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

Old May 30th, 2021 #301
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, May 26, 2021



26 May 2021 - 20:00






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to speak at the conference on Russia-EU relations

As we announced at the previous briefing, on May 31 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will speak at the opening of the conference on Russia-EU relations organized by the Russian Council for International Affairs in cooperation with the Embassy of Portugal and the Delegation of the EU to Moscow. The Foreign Ministry will stream the Minister’s opening remarks on its website and on social networks.

Mr Lavrov will discuss the prospects for Russia-EU relations with his Portuguese counterpart Augusto Santos Silva and EU Ambassador to Russia Markus Ederer.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of Mongolia Batmunkh Battsetseg

On June 1, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with Foreign Minister of Mongolia Batmunkh Battsetseg who will be on a working visit in Russia. They will discuss in detail key bilateral issues, the implementation of high- and highest-level agreements on further development of mutually beneficial cooperation in trade, the economy, transport, infrastructure, energy and humanitarian areas, and promotion of cooperation in the world arena and regional affairs.

The two foreign ministers agreed in principle on Batmunkh Battsetseg’s visit during their telephone conversation on February 4 of this year. They initiated anniversary events devoted to the centenary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Mongolia (November 5, 2021).

During the visit, a ceremony will be held to confer the Order of Alexander Nevsky on pilot-cosmonaut Jugderdemidiin Gurragchaa, President of the Mongolia-Russia Friendship Society, Hero of the Soviet Union and Hero of Mongolia (he flew a space mission as part of the joint crew on March 22-30, 1981). He was awarded this order in March 2021 for a major contribution to the development of comprehensive strategic partnership between the two countries.

Ms Battsetseg will also head the Mongolian delegation at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (June 2-5, 2021).



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to attend a Stand-alone Meeting of BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs

On June 1, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in a Stand-alone Meeting of BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs/International Relations via video conferencing.

The Foreign Ministers are expected to discuss important issues on the international agenda, including ways to strengthen international institutions, regional conflicts, efforts to counter new challenges and threats including COVID-19, and cooperation between the five BRICS countries in the multilateral fora.

The five countries plan to review the status of and prospects for cooperation during this year of India’s BRICS Chairship in three main areas – policy and security, economy and finance, culture and humanitarian contacts.

We support the priorities of the Indian BRICS Chairship under the motto “BRICS @15: Intra BRICS Cooperation for Continuity, Consolidation and Consensus", including strengthening the multilateral system, cooperation in combating terrorism, using digital and technological solutions to achieve Sustainable Development Goals, and enhancing cultural and humanitarian contacts. We share the Chairship's commitment to developing cooperation in healthcare and boosting the role of women in the economy.

In the run-up to the Ministerial Meeting a traditional Meeting of BRICS Sherpas/ Sous-Sherpas will also take place.



Upcoming talks between Sergey Lavrov and Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Republic of Djibouti Mahamoud Ali Youssouf

On June 8, Sergey Lavrov will meet with Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Republic of Djibouti Mahamoud Ali Youssouf, who will be in Moscow on June 7-9 on a working visit.

The two ministers will discuss efforts to foster Russia-Djibouti cooperation in politics, trade, the economy, investment activity, education and healthcare, including implementation of potential joint projects in Djibouti.

The detailed discussion will cover current issues on the regional and international agendas with a focus on efforts to search for solutions in resolving crises in Africa, primarily in the Horn of Africa area. Some aspects of preparations for the second Russia-Africa Summit in an African country in 2022 will also be reviewed.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming participation in the Primakov Readings International Forum

On June 8-9 the International Trade Centre will be the venue of the Primakov Readings. This is an annual international forum and this year the topic is Emerging World Order: New Challenges.

Sergey Lavrov is expected to take part in the morning session due to be held on June 9. He will share his assessments of what is happening around the world and he will outline ways of solving urgent regional and global problems. He will also answer questions put to him by participants during an interactive discussion.

The Primakov Readings rightly occupies one of the leading places among public and political forums both in our country and the rest of the world. Prominent Russian and foreign experts, politicians and diplomats take part in this forum every year. Due to the coronavirus restrictions, the forum will take place in a hybrid format: some of its participants will take part via modern technology but many will be personally present.



Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming participation at the Russia-Islamic World Strategic Vision Group meeting with the heads of diplomatic missions of OIC member countries

On June 9, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the Russia-Islamic Strategic Vision Group meeting with the heads of diplomatic missions of the member countries of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Chairman of the Group and President of the Republic of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov and group members will share information on forums, conferences and festivals held since the previous meeting with ambassadors of the OIC member countries. They will also outline their work with the business community, journalists, religious leaders and also young people. The common goal of these activities is to develop cooperation between the Russian Federation and OIC countries in various fields.

Those present will announce future events and gatherings: a plenary session of the Strategic Vision Group in Jeddah (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia); international economic forum, Russia-Islamic World: KazanSummit 2021, and a report on implementing the scholarly and cultural project on the St Petersburg Museum Institute of Islamic Culture. The Yevgeny Primakov International Prize will be presented.

Welcoming remarks will be delivered by Sergey Lavrov.



St Petersburg International Economic Forum 2021

On June 2-5, 2021, Russia will host the 24th St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). Over a period of the past few years, it has become a leading global venue for business circles to communicate and to discuss key economic issues facing Russia, emerging markets and the world in general.

The main business agenda of SPIEF-2021 consists of four thematic topics: Joining Forces to Advance Development; Delivering on National Development Targets; the Human Factor in Responding to Global Challenges; and New Technology Frontiers. The main theme of the forum is “A collective reckoning of the new global economic reality.”

Interexchanges with representatives of business communities from African countries, Germany, Italy, Qatar, the Latin and North Americas, Finland, France, Sweden and Japan and the EAEU-ASEAN dialogue will take place on the sidelines of the forum.

The forum’s business agenda includes over 130 expert discussions on a broad range of economic development subjects. It includes the Pharmaceutical Breakfast “Health as investment: Private and public partnership in the pharmaceutical sector,” the Sberbank Business Breakfast and the Global IT Business Breakfast.

Qatar is the guest country of the SPIEF-2021. Its delegation will be one of the biggest in the history of its participation in international economic forums. Representatives of 50 organisations will be coming from Qatar to attend the event. Its business programme includes discussions on the development of economic and cultural relations between Russia and Qatar. The forum will also be the venue of the Russia-Qatar Business Dialogue. This is a high-level discussion on the further development of investment opportunities.

As has become a tradition, the forum will present the results of the national rankings of the investment climate in the regions of the Russian Federation. Those taking part in the session will also cover a programme of measures to launch a new investment cycle, which the Government of the Russian Federation is drafting in 2021 in cooperation with interested business and expert associations.

The Foreign Ministry of Russia and the Rossiya Segodnya International Information agency will organise at the forum a business breakfast on the application of the law on foreign media agents in Russia. We plan to hold a sincere informal discussion with representatives of the domestic and foreign media, the expert community, the foreign diplomatic corps and also civil society.

SPIEF-2021 will take place with the strict observance of all safety measures on preventing the spread of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19). The Organising Committee has thoroughly drafted them taking into account WHO requirements. The organisers of the forum will provide conditions for productive work, establishment and development of business contacts There will also be opportunities to take part in the intensive cultural and sports events.

To learn more about all events of the SPIEF-2021 go to our official website.



Evacuation of Russians from Gaza Strip

The voluntary evacuation of Russians from the Gaza Strip started this morning in accordance with the instructions of the President of Russia. The first group has been delivered to Egypt. In consists of 64 people, mostly women and children. As of this moment, they are on their way to Cairo International Airport, where an Emergencies Ministry aircraft is waiting to take them to Moscow.

The humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, which has seriously deteriorated as a result of the latest Palestinian-Israeli armed conflict, remains extremely complicated. In light of this, the Representative Office of Russia in the Palestinian authority and the Russian Embassy in Egypt are working on plans to evacuate a second group of Russians.



Statements by Western politicians about the Ryanair incident

We have taken note of the fact that our Western partners are talking about “the Russian connection” in their comments on the situation. Barely three days after the incident with Ryanair, our Western partner have presented their conclusions very quickly, unanimously and, as always, without any substantiation, even though the investigation is not over and aviation experts have not offered any explanations yet. I will not repeat our official position right now, but I would like to point out that it is focused on conducting an objective and detailed investigation, unlike our Western partners, who only rely on the “highly likely” principle and are speculating about the non-existent “hand of Moscow.”

Following are several quotations:

Prime Minister of the Czech Republic Andrej Babis said immediately after the incident that according to available information, there were four Russian citizens on the Ryanair flight “who probably had a lot to do with this unbelievable act.” He alleged that these people disembarked in Belarus.

The Western officials are setting an alarming trend by combining facts with lies, which are subsequently taken up and interpreted by the media in incredible ways.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki addressed this hot issue twice: “We don’t have a belief that that is the case [that Russia had any role in diverting that plane]. I did not give any indication that we had that view yesterday, and that has not changed. <…> I wasn’t trying to jump to that conclusion, only to convey that there has been a close relationship (between Russia and Belarus). <…> Our National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, also raised our strong concerns on this issue — the actions of the government of Belarus — with his Russian counterpart during their phone call [meeting] this morning (May 24).”

We have noticed that the focus in this context is on close relations between Russia and Belarus. It appears that they have at long last discovered the existence of the Union State. Well, better late than never. Everyone finds his or her own way to knowledge.

UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said that “it’s very difficult to believe that this kind of action could be taken without at least the acquiescence of the authorities in Moscow.” His French colleague, Jean-Yves Le Drian, has been more cautious. He said it is impossible to say for sure, but he thinks that [Belarus] took an independent initiative, although “Russia’s lack of reaction is worthy of caution.”

Norbert Rottgen, chairman of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said that “it can at least be assumed that the state hijacking of the plane was approved by the Kremlin, if there was not even operational support from Russia.”

I have read a great deal of such statements, many of which were not surprising at all, but it would seem that people should at least observe common decencies and professional ethics. The EU and NATO have think tanks. If you can’t clearly formulate your thoughts or find facts, you should at least seek the assistance of the agencies you have been actively financing, especially in the past few years. They will probably write more adequate texts. As for what we have so far heard and read, it is a common salvo bordering on hysterics, on the one hand, and absolute disunity when it comes to facts.

The Belarusian “pseudo-government in exile” went as far as to report fantastic information about four Russian citizens who allegedly disembarked in Minsk. Their Western curators took up the news, which was disseminated by the media. No Russian citizens got off the plane in Minsk. All the explanations have been provided, along with the names of the Belarusian and Greek citizens who did get off the plane, and we have also commented on the situation with the Russian girl.

These statements are based on a big mistake of those who invented the story about the four Russians who allegedly got off the plane. They clearly acted on orders. Maybe it’s time to say sorry, to say that you were wrong and that you will not do this again? This is what those who make factual mistakes usually do.



EU’s 12-month extension (until May 18, 2022) of its “cyber sanctions”

We estimate the EU Council’s decision on a 12-month extension of its restrictions in response to cyber attacks threatening the European Union or its member-states as an extremely unconstructive, politically motivated step with regard to Russia.

Maintaining the sanction mechanisms in the information and communications sphere is an atavism against the background of states’ intensifying, open, inclusive and democratic international dialogue on venues at all levels, which is aimed at creating a system of international information security (IIS), including by developing universal rules of conduct to prevent conflicts in the IIS area and remove misunderstandings.

We believe that this step is at odds with the EU-declared readiness to strengthen international cooperation in this sphere. Rather, on the contrary: it is cultivating total distrust and is a tool of political pressure on countries. Brussels’ consideration of “cyber sanctions” as an essential measure to achieve the goals of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy is unconvincing and suggests the idea of an approaching next round of a “witch hunt,” where the West’s rules-based world order is set in opposition to a “collective enemy (or enemies),” on whom they can groundlessly put the blame for malicious cyberspace activities. The Russian Federation has consistently advocated the peaceful use of information space in full conformity with the generally recognised principles of international law enshrined in the UN Charter, specifically the non-use or threat of force, non-interference in internal affairs of other states, and respect for state sovereignty.

Russia is ready for a constructive and open dialogue. To this end, early last year, we already made a suggestion to the EU, to establish direct interaction between related experts, who can solve all the problems in a maximally prompt way.

However regrettably, all our initiatives remain unanswered.



Special session of the UN General Assembly against corruption

On June 2-4, the UN General Assembly will hold, in a hybrid format, a special session against corruption. The event will be taking place pursuant to General Assembly resolution 73/191 with the aim of discussing certain important corruption-related measures, responses to this threat, and efforts to promote international anti-corruption cooperation. The Russian Federation will be represented by Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov.

A political declaration agreed upon in advance by consensus through intergovernmental negotiations under the auspices of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption will be presented for adoption by the General Assembly at its special session. The project work within the framework of the intergovernmental process took nearly a year. The resolution covers all the main aspects of the anti-corruption fight, including prevention, criminalisation, international cooperation and restitution of assets.

We think it important that the declaration recognises the existence of gaps in international law regulating such matters as identification, arrest, confiscation and restoration of stolen funds to a country of origin. There is a general understanding of the need to shore up the international legal asset recovery regime, with further practical steps in this direction mapped out.

The resolution includes other matters that the Russian Federation prioritises, including greater efficiency of international preventive cooperation, the use of cutting-edge technologies to identify corruption-related offenses, as well as anti-corruption education and training. Russia came up with an initiative to add to the resolution a provision on the need for anti-corruption protection of sports to be achieved via coordination of national efforts on an inclusive and impartial basis, primarily within the UN framework, with a special focus to be placed on children’s and youth sports.

The special session will be broadcast live by the UN Web Television Channel. A number of specialised themed events have also been timed to coincide with the event. Among other things, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation is organising an expert discussion on “International Cooperation on Issues of Corruption Prevention.” For more information on the special session, please go to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime website.



Mali update

On May 24, 2021, military authorities arrested Interim President Bah Ndaw and the Interim Prime Minister Moctar Ouane in Bamako, Republic of Mali. They are currently being held at a military garrison in Kati.

Let me remind you that, on August 18, 2020, a group of Mali military officers headed by Colonel Assimi Goita ousted the country’s top leaders, including President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita. They subsequently established interim institutions of state authority and appointed former Defence Minister Bah Ndaw as Interim President. An interim government headed by Prime Minister Moctar Ouane was also appointed. Colonel Goita, the coup leader, became Vice President.

On May 14, 2021, President Bah Ndaw issued an executive order dismissing the government. Moctar Ouane was instructed to establish a new cabinet and prepare for general elections to be held in February 2022.

According to incoming reports, the arrest of interim leaders was motivated by Moctar Ouane’s decision to dismiss military members of the cabinet, namely, the Defence Minister and the Security Minister. Vice President Goita made a statement that the President had failed to coordinate his actions with him in violation of an interim political charter.

Moscow is concerned about these developments in Mali. We urge the authorities to release members of the country’s interim leadership and to resolve the situation peacefully.

We consider it important to steadily return the situation in Mali into the constitutional framework on the basis of an inclusive nationwide dialogue and to continue the systematic efforts to prepare for the general democratic elections, scheduled for December 31, 2021 and February 27, 2022, with the assistance of the Economic Community of West African States and the African Union.

We proceed from the need to consistently implement the Algiers Peace Agreement by Mali. There is no alternative to this agreement, which is aimed at achieving lasting peace in this state.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia will continue to constructively participate in international efforts to normalise the situation in Mali and to support Bamako on a bilateral basis.



Possible long-term US military presence in Syria

We have noted statements by General Kenneth F. McKenzie, the Commander of the United States Central Command, on the alleged need for the long-term presence of US forces in Syria under the pretext of the ISIS threat there. We would like to note that, for some reason, General McKenzie omitted to mention the fact that units of the US Armed Forces are currently in Syria without Damascus’ permission, which makes their presence illegitimate.

Moreover, when he says that US military personnel is the only force fighting ISIS in Syria and preventing it from resuming its activities, the Head of the US Central Command is not being entirely truthful. We would like to remind our partners that, first of all, it was Russia’s efforts that played a decisive role in defeating the seat of international terrorism in Syria and made it possible to oust ISIS militants and supporters of other terrorist groups from the country’s key districts.

Military personnel from Moscow, Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus continue to expand their coordination and counterterrorism cooperation within the framework of the Baghdad Information Centre. Cooperation between Iraqi and Syrian leaders aiming to destroy the remaining terrorist groups on the border between their countries is an equally important factor of stabilisation.

In our opinion, the Pentagon’s attempts to illegally gain a foothold in Syria under the pretext of fighting terrorism will not help stabilise the region. The Americans are pursuing entirely different goals there, including those linked with hydrocarbon deposits to the north of the Euphrates.



Anti-Russia statements by UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace

Another representative of military officials in the collective West – UK Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace – has made a series of anti-Russia statements naming Moscow as the UK's “number one adversary threat”.

The UK’s Defence Secretary is known as one of the most consistent anti-fans of our country in the British government. At the same time, just as before, his assertive anti-Russia rhetoric contains no specificity.

For my part, I would like to recommend that the British ‘strategists’ discontinue their destructive and destabilising activities near the Russian border. I also really do hope that London has enough political maturity to perform a more sober analysis of what is happening in the world and to tackle the real rather than the imaginary challenges facing that country. Just stop living in apprehension of endless threats. I would say, think positive.



Lithuania's Supreme Administrative Court lifts one-year ban on RTR Planeta from 2018

On May 12, 2021, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania overturned the 2018 decision of the National Radio and Television Commission to ban the retransmission of RTR-Planeta for a period of 12 months upholding a lower court’s decision. That decision was also overturned.

The new decision was made after exposing violations made by the Commission members. It appears that some of them were not even entitled to hold their positions because they simultaneously worked in the media. This means the ban was not imposed by the required quorum, or two-thirds of the Commission members. The same goes for the fine imposed on the operator providing the rebroadcast of the television channel in Lithuania.

While acknowledging that the illegal decision was canceled, we nevertheless cannot fail to note the level of cynicism and politicisation of all the processes related to the media in Lithuania, the Russian media in particular. This case is eloquent confirmation of the assessments we have repeatedly voiced about the Lithuanian authorities’ biased approach to Russian media activities on their territory.

Once again, we are pointing out that Lithuania’s policy, which leads to image losses for Lithuania itself, is in line with Brussels’ destructive course in relation to Russia and its attacks on the Russian media, which are groundlessly accused by EU leaders of propaganda, disinformation and other wrongs.

This sort of behaviour is unacceptable. Just a reminder that this is the media and journalists we are talking about. Bans, slander and labeling against the media are unworthy moves, and lead to extremely negative perception of the countries and international agencies that make them. This is a very important point – there is backlash, which is sometimes the only way to prevent further restrictions, and there is unprovoked initiative to activate and use all such tools to suppress dissent.

Citing Lithuania’s example, I would like to call on the authorities in neighbouring Latvia and Estonia, as well as in other EU member states, to discontinue the attacks on the Russian media and illegal actions against them. Apart from being contradictory on various points, such actions do nothing but damage these country’s own reputations. We can see what this reckless policy has led to in Lithuania.



Maintenance of military memorials outside Russia in 2021

We have recently received many questions about efforts on the maintenance of military memorials outside Russia this year, which involved President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Foreign Ministry representatives.

We report on these efforts during almost all our briefings. Today I would like to provide comprehensive information on this matter, with facts and figures.

Under the Russian legislation, the Foreign Ministry has many responsibilities when it comes to the maintenance of military memorials outside Russia. For example, members of Russian diplomatic offices and consular departments abroad monitor the state of all graves of Russian/Soviet soldiers who perished in the line of duty. Russian offices abroad do this on a regular basis. The practical results include the proper maintenance of Russian/Soviet war memorials in foreign countries.

We have reported before that despite the COVID-19 restrictions adopted in foreign countries our embassies and consulates implemented the bulk of the planned maintenance and repair projects in 2020. In particular, they organised the repairs of such important monuments as the Bronze Soldier in Tallinn (Estonia) and the Alyosha monument in Plovdiv (Bulgaria), and installed memorial stones in the Zvolen cemetery in Slovakia, with the names of 11,327 Soviet soldiers who were killed in the Banska Bystrica Region of Czechoslovakia.

In 2021, we plan to renovate and repair 250 cemeteries and cemetery sections, common and individual graves abroad, as well as approximately 25 monuments located outside cemeteries.

We are completing the third, last phase of the comprehensive repairs of the main Soviet war cemetery in Leusden, the Netherlands. Dutch activists have proposed establishing a small museum on the history of that site. This proposal is being discussed at the interdepartmental level. By the end of 2021, the Interior Ministry and the Defence Ministry of Russia plan to complete a joint project commemorating the Soviet crew of the Catalina flying boat, which crashed near the Hasvik municipality in Norway in 1944. We also plan to start implementing a project to erect a monument to Soviet citizens forced to work at the heavy industry facilities in Luxembourg during WWII.

We continue working closely together with the Russian Military Historical Society on an interactive map of Russian/Soviet memorials and monuments on the Memory Place portal. In January to March of this year, the Russian Embassy in Latvia has completed the marking on the map of all such facilities located in its consular district. I would like to point out that information about graves includes a link to the names of all those buried there. Our diplomatic offices in Berlin, Warsaw, Chisinau and many other cities are working actively on this project.

I would like to draw your attention to the Memory Place website once again. You can go there to see for yourselves the results of our foreign offices’ efforts.

I would also like to express our gratitude to the caring people throughout the world, including both Russians and foreign citizens who have volunteered their assistance. They are helping us of their own free will. There are very many examples of such assistance and caring attitude. People write to us when they find information about Soviet war graves. They also report on the maintenance of monuments in the areas where there are no Soviet representative offices. They offer their assistance and support and express their views on how such projects can be implemented. We bow low to them. Thank you very much!

I would also like to add that your letters are not brushed aside at the embassies; they are not just carefully scrutinised but are used as part of our large-scale and extremely important work. Don’t think that your desire to help is disregarded. No, it does meet with our grateful response. Thank you again.



Desecration of Russian Cross monument in North Macedonia

The desecration of the Russian Cross monument in Bitola, North Macedonia on May 24 is a blemish on our countries’ common history.

We would like to remind everyone that this monument, dedicated to Russian Imperial Consul Alexander Rostkovsky, was unveiled in 2003 at the initiative of the Bitola residents on the 100th anniversary of his tragic death.

We share the outrage expressed by the North Macedonian community over this incident and expect the country’s authorities to conduct an investigation and call the culprits to account.



Coronavirus update

We view Russia’s COVID-19 vaccines as our contribution to the global efforts against the pandemic. We believe that global vaccination is a top priority and reaffirm our openness to cooperation in the fight against the pandemic with all the interested parties on the basis of non-discrimination and transparency.

Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine has been registered by the national authorities of 66 countries, which is the second largest number of approvals throughout the world.

This vaccine is being delivered to approximately 35 countries. We are paying special attention to the transfer of the vaccine technology to increase its production abroad to meet export requirements. Some countries, notably Argentina, Belarus, India, Kazakhstan and Serbia, have started local production, and several others are preparing to do so in the near future. Similar agreements have been signed with companies in Egypt, China, the Republic of Korea and Turkey. Many other foreign partners have indicated their interest in this cooperation as well.

Work is underway to add Sputnik V to the WHO’s Emergency Use Listing Procedure and to register it at the European Medicines Agency.

We believe that this Russian vaccine, which has shown 91.6 percent efficacy and reliably protects against severe forms of the disease, can by right be considered one of the most in-demand vaccines against the coronavirus infection. We would like to reaffirm our openness to cooperation with all interested parties when it comes to vaccine deliveries, the analysis of its efficacy and the possible localisation of its production outside Russia.

The COVID-19 trends this week were almost the same as those made public during our briefing last week. According to the WHO data as of May 25, as many as 166.3 million new coronavirus cases have been reported throughout the world and the average daily increment was approximately 500,000.

In one of his recent statements, Director-General of the World Health Organisation Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus once again highlighted the importance of global solidarity in the distribution of vaccines and the exchange of research and technology for effectively combating COVID-19, including its identified and potential new strains. We fully share this view and also point out the inadmissibility of politicising the topics of public health and healthcare.

Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine reliably remains one of the safest and most in-demand immunomodulators. It is delivered at competitive prices, and often free of charge, as we have reported on many occasions, at the official request of our partners. The most recent such request the Russian Government received was from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).

Since the global coronavirus situation remains volatile, we urge Russians to plan their foreign travel very carefully, leaving nothing to chance, since the situation can change dramatically any day, as we have seen happen in a number of countries during the past few months. Tighter coronavirus restrictions and lockdowns can come as an unpleasant surprise, complicating the tourists’ return back home (actually, closed borders have become a fact of life in many countries). We also urge everyone to remember about the elementary risks of contracting COVID-19, including its dangerous strains, which are spreading throughout the world very rapidly.



25 years of diplomatic relations between Russia and Haiti

Diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Haiti were established on June 2, 1996. Our ties have been constructive and friendly from the very start, are developing successfully now and hold a promise of new opportunities and areas.

Russia has always been interested in Haiti, which has a rich and complicated history. It has covered a difficult path from colonialism to independence and was the first country in the region to declare sovereignty in 1804.

Haiti is facing new challenges connected with a lasting period of internal political instability. We are aware of its problems and are closely following the country’s efforts to resolve them. We are helping our Haitian friends to maintain political stability and peace and protect human rights, both at the bilateral level and under the auspices of the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti. We are always ready to give it a helping hand, just as we did after natural disasters.

Our countries are cooperating on the international stage and when promoting candidates during elections in the UN system. Our countries are committed to the principles of international law sealed in the UN Charter, including respect for sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs.

Russia is open to dialogue and cooperation with Haiti, which was reaffirmed during the March 30 telephone conversation between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Haitian counterpart and now Prime Minister of Haiti Claude Joseph. Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, will continue working to ensure that UN assistance is used towards achieving a true normalisation and stronger sovereignty and independence in Haiti.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said that London may consider sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 and Yamal-Europe energy pipelines following the Ryanair incident in Belarus, in which Russia could be involved, according to him. What is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s opinion of this statement?



Maria Zakharova:

We have seen these statements by UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, and we are aware of his views on the incident with the emergency landing of a Ryanair flight in Minsk on May 23.

This did not come as a surprise. This is the notorious British logic and London’s official mentality. We have to state once again that Britain’s foreign policy has stopped being rational during the past 10 years and has become a hostage of Russophobic puppets of the British political establishment. Regrettably, these attacks are drowning out the voices of the politicians who call for a pragmatic dialogue with Moscow. We are fully aware that this time-serving policy does not meet the interests of the people of Britain. Once again, this is being done by the UK political establishment and its representatives.

