying Nazis and their accomplices.

The draconian verdict of the Lvov court is drastically different from the way Ukraine responds to the acts of vandalism, which have become regular, with respect to the burial places of the Soviet soldiers-liberators, who gave their lives for Ukraine’s liberation from the Nazi occupation. Just a few examples: consistent steps to demolish the Monument to Combat Glory in Lvov, desecration of the monuments to Nikolai Vatutin in Kiev and Poltava, busts of Georgy Zhukov, and many other such examples. Since 2014 the number of such incidents has grown many times over. And not in a single case have the offenders ever been found (it is clear that nobody bothered looking for them) or received the punishment they deserved.

There is no point waiting for a proper assessment from the Western patrons of the Kiev regime. Otherwise, they will have to react to similar mass violence against the historical legacy committed in the EU countries. The monument to Marshal Ivan Konev, the liberator of Prague who saved the Czech capital from destruction at the expense of thousands of Soviet soldiers’ lives, was the main target of local vandals for a long time. In Bulgaria criminals regularly desecrate monuments to Soviet soldiers. In Poland the war on monuments has swept the country like an avalanche.

All this suggests that the West not only supports the war on the past, but in effect participates in it by rewriting history.



Dutch authorities’ efforts to cover up White Helmets financing abuses

We have been talking a great deal about the White Helmets, but the factual information about it is not taken into account in the West, which is actively sponsoring this pseudo-humanitarian organisation and a terrorist accomplice.

During our previous briefings, we more than once provided our assessment of this organisation, which claims to be saving civilians in the hostility zones, whereas in fact its efforts are dedicated to disinformation, the staging of fake chemical attacks and open assistance to terrorists. Highly sophisticated schemes are being used to provide financing to this pseudo-NGO, including through various foundations based in the West.

One of such such sponsors, the Mayday Rescue Foundation headquartered in Amsterdam, for a long time received substantial allocations from the Dutch government. This stopped in 2018 over misappropriation concerns following a series of scandals involving Mayday Rescue. It was not fake news but factual information that was made public.

Some time ago, Dutch journalists published information proving that the Dutch government deliberately concealed information about the foundation’s criminal schemes and illegal transactions from the parliament and the public. It has transpired that some unidentified Dutch officials decided against disclosing information about the abuses permitted by Mayday Rescue allegedly because they did not have any direct proof. As a result, the story was buried, and the financing of the White Helmets resumed in 2020 through an organisation based in Canada.

This is yet one more piece of proof of The Hague’s policy of double standards, hypocrisy and selective approach to reporting or concealing information.



US selective approach to dealing with far-right extremists

On May 14, the US Department of Homeland Security issued a new National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin on the current threat environment across the United States, which mentions the heightened threat posed by domestic terrorists based on religious and ethnic grievances, racial superiority and militant nationalism. There is nothing new in this expert assessment, especially in the context of the ongoing social and racial conflicts in the United States. However, the compilers of the report not only mention new trends in the proliferation of the terrorist ideology, but are also focusing, with misplaced enthusiasm, on “malign foreign influences.” They accuse Russia, China and Iran of “increased efforts to sow discord” in the United States and of amplifying conspiracy theories and calls for violence, including in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

While prioritising efforts against Domestic Violent Extremist (DVE) risks, Washington continues to regard them from the traditional geopolitical viewpoint, taking special pride in the addition of the Russian Imperial Movement NGO to the national list of international terrorist organisations in April 2020. Some experts, including American ones, were baffled by that decision of the US State Department in light of the meagre information about the organisation and its international ties. Nevertheless, the decision has been presented by the US authorities as “the first time in history the [State] Department has designated a white supremacist terrorist group.”

The logical question here is how the Washington-declared resolve to combat the growing far-right extremism and racism ties in with its selective foreign policy focused on propaganda.

Last year, several American experts called for paying more attention to the serious threat of increasingly active neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine. That country has been turned into a bridgehead for training radicals and proliferating neo-Nazi literature and symbols. Persons directly involved in high-profile crimes, such as the murder of journalist Pavel Sheremet, and far-right groups such as S-14 continue to act with impunity in Ukraine. The Azov Civil Corps and National Corps continue to stage meetings of nationalists from the Baltics and other European countries, as well as the United States and Canada. These organisations maintain close ties with their foreign neo-Nazi peers, including the US Atomwaffen Division and the British National Action. There is no reasonable explanation for the hasty US decision to designate the Russian Imperial Movement as a terrorist organisation while refusing to do the same with regard to the notorious Ukrainian groups such as the Right Sector and the Azov Civil Corps.

At the same time, Washington and Kiev vote against the resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, which Russia submits every year for approval by the UN General Assembly. This is a regrettable but telling kind of solidarity.



Ending the Palestinian-Israeli armed confrontation

Moscow is deeply satisfied to note that the ceasefire in the zone of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict entered into force at 2 am on May 21. From the first minutes of the 10-day crisis, Russian diplomacy got involved in energetic work aiming to stop the hostilities as soon as possible. The concerned parties held intensive contacts, including top-level contacts. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov communicated with key regional partners. We are also actively involved in the Middle East Quartet of International Mediators for the regional peace settlement.

The relevant efforts made it possible to stop the bloody conflict that has claimed the lives of 230 Palestinians, including 52 children, and 12 Israeli citizens. We are offering our condolences to all families of the deceased and wounded. We would like to specially note the mediation mission of leaders of the Arab Republic of Egypt. The UN, including Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Tor Wennesland, made an important contribution to ending the war.

An important, although insufficient, step has been taken to avoid a further escalation of violence. At this stage, we should focus international and regional efforts on creating the appropriate conditions for resuming direct political talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians in order to resolve a range of fundamental matters regarding final-status issues on the basis of UN resolutions and the principle of two states, Palestine and Israel, that would coexist in peace and security within the 1967 borders. This must be done to prevent another round of armed confrontation.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a member of the Quartet, Russia urges its partners to continue energetic collective work to resume direct, constructive Palestinian-Israeli dialogue. The achievement of a lasting and just solution to the Palestinian problem is the main pre-requisite for comprehensive stabilisation in the entire Middle East.



Russia-Kazakhstan biological security cooperation

The Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan maintain special privileged, allied relations. Our countries are expanding their cooperation in virtually every sphere. Biological security is a high-priority area of cooperation.

As allies and neighbours with a common biological security space, we strive to reliably monitor epidemiological and epizootic situations, to jointly respond to epidemics, and to reduce risks linked with the possibility of deliberately spreading such diseases and using biological agents as weapons. The creation of the relevant bilateral legal framework is a key element of such activities.

For these purposes, we aim to sign an inter-governmental memorandum on ensuring biological security. The signing of this document would make a weighty contribution to strengthening the friendly relations and biological security of our states, and would also facilitate expanded medical-biological, sanitary-epidemiological, veterinary and phyto-sanitary cooperation. It would also ensure predictability and transparency in the context of cooperation with third countries and would make it possible to avoid tough-worded statements by certain politicians and representatives of the public, scientific and academic circles, and media outlets.

We reaffirm our readiness to deepen bilateral and multilateral cooperation with the Republic of Kazakhstan in the area of biological security. We intend to continue discussing all remaining mutual issues during Russian-Kazakhstani inter-departmental consultations on this matter, scheduled for May 26 in Almaty.



Coronavirus update

According to international experts, including the World Health Organisation (WHO), for the second week in a row, the spread of the coronavirus infection has been slowing down and the death rates have been falling. As of May 20, 2021, the number of new cases has decreased by approximately 33 percent as compared to last week. First of all, this relates to the countries with the highest rates of COVID-19 vaccination. At the same time, in certain regions, especially in Asia and Latin America, the daily growth of new cases is still high. India accounts for half of new global cases.

It is getting obvious that the process of immunisation of the world population in order to prevent the coronavirus is the most important aspect of the global community’s efforts: over 1.5 billion jabs have been given as of now. The growing popularity of the Russian-made vaccine Sputnik V should not go unmentioned.

We share the WHO’s concern about the disproportionate distribution of immune response modifiers and support WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus’s call to share coronavirus vaccines. Our country has done everything in its power in this area and will commit itself to the cause. We believe that under no circumstances can this issue be subject to politisation.

An entire range of “resort countries” are currently lifting the pandemic restrictions. Just before summer, despite the unsteady positive epidemiological trend, they are rushing to open their borders to support their tourism industry, and they assure their partners that increased epidemiological measures are in place at resorts, airports and hotels.

While understanding the desire of these countries’ governments to restore international tourism, we must note that the situation with COVID-19 remains volatile, including due to the spread of new variants of the virus. It could prompt emergency restrictions, including the suspension of international travel. There are many examples of that.

The case of foreign tourists, including Russians, who got stranded in Nepal, makes us seriously consider the risks of travelling outside Russia.

Therefore, we would like to urge our citizens to weigh the pros and cons before they decide to travel abroad. This is crucially important.



Russian citizens’ evacuation from Nepal

On May 18, Aeroflot airlines made a Katmandu-Moscow evacuation flight for tourists who were unable to leave Nepal after the authorities there imposed a complete ban on air service starting May 6 because of changes in the country’s epidemiologic situation. The plane evacuated 253 people, including 219 Russian citizens. The plane also took on board tourists from Belarus, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Moldavia, Tajikistan and Ukraine.

We extend our appreciation to the Nepal authorities for their assistance in resolving the problems related to the evacuation flight.

As for me, I must thank the Russian Embassy in Nepal, which once again helped bring these citizens home, tourists who were in Nepal during the pandemic despite repeated Russian Foreign Ministry’s warnings, people who were actually stranded there. Special thanks to the Russian ministries and agencies, as well as to Aeroflot Russian Airlines, which were involved in that operation.



Procedure for applying for Russian visas by people from countries that resumed/failed to resume air service with Russia

We have received several inquiries from the media, in particular Kommersant Daily, on whether citizens of countries that have resumed air service with Russia can obtain Russian tourist visas and come to this country as tourists, and what the citizens of countries that have not yet resumed air service with Russia have to do.

In this context, we would like to draw your attention to the following: pursuant to Clause 2, paragraphs 14 and 15, of the Russian Government Directive No. 635-r of March 16, 2020, temporary restrictions on entrance to the Russian Federation do not apply to the citizens of foreign states and persons having residence permits or any other documents confirming their right to permanent residence in such states, indicated in Schedule 1 to this directive. That said, citizens in the above categories may only enter the Russian Federation by direct flight from one of the states listed in Schedule 1.

