|
August 16th, 2020 | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 123
|
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia III
Statement by President of Russia Vladimir Putin on Russia’s proposal to convene meeting of heads of state of UN Security Council permanent members with participation of heads of Germany and Iran
Debates around the Iranian issue within the UN Security Council are becoming increasingly strained. Tensions are running high. Iran faces groundless accusations. Resolutions are being drafted with a view to dismantling decisions that had been unanimously adopted by the Security Council. Russia maintains its unwavering commitment to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme. Its approval in 2015 was a landmark political and diplomatic achievement that helped fend off the threat of an armed conflict and reinforced nuclear non-proliferation. In 2019, Russia presented an updated version of its Collective Security Concept for the Persian Gulf Region, outlining concrete and effective paths to unravelling the tangle of concerns in this region. We strongly believe that these problems can be overcome if we treat each other’s positions with due attention and responsibility, while acting respectfully and in a collective spirit. Like anywhere else in the world, there is no place for blackmail or dictate in this region, no matter the source. Unilateral approaches will not help bring about solutions. It is essential that the positive experience gained earlier through intensive effort is maintained when building an inclusive security architecture in the Persian Gulf. Accordingly, we propose convening an online meeting of the heads of state of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, with the participation of the heads of Germany and Iran, as soon as possible, in order to outline steps that can prevent confrontation or a spike in tensions within the UN Security Council. It is important to secure collective support for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 that sets forth an international legal framework for the execution of the JCPOA. During this leaders’ meeting, we propose agreeing on parameters for joint efforts to facilitate the emergence of reliable mechanisms in the Persian Gulf region for ensuring security and confidence building. This can be achieved if our countries and the regional states combine their political will and creative energy. We call on our partners to carefully consider this proposal. Otherwise, we could see the further escalation of tension and an increased risk of conflict. This must be avoided. Russia is open to working constructively with anyone interested in taking the situation back from the dangerous brink. This is an urgent matter. Should the leaders agree in principle to have this conversation, we propose that the foreign ministries of the seven countries agree on a meeting agenda, make the necessary arrangements and schedule a video summit. |
November 16th, 2020 | #2 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 123
|
Press release on a briefing by the Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman on November 19, 2020
Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova will hold a briefing on current foreign policy issues at 11 am MSK (approximately) on November 19. In light of measures taken to prevent the spread of the coronavirus and WHO recommendations on holding public events via teleconferencing, the Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson will answer media questions received by the call centre. Accredited journalists will be sent detailed information concerning the technical aspects of submitting questions. Accreditation is open until 3 pm on November 18. Coordinator: Sergey Kinshak (tel.: +7 (499) 244-49-32, email: [email protected]). The Foreign Ministry will broadcast the briefing online in the Video section of its website (http://media.mid.ru/video/video_list.html) and on the MFA’s social media accounts: Periscope (https://www.periscope.tv/MID_RF), Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/MIDRussia) and VKontakte (https://vk.com/mid). Distribution: Ruptly video news agency. Contact: Indira Zharova (mob.: +7 (916) 669-07-71; email: [email protected]).
__________________
Hrvate na vrbe! |
October 16th, 2021 | #3 |
Senior Member
|
I will not deny myself the pleasure of using the topic so kindly opened for me by a member of the forum
This topic is a continuation of the topics: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia II Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s answers to questions from Agence France-Presse on the repatriation of foreign terrorist fighters and their family members from Syria and Iraq 1 October 2021 - 16:15 Agence France-Presse: How many militants – people of Russian descent and their family members, are currently staying in Syria and Iraq, including in prisons, after the rout of ISIS? What is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s estimate? Maria Zakharova: The Russian Foreign Ministry does not have precise information on this because it is difficult to establish the nationality of foreign terrorist fighters in many cases. We can report that according to the Monitoring Team of UN Security Council sanctions committees (pursuant to resolutions 1267/1989/2253 and 1988), the number of foreign terrorist fighters in Syria and Iraq is over 10,000. We can assume that there are Russian citizens among them. Agence France-Presse: What is the Russian Federation’s position on the repatriation of these citizens, including women and children? Maria Zakharova: The Russian Federation believes that any person has a legal right to return to the territory of his/her nationality. In terms of international law, this right is based on the right to the freedom of movement as envisaged by Article 12 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This policy is fully reflected in Russian law as well, including part 2 of Article 27 of the Russian Constitution, Article 2 of Federal Law No. 114-FZ of August 15, 1996 On the Procedure of Exit from and Entry to the Russian Federation and Article 1 of Law No. 5242-1 of June 25, 1993 On the Right of Citizens of the Russian Federation to the Freedom of Movement and the Choice of Place of Stay and Residence within the Russian Federation. Agence France-Presse: How many women and children that are Russian nationals has Russia already brought home? Maria Zakharova: In the past few years, Russia has repatriated 341 minors that are Russian citizens from Syria and Iraq. The Office of the Children’s Rights Commissioner under the President of the Russian Federation manages this process, with support from the Foreign Ministry. Agence France-Presse: Has the Russian Federation changed its policy on the return of this category of nationals to their homeland in the past few years? Maria Zakharova: The policy of the Russian Federation on the return of this category of nationals is based on the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the federal laws of the Russian Federation, universally recognised norms and principles of international law, and applicable international treaties of the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation proceeds from the premise that upon reaching the age of criminal responsibility, any person who is proved guilty of a criminal act in a legally established procedure must face criminal responsibility. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4876395 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 29th Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy (CFDP), Moscow, October 2, 2021 2 October 2021 - 19:10 Colleagues, Friends, Thank you for inviting me. I am no stranger to the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy. In fact, I stood at its origins, since its founders kindly asked me to take part. As we were entering this room today, I saw many young faces, and Sergey Karaganov told me that he does not know many of you. This is good to see. What matters the most is that more young people go beyond just absorbing information and make it into the Council Board. Fyodor Lukyanov: We were discussing this right before you arrived. You are spot on. Sergey Lavrov: Great minds think alike. This goes to show that so far you have been keeping pace with the time. This is essential for all of us not only as we go about our daily lives, but in international affairs. It is not my intention to spend too much time in my opening remarks discussing the ongoing international developments. There are many articles on this subject, including by researchers present here at this table, and many other CFDP members. The current stage in global development consists of a transition to a global multipolarity, which has been going on for many years now. This transition from a US-led model with the West at its core to a more democratic and sustainable world order will take a long time. Everyone understands that as far as international affairs and development are concerned, the centre of gravity is shifting from the Euro-Atlantic to the Asia-Pacific, and Eurasia as its essential component. International relations are becoming increasingly inclusive and open to a diverse mix of influences. It builds on a multitude of intertwined factors such as development and statehood models, political traditions, cultural and civilisational codes, and much more. All these processes need to be conceptualised. One thing is clear. The traditional balance of power will not bring about a sustainable and lasting solution to this issue. What we need is a balance of interests. In a recent article Fyodor Lukyanov wrote that this is a challenge, butwhen you try to agree on something, and there is always a chance that you will when you start talking, decisions that are based on consensus and compromise will always be more durable, resilient and lasting than the deals concocted in a narrow circle and then offered to everyone else as some kind of an ultimate truth. This is what is currently happening with the Western concept of a rules-based world order. It emerged at the turn of the century and circulated among political scientists. However, after the government coup in Ukraine and the will expressed by the people of Crimea to reunite with Russia, the West decided to vent its frustration over its failed project on the Russian Federation and pushed ahead with this rules-based world order concept propelling it into US, EU and NATO doctrines. Building on this initiative, the West has been coming up with multiple formats such as the French-German Alliance for Multilateralism, the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, the Global Partnership to Protect Media Freedom, the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, the Call for Action to Strengthen Respect for International Humanitarian Law – all these initiatives deal with subjects that are already on the agenda of the UN and its specialised agencies. These partnerships exist outside of the universally recognised structures so as to agree on what the West wants in a restricted circle without any opponents. After that they take their decisions to the UN and present them in a way that de facto amounts to an ultimatum. If the UN does not agree, since imposing anything on countries that do not share the same “values” is never easy, they take unilateral action. One of the fashionable trends today is the US-invented Indo-Pacific strategies embodied in the foursome QUAD – the United States, Japan, India, and Australia – and the recent creation of the bloc [known as] AUKUS. All of this tends to erode the universal formats in the APR, which have existed for the last few decades under the ASEAN aegis and have been ASEAN-centric. I am referring to EAS, ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus, and a number of other formats. These were based on consensus and involved, without exception, all of the key countries of the region, including China, India, Japan, and Russia, on terms of equality and regard for each other’s interests. The Indo-Pacific concept is aimed at breaking up this system that relied on the need to respect the indivisibility of security and has openly proclaimed that its chief objective is containing China. These rules are being manifested here as well. High on the agenda is the Summit for Democracy the United States is convening in December. It is quite clear who will select the candidates for it. This being an American initiative, the Americans will decide who merits the title of “democracy” in their eyes. It will be interesting to see just for the sake of it who will be invited. As I hear, there are already speculations to the effect that a number of key US allies, particularly in the Middle East, are not eligible for being called democracies, but they can’t afford to leave them uninvited. We’ll live and see. This will require a lot of diplomatic resourcefulness. But the first is the worst, as they say. Here is a fresh example: yesterday or the day before yesterday, it was announced that US President Joe Biden was convening a cyber security summit later on this month. It was said that approximately 30 states were being invited, although the UN has discussed cyber security, at the initiative of Russia and many other countries, for decades – for almost 20 years, to be exact. Early this year, a resolution was coordinated, approving a five-year schedule for negotiations within an open working group, that is, a format open to all UN members. We will discuss pressing cyber and cyber-space security problems. This trend, regrettably, was gaining momentum for quite a while and now it has reached its apogee. This situation shows that international relations are getting increasingly more complicated, multi-layer and non-linear, which suggests that a high-quality expert analysis is needed here. The Russian Foreign Ministry follows closely the activities of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, as well as debates at the political science circles and think tanks, specifically discussions analysing not only the international situation but also Russia’s foreign policy and related problems. We borrow many useful ideas. Let me be quite frank about it. We take them into consideration in a bid to improve our own performance and while working on new conceptual documents. We hear criticisms, for which we are certainly grateful. The CFDP’s criticism is always constructive and aimed at finding solutions that would be of maximum use for this country. We see this criticism as a model and example of not indifferent attitude to and concern for the common cause. So, thank you for your tips. We are sometimes criticised that there is not enough ideology in our foreign policy, compared to the West, which is enforcing its principles everywhere, including through the concept of the “rules-based world order.” With all our respect for those who sometimes say this, I have my own opinion on the matter. I believe that not only Soviet but also international experience show that the ideologisation of foreign policy is a dead-end road. Messianism is a confrontational approach by default. It distracts people from their national interests. There are many historical examples to prove this. I believe that we made correct conclusions after applying this approach in the Soviet Union. The goal of our current policy, which has been formalised in the Foreign Policy Concept approved by President Putin, is to create maximally favourable external conditions for our internal development in terms of security, economic objectives, the social situation of our citizens and the improvement of our positions within the country. Unlike the United States – trust me that this is so indeed – we have no ideological likes and dislikes, or any taboos in relations with our foreign partners. This is our methodological and practical advantage, because it allows us to play an active mediation role during the settlement of conflicts, which we consider important to keep on our agenda, to maintain contact with all the players without exception when it comes to both irreconcilable state entities and to antagonists within the countries in the flames of conflict. We will always uphold international law and the central role of the UN. I have already quoted Fyodor Lukyanov, and now I would like to quote Sergey Karaganov: “We always know that the truth is on our side.” Let us regard this as our ideology or the ideological content of our foreign policy. Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and part of all reasonably important mechanisms of global governance, first of all, G20, but also Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and many other formats. Multilateral associations with Russia’s involvement are playing an increasingly large role in the development of not only the regional agenda, but also global development trends. BRICS, the CSTO and the SCO have recently held their summit meetings. Their results show convincingly that the importance of these organisations is growing. Our relations with China and India have an inherent strategic value. President Putin’s initiative on convening a summit of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council is aimed at strengthening the collective diplomatic leadership. Relying on our resource, political and strategic potential, we will continue to actively promote a positive agenda focused on creating conditions for building a new world order, which will not cancel out the previous one but will help us return to the roots set out in the UN Charter. Getting back to the “rules” invented by the West, we are not against rules as such. I spoke about this at the UN General Assembly. Essentially, the UN Charter is a set of rules, but these rules are universally applicable and acceptable. This is why in my address I proposed a hashtag #UNCharterIsOurRules. I believe that this reflects the objectives which we want to attain through our international efforts. In conclusion, I would just like to say a few words about the experience of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy and expert support for our foreign policy. This is what we do want very much. In my opinion, it is very important that the Council’s activities during the past few years have increasingly demonstrated that our expert community is not only, and not so much analysing Western political surveys and analytical studies but is formulating our own global estimates from the viewpoint of Russia’s interests. Therefore, I would like to thank you once again for inviting me. I am looking forward to having some interesting discussions, and I would also like to know what you talked about while I was away. You have roused my curiosity. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4876621 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Alen Simonyan, Speaker of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, October 4, 2021 4 October 2021 - 13:06 Mr Speaker, We are delighted to welcome you and your delegation. We appreciate the fact that you have decided to visit the Russian Federation on your first visit abroad in the capacity of Speaker of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia. This reflects the allied nature of our relations and strategic partnership. I am aware of the packed schedule of your visit, and this highlights the current level of our relations. Russia has just held State Duma elections. The State Duma, including the lineup of the relevant committees, will start functioning effectively within the next few days. This will also make it possible to resume full-format parliamentary cooperation. We are happy to see you. Once again, welcome. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4877032 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Sameh Shoukry, Moscow, October 4, 2021 4 October 2021 - 14:20 Mr Minister, My dear friend, We are happy to welcome you and your delegation to Moscow. We meet regularly. I am sincerely grateful for your hospitality in Cairo last April. I hope we will reciprocate it today. Ten days ago, we had a brief meeting in New York and managed to discuss current issues regarding the activities of the UN General Assembly. This was a useful conversation. Now we will have an opportunity to discuss in more detail all aspects of our bilateral relations, especially regional and international problems. This frequency of our contacts reflects the quality of our relations sealed in the Treaty on Comprehensive Partnership and Strategic Cooperation that was signed by our presidents and entered into force in January 2021. We will also discuss a schedule for our upcoming contacts, including an important mechanism we must create in the near future, notably, the two+two meetings of our defence and foreign ministers. I am glad to see you. Welcome. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4877091 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, Moscow, October 4, 2021 4 October 2021 - 16:17 Good afternoon. We have had very good talks. Both sides are pleased with the high level and quality of our bilateral relations. They are developing successfully and consistently in accordance with the Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Strategic Cooperation signed between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of the Arab Republic of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, which came into force in January 2021. We are interested in building up our multifaceted interaction in all spheres. We pointed out the importance of active collaboration between all concerned ministries and agencies, including foreign ministries. We welcomed the dialogue between our defence ministries and security councils and noted the positive effects of regular meetings between our foreign and defence ministers in the 2+2 format. We have agreed to make arrangements to hold the next such meeting early next year. Our trade and economic ties are developing steadily. Despite a certain decline in mutual trade last year, the growth trend resumed early this year. We agree that the restoration of positive growth will be promoted by the full-scale resumption of flights between Russian cities and the Egyptian Red Sea resorts in August 2021. We talked about the importance of large joint investment projects, namely the construction of the El Dabaa nuclear power plant and the establishment of a Russian industrial zone in Egypt. The Joint Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation is playing an important role in boosting our business cooperation. During the latest meeting held in June this year, the commission’s co-chairs – our ministers of industry and trade – mapped out practical ways to deepen our interaction and expand mutual trade. We talked at length about a number of current issues. Our countries are committed to the central role of the UN and to respect for the norms of international law during the settlement of existing crises and conflicts, including in the Middle East and Africa. We have agreed to continue our close interaction on issues on the agenda of the UN and other multilateral forums. We exchanged views on the developments in Libya and on what the external players, including Egypt and Russia, can do to help implement the agreements reached in Geneva a year ago, in particular, to prepare for the national elections scheduled for December 24. We pointed out that the successful organisation of the election process depends on the establishment of a legal framework and on further efforts to incorporate government agencies and restore joint armed forces. We discussed the withdrawal of all non-Libyan armed groups and military units from the country. Our position is clear: this should be done in stages and in a synchronised manner to avoid any risk of undermining the existing balance of power which has helped maintain a truce in Libya for more than a year now. We reaffirmed the importance of the UN mission in supporting Libya’s progress toward a settlement and ensuring that the international community has a role on the ground. We had quite a detailed conversation on the political settlement in Syria based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254, and emphasised the need to preserve the Syrian Arab Republic’s (SAR’s) unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty, and that encouraging separatist trends is unacceptable. We noted that it was especially important at the present stage to provide effective assistance to the Syrians in overcoming the consequences of an armed conflict that has been dragging on for many years. We spoke out against attempts to politicise humanitarian aid, including efforts to help refugees and internally displaced persons to return to their homes as soon as possible. We share the view that there is no alternative to the universally recognised international legal framework of the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that only direct talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians can bring about a comprehensive solution to all matters relating to the final status. Talks to this effect have our full support and encouragement. We stand for a revival of the Middle East Quartet of international mediators, working in close cooperation with the Arab League. Just like Egypt, Russia has done much to help the Palestinians restore unity and to promote intra-Palestinian contacts. These were useful talks, reflecting the high level of our strategic cooperation. Question: President Vladimir Putin and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met in Sochi last week, but the situation around Idlib remains vague. Will anything be done to implement the Russia-Turkey agreements, especially with regard to anti-terrorist activities? When Russia talks about the withdrawal of foreign troops from Syria, mainly the American units, does this also imply the Turkish units in the northwest of the country? Ibrahim Kalın, the Turkish President’s representative, said Turkey has the right to be in Syria as long as Russia and the United States are there. Sergey Lavrov: There is a terrorist threat in the Idlib de-escalation zone. It is even growing stronger in some areas, and we expressed concern over this today. Terrorist groups continue attacking Syrian army positions just beyond the Idlib de-escalation zone. Moreover, they are trying to act against the Russian troop contingent. Russia unequivocally confirms the need to implement the agreements between President Putin and President Erdogan on isolating the terrorists, primarily Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (no matter what new attire it might use), with the ultimate purpose of suppressing these terrorists groups. This is our approach. The sooner this is done the better. In practical terms, we will insist on the full implementation of these agreements. As for the presence of foreign armed forces and military units in Syria, Resolution 2254 (which has not been cancelled by anyone) that was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council, explicitly reaffirms the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic. In line with this resolution, only the armed forces of countries that are invited by the lawful government of the SAR, a UN member, have the right to be on Syrian territory. This applies to the American units. In addition to regular troops, there are numerous units of so-called private military companies. We need to bear this in mind as well. As for Mr Kalin’s statements, I will recall the words of President Erdogan who has announced officially many times that the Syrian Arab Republic is an independent country and Turkey will fully respect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. In terms of a final settlement, we will assume that this is Turkey’s position. Question: The lower chamber of Japan’s legislature elected former Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida to be Japan’s Prime Minister, by majority vote. The new Government lineup was approved today. How will the new Government affect the Moscow-Tokyo dialogue on the peace treaty? Sergey Lavrov: We have not had time to discuss the situation in Japan with Mr Shoukry. It is too early to discuss how the new Government will affect anything at all. It has just been appointed, agreed upon and endorsed. Moreover, as the new Prime Minister of Japan, Fumio Kishida announced that Japan will hold parliamentary elections in the near future. As I understand it, the new team is preparing for this. Once the permanent government is established, it will be possible to talk about the assessments of its foreign policy actions. But we must wait for the elections and the new government to be formed and also for an announcement of its political platform. As for Mr Kishida, I worked with him when he was foreign minister; we had constructive and sincere relations. I would like to add that it was during his work as Japanese Foreign Minister that we drafted a concept of joint economic activities on the southern Kuril Islands under instructions from the Russian President and the Japanese Prime Minister. We will have to wait and see to what extent we will be able to ensure the continuity of Russian-Japanese cooperation in this and other areas. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4877388 Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the terrorist attack in Kabul 4 October 2021 - 18:42 We resolutely condemn the terrorist attack launched by ISIS at the entrance to a mosque in the centre of Kabul on October 3. According to preliminary information, the blast killed 19 civilians and injured more than 30 people. We express condolences to the families of the deceased and wish an early recovery to the victims. We note the need for continued efforts aimed at eradicating terrorism in Afghanistan. The Taliban leaders have given their assurances on this matter, declaring that there will be no threats to third countries’ security from the territory of Afghanistan. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4877807
__________________
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 |
October 16th, 2021 | #4 |
Senior Member
|
Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken
6 October 2021 - 10:39 On October 6, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the initiative of the US side. The interlocutors exchanged opinions on prospects for resuming full-scale implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on settlement concerning the Iranian nuclear programme, and also discussed a number of current bilateral matters. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4880524 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Moscow, October 6, 2021 6 October 2021 - 11:58 Mr Minister, Friends, We are delighted to welcome you to Moscow. Despite the coronavirus pandemic, we continue to maintain an intensive political dialogue at all levels, including between the presidents of our countries. During their last telephone conversations in August and September, they agreed on a number of areas for our future work. Today we are to consider ways to implement those agreements. A new vector of our cooperation will have to do with Iran's joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) as a full member. A corresponding decision to start the accession process was made at the recent SCO Summit in Dushanbe. The focus of today’s negotiations will be the need for a full renewal of the Iranian nuclear programme agreement without any exemptions or additions. We would like to discuss how this process can be expedited. Other topics on our agenda include our interaction in Syria and other regions of the Middle East and North Africa and, importantly, ways to restore normal relations in the Persian Gulf zone. Your visit to the Russian Federation is very timely. I am quite sure that we will do some useful work here. Welcome. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4880560 Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Malaysian Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah 6 October 2021 - 12:30 On October 6, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Malaysian Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah. The ministers discussed topical matters regarding the bilateral agenda, including political contacts, the operation of the Joint Russian-Malaysian Commission for Economic, Scientific, Technical and Cultural Cooperation and efforts to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. They conducted an interested exchange of opinions on the situation in the Asia Pacific Region and voiced their mutual striving to invigorate dialogue between the Russian and Malaysian Foreign ministries. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4880636 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Iran Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Moscow, October 6, 2021 6 October 2021 - 15:06 Ladies and gentlemen, We held talks during Mr Amirabdollahian’s first visit to our country as the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We discussed specific ways of expanding cooperation on bilateral projects based on the decisions made at the top level, including telephone conversations on August 18 and September 14 of this year between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Iran Ebrahim Raisi. We focused on bilateral trade and economic cooperation. Our trade is steadily growing. Despite the pandemic and the US’ unlawful sanctions, it increased by 42 percent in the first seven months of this year to reach $1.9 billion. We agreed not to stop at this figure and to continue promoting this trend by developing business ties, including at the regional level. We expressed a positive view on our humanitarian cooperation. Our priority is to counter the COVID-19 pandemic with joint efforts. The related departments are working for this purpose. We signed a contract on sending the Sputnik V vaccine to Iran and agreed to take measures to expedite this. We also reviewed the possibility of producing the vaccine in Iran. We spoke about international and regional problems and supported the development of international relations on the firm principles of the UN Charter. Our Iranian friends and Russia reject the West-promoted neocolonial “rules-based world order.” The West drafts this behind the scenes, obviating universal associations, with a view to imposing it on others later. As we have said more than once, our rules are based on the UN Charter. We coordinated our approaches at different international venues. We again welcomed the decision made at the 21st SCO summit in Dushanbe on the start of the procedure of accepting Iran in the SCO as a full member of this organisation. We reviewed the issues linked with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on settling Iran’s nuclear deal. We believe the way to restore the agreement, fixed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, lies only in consistent and full implementation by all parties based on the initially recorded balance of interests. Both Moscow and Tehran believe the Vienna talks must be resumed as soon as possible. My colleague confirmed to me that Iran is ready for this. There is also an understanding that the talks are not an end in itself. The international community is waiting for the US to return to the legal field of the nuclear deal and the abrogation of illegal restrictions on Iran and its trade and economic partners. We consider pointless the attempts by some countries to link the JCPOA’s preservation to Tehran’s consent to make concessions on other issues that are unrelated to the deal. We are convinced that we must discuss the situation in the region all-together, at one negotiating table and beyond the JCPOA’s framework. This approach rests at the foundation of the Russian concept on security in the Persian Gulf. It was updated in August and published as an official document of the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. We urge our Iranian and Arab friends to continue moving to mutual rapprochement, discussing and coordinating their positions on any issues in response to any concerns. We talked a lot about the developments in Afghanistan. Our countries are solidary in their belief that the Afghans that suffered from Washington’s geopolitical experiments for two decades, have a lawful right to well-being and tranquility in their homeland. They can implement this right by achieving internal political stabilisation, ensuring a balance of interests between all ethnic and religious groups and adhering to the principle of inclusivity in forming institutions of authority. All these things should help this ancient nation restore its economy and bring life back to normal with consideration for its centuries-long traditions. Afghanistan should stop being a source of regional and global instability. We urge the new Afghan authorities to wage an uncompromising struggle against terrorist groups, illegal drug trafficking and arms sales. Noting the extreme character of Afghanistan’s economic problems, we recalled that responsibility for this rests with Washington and its supporters. We believe it is necessary to involve relevant international agencies in resolving the entire range of humanitarian problems. We are seeing serious practical steps by international organisations and Afghanistan’s neighbours in this regard. We welcome the tangible contribution of Iran that hosted millions of Afghan refugees. In this context, we discussed prospects for stepping up regional and international cooperation in facilitating Afghanistan’s post-conflict recovery. Russia and Iran have initiatives in this respect. We discussed the best ways of pooling our efforts in implementing them. We exchanged views on the military, political and humanitarian situation in Syria and expressed our mutual resolve to continue closely coordinating our actions with a view to reaching long-term peace and improving the socio-economic situation in Syria. We will continue our vigorous cooperation in the Astana format. This format includes Russia, Iran and Turkey and has already proved its efficiency. The three countries will convene their third summit in Iran as soon as the sanitary and epidemiological situation allows. For now, we will focus our efforts on promoting the success of a regular session of the Small Body of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva later this month. We reviewed a number of other regional issues, including cooperation between the Caspian Five, and efforts to ensure the ratification of the convention on the legal status of the Caspian Sea. We discussed developments in the South Caucasus, the Middle East and North Africa. We will stay in touch on all issues discussed. Question: With Iran as an SCO member and closely cooperating with the EAEU, how do you assess Iran-Russia interaction in these organisations? Sergey Lavrov: We assess it positively. We welcomed last month’s decision of the SCO summit in Dushanbe to start the procedure for Iran to become a full SCO member. Even now, Tehran, as an observer, can participate in practically all SCO activities, including the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group. This format is becoming increasingly important. We are interested in making effective use of it and other areas of the organisation's activities, such as security, fighting terrorism, extremism and separatism, and ensuring economic and transport connectivity. All the above fully meet the interests of the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran. With regard to the EAEU, Iran has been a party to the interim agreement on liberalising mutual trade for a long time now. More recently, we have begun to negotiate a comprehensive permanent agreement on a free trade area between the EAEU and Iran. I think the benefits arising from this process are clear to the participants. Question: The latest developments in the Caucasus clearly show that some regimes in that region are trying to strengthen their relations, to sow discord and to deliver a blow to Iran’s vital interests. On the other hand, as it conducts trilateral exercises with Turkey and Pakistan, Azerbaijan is setting the stage for the presence of foreign states in the Caspian Sea region. This runs counter to the obligations that these countries have assumed with regard to the Caspian Sea. Russia's position on this matter is not very clear. What does Russia think can be done to settle this issue and how does it approach this matter? Sergey Lavrov: We have stated our position on multiple occasions. Russia played a decisive role in stopping the war one year ago and having a trilateral declaration signed at the level of the President of Azerbaijan, President of Russia and Prime Minister of Armenia, under which a Russian peacekeeping contingent was deployed in the conflict zone in Nagorno-Karabakh to ensure peace and create a proper environment for a return to peaceful life. In addition, the same joint declaration contained principles defining further steps to advance the settlement, including unblocking all transport links and economic ties in the region. This will benefit not only Armenia and Azerbaijan, but also Georgia as another South Caucasus country, as well as Iran, Russia and Turkey as the closest neighbours of these three South Caucasus republics. In this context, we discussed today the initiative to create a “3+3” format to include the three South Caucasus countries and the three “big” neighbours, namely, Russia, Iran and Turkey. Our Iranian friends are supportive of this initiative, as are Azerbaijan and Turkey. We are working on it with our Armenian colleagues. We hope that despite its current problems, Georgia will be able to realise its fundamental interest in creating such a mechanism for consultations and approving decisions for the accelerated development of this region, which had been held back for a long time by the ongoing conflicts. We are opposed to building up military activity in this region or conducting any exercises of a provocative nature. Azerbaijan has expressed concern over the exercises that were recently held by our Iranian friends near its borders. With regard to the Caspian Sea region and setting the stage for foreign states’ interference in the affairs of the Caspian Sea region countries, we spoke with our partners and friends today and have more than once underscored the need to ensure the entry into force of the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea which explicitly prohibits the presence of military forces or any non-Caspian states in the Caspian Sea as soon as possible. The convention will enter into force as soon as the last instrument of ratification is received. This matter is now being reviewed by the parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I hope that the decision on ratification will be taken swiftly, and the convention will become a full-fledged international legal document that ensures a proper state of affairs in the Caspian Sea region. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4881252 To the Participants of the Plenary Meeting of the Missile Technology Control Regime, Moscow, 6 October 2021 6 October 2021 - 15:30 Unofficial translation I extend warm greetings to the participants of the Plenary Meeting of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which takes place in Sochi under the chairmanship of the Russian Federation. This year marked the 60th anniversary of the world’s first human space flight. This heroic act by our fellow citizen Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin vividly demonstrates that humankind can effectively address most difficult and demanding challenges and pave the way toward new horizons of its development. It is important that outer space remains an arena for peaceful and safe cooperation. Missile non-proliferation is one of Russia’s foreign policy priorities. For a quarter of century, our country has been an active participant of the MTCR, pursuing a consistent policy to improve its efficiency. We commend the efforts undertaken by our partners to develop multilateral dialogue on missiles and enhance national export control systems in a coordinated manner. Our common work to address major global security and stability issues is especially relevant today in these challenging times. This Plenary Meeting has quite a comprehensive agenda. You are going to discuss a wide range of pressing issues related to enhancing missile non-proliferation regime in all its dimensions. I hope you will have a fruitful discussion and wish you all the best. Sergey LAVROV The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4881300 Address by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Ryabkov at the opening of the Plenary Meeting of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Sochi, 6 October 2021 6 October 2021 - 15:32 Unofficial translation Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Heads of Delegation and Delegates, Ladies and gentlemen, Before I take the floor, it is my great pleasure to read out a message from Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation to the participants of the MTCR Plenary. “…” I join my Minister in welcoming you to the MTCR Plenary Meeting. Let me at first instance express our appreciation to the previous Chair – the Republic of Austria and Ambassador Hajnoczi personally – as well as to the MTCR Point of Contact (representatives of the French Foreign Ministry) for maintaining dialogue within the MTCR. It is a great honour for us to chair this important international forum. This mission came at a difficult time. The pandemic has brought dramatic changes to many aspects of our lives, including international relations. Therefore, it is especially encouraging that, despite the obstacles, we were able to gather here – albeit in reduced numbers – and begin, after a two-year break, a meaningful conversation on pressing issues related to preventing the proliferation of missile technology. The world is undergoing tectonic shifts accompanied by increased conflict potential, instability and volatility. Former security structures are eroded and replaced by new, more complex forms of interaction. Some countries are overtly striving to reshape the political landscape in order to ensure their dominance over others and substitute international law with a so-called “rule-based world order”. Coercion is acquiring a greater role, with “undesirables” being pressured with tougher sanctions, and extremely harsh, peremptory rhetoric bordering on insult and inconsistent with ways of traditional diplomacy becoming more widespread. As a result, there are fewer opportunities to reach agreement and political compromise. These international developments are directly related to the missile component. Missile systems have long become an integral part of national, regional, global and outer space security systems, with their share steadily rising. Qualitative development of missile technologies and improved missile performance in terms of strike potential, speed and range make these weapons attractive to states for accomplishing combat tasks and delivering effective strikes, including prompt ones, against a wide range of targets, even the most critical ones. Needless to say, the destructive power of a missile increases manifold when used to deliver weapons of mass destruction (WMD). According to our estimates, the role of missile technologies is going to increase further. We all will have to take into account the rapidly changing missile realities and respond to them in a timely manner. The world community is hardly ready for the upcoming challenges related to the realm of missile technology. We are short of tools to face them. On a bilateral basis, the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, which was extended earlier this year for a five-year term to 5 February 2026, can be cited as a positive example. The New START Treaty ensures that the core mechanism for maintaining strategic stability, which strictly limits the nuclear missile arsenals of the Parties on the basis of parity, remains in place and continues to operate. Considerable effort will be required to bring the U.S.-Russian dialogue in this area back on track and to achieve new tangible results that would strengthen national security and strategic stability around the world. The second U.S.-Russia inter-agency meeting recently held in Geneva represents a step in this direction. Unfortunately, the recent decades have seen the erosion of essential treaties, such as the ABM and the INF Treaties, which used to play the key role in ensuring predictability and restraint in the missile sphere at both global and regional levels. Russia had been trying hard to preserve those treaties. In this context, let me remind you of Russia’s moratorium on the deployment of its ground-launched intermediate- and short-range missiles in Europe and other regions of the world provided similar U.S.-produced systems are not deployed there, as well as of our call on NATO countries to consider introducing a reciprocal moratorium and developing reliable verification mechanisms. However, our colleagues from the North Atlantic Alliance do not seem ready to take such steps yet. As for the multilateral track, here we rely first of all on the MTCR export control mechanisms and some transparency and confidence-building measures under the Hague Code of Conduct. There is also a country-specific ban imposed by the UN Security Council on the DPRK’s activities to develop ballistic missile technologies. The recently-launched informal Berlin Missile Dialogue Initiative is standing somewhat apart. The UN Panel of Governmental Experts on the Issue of Missiles in All Its Aspects, a once-active UN platform for dialogue, has not held meetings since 2008. Thus, the missile “field” (unlike that of WMD) lacks a global legally binding instrument to contain missile proliferation. The Russian Federation considers the development of such a regime to be a strategic goal. A global missile non-proliferation regime would ensure transparency in implementing missile launches and programmes, as well as eliminate any possibility of unauthorized and uncontrolled transfers of missile technologies from states that possess such technologies to other countries. This global regime would constitute an independent mechanism and complement the existing agreements (the MTCR and the Hague Code of Conduct). Building on this approach, as early as 1999, Russia introduced an initiative to gradually implement this idea. As an initial step, Russia suggested creating the Global Control System for the Non-Proliferation of Missiles and Missile Technology (GCS). It would have envisaged missile launch transparency, security assurances and economic incentives for states that had renounced means of WMD delivery, as well as consultations. The GCS was expected to be developed and operated on a multilateral basis under the UN auspices. Unfortunately, the initiative saw a limited implementation due to the opposition from a number of states. Exchange of views on the missile issue at various multilateral platforms shows that our partners do not avoid the topic in principle, but – just like before – are clearly unwilling to be bound by any formal dialogue commitments like the UN Panel of Governmental Experts, let alone more advanced initiatives to establish a global legally binding instrument to prevent missile proliferation. In these circumstances, we have few viable options left. One of them is for missile possessing countries to engage in a UN-led inclusive informal dialogue based on an open agenda aiming to provide global response to existing missile challenges. We suggest considering a separate side event parallel to the UN General Assembly First Committee session in 2022 involving experts from missile possessing countries to discuss possible ways forward on the missile issue. Another option is to increase the MTCR’s potential. This could imply a fast-track admission procedure for missile possessing countries or at least outreach efforts to develop dialogue with these countries, as well as expanding the potential of information sharing with a view to conducting a joint analysis of global trends in the missile area and identifying possible solutions to missile challenges. Yet such a dialogue, if pursued within the current narrow format of the Regime, would be a conversation of the chosen few, with all that it implies. We understand that the above mentioned list of tasks is extensive and ambitious one. We have no illusions that they can all be addressed at this plenary meeting or even during the entire year of Russia’s chairmanship of the MTCR. Yet we are convinced that it is only through joint effort and respectful dialogue based on equality and consideration of mutual interests that progress on them can be reached. It is our hope that members of the international community will ultimately realize the need for a broader and more equal dialogue between missile possessing countries. And one more remark. We regard the MTCR to be a tool to tackle the objectives of preventing the proliferation of the missile technology and related materials. We believe that the Regime should not become an obstacle to lawful technological cooperation between countries on peaceful exploration of outer space or target certain states. The MTCR is intended to help bring all parties together in a spirit of cooperation. I wish you a fruitful work. Thank you. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4881314
__________________
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 |
October 16th, 2021 | #5 |
Senior Member
|
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Republic of Rwanda Vincent Biruta, Moscow, October 7, 2021