I would like to remind everyone that any unfriendly actions taken against Russia will inevitably receive a harsh and commensurate response. And responsibility for the negative consequences of this for bilateral relations will rest squarely with the initiators of confrontation.



Question:

The incident with the replacement of Belarus’s state flag in Riga involved the Latvian Foreign Minister and the Mayor of Riga. How does Moscow evaluate such actions?



Maria Zakharova:

Moscow has already issued a comment and described the incident as an outrage.

As for the incident with the Russian state flag, we have posted a comment on the Foreign Ministry’s website, which is available.

I can repeat the key points now. As you may be aware, the Riga authorities have removed the Russian state flag from a downtown area where the national flags of the countries taking part in the world hockey championships were raised. The Russian state flag was replaced with the flag of the Russian Olympic Committee.

First of all, this is open disregard for the state symbol of Russia. In this connection, we have taken relevant actions in Moscow and Riga, pointing out that such provocative moves can have a destructive effect on bilateral relations.

Regrettably, these contemptible actions are fully in line with the openly Russophobic policy of the Latvian ruling elite. The attempt to blame the incident on municipal officials is untenable. References to the decisions of international sports organisations prohibiting the use of the Russian flag at the championships look feeble as well, because the restriction only covers the use of the Russian flag at sports arenas. Incidentally, the Latvian officials had said so publicly to explain their decision to raise the Russian flag in the streets of Latvian cities. In short, there is no reasonable explanation for the incident.

It looks as if our Latvian neighbours are doing their best to gain a foothold among the states that are unfriendly to Russia. If this is Latvia’s conscious choice, we will draw relevant conclusions from this.



Question:

Is there any new information on the situation with Russian citizen Sofia Sapega, who was arrested in Minsk on May 23 along with Belarusian journalist Roman Protasevich on extremism charges?



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian Embassy in Minsk is closely following the Russian woman’s situation and is helping her. On May 25, the Russian consul was cleared by the Belarusian authorities to meet with Sapega; the meeting took place on the same day at the Belarusian security service pre-trial detention centre. The Russian woman said that she felt fine and had no complaints about any improper treatment. She asked for assistance in solving some everyday issues; the request was satisfied.

On May 25, the Russian embassy received an official resolution from the Prosecutor General of Belarus placing Sofia Sapega in custody for two months because they have reason to suspect her of criminal activity. According to Belarusian law, within 10 days of her arrest, she must be formally charged or she must be released.

Russian diplomats maintain contact with our citizen’s relatives and her lawyer, and will continue to provide all the necessary assistance in protecting her rights.



Question:

On the morning of May 12, the Azerbaijani armed forces committed a provocation, crossing the state border of Armenia in the vicinity of Black Lake in the Syunik region. Ignoring the calls from the international community, Azerbaijan has not pulled out from Armenian territory, and even continued its illegal actions. On May 25, an Armenian contract serviceman, junior sergeant Gevorg Khurshudyan, was fatally wounded during a firefight that followed shooting from the Azerbaijani side in the Verin Shorzha border area of the Gegharkunik province. Two co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, the United States and France, bluntly demand the withdrawal of Azerbaijani troops from the sovereign territory of Armenia. What is Russia's position as a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group?

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who commented on the crisis on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, said the parties had reached an agreement, but he did not elaborate. What kind of agreement have they reached?

President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev said in a discussion, “For our part, we are willing to recognise Armenia’s borders. But Armenia should also recognise Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan.” Until now, the status of Artsakh has been one of the matters being negotiated by the Minsk Group. But now Ilham Aliyev has declared that Armenia should recognise Karabakh as a region of Azerbaijan. What is your assessment of this statement?



Maria Zakharova:

Your questions are actually interconnected. I’ll give a comprehensive answer, if I may.

The Minsk Group Co-Chairs – representatives of Russia, the United States and France – are exclusively concerned with the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. This is spelled out in their mandate from the OSCE. In the Statement of April 13, 2021, the Co-Chairs stressed that “special attention should be paid to the achievement of a final comprehensive and sustainable settlement” of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In this respect, the Co-Chairs called on the parties “to resume high-level political dialogue under the auspices of the Co-Chairs at the earliest opportunity” and reminded the sides that “additional efforts are required to resolve remaining areas of concern.”

- 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 organisations;

- the preservation and protection of religious and cultural heritage;

- the fostering of direct contacts and co-operation between communities affected by the conflict;

- and other people-to-people confidence building measures.

I would like to underscore that this format of negotiation among the Co-Chairs enjoys broad international support and must continue to handle the political settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. As you know, Baku and Yerevan still have significant disagreements, especially concerning the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. After the well-known events in September-November 2020, both countries have just embarked on the path towards restoring a full-fledged dialogue and mutual trust.

Russia is making vigorous mediation efforts to normalise relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, stabilise the South Caucasus, and turn it into a region of prosperity. Russian peacekeepers are upholding peace and security in Nagorno-Karabakh. A trilateral working group co-chaired by deputy prime ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia is working to unblock transport and economic ties in the region. The Russian side is also closely involved in resolving the most recent incident on the Azerbaijani-Armenian border, helping to ease the tension. We maintain regular contacts with Baku and Yerevan at the highest and high levels. The military and border services, and foreign affairs agencies have their channels of prompt communication as well.

The recent border incident was not directly related to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. It happened because the Azerbaijani-Armenian border has never been properly demarcated based on international law; the situation has been inherited from Soviet time.

We strongly believe that such situations should be resolved exclusively by peaceful negotiation. We believe delimitation of the Azerbaijani-Armenian border with its subsequent demarcation should provide a long-term solution to the problem. Russia is ready to help launch this process in every way possible.



Question:

Several days ago, at the suggestion of the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine), the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture blacklisted six creators and actors of the Russian film Checkpoint. Earlier, the names of these same people, just like our other actors and cultural figures, were posted on the Ukrainian Myrotvorets website. Please comment on the Ukrainian authorities’ actions carried out with regard to Russian filmmakers. The film Checkpoint. Officer’s Story is based on a true story. How do the words that they pose a threat to Ukraine’s national security fit into the framework of international law and common sense?



Maria Zakharova:

Here’s a brief overview of the matter. On May 17, the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture and Information Policy, upon the proposal of the country’s security service, added three Russian actors, as well as the director, a cameraman and a composer from the film Checkpoint. Officer’s Story to the list of persons who pose a threat to national security. Their names appeared at the same time on the infamous Myrotvorets website. The impression is that the Ukrainian special services immediately fan-mailed it to a wide group of recipients. At the same time, in accordance with the amendments to the Ukrainian Law On Cinematography made after the Maidan protests, the State Cinema Committee (Goskino) is to refuse to issue or revoke the previously issued state certificate for the right to distribute and screen films, in particular if one of the participants in the film is an individual included on the list of persons who pose a threat to national security.

We followed this “drama about drama.” The fact is that the drama directed by Vera Sokolova, as you rightly noted, is based on a true story of Russian sailors Alexander Baranov and Maxim Odintsov who were captured by the Security Service of Ukraine and spent three years (November 2016 - September 2019) in captivity in Ukraine. The story was written by Honoured Lawyer of Russia Ivan Solovyov who, as head of the Russian Office of the Ombudsman for Human Rights, had a personal part in having them released from the SBU confines.

Unfortunately, Ukraine’s actions fully fit into their policy that seeks to establish political censorship and strict control over the minds of their citizens. The ban imposed on a new Russian film is just one of the elements of a large-scale campaign by President of Ukraine Zelensky to mop up the country’s information field. Modern Ukraine is increasingly becoming the totalitarian state depicted in George Orwell’s 1984, in which the Ministry of Truth engaged in destroying media materials and works of art that could call into question the impeccability of the leaders’ policy.

They chose the road to Europe, but made a wrong turn. So, today in Ukraine the current (let’s call a spade a spade) nationalist government is doing the same. It is closing independent TV channels that try to provide objective assessments of what is going on in the country and the world and persecutes journalists and politicians who dare to express their own point of view. It outlaws books and films that reflect historical events, materials, magazines, publications, any information materials or fiction that they declare as harmful to national security, as you said.

Nobody knows what kind of beast “Ukrainian national security” is. Everyone knows that there is a set of punitive measures, entities and tools to select those who do not threaten and those who do threaten Ukraine’s national security. The world has been there before. That’s not new. There’s nothing new about it. The news is that we all believed that the entire set of human rights conventions and documents, and everything that protects an individual and their point of view, was supposed to take humanity to a groundbreaking level in this area, but it turned out that, unfortunately, the past will not let go of them.

It is surprising that they declare illegal not only something that is related to the historical context, which the Ukrainian leaders approach from a position of their own, as we now know, but things that have nothing to do with history, politics, or sociopolitical views are prohibited as well. We have cited numerous examples.

The current Ukrainian government is pursuing a tough national-linguistic policy aimed at squeezing the Russian language and Russian culture which is basic for the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens out of the country’s life. Multilingualism and the unique multicultural space, which took centuries to take shape, are being destroyed. Moreover, this is being done in violation of the Constitution of Ukraine and the international norms and principles as prescribed in the OSCE, the Council of Europe and UNESCO documents.

We will go beyond fiction, since Orwell is not the only image that comes to mind here. There are even sadder parallels. In Nazi Germany, the authorities drew up black lists of books that ran counter to National Socialism ideology and burned them. This similarity between the two regimes is even more disturbing, since the scale and frequency of neo-Nazi actions are growing rapidly in Ukraine and are becoming increasingly aggressive. The most important part is not that they are becoming more aggressive, but that the authorities are unable or less and less inclined to control it. They just can’t. We also mentioned at some point that the nationalist monster at some point tends to outgrow its creators, which is what we are witnessing now. Every year, processions are held in honour of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, and streets and civilian infrastructure sites are named after Nazi criminals. A march whose participants glorified the 14th Ukrainian Grenadier Division of the SS (Galicia) took place in Kiev on April 28. The march was protected by police, and the participants were not detained but continued to march. The authorities formally condemned it only after it caused an international response from those who most often support Ukraine in its aspirations, undertakings and the political course. And in this particular case, they did not let it go unnoticed and did not turn a blind eye.

I don’t think the citizens of Ukraine, who supported or recognised the February 2014 coup, had this kind of democracy, these values and this life, in mind.



Question:

As you already noted, commenting on the situation with the Ryanair flight in Minsk, our Western partners began spreading and planting statements about a non-existent “Kremlin connection” in this situation. The collective West has launched a vigorous condemnation campaign with calls to stop flying over Belarus and to impose sanctions. Incidentally, Russia also found itself under attack, judging by the statement by the President of the European Commission. Ursula von der Leyen said at a news conference following the first day of the EU summit that Russia was Belarus’s biggest neighbour, that they remained closely related, as neighbours and important trade partners. She also said Moscow was allegedly challenging the EU’s values ​​and interests through sabotage, disinformation and cyberattacks.

Does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regard what is happening as a pre-planned purposeful action to create a pretext for new sanctions and to pressure both Russia and Belarus? How will Russia react to the attacks from its Western partners?



Maria Zakharova:

Let’s separate these two questions. I partially said how we assess the Western reaction. But here, it is very important to understand that any additional events that have been prompted or even programmed by the collective West cannot change the general trend or trajectory of this Russophobic discourse. We have more or less realised where the leaders of this collective West are leading all those who look up to them – toward the containment of Russia (with sanctions), deep interference in our internal affairs, etc. We have told you about this many times. So in this context, even when a neutral event occurs – one connected with Russia or even unrelated to Russia – one way or another, the West will never stop trying to link it to us or use it in their own interests.

The second part of your question has to do with the investigation of the incident that occurred in the sky over Belarus. The current rhetoric is about Russia supporting Minsk, Russia not supporting Minsk, Russia supporting the West, or Russia not supporting the West. In fact, Russia has supported an investigation that should establish what happened. It should be carried out relying on the available facts. Some evidence has been provided; and more should be provided.

Such investigations are carried out regularly because, unfortunately, this world is not perfect.

We have been aware of many investigations – as the public, ordinary people, readers, as citizens of a particular country involved in the incident. There definitely have been many more that we are unaware of because those were not high-profile incidents. Still, airlines, the relevant authorities, the owners of the airport or a private agency that is involved in such an incident are obliged to probe into such cases. They can be prompt or protracted, but one way or another, any incident that happens in the air is subject to investigation. I am not an ICAO expert, not an expert on international aviation security, but we are well aware of a large number of cases like this. I will not list them all now, or talk about the main parameters of such investigations. These things do happen with a certain regularity, almost on a daily basis. Some events require appropriate investigations, and these investigations are carried out.

The question is why this case should be an exception. Is there any reason why this incident should not be treated as an aviation security and flight safety case, but that it should be considered as part of a political agenda? Who decided to substitute a regular investigation based on laws and regulations with political statements, with the terrible polyphony we are hearing now?

Moreover, look at one detail, which I think is egregious – the airline’s statements. The first statement was made from one perspective, but the angle was later changed under the pressure of political statements made by heads of state as well as the EU and NATO. So I would stress once again – we support a thorough investigation based on facts, taking as long as necessary and conducted by experts.

I would also like to point out the fact that the media in those countries, whose leaders made these statements, have largely ignored, as if on cue. Minsk said it was not just ready to conduct such an investigation. Minsk announced complete openness and a willingness to host international experts in Belarus. What could be more logical or legitimate than starting an investigation with the very actions that Minsk proposed? This is the essence of our position. This is where efforts should be channeled.



Question:

According to a report by the US Congressional Budget Office, the United States plans to spend $634 billion on the maintenance and modernisation of its nuclear forces over the 2021-2030 period. The largest costs would be for ballistic missile submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Spending on nuclear weapons laboratories and supporting activities of the Department of Energy, which are key to the replacement of existing nuclear weapons and warheads, will increase by $23 billion. What is Russia’s attitude towards the projected increases, and how could this US decision influence the future of the New START Treaty?



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian-US New START Treaty does not prohibit the parties from modernising and replacing their strategic offensive armaments provided they comply with the quantitative limits and several other restrictions set out in the treaty. Thus, the US’s modernisation plans for its nuclear arms forces and support systems do not run contrary to its international commitments.

Nevertheless, we are closely monitoring US activities in this sphere, including the projected growth in long-term spending, primarily to see if these steps tie in with the goal of maintaining strategic stability.

As for the New START Treaty, Russia does have specific and substantiated complaints about US compliance with its provisions. However, our concerns are not connected with the modernisation of US nuclear forces, but with the conversion of certain strategic offensive weapons. This has been conducted in a manner that prevents us from verifying that this hardware can no longer be used as nuclear weapons, as stipulated in the treaty. We insist that the American side strictly comply with all provisions of New START. We will continue doing this.



Question:

It is being rumoured in Slovakia that Russia will extend the list of so-called unfriendly states. Could Slovakia be added to the list because it was the first among EU states to support the Czech Republic over the Vrbetice explosions?



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to remind you about the story behind the so-called list of unfriendly countries. It was adopted in response to actions taken by the United States. This is not a theoretical or philosophical matter. It is a concrete response to concrete actions. As Russian leadership pointed out, we waited for a long time, very patiently, for our partners to clear up their thoughts and adjust their actions to their statements, which they made publicly and through bilateral channels. We gave them numerous opportunities to reboot rather than overload our relations and to take less high-profile but more effective measures to promote our bilateral ties and contacts. We explored every available path.

When we saw that the trend had not been reversed but was even gaining momentum, we came up with a relevant response. It was at that moment that Prague became active, which is why it has been put on the list.

The list is a response to specific actions rather than a theoretical matter that has nothing to do with reality. There are concrete actions, and there are concrete answers to these actions. When we formulate our answer in each particular case, we choose the most effective, expedient and pragmatic measure.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4751580
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old June 2nd, 2021 #302
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Gabon Pacome Moubelet-Boubeya, Moscow, May 27, 2021



27 May 2021 - 18:14






Good afternoon.

We have discussed the state of our bilateral relations. We recalled the past years and decades of our friendship and cooperation, and outlined ways to promote ties in all areas.

We reaffirmed our further commitment to expanding our ties based on equality, respect and consideration for each other’s interests. The presidents of our two countries focused precisely on this when they met in July 2018 in Moscow.

We see substantial potential for building up trade, economic and investment cooperation. We agreed to take further steps to implement promising projects in hydrocarbon production, energy and infrastructure development. A number of Russian companies – we also mentioned this today – are showing a specific interest in finding partners in Gabon and promoting mutually beneficial agreements on the ground. We will provide assistance to representatives of the business community to establish direct contacts with each other, with the support of both governments – this was also agreed upon with my counterpart. In this regard, one of the important approaching opportunities for making these agreements practical is the upcoming St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), which will open in just a few days.

An intergovernmental customs cooperation agreement will facilitate the expansion of mutual trade; the work on the document is being finalised. We will continue to cooperate in training highly qualified personnel for Gabon at Russian universities. The Russian Government has allocated additional state scholarships for the next academic year at the request of Libreville. We have had our first experience training personnel for the Gabon army and law enforcement agencies, and we plan to expand it further. There are relevant agreements in place between the defence ministries, and a legal framework for this. We are also ready to supply military products to help increase the defence capability of the Gabonese Republic.

As for foreign policy affairs, there is the protocol on foreign ministry consultations of April 25, 2001. It laid a firm foundation for coordinating our foreign policy steps. We noted our identical or close positions on key issues, primarily, the need to respect and implement the provisions of the UN Charter and ensure respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, to guarantee the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs and the political-diplomatic settlement of conflicts. Both Russia and Gabon believe that every country, state or nation has the right to decide for itself what model of political and socio-economic development to use.

We exchanged views on cooperation in the UN, including issues that are now a subject of debate – regarding the reform of this universal organisation and its Security Council. We reaffirmed our position on the need to correct the distortion in the membership of the UN Security Council that is dominated by Western countries and their allies, while the developing nations are serious “underrepresented.” Therefore, we will insist that a reform of the UN Security Council should primarily focus on expanding representation from the developing nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

We spoke about the importance of implementing the agreements reached at the first Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi in October 2019. Many events were postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic, and some were held via videoconference. The main point is that we created specific mechanisms for further work in this area, including preparations for a regular summit next year.

We focused on developments in Africa. We voiced the common opinion that to resolve the many persisting problems effectively it is necessary to adopt a comprehensive approach that primarily implies the coordinated actions of the Africans themselves with support from the world community. “Support” is the key word in this context. The decisions drafted by the African countries themselves must not be replaced by anything.

We discussed in practical terms the persisting hotbeds of instability, including in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Chad and, in general, in the Sahara-Sahel region. The assessments we heard from our colleagues were very useful. We will consider them in our further work on African problems in the UN Security Council where they dominate the agenda, and in bilateral cooperation with the African Union, with sub-regional organisations and in contacts with individual countries that promote peaceful solutions. Gabon is one of these countries. We agreed to continuously monitor this part of our work.

We reviewed in detail the need to build up the capabilities of the international community and especially the African countries in countering terrorism and piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, which is becoming a serious problem. In this context, Russia and Gabon are ready to take part in international efforts, in part under UN aegis. We have already reached some practical results in this respect.

I believe the talks were very useful and allowed us to plan the specific steps that we will take for further development.







Question (addressed to Pacome Moubelet-Boubeya):

Preparations for the next Russia-Africa Summit scheduled for 2022 went into top gear. How is this format expected to help strengthen cooperation between the African countries and Russia? What do you expect from it?



Sergey Lavrov (adding after Mr Moubelet-Boubeya):

The pandemic has interfered with the event programme agreed on at our Sochi summit. Nonetheless, many events were held and continue to be held in the videoconference format. Hopefully, personal contacts will resume before long, as well as political consultations between the foreign ministers of the three member countries of the African Union (the country holding the chairmanship of the union, the one before it and the next one) and the Russian Federation, including on the issue of preparations for the second summit.

In addition to the political declaration approved at the first event, the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Russian Government and the African Union Commission on the Basics of Mutual Relations and Cooperation was coordinated and signed. The Russian Foreign Ministry has established a Russia-Africa forum secretariat on a permanent basis. Currently, the action plan for cooperation is being finalised and will be forwarded to the African Union Commission. There are framework documents, like the declaration and the memorandum, and currently a document is in the pipeline that sets forth the practical steps to carry out the agreements reached at the highest level.



Question:

Head of the Ukrainian delegation in the Contact Group Leonid Kravchuk said that Minsk could no longer serve as the venue for talks on a Donbass settlement. This statement has gained relevance and importance following the recent events around Belarus. Please comment on this. Will Minsk cease to be the venue for these talks?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for how the Contact Group will work now and its refusal, as Leonid Kravchuk said, to continue its activities in Minsk because of the events involving Belarus, which are now drawing everyone’s attention, I want to reaffirm what Moscow has officially said more than once: we insist on putting an end to the practice of demonising people who are not to the West’s liking.

The Belarusian authorities said clearly, as soon as the incident occurred, that they were determined to be transparent, conduct an open investigation, receive experts in this field and provide all information and the necessary materials. Some pieces of this information have already been distributed in a unilateral manner. Our Western colleagues, particularly the Baltic States, are behaving indecently, judging by diplomatic standards and by human standards as well. They shouted from the rooftops about introducing sanctions and are now demanding that an independent international investigation be conducted, ignoring the fact that the Belarusian authorities proposed precisely this in the wake of the incident. They have also meted out punishment [to Belarus]. Unfortunately, these manners are typical of many of our Western colleagues and not only on this occasion – far from it.

Leonid Kravchuk is the head of the delegation but it is not for him to decide how the Contact Group will continue its work. The Contact Group was established in the context of a package of documents approved at the Minsk Summit in February 2015 and later by a UN Security Council resolution. I believe those people who signed this package of documents will negotiate the format for this work.

If Mr Kravchuk decided to refer to the situation with a Ryanair flight, then why did neither he nor our Western colleagues raise the same concerns over a (similar) event in 2016? Without any explanation and for no reason at all, they said that a Belarusian flight had to be forced to land, so that a man could be removed from the plane. This man took part in anti-Maidan activities, spoke against the illegal anti-constitutional coup and the armed seizure of power and stood up to those who eventually occupied key positions of power in Kiev. These were ultra-radicals with a neo-Nazi slant. The Ukrainian authorities forced the Belarusian flight to land and removed this man from the plane because he spoke against the anti-government coup. I would rather not mix up the two episodes. Unless the Ukrainian party is looking for a pretext to shirk its obligations for good. I believe France and the FRG, as coauthors of the Minsk agreements, will not allow the Ukrainian authorities to do this.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4752750






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Slovenia Anze Logar, Moscow, May 28, 2021



28 May 2021 - 14:27






Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Slovenia Anze Logar. We welcomed the progress of our bilateral relations in all spheres, specifically the build-up of our political contacts, including at the high and top levels and also between our foreign ministries.

In 2022, we will celebrate 30 years of our diplomatic relations. We have agreed to think about a list of attractive events marking this date.

We have a positive view of our interparliamentary ties, including contacts between the Russian and Slovenian groups of friendship and ties between our countries’ regions. I hope that this year we will be able to hold the Ljubljana Days in Moscow, which was postponed because of the coronavirus.

We called for stepping up the activities of the Russian-Slovenian Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation in light of a decrease in mutual trade in 2020, for understandable reasons.

We agreed to accelerate the preparation of certain additional documents to improve and strengthen our legal framework, in particular when it comes to encouraging the protection of investment and pensions, as well as culture, science, education, sports and youth exchanges.

We expressed mutual satisfaction with our cultural and educational cooperation, including the promotion of the study of the Russian language in Slovenia and the Slovenian language in Russia. We noted the development of contacts between our universities and libraries. I hope that we will be able to resume the mutual exchanges of our performers when the epidemiological situation stabilises. We emphasised the importance of supporting the Forum of Slavic Cultures based in Ljubljana, which was established at our presidents’ initiative in 2004.





We expressed our sincere gratitude to our Slovenian colleagues and leadership for their caring attitude to the Russian war graves, memorials and, in general, to the memory of those who liberated Europe from the Nazi threat. We specifically pointed out the activities of the Maribor WWII International Research Centre. This is an important platform for preventing the spread of Nazi ideas, which is going on in several European countries.

Mr Anze Logar is visiting us only weeks before Slovenia will assume the presidency of the Council of the EU on July 1. We discussed this issue as well. We reaffirmed our deep concern about Brussels’ actions, which are undermining all the mechanisms of Russia-EU ties. We expressed our regret that the EU’s position is based on the principle of the lowest common denominator determined by the aggressive Russophobic minority. The Foreign Minister of Slovenia reaffirmed the EU’s position on such high-profile issues as the Alexey Navalny case and the developments in eastern Ukraine. He also mentioned Crimea and the situation regarding the Republic of Belarus. We have once again provided detailed answers that are based on facts rather than unsubstantiated allegations.

Mr Anze Logar briefed us on Slovenia’s priorities for its EU presidency in the second half of 2021. We have many things in common, such as a common interest in promoting cooperation in cybersecurity and the fight against cybercrime and cyberterrorism, as well as in the fields of ICT and climate change. Healthcare is one more sphere where cooperation is instrumental in dealing with acute problems.

We once again reaffirmed our readiness to normalise relations with the EU, provided they are based on equality, mutual respect and a balance of interests, rather than unilateral actions and preconditions. We also discussed several international matters, including the situation in the Balkans and our cooperation in the UN, the OCSE and the Council of Europe.

In conclusion, I would like to express gratitude to my colleague and to wish him and Slovenia as a whole every success during its presidency of the EU. We are ready to continue working together with you and your staff on the basis of the principles I have mentioned.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4754976






Press release on launching an Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes



28 May 2021 - 15:32



On May 26, 2021, the 75th UN General Assembly session in New York adopted, by consensus, Russia’s Resolution 75/282 on countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes. The document determines the modalities of the operation by an ad hoc committee that will develop, under UN aegis, a comprehensive international convention on countering the use of ICT for criminal purposes. The decision to create the committee was adopted at Russia’s initiative with 46 countries acting as co-authors.

The resolution welcomes the election of the committee’s officials: the Chair (Algeria), the Rapporteur (Indonesia) and 13 Vice-Chairs (Russia, Egypt, China, Nicaragua, Surinam, Nigeria, Australia, the Dominican Republic, Poland, Portugal, the United States, Estonia and Japan).