The schedule includes 28 countries, 14 of which enjoy visa-free entrance. Citizens of the other 14 countries (with visa requirements) and persons with residence permits for these countries may get visas of any category, including tourist visas, to enter the Russian Federation under the normal procedure pursuant to applicable Russian laws.

Now, as for the citizens of those countries that have not formally resumed air service with Russia, under Clause 2 of the Russian Government Directive No. 635-r of March 16, 2020, some categories of foreign nationals and stateless persons are exempt from the temporary restrictions on entrance to the Russian Federation and are eligible for visas of the relevant types, depending on the purpose of their travel, in accordance with Clause 5, Par 6, of the above directive.

We have also been asked if there are plans to start issuing e-visas gradually or if this will be done for all 52 countries after the borders are adequately opened. Under Clause 5, paragraph 3, of the Russian Government Directive No. 635-r of March 16, 2020, issuance of unified e-visas to foreign nationals has been suspended with a view to providing for state security, protecting people’s health and putting a stop to the spread of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19).

So, foreign nationals will only be able to obtain unified e-visas to enter the Russian Federation after the established restrictions are lifted, the time for which has yet to be determined.



Holding UEFA EURO 2020 matches in St Petersburg

In June-July 2021, St Petersburg will be the venue for UEFA EURO 2020 matches. Russia’s diplomatic missions abroad will inform potential fans of the procedure for entering the Russian Federation during the Championships, specifically, how to obtain personal spectator cards or FAN IDs. Russia’s diplomatic missions abroad have received FAN ID samples and related pamphlets for fans. FAN IDs allow their holders to enter the Russian Federation multiple times visa-free from May 29, 2021 through July 2, 2021 and to exit from the Russian Federation multiple times, visa-free, from May 29, 2021 through July 12, 2021.

The Foreign Ministry has also instructed Russia’s diplomatic missions abroad to issue high-priority visas to media representatives, participants in sporting events and certain other categories of foreign citizens planning to take part in the Championships.

We will provide additional information on the accreditation of foreign media outlets and the procedure for obtaining documents.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

In a recent interview, you mentioned efforts to hold a Palestinian-Israeli meeting and confirmed a proposal to hold it in Moscow. What do Israel and the Middle East Quartet think of this proposal?



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to reaffirm the statements by Russian leaders. The Russian proposal to hold direct talks between the leaders of Israel and Palestine, without any pre-conditions and on Russian territory, remains valid.

The Palestinians have repeatedly expressed their resolve to attend such meetings. The Israelis remain undecided. It appears that West Jerusalem is so far unprepared for a direct dialogue with the Palestinian National Authority.

Regarding the attitude of the Middle East Quartet of international mediators, none of them has voiced any objection.

In this connection, it would be appropriate to recall that UN Security Council Resolution 1850, which was unanimously adopted in 2008, formalises the idea of convening an international conference on the Middle East peace settlement in Moscow. To study this issue and also acting in the interests of de-escalating the situation there as soon as possible and creating an atmosphere of trust, we consider it important to hold a Quartet emergency meeting at the ministerial level. We also suggest convening a Quartet ministerial meeting with key regional players.

The current dangerous escalation of violence in Palestine and Israel once again shows that there is no alternative to resolving the Palestinian problem at the negotiating table. We are ready to help organise direct Palestinian-Israeli contacts for working out the required compromise solutions on all fundamental issues of a final status. I commented earlier on the ceasefire agreements they reached.



Question:

This is a question about Turkey’s excessive concern over Crimean Tatars. On May 18, 2021, the Turkish Foreign Ministry released a statement on the memory of “the victims of the deportation of Crimean Tatars and Circassians,” claiming that after 77 years Crimean Tatars continue to confront the challenges related to the consequences of being deported. This is a quote: “Turkey will continue to support efforts to protect the identity of the Crimean Tatars and resolve the problems faced by our compatriots. Ankara strives to make a contribution to improving the living standards of the Crimean Tatars.” Spokesman for the Turkish Foreign Ministry Tanju Bilgic declared that the lands of the descendants of the Caucasus peoples “were occupied by Tsarist Russia 157 years ago.” How does the Foreign Ministry respond to statements like this from Turkey? What problems and challenges do Crimean Tatars face that motivate Turkey to try to resolve them?



Maria Zakharova:

We consider such statements politicised and confrontational. It is regretful that year after year Ankara tries to use the biased interpretation of historical events for destructive purposes and in an attempt to satisfy its own political ambitions.

Insinuations about the complicated events of the 19th-20th centuries have nothing to do with academic historiography or the real situation in Crimea and the North Caucasus. Russian law and law-enforcement practice on the peninsula guarantee the observance of human rights and freedoms in full conformity with the international commitments of our country. We take practical steps to strengthen the status of the Crimean Tatar language as a national language, to expand the participation of Crimean Tatars in representative government bodies and the region’s socio-economic life, and to ensure the effective performance of religious organisations, ethno-cultural and education institutions.

Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar are the national languages in the Republic of Crimea. There are a variety of opportunities to study them in schools and universities. Crimea has created equal rights and conditions for preserving and developing national culture and identity, and freedom of conscience and religion.

Ethnic and religious accord is one of our priorities. The Inter-Religious Council “Peace is a Gift from God” operates under the Head of the Republic of Crimea. The Ismail Gasprinsky Media Centre confirms the success of this policy. According to public opinion polls, in 2020, 96 percent of Crimeans described inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations as benign. The State Committee for Ethnic Relations of the Republic of Crimea supports the operation of the following media: the Pereyaslavska Rada 2.0 information website, the Krimsky Vestnik newspaper and Krim Siogodni (in Ukrainian); the Hoffnung newspaper (in German and Russian); Tavrika (in Greek and Russian); Izvor (in Bulgarian and Russian), and the Golub Masisa or the Dove of Masis (in Armenian and Russian). The Millet TV Channel, Vatan Sedasi Radio, the Yildiz journal and the Yanı Dunya newspaper are successfully operating as part of the Public Crimean Tatar Television and Radio Company.

If the statements by the Turkish Foreign Ministry you mentioned had quoted such facts, its officials would have realised themselves that they are pointless. Such are the facts, and we urge the Turkish Foreign Ministry not to keep them from their public since they initiated the discussion on this issue.

Turkey’s very demonstrative concern over the status of the Crimean Tatars in Crimea (considering that prior to 2014, its authorities stubbornly ignored several grievances from international organisations against Ukraine regarding the implementation of the ethno-cultural rights of Crimean Tatars) only points to its opportunistic character.

Turkey’s role in “defending” the rights of ethnic minorities appears dubious. It has its own outstanding ethnic, linguistic and religious problems. Only a few decades ago, Circassians living in Turkey had to conceal their ethnic origin, and their native tongue was banned.

As Sergey Lavrov says, we are polite people. We believe Turkey must resolve its problems itself based on its commitments. However, if this rhetoric continues, we will also have to pay attention to similar issues in Turkey. We wouldn’t like to do this, so I hope the Turkish Foreign Ministry will hear us today.

We believe Turkish politicians should give up the use of the ethnic factor as an instrument in a geopolitical game that is primarily prejudicing the interests of ethnic groups. The time has long been ripe for that.

There are numerous issues, problems and areas where we can cooperate with Ankara. We have very good experience in pooling our efforts for this purpose. Let’s use it and refrain from these kinds of charges.



Question:

The media wrote that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken discussed issues of mutual interest, including Afghanistan. Can you be more specific on this? Have they reached any specific agreements on Afghanistan?



Maria Zakharova:

Indeed, Afghanistan was on the agenda of Russian-US talks in Reykjavik. Mr Lavrov and his American colleague, Antony Blinken, discussed this issue during their meeting. This issue remains one of the areas where Russia and the United States effectively cooperate. The minister and secretary of state spoke positively about the Russian-US dialogue at the special representative level. They noted that the concerted efforts on an inter-Afghan settlement by the expanded group of three, Russia, the United States, China and Pakistan, are helping to reach national reconciliation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.



Question:

Under the guise of renovation, the Azerbaijani authorities removed the cupola of the Armenian Church of Ghazanchetsots in Shusha to try to distort its Armenian architectural look. Also, in violation of the UN Security Council resolution, the authorities in Azerbaijan express unscientific ideas about the “Agvanisation” of the Armenian churches in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). What is Russia’s response to these events as a co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group?



Maria Zakharova:

We regularly discuss the preservation of the cultural and historical heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions during our meetings with officials from Baku and Yerevan. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed this issue during his working visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan earlier this month. We think it is necessary to organise an UNESCO mission to the region as soon as possible. We are also working with the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. The statement adopted by the co-chairs on April 13, 2021 reads that the preservation and protection of religious and cultural heritage require additional efforts from both Azerbaijan and Armenia.



Question:

Russian-Slovakian relations have deteriorated of late. At the same time, recent Victory celebrations showed that many Slovaks support friendly relations with Russia. For example, a recent article in ExtraPlus, entitled “We won’t let the West rewrite history. We were liberated by the Russians rather than the Americans,” collected an enormous number of likes and had 23,000 reposts. Prominent politicians in Slovakia asked the top leaders to offer Russia to normalise relations. What is your attitude towards this? Does Russia want to normalise relations with Slovakia and what do you think about further cooperation between Moscow and Bratislava?



Maria Zakharova:

I don’t have any information on these requests.

I can talk about the position of our country on developing cooperation with Slovakia. We are interested in having smooth, constructive and mutually beneficial relations with all states. Slovakia is no exception.

As for the truth about the Great Patriotic War, World War II, you note correctly that the absurdity of the policy aimed at rewriting history results in rejection and active antagonism. Paradoxically, NATO efforts to spread disinformation and distort those wartime events have produced the opposite effect. They wanted to press on the minds of people new versions of these events, replace heroes with criminals and invent a new, false depiction of the beginning, duration, end and the outcome of the war, contrary to the verdicts of the Nuremberg Tribunal. However, all of this is to no avail. People who are exposed to this information campaign, including within NATO (it is spread not only through NATO bodies but also through other agencies, the Western media, something we often talk about), felt righteous indignation because of the impudence, peremptory character and falsehood of this information offensive. We have seen this, and we respect people, including Europeans, who do not allow anyone to mislead them.

Meanwhile, the organisers of this campaign have tried to do this, destroying monuments to heroes, inventing stories about non-existent heroes and depicting Nazi collaborators and accomplices as heroes. But common-sense people do not let anyone brainwash them. They know about the existence of historical documents, monuments, memorials, the Nuremberg Trials decisions, documentaries, and public organisations that have dealt with these issues for decades – those that are based on historical memory passed down to us by war veterans, participants in those events, rather than those that sprang into existence in the 1990s and 2000s and that are lavishly financed by Western money.