7 October 2021 - 13:26 Minister, Colleagues, We are glad to welcome you to Moscow. As we have just said in our brief conversation, this is your first visit to the Russian capital, and I do hope that you will find much to see here. We are looking forward to the opportunity we have today to hold a detailed discussion on our bilateral relations and cooperation in international arena in keeping with the agreements reached in principle during the meetings between President Vladimir Putin and President of the Republic of Rwanda Paul Kagame. Welcome. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4882172 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answer to a media question at a joint news conference following talks with Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Vincent Biruta, October 7, 2021 7 October 2021 - 16:04 Ladies and gentlemen, We had a good discussion. We talked about the status of our bilateral relations and prospects for their further development. We confirmed our mutual resolve to consistently improve them based on the decisions reached during the meetings between the Russian and Rwandan presidents in Moscow in 2018 and in Sochi in 2019. We agreed to step up our efforts to increase trade. It is growing but absolute figures are still modest for now. The main point is that we agreed to build up our cooperation on many investment and cooperation projects in energy, civilian nuclear energy, geological prospecting, raw mineral mining, information technology, medicine and agriculture. We will help our businesses to establish and expand contacts. Our military and military-technical ties are making steady headway. We have long-range plans for further development. We will also expand humanitarian cooperation. This applies, in part, to the education of Rwandans in civilian professions at Russian universities, as well as the training of military and law-enforcement personnel. Rosatom is preparing 70 people for work at the Nuclear Research and Technology Centre that is now under construction. We coordinated our efforts on expanding the contractual legal framework of our relations, including the promotion of sports and physical fitness. This interest is mutual. We discussed in detail the international agenda. Our positions of principle fully coincide. We are committed to international law, and the goals and principles of the UN Charter, including respect for the sovereignty of all states, non-interference in their internal affairs, as well as respect for the right of nations to determine independently models of political and socio-economic development and a recognition of their right to choose their external partners. Our dialogue on international issues was quite positive. We coordinate our efforts at multilateral venues, including the UN. We are grateful to our Rwandan friends for their traditional support of Russian initiatives at the UN General Assembly. We exchanged views on needed reforms to the UN Security Council. Russia’s position is immutable. We are convinced that any reform should include expanding the representation of the developing African, Asian and Latin American nations in the UN Security Council. We paid special attention to the efforts to overcome various conflicts and crises in Africa, first of all, in the area of the Great Lakes, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Mozambique, the Sahara-Sahel region, Libya, Somalia and Ethiopia. We have no differences on the comprehensive approach that is needed for overcoming these and other regional crises. We believe it is necessary to involve all conflicting parties in settlement talks and, importantly, give the central role to the Africans themselves. Our approach is well known: African solutions for African problems. We always use this approach and insist on at the UN. The international community should provide moral, political, material and peacekeeping support for African solutions. We are grateful to our partners for their ideas on the ongoing integration processes in Africa. We welcome Rwanda’s constructive contribution to the work of inter-governmental agencies, primarily, the African Union, the East African Community and the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR). We reaffirmed Russia’s willingness to continue facilitating regional stability both through bilateral efforts and in the UN Security Council. We discussed the implementation of the agreements reached two years ago at the first Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi. We reviewed preparations for a second meeting of Russian and African leaders in 2022. I would like to thank my colleague for this interesting joint work that will be instrumental in the further development of our friendly relations. Question: Is there an understanding of when and where the second Russia–Africa Summit will take place? What preparations are underway? Do all African countries intend to participate? Sergey Lavrov: We have discussed the implementation of the agreements reached at the first Russia–Africa Summit held in Sochi in October 2019. Following this summit, the heads of state and government announced the establishment of the Russia–Africa Partnership Forum. The forum secretariat has been formed and is located at the Russian Foreign Ministry. There are coordination, public and scientific councils operating under it. This is important support from civil society for all our initiatives. The Association of Economic Cooperation with African States has been created. It brings together representatives of major Russian businesses, including companies already carrying out projects on the African continent and those only planning to do so. The association is a useful structure that makes it possible to find real opportunities for mutually beneficial cooperation and joint implementation of projects between Russian and African entrepreneurs. The exact date and venue of the second Russia–Africa Summit are under discussion. Soon there will be a meeting between the foreign ministers of Russia and the troika of the African Union. This issue will have an important place in our dialogue. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4882399 Joint Statement by the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on Strengthening the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction 7 October 2021 - 18:00 The Russian Federation and China reaffirm their conviction that the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BWC) is essential as a pillar of the international peace and security, and their determination to safeguard the authority and effectiveness of the Convention. Today, as in 1975, its objective remains relevant: to rule completely out the possibility of biological agents being used as weapons. The Russian Federation and China reiterate the need that the BWC should be fully complied with and further strengthened, including through its institutionalization and the adoption of a legally binding protocol to the Convention with effective verification mechanism, as well as through regular consultations and cooperation in resolving any issues related to the implementation of the Convention. The Russian Federation and China emphasize that the BWC functions, including in what concerns the United Nations Security Council, should not be duplicated by other mechanisms. With a view to shaping a BWC mechanism of investigation of the alleged biological weapons incidents, they call on the BWC States Parties to develop operating standards for the mechanism, together with technical guidelines and procedures. The Russian Federation and China note with concern that over the past two decades the BWC States Parties, despite the wishes of the overwhelming majority, have failed to reach an agreement on resuming the multilateral negotiations on the Protocol to the Convention, suspended in 2001 when the United States unilaterally withdrew from this process despite the fact that the consensus was almost reached. Consequently, and also in the light of rapid advances in the field of science and technology with dual-use capabilities, the risk of biological agents being used as weapons has increased. In this context they emphasize that the United States’ and its allies’ overseas military biological activities (over 200 US biological laboratories are deployed outside its national territory, which function in opaque and non-transparent manner) cause serious concerns and questions among the international community over its compliance with the BWC. The two sides share the view that such activities pose serious risks for the national security of the Russian Federation and China, and are detrimental to the security of relevant regions. The Russian Federation and China further note that the United States’ and its allies’ military biological activities on their national territory also cause serious compliance concerns. Given the fact that the United States and its allies do not provide any meaningful information on those military biological activities that could allay concerns of the international community, the Russian Federation and China urge the United States and its allies to act in an open, transparent and responsible manner, by informing properly on its military biological activities carried out overseas and on their national territory, and supporting the resumption of negotiations on a legally binding protocol to the BWC with effective verification mechanism, so as to ensure their compliance with the BWC. In this context the Russian Federation and China note the importance of improved confidence-building measures under the Convention, inter alia, by including information on the overseas military biological activities by the BWC States Parties in the reporting form. The two sides believe that such declaration will be conducive to filling in the blank spots and fostering confidence among States Parties. The Russian Federation and China also call upon the BWC States Parties to continue joint efforts towards strengthening the Convention on a secure, legally binding basis. They welcome relevant initiatives. At the same time, they support ancillary measures to improve the current implementation of the Convention. The BWC institutional framework would be strengthened with the proposed mobile biomedical teams to render assistance in cases of biological weapons use, investigate such cases and help combat epidemics of various origins. This proposal represents a new approach to the improved BWC implementation at the international level, combining the principles of collective security and cooperation for peaceful purposes. The Russian Federation and China stress that the rapid development of science and technology in BWC-related areas call for greater attention of the BWC States Parties. There is a need to raise awareness of the risks associated with dual-use research and, simultaneously, promote the full use of the latest advances in biotechnology for peaceful purposes. In this context, the Russian Federation and China support the idea to establish a BWC scientific advisory committee to analyse scientific and technological advances relevant to the Convention and advise its States Parties accordingly. At the BWC Ninth Review Conference, the Russian Federation and China are prepared to consider any proposals capable of strengthening the Convention and improving its implementation in a non-discriminatory manner. They call upon all BWC States Parties to adopt a constructive approach to ensure that the decisions taken serve strengthening the BWC regime. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4882488 Statement by Vladimir Ermakov, Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation and Director of the Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, at the General Debate in the First Committee of the 76th Session of the UN General Assembly, New York, 6 October 2021 7 October 2021 - 18:12 Unofficial translation Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate you upon the election to such a high position. I wish you success with this task. I assure you of the willingness of the Russian delegation to facilitate your efforts in organizing debates in the First Committee of the UN GA. The exceptional circumstances caused by the coronavirus pandemic have had a very serious effect on the work of the UN GA First Committee (1C) that cannot hold its traditional in-person sessions for two years in a row. We consider the restrictions to be purely temporary. We are grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Secretariat for the assistance in maximizing the presence of delegations in the meeting room. Effective cooperation of States on highly sensitive issues related to international security can only be carried out in a systematic manner, with substantive discussions on all its aspects with participation of representatives from capitals. It is all the more important to resume full operation of the 1C in the light of the exacerbation of current global and regional security challenges and the emergence of new ones, as well as the growing destructive tendencies aimed at dismantling the existing international arms control regimes. We see the need for joint action to remedy this situation, primarily through the faithful observance of the norms and principles of international law by all States, with the UN continuing to play its central role. The Russian Federation is fully aware of its responsibility for the maintenance of global and regional stability and pursues the policy to preserve peace. We propose concrete political and diplomatic measures aimed at preventing the deterioration of the international security situation, as well as protecting and strengthening the arms control architecture. We welcome the sober pragmatism shown by the new U.S. administration. Russia and the U.S. have managed to jointly reach some important and constructive decisions. The New START Treaty has been extended for five years, what we have been consistently advocating. At the Russian-U.S. summit held in Geneva on 16 June, the parties reaffirmed their commitment to the principle of inadmissibility of nuclear war, which is something we have urged for some time. The agreement between presidents of Russia and the U.S. has initiated an integrated dialogue on strategic stability. Its key objective is to lay the groundwork for future arms control. We on our side suggest to develop a new “security equation” that would comprise key strategic stability factors and cover all offensive and embrace nuclear and non-nuclear weapons capable of performing strategic tasks. We look forward to work in a constructive manner in the search for common ground with a view to converging our positions on the basis of mutual consideration of each other’s interests. The spirit of the meetings we have had so far gives reason for cautious optimism. However, problematic issues remain, mainly caused by the destructive actions performed by Washington attempting to obtain unilateral advantages in the so-declared “great powers competition”. The collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty due to the U.S. withdrawal from it with NATO support has made the threat of the deploying U.S.-made land-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific real. Since Russia declared a moratorium on the first deployment of land-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, the NATO members were called upon to make similar commitments and to work on allaying existing concerns in a cooperative manner on a reciprocal basis. We also proposed specific schemes to elaborate verification procedures. We called on all parties concerned to seek a solution to the issue of maintaining stability and preventing missile crises in the Asia-Pacific region. Our proposals remain on the table. The development by the U.S. of its global missile defense system and its deployment in various regions of the world combined with the building of the capacity of high-precision non-nuclear weapons capable of performing strategic tasks remain a negative factor entailing considerable risks to global security. The U.S. non-strategic nuclear weapons is deployed on the territory of non-nuclear European States that is a violation of NPT commitments, its modernization, including the means of delivery, is ongoing. NATO continues its practice of “nuclear sharing” involving non-nuclear Alliance members in circumvention of the Treaty. We cannot fail to mention the U.S. withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty. It has broken the balance of the rights, obligations and interests of its parties and inflicted serious damage on international security. We were forced to mirror that move by denouncing the Treaty. Nuclear disarmament has high priority on the international agenda. We share the commitment to the noble goal of achieving a nuclear-free world. The question that needs to be answered is how to make progress toward this goal without undermining global stability and deepening the divide among States. We firmly believe that real progress towards nuclear disarmament can be achieved only through consensus-based decisions, by taking calibrated step-by-step measures, and keeping with the principle of equal and indivisible security as well as the need to maintain strategic balance. Russia has taken meaningful steps in that direction, reducing the role and place of nuclear weapons in its doctrines. The time has come to reflect seriously on how to bring nuclear disarmament to the multilateral level. In our view, all States with military nuclear capabilities should be involved in the dialogue. As a sponsor and depositary of the NPT, we view this Treaty as a fundamental element of the international security system. We are looking forward to the Tenth NPT Review Conference to be held in early 2022. It is our hope that the Conference will serve to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime and bridge the existing differences. Russia is of the view that any challenges to the non-proliferation regime should be addressed through peaceful means and on the basis of the NPT. A striking example is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear issue. The US withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 seriously undermined this agreement. It will not be easy to restore it. We call on all participants to show political wisdom in order to revive the JCPOA. The establishment of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) in various regions of the world is an important element of maintaining the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Our country has ratified all signed protocols to the NWFZ Treaties, granting security guarantees to more than 100 NPT States parties. We support the earliest possible establishment of a zone free of nuclear and all other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems in the Middle East, as envisaged in the 1995 Review and Extension Conference resolution. We support the IAEA's efforts to verify the fulfilment of the NPT States parties' non-proliferation obligations. This Agency is the only international mechanism authorized to carry out such activities. We support a stronger IAEA safeguards system that maintains its impartiality and welcome the universalization of the Additional Protocol to the IAEA Safeguards Agreement, on the understanding that accession to the Protocol is a voluntary measure. We are examining possible consequences of the establishment of the AUKUS trilateral security partnership. It is already clear that this partnership will not contribute to strengthening the NPT. There is a potential risk that another non-nuclear-weapon State will be used to deploy nuclear-weapon States' military nuclear infrastructure. This leads to greater international instability and runs counter to the efforts to reduce nuclear weapon arsenals. While not directly prohibited by the Treaty, the construction of nuclear submarines by a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the NPT could set a very negative precedent for the implementation of IAEA safeguards. This partnership is also questionable in the context of Australia's participation in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (the Treaty of Rarotonga). Clarifying reservations made by nuclear-weapon States when signing or ratifying protocols to nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties seem to be justified. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the CTBT's opening for signature. However, the Treaty has never entered into force. We call on the remaining eight Annex 2 States, which hold the fate of the Treaty in their hands, to take urgent steps to ratify it. Mr. Chairman, Russia fully supports the international regime prohibiting chemical, biological and toxin weapons and consistently advocates its universalization and strengthening. Our initiatives are well known. We will continue to promote them in the relevant multilateral fora. We make efforts to strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC), primarily by resuming work on a legally binding protocol to the BWC with effective verification mechanism. Russian initiatives to establish mobile biomedical units and a Scientific Advisory Committee, to update confidence-building measures, and to establish a BWC mechanism for investigating alleged violations of the Convention would be instrumental in strengthening the institutional framework of the BWC. An open-ended working group would help to accomplish these tasks and other constructive suggestions from States. We propose that appropriate decisions be taken at the Ninth BWC Review Conference. Another issue that needs to be considered is updating the principles and procedures of the UN Secretary-General's Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons, which have not been revised since their approval in 1990. With this view we are submitting a relevant draft resolution. We are counting on broad support and co-sponsorship. The situation in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) continues to deteriorate. Several countries, in contradiction to the principle of consensus, have resorted to voting in order to put pressure in favour of decisions that benefit them and contradict the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention. This has led to a division in the OPCW, the loss of its independent status and credibility as a renowned institution in the field of chemical disarmament and non-proliferation. Mr. Chairman, This year, humankind is celebrating a historic date – the 60th anniversary of the first manned flight into outer space. On 12 April 1961, Yuri Gagarin, a citizen of our country, orbited the Earth in a spacecraft and started the era of manned space exploration in the history of our civilization. Cooperation in the exploration and peaceful use of outer space should stay among the priorities of the global community. It is important to make sure that the limitless possibilities of the use of outer space are pursued in a way that is beneficial, not detrimental, to all humankind. However, the risks of outer space becoming an arena of conflict are materializing. Several UN Member States are pursuing the course towards the placement of weapons in outer space, increasing the capacities for the use of force (both kinetic and non-kinetic) against outer space objects, and the use of outer space for combat operations to achieve military superiority. We believe that regardless of the disagreements between separate States, it is in the common interests of the international community not to allow the outer space to turn into an arena for combat operations. The efforts of the global community, primarily space-faring nations, to prevent an arms race in outer space are now more important than ever, as they would guarantee saving outer space for peaceful purposes for the benefit of humanity. We call on our colleagues to strictly abide by decisions adopted by the first Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to Disarmament in 1978, aimed at conducting research and using outer space exclusively for peaceful purposes, preventing an arms race in outer space (PAROS), and launching relevant negotiations in line with 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Russia has always advocated for the elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. To this end, in 2008, Russia and China submitted to the Conference on Disarmament (CD) a draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects(PPWT), in 2014 we submitted its updated version. The document remains on the table for negotiations in the CD. The PPWT could become a sound foundation for a future multilateral instrument. Our initiative/political obligation on no first placement of weapons in outer space that has already acquired an international character, is aimed at stabilizing the situation until an instrument of this kind is being elaborated. Thirty countries have already become its full-fledged participants. We encourage others to join this initiative. We submit for consideration of the First Committee draft resolutions “No first placement of weapons in outer space” and “Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities” as well as “Further practical measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space”. We expect maximum support and co-sponsorship. One of our country’s key priorities in the United Nations is the consistent continuation of an inclusive multilateral discussion on international information security (IIS).We believe that it is important to reinforce the current atmosphere of consensus and a focus on results in the discussion on the topic within the UN. To this end, we intend to submit for consideration of the 76th session of the General Assembly the joint draft of the traditional Russian resolution on IIS. Our document will allow to bring an end to the functioning of two parallel negotiating tracks and ensure constructive activities of the new 2021‑2025 UN Open-Ended Working Group on security of and in the use of ICTs established on Russian initiative and with the support of the overwhelming majority of UN Member States. We call on all UN Member States to support our initiative and become its co-sponsors. Mr. Chairman, There is a growing need to consolidate the international community on the basis of a creative and constructive agenda, as well as to normalize the work of the UN disarmament machinery. To this end, Russia will continue to strive to improve the effectiveness and coherence of activities of the 1C, CD, and United Nations Disarmament Commission (UNDC). Collaborative work of these platforms would facilitate the resumption of a substantial dialogue on pressing issues on the international disarmament agenda without the imposition of politicized national approaches. Our initiative to elaborate within the CD an international convention for the suppression of acts of chemical and biological terrorism aims to promote the principles of unification and consolidation, in line with the current demands of the global community. We believe that its implementation would help to overcome the standstill in the work of the CD on the basis of common interests. We are also counting on the resumption of work of the UNDC which has for a long time been blocked for organizational reasons, including due to the non-issuance of visas to leading experts of the Russian delegation. All representatives of UN Member States should continue to enjoy unimpeded and non-discriminatory access to the UN Headquarters. Mr. Chairman, The Russian Federation encourages UN Members States to collaborate on a whole range of issues linked to international peace and security on an equal basis and refrain from confrontational methods. We propose to unite in the face of our common challenges. We intend to reach mutually acceptable solutions. Thank you. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4882585
__________________
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 |
October 17th, 2021 | #6 |
Senior Member
|
Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 7, 2021
7 October 2021 - 18:44 Sergey Lavrov to take part in high-level anniversary meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement ............................................................................................ Sergey Lavrov to attend a meeting of foreign ministers from the member countries of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia ............................................................................................ Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with UNECE Executive Secretary Olga Algayerova ............................................................................................ Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Minister of External Relations of the Republic of Angola Tete Antonio ............................................................................................ The upcoming meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers ............................................................................................ The First Committee of the 76th session of the UN General Assembly starts working Last week, the First Committee of the 76th session of the UN General Assembly opened. The agenda includes a wide range of pressing items related to maintaining international peace and security. It is gratifying to know that in the difficult circumstances of pandemic-related restrictions in the United States, the delegations, including experts from the various capitals, were able to be present in-person in the conference room. We look forward to an engaged professional dialogue on all matters of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. Practical measures to prevent an arms race in outer space are among the top priorities. The Russian delegation is ready for constructive interaction with the UN member states in common interests. Third Eurasian Women’s Forum St Petersburg will host the Third Eurasian Women’s Forum on October 13-15 at the initiative of Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matvienko. (The first forum took place in 2015, and the second one in 2018.) Held under the aegis of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the CIS Member Nations and the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the forum is a major international event. Its participants will include female leaders from the CIS and other countries (over 100 states in all), MPs, representatives of executive government bodies, international organisations, business circles, the scientific community, public and charity organisations, and respected members of the international women’s movement. This forum has won wide recognition as an effective mechanism of interaction and dialogue for women who are influencing social, political and economic decisions. It facilitates the growing participation of women’s movements in resolving global challenges of our time. The business programme of the third forum includes plenary and expert sessions organised by international organisations and associations, discussions, an offsite meeting of the Women 20 (W20) and a number of other events. The participants will devote key debates to the role of women in ensuring global security, the transition to new models of economic growth and social progress, overcoming the adverse consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, developing healthcare, balancing universal digitisation, and addressing global environmental and climate problems. The Foreign Ministry is doing all it can to facilitate preparations for this important international event and is planning to take an active part in it. Seventh World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad On October 15, the Seventh World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad will hold its opening ceremony, entitled “Russia and Our Compatriots in a Changing World,” to be followed by the plenary discussion “The Russian World and the Challenges of Our Time.” The congress will be held in Moscow on October 15-16 in conformity with the Federal Law No. 99-FZ of May 24, 1999 On the State Policy of the Russian Federation towards Compatriots Abroad and by agreement with the President of the Russian Federation. About 400 activists of public associations of compatriots and prominent representatives of the Russian diaspora from 102 countries are expected to take part in it. In Russia, invitations to attend the forum were sent to representatives of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, executive government bodies, the clergy and local NGOs. The forum has several priorities: to continue rallying the Russian community abroad amid new challenges; protect the rights and lawful interests of our compatriots; preserve the common historical memory; develop education abroad in the Russian language; promote compatriots’ media; and strengthen the role of the youth. Given the pandemic-related conditions, this landmark forum for our foreign diaspora will take place in the hybrid format (offline and online). It will determine the main areas of focus for Russia’s cooperation with its compatriots in the near future. We will soon publish information about media accreditation for the congress on the Foreign Ministry’s website. The 4th Global Forum of Young Diplomats “Victory Diplomacy” Between October 13-15, the Foreign Ministry Council of Young Diplomats, in conjunction with the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs and the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry, will host the 4th Global Forum of Young Diplomats “Victory Diplomacy” in Moscow. Key events of the Forum include a plenary session, presentation of the agreed upon Charter of the International Association of Young Diplomats and a round table at the level of young specialists from the Foreign Ministry of Russia and the Foreign Ministry of Belarus. Mikhail Shvydkoy, Vladimir Solovyev and V.V.Kuznetsov and many other prominent public figures directly involved in international activities, including Russia’s foreign policy, will take part in the plenary session “Great Victory over Nazism: Preserving memory and history, reinforcing the foundation for a peaceful future.” The following issues will be discussed by the panels: the role of the media in covering historical events; the factor of disinformation and fake news in modern media; falsification of history; the outcomes of the Yalta-Potsdam international relations system; the Nuremberg Tribunal rulings as the basis of historical policy; a new world order with the UN in the central coordinating role; and modern challenges and threats. More than 100 foreign diplomats are expected to attend. More information will be available on the Foreign Ministry’s website. Update on Afghanistan We are concerned about the ISIS terrorist group’s growing activities in Afghanistan. Recently, ISIS perpetrated a major terrorist attack outside a mosque in central Kabul killing 20 civilians and injuring more than 30. This group has stepped up hostilities in southern Afghanistan, in particular the province of Zabul. We note with particular concern the ISIS activities in the area adjacent to the Russian embassy in Kabul, where 5 militants from this terrorist group were neutralised on October 4. We call on the Afghan authorities to take additional steps to ensure the security of the Russian diplomatic mission, as well as Russian citizens in Afghanistan. Revoking accreditation of staff at the Russian Permanent Mission to NATO NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made a decision to terminate the accreditation of eight employees from the Russian Permanent Mission to NATO in Brussels. We were officially notified of this on October 6. Thus, our mission’s membership will be cut in half on October 31. This NATO step surprised us, but was not unexpected. The arrogance of it was surprising since no official explanations or reasons for doing so were provided. The media unleashed a slanderous campaign including multiple examples of fake news and direct disinformation coming from NATO. It was not unexpected, because our Permanent Mission was heavily cut in 2015 and 2018. This is a consistent NATO policy. Soon, there will be no one left in Brussels who can maintain a conversation at the proper level with the NATO International Secretariat or member countries. Clearly, this is what NATO is trying to accomplish. This stunt by NATO looks absolutely ridiculous amid their rhetoric about the need to maintain a dialogue and to resume Russia-NATO Council meetings. This is hypocrisy at its finest. On the one hand, they proclaim the need to interact and call for cooperation. On the other hand, they reduce the number of our Permanent Mission employees. To top it off, they spread misinformation without offering any explanation. There is more proof that the NATO statements are groundless. NATO has repeatedly, including recently, asked us to appoint a Russian permanent representative to Brussels and not be limited to contacts at the level of the acting permanent representative. And now we got what we got. NATO’s reluctance to cooperate has become clear once and for all. We will operate based on this premise when devising the response measures which will follow. Baltic Sea Security towards 2035 conference in Copenhagen We have to draw your attention to the Danish authorities’ consistent advocacy of anti-Russian approaches towards establishing interaction in the Baltic Sea region. Denmark’s Defence Minister Trine Bramsen noted at the conference Baltic Sea Security towards 2035 in Copenhagen that the security situation in the Baltic Sea noticeably degraded over the last 30 years. She attributed this to the idea that Russia allegedly “has chosen a path different from the European one” and “behaves aggressively.” The Danish side failed as usual to provide arguments in support of its groundless accusations. We consider such statements a fairly telling example of deliberately distorting the facts. Instead of their latest attempts to weave a false narrative, we would recommend that our Danish partners try and restore Russian-Danish relations, which were practically destroyed through their efforts, and launch specific initiatives to strengthen trust and to reduce the potential for conflict in the Baltic Sea, given the unprecedented buildup of NATO activity in that region. Crimea depicted as part of Ukraine at a UEFA presentation for the Euro-2024 championship We regret to inform you that anti-Russian sentiment has even reached the UEFA, an organisation whose charter is about developing and promoting the game of football free of religious, racial or political discrimination. Moreover, not a single sport organisation is competent to adjudicate territorial claims. Quite the contrary, as we can see. We can see behind all this Kiev’s concerted effort to use any and all international platforms to declare once again that they do not accept the existing realities and to prevent even the cartographic recognition of Crimea’s Russian status. The UEFA, a respectable organisation, should not let itself be drawn into the provocations of Ukrainian soccer officials. That the intention was to provoke is evident to everybody. Recall the scandal at the Euro-2020 championship concerning the Ukrainian national team, whose players wore jerseys with a slogan of Nazi collaborators who numbered among the Ukrainian nationalists fighting on the side of Nazi Germany. There is no place for aggressive, revanchist and extremist ideas in sports. We ask the UEFA leadership to give the matter the attention it deserves. Whatever is behind the UEFA’s topographic exercises, the fact that Crimea is part of the Russian Federation cannot be changed by presentations, statements or pictures on the Ukrainian football team’s uniform, or by provocation. We consistently stand for honest and fair sport, without politicisation or attempts to use it as an instrument of pressure and unfair competition. Athletes, including those who live in Russian Crimea, should not be hostage to jockeying, intrigue or blackmail. Forum of Museum Directors of SCO Member Countries Russia continues to consistently promote new areas of cooperation between the SCO member countries. Today, Tula hosts the SCO member countries’ first ever museum summit, which was organised by the Russian Ministry of Culture in a hybrid format. It is attended by officials from the ministries and departments handling cultural issues, as well as the heads of leading museums from SCO member countries and countries with observer status, including Belarus, Iran and Mongolia. The discussion will focus on the ways of establishing horizontal links between museums, carrying out joint projects and sharing experience in developing museum brands. Participants are expected to discuss the prospects for creating an SCO museum alliance. The event is unanimously regarded as an important part of the SCO’s systematic efforts to enhance mutual understanding between peoples and preserve Eurasian cultural and historical heritage. We believe the meeting will be a remarkable example of respectful and tolerant attitude to the national traditions and values of one another, contributing to mutual cultural enrichment through developing ties in culture and the arts. Russian-French exhibition projects The ongoing public health situation and the restrictions imposed unilaterally by Paris to hamper the development of ties between Russia and France have failed to stop the cultural communities of our two countries from engaging in robust dialogue and cooperation. The ambitious exhibition projects rolled out in Moscow and Paris testify to this. On September 16 of this year, an exhibition, France and Russia: Ten Centuries Together, was unveiled at the Moscow Kremlin Museums. It features over 200 of the most valuable artifacts from museum and research institution collections from the two countries, giving visitors insight into the centuries-old history of bilateral relations and the lives of outstanding personalities who significantly influenced the course of history. The opening ceremony for the exhibition, The Morozov Brothers’ Collection: Modern Art Icons, took place in Paris on September 21, 2021 as part of the Russian Seasons in France. Exhibited are over 200 paintings by prominent French and Russian artists of the turn of the 20th century, including works from the collections of the Pushkin Fine Arts Museum, the State Hermitage and the State Tretyakov Gallery. It is worth mentioning that, thanks to this project, Mikhail and Ivan Morozov’s unique collection has been taken from Russia abroad for the first time since its creation, which is a remarkable sign of the quality of museum ties and, generally, cultural cooperation between Russia and France. A retrospective exhibition of Ilya Repin’s creative work, The Russian Soul in Painting, which opened in Paris on October 3 of this year, is expected to become a highlight of the Russian Seasons festival. A witness to dramatic historical and social changes in Russia, this great artist had particularly warm feelings for France, a country with which he was connected in various periods of his life. Over 100 paintings are on display, including those from the collections of the State Tretyakov Gallery, the State Russian Museum and the Finnish Ateneum Art Museum. The Foreign Ministry opens an Odnoklassniki account As you may be aware, the Foreign Ministry is active on social media. We inform the public in Russia and abroad about Russia’s foreign policy and domestic approaches to pressing international and regional issues, maintain communication during emergencies, and provide an additional source of useful and interesting information. We are using digital platforms for this purpose. We understand that the social media are going through a period of turbulence, if not transformation. This is largely due to the lack of international regulation or a legal framework for their activities as foreign legal entities, as well as contacts with the host country. There is a vast number of issues that need urgent solutions. Just a few days ago, we witnessed a global collapse of several digital platforms - American IT giants – such as Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, to name a few, which made the complexity and fragility of the information architecture that had been built and monopolised by US internet companies over the past two decades clear to the world. In a heartbeat, billions of people lost access to the above information. We are not talking only about individual users, but businesses as well. This communication channel that many people assumed to be reliable stopped being so in an instant. These developments stem directly from information security. We have pointed this out many times and put forward corresponding initiatives in order to consolidate international efforts in this area. The US IT monopolies are not just operating outside the legal field (both national and international), but are also showing their true level of competence. It is unclear which is scarier. What happened has once again shown the urgent need to develop and promote the ICT-related domestic digital segment. We have been active on the domestic social media VKontakte since 2014. Last April, we joined the RuTube video hosting service. We did not anticipate foreign social media to fail, but we were building our preparedness in advance. Clearly, not for nothing. It so happened that the Foreign Ministry is now establishing its presence on another Russian digital platform. I’m delighted to inform you that the Foreign Ministry now has an official account on a popular Russian social network, Odnoklassniki. This briefing is broadcast live on our official page as I speak. Go ahead and join in. We will post our materials, primarily video content, on this page. This year, Odnoklassniki is marking its 15th birthday, and the developers have overhauled its design and interface and added new functionality to celebrate the occasion. At this point, we are interested in partnering up with them. I believe our participation will grace this anniversary. We will do our best to support the domestic IT company. Odnoklassniki is an uncontested leader in Russia and across the former Soviet Union. The total global audience amounts to 70 million people. Importantly, Odnoklassniki is used by hundreds of thousands of our compatriots in many non-CIS countries, such as Israel, Germany and the United States, to name a few. Many users will find it provides more convenience in getting access to our news and information. We believe this step will also contribute to the development of the Russian segment of the Internet and help form a new generation of Russian resources and web platforms, which we find truly important. Subscribe to our Odnoklassniki account (and more), and follow the latest developments in the Russian foreign policy online. Answers to media questions: Question: British Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace, said that London intends to carry out cyber attacks against hostile states, including Russia. What is the Foreign Ministry’s assessment of this threat? Maria Zakharova: We took note of the statements by UK’s Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace as reported by the British media. In particular, he talked about being ready to launch some kind of cyber attacks against hostile states, and named our country among them. For many years now, the idea of expanding offensive capabilities in the information and cyber space has been promoted in NATO member states under the pretext of countering threats that allegedly emanate from our country, with Russia as the most frequently named but not the only culprit. We call on our opponents not to get carried away by this so as not to instigate a cyber arms race. We reiterate that the Russian Federation has been a consistent advocate of rejecting attempts to militarise the information space and using ICT exclusively for peaceful purposes. This is a priority for us. Specifically, we have repeatedly suggested to our British partners holding bilateral expert consultations, but London prefers hostile, aggressive, reckless statements of this kind and professing groundless accusations against Russia instead of establishing constructive contacts among the corresponding agencies. Instead of this aggressive rhetoric, we offer our cooperation on all matters related to ensuring international cyber security. Question: How could you comment on reports on the initiative by 45 countries, including the United States, at the 98th session of the OPCW Executive Council in The Hague regarding the situation around the poisoning of Alexey Navalny, which the Russian authorities are being accused of? Maria Zakharova: Let’s take a look at the 45 states we are talking about. The countries carrying the burden of the infamous NATO and EU “solidarity” form the core of this group. We know all too well how “solidarity” of this kind is forged. This group is joined by countries that do not see any future for themselves without direct submission to these interstate associations that are seeking to guarantee that the trans-Atlantic axis formed by Washington and major European powers enjoys military, political, financial and economic dominance. The United States has been given and assumed for itself a key role in this affair. Let me emphasise that the story with Alexey Navalny’s so-called poisoning by a “Russian chemical weapon” is full of inconsistencies, contradictions, misinformation, shady developments that have yet to be clarified, insinuations at the highest political level and outright lies professed by the West. The media and political campaign that was unleashed after August 20, 2020 around Alexey Navalny’s condition, the way it evolved and the events that followed provide a growing body of evidence that all this was a provocation, crudely planned and coarsely executed by the special services of some Western countries. What lay behind this story was a conspiracy to interfere in Russia’s domestic affairs, including ahead of the September 2021 parliamentary election. It is also quite telling that it was the UK’s permanent mission to the OPCW that filed the corresponding paperwork. Let me remind you that it was the UK that also stood behind the so-called Skripal case, which was clearly rooted in London’s Russophobic, anti-Russia policy. We will immediately respond to this new anti-Russia invective. I would like to remind you that the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation has already submitted requests for legal assistance to the most active participants in this “conspiracy,” primarily Berlin, Paris, Stockholm and the OPCW Technical Secretariat executive team under the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, and the Foreign Ministry did the same under Article IX of the Chemical Weapons Convention. We have not received any replies so far. We still have many unanswered questions and quite a few new ones. Why do we need them? In order to complete the pre-investigation review that the Russian Interior Ministry has been carrying out for more than a year now on what happened in August 2020 to Alexey Navalny, so that this matter can be examined in due form, as required under the Russian law. Our main goal here is to receive an answer to what could be the main question: when and under what circumstances the traces of a chemical agent that was allegedly discovered by German chemists and specialists from French and Swedish laboratories appeared in Alexey Navalny’s biological samples? Two specialised laboratories allegedly collected these samples for the OPCW Technical Secretariat, and the Technical Secretariat and the relevant countries are doing everything to conceal in what countries these facilities are located. They simply refuse to publicly name, confirm or refute where these laboratories are. As far as we understand, these countries are part of the Euro-Atlantic community that cares so much about the developments surrounding Alexey Navalny. We will make a counter-claim and a document to this effect that will soon be available on the public section of the OPCW’s official website. Question: Could you comment on the recent interview by Lithuanian Ambassador to Russia Eitvydas Bajarunas with Lithuanian television channel LRT, during which he said that many Russians had left Russia for political reasons in the past few years? What can you say about this statement? Maria Zakharova: I believe that this is the biggest mistake our Western partners are making. They refuse to take notice of their own problems, sometimes claiming that they are other people’s mistakes or trying to peddle answers they like to the questions which nobody has asked, when nobody asks them for their opinion. This is exactly what has happened this time. As for the statement made by the Lithuanian Ambassador to Russia, I would like to inform you about the situation in that wonderful country, Lithuania. I would just like to point out that nearly a million people, or about 30 percent of the country’s population have emigrated from it during the past 30 years. So, I would say there is plenty to keep the Lithuanian government busy. Question: The Lithuanian Ambassador also commented on a meeting of the interior ministers, during which they discussed the situation on the Lithuanian-Belarusian border. In particular, it was described as a hybrid attack by the Belarusian Government. Lithuania has called for revising the EU’s migration policy. Maria Zakharova: If Lithuania as an EU member state has called on the EU to revise its migration policy, you should ask Lithuania’s Permanent Representation to the EU for comments. Migration is indeed a big problem in the EU; it has almost reached a critical point and is a serious challenge for the entire European continent, and not only the European one at that. We have pointed this out on numerous occasions. We welcome such debates, if they have indeed begun in the EU. However, they should be held in a constructive and pragmatic manner and should be open to reason, with due regard for modern-day realities and the root causes of the problems, which many EU member states have created in international relations. It is these problems that have ultimately led to the migration crisis. When speaking about migration problems and the resettlement of people, our Western partners tend to forget about the causes of their origin. They do not seem to remember or refuse to remember that they themselves have been the direct or indirect reason for the appearance of such global problems. Without understanding the root causes, without analysing the mistakes made and trying to correct them, it will be impossible to make any progress in overcoming these problems and preventing their reappearance. Question: Last week, the Russian Foreign Ministry called on Dushanbe and Kabul to look for mutually acceptable scenarios to settle the conflict. But the problem has not been solved so far. What is Russia’s position on this matter? Will Russia help Tajikistan in the event of the conflict’s aggravation? Maria Zakharova: We would like to hope that the Taliban will do their best to fulfil their promises, including when it comes to preventing any security threats from Afghanistan to third countries, first of all, neighbouring countries. We continue to make use of our contacts with the Taliban Movement to consistently promote the idea of an inclusive Afghan government, which will reflect the interests of all the ethnic and political groups in the country and will pursue a responsible and civilised policy towards external players and the civilian population in the country. The developments in Afghanistan and on the Tajik-Afghan border are the focus of our full attention. Moscow and Dushanbe are keeping close contact at the level of their defence departments, frontier services and diplomatic missions. We continue to cooperate in strengthening Tajikistan’s defences and frontier service with due regard for operational requirements. Russia’s 201st Military Base in Tajikistan is adequately equipped should it be required to provide support to the Tajik Government in the event of any aggravation. If necessary, we will act resolutely in accordance with the principles of Russian-Tajik alliance and strategic partnership, as the Russian leadership has repeatedly stated. Question: Sergey Lavrov has met with the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs. In particular, according to the Foreign Ministry, the parties discussed the resumption of talks on the nuclear deal, as the United States now wants to resume this after its unilateral withdrawal and is negotiating with Iran. Would it be correct to think that the upcoming 2022 UN Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Review Conference will set a kind of limit for the completion of the US-Iranian negotiation process and the revival of the deal? Maria Zakharova: We do not see any connection between the upcoming 2022 NPT Review Conference and the multilateral efforts being made to fully resume the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for the Iranian nuclear programme (JCPOA), which is often called a nuclear deal. As you know, intensive consultations between the JCPOA parties including Iran on the one hand, and US representatives were held from April to June. The objective was to try and persuade Washington to strictly comply with UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and Iran to unfreeze its obligations, which were suspended in response to American violations. Plans to resume these consultations are being considered. As for making predictions about the duration of the talks, their regularity and continuity – it is a thankless job. There is a lot of work ahead, and it should be focused on a rapprochement of positions. We believe the shortest and most effective way to “restart” the JCPOA at full capacity (we do hope this is what will happen) is through strict observance of its provisions by all parties on the basis of an initially verified balance of interests and without any additions or exemptions. These matters were discussed at length during talks between Sergey Lavrov and Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian in Moscow on October 6, 2021. We have taken note of all parties’ principled focus on expediting the coordination of a plan to renew the JCPOA. We hope a new round may take place soon, and that the previous efforts will serve as a starting point and a reliable basis for reaching agreements, which, we hope, will be reached in the foreseeable future. Question: Speaking at a news conference following talks in Moscow, the Iranian Foreign Minister said that his country saw a trend towards changes in the geopolitical situation in the South Caucasus and a trend towards border adjustment. Does Moscow agree with its partner’s assessments? Maria Zakharova: I would like to remind you that the Iranian Foreign Ministry has its own spokesman. So you’d better turn to that quarter for comments on their statements. I understand that you are asking about Moscow’s position on this statement. We are prioritising the need to ensure geopolitical stability and security in the South Caucasian region. Russia is pursuing a comprehensive policy, including by maintaining a dialogue with all regional players. Yesterday, the foreign ministers of Russia and Iran discussed the initiative to create a “three plus three” format comprising the three South Caucasus countries and their three “big” neighbours – Russia, Iran and Turkey. Our Iranian friends have a positive attitude to this initiative. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mentioned this in his remarks at the news conference. Question: The situation in Syria was among the topics that the presidents of Russia and Turkey discussed during their talks in Sochi. How does Russia estimate the extent of Turkey’s commitment to its obligations on Syria after this summit? How much heed did Ankara pay to Moscow’s concerns over the state of affairs in areas that are not controlled by Damascus? Maria Zakharova: Syria is a permanent item on the international agenda of the Russia-Turkey dialogue, including at the high and highest levels. Specifically, the case in point is northeastern Syria and Idlib Governorate. We are member states and founders of the Astana format. Along with our partners, we have a firm intention to continue contributing to the political process in Syria based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254. There is a need for consistent steps to promote the activities of the Constitutional Committee, including as part of preparations for the sixth session of its Drafting Commission. Russia proceeds from the premise that it is necessary to render humanitarian assistance to all Syrians without exception in coordination with Syria’s official authorities. Of particular note in this connection is the start of humanitarian deliveries to Idlib across the line of contact under UN Security Council Resolution 2585 and norms of international humanitarian law. We intend to continue close collaboration and coordinated work with the Ankara authorities in the diplomatic and military areas in order to normalise the situation across Syria. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4882600
__________________
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 |
October 23rd, 2021 | #7 |
Senior Member
|
Press release on the publication of unreliable information on the website www.bricsgrant.com