The committee will hold sessions in New York and Vienna, starting in January 2022. It will strive to pass resolutions by consensus but a vote is possible if there is no consensus. The draft convention is to be submitted for review by the 78th UN General Assembly in 2023.

Adoption of the Russian draft by consensus shows that the international community understands the serious nature of cybercrime and the need to draft universal rules to counter it. This initiates open, inclusive and transparent talks on countering cybercrime under UN aegis.

This is the beginning of substantive work on the convention. It will consider the interests of all countries without exception and will rest on the principles of the sovereign equality of all parties and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. This dynamic work will be completed in 2023.

The adoption of the resolution to launch the committee by consensus is an important diplomatic success for Russia as the initiator of this process.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4756648






Foreign Ministry statement on the US decision not to return to the Open Skies Treaty



28 May 2021 - 18:08



On May 27, the US Department of State notified the Foreign Ministry of Russia that Washington will not be rejoining the Treaty on Open Skies (TOS). Just like a year ago, US officials tried to justify the destructive decision by making far-fetched and politicised accusations against Russia that have no basis in reality.

With this step, Washington has again demonstrated its disdain not only for European security but also for the interests of its own allies that asked it to reconsider the decision made by the Donald Trump administration.

Unfortunately, Washington’s words and actions are again at odds, this time with respect to military transparency, which the Americans urge others to enhance while closing their own territory to observation.

We are convinced that the United States has made yet another crude political mistake. It has lost a reasonable opportunity to make a contribution to enhancing European security, with no benefit to US security.

For a long time, Russia did all it could to preserve the TOS. We were patient and gave the US administration an opportunity to reconsider an earlier shortsighted decision. However, this did not happen.

The US refusal to return to the treaty confirms that the President of the Russian Federation was fully justified in his decision to initiate intrastate procedures withdrawing Russia from the TOS. Their implementation continues, with the Federation Council Committee for International Affairs scheduled on May 31 to review the law denouncing the TOS, which the State Duma adopted earlier. The same chamber of the Federal Assembly will discuss it at its plenary session on June 2. Then the document will be submitted to the President of Russia for signature.

The United States is fully responsible for the collapse of the TOS.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4756922






Statement by the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, Geneva, 28 May 2021



28 May 2021 - 19:31



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 held consultations with International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) President Peter Maurer and UN High Commissioner of Refugees Filippo Grandi in Geneva 27 and 28 May. The Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson in Office (PRCiO) Andrzej Kasprzyk also participated in the meetings. The Co-Chairs take note of the reported detention of six Armenian soldiers on May 27 and call for the release of all prisoners of war and other detainees on an all for all basis. The Co-Chairs underscore the obligation to treat detainees in accordance with international humanitarian law. The Co-Chairs strongly urge the sides to lift all restrictions on humanitarian access to Nagorno-Karabakh immediately, and call on the sides to implement in full the commitments they undertook under the November 9 ceasefire declaration.

The Co-Chairs also note with concern several recent reports of incidents on the non-demarcated Armenia-Azerbaijan border. The use or threat of force to resolve border disputes is not acceptable. We call on both sides to take immediate steps, including the relocation of troops, to de-escalate the situation and to begin negotiations to delimitate and demarcate the border peacefully. The Co-Chairs stand ready to assist in facilitating this process.

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 fixture, the Co-Chairs again call on the sides to reengage under their auspices at the earliest opportunity.

https://www.osce.org/minsk-group/487879




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4756942
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old June 9th, 2021 #303
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a conference on relations between Russia and the European Union, Moscow, May 31, 2021



31 May 2021 - 15:00






Mr Minister, dear Augusto,

Mr Ivanov,

Colleagues, friends,

Thank you for inviting me to this conference on the situation between Russia and the European Union. I would like to express gratitude to the Russian International Affairs Council, which has done a great deal to organise this event together with the Embassy of Portugal and the Delegation of the European Union to Russia.

I believe this will be an honest and frank discussion without any attempts to sweep the facts under the carpet, because we really do need a serious discussion on this matter. It is important that the potential for science diplomacy is being used at this conference. I would like to welcome all those taking part in this event online and also representatives of the Russian and foreign expert and political communities who are attending in person.

I hope that the outcome of this discussion, which, as I said, must be open and frank, will allow us to take a closer look at the difficult situation in current Russia-EU relations and will serve as a useful addition to the diplomatic efforts being taken to improve it.

The situation remains alarming. Our common European continent has been hit by an unprecedented crisis in confidence. New dividing lines are again being created in Europe; they are moving further East and becoming ever deeper, like trenches on the frontline. The outlook for a unifying agenda is extremely limited. The role of common European organisations is becoming devalued, and I am referring mainly to the OSCE and the Council of Europe. The mechanisms for structured cooperation and contact between Russia and the EU and NATO have been drained of all substance.

It wasn’t that long ago that we worked with the EU on the Partnership for Modernisation and four common spaces. Numerous Russian initiatives focused on attaining these goals, from the proposed European Security Treaty to the idea of a common energy complex. Back in 2010, we were ready to establish a Russia-EU committee on foreign policy and security, but the EU shied away from the agreement reached in Meseberg. The same fate befell the all but ready framework agreement on cooperation in crisis management. We were only a step away from approving visa-free travel, even though the EU continued to put forth increasingly more conditions. I would like to say that these initiatives were formulated long before the state coup in Ukraine, following which the EU decided to side with those who came to power illegally there.

Overall, there were many more joint projects than the above, which could have solidly cemented our relations. They told us that “anything is possible, with the exception of joint institutions.” While we did not have common institutions we did hold Russia-EU summits every six months and a joint session of the Russian Government and the European Commission once a year. We had the Russia-EU Permanent Partnership Council and 17 sectoral dialogue formats, which covered topics from human rights to energy and innovation. Our mutual trade reached $417 billion in 2013. It was a factor on a global scale.

Today this multilevel, mutually beneficial architecture of cooperation has been suspended, to put it mildly, at the EU’s initiative. The EU has decided to shut Russia out. At the same time, it is claimed that it is Russia who allegedly does not respect the EU and has been trying to create a rift in a “united Europe,” preferring instead to develop bilateral ties with EU member states. I would like to point out once again that if any EU country is interested in increased contacts with us, we would not reject such an offer. Brussels must bear this in mind.

Unilateral illegal sanctions are being adopted against Russia based on arbitrary attribution rules at the EU’s discretion. Instead of a dialogue based on facts, they use unsubstantiated accusations like “highly likely.” The presumption of innocence has been replaced with the presumption of guilt by default. Just recently, the EU announced that the incident in Belarus could not have taken place without the knowledge of Moscow. This “highly likely” mentality is being applied to all situations. There is open interference in the internal affairs of Russia and our allied states. This is probably what a “rules-based order” must look like, an order the West would like to lean on increasingly while moving ever further away from the universal norms of international law.

Actually, our view is that the EU’s policy towards Russia is linked to Moscow’s implementation of the Minsk agreements, which provide for a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk and which the Ukrainian leadership is openly sabotaging, with Brussels’ support. I would like to remind you that President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky has stated openly that they don’t like the Minsk agreements but would like them to remain in place because they ensure maintaining anti-Russia sanctions. In other words, the EU has actually accepted the fact that Kiev is ready to sacrifice the unity of Ukraine and peace in Donbass to sanctions against Russia.

It cannot escape our attention that in the EU's policy towards Russia (as well as public statements by representatives of the EU leadership, for that matter) more and more often Cold War terminology is being used. Concepts that are being introduced into everyday life are obviously incompatible even with normal relations, let alone any prospect of neighbourliness. I will cite some of these terms – old enemy, containment, regime, counteraction, etc. We believe these irrational things make no sense and contradict the natural interests of citizens and businesses in Russia and the EU.

Regrettably, the American ‘umbrella’ has led Europeans to lose any independence or even their sense of reality, their ability to correctly evaluate new challenges and the best ways to respond to them to uphold their own and common European interests. They seem to forget the axiom about the indivisibility of security. The EU’s passive reaction to the consistent destruction of arms control regimes through the fault of the United States caused some eyebrows to raise. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s detailed and specific proposals on how to prevent the deployment of medium-range ground-based missiles in Europe have been ignored, including the one on a verification mechanism – I have to emphasise this specifically, as they are trying to gloss over this. These are highly specific proposals, which include a visit to the Kaliningrad Region and a reciprocal visit to US missile defence bases in Poland and Romania.

The main danger of the current development is that the understanding of its being critical is literally being drowned by the artificially created narratives about Moscow's malicious actions, which have nothing to do with real politics, the Russian state’s intentions or the Russians’ aspirations. The situation is further exacerbated by this narrative becoming the ideological foundation for military policies directed against our country and towards a military rapprochement between the EU and NATO on anti-Russia grounds.

There are more examples of this. They have to do with the EU and NATO preparing for high-level events to be held in the first half of June. I am not trying to prove anything by mentioning all this now; I just hope that lessons will be drawn.

I would like to believe that these trends are reversible. But for this to happen, we need to break the vicious circle of mutual alienation. We must try to see the horizon, to listen and hear, to open a substantive discussion, with facts in hand, instead of reciting your unfounded propaganda guidebooks from year to year. We must realise our shared responsibility for the future of the European continent and revive the culture of dialogue based on this. We must equally demonstrate the political will for cooperation based on mutual interests.





The new reality, the polycentrism of the emerging world order, will sooner or later make us all reconsider the very nature of relations between Russia and the EU. If we reject any common landscape, what will we use as the foundation to build relations in the future? The ‘guiding principles’ invented by Josep Borrell's predecessor, Federica Mogherini, are obviously incapable of playing this role.

I know that any sane minds in the EU countries understand this. And I believe today's visit by the Foreign Minister of Portugal (that holds the EU presidency) confirms their interest in normalising relations between the European Union and our country. We welcome this.

No rhetoric is capable of changing the geography, the complementarity of economies, or the richness of people-to-people contacts. Our recent meetings with representatives of European businesses also indicated an interest in mutual investment and large joint projects. Russia is still the EU's fifth most important foreign trade partner, even after the damage caused by the sanctions. In turn, the EU cumulatively remains one of our main trade and investment partners. Last year, it accounted for about 34 percent of Russian trade (with $192 billion), which is still not comparable to the 2013 level. The mutual investment picture is about the same. Our presence in each other's economies is also significant.

We are neighbours. Russia is part of Greater Europe. The European Union is a major player in the European space, but it is not the whole of Europe, no matter how some of the EU leaders juggle this word. Common history is evidence that Europe never could build a solid security architecture and ensure the continent’s peaceful, stable development while trying to spite Russia or leave it out of the equation. Many politicians have publicly acknowledged this. And I am sure it won't work.

We do not quite understand what motivates those who claim that Russia is not interested in a dialogue. This is untrue. We have said many times that we are open to constructive cooperation based on the principles of equality and mutual respect. It is on this firm foundation that we successfully develop relations with the overwhelming majority of states.

As President of Russia Vladimir Putin noted, it is necessary to approach bilateral dialogue in an honest way. It is essential to put aside past phobias and look to the future. In speaking about honest dialogue, President Putin referred to cases where facts rather than groundless accusations confirm the mutual concerns that emerge regularly. We also have questions about the European Union, but they are based on facts. We have not received answers to many of our questions at this point.

The indivisibility of security, which we, all Euro-Atlantic countries have unanimously and ceremoniously declared, is incompatible with attempts to create “islands of stability,” whether it’s around NATO or the EU. The pandemic is a sad reminder of this. New points of tension may appear in addition to the ones we already had: the post-pandemic reduction of technological chains, the transition to a green economy, including the introduction of a hydrocarbon tax, and digitisation. Meanwhile, this is happening while the non-sanctions sector of the global economy continuously declines.

Cooperation between us is ongoing in a number of areas despite the current crisis; examples include healthcare, the energy industry, science, technology and climate change, including the entire list of complicated issues on a green transition. Common cross-border challenges and threats, such as international terrorism, drug trafficking and cybercrime, have not disappeared. It is necessary to continue to work together on many international problems, such as settlement in the Middle East, Iran’s nuclear programme, and strategic stability. And the need to pool our efforts in countering the coronavirus pandemic is on the agenda.

A master-slave approach no longer works in patterns of cooperation. Politically, neither the world of NATO nor the world of the EU exists. Countries are acquiring freedom of choice as regards development models and participation in integration projects. This is reality.

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is strengthening its external ties. It has established itself and is developing steadily. It is high time to stop forcing our common neighbours, including CIS and CSTO members, with an artificial choice. Their membership commitments must be respected.

We are building cooperation in the SCO, while our Chinese colleagues are successfully carrying out their Belt and Road initiative.

Obviously, what is required today are not new dividing lines but a joint search for additional points of support and levers for growth to ensure recovery from the COVID-caused recession. The merging of integration potential in Europe could become a driver for these efforts in Eurasia. This philosophy underlies President Putin’s initiative on the Greater Eurasian Partnership that is open to all countries and associations in this area. We are convinced that consistent implementation will only further strengthen the economic and transport coherence of all parties, make them more competitive and become a tangible contribution to the efforts to assert peace, security and stability on the vast territory from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

We suggest that our colleagues seriously consider the pluses they can receive from this fundamentally new model of cooperation that implies the synergy of national development strategies and multilateral economic undertakings, and the most effective use of the relative advantages of our location in an enormous Eurasia that is the driver of growth for the entire global economy. We might start with little things, such as stable cooperation between the EAEU and the EU, something we have long urged our European partners to consider. We know that EU Ambassador to Russia Markus Ederer has also raised this issue during his meetings in Moscow. Our commissions have established professional, technical contacts between the commissions on regulations and other issues but we believe it is time for political contacts as well.

Colleagues,

Today’s realities are incompatible with the logic of hegemonism and domination and recreating a cordon sanitaire and an iron curtain. Let me repeat that we know that many Europeans realise that a course of confrontation towards our country is counterproductive. We hope that common sense will eventually prevail and that we will be able to start working on a new, balanced model of relations with reliance on the principles of international law. Russia is always open to equitable, and, once again, honest cooperation.

This does not mean that we will leave unanswered new unfriendly steps and attempts to talk to us from the positions of strength and interference in our internal affairs. Preparations for such steps are underway; this has been openly admitted. However, they will trigger a response. I would like to emphasise that those who initiate this vicious policy (something we will never do) should think twice about whether this meets Europe’s interests.

In conclusion, I would like to say that we are currently at a very complicated and contradictory stage in our international relations. Europeans are facing the urgent task of leaving the former comfort zone and determining their own strategic relations, including the realisation of their natural competitive advantages of being part of a rapidly developing Eurasia. If Europe does this, we will be able to move from the current “conflict-ridden co-existence” to a conflict-free, albeit competitive one. Maybe we will be able to do even better than that.

I am confident that the representatives of the expert and academic circles taking part in this conference can make a tangible contribution to determining the algorithms of future Russia-EU relations. Your reputation and authority are well known. Today’s discussion has proved your ability to look beyond the horizon. I would like to wish you success.

Thank you.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4759042






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Portugal Augusto Santos Silva, May 31, 2021



31 May 2021 - 18:56






Ladies and gentlemen,

I am happy to welcome my colleague, Foreign Minister of Portugal Augusto Santos Silva to Moscow.

Our talks took place in a focused and friendly atmosphere and were devoted to a broad range of bilateral issues. Before the talks, we took part in the opening of the Russian International Affairs Council conference on relations between the Russian Federation and the European Union. This was particularly useful, considering Portugal chairs the EU Council in this half year.

We analysed our bilateral relations over the past three years. Since 2018, we have exchanged visits between foreign ministers; President of Portugal Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa visited the Russian Federation and met with President of Russia Vladimir Putin. We discussed the implementation of fundamental agreements reached at that time and later, including those under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation. We confirmed the important role of this mechanism, in particular in coordinating and adopting measures to counter last year’s negative trend in trade due to the coronavirus infection. We confirmed the need to promote our economic and investment relations, focusing on the potential for science and innovation.

We agreed to continue cooperation in healthcare. I would like to emphasise again our close cooperation during the peak of the pandemic last year. The Portuguese authorities gave us unreserved support in organising outbound flights for Russian citizens in Portugal. In turn, we provided unimpeded transiting of humanitarian cargo and medications to Portugal via Russian territory.

We are interested in continuing our political dialogue. We want intensive consultations between our ministries to cover even more subjects. We noted the need to overcome the long break in contact between our parliamentary leaders. As a first step, the Federation Council Committee on Foreign Affairs invited a counterpart Portuguese delegation to visit Russia in October. We also agreed that our parliamentary friendship groups should resume meeting.

We reviewed our contractual foundation and agreed to expedite the drafting of several documents. I would like to mention a social insurance treaty, which is being prepared now. It will cover pension payments and reciprocal recognition of education certificates.

We hope the gradual lifting of epidemiological restrictions will allow us to conduct in-person cultural and humanitarian events. Moscow plans to hold concerts as part of the cultural programme of Portugal’s EU presidency.

We discussed the prospects for organising a major event, a Russia-Portugal Cross Year, that would be devoted to culture, education and youth exchange.

As regards the international agenda, we focused on issues that are of concern in the context of Portugal’s EU Presidency. We described our view on developments in this area. We reaffirmed our willingness to normalise relations and restore dialogue but only based on equality, mutual respect and a balance of interests and without any unilateral requirements or preconditions.

We proceed from the premise that Russia and the EU are neighbours and bear joint responsibility for maintaining stability and security in our common geopolitical space.

We said that a balance of interests and our common positions could facilitate efforts to develop a much-needed dialogue in countering the pandemic and other infectious diseases, developing digitisation, and making the transition to a green economy, and in various aspects dealing with a new technological mode. The priorities noted by Portugal at the start of its EU Presidency early in 2021 fit in well in the areas of potential cooperation that are under discussion today. These must be friendly, collective efforts. There must be no new dividing lines or attempts to gain competitive advantage at the expense of the lawful interests of one’s partners under any pretext. Sometimes, attempts to use the transition to a green economy are made for these purposes.

We reminded our partners that Russia and its neighbours are actively developing the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Contacts have been established on technical issues at the level of secretariats, the EAEU commissions and the European Commission. We believe it is time to move on to a more specific and broader dialogue since we share the same Eurasian continent. We recalled President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s initiative to establish a Greater Eurasian Partnership with an invitation to all countries on this continent without exception.

We reviewed issues related to Russia-NATO relations. Relations were almost completely suspended after the NATO-backed coup in Ukraine. We are willing to resume a dialogue, but it must not be devoid of common sense. We do not want to hear one-sided statements by NATO officials at every meeting of the Russia-NATO Council whereby they publicly accuse us of everything in the Ukrainian crisis. We want the Russia-NATO Council to focus on security issues. This is what it was established for. We are waiting for answers to our many proposals that NATO has been reviewing for over a year now. Their adoption could help reduce ever increasing tensions substantially, which are partly caused by NATO continuing to move its military infrastructure closer to our borders.

We spoke about relations at the UN, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe. We are interested in using the unifying potential of these pan-European structures (and we felt reciprocity on behalf of our Portuguese colleagues). They must not be used for politically or ideologically based discussions or for settling accounts.

We discussed the situation in the east of Ukraine. We urged our European colleagues to exert more influence on Kiev to motivate it for the complete implementation of the Minsk agreements. I hope that this signal was heard and that we will soon see some progress.

We exchanged views on the developments in the Middle East and North Africa, in part, in the context of the Syrian crisis and the situation in Libya. We are interested in the progress of talks between all parties with UN mediation and support from external participants that are able to promote positive results.

I am most grateful to our Portuguese colleagues for our positive cooperation.







Question (retranslated from Portuguese. Addressed to both ministers):

Russia and Portugal enjoy a very high level of relations. Portugal’s presidency of the EU offers an opportunity to bring our two countries even closer together, but in the past six months Russia-EU relations have been deteriorating, as one can see from the latest initiative to disconnect Russia from SWIFT, which was put forth yesterday. Can this really happen, or is this nothing more than wishful thinking? How would you describe the current Russia-EU dialogue? Is it focused on attempts to point the finger at and make accusations against each other, or look for solutions and compromises that would be acceptable to both sides?



Sergey Lavrov:

The idea of disconnecting Russia from SWIFT is nothing new. If it was mentioned yesterday again, it is yet another repetition of the calls that have been made for months, if not years. This subject is mentioned as an additional punishment for Russia. I don’t know what specific decisions the Western countries and SWIFT owners may adopt or what levers or methods of pressure can be used against them.

The system has been used for a long time to service the economic ties and interests of many countries, including EU member states, other western countries and Russia. However, we are also aware that the EU and the West as a whole have more than once shown in practice that they are unreliable partners. In some situations they can take unjustified and unreasonable decisions.

Today the Minister and I spoke at a RIAC conference on relations between Russia and the EU, or more precisely, on the current situation in our relations. In his very interesting address, Mr Minister mentioned guidelines for mutual relations such as good faith fulfilment of the agreements signed.

A concrete example is Nord Stream 2. All the related contracts were signed before the EU decided to complicate the implementation of this project. The lawyers of the European Commission expressed the official view that the Third Energy Package, which had been adjusted specifically to complicate the implementation of Nord Stream 2, cannot be applied to it because all the relevant documents had been coordinated before the package came into effect. It was the lawyers’ official conclusion. Nevertheless, the then EU leadership did its utmost to retrospectively apply the requirements of the adjusted energy package to Nord Stream 2. In short, anything can happen.

As Mr Minister said, we would like all the signed agreements to be honoured, including the Minsk agreements, which we have mentioned today. There are many more examples of this kind. I am sure that the Russian Government, the Central Bank and the relevant financial authorities are drafting decisions in the event an attempt is made to restrict free exchange within the framework of the multilateral trade system and WTO recommendations.

The agenda of a recent meeting of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council included discussions on a broader use of national currencies for mutual settlements and, ultimately, on using currencies that will not depend on the US dollar, considering that the United States has been taking advantage of its position for years.

As for the outlook for the Russia-EU relations, we expressed our positions clearly in our opening addresses. I would like to reiterate that Russia is ready and willing to normalise these relations. We are neighbours and part of Eurasia, a huge and rapidly growing geo-economic space. This continent has become the driver of the global economy, and it would be unwise not to make use of the comparative advantages of our co-location in this part of the world.

However, we are only ready to resume normal relations on the basis of equality, mutual respect and a balance of interests, without any ultimatums or unilateral preconditions, such as the oft-repeated demand that Russia comply with the Minsk agreements. This is absurd, as all parties know very well. Nevertheless, the Russophobic minority is making use of the EU’s principle of solidarity and consensus to force all other countries to continue demanding that Russia comply with the Minsk agreements every time this subject is discussed at the Council of Europe. We would like to have normal, mutually beneficial relations. We would like our mutual trade to return to the 2013 indicators and exceed them. Today it is only half of the 2013 figure, and it was not the pandemic that was responsible for the bulk of the decline. We hope that the EU will ultimately replace its ideology-driven policy towards Russia with a rational one.



Question:

Many people still believe that it is impossible to ensure collective security without Russia, as German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said recently. What are Moscow’s priorities? What is required to move beyond the factors standing in the way of collective security in Europe?



Sergey Lavrov:

If German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said this, I can only welcome this statement. Let me recall that some time ago Mr Maas and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it was impossible to defend Germany without the United States and NATO. As you can see, a comprehensive approach to ensuring European security is taking shape. This is a positive turn in thinking.

As for us, we believe that at this stage implementing the agreements concluded earlier is the best way to settle the problems and mitigate the risks in Europe and the Euro-Atlantic area. These are the documents adopted in the OSCE framework: the Paris Charter for a New Europe, the 1999 Istanbul Summit Declaration and the Russia-NATO Founding Act. All these documents contain principles for ensuring security through a collective effort. These principles prevent the creation of new dividing lines and provide the opportunity to take part in this dialogue not only to all countries (OSCE members in this case) but also to all the organisations in this space that deal with security, including NATO, the EU, the CIS and the CSTO. Our Western partners in the OSCE and the Russia-NATO Council do not want to follow the principles I mentioned.

The Russia-NATO Founding Act has been crudely violated. The military infrastructure is moving further east, and the presence of substantial forces is justified by saying it’s there on a rotational basis rather than permanent deployment. One NATO official spoke about “permanent rotation deployment.” This juggling with words conceals a strategy that is carried out on the ground in actions, hardware included. I like the idea that all normal countries must fulfil the commitments on which they agreed, and, all the more so, that were signed by their first persons. This would be a good foundation for considering new, additional agreements in this area.

For about two years now, NATO has failed to review the proposals by the General Staff of our Armed Forces. These proposals suggest establishing minimum distances between the movements of Russian and NATO aircraft and warships. There was also a proposal to agree on a distance for removing both Russian and NATO military exercises from the contact line of the two parties. There were also a number of other specific proposals for NATO. We have not received a reply to any of them so far. I hope this is just ‘so far.’



Question:

US President Joe Biden said he would like to discuss human rights at the Russian-American summit in Geneva – “making it clear we will not stand by and let him (Vladimir Putin) abuse those rights.” Is Russia ready to discuss its internal human rights problems with the United States? Does Moscow intend to raise its own concerns with Washington in this area? Was the topic of human rights discussed today? Do you believe Europe’s intention to discuss this topic is even legitimate?



Sergey Lavrov:

If I remember correctly, Joe Biden said he would definitely raise the human rights issue in his contacts with the Chinese and Russian leaders. As he explained, the entire US state system is built on human rights, on these values, therefore they cannot just ignore these issues. According to this logic, we also have values ​​that underlie our statehood and society. They include adherence to some fairly important principles that our Western colleagues have been violating with their actions.

We are ready to talk. We have no taboo topics. We will discuss anything both parties deem necessary. We will answer the questions of the American party, including on human rights. Today we agreed with Augusto Santos Silva that any human rights concerns the other party might have should be discussed in an honest and equal manner. It is our shared belief that the UN Human Rights Council is the best format for that. When that body was created, the parties agreed to conduct periodic human rights reviews in each UN member state, on a universal basis. Portugal has gone through several reviews under this procedure, and so has Russia. Based on the results, long lists of recommendations are sent to the relevant party, which is expected to respond within a certain period. This is a normal civilised dialogue.

We are ready to discuss human rights or any other topic to the extent stipulated by universally agreed documents in this or in any other area, but only within the international law framework. We are not going to accept the newly promoted concept of a rules-based international order as a point of reference. As we found out today, it is a highly discriminatory concept that promotes the West as a trendsetter in every sphere, while everyone else should just follow those trends.