***


I will allow myself to finish the briefing at this point, but we will continue our communication shortly in the TASS Press Centre that will host a news event devoted to the Leaders of Russia contest. See you there.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4740448

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the New Knowledge Educational Marathon, Moscow, May 21, 2021



21 May 2021 - 22:41

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Good afternoon,

Knowledge is always a great thing. If by speaking to you, we are helping you receive additional knowledge, it’s already important. This is all the more important since you will soon lead the country no matter where you go – government service, business, journalism or a creative occupation. Knowledge is never excessive. It always helps to be erudite and well versed in any situation, any career or employment related problem.

I would like to say a few words before we go to interactive communication. The main goal of diplomacy, as written in the Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, is to do everything we can to ensure favourable external conditions for promoting national development, raising living standards and supporting our economic operators in the world arena. In his recent Address to the Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin emphasised that we primarily orient our interests towards ensuring peace and security for the wellbeing of our citizens. We will reach these goals exclusively along the lines of international law. We will always be ready for an open, free and, most importantly, equitable dialogue with any country that is willing to cooperate with us under the same honest conditions. The overwhelming majority of foreign countries in Eurasia, Latin America and Africa hold the same position, realising the need for justice and equality in international affairs, and the search for a balance of interests. It is in this vein that we build our relations in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and BRICS, to name a few.

Mathematically speaking, the countries with which we are building relations on the same principle (those that reciprocate and are guided by international law) account for about 80 percent of the world's population. But we are not dismissing the remaining 20 percent either. We are ready to speak with them as well, but only on the same conditions as I mentioned – mutual respect, equality in rights and consideration for each other's concerns and interests. That is, not a one-way street, as we say in Russia.

I think you are active on social media, where you read how our Western partners see their relations with Russia. Many in the West and in our country too are beginning to promote the idea that Russian leaders prioritise so-called great-power ambitions on the international stage, not their citizens’ interests. This is the reason that Russia allegedly finds itself ‘in isolation,’ ‘is losing friends, allies,’ and all of that is ‘damaging’ our economy, ‘hurting people’s welfare’ and ‘narrowing the opportunities’ for various exchanges, contacts, etc., including for young people, they emphasise. The subtext here is that the most important thing is to be full, and any other great-power ambitions interfere with this. They suggest things would be right for us if we were friends with the West. Well, we are willing to be friends with the West, but, I will stress this again, only if we keep our own dignity, something we inherited from our ancestors over the centuries and millennia of our country's history. The welfare of our citizens is the main goal of Russia’s foreign policy. But we cannot move towards that goal while completely dismissing our history, the traditions laid down by our predecessors, our history, which is valuable and precious for every Russian.

We have always relied on our national pride (this is a very important attribute; not all nations have it), on our patriotism, including the defence of justice and a willingness to help the weak. These are the greatest human qualities. If we admire them in our everyday life, then, undoubtedly, they should be manifested in our position on the international stage, where it is not about human relationships, but about interstate contacts.

Those that say, “if we were friends with the West, everything would be alright,” miss several important points. First, the world has already stopped being West-oriented. The 500-year era of Western domination has ended. The centre of world policy and economic development has moved from the Euro-Atlantic region to Eurasia, our enormous continent. New geopolitical players are protecting their right to be part of addressing key issues of international life; they are growing and have become strong based on their unique civilisational and cultural identity and their historical experience. This means the multilateralism we protect is a fait accompli. The world is multilateral. There is no single pole or two poles that decide everything like during the Soviet era, when the USSR and the US decided almost everything between themselves. Today, there are many poles, and all of them should find agreement with each other. This is more complicated then dealing with everything alone or in a narrow circle of those who never argue with you.

The West likes to address all the issues in its own circle and call it real multilateralism saying that these are true democratic unions. They invite everyone else to join in the definitions made in the circle of these “democratic” countries. Frankly, this shows disrespect to everyone else and a superiority complex, like “we know what to do and how to do it.”

The European Union declared an “effective multilateralism.” We asked them why multilateralism should be limited to the European Union. After all, we have the UN with its Charter, many conventions, and resolutions, which are all the result of discussions, compromises, and consensus. They answer simply: “Well, you know, we are still much more developed democratically and in terms of promoting values.” Indelicate, to put it mildly. However, decisions developed by all states, primarily within the UN, are more difficult to achieve, and it is more difficult to agree on them. More participants means more opinions and more difficulty in reaching compromise. But when you agree universally about something that suits everyone, these decisions are much more sustainable and reliable and last longer.

Those who urge us to do things according to Western standards (besides the fact that the West is far from omnipotent) forget one more thing. You probably don’t remember, but you must have read about it. In the 1990s, Russia tended to be unprecedentedly open to dialogue with the West: “Let's be friends. Now our recent history is over and everything in the world will be sunny, without any difficulties and crises.” There was no answer. The West regarded this as a weakness: the former Soviet Union (now Russia) and all other former Soviet republics lost the Cold War and now can be consolidated into the concepts the West needs, which it does not discuss with anyone else. The awareness that this is a destructive path has come. Since 2000, when we set ourselves up to cooperate with everyone, we have never lost our self-esteem.

Today, we occupy positions that are recognised by everyone in the world. All countries respect them, but some fear the emergence of an important sustainable international player (as was the case with the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union). They feel it is necessary to “pester” it, to irritate it, to prevent it from feeling calm, and to let the West go on creating processes aimed at artificially keeping its lead in the world, primarily in the economy, rather than doing it naturally like it has been for over the past 500 years. Illegal sanctions are used for this purpose. They have already become common for the West (the culture of diplomacy has been largely lost). Ultimatums are given in virtually any area of human endeavour, whether it’s the economy or military-technical cooperation. The Americans are openly compelling countries that have agreements on purchasing combat hardware with us to give them up and buy their weapons. Look what is happening in sports. The Americans are no longer content with WADA. They have adopted their own Rodchenkov Act, according to which anyone who defeats an American athlete at international competitions must be checked for doping. Anyone found guilty will be arrested by US law-enforcement bodies. The feeling of reality is obviously lost. I am hoping this will pass.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and I discussed many things in Iceland yesterday. I was very open and he was, too. He listened to me attentively and set forth his positions that continuously included grievances against Russia over “interference in “the election” or hackers’ attacks on some important systems. I reminded him that for all the years that we have been hearing these accusations, we have been asking the Americans to provide just one piece of evidence, any proof of “our misdeeds.” Unfortunately, his answers were strange. He told me that we already know everything and that they cannot tell us anything because it’s classified. So what are we talking about then?

To sum up, we live in a difficult world, my dear friends. You must be tempered before you start to function fully in this life. I would be very happy if we can help you with this.

I am happy to answer any questions.







Question:

Before asking my question, I would like to sincerely thank you for years of selfless service upholding our country’s national interests.

My question concerns the prevailing world order system. You did cover this in great detail in your speech. Will the Yalta-Potsdam system continue into the future? You and our President are saying that the UN, as the main institution ensuring the current world order, must remain in place. What prospects do you see in your post over the next 30 years? How might the balance of power in the international arena change, and what role will Russia play in it?



Sergey Lavrov:

I’m not a clairvoyant. I don’t think any serious politician would agree to proffer a detailed outline of the international relations system 20 to 30 years from now. But you have pointed out the goals that we will strive to uphold. The outcomes of WWII are incontrovertible. One outcome was the rejection of any whitewashing of the Nazis and their henchmen, which is what some states are now trying to do. Another important outcome was the creation of the UN in its current form, including the Security Council, where the five great powers have the right of veto. The Americans insisted on the right to veto when the UN was created, because the League of Nations, which existed before the UN and before WWII, fell apart precisely because the Americans were not interested in it. They were unable to stop the processes they found to be “harmful” for them.

Efforts are underway to repeal or to limit the right of veto. The veto is not a privilege, but an enormous responsibility. This provision was introduced into the UN Charter precisely because everyone realised that if any great power considers a particular proposal unacceptable, it is better not to push it forward. Our French colleagues are now saying: “Let’s voluntarily limit the use of the right of veto when it comes to widespread violation of human rights, genocide, or war crimes.” This is a very slippery slope. We asked them: “What is the cut-off line for this voluntary restriction? If 100 people die, we give up the right of veto, but if 99, then we don’t?” This is a dogmatic approach, and it's wrong. And politics is much more complicated than such a straightforward approach.

Second, in fact, the Security Council no longer reflects the global balance of power. Talks to expand it have been underway for a couple of decades. Our position is very simple: the developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America should receive additional seats in this body. The West and those who share positions with it - allies of the United States - cannot claim additional seats in the UN Security Council. Already, out of 15 members, six are from the Western world. Probably, that’s enough. We need to straighten these imbalances, not exacerbate injustice.

Finally, the third achievement is international law, which builds on the principles that underlie the UN Charter, primarily the sovereignty of the state, non-interference in domestic affairs, and peaceful settlement of disputes. The sovereign equality of states as per the Charter is a standard of life that cannot be sacrificed. But our Western colleagues don’t like this. So, they haven’t even used the term “international law” over the past several years. They say everyone must respect a rules-based world order. When we ask them how this is different from international law, they tend to provide varying explanations. Their point is that these “democratic” countries will establish the rules themselves. They will be the ones to determine the circle of “democracy” of their own accord. US President Joseph Biden announced that he wants to convene a Summit for Democracy this summer, or early autumn. They themselves will decide who will be invited. So, here’s our answer to this: indeed, there must be rules, but the entire UN is based on the rules enshrined in the Charter, and these are universal rules. Rules formed by a small group of allies will only lead to a breakup and more dividing lines.

So, yes, this system must be respected, maintained and strengthened. Just like any other organization, the UN is a living organism, not some kind of abstract notion. These are 193 member nations. It must be adapted to changes, but in a way where changes are based on consensus. In this way, it would convey the opinion of the entire international community. The permanent members’ responsibilities will not go anywhere. Russia and the United States are the largest nuclear powers. The other three nuclear powers - China, France and Great Britain - also enjoy great presence on the international stage. Because these five nations have a special responsibility, President Vladimir Putin proposed convening a summit of the leaders of the UN Security Council’s five permanent members. Unfortunately, the pandemic has postponed any such plan. We are now holding consultations on this matter. We will try to convene it, the epidemiological situation permitting.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, what have we learned from the pandemic? Is it true that in the face of danger every man is for himself?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regrettably, many countries are guided by that logic. Our position is different. From the first days of the pandemic, from the moment we realised what approach we should take in our domestic policy in these conditions, and then later, when in August (last year) President Vladimir Putin announced that work on our first vaccine was complete, he invited everyone to cooperate.