8 October 2021 - 13:59 We would like to draw the attention of members of civil society and academic, expert and business communities to online publications containing false information about the alleged provision of grants on behalf of India’s BRICS Chairmanship. The matter concerns, in this particular case, the activities of the website www.bricsgrant.com, which has no relation whatsoever to the mechanisms of the five countries’ cooperation, including their New Development Bank. Complete information about the current projects and events held within the framework of India’s year-long chairmanship of BRICS is available on its official website www.brics2021.gov.in. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4897637 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks and answers to media questions at a meeting with members of the Association of European Businesses in Russia, Moscow, October 8, 2021 8 October 2021 - 19:04 Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to meet members of the Association of European Businesses once again. It is an annual tradition. We met a year ago, on October 5, 2020. At that time, because of the pandemic, we had a hybrid meeting, with some of us attending in person and others via video linkup. These regular meetings reflect our mutual interest in seeing that members of the European business community feel comfortable in Russia and in helping to build our relations, which leave much to be desired. The degradation is becoming persistent. In the context of relations between Russia and the European Union, the previous seven years have proven to be years of missed opportunities. The only constructive proposal in recent months was the initiative to hold an emergency Russia-EU summit; it was dictated by life and put forward by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron. This initiative, though, was given up – it was lost in the maze of absurd reasoning, with some EU member countries alleging that a summit like this would be all but a gift for Russia. We do not need gifts, and we are not expecting them from anyone. This is not what motivates us in our lives or in our work. We do not have exaggerated expectations as we believe that the current situation has gone too far, and no one can reverse it overnight. Trust has been seriously undermined as a result of numerous unilateral measures taken by Brussels. We believe it is important to not exacerbate this situation, as serious as it is, and to avoid introducing new irritants and destructive factors that are likely to only buoy and increase the negative inertia of the past few years. Ideally, we want to find points of contact in areas where we have common interests. Business cooperation, business projects, mutual investment and trade are the areas that obviously offer these opportunities. Despite the sanctions that our colleagues in Brussels keep pushing, we are close neighbours. There is nothing to be done about geography. We remain important economic partners. There has been a recession caused by the pandemic but, according to the information I have, in the first seven months of this year, trade [between us] exceeded $150 billion, up about 40 percent from the same period last year. Clearly, this can largely be ascribed to the low figures last year because of the coronavirus restrictions; still, this is an upward trend that we all want to maintain. To achieve this, not only do we need to maintain contact and seek out relevant projects but we also need to avoid putting up more barriers, politicising commercial and investment links and resorting to methods of unfair competition. We regret to see that this does not always work. On the contrary, the economic recession caused by the pandemic, which has required concerted efforts to overcome the crisis as soon as possible, is used by some people to toughen the EU’s approaches to relations with third countries in trade, the economy and in a variety of sectors. Restrictive measures have been applied more often. We hear (and no one is hiding it) that new protectionist tools are in the pipeline. We are sure that this is not the proper approach. We think it is important to jointly look for new points of growth, which can help return our post-COVID economies to solid ground. We are for pragmatic cooperation with consideration for real needs based on the objectives of the socio-economic development of Russia and the European countries, whose businesses are represented in this hall. We have common interests in key areas like climate change and general green approaches in the economy, healthcare, digitisation, and science and technology areas that will be critical for the further development of our civilisation. We have laid some groundwork in these areas. The common nature of our interests in these areas has been confirmed at the political level, including during the Moscow visit of Josep Borrell, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, this past February. We need to move forward in these directions much more confidently and with mutual respect, without imposing one’s own viewpoint, but rather searching for a stable balance of interests. We do have the political will for this. We are interested in moving in all these directions toward restoring regular and systematic contacts. In healthcare, we are cooperating with the European Medicines Agency to register the Sputnik V vaccine. We have achieved good progress here. Currently, we are at the so-called rolling review stage. It is important to resolve all the registration matters and obtain mutual recognition of vaccines based on a professional dialogue between healthcare, sanitary and epidemiology experts. Politicians should not interfere, but render all-round assistance to such a professional dialogue. We are holding meetings on climate issues quite regularly, including in light of preparations for the 26th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Glasgow. We are worried about the so-called carbon border adjustment mechanism which was announced by the EU and which is currently being developed. The European Commission published draft regulations three months ago. According to experts (not just ours, but from other countries as well), the use of this tool in practice could lead to additional costs for businesses, not only for the EU’s partners, but also within the EU itself. This would limit economic operators’ financial capabilities, in part concerning faster implementation of green technology. We believe that we need to evaluate everything as accurately as possible so this tool does not lead to climate protectionism. I read an extensive interview by EU Ambassador to the Russian Federation Markus Ederer. I hoped he would participate in today’s event, but apparently he couldn’t make it. He gave a big interview. There are many interesting questions and remarks that reveal Brussels’ way of thinking with regard to the current stage of our ties and ways to restore them. This is a separate and serious matter. Some things that I read surprised me. With regard to the carbon border adjustment mechanism, Mr Ederer clearly stated that when it is introduced, it would comply with the Paris Agreement requirements and the EU obligations to the WTO. This is a good thing to say, but we want these words to turn into actions. A dialogue is needed in order for the things that Mr Ederer promised to become a reality. If we are told that they know everything themselves, they will decide for themselves, and that everything will be fine, this is not the way to approach such fateful issues. Energy is closely linked with the climate agenda. In 2014, Brussels froze all sector-specific dialogues, including energy. But our one-time contacts in this area have not stopped. In any case, the EU remains the largest consumer of Russian energy resources. I will not dwell on Nord Stream 2. President Putin recently held a large meeting and expressed in detail our assessments of this gas pipeline’s importance, as well as the current situation with energy prices. Both Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream, which now connects with southeastern and central Europe, are the projects which were initially conceived, agreed upon, approved and implemented in the interests of diversifying energy sources and increasing energy security in Europe. We are promoting interaction with individual EU member states in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Overall, at the political level, the European Commission, or Brussels, does not encourage or support, to put it mildly, energy cooperation with specific EU member states, which is regretful. Amid the current surge in prices for hydrocarbons, especially natural gas and electricity in the EU, it is obvious that we must cooperate much closer and more systematically in this area. Some politicians and mass media in Europe are trying to blame Russia for everything that is happening, following our American colleagues. Once again I want to refer you to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech. It describes everything in detail. I would like to remind you once again that Gazprom continues to supply gas to Europe under a long-term contract. Gazprom not only fulfils all its obligations in full but even exceeds them. We are ready to help Europe overcome this crisis, but Europe should recognise the need to take steps on its part. When EU Ambassador to Russia Markus Ederer categorically says that Gazprom must think about its reputation in the current situation, I would say that it is important for those who have helped create this situation to think about their own reputation. They did not take into account weather conditions, the potential of renewable energy sources, or the feasibility of introducing them in a certain period of time. Let’s not forget that when Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 were being built, the European Commission did everything to retroactively apply the requirements of the EU’s Third Energy Package to these gas pipelines, contrary to EU lawyers’ official opinion that they should be excluded from the Package because all investments were made before it was approved. This was one of the reasons why Nord Stream 1 operates at only 50 percent capacity. And it will be the same with the capacity of Nord Stream 2, as I understand it, if everything with its registration and issuance of permits ends well. Let’s not forget about the other reason for the current state of affairs which is the particularly strong pressure coming from the United States during recent years, especially under the Trump Administration, on the Federal Republic of Germany, among other countries, which it was trying to force to stop purchasing Russian pipeline gas and, instead, to build terminals for US-produced LNG. I know for sure that when the Germans told Washington that this would increase the cost of gas for the end consumer, the Americans agreed, because the production costs are higher, but said Germany is a prosperous country and can reimburse its household and industrial consumers for the additional costs from the federal budget. After they persuaded many countries in Europe to build these terminals, now, at the height of the crisis, the US liquefied gas for which the terminals had been built went to Asia and Latin America. Isn’t this a factor that influenced the current situation? Why can’t anyone talk about this openly and candidly? We want collective energy security. But in order for us to be able to achieve it, we must lay out on the table all concerns and factors that are behind the aggravation of the situation and crisis tensions, and seek a balance of interests. We will not get anywhere otherwise. The United States is not hiding it and is straightforward about the fact that cooperation with Russia runs counter to Europe’s energy security interests. They want to pit us against each other in this sphere and to reduce our interdependence. Europe depends on Russian gas to cover 35 percent of its needs, but we also depend to a large extent on those who are buying our gas. It’s all about pipelines. We cannot turn them around or turn them into something else. In order to quickly scale up gas supplies (by the way, this is also a factor that needs to be taken into account when answering the question why the Russians do not immediately release additional volumes of gas on the market), you first need to contract it (this is a contractual, not a spot transaction), then produce it (it cannot be produced in the absence of buyers and a route), and book routes. We must avoid politicising issues and keep in mind the fact that our people can be affected by governments and relevant companies’ mistakes in energy supply and energy security overall. We have a broad field going forward to establish cooperation in hydrogen fuel production. There are promising climate projects out there that Russian and foreign companies could join. Economic operators which plan to invest in climate projects and the green economy in general – areas that everyone, including our Western partners, considers a priority – should have unfettered access to international financial instruments and not be on the receiving end of illegal unilateral restrictive measures. Otherwise, we ourselves will be undermining the potential of those who are willing to invest in the future of the global economy. Russia and the EU’s potential in energy and climate matters is tremendous. Importantly, it must be harnessed in the right way. If we are guided by the principles of equality and pragmatism and take into account the objective specifics of our countries and look for a balance of interests, we will be on the right path. I hope your association can help advance this matter. Clearly, geography cannot be changed. The economic interconnectivity of Russia and the EU is obvious. Russia is part of greater Europe, and the European Union is not all of Europe. We have repeatedly said and would like to reiterate that we are open to a constructive dialogue on all issues without exception, but it must be held by and between equal partners, not along the lines of disciple – teacher, or leader – follower as, unfortunately, our colleagues from Brussels have been trying to talk with us so far. Any interaction can only be a two-way street. If common sense prevails among us (I mean Russia and the EU countries), we will be able to develop a new effective and balanced model of relations that meets the realities of our time. This will only strengthen our combined edge in a highly competitive world. And these advantages are very much sought after. At a time when global multipolarity is taking shape, the centre of global growth is shifting from the Euro-Atlantic region to Eurasia (as a reminder, this is Europe and Asia, and geographically the EU is part of Eurasia), and we are interested in having all countries and organisations located on this vast continent become part of Eurasia in geoeconomic terms as well. This is the crux of President Putin’s proposal to encourage the formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership by combining organic ongoing efforts rather than artificially imposed initiatives. These efforts include ongoing integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), with the latter establishing ever closer ties with the EAEU and the SCO, taking into account projects such as the Belt and Road initiative. The latter is being promoted by China, and relevant special agreements between the EAEU and Beijing have already been concluded. Whenever we promote, announce or provide clarifications regarding this initiative, we make clear that we invite not just these organisations. Other countries, including the ones that are not part of any association, are welcome to participate in the efforts to harmonise integration processes as well so as to avail themselves of the opportunity to have competitive advantages on the world markets. We are confident that the EU would also benefit from joining these efforts without losing its identity, because neither the EAEU, nor the SCO, let alone ASEAN, want to lose their identity. Efforts can be combined in areas where the mandates and goals of these organisations overlap. These spheres abound. They can start small. Contacts have been established between the Eurasian Economic Commission and the European Commission on technical regulation and other current issues. The goal is to start a dialogue on strategic issues of developing integration associations and the economy of our vast region of key importance for global development going forward. The more specific our efforts are to create the most favourable conditions for doing business on a mutual basis, the more effectively we will use these potentially significant and mutually beneficial projects to boost our countries and to improve the well-being of our people, the more closely we will be interconnected, and the better chance we will have to achieve our long proclaimed goals of forming a common space of prosperity and security from Lisbon to Vladivostok, or even Jakarta. Historically, the prospects are breathtaking. *** Make no mistake, we engage in localisation and import substitution because we have to, but it is ultimately a beneficial process. We hoped that there were four common spaces between Russia and the EU, which were built based on four roadmaps. Political oversight and political directives were discussed at Russia-EU summits twice a year. A critically important project - a partnership for modernisation - was underway. With an extensive network of interaction, economic growth, investment planning and regular political oversight in place, and with the proclaimed strategic partnership which is embodied in everything I have just mentioned, our economy, industry and scientific research were, of course, operating on the premise that we must work together to ensure unification of labour rather than division of labour. All of that collapsed overnight. Let me remind you that it collapsed not because we made a mess like some schoolchildren that some people out there have us pegged as, but because the EU failed with its guarantees and the agreement to end the crisis in Ukraine in February 2014, when the opposition showed utter disrespect for the EU guarantees, trampled upon these guarantees and proceeded to make a power grab. President Vladimir Putin spoke about this. Of course, this was done with the encouragement of the United States and the tacit consent and support of the EU. The EU punished us for standing up for the residents of Crimea, on whom open season was declared, and neo-Nazi militant groups were sent there who began to storm the Supreme Council of Crimea. You are aware of these facts. But that's exactly what the EU punished us for. At best, it punished us for its helplessness in the face of the coup in Ukraine; at worst, we were punished because the EU deemed it advantageous to become partners and friends with the new authorities. It has continued like that to this day. We deeply regretted the fact that we had to part with the benefits that our strategic partnership with the EU offered us in all areas, including industry, agriculture, finance and people-to-people contacts, which were expanding, and we were close to an agreement on visa-free travel. By the way, the EU rejected a full visa-free regime or even a partial visa-free regime under pressure from our neighbours from the Baltic countries and Poland, who said that this would be another gift to the Russian Federation, which it did not deserve, and that a visa-free regime must first be introduced for Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova. We remember that. This was before the events in Ukraine. We came to realise that for a country like Russia to rely, especially in the strategic sectors of our economy and the defence complex and the security sector, on supplies of technology and parts from the countries that can impose sanctions on us overnight, is unacceptable. Prior to that, we had joint production, including of military equipment, with Ukraine and many EU countries. The production cooperation was in place. Now, it is history. We would be willing to go back, but we have no guarantees that at any point, when the Russophobes in the EU feel like punishing us, they would not call for new sanctions based on the EU principle of solidarity and consensus. Even now, when nothing is happening, they have begun to impose sanctions on us for the fact that we are not giving up Crimea. One has to be an absolutely “empty” politician to even proclaim things like “stop the annexation of Crimea.” I have already made it clear to our colleagues, and President Putin has addressed this matter many times. If it was an annexation, why did the EU punish the residents of Crimea? In the event of an “annexation,” no one is asking anyone about anything. Troops move in and take control of the territory. The EU punished the residents of Crimea: they are denied Schengen visas. In the case we were right (And we know we are. It was not an annexation, but the free will of the residents of Crimea), then things are even worse, because they are punished (denied Schengen visas) for their political beliefs which is illegal under all the conventions which the EU members and many other countries have signed in blood. No offense, but even if we have reliable ties with specific companies, there is no guarantee that their governments will always allow them to cooperate with Russia. Last time I gave the example of cooperation between the GAZ Group and Sweden’s Quintus Technologies AB. They began cooperating in 2009. The GAZ Group purchased from this company spare parts for the automotive stamping press. They had no problems before 2020 when the Swedish regulator announced that the press is dual purpose. I told you about this. I hope you heard me and looked at this situation. I described it twice to Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde who visited us in February. Later on, we met in Iceland in May. No response at all. The GAZ Group suggested signing a new contract with Quintus Technologies, which would describe verification measures. Inspectors could come to automobile plants and see for themselves that the press is only used for stamping car bodies. They refused. The Swedish regulator did not issue an export license and I don’t think he will give one. This shows how even such a trifle can be used in political games. There were no suspicions for 11 years that the press was used to stamp “hypersonic submarines” but now they suddenly appeared. As for the vaccines, I know that currently, following the Russian President’s instructions, the Ministry of the Interior is working on a transparent, comprehensive approach to entry and exit rules for the Russian Federation. We want these procedures to be transparent. They are now in the process of obtaining approvals. I am sure it will take at least two months to complete this process. We will certainly convey your concerns to the interdepartmental group that is working on this issue. We want the business community to feel comfortable. Visa support, convenient visa procedures must be part of Russia’s investment appeal. We are well aware of this. There were apprehensions that somebody is suggesting limiting entry to Russia. No, we still allow stays of 90 days per each six-month period of the year. We have relevant commitments under the 2006 agreement with the EU. As for the isolation requirements, rules on who must quarantine for 14 days, who must present a PCR test, a vaccination certificate or documentation of having had the disease or specific regulations for highly qualified specialists, they are continuously changing. There is, for instance, a proposal that nationals of countries to which our Government opens air traffic should quarantine for less than four days. I can assure you that this situation is developing rapidly. Now there is a tangible increase in coronavirus cases. The emergency centre has the authority and responsibility to make the public health situation as safe as possible. As the Foreign Ministry, we will do all we can to facilitate business contacts under the circumstances. Question: I would like to say this on behalf of all members of the Association of European Businesses and myself – we know the situation is difficult, but nevertheless, the opportunity of direct dialogue with you is of the greatest value for us and AEB members. We are well aware that epidemiological safety is an absolute priority not only for Russia, but also for all countries. Many foreign business executives and highly qualified specialists have been vaccinated in Russia with Sputnik V or another vaccine registered in the Russian Federation. We believe that an EU citizen returning from Germany, Italy or any other country with a Sputnik V vaccination certificate who gets a PCR on arrival does not pose a threat to the EU public health security any more than a Russian citizen who is also vaccinated with Sputnik V and is travelling to one of the EU countries. Mutual recognition of vaccines would be a valuable step, and an additional incentive to get vaccinated. The level of vaccination is still insufficient to achieve herd immunity. It would be good if people could see this gives advantages, and that foreigners also support the Russian vaccine. To continue the migration topic, we are a little concerned about one innovation, one bill that has to do with the future immigration concept in the Russian Federation. The first version of the new legislation does not even include the category of highly qualified specialists. We know it is not the version that is being discussed today because the draft has been amended since then. We are in close contact with the Interior Ministry on this matter. We know that this is their project. On the other hand, we believe that the category of highly qualified specialists is a real success story. It is an important component of Russia's investment appeal. It really makes the entire process of migration registration in the Russian Federation convenient for foreign investors, by international standards as well. We also support this if there is a common will to make immigration easier for other foreigners as well. We would not like to see a rollback in this sphere. This also applies to medical control and possible registries of foreign companies for hiring staff. We understand there have been cases of abuse, but abuse is a completely different story. We firmly believe that, although the authorities have to deal with these problems, bona fide foreign investors who have conscientiously used these preferences, which are very valuable to us, should not have to suffer because of this. Sergey Lavrov: I fully agree with you. We are working to preserve the category of highly qualified specialists. We have also heard comments and requests that the terms should not be made more stringent so that people are allowed to move here with their families for three years as before. I agree these terms should be kept. We are discussing a possible three months’ trial period with our colleagues from the Interior Ministry, but this is probably going too far. I agree with you. There will always be abuse, in any country, in any field. People are people. Some always seek deeper and quieter waters, but to address that, we just need to enhance law enforcement and track violations, rather than impose overall bans. I absolutely agree with that. As for all the specific comments, we keep track of everything. Following this meeting, I will speak with Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin and with the head of the Emergency Response Centre for the prevention of the import and spread of the novel coronavirus infection in the Russian Federation, Tatyana Golikova. There have been some funny cases. For example, French diplomats in Russia have been vaccinated with Sputnik V and can travel to most countries. On the other hand, our diplomats in Paris, also vaccinated with Sputnik V, cannot go to a restaurant there or anywhere else. San Marino is a small country, but they have vaccinated the entire population with Sputnik V. Some people even travel to San Marino from Italy on vaccine tours. San Marino nationals with their Sputnik V certificates are allowed to go to Italy, and from Italy, they can travel further, apparently, since there are no longer any borders in the European Union. I was in Rome in August and I asked the Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio – how come? We’re talking about the same vaccine! He replied that they were also thinking about it and they will probably ban San Mariners from traveling starting in November. What kind of perverse logic is this? Question: Your support on this matter is of great value for us, but going back to matters at a more global scale, you have mentioned all the current problems that exist between Russia and the EU countries. Many commentaries show that we have reverted into a Cold War era. Can it be that our main goal is to avoid the worst-case scenario of an armed conflict? If we look through the prism of the 19th century thinking, there were two main questions the Russian intellectuals were asking themselves, and others. There was either Alexander Herzen’s question who asked: “Who is to blame?” or Nikolay Chernyshevsky’s question, who, a little bit later, came up with the question “What is to be done?” You may recall that last year we also asked you: “Who can take the first step?” We also asked this question to our colleagues from the European Union. Now we turn to you. What could this first step look like? Sergey Lavrov: Since 2014, when the European Union scrapped everything, and cancelled summits and all the planned meetings, we communicated specific proposals on ways to get out of this impasse some 30 times, including for specific sectors, as well as regarding the overall situation. We did so several times, including during my contacts with Josep Borrell, as well as at other levels. It has not worked out well. I get the impression that the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, be it Federica Mogherini, or Josep Borrell, or anyone else for that matter, do not have much room for manoeuvre. Every time we met, they pulled out a text from their folders, and stuck to it, expect for some adjectives. This is a fact, and I am not going to criticise them for doing so. This is the EU’s reality, and we must deal with it. We are not happy about it, of course, since too many promising, mutually beneficial things remain outside of our interactions, and too many useful things fall victim to geopolitical games and Russia haters who are seeking to give the Russian Federation a hard time and act as instruments in unfair competition practices. They use the fight against authoritarian regimes and the manifestations of Russia’s expansionism as pretexts for undermining their partners. We understand all of this. However, when you ask me, who should make the first step, we have made about 30 proposals, as I have already mentioned. Almost all of them were left unanswered, and the few replies that we did receive lacked any substance. In response, the European Union suggests that we change our behaviour, repent and “implement” the Minsk agreements, which is one of Federica Mogherini’s five principles, and put an end to the annexation of Crimea. If these politicians are serious people, they need to get better versed in Russian history and international law in general, and use their political experience. I do understand that the selection process for the European Commission is quite peculiar, but all these people were involved in politics, at one stage or another. There is no way they do not understand the absurdity of what is going on. The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell visited Russia in February 2021. He pointed out quite sincerely that the EU has its own position on Alexey Navalny, Crimea and Donbass, and he cannot change this stance. I said that we too have our own position on all these issues. If he has to say this, then I must respond, even if this exchange is pointless. Everyone understands that this will not take us anywhere, and even less so, if we continue this exchange publicly. The only purpose of these public statements is to make everyone happy that Russia once again faces false accusations. This is what the EU’s position that Josep Borrell and others keep repeating, is all about. They think that this will show that the small but very aggressive EU members are right to make Russophobia their government policy. Still, Josep Borrell and I have been able to agree on climate, green economy, research and technology projects and healthcare. At the news conference, we expressed our readiness to work together on these matters. There were some contacts on healthcare, and we are discussing climate-related matters as part of universal negotiations. Our bilateral consultations with the EU could very well supplement these efforts. We are ready for this. There is a positive example I can share with you. I have already mentioned this in my public statements. Josep Borrell and I had a meeting in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. He told me that we needed to make a gesture of some kind to show that Russia is ready to take the European Union’s interests into account. I asked him, why us, and not you? Even during his visit to Russia, we were committed to achieving a positive outcome. The EU willingly seeks our advice when it comes to foreign policy matters and topics that are of interest to Europe. It is for this reason that we made what seemed to us as a proposal with absolutely no downsides: to issue a statement on the Middle East Peace Process. Both the EU and Russia are members of the Middle East Quartet, together with the United States and the UN. Russia and the EU share very close positions: we stand for a two-state-solution and implementing the decisions that were adopted. We wrote a two-page statement by Josep Borrell and Sergey Lavrov, and thought that this would send a positive signal showing that we can agree on something. However, we were informed ahead of his delegation’s arrival that the statement would not be approved. When we sat down for talks, I asked what the problem was. It turned out that the bureaucrats from his staff did not even bother to show him this paper and did not fill him in on our proposal. I am not going to blame anyone for undermining our efforts on purpose, but this demonstrates an irresponsible, unprofessional attitude to their duties. We submitted a draft document for adopting it at ministerial level, and Josep Borrell was not even aware of it. In New York, he spoke about making a gesture of some kind. For example, the French have misgivings over the fact that we are sending military personnel to Mali. I explained to him that this is about a private security company that received a request from the Malian authorities, the President and Prime Minister of the transitional government, since the French are scaling down their presence there or even pulling out their troops. This is their business. We are not the ones paying for these servicemen. This is a private security company that has its own contracts and principles. However, Josep Borrell did say that Africa is far away, and Europe was there “first.” So Europe wants to play first fiddle in Africa, and does not expect Russia to go there. At the same time, Europe is proactively present in Central Asia, in the South Caucasus, in the Arctic, let alone our neighbouring republics in Europe. Saying that “you are far away, and this is ours” is like reverting to Medieval principles, and this is where they are pushing us. We always wanted to find common approaches regarding third partners. When the Europeans invented the Eastern Partnership in 2009, we said that this is their project and their right. We cannot prevent anyone from being friends with someone else. However, since this was about our closest neighbours that were part of a single big state since the Russian Empire, and our economies are closely intertwined, with multiple links, cultural, family and people-to-people ties, we asked them to be cautious about these affairs. We suggested agreeing on approaches to working with these countries. They responded by saying that they can accept us as an observer. However, we did not need an observer or partner status. What mattered to us, was what this was all about. When the concept underpinning the Eastern Partnership crystallised, everything became clear. This philosophy consisted of choosing whether these countries wanted to side with the EU or with Russia. This “either-or” principle has been repeated many times since that time, including during the first Maidan uprising in Ukraine in 2004, and all the way up to early 2021 and in the run up to the election in Moldova. By the way, Euronews, the most “balanced” network, as it advertises itself, writes everywhere that in a world of misinformation, access to real facts is essential, and plurality of opinion is key. This is followed by an announcement of a report on Moldova with a caption filling the entire screen: “Moldovans divided between EU and Russia.” This is what being planted into the subconscious of listeners and viewers. This is my answer to your question, even if it is somewhat emotional and long, but I think that this really matters. Question: The Federal Republic of Germany has always played a central role in formulating the European Union’s policy with regard to Russia. What is your opinion of the various processes and prospects in store for us following the elections in Germany? Sergey Lavrov: My answer will be banal but honest. We will accept any choice made by the people of Germany. We will not try and pretend that we have a right to judge, in place of the citizens of Germany, what government they want. We are following the establishment of potential coalitions in various formats. We find it important to work with any German government, no matter which it is. We have too many things in common; this concerns the economy, culture, humanitarian, scientific and educational ties, as well as our common history. This, too, is a highly important psychological part of our relations with Germany. Just like German-French reconciliation has tremendous historical significance for Europe, it is no less important to maintain historical reconciliation between the peoples of Russia and Germany. This matter has acquired a special meaning under President of Russia Vladimir Putin. I don’t want to underestimate this aspect. We are expecting Germany to establish its government as soon as possible. Last time, it took about four months to accomplish this task. Germany has a fine-tuned system: the state functions even during talks to set up a coalition. I am aware that Chancellor Angela Merkel continues to actively deal with international affairs. We would like continuity to prevail with any country, so that such continuity would help us move on. This is an ideal scenario. Question: In your remarks you said that this is mine, that this is far away from you, that you should not go there, and that this amounted to the Middle Ages. Are new opportunities for Russia-EU cooperation in Central Asia opening up in the context of a new situation that has shaped up in Afghanistan? What do you think about this? Sergey Lavrov: Speaking from positions I have mentioned, no one should be presented with the “either-or” choice. We cannot try and substitute the essence of the problem and tasks for resolving it by our geopolitical ambitions. We are open for cooperation with the US, the EU and NATO. I believe that NATO countries should assume the main share of responsibility for restoring Afghanistan. They remained there for 20 years and built a state which is no more. The Taliban has now established a temporary structure. This is simply not enough. Just like the EU, we voice approximately the same positions with regard to the incumbent Taliban government. It is necessary to maintain stability, to fight terrorism, to guarantee human rights, to ensure the government’s all-inclusive nature, to facilitate the unimpeded movement of foreigners, especially those who would like to leave, as well as that of the Afghan citizens, etc. We will now organise the Moscow format in Moscow. This involves all Central Asian countries, Iran, China, Pakistan, India, the US, Russia and the people of Afghanistan. This is a step towards preparing an international conference which is already being announced. Conference delegates will have to discuss the matter of rebuilding Afghanistan. We have ample cooperation opportunities here. The “this-is-mine-don’t-go-here” philosophy, that I have mentioned, probably amounts to an inadvertent statement made by Josep Borrell. Right after the United States and its allies hastily and somewhat unexpectedly left Afghanistan, he said that the EU should find its own niche in Afghan affairs, so as not to leave Afghanistan to China and Russia. This is the difference in approaches. Of course, we are ready. We consider the stability of our Central Asian neighbours to be important. They are our allies and close friends. We have no common borders, but, if some negative factors spill over onto their territory from Afghanistan, not only they, but Russia, too, would be threatened. President of Russia Vladimir Putin told President of the United States Joe Biden in Geneva this past June, and we constantly remind our Western colleagues that we oppose the re-deployment of the military infrastructure from Afghanistan or the establishment of a new military infrastructure in Central Asian republics for, as the Americans say, launching hypothetical beyond-the-horizon strikes against Afghanistan, if need be. This immediately turns countries unexpectedly providing such services into a target for terrorists. It is necessary to fight terrorism using completely different methods. Those who had cooperated with these specific persons should assume responsibility for refugee flows. Today, many countries are coaxing Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan into accommodating refugees for a couple of months and telling them that they would later accept the refugees because it is necessary to draw up documents for these people. But if they had cooperated with these Western countries, including the Americans and others, for many years, does it really take two months to draw up documents? This is not a very correct aspect. By the way, the White Helmets (it had several hundred members) operated on Syrian territories controlled by extremists alone and staged incidents involving the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian authorities. Members of that group also settled in Jordan for “a couple of months” at the request of Western countries, while the Syrian army liberated the relevant territories with Russian support. The Americans, the British and the Europeans later promised that they would accept them. The media recently reported that Canada and the United Kingdom told the Jordanian authorities that the remaining 50 people presented an extremist threat, that they will not accept them, and that Jordan was free to deal with them as it saw fit. This is just one example of how our Western colleagues sometimes act, while thinking only about themselves and caring nothing about the problems that they create for partners who are ready to cooperate with them. Question: Today, you discussed some interesting topics: climate, the green agenda. We see a huge potential for promoting relations between Europe, specific European and Russian companies, and not only in this sphere but also in the economy, finances and especially in technologies. We are aware that 40 percent of the technologies needed for achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 are still nonexistent. We see a huge potential and a venue for development here. This could be a joint vision, localisation. Quite soon, Glasgow will be the venue of the 26th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26). This is an important event. We would like to learn about your vision, position and proposals with regard to this event? Sergey Lavrov: We will be publishing a relevant programme, outlining our position, within a few days. It will conform with the general trends. As the general trends, I see the concept of the agreement on climate, signed in Paris and ratified, among others, by Russia. This trend consists in shared and differentiated responsibility. Countries that are neither members of the “golden billion,” nor represent the historical West (and the West has succeeded in overtaking the rest by far in its technological development, including largely at the expense of what are now the developing countries) have their own views on how to fight for the purity of the environment and for climate conservation in ways other than those that are detrimental to their economic development. They seriously fear (there are relevant scientific findings) that if they keep abreast with the Western countries in measures and restrictions that must be undertaken and approved, they will hopelessly fall behind when it comes to their development. The agreement must inevitably be based on a balance between environment protection, climate conservation and economic development plus better living standards in the countries that are not so wealthy. We have submitted our proposals to this effect. Russia is one of the leaders in terms of absolute and relative emission volumes by comparison with the goals of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. We will insist on the absorbing effect of forests being necessarily taken into account. The UN has relevant records in this regard. The records considered the forests separately but they should be incorporated in the analysis of the overall situation, of all the factors that influence warming, on the one hand, and enable absorption of greenhouse emissions, on the other. Question: The Russian Energy Week will hold a meeting next week. Russia’s top leaders and heads of major energy companies will attend the event. I think, they will discuss in detail many topics we have broached today. What main vectors of energy diplomacy, as you see it, will Russia follow in the short term? Sergey Lavrov: I would not like to tell again what President of Russia Vladimir Putin said at the recent meeting on energy transition. Neither would I like to repeat what I have said here. Tentatively, the principles are the following: to come to terms with partners interested in energy cooperation with Russia based on a balance of interests and strictly abide by the agreements reached on all types of energy and on the development of new energy sources, hydrogen projects. If we talk about stability, then, given the current crisis and what was the case before it, [the solution is] to coordinate emergency mechanisms, provided this is done in an honest manner and on a mutually beneficial basis. In this event, options will be agreed upon and sealed for the eventuality that temperatures drop dramatically or, on the contrary, that much more powerful conditioning will be needed than in the past. Implementing agreements in this regard is a sacred thing for us. When now they are pointing out to the events of 2009, 2011 and 2015, when Gazprom allegedly stopped its gas deliveries for political reasons, this is a dishonest claim because they are covering up for the Ukrainians, who without paying Gazprom for gas and in a situation where Gazprom was not supplying them free gas, started funneling transit gas from the export pipeline, thereby stealing from both Gazprom and Europe. But anyway the blame for letting Europe freeze was ultimately put on Gazprom. So, they must be more demanding (I am referring to Western governments) towards the Ukrainian authorities and generally towards all those whom the West has been patronising. To a decisive degree, [this patronage] is due to ideological causes where the wish to put some pressure to bear on Russia is not the least important consideration. Question: How would you describe relations with France? What is your opinion on this? Sergey Lavrov: Our relations are extensive at all levels. The presidents maintain very close contact. They are now discussing the best timing for the next meeting at the highest level. It always helps. There is also the two-plus-two format between our countries’ ministers of foreign affairs and defence. Last year’s meeting had to be cancelled, but we are returning to this format now. We continue economic cooperation in a wide range of areas. France is Russia’s strategic long-term partner, and our relations are important for the overall balance in Europe and for our cooperation with the EU. There is something I mentioned at the very beginning of our meeting – unfortunately, the initiative of two responsible politicians, Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron, to hold a summit was not supported due to Russophobic, anti-Russia sentiments. Although there is no other way than to talk and try to find a balance of interests and points of view. Furthermore, France and Germany are our partners in the eastern Ukraine conflict resolution. There are many other dialogue formats that are aimed at maintaining the European part of strategic stability. We follow with interest the Strategic Autonomy for Europe initiative Paris advanced after the events in Afghanistan and after the Australian submarine deal “epic.” The closest, trust-based, frank and honest dialogue. As in the case with Germany, the leaders set the tone here. Question: You spoke in detail about Nord Stream, the situation on the markets and the Russian President’s statement. I have a comment. I would like to say that the markets have reacted positively to what the President of Russia said. Sergey Lavrov: They should listen more often. Question: Prices actually dropped by 30 percent. This is very positive. You also mentioned that the EU often says Russia should support... Such statements as this one, when prices have risen sharply and the image of gas plays a role in general. Sergey Lavrov: The President of Russia said there is no need to hurt Ukraine either, by the way. Question: We hope that not only the energy market players, but also political leaders will perceive this positively. Sergey Lavrov: Let me remind you that none of the other leaders made such a statement when prices were below zero. Nobody was particularly worried then. Question: I would be very interested in your assessment, the Russian perspective on the current state and the priorities for further cooperation within the EAEU. My interest is not accidental; we also have business in Kazakhstan, and accordingly, we increasingly find the market there is regulated at the supranational level by the EAEU. Russia is one of the main players in this integration process, so it would be very interesting to know your opinion. What is the current state of dialogue with Lithuania on facilitating transit to the Kaliningrad Region? I know that Russia tried to expand transit opportunities, but encountered resistance from Lithuania. Sergey Lavrov: The next EAEU summit is now being prepared. I think that additional decisions will be announced during the preparations, the summit and following it. The EAEU is a key integration project for us. But I would like to reiterate that, while promoting the further creation of common markets for goods, capital, services and labour, and moving towards common energy markets (which is of particular interest to our partners), we also need balanced solutions on other aspects of our integration affairs. We always leave the door open, and also promote the broadest possible interaction on the entire Eurasian continent. The number of countries that have already concluded free trade agreements with the EAEU is growing. Take ASEAN – we have them with Vietnam and Singapore. Now we are starting a dialogue with ASEAN as a group, as an organisation, through the EAEU. Serbia, Israel, Egypt, Iran – countries on all continents are lining up to either make a free trade zone deal with the EAEU right away (this is complicated though, as an expert group needs to be created, so the process is not easy or quick), or to conclude an agreement on specific contacts to better understand, to get to the core of this cooperation. Alongside partner countries, the union has also signed memorandums of cooperation on the exchange of information and the possibility of finding common areas for efforts with the SCO and with ASEAN. As I said, we are open to the broadest continental ties in whatever formats are acceptable. The more advanced these formats, the more people will communicate and see what opportunities open up here and the more realistic these opportunities will be. I have not heard of any relaxation of requirements being discussed with Lithuania. Some time ago, our Lithuanian colleagues changed the procedure for the use of transit routes to the Kaliningrad Region that our cross-border railway carriers viewed as a tightening of the procedure. As far as I know, they wanted to replace the former clearance procedures performed on the trains with requiring those who plan to use this transit route to obtain a digital visa before boarding the train. I think we have settled this with our Lithuanian neighbours. I will check it out. I have not heard any complaints lately. Question: I was referring to freight, rather than passenger traffic because I know that, for our part, we have spoken with the governor and his team. All the required facilities are now in place there for a border crossing with Lithuania. Sergey Lavrov: Yes, this implies freight traffic. We will mostly expand the infrastructure. Question: Thank you very much for being able to find time in your packed schedule for speaking with representatives of the European business community. I have a short question in the context of your opening remarks. You mentioned that, although the overall situation in EU-Russia relations leaves a lot to be desired, Russia is trying to clarify hypothetical common interests for expanding business relations, and we have singled out such a concept as climate projects. What climate projects can become the subject of cooperation and investment with foreign companies? On what principles will they hinge? What is your opinion on this? Sergey Lavrov: First of all, it is impossible to lock the climate inside national borders. Consequently, we have to maintain transnational and international cooperation in this field. But neighbours find it easier to understand common problems arising in this unique geographical zone within the framework of these universal international formats, including the 26th UN Climate Change Conference due in Glasgow. I believe that this includes clean production, as well as clean fuel production. Gazprom and Rosneft have various technologies for producing petrol and oil products, and these technologies drastically reduce toxic emissions. The very same Nord Stream 2 route is shorter than the current pipeline via Ukraine, and it has been designed and built using more advanced technology. The high-pressure pipeline has fewer compressor stations; additional compressor stations mean additional emissions, etc. It is possible to think about all of this, considering the fact that many European companies are actively involved in developing Russian deposits. It is possible to heed climate processes in the Arctic. Permafrost was mentioned here. We will work with interest on joint projects using technologies that make it possible to eliminate the problems with a lot of buildings on permafrost layers. If all of us are concerned with the climate, then within the framework of universal formats at the above-mentioned conference in Glasgow, when the decisions will be made, we have to understand in general, not only regarding Russia, that if these projects, including many high-tech projects, become the subject of unilateral and illegitimate restrictions, then those introducing such restrictions will have to assume additional responsibility for the state of the climate. I have no doubt that, if professionals dealing with the climate and the industry meet each other, then they will be able to very quickly find numerous spheres for applying their efforts. Question: To what extent do you think it is possible in politics to distinguish countries’ fundamental strategic interests from actions and gestures dictated by their financial position, dependence on quantitative easing, stagflation risks, and all those factors that influence their domestic policies? Sergey Lavrov: In the case of the Russian Federation, we are seeking – and have devoted an immense amount of effort to this – to be financially independent. In a number of cases, financial dependence plays an important part in the political and geopolitical choices made by some nations. When the Soviet Union ended, Russia found itself in a situation where it was fully dependent not only on financial infusions (which were very minimal) but also on humanitarian and food assistance. This was not very pleasant, of course, from the human and civic points of view. Countries that need investment, countries that are dependent on foreign aid (there are quite a few in the EU, as you know) will be more intent on following a political course. For example, the EU is beckoning the Balkans to join, although the latest summit has shown that the Balkan countries are disappointed with the pace, and possibly not just the pace, but also the final results of these processes. There are countries that want association status with an eye to “skipping over” to full membership eventually. The Ukrainians, Georgians and Moldovans are forming an associated threesome within the Eastern Partnership. But when the EU negotiates various chapters, it stipulates, along with a candidate’s economic commitments and its own economic and financial promises, the following: “You will closely follow our foreign policy, security and sanctions-related moves.” This is an obvious approach that everyone knows about. It’s like that. This is life. This is far from ideal interstate relations, but that’s life. This is why programmes designed to provide universal multilateral assistance to developing countries in order to raise their living standards, feed the hungry, and try to lower the poverty levels are of much importance. We are involved in them as members of both the World Bank and numerous specialised agencies in the United Nations, such as the World Food Programme, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), UNESCO, and others. The G20 is also a very important area for cooperation. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4898649
__________________
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 |
October 23rd, 2021 | #8 |
Senior Member
|
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with the university graduates just employed with the diplomatic service, Moscow, October 8, 2021
8 October 2021 - 19:15 Good afternoon, colleagues, As is customary, we hold these meetings annually just after the ministry’s new arrivals begin to familiarise themselves with the work of the Foreign Ministry. I would like to congratulate you on the successful completion of your studies. I am aware that most of you were excellent students who passed a serious competitive selection process. Many of you speak rare foreign languages, including Eastern languages, which is important at this point. I feel in my heart (I cannot put it otherwise) that you have joined a tightly-knit “home” that maintains continuity and always strives to provide mentorship in the best and bureaucracy-free sense of the word. The heads of the Council of Young Diplomats, the Council of Veterans, the Centre for the History of the Russian Diplomatic Service, the rector of the Foreign Ministry Diplomatic Academy, and representatives from public organisations are here today. We are a family, which does not mean that we are not highly focused on our responsibilities. You will work during an important period in Russian and world history. The situation in the world is not getting any simpler, which only adds excitement, to be honest. It makes us think creatively and keeps us mindful of the main goal of our foreign policy which is to ensure the most favourable external conditions for our country’s internal development. This is the main content of the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation as approved by President Vladimir Putin in 2016. Time flies. We are now updating this strategic document. I have no doubt that everyone in their area of work, in their respective departments, will contribute to forming common approaches and foreign policy strategies at the present stage. Your studies are over, but it’s never too late to learn. The Foreign Ministry has much to offer in this regard. After some time, I recommend that you take a closer look at the specialised courses that the Diplomatic Academy offers in a variety of areas. Language practice never hurts, especially if you only work with one of the two languages, and the other one is in a “frozen” state. Higher foreign language courses at the Foreign Ministry have one of the strongest teams in language training from all points of view. I recommend visiting the Centre for the History of the Russian Diplomatic Service which has amazingly interesting materials. I hope you will start writing your notes that will help promote our foreign policy in a variety of areas. But please do so with an eye towards your notes eventually ending up at the Centre for the History of the Russian Diplomatic Service. Apply yourselves. I wish you every success. I am sure that we will occasionally come in contact on work-related matters. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4898659 Statement by the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, Geneva, 8 October 2021 8 October 2021 - 19:37 The Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group (Stephane Visconti of France, Andrew Schofer of the United States of America, and Igor Khovaev of the Russian Federation) released the following statement today: «The Co-Chairs held consultations with UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Vice President Gilles Carbonnier in Geneva 7 and 8 October. The Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson in Office (PRCiO) Andrzej Kasprzyk also participated in the meetings. All participants stressed the importance of full, unimpeded access by international humanitarian organizations to carry out their work. In light of the recent constructive meeting between the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan on the margins of the UN General Assembly, the Co-Chairs welcomed Azerbaijan’s release of one Armenian serviceman and also discussed possible de-escalatory and humanitarian measures, including with regard to detainees, missing persons, and the voluntary return of all displaced persons. The Co-Chairs emphasized their intention to continue working with the parties to find areas of agreement. The Co-Chairs have taken positive note of President Aliyev’s and Prime Minister Pashinyan’s public statements expressing their readiness in principle to meet with each other under the auspices of the Co-Chairs. The Co-Chairs look forward to engaging the sides on modalities and details of such a meeting and reiterate their willingness to visit the region in the near future to discuss next steps in the process.» https://www.osce.org/minsk-group/500524 The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4904046 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with President of the Republic of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic, Belgrade, October 10, 2021 10 October 2021 - 22:58 Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my gratitude to President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic for today's meeting which highlights the strategic nature of our partnership. I have conveyed President Vladimir Putin’s warmest greetings and best wishes to the President of Serbia. President Putin remains committed to continuing the dialogue at the highest level. We discussed possible contacts at the presidential level in the near future. I am quite sure that we will agree on the timeline of such a meeting. We maintain a trust-based dialogue not only at the presidential level, but also at the level of governments, individual ministries, agencies and, of course, our respective foreign ministries. A meeting of the Intergovernmental Russian-Serbian Committee on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, which took place last week, came as further confirmation of the progress taking in our bilateral relations and strategic partnership. As President Vucic just mentioned, concrete and major steps to promote trade, economic and investment cooperation for the benefit of our peoples and Russia-Serbia cooperation were outlined at that meeting. According to the statistics, despite the coronavirus pandemic, our trade grew by over 16 percent to an almost $1.5 billion in the first seven months of this year. The result will be even more sizable by the end of the year. We continue cooperation in fighting the coronavirus pandemic. In addition to vaccine supplies and sending our specialists to Serbia, the presidents launched a project for the joint production of the Sputnik V vaccine in Serbia in July. I am confident that this will be a major contribution to ensuring the interests of the people in that friendly country. We also covered regional affairs and the Kosovo problem. Russia remains invariably in favour of resolving this matter based solely on UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and it be found as part of a direct dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, and this final decision be submitted to the UN Security Council for approval. President Putin has repeatedly underscored, and this remains our unwavering position, that we will accept any decision that suits Serbia and the Serbian people. Of course, we are concerned by the provocation in northern Kosovo in late September. We appreciated the restraint and firmness of the Serbian leadership and personally President Vucic, which made it possible to overcome this crisis and to put an end to the Kosovars’ provocative actions. In our contacts with the European Union, we invariably talk about Brussels’ responsibility for the intermediary functions initiated by it, which the EU received by the resolution of the UN General Assembly. It is time to act upon the agreements that were reached long time ago in particular, back in 2013, on creating Serbian municipalities in Kosovo. Conniving with the Kosovars’ attempts to “drag out” this decision, which is vital for the Serbian population of Kosovo, does not reflect well on the EU. We presume that our US partners will also use their influence - which is significant - on Pristina in order to ensure the normal course of the negotiating process and come to agreements that will be in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and suit our Serbian friends. We exchanged views with President Vucic on the situation in the Balkans in general. We operate on the premise that Serbia remains the most important factor of peace and stability in this region and its opinion should be taken into account in any negotiation format and discussions. I am sincerely grateful to President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic for his hospitality. Once again, I would like to highlight the strategic nature of our relations. Question: Some Russians currently travel to Serbia to get a Pfizer jab. This is the only way for them to be able to travel again. No one doubts anymore that the story with vaccines and their recognition is just politics, and nothing else. Where are we in terms of the mutual recognition of vaccination certificates by different countries, including by Russia and Europe? Can our country do anything to accelerate this process? Sergey Lavrov: The vaccine issue is not just a political, but also a business affair, and there any many things that prove this. Regarding our position, back in April 2020, when the Group of Twenty held its summit on fighting the coronavirus, President Vladimir Putin publicly spoke out in favour of countries that make vaccines lifting patent protection. This would have maximised the production of life-saving medicines for treating this infection. Our position has not changed. Unfortunately, other countries making these vaccines did not support this idea, but this position remains relevant to this day. We have been engaged in talks with the European Union for quite some time now on the mutual recognition of vaccine certificates. There are various reasons why the agreement on this matter has yet to be achieved. There are objective reasons that have to do with completing the relevant procedures. However, we are also witnessing a political bias in the attitude towards Russian vaccines. Our European colleagues publicly recognise this without any hesitation. Still, we see an interest in most EU countries in facilitating people-to-people contacts as much as possible. I hope that common sense prevails. Question (retranslated from Serbian): What will be your comment on the increasingly frequent accusations by some leaders in the Balkans and Europe against Russia, alleging that Moscow exercises excessive leverage over the developments in the region through its energy policy and otherwise? What do you think about the future of dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, taking into consideration that Pristina does not want to honour any of the agreements reached in Brussels? You have already mentioned UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which is designed to serve as a foundation for any decision. Sergey Lavrov: We have grown used to fears and “incantations” on Russia’s “attempts to interfere” into the developments in the Western Balkans. In our relations with Serbia and other countries in this region, Russia is guided exclusively by the principle of mutual benefit and balance of interests. This is what all our agreements with Serbia and other countries in the Western Balkans are all about. We have known for quite some time now that the European Union is trying to assert its rights to this region. Former EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini said that when the EU has a presence in a certain region, there is no place for anyone else. She was referring directly to the Western Balkans. Moreover, the European Union believes that it has the right to carry out its policy, which is often far from constructive, in far-away regions like Central Asia. The EU also has its own approaches to other parts of the planet that are even further away from Europe. They are telling us that we must not undertake anything in regions where the EU has its own agenda. It goes without saying that this is nothing short of neo-colonial thinking. I had a meeting with the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, just a few weeks ago, and he adopted the same position. Still, I explained this to him in detail. If anyone has any specific evidence to back the groundless accusations of Russia violating international norms, be it the Western Balkans or anywhere else, please do show us these facts. As for dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, all I can do is confirm that it must be based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244. When it was adopted in June 1999, it was the Russian delegation to the UN Security Council that insisted on including the confirmation of Serbia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty in this document. We will see to it that this provision is honoured, and in a way that is acceptable for the Serbs. As for dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, we believe that the European Union has special responsibility, since the UN General Assembly has designated the EU as a mediator. At the very least, the agreements that have already been reached, including on the Community of Serb Municipalities in Kosovo, must be carried out without delay. We will insist on implementing anything Pristina and Belgrade agree on. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4898861 Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the statement by Prime Minister of Albania Edi Rama 10 October 2021 - 23:57 We find Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama’s statement about Albania’s unification with Kosovo completely unacceptable. Promoting plans to create a “Greater Albania” runs starkly counter to UNSC Resolution 1244 and undermines stability in the region. It is particularly strange to hear a leader of a Balkan country declare breaching a document that is the foundation of the Kosovo settlement to be a key goal of his political career. This kind of inept planted statement does not fit into the context of Belgrade and Tirana’s joint efforts to create a common market under the Open Balkan regional initiative pursued in cooperation with Skopje. We hope to see an adequate response from the Western curators of the Kosovo “statehood” project to this brazen provocation. We are extremely surprised that they are letting this kind of disruptive calls to action slide while attacking Belgrade for its justified Serbian World humanitarian concept that does not run counter to international law. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4898879 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the High-Level Commemorative Meeting to mark the 60th anniversary of the First Conference of Non-Aligned Countries, Belgrade, October 11, 2021 11 October 2021 - 13:23 President Ilham Aliyev, President Aleksandar Vucic, Ladies and gentlemen, Colleagues, friends, I would like to express gratitude to the President of Azerbaijan and the President of Serbia for organising this anniversary event, as well as to all members of the Non-Aligned Movement for their unanimous decision to grant observer status to Russia. I have been instructed to read out a message to the participants in this meeting from President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin: “I cordially welcome you on the occasion of the opening of the High-Level Commemorative Meeting dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the Non-Aligned Movement. The Non-Aligned Movement plays a very significant role in international affairs, consistently upholds the principles of unconditional equality of all nations, respect for their sovereignty and legitimate interests. It supports a constructive multilateral dialogue in strict accordance with the spirit and letter of the UN Charter. Today, with the global situation growing more and more turbulent as humanity confronts a growing number of threats and challenges, the positive potential of the Non-Aligned Movement is especially important. This influential and respected organisation is actively involved in resolving crises and makes a significant contribution to collective efforts to build a more democratic and stable world order, and to strengthen trust and mutual understanding between members of the international community. Russia has been recently granted observer status with the Non-Aligned Movement. This, undoubtedly, creates new opportunities for interaction in addressing current issues on the regional and global agenda, to ensure security and sustainable development worldwide. I sincerely wish you success in your work and all the best. Vladimir Putin.” Colleagues, I hope that today’s meeting in hospitable Belgrade, like the first Non-Aligned Summit held in the same city in 1961, will send a clear signal on behalf of the majority of countries about there being no alternative to interstate dialogue based on the principles of equality and conducted with an eye to effectively solving numerous problems of the modern era with the central and coordinating role of the United Nations. Russia, like the members of the Non-Aligned Movement, regards the continuing attacks on the UN Charter as destructive and dangerous. The same goes for the attempts to replace the UN-centric architecture with non-inclusive concepts like the “rules-based order,” which is actually based on double standards and threatens to take us back to the era of neo-colonial bloc politics and divides. I am confident that by its united action the Non-Aligned Movement can oppose these attempts with success and to defend the ideals enshrined in the UN Charter. The mutually respectful cooperation between Russia and Non-Aligned Movement members, including at the UN General Assembly, clearly confirms the consonance of our positions on key global issues from opposition to illegitimate unilateral sanctions to the fight against terrorism and the protection of human rights. I hope that Russia’s obtaining observer status will help to enhance the effectiveness of our joint work, mutual support and coordination of actions in defence of the principles of international law in the interests of bringing more democracy into international relations. Thank you for your time. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4899722 Press release on the developments in Yemen 11 October 2021 - 15:48 Moscow is very concerned about the escalation of tensions in and around the Republic of Yemen. According to incoming reports, on October 9 of this year, the Ansar Allah Houthi movement launched a drone attack on the King Abdullah Airport in the Saudi city of Jizan. The attack injured 10 civilians and did substantial material damage. We consider attacks on civilian facilities unacceptable. In turn, the Saudi coalition forces continue to bomb targets on Houthi-controlled territories. We urge all Yemeni parties to refrain from any action that can increase civilian casualties in this protracted conflict, or destroy the basic infrastructure thereby worsening the already critical humanitarian situation. We regret to say that the further degradation of the situation in Yemen is creating conditions that can breed terrorist group activity. This was again illustrated by an October 10 attack in Aden on the convoy of local Governor Ahmed Lamlas and Agriculture Minister of Yemen Salem al-Suqatri. It killed six people and wounded seven, both from their entourage and others. We resolutely denounce this attack and express condolences to the families and friends of the dead. We confirm our position of principle on the need for the parties to the Yemeni conflict to renounce armed confrontation as soon as possible and to seek resolution through an inclusive negotiating process under UN aegis. Successfully initiating this process will directly promote the prospects for reducing confrontation and ensuring lasting stabilisation. We welcome the efforts of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Yemen Hans Grundberg to increase mediation in searching for political solutions, taking into account the interests of all political, religious and regional forces in Yemen. We intend to continue doing all we can to develop a comprehensive intra-Yemeni dialogue. The goal is to ensure an all-round and lasting solution to the numerous problems that Yemen is facing today and that produce a strong impact on its neighbours. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4900037
__________________
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 |
October 24th, 2021 | #9 |
Senior Member
|
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks at the Ministerial Meeting of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA), Nur-Sultan, October 12, 2021
12 October 2021 - 11:38 Mr Chairman, Colleagues, Despite the destructive and ruthless impact of the coronavirus pandemic we have been fighting for almost two years, Asia has managed to maintain a positive development momentum. Its strong response has confirmed that the region’s total accumulated anti-crisis potential and the shared dedication to find collective solutions give us strength to confront major challenges and overcome their consequences. Unfortunately, the geopolitical configuration remains quite complicated in the region, holding back its transition to a comprehensive multilateral cooperation and integration paradigm. We can see deliberate attempts to wind up the situation, to undermine the existing mechanisms of interstate interaction, with narrow-format exclusive groups and Cold War- and containment policy-style military blocs playing a role. NATO’s recent policies can be placed on a par with the aforementioned hurdles as after Afghanistan, the North Atlantic Alliance seeks to redeploy its forces to other zones in the region, such as Central, South or Southeast Asia, while also sending flows of Afghan refugees to those regions. The alliance seems to sidestep the question of its responsibility for the consequences of its 20 years of experiments there leaving it to the international community, primarily Afghanistan’s neighbours, to deal with the problems. NATO's hasty departure has further tightened the tangle of Afghan contradictions. They left many weapons and military equipment in the country. It is important to prevent their use for destructive purposes. The Taliban said they would fight drug trafficking and terrorism, would not project instability onto neighbouring states, and would work to create an inclusive government. We hope these promises are kept. With the growing instability around the world, it is important to prevent the situation in the region from going south towards further deterioration. This bloc-based confrontational ideology should give way to an awareness of the benefits of pan-continental cooperation, of forging strong, mutually complementary economic ties, and resolving differences jointly through peaceful dialogue. We are interested in the regional architecture being sustainable and open to all, based on cooperation among states and multilateral organisations. An architecture that would provide everyone with equal rights and opportunities based on respect for international law, mutual trust and respect for national identity. By acting in a coordinated manner, we will be able to ensure a broad connectivity in the interests of all countries on our common continent of Eurasia. We have started moving in that direction by linking together the various subregional integration projects. In particular, ties are being established between the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). All these platforms rely on solid legal frameworks and a network of cooperation mechanisms. They implement specific programmes and projects that are relevant to all participants while guided by the principles of consensus. We regard the growing cooperation between these associations as promising groundwork for further harmonisation of integration processes. The SCO, the EAEU, and ASEAN are active in forging dynamic ties with their neighbours and other countries. This paves the way for the Greater Eurasian Partnership, an initiative proposed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin. The Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) could also play a role, with its expert and practical resources in various sector-specific dimensions. This should be beneficial in the context of strengthening pan-Eurasian multilateralism, erasing the remaining dividing lines and deepening applied cooperation. The Kazakhstani chairmanship and the CICA Secretariat, supported by the participating countries, have added new dimensions to the forum. There has been a revival on the transport track, with a discussion of the prospects for creating continental cargo corridors, as well as in the human dimension, with an emphasis on tourism and education. We are grateful for the support of the Russian proposal to include one more important topic on the agenda, information security. CICA can make a solid contribution to the UN effort to agree on reliable tools for protecting the digital environment and preventing crimes involving digital technologies. On the CICA economic track, Russia continues to oversee cooperation in the development of small and medium-sized businesses. Our experts presented an updated concept of interaction in this field for 2021-2023. A specific action plan is in the works. The CICA is updating its catalogue of confidence building measures to incorporate new areas for cooperation in addition to the traditional ones. We welcome Kazakhstan’s proposal to begin working on improving epidemiological security. This initiative is in line with efforts made at other multilateral platforms. Russia has been promoting similar initiatives at the SCO and the East Asia Summit platform since 2016 and discussing them as part of its dialogue partnership with ASEAN, such as the proposal to train epidemiologists from Southeast Asian countries. Our country is actively involved in the global COVID-19 response effort. We are augmenting the supply of medicines, test systems, equipment and PPE. We place particular importance on the possibilities for technology transfer to developing countries and ensuring the maximum availability of vaccines, primarily through launching local production. We intend to support the Conference’s second track in every possible way, in particular, the work of the planned Council of Wise Men. We are to approve the Council’s regulations today. October 5, 2021 marked the Conference’s 29th Anniversary (CICA Day). Next year, we will mark an even bigger anniversary and hold a summit. We need to begin thorough preparations. This forum has good potential. We need to further unlock its potential as an important tool for strengthening the atmosphere of trust and developing productive cooperation in Eurasia. Thank you for your attention. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4900531 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to questions following his visit to Kazakhstan, Nur-Sultan, October 12, 2021 12 October 2021 - 15:04 Question: Our Western partners keep surprising us. Now the British media has accused Russia of stealing the formula for the AstraZeneca vaccine. As usual, they did not offer any evidence. Is this just the next step in the information war against our vaccines? Sergey Lavrov: As for our British partners and the majority of our other Western partners, nothing surprises me anymore. I don’t think anyone will take such groundless accusations seriously. There were many similar statements, but I haven’t heard that we were accused of stealing the AstraZeneca formula. I remember there were many cases when AstraZeneca caused negative side effects, such as thrombosis. Sputnik V has never led to such consequences. I think all those who are interested will make conclusions themselves. Question: Will Russia render humanitarian aid to Afghanistan? Will the Taliban come to the meeting in the Moscow format? Sergey Lavrov: The Moscow format meeting is scheduled for October 20. Preparations for it are underway. Now we are receiving responses from those who were invited to attend this meeting, including the Taliban. I hope they will understand the importance of this meeting. As for humanitarian aid, we and a number of other countries want to suggest at the Moscow meeting holding a conference on humanitarian and other assistance to that country under the aegis of the UN. Question: What does Russia think about the actions of China, which has recently resumed its attempts to reunite with Taiwan? Do we see them as a threat to regional security? Sergey Lavrov: Russia, like the overwhelming majority of other countries, considers Taiwan to be part of the People's Republic of China. We have proceeded and will proceed from this premise in our foreign policy. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4900958 Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s meeting with US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland 12 October 2021 - 16:43 On October 12, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov met with US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland. The officials discussed the status and prospects of bilateral relations. They paid special attention to the operation of the diplomatic missions on each other’s territory. Mr Ryabkov emphasised that the hostile anti-Russian actions will not remain unanswered although Moscow does not seek to further escalate tensions. He suggested removing all restrictions that both sides have introduced in the past few years. Ms Nuland was told that the continuation of Washington’s line toward confrontation on the bilateral agenda and in the context of acute international and regional problems can only result in the further degradation of Russian-US relations. It is necessary to adopt a realistic approach and build bilateral ties on the principles of equality and mutual consideration of each other’s interests. Deputy Defence Minister, Colonel General Alexander Fomin also took part in the meeting. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4901211 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Minister for External Relations of the Republic of Angola Tete Antonio, Moscow, October 13, 2021 13 October 2021 - 13:52 Mr Minister, Friends, We are glad to welcome you in Moscow. In the early 2000s, you and I worked in New York. Today, we welcome you in the capacity of Minister for External Relations of friendly Angola. On October 8 of this year, we marked the 45th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between our countries. During this period, we brought our relations to the level of a trust-based, privileged partnership. Today, we have a good opportunity to consider in detail the state of bilateral relations, as well as our collaboration at the UN and on other international issues in conformity with the agreements of principle reached during President of Angola Joao Lourenco’s visit to the Russian Federation in April 2019 and later in the course of his participation in the Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi. The dialogue with Angola is of much importance for Russia, given the active and constructive role that the leaders of your country play in promoting the principles of the UN Charter in practical international affairs and your personal contribution to the work of subregional organisations on the African continent and the African Union. Welcome, Mr Minister. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4902071 Reply by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova to a media question on the mention of PMC Wagner in the report of the Fact-Finding Mission on Libya 13 October 2021 - 15:11 Question: The first report of the Fact-Finding Mission on Libya, submitted on October 7 at the 48th session of the Human Rights Council, alleges that Wagner Group PMC, allegedly related to the Russian Federation, was engaged in hostilities in Tripoli and its surrounds and in southern Libya in support of the Libya National Army led by Khalifa Haftar, and that Wagner personnel was involved in killing civilians and persons not taking a direct part in hostilities. They are charged with violating international humanitarian law and committing war crimes. Would you comment on this information? Maria Zakharova: The information presented in this document requires careful study. However, even a preliminary analysis raises a number of questions about its content, especially related to the observance of the principles of objectivity and neutrality. Most of the findings are based on ‘interviews’ with unnamed victims and open-source information of dubious credibility, including an overtly propagandistic report by the British television company BBC that spread false information about alleged war crimes committed by Russian citizens in Libya. There is no convincing evidence of the involvement of Russians in the crimes in question. Once again, they want their audience to take their word for it. We have already noted and can again confirm that there are no Russian military members in Libya. It is regrettable that the investigators who wrote the report have, knowingly or unknowingly, followed the lead of those forces that are trying to create a false impression that Moscow has participated in the intra-Libyan armed confrontation, openly taking the side of one of the parties to the conflict, thereby discrediting Russia’s policy in Libya. At the same time, they failed to note that the reasons for the current difficult humanitarian situation in Libya is the destruction of Libyan statehood by NATO countries in 2011, when the alliance committed aggression against a sovereign UN member state to overthrow the Gaddafi regime. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4902246 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of External Relations of the Republic of Angola Tete Antonio, Moscow, October 13, 2021 13 October 2021 - 16:22 I had talks with my Angolan counterpart Tete Antonio which were held in a traditionally friendly and warm atmosphere. We talked about the time when we worked side by side in New York. Reaffirming by both sides the importance for all states to strictly follow UN Charter principles and norms was among the important outcomes of today’s talks. This is how we develop our privileged partnership with Angola, relying on the traditions of friendship and cooperation that go back to the days of the Angolan people’s struggle for freedom and independence, which our country supported. Our relationship is characterised by a high level of trust. This tone is set by our presidents who have reached fundamental agreements on the key areas of partnership during two meetings in Moscow and in Sochi in 2019. Despite the global recession amid the coronavirus pandemic, our trade and economic relations continue to be marked by positive dynamics, which meets our mutual commitment to take business partnerships to a new level. Preparations for implementing a number of mutually beneficial projects in industry, mining, agriculture and science-intensive technologies through the corresponding agencies and companies are ongoing. The peaceful use of outer space is a relatively new area in our interaction. We see good prospects for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Russian companies are showing increasing interest in the capacious and promising Angolan market. We will provide assistance to the business circles in both countries, including by using the recently created Angola-Russia business council, which is truly instrumental in this regard. The entire range of relevant issues will be reviewed at the next meeting of the Intergovernmental Russian-Angolan Commission on Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation and Trade, which will be held in Luanda within the next few months. Our mutual interest in promoting cultural and humanitarian ties is growing. Angolan specialists are being efficiently educated at Russian civilian and law-enforcement colleges, and through the Defence Ministry. Our defence ministries’ contacts are traditionally close. The Defence Minister of the Republic of Angola took part in the Army 2021 regular military forum in the Russian Federation last August. We are preparing for another meeting of the inter-governmental committee on MTC. This will play a key role in further strengthening our partnership. We closely cooperate in the UN and support each other’s initiatives. We want all UN members to rely on the need for dialogue and respect for the right of nations to decide their destinies independently, as well as a search for reliable consensus solutions in settling conflicts and overcoming crises. We use this approach when reviewing the developments in hot spots like the DRC, the African Great Lakes, the CAR, Mozambique and Mali. Our African friends and we believe that it is necessary to settle all these conflicts based on the initiatives of African sub-regional organisations and the African Union. As a member of the UN Security Council and a long-standing partner in the African Union and many other African agencies, Russia will continue its intensive efforts to promote stability and security in Africa. In this respect, we always consider the assessments and advice expressed by our Angolan friends, considering Angola’s constructive role in its efforts to settle conflicts in Africa in many areas, in part, as the Chair of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR). I am sincerely grateful to my colleague and friend for our joint efforts. I am confident that we will continue developing our relations for the benefit of our nations. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4902530 Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the recurrence of anti-Serb violence in Kosovo 14 October 2021 - 13:18 On October 13, Kosovo special forces equipped with heavy weapons and supported by armour again invaded Serb-populated areas in northern Kosovo. This breached the agreements placed on record with EU participation a couple of weeks ago, when it proved barely possible to avert a large-scale conflict that had been originally provoked by Pristina. This time there were dozens of victims and one Serb was taken to hospital with a gunshot wound. Thus, we are witnessing a demonstrative unwillingness on the part of the Kosovo Albanians to give up their aggressive plans aimed at clearing this territory from non-Albanian residents by creating unbearable conditions of existence for them. It is clear that the radical “government” headed by Albin Kurti does not feel bound by any commitments and openly disregards even those in the West who continue to lobby for the international legitimisation of Kosovo’s unlawful unilateral independence. We resolutely condemn the excesses masterminded by the Kosovo Albanian leaders, who feel their impunity and use any pretext to incite a surge of anti-Serb sentiments in local society ahead of the October 17 municipal elections and thus gain an advantage for the intractable ultra-nationalist forces. We would like to warn Pristina that its policy, combined with the vague reaction of its foreign sponsors, is inevitably provoking a slide into an open clash and destroying the prerequisites for continuing the already stalled dialogue between the sides. We urge the Kosovo Force to implement its mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and bring to heel the rampaging Kosovo Albanian radicals. We would like to point out that the NATO-led international contingent is fully responsible for maintaining peace and security in the region. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4903571 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s video address to the 4th Global Forum of Young Diplomats “Victory Diplomacy,” Moscow, October 14, 2021 14 October 2021 - 15:00 Colleagues, friends, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak before the 4th Global Forum of Young Diplomats, which, at its inception, was timed to coincide with the 75th anniversary of Victory over Nazism. I am pleased to state that you have finally managed to get together in Moscow despite the challenging situation with the pandemic. With the international situation remaining tense, your efforts aimed at strengthening international cooperation are particularly valuable. The theme of your gathering – Victory Diplomacy – is quite symbolic. During the difficult war years, the Allies acted with perspicacity, wisdom and foresight. They were able to put aside their differences, including in ideology, and to join their efforts in the name of defeating a common enemy and eradicating misanthropic ideas. They went down in history as the creators of a post-war world architecture, of which the United Nations Organisation has become the cornerstone. Over the long history of its existence, the UN has proved its effectiveness in maintaining global peace and security – even in the face of differences between the global powers. The UN Charter remains the key source of the modern system of international law. We are convinced that there is no and cannot be any reasonable alternative to the UN-centric architecture. Clearly, no neo-colonial concepts such as “rules-based world order” can ensure a safe, stable, and inclusive development of humankind. Regrettably, I have to admit that purposeful efforts have been made recently to unabashedly falsify the WWII events. A number of countries, primarily Ukraine and the Baltic States, are openly promoting Nazi ideas and values, and national radicals are reinforcing their positions. Attempts are being made to equate victims to executioners and to glorify Nazis and their henchmen. The purpose of these actions goes beyond pitting countries and peoples against one another, but is also to revise the universally recognised international legal outcomes of the Great Victory enshrined in the UN Charter and in the rulings of the Nuremberg Trials. This kind of policy undermines the basic foundations of the world order and jeopardises the fundamental principles of ensuring human rights. As a founder of the UN and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia will continue to vigorously oppose these negative and dangerous trends. In particular, Russia’s annual resolution on the unacceptability of glorifying Nazism, which enjoys broad-based support across the world, is aimed at achieving this objective. I would like to once again call on our Western colleagues to support our draft resolution. Colleagues, The WWII experience of an ideology-free alliance and cooperation can be useful today, when the international community is faced with numerous common challenges and threats that have a clearly transboundary nature. Clearly, effectively overcoming them is only possible in a collaborative effort based on internationally recognised provisions of international law. In this regard, Russian diplomacy is open to close cooperation with any nation that is ready for honest joint work without hidden agendas or double standards. It is gratifying to know that such partners constitute the overwhelming majority of our contacts. I am confident that your forum can also make a contribution to the common efforts to improve the international situation. I am aware that the Charter of the International Association of Young Diplomats will be presented during today’s meeting. It is comforting to know that our experience allows us to bring the dialogue between young specialists in international affairs from different countries to a new level and to put it on a systematic basis. We welcome and support in every way this kind of activities that are geared, among other things, to promoting the innovative concept of “horizontal diplomacy” and maintaining an atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding between peoples. I wish you productive discussions and all the best. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4903708 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions following a meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers, Minsk, October 14, 2021 14 October 2021 - 15:09 We held a productive meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). We approved a number of statements to be submitted to tomorrow’s meeting of the Heads of State Council: on the CIS’s 30th anniversary; migration cooperation; and biosecurity cooperation. At the same time, the foreign ministers adopted their own document – a joint statement in support of the efforts to strengthen the regime of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). We endorsed provisions on the International Association (Commission) of Historians and Archivists of the CIS Member States. In the year of the 80th anniversary of the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War, when our Western colleagues are going all out to falsify its course and causes and revise its outcome, this will allow CIS historians and archivists to promote their cooperation, facilitate access to archive documents and help scholars coordinate their efforts. The participants decided to announce 2022 as the Year of Folk Art and Cultural Heritage, which will also promote the development of cultural cooperation between our countries. We are pleased with the results of the meeting and grateful to our Belarusian friends for its excellent organisation. Question: US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland visited Moscow earlier this week. Yesterday, President of Russia Vladimir Putin said the discussion focused on further contacts between Russia and the United States, including at the top level. Are you working on a meeting at the top level? Could it take place on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Rome? Sergey Lavrov: We are reviewing potential schedules for further contacts between the presidents during my conversations with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and at the level of our deputies. There is an obvious mutual desire to develop them. The Presidential Executive Office will certainly inform you about these plans once we agree on the dates. Question: The foreign ministers will soon meet in the Normandy format. Will they meet offline or online? What shall we expect? Is this meeting a prelude to a heads of state summit? If so, when might it take place? Sergey Lavrov: In his telephone conversation with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel at their initiative, President of Russia Vladimir Putin discussed whether it would be beneficial to resume work in the Normandy format. Ultimately, our President emphasised that before holding a new summit, it is necessary to implement the decisions of the previous summit held in Paris in December 2019. President Putin cited convincing facts showing that Kiev had not fulfilled anything that it promised to do at the previous summit. The leaders agreed that their aides, advisors and foreign ministries would continue consultations to decide what to do next. I was a bit surprised that our Western colleagues are so persistent in promoting the resumption of the Normandy format without ensuring the implementation of the previous decisions. The EU-Ukraine summit took place a couple of days after that. Its participants adopted a joint statement that was signed, among others, by President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and President of the European Council Charles Michel. In this statement, Russia is bluntly called “an aggressor.” The signatories demand in a rude and categorical manner that we fulfill the Minsk agreements as one of their parties. This seriously contradicts the truth and even the ambiguous answers of German and French experts to a direct question: Who are the parties to the Minsk agreements? We are saying that under the agreements Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk should come to terms on the special status of Donbass, preparations for elections, amnesty and many other issues. We ask the German and French co-authors of the Minsk agreements whether they confirm the need for a direct dialogue. They suggest refraining from the mention of the sides. They consider it correct to leave “constructive uncertainty.” Now instead of “constructive uncertainty,” Ms von der Leyen, Mr Michel and Mr Zelensky bluntly call Russia “a party to the conflict.” We want to figure out what is going on in the EU and how we can continue working. Question: You said recently that Russia is concerned over EU and US interference in the domestic affairs of Belarus. How does it affect us? Should we counter it in the future with joint Russia-Belarus actions? Sergey Lavrov: Any instances of interference in the domestic affairs of any state are a direct violation of the UN Charter. It is necessary to view them as such and stop them then and there. We are willing to do this in cooperation with our Belarusian neighbours and other allies and strategic partners. Question: Did you discuss the functioning of the Russian media in Belarus, in part, the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper? Sergey Lavrov: Yes, we did. I talked again with my colleague, Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei. There is a common understanding of the need to do everything to create the best possible conditions for the work of the Russian media in Belarus and Belarusian media in Russia. There are some ideas. We will soon carry them out. Question: After the change of power (first, the President and later the Government), Moldova announced its intention to develop healthy relations with Russia. However, although Maia Sandu has been President for a year, and the new Government assumed office in summer, there have been no contacts between heads of state and government and even foreign ministers up to this day. Are any contacts planned in the near future? Are you discussing such contacts? Sergey Lavrov: Maia Sandu has repeatedly expressed in public her desire to have normal, mutually beneficial relations with the Russian Federation. Some Western representatives began to reproach her for that: Why does she make such foreign policy deviations instead of focusing firmly on moving towards the EU? This is yet another instance of US and EU interference in other countries’ internal affairs. We are ready for contacts, and they should be thoroughly prepared. Foreign Minister of Moldova Nicu Popescu will come to Russia next month and we will discuss in detail the entire range of our relations. Question: There are reports that the United States is discussing the deployment of counterterrorism forces in Uzbekistan. Is this probing? What does Moscow know about this? What is its attitude to this? Sergey Lavrov: I haven’t heard about this. Our Central Asian neighbours, allies and strategic partners are telling us that they consider such actions unacceptable. It is better to ask our Uzbek colleagues about this. Let me repeat that our Central Asian friends are telling us they do not want similar initiatives by the United States or other NATO countries. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4903728
__________________
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 |
October 24th, 2021 | #10 |
Senior Member
|
Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the sidelines of the third Eurasian Women’s Forum, St Petersburg, October 14, 2021
14 October 2021 - 16:14 Third Eurasian Women’s Forum I am glad to welcome you to St Petersburg. Our offsite briefing today is taking place on the sidelines of the third Eurasian Women’s Forum. Let me remind you that the Forum is held at the initiative of Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matvienko under the auspices of the CIS Interparliamentary Assembly and the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. It is attended by female leaders from the CIS member states and other countries of the world (over 100 states), parliamentarians, representatives of executive authorities, international organisations, the business and scientific communities, public and charitable associations, as well as the international women’s movement and the media: journalists, press secretaries, and PR people. Yesterday we had a fruitful discussion on effective partnership in the information sphere, on the role and influence of women in the formation of digital media culture and gender balance in journalism. Key discussion topics at the Forum include the role of women in ensuring global security, transitioning to new models of economic growth, social progress, overcoming the negative consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, achieving balance in the context of universal digitalisation, and solving global environmental and climate problems. The Eurasian Women’s Forum can rightfully be considered an effective mechanism for interaction and dialogue between women who influence social, political and economic decision-making. Interregional ties of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region St Petersburg is an important venue for holding major international forums and conferences, provided there is strict compliance with public health restrictions. Recently it has hosted the St Petersburg International Economic Forum and other large international events. St Petersburg is a leader of the national investment climate ranking. We support the efforts of the city leadership to attract foreign investment and promote tourism. The consistent work carried out by the St Petersburg government to support and develop cultural projects and programmes to promote the Russian language in foreign partner cities makes a significant contribution to protecting the national interests and preserving the historical memory of Russia. During his visit on September 6, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov praised the high level of cooperation between the Foreign Ministry and the city administration, in particular, the St Petersburg Committee for External Ties, which marked its 30th anniversary this year. The introduction of electronic visas for foreign guests of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region on October 1, 2019 was an important factor in increasing business contacts and the flow of tourists. Unfortunately, the public health situation forced some changes, which were not so positive and complicated the follow-through on this decision. However, we will continue to simplify the procedure for the entry of tourists and businesspeople to St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. The humanitarian aspect of St Petersburg’s external ties during the coronavirus pandemic deserves special attention and praise. It is impossible to overestimate the contribution of the city’s medical workers and the corresponding humanitarian aid to its foreign partners: Chisinau, Palestine, Syria, Serbia, Italy, and Uzbekistan among many others. Agreements on cooperation with 96 foreign cities and 30 regions are being implemented, as well as “diagonal” agreements with the governments of Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan. On September 10, an agreement was signed between the governments of St Petersburg and Belgrade on trade, economic, social, humanitarian and cultural cooperation. The Leningrad Region has secured its place among the regions doing the most to foster interregional contacts. It the first quarter of 2021, the foreign trade of the Leningrad Region amounted to $2.67 trillion. Trade grew by 8.3 percent, while exports increased 4.3 percent and imports 15.6 percent. We can also see the active development of the Leningrad Region’s humanitarian ties, especially cooperation with the regions of foreign countries in the sphere of environmental and social initiatives. Cooperation at the municipal level is an important element of interaction between the Leningrad Region and European countries. Today there are over 100 such agreements in force. We will continue to support the development of contacts with CIS countries. Marking the 25th anniversary of the Solzhenitsyn House of Russia Abroad On October 18, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend a ceremony dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the Solzhenitsyn House of Russia Abroad. On May 2019, in keeping with the instruction of Russian President Vladimir Putin and with his support, the Museum of Russia Abroad opened at the House, so now these two have been transformed into a modern museum-cum-archive, combining the functions of a library, as well as a research centre, an information and publishing centre and a cultural and educational centre. Today, the Solzhenitsyn House of Russia Abroad is a major spiritual and intellectual centre for preserving and promoting Russian heritage abroad, which offers an effective format for a fruitful dialogue with our compatriots living all over the world and for perpetuating the memory of those who, while living abroad, did not forget their homeland and kept its traditions alive. Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and Communities of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau Suzi Carla Barbosa ................................................................................................. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s forthcoming participation in a Valdai Club meeting ................................................................................................. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulides ................................................................................................. Update on Afghanistan We are concerned that the activity of the ISIS terrorist group has not abated in Afghanistan. On October 8, the group committed a major terrorist attack in a Shiite mosque in Kunduz in the north of the country, killing about 150 people and wounding another 200. The militants also assumed responsibility for a terrorist attack in a religious school in the province of Host, which killed seven people. We hope that the new Kabul authorities will honour their promise to deal with ISIS single-handedly without external support. We noted the two-day visit to Qatar by a Taliban delegation headed by Afghan acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi. Talks were held, in part, with representatives of the US Department of State. We expect the arrival in Moscow of a representative Taliban delegation to take part in a third meeting of the Moscow-format consultations on Afghanistan. Outcome of the G20 extraordinary summit on Afghanistan with the participation of Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov The G20 held an extraordinary summit on Afghanistan (via videoconference) on October 12 of this year under Italy’s Presidency. The Russian delegation was headed by Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov. Special Presidential Representative on Afghanistan and Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Second Asia Department Zamir Kabulov also attended the meeting. Participants in the summit emphasised the need to provide humanitarian aid to the population of Afghanistan with a view to ensuring stability and security in the region as a whole. They confirmed the urgency of the efforts to counter the threats of terrorism and drug trafficking emanating from Afghan territory. The Russian delegation laid emphasis on the importance of forming an inclusive government that reflects the interests of all ethnic and political forces of the country as a key step towards concluding a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan. It noted that the states whose 20-year presence in the country ended in a deplorable situation are expected to take a responsible approach to providing assistance during the post-war recovery of the Afghan economy. The Russian delegation urged other participants to pool efforts to prevent a crisis in Afghanistan and its aftermath, such as the growth of terrorism and drug trafficking in the region and the rest of the world, as well as a new wave of Afghan refugees and the risks of terrorists entering neighbouring countries, primarily, in Central Asia, in the guise of refugees. Update on Ukraine The situation in Ukraine is of growing concern. The gap between the Kiev government’s words, declarations, statements and actions continues to widen. In a word, the Kiev regime is promising to settle the conflict in Donbass peacefully, and is declaring its commitment to the Minsk agreements. However, it is alternating these statements with remarks to the effect that the Minsk agreements are hopelessly out of date. In fact, it is doing everything possible to drive the situation to a dead end. Over the past two weeks, the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission has recorded 2,800 attacks on the line of contact. Since July 2020, when Ukraine signed additional Measures to Enforce the Ceasefire, the number of violations has exceeded 60,000. Think about these numbers. Following in the footsteps of the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valery Zaluzhny, the commander of the Joint Forces Operation Alexander Pavlyuk officially allowed the Ukrainian military to open fire without the higher chain of command’s approval, which violates the above additional measures and increases the number of civilian casualties in Donetsk and Lugansk. The Verkhovna Rada is considering a draft law on the “transition period” policy, which, once approved, will put an end to the special status of Donbass. It comes into direct conflict with the Minsk agreements and creates a legal basis for official Kiev to drop out of them. Given this, it is not surprising that the Contact Group and its subgroups’ meetings for the settlement of the conflict in Donbass, which took place on October 12-13, ended without any results. The Ukrainian officials have once again done everything possible to make this happen. Given the difficulties in settling the conflict in eastern Ukraine, the leaders of the Normandy format countries agreed during a telephone conversation on October 11 to direct their political advisers and foreign ministries to step up the efforts in this regard. For our part, we will continue our mediation efforts in the Contact Group and the Normandy format, including through our Foreign Ministry, with an eye towards encouraging Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk to fulfill their obligations under the Minsk Package of Measures. Unfortunately, instead of encouraging their wards to implement the Minsk Package of Measures, Kiev’s Western overseers, on the contrary, are encouraging the Ukrainian leaders in their efforts to shift responsibility for the settlement of the internal Ukrainian conflict onto Moscow. The EU-Ukraine summit of October 12 was quite revealing when it comes to this. One could almost think that our Western partners were in some kind of parallel reality. The leaders of the EU and Ukraine called on Russia to implement the Minsk agreements in full. Apparently, they believe that not Kiev, but Moscow can grant Donbass a special status within Ukraine, declare an amnesty for the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk, and carry out a constitutional reform in Ukraine with an emphasis on decentralising its territorial structure. Is this really what the EU had in mind? If so, then it is a new milestone in international law. Just a reminder, all of the already mentioned measures to be taken are included in the Minsk Package of Measures and are the key preconditions for a comprehensive political settlement of the conflict. They can only be realised by Ukraine, if we are talking about constitutional reform, amnesty, etc. Why are they making these kind of statements then? The fact that Brussels is reviewing plans to deploy an EU military training mission in Ukraine is of growing concern. The implementation of this initiative, which contradicts the Minsk agreements, will further militarise that country and escalate tension in Donbass, and encourage the Kiev authorities to further sabotage the Minsk Package of Measures. We are urging them to abandon this, to put it mildly, ill-thought-out move. If this is a deliberate move, then my question is what its goals are. Another example of a gap between words and actions of the Ukrainian leadership is the way it treats historical memory, its own history and the historical facts. During the events dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the Babi Yar tragedy, President of Ukraine Zelensky said that “dignified commemoration of the victims is our duty to previous generations.” Despite these statements, the destruction of war memorials and graves of Soviet soldiers who died in the Great Patriotic War continues in Ukraine in violation of national legislation and international law. A monument on a mass grave of the Red Army soldiers and tombstones with the names of the soldiers was demolished in the town of Kolomyia, Ivano-Frankovsk Region, on September 30. All of this is happening at the same time under the same president of Ukraine. These statements are being made by the same people, and these actions are being performed with the connivance of the official authorities that are making statements about the need to preserve the memory of those who have fallen. On October 8, the Lvov City Council resolved to dismantle the central part of the Field of Mars memorial - a scaled-up copy of the Order of the Patriotic War. These are the real facts. Do you believe President Zelensky is not aware of them? I’m not so sure anymore. Perhaps, he simply isn’t. This begs the question: how can he not know it and why? They don't report this to him? Did he issue an instruction not to report this to him? How can you not know about this? After all, in the end, it was not he or people in his circle who erected these memorials and built these monuments. This was done by previous generations. President Zelensky is talking about “the horror, pain and suffering that Nazism, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and intolerance bring to humanity.” What do we see in real life? This is all about them not doing as they are saying. Ukraine votes against the UN General Assembly resolutions on combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and xenophobia, just like the United States. Sometimes these two countries use the support of some other state. In splendid solitude, year in and year out, they vote against the UN General Assembly resolution, which proposes concrete practical steps and an international legal format to prevent the glorification of Nazism, xenophobia and other similar practices. There is an explanation for this. Nazis and their accomplices are actually being glorified in Ukraine, which is exactly why they have been voting against this resolution for many years now. This is not because they do not really understand what this resolution is about, or because they are just forming their attitude towards it. That would be possible if we were talking about several years, but we are talking decades. The streets are being named after Nazi henchmen and collaborators and monuments to them are being erected. The Lvov and Ivano-Frankovsk regions proclaimed 2022 the year of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Can you believe it? Today, on October 14, Ukraine is celebrating an anniversary dedicated to the founding of this punitive Nazi organisation. Once again, we would like the international community to take note of the Ukrainian authorities’ hypocritical policy and call to influence them in order to make Kiev fulfil its obligations to resolve the conflict in Donbass and preserve the historical memory that relies on facts and reality, not myths or fakes. Statements by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida We have taken note of the statement the new Prime Minister of Japan Fumio Kishida made in parliament. According to him, Tokyo will not sign a peace treaty with Russia without settling the territorial dispute first. Perhaps our Japanese partners are trying to determine the course of peace treaty negotiations with such ultimatums, but in fact, they are making the prospects for its adoption less likely. We invariably proceed from the premise that the first step in this direction should be Japan’s full recognition of the results of World War II, including Russia’s lawful ownership of the southern Kuril Islands. At the same time, the search for a mutually acceptable solution to the issue of the peace treaty must be pursued in line with the comprehensive development of Russian-Japanese relations through the expansion of trade, investment and economic cooperation, with confidence-building measures in the military and political sphere, and rapprochement of positions in international affairs. US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s visit We believe that the October 12 talks with Victoria Nuland at the Foreign Ministry were useful and timely. The conversation was straightforward and blunt, touching upon a wide range of issues that are viewed as irritants in our bilateral relations, including the obstacles for the operation of Russia’s diplomatic missions that were artificially created by Washington, as well as the steady stream of visa and other restrictions that we cannot leave without a response. I would like to remind you that Victoria Nuland was on the Russian stop list, and it has to be emphasised that this stop list was introduced in response to a US stop list. What made her visit to Russia possible was the delivery by the US of a visa to a Russian diplomat who needed to travel to the United States on assignment but was repeatedly denied entry. His visa applications were denied even though he was heading to the United Nations, whose headquarters are on US soil. This is an important caveat. As a country hosting an international structure, the United States is under obligation to ensure its normal operation, including the issuance of visas to foreign diplomats, civil society leaders and experts arriving at the UN headquarters in New York to work, attend conferences and symposiums. This is the direct obligation of the United States that must not be affected by bilateral relations or other factors relating to US policy. This is set forth in the corresponding documents, which means that the United States cannot simply forgo this obligation. The United States has repeatedly failed to comply with its duties by refusing to grant a visa to a Russian diplomat. Accordingly, the Russian diplomat got the opportunity to enter the United States. He received the visa. This exchange enabled us to