We have discussed this in detail and cited specific examples. We are also ready to discuss the problems the United States is struggling with. We are following the prosecution of those charged with orchestrating the January 6 riots. There are other developments and concerns that have to do with human rights, opposition activists and protection of their interests. The Kremlin and the White House press services will report more details about the preparations for the summit and the summit itself.



Question (addressed to Augusto Santos Silva):

In your opening remarks, you said there were frictions between NATO and Russia and pointed out the importance of political dialogue in this regard. Can we read this as Portugal supports a resumption of the political and military dialogue between Russia and NATO? The military dialogue was actually completely frozen in 2014.



Sergey Lavrov (adding after Augusto Santos Silva):

I would urge everyone to bear in mind all the other rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

First of all, I would underline a right that has not yet been mentioned today – the right to life. I hope our Western colleagues will remember that life is a person’s most treasured possession, whoever they are and wherever they live. Let us prevent a repetition of the tragedies that occurred in Iraq, Libya, and the former Yugoslavia, where that right was trampled upon by our NATO colleagues in a most brutal and illegal way.

Now about the tie. Russia has not yet chaired the EU, and it never occurred to us to order special ties for the CIS or the CSTO. We will think about it. I am sincerely delighted that Augusto Santos Silva mistakenly (or maybe deliberately) packed his tie from 2007. I would have liked to go back to the atmosphere that existed between Russia and the EU in 2007.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4759526






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s video address to the Sixth International Conference Russia and China: Cooperation in a New Era, Moscow, June 1, 2021



1 June 2021 - 10:06






Mr Wang Yi,

Mr Ivanov,

Colleagues, friends,

The further development of strategic partnership with China is one of our top priorities. It is stipulated in the Foreign Policy Concept, which President of Russia Vladimir Putin approved in November 2016. We are grateful to our colleagues from the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) and Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) for organising a regular, sixth joint conference. We regard it as an opportunity to review the current state and development outlook of our bilateral cooperation and its increasing influence on global developments.

This is a special year for us: 20 years ago on July 16, 2001, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of China Jiang Zemin met in Moscow to sign the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation. By turning this new page in their relations, the parties demonstrated their resolve to pass their friendship down through the generations. The treaty formalised the previously applied political definition of bilateral relations as “a partnership of (…) equality and trust and strategic collaboration.” In other words, this truly historical international document has put on record the development of a new model of our interstate relations and their progress to a fundamentally new stage.

I would like to note that the Treaty is based on the universally recognised norms of international law, first of all the goals and principles of the UN Charter. It seals the parties’ agreement on mutual support in the defence of the national unity and territorial integrity, as well as their commitment not to be the first to use nuclear weapons against each other and not to target strategic nuclear missiles on each other. The document also formulated the principle of “respecting each other’s choice of the course of political, economic, social and cultural development.” The parties pledged to immediately contact and consult each other in the event of the threat of aggression and not to allow their territory to be used by third countries to the detriment of the national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other party. In this way, Russia and China provided a legal framework for the closest possible collaboration on strategic matters bearing on their fundamental interests without creating a formal military-political alliance. In fact, a comprehensive Russian-Chinese partnership is more than just a classical military-political union.

Another vital provision mentions the absence of any territorial claims to each other and the parties’ resolve “to make the border between them into one where everlasting peace and friendship prevail from generation to generation.” The incorporation of this principle promoted the final settlement of the so-called border dispute and greatly strengthened mutual trust.

Colleagues,

The Treaty played a huge role in boosting mutual trade and economic interaction. We can report positive results to the public. During the past 20 years, our mutual trade increased more than thirteen times, from $8 billion to $104 billion in 2020. Work is underway within the framework of the Intergovernmental Russian-Chinese Commission on Investment Cooperation on 70 projects worth in total more than $120 billion.

Our energy partnership has acquired a strategic dimension. A Russian-Chinese oil pipeline has been functioning for nearly 10 years now, and the Power of Siberia gas pipeline was launched in late 2019. China is taking part in large-scale LNG projects in the Russian Arctic zone. Just a few days ago, on May 19, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of China Xi Jinping launched the construction of four new Russian-designed power units for the Tianwan and Xudapu nuclear power stations in China.

Our industrial and agricultural cooperation is developing constantly. Our interaction in science and innovation is especially important in light of the continued Western attempts to contain our countries’ technological progress. It is for this reason that we are holding the Years of Science, Technology and Innovation in 2020-2021 as part of the successful practice of themed cross-years.

The Treaty also has a great role to play in promoting cultural and humanitarian ties. These activities are helping to maintain the relations of good-neighbourliness and reinforce the social basis of strategic partnership between Russia and China.

Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has impaired contacts between our citizens. I am sure that, as the epidemiological situation becomes normalised, we will be able to quickly restore and expand them. In our opinion, efforts to promote Russian language studies in China and Chinese language studies in Russia should become an unconditional priority. The same concerns dialogue with young people, who will soon carry on efforts to develop and expand the traditions of Russian-Chinese friendship.

The Treaty, which is ahead of its time in some respects, is not limited to bilateral ties. Its provisions help expand our foreign policy cooperation. Bilateral dialogue is becoming particularly important on the international scene today, when some Western states are trying to demolish the UN-centric system of international law and to replace it with their own rules-based order. Moscow and Beijing consistently advocate the creation of a more equitable, democratic and therefore stable polycentric international order. This system should reflect the cultural and civilisational diversity of the modern world and the natural striving of nations to independently determine their development path. The very fact of the Russian-Chinese accord on this issue serves to stabilise and balance the entire system of international relations. It opens up broad opportunities for truly equitable and free cooperation between large and small countries jointly shaping their historical destiny.

I am satisfied to note the coinciding or largely similar approaches of Moscow and Beijing towards an absolute majority of challenges facing the world today, including efforts to maintain global strategic stability, arms control and counterterrorism operations. We cooperate successfully and fruitfully at such multilateral venues as the UN, the SCO, BRICS, RIC, the G20, APEC and the EAS. We coordinate our steps during the Syrian and Afghan peace processes, the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula and on the Iranian nuclear programme. Russia and China advocate the peaceful development of the Asia Pacific region and the creation of reliable regional mechanisms for ensuring equal and indivisible security there based on non-bloc approaches.

Today, the Eurasian region is implementing a number of innovative integration projects, including the Eurasian Economic Union and China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Work to combine their potentials has good prospects. Notably, it lays a solid foundation for establishing a new geo-strategic contour of peace, stability and economic prosperity based on principles of international law and transparency on our shared continent from Lisbon to Jakarta. This contour would be open for all countries, including members of the Eurasian Economic Union, the SCO, ASEAN and, in the future, the EU. The initiative of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin on establishing a Greater Eurasian Partnership aims to accomplish this truly historic task. We highly value cooperation with our Chinese friends on its well-coordinated implementation together with the Belt and Road Initiative.

Colleagues,

The Treaty on Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation, whose 20th anniversary we are going to mark in July 2021, is an unshakeable foundation of Russian-Chinese relations. We are convinced that it remains a living and working document that makes it possible to expand, finetune and adjust our strategic cooperation in line with the changing realities of the new epoch. This epoch demands that all of us, including experts, diplomats and politicians, always pay attention to new challenges and opportunities, trends and forecasts. Your conference is a good platform for a calm, detailed and professional exchange of opinions and ideas, without which is it is hard to chart the road forward and to determine a joint algorithm of subsequent actions.

Therefore, in conclusion, I would like to wish you fruitful discussions and intellectual insights and revelations for the benefit of strengthening neighbourly relations and friendship between Russia and China.

Thank you.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4759576






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Mongolia Batmunkh Battsetseg, Moscow, June 1,2021



1 June 2021 - 14:17






Ladies and gentlemen,

We have finished talks with my Mongolian colleague, Ms Battsetseg.

Our talks were traditionally warm, friendly and trust-based. Our good-neighbourly ties rest on a long history of fruitful interaction and solidarity in periods of crisis, including during World War II.

I would like to point out our mutual resolve to continue strengthening our ties in the spirit of the Treaty on Friendly Relations and Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, which our presidents signed in Ulaanbaatar in September 2019.

This year we will celebrate a landmark event, the 100th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. We have coordinated a large-scale plan of joint celebrations, and today we have noted that it is being implemented successfully.

In March of this year we marked the 40th anniversary of the joint Soviet-Mongolian space mission. Immediately after this news conference, we will hold a ceremony to present the Order of Alexander Nevsky to pilot-cosmonaut Jugderdemidiin Gurragchaa, President of the Mongolia-Russia Friendship Society, Hero of the Soviet Union and Hero of Mongolia.

We also spoke in favour of stimulating the activities of the Russian-Mongolian Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation. Its co-chairs held a meeting, via videoconference, in March 2021. An in-person plenary meeting of the commission is scheduled to take place on the basis of a protocol that has been coordinated by the co-chairs.





Talks are underway between Mongolia and the Eurasian Economic Commission on the possible signing of a free trade zone agreement, which will help boost our economic ties.

We discussed our bilateral interaction in international organisations, specifically the UN and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OCSE), as well as at a number of forums in Asia Pacific.

We exchanged views on the initiatives on the establishment of the so-called Indo-Pacific Region, which are being advocated by the United States, Australia and Japan. We pointed out that this idea is openly confrontational and is aimed at eroding the open and inclusive cooperation mechanisms that took decades to create around the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

We also discussed issues related to our cooperation within the framework of Mongolia’s activities in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

We talked about our countries efforts to deal with the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. Mongolia can report considerable progress in this sphere, and we are delighted that Russia has contributed to this achievement.

I would like to thank Madam Minister for a substantive conversation that will be instrumental in the further development of strategic partnership between Russia and Mongolia.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4759892
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old June 15th, 2021 #304
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a stand-alone meeting of BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs/International Relations, Moscow, June 1, 2021



1 June 2021 - 15:48






Good afternoon, friends.

It is always a pleasure to meet with friends and like-minded people.

Regrettably, the coronavirus infection has prevented us from holding an in-person meeting. I would like to once again express our solidarity with India and the Indian people. We are ready to continue providing assistance in the fight against the pandemic and to promote cooperation in this sphere. It is only through joint efforts that we will overcome the current crisis to the benefit of our nations.

The burden has increased not only on the national healthcare systems. The pandemic has strengthened negative trends in international relations, increasing the conflict potential and the risk of collapse of the strategic stability architecture. National egoism, a desire to ensure one’s domination at all costs and disregard for the interests of other countries are eroding the foundations of the multilateral system created after WWII. The cornerstone of this system is respect for international law, that is, the UN Charter, and not the so-called “rules” invented by our Western colleagues.





The number and complexity of the challenges to the international community and sustainable global development are growing. These are the threats of terrorism, transnational crime, including in the digital sphere, climate change and an expanding rift between the rich and the poor. These problems can only be addressed collectively.

Today we will have an opportunity to hold an in-depth discussion of all the items on our agenda in the BRICS spirit of mutual respect and commitment to results. Our group is playing a leading role in the efforts to deal with current global problems and is an example of truly multilateral, inclusive, universal and non-discriminatory cooperation.

In this context, we would like to support our Indian friends’ initiative for the BRICS foreign ministers to coordinate a strong joint signal to the world in favour of strengthening and reforming the multilateral system of international relations on the solid foundation of international law, with the central role of the UN as the most universal and inclusive organisation in the world. It is now more important than ever for BRICS to speak out as one voice.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4760121






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a news conference following the BRICS Foreign Ministers' Meeting via videoconference, Moscow, June 1, 2021



1 June 2021 - 20:39






Good afternoon, friends.

The meeting of the BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs / International Relations via videoconference is over. For the time being, the epidemiological situation has prevented us from resuming in-person contacts. I am sure we will soon overcome this problem.

We exchanged views on all urgent issues related to maintaining international peace and security, and discussed the impact of the coronavirus crisis on international relations. We focused on strengthening the BRICS strategic partnership in three key areas: the political, economic and humanitarian ones.

Our detailed and sincere conversation demonstrated our identical or similar positions on many regional and global issues. We paid special attention to the situation in hot spots. We reaffirmed the commitment of the BRICS countries to the settlement of disputes by political and diplomatic means with reliance on international law and the UN’s central role. This is reflected in a joint communique we agreed upon following the meeting. This detailed document is already being published, so you will have an opportunity to read it.

We spoke about joint efforts to counter the terrorist threat. BRICS is actively working in this area. BRICS set forth its priorities in the counter-terrorism strategy adopted last year. We are helping build up the potential of the established Counter-Terrorism Working Group and its thematic subgroups.

We emphasised the need to promote cooperation in ensuring international information security (IIS) and countering cybercrime. At present, this issue is becoming increasingly urgent because of the growing conflict intensity in cyberspace and its more active exploitation by criminal groups. All BRICS countries favour the drafting of a universal document to regulate the efforts to ensure IIS. We are convinced that security in this area can only be ensured by collective efforts based on respect for each other’s interests. In turn, we thanked our partners for supporting the relevant Russian resolutions at the UN General Assembly.

I would like to make special mention of the unanimous statement by the foreign ministers of the BRICS nations in favour of strengthening and reforming the multilateral system. All of them agree on the need to make the leading international institutions, including the UN, WHO, UNCTAD and WTO, more effective.

In the context of the current epidemiological situation, all BRICS countries expressed their solidarity with India and its people. Russia is willing to continue helping our Indian friends counter this dangerous virus. Our partners emphasised their readiness to step up efforts on the Russian initiative to establish a BRICS comprehensive early warning system for the risks of widespread infectious diseases.

We had a useful discussion on a number of other issues pertaining to the expansion of BRICS cooperation in innovative and humanitarian fields, and the prospects for the New Development Bank. Amid the coronavirus-caused crisis, we give priority to invigorating business, trade, economic and investment ties inside BRICS. In this context, we consider it important to implement the BRICS economic partnership strategy endorsed by the leaders at a summit in 2020. We support the initiatives of the chairmanship. Thus, we reaffirmed our willingness to cooperate in drafting plans of action in agriculture and innovations.

We wish our Indian friends success in preparing and conducting the 13th BRICS summit. It is bound to be productive and promote our strategic partnership. We will do everything to make this happen.







Question:

Yesterday you said the Russian Government and the Central Bank were preparing to respond to Russia’s likely disconnection from SWIFT. Is the possibility of creating an alternative payment system being discussed in BRICS?

It was earlier reported that the parties to JCPOA on Iran’s nuclear programme would conclude their negotiations in early June. Can we be hopeful that an agreement is reached before the presidential election takes place in Iran scheduled for June 18?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for the matter concerning SWIFT, I answered the question I was asked in connection with the calls to disconnect Russia from SWIFT that are being heard in some of the European countries. These are the most radical representatives of the Western world, who are driven exclusively by Russophobic sentiments and are trying, with reason or, even more often, for no reason at all, to intensify, in every way, the sanctions against our country.

We are not interested in destroying the mechanisms underlying the functioning of the international currency system and, generally, the international economic system. We believe that this will harm all parties to multilateral communication, without exception. However, since threats like this are being made, we have to draw some conclusions. I believe that the relevant agencies in our Government will continue to take all the necessary measures to safeguard Russia’s and our partners’ interests, regardless of how the situation evolves.

In BRICS and in the Eurasian Economic Union alike, we are working hard to promote payments in national currencies. Under any circumstances, this will only make our relations more reliable.

As for JCPOA on Iran’s nuclear programme, negotiations continue and they are progressing well, however, no final decision has been taken so far. Some issues that are yet to be finalised require political decisions to be taken in the capitals of the most involved countries, primarily the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

We and other parties to JCPOA are trying to create as favourable conditions as possible for securing the final solutions. It seems to me to be counterproductive to start guessing if this is going to happen within the next few days or in a couple of weeks. Negotiators in Vienna are working to achieve a result as soon as possible.



Question (retranslated from English):

My first question concerns the results of the past BRICS Foreign Ministers Council meeting. Have you discussed the differences of opinion in different nations’ approaches to sovereignty and territorial integrity?

When will India receive the promised S-400 missiles? What is the situation with making the Sputnik V vaccine available to India?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already mentioned the final documents of the BRICS ministerial meeting. They include a detailed communiqué and a declaration in support of strengthening multilateral principles in international cooperation, primarily with an emphasis on reaffirming inviolability of the UN Charter principles, which, of course, include respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of nation states, sovereign equality of all UN members, settling disputes by peaceful means and, of course, figuratively speaking, respecting the right of each nation to determine its own future. We did not have any differences when discussing this important document.

As for the second document on strengthening multilateralism, it is also of key importance, because all BRICS countries stressed the need to strengthen multilateralism and to do so not in an abstract or narrow format, but exclusively in a universal format based on the UN Charter. In general, the UN embodies multilateralism as nothing else in this world. We will uphold this approach, especially in the face of our Western colleagues’ attempts to promote an alternative concept, which they call a “rules-based world order.” Almost all manifestations of this concept show that it is not universal. It is designed to impose Western ideas and values that are not shared by many other countries on everyone else as an absolutely indispensable criterion.

We can see this in several initiatives. Now, they are talking about convening a Democracy Summit, which will determine the future of the world, although the list of its participants will not be universal. Our European partners are talking about a new concept of effective multilateralism. France and Germany are pushing forward this initiative. To our question whether their desire to strengthen multilateralism includes all countries on the planet, we got an evasive answer. From the explanations we hear, it turns out that our European partners consider the European Union to be a case of effective multilateralism which comes up with numerous initiatives, and then all other countries are encouraged to support them.

This agenda divides countries instead of uniting them. So, the statement by the BRICS foreign ministers in support of multilateralism in its absolutely universal understanding is playing a fundamental role at this point and is of great importance.

As for our cooperation with India, we are making progress in the economy, politics, culture and the military-technical sphere, as well as in healthcare in full accordance with the agreements that are being reached at the highest level. I would like to note the implementation of the contracts for the supply of S-400 systems to India. We see no changes here, and the Indian leadership has reaffirmed its commitment to these agreements.

Today, we are sending another batch of the Sputnik V vaccine to our Indian friends in addition to the steps that have already been taken in the challenging situation India is facing in connection with the coronavirus pandemic.



Question:

Recently, the United States and Britain have been urging the World Health Organisation (WHO) specialists to go to China again in search of the source of the coronavirus. The Americans believe that the first trip made by a WHO delegation to China failed to fulfil its mission, so that now it is necessary to conduct transparent and timely research. What do you think about this? Will this help counter the pandemic or is it an attempt to politicise this global problem?



Sergey Lavrov:

All of us, at least all the BRICS members, support the WHO’s central role in this field of international cooperation. At China’s invitation, the WHO established a group of experts that visited China some time ago. They went to Wuhan, visited the relevant laboratory and spoke with specialists. They made their own assessments that were then circulated. This information is available to the public. If someone has additional questions, it is necessary to discuss them with all the other countries in the WHO.

The attempts to politicise the current situation are certainly being made. They amount to what President of France Emmanuel Macron called “the war of vaccines.” But, to our great regret, and contrary to facts, he declared that Russia and China are the main initiators of this so-called new “world war.” Meanwhile, the facts that all the interested experts have, show that the Western media themselves primarily describe problems with Western vaccines. Russian journalists just report to the public the assessment of various vaccines in the West, whether they are described as dangerous, safe or effective. Nowadays, politicians should not try to score points and enhance their appeal by using the coronavirus infection and the situation with different vaccines that undergo registration at the WHO.

We are confident about the need to pool efforts and to focus not on searching for those guilty ones but on countering the disaster that is truly global and affects all countries. Now the main task is to coordinate the distribution and certification of vaccines, to regulate the movements of people and to coordinate the documents that will be issued to vaccinated people. Probably, the European Union has the right to create its own rules in this field. But if these rules discriminate against non-EU participants of international communication, there is an opportunity for additional efforts to ensure global security. Nobody can save itself from such threats. We always favour the broadest possible cooperation.

Let me recall that when President of Russia Vladimir Putin announced the development of the world’s first vaccine against the coronaviurus in Russia in August 2020 (Sputnik-V), he emphasised our interest in developing the broadest possible open international cooperation in developing and improving medication that can help us counter this pandemic. Since that time, we have unequivocally supported greater openness and consideration of interests of all countries, not only wealthy countries but also states that cannot develop or buy vaccines themselves. President Putin instantly supported the idea to suspend the license protection of the developed vaccines. This idea does not yet enjoy support in the West but both the Russian Federation and the PRC believe that the entire international community must unanimously make this important decision in the interests of the developing, poor nations.



Question:

You said that the EU and even NATO politicians sometimes use Cold War-era terms in their relations with Russia. The United States has embarked on a course of indirect confrontation and is increasing NATO's military presence near Russia’s borders and conducting many military exercises in the region. What does Moscow expect from Washington in the future in terms of ensuring favourable conditions for holding the Vladimir Putin-Joseph Biden summit? How important is it for ensuring strategic balance that NATO puts an end to its expansion to Russia’s borders?



Sergey Lavrov:

When, in response to our Western colleagues’ numerous hostile actions over many years, the Russian Federation introduced the term “unfriendly states” into circulation and President Putin issued an executive order in which the United States and the Czech Republic were referred to as unfriendly nations, the West started showing some unwholesome interest. We were accused of aggravating relations and whipping up our rhetoric. In recent years, the West has been doing nothing but coming up with new descriptions of the Russian Federation. In 2019, my good friend Josep Borrell, who is now at the helm of the EU foreign policy, stated on his own behalf but as an EU official: “Russia, our old enemy, is once again saying, 'here I am' and has returned as a threat.” In terms of doctrinal documents - take the US Concept of National Security or the Concept of Nuclear Deterrence and see for yourself how Russia and China are portrayed there. The US law has us officially pegged as an “adversary.” The EU is promoting concepts with regard to Russia which put rebuffing Russia in the first place.

Only an enemy gets a rebuff. When we consider this kind of behaviour unfriendly, we are absolutely not bending the truth. If someone calls us an “adversary” or a country that spreads “malicious influence all over the world,” is that a friendly approach? Of course, not.

I would encourage our Western partners not to get carried away with rhetoric, which they have been fomenting with regard to our country for a very long time now, but to look at the situation as it is and to what extent their actions meet the fundamental national interests of the European countries and the United States as well for that matter.

As for the upcoming summit between President Putin and President Biden in Geneva on June 16, we have already commented on the forthcoming talks. We do not have any illusions, and we are not trying to create an impression that it will result in any breakthroughs or historic and fateful decisions. But the very fact of a conversation between the two leading nuclear powers at the level of top officials is important. It must be promoted in every possible way. The presidents will exchange views on what threats each of the sides is seeing in the vicinity of their countries and in the global arena in general. In this sense, military exercises, the number of which has dramatically increased in quantity and quality and in the number of engaged heavy equipment and the number of participating countries and, most importantly, in their geographical proximity to our borders, by no account contribute to a normal dialogue or coordination of efforts to tackle real, not fictional, issues that are common for all.

For many past years, we encouraged NATO to coordinate concrete, practical de-escalation measures. First of all, this concerns the distance our and the bloc’s aircraft and warships should keep from each other. This was our first proposal. Second, we proposed coordinating a distance from the contact line beyond which NATO and Russia will not hold their military exercises, so they will not have hysterics over Russia’s military drills in its own national territory while NATO holds wargames called Defender Europe, when 30,000 troops and a huge number of military equipment, including deployed from across the ocean, are amassed directly on our border. This equipment was delivered from the countries that do not have a common border with the Russian Federation. The use of this strategy and tactic is extremely confrontational and hazardous because it is provocative.

Our initiative is on the table. If anyone discerns any far-reaching, dangerous plans in Russia’s position, we are ready to discuss this. Regrettably, NATO is not willing to do this. Then we are invited to meet with our NATO colleagues and to resume the functioning of the Russia-NATO Council, we say we are ready for this. Let our militaries discuss the situation on the ground, including with due regard for NATO’s serious violations of the agreements reached in the late 1990s, when NATO pledged not to deploy considerable armed forces in the territory of new member states. This decision has long been forgotten and buried. NATO troops have been permanently deployed in the Baltics and Norway. They say it is rotational deployment, but this rotation is becoming permanent.

We are open and will always be open to an honest conversation. When we are invited to the Russia-NATO Council to discuss Ukraine, we know that we will not hear anything new, that such discussions will not bring any additional value. Everything we have heard during meetings in such formats is nothing more than a repetition of the public statements our NATO colleagues make almost daily. Going to Brussels only to listen to unsubstantiated accusations of non-implementation of the Minsk Agreements again, to hear how our NATO colleagues protect the Ukrainian leadership’s policy of “purging” the country of the Russian language, education and media outlets, and, in general, of any opposition forces (they tell us that Ukraine is “a beacon of democracy” and they need to protect Kiev’s policy in every possible way)? This is not a subject we are ready to discuss with NATO countries.

I would like to point out once again that we are always ready to discuss military de-escalation on the contact line and the revival of the principles which NATO countries and Russia adopted at the top level. As I have already mentioned, our concrete proposals are on the table in Brussels. We hope two years was a sufficient period of time to see their essence. Our proposals are quite simple, but an agreement to implement them would lead to practical de-escalation, even if on a small scale.

I have already said that stopping the advance towards Russia’s borders was one of the pledges NATO made. We have become accustomed to the fact that our Western colleagues are disregarding many of the positive commitments they signed in the 1990s. When we urge them to reaffirm their pledges, such as the principle of indivisible security, according to which no country in the Euro-Atlantic region can strengthen their security to the detriment of others’ security, they shy away from this principle, afraid of doing this. The conclusion is very simple: this is because they have malicious intentions regarding Russia. I wish I were wrong. To make sure that our Western colleagues really do want to restore normal relations with Russia, we want to see practical action. Our concrete proposals are on the table. But we have not seen any answers yet.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4760543






Press release on the results of the Organisational Session of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on ICTs in the Context of International Security 2021-2025



2 June 2021 - 15:42



The Organisational Session of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on ICTs in the Context of International Security 2021-2025, established at the initiative of Russia under UN General Assembly Resolution 75/240, was held on June 1.

The Group’s Mandate prioritises the further elaboration of norms, regulations and principles of the responsible conduct of states in the information space and ways of implementing them, as well as amending them whenever necessary or formulating additional rules of conduct; reviewing the initiatives of states aiming to ensure security in the field of using ICTs; and organising regular institutional dialogue with a wide range of participating states under UN auspices. In addition, the OEWG is called on to continue elaborating a joint perception of the study of current and potential threats in the area of information security, including safe data storage, and possible joint measures to prevent and counter threats, as well as a common understanding of how international law applies to the use of ICTs by states, confidence-building and potential-expansion measures.