Incidentally, the cooperation President Putin was talking about became real last December when the Gamaleya National Research Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology signed a memorandum with AstraZeneca to try to combine their two vaccines to jointly produce something more effective. I do not know what has come of that. You might know that AstraZeneca ran into serious problems and lost their contract with the European Union. The EU pulled out of it.

French President Emmanuel Macron said early in the year that Russia and China were waging a new type of war – a war of vaccines. These were unseemly words, frankly. Whatever we do, we hear the following: “You are discrediting Western achievements in healthcare, so your media are full of criticisms of these jabs.” When a piece of news about the pandemic is reported in the West, including about the faults of this vaccine-engendered situation, our media are just reproducing the news that was printed and publicised in the West. We never said anything insulting and only argued that everyone had to understand the importance of treating the various vaccines equally. International or national agencies would hardly benefit from preferring one vaccine and discriminating against another. We continue to stick to this approach and we talked about it at the G20 Summit on vaccines, in which President Putin took part. The World Health Organisation (WHO) holds regular events and Russia participates in them. However, if the world community is to develop a uniform policy it still has to put in more effort. Not everyone is ready for this. Many are grabbing vaccines for themselves, stocking up on them for the future to later be able to make a profit by offering them to their partners.

President Putin supported the initiative, the day it was announced, to waive patent protection for [coronavirus] vaccines during the decisive phase of fighting the virus. The EU has its doubts about this. There are plenty of considerations involved. As they say, you can never see into another’s heart. However, I wish everything to be transparent and honest with this.



Question:

What are the qualities of a good diplomat?



Sergey Lavrov:

It’s the same as any other person with a modern occupation that is linked with the awareness of international processes and the homeland’s place in them. Now the world has become so globalised that any field of human endeavour is trans-border.

A diplomat primarily needs erudition and foreign languages. Our Foreign Ministry accepts all university graduates with at least two languages. As was always the case, MGIMO University still provides us with the majority of new recruits but we also have graduates from the Far Eastern Federal University, St Petersburg State University and Novosibirsk State University.

I have already mentioned that diplomacy is the oldest profession, not something else. Any contact between people requires their agreement. When people realised that they are thinking creatures, these processes began to develop. It is necessary to listen to your dialogue partner and to understand him or her, and to be able to justify your viewpoint and never lose self-control. That said, sometimes it seems in place to say something piquant.

It is possible and necessary to teach students. This is done by the faculties of international relations in many universities. The main thing is to establish practical contacts with your foreign colleagues. To do this you must learn how to communicate in a team.

I am delighted to see you in this line-up. This is a very good initiative. I think this will be enjoyable and useful.



Question:

Some scholars say that Russia’s role in international politics is not commensurate with its role in the world economy. Do you think that is true? What are your thoughts on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

In terms of gross domestic product (GDP), our percentage isn’t very high (about 2-2.5 percent). Obviously, our potential is much greater than that. It is clear that we are still feeling the aftermath of the USSR’s collapse and the destruction of the economic complex we once had.

In the last few years, Russia has tried to foster growth. The EAEU has already produced a tangible result. The aggregate trade of its five members is growing. Observers are joining the EAEU. It has already signed five free trade zone agreements with foreign partners. Now it is reviewing about fifty similar applications from different countries and international trade associations. The development of Siberia and buildup of non-carbon exports – everything President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about and that is part of the Government’s plans – should increase our share in the global economy.

As for comparing our share here to our role in world politics, and security issues, I agree if this role is considered substantial. But if we are told to simmer down, that our two percent as an economy means we have to stay within two percent in world politics, this is simply not serious, is it? Everything is how it is for a reason. Russia plays the role it can play and does so fairly well.

In Syria, we prevented scenarios modelled after Yugoslavia in 1999, Libya in 2011 or Iraq in 2003. Yugoslavia was bombed and destroyed as a state; they are trying to pick up the pieces in Libya but without much success; Iraq was bombed under a completely false pretext (everyone recognises this now). It was accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction. Democracy was proclaimed there. Hundreds of thousands of people died in these conflicts. But nothing got better in any of the countries I mentioned. We prevented this scenario in Syria and eradicated the main den of terrorists there. Some of them have survived but the struggle against them continues.

I think we did a good job on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement in the South Caucasus. Now we are helping normalise relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia and the situation in the South Caucasus in general. There appeared an opportunity, in part, owing to our mediation, to unblock economic and transport lines that were shut since the early 1990s due to the Karabakh conflict.

We don’t chase after rankings but objective observers should judge for themselves who is getting results. When I hear that the Americans do everything with noble intentions, I want to ask for a single example of an international undertaking based not only on the authority but also the armed forces of the United States that has improved the situation. I cited examples of US interference and can cite more.

I don’t mean to say that we are better and they are worse. We must work together. This is why President of Russia Vladimir Putin suggests convening a summit of the UN Security Council permanent members with a view to reaching agreement. This is exactly why we are generally positive on US President Joseph Biden’s proposal to meet with President Putin. We discussed what global problems might be resolved for the common good with the proactive involvement of Russia and the US. The situation is complicated. You see how many problems have piled up during the Obama and Trump administrations. Despite all Trump’s statements about the need to get along with Russia, his administration and all other government bodies prevented him from doing this and persistently undermined our relations. There is so much backlog that it will not be easy to clear everything. However, if people want to talk we are always open to it.



Question:

What lesson from international relations is the most important for the world today?



Sergey Lavrov:

If we take one event, the main lesson is from World War II. I have talked about this. I am confident that this is a common asset. We must not lose or erode it in any way.



Question:

My question is probably similar to the one the previous speaker was asked, but I would still like to hear your opinion as a person with close professional links to interpreters. What contribution do interpreters make to improving international relations? Could this occupation become extinct when artificial intelligence replaces professionals?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t think it would come to that. A machine cannot replace a person in creativity. Diplomacy and interpretation are creative endeavours.

I started my career as an interpreter. I worked for four years in Sri Lanka, interpreting for the ambassador. By the way, I learned to interpret there without stopping to eat. Many events took place during lunch or dinner. The ambassador would invite his colleagues, and I was young and hungry. I tried not to reduce my calorie intake and did pretty well. I hope I wasn’t too immodest.

Speaking at the UN in 1960, First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Nikita Khrushchev said literally we would “show Kuzka’s mom” to the Western countries (the US and NATO), meaning to threaten them. A machine would just freeze up with this line. I don’t remember what his interpreter said but I’m sure he did a good job.

We have great interpreters. Unfortunately, not all of them are still with us. We have their memoirs with examples. The great interpreter Viktor Sukhodrev worked at the highest level as well as Pavel Palazhchenko who now works at the Gorbachev Foundation. I must mention Andrey Vavilov. I’m sure you will find their books online. They have many interesting stories.

An interpreter, if he or she is also a good diplomat (and only those work at the highest level) can remove some of a speaker’s mistakes. There were many examples to this effect in the last Soviet years. I won’t mention them. But even the tone is important! It is possible to interpret aggressively or, make an interpretation sound simpler and calmer. In this case it can play a role. There is no advice for every case. Read these books. This would be useful.



Question:

If a person studies a foreign language, he has a mess in his head. He can confuse what language he is speaking. What did you do to prevent this? What can you advise?



Sergey Lavrov:

I didn’t have that problem. I studied Singhalese that is spoken only in Sri Lanka. About 70 percent of its population speak this language but it doesn’t exist anywhere else. It consists of round diphthongs that are somewhat similar to the Armenian or Georgian alphabet. It is impossible to mix it up with anything else. I studied it for four years and then worked for four years there and haven’t used it since. If you think in a foreign language when you fall asleep or just think about something, that’s good; this means a foreign language comes naturally and it won’t be a strain to switch to it.



Question:

Do you agree with the theory of historical cyclism, according to which history moves in a circle and the birth, blossom, decline or, probably, death of human societies repeat themselves?



Sergey Lavrov:

It would be necessary to see how history started from the time it began to be recorded. Many smart people have considered this. “History repeats itself, first as a tragedy and then as a farce.” Vladimir Vysotsky wrote: “Things develop not in a spiral but in all directions, haphazardly and across.”

There is a theory that cycles are manifest in climate, that the Earth warms up every 80-100 years. Many people who debate the methods for countering climate change say it’s really useless, that it’s simply the way things are and it’s impossible to change it.

The main thing is to derive lessons from tragedies. I will again recall World War II and the results. The memory of events must be preserved because for the first time humanity not only agreed to stop the war (this happened before, for instance, the Treaty of Versailles), but it decided how to live into the future – based on justice, equality and reliable instruments to prevent a world war. Humanity can live a calm life as long as the following generations are alive: a generation that remembers that war and the generation that hears the truth about it from fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers. If at some stage this knowledge is lost, if people do not try to keep it in the genetic code of humanity, we will be in for a cycle that nobody needs: neither we, nor our grandsons, great grandsons or posterity.



Question:

I am head of the international section at the Synodal Department for Youth Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). In the year of the 800th anniversary of the Faithful Saint Prince Alexander Nevsky, which lesson taught by that great figure you would choose for us, today’s youth in the 21st century?



Sergey Lavrov:

Above all, wisdom and, strange as it may sound, pragmatism. Until they gathered strength, he had to negotiate with the Mongols, but without losing his dignity. He was a great diplomat. By the way, Alexander Nevsky is a patron of diplomats. He was a great military leader and a great statesman. We must be proud that we have such a figure in our history who put his people’s honour ahead of everything else. This concerns the talk about “being friends with everyone and taking orders from everyone, and then we will have cheese and sausage from different countries, not only from this one.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry works closely with the ROC, primarily with its Department for External Church Relations. We have many projects. It is especially important at a time when not only the ROC but the Orthodoxy in general is under a real attack. During Donald Trump’s presidency, our US colleagues established the position of special representative on the freedom of religion. What he is doing is trying to destroy the unity of the Orthodox nations and churches. Ukraine uses the Patriarch of Constantinople, an absolutely dependent person, for this purpose. It is already clear that this is a tool in the hands of those who want to undermine the Orthodoxy’s positions. They are destroying the Serbian Orthodox Church, its canonical territory, and they are trying to take Lebanon from the Patriarchate of Antioch. All of this is highly regrettable.