resolve this specific issue. However, from a broader perspective, during the talks the Russian side emphasised the need to lift all reciprocal restrictions in order to ensure the normal operation of the embassies and consulates. Summing up the consultations with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, also attended by Deputy Defence Minister Colonel General Alexander Fomin, as well as conversations with other Russian officials, we can say that despite the persisting crisis potential in our bilateral relations, Moscow and Washington share the commitment to continue their dialogue in order to make their relations more stable and predictable. In this context, further escalation on the Russian track, which is what Russophobic forces in the United States are calling for – I am referring to the recent call by anti-Russia members of Congress to expel 300 or 400 Russian diplomats, and other things we are hearing from Washington – can only lead to an escalation of confrontation between our countries that has already gone beyond all reasonable boundaries. We pointed out to Victoria Nuland that we are ready to establish contacts at all levels as agreed by the presidents of Russia and the United States during their Geneva summit. The strategic stability dialogue and cooperation on cyber security were mentioned as positive examples of these interactions. The Russian side stressed that there is no alternative for the United States to a well-balanced approach consistent with the new geopolitical reality for building its relations with Russia based on the principles of equality and taking into consideration each other’s interests. During talks with Victoria Nuland, we stressed that the AUKUS partnership that is being formed, or should I say knocked together, by the United States, Great Britain and Australia, not only threatens to undermine the current security architecture in the Asia-Pacific Region, but could potentially put the international non-proliferation regime at risk. At Russia’s initiative, the participants in the talks also discussed NATO’s dangerous moves to step up its activity in the immediate vicinity to the Russian border, primarily in Eastern Europe and in the Black Sea. The recent decision by Washington and Warsaw on the permanent stationing of US military forces and deploying elements of America’s global missile defence shield on Polish territory is a matter of special concern. On the international agenda, special attention was paid to the developments in Afghanistan in the wake of the hasty and chaotic withdrawal of US troops. Russia believes that despite the radical changes in the internal political situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Troika Plus mechanism and the Moscow format, which brings together the key regional powers and the United States, remain relevant and can effectively contribute to promoting intra-Afghan reconciliation and forming and inclusive government that would reflect the interests of all ethnic and political forces in the country. It was reiterated that the deployment of US and NATO military infrastructure in Central Asia is totally unacceptable for Russia. Our firm position on this matter as stated by the Russian President at the Geneva summit remains unchanged. We agreed to maintain contacts on all the topical issues on the Russia-US agenda. Celebrating Fridtjof Nansen’s 160th birth anniversary Around this time, commemorative events are being held to mark the 160th birth anniversary of Fridtjof Nansen on October 10. The whole world cherishes the memory of prominent Norwegian polar explorer Fridtjof Nansen who was also a scientist, a public and political activist, and who received the Nobel Peace Prize. Additionally, Nansen was one of the founders of the League of Nations. He made a tremendous contribution to solving the problems of refugees, including with the help of the so-called Nansen passports. These IDs were issued to stateless persons. He also helped repatriate prisoners of war and contributed to anti-famine efforts. It is common knowledge that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees annually confers the Nansen Refugee Award. The whole world and Russia know his personality well. Nansen sincerely loved Russia and was a staunch advocate of establishing mutually respectful relations between Russia and Norway. Russia has organised a number of events to mark his 160th birth anniversary. The Diplomatic Academy was the venue of a roundtable discussion devoted to the diverse activities of this legendary person. We are also holding exhibitions, conferences and educational events, including some in the Russian regions. Several new books dedicated to the great Norwegian have been published in the run-up to his birth anniversary. We really hope that, apart from paying tribute to the memory of Nansen, including in the context of Russian-Norwegian relations, the anniversary events will help us recall the fundamental principles of love for humanity, the importance of equitable and respectful cooperation and the topicality of joint efforts to maintain security and stability all over the world. Traditional Weddings of the World: Cultural Heritage project We are guests at the Eurasian Women's Forum. Its participants talk so much about women and about traditional values that are for the most part preserved thanks to women. For most women, there is nothing more important than family, marriage, raising children and continuing traditions. In this regard, I would like to tell you about a Russian project, which I think is in tune with the atmosphere at the Forum and the topics raised here. The project, Traditional Weddings of the World: Cultural Heritage, has been launched in Russia. When I received a letter from the person who initiated this project, it made me smile and I wanted to get to know him, because it was a truly fascinating, relevant and entertaining topic. It is at the junction of several related spheres: it has to do with traditions, with history and cultural studies, as well as intercultural and interreligious ties, exchanges between countries and peoples on the subjects of history and ethnography. So who is this man? Denis Knyazev, the initiator of the project aimed at preserving the unique wedding traditions of various peoples around the world. He started with researching traditions in our country, and then became interested in the respective traditions in other countries, and how similar or different they are. Over the six years of this unique project, expeditions have been organised to the most remote corners of our country for filming and re-enactment. Denis Knyazev photographs artefacts, costumes and museum exhibits, and he also organises re-enactment of traditional weddings of indigenous peoples. The team working on this project has published two albums about Udmurt and Nenets weddings with descriptions of their traditional wedding ceremonies in three languages - Russian, English and the local language. A book about Russian wedding traditions is being prepared for publication. The Foreign Ministry provides informational support for the project. We have also asked the Permanent Mission of Russia to the United Nations in New York to cover it because in many ways, this topic overlaps with the UN agenda. The story of a family usually begins with the formation of this family, with the wedding, with all the ceremonies. Each nation has its own special wedding customs and traditions. These fantastic books feature unique photographs and reflect the tremendous work that has been done to put them together. I highly recommend this project. Answers to media questions: Question: A number of journalist investigations have resonated recently with claims that the UN encouraged attempts to stage a government coup in August 2020 in Belarus. What do you think about the UN’s response, or rather its silence, regarding the economic and sanctions pressure exerted by the West on Belarus and accusations that it encouraged a coup? Maria Zakharova: I have not seen any investigations of this kind. The UN’s goals and objectives deal with sustaining the international legal framework enabling countries to build mutually respectful relations, with an emphasis on the importance and value of non-interference in each other’s affairs, respecting sovereignty, territorial integrity and the rights of peoples to live the way they deem fit within their borders. Russia’s position on the developments in Belarus is well-known. We condemned in the clearest terms that cannot be subject to any ambivalent interpretation the collective efforts made by several countries to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state and incite illegal actions and events that run counter to the fundamental laws of Belarus. We have been consistent in our position, which is not because Belarus is part of the Union State. Of course, we have a special relationship with that country and its people, but this is our fundamental approach and a matter of principle for us. This is the way we treat any country. Question: Could you please comment on the October 11, 2021, decision made by the EU Council to expand the list of Russian nationals designated on the EU sanctions list targeting those responsible for “undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.” Maria Zakharova: Let me remind you about our fundamental position that is rooted in international law: any decisions on sanctions bypassing the UN Security Council are illegitimate from the perspective of international law. This is the way to approach this matter. From a political perspective, this can be viewed as the EU playing “sanctions games,” which is regrettable, since there is nothing but politics there. This has nothing to do with the law, and in fact contradicts it. These sanctions were approved ahead of the October 12, 2021, Ukraine-EU summit. This sends Kiev a signal, encouraging it to sabotage the Minsk Package of Measures. Our EU partners are calling on us to fully comply with the Minsk agreements, while sending signals to the Kiev regime by making steps that are designed, in their opinion, to contain or censure Russia. They are clearly playing games. What is it if not hypocrisy? Importantly, Brussels is failing to understand one simple thing. The internal crisis in Ukraine was primarily caused by the interference by the “collective West” and Brussels into Ukraine’s internal affairs and evolved into a full-blown armed conflict, which is a shame for these countries. At first, they interfered and manipulated the interests of the Ukrainian people, and after that they just cast the Ukrainians aside. Through actions of this kind, they are now seeking to show that they care for the future of the Ukrainian people. What they are doing is a vile thing, not involvement. Our EU partners should know better, after all it was great Antoine de Saint-Exupery who wrote that “you become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed.” Let us not once again access these actions, since we have done this many times already. Brussels must understand its responsibility for the experiments with the people of Ukraine. The sense of “taming” that Brussels has been artificially imposing for many years creates a dual responsibility vis-a-vis the people of Ukraine. They cannot relieve themselves of their responsibility for manipulating Ukraine and its people by introducing or expanding any sanctions or renewing old ones. This may sound pathetic, but we believe that Brussels must hear this and understand that they cannot play with human destinies only to betray them afterwards. Such acts and signals exacerbate internal divisions in Ukraine that are now apparent for the entire world. The EU’s illegal restrictions even affected members of the Russian judiciary. This is an overt attempt to put pressure on the judicial branch and to undermine its independence and impartiality. How does this relate to the statement made by the Head of the EU Delegation to Russia, Markus Ederer, in his October 8, 2021, interview with RBC, when he claimed that “there is no interference by the European Union in Russia’s internal affairs?” Or is there? This is clearly the case. Or course, Russia will not fail to respond to this unfriendly step by the EU. Question: The Foreign Ministry of Ukraine declared that Natalya Poklonskaya “will not be able to hide from Ukrainian justice in Africa.” What could you say about this, especially since former Deputy of Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Gyunduz Mamedov did not rule out that Ukraine could start the extradition procedure as regards the former Crimean Prosecutor? Does Kiev have any grounds for such actions? Maria Zakharova: The President of the Russian Federation appointed Natalya Poklonskaya a Russian ambassador. She will represent Russia abroad. This has nothing to do with Ukraine. Under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as a head of a diplomatic mission Ms Poklonskaya has absolute immunity against such actions, no matter who declares them, including during her travel to the country of destination and back. Everyone must realise this. I already commented on this yesterday. I read a comment by the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry about their intention to exercise “Ukrainian justice” in Africa. I would like to advise our Ukrainian partners to finally carry out Ukrainian justice in Ukraine. First things first. Once they do this – implement their justice in their own country – then they can move to more ambitious tasks. For the time being, they are not coping with what they should do first. Let them try their best. Question: What is Russia’s attitude to North Korea’s right to defend itself, considering the position it recently voiced in the UN? Maria Zakharova: The answer is simple, and it is based on international law. We assume that Article 51 of the UN Charter gives the UN member-states the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence in the event of an armed attack. This right fully applies to all UN members, including North Korea. Question: A foreign minister meeting in the Normandy format. Considering that Kiev subverted the agreements of the meeting in Paris in 2020, is there anything to discuss with it now? Are there grounds to hope that Kiev will accept the Steinmeier formula? Maria Zakharova: I have already commented on this in the opening remarks. I can repeat that during a telephone conversation on October 11, the leaders of Russia, Germany and France agreed to instruct their political aides and foreign ministries to intensify efforts in this area. The work on this issue is underway. As for whether Kiev will accept the Steinmeier formula, please first address this question to Kiev. Or maybe not to Kiev but to those who oversee its actions from abroad. Question: Do you already know the agenda of talks with the Afghan delegation to be held in Moscow on October 20? What are Russia’s priorities at these talks? Will the participants discuss human rights, in particular, the protection of women’s rights? Maria Zakharova: The main emphasis will be on post-conflict recovery of the country and mobilisation of consolidated aid by the international community with a view to preventing a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. An important part will be a discussion of the prospects for the intra-Afghan settlement process and the need to represent the interests of all ethnic and political forces in the country in the new government structures that are being created now. Human rights are not a priority on the agenda but may also be reviewed during the discussion. This is not to say that this topic is not urgent. If you are following the developments in Afghanistan, you know about the terrorist activities there and a disastrous humanitarian situation that concerns everyone – not only women but also men, the elderly and people with disabilities. The international community must primarily direct its efforts to meeting basic human needs. The Western media keep trying to present us as different from them on this issue but this is not true. We cannot simply ignore the right to life if we speak about human rights priorities because they include this right. It is impossible to implement other human rights if the right to life is neglected. If terrorist attacks take place in Afghanistan, it is no longer a question of the protection of the rights of girls and women. It is primarily necessary to resolve fundamental problems linked with security and the preservation of the infrastructure that provides life support for the country and supplies its population with medications and medical aid. But this does not mean at all that human rights problems are not important or topical for us. I hope I am mistaken that your question contains such an emphasis as well. Question: The International Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague started hearings on Ukraine’s lawsuit as regards the incident in the Kerch Strait in November 2018. Do you consider this trial politicised? What arguments does Russia have to defend its position? Maria Zakharova: By initiating proceedings on the Kerch incident in the International Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Kiev is again abusing international means of peaceful settlement of disputes in order to challenge Russia’s sovereignty over Crimea. Let’s recall that in November 2018 the Ukrainian authorities staged a deliberate provocation with the use of its naval vessels. In doing so they were guided exclusively by their domestic political interests that dominate their international agenda. Despite a warning from the Russian border guards on entering the Russian territorial waters, the armed motor boats Nikopol and Berdyansk and tugboat Yanu Kapu with military personnel on board under orders continued moving forward, thereby provoking a dangerous incident. It took place against the backdrop of Kiev’s serious arms buildup in the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea and other provocations undertaken by the Kiev regime aimed at challenging Russia’s sovereignty over Crimea. To justify this dangerous military venture, Ukraine is trying to involve in the inquiry the International Tribunal established in 1982 on the basis of the UN Law of the Sea. Russia proceeds from the belief that Kiev’s demands in this case exceed the jurisdiction of the court since in accordance with the statement that our country made when ratifying the Convention on the Law of the Sea, it does not accept the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV, which lead to binding decisions on disputes regarding military activities, including naval activities by government vessels. In addition, Ukraine did not fulfil an obligation to exchange views directly as a means of settling disputes, which, under the Convention’s Article 283 is an indispensable requirement for launching arbitration inquiries. Question: Many Greek, Cypriot and Turkish media have been alleging again that Russia and Turkey were considering the possibility of ‘mutual recognition’ of Crimea as a Russian territory and the territories occupied by the Turkish army in northern Cyprus as an independent state. Is there any truth in these reports? Are there any such discussions underway? Most of the reports rely on the statements and opinion of popular analyst Alexander Dugin, presented as an advisor to the President of Russia Vladimir Putin. Is he an adviser to President Vladimir Putin or other leaders in the Russian Government, or is this his personal opinion? Maria Zakharova: I know Mr Alexander Dugin as a philosopher, political scientist, and public figure. I would suggest you consider his statements precisely in this capacity. Perhaps he could also tell you about his roles as an essayist and journalist, but again, this is more of a question for him. We have already come to grips with this exciting game where fake news are planted on Greek or Turkish media (I have actually found myself the subject of such publications a couple of times), and then we are asked to give explanations on this score. I would say, if anyone should give explanations, it should be the media outlets that publish such information without asking for the concerned party’s comment before releasing the reports. If they mention Russia’s approach, official Moscow’s position, I believe (at least the professional journalistic community always says so) it would be appropriate to ask our opinion and include the relevant parts in the articles. This does not happen, although we are open to interaction and comment on everything, even online. I urge the Greek media to contact us. We will be happy to comment. The Republic of Crimea is an integral part, one of the most dynamically developing regions of the Russian Federation. The territory of our country has never been and will not be the subject of bargaining. Stating the opposite is close to provocation. Finding analogies between the Russian Crimea and the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is incorrect and I would say, unsafe, even dangerous. Such insinuations confuse international audiences, undermine trust, and generate negative emotions, also with regard to the Cyprus settlement. You are well aware of Russia's position on the Cyprus problem the country worked out as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, which remains unchanged. We consistently advocate a solution achieved within the international legal framework established by the UN Security Council resolutions and based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation, with a single sovereignty, a single citizenship and a single international personality. We support the UN Secretary General’s efforts as part of his good offices to resume the intercommunal negotiation process. We have seen a recent increase in the activity aimed at international recognition of the illegal state in northern Cyprus. We urge everyone to refrain from steps that could lead to heightened tension between communities and unbalance the situation on the island. Question: As you are staying in St Petersburg, formerly Leningrad, my question is about the German Government’s sensational decision to pay pensions to the survivors of the siege of Leningrad and certain other categories of citizens. This applies to people with a Jewish background alone. Compensation paid to Jews for 70 years were linked with the work of the public organisation Jewish Claims Conference which is located in New York and which cooperates with the German authorities. Do you consider it necessary and possible to set up a certain public association with the support of the Russian state, so as to restore justice? Otherwise it turns out that only one nation had suffered. Maria Zakharova: We set forth our position in the relevant statement, posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website, and we have also commented on this matter at a briefing. We worked with the German party and urged it to prevent this kind of segregation. We noted the payments made under an instruction by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. We urged the German party to heed all historical facts. It is unacceptable to divide people along ethnic lines, to support some of them and to overlook the fact that everyone had suffered. One can discuss this subject for eternity. However, we have learned the lessons of the 20th century, including those with which these payments are linked. They should have taught us that there is no place for national and religious segregation on our planet. It is necessary to exert all possible efforts in the areas where there are the slightest suspicions that such a division is taking place. We spoke with the German side for a long time. We conducted lengthy talks. They have done what has been done. We have provided our own assessment of this, and our statement and comments contain this assessment. You can read it. But it is necessary to draw the relevant conclusions from the tragic lessons of the past, so as to avoid repeating these mistakes. Question: This week, President of Russia Vladimir Putin had a meeting with Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan. The Armenian prime minister called the meeting “productive.” He said at the talks that the Karabakh conflict remained unresolved, and that it was still too early to say that the situation has been stabilised. How can the Foreign Ministry comment on the meeting’s results? How, in your opinion, will relations between countries develop, so as to attain a full-fledged settlement of the regional situation? Maria Zakharova: The Presidential Executive Office makes principled assessments of various highest-level meetings. This is about allotting our functional duties. Regarding the overall situation, Russia consistently advocates unfailing compliance with all the provisions of trilateral agreements between the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia of November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021. We really hope that this will help create the required conditions for normalising relations between Baku and Yerevan, including in the context of current complicated bilateral matters. Question: What is Russia’s assessment of the meeting between Patriarch Kirill, Sheikh ul-Islam Allahshukur Pashazadeh and Catholicos Karekin II and its importance in terms of promoting post-war settlement between Azerbaijan and Armenia? Maria Zakharova: As you know, this is not the first meeting between the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II and Chairman of the Caucasus Muslims' Board Sheikh ul-Islam Allahshukur Pashazadeh. Religious leaders have been staying in touch with one another for decades, and have established trust-based relations, judging by their statements. We believe that this is a unique format. There is no doubt that this contributes to deepening mutual understanding between the sides and promoting inter-religious dialogue. We proceed from the premise that the meeting, held on October 13, 2021, in Moscow will help normalise relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan and improve the overall situation in the South Caucasus, including confidence building, resolving urgent humanitarian matters, as well as preserving cultural and religious heritage. This is a very important format for overcoming problems and creating an atmosphere of trust and dialogue. Question: Just a few days ago in Nagorno-Karabakh, an Azerbaijani sniper shot a civilian working in his garden, virtually right in front of the eyes of Russian peacekeepers. How will Russia call on Azerbaijan to comply with the November 9, 2020, statement as part of its peacekeeping mission and to ensure the safety of the people living in Nagorno-Karabakh? Maria Zakharova: It is true that on October 9, 2021, a civilian from Magadiz, Mardakert District, was shot to death in a firing incident coming from the Azerbaijani side. We express our deep condolences to the victim’s relatives and friends. The command of the Russian peacekeeping force is investigating this incident and has reached out to both parties. Russian peacekeepers remain constantly in touch with the Armenian and Azerbaijani general staffs to coordinate the efforts and prevent incidents within their zone of responsibility. This tragic event confirms the importance of rigorously complying with all the provisions of the November 9, 2020, and January 11, 2021, statements made by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. We call on both sides to remove the existing mutual irritants on humanitarian matters without further delay, exchange prisoners of war under the all-for-all formula and share all the available maps of landmines. Question: On October 12, 2021, a citizen of the Russian Federation, Alexander Franchetti, was detained at the Prague airport on charges of terrorism put forward by Ukraine. Does the Foreign Ministry have an update on this situation? Maria Zakharova: We are closely monitoring this situation and all matters related to detention, arrest and similar difficulties faced by Russian citizens. The corresponding instructions have been issued to the Russian Embassy in Prague. The diplomats have established working interaction with the defence lawyers and Czech law enforcement agencies, as well as Mr Franchetti's daughter, who is in the Czech Republic now. In connection with the September 14, 2021, Prague City Court’s ruling to place Mr Franchetti in custody, special attention is paid to his legal rights, including with regard to his current health situation. In addition, the Foreign Ministry’s officials are in contact with his sister, who lives in Voronezh. We are working to have this Russian citizen released as soon as possible. The defence of the detainee is also committed to this goal. Question: As a follow-up on the Women's Forum, one of today's sessions is titled The Mission of Women in International Diplomacy. Do you think women have a special mission in diplomacy? What is it about? Which of those “blazing fires” that you mentioned earlier today, can this “soft power” (if, of course, it is soft) help douse? Maria Zakharova: Just go to the session to learn about the women’s role and special mission and whether it exists in the context of international relations. Why would I speculate on this topic which I believe will be the subject of a fascinating discussion? If you are asking for my personal opinion, I have talked about it many times. Of course, we, women, have our own perception of the world which I think can make an important contribution to the discussion of multiple pressing issues, such as social protection, in particular, families, motherhood and childhood. This does not mean at all that the contribution made by male diplomats, experts or specialists is not important. Much of what has been accomplished was developed and suggested by men. But women’s insights and experiences are truly invaluable. That includes humanitarian issues, equality of men and women, as well as new challenges and how they affect the lives of females of all ages. We work side by side at the Foreign Ministry. There are no female or male teams. We work as one team united by common goals and objectives. This is the kind of unity that is based on a harmonious variety of opinions. I believe this makes our common work more effective. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4903870
__________________
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 |
October 25th, 2021 | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,248
|
I wonder if Putin really did send Natalya Poklonskaya to an ambassadorial post in Africa because some probably foreign-backed Ukrainians wanted to kill her over Crimea? Who knows?
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." --Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor |
October 26th, 2021 | #12 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
"Cape Verde, officially the Republic of Cabo Verde, is an archipelago and island country in the central Atlantic Ocean, consisting of ten volcanic islands with a combined land area of about 4,033 square kilometres (1,557 sq mi). These islands lie between 600 to 850 kilometres (320 to 460 nautical miles) west of Cap-Vert situated at the westernmost point of continental Africa." - Wikipedia.
__________________
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 |
|
October 28th, 2021 | #13 |
Senior Member
|
Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Iran Hossein Amir-Abdollahian
14 October 2021 - 20:47 On October 14, 2021, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Hossein Amir-Abdollahian at the latter’s initiative. The ministers “synchronised watches” on the key issues of the bilateral agenda, which they discussed at the talks in Moscow on October 6, 2021. They reviewed the developments around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme. It was confirmed that the resumption of the nuclear deal in its initial balanced configuration is the only right way to ensure the rights and interests of all parties. The ministers noted their mutual desire to resume consultations on the JCPOA in Vienna as soon as possible. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4904169 On the Nineteenth Session of the Bilateral Consultative Commission under the New START Treaty 14 October 2021 - 21:09 The nineteenth session of the Bilateral Consultative Commission under the Russia-U.S. New START Treaty was held in Geneva October 5-14, 2021. The Russian and U.S. delegations continued the discussion of practical issues related to the implementation of the Treaty. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4904193 Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey V. Lavrov’s article for the Israeli Newspaper “Yedioth Ahronoth” dedicated to the 30th Anniversary of the Renewal of Diplomatic Relations Between Russia and Israel, October 15, 2021 15 October 2021 - 05:30 Unofficial translation On October 18, Russia and Israel celebrate the 30th anniversary of the renewal of full-fledged diplomatic relations – the beginning of a new era of common history. Turning to the pages of the past, let me recall that the USSR was the first country to recognize de jure the State of Israel back in May 1948. Of course, there were ups and downs in the chronicle of our relationship. Today, it could be assessed with confidence that Russian-Israeli mutually beneficial cooperation has stood the test of time and continues to actively develop in all directions. Its foundation is formed by an intensive political dialogue, foremost – at the highest level. Inter-parliamentary contacts are progressing, bolstered by Friendship Groups established in the legislative bodies of our countries. Inter-ministerial communications are carried out on a regular basis. Over the past decades, a solid experience of diversified cooperation has been accumulated in such spheres as economics, science and technology, healthcare and education. More than twenty acting intergovernmental agreements reflect the richness of the bilateral agenda. Our mutual practical cooperation has significant potential. A number of joint projects are being successfully implemented. Many initiatives have received the support of the President of the Russian Federation and the Prime Minister of the State of Israel. The interest of Israeli business circles in entering the Russian market continues to grow. Despite the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, by the end of 2020 trade between Russia and Israel decreased by only 3.9%, and in January-July this year it increased by 51.8% over the previous year’s period. The key coordinating mission in these common efforts is fulfilled by the Joint Russian-Israeli Commission for Trade and Economic Cooperation, founded in 1994. We are interested in the early resumption of its work in full. A special role in strengthening the unifying baselines of our relations as well as ensuring their stability and continuity belongs to humanitarian contacts. We appreciate the high level of mutual understanding between the peoples of Russia and Israel, connected by a common historical memory and convergence of cultures. It is encouraging that this thread, which has no geographic boundaries, is only getting stronger in course of time. There are millions of Russian-speaking compatriots living in Israel, including descendants both from the former Republics of the USSR and from the Russian Federation. Veterans of the Great Patriotic War, survivors of the siege, former prisoners of concentration camps are among them. The fate of these people is of major interest to us. Most vigorous rejection of the attempts of historical revisionism, combatting the distortion of the genesis, course and generally recognized international legal outcomes of the World War II have always united Russia and Israel. We will continue to coordinate our efforts, and specifically at the UN, to counter this shameful phenomenon. While in some countries of Central and Eastern Europe Nazi henchmen are being brought to the level of national heroes and neo-Nazi tendencies are being revived, the memory of the decisive contribution of the heroic soldiers of the Red Army to the Victory over Nazism, the saving of Jews and other peoples from extermination, the liberation of the world from the horrors of the Holocaust is sacred in Israel. We see how Israeli colleagues – at the state and public levels – encourage the activities of the veterans and compatriots movements, conduct active work to educate the younger generation. It is difficult to overestimate the significance of the law on Celebrating the Victory Day over Nazi Germany on May 9, approved by the Israeli parliament in 2017. It is particularly telling that on the 76th anniversary of the Great Victory, celebrated this year, festive events and commemorative parades along with the Immortal Regiment march were held in more than 45 Israeli cities. Thousands of Israelis of all ages as well as officials participated. This scale speaks for itself. Cooperation in the field of education and science – whether through student and academic exchanges or joint scientific research continues to move forward. Every year, students from Israel get an opportunity to receive higher education in Russian universities. All of them are sincerely welcome there. We hope that it will be possible to restore mutual tourist flows as soon as the sanitary and epidemiological situation improves. Russia is traditionally one of the top three countries in terms of the number of visitors to Israel. The Russian-Israeli dialogue is vigorously advancing through the foreign ministries. It is obvious that without constructive interaction of diplomats it is impossible to solve a number of international and regional problems that are of paramount importance both for ensuring the prosperous future of the peoples of Russia and Israel just as for strengthening international and regional security and stability. From this perspective, diversified contacts between the Security Councils and the defense ministries of our countries have also proven themselves well. On a regular basis it allows us to compare approaches and take into account each other's legitimate interests. Russia is pursuing an independent multi-vector foreign policy, contemplating pragmatism, the search for compromises and the observance of balances of interests. Creation of the most favorable external conditions for our internal socio-economic development remains its backbone. We have no ideological likes and dislikes, or any taboos in relations with our foreign partners, therefore we can play an active role in the international arena and specifically through mediation in the settlement of conflicts. We are interested in continuing consultations with our Israeli partners on security and stability issues in the Middle East. We always draw attention to the fact that comprehensive solutions to the problems of the region must necessarily take into account the security interests of Israel. This is a matter of principle. At the same time, we are convinced that there is no alternative to the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on a generally recognized international legal basis. We strongly support direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. A comprehensive solution to all issues of the final status is possible only through it. We are ready to work with Israeli colleagues, including multilateral formats, primarily in the context of the renewal of work of the Middle East Quartet of international mediators in close cooperation with representatives of the Arab League. I am convinced: it is in the common interest to maintain the momentum. Ahead of us are new milestones and additional opportunities not only to continue, but also to enrich the positive experience of multifaceted cooperation for the benefit of our states and peoples, in the interests of peace and stability. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4904248 Press release on the armed confrontation in central Beirut 15 October 2021 - 10:48 On October 14, a major armed confrontation erupted in central Beirut. According to reports, at about 11 am, participants in an authorised protest rally organised by the Shia movements Amal and Hezbollah near the Justice Palace came under fire from the nearby high-rise building. Amal fighters who ensured security during the demonstration returned fire. The army rushed to the scene and took the necessary measures to localise the incident, sealing off the area. According to the Lebanese Interior Ministry, six people were killed in the shooting, and several dozen people were wounded. The Russian Embassy in Beirut reported that there were no Russian nationals among the victims. President of Lebanon Michel Aoun and Prime Minister Najib Mikati headed the crisis centre for addressing the consequences of this emergency, and issued a call for calm. In their joint statement, Amal and Hezbollah laid the blame for the incident on provocateurs seeking to achieve questionable political goals by spilling blood of innocent victims. The growing political tension in Lebanon is a matter of grave concern for Moscow. We hope that the Najib Mikati government that was so hard in the making overcomes this dangerous challenge and prevents any further degradation of the situation in the country. We express our condolences to the families and friends of the victims, and call on all Lebanese politicians to demonstrate restraint and reason, and return to joint constructive efforts for addressing issues on the national agenda based on mutual respect and conciliation, without foreign interference. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4904325 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 7th World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad, Moscow, October 15, 2021 15 October 2021 - 12:43 At the instruction of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, allow me to read out a message of greetings to the participants and guests of the 7th World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad: “Friends, “From all my heart, I welcome you to the World Congress of Compatriots in Moscow. This forum brings together delegates from more than 100 countries. Ahead of it, the Russian Constitution was amended to add a provision on protecting the rights and interests of our compatriots and preserving Russian cultural identity. These legal provisions create conditions for further improving the state policy regarding those who, by the will of fate, found themselves abroad and away from their homeland. “Supporting compatriots living abroad and facilitating major projects in education, culture and social security invariably remains a priority for the entire nation. We intend to step up our efforts in this sphere, including within the corresponding Government commission. “The topic of the Congress is ‘Russia and Our Compatriots in a Changing World.’ It offers an opportunity to discuss a wide range of topical matters. I hope that during your discussions you will put forward ideas and initiatives for finding the most effective ways to fulfill the creative potential of the millions-strong Russian world. “I would like to sincerely thank you for your proactive efforts to promote the Russian world, language and culture, and preserve Russian traditions and the rich cultural heritage. Moving forward, we will uphold our commitment to provide you all possible assistance and support. “I wish you every success and all the best! Vladimir Putin” Allow me to say a few words as Chairman of the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad. I am sincerely glad that we are meeting in person, despite the challenging epidemiological situation. This clearly demonstrates our commitment to dialogue with Russians abroad in all their ethnic and religious diversity, with those who, by the will of fate, found themselves abroad but preserve and maintain spiritual, cultural and language ties with our country, those who contribute to strengthening and developing these ties not in word, but in deed. Since the last congress, by working together we have done a great deal to strengthen the Russian world at its foundation: to protect the legitimate rights and interests of our compatriots, promote the Russian language and showcase achievements in culture and education, as well as project an objective image of Russia abroad. Keeping the memory of and preserving the truth about the Great Patriotic War and countering the attempts to falsify history has always been an important area of our joint work. The fallen war heroes volunteer search units are working to establish evidence of the Soviet people’s heroism during the war against the Nazi invaders and are making an invaluable practical contribution to this cause in our country. We believe that expanding the search movement’s contacts and geography will benefit it greatly. Russia is home to a variety of religions. Our experience of coexistence of multiple ethnicities, cultures and religions is truly unparalleled. In a collaborative effort with our compatriots abroad, we continue to strengthen our contacts with the Russian Orthodox Church parishes and representatives of other traditional religions outside Russia. The corresponding amendments to the Constitution, which are mentioned in the recently published President Putin’s address, are called upon to impart a new dimension and content to interaction with our compatriots abroad. From now on, the fact that Russia provides support to its compatriots abroad in exercising their rights, protecting their interests and preserving Russian cultural identity is enshrined in the Constitution. I am convinced that this will further strengthen the ties between Russia and our diasporas and communities in all corners of the Earth. Friends, The main theme of this congress suggests a discussion of the international situation in its entirety, including positive and negative trends alike. We witness the US-led Western countries trying to undermine the foundations of the UN-centric architecture of the world order formed in the wake of World War II and to replace the universally recognised international legal norms with their own self-serving “rules-based order.” Our Western colleagues are openly unhappy to see Russia’s stable development and its positions in the international arena becoming stronger. They are trying to put pressure on us using multiple illegitimate tools ranging from unilateral sanctions and information provocations to interference in our domestic affairs. The unscrupulous methods include the attempts to discriminate against our compatriots in terms of language or ethnic culture. For example, under the passive eye of the Western “liberal democracies,” as well as the EU bureaucrats, the Russian language continues to be ousted from the public sphere in the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Georgia. The attempts to rewrite the chapters of our common history continue unabated. The diaspora activists come under severe pressure, including with the use of administrative levers, censorship, or selective enforcement, and occasionally openly Russophobic moves. However, our detractors’ efforts to drive a wedge between our compatriots, or to erode their identity and pit them against the historical Russia are futile. Despite all the difficulties, our communities are providing a dignified defence of their right to maintain ties with their Motherland, to be part of it, and to participate in cultural and economic projects. I would like to express my special gratitude to everyone who participated in making the election to the State Duma of the eighth convocation possible. Friends, In September, the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad adopted a comprehensive action plan for implementing Russia’s state policy in this area for 2021-2023. We are looking forward to its successful implementation. The Commission has specific proposals for improving our interaction, which will be discussed at working groups’ meetings during the Congress. The goal of further consolidating the Russian diasporas remains relevant. Only by rallying together can our compatriots effectively defend their legitimate interests and rights in the countries where they live. We assign the central role in this work to the coordination councils of Russian compatriots’ organisations. Our current agenda is to further improve the efficiency of the World Coordinating Council (WCC) of Russian Compatriots Living Abroad, to enhance the activity of its thematic working groups and their expert councils. The Russian language provides a solid foundation for the further consolidation of Russian communities. The cornerstone of our common history and culture, the Russian language also provides a unifying framework for the entire Russian world, including its youth wing. Efforts to preserve the positions of the Russian language internationally are especially relevant in the current context. The decision to hold the Year of Folk Art and Cultural Heritage in 2022, made at the last year’s meeting of the CIS Heads of State Council, should also facilitate and support this effort. In 2023, the CIS will be holding the Year of the Russian language as a language of interethnic communication. This opens up a broad field of activity for organisations of compatriots. It is also difficult to overestimate the relevance of the topic proposed for the second plenary session of this Congress, entitled “The Historical Truth and Preservation of Identity.” I would like to thank all of you for vigorously opposing historical revisionism. This year, Russian compatriots organised a number of events, including the international forum in Minsk, “June 22, 1941: Victory Will Be Ours.” Other projects, such as The Immortal Regiment, St George’s Ribbon, The Candle of Memory and The Dictation of Victory, have been expanding in scale and geography due to your direct involvement. Such efforts undoubtedly forge a connection between ages and generations, and are very important for educating young people as good citizens. The mutual enrichment of contemporary Russian culture and the Russian world’s achievements is called upon to help create a favourable public climate for Russian-speaking communities abroad and to spread authentic information about Russia. The multi-ethnic and multi-religious nature of our diasporas remains their distinguishing feature. It is essential to continue expanding their unity in diversity and to deepen dialogue between ethnic groups. Stronger cooperation with Russian compatriots’ international organisations is also in demand. These organisations include the World Congress of Tatars, which brings together representatives of the multi-million-strong Tatar community in Russia and abroad. Legal protection for compatriots remains our unconditional priority. We are invigorating the activities of the Foundation for Supporting and Protecting the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad, also using the capabilities of multilateral organisations and various international legal instruments. I would like to note that work with the young generation of compatriots is becoming more intensive. We will also provide support to the operation of compatriots’ business associations and specialised women’s organisations. The media outlets run by Russian compatriots are making a considerable contribution to strengthening the identity of the Russian world and expanding the Russian-speaking media space. We will continue to support all efforts to defend the rights of Russian-speaking journalists who are being harassed, persecuted and discriminated against. We will continue to demand that the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe respond accordingly. Friends, In the past 20 years, we have jointly accomplished an important task: we have made the multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-faceted Russian world a reality. We highly value your commitment to helping your historical Motherland, strengthening its international prestige and promoting its prosperity. Members of the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad are always ready to cooperate and to review your initiatives and undertakings. In conclusion, I would like to once again thank all of you for your fruitful work and to wish you health, well-being and successful work at our Congress. Thank you very much. *** Colleagues, I would like to say a few words in conclusion. I would like to ask you to more actively use the materials of the Congress that help to secure the position of the Russian language, Russian culture and the Russian world in line with President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s instructions. During the talks with our CIS neighbours, I was working on issues related to the promotion of the Russian language and the creation of Russian schools. Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matvienko has spearheaded five Russian schools in Tajikistan with a complete curriculum according to our methodology. Similar programmes are in the pipeline for Uzbekistan. Recently, the new Armenian leadership has demonstrated interest in having a similar programme designed for Armenia. We are interested in making this a model project for all our allies and strategic partners. The branch system of Russian universities in CIS countries is also well-established and is showing signs of expansion and development. Slavic universities, such as Russian-Tajikistani or Russian-Armenian universities, have been mentioned. There is a whole range of other plans, which we want to implement as quickly as possible. But at times we encounter certain hindrances, which we will try to eliminate. Removing administrative barriers from this work is the watchword right now according to President Vladimir Putin’s instructions. Let me note that we have a lot of areas of work in support of the Russian language, such as the Russian Language Abroad or Russian School Abroad programmes. The Pushkin State Russian Language Institute, which has its own projects in foreign countries, was mentioned. There is the Russky Mir (Russian World) Foundation that works above all to provide remote access to the Russian language and education for foreign universities. In conclusion, I cannot help mentioning Rossotrudnichestvo, the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation, which was created specifically to carry on the Soviet school traditions of promoting our multiethnic culture and language. We have analysed all the efforts our state and academic community have been making to promote the Russian language. The analysis has shown that we seldom have enough information to see the full picture. Now, with active support from the leadership and the Russian Government, as well as the Presidential Executive Office, we have carried out a lot of work and developed a new state programme Supporting and Promoting the Russian Language Abroad. All the areas of focus I have listed will be harmonised under this programme, and additional money will be allocated for it beginning next cycle. I believe this is an important bureaucratic – in the positive sense of the word – achievement. The last point I want to make. This is particularly important after the elections to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation: all of the parties that were elected to our parliament paid priority attention to the support of our compatriots abroad. It is no accident I’m sitting here today between two Leonids (Leonid Kalashnikov and Leonid Slutsky). They are representatives of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. You can see how committed they are to this issue. As you know, United Russia is the biggest party in the State Duma. I had the honour of being one of the top five candidates on the federal list on the instruction of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. I am glad if this helped promote the interests of our foreign policy, among other things. I mentioned this not to evoke your response but because following the elections United Russia established a commission on international affairs and support of our compatriots abroad at the initiative of President Putin. This shows once again that the President will continue paying unflagging attention to this issue. Deputy Chair of the United Russia General Council Andrey Klimov is forming this commission. You know him well. I was asked to head it. I already head one government commission, and now I’ll head a party one. Combination of government and party positions was not frequent in our history but left a deep trace in it. We are working on the organisation of this commission. I would like to make its openness to representatives of all parliamentary parties a key feature to ensure its normal, understandable and transparent functioning, as I’ve already told my United Russia colleagues. This is not just because we do not want to duplicate the work of the Committee on International Affairs and the Committee on CIS Affairs, Eurasian Integration and Ties with Compatriots. We would like to find the right niche for this commission with a view to harmonising the activities of all parties and the State Duma as a whole. *** Your speech has brought to my mind an idea that I’ve been thinking about for a long time. We always appreciate compassion and aid to people in trouble – no matter who this aid comes from. Now we heard some examples of Israeli citizens, including those born in the USSR, helping people affected by natural disasters or industrial accidents in the Russian Federation. A vast number of people, Russian citizens who live here never turn a blind eye to such situations. They are always ready to not only share the grief of other people but also help them overcome it. You said the Israelis owe a debt to Russia. I wouldn’t put it that way. When a memorial to the Victory in the Great Patriotic War was unveiled in Netanya, Israel, a huge number of war veterans attended the ceremony. God bless them! Their chests were covered with medals. Maybe, they stopped hiding their state decorations owing to your initiatives as well. In January 2020, I accompanied President Vladimir Putin to Jerusalem, to attend the opening of a monument in honour of the survivors of the siege of Leningrad. This was a very moving ceremony. All of its participants, including Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu and President of France Emmanuel Macron, spoke about the Red Army’s role in liberating Auschwitz (because the ceremony took place on January 27, the day when the death camp was liberated, which has been observed as the Holocaust Remembrance Day since then). The then US Vice President, Michael Pence, was the only exception. Describing the horrors faced by Jews in Auschwitz, he said that on January 27 soldiers flung open the doors of the death camp. When an American says this, it is clear that everyone will imagine that these soldiers had a stars and stripes emblem on their sleeves. You mentioned that it is wrong for the Israelis to remember only the Holocaust. I agree with this. Something similar, an equally horrible genocide, was envisaged for other ethnicities living in the USSR, largely for the Slavs. Quite recently, on instructions from President Vladimir Putin, the Russian Government announced a decision on lump sum payments to the survivors of the Leningrad siege. Soon we will observe the anniversary of building the Road of Life, and then of the liberation of Leningrad. I would like to tell you that for many years we tried to resolve one issue through diplomatic channels. Our efforts did not succeed, so there is no secrecy about this. I would like the people of Israel to know this although I told about it to my colleagues, Israeli ministers (not just one but practically all of them that I worked with). I am referring to the payments by the German government to the survivors of the siege of Leningrad, but only those of Jewish origin. For over a decade, we tried to understand what they meant. We asked them, what about all the others who also survived there in horrible conditions? We were told that by law they bore responsibility to the Jews no matter where they live because of the Holocaust. So other survivors of the siege were supposedly not victims of the Holocaust. They kept trying to explain this logic to us for many years. By way of compensation, they suggested repairing a hospital in St Petersburg. We are grateful to them for this. They did this and established a centre for the meetings of veterans from both sides. But this does not allow us to forget a glaring injustice in one city and in one situation that is unique. What the Germans did in Leningrad was a crime. There was no difference between Russians, Jews, Tatars, Georgians, Armenians or anyone else who was there. Maybe your public organisation can use its influence and let the Israeli government explain to the Germans that Jews do not feel too comfortable due to the logic that the German state continues to pursue? Thank you. I wish good luck to everyone. See you again. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4904493 Press release on Russian representatives’ conversation with President of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar al-Assad 18 October 2021 - 10:56 On October 17, Special Presidential Representative for the Syrian Settlement Alexander Lavrentyev and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin were received by President of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar al-Assad together with members of a Russian interdepartmental delegation including representatives of the Russian Defence Ministry. During the meeting, the parties conducted a detailed review of the current situation in and around Syria, tasks of effectively stabilising the situation on the ground by restoring the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, while continuing the fight against terrorism. In addition, the parties discussed matters of mobilising comprehensive humanitarian assistance to all Syrians in need, with the consideration of UN Security Council Resolution 2585 and by advancing the Syrian-led political process implemented by the people of Syria with UN support, as stipulated by UNSC Resolution 2254. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4907240 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a function dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the Alexander Solzhenitsyn House of Russia Abroad, Moscow, October 18, 2021 18 October 2021 - 14:11 Mr Moskvin, Colleagues, We have assembled here for the 26th anniversary but are marking the round-number anniversary, as Mr Moskvin said in his opening remarks. During these years, the Alexander Solzhenitsyn House of Russia Abroad has made an invaluable contribution to the strengthening of ties between Russian compatriots and their historical homeland. The interesting and lovingly made film that has been just shown presents many facts testifying to this. I remember how the Museum of Russia Abroad was opened in May 2019. Already then one had the impression that we were achieving something tremendous, primarily those who are employed here under Mr Viktor Moskvin, along with a splendid contribution from Ms Natalya Solzhenitsyna. Not only the employees of the House of Russia Abroad and the Museum of Russia Abroad contributed to the common cause but also dozens and hundreds of Russian compatriots, who still live in foreign countries and with all their hearts and all their deeds are helping to preserve the memory of our Fatherland. When it is said that the House and the Museum are functioning as a library, a research institute, an information bureau, a publishing house, and a cultural and educational centre, these are bureaucratic words that have already become hackneyed. In reality, there are the hearts of caring people behind all of this, people, who, without any exaggeration, put their whole heart and soul into the common endeavour, doing this every day. The epoch of disunity is over and the House of Russia Abroad and the Museum of Russia Abroad are symbolising the end of this epoch. I recall Mr Moskvin mentioning how our Ministry cooperates with the House of Russia Abroad. This is a long-standing friendship and collaboration. In 2016, when the Concept of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation was being updated once again, it was amended with an area of focus related to the support for Russian compatriots living abroad. The concept was signed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin. In 2020, this provision was included in our Fundamental Law – the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The 7th World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad that wound up on October 16 of this year has clearly demonstrated the determination to maintain the continuity of times. We see how hard it is for these people to keep in touch with their historical homeland in their countries of residence. Many Western countries are trying to create unbearable conditions for their continued public activities and elementary contacts with the Russian Federation. Therefore, it is all the more important that the Russian diaspora in all countries of the world is increasingly resolved to continue promoting this truly momentous collaboration. The House of Russia Abroad and the Museum created on its basis are constantly expanding their projects. The Julia Reitlinger Room, Graphics Room, and the Lieutenant General Baron Alexei von Budberg Memorial Library will be opened today. All these events are attended by our outstanding compatriots, who regularly come from abroad. I am pleased to have the opportunity to meet them from time to time and feel the living force, their craving for affinity with their homeland, and their living connection with it. A number of steps are being taken to ease the resumption of citizenship and grant citizenship to the offspring of our compatriots, who by some quirk of fate have found themselves beyond the borders of this country. This is largely encouraged by the desiderata coming from our friends and compatriots living abroad. This group of buildings can be described as a venue for dialogue. There are also many other terms applicable to this wonderful place. The main thing is that this compound helps to ensure the continuity of our centuries-old history, maintain the link of times and generations, and immortalise those who have entered heroic and great pages in the annals of our nation. I would like to thank all those who contribute to this cause. I see here many familiar faces, the faces of my friends. It is not my intention to name them all, for I fear to miss someone out. All of you are making an important contribution to the development of the Russian people, a contribution needed by this country and its younger generations. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4907812