Meeting participants approved key aspects of the Group’s activities by consensus. Burhan Gafoor, Permanent Representative of Singapore to the UN in New York, was elected its Chair. They approved the Group’s agenda and rules of procedure, including the consensus-based method for approving decisions. The Chair is to coordinate other organisational matters during wide-ranging consultations with UN member states and to approve them at the Group’s first substantive session in New York on December 13-17, 2021.

The event was held in a constructive atmosphere and continued the effective work of global cyber-diplomacy: the approval of the concluding reports of the first Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on International Information Security and the specialised Group of Governmental Experts, and the launching of a special committee to draft a universal international convention, under UN auspices, to counter the use of ICTs for criminal purposes.

All session participants agreed that the OEWG was a popular and promising format for the further discussion of various matters regarding ensuring international information security within the UN framework. The states supported Russia’s perception of the Group’s activities in line with the principles of universality, openness, transparency and democracy, as well as a striving to achieve practical results.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4761065






Press release on the results of the UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Advancing Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace in the Context of International Security



2 June 2021 - 16:39



On May 28, the UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Advancing Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace in the Context of International Security, established at the US initiative in 2018, concluded its work by adopting a final consensus report.

Following intense talks, constructive efforts and flexibility demonstrated by all 25 GGE members, a mutually acceptable document was developed. It is important for us that it takes into account Russia’s principal approaches to ensuring international cybersecurity, including on the most acute topics such as attribution of ICT incidents, international legal regulation of this area, the need for further work on the rules of responsible behaviour of states under the auspices of the UN, and the possibility of developing legally binding norms. The report also recognises the importance of continuing the global discussion on international cybersecurity, in particular, in the format of the UN Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on ICTs in the Context of International Security 2021-2025, established pursuant to UN General Assembly Resolution 75/240, which was adopted at the initiative of Russia.

The adoption of the GGE’s report is another example of the effective work of the global cyber diplomacy. It shows that the international community is able to reach an agreement on key global problems when the expert-level dialogue is carried out pragmatically, constructively and without politicisation. This was the position of the Russian expert, which was noted by a majority of Group members.

We hope that the atmosphere of consensus and the states’ intention to achieve practical results from the global talks on international cyber security will continue at the new OEWG, which held its organising session on June 1, 2021, in New York.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4761286






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka Dinesh Gunawardena



7 June 2021 - 14:59







On June 7, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Dinesh Gunawardena at the Lankan side’s initiative.

The ministers discussed topics on the bilateral agenda, specifically COVID-19 response, Russian-Lankan trade, economic and military-technical cooperation, as well as humanitarian ties. They also agreed to continue to coordinate activities at the UN and on other multilateral platforms.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4776828






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on retaliatory measures against Canadian officials and individuals involved in shaping and pursuing anti-Russian policy



7 June 2021 - 19:52



Official Ottawa continues to support, at various levels, initiatives targeting Russia by engaging in inappropriate and counterproductive activity to support the ultra-nationalist regime in Kiev and the Russophobic forces in the Baltics, the unsubstantiated accusations against our country of alleged aggression against Ukraine, as well as attempts to interfere in Russia’s domestic affairs.

These actions on Canada’s part have contributed to the deterioration of our bilateral relations and had a negative impact on the prospects of resuming a full-fledged dialogue between our states and improving cooperation between Russia and Canada as North Pole neighbours.

In response to the unlawful sanctions imposed by the Canadian government on March 24, 2021, against Russian citizens on the contrived pretext of alleged persecution of Russian citizen Alexey Navalny, who was convicted for a criminal offence, it has been decided that the following Canadian citizens be prohibited entry to Russia for an indefinite term:

1. David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada;

2. Anne Kelly, Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada;

3. Brenda Lucki, Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police;

4. Marci Surkes, Executive Director, Policy and Cabinet Affairs for Canadian Prime Minister's Office;

5. Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of Canada;

6. Jody Thomas, Deputy Minister of the Department of National Defence of Canada;

7. Mike Rouleau, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence of Canada;

8. Brian Brennan, Deputy Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police;

9. Scott Bishop, Rear Admiral, Commander of the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command.

Russia remains open, when and if Ottawa is ready, to developing our relations on the principles of mutual respect and focusing on cooperation in such areas of objectively overlapping interests as the Arctic, regional and business links. People in Russia have always had warm feelings towards Canadians, despite the Russophobic sentiments cultivated by some representatives of the Canadian political class and groups of influence.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4777207






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of the French Republic Jean-Yves Le Drian and Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany Heiko Maas



7 June 2021 - 20:55







On June 7, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of the French Republic Jean-Yves Le Drian and Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany Heiko Maas.

The ministers conducted a detailed exchange of opinions on prospects for resolving the domestic Ukrainian conflict in Donbass following the May 26, 2021 videoconference with political advisors of the Normandy format countries’ leaders. They noted that there was no alternative to the Minsk agreements, and that all sides had to fulfil their obligations. Mr Lavrov said that Kiev’s attempts to revise the Package of Measures, as well as the decisions of the December 2019 Normandy format summit in Paris, were unacceptable. He drew attention to the fact that Western colleagues had failed to respond to Kiev’s statements that run counter to present-day agreements. Mr Lavrov underscored that discriminatory measures against the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine and Kiev’s policies to forcibly Ukrainise ethnic minorities, to suppress political opponents and the media and to pander to the neo-Nazis were unacceptable.

The heads of foreign policy agencies discussed the situation on the Azerbaijani-Armenian border and in Nagorno Karabakh, as well as the implementation of the statements by the leaders of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia of November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021. They noted the importance of unfailingly complying with the ceasefire regime and the need to resolve any disagreements by political and diplomatic means. The ministers reaffirmed the role of the OSCE’s Minsk Group during the negotiating process between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Mr Lavrov noted that any involvement of international organisations was only possible with the consent of Baku and Yerevan.

They also touched upon some aspects of the situation on the Balkan Peninsula. Mr Lavrov noted the overdue need to shut down the Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina and to cede all authority and responsibility for the country to the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the principles of the Dayton Agreement. Any attempts to appoint a new High Representative at a time when members of the Steering Board and Bosnian parties lack consensus and in circumvention of the UN Security Council are incompatible with the interests of stabilising Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Sergey Lavrov, Jean-Yves Le Drian and Heiko Maas also discussed a number of other issues on the international agenda.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4777217






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks during the ceremony for signing the Agreement on the Foundations of Relations between Russia and Antigua and Barbuda, Moscow, June 8, 2021



8 June 2021 - 18:59






Mr Prime Minister,

I am happy to see you again, even if online. You and I met in St Petersburg two years ago as part of your participation in the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF).

We have just signed a historic document ̶ the Agreement on the Foundations of Relations between the Russian Federation and Antigua and Barbuda. This treaty creates an additional ground to promote our relations following the document on repealing visa formalities for travel by the citizens of Russia and Antigua and Barbuda that we signed in June 2019. In other words, we now have a very solid base for expanding interstate relations in politics, trade, the economy and other fields and for maximising contacts between our citizens, including tourist, education and other exchanges.

I am confident that the efforts to broaden our relations as much as possible will acquire additional dynamism and will thus underscore the importance of Antigua and Barbuda for Russia in the Caribbean subregion and the role of the Russian Federation for Antigua and Barbuda in your external relations.

We are committed to further strengthening interaction in providing emergency response and relief in natural disasters. We will build up education, cultural and humanitarian exchanges, and cooperation in personnel training in diplomacy and law enforcement.

We are committed to promoting joint economic initiatives and investment projects.

I would like to note our close positions on key items on the regional and global agendas, our shared commitment to multilateral principles in international affairs, UN centrality and the observance of international law.





On a separate note, I would like to note that in July you will take over the chairmanship of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), with which we have established contacts, and we want to deepen them. I hope that under your chairmanship we will be able to promote these relations across various areas.

I would also like to note the productive work of the Honorary Consul of Antigua and Barbuda to Russia, Julien Hansen, who is present here. I’m delighted to welcome him to this ceremony. We hope our friends from Antigua and Barbuda will gradually work towards accrediting a full ambassador to the Russian Federation.

For our part, we would like to thank you for the prompt issuance of an agrement to the new Ambassador of the Russian Federation Sergey Petrovich, who will soon start working in Jamaica and will certainly visit your country to present his credentials.

In closing, I would like to congratulate you on the successful implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination drive. Your country is one of the leading countries in the Caribbean in terms of the percent of vaccinated people.

We have delivered the first batches of the Russian Sputnik V vaccine to your country. We are aware that you, Mr Prime Minister, personally welcomed this cargo at the airport in April. We are ready to continue this cooperation.

Antigua and Barbuda will mark 40 years of independence in November. I hope that you completely overcome the coronavirus by this date and achieve success in other areas of your responsible work.

Thank you very much again, Mr Prime Minister.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4778927
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old June 15th, 2021 #305
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at the Primakov Readings International Forum, via videoconference, Moscow, June 9, 2021



9 June 2021 - 14:42






Mr Dynkin,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Friends,

I am grateful for the invitation to speak again at the Primakov Readings International Forum. It is one of the most highly respected international venues for a committed professional dialogue, although probably the youngest. I would like to thank the leadership of Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) for suggesting the idea of this forum and for the commendable organisation of this year’s event amid the COVID-19 restrictions.

I would like to welcome all the forum’s participants, who represent the Russian and international community of experts and political analysts. A dialogue on all aspects of the current international order is especially important at this stage.

These readings are integrally connected with the intellectual heritage of Yevgeny Primakov, an outstanding statesman. It was during his term as the Foreign Minister of Russia that the principles of Russia’s current foreign policy were formulated. These principles are independence, pragmatism, a multi-vector approach, respect for international law and openness to cooperation with anyone who is willing to interact on the basis of equality and mutual respect. These principles have been incorporated in the Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, which was approved in 2000 after Vladimir Putin’s election as President of Russia and subsequently modified. The current wording of the Concept was adopted in 2016. But the principles I have mentioned, which Academician Primakov formulated, remain effective to this day.

Russia’s major advantage is that these principles allow us to ensure the predictability and sustainability of our foreign policy. This is especially important now that the world order is at an extremely contradictory stage of its development marked by increased turbulence. But as a Chinese saying goes, such periods also offer enormous opportunities, which we must make use of to boost cooperation in the interests of all nations. We can see that positive trends are gaining momentum. I would like to mention in this context primarily the strengthening of the new centres of economic and political influence and the promotion of democracy in interstate relations in general. Incidentally, Yevgeny Primakov predicted this process back in the middle of the 1990s in his concept of a multipolar world.

Russia will energetically promote the continuation of the peaceful movement towards a polycentric world based on the leading states’ collective guidance of efforts to resolve global problems. But we are also realists and hence cannot disregard the stubborn, and I would even say aggressive unwillingness of our Western colleagues to accept this objective reality. We cannot disregard the striving of the collective West to ensure itself a privileged international position at all costs. The results of the upcoming G7, NATO and US-EU summits will be a gauge of the current mentality in the leading Western countries.

Not only Russia but also many others face the situation where the West’s representatives are unprepared for an honest, facts-based dialogue, preferring to act in the “highly likely” spirit. There are many instances of this approach. This is certain to undermine trust in the very idea of dialogue as a method of settling differences and to erode the capabilities of diplomacy as a crucial foreign policy tool.

The zeal, with which our Western colleagues started promoting the notorious “rules-based world order” concept, looks even more irrational and devoid of prospects. Rules are always needed. Let me remind you that the UN Charter is also a body of rules, but these rules have been universally accepted and coordinated by all members of the international community, and they are not called into question by anyone. This is called international law. The UN Charter is the main part of international law and its foundation. While dodging the term “international law” and using instead the expression “rules-based world order,” our Western colleagues have in mind a totally different thing: they want to develop certain West-centric concepts and approaches to be later palmed off as an ideal of multilateralism and the ultimate truth. These actions are undertaken in areas such as chemical weapons, journalism, cyber security, and international humanitarian law. There are universal organisations dealing with all these issues, but our colleagues, primarily in the EU as well as in the United States, are eager to promote their own concept in each of these areas. If asked why this is not being done at the top organisation of multilateralism, the UN, they give no clear answer. We understand that it is, of course, more difficult to advance some initiatives of theirs and reach agreements in a universal format, where there are not only the “docile” members of the Western club but also Russia, China, India, Brazil and African countries. We will see how this “rules-based world order” concept will be reflected in the outcomes of the events that have already been announced, including the so-called Summit for Democracy announced by US President Joe Biden, or in the initiatives in the area of multilateralism announced by President of France Emmanuel Macron and a number of other leaders.

I am confident that we cannot ignore the incontrovertible fact that the present world order is a sum of agreements between the countries that won World War II. Russia will object to those wishing to cast doubt on the outcome of that war. We cannot and will not play up to those who would like to reverse the natural course of history. We, incidentally, have no superpower ambitions, no matter how hard some people try to convince themselves and everyone else of the opposite. Nor do we have the messianic zeal, with which our Western colleagues are attempting to spread their axiological “democratising” agenda to the rest of the world. It has long been clear to us that the outside imposition of development models will do no good. Look at the Middle East, Northern Africa, Libya, Yemen and Afghanistan.

A specific feature of the current situation is that the coronavirus pandemic has greatly accelerated the events, helping to settle existing problems and at the same time creating new ones. I am referring to the global economic decline, destroyed industrial and marketing chains, growing isolationism and geopolitical opportunism. This common trouble is also reminding us, through growing problems, about the unprecedented connection between all members of the international community. Nobody can weather it out in a safe haven. This is probably one of the main lessons we must draw from what is happening.

Russia calls for cooperation with everyone, as I have already mentioned, on the basis of mutual respect, equality and a balance of interests. We are aware of the value of each international partner, both in bilateral relations and in the multilateral format. We value our friendship with everyone who reciprocates this feeling and is willing to look for honest agreements, without ultimatums and unilateral demands.

The issues we are ready to discuss cover nearly all important spheres of life: security, trade, environmental protection, climate change, digital transformation, artificial intelligence and plenty more.

Russia is promoting its ideas in Eurasia. The principles I have mentioned underlie the operation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). These associations are based exclusively on the principle of voluntary participation, equality and the common good. There are no “bosses” and “subordinates” in them. These organisations have creative goals and are not spearheaded against anyone, and neither do they claim to spread their narrow values throughout the world, demanding that absolutely all states without exception comply with them, as some other integration structures are doing.

Our unconditional priorities include the strengthening of our comprehensive interaction with China. This year we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation between Russia and China. Another similar goal is to promote our privileged strategic partnership with India. This is how it is defined in the documents that were adopted at the top level. We are expanding our cooperation with ASEAN nations and other Asian-Pacific countries. We are doing this within the framework of the unification philosophy, which constitutes the basis of President Vladimir Putin’s initiative of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. It is open to absolutely all countries of our common Eurasian continent, and the membership of this association will dramatically increase the comparative advantages of all Eurasian countries in this highly competitive world upon the assumption that they will make good use of their natural, God-given advantages and will not try to create new or deepen the existing dividing lines on our continent.

Both China and India support, in principle, the concept of the Greater Eurasian Partnership, which I have already mentioned. Its merits have been highly assessed at the SCO. We are discussing it with ASEAN nations. We are also open for discussions with the EU as our natural neighbour on this huge continent.

I believe that forums such as the Primakov Readings provide ideal venues for discussing any related ideas. There can be alternative approaches by all means, but we would like our discussions to be focused on the future in the interests of all countries of this vast region.

Russia will actively continue to facilitate the settlement of international conflicts. We are working in Syria and helping the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to restore peaceful life after we stopped the bloodshed there. We are taking a vigorous part in international efforts to achieve a settlement in Afghanistan, Libya, around Iran, the Korean Peninsula and many other hot spots.

I am referring to this not to attract attention to our achievements. We do not have an inferiority complex (just as we do not have a superiority complex in global politics) but we are always ready to help those who need assistance. This is our historical mission that is rooted in the centuries of our ancient history. Therefore, we will continue working to this end even on those problems that seem insoluble at first sight like a settlement in the Middle East. We are actively trying to restore the work of the Quartet of International Mediators and promoting the concept of ensuring collective security in the area of the Persian Gulf. We are willing to host a meeting of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Moscow as soon as possible. Now it is necessary to wait for the results of the internal political processes in Israel. It is very unfortunate that no attention was paid to our repeated reminders over many years that the concept of normalising Israeli-Arab relations cannot be carried out at the expense of the Palestinian problem. I believe that this is a very serious problem that will only continue to get worse.

We are actively working to coordinate the rules of responsible conduct in the information space now in the UN’s multilateral format. We are promoting cooperation in countering the coronavirus. I would like to emphasise that contrary to the Western allegations, we are invariably interested in pragmatic, mutually beneficial relations with all parties, including the West, be it the United States, its NATO allies or the EU. We are promoting a package of initiatives to prevent the complete collapse of the agreements and understanding in disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation after the Americans destroyed many treaties, for instance, the INF Treaty. We suggested a voluntary moratorium on the deployment of the missiles covered by it at least in Europe. Despite our proposals on verifying the moratorium, the West continues avoiding any honest discussion. In much the same manner, NATO has been literally talking our ear off for over two years in response to our very specific proposals aimed at reducing tension and military threat along the entire Russia-NATO contact line.

We are willing to work with any partner but there will be no one-sided game. Neither sanctions nor ultimatums will help anyone talk with us and reach any agreements.

In conclusion, I will quote these words by Yevgeny Primakov: “A strong Russia should not be seen as a threat to world stability. Only the inertia of thinking may suggest the conclusion about a threat emanating from Russia…”

Russia will never give up its fundamental values and will be true to its spiritual sources and its stabilising role in world politics. Therefore, we will continue doing everything for the firm, non-confrontational promotion of our national interests and developing cooperation with as many countries as possible.

I would like to emphasise only one idea: do not interpret our willingness for dialogue with any partner as a weakness. President of Russia Vladimir Putin stressed recently in his response to Western ultimatums that we will determine ourselves the red lines in relations with our Western partners and will primarily uphold our views on the world arrangement, on how to develop international relations in full conformity with the principles fixed in the UN Charter rather than some agreements between a narrow circle of parties.







Question:

A question from Wolfgang Schussel, head of the Dialog-Europe-Russia forum and Federal Chancellor of the Republic of Austria in 2000-2007. The leaders’ summit for Russia and the United States is invariably a major international event that introduces new vectors into the work of the diplomats, the military and business on specific issues. The meetings are not always successful like, for example, the most recent summit in Helsinki with the 45th US President Donald Trump. We hope this time everything will be different. President Biden is interested in arms control and resuming the Iranian nuclear deal.

What are your expectations for a possible new agenda after the meeting of the two leaders in any area, in particular, cyberspace, autonomous weapons, or the regional conflicts in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and North Korea?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am happy to greet my good friend Wolfgang Schussel. I thank him for the question.

We have repeatedly made our position known in connection with the upcoming summit in Geneva on June 16. We do not set our expectations high, nor do we entertain any illusions about potential “breakthroughs.” But there is an objective need for an exchange of views at the highest level on what threats Russia and the United States, as the two largest nuclear powers, see in the international arena. The fact that a conversation is happening between the leaders of the two leading nuclear powers is, of course, important. We strongly support this approach by our US colleagues.

Clearly, normalisation of Russian-US relations, I’ll stress this again, can only be possible if the principles of equality, mutual respect and non-interference in each other's internal affairs are observed. This is a prerequisite not only for maintaining a normal, predictable and steady dialogue (which the Americans claim they want), but it is also important for removing the accumulated issues of confrontation between our countries. We are ready for a candid conversation like this.

I hope that in preparation for the summit, those who are now dealing with Russia in the Biden administration (they used to say “Sovietology,” which would now be called “Russology, I would guess,” though it would be nice if it was “Russophilia”), will finally appreciate the actions, interests and position of the Russian Federation, and our red lines, and will be willing to correct the mistakes in recent years and will not conduct a dialogue solely from a position that claims hegemony in global affairs.

Clearly, any dialogue is better than no dialogue. But if a hegemonic mindset continues to determine the US’s position, if our colleagues from the United States continue to follow in the footsteps of their own propaganda, which deafens the US elite as well, then there’s not much we can expect from this summit. In any case, I think it is important to have a candid exchange of views at the highest level, even if there are differences that many believe are insurmountable.

We share an interest in strategic stability. We have fairly strong contacts on how to approach this area of ​​international politics at this point. Frankly, we advocate a comprehensive approach and taking into account all, without exception, factors influencing strategic stability in our dialogue with the United States. I mean nuclear and non-nuclear, and offensive and defensive weapons. Anything that affects strategic stability must be discussed during a dialogue.

The Americans have a much narrower approach. They are only interested in certain aspects of our nuclear triad and are not inclined, at least at this point, to agree on a comprehensive concept that would include everything without exception.

I hope that, based on the preliminary work and consultations in preparation for this summit, President Vladimir Putin and President Joseph Biden will be able to determine a strategic policy for future work in these areas.

Mr Schussel mentioned cyber security as well. We have no shortage of goodwill here. Ever since 2016, when the Obama administration began accusing us of “meddling” in their elections, we have suggested dozens of times sitting down and laying out specific facts and concerns that both sides have in a professional and trust-based manner. What we received was a strong refusal to do so. Now, I hope, we will discuss this matter and see to what extent the Biden administration is ready to do sincere work in this area.

You mentioned Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and North Korea. We maintain communication on all these matters, especially Afghanistan, North Korea and certain aspects of the Syria crisis and the situation in Libya. Together with the Americans, we are participating in internationally recognised multilateral forums. I’m referring to the talks on the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula and what we call the expanded Troika on Afghanistan (Russia, the United States, China and Pakistan).

There is a bilateral mechanism for Syria, primarily dealing with deconfliction. We always emphasise the US’s illegal presence on Syrian soil, especially since it includes plundering Syria’s natural resources and taking advantage of its oil fields and farm land. They use the proceeds to support (everyone is aware of this) separatism on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River thus flirting with a very dangerous problem - I mean the Kurdish problem. These games could come to a sticky end.

Since the US armed forces and combat aircraft are present in Syria, we have a deconflicting mechanism maintained by our respective defence ministries. In addition, sometimes we also have political consultations on how to move forward. We would welcome the United States resuming its participation as an observer in the Astana format and, in general, being more committed to the key principles of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 on the Syrian settlement.

The summit has no agreed upon agenda on paper. Sometimes our colleagues from the European Union (at a time when we still had relations and interaction bodies) focused on the word-for-word, scrupulous coordination of each item, which should then become the agenda of the negotiations. We didn't have this with the Americans. We just listed the topics that the parties intended to touch on. We are doing the same this time. The work continues. It won't be a long wait. I think things will become clear soon. We are interested in positive results from the summit, but, as they say, it takes two to tango. And if one party is break dancing, tangoing becomes a more difficult proposition.



Question:

The Trump administration threw out the mechanism of the INF Treaty. Russia responded with an unprecedented act of goodwill. The Russian leaders sent a proposal to the United States and NATO to introduce a moratorium on the deployment of medium and shorter-range missiles in Europe. The Trump administration did not respond. There was only a weak reaction from European capitals. Is it possible to continue the dialogue on this problem? Is the proposed moratorium possible at all?



Sergey Lavrov:

The INF Treaty is history. It doesn’t exist anymore. We have expressed regret over this.

You mentioned a very important fact. Immediately after this happened, apart from expressing regret over the treaty’s demise, President of Russia Vladimir Putin announced a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of ground-based medium and short-range missiles in Russia. It banned the deployment of the missiles prohibited by the defunct treaty unless similar US systems appeared in a given area. This was a unilateral moratorium.

Later, a few years ago, when this moratorium failed to generate much interest, President Putin took one more step. He sent a detailed message to the US and the other NATO and EU members and our Eastern neighbours (about 50 states in all). In this message, the Russian leader described in detail our moratorium proposal and supplemented it with an invitation to cooperate. He suggested that the Western countries also announce a reciprocal moratorium on their own without signing any legally binding agreements, simply as a goodwill gesture. In this detailed message, we discussed the West’s skeptical statements about Russia’s unilateral moratorium on the deployment of ground-based systems that were banned by the former treaty. The West’s politicians reasoned: “Russia is as cunning as a fox. It has already deployed Iskanders in the Kaliningrad Region that violate the parameters of the former treaty” while the NATO countries have no counterpart, thus this would be an inequitable exchange. However, to begin with, nobody has proved that Iskanders violate INF-established criteria and bans on the range of missiles. The Americans refused to provide any rationale on this.

I would also like to note at this point that they are still stubbornly refusing to present satellite photos from July 2014 when the Malaysian airliner crashed. The court in the Netherlands openly announced recently that there is no hope that the Americans will provide them. So, this question is closed for the court. In other words, evidence of paramount importance is being concealed.

Likewise, nobody has ever shown us the satellite photos that were used by the Americans to prove that our Iskanders violate the INF Treaty.

Considering that the Western countries believe Russia has already done this ahead of them and thus we suggested freezing this situation whereby Russia would benefit from this, President Vladimir Putin said it straight in his Address to the Federal Assembly: considering the mutual mistrust, we suggest measures to verify a reciprocal moratorium. We invite you to come to the Kaliningrad Region and see these Iskanders. In exchange, we want our experts to visit missile defence bases in Romania and Poland because Lockheed Martin, the producer of missile launchers openly promotes them on its website as dual purpose: for launching both counter-missiles and anti-strike cruise missiles. I think this is a very honest proposal. Let’s check: you are concerned about our Iskanders, and we are worried about the dual purpose of those missile defence launchers.

The only positive response came from President of France Emmanuel Macron. He said this was an interesting proposal and that he was ready to take part in implementing it via a multilateral dialogue. But this didn’t happen. The Americans ignored the proposal for obvious reasons since they do not want to let anyone visit their missile defence sites (this is a separate question), while all the others obediently kept silent.

Our proposal remains on the table. I think we will certainly bring this up at the Geneva summit on June 16. Let’s see the response.



Question:

Often, especially recently, you have said that the European Union is an unreliable partner. Unfortunately, this is the case, especially against the backdrop of insane and unbecoming for the 21st century Russophobic propaganda and scandals that are made up without providing any evidence.

You have extensive political experience. Do you think the low level of leadership in the EU may be at least partially mitigated during this year’s elections in Germany and other countries? Will the overall crisis be able to give rise to modern European leaders who will “emancipate” themselves, at least a little, from the United States and fulfil their mission which is to serve their respective peoples? This calls for a radical change in the EU's policy towards Russia. Unfair and ineffective sanctions must be forgotten and we must return to dialogue and mutual trust in order to overcome common problems which cannot be resolved without a full dialogue and cooperation, including with Russia.