In Russia the state does not interfere in church affairs. However, when other countries interfere in the ROC’s or its Orthodox sisters’ affairs, the state must protect the interests of its brothers in faith and likeminded people.



Question:

My name is Ruslan. I’m from Lipetsk, and I’m studying Finance and Lending at Financial University, which is directly related to international relations.

I was recently speaking with a good friend of mine. We talked about unity, and not just the unity of individual states but the unity of Planet Earth and the human race, and about the erosion of political borders. However hard we may be trying, humanity’s breakthrough progress will be impossible until people come to see each other as a single race rather than a multitude of nations and nationalities.

What should each state and every individual do towards this goal? Will Russia be ready to sacrifice itself and its borders in the name of a greater objective, for a united Earth without political borders? What do we have to do to achieve this goal? Are we ready for this?



Sergey Lavrov:

It would be premature to erase the borders, even though all modern-day challenges can be described as cross-border, including in the field of finance and lending, which is having its impact on global processes.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Americans declared “the end of history” and even stopped training experts on Russia. We can see the impact of that decision on Washington’s current assessment of developments in Russia, our interests and the way it should deal with us.

It has been said that transnational corporations are replacing governments, which will wither away. The most vivid example of this is how IT giants were functioning, which banned discussions on many subjects and people, including former US President Donald Trump, among many others. They closed access to our resources as well. We told the Americans that this matter is in their jurisdiction and that they have certain, very clear obligations in the OSCE, which prohibit blocking access to information. Our American colleagues answered that they are not responsible for what private companies do. It was a signal showing that governments may soon be pushed to the outskirts in that and many other spheres.

The pandemic has shown that we do need the state, and that the state must be strong. Countries with a stable vertical of power controlling domestic developments are more effectively dealing with health issues than countries without a strong central government.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t think that humanity must turn into a single race. Fascists tried doing just this by pursuing a policy of genocide against the Jews and, deep down, against all the ethnicities of the Soviet Union. A horrible fate lay in store for us. Therefore, the cultural, civilisational and language diversity of the world is our wealth. It would be wrong to impoverish humanity in this sense.

You were right in saying that we would like humanity to be united. But this does not mean we must forget our roots, our history, culture and traditions. What we do need to erase is not national borders but arrogant behaviour in international relations. I have already spoken about this.

Western countries believe that they have a right to force their views on others. They are saying openly that Russia and China must change their behaviour. Why? What is the reason behind the current difficulties in our relations with the West? They supported the anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine in February 2014, although they had signed the agreement reached between then President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. Less than a day later, the opposition trampled underfoot the signatures of the EU representatives and seized the government buildings. The first dangerous sign was the demand that the legislative guarantees of the Russian language be cancelled. It was clear what kind of people had come to power. The next day they started saying that the Russians must be ousted from Crimea and sent the so-called “friendship trains” to the peninsula. Young people with firearms and bats stormed the building of the Crimean Supreme Soviet.

No wonder the Crimean people reacted accordingly. Those who are defending their land in Donbass in southeastern Ukraine are called “terrorists.” But they never attacked anyone, they just said that they would not take part in the developments and asked to be left alone, so that they could understand what was going on and decide what they would do. This is why they have been denounced as “terrorists.” The new regime attacked them. And this process has been ongoing since then.

The West slapped sanctions on us for doing what we did, simply because it itself could not do anything. Maybe some people even liked it that those who came to power in Ukraine, even though their sentiments and mentality were clearly neo-Nazi, claimed that they wanted to be friends with the West. For them, friendship means blindly following their advice. If the West is so promiscuous and is willing to take care and protect anyone regardless of their unacceptable convictions, this is bad. However, arrangements must be made all the same. There is no other way.

Some people have suggested that we should “apologise” to the West and wonder what we need Crimea for. Everyone has a right to have an opinion. I, personally, categorically reject this view. I recall the nationwide joy after the referendum in Crimea. This is very difficult to forget, especially when history is being made right in front of us.

Yes, humanity should be united. But as the motto on a one-dollar bill says, E pluribus unum, which boils down to “unity in diversity.”



Question:

You have repeatedly said that our main goal is peace and an agreement. But Western countries interpret our desire to come to an agreement as weakness. In the past, there were thugs, who saw any reluctance to pick a fight as a weakness and upped the pressure. Western politicians’ behaviour is something like this. In this connection, did you ever consider changing your rhetoric in contacts with them?



Sergey Lavrov:

The first thing is that I changed my rhetoric many times. And this was on record. Second, have these “thugs” disappeared? They are still with us. This is part of our life. And they will always be there, I believe. Third, our main goal is not in achieving peace or an agreement, but in ensuring the interests of this country and its citizens. As for an agreement, it is just a tool and it can only be equitable.

Yes, we are always in favour of peace, but we never said that we would turn the other cheek Tolstoy-style, no matter how we love him.

Compared with everyday life, do you know what else this reminds me of? When the Alliance [NATO] was expanding, we asked the small countries along our perimeter, why they were doing this, why they were shifting the NATO borders right up to the borders of the Russian Federation? The Baltic states said they were having phobias after our “occupation,” and in general they had been “oppressed.” How were they “oppressed,” if all of them kept their languages, and the industry in the Baltic area grew by several orders of magnitude in the Soviet period? Generally speaking, they were dragged into NATO. We were told: please don’t worry, they will calm down after getting rid of their phobias; everything will be all right and there will be peace on your borders. Nothing of the kind!

In NATO today, the tail is wagging the dog, as the saying goes. The Russophobic minority in the North Atlantic Alliance and the European Union (the Baltic Trio is its leader) is constantly clamouring for new “punishments” for the Russian Federation. They hope that the Americans will shield them.

Let me give you another example. When I was growing up, boys – some of them bigger, some smaller – came out into our yard. But there was always someone who was bigger than the others. The chief bully. He sat husking sunflower seeds and smoking a cigarette, while swarming around him, the shark, were his clingfish. They used to run to a new boy and urge him to give them 10-15 kopeks (a lot of money at that time). If the answer was “no,” the mucho guy rose to his feet and secured the “sovereignty of his territory.” This is life.

But I don’t agree that we always “let them go unpunished.” This era is over and done with. After the disintegration of the USSR, we were seeking to join the Western structures on their terms. But we were still too large for them to “digest”. So, no one accepted us anywhere. And this was perceived as weakness. This period was assessed a long time ago. Lessons have been drawn and it has sunk into the past never to return again.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4741032

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to questions from the Moscow. Kremlin. Putin TV programme, Moscow, May 23, 2021



23 May 2021 - 14:30

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Question:

Under what conditions will Russia agree to a summit with the US?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have said it all already. They have made a proposal to us. We are studying it. On the whole, we have a positive attitude to this.



Question:

Are the rumours that the Russia-US summit is likely to be held in Switzerland true? Papers are writing articles on this.



Sergey Lavrov:

I never comment on rumours. Do you think that newspaper articles cannot be rumours? More often than not, that’s the way it is.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4741097






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the newspaper Argumenty i Fakty, Moscow, May 24, 2021



24 May 2021 - 12:15



Question:

Soon after President Joe Biden phoned President Vladimir Putin to suggest holding talks, Washington adopted new sanctions against Russia. Moreover, Joe Biden has not apologised to President Putin for calling him “a killer” in a televised interview. Is it possible to hold a personal meeting under these circumstances? Or should we wipe such offences under the table in the name of more important interests, such as the maintenance of global strategic stability?



Sergey Lavrov:

An unhealthy situation has come about in Russian-US relations during the past few years. There are a number of major concerns. The Americans are currently conducting an openly unfriendly policy towards Russia, adopting sanctions and making unsubstantiated accusations and other hostile moves, including uncalled for public acts, such as the one you have just mentioned. Taken together, this has created a highly toxic environment hindering the development of a calm and professional dialogue between our countries.

For our part, we have always called for developing constructive and mutually beneficial cooperation with Washington and for removing the obstacles that are hindering our movement forward. History shows that even the most drastic differences can be settled when there is mutual striving for this.

Russia and the United States, the world’s two largest nuclear powers, bear special responsibility for strategic stability and international security. Without a full-scale Russian-US dialogue the international community will be hard put to deal with cross-border threats and challenges or settle regional conflicts. Incidentally, our international partners regularly point this out to us and to the Americans. Being aware of this, we are analysing Washington’s proposal to hold a meeting of our presidents in a European country this summer. During my meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken held in Reykjavik on May 19, the American side demonstrated a constructive attitude, by and large, which is encouraging.



Question:

What might the agenda be of the June summit, if it is held?



Sergey Lavrov:

Preparing the agenda is part of the analysis of the American initiative to hold a summit meeting. Ultimately, our leaders themselves will decide what issues to discuss at their meeting.

Overall, I can tell you, just as President Vladimir Putin pointed out on numerous occasions, that we are willing to discuss and coordinate solutions to any topics on the bilateral agenda, as well as to work together to settle global problems and regional conflicts and crises. The main thing is for our dialogue to be based on the principles of equality, mutual respect and a balance of interests.



Question:

Actually, there is no Russian ambassador in the United States or US ambassador in Russia. Did such a thing ever happen before? Can this fact be regarded as a new Cold War between our countries? What is Anatoly Antonov doing in Moscow, and will he return to Washington in the foreseeable future?



Sergey Lavrov:

Recalling ambassadors for consultations is a common diplomatic move. It is an indication of dissatisfaction with the existing relations and a desire to thoroughly analyse them and possible scenarios of future developments. It does not mean that relations have been severed but shows that something has gone amiss in our relations, which should be analysed and rebooted.

As for Anatoly Antonov, he is having meetings not only at the Foreign Ministry, but also at the Presidential Executive Office, the State Duma and other Russian agencies. So far, we believe that our ambassador, just as the head of the US diplomatic mission in Moscow, John Sullivan, will be working in their capitals for a while.



Question:

During your interview with Argumenty i Fakty last year, you said that you were hopeful that a summit of the five nuclear countries would be held as soon as possible. Is this proposal still on the table? Incidentally, does the extension of the New START mean that the system of nuclear arms control will not be ruined after all and that one can do business with the Biden administration in this field?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our proposal to convene a summit of the UN Security Council’s five permanent members holds good. The coronavirus pandemic prevented us from coming together last year, but it has not destroyed the general idea and we continue preparing for this meeting. We hope that the summit will be held as soon as the epidemiological situation returns back to normal throughout the world.

We regard the agreement of Joe Biden’s team to extend the New START without any preconditions and linkages as an encouraging sign. The fact that we have ultimately extended the treaty is fully in keeping with the security interests of both countries and the international community as a whole.