__________________
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 |
October 28th, 2021 | #14 |
Senior Member
|
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Communities of Guinea Bissau Suzi Carla Barbosa, Moscow, October 18, 2021
18 October 2021 - 14:39 Madam Minister, Friends, We are delighted to welcome you to the Russian capital. Relations between our countries are approaching their 50th anniversary. They are traditionally friendly and rely on the principles of equality, mutual respect and consideration of each other's interests. We appreciated the fact that a high-ranking Guinea Bissau delegation participated in the first Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi in October 2019. I would also like to welcome the new Ambassador of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, who has assumed his duties, to the Russian Federation. In the spring of 2021, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister and Presidential Special Envoy for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov visited your country. Today we will take another step to expand our political dialogue. We will sign a memorandum of understanding between the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and Overseas Communities of Guinea-Bissau on political consultations. The next logical step should be to build up trade, economic and investment cooperation to bring it up to the level of a good and trustful political dialogue. I look forward to substantive discussions on these areas of our interaction, as well as cooperation in the UN and on various conflicts in Africa. Your assessments on these topics are important to us. Delighted to see you. Welcome. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4907869 Foreign Ministry statement on response measures to NATO decisions regarding the Russian Permanent Mission to NATO in Brussels 18 October 2021 - 15:16 On October 6, 2021, the NATO Secretariat officially announced NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s decision to withdraw the accreditation of eight members of the Russian Permanent Mission to NATO on November 1, 2021, as well as to reduce the overall number of mission personnel to 10. No reason for this decision has been provided. The membership of our Permanent Mission in Brussels has unilaterally been reduced twice before, in 2015 and 2018, after the decision taken by the alliance on April 1, 2014, to suspend nearly all forms of civilian and military cooperation between Russia and NATO. Our diplomats’ access to the bloc headquarters and their ties with the International Secretariat have reduced dramatically. Military contacts have also been suspended. These NATO actions have shown that the bloc is not interested in an equal dialogue or joint efforts to defuse military-political tension. Its policy towards Russia is becoming increasingly more aggressive. The myth about the alleged “Russian threat” is being promoted, in part, to strengthen the bloc’s internal affinity and to make it look important in the current geopolitical circumstances. In response to these unfriendly actions, the Russian side has adopted the following decisions: - In the absence of the necessary conditions for conducting diplomatic activities, due to NATO’s deliberate steps, the functioning of the Russian Permanent Mission to NATO, including its chief military representative, shall be suspended; The Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to the Kingdom of Belgium shall be authorised to maintain emergency ties with the bloc’s headquarters. The ambassador of one of the NATO member states in Moscow, to be chosen at the bloc’s discretion, could perform similar functions. - The activities of the NATO Military Liaison Mission Moscow shall be suspended. The accreditation of its employees shall be withdrawn on November 1, 2021; - The NATO Information Office at the Embassy of the Kingdom of Belgium in Moscow shall be closed down. The NATO International Secretariat is officially notified of this decision by the Russian side. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4907931 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Communities of Guinea-Bissau Suzi Carla Barbosa following their talks, Moscow, October 18, 2021 18 October 2021 - 16:46 Ladies and gentlemen, We had meaningful and trustworthy talks with my colleague from Guinea- Bissau Suzi Carla Barbosa and discussed the entire range of major bilateral issues. Quite recently, on October 6, we observed the 48th anniversary of our relations. By tradition, our friendly relations are based on a trustworthy dialogue and a striving to develop cooperation in most diverse areas. We discussed the best ways of developing our trade, economic and investment cooperation and agreed to take a number of practical steps, including reciprocal visits by our entrepreneurs. We have already done some preliminary work. Last year, Prime Minister of Guinea-Bissau Nuno Gomes Nabiam met with representatives of the Russian business community. We agreed that based on these contacts, our friends from Guinea-Bissau would prepare a list of issues to be discussed at mutually beneficial talks with a view to coordinating specific projects. The areas mentioned in this respect included exploration of natural resources, construction of infrastructure facilities, as well as development of agriculture and fisheries. We were pleased to note that five Russian fishing trawlers have recently resumed their operations in the exclusive economic zone of Guinea-Bissau. Our partners are interested in deepening bilateral cooperation in this area. We agreed to continue the education of national personnel of Guinea-Bissau at Russian universities, which has earned a good reputation. Over 5,000 people have already entered civilian professions, and more than 3,000 people have acquired military specialties, which is important for Guinea-Bissau’s defences. Therefore, we will continue this practice. In addition, our military and technical intergovernmental cooperation agreement is about to enter in force. As you can see, we are continuing to strengthen our legal and contractual framework. Our ministries have just signed a memorandum on political consultations. This will promote consistency in our good cooperation in the international arena. It relies on respect for international law, recognition of the UN’s central role and such principles of interstate cooperation as the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in internal affairs, peaceful settlement of disputes and unconditional respect for the right of nations to determine models of their political and socio-economic development for themselves. We are cooperating well in the UN. Today, we discussed a number of areas where we could improve the effectiveness of our coordination. We are grateful to our partners for such an approach. We paid special attention to the developments in Africa. We reviewed the situation in Mali, the Republic of Guinea and some other African areas, with an emphasis on West Africa and the Sahara-Sahel region. We have a common view on the need to do all we can to promote the principle that we proclaimed long ago: African solutions to African problems. It means that Africans themselves, the parties involved in the various conflicts should determine ways of reaching accord with the support of subregional organisations and the African Union, a continental forum. In the meantime, the international community will provide Africans with moral, political, and material assistance in setting up peacemaking operations. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a partner of Africans in a number of formats, including the International Conference of the Great Lakes Region, Russia will do its best to promote this comprehensive and efficient approach. We reviewed the implementation of the agreements reached at the first Russia-Africa summit in Sochi in October 2019. We discussed preparations for the second summit in this format in 2022. We hope all African leaders, including President of Guinea-Bissau Umaro Sissoco Embalo, will be able to attend it. We have had a specific, practical discussion on many issues. I am pleased with its results and grateful to my colleague for our joint efforts. Thank you! Question: The period of turbulence continues in Africa, affecting some of Russia's traditional partner countries such as Sudan. The country is now seeing massive protests against the transitional government. Can you comment on the situation in Sudan? Sergey Lavrov: We have not discussed Sudan today. We were not the ones who started that country’s division. We did our best to preserve the territorial integrity and unity of that major state on the African continent. But a number of external players, primarily the United States, decided it would be better for the Sudanese if they suddenly lived in two different states. After the Sudanese parties ultimately agreed with this approach, Russia put a lot of effort into ensuring that the ‘divorce’ was peaceful. After it happened, those who had started it began to show discontent with the way the Sudanese - in Sudan and in South Sudan alike - strived to develop their countries and improve their lives. Another external intervention began, as well as attempts to impose on the Sudanese approaches and ways to build democracy that the West deemed appropriate, as well as shock reforms to establish economic processes according to Western patterns. Unfortunately, the reaction was the opposite to what had been expected. The local population’s socioeconomic situation sharply deteriorated. Unemployment and corruption flourished. As a result, the traditional structure of Sudanese society is under serious stress now. We believe that any interference in Sudanese internal affairs should be stopped. Intervention in any state’s internal affairs always leads to disastrous results. There are many such examples in Africa. Today we talked about Libya. The results of the Western aggression in 2011 are still undermining stability in Libya as well as in many other countries, to which terrorists, weapons, drugs and other threats have flown via Libya. We are adamant that the Sudanese people must determine their own future themselves. This is our fundamental principle. We do hope that all those who are trying to reject this principle are aware of their responsibility to prevent another serious hotbed of conflict and destabilisation from emerging on the long-suffering African continent. Question: On October 6, it transpired that NATO had decided to expel eight Russian diplomats from the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to NATO in Brussels. How does Russia plan to respond? Sergey Lavrov: The steps that are to be taken in response were announced literally today. The NATO International Secretariat has been notified thereof. The Foreign Ministry's statement will be circulated shortly. On October 6, the NATO Secretariat issued an official notification to the effect that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg decided to revoke the accreditation of eight employees of Russia’s Permanent Mission to NATO in Brussels from November 1, 2021, and also to cut the total number of mission employees to 10 people, including administrative and technical staff. No explanation has been given. Several days before this decision was announced, I met with Mr Stoltenberg in New York. He emphasised in every possible way NATO’s “sincere” (as he said) interest in normalising relations with the Russian Federation in the interests of de-escalating tensions in Europe. We were not particularly surprised by this decision. The staff of our mission to NATO was reduced twice in recent years at NATO’s insistence (in 2015 and 2018). Since 2014, NATO has minimised contacts with our Permanent Mission, announced complete cessation of practical cooperation in civilian areas and the military, where we have no contacts at all. In fact, they have introduced a ban on everything for our diplomats with regard to visiting NATO headquarters for maintaining elementary communication with the International Secretariat (contacts cannot be maintained without visits). This corroborates the fact that NATO is not interested in an equal dialogue with us or any joint work. If this is the case, we do not see much reason in continuing to pretend that things may change in the foreseeable future. NATO has, in fact, announced that these changes are impossible. So, we have decided as follows. NATO’s purposeful actions have left us with practically no proper means of conducting elementary diplomatic activities. In response to NATO steps, starting from November 1, 2021, we are suspending the activities of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to NATO in Brussels, including the military representative’s activities. Second, the activities of the NATO Military Liaison Mission Moscow shall be suspended. The accreditation of its employees shall be withdrawn on November 1, 2021. Third, the NATO Information Office at the Embassy of the Kingdom of Belgium in Moscow shall be closed down. Should NATO members have any urgent needs, they can contact our Ambassador in Brussels, who ensures Russia-Belgium relations. The NATO International Secretariat has been duly notified. We are releasing a corresponding Foreign Ministry statement. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4907995 Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s comment on the death of Colin Powell 18 October 2021 - 20:51 The late Colin Powell, a prominent government, military and political leader who occupied high positions in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, will be remembered as a patriot who defended his country’s interests in the way he considered right. As US Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005, Mr Powell was compelled to carry out dubious instructions that helped precipitate the war in Iraq, for which he later expressed sincere regret. However, he will be remembered in American history primarily as a talented professional who rose from the ranks to the highest military and political positions in the country. Many Americans associated his name with hopes for a better future, seeing in his difficult journey the embodiment of the American dream. His political realism and ability to listen to the other side are sorely needed in the current crisis in Russian-US relations created by Washington. Many representatives of the current US political elite obviously lack these features. We join in expressing our deepest condolences to his family and friends, and all those who knew and respected this distinguished man. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4908245 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions following the 18th annual session of the Valdai International Discussion Club, Sochi, October 19, 2021 19 October 2021 - 17:22 Question: The day before yesterday, Moscow announced measures in response to NATO’s aggressive moves. Are these measures prompted by Russia’s belief that NATO has to take the first step towards improving relations with Moscow? Sergey Lavrov: Yes, this is our approach. We have never been the first to start aggravating our relations with NATO, or the European Union, or any other country in the West or elsewhere. Everyone knows the following story: when in August 2008, Mikheil Saakashvili issued the criminal order to bomb the city of Tskhinval and the peacekeeper’s positions, including Russian peacekeepers, Russia insisted that the Russia-NATO Council meet to consider the situation. US Secretary of State at the time, Condoleezza Rice, refused flatly, although, according to the Founding Act, which was signed by Russia and NATO when they established the Council, it must be effective in any “weather,” particularly in the case of a crisis. This was one example [in a series of events] that led to the status quo of today in relations between our country and NATO. Question: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that the UN Security Council had no right to decide the fate of the whole world, referring to the five countries that won WWII as a handful of victors. He added that he had a road map to drive the UN Security Council members into a corner. What do you think of this? Is it possible? Sergey Lavrov: President Erdogan’s eloquence is well known. He feels free to air his views on different topics. I agree that the five countries which are the permanent members of the UN Security Council have no right to dictate the world’s fate. They do not, however, claim this role – they only have the authority provided for in the UN Charter, which reflects the collective will of all members of the world community. The five permanent member countries bear special responsibility for the situation in the world, primarily, for preventing a global conflict. Their efforts have proved successful in the course of more than 75 years. Hopefully, the situation will remain like this in the future. But today, the UN and the Security Council need to adapt to a new reality. There are not 50 countries in the world, the way it was when the UN was established, and not 70 countries, like at the time the UN Security Council grew from 12 to 15 members, but many more: this world organisation has 193 member countries. The developing countries have every right to insist that their representation at the main UN body be increased. Today, of the 15 members on the UN Security Council, at least six are Western countries. When Japan is elected to the Security Council to represent Asia, it is counted as a seventh vote in favour of the policy that the West is pushing via the UN Security Council. No more seats at this body should be given to the West, while it is absolutely necessary to have more developing nations from Asia, Africa and Latin America represented in the UN Security Council. Question: NATO officials said they regret Russia’s decision to suspend the NATO mission in Moscow. However, they were the ones that started this. Why do you think NATO continues to degrade our relations? Will the Russia-NATO Council continue? President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky said again yesterday that he is ready to meet with President of Russia Vladimir Putin in any format. That said, the Press Secretary of the Russian President described such a meeting as unlikely. In what case will Ukraine succeed in “soliciting” a meeting with the Russian President? Is it true that Victoria Nuland came to Moscow to agree on US accession to the Normandy format (as reported by Kiev)? Sergey Lavrov: As for NATO, I have talked about how this all began and how NATO itself has buried the main rules underlying the formation of the Russia-NATO Council – the need for urgent consultations in crises. This went on when the Americans provoked and supported the coup in Ukraine in February 2014, while the European Union swallowed the actions by the opposition even though on the eve of the coup Germany, France and Poland guaranteed by their signatures on an agreement between then president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich and the opposition. On the following morning, the opposition trampled underfoot these EU guarantees and had its own way. In response, the EU imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation. This is not about logic. The same applies to statements made in NATO capitals as regards our forced response to three steps by NATO. Our mission was reduced three times. The main point is that the mission is simply not allowed to do its work. To get into NATO headquarters, our representatives, as distinct from all other NATO partners, have to apply in advance for a permit to enter the building and use only designated corridors. There have been no information exchanges with NATO headquarters in a long time. The main thing is that all contact between the military personnel was cut off, and this was officially announced. So, what loss of an opportunity or talks are we talking about? Two years ago, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov suggested coming to terms on withdrawing exercises to a certain distance from the Russia-NATO contact line and on the minimum distances not to be violated by combat aircraft and warships. There were many other proposals at that time as well. There was a wall of silence. The Foreign Minister of Germany said Russia’s actions showed that it was not ready for talks. I have just told you that we were fully ready for talks and NATO has simply been ignoring us for many years. Western officials understand that such statements are self-defeating. They want to put the blame at the wrong door and they lack diplomatic culture. As for statements by President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky, they attracted many comments. They were made by the chief of his office, some advisor (I don’t remember his name) and President Zelensky himself just recently. A number of days before that, someone from his office said that President Putin seemed to be ready but his entourage did not advise him to meet one-to-one because such a meeting might produce a surprise. I will not even comment on this stream of consciousness. It is impossible to react to all public statements made in Ukraine as regards possible meetings at various levels or developments in Donbass and around Ukraine. One’s imagination is too limited for that, but they fantasise everywhere and every day. When John Kerry was US Secretary of State, he came to Moscow on a regular visit. We were received by the President of Russia. Vladimir Putin said we saw how the Americans exerted influence on Ukraine. He mentioned a special US envoy to whom Pyotr Poroshenko listened. Maybe it is worth talking with Germany and France so you can join the Normandy format? I was at this meeting. John Kerry said that if they were invited they would probably consider it. Later, we asked the Germans and French about this but they bluntly rejected the idea: no, we need to work in the format that was created and in which the Minsk agreements were signed. This is the only option. It is not necessary to turn the Four into the Five or into Seven to facilitate a settlement. The Americans have a dominant influence on Zelensky and his team. Our dialogue resumed. Victoria Nuland met with Dmitry Kozak who is in charge of supervising issues of Ukraine, other near-abroad and CIS countries. They agreed to stay in touch. If the Americans are indeed willing to support the implementation of the Minsk agreements, it would be possible to resolve the problem very quickly. Question: Unfortunately, the KP newspaper reporter in Belarus, Gennady Mozheyko, is still in prison. KP is banned in Belarus. Can anything be done in this regard? Sergey Lavrov: I have already commented on this. We have posed this question to our Belarusian colleagues. We are working on it. Question: Is Russia ready to become the first country to recognise the Taliban as the official authority in Afghanistan, and what are the conditions for this? The United States will not be participating in the Moscow format meeting on Afghanistan. Will this influence the significance of the meeting in any way? Sergey Lavrov: Russia has already stated its position on the Taliban. Like most other countries that have an influence in that region, we maintain contact with them and urge them to deliver on the promises they made when they came to power to ensure inclusiveness in the government not only in terms of ethnicity, but also in terms of political conviction so that the entire range of political allegiances in their society has a voice in the government. Official recognition has not yet been discussed; we have said this publicly. The new US Representative for Afghanistan, Thomas West, called our representative Zamir Kabulov yesterday and expressed regret with that turn of events. He was appointed right before the Moscow format meeting and said that he definitely wanted to contact us and come to Russia. We will be delighted to have him. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4908916
__________________
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 |
October 28th, 2021 | #15 |
Senior Member
|
Press release on the outcomes of the Russian-Indonesian interagency working meeting on international information security, Moscow, October 18, 2021
19 October 2021 - 19:32 On October 18, 2021, a Russian-Indonesian interagency working meeting on international information security (IIS) was held in Moscow. The Russian delegation was headed by the special representative of the President of the Russian Federation for international cooperation in the field of information security, acting Head of Department on International Information Security MFA Russia A.V.Krutskikh. The Indonesian delegation was led by Director of Cybersecurity Strategy of the National Agency for Cybersecurity and Cryptography (NACC) Sulistjo. The Russian delegation included representatives of the office of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, the Ministry of Defense of Russia, the Ministry of Justice of Russia, the Federal Security Service of Russia, the Federal Service for Technical and Export Control of Russia and the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation. The Indonesian side was represented by experts from NACC and the Embassy of Indonesia in Moscow. The agenda of the meeting included a wide range of issues of cooperation between Russia and Indonesia on the topic of IIS, including strategic approaches and legislative regulation of the two countries in this field. Upon the results of a thorough exchange of views participants agreed to continue an in-depth bilateral dialogue and cooperation at relevant international and regional platforms. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4909022 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks at the third meeting of the Moscow format consultations on Afghanistan, Moscow, October 20, 2021 20 October 2021 - 16:30 Colleagues, guests, I am pleased to welcome you to a meeting of the Moscow format consultations on Afghanistan in Moscow. We find this mechanism highly important and consider it one of the most valuable ones from the point of view of developing regional consensus and common understanding of the path forward concerning the situation in Afghanistan and related matters. The Moscow format’s main and indisputable advantage is that it unites Afghanistan with all neighbouring countries and other influential states of the region without exception. We regret the fact that our US colleagues are not participating in this meeting. We noted the fact that this is the second time in a row that the Americans have avoided an expanded troika meeting (Russia-United States-China-Pakistan). I hope this does not involve any fundamental problems. One of the reasons they gave us for their non-attendance was the recent appointment of a new US Special Representative for Afghanistan. I hope that the United States remains ready to work energetically on the Afghanistan-related agenda, and the new Special Representative will join in further steps, including ones that will follow in the wake of this Moscow-format meeting in the context of implementing the agreements that you will reach today. As you may be aware, the Moscow format dates back to 2017. The delegations of the Taliban and the republican camp met for the first time at the Moscow format negotiating table in the presence of representatives of 10 countries in November 2018. Now that the situation on the ground has turned around, it is pointless to look for someone to blame for the failure to achieve tangible results regarding national reconciliation. Notably, hopes pinned on the republican camp and the former government led by former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani failed. A new administration is in office now. This hard fact places great responsibility on the Taliban. We note the efforts they are making to stabilise the military-political situation and to ensure the smooth operation of the public governance system. Sustainable peace in Afghanistan remains a pressing goal. We believe that forming an inclusive government, which fully reflects the interests of all ethnic and political forces in the country, is the key to achieving it. This kind of “perspicacity” would be a good lesson for those who sacrificed national interests for the sake of their personal ambitions and literally left their people to the mercy of fate. This would also predetermine the trajectory of progressive development of Afghanistan, relying on the broadest possible groups of the population. Popular support is, of course, also dependent on competent social policy and observance of fundamental rights and freedoms. I had an in-depth discussion about this with the Taliban delegation before the meeting. On the one hand, the new balance of power in Afghanistan which took root after August 15 has no alternative in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, the lack of official recognition in the international arena, problems in the socioeconomic and financial spheres and the humanitarian challenges faced by the new Kabul government indicate that the current state of affairs cannot yet be referred to as stable. Numerous terrorist groups, primarily ISIS and Al-Qaeda, are trying to take advantage of this state of affairs, and are again rearing their heads and making brazen bloody raids in different parts of the country. Unfortunately, the problem of drug production in Afghanistan remains acute. There is a real threat of the terrorist and drug activity, including on behalf of those who masquerade as members of migration flows, leaking into neighbouring countries. In this context and for obvious reasons we are particularly concerned about Central Asia. In order to counter the above threats to Afghanistan and to the contiguous region’s security, as well as threats that are projected onto other regions around the world there is a need for a timely and proportionate response both within the country and on the part of its international partners. We call on the Taliban (this was also discussed with the delegation) to do their utmost to prevent anyone from using the territory of Afghanistan against the interests of third countries, primarily, against Afghanistan's immediate neighbours - the countries of Central Asia – which are our friends and allies. We plan to engage our capabilities, including the capabilities offered by the UN, the SCO, the CSTO and other multilateral entities. The CSTO and the SCO summit meetings held in Dushanbe last month, as well as a special joint meeting of these associations at the highest level, which was dedicated to the situation in Afghanistan, showed overlapping approaches of both organisations to overcoming the challenges at hand. Importantly, both the SCO and the CSTO have a special mechanism that was created many years ago, which is dedicated to interacting with Afghanistan and identifying ways to promote stabilisation in that country. We are content with the level of practical cooperation with the Afghan authorities. Today, it allows us to resolve the priority tasks of ensuring the security of Russian citizens living in Afghanistan and the failsafe operation of the Russian embassy, as well as other embassies for that matter, in Kabul. We are grateful to the Afghan authorities for their assistance to our journalists, which helps them to objectively cover internal political events, and for their aid in the repatriation of the Russians that happened to be in Afghanistan during the change of power. We consider important the decision to enable Afghan students that were accepted for study in Russian universities to continue their education in person. We plan to bring them to Russia in the near future. We will continue building business relations with Kabul with a view to resolving urgent bilateral issues. The development of national education, public healthcare and other socially important areas, especially with very limited funds, certainly requires vigorous efforts and sometimes unconventional solutions on behalf of the new bodies of power, which are now in a state of being formed. Reports on the deteriorating living conditions of average Afghans are a source of serious concern. Analysts believe the humanitarian situation may worsen further due to the inability of a considerable part of the Afghan population to make a living. We hope representatives of the Afghan delegation will share with us today first-hand information about the current humanitarian situation. We believe that it is time to mobilise the resources of the international community for efficient financial, economic and humanitarian aid, in part, with a view to preventing a humanitarian crisis and stopping migrant flows. The G20 Extraordinary Meeting on October 12 of this year illustrated the same or similar positions of the regional and external players on this issue. We expect a responsible attitude towards the Afghan people from the Western countries whose 20 year-long stay in the country has led to the current grave situation without contributing anything to the industrial and economic development of Afghanistan. The West is expected to provide not just traditional humanitarian assistance but also urgent help to ensure the payment of salaries to such socially important professions in Afghanistan as teachers and doctors. We are convinced that the United Nations should pay a central coordinating role in pooling international efforts on the Afghan track. A collective appeal by those at the Moscow format meeting to the leaders and all members of the UN was published following today’s meeting. I hope it will be heard and we will receive a positive response to it in the near future. We plan to send another consignment of humanitarian aid to the friendly Afghan people in the next few days. Thank you for your attention. I wish you productive work. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4913770 Joint Statement of the Participants in the Moscow Format Consultations on Afghanistan, Moscow, 20 October 2021 20 October 2021 - 18:52 1. On 20th October, 2021, the third meeting of the participants of the Moscow Format Consultations on Afghanistan was held on which special representatives and senior officials from Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, as well as a high-level delegation of the interim Afghan government adopted the following statement. 2. The sides reiterated their respect to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Afghanistan, and reaffirmed their commitment to Afghanistan as a peaceful, indivisible, independent, economically developing State, free of terrorism and drug-related crime and respecting the basic norms in the human rights area. 3. It was stated that further practical engagement with Afghanistan needed to take into account the new reality, that is the Taliban coming to power in the country, irrespective of the official recognition of the new Afghan government by the international community. 4. Participating countries call on the current Afghan leadership to take further steps to improve governance and to form a truly inclusive government that adequately reflects the interests of all major ethno-political forces in the country. This will be a fundamental prerequisite for the completion of the national reconciliation process in Afghanistan. 5. Participating countries call on the current Afghan leadership to practice moderate and sound internal and external policies, adopt friendly policies towards neighbors of Afghanistan, achieve the shared goals of durable peace, security, safety, and long-term prosperity, and respect the rights of ethnic groups, women and children. 6. Being concerned about the activities of proscribed terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, the sides reaffirmed their willingness to continue to promote security in Afghanistan to contribute to regional stability. 7. The participating countries were pleased to note the reaffirmation by the interim Afghan government of its previous commitments to prevent use of the Afghan territory against its neighbours, other States in the region and the rest of the world. 8. Expressing deep concern over the deteriorating economic and humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, the sides expressed confidence in the need for the international community to mobilize consolidated efforts to provide urgent humanitarian and economic assistance to the Afghan people in the post-conflict reconstruction of the country. 9. In this context, the sides have proposed to launch a collective initiative to convene a broad-based international donor conference under the auspices of the United Nations as soon as possible, certainly with the understanding that the core burden of post-conflict economic and financial reconstruction and development of Afghanistan must be shouldered by troop-based actors which were in the country for the past 20 years. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4913908 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulides, Moscow, October 21, 2021 21 October 2021 - 13:24 Mr Minister, dear Nikos, Colleagues, We are glad to welcome you to Moscow. Your visit is the continuation of our regular and intensive dialogue on bilateral, regional and international matters. President of the Republic of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiades and I had a very useful meeting in New York but, for understandable reasons, it was brief. Today, we will discuss in detail the implementation of top-level agreements reached between the foreign ministries and other parts of our governments. Your assessments of the situation emerging in the Eastern Mediterranean and in the Middle East as a whole are of much importance to us. Welcome! The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4914140 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulides, Moscow, October 21, 2021 21 October 2021 - 16:00 Ladies and gentlemen, We had meaningful talks with my Cypriot colleague and friend Nikos Christodoulides. This is already our fourth meeting and by tradition, it took place in a friendly, sincere and trustworthy atmosphere. Cyprus is our important and time-tested partner. Our country supported the efforts of the Cypriots to uphold their independence in the late 1950s and was one of the first to recognise the independence of Cyprus in August 1960 and open its diplomatic mission there. Russia-Cyprus cooperation rests on long-standing ties of friendship, and spiritual and cultural affinity. We were pleased to note that our cooperation in a wide range of areas has not stopped even under the conditions of the current sanitary and epidemiological restrictions. We continue our political dialogue, including at the high and highest levels. Regular contacts between Russia and Cyprus confirm the special character of our bilateral relations. Today, we discussed in detail the implementation of the principled agreements reached during contacts between President Vladimir Putin and President Nicos Anastasiades, including their telephone conversation on July 30, 2020 and meetings between Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Mikhail Mishustin and President of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiades in Athens on March 24, 2021 on the sidelines of the events devoted to the 200th anniversary of the start of the Greek national-liberation revolution. We exchanged views on our cooperation on countering the coronavirus pandemic, overcoming its negative consequences and ensuring the epidemiological safety of our people. We have made tangible progress in this regard and will continue building up our useful cooperation in this area. We welcomed the restoration of business activity and tourism following the resumption of regular air traffic between our countries last June. We supported holding a meeting, as soon as possible, of the working group for joint preparations for the fully-fledged 12th session of the Russian-Cypriot Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation. It is scheduled to take place in Cyprus in the spring of 2022. We agreed that direct contacts between industry-specific agencies, including in the context of preparations for this important session, will help us recover the growth of bilateral trade. We are interested in resuming as soon as possible full-scale work on implementing projects that were planned or launched before the pandemic. We are continuing to work on updating our contractual legal framework. We have just signed a strategic framework cooperation plan for 2022-2024 and a cooperation agreement on holding humanitarian missions during crises. We appreciate the cooperation with our Cypriot friends in this area, which is periodically confirmed by the visits of Russian naval ships to Cypriot ports. We agreed to speed up our work on many other documents that are still under negotiation, including talks on an inter-governmental agreement on cooperation in social security. We have a good level of cultural and humanitarian cooperation, inter-regional, inter-municipal and twin city ties. Russian and Cypriot leaders are paying special attention to this area, given the importance of developing human contacts in line with the aspirations of our peoples. Naturally, we will step up these areas of cooperation when health restrictions are lifted. As far as international and regional issues are concerned, we have noted successful cooperation at multilateral venues: the UN, OSCE, and the Council of Europe. These contacts will continue. We value agreements with our Cypriot partners on reciprocally supporting candidates during elections to various UN agencies and related organisations. We have discussed in detail the problem of Cyprus settlement. We have listened to our partners’ assessments that are important to us. We have reaffirmed Russia’s position of principle in favour of achieving a just, viable and comprehensive settlement of the Cypriot problem within the existing international legal framework. We see no alternative to an early restart of the inter-communal negotiating process, which would make it possible to restore the atmosphere of trust between the Cypriot Greek and Turkish communities. We regard unilateral steps in relation to the abandoned Varosha quarter in the city of Famagusta as inadmissible and counterproductive. Both at the UN and in bilateral contacts with all parties concerned, we advocate the creation of favourable external conditions that can help to achieve progress in Cypriot affairs. We have stressed once again that it would be important to have permanent members of the UN Security Council join the discussion of the external aspects of settlement and reaffirmed our position in favour of replacing the current outdated Cyprus security guarantees with new UN Security Council guarantees. We talked about Russia-EU relations, which have long been in a profound crisis. This is not Russia’s choice. We will be prepared for a resumption of dialogue with the EU based on the principles of equality and mutual regard for each other’s interests. Regrettably, however, our EU colleagues are not ready for this work. We have exchanged views on the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean. Russia would like the problems in the region to be solved on the basis of international law, primarily the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. We have discussed the situation in the Middle East and North Africa and the situation in Afghanistan, which has commanded so much attention lately in different formats. The talks have reaffirmed our mutual commitment to expanding bilateral cooperation. I think the results of our talks will be of use for practical work to be performed by both the foreign ministries and other divisions of the two countries’ governments. Thank you. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4914422
__________________
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 |
October 30th, 2021 | #16 |
Senior Member
|
Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 21, 2021
21 October 2021 - 18:18 Upcoming talks between Sergey Lavrov and Foreign Minister of Bolivia Rogelio Mayta ............................................................................................ Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with UN Under-Secretary-General and Head of the UNOCHA Martin Griffiths ............................................................................................ Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the upcoming 18th Ministerial Meeting of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council ............................................................................................ Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of South Korea Chung Eui-yong ............................................................................................ Anniversary of the UN Charter’s entry in force On October 24, the world will celebrate the anniversary of the UN Charter’s entry in force. At a time when the threats facing humanity are growing in number and becoming more complicated, it is more important than ever to maintain unswerving commitment to the UN’s central coordinating role in world affairs. For over 75 years, the UN has embodied the ideals of genuine multilateralism and has been the only venue for devising effective ways of ensuring global stability and security, sustainable socio-economic development and human rights protection. In turn, the UN Charter is a cornerstone of the current system of international law. This most important document codifies fundamental principles of interstate cooperation, including the sovereign equality of countries, non-interference in their internal affairs and settlement of disputes by peaceful means, without the use or threat of force. Only by strictly abiding by these norms can we all avoid repeating the global conflicts of the past. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a state that stood at the headwaters of the UN, Russia is ready to do all it can to enhance its reputation and capacity. Russia-NATO relations There have been many questions on the Russia-NATO relations recently. There were also many comments on that score, in particular the Foreign Ministry’s statement. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov set forth his view on that particular subject in detail but questions are still coming. I would like to say a few more words about Russia-NATO relations in response. Exhaustive explanations of the Russian position on this issue are published on the Foreign Ministry’s website. The North Atlantic Alliance and its Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg personally did their best – they drove our relations somewhere worse even than in the darkest days of the Cold War. They actually buried the Russia-NATO Council with their reluctance to look together for ways of deescalating tensions. In these conditions, it is impossible and pointless to work with the alliance on the challenges and threats to regional and global security. NATO has itself renounced any practical cooperation and military contacts with Russia. We heard routine statements by Stoltenberg about a willingness to discuss security issues with Russia. There is no practical benefit to be had and no sense in them. Expelling Russian diplomats while at the same time expressing a desire to speak with Moscow? These diplomats were accredited with NATO to conduct dialogue at the working level. Whom are Brussels officials going to talk to if they have themselves reduced the number of Russian diplomats to zero in several stages, thereby making impossible any dialogue with NATO? Is it no longer possible to take seriously everything we hear not just from NATO as a bloc but also directly from its Secretary General. He speaks about the need for dialogue and himself expels Russian diplomats from Brussels. He claims that the Russian diplomats were expelled because they were allegedly involved in some kind of “intelligence work” that has not been seen anywhere else. He also says that he will not share any evidence with anyone. We understand why – because there is no evidence. What can we talk about with such officials? If we continuously hear groundless statements about some intelligence activities of Russian diplomats, I have a direct question for Mr Stoltenberg: What about the intelligence activities of diplomats from NATO countries? Has the intelligence community stopped its activities under the cover of diplomatic immunity or in the guise of international journalists? Has Brussels (NATO Headquarters) sent some signals to NATO member countries about the need to bring home their intelligence officers and secret service agents? What is the North Atlantic Alliance doing in this area? Can we get a specific answer since we have recently heard so many totally unfounded accusations against our country? A simple question: What is NATO doing in this area? Since the NATO Headquarters in Brussels and the Secretary General have initiated the discussion of this issue, let’s talk in practical terms: How many, where, in what countries do NATO intelligence officers work? What secret services do they represent and in what countries? Don’t you want a dialogue on this issue? Answer these questions, please. Update on Ethiopia We are closely monitoring developments in Ethiopia, primarily, in the areas of Tigray, Afar and Amhara, where clashes between Ethiopian government troops and Tigray People’s Liberation Front groups have recently become fierce again. We are calling on all parties to the internal conflict in Ethiopia to exercise restraint and declare a ceasefire without preconditions in order to stabilise, step by step, an extremely complicated socioeconomic and humanitarian situation. We support efforts by High Representative of the African Union for the Horn of Africa region, former president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Olusegun Obasanjo. We believe, in this role, Mr Obasanjo, guided by the principle “African solution to African problems”, will throw his weight behind the efforts to normalise the humanitarian situation in the north of Ethiopia. We expect the differences that have surfaced in relations between the Ethiopian Government and UN agencies to be settled without unnecessary attempts to politicise the process. As we see it, resuming coordination of efforts by UN agencies and the Ethiopian federal authorities will help them provide humanitarian aid more efficiently to people living in the areas of Tigray, Afar and Amhara, who desperately need it. We believe that preserving the unity and territorial integrity of Ethiopia has no alternative as a basis for resolving all disputes, including a settlement of Ethiopia’s internal conflict in the area of Tigray and gradual stabilisation across the entire country. Desecration of a Soviet burial in Poland On October 9, our compatriots discovered the consequences of yet another outrageous act of vandalism as regards a Soviet military burial in the Polish city of Zambrow in Podlaskie Province. There were inscriptions on an obelisk installed on a fraternal grave; there was rubbish at the entrance and bottles in between grave candles. There are several fraternal graves in the local cemetery. Buried there are about 12,000 Soviet POWs who died in a Nazi camp in Zambrow in 1941-1942, cadets and commanders of the 86th rifle division summer school who perished in 1941 and 78 soldiers and officers of the 3rd Army of the 2nd Byelorussian Front who were killed in the battles for the city in 1944. As usual, the Polish authorities habitually did not bother to inform the Russian diplomatic offices about the incident, as is required by Article 3 of the intergovernmental agreement on burial places and places of memory of heroes of war and repression. The local media did not cover this outrageous incident at all. I would like to ask Polish functionaries who consider themselves dedicated Christians: Where is this caring attitude to the memory of the perished Soviet soldiers you are talking about all the time? Where is respect for the memory of the people who gave their lives for the lives of others? Where is respect for the memory of the dead? You are conniving at such vagaries because, first, you don’t call them immoral, second, never investigate them to the end, and, third, do not clearly state your position on the inadmissibility of such actions. We have to state with regret that over many years the efforts of the Polish authorities to destroy the Soviet memorial legacy in the country (this is the main reason) and revise history are killing the remnants of the Polish population’s respect for the memory of Soviet warrior liberators and becoming a powerful catalyst of such vandalism. Who are the Polish authorities harming? The answer is obvious – themselves. We demand that Poland restore the burial in Zambrow to its original state, identify and prosecute the vandals. Unveiling a monument to Soviet pilots in Norway In early October, a monument to six Soviet pilots was unveiled during a ceremony in Hasvik on Soroya Island in the north of Norway. The pilots lost their lives when their amphibious aircraft Catalina crashed on June 17, 1944, flying with lend-lease supplies from the US to the USSR. The unveiling ceremony was attended by the Norwegian Defence Minister, the Governor of Troms and Finnmark, and Russian diplomats. The opening of the monument in the form of a stele with a bronze bar relief became possible owing to the joint efforts of the Russian foreign and defence ministries and the Norwegian central and local authorities. We would like to make a special mention of the special personal contribution to implementing this important project by Mayor of Hasvik Eva Husby. Owing to her proactive position the names and the memory of the heroism of the Soviet pilots who lost their lives in Norway will be preserved and passed on to the future generations. Thank you very much. We are sincerely grateful to the Norwegians for their invariably caring attitude to the graves of Red Army soldiers who perished in Norway during World War II. We would also like to thank them for preserving our common history. This is particularly important against the backdrop of the purposeful efforts by other countries (which I have just mentioned) to distort the historical truth and glorify Nazism. Unveiling a monument to Yury Gagarin in Portugal A ceremony of unveiling a bust of legendary Soviet cosmonaut Yury Gagarin took place in Oeiras, a Lisbon suburb, on the 60th anniversary of the first manned flight to space, which is marked this year. The bust was made by sculptor Alexei Leonov and was presented to the city by the international charity fund “Dialogue of cultures – United World.” The ceremony was held in Taguspark – Science and Technology Park. We would like to recall that earlier the Lisbon Astronomical Observatory presented a postcard issued by the Post of Portugal in honour of this date. The Russian Embassy’s initiative was carried out owing to the active support of the local Rossotrudnichestvo office and the Yury Gararin Association, a Portuguese society of friendship with our country. We consider these two events to be yet another step towards deepening Russia-Portugal cultural and humanitarian cooperation. Mikhail Lermontov monument unveiled in Slovenia On October 18, an unveiling ceremony for a Mikhail Lermontov bust took place in Kranj, the third largest industrial and cultural centre in Slovenia. The event was attended by Russian Ambassador to Slovenia Timur Eivazov, Mayor of the Municipality of Kranj Matjaz Rakovec, Honorary Consul of the Russian Federation Danilo Durakovic, as well as representatives of the Slovenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Slovenia-Russia Friendship Society, the public and the media. The project was the initiative of the Russian Embassy in Slovenia and was financially supported by Comita Group of Companies. The monument was crafted by young Slovenian sculptor Boris Beja. The unveiling of the monument to the great Russian poet in Slovenia will help further stimulate interest in the Russian language, culture, history and modern achievements, and will give a new impetus to Russian-Slovenian cooperation in various fields. Fifth anniversary of the Russian Orthodox Spiritual and Cultural Centre in Paris On October 19, 2016, the Russian Orthodox Spiritual and Cultural Centre was inaugurated in one of the most beautiful districts of Paris, on Quai Branly, a unique example of collaboration, creativity, and cooperation of the state and the church outside our country. Over the past five years, the Russian Orthodox Spiritual and Cultural Centre, which includes the Holy Trinity Cathedral, an exhibition centre, a conference room, and an educational cluster, has become an important venue for cultural and social events in Paris. This is confirmed by the fact that it has hosted 620 events attended by over 45,000 people (without exhibition visitors). Over the years, the Centre has acquired a well-deserved reputation as a hospitable and comfortable platform for communication between professionals and enthusiasts, the older generation and young people, the Russian-speaking diaspora and French people who are interested in Russia and Russian culture. The Russian Orthodox Spiritual and Cultural Centre can rightfully be called one of the new hallmarks of the French capital. This view, by now well-loved by the Parisians and tourists alike – of the glowing, luminous domes on the same plane with the Eiffel Tower – is a perfect symbol of the commonality and closeness of the Russian and French cultures, the special nature of relations between our states and peoples. Unfortunately, the full potential of this project, designed to strengthen Russian-French relations, has not been reached. The French authorities continue to delay the signing of the Russian-French agreement regulating the Centre’s legal status. Because of this problem, it cannot be fully staffed. The French Foreign Ministry refuses to issue visas to some of the Centre's employees, and this situation negatively affects its operation. For the same reason, the representative office of the Pushkin State Russian Language Institute is also experiencing difficulties. However, despite all the struggles, we will continue to expand the Centre’s activity, which is quite valuable for the further rapprochement between the peoples of Russia and France. Deliveries of Russian humanitarian aid to Nicaragua The Russian Federation is a reliable partner in providing humanitarian assistance. It is currently expanding the geographical scope of its aid deliveries with an eye to implementing sustainable development projects, including under the aegis of the UN World Food Programme (WFP). In particular, it is active in providing assistance to the Republic of Nicaragua. Russia has made a $5-million voluntary contribution to the WFP fund to finance the programmes intended to develop sustainable school nutrition systems in Nicaragua in the period from 2020 to 2024. In addition, $4 million has been donated for humanitarian food aid in 2021. On April 14 and September 27, 2021, two batches of vitaminised wheat flour and vegetable oil amounting to 1,892 and 787 tonnes, respectively, were delivered to Nicaragua to provide hot meals to students at schools on its Caribbean coast, which was hit the strongest by hurricanes Eta and Jota in 2020. We continue to render assistance in the area of emergency response, including by upgrading the facilities and equipment of the relevant Nicaraguan services. On July 22, Russia delivered to the Army of Nicaragua a fire-fighting helicopter, 15 cross-country vehicles, equipment for the Emergency Management Centre in Managua (opened in August 2020) and 20 foghorns. This was done as part of the effort to implement programmes of the International Civil Defence Organisation (ICDO). On February 23, Russia delivered free of charge 6,000 doses of Sputnik V vaccine to the Nicaraguan authorities to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, free aid is coordinated with commercial purchases. Applied to bilateral trade and economic cooperation projects are so-called combined formulas, under which Russia delivered to its partners, on October 12, 33,000 tonnes of wheat as humanitarian aid and 250 KAVZ buses (produced by GAZ Group) as technical assistance. Equipment is expected to be supplied soon for a service centre in Nicaragua that will cater to the vehicles in question. Cooperation with the Republic of Guinea in fighting COVID-19 Russia continues medical and public health collaboration with its Guinean partners. On October 18, 310,000 doses of the first and second components of Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine were delivered to the airport of Conakry as part of efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Thus, the contract between the Russian Direct Investment Fund and the Health Ministry of the Republic of Guinea was implemented in full. I should remind you that Russia was among the first countries to respond to the Guinean government’s requests for help in combating COVID-19. Guinea-based specialists of Russia’s Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare (Rospotrebnadzor) continue to provide effective diagnostic and therapeutic assistance. Medical equipment and diagnostic kits have been donated to Guinea. Importantly, Guinea was one of the first countries in Africa to register Sputnik V and is about to register Sputnik Light. We proceed from the premise that the mutually beneficial cooperation between the relevant agencies of the two countries engaged in the fight against COVID-19 will be carried on. Answers to media questions: Question: During the OPCW Executive Council meeting, several Western countries and Russia exchanged questions and answers under the Chemical Weapons Convention on Alexey Navalny’s “poisoning,” allegedly carried out by the Russian authorities. What does Russia make of the answers it received from Great Britain, Germany, France and Sweden to the questions it asked them? Maria Zakharova: On October 18, Great Britain, Germany, France and Sweden responded to Russia’s demarche, designed to reciprocate their actions on the situation with Navalny. They complied with the 10-day deadline set forth in the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), considering that the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) notified them of our inquiry on October 8. The answers submitted by these countries lack any substance. These are formalistic replies worded in the loudspeaker diplomacy genre with all these dated accusations in their favourite highly-likely style. Our colleagues have not presented any information we requested, although they do have it. We asked for this information because without it the Russian Interior Ministry cannot complete a proper pre-investigation review and determine whether what happened to Alexey Navalny could qualify as a crime. This could pave the way to opening a criminal case, and our Western partners have been talking about this with so much zeal. So, many questions of principle remain unanswered. Let me share them with you one more time. What kind of a toxic agent did German military chemists discover in the Russian blogger’s biological samples? Who was the person accompanying Alexey Navalny on board a charter medical evacuation flight from Omsk to Berlin? What was Maria Pevchikh’s role in all this? We want her to explain in how many countries she is a citizen, since both the German and British authorities have gone to great lengths to cover up her involvement in this story. Some did not notice her, and others did not see her. I think that there have long been things we needed to discuss. Why are Russian law enforcement agencies denied the possibility to question Maria Pevchikh? Germany and the OPCW Technical Secretariat also declined to provide video footage, which could have shed some light on this situation. After all, the collection of biological samples from Alexey Navalny at the Charite hospital in Berlin had to be filmed, and the same applies to the separation and sealing of these samples in the OPCW’s headquarters in The Hague for transferring them to the two foreign laboratories that where tasked with analysing these samples. It is telling that we received these meaningless answers and unsubstantiated accusations almost at the same time. In fact, we have become used to these coincidences. We realise that there is a well-oiled mechanism behind them. Unfortunately, all this confirms yet again that some forces in the European Union and NATO persist in what can be viewed as a real and global provocation rooted in crass Russophobia. One critical question remains open: when, where and under what circumstances did traces of a chemical agent that was allegedly discovered by German, French and Swedish military chemists, as well as two specialised OPCW laboratories, appear in Alexey Navalny’s biological samples outside of the Russian Federation? They did not answer this question, which shows that Western countries intend to push the provocation concocted by them against our country even further. Answering clear questions outside of any political agenda and without ideological overtones – what could be easier? We are talking about straightforward facts: you collected the samples, so tell us what you discovered, where, and what role did the people present along the “chain of custody” play? Who were these people, how could they even enter the country, since they had to enter the German territory and show their passports? They could have received their visas very quickly, if needed, and if they did not have a citizenship of the countries that have a visa-free arrangement with Germany. This we can understand, but they still had to show their passports. The relevant migration and border control services have this data. Knowing Germany’s formalism, we have no doubt that everything was recorded, especially since this was a very important guest (we all remember the convoy), the Chancellor’s personal guest. How can it be that they did not know who arrived with him, and what documents they used to cross the border? There are quite a few questions, in fact. We will continue requesting detailed answers to all the questions we asked. If someone in the West wants to get any closer to the truth, answering these questions as soon as possible is the way to go. In any case, they need to brace up and answer them. Otherwise, this story will just fade into history. By all means, and looking at the way Great Britain, Germany, France and Sweden responded to our enquiries, it becomes clear that it is the truth that scares them the most, since the unsavoury affair they concocted against Russia has led them into an impasse. Question: According to German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, the key to resolving the problem of migration to Europe via Belarus lies in Moscow. Can you comment on this statement? Maria Zakharova: This is completely absurd. We have become accustomed to being accused of certain things that give rise to a kind of ambiguity. Today, the whole world can see how the crisis on the border of several European countries is developing. Everything is obvious. A combination of two factors, namely, live broadcasts virtually from the border and historically established facts which are the cause of this situation should have eliminated all questions with regard to other countries not involved in this matter and made it impossible to voice certain accusations against Russia. But it appears that we should not underestimate our Western partners. I repeat once again, such accusations are absurd. A key or many keys lie elsewhere, but not in Moscow or Minsk. I will now tell you where they are: They can be found in the capitals of our Western partners, primarily Washington and Brussels. The collective West, under the guidance of the United States and leading NATO countries, initiated the root cause of the migration crisis. We are referring to the military involvement in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. The German representative could have at least attended the conference on the problems of the Mediterranean region, if he has not yet done so. This conference has been regularly held in Italy for many years now, and he could have heard statements by Germany’s European Union and NATO neighbours about their perception of the current situation. Western states will continue to bear the brunt of all these negative developments that have been provoked by interventions and abortive illegal military campaigns. They will bear this brunt in the form of waves of illegal migration, an upsurge in terrorism, organised crime, border crises and a multitude of problems, including interethnic and interreligious problems and many others. Appeals to Minsk and Moscow, which are being urged to thwart the exodus of refugees, in the form in which this is presented are simply groundless, with due consideration for the Western coalition’s actions in the Middle East and North Africa and now in Afghanistan. What do Minsk and Moscow have to do with all this? How did they manage to link these issues? All this looks strange, to say the least. We have seen the so-called “evacuation” from Afghanistan when tens of thousands of people were left to their own devices, while facing unresolved vitally important matters. They are trying to leave their country using various methods and routes. They have been trying all this time. They are settling down in various countries, on the borders, and are relocating to other continents. What do we have to do with this? The West has conducted this campaign in Afghanistan for 20 years. All this time, at the UN Security Council, we urged them to report on their activities. During this entire period, we heard constantly either that they were withdrawing troops or that they were beefing up their forces there. Washington’s actions fluctuated in accordance with the party line, so to say. US attitudes towards the situation in Afghanistan depended on what party made it to the White House. In addition, various concepts were voiced even within the framework of one administration. No one had a clear perception of Afghan developments, and no one was able to thoroughly analyse them. This ended in a global catastrophe, with the evacuation of Western forces and the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. This triggered another spiral of the migration crisis. From what perspective do they view the role of Russia and Belarus in this context? It is impossible to overlook an obvious aspect of this situation: Western countries are deliberately provoking an aggravation of the domestic Belarusian situation. Belarusian law enforcement agencies have to use their limited resources to maintain domestic stability in the face of tougher outside pressure and much more pronounced domestic security threats. Does nobody understand this either? This is an obvious thing. Instead of conducting subversive activities, the EU states ought to address matters that concern them and counter illegal migrants in close contact with the Belarusian authorities that have repeatedly voiced their readiness to cooperate. This is another vicious circle. These counties, I mean the EU countries bordering on Belarus, are actively involved in efforts to interfere in domestic Belarusian affairs. At the same time, they do not recognise the country’s official authorities and are urging Belarus to somehow respond to this situation. In April 2021, the Belarusian side suggested holding consultations with the European Union on illegal migration matters, and it has been voicing this proposal since then. What do you think the European Union’s response has been? Does the German Interior Minister not know this? Well, the EU declines this offer. I repeat for the third time: This is a vicious circle. Those members of the collective West wishing to break this vicious circle should display their best analytical qualities. Question: Leader of Poland’s ruling party Law and Justice Jaroslaw Kaczynski said in an interview with Gazeta Polska that Russia is currently waging a multi-stage hybrid war against Poland. How would you comment on that statement? Maria Zakharova: We have been hearing various reiterations of the same theme from official Warsaw over and over again. We have been accused of all kinds of things. They seem to have used everything: human rights, threats and global aggression, against whom I do not know. We have heard accusations of sabotage; migration crises are, apparently, our doing as well. We have seen it all. Now there is an interview with Deputy Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski who, in keeping with the usual practice, could not help but talk about Russia. As you correctly said, once again he accused us of a multi-stage hybrid war. Clearly, it is no coincidence that this term was introduced: it was to perpetuate the idea that we constitute a threat in every single area, hence the word “multi-stage.” This time, Moscow’s subversive activity against Warsaw is, allegedly, creating a migration crisis at the Polish‒Belarusian border. This is absurd. For many years, we have been watching refugees, primarily from the Middle East, try to cross the EU border. We have been watching this situation along with our partners who, including during a conference on Mediterranean issues, every year, for many years, have been asking what they can do about this problem. There are thousands of migrants, tens and hundreds of thousands. They cross over to Europe via different entry points. But now, out of the blue, our country has come up. The cause of the situation at the Polish‒Belarusian border should be sought in the actions of our Western partners that created these “multi-stage” waves of migration. The West cannot find a conceptually right and effective solution to this problem. At the same time, it is endlessly covering up its own helplessness in this matter with clichéd accusations against Russia and typically trying to shift the blame onto us. It is hard to overlook the root causes of this. Somebody should take the entire corpus of the documents from the Mediterranean conference, including remarks, reports and interviews on the sidelines, and simply dig into the nature of the issue, read those documents thoroughly and stop coming up with fictitious, unsubstantiated and ridiculous accusations. Question: We can see numerous signs of Brussels’ hostility towards our country and allied Belarus. It looks as if the Foreign Ministry and the Kremlin are not dealing with two separate organisations – NATO and the EU, but with a consolidated Euro-NATO Union. Ties linking us with NATO have been severed. What lies in store for our relations with the EU? Maria Zakharova: We talked a great deal about NATO today. As for the ties you have mentioned, it is not far away from the truth. You can see this for yourself. After the disastrous withdrawal of the bloc’ forces from Afghanistan, the NATO headquarters in Brussels needed something to justify its existence, and so they redoubled their efforts to blow the mythical “Russian threat” out of any proportion and started to deliberately destroy the remaining channels of our communication. It appears that cooperation with Russia disagrees with NATO in its current form. The conceptual development of that organisation has failed to overcome the Cold War logic. By and large, NATO is a holdover from the Cold War. After terminating any cooperation with Russia and suspending military ties, the bloc moved increasingly rapidly back to the confrontation schemes of the past. The line for containing Russia, which Washington is pursuing through NATO, is also influencing the EU’s policy. We pointed this out many times. Regrettably, we can see the use of doublespeak in the political context. The EU’s political word and weight are decreasing. The EU has entered a dangerous period when its political will is being suppressed by NATO’s will. Who is playing the main role in this process? There is a militant group of several EU countries, which have not overcome their irrational historical phobias regarding Russia. We talked about some of them today. They are not only using anti-Russia myths but are inventing them in their own populist interests and in the interests of their global client, whose name we know as well. More importantly, the countries “responsible” for destructive actions are trying to enforce, to cultivate this faulty ideology in the other EU member states. Regrettably, they are using the EU decision-making mechanisms for this purpose. Initially, the union was an integration project focused on creation rather than a tool against anyone. This group of militant countries is working energetically to strengthen the institutional link between the EU and NATO. Fundamentally, the bloc is dominating the EU. As a result, the EU’s policy towards Russia is governed by the obsolete and misguided provisions according to which the entire range of our relations depends on the implementation of the Minsk agreements, which Kiev is systematically sabotaging, as we all know very well. As for the origin of the European Union, it was established as the European Economic Community. It is logical that cooperation is linked to the economy. The economy in all spheres suggests the priority, interest in and direct benefits of interaction with our country. But the EU is acting contrary to its own interests, contrary to the national and economic interests of its member states. There is a predominant anti-Russia political charge. Has it developed on a common, consolidated basis within the EU? Not at all, because the opinion of people in the EU member states was not taken into account at all. These political doctrines have been imposed from above by a group of countries, the external lobbyists that were encouraging this approach, under NATO’s pressure and the common concepts that link these countries. The three principles of relations with Russia invented by the EU institutions this year – push back, constrain and engage at the same time – risks becoming a new Bermuda triangle, where any motivation for rethinking relations with Russia in a more constructive manner can disappear altogether. Does the “push back, constrain and engage” formula comply with the basic principles underlying the EU? How can [the EU] states integrate and at the same time interact with a country on which they depend and with which they have had mutually binding relations in a number of spheres for decades? This is being done now on the basis of the “push back, constrain and engage” formula. It should be noted that the majority of EU member states, 21 out of 27, are also NATO members, which does not mean these two structures must be identical in theory or practice. Despite any differences between us, the EU is not only a geographical neighbour but also our largest trade partner. Contacts between Russia and the EU are maintained, including at the highest level, and they concern a broad range of issues. Sergey Lavrov recently had a meeting with representatives of European businesses. Read about the mutual advantages and the priority of our interaction in many spheres. This is obvious. Both sides are demonstrating mutual interest in cooperation in such promising spheres as healthcare, efforts against climate change and other new challenges and threats, and dialogue on current international and regional topics. We do not rule out the possibility of developing normal, good neighbourly relations with the EU based on equality and mutual respect for each other’s interests. We are boosting cooperation with individual EU states not only in the spheres I have mentioned, but also under major integration, economic and energy projects, which can serve as a good example for the other countries. We wish that the “group” which is weighing down on the other countries with its Russophobia will open their eyes to their own advantages, abandon the pre-set directives and get down to business in the interests of their nations. Question: It appears that the main responsibility for the “predictability and stability” in Russia’s relations with the collective West now lies with Washington, since Brussels has crossed itself out. Can this be regarded as a loss of face for both NATO and the EU? Maria Zakharova: The collective West has lost face more than once and not only in the context of developing its relationship with our country. They have embarrassed themselves many times. Speaking about us (the situation that we were drawn into), it was in the year 2014 when a violent and anti-constitutional coup was staged in Ukraine with the support of the Western countries. Considering the geographical proximity and historical unity of our two countries and nations, our economic integration, plans and projects that were set for the long haul, it all became obvious to us even back then. All masks were dropped, and with that came a loss of face. We no longer have any illusions about the true values of our partners. We did not expect and do not expect any goodwill towards Russia when that is the approach they take. That was not the only example. It would be a mistake to believe that it is only in the context of the relationship, interaction and mutual tensions with our country that the West has been losing face. There is the Middle East, the so-called Arab Spring, experiments in Iraq and attempts to reshape the map of the Middle East and North Africa in general (take Syria and Libya), as well as forcing its own vision of how entire regions should develop. There is Latin America. Have they not embarrassed themselves there? In this case, it is primarily Washington rather than the collective West. Cuba is yet another example of the West’s collective madness and of its going contrary to its own principles. They have been committing crimes for so many years there, with an economic blockade, endless political accusations and pressure from all sides. As soon as certain political interests fell into place on the part of Barack Obama’s administration, a completely different course started to shape itself. Then Donald Trump’s administration came, and the long-standing rhetoric and actions towards Cuba became even more ferocious. Perhaps I could omit Venezuela since we often comment on the situation in that country. There has been interference in domestic affairs and attempts to use the most sordid leverage against Venezuela. Despite all the hardships brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, the West never stops, not even for a second, when it comes to fulfilling its own ambitions. You all remember those endless “projects” involving pseudo leaders like Juan Guaido and the like. Afghanistan was the lowest point. They lost more than their face; they lost everything. As you can see, examples are in abundance. As concerns our own foreign policy, including its Western vector, it is based on our national interests rather than sentiments or ideology. A common question we hear is whether we have an ideology at all. Of course, we have an ideology and it is our national interests. It is an ideology of pragmatism, pursuing national interests based on international law and how it regulates relations between countries. The core of our national interests is protecting our citizens and creating favourable external conditions for Russia’s stable internal development. In keeping with this approach, we do not refuse, even despite the crisis of trust created by the West, to have a dialogue on important issues with those who show mutual interest in this kind of communication. Unfortunately, we have seen apparent indications of the opposite. Reducing this consistent and multi-dimensional work to contacts with just one Western capital or a group of countries would clearly contravene this logic. Question: How does the Foreign Ministry assess US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin’s visit to Ukraine? Is this a gesture of courtesy or an attempt to promote military cooperation? Maria Zakharova: We believe each country has the right to develop relations with other sovereign states in all areas of mutual interest. So, we do not comment on the visits of third ministers of foreign affairs, defence, or the economic bloc to other countries. At the same time, the aggressive Russophobic tone of the statements made by the head of the Pentagon came to our attention, in which he outwardly encouraged the revanchist sentiments of the “party of war” in Kiev. This concerns us directly, since it not only provokes tensions along the line of contact in Donbass, but also raises serious questions about Washington’s actual commitment to its own assurances of being willing to promote the implementation of the Minsk agreements. Question: After the trilateral talks between the foreign ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia held in Minsk on October 14, as a gesture of goodwill and a sign of its willingness to move along the path of peace process, Azerbaijan, with the mediation of Russia, handed over five servicemen to Armenia. Should we expect, in the near future, more humanitarian or other steps following this ministerial meeting? Without a doubt, as the main mediator in the settlement and establishment of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Moscow is committed to effective unblocking of the transport and economic ties in the region. Do you think there are any reasons to believe that a specific result can be achieved by the end of the year? Maria Zakharova: The 8th meeting of the Trilateral Working Group on unblocking economic and transport ties in the South Caucasus was held in Moscow yesterday under the joint chairmanship of the deputy prime ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. Information about it can be found in a press release issued by the Executive Office of the Government of the Russian Federation. The day before, on October 19, with the assistance of the Russian military, five more Armenian captives returned home from Azerbaijan. We welcome this step by Baku and express hope that the process of returning the detainees will continue. In total, 122 detainees have been exchanged since December 2020 thanks to Russia’s mediation, among other things, with 105 people returning to Armenia, and 17 to Azerbaijan. We will continue to provide the necessary assistance to normalise relations between Baku and Yerevan on all tracks. Question: The past week was quite eventful for Russian-Azerbaijani relations, especially amid the pandemic when the number of mutual visits has decreased. Vice-President of the Heydar Aliyev Foundation Leyla Aliyeva, Chair of the Milli Majlis Sahiba Gafarova and Minister of Energy Parviz Shahbazov visited Moscow to attend a number of joint functions. Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matvienko said that “Russian-Azerbaijani interaction has been brought to an unprecedentedly high level.” What can the Foreign Ministry say about this level of intensity of contacts? What other events in Russian-Azerbaijani relations are planned to be held before the end of the year? Maria Zakharova: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensity of bilateral contacts remains high. In addition to the visits you mentioned, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill met with Chairman of the Caucasian Muslims Office Allahshukur Pashazade in Moscow on October 13, and foreign ministers of Russia and Azerbaijan had a conversation in Minsk on the sidelines of the CIS Foreign Ministers Council on October 14. All of that is indicative of the high level of Russian-Azerbaijani relations and our ramified ties. A number of high-level meetings and events are planned to take place before the end of the year, which we will inform you about as appropriate. Question: The International Exhibition “Restoration, Reconstruction and Development of Karabakh – Rebuild Karabakh” opened in Baku yesterday. Russian companies are taking part in it. How do you assess the Russian companies’ plans to participate in rebuilding Azerbaijan’s liberated territories? In general, what can you say about Moscow’s high-level commitment to expanding Russian-Azerbaijani cooperation in this area? Maria Zakharova: As far as I understand, the issue is about the areas that were returned to Azerbaijan in accordance with the Statement by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia dated November 9, 2020. Russian economic operators stand ready to take part in the post-conflict rebuilding of these territories. A business mission led by Deputy Minister of Economic Development Dmitry Volvach visited Baku on July 23 in order to determine promising areas of cooperation. Several Russian companies plan to make another visit to Azerbaijan on November 17-18. The groundbreaking ceremony for the KAMAZ and the Ganja Automobile Plant Production Association joint service centre was held in the Jabrail district on October 4. It is an example of practical implementation of Russian-Azerbaijani interaction and cooperation in this area. We are interested in expanding Russia’s business presence in Azerbaijan. We consider this joint work an important component of Moscow-Baku relations, and we will do our best to promote it. Question: Despite political efforts and trilateral statements, people continue to be killed in Nagorno-Karabakh and on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan has suggested strengthening trilateral mechanisms for investigating armed incidents and enforcing the ceasefire. What does Russia think of this? Maria Zakharova: On October 14, the foreign ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia held a trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the CIS Foreign Ministers Council meeting in Minsk and discussed the situation in the zone of responsibility of the Russian Peacekeeping Contingent, including recent incidents. This situation is also in the focus of regular contacts between the commanders of the Russian Peacekeeping Contingent and General Staffs of the Armenian and Azerbaijani Armed Forces. We are making every effort to prevent violations of the ceasefire in the zone of responsibility of the Russian Peacekeeping Contingent. Question: Jalil Jalifar, a member of the board of directors of the Iranian-Russian Chamber of Commerce, recently said that, in connection with developments in the northwest, Iran has encountered a series of subversive activities and the Azerbaijani Government’s refusal to cooperate. Azerbaijan is impeding Iranian exports to Russia via the Astara customs checkpoint. What do you think of claims that Azerbaijan is hampering Iranian exports to Russia? Maria Zakharova: We consistently advocate reducing the tensions on the border between Azerbaijan and Iran. We are convinced that all difficulties in relations between these two nearby states should only be addressed using political-diplomatic methods, and that all disagreements should be overcome in the spirit of neighbourliness. In turn, we are working to unblock all economic and transport ties in the South Caucasus. We believe that such work should take into consideration the interests of all regional countries, naturally, including those of Iran. Question: What is Russia’s opinion of the current status of the 3+3 format? What obstacles are hindering its implementation? Maria Zakharova: The idea of creating a 3+3 regional consultative mechanism comprising Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia plus Iran, Russia and Turkey has been proposed by President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Russia has supported that initiative. We believe that the development of multilateral regional cooperation meets the interests of all the proposed participants of this format. In our opinion, the use of this mechanism could build up trust in interstate affairs, help settle existing differences and unlock the region’s economic, transport and humanitarian potential. We can see that some Western countries, first of all the United States, would like to hinder certain processes and to put a spoke in the wheels of this initiative. It is notable that our American partners are using disinformation towards this end. For example, they claim that the idea of the 3+3 mechanism was proposed by Moscow and are waging a strange Russophobic game in this context. Here are the facts: Yes, we have supported this format, but the idea was put forth by other countries. For our part, we hope for an early launch of the 3+3 regional consultative format in the interests of all of its participants. Question: The other day Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on the developments in Sudan. He pointed out that external players, first of all the United States, were responsible for destabilisation there. Do the continued unrest in Khartoum and obvious differences in the transitional government pose any risk to Russia’s interests? Are the external players influencing the situation? Maria Zakharova: You are referring to what Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said during a news conference following his talks with his colleague from Guinea-Bissau. The transcript is available on our website. You can read what Sergey Lavrov said in response to that question. I can only reaffirm our position. We were not the ones who started that country’s division. I hope that you have basic knowledge of the history of this matter. When you read reports on this subject, it looks as if they are again looking for the guilty party. I would like to remind everyone that some external players, primarily the United States, decided that it would be better for the Sudanese if they suddenly lived in two different states. A campaign of foreign interference was launched, with attempts made to impose on the Sudanese the approaches and ways to build democracy that the West deemed appropriate. As the result, serious tensions have developed in the traditional structure of the Sudanese society. We believe that any interference in the internal affairs of Sudan, or any other country, should be stopped and that the Sudanese people must determine their own future themselves. It is our fundamental principle, which is based on international law and the UN Charter. We do hope that all those who are trying to reject this principle are aware of their responsibility for the future of the state and the people whose life they want to change according to their own pattern. Question: Don’t you think that closing diplomatic missions in Western countries and organisations will lead to Russia’s isolation in the European community? Maria Zakharova: You are right in thinking that NATO countries have been consistently reducing the size of our mission. Russian diplomats’ contacts at NATO headquarters have been practically reduced to prohibitive procedures. This is a military-political alliance, so security matters cannot be discussed without the participation of the military, but all their contacts have been reduces to zero. We are not closing the missions, but they are doing everything they can to block their operations. We have pointed out that, in case there are urgent questions or a sudden need to meet, the Russian embassy in Belgium is available. Until recently, there were three venues in Brussels – the embassy (which is responsible for bilateral relations with Belgium), the Permanent Mission to NATO, and the Permanent Mission to the EU. Because of the North Atlantic Alliance’s actions, the Permanent Mission to NATO has ended up like this. If they want to talk, they can contact our embassy and the ambassador in Brussels directly. Question: How do you see the further relations between Russia and China in the context of the changing geopolitical situation in the world? Maria Zakharova: I would rather break your question in two. Relations between Russia and China are valuable, per se. Their overall development does not depend on the situation in the world in other areas. China is Russia’s key partner. Our contacts at this point are at their all-time best, and it has been a long time. The quality of bilateral Russian-Chinese relations is the result of many years of painstaking joint work to build a unique model of interstate dialogue. The legal framework for our interaction is codified by the Russian-Chinese Treaty of Good Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation. That treaty recently marked its 20th anniversary. It is special because, concluded two decades ago, the document is still relevant, and holds significant opportunities for the sustainable development of our relations with due consideration for emerging challenges. Russia’s interaction with Beijing relies on the universally recognised norms of international law and is not directed against third countries. The effective coordination of foreign policy steps between Russia and China is becoming a major contributing factor to stabilisation in both the regional and global dimensions. Russian-Chinese relations do not need to be balanced by playing on US-Chinese disagreements. We are confident that, as far as the levels of mutual trust, stability and depth are concerned, our cooperation is much more mature than the military-political alliances of the Cold War era that relied on ideology, a rigid hierarchy, confrontation with other countries, hampering expansion of ties in other parts of the world and preventing the strengthening of regional players. The dialogue between Russia and China is not based on any zero-sum game; it is based on respect and consideration for the interests of two equal partners. There are no forbidden topics, and a proximity of positions is achieved through a constructive exchange of views with detailed argumentation. The pattern of interstate interaction that has developed between Russia and China is an excellent example of relations between two major responsible powers in the 21st century. We believe this pattern is optimal and meets our long-term interests. Question: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently said that NATO has to take the first step if it wants to improve relations with Russia. What steps should NATO take? Under what conditions would Russia be ready to talk with the Alliance? Can you provide any specifics? Maria Zakharova: There is a lot to it. We keep speaking about this. It all boils down to the answer to the main question: What does NATO want? What is its position? If it wants dialogue, there should be dialogue. But dialogue is impossible if they cut off the telephone lines. There will be nobody on the other end of the line. Is this dialogue? But it is exactly what we see happening now. Consequently, these questions should be addressed to the bloc. Even in the most difficult situations we always left the diplomatic door open for the exchange of opinions and for negotiations to be held. We believed that problems must be settled through dialogue. Regrettably, our contacts have been recently reduced to us listening to hackneyed clichés, which have nothing to do with reality and do not take our country’s opinion into account. It is the same old song over and over again. Meetings are held at different locations and of different duration, but we get the same broken record again and again. The speeds do differ, though. Let’s talk a bit about the so-called infrastructure of this dialogue. Our diplomats did their best, but contacts have become impossible. The bloc has destroyed the infrastructure needed for normal communication and dialogue. What should be done? This is a question for NATO. Now we understand that they wanted to destroy our relations completely. If they want something else, we would like to understand what it is. The bloc itself must formulate its desire. Maybe they don’t want us to exist? It doesn’t work that way. Everything else requires analysis, diplomacy, skills, professionalism, competence and many other abilities. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4914524
__________________
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 |
October 30th, 2021 | #17 |
Senior Member
|
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister of Bolivia Rogelio Mayta, Moscow, October 22, 2021
22 October 2021 - 12:45 Mr Minister, Friends, We are delighted to welcome you in Moscow. You and I met in New York when you attended my meeting with President of Bolivia Luis Arce. I am happy to welcome you in Moscow during your full-fledged visit. The pandemic did not hamper the stable development of our cooperation in all directions. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Bolivia Luis Arce have spoken with each other three times in the past few months, and they have charted specific ways of expanding our cooperation in all areas. We have coordinated specific projects in the energy sector and the civilian nuclear power industry, as well as expanded trade and cultural contacts. We cooperate closely on COVID-19 response efforts. Today is a good opportunity to discuss all aspects of our bilateral ties in great detail and to exchange opinions on developments in the Latin America region. We will find your assessments useful. We will also speak about our cooperation at the UN. Welcome. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4915260 Interview by Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey V. Lavrov to the International Barents Secretariat's Internet-Portal before the 18th Ministerial Session of the Barents/Euro-Arctic Council, October 22, 2021 22 October 2021 - 14:00 Unofficial translation Question: What are the first three things you think of at the mention of the Barents Region? Sergey Lavrov: The first thing is the traditions of helping each other and being a good neighbor that have been established here. It goes without saying that in the harsh climate and environment of the North economic activity can only be carried out through joint efforts and exchange of experience. From that we can logically transition to the second thing which is the cross-border cooperation. The Barents Region has achieved a high level of connectivity between neighbors. Cooperation is developing effectively in all major areas. Those include environmental protection, the fight against climate change, transport cooperation, joint rescue drills and communication between the young and between indigenous peoples. The pandemic gave a new impetus to close cooperation in the field of public health. In this regard, I would like to highlight the Conference on Health Cooperation in the Barents Region after COVID‑19 held on 28 September 2021 and other relevant meetings organized during the Norwegian Chairmanship of the Barents/Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC). Its two-tier structure remains a unique feature of the Barents cooperation. The interaction takes place not only between the governments of the BEAC member countries, but also at the level of administrative-territorial formations within the framework of the Barents Regional Council (BRC). It makes it possible to identify urgent projects and optimally match the priorities of states with the interests and needs of individual regions. In this sense, BRC is a solid foundation that ensures the resilience of the entire framework of Barents cooperation. It is at that level that one can best feel the pulse of cooperation, the real needs and interests of people. Question: What is the role and significance of the Barents cooperation? Sergey Lavrov: In the difficult international situation, regional formats of interaction serve as an important channel of dialogue making it possible to discuss common issues for the region in a business-minded and constructive manner and carry out important practical work in the interests of people living here. In this sense, BEAC is probably the most successful multilateral format of cooperation in the North of Europe as it demonstrates persistent immunity to changing political conditions. Moreover, the scale of cooperation grows every year as it expands to new areas of joint work. Question: What is your own experience of interactions within the Barents cooperation? Do you have any personal memories of the Barents Region? Sergey Lavrov: I remember a ministerial session in Kiruna, Sweden, that took place ten years ago. Before the plenary session, the hosts of the meeting gave a tour of a mine belonging to a local mining company. I still remember that morning walk in safety helmets. As the overall impression of the meetings within the framework of the Barents cooperation, they are always warm and can be described as friendly. Question: The Barents cooperation started in 1993, more than 28 years ago. In your opinion, what are the main achievements of this format of regional cooperation so far? Sergey Lavrov: Over 28 years, BEAC has become an effective dynamic framework for inter-state cooperation that essentially promotes a unifying agenda on a day-to-day basis. The Council contributes significantly to preserving the North of Europe as an area of stability and good neighborliness. To that we can add quite a few success stories related to the Barents cooperation. Those include elimination of environmental hot spots, development and updating of the Action Plan on Climate Change and the Joint Transport Plan, and the Indigenous Peoples Summit. I hope that sustainable socio-economic development of the region and the creation of comfortable conditions for people living in the North will remain a priority for cooperation in the high latitudes. Question: What will the Barents cooperation be like in 20 years? Sergey Lavrov: As a diplomat I prefer to avoid guessing. I would only note that it is important that we do not rest on our laurels but find ways to further diversify the Barents cooperation. That way our joint work in this part of the European North can become even more effective and people centered. I am convinced that it would enable BEAC to remain a successful forum for political dialogue and the success stories mentioned above to be complemented by new ones. Question: What is the place of the Barents Process in the overall system of Arctic cooperation? Sergey Lavrov: The Barents Region is often seen as part of the larger Arctic. There is a tendency for its gradual dissolution in the broader formats of Arctic cooperation. At the same time, the Barents Region has a number of unique characteristics. It is the most populous and the most economically developed region of the Arctic with vast resources, a strong scientific and innovation base and significant tourism potential. Its accumulated experience in cross-border cooperation is probably unparalleled. However, the overall awareness of this regional model of interaction remains weak. Hence, there is a need to highlight this format within the international framework. In this context, it seems useful to hold thematic sessions on the Barents cooperation during major Arctic events (e.g., Arctic Frontiers in Tromsø and the "Arctic: Territory of Dialogue" International Arctic Forum in Saint Petersburg). It is equally important to develop our own discussion platforms. In this regard, I would like to mention the "Cooperation in the Arctic" International Session to be held by the Government of the Murmansk Region for the fourth time this year. I would also like to mention the well-established forums in northern Norway: the annual Kirkenes Conference and the High North Dialogue in Bodø. Question: In May 2021 Iceland handed the Chairmanship of the Arctic Council over to Russia. The Russian Chairmanship focuses on environmental protection, social and economic development and the interests of the people living in the region, including indigenous peoples. What other forms of cooperation and synergies are there between the Arctic Council and BEAC? Sergey Lavrov: I would like to stress that Russia has consistently supported regional coordination. I refer to strengthening the synergies between all the four Nordic intergovernmental councils (the Arctic Council, BEAC, CBSS, and the Nordic Council of Ministers) and the Northern Dimension partnerships. We believe resuming coordination meetings at the political level to be instrumental in achieving this end. Question: In 2021-2023 Finland is to chair BEAC, and the Nenets Autonomous District is to chair the Barents Regional Council. After that, 2023 is to see the handover of the Chairmanship of BEAC to Russia. What is your attitude to the principle of continuity in this context? Sergey Lavrov: We consider that the Chairmanship of the Nenets Autonomous District in the Barents Regional Council is strongly linked with Russia’s national Chairmanship of BEAC in 2023-2025. During this period Russia is to lead two regional organizations at a time, Barents/Euro-Arctic Council and the Council of the Baltic Sea States. We still have two years to make active preparations, yet I can tell you right now that Russian Chairmanship will focus on improving the relevance of both Councils’ practical activities and making them project-oriented. It is our intention to work in a spirit of continuity bearing in mind the general aim of promoting sustainable social and economic development in the North of Europe. We support Norway’s and Finland’s course towards strengthening cooperation in education and science. We encourage improving direct contacts between academic communities of the Barents and the Baltic Sea regions. Question: The COVID-19 pandemic that burst out in 2020 has created numerous obstacles for trans-frontier cooperation. What steps could be taken to mitigate the negative impact of the pandemic on the Barents region? Sergey Lavrov: To our mind, post-pandemic social and economic recovery is an absolute priority. For example, a possibility of developing a mechanism for mutual recognition of vaccination certificates could be examined. We also believe that the Murmansk Oblast put forward a useful and timely initiative for the discussion of joint measures to fight the pandemic. It was followed up with four videoconferences titled “Barents region against coronavirus” chaired by the Oblasts’s Governor Andrey Chibis. Question: Russia maintains bilateral relations with Finland, Norway and Sweden on various levels. What are the role and significance of the Barents cooperation as a multilateral cooperation format for Russia? Sergey Lavrov: As I have already said, in a complex international environment, regional cooperation formats remain important platforms for dialogue with our Northern European partners and a sort of “safety net” that holds our relations at certain level despite the differences we have. Regular political dialogue is implemented within BEAC, including in the form of high-level sectoral meetings, which enables our policy-makers get together and discuss pressing issues on both regional and bilateral agenda. This “synchronization” remains fully relevant. Question: Russia has consistently stated that the Barents region needs its own fund to support projects in the region. What are your expectations in connection with the launching of the Barents Financial Mechanism? Sergey Lavrov: The Barents process’s substantive nature and focus on specific tasks has always been its distinctive feature. Thanks to the efforts of Norwegian Chairmanship of BEAC, next year the Council is to launch its own Barents Financial Mechanism. Russia was one of the first proponents of this initiative. This new tool will enable BEAC to provide initial capital for the implementation and co-funding of regional projects, first and foremost those that fall within the scope of the Council’s working groups’ activities. Although so far the funding is modest, I believe this to be a meaningful step, without which any noble endeavour would remain nothing but plans on the paper. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4915394 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Plurinational State of Bolivia Rogelio Mayta, Moscow, October 22, 2021 22 October 2021 - 15:22 Ladies and gentlemen, The Plurinational State of Bolivia is one of Russia’s priority partners in Latin America and the Caribbean. Our relations have become visibly closer over the last few months. The heads of state have had three telephone conversations. The talks were substantial and dedicated to the further development of our bilateral ties and the coordination of our international positions. We communicated with Mr Minister over the phone this summer and a personal meeting took place in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September when I had the honour of meeting with President of Bolivia Luis Arce. Following up on these contacts, we inventoried our bilateral projects today. We pointed out the positive dynamics in Russian-Bolivian cooperation, as agreed by our presidents. We welcomed the invigoration of inter-parliamentary exchanges and contacts between relevant ministries and agencies. We agreed on joint efforts to bring our collaboration to a new level. We have a shared interest in increasing and diversifying trade and in implementing major investment projects. For this purpose, we have arranged to more actively use the potential of the Intergovernmental Russian-Bolivian Commission for Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technological Cooperation, whose next meeting will be held in Bolivia before the end of this year. Energy offers many opportunities for expanding cooperation. Gazprom has been developing Bolivia’s Incahuasi gas and condensate field for years and is working on other projects of mutually beneficial collaboration in the hydrocarbons area. The Rosatom State Corporation is building the Centre for Nuclear Technology Research in El Alto, Bolivia, a unique project for Latin America and the Caribbean. In addition, Rosatom proposed a number of other spheres of cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy for medical, industrial, agricultural and other purposes. Russian Railways, Power Machines and other Russian companies are working in Bolivia and are also considering other mutually beneficial projects with their Bolivian partners. The promising spheres of cooperation include industry, pharmaceuticals, infrastructure, medical equipment and aircraft technology. We have agreed to facilitate the development of direct contacts between our two countries’ business communities and to provide all-round assistance to them. Special attention was given to our plans for boosting cooperation in combating the coronavirus infection in light of the currently complicated epidemiological situation. Bolivia has received nearly 2.5 million doses of Sputnik V for vaccination purposes, and the Minister has informed us of the high opinion of this vaccine in Bolivian society. There is a positive outlook in the area of humanitarian cooperation, educational exchanges and the training of professionals. We agreed to further develop the bilateral legal framework. We are preparing a roadmap on trade and economic cooperation, an agreement on the mutual recognition of education certificates, and documents on military-technical cooperation and ties in culture, media and sport. We discussed ways to strengthen our foreign policy coordination. We have identical views regarding approaches to current regional and global matters. We have been consistently advocating broader democracy in international relations through the application of the norms and principles of the UN Charter, such as respect for the sovereignty of states with due regard for the generally recognised standards of international law, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, and the settlement of all disputes by peaceful, diplomatic means. In this context, we have reaffirmed our interest in revitalising and deepening cooperation within the framework of the recently established Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter. It held a regular meeting in Belgrade on the sidelines of the recent session of the Non-Aligned Movement. We exchanged views on the situation in Latin America and the Caribbean. We believe that it is important to consolidate integration processes, including at such a respected venue as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). We called for the immediate termination of interference in the internal affairs of regional countries, including the illegal trade, economic and financial blockade of Cuba, and spoke out against Washington’s unacceptable activities to undermine development processes in such countries as Venezuela and Nicaragua. We discussed methods to promote closer ties between Russia and multilateral regional organisations. Russia has recently received the status of extra-regional observer at the Central American Integration System (SICA). We are also developing ties with the Caribbean Community (Caricom), Mercosur and other organisations. Our talks were highly productive. I would like to thank the Minister and his team for very good talks and to give him the floor. Question: Is there any understanding of what will be the format for Russia’s participation in the G20 summit in Rome? Will President Vladimir Putin attend in person? If so, will any bilateral meetings be arranged on the sidelines? Sergey Lavrov: The President’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov has already answered this question. The Presidential Executive Office will make an announcement as soon as they choose a format. This also applies to the possible bilateral meetings that can be held in either format. Question: Could you comment on what Foreign Minister of Ukraine Dmitry Kuleba said on President Vladimir Putin “promising” a Normandy format meeting? Sergey Lavrov: Regarding statements by Kuleba, the leaders of Russia, Germany and France had a telephone conversation, during which our interlocutors went to great lengths to persuade Vladimir Putin to hold a Normandy format summit as soon as possible. The President of Russia made a very reasonable objection saying that Ukraine has not carried out the resolutions adopted at the previous summit, held in Paris in December 2019. There were specific agreements that Kiev had to implement, but they were completely ignored, including both on the Steinmeier Formula on the status of Donbass and holding elections, and efforts to maintain a ceasefire. Finally, I think it was in July 2020, an agreement was reached on additional ceasefire monitoring measures, but Ukraine rejected them. A few days ago, the Ukrainian Armed Forces command made an official announcement that they will not honour these agreements. During the telephone conversation between the three leaders, President Vladimir Putin explained just how misplaced attempts to convene a new summit are, if the Ukrainian authorities do to comply with the resolutions of the second summit. In this situation, Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron said that foreign ministers and foreign policy advisers could work on this matter and think it over. Vladimir Putin agreed. This is what we are doing. We are thinking. At the same time, we keep in mind what the Normandy format leaders have said, and who promised what. If Dmitry Kuleba claims that the Russian President “promised” to convene a foreign ministers’ meeting, he is distorting facts. He promised to issue an instruction to look into the question of organising a meeting of foreign ministers that would yield tangible results. In this conversation, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel gave the Russian President an even more important promise to help ensure the full implementation of the Minsk agreements, where it is written that matters related to amnesty, special status, organising elections and amending the Ukrainian Constitution have to be addressed in consultation with and subject to consent from specific areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. We have been proceeding from this premise, but Kiev has been sabotaging direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. Only two days after the telephone conversation during which the leaders of France and Germany reaffirmed their full commitment to the Minsk agreements, Kiev hosted the European Union – Ukraine summit that resulted in the adoption of a lengthy statement, signed by President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Council Charles Michel and President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky praising “the constructive approach of Ukraine in the Normandy format and the Trilateral Contact Group” and the way it has implemented the Minsk agreements. Nothing was said about Donetsk and Lugansk, or the need for direct dialogue with them. Russia was presented as an “aggressor country” and called a “party to the conflict” in Donbass. All this runs counter to what Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron promised. Having read this statement, we immediately contacted our colleagues in Berlin and Paris and asked what it meant. They responded that this was “the EU’s collective position” and Russia was viewed as a party to the conflict in Donbass, while talking to Donetsk and Lugansk did not make any sense. This is all I have to say to Dmitry Kuleba when he laments that Russia refuses to hold a Normandy format ministerial meeting and undermines the peaceful settlement process, as he put it. Getting four people on television to show that we are “hard at work” is one thing, but even in the popular Kvartal 95 show actors do not just go on stage and stare at the audience but follow the script and try to entertain the public. Implementing the Minsk agreements is what the public wants. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4915856 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Norway Anniken Huitfeldt, Tromso, October 25, 2021 25 October 2021 - 21:23 Madam Minister, I would like to thank you for your hospitality and for the meeting you have organised upon the arrival of our delegation in Tromso. As you mentioned, we immediately went to the memorial to the Red Army soldiers who perished in a concentration camp in Norway during the Nazi occupation. I would like to express our sincere gratitude to you, just as I did during my contacts with all my Norwegian friends, for the way in which the people and the Government of Norway are honouring the memory of the Red Army’s heroism during the liberation of Northern Norway. I remember the ceremony held in Kirkenes to mark the anniversary of liberating Finnmark, which I attended at the invitation of my Norwegian friends. His Majesty King Harald V of Norway, Prime Minister Erna Solberg, Foreign Minister Ine Marie Eriksen Soreide and other high guests were also present. The most striking feature was the poignant manner in which the residents of Kirkenes, including schoolchildren, celebrated the date and participated in the events. We were moved to tears. The ceremony in Kirkenes, our meeting today and our attendance of the wreath-laying ceremony at the monument to the Red Army soldiers, just as this relic, show that we remember and revere the memory of those who gave their lives for the security and independence of our countries. There is probably nothing more valuable than the safety of every human being. Without safety there is no well-being, which is what all of us are striving for. I hope that we will have a frank and trust-based dialogue, as per of our good tradition, to compare our views on ways to ensure security in this very complicated world, regardless of the ideological preferences of the NATO member states and the Russian Federation. Thank you for inviting me to these talks. I am sure they will be productive. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4917217 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions following talks with Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Norway Anniken Huitfeldt, Tromso, October 25, 2021 26 October 2021 - 00:25 Question: Mr Lavrov, welcome to Norway. You now had your first meeting with Foreign Secretary Anniken Huitfeldt. What do you think was the most important thing that you discussed? What kind of changes do you hope to see from the new Norwegian Government? Sergey Lavrov: We discussed the overall state of our relations, which are different. On the one hand, we share a common history, and I was really touched and gratified to attend with the Minister the ceremony of laying flowers to the monument to the Russian victims of the World War II, just as I attend regularly the ceremonies in Kirkenes to commemorate the victory when the Russian Red Army liberated Finnmark in Northern Norway, and the attention and the respect paid by all Norwegian leaders, including His Majesty, the Prime Minister, ministers and members of the Government, is really tremendous. We have this mutual respect, which is being substantiated by the cross-border links between our people, who live just next door to each other, who communicate with each other thanks to the visa-free arrangement which we agreed some years ago, and who benefit from this economically, socially, culturally. And all this will be manifested tomorrow, I am sure, during the events of the Barents and Euro-Arctic Council. On the other hand, Norway is a member of NATO. NATO is no friend of Russia. They decided that they don’t want to be friendly, they decided that they don’t want to have the Founding Act between NATO and Russia to be the basis of our relations. They called Russia, and now China, and, actually, Russia and China together, a threat to NATO. NATO is looking for the meaning of its future existence. My good friend Jens Stoltenberg, who used to be an excellent Prime Minister of Norway, is now saying that NATO must be responsible for security all over the world, including in the Indo-Pacific and Latin America. And of course, we have differences with our Norwegian neighbours. We discuss these differences frankly and openly. Today we raised the issue of continued consultations between our ministries of defence and between our foreign ministries. I invited the Minister to visit Russia whenever she believes it’s suitable. But we also have the channels of communication between the ministries of emergencies on search and rescue operations in the Arctic region, which is life. Quite a number of differences which we have are in the area of ideology. Who is the Number One, who is to rule the world ̶ this is what we hear from our NATO “friends.” We believe that we have to concentrate on real life. As far as the imagination of NATO going in the direction of containing Russia, preparing to attack Russia, German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said that they have to be ready to threaten Russia with nuclear weapons. These are fantasies. If it gives her some pleasure, maybe this can satisfy some of her fans. But I hope and I know that Norwegians are very pragmatic people. We want to be pragmatic, and we want to concentrate on the positive. And whatever Norway has to do as a member of the North Atlantic Alliance, I am sure Norway will be doing this fully keeping in mind the importance of relations with Russia. Question: Russia and Norway are both key exporters of natural gas to the European market. Are Moscow and Oslo considering more cooperation to stabilise the situation on the gas market and to curb the volatility that we witnessed this year? Considering the catastrophic situation in Russia-NATO relations, are Russia and Norway considering more contacts between their defence ministries in the near future? Sergey Lavrov: If you ask me, I don’t believe that we should discuss the gas situation. We don’t explore gas deposits and we don’t sell gas as foreign ministries. As for Russia-NATO relations, I wouldn’t say they are catastrophic. To be catastrophic, you need to have some relations. We don’t have any relations with NATO, but we do have relations with Norway, on the security front as well, as I mentioned. And we would like to raise them to a higher level between the ministries of defence, in addition to the security consultations, which are regular. Question: Could you elaborate on the possibility of increasing the bilateral defence consultations? Sergey Lavrov: I just did. I said that we do have such consultations and we would like to raise them to a higher level between the ministries of defence. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4917231 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s intervention at the opening session of the 18th Ministerial Meeting of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, Tromso, Norway, October 26, 2021 26 October 2021 - 13:08 Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express gratitude to our Norwegian colleagues, and personally to the Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Norway, Mme Anniken Huitfeldt for the warm welcome and for organising this session. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of face-to-face communication, and the atmosphere here is very warm even though Tromso is located above the Polar circle. I am grateful to our Norwegian friends for the immaculate organisation of the events within the framework of their chairmanship and for the high intellectual standards of the discussions held. The Barents cooperation is a connecting link and a major channel of dialogue for our countries. BEAC countries can discuss issues of importance for the region in a businesslike and constructive manner that is free from the impact of political considerations. The struggle against the coronavirus infection has added a new dimension to our multilateral cooperation in healthcare. Socioeconomic post-pandemic revival is another of our common priorities. We appreciate BEAC’s energetic and productive efforts in these spheres during Norway’s chairmanship. We regard the initiative of the Murmansk Region on discussing joint measures against the coronavirus infection as timely. You may be aware that four videoconferences titled Barents Euro-Arctic Region Versus Coronavirus have been chaired by Murmansk Region Governor Andrey Chibis. Climate change is one of the biggest challenges in the region. We welcome the completion of the drafting of the updated Barents Action Plan on Climate Change for the period beyond 2020, which stipulates the implementation of projects with an emphasis on climate change aspects. We can see positive change in the elimination of environmental hot spots in the Barents region. Russia calls for the further strengthening of joint efforts, which Russia’s Bureau of Best Available Technologies has joined. The Barents process has always been noted for its practical aspect and its focus on concrete action. We have taken note of the strengthening of financial aspects of our interaction during Norway’s BEAC Chairmanship. There are plans to launch the Barents financial mechanism next year. This initiative was proposed by Russia. This new instrument will facilitate the provision of start-up capital for the implementation and co-financing of common regional projects, first of all, at the level of Barents working groups. So far, we are considering rather modest sums, but we regard this as a vital step that can help launch the implementation of our ambitious plans. We attach great importance to the development of direct ties among the region’s population. I am looking forward to today’s discussion with the young representatives of the Barents cooperation, because young people will be playing an increasingly significant role in developing our common agenda. We are giving priority attention to the rights of the indigenous peoples of the North. We are glad to see the development of the Russian initiative on creating a solid platform for dialogue with indigenous peoples in the form of Barents Indigenous Peoples Summits, the third of which was held in June 2021. We regard improving inner coordination within the unique “two-tier structure” of Barents Cooperation as an important achievement of the Norwegian chairmanship. I am referring to the harmonisation of efforts of the national and regional working groups with a similar mandate. I would like to point out the independent role of the regional segment. Many initiatives to develop the Barents Cooperation are generated precisely at the level of administrative and territorial entities, where people’s real needs and interests are felt most of all. The Barents Regional Council (BRC) has a special position within this two-level structure. Yesterday, the Nenets Autonomous Area took over from Vasterbotten, Sweden, as BRC chair. I am confident that the Nenets chairmanship will direct its efforts at intensifying our common cooperation. We see the Nenets Autonomous Area’s chairmanship as part of preparations for Russia’s 2023-2025 BEAC chairmanship. Close cooperation at the scale of the entire North European Region, including the activities of relevant intergovernmental councils and partnerships, is essential for accomplishing the tasks we are facing. Apart from the BEAC, as you know, these are the Arctic Council, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, and the Nordic Council of Ministers, but we should not forget about the Northern Dimension partnerships either. We are in favour of resuming the political meetings of all these northern formats. Our suggestion is that we should contemplate large-scale crosscutting initiatives. In two years time, as I said, Russia will be “on the bridge” in two regional organisations at once – the Barents Euro-Arctic Council and the Council of the Baltic Sea States. I can already say with confidence now that we will focus on enhancing the importance of both councils’ applied activities and their commitment to practical projects geared to socioeconomic development and a better quality of life in the North that we share, including to keep women from leaving the area, as Madam Minister has just said. At the same time, we intend to act in the spirit of continuity and support the priorities of all the said formats. I believe that today’s meeting will be an important step towards strengthening cooperation in the European Arctic. In the next few years, hopefully, the Barents Cooperation will not only retain its dynamics but will be further developed as an important factor helping to preserve the zone of trust, stability and good-neighbourliness in the region. In conclusion, I would like to wish success to the next chairmanship, that of Finland. Let me once again express gratitude to Sweden’s Vasterbotten for its successful governance of the Barents Regional Council. I am certain that the Nenets Autonomous Area will pick up the torch with honour. Thank you. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4917428
__________________
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 |
October 30th, 2021 | #18 |
Senior Member
|
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks at the Barents Youth Summit, Tromsø, Norway, October 26, 2021
26 October 2021 - 15:10 Thank you for the invitation. I believe focusing on matters of youth is a useful initiative that deserves every support. You are entering adulthood. In the very near future, you will take our places. Everyone realises this very well. Russia has always advocated the creation of youth entities in the Barents Euro-Arctic Council region that will help us better understand the future. I believe that this opportunity will materialise today. I sincerely thank our Norwegian hosts, Västerbotten (West Bothnia), its governor and the Barents Regional Youth Council. I was asked to provide my personal point of view. Frankly, it is hardly different from the official one. The official approaches of the countries of our Council mostly rely on understanding that we should focus on practical matters that unite us, primarily those of us who live just within several kilometres from each other, but are separated by the state borders. The issues we have to deal with in the North are complicated due the climate and remote location of the regions and can be resolved only by joint efforts. It is a good example of a situation with specific issues that need to be addressed in order to be able to live a normal life. There is no place for ideologies. Nobody starts geopolitical battles. This is an example of neighbourliness and mutual assistance. We need to support each other. I think this approach is typical not only of our countries, but also of all ministers and other officials in their personal capacity. This is our common conviction - this is what makes us strong. Also important is the fact that the Barents Euro-Arctic Council covers national and municipal levels. Regions in each country cooperate with each other as well. There is a special mechanism, namely, the Barents Regional Council which is a major advantage of ours, because the problems and needs, including of women, are clearly visible at the local level. Women must be kept in the North so that men do not flee. But jobs must be created for both women and men. Moreover, now, with advances in research and education, there are no jobs that can be done only by men. In this sense, the local needs are fundamentally important so that the national governments can have proper benchmarks, and we can implement them via our project activities in organisations such as this Council. Thank you for supporting Russia’s initiative to create a financial mechanism. It is still modest, but, as we say, the hardest thing is the beginning. It is the first step that matters. With regard to encouraging people not to leave and ensuring respect for the traditions of the indigenous peoples of the North, it is important to be mindful of the fact that the Barents Region is the most developed part of the Arctic in terms of scientific research, education and business (in a sense). The potential is there. What do we need to do to avoid a braindrain and replace braindrain with braingain? There are no special miraculous recipes. We must create conditions for the fulfilment of creative potential, be it science, education, art or business. I am strongly supportive of the Norway and Finland’s initiative to step up cooperation in education and science. I suggest the Barents Regional Youth Council get involved in identifying areas of cooperation. A sense of identity and being part of the family are of key importance. The indigenous peoples’ role is particularly evident here. We must deal with the issues faced by everyone who lives here and instill in young people the feeling of a small and common homeland in the Nordic countries. There are the Barents Council and the Arctic Council, which Russia is chairing this year. Today, I spoke with the Foreign Minister of Finland, Pekka Haavisto, about the need to harmonise the agendas of these entities. There is also the Council of the Baltic Sea States – which is a contiguous region too, with challenges that are similar to those on our agenda. I am presenting you with the idea of creating a single youth body for all Northern Cooperation entities. We are in favour of coordinating their activities. You will form an agenda, to which governments must respond in good time. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4917581 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s media statement following the plenary session of the 18th Ministerial Meeting of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, Tromso, October 26, 2021 26 October 2021 - 15:20 Colleagues, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Norwegian leadership for everything they have done as the chair of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC). Their efforts culminated with today’s event, during which we took several important decisions. We signed a joint declaration that outlines the key directions of our future work on the economy, transport, logistics, infrastructure, the environment, climate, small indigenous peoples, youth policy, healthcare and education. After several years of preparations, we created the Barents financial mechanism for funding projects implemented by BEAC working groups. We also adopted an Action Plan on Climate Change for the Barents Cooperation Council that covers the period from 2021 until 2025. Its purpose is to ensure that climate is factored into all BEAC projects. I believe this to be quite important. We just had a meeting with the Youth Regional Council. It was quite useful, ensuring continuity between generations, and most importantly enabling us to deliver on the aspirations and wishes we heard from young people during the Finnish chairmanship. The Barents Regional Council is an important format. It is also about to have a new chair as Vasterbotten hands over the chairmanship to the Nenets Autonomous Area. Its Governor, Yury Bezdudny, will now head the regional structure of our Council in 2022-2023. The Russian Government views this as one of the stages in preparing for the BEAC chairmanship that we will receive after our Finnish neighbours. I do believe that this session was quite useful and has proven yet again that when we work on practical matters, we can deliver results, without being distracted by ideological differences and geopolitical games. Once again, thank you, Norway. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4917591 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at the Barents Scholarships for Cultural Cooperation award ceremony, Tromso, October 26, 2021 26 October 2021 - 15:30 Today, during the Ministerial Meeting and particularly the Youth summit, we discussed what needs to be done to keep members of the younger generation in the North. I think these scholarships are the answer to this question. We would be glad to see other initiatives in this vein. The host of this ceremony, who described himself as a “bureaucrat,” said an interesting thing – the Norwegian “presidency” instead of “chairmanship.” Presidency at least is a gender-neutral word. Many organisations use this term. Nothing awful has happened. I am honoured to award this Barents Scholarship for Cultural Cooperation to Director of the State Opera and Ballet Theatre of the Komi Republic Dmitry Stepanov. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4917605 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a ministerial meeting with Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries (Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan), Tehran, October 27, 2021 27 October 2021 - 11:45 Colleagues, I am delighted to welcome you to this meeting. First of all, I would like to thank all the countries with representatives here for taking an active part in the recent meeting of the Moscow Format Consultations on Afghanistan, an exclusive platform that has no alternative when it comes to the scope and efficiency. We have recently taken note of the increased activities of various regional and international forums on Afghanistan. It is important for them not to copy but to organically complement each other. I am confident that our discussion today will make a major contribution to our joint efforts to settle the numerous problems the Afghan people are facing and will help maintain stability and security in the region and beyond. Today Afghanistan is a country that actually has to begin from scratch, to rise from the ruins in both the literal and the figurative meaning of the term. This is the logical result of two decades of the enforcement of the US-NATO model of state development. The Western countries’ stubborn desire to rebuild Afghanistan according to their own designs has led to dramatic consequences, namely, internal hostility and bloodshed, social polarisation, socioeconomic collapse and a humanitarian catastrophe. It has also encouraged rampant international terrorism and an unheard-of volume of drug production and corruption. But are the United States or other Western countries concerned? They always regarded Afghanistan, which is located thousands of kilometres away from them, as a useful instrument for attaining their narrow geopolitical goals. A new administration has assumed power in Kabul. This is objective reality. The country has a real, although difficult to attain opportunity to return to the international stage as a responsible and peaceful state. We respect the goals set out by the new Afghan authorities – to stabilise the military-political environment, to include representatives of national minorities and political forces in the transitional government, and to subsequently hold general elections. We have taken note of the efforts to resume the operations of the bodies of state administration, to create a regular army, and to ensure the safety of foreign diplomatic missions. Russia is not inclined to force its advice or recommendations on anyone, the more so since history itself suggests effective solutions to problems. Having maximally full regard for the interests of all the main ethno-political forces in the country is of vital importance. It is for this reason that we firmly and consistently support the creation of a truly inclusive Afghan government. Citizens must know that their rights and lawful aspirations will be enforced, not in word but in deed and that they will be protected by the letter of the law – of course, with respect and consideration for the local traditions and customs. As is obvious, it will hardly be possible to develop a normal foreign policy – particularly towards the neighbouring countries, which are the prime targets for the international terrorist groups that have become entrenched in Afghanistan and are being manipulated from the outside – unless a resolute fight is launched against drug production and trafficking as well as against these destructive forces. For our part, we are planning to use all international and regional instruments at our disposal. I am referring to the resources available to the UN, the SCO, the CSTO, and other multilateral organisations. We are pleased to point to the closeness of the positions held by the participants in the recent Dushanbe summits. We are also pleased with the outcome of the special joint CSTO-SCO meeting. Cutting short and controlling migration flows from Afghanistan is high on today’s agenda. This is of particular importance since terrorists and criminals are able and are already trying to penetrate adjacent countries under the guise of refugees. We can only reach this goal by creating normal living conditions in Afghanistan itself. In the future, this will become an important factor compelling the Afghans to come back home. We once again call on the countries neighbouring on Afghanistan to prevent the US and NATO from establishing a military presence in their territory, given their plans to move there after pulling out of Afghanistan. It is clear that immense financial outlays will be required to create Afghanistan’s national education and health systems and in general establish an effective socioeconomic infrastructure in the country. In this connection I would like to lay a special stress on the following: the main responsibility should be borne by those who have driven that country into its present state. In all evidence, it is high time we launched mobilisation work to amass resources for financial, economic and humanitarian aid to the Afghans. I hope the principle of holding conferences for the sake of conferences, which the Westerners are so comfortable with, is already a thing of the past. The time has come for concrete action in this regard. I am confident that the United Nations should play the coordinating role. It was to the UN that the participants in the Moscow Format Consultations on Afghanistan addressed their appeal on October 20, 2021. Russia is ready to make its contribution to the common effort. Quite soon, we are planning to send to our Afghan partners a batch of humanitarian aid consisting of food, medicines, and essential commodities. In conclusion, I would like to wish you successful work. Thank you. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4918407 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea Chung Eui-yong, Moscow, October 27, 2021 27 October 2021 - 13:54 Mr Minister, Welcome to Moscow. I am delighted to see you again. In March 2021, we had meaningful talks in Seoul, and opened the Year of Reciprocal Exchanges marking the 30th anniversary of our diplomatic relations. Today, it is my turn to greet you in the capital of the Russian Federation with our traditional hospitality. This is an honour and privilege for me. After the talks, we will attend a ceremony to close the cross year, a major interstate project. Reinforcing ties with the Republic of Korea is one of the main priorities for the Russian Federation in the Asia-Pacific Region. We appreciate the reciprocal commitment by our Korean neighbours to develop close partnership ties with the Russian Federation. We have a packed bilateral agenda, and will discuss all matters that deserve our attention, in keeping with the agreements between President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the Republic of Korea Moon Jae-in. We will exchange views on the key international issues, primarily the developments on the Korean Peninsula. I am glad to see you. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4918657 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions during a joint press conference with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea Chung Eui-yong following their talks, Moscow, October 27, 2021 27 October 2021 - 15:20 Ladies and gentlemen, My colleague, Mr Chung Eui-yong, and I had meaningful, detailed talks on our bilateral relations, as well as regional and international matters. The Republic of Korea is one of our most important partners in the Asia-Pacific region. We have a positive view of how our bilateral ties have been developing. This was our second meeting this year. In March 2021, I had the privilege of visiting Seoul where we opened the Year of Reciprocal Exchanges between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea marking the 30th anniversary of our diplomatic relations. Today, after our talks, we will attend a closing ceremony of this year at the Maly Theatre. We had a detailed discussion on trade and economic cooperation. It has been advancing quite successfully and recovering momentum after the decline caused by the coronavirus. Between January and August 2021, trade increased to almost $20 billion, a rise of more than 55 percent compared to the same period last year. We valued Korean businesses’ investment activity in Russia’s Far East. We also welcomed efforts to step up bilateral cooperation in the Arctic. Minister Chung Eui-yong said he was satisfied with the proactive involvement of Korean businesses in our country, while he also expressed the wish that Russian businesses would participate more in the market of the Republic of Korea. We agreed to keep up our efforts to implement the Nine Bridges concept put forward by President of South Korea Moon Jae-in, which covers cooperation in a number of spheres, including energy, transport, shipbuilding, agriculture, education and healthcare. We paid special attention to the prospects for strengthening our cooperation on fighting COVID-19 in keeping with our bilateral agreements, as well as in the context of multilateral initiatives our countries are backing, with Korea focusing on Northeast Asia, and Russia working within the East Asia summits. As usual, we had a detailed discussion on the developments on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia. We are certain that there is no alternative to resolving all the problems this region faces by political and diplomatic means. We emphasised the need for all the parties involved to resume negotiations. It is important to understand that efforts to find a mutually acceptable and lasting solution must cover all the problems the Korean Peninsula faces in their complexity. We noted that it is particularly important for all the interested parties to renounce actions that may increase tension. We talked about the future of cooperation between Russia and Korea in the United Nations, where we have been maintaining close, trust-based contacts, and also cooperation within the Group of 20 and other multilateral mechanisms. We discussed the developments in the region which we and our Korean partners still call the Asia-Pacific region. Our positions coincide on a number of matters related to the concept of an Indo-Pacific strategy promoted by our Western colleagues. It is a great honour and privilege for me to welcome my colleague, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea, with his delegation. I am sincerely grateful to you for accepting our invitation to attend the closing ceremony of our cross-year. Question: During today’s talks, did you discuss the possibility that the American intermediate-range missiles, which are being developed, might be deployed on South Korean territory? Is this prospect or possibility a matter of concern for Russia, and did South Korea guarantee in any way that there will be no weapons of this kind there? Sergey Lavrov: We did not discuss the possible deployment of US intermediate-range and shorter-range land-based missiles in the Republic of Korea for the simple reason that we know that the President and Government of the Republic of Korea oppose in principle any such deployment. Speaking of other countries and regions, the fact that the Americans have declared their intention to deploy land-based missile systems that were banned under the INF Treaty, not only in Europe, but also in the Asia-Pacific, is of course a matter of concern for us. We believe that this would upend strategic stability and the balance that we have. We reaffirm the proposal that President Vladimir Putin made several years ago to the United States and other NATO members to introduce a reciprocal moratorium on the deployment of such missiles in all regions of the world and to introduce verification measures so that NATO can be sure that Russia does not have systems of this kind, while enabling us to ascertain that missile defence bases in Romania and Poland cannot be refitted with offensive cruise missiles. Our Western colleagues have been unwilling to commit themselves to this moratorium, and do not want to hold talks on this issue. This is sad. Furthermore, there is evidence that NATO planners are now looking east, and have already said, through the words of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, that NATO’s mission should include the Indo-Pacific region. What they say is their mission should cover the entire world. I believe that these are very dangerous games. We will do everything to counter trends of this kind and make sure that all countries understand the danger of moving in this direction. Question: Can you comment on the use of Turkish drones by Ukrainian armed forces in Donbass? Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the Armed Forces of Ukraine’s reported use of the Bayraktar drone against targets in Donbass, we are currently verifying this information. It is hard to distinguish fact from fiction in the plethora of statements coming from Kiev. We are now checking this information and using all means at our disposal for that, including direct contacts with Donbass representatives. It seems that these reports referred to developments in the village of Staromaryevka, which was targeted in a provocation by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. As far as we know, this attack was repelled. The initial reports showed that there were no casualties from the alleged use of the Bayraktar drone. Still, this must give pause to all those who encourage Ukraine in its capricious demands to become a NATO member and those who arm a regime in Kiev that is under the control of neo-Nazis. Question: You said that you discussed security on the Korean Peninsula during the meeting. Have you discussed challenges on a more global scale? Many Russians are worried that NATO is concentrating its forces and weapons close to the Russian border and is ready to set up military bases in Ukraine. What diplomatic efforts are being made to keep NATO at a safe distance from our country? Thank you. Sergey Lavrov: Diplomatic efforts are not enough in this situation. We need to respond in other ways that will measure up to the security threats the Russian Federation is facing. Let me assure you that President Vladimir Putin is keeping these matters under his personal control, as are all the relevant agencies, both on the diplomatic and non-diplomatic fronts. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4918721 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the closing ceremony of the Russia-South Korea Year of Reciprocal Exchanges, Moscow, October 27, 2021 27 October 2021 - 20:01 Mr Minister, Ladies and gentlemen, Colleagues, friends, I am delighted to welcome you to the closing ceremony of the Year of Reciprocal Exchanges between the Russian Federation and the Republic of South Korea, a large-scale project timed to coincide with the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. Over the past three decades, which is a short period in terms of history, we have developed, almost from scratch, a solid and ramified network of bilateral cooperation. The current stage in the development of Russian-South Korean ties can be definitely described as dynamic and sustained. Moscow and Seoul are maintaining a regular political dialogue, including at the top level. Despite a complicated epidemiological situation, we have been trying to make use of every opportunity to discuss current issues on the bilateral agenda and to exchange views on the key regional and international topics. Today we held fruitful talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea Chung Eui-yong, for a second time this year. We agreed to continue working to expand and deepen Russian-South Korean cooperation and reaffirmed our mutual understanding on a number of regional and global issues of mutual interest. Our trade, economic and investment cooperation is developing energetically. I would like to make special mention of the numerous joint projects implemented over the past years in Siberia and the Russian Far East, as well as in the Arctic. We are giving priority attention to the implementation of the Nine Bridges concept put forward by President of South Korea Moon Jae-in. It provides for advancing practical interaction in a number of spheres, including energy, transport, shipbuilding, agriculture, education and healthcare. I am sure that our continued consistent efforts in these areas will allow us to attain the goal set by our presidents – to increase mutual trade to $30 billion annually – already in the near future. We are promoting cultural interaction. The success of guest concerts by performance groups, exhibitions, festivals and other events held over the past few years indicates a growing interest of Russians and Koreans in studying each other’s cultures and way of life and promoted mutual understanding and rapprochement between our nations. The official opening ceremony for the Russian Seasons on October 2 in Seoul was an important event. As part of the project, there are plans to hold a series of performances and concerts of outstanding Russian performers in the Republic of Korea, and I don’t doubt that the Korean audiences will be highly interested in them. Today, we are marking the completion of the most ambitious projects in the modern history of Russian-Korean relations. The vast and diverse programme of the Year of Reciprocal Exchanges has been successfully implemented, and over 200 online and offline events have been held. Regarding the trade and economic segment of the outgoing Year, I would like to single out the business dialogue Russia-South Korea: Further Steps for Successful Bilateral Cooperation, as well as meetings between business leaders on the sidelines of the Sixth Eastern Economic Forum last month in Vladivostok. One of the highlights in the humanitarian sphere was the conference organised by the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund and the Korean-Russian Art and Culture Society called 30 Years of Russian-Korean Cultural and Art Contacts: Results and Outlook. I would also like to note the Tenth Russian Language Olympiad involving students from Korean universities, international book fairs in Moscow and Seoul and various workshops and competitions. The implementation of the Year’s programme helped intensify academic and educational exchanges between our countries’ leading universities and analytical centres. In this context, the parties have successfully held research conferences involving famous experts from Russia and the Republic of Korea. I am delighted to note that the concerned ministries and agencies, as well as representatives of academic circles, public organisations and the business community and, most importantly, young people from both countries were actively involved in preparing and holding events of the Year of Reciprocal Exchanges under the motto Be Friends, Trust, Act. The project encompasses an impressive territory and many regions in Russia and the Republic of Korea. In September 2020, the Park of Friendship between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea opened in Tyumen. There are plans to hold the Third Russian-Korean Interregional Cooperation Forum in November 2021 in Ulsan. One can say with confidence that the Year’s high priority task – strengthening friendship and mutual understanding between our nations – has been successfully accomplished. In closing, I would like to once again thank everyone involved in holding this highly important event and to wish them all the best. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4919131
__________________
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 |
October 31st, 2021 | #19 |
Senior Member
|
Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 28, 2021
28 October 2021 - 21:45 G20 summit in Rome A G20 summit will take place in Rome (Italy) on October 30-31. This will be the first offline summit since the start of the pandemic. It will be attended by the heads of state and government of the leading economies and relevant international organisations. President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin will make a speech at the summit via videoconference. This year, the leaders are expected to discuss three themes: the world economy and global healthcare; climate change and environmental protection; and sustainable development. In addition, they plan to hold two specialised seminars on the summit’s sidelines: one on support for small and medium businesses and female entrepreneurs and another on the role of the private sector in countering climate change. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the G20 summit in person. He will also hold many bilateral meetings, including with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi. At present, other meetings are being planned around his current schedule. We will certainly update you on his plans. Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with Foreign Minister of Venezuela Felix Plasencia On November 8, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Foreign Minister of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Felix Plasencia who will pay his first official visit to Russia since his appointment. Our countries are dynamically developing bilateral relations in the framework of a strategic partnership. Russia and Venezuela have amassed a significant record of diverse forms of trade, economic, scientific, technical and humanitarian cooperation. In 2021, it will be 25 years since the signing of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation. The ministers will discuss a broad range of cooperation issues, including the efforts to counter the coronavirus. As you know, at present Venezuela receives regular supplies of the Sputnik V vaccine. Following the meeting of the Intergovernmental Russian-Venezuelan High Level Commission in Moscow on October 14-15 of this year, the two countries plan to take steps to deepen cooperation that can withstand illegal unilateral sanctions. The ministers also plan to exchange views on urgent international and regional issues and cooperation in the United Nations and other forums. I would like to recall that cooperation between Russia and Venezuela is based on strict observance of international legal standards and respect for the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs. The ministers will exchange opinions on ways to facilitate internal stabilisation in Venezuela and find political solutions to its domestic differences in line with the Constitution and, of course, without any foreign interference. Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Holy See Secretary for Relations with States Paul Richard Gallagher Talks between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary for Relations with States of the Holy See Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, who will be in Moscow on an official visit on November 8-10, are scheduled for November 9. The discussion will focus on the current state and future of cooperation between Russia and Vatican, as well as interaction at multilateral forums. Of course, the parties also plan to discuss topical international matters. Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Republic of Mali Abdoulaye Diop On November 11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Republic of Mali Abdoulaye Diop, who will be in Moscow on a working visit on November 10-12. The two ministers will have an in-depth discussion of current issues on the global and regional agendas with an emphasis on crisis resolution and ways of fighting terrorism in Africa. Special attention will be given to the situation in Mali and the Sahara-Sahel region as a whole. They plan to review the prospects for cooperation between the two countries at the UN and other multilateral forums, as well as ways of promoting further Russian-African cooperation in the context of the preparations for the second Russia-Africa summit in 2022. The two ministers are expected to discuss how to step up bilateral cooperation in politics, trade, the economy, culture, education and other areas, giving more attention to the prospects for strengthening business partnership, including in developing mineral deposits, as well as energy, infrastructure and agriculture. #UNCharterIsOurRules As you know, on October 24, 2021, the United Nations celebrated the 76th anniversary of its Charter’s entry in force. Russian diplomats all over the world congratulated the universal organisation on its “birthday”. On this day we conducted a global digital action under the common hashtag #OurRulesUNCharter in support of the UN’s central coordinating role in global affairs (with the participation of 145 of our embassies, representative offices, consulates general and missions at international organisations). Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov launched this hashtag in New York on September 25 of this year in his speech during general political debates at the 76th UN General Assembly session. A month later, this action has become truly global. The sincere, enthusiastic public response is inspiring. I must say that our appeal enjoyed the support of thousands of our associates from dozens of countries in different parts of the world. Our colleagues – diplomats from China, Belarus, Venezuela, Syria and other countries, representatives of international organisation, primarily the UN itself, politicians, political scientists, experts and students – all expressed support for the universal organisation as the only venue for developing effective ways of ensuring global stability and security, as well as sustainable socio-economic development. This vox populi (voice of the people) sounded even more convincing against the backdrop of continuous attempts to impose on the international community some vague concepts on a “rules-based order,” which are losing their topicality. We would like to remind those who have forgotten this that we already have a code of rules. As distinct from incomprehensible and politicised proposals, this code of rules is universal and is approved by all UN member countries. This code is the UN Charter. So we will repeat over and over again – #UNCharterIsOurRules. It is possible to see and listen to all those who supported the United Nations on its birth in the Foreign Ministry’s social media. They carry numerous video addresses and clips we made from them, as well as passages with the most striking speeches in different languages: Russian, English, Spanish, and Chinese, to name a few. Russian Language Week Russian Language Week was opened on October 25 (online due to the pandemic) in the following foreign states: Tajikistan, Slovakia, Qatar, Libya, the Czech Republic, Spain, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Austria, Kazakhstan, the United States, Jordan and Moldova. The goal of the project is to develop international cultural cooperation and to support and promote the Russian language abroad. The executive government bodies of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area - Yugra are implementing this project in cooperation with universities and representatives of public organisations and the literary community. The week’s opening ceremony was attended by Yugra Governor Natalya Komarova, representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry in Yekaterinburg Alexander Kharlov, Rector of the Pushkin State Institute of the Russian Language Margarita Rusetskaya, Rossotrudnichestvo representatives in Belgrade, Berlin, Bratislava, Chisinau, Dushanbe and Nur-Sultan, as well as representatives of foreign universities and gymnasiums with instruction in Russian. Russian Language Week will last until October 29. Its programme includes lectures, seminars, roundtable discussions, classes and meetings on teaching and learning the Russian language abroad and promoting Russian culture with the participation of teachers and students of educational institutions of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area-Yugra and foreign countries. Russia-Vietnam consultations with the participation of representatives from Russian regions I would like to draw your attention to one more interesting project. While it cannot be called global, it is attracting attention for its fresh take on traditional forms of diplomacy. Not only diplomats but also representatives of several Russian regions take part in it. I am referring to the consultations of the Russian and Vietnamese foreign ministries. They took place yesterday, on October 27, via videoconference and were joined by representatives of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), the Trans-Baikal Territory, the Amur and Vologda regions and St Petersburg. The consultations were conducted by the Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Department for Liaisons with the Subjects of the Federation, the Parliament and Public Associations Semyon Grigoryev and by Head of the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry’s Department of External Regional Relations Tran Thanh Huan. Both diplomats said that despite the pandemic, the parties managed to maintain established contacts and even expand the geography of interregional ties that play a big role in bilateral cooperation. Representatives of the regions discussed specific proposals on promoting cooperation in diverse areas. Participants in the consultations noted that the event has become an additional important impetus for inter-regional cooperation between Russia and Vietnam. Both sides expressed willingness to continue such meetings on a regular basis. I think this is a wonderful experience for our other consultations with other foreign ministries because of the opportunities they present for such spirited, public, people-to-people diplomacy. The outcome of the 16th East Asia Summit On October 27, 2021, the 16th East Asia Summit (EAS), attended by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, was held via videoconference. We regard the EAS as an important venue for strategic dialogue at the highest level on current matters pertaining to the development of the Asia Pacific region (APR). As we can see, the APR countries, primarily the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the basis of the EAS configuration, are increasingly eager for pragmatic cooperation in a wide variety of areas, one focused on strictly practical matters and free from confrontation, given the current geopolitical turbulence with all the ensuing security risks and the need for post-crisis recovery. Russia’s activities at the forum are based precisely on this constructive vision. Our system-based work at the EAS is aimed at enhancing the regional pandemic response potential. This year, in elaboration of the leaders’ related statement approved at Russia’s initiative in 2020, we have continued to develop a specialised dialogue mechanism designed to coordinate the response to the spread of infectious diseases. In the context of a search for tools with a potential to ensure a sustainable post-pandemic recovery, Russia has proposed that the EAS establish a full-scale dialogue on measures to stimulate the COVID-hit tourism industry. Our partners have supported us, and a relevant statement was adopted. Russia has also co-authored a statement on cooperation in the area of mental health, as initiated by Brunei, the current ASEAN Chair. Strengthening the existing system of ASEAN-centric multilateral interaction mechanisms is Russia’s invariable priority. In this connection, we attach great importance to continuing at the East Asia Summit consultations on regional security architecture, whose regular round took place last August. Today, there was yet another important event at the highest level, with President of Russia Vladimir Putin holding meetings via videoconference with his ASEAN colleagues. The agenda included a wide range of industry-specific, practical initiatives, including the approval of the next five-year programme of action to promote Russia-ASEAN strategic cooperation, as well as documents on developing anti-drug cooperation and on joint work to strengthen the ASEAN-centric architecture. We will provide more details on the outcome of the Russia-ASEAN Summit and Russia’s initiatives later. Afghanistan update We continue to follow developments in Afghanistan. We have noted a declaration published by some of the country’s former leaders on establishing the Supreme Council of National Resistance of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for waging an armed struggle against the Taliban. In particular, this document was initiated by the former Governor of Balkh Province Atta Mohammad Noor, Marshal of Afghanistan Abdul Rashid Dostum and former Vice President Younus Qanooni. All of these individuals are currently outside Afghanistan. We urge all ethnic and political forces in Afghanistan to renounce militant rhetoric and to do everything possible to complete the process of national reconciliation. The socioeconomic situation in the country remains complicated. Against this backdrop, Kabul was the venue for manifestations whose participants urged the international community to unfreeze Afghanistan’s state reserves. This appeal by such a large group of protesters is addressed to the international community, which for many years tried to convince the people of Afghanistan that the situation is under control, that they know where they are leading the country, that everything will be all right, and that Afghanistan will become a Western-style democracy. We hope that this appeal will not be ignored and the assets will be unfrozen. This will make it possible to use them for the most urgent needs of the population, to pay wages, support the national economy and prevent a humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan. Humanitarian aid deliveries to Afghanistan and the evacuation of Russian citizens Given the difficult humanitarian and socioeconomic situation in Afghanistan, we are considering the issue of making an urgent delivery of humanitarian aid consisting of essential items and medications to the country. Various agencies are studying the matter of evacuating Russians and nationals of CSTO and CIS member countries, their families, as well as Afghan students enrolled full-time at Russian universities. We provide visa support to those who need it. We will keep you informed on all future developments. Southeastern Ukraine update We have been witnessing tragic developments in southeastern Ukraine over these past days. There has been a serious escalation in the conflict zone. According to media reports, on October 26, 2021, the Ukrainian Armed Forces launched an offensive in the so-called grey zone along the line of contact and tried to take the village of Staromaryevka. Territories outside of Kiev’s control saw a substantial increase in the number of shelling incidents, including with heavy artillery. This destroyed single-family homes in Donbass and damaged civilian infrastructure. Twelve electrical substations were left without power. So far, there have been no reports of civilian casualties, but we cannot rule out a further deterioration considering the situation. We would like to emphasise that the Ukrainian military and security agencies have been intentionally violating the additional Measures to Strengthen the Ceasefire, which were agreed upon in July 2020. They are resolved to further escalate an already challenging situation and ignore the requests to guarantee ceasefire compliance made by Donbass representatives within the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination. Against this backdrop, the October 27, 2021, meeting of the Contact Group on settling the crisis in eastern Ukraine did not yield any results, as expected. Moreover