We look forward to seeing you in Bulgaria for the unveiling of the bust of our teacher Yevgeny Primakov.



Sergey Lavrov:

God willing, I will definitely be there. We maintain a dialogue with Bulgaria via our respective foreign ministries. However, recently, certain factors have appeared, not from our side, that are not conducive to an expansion of constructive interaction. I hope this is temporary.

As for your question about the European Union and our relations with the EU, I have covered this issue many times. We want relations with the European Union that are equal and mutually respectful. We cannot have relations with the EU based on demands for Russia to change its behaviour. The foreign ministers of Germany and other European countries have said many times that we need to be partners (they no longer say friends) with Russia, but it must change its behaviour first. This is a mindset that cannot be changed.

I was talking about the rules-based order which they came up with. In fact, it is the Western vision of how to maintain relations between countries in the 21st century and, moreover, how to organise life within a country. These “messianic” processes on the advancement of democracy are quite aggressive. But as soon as you start talking with the West about democracy in the international arena and ways to promote it not only within the borders of a country (this is each individual state’s concern), but in international affairs so everyone is treated equally and heeds the voice of the majority, but also respects the minority, they immediately back pedal. They do not want to discuss the democratisation of international relations. The very concept of a “rules-based international order” negates any hope that the West will get drawn into a discussion on democratising global processes in international relations.

Literally in May, promoting one of the main elements of the concept of a rules-based world order, namely effective multilateralism, French President Macron bluntly stated that multilateralism does not imply the need to achieve unanimity. “The position of conservatives should not be an obstacle for ambitious frontrunners,” he said. I think this is clear. “Conservatives” are revisionists (you can call them that, although these words are antonyms). We and China are called “conservatives who do not want change” and “revisionists who want to slow things down that move the Western world forward.” At the same time, President Macron did not mention either the UN or international law.

There are “ambitious front-runners” who promote this concept, and there are those who want to “conservatively” hold on to UN Charter principles. That's the problem. This was expressed by the president of the country, which was among those who, at some point, called for the EU’s strategic autonomy. But these discussions have been muted even in Germany.

At one EU event, President of the European Council Charles Michel praised the return of the United States to Euro-Atlantic solidarity. EU leadership was clearly relieved to know that everything is “good” again, the United States is “at the helm” again and they can follow in its wake.

I’m not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings. I hope no one takes offense, but it’s a fact. These are publicly stated assessments that have been repeatedly uttered by EU leadership.

The Munich Security Conference was held in May where Charles Michel said that the alliance between the United States and Europe is the basis for a rules-based international order. International law was not mentioned. He stressed that it is necessary to aggressively promote democracy to protect this order from “attacks” by Russia, China, Iran and other “authoritarian regimes.” That is, it follows that democracy for these purposes needs to be promoted within these respective countries and not in the international arena. This is more than self-revelatory. Without reservation, a concept is being put forward that is openly seeking dominance, at least claiming it.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said, for example, that with respect to digital transformation, it is necessary for the United States and Europe to develop a “rulebook” that the world can follow.

More recently, our US colleagues said that new trade rules must be determined by the West, not China. What does this mean? A reform of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is being discussed, because the Americans have understood one simple thing: that based on the currently approved rules of international trade and economy, which the United States initiated after WWII (the Bretton Woods system, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation), that determined the course of globalisation, China has achieved much greater success in playing the Americans on their field. So, WTO activities are now blocked. The United States does not allow the appointment of officers for vacancies in the Dispute Settlement Body. All claims brought to this body that the Americans would have surely lost, cannot be considered.

We are talking about creating a new system and reforming the WTO. It is being clearly said that “the new rules of international trade must be determined by the United States and Europe, not China.” That is what this is about. This underlies the concept of a rules-based order.

You asked about the potential outcome of the upcoming elections in European countries, in particular, Germany. This is a question that only the German people and the peoples of the other EU countries can answer.

I have already covered the prospects for the “emancipation” of the EU from the United States.



Question:

The United States often introduces sanctions against foreign companies or countries by suspending them from SWIFT, a major financial tool, which they use by virtue of their position of hegemony in the world. As a matter of fact, many countries, including China and even some European countries are suffering from SWIFT, which is controlled by the United States. Recently, the Russian government said the dollar might be removed from the country’s currency reserve. The Chinese government has started issuing digital currency. In theory, digital currency could lead to the creation of a new international financial system, which would significantly alleviate the threat of being suspended from SWIFT. What do you propose that Russia and China do to create a new international financial transaction system and reduce their financial dependence on the US?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a detailed answer to this question when speaking at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum last week. We are not looking to pull out of the existing system, which largely relies on the dollar. The problems stem from the United States being unaware of its responsibility as the country issuing the main reserve currency in the world, or else the US is aware but blatantly abuses its role. There are quite a few stories of how everyone argued that the dollar could be used for political purposes, which makes it unreliable. As we continue to make the point that everyone must honour the universal multilateral approach and not politicise the mechanisms that have been agreed on once and for all but rather use them to achieve objectives that underlie these mechanisms, we, of course, are considering how to respond if our colleagues show yet again their willingness to dictate and punish and use international trade and transaction leverage for this purpose

I want to note that not a single official in the West ever in my memory demanded that Russia, China or any other country be disconnected from SWIFT. That is what some politicians are calling for, but this has never been borne out either in statements by officials from leading Western countries or in SWIFT administration statements.

We really want, and this was officially announced, to remove the dollar from our economy and our financial system. The other day a decision was taken to cease holding the country’s gold and forex reserves in dollars. Appropriate measures have already been taken. But I want to emphasise again that this does not mean that we are discarding the dollar altogether, however, for the reasons mentioned earlier we are interested in relying more on other currencies, including national currencies, in bilateral trade with our partners, including our Chinese partners, other SCO members and many other countries. We are also ready to support transactions that are not denominated in dollars and but that are based on the use of other currencies.

In this context, crypto-currency is a very popular topic today. China is vigorously developing it and has achieved remarkable results. We are also working on this in a substantive manner. I believe there will be a time when crypto currencies will play a significant role and occupy a considerable niche in international settlements, but it might be better to discuss the details of this with economists. The Russian Foreign Ministry watches political developments. We are concerned about how to make sure our country’s economic ties do not pose threats to our security.



Question:

Currently, a fairly intensive three-way process is underway to restore transport connections in the region. This process involves Armenia, Russia and Azerbaijan, but not Turkey, which was a full participant in the last war in Karabakh and which is actually a party to the conflict. Meanwhile, you know that the Armenian-Turkish border has been blocked for 30 years after Armenia gained independence. This, by the way, is the only blockade on the territory of geographical Europe and transport lines are there, in particular, a railway which was built in Czarist Russia. It uses electricity from high-voltage power lines that have existed since Soviet times. Don’t you think that Turkey should be involved in this process of unblocking transport connections in the region and bear its share of the responsibility for this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would like to add that Iran does not take part in the work of this trilateral group either, and Iran is no less and, perhaps, more interested in having its interests taken into account. You asked whether we should involve Turkey in this work and make it bear responsibility. The work of the trilateral group on restoring economic ties and transport links is not about punishment; it is about resuming normal economic life, which existed until the late 1980s when the war broke out, which stopped only four years later.

Now the bloodshed is over. It ended a little later than we proposed to the parties. It is not our fault that the war lasted longer than it could have and the truce was reached later than it could have been reached. We were only intermediaries; we could not force either side to do this or that. We only convinced them that further bloodshed was pointless and extremely dangerous, first of all, for how people will continue to live on this land.

Currently, our peacekeepers are carrying out their mandate. There have been no major incidents. Both Baku and Yerevan recognise this. Any minor problems are quickly corrected. Yes, there are tensions at some sections of the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan but they have nothing to do with Nagorno-Karabakh. Simultaneously with the ceasefire, the leaders of our countries agreed on November 9, 2020 to unblock all communications. This was one of the main items that was agreed upon years ago by the OSCE Minsk Group chaired by Russia, France and the United States.

Following this agreement of principle, the leaders of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan met in January. They established a trilateral working group at the prime minister level to deal exclusively with unblocking of all economic, transport and other connections in the region. The examples you gave – railways, roads and electricity lines are all subject to negotiation where professionals will prioritise opening them.

Naturally, the parties are considering the interests of their other neighbours. It would probably be unrealistic to hope that having reached agreement the three sides could neglect the views of Turkey or Iran. This would be a mistake. Many strategic routes pass through this critical area: both north-south and east-west. The most important goal is to develop relations for the long-term perspective rather than think of involving or not involving someone else.

I understand that many people say that the status of Nagorno-Karabakh remains open. This will eventually be coordinated with the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. At this point, they should not worry too much about its status. Instead, they need to promote confidence measures and the settling of humanitarian issues, and help both Armenians and Azerbaijanis live together in peace, security and economic wellbeing. I can assure you that if we help establish this lifestyle in two or three years, it will be much easier to resolve all the problems of the status of this area.

I would not focus on these or other statements from the capitals of the countries in the region or the immediate parties to the conflict. Emotions tend to prevail in these statements for the most part. We urge everyone involved in this to continue to help those on the ground to remain calm and return to normal life. We are actively involved in doing this via our peacekeeping contingent and the Emergencies Ministry. The results of the efforts by the trilateral group will depend on how much the unblocking efforts help improve everyday life.

Regarding Turkey and its role in this, as I said, the participants of these trilateral discussions do consider the interests of Turkey and Iran because otherwise the opening of links will not produce the best results.

The Russia-Turkey centre is monitoring compliance with the ceasefire from Azerbaijan. With technical equipment, it ensures joint observation of the developments on the ground. This is a very useful part of this general agreement. It ensures the involvement of our Turkish colleagues in this process and is a stabilising factor.



Question:

The Russia-India partnership continues to flourish even though the world is going through hard times. Our cooperation on the Sputnik V vaccine confirms this. India and all Indians are grateful for the assistance offered by our Russian friends during the receding second wave of the pandemic.

What short- and long-term lessons can the international community learn about the origin and spread of COVID-19? Some people are worried that even 18 months later, we do not know about the origin of the virus that first appeared in Wuhan. This will not help us in preventing future pandemics.

How can we balance our national responsibility and international cooperation to follow the international health regulations and help the WHO to identify and prevent future outbreaks?



Sergey Lavrov:

In general, the coronavirus pandemic has certainly created an unprecedented challenge. It has become a kind of test for “true friendship.” As we know, a friend in need is a friend indeed. However, several states decided not to share their vaccines. Probably, this approach is not justified by human morality or ethics, especially under conditions of interdependence and globalisation. We share these moral principles, as do our dear Indian friends.

Thank you for your kind words about the assistance we have been providing to Indians in these difficult times. During the past month, we managed to organise several large consignments of humanitarian medical aid, including the Sputnik V vaccine and other medications. We are currently developing the production of this vaccine in India. We hope that by taking these and other steps, by pooling our efforts, we will manage to deal with this grievous disease and protect the health of our people as soon as possible.

As for revealing the source of the virus, as you know, the WHO has made serious efforts in this respect. It sent experts to China. They came from 10 countries, including Russia. They also represented related international agencies. The results of their inquiry were published immediately after their visit. They were also presented at the 74th World Health Assembly that ended last week.

You are right. There are no decisive conclusions on the initial origins of COVID-19 so far, but this is not unique. Neither WHO specialists nor we know yet the origins of the Ebola virus that appeared in the 1970s. The specialists continue working on this. As you know, I am not well versed in this discipline, but I am convinced that the specialists must continue this work without politicising it. Any attempt to politicise the situation around COVID-19 is similar to efforts we are seeing in other areas. They reflect a striving of some countries to use methods of unfair competition. We need to develop comprehensive and transparent international cooperation on further studies of the origin of the virus, and, most importantly, on overcoming the pandemic. Talk about who is to blame and who is innocent must not obstruct any response effort.

When emergencies in health protection occur, the main goal is to have strong national healthcare and sanitary-epidemiological systems. The COVID-19 pandemic has confirmed this conclusion. I think the countries with well-organised healthcare systems and a high ability to mobilise medical and other resources have made a more effective response to the challenge of the coronavirus infection.

As for international cooperation, we have been developing this for some time, practically from the start of the pandemic through both bilateral channels and via international agencies. We promote the realisation of the International Health Regulations. They were drafted at our initiative and approved by the WHO but have not yet been incorporated into practical systems in many countries. These regulations are the main instrument of international law in developing national systems for preventing and dealing with epidemics like this. So, the way out of the current crisis probably lies in coordination, transparency, as well as an ability and willingness to share experience and pool efforts.



Question:

Would it be possible and desirable for the United States and Russia to undertake, as part of studying cyberspace challenges, to work on countering cyber attacks by criminal groups that use ransomware against a particular country emanating from Russia or the United States? What could the parameters of such cooperation be? Or is the level of mistrust so great that this kind of cooperation is simply not possible now?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have been hearing accusations against us of all kinds of transgressions for many years now. With regard to the cyber world, I mentioned the 2016 elections. In later occurrences, a number of incidents in the United States or other countries were immediately and publicly ascribed to the Russian Federation. Not a single fact has ever been presented to us. Now, the latest incident (President Vladimir Putin commented on this at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum) is the notorious attack against Colonial Pipeline and meat processor GBS. Even you in your question wonder whether it is possible to establish cooperation between Russia and the United States on investigating such incidents and on fighting criminal groups, in particular those that demand ransom. Even from this question, it becomes clear that you are motivated by a surge in public opinion about two specific incidents. Notably, I would like to stress, that the US administration does not promote the thesis that the Russian state is responsible for these incidents.

Antony Blinken recently said that these are probably private hackers, but Russia must stop them, because they originate from its territory. As a reminder in this regard (double standards), when the problems in the United States were at their height, American social media and internet platforms were blocking access to information on a particular issue. This topic was discussed, among other things, at the OSCE and the Council of Europe. We emphasised the responsibility of the United States, just like any other country, to ensure that its citizens have 100 percent access to any kind of information. Then the American side told us: “Right, but these are the obligations of the state, and we are talking about the actions of private corporations. We cannot be responsible for their actions.” In this case, the Americans are urging Russia to find these “private operators” and still fulfil the function of the state to suppress illegal actions. Let's make sure we all follow the rules, and that the rules are universally applicable. Any state that has signed on to the obligation to ensure freedom of access to information is obliged to do so regardless of who is hiding the information - a state entity or a private corporation. Moreover, the bulk of all information is now in the hands of private corporations.

Now, I would like to say a few words about cybersecurity. We not only want, but we have repeatedly proposed to the United States, even, perhaps, somewhat obtrusively, to deal with this issue. When, as part of the above accusations we heard in 2016 (the Obama administration began alleging these things back in October, before the election day) we were presented with claims, we reminded our American colleagues that there’s a closed channel between Moscow and Washington in case of incidents, including in cyberspace. After accusations against the Russian Federation of interfering in the US elections were loudly read out, we suggested that the Americans provide us, through this closed channel, with the facts corroborating their concerns. We sent this proposal, I think, seven times from October 2016 to January 2017, right up to the Trump inauguration. None of these proposals were answered by the Obama administration’s relevant services. Instead, an annoyed Barack Obama, at the end of his tenure, raided and seized our diplomatic property in the US and drove the diplomats out. This impulsive step was a response to our professional offers to do honest and specific work.

This is not the only example. The cybersecurity dialogue with Washington was frozen through no fault of ours. Subsequently, we proposed returning to it. In July 2017, we handed over a draft memorandum on establishing a Russian-American ICT security group. The response appeared to be positive, and we agreed to hold the first meeting in Geneva in early 2018. The US delegation went there, and the Russian delegation was on its way there, too, but when our specialists landed at the Geneva airport, they were told that the Americans canceled the meeting without providing any meaningful reason.

In September 2020, President Vladimir Putin, at his level, issued a statement on how we would want to see cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation in developing a comprehensive programme of measures to restore cooperation in this sphere. It included specific proposals. After President Biden’s inauguration, we reaffirmed this proposal. It is being reviewed by the US administration. I hope that we will find out in Geneva the reaction of President Biden and his team. The UN is working on international cybersecurity in the context of military-political problems, and at the same time a decision was made to start developing a convention on combating cybercrime. This is exactly what happened to Colonial Pipeline and the GBS meat processing company. In both cases, a consensus was reached, although before that our Western colleagues had objections. But consensus was reached on both issues. I have reason to hope that this will help advance the bilateral dialogue as well. But most importantly, the dialogue must be conducted professionally, rather than loudly and without facts.



Question:

Angela Merkel has been Germany’s chancellor for 16 years. What is your opinion of Russian-German relations over this period? How will they change?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is another issue President Vladimir Putin spoke about during the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). He expressed his opinion of the professionalism and experience of Chancellor Merkel and his satisfaction with their cooperation. Of course, we are monitoring the developments in Germany in the context of the upcoming elections. We hope that their outcome will ensure what I wanted to describe as continuity in our relations, but it would be better if it were not just continuity in the form of a regular dialogue, but continuity that would also take into account the lessons of the past 16 years.

When President Putin assumed his position in the Kremlin after the 2000 election, one of his first foreign visits was to Germany. He addressed the Bundestag in German. Many of us, including yours truly, perceived the emotional and positive energy of his address as the addition of a personal dimension to the previous historical reconciliation of the Russian and German nations. This was obvious. He invested a huge part of his authority and his policy into Russian-German relations, into reconciliation that should take the form of practical deeds in great many spheres. We are not to blame that our relations have cooled. Incidentally, alarming signs appeared even before 2013 or 2014. For example, in 2010, then President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev had a summit meeting with Chancellor Merkel in Meseberg. One of the decisions reached concerned the establishment of a Russian-German crisis management committee. It was not designed as a simple discussion venue, but as a body that would coordinate joint crisis settlement mechanisms. On the practical level they mentioned Transnistria. The document was coordinated, but Germany later abandoned all efforts to implement it.

Of course, we are aware that the main reason for a far from sunny state of our bilateral relations is support provided by Berlin, the EU in general and the West as a whole to the armed, bloody and anti-constitutional coup that took place in Ukraine in February 2014, barely 12 hours after Germany, France and Poland, acting through their foreign ministers, said they would guarantee compliance with the agreement on a settlement between President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. The agreement was buried by the opposition signatories the very next day. Germany, France, Poland and the EU, which these countries represented, did nothing to challenge the opposition in response to our calls; worse than that, they even encouraged the new turn of events. Those who came to power put forth their anti-Russia position in their very first statements; they called for throwing Russians out of Crimea and sent trains with armed thugs there.

Germany and other European countries closed their eyes to these developments (the United States did the same), saying that reality on the ground had changed. In addition to this extremely negative policy, they accused us of violating the rules they themselves invented, and denounced the free expression of the people’s will in Crimea as annexation. Sanctions were adopted against Russia for the failure of European diplomacy to force the opposition to honour the agreements reached with President Yanukovych through the mediation of Germany, France and Poland.

This is when it all began. But we did not get confrontational; we did not cancel the planned Russia-EU summit. Despite all of this, in 2014 President Putin attended the celebrations of the allied landing in Normandy and the opening of the Second Front. It was there that the sides coordinated the Normandy Format, which led to the signing of the Minsk Agreements in February 2015. We thought once again that the document would be honoured. But just as in the case of the February 2014 agreement, the Minsk Agreements are not being implemented, and it is deeply regrettable that Germany and France, as parties of the Normandy format, are trying to justify Kiev’s absolutely destructive position. Vladimir Zelensky said more than once that he doesn’t want to implement the Minsk Agreements, but that he wants to keep them because as long as they exist there will be sanctions against Russia. Our German, French and other colleagues have never tried to overturn this logic or as much as comment on such statements. We do want to have normal relations with Germany and work together with it to settle the crises that exist in our common space, in our neighbourhood. But we would like to see that Germany is able to honour agreements.

We appreciate Berlin’s stand in the face of US attacks on Nord Stream 2, which began during Donald Trump’s presidency. President Putin mentioned this as well. But he also pointed out that Germany has done this for a reason, because this is in the fundamental interests of Germany. Incidentally, the story with Nord Stream 2 is not over yet. I have read comments by Antony Blinken to the effect that they are discussing ways for Ukraine to preserve fees for the transit of gas to the EU. We have a transit agreement with Ukraine until 2024. What will happen after that should be discussed, but the US administration is already discussing what should be done to protect Ukraine from harm. According to Blinken, one of the possible ways is to extend the transit agreement “for many years into the future,” so that Ukraine will continue to benefit from the transit fees. If this doesn’t work out, another option is to compensate for the transit fees that Kiev may lose, which is something the Europeans should do.

In other words, the Europeans’ attitude to the issues on which we are cooperating will be put to the test many times yet. I hope very much that the German people will be guided by their interests, just as they always have been throughout their history. We are interested in strengthening our partnership as much as possible. Many people say that the Russian-German partnership and rapprochement threaten the trans-Atlantic alliance. But this is an issue for the future periods of geopolitical research.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4779515
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old June 15th, 2021 #306
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, June 10, 2021



10 June 2021 - 19:45






Thirty-sixth meeting of the Council of Regional Governors of Russia at the Foreign Ministry

On June 15, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair the 36th meeting of the Council of Regional Governors of Russia at the Foreign Ministry. The governors that are council members, top managers from the Presidential Executive Office and federal executive government bodies will take part in the meeting.

The main item on the agenda is the Russian regions’ participation in international regional cooperation formats.

In periods of political turbulence, such formats can play a constructive, stabilising role and can facilitate integration, especially in the EAEU, the SCO and the Greater Eurasian Partnership.

The participants plan to discuss measures that will allow the regions to enhance their contribution to the activities of multilateral dialogue venues and to draft recommendations to this end.



Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei

On June 17-18, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Belarus Vladimir Makei will pay a working visit to Moscow at the invitation of his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov.

During the visit, the ministers plan to review a broad range of current bilateral and international issues.

They will focus on cooperation in the Union State’s integration formats, the EAEU, the CSTO and the CIS. They will discuss in detail ways of coordinating their positions at international venues, including the UN and the OSCE under the programme of coordinated foreign policy actions of the participants in the Union State Treaty in 2020-2021.

The ministers plan to exchange views on international and European security issues, on relations with the United States and the European Union, including joint steps to counter foreign interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.

The ministers will review the development of bilateral cooperation between their foreign ministries, including preparations for a joint session of their collegiums scheduled to take place in Moscow in the fourth quarter of this year.



Russia’s position on the EU Aviation Safety Agency’s directive for European airlines concerning Belarus

We must state with regret that the situation with the forced diversion and landing of the Ryanair flight at the Minsk airport has become, for the European Union, just another pretext for ratcheting up sanctions pressure on Belarus.

Our negative attitude towards the practice of imposing unilateral restrictions by the EU is well known and remains unchanged.

The haste with which Brussels chose to not wait for the results of an objective international investigation raises many justifiable questions. The decision to launch such an investigation was made by the ICAO Council on May 27. The official clarifications provided by President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko on May 26 have also been ignored.

We are convinced of the need to conduct an in-depth study into the circumstances of the incident in cooperation with the Belarusian authorities, which have confirmed a willingness to provide materials and to ensure a thorough and transparent investigation. We look forward to an objective and professional review of this matter by ICAO.

Belarus is an important transit country for international air traffic. As is known, numerous air routes, including from EU countries, fly through its airspace. From now on, EU member state airlines, which are still reeling from the aftermath of the coronavirus crisis, will have to incur the additional expenses of longer flight routing to bypass Belarus.

It would be perfectly fair to point to the evident environmental aspect of this issue, given that our Western partners prioritise the environmental agenda at their summits. It is strange that they completely lose sight of this most important aspect when implementing political decisions in practice. Let’s take a look at the realities against the backdrop of the European Green Deal which was announced by Brussels and is promoted by it. According to EU experts (not ours, but the EU’s experts), flying around Belarus will cost EU airlines an additional 79 tonnes of aviation fuel daily, which increases carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere by 250 tonnes per day. Here’s a good question: what does Greta Thunberg think about this? Was she asked for her opinion? Brussels has quoted her in the past.

Clearly, a hasty and politically motivated rerouting of flights is not good for flight safety; it burdens air traffic controllers and inconveniences passengers.

Our EU partners obviously make decisions based on the premise that “the end justifies the means,” since a great number of principles that are so dear to Brussels can so easily be discarded, if necessary. This also applies to the side effects of the sanctions imposed on Minsk. As EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell said at the European Parliament on June 8 when discussing Belarus, “you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.” Here’s what I would say to Mr Borrell: if you want an omelette, break your own eggs.

We regard the logic of building international relations adopted by Brussels as straight out unacceptable. I have just given examples of our approach to this matter.



Update on the detention of the third captain’s mate of the Russian ship Amur in Japan

I would like to note, much to our regret, that many citizens of Russia and other countries get into emergencies abroad for different reasons. The duty of the diplomatic service of Russia (as a rule, this is also the practice of foreign countries) is to help uphold their rights, respond to their requests, and so on. There are cases that never interest journalists. I cannot say that I understand this logic because I think all citizens deserve equal treatment. Some cases are high profile because they involve outrageous neglect or violations of their rights. There are cases when the media are interested, making an exception. We believe that all Russian citizens who find themselves in a situation requiring diplomatic aid can and should count on equal treatment. Naturally enough, our consular and diplomatic offices grant such aid. I would like to comment on a few high-profile cases.

On May 26 of this year, the Russian ship Amur (from the Nevelsk port of origin) collided in dense fog with the Japanese fishing vessel Hokko Maru 8 not far from the Japanese island of Hokkaido. The Russian sailors rescued five Japanese fishermen who were in the water, but unfortunately, three of them were later confirmed dead. We would like to express our condolences to their families and friends.

Now the Amur and its crew are in the port of Mombetsu. The ship has been seized as collateral for the damage.

On June 7, the coast guard of Japan informed the Russian Consulate General in Sapporo about the arrest of Pavel Dobryansky, the third mate of the ship’s captain. He was in command of the ship during the collision. He is charged with manslaughter in the performance of his duties. To our knowledge, the competent bodies of Japan intend to assess the actions of the Japanese ship’s captain as well.

Since the first day, the Russian Embassy in Japan and our Consulate General in Sapporo have closely monitored the developments to protect the lawful rights and interests of the Russian citizens. They are in close contact with the Amur crew, the ship’s owner and the local competent bodies. A consular employee visited Mombetsu. Our sailors feel all right and are provided with food and water. The Russian company that owns the ship hired a lawyer to protect the interests of the detained sailor.