I will not try to guess what turn the developments may take. It is apparent to us that joint moves to improve the situation in the field of strategic stability are badly needed in the current complicated conditions.

We welcome the US side’s agreement to see the extension of the New START as the starting point for launching a new stage of a bilateral dialogue on strategic armaments. We are ready for substantive work and are fully aware of the complexity and unusual nature of the problems that have accumulated in this field.



Question:

Experts are interpreting the accumulation of troops around Donbass in April as a risk of a new dangerous escalation and are even comparing the situation with the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Can a conflict between Russia and Ukraine (another aggravation is possible any day) really detonate a third world war?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, I would like to point out that the conflict in Donbass is an internal Ukrainian armed conflict. It is a consequence of the coup d’etat that brought radical nationalist forces to power in Kiev.

Ukrainian radicals and nationalists started enforcing their rules and cracking down on those who rejected them, including the Donbass residents who are simply protecting their freedom, national and cultural identity and the right to speak their native language.

The Ukrainian authorities refuse to recognise their legitimate interests or to grant a special status to Donbass, as stipulated in the Minsk agreements. Instead, Kiev is trying to lay the blame on Russia and present it as a party to the conflict, demanding the adoption of tougher anti-Russia sanctions.

The planned military exercises of the Russian armed forces are held every year, concluding the winter-spring period of combat training. They are held on Russian territory a considerable distance away from Donbass. It is these exercises, which have already ended, that Kiev, supported by Western countries, tried to present as an aggravation of tension.

I would like to use this occasion to point out the military build-up of the United States and its NATO allies in Ukraine and the Black Sea. They are sending weapons and providing financial and material assistance to the Ukrainian army, as well as teaching the Ukrainian military the NATO methods of warfare. Seven joint military exercises with NATO countries are to be held in Ukraine in 2021 alone. In other words, military drills will be held there every six to eight weeks. Ukrainian troops are taking part in the large-scale NATO exercise Defender Europe 2021. Russia has to take all of this into account in its military planning. And lastly, needless to say, that the militarisation of Ukraine is not facilitating a settlement of the conflict in Donbass.



Question:

Kiev has been speaking increasingly more often about revising the Minsk agreements. How would you explain this position, and what can be done if Ukraine does not want to implement these agreements? Is there any way out of this deadlock?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, Kiev has been talking about this increasingly more often. President Vladimir Zelensky has stated recently that “the Minsk agreements are needed not to settle the conflict, but to preserve sanctions against Russia.” The head of the Ukrainian delegation at the Trilateral Contact Group, Leonid Kravchuk, said that the Minsk agreements are a [political] millstone round Ukraine’s neck and one of the obstacles that is preventing the settlement of the conflict. These statements cannot be assessed as anything other than refusal to implement the Minsk Package.

The reason for this is only too obvious. The Kiev authorities’ rating is going down and down, and the “peace in Donbass” promised by Zelensky is nowhere in view.

It appears that Kiev believes that the granting of a special status to the separate districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions as component parts of the Ukrainian state, which is a key factor of the Minsk agreements, will hinder the implementation of the current Ukrainian policy, a policy of far-right nationalism, Russophobia, enforced Ukrainisation, the suppression of independent media outlets, the persecution of dissenters and severance of centuries-old ties between our nations.

There is also an explanation for Kiev’s stubborn desire to change the sequence of the implementation of the Minsk package by placing the entire length of the Russian-Ukrainian border under Ukrainian control before holding local elections in Donbass. They are not even trying to keep secret their subsequent plans, which provide for the filtration of the population and the internment of the “politically unreliable” people in concentration camps.

Needless to say, the Donbass residents are not enthusiastic about this possibility. The people there have to live amid the horrors of bombing raids and shooting by the Ukrainian armed forces and are suffering untold hardships because of Kiev’s economic blockade.

To find a way out of this dead-end, the Kiev authorities must decide if they want Donbass to be reintegrated into Ukraine. If they do, the only way towards this goal is strict and consecutive implementation of the Minsk package. I would like to remind you that this document has been approved in a UN Security Council resolution and is thus binding on the conflicting sides, which are Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk.



Question:

Russia’s top negotiator on Donbass, Dmitry Kozak, has made a surprise proposal, suggesting that the talks are held publicly so that the positions of the sides are clear to everyone. I can’t remember anything quite like this in the history of diplomacy. How would such openness influence the talks? Why are talks usually held behind closed doors, rather than in the form of public debates, for example?



Sergey Lavrov:

Ensuring the confidentiality of talks is the usual diplomatic practice and a prerequisite of success. But this rule is only effective when all the sides work honestly towards practical results.

Regrettably, the conduct of the Ukrainian delegation at the OSCE- and Russia-assisted talks held at the Contact Group between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk tells a different story. This also largely concerns the discussions held by the political advisers of the Normandy Four. This is the reason why Dmitry Kozak has come up with the proposal you just mentioned.

It is notable that the Kiev authorities are carefully camouflaging their destructive line at the talks, a line that runs contrary to the Ukrainians’ aspirations for restoring peace in Donbass. Seeking to deceive the general public, Kiev is deliberately distorting the outcome of the talks and the actual approaches of the participants both within the framework of the Contact Group and in the Normandy format. In other words, this is a case of deliberate and purposeful disinformation.

Here is a concrete example. On June 22, 2020, the participants of the Trilateral Contact Group coordinated and signed a document on additional measures to strengthen the ceasefire. The sides pledged to make public statements about the issuance of the relevant orders and confirm that these ceasefire orders comply with such measures.

The self-defence forces implemented this obligation almost immediately. As for Kiev, it took eight months of hard work, primarily by Russia within the framework of the Normandy format, to ensure that these statements are posted on the website of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry in full and without any alterations.

Should the facts of this thimble-rigging, which are quite numerous, be left unanswered? I have no doubt that the Ukrainian public must know who its “heroes” are. How will the ordinary Ukrainians draw correct conclusions about the developments in their country otherwise?



Question:

You have mentioned the possibility of breaking off ties with the EU, which are barely alive anyway. Under what conditions would Russia be willing to again develop these relations? Is it the lifting of the sanctions, the removal of pressure over human rights issues, including the Navalny case, or something else?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, I have mentioned several times that our relations with the EU have been reduced to a minimum. In 2014, Brussels, acting under US pressure, as the Americans themselves admitted openly, destroyed the architecture of cooperation which took two decades to create.

This was not our choice. Moreover, we have always tried consistently to steer the EU towards mutually beneficial cooperation in areas of mutual interest. Regrettably, EU bureaucrats have shelved many of our proposals.

The EU’s policy of containing Russia is growing stronger. There is direct interference in our internal affairs, for example, when it comes to the situation around Alexey Navalny. Unilateral sanctions against Russian individuals and legal entities are being expanded. More and more unsubstantiated allegations are levelled against us.

The latest example is the new triad of EU principles in relations with Russia. The priority has been given to pushback and containment, while the third principle, engagement, has been limited exclusively to subjects of interest to the EU. One wonders if Brussels really hopes to overcome the deadlock in our relations through this openly confrontational approach. Our colleagues should know that we will not accept these one-sided games. Russia will not be intimidated by sanctions or threats. If necessary, we will continue to respond to provocations and unfriendly moves harshly but proportionately.

At the same time, I would like to point out that we are still interested in dealing with the EU and its member states in the spirit of pragmatism and mutual respect based on the universally recognised norms of international law. It is on the basis of these principles that we are successfully developing relations with the overwhelming majority of states in Eurasia, Africa and Latin America. I am sure that a great deal can also be achieved in cooperation with our European neighbours.



Question:

Western media outlets have reported that the approval of the Sputnik V vaccine by the European Medicines Agency has been put in question, allegedly because the regulator has higher criteria than Moscow expected. Is this so? Considering that many countries only allow entry to vaccinated travellers, does this mean that Russians will be unable to travel to the EU because our vaccine has not been approved in Brussels?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Russian Sputnik V vaccine has passed the stage of scientific advice from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which has started a rolling review of the vaccine.

We believe that this matter should be considered from an exclusively professional and depoliticised standpoint. It concerns the health and life of the people. The main thing is for the EU to be guided by these considerations at all the subsequent stages of considering Russia’s application.

I would like to remind you that to date Sputnik V has been registered in over 60 countries. That figure is self-explanatory. Our vaccine is trusted throughout the world.

As for reopening countries to travellers, there is a proposal to use Digital Green Certificates, which would include proof that a person has been vaccinated against COVID-19, received a negative test result, or recovered from COVID-19. So far, this idea is aimed at restoring travel within the EU. The issue of European certificates’ compatibility with similar documents or digital certificates used in third countries is being discussed.

The European Commission has also proposed simplifying the entry of vaccinated travellers from third countries, but only if they have been inoculated with vaccines approved by the EMA or WHO (the latter is currently evaluating Sputnik V for certification purposes). Ultimately, the EU states themselves will decide whether to allow tourists from third countries. Many of them have a strong interest in reopening their borders to Russian tourists.

It should be said that the epidemiological situation remains volatile in many European countries. For our part, we would like to remind our EU colleagues that their decisions should be non-discriminatory and should also take into account all the COVID-19 vaccines created in non-Western countries.



Question:

It appears that US troops are finally leaving Afghanistan. However, there’s a risk that once they leave the country, the Taliban will again go for a power grab. Does this represent a threat to Russia?



Sergei Lavrov:

Russia stands ready for any turn developments in Afghanistan may take. Of course, we are interested in a stable situation there. To this end, alongside other countries, we are energetically promoting the process of national reconciliation. Specifically, we are doing this as part of the expanded troika with Russia, the United States, China and Pakistan. We plan to step up the Moscow format activities going forward, which includes all countries in the region and the United States.

Concerns about the Taliban seizing power are coming primarily from Western observers. However, first, the Taliban themselves are saying they have no such intentions, and second, there are political forces in Afghanistan which clearly will not be supportive of the Taliban coming to power through violence.

In our contacts, we are making clear to the Taliban movement that we are against them monopolising power. There is a need to form a government that will take into account the interests of all ethnic and political groups in Afghan society if we want to achieve a sustainable settlement.

The months ahead may be decisive in this regard. The forecasts are telling us that they may see another surge in seasonal combat activities. Much will depend on the willingness of the warring Afghan parties to conduct a constructive dialogue and to agree on key issues of a future state structure.



Question:

President Erdogan recently welcomed President Zelensky to Istanbul. The Turks have once again pointed out that they do not recognise Crimea as part of Russia. They are supplying weapons to Ukraine, including UAVs, one of which has allegedly killed a six-year-old boy in Donbass. Turkey was a country that stoked the fire of war in Nagorno-Karabakh. We also remember the downed Russian aircraft in Syria. Aren’t our “Turkish partners” allowing themselves a bit too much?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, Russia and Turkey have major differences with regard to a number of international issues. However, this does not prevent us from maintaining a productive political dialogue with our Turkish partners and developing mutually beneficial cooperation across various spheres ranging from energy to tourism. Let’s also not forget that as a NATO country, Turkey, despite heavy pressure from Washington, has not only become interested in buying advanced military equipment from Russia, but has already implemented a major contract for purchasing modern S-400 Triumph air defence system.

Regarding Ukraine, we strongly encourage our Turkish colleagues at all levels to analyse the situation in depth and to stop feeding Kiev's militaristic sentiment. We’ve been very clear that leniency towards Ukraine’s aggressive initiatives in Crimea is tantamount to an encroachment on Russia’s territorial integrity. We hope that Ankara will adjust its approach to accommodate our legitimate concerns.

As a follow-up to the developments in Syria, it is important to note that a highly viable mechanism for overcoming the crisis has been created thanks to agreements with Ankara, both bilaterally and as part of the Astana Troika with Iran. The situation on the ground, including on yesterday's battlefields, has stabilised, and attempts to reignite hotbeds of international terrorism have been suppressed, including through our joint efforts. In addition, Russia, Turkey and Iran managed to consolidate various layers of Syrian society and organise efforts to build the future political structure of the country in a Constitutional Committee based format.

A joint Russia-Turkey centre to control the ceasefire and hostilities has been operating in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict area since January 30. This centre uses exclusively visual observation to monitor possible violations.

So, without downplaying existing differences, we will continue to be guided by the strategic vision of our common interests in expanding cooperation with Turkey. I am confident this meets the aspirations of the Russian and the Turkish peoples.



Question:

Has Russia succeeded in keeping warm relations with Armenia despite the unfavourable outcome of the armed conflict in Karabakh?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russian-Armenian relations have been tested by time. I have no doubt that they will continue developing in the spirit of mutual trust, strategic partnership and allied interaction.

This country is always ready to give a hand to the fraternal Armenian people, as testified by the mediating efforts of Russia and personally from President Vladimir Putin, thanks to which it became possible to achieve an end to the military confrontation in Nagorno-Karabakh in the autumn of 2020 and to launch the process of normalisation in the region.

Today, we can say that the trilateral agreements reached by the leaders of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia and put on record in their statements of November 9, 2020, and January 11, 2021, are generally being implemented successfully. This refers, among other things, to removing the humanitarian and socioeconomic consequences of the conflict and unlocking transport and economic ties in the South Caucasus. Russian assistance is being praised by our Armenian friends.

It is also important to understand that Russia-Armenia relations are not limited only to the Nagorno-Karabakh issues. We have established an unprecedentedly active and trust-based political dialogue at the top and other levels. This year alone, our leaders met on two occasions and had numerous telephone conversations. In early May, I paid a visit to Yerevan. Inter-parliamentary exchanges are in progress.

To help overcome the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia has supplied to Armenia several dozen thousand doses of the Sputnik V vaccine. We are studying how to expand our assistance. We are promoting successfully our trade and economic ties, something that is being helped by the regular meetings between the co-chairs of the Russian-Armenian Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation.



Question:

What do you think about preparations for an attempt on the life of Alexander Lukashenko, something Minsk has accused US secret services of? Given that the protests in Belarus have subsided, could other instruments to change the regime in the country be used? What assistance is Moscow ready to give its ally in this context?



Sergey Lavrov:

An attempt to stage an armed coup in Belarus with help from a US citizen is part of the Western line towards interfering in the internal affairs of post-Soviet countries, which uses a range of methods of “colour revolutions.” It is hard to imagine that such actions could be organised without the knowledge of US secret services. It is reminiscent of the coup in Ukraine in February 2014.

Alexander Lukashenko had to take an extraordinary step because of the threat to his life. On May 9, he signed a presidential decree to the effect that in an emergency, power in the country would be transferred to the Security Council.

You are right that the situation in Belarus has generally stabilised. Despite unprecedented support from the outside, the émigré supported opposition fails to stir up the situation. Most people are tired of street disorders and realise that this is counterproductive.

Despite this, the Western countries are intensifying their pressure on Minsk while promising extravagant economic aid in exchange for “a transition to democracy.” They have sunk to the point of intimidating the Belarusian government and other law enforcement personnel with prosecution under international law.

At the same time, large-scale media, political and financial support for the Belarusian émigré opposition continues.

We can assume that Belarus’s “well-wishers” will not stop at that. We are concerned about yet another appeal by Svetlana Tikhanovskaya to mobilise protests in August and September this year. We hope the Belarusian people will display their inherent wisdom and will not follow in the wake of those who are trying to use the situation for their selfish interests.

Naturally, Russia will not leave Belarus in trouble. We are always ready to help our neighbour and strategic ally. After all, our relations are based on fraternal, often family-like interaction, a common history and spiritual values.



Question:

China and Russia are on the same side of the barricade in countering the United States. Could Moscow and Beijing strike an alliance in this context, probably, even a military-political union?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia-China relations are developing rapidly. Today they are at the highest point in their history largely because the existing model of bilateral ties is superior to some extent to the level of interstate cooperation of the unions formed during the Cold War.

The fundamental principles of our relations are laid down in the Treaty of Good-Neighbourly Relations, Friendship and Cooperation. In July we will observe the 20th anniversary of this treaty.

Today, both our Chinese partners and we are satisfied with the existing format of cooperation. It allows us to resolve any, even the most difficult issues, in a bilateral dialogue, effectively uphold our interests in multilateral associations and coordinate our approaches in the world arena. By working together, Russia and China are exerting a positive, stabilising influence on the global and regional situation.

Of course, the world situation is changing rapidly. My friend and colleague, Foreign Minister of the PRC Wang Yi emphasised in his recent interview with the Xinhua news agency that Russia-China cooperation does not have a final ending point, taboo issues or an upper limit. I agree with his assessment.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4741307






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions during a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Hellenic Republic Nikos Dendias, Sochi, May 24, 2021



24 May 2021 - 16:36

Sergey Lavrov (E)

Sergey Lavrov (E)

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have just had substantive talks with our Greek colleague Nikos Dendias. This is our fourth meeting. We hold regular contacts that help us maintain Russian-Greek relations and confirm their friendly nature.

Greece is an important European partner of the Russian Federation. This year, the Greek people marked a landmark event, the 200th anniversary of their struggle for independence. One can safely say that this is our common holiday, for Russia made its own special contribution to Greek’s independence and facilitated the establishment of its statehood. Traditions of friendship and mutual assistance have been proven over time, and mutual respect and feelings of fellowship are the solid base of bilateral ties today.

We stated that, despite the difficult sanitary and epidemiological situation, our cooperation continues to develop progressively. The role of a constructive political dialogue at the high and highest levels cannot be overstated. Today, we discussed the implementation of the agreements reached by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of the Hellenic Republic Kyriakos Mitsotakis, as well as decisions that were discussed during the meeting between Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Mikhail Mishustin and Kyriakos Mitsotakis on March 24, 2021 in Athens, as well as their telephone conversation on May 5, 2021.

We also discussed ways to interact in combatting the spread of the coronavirus infection and providing for the epidemiological safety of our citizens.

We have agreed to work to overcome the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to maintain practical cooperation between our countries; confirmed mutual interest in expanding ties, implementing joint projects in trade, investment, research and energy and restoring tourist flows. We supported the convention of the working groups of the Joint Russian-Greek Commission for Economic, Industrial, Scientific and Technical Cooperation and its plenary session as soon as possible this year.

We assessed our treaty and legal framework. We are working on about 20 draft agreements. We agreed to expedite their drafting with a view to signing them during future contacts.

Our cultural and educational exchanges are making steady headway. We share the opinion that the joint Year of History in 2021 will give a fresh impetus to people-to-people contacts. It is being conducted under the patronage of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of the Hellenic Republic Kyriakos Mitsotakis and includes over 120 events in our countries. This major undertaking will promote confidence, understanding and friendship between our nations.

We analysed in depth international and regional issues and agreed to continue close cooperation at multilateral venues, primarily, the United Nations, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC).

We spoke about the situation between Russia and the European Union, noting that our relations are not in the best shape. We did not initiate the sanctions spiral that Brussels is unwinding. We confirmed our readiness for a constructive dialogue with the EU, but only on the principles of equality, mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests, rather than unilateral illegal demands.

We discussed the situation in the Balkans, the Middle East, the Eastern Mediterranean, Libya, Syria and the South Caucasus. We believe that all persisting conflicts in these areas can be settled exclusively by political and diplomatic means on the principles of international law and confrontation prevention.

Our colleagues shared with us their assessments of the recent informal meeting on the Cyprus settlement in the 5 + 1 (UN) format. In turn, we emphasised our principled approach to solving the Cyprus problem on the basis of the exiting UN Security Council resolutions.

We are quite satisfied with the results of the talks and the fundamental intention of our Greek partners to promote bilateral cooperation in the most diverse areas.

In conclusion, I would like to wish Nikos Dendias and the entire Greek delegation a successful completion of their visit, which includes trips to Gelendzhik and Anapa, cities that are closely linked to relations between our nations today as well. They have a large Greek diaspora that is making a tangible contribution to the promotion of ties between Russia and Greece.

Thank you.







Question (retranslated from Greek):

This is a question about the Eastern Mediterranean. On the Cyprus issue, Turkey demands a major change in the negotiations and favours solutions that would lead to the formation of two states. At the same time, Turkey insists on keeping armed forces in Libya. What is Russia’s position on these issues?



Sergey Lavrov:

I mentioned in my opening remarks that Russia believes in the need to achieve a settlement on the basis of the existing UN resolutions. They involve talks on the formation of a dual-community, two-zone federation. It is this mandate that guides the UN Secretary-General and the people whom he instructed to deal with this issue. This is what we proceed from.

We have repeatedly expressed our position on the Cyprus issue in the past few years when the efforts on a Cyprus settlement gained momentum. It was considered ideal to transfer relevant security guarantees to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. We will proceed from this assumption in our future policy. We are ready, if the sides so wish, to offer mediation in the context of the principles that, let me emphasise again, have been approved by the UN Security Council.