We hope that the Japanese authorities will conduct an unbiased investigation into the causes of this tragedy and that the entire crew and the Amur will be returned to Russia soon.



Update on the detention of Russian national Sofia Sapega in Belarus

As we informed you at the previous briefing on May 26, the Russian Embassy in Minsk is watching closely the situation with Sofia Sapega and continues to give her support in close cooperation with her relatives and lawyer.

On June 1, the Belarusian authorities charged her formally under Article 130, Part 3 of the Belarusian Criminal Code, which reads “Inciting racial, national, religious or any other enmity or discord,” and carries a maximum jail term of 12 years.

On June 9, the Russian consul visited Ms Sapega for the second time – the first time was on May 25 – at the Belarusian KGB detention centre. Ms Sapega did not complain about the detention conditions, health problems or improper treatment.

According to her lawyer, the Foundation to Support and Protect the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad has met Sapega’s stepfather’s request for the allocation of funds to pay the lawyer’s fees.

Our country’s leaders and our ministry are keeping a close eye on the situation. It is a subject of discussion during diplomatic contacts, and it will also be included on the agenda for the forthcoming talks between the foreign ministers of the two countries, which will take place in Moscow on June 18.



The arrest of Russian national Vladislav Klyushin in Switzerland at the request of the United States

On March 21 this year, Russian national Vladislav Klyushin was detained at Sion airport in the canton of Valais, Switzerland, at the extradition request of the United States.

He is being provided the necessary consular support and legal assistance. From the beginning, consular access has been allowed. Consular officials from the Russian Embassy and the Consulate-General are maintaining contact with Vladislav Klyushin and his lawyer.

The Russian Embassy in Bern is also in touch with the Swiss authorities to make sure the Russian national can exercise his rights.



Commentary on the situation with Russian national Alexei Nikiforov accused of espionage in Denmark

On May 10 of this year, the court in Aalborg, Denmark, sentenced Russian national Alexei Nikiforov to three years in prison. Nikiforov was detained in Denmark on a charge of working for the Russian intelligence service. The court completely ignored the defence’s arguments. Clearly, this biased and politicised approach is a graphic illustration of the anti-Russia policy that has taken root in the Danish political establishment.

Our compatriot disagrees with the sentence and his defence team has filed an appealed against the court ruling.

The Russian Embassy in Denmark is maintaining close contact with Alexei Nikiforov and his lawyer and is doing everything it can to protect the Russian national’s rights and interests.

These are several items – I would not call them high-profile, but we are giving attention to each of them – that are closely watched by the Russian media and the public. Not only do we answer questions concerning these and other Russian nationals at our weekly briefings but we also answer the questions we receive throughout the week. We will work like this in the future. This refers to our diplomatic and consular missions and press service alike.



An Arria-formula informal meeting of UN Security Council members on the Maidan protests and their consequences for Donbass

On June 2, at the initiative of Russia, a virtual informal Arria-formula meeting of UN Security Council members was held on the subject, “The circumstances of the Maidan events and their consequences for Donbass.” The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the root causes of the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, which came as a result of the coup perpetrated in Kiev with strong outside support.

The speakers included former Prime Minister of Ukraine Nikolai Azarov and former Verkhovna Rada deputies Oleg Tsaryov and Vladimir Oleynik. They outlined an objective picture of what happened during the Maidan protests, of which they were first-hand witnesses. British photographer Dean O’Brien and French filmmaker Anne-Laure Bonnel also offered great remarks. They said the Western media outlets were reluctant to truthfully cover the events in Ukraine and blacked out many pressing problems in that country, including manifestations of neo-Nazism, and tough censorship on behalf of news agencies.

To reiterate, since many people are confused because they do not see the difference, I am not talking about a Security Council meeting, or Security Council consultations. This was an informal Arria-formula meeting attended by representatives from 29 countries. From among the Security Council members, Great Britain, the United States and Estonia, which chairs the Council in June, boycotted it citing the inclusion of a number of speakers on their national and EU sanction lists. Actually, it was a virtual meeting. There was no need to obtain visas or cross borders. One could have the chance to hear more from them than what they see on television or read in local US and British media publications. One could lend an ear occasionally and learn something about alternative viewpoints.

Many delegations showed an interest in what the speakers had to say about the actual state of affairs in Ukraine and its historical background. Of course, there was yet another volley of groundless accusations against us from the Western participants who expressed concern about Russia’s “abuse” of the Security Council and its direct engagement in Ukraine’s affairs. However, they preferred not to emphasise Kiev’s flagrant violations of its commitments under the UN Security Council-approved Minsk Package of Measures, which is the main reason for the failure to overcome this grave situation and to resolve the Donbass conflict. The Western participants chose not to bring this up.

Thus, despite the boycott on the part of certain countries, the meeting was a success. Russia’s initiative made it possible to convey true first-hand assessments of the events that took place in Ukraine in 2014 and their consequences. However, these assessments continue to be ignored by the Western media.



Nationalist actions against Russian diplomatic offices and staff in Ukraine

With the overt connivance of the authorities, Ukrainian nationalists continue to invent various excuses to complicate the work of Russian diplomatic and consular offices and to prevent the staff from performing their official duties.

Unfortunately, the provocations by these nationalists, these neo-Nazi radicals, are becoming more common and aggressive. In the last few weeks, they have staged a number of actions at the walls of our Embassy in Kiev. They blocked access to our diplomatic mission grounds and chanted abusive anti-Russia slogans. They have learned to stage these performances and are good at them. In the process, they use different pretexts. The main goal seems to be to stage some activity in front of our diplomatic mission to attract attention to themselves. But it is evident that they remind others not of their achievements but of their handicap, their inferiority because this is the only way to describe their actions.

Here are some examples. Judge for yourself.

On June 3 of this year, they staged an ugly act devoted to the 450th anniversary of Moscow’s burning by Crimean Khan Devlet Giray. It is impossible to understand what today’s Ukraine has to do with these long distant events. Nobody in Kiev wants to recall how this khan attacked Ukraine’s current lands. If such an act is staged in front of our Embassy, it would probably be logical to remember what happened at that time on lands that now belong to Ukraine.

Same radicals, neo-Nazis, staged an even more outrageous act in the village of Zabolotovtsy in the Lvov Region on June 6 of this year. Chanting Nazi slogans, they prevented Russian diplomats and Ukrainian citizens from laying flowers at the monument to Alexander Pushkin on his 222nd birth anniversary. These radicals used force to snatch a bouquet of flowers from the hands of Acting Consul General of Russia in Lvov Irina Kulagina. Neither respect for this major global cultural figure, nor the diplomatic status of our employee, and not even the fact that she is a woman, stopped them from this behavior.

What is particularly scandalous is that all this took place in front of Ukrainian police who blatantly neglected their professional functions. They stood literally a couple of steps away from the incident site but did not lift a finger to stop the radicals. This absolutely indifferent conduct by law enforcement shows that the provocations by these nationalists were coordinated with the local authorities.

In this connection, on June 10, the Russian Foreign Ministry summoned Ukrainian Charge d’Affairs in Moscow Vadim Pokotilo and expressed to him its resolute protest over yet another violation by Kiev of its commitments under the 1961 and 1963 Vienna conventions. Once again, the Foreign Ministry demanded that Ukraine do everything necessary to prevent such provocations and to ensure normal working conditions for the Russian Embassy and Consulate General in Ukraine, and the safety of their staff. The Ukrainian diplomat was told that the Russian Embassy in Kiev sent notes of protest to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry with a demand for a detailed investigation of these provocations and liability for the participants and organisers. Contrary to the norms of diplomatic practice, our demarches have not yet received a response.

We urge the Ukrainian authorities to stop conniving with militant nationalists, to prevent these demonstrations and comply with universally accepted international norms, primarily their commitments under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations.

We understand, of course, that the Kiev regime is young. However, it is time for it to become civilised. Although there are some experienced politicians there, they behave almost the same way.



Leonid Kravchuk’s comments on Donbass

We noted Leonid Kravchuk’s recent remarks on Donbass as a “cancerous tumor,” with a reference to Ukrainian classic literature author Oles Gonchar, who, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the country’s gaining independence, promptly morphed into an ardent nationalist and Russophobe. But for all his dislike and even hatred for Donbass, as the diaries published after his death show, he did not express his negative attitude towards the people of Donbass in such words. At least, we have not found them.

So we leave the authorship of this “highly artistic comparison” on the conscience of the head of the Ukrainian delegation in the Contact Group for the settlement of the situation in Donbass and his first deputy Alexei Reznikov, who actually used a different epithet earlier – “malignant tumor.” But they, however, are not really very creative in this. They have had many predecessors in responsible positions, for whom Donbass residents are nothing more than “subhuman,” “biomass,” “quilted jackets,” etc.

When I was preparing the commentary on this, I tried to understand the logic. Apart from emotions, there must always be simple logic behind such vivid expressions and emphatic comparisons. What exactly did Leonid Kravchuk mean to say with this epithet? I am left wondering. Typically, a cancerous tumor is either excised from a healthy body or irradiated in some way. Do we understand correctly that this Ukrainian Contact Group representative, Leonid Kravchuk, proposes to “cut Donbass out” from the territory of Ukraine or start “irradiating” it in some way? At least, I cannot imagine anything else that might be implied in this phrase. There is, of course, a third option, that he merely put his foot in the mouth off-handedly. Given that this is not the first time statements like this have been made by Ukrainian officials, I would like to understand what exactly they mean. Which proposals do they mean to promote in this way?

I would like to stress once again that we are talking about a representative of the Ukrainian delegation in the Contact Group. In the course of negotiations within this framework, they sabotage in every possible way the implementation of the Minsk agreements which might open the way for reunification with Donbass. With such statements, they are actually doing everything they can to not bring back, as the Ukrainian president calls for, but on the contrary – to alienate the residents of Donbass, or, following the logic of this phrase, simply “cut Donbass out.”

I do not want to believe that all of Kiev’s “blather” is completely meaningless. I would like to find at least some thoughts embedded in these phrases.

In his statement, Leonid Kravchuk essentially admitted that an attempt to break the will of the people in Donbass through military force was a mistake (and, in their opinion, a crime). He says, “it would have been possible to build a different policy towards the region.” So, this isn’t about Russian “aggression,” but about the civil war unleashed by the Maidan authorities against their own people who opposed the imposition of an alien identity on them with the glorification of Nazi collaborators and the elimination of everything that Donbass lives for and aspires to.

It is only too bad that the lessons of the past remain unlearned. Leonid Kravchuk, as before, proposes to “reintegrate” the region not by implementing the Minsk Package of Measures in its entirety and the sequence prescribed there, but through formulas that have nothing in common with them. And this, as the seven-year experience of futile attempts to bring peace and calm back to Donbass shows, is the road to nowhere.



The Day of the Russian Language

Traditionally, on June 6, the birth anniversary of remarkable Russian poet Alexander Pushkin, the world marks the Day of the Russian Language. The UN observes this day under a programme to develop multilingualism and cultural diversity to maintain the equality of the UN’s six official languages, one of which is Russian.

On this day, by tradition, Russian diplomatic missions, Russian cultural centres and associations of our compatriots living in various parts of the world hold a great deal of events. It is particularly gratifying to listen to foreigners recite Pushkin’s poems by heart without fumbling over any words.

On May 24–28, the Kostomarovsky Forum was held at the Pushkin State Russian Language Institute under the auspices of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO. It focused on the problems the Russian language has to cope with and attracted 23,000 online visitors from 101 countries.

Director-General of UNESCO Audrey Azoulay delivered her first video message of congratulations this year, noting the considerable contribution of the Russian language to the development of culture, science, education and communications.

Another major literary occasion, the 7th Red Square Book Festival, will take place in Moscow on June 17–20. Its programme includes 500 offline and online events, which will be held on over 10 sites and attended by hundreds of writers, publishers, actors and actresses, musicians and readers. It is planned during the festival to celebrate the bicentenary of Fyodor Dostoevsky and the bicentenary of Nikolai Nekrasov, two great Russian writers, the centenary of famous Soviet scientist and public figure Andrey Sakharov and the 800th anniversary of Nizhny Novgorod. These are also important dates not only for our culture but the world culture as well.



Results of special UN General Assembly session against corruption

On June 2-4, a special session against corruption was held at the UN General Assembly in a hybrid format. Russia was represented by Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov.

In his address to the UN General Assembly, Oleg Syromolotov emphasised the importance of the UN Convention against Corruption as the only universal agreement regulating all aspects of combating corruption. The Convention helped to create a global anti-corruption political and legal environment without any inconsistencies between national jurisdictions, cumbersome legal assistance instruments and imperfect extradition mechanisms. He pointed out that Russia’s accession to the Convention stimulated the improvement of national legislation and law enforcement practices in this sphere. The Russian Federation also sets a high value on the promotion of international cooperation based on the Convention and has been consistently advocating the creation of an additional instrument that will fill in the remaining gaps in the international legal regulation of criminal asset recovery.

A Political Declaration based on the results of the special session covers all the main aspects of combating corruption, including issues of priority significance for Russia, such as enhancing the efficiency of international cooperation to prevent corruption, using modern technology to expose corruption, promoting anti-corruption training and safeguarding sport from corruption. The participants reached an agreement on strengthening internal legislation on asset recovery and further coordinated practical moves in this field. We believe that these efforts will be boosted by the concurrent launch of the Global Operational Network of Anti-Corruption Law Enforcement Authorities (​GlobE Network), which the G20 countries initiated in 2020. The project is being implemented by the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) with active contribution from Convention signatories, including Russia.

About 40 themed side events were held during the special session, including an expert discussion on international cooperation on corruption prevention matters, organised by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office together with the Foreign Ministry’s support. It was attended by law enforcement experts from Russia, Brazil, China, India, the UNODC and the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA). The event attracted the attention of UN member states and civil society institutions, which reaffirmed the importance of this subject and its practical aspects for combating corruption.

Russia will facilitate the implementation of the political declaration’s provisions of priority importance for us, first of all by strengthening interaction with the member states of the Convention and by initiating and supporting related projects of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime.

Information about the special session is available on the UNODC’s website.



Update on developments at Tajik-Kyrgyz border areas

We followed the aggravation of the situation at the Tajik-Kyrgyz border on April 28-30 of this year. We commented on this and sent appeals to the parties. Russia welcomed the agreements they reached on settling the incident exclusively through political and diplomatic means via direct dialogue.

In this context, we are happy to say that on June 5 representatives of the Republic of Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic, the heads of their state commissions on border delimitation and demarcation, adopted a joint statement on reducing tensions in the border area. It provides, in part, for the withdrawal of the border checkpoints of both sides further back in their territories and for moving troops and combat equipment back to their permanent bases.

We urge our Kyrgyz and Tajik allies to abide strictly by the reached agreements. It is necessary to bring the process of peaceful border delimitation to its logical completion.

We reaffirm the willingness of the Russian Federation to grant to the two brotherly states, if they are interested, expert and other aid in establishing sustainable peace and security in their border areas.



Cuba’s inclusion in the federal registry of states “not fully cooperating” with US counterterrorism efforts

We have noted an unfriendly act towards Cuba. On May 25, Cuba was included, for the second year, in the US federal registry of states “not fully cooperating” with US counterterrorism efforts.

We believe this unfriendly act by Washington reflects its politically motivated cynicism. We are seeing that under the Democratic administration US pressure on Cuba is becoming even tougher. The continuity and commitment to the legacy of Donald Trump is being preserved.

We again reaffirm our position, that is, our categorical rejection of any sanctions pressure in violation of the UN Charter and universally recognised standards of international law. We resolutely denounce the imposition of unilateral bans and restrictions on Havana. We consider completely unacceptable and useless (I believe the Cubans have proved this) any pressure tactics on the Cuban government and people.



Mali update

Moscow continues to closely follow the developments in Mali, a country which is friendly to Russia. Domestic political tension in the country following the ouster of the Transitional Government’s President and Prime Minister by the military in late May is gradually subsiding.

This was largely facilitated by the June 7 inauguration of Interim President Assimi Goita who led the military coup on August 18, 2020. On that same day, he appointed Choguel Kokalla Maiga, leader of the influential opposition organisation, the June 5 Movement, Rally of Patriotic Forces (M5-RFP), to the post of Prime Minister. In his inauguration speech, Assimi Goita assured everyone that all the earlier obligations, as regards the implementation of the transitional period, including the holding of general democratic elections on February 27, 2022, with the assistance of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union, would be complied with. We perceive the policy statement made by the new Mali leaders as a positive message highlighting their readiness to facilitate wide-ranging public accord for the purpose of reinstating constitutional law and order as soon as possible.

Regarding the Mali settlement, we invariably proceed from a principle stipulating African solutions to African problems. In this context, we support mediatory efforts of ECOWAS and the African Union. At the same time, we believe that the people of Mali themselves should “play first fiddle,” while overcoming the current disagreements.

As a permanent UN Security Council member, Russia continues its constructive involvement in international efforts to stabilise the situation in Mali. It is firmly determined to continue providing Mali with comprehensive support on a bilateral basis.



The dismantling of an obelisk at a Soviet burial site in Poland

We are once again witnessing the illegal destruction of the Soviet-era military-memorial heritage in Poland. An inventory inspection of Soviet-era memorials, conducted by Russia’s foreign missions in Poland, showed that an obelisk marking the grave of Hero of the Soviet Union Alexander Sinitsyn, located near a motorway between the Gorzyce and Pelkinie communities in the Subcarpathian Voivodeship is missing.

The 1.5-metre tall missing obelisk is listed in a 2003 catalogue of burial sites containing the remains of Soviet soldiers, prisoners of war and civilians, killed during WWII and buried in the Republic of Poland. The catalogue was compiled by the Russian and Polish sides.

Replying to our inquiry, the Polish authorities cited certain “natural causes” that contributed to the obelisk’s destruction. Dear Polish colleagues, are you really serious? It appears that one finds it hard to explain the disappearance of the obelisk from the pedestal by natural causes and natural phenomena. We have not heard about any tsunamis or earthquakes that could have caused all-out destruction in Poland.

I would like to recall that, under the 1994 Russian-Polish intergovernmental agreement on burial sites and memorials honouring the victims of wars and repressions, the Polish side was duty-bound to keep grave marker intact, all the more so as it is located on a military burial site.

We are expecting the Polish side which has repeatedly stated at different venues that it preserves and cares for the monuments and burial sites of Red Army soldiers to comply with its obligations and to unhesitatingly restore the monument and put it back in its original form to where it was in the first place.



The illegal data collection scandal involving the Defence Ministry of the Netherlands

There have been many information “splashes” regarding illegal activities taking place on the territory of EU and NATO countries, activities related to cyber spying by member-states against each other as well as to the inadmissible US spying or intelligence activities (I am not sure how they describe this themselves) in those states.

There is yet another indicative story in the Netherlands. This state (not the people, but the political establishment) is unable to calm down and analyses what is happening in our country on a daily basis. But it fails to notice how their problems are multiplying at home.

For example, an instance of illegal personal data collection has been registered in the Netherlands. Recently, the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism has been exposed as engaging in illegitimate shadowing of civilians. And now, another law enforcement agency of the Kingdom has distinguished itself.

These days, the focus is on the Netherlands Ministry of Defence. A journalistic investigation has revealed that at the start of the COVID-19 epidemic the ministry created a specialised unit, Ground-Based Information Manoeuvre Centre, to collect data about Dutch subjects and organisations, while having no legal grounds for doing this. Moreover, even the Defence Minister was unaware of the Centre’s activities.

So, what was the Centre doing? According to the Dutch military, it pursued noble aims, such as keeping an eye on supporters of the coronavirus conspiracy theory and fighting misinformation. But under this pretext it was spying on dozens of individuals and public movements, including the Dutch Yellow Vest division.

These exposures are yet more evidence of the existence in the Netherlands and basically in the EU and NATO space of the worst practices characteristic of an Orwellian-type police state seeking to fully control its citizens and impose on them thought and behaviour models. Then, when they feel that exposure is close at hand or under way, they urgently invent “Russian hackers,” or “Chinese IT experts,” or whatever, so that people at home feel the threat coming from “somewhere” rather than from the EU or NATO law enforcement agencies. But the most important thing is to make them see and accept the need for the birth and proliferation of these ground information manoeuvre centres that keep them under surveillance. They are told that the focus is not on them but on the “Russian hackers” who should not be allowed to meddle in the life of the Dutch. This myth-making has reached the point of absurdity.



Italy’s National Museum of XXI Century Arts opens a branch at Palazzo Ardingelli

On May 28 of this year, Palazzo Ardingelli at L’Aquila (Abruzzo, Italy), a town badly damaged by the 2009 earthquake, was the venue of the opening of a branch of the National Museum of XXI Century Arts. The palazzo has been restored with funds contributed by the Russian Federation. The opening ceremony was attended by Italian Minister of Culture Dario Franceschini, Russian Ambassador to Italy Sergey Razov, and representatives of the local authorities and the public. The Italian officials expressed sincere gratitude to this country for restoring one of L’Aquila’s most notable historical buildings.

Somewhat earlier, Russia helped to rebuild yet another unique architectural monument, the Church of St Gregory the Great. The revival of these buildings symbolises the traditionally friendly ties between the peoples of Russia and Italy, relations characterised by mutual respect and a lack of indifference to someone else’s misfortune.

It is not for the first time that we render help to the Italian people. A striking moment in the history of mutual assistance between our two countries was the saving of quake-hit Messina residents by sailors of a Russian Baltic squadron in the Strait of Messina in 1908.

In 2020, a Russian humanitarian mission was sent to Northern Italy to fight the spread of the coronavirus infection.



Italy opens park to commemorate children of Beslan

On June 5, a new municipal park, Children of Beslan, opened in Rovereto (Trentino-Alto Adige autonomous region in Northern Italy). A commemorative plaque with information about the 2004 tragedy was installed near the children’s sports ground in the park.

Rovereto is not the only place in the Apennines to keep the memory of the terrorist attack victims. There is a Children of Beslan Square in Florence, and Turin has a Beslan Victims Park. There is the Children of Beslan school in Roccagorga, the Memory and Hope monument in Castelnovo di Sotto, and a park for children called The Kids of Beslan in Lurago d'Erba. There are more. In many small towns, streets are named to commemorate the deadly school siege. A bronze sculpture by Vandi Renzo Jarno has been established in the centre of the Republic of San Marino.

The event was initiated by the Italian charity Help Us Save the Children (Aiutateci a Salvare i Bambini) headed by Ennio Bordato. The NGO was one of the first in Italy to respond to the tragedy and lend a helping hand to the children affected by the attack, and is now helping the affected children of Donbass as one of its priorities.

We view this step as an expression of solidarity and friendship on the part of ordinary people in Italy and San Marino, confirming that no externally imposed bloc attitudes can be an obstacle for sincere human feelings, for mutual assistance and support in difficult situations. We believe this is a good example of positive public diplomacy and a model of what a non-profit organisation involved in bilateral international relations should do. The gesture is in stark contrast to the activities of other foreign NGOs operating in Russia, which aim to undermine the unity and cohesion of the multinational and multi-confessional Russian society, to interfere in Russia’s internal affairs and participate in projects that are totally unrelated to their scope of interest.



Mass grave of indigenous children found in Canada

A recent terrifying find, the remains of 215 indigenous children found in unmarked graves at a former residential school in Kamloops, British Columbia, has once again sharply raised the issue of Ottawa's policy to force the aboriginal population, now officially referred to as ‘First Nations,’ to assimilate into Canadian society. This policy was implemented until the late 1990s.

According to the most conservative estimates, more than 150,000 school-age Indians and representatives of peoples of the north were removed from their families and placed in residential schools for ‘enculturation’ and ‘adaptation to civilisation.’ Does it not remind you of anything from the current ‘liberal’ agenda? This is about a coercive alteration of people’s mindset and way of life, including children.

In those days, those children were forbidden to use their native language. Does that ring a bell? We regularly comment on Ukraine, with its new inhumane laws concerning languages and the notion of native and non-native people.

Now, back to Canada, which is so good at covering up the crimes of the Kiev regime today. More than 6,000 children have died from starvation, sexual and other forms of abuse, epidemics and unsanitary conditions in those prison-like schools, where they were supposed to be enculturated and adapted to civilisation.

The overall scale of the First Nations extermination in the colonial period and later, even in modern time, was so great that the authorities officially refer to these acts as ‘Canadian genocide.’

Despite some progress made in recent years, the indigenous people of Canada still remain a disadvantaged part of the population suffering from low living standards and high rates of suicide, alcoholism and drug addiction. Indigenous young women and girls who were subjected to forced sterilisation in the 1960s and 1970s continue to be mentioned massively in police statistics as murdered, kidnapped or missing.

We consider this situation absolutely unacceptable. We call on official Ottawa to focus on addressing the glaring problems at home instead of lecturing others on human rights, and to do this as regularly and consistently as they interfere in other people's internal affairs.



Travel to and from Russia for football fans during the 2020 UEFA European Football Championship

In view of the UEFA EURO 2020 matches being held in June and July in St Petersburg, we would like to remind you that between May 29 and July 12, football fans can travel to and from Russia using only their travel documents recognised by Russian authorities, personalised FAN IDs, and they do not need a visa.

Information about obtaining FAN IDs was published on the official websites of Russian foreign missions and the Russian Foreign Ministry website well in advance. A FAN ID can be issued both electronically and as a laminated card which must be produced to attend UEFA EURO 2020 matches. Russian embassies are reaching out to potential spectators with more details.

Additionally, the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media released video instructions in both Russian and English which will be linked in the transcript of this briefing and on the MFA social media accounts.

FAN ID holders are eligible for multiple visa-free entries to Russia between May 29, 2021, and July 2, 2021 and multiple exits from Russia between May 29, 2021, and July 12, 2021.

Once again, we strongly recommend that all foreign nationals wishing to attend UEFA EURO 2020 matches need to deal with their FAN IDs well in advance by visiting the issuing website. This measure is necessary to prevent queues at Saint Petersburg Stadium during the championship.



Host City Media Centre in St Petersburg

One of the essential tasks when preparing for UEFA EURO 2020 and during the championship itself is to provide comfortable working conditions for the media operating in Russia.

We would like to inform you that today (June 10), the Host City Media Centre is opening in St Petersburg, specifically for media representatives without official UEFA accreditation as well as independent journalists and bloggers who intend to cover UEFA EURO 2020 from Russia.

The Host City Media Centre will regularly hold news conferences, briefings, video linkups, guided tours, workshops and other themed events in which media representatives can participate both online and in person. Similar facilities were provided during the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Host city media centres were not only popular among the media but demonstrated excellent service and proved to be a great concept. I clearly remember the competent agencies working together on this concept and operation algorithms. It worked out quite well, as you can see. Therefore, it was decided to transfer the positive experience of 2018 to this year’s event.

The Host City Media Centre is located in St Petersburg, at the House of Journalists, on 70 Nevsky Prospekt. It will operate until July 12, from 10 am until the end of live matches on weekdays and according to the game schedule during the weekends.

Media representatives wishing to work at the Host City Media Centre need to apply for accreditation on its website: https://media.welcome2020.ru/accreditation/.

Both Russian and foreign journalists are welcome to obtain accreditation with the Host City Media Centre. Accredited journalists will receive confirmation by email. Foreign nationals can then submit a printed copy of the accreditation email and their health insurance covering the entire duration of their stay in Russia, to a Russian consular office (the Russian Consulate General or consular departments at Russian embassies) to obtain a Russian visa.

Host City Media Centre accreditation allows journalists to operate in both St Petersburg and Moscow as well as in the Leningrad Region and the Moscow Region. Media representatives planning to work from other regions of Russia must obtain accreditation from the Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department.

Please note that all Host City Media Centre events will also be streamed live at media.welcome2020.ru. Due to the current epidemiological situation, we recommend that you opt for online participation.



Coronavirus update

We again address Russian nationals who are looking at options to travel abroad and spend their summer holidays there.

Please note the relevant recommendations regarding planning trips that are published on Foreign Ministry’s online resources. We ask you to heed the warnings we issued about the potential sanitary and logistic risks. All of this is very important. You can see the situation in the world for yourselves. Nobody keeps it a secret; moreover, they emphasise that the governments will have the right to promptly close their borders, including land ports of entry, suspend flights, or amend the public health requirements (curfew, logistics restrictions, etc.) if the epidemiological situation deteriorates. There are many examples of such emergency (and sometimes dramatic) situations. We update you about them.



Russia Day

This Saturday, we will mark a state holiday, Russia Day. For us, diplomats, Foreign Ministry employees, it is a special day. Every year on June 12 we re-examine our past: the thousand-year-old history of our state, which, despite its great experience and multiple cultural layers, remains young and contemporary (the holiday was established less than 30 years ago). This synergy allows us to adapt to any challenge, including on our international borders. Our efforts to combat the coronavirus pandemic and cooperation with our foreign partners in vaccine diplomacy are good examples of that. We successfully deal with many issues (I am speaking now mostly on behalf of our employees working abroad) because we represent our country. We treat our Fatherland with deep, heartfelt love and sincere feeling of patriotism that is inherent for our diplomatic service.

But the holiday will take place amid the difficult sanitary and epidemiological situation that persists in many countries. Unfortunately, it continues to affect the traditional work format of many Russian foreign missions. On this day, our embassies used to hold state receptions, but like last year, this year they will take place online or in a hybrid format in the countries with a better coronavirus situation. On our part, we again are being creative about celebrating Russia Day. Together with our colleagues at embassies, representative offices and consulates general, we are launching an entire series of global events in our social networks. To avoid spoiling the surprise, we will reveal all news on Saturday. There will be everything: hashtags, flash mobs and nice gifts.

In addition, on Russia Day, we will publish many materials, including the addresses by ambassadors, video streaming of events and many others. Follow the Ministry and embassies’ social network accounts, including RuTube and TikTok.

Happy Russia Day!







Answers to media questions:



Question:

According to media reports, the FBI is investigating the Russian Community Council of the USA (KSORS). KSORS Chair Elena Branson said that no council members have been charged in the United States. What is the Russian Foreign Ministry doing to protect the rights of compatriots amid FBI’s pressure on KSORS?



Maria Zakharova:

It is true that the US security services are putting pressure on the active members of the organisations of Russian compatriots in the United States, regarding their sincere efforts to support cultural and humanitarian ties with Russia and to improve the atmosphere of Russian-US relations through people-to-people diplomacy as a threat to US national security. In fact, they are infringing on the legitimate right of the Russian diaspora to preserve its identity, language and connection with Russia’s great historical heritage. These actions cannot be described as civilised or democratic. They contradict the message and principles promoted by the United States.

We used official diplomatic channels to indicate to the US the unacceptability of this hostile approach on numerous occasions and have undertaken demarches, including through the Russian Embassy in the United States in front of the State Department. If this destructive practice continues, this will have a most destructive effect on bilateral relations, which have been overtaxed with numerous problems and irritants.



Question:

In early June, Mohammed Othman Al-Hussein, Chief of Staff of the Sudanese Armed Forces, announced that Khartoum was ready to revise the agreement on the establishment of a Russian naval logistic base in the Red Sea. He said that Sudan wanted better conditions. What exactly are these conditions? Is Russia ready to honour them?



Maria Zakharova:

Indeed, General Al-Hussein admitted in a June 1 interview with Sudan’s television network that the agreement could be amended. He claimed that the deal was signed under former Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir. I would like to point out that the agreement was signed in Khartoum by an authorised representative of the Transitional Military Council on July 23, 2019, that is, after the change of government.

However, Sudan has not yet ratified the agreement, because the country does not have a national legislative authority with the necessary powers during the transitional period. Therefore, coordinated amendments can be made to the text by decision of the signatories before the agreement comes into effect.

We would like to reaffirm our interest in strengthening partnership with Sudan in various spheres, including in military and military-technical cooperation, which the agreement on the establishment of a Russian naval logistic base can boost, in our opinion.

I believe that you can get more details from the Russian Defence Ministry.



Question:

As we are aware, two journalists from the Azerbaijani state media and a district executive power official were recently blown up by a land mine in the Kalbajar District, the Republic of Azerbaijan, in the course of performing their professional duties. The Russian Foreign Minister noted quite recently at a news conference in Baku that he had brought this issue up during his recent visit to Yerevan and said that “the Armenian leadership is aware that this issue needs to be resolved.” What is your response to this and is there any chance to advance this matter, such as provide minefield maps, which would be a logical move towards peace?



Maria Zakharova:

Notably, Russia was one of the first to respond to this terrible tragedy. The Russian Embassy in Baku conveyed heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the journalists blown up by a land mine in the Kalbajar District of Azerbaijan. We also wish a speedy recovery to everyone who was wounded in the explosion.

Demining is one of the most dangerous and hard-to-deal-with consequences of any armed conflict. Russia is making a sizable and significant contribution to the post-conflict demining in Nagorno-Karabakh and contiguous areas. Russian peacekeepers have detected about 26,000 explosive devices since November 23, 2020, cleared over 2,100 hectares of land and checked over 1,800 buildings and 650 km of roads. The Russian Emergencies Ministry is carrying out similar activities. By agreement with Azerbaijan, since January 4, Russian specialists have inspected over 550 hectares of land and defused about 18,000 explosive devices in Agdam District and provided training to a group of sappers from the Emergencies Ministry of Azerbaijan.

In our ongoing communication with Baku and Yerevan, including at the highest and high levels, we call on the sides to start cooperating on mine clearance efforts, including exchanging information about minefields. This matter was discussed during our Foreign Minister’s visits to Yerevan and Baku which took place during the first 10 days of May, which you also mentioned. We look forward to seeing this process pick up pace.

We consistently advocate for all humanitarian matters, including the return of prisoners of war and detainees and dead bodies, as well as locating the MIAs and much more, to be resolved, in strict compliance with the statements made by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia on November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021 as quickly as possible and without any preliminary conditions.



Question:

Quite often, we hear official Yerevan say that unblocking transport and economic ties is something that is good and necessary for Armenia itself. At the same time, the other day, acting Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said that “the Armenian government has not discussed any corridor-related issues, is not discussing them and will not discuss them.” Acting Deputy Prime Minister of Armenia Mher Grigoryan said something along the same lines. Is the transport corridor being discussed by the parties to the conflict? Does the working group remain operational?



Maria Zakharova:

Unblocking transport and economic ties in the South Caucasus is our top priority, and the countries of the region, including Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia, are interested in seeing it accomplished. The agreements to this end were mentioned in the joint statements by President of Russia Putin, President of Azerbaijan Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Pashinyan on November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021 which I have already mentioned. Deputy prime ministers of the three countries were charged with this work as part of the trilateral working group. Industry experts from the three countries provided an expert analysis of the necessary work to restore utilities, which is a good start for a phased-in implementation of joint infrastructure projects in the near future.

We hope that the trilateral working group will resume its activities soon in accordance with the trilateral agreements of the leaders. In fact, they have determined the direction of these efforts.

All the while, incidents on certain sections of the Azerbaijani-Armenian border do no good for normalising overall Azerbaijan-Armenia relations. We call on the parties to act with restraint, de-escalate tensions and overcome contradictions exclusively through peaceful talks.



Question:

Reportedly, due to the pandemic, the events that Russia and Azerbaijan planned to hold last year, such as the Interregional Forum in Baku, Azerbaijan Culture Days in Russia and the Youth Initiatives Forum, will be held this year. Do you have a timeframe for the dates?



Maria Zakharova:

As we are putting the pandemic behind us and successfully dealing with its consequences, our countries are gradually returning to the usual dynamics of bilateral interaction and cooperation across all areas. In May, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov travelled to Baku, and Azerbaijani Prime Minister Ali Asadov came to Moscow on an official visit. Ministerial consultations at the level of deputy foreign ministers were held in Baku in early June. An extensive programme for interdepartmental and interregional contacts, as well as numerous joint events in the economy, culture and humanitarian exchanges will last until the end of the year. The specific dates will be determined as we go along and then made public.



Question:

Could you comment on the scandal over the facts that have been disclosed about espionage by the Danish foreign intelligence service, which, evidently, acts as a subcontractor to the US secret services and is spying on European countries and their leaders? Are you surprised by the West’s highly sluggish reaction and the lack of sanctions or the expulsion of diplomats in connection with the scandal over the Danish spying on the Europeans for the US authorities? Were it not Denmark but Russia, the response would be quite different.



Maria Zakharova:

On the one hand, we have commented on this, and repeatedly, but, on the other, this topic is boundless. And it is boundless, not because a thing has happened that has become public knowledge, sparking off a huge international scandal, but because, as you rightly said, we – both Russian diplomats and foreign diplomats, and the public and journalists – cannot see even a semblance of the reaction that is usually shown by the Europeans, NATO, and the Americans in such cases with regard to other countries. This is phenomenal!

So, in fact, when our Western partners have no grounds, facts or evidence, but have instead either some suspicions or some mythical stories, they form a collective position of pressure, and immediately come up with accusations, and at the same second declare a sentence with a punishment, and then start implementing the punishment. They use whatever expedients they can, expelling diplomats, seizing diplomatic property, issuing stop lists and blacklists, and imposing sanctions of all types. I do not even mention their polemics and aggressive statements, appeals, petitions, applications and the like. Moreover, these countries modify their domestic laws to ward off “aggressive actions” allegedly pursued by Russia, China, or whoever. We have seen how rapidly, vigorously and promptly the Western countries have launched their consolidated responses but in this instance, there is nothing at all.

Yesterday, the European MPs advanced yet another crazy initiative to impose sanctions on Russian citizens in connection with the Irish airline Ryanair incident in the sky over Belarus. What does Russia have to do with this? Or Russian citizens? Or Ryanair, Belarus, and the rest? But the initiative is there all the same.

Have you ever heard of the European MPs drawing up a draft statement or drafting a resolution or recommendations on imposing sanctions against, say, the United States, which has been regularly eavesdropping on European countries for decades? The list of the tapping mission targets includes France and Germany. In Germany, something unimaginable is happening from the point of view of US secret service involvement. This also concerns the countries that, as it always seemed to me, have never aspired to a leading role in the area of international security, such as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. In a fantastic manner, the US first involved Sweden that was due, along with the UK, to spy on its neighbours, and then the US involved Denmark that had already been spying on Sweden. Apart from being unseemly and unlawful, this is absolutely filthy.

But the most fantastic thing is not even the foregoing. We have got used to such things in US history. The most fantastic thing is the lack of a reaction from the victims of the cyber spying: the facts of this are there for all to see and no one even denies them. This begs the question: Why does the West wax so sensitive to mythical threats and remain so indifferent to real ones? Perhaps they understand that they have no alternative, no freedom of action, no independence in dealing with such matters or even responding to them. Not a single visit has been cancelled. On the contrary, the Baltic states are paying a series of visits to Denmark, which has spied on Sweden, Norway, France, and Germany on orders from the US and with US direct involvement. Political support is being mustered for these steps with an ulterior motive. Apart from everything else, this is simply indecent. That is all. Why and how? There can be very many conclusions.

There is no freedom or democracy within country alliances like the EU or NATO, nor has there ever been, because all decisions are passed solely under pressure from the Big Brother, the United States. Neither are there national interests that could be implemented independently without regard to others. Well, these interests are likely to exist after all, but countries are not allowed to attend to them. The will is lacking even to say politely that such steps are unacceptable. This is why they are inventing stories about Russian hackers and Chinese IT experts, who are threatening the West. This is being done to shift the public focus at least slightly away from the real threats, and the really ugly actions they undertake against each other or those who dominate their own national space, to such imaginary threats.

Incidentally, here is yet another story. Two weeks ago, the European Court of Human Rights passed the final ruling on Edward Snowden’s revelations. These are about the US, the UK and Sweden spying on EU citizens and information gathering. Even the ECHR, a European mainstream organisation, admitted that these countries had violated an entire package of human rights norms and principles. But do you remember the campaign of harassment that was launched against Edward Snowden and this country? Everyone forgot that this was against the law, that this was a human rights violation - a real, not mythical violation! Instead, all of them focused on an imaginary threat.



Question:

In early June, Speaker of the Serbian Parliament Ivica Dacic met with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during his visit to Moscow. According to the Serbian media, the sides discussed various matters, including the Kosovo peace settlement. The Serbian media noted that, according to Sergey Lavrov, the Russian side will agree with any solution suiting Belgrade. At the same time, the need to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 was not mentioned. Does this mean that Russia is revising its position on Kosovo and Metohija, and that it no longer considers unfailing compliance with the letter and spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 as a foundation for resolving the Kosovo conflict?



Maria Zakharova:

The responsibility for such conjectures should rest with those who produce them. They either do not follow the Russian position very closely, or they deliberately distort it. Russia regularly comments on topical international matters at all levels in connection with regional developments; the same can be said for anniversary dates. You personally and the Serbian media are well aware of the Russian position which has not changed in any way over the past years. We would like Belgrade and Pristina to attain a viable and mutually acceptable solution on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 1244. This solution should conform to international law and should also be approved by the UN Security Council because this implies efforts to maintain international peace and security.

Indeed, we have repeatedly noted at all levels that we will agree with a solution that would suit the people of Serbia. But I would like to note once again that it is simply impossible not to see our references to UN Security Council Resolution 1244.



Question:

Does Russia plan to take any specific steps for preventing the appointment of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina in circumvention of the UN Security Council?



Maria Zakharova:

We maintain diplomatic contacts and hold talks on this score, as well. As you know, on June 7, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of the French Republic Jean-Yves Le Drian and Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany Heiko Maas. During their contacts, the sides touched upon various aspects of the situation on the Balkan Peninsula. The Russian side and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov himself noted the overdue need for shutting down the Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina and ceding all authority and responsibility for the country’s destiny to the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the principles of the Dayton Agreement. Any attempts to appoint a new representative at a time when members of the Steering Board and the Bosnian sides have failed to reach consensus and in circumvention of the UN Security Council are incompatible with the interests of stabilising Bosnia and Herzegovina.

So far, there is nothing new in our position which is based on principles that we have voiced in the past and which we have reported to our partners. Consequently, we are maintaining contacts and exerting diplomatic efforts.



Question:

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in the Senate this week that the Nord Stream 2 completion is “a reality,” and the United States will work with Germany to try to mitigate any damage done by the pipeline going into operation. How does the Russian Foreign Ministry assess such statements and such “humility” on the part of the US? What kind of reaction do you expect from Berlin to Washington’s intentions? Will this be discussed?



Maria Zakharova:

During the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), President of Russia Vladimir Putin announced the completion of the first leg of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Based on this, we expect the pipeline’s commissioning by the end of this year.

We appreciate the German Government’s continued commitment to this project. Russia and Germany both insist on considering the pipeline an exclusively commercial project aimed at strengthening the energy security of Germany and the EU. Among other things, it is an attractive project in terms of environmental safety and the announced goal to transition to green energy. Various Russian departments have repeatedly spelled out our position loud and clear. Each of them has explained the work it was doing, outlined its targets, and shared what has been done.

We do not understand the statement about trying to mitigate “the adverse consequences” of gas going through this pipeline. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said so, and many experts (as we understand, they were also incited by American state agencies) have been mentioning this. This kind of speculation either involves unfair competition or attempts to politicise the situation. Both are pointless. There need to be facts behind the words. What facts is the American side implying? What adverse effects? Do they mean adverse consequences for the United States because they have lost the dirty game they started? But that is their internal problem. Why did they even start this confrontation over an absolutely commercial, profitable and transparent energy project that did not concern their continent in any way? It is up to Europeans – us and other countries on the continent – what we do when it comes to our cooperation. We will make our own decisions.

If they meant adverse consequences of the end of that terrible information and political campaign, they should comment and explain what they meant. This project simply cannot have any adverse consequences for European countries. We do not even know what they are talking about.

As for the United States having to admit that the project is almost complete, it is a good thing they occasionally see the real picture.



Question:

Last year, the United States recognised Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara. What is Moscow’s opinion of this move in light of the recent migration crisis and Morocco’s attempts to put pressure on Spain and the EU by warning them of the potential inflow of illegal migrants? Is it possible that Russia will adopt a similar decision to recognise Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara?



Maria Zakharova:

We commented on this US decision in a Foreign Ministry statement issued on December 12, 2020. We pointed out that this decision by the US administration would undermine the generally recognised international legal framework of the Settlement Plan for the Western Sahara, which provides for determining the final status of this territory by way of an UN-supervised referendum. I can say that our position remains unchanged. It is still valid.

Russia’s official position on this chronic problem remains unchanged. We believe that a lasting and just solution is possible based only on the implementation of the relevant UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions within the framework of the procedures consistent with the principles and goals of the UN Charter. We also believe that the peace process could be relaunched through the resumption of direct talks between Morocco and the Polisario Front with UN mediation. Furthermore, we believe that a new UN Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy for Western Sahara should be appointed at long last. This post has remained vacant for over 18 months. The process should be completed through the appointment of a professional.

Overall, we are convinced that the parties involved in the settlement are capable of working out solutions that will meet the interests of regional security and stability. We believe that the elimination of this hotbed of tension would help to establish effective collective interaction in fighting common security challenges and threats, primarily, terrorism and cross-border crime, launch integration processes in the Maghreb and settle many other issues on the agenda.



Question:

What can you say about Russia-NATO dialogue? The NATO Secretary General said that Russia is avoiding dialogue. The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a comment that Russia is ready to talk and to discuss de-escalation but dialogue is impossible without NATO restoring contacts between military experts. Russian Deputy Defence Minister Colonel General Alexander Fomin has announced that the NATO leadership was invited to the IX Moscow Conference on International Security, which is scheduled for June 22-24. Has NATO responded in any way to this proposal?



Maria Zakharova:

At first I thought that my eyes were playing tricks on me, but then I looked again and saw that they are not. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg keeps saying that Russia refuses to talk with the alliance, that it doesn’t want to cooperate and is avoiding interaction. We immediately say in our comments that we are not avoiding discussion, and then we put forth our position. But Stoltenberg only repeats that Russia is avoiding dialogue, is not cooperative and is not providing any response. At the same time, he is using the media to make the public believe that Russia is not responding to NATO’s call for cooperation. Everything possible is being done to bury our response in an endless repetition of these allegations.

Let me tell you once again what replies we provide to our NATO partners, what our position is and what replies we receive from the bloc.

The Russian Foreign Ministry leadership has issued numerous comments on Russia-NATO dialogue. I could spend hours citing President Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu, but it all boils down to the following: we are open to dialogue with the alliance. The Russia-NATO Council should indeed hold a meeting, but only if the agenda is focused on practical issues aimed at reducing military tension. This definitely calls for the engagement of our military experts. After all, NATO is a military-political bloc, so why should this be illogical?

As for inviting NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to the Moscow Conference on International Security, we have received an answer. Do you want to know what it is? Stoltenberg says every day that he wants to cooperate with Russia and that the ball is in Russia’s court but Russia refuses to talk. But he himself has refused to accept our invitation to the Moscow conference. What better proof of the true intentions of NATO and its Secretary General can one ask for?



Question:

What can you tell us about media reports of Russia planning to introduce e-visas for so-called “vaccine tourism?”



Maria Zakharova:

At this point, the Emergency Response Centre continues the suspension of e-visas for foreign citizens. If the centre makes a different decision, we will develop a new approach as part of our interagency collaboration.



Question:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the other day that Russia was ready to normalise relations with the EU. Is the EU sending any signals that it is ready to meet Russia halfway?



Maria Zakharova:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov just reiterated our position on relations with Europe at a recent political science forum. Transcripts of his remarks have been posted on the MFA website.

I can only reaffirm that Russia has never been the instigator of breaking off cooperation with the EU or introducing restrictions. As a result of an unprecedented crisis of trust fueled by unfriendly steps on the part of certain EU member states and the introduction of unlawful restrictions, Brussels’ relations with Russia have sunk to a very low level. This state of affairs doesn’t meet the interests of either side and needs to be rectified. This obvious truth is understood by an increasing number of countries in the world, including more European states.

We have never doubted the true attitude of ordinary Europeans, as distinct from the political establishment. People are calling for a resumption of normal relations at the political level – we get comments, letters and appeals from the business community, public figures, and from people representing the humanitarian dimensions of our relations, something that makes it obvious that all these negative moves are being initiated contrary to the interests of many European countries and people.

We understand that the artificial imposition of confrontational rhetoric and unfriendly actions is coming to an end. The need for contacts and dialogue is becoming clearer and is finding more understanding.

Regular contacts at the top level are evidence of a shared interest in dialogue. The latest telephone conversation between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of the European Council Charles Michel was held on June 7 (as reported on the President of Russia website). The presidents focused on a wide range of issues from healthcare to regional stability, and these subjects are not random. Russia and the EU share the continent and are natural partners. Existing differences will not change this reality.

It is in our common interest to build equitable and honest relations based on international law, mutual respect and consideration for each other’s differing approaches. We are ready for pragmatic and mutually beneficial cooperation with the EU in a number of areas, such as healthcare, environmental protection, including efforts to fight climate change, digitalisation, science and technology. In recent months, this matter has been repeatedly discussed with EU officials and representatives of EU member states. Officials in the EU confirm their interest in this, but the problem is they do not go beyond words.

At the same time, the EU continues its policy of holding occasional meetings with individual Russian representatives to promote their vision on certain matters. It is clear that this approach cannot replace real cooperation that is capable of benefitting both Russia and the EU countries. Responsible efforts from both sides are needed to meet mutual interests and contribute to the good of our countries. Let me reiterate that Russia is ready for this constructive approach, but there are basic conditions to be respected like regard for each other’s interests, an understanding that each state has its own national interests, an international legal basis for such cooperation, and the renunciation of illegal actions, such as sanctions pressure, aggressive rhetoric, etc.



Question:

US President Joe Biden will have a series of meetings in Europe, including a G7 summit, a NATO summit, and a US-EU summit, in the lead up to his meeting with President Putin. The things that you shared with us about Russia’s expectations and Russia’s readiness for a dialogue are very important. What does Moscow expect from these summits and meetings of the Western coalition members? Are there any signs that a dialogue still has a chance and that these summits could tell on the summit between the two presidents?



Maria Zakharova:

The Presidential Executive Office is in charge of the substantive part of the summit, as well as its protocol and information support. Other departments are involved in this work as well, but I would like to reserve the right to comment on this for my higher-ranking colleagues from the Press Service of the President of Russia and the Presidential Executive Office.

Yesterday, at the Primakov Readings forum, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke in great detail not so much about the expectations, but the actual state of Russia-US relations. The transcript is posted on our website.

I think there’s an important aspect that is related to political science or philosophy. When you (and not just you) ask about the expectations, are you sure we need to focus on expectations? I think it is important to talk about reality. There may be all kinds of expectations, but reality and proper identification of reality is what really matters. On our part, indentifying realities includes the level of relations, the issues at hand and the “red lines.” We have been discussing these matters publicly in the course of our contacts with our US colleagues for a long time now. We are not hiding them. Identifying reality and real problems is what matters most. Everything else stems from that.



Question:

The demographic situation in Russia cannot be improved quickly. Vast numbers of our compatriots want to obtain Russian citizenship or have it back. Our embassies abroad are issuing foreign travel passports. Due to the pandemic restrictions, entry to Russia is banned and doing paperwork here is not an option. Can our embassies help people to obtain residence permits or Russian citizenship? They are one of us, our supporters who know the situation in the West and have suffered enough. They could help us spread the truth about life in the West and compare it to life in Russia. We would thus get many new citizens.



Maria Zakharova:

I digress, but I would like to point out that citizenship is a set of responsibilities rather than a matter of political agenda or views. It is an institution that implies a number of requirements and responsibilities of the country to the citizen and the citizen to the state and society. I think light conversation about these matters is not a legitimate approach.

You are absolutely correct that the Covid-related constraints gave rise to a host of new problems that no one had thought were possible previously. Through our diplomatic and consular missions, we are trying to act quickly to resolve these matters and do so in accordance with the guidelines developed under the authority of the Emergency Response Centre, the Government, etc. We are not alone in approaching this matter like that. Many countries have restricted entry and travel. Being aware of the people’s need to communicate, to live their lives and to deal with their issues, we are taking these factors into account in our work.

Your other question was about issuing residence permits. They are not being issued, because there are Russian laws that regulate which agency and which department are in charge of issuing which kinds of documents. If my memory serves me correctly, the Foreign Ministry does not issue residence permits. This is done by a different department whose scope of duties includes matters of migration. In this context, we are acting in accordance with our legislation.

Once again, I would like to point out the fact that life goes on and new developments come about that no one thought would ever be part of our reality.

On the one hand, your question is quite to the point, but, on the other hand, it is philosophical. Thank you for your continued attention and interesting ideas.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4781270
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 AM.
Page generated in 0.80676 seconds.