Question:

What could you say about yesterday’s landing of a Ryanair plane in Minsk? One of the founders of the Nexta telegram channel was on board it. The EU countries have already expressed their concern over this and called on the Belarusian authorities to justify the detention of the Belarusian journalist. How will Moscow respond?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Kremlin has already commented on this issue. We believe it necessary to judge this incident based on all available information rather than in a rush. The official spokesman of the Foreign Ministry of Belarus made a detailed statement on this score, emphasising the readiness of the Belarusian authorities to act transparently on this case, follow all international rules and guarantee, if need be, the arrival of international experts. I think this is an absolutely reasonable approach. He said Belarus is ready to provide all the necessary materials to confirm that the aviation authorities acted in line with international rules.

As we understand, his acquaintance, a Russian citizen, stayed with the Belarusian citizen in Minsk. We have already contacted her father. The Russian Embassy in Minsk has requested that the Foreign Ministry of Belarus provide information about our citizen and ensure consular access to her.

Since this issue is the talk of the town now, your fellow journalists have prepared, almost instantly, background materials on similar cases. The best-known episode took place in 2013, when Austria forced the Bolivian President’s aircraft to land at US insistence, without any subsequent apologies. There was also a case, which is not often discussed, in 2016 when a Belarusian aircraft was forced to land in Kiev because the Ukrainian Security Service was interested in an Armenian citizen who was on board. He was removed from the flight, and the plane continued its journey without any apologies.

Let me emphasise once again that it is necessary to adopt a sensible approach to this situation. The Belarusian authorities are ready to provide all the required information.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4741728






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the developments around the Ryanair flight in Minsk



24 May 2021 - 19:33



We are closely following the developments regarding the emergency landing in Minsk of a Ryanair flight from Athens to Vilnius on May 23.

According to official reports from Belarus, the landing took place in line with aviation security rules by decision of the crew commander due to the threat of a terrorist attack. The actions of the Belarusian aviation authorities were in compliance with international standards. A Belarusian Air Force fighter was sent to exercise control and render aid in the landing if necessary, especially considering that the aircraft was close to a nuclear power plant in Belarus.

We noted the information on the detention of passenger Roman Protasevich, one of the founders of the NEXTA telegram channel, by Belarusian special services. His name was on a list of persons involved in extremist activities. We consider this issue to be the domestic affair of Belarus. There are reports that in addition to Protasevich, one Russian citizen did not return to the plane, either. The Russian Embassy in Minsk is in contact with her relatives and the Belarusian authorities on this matter and is ready to provide her with consular aid.

We are surprised at the well-orchestrated reaction to these events by representatives of a number of Western countries and international organisations, including the EU, NATO and the OSCE. They demand the release of Protasevich and insist on the toughest additional sanctions against Belarus and Belavia Airlines. I would like to recall that they have responded very differently to similar events in other countries in the past. There are many examples.

In 2013, the Bolivian President’s plane was on a flight from Moscow when it was forced to land in Vienna by US special services that were hunting ex-CIA contractor Edward Snowden. In 2004, the United States forced the personal airplane of former First Deputy Finance Minister and later Senator Andrey Vavilov to land at Palm Beach Airport while on a Moscow-Barbados-Aspen flight. He was interrogated for several hours. In 2012, Turkey used fighter planes to force a Moscow-Damascus flight to land. It searched the plane and confiscated cargo.

Belarusian aircraft have also been forced to land on several occasions. In 2016, a Belavia airliner that departed Kiev, had to land 50 km before entering Belarusian airspace at the demand of a traffic controller who threatened to call in combat fighters if it failed to comply. He demanded the plane return to the point of departure for the removal of anti-Maidan activist Armen Martirosyan. In 2019, Ukrainian special services planned to seize the Wagner group following the same scenario – by forcing a Minsk-Istanbul flight into an emergency landing in Kiev. Luckily, this Ukrainian Security Services operation fell through.

Typically, these actions were carried out deliberately and in violation of international legal standards. There was almost no response from the West to the above and none of the guilty were ever punished.

We draw your attention to a statement by the Belarusian Foreign Ministry spokesperson who expressed Minsk’s willingness to display maximum transparency on this issue, including the provision of materials and free access for international experts.

We urge our Western colleagues to refrain from double standards and to take measures to evaluate the situation realistically, without emotion, based on the available materials and in cooperation with the Belarusian authorities that are demonstrating openness and a willingness to cooperate.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4742118






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answer to a media question at a joint news conference following talks with Minister for Foreign and European Affairs of Malta Evarist Bartolo, Sochi, May 25, 2021



25 May 2021 - 15:09

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 37:20

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 37:20

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held talks with my Maltese colleague, Evarist Bartolo. We are satisfied with the discussion we have had on bilateral relations and their future, as well as plans for our cooperation at multilateral organisations.

We pointed out that our countries are interested in developing bilateral relations in a number of spheres despite the complicated international situation and epidemiological restrictions. There are concrete facts to prove this.

We welcomed our active joint efforts to strengthen the legal framework of our relations. A number of interdepartmental memorandums in culture, sports, youth policy and healthcare are ready for signing.

We have agreed to promote the implementation of our plans when it comes to interparliamentary contacts. We will help boost our trade and economic ties, including by redoubling the efforts of the concerned agencies, economic operators and Russian regions. The Krasnodar Territory, Kemerovo and the Kaluga Region have displayed an interest in the establishment of partner relations with Malta, including in the field of the economy.

We noted Malta’s efforts to adjust the national legislation, including in the sphere of taxation, to the requirements of international financial regulators. It is gratifying that our partners have ratified the protocol amending the bilateral Convention on Avoiding Dual Taxation. This will benefit the legal regulation of relations between our countries in this sphere.

We also talked about joining efforts against the coronavirus pandemic.

We called for the gradual relaunching of tourist exchanges, including in light of the resumption of regular Aeroflot flights to Malta starting today.

We also covered international affairs as well. Russia values Malta’s neutral status formalised in its 1987 Constitution, and a peaceful, pragmatic, responsible and balanced foreign policy of the Valetta government.

We talked about Russia-EU relations, which are going through hard times following the decisions adopted in Brussels in 2014 to undermine the architecture of our interaction. We have reaffirmed our willingness to restore cooperation with the EU if it acts on the basis of mutual respect and parity without trying to enforce any unilateral preconditions on us.

We exchanged views on the developments in the Mediterranean, the Middle East and North Africa, including Libya and the Syrian settlement. We briefed our colleagues on the striving of Russia, Turkey and Iran, acting within the Astana format, to promote agreements on overcoming the crisis in Syria.

We also discussed our interaction in the UN, the Council of Europe and the CSTO, including on the topics of Russia’s initiatives submitted to these organisations. Our Maltese colleagues showed particular interest in the possibility of cooperation in the field of information security. We really hope that the relevant agencies of our countries will establish contact and analyse the opportunities available in this sphere.

We have agreed to maintain dialogue between our foreign ministries and to coordinate the timeframe of the next round of consultations to be held at the level of deputy foreign ministers and department directors.

I would like to thank my colleague for these fruitful talks.







Question:

How are preparations for the possible meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States coming along? The Kremlin has just stated that they will announce their decision soon and that one of the topics likely to be addressed at these negotiations will be arms control and generally stability issues. What other matters, as you see it, can and must we discuss with the United States?

How would you comment on the results of yesterday’s Geneva meeting between Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan? After all, Geneva has been named as one of the most likely venues for the Russian-US summit.



Sergey Lavrov:

The conversation yesterday between Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev and US Presidential National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan covered the entire spectrum of our relations, the same as my talks with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Iceland a week before that.

In both cases, the conversations were frank, with the parties avoiding glossing over our serious and deep differences on the majority of international problems as well as on bilateral issues.

I believe the manner in which the US side presented its position was respectful and allows us to hope that establishing a serious and concrete dialogue on practical, not feigned, problems, common threats and risks will enable us to count (if both sides make efforts) on the removal of certain irritants. This will be neither quick nor easy.

As it was said on many occasions, we positively view US President Joe Biden’s proposal to hold a summit. You have quoted the Kremlin’s statement. The wait will not be long. Our final position will be announced shortly.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4750452






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a joint news conference following talks with Yemeni Minister of Foreign Affairs and Compatriots Abroad Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak, Sochi, May 26, 2021



26 May 2021 - 15:04

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 51:20

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 51:20

Ladies and gentlemen,

We met with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Compatriots Abroad of the Yemen Republic Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak who is on a working visit in the Russian Federation. We discussed in detail the military-political and humanitarian developments in Yemen in the past few years and reviewed some aspects of bilateral relations.

We focused on the need to stop the war and any hostilities in this friendly country. We emphasized that all participants in the conflict must give up attempts to resolve past and ongoing problems by force. We reaffirmed our desire to continue international mediation with the central, leading role of the United Nations. Our position is unequivocal: the Yemenis must agree among themselves through comprehensive dialogue, while external players must facilitate conditions that will allow them to reach a compromise solution at their inclusive talks.

We also believe that the way to enduring peace and stability lies through the dialogue of all leading national political forces. We laid particular emphasis on this today. We do not see any alternative to intra-Yemeni talks with mutual consideration for each other’s interests and concerns.

We are worried about the grievous position of Yemen’s people. The continuing hostilities lead to more victims among civilians and undermine the socio-economic infrastructure. People are suffering from unemployment, malnutrition, lack of access to elementary domestic and medical services and the spread of dangerous diseases. The coronavirus infection has made a bad situation worse.





Russia continues to advocate the full lifting of the sea, ground and air blockade of Yemen and cancellation of all restrictions on the supplies of food, medications and other basic necessities to all districts in the country without exception. We urge all parties to the conflict to strictly observe the provisions of international humanitarian law and renounce combat operations that lead to the destruction of the civilian infrastructure and civilian victims.

We support the proposals made some time ago by the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to Yemen on the functioning of the airport in Sana’a, the operation of the port in Hodeidah and regular salary payments to government employees. No compromise has been reached on these issues so far. We urged the parties involved to settle the conflict over the oil storage vessel Safer that is moored near Hodeidah through cooperation between the Ansar Allah Houthi movement and the authorised UN agencies.

Regarding bilateral cooperation, we had to state with regret that the domestic crisis in Yemen has led to the suspension of all economic, trade, humanitarian and education-related contacts. Nevertheless, we reaffirmed our mutual desire to restore all business ties after the end of the armed confrontation and the creation of consistent government bodies in the Yemen Republic. We would hope that this will happen as soon as possible.

We value our traditionally friendly relations with Yemen. I hope these talks will help create conditions that will allow our friends to overcome the many serious problems they now face.

Thank you for your attention. I give the floor to my colleague.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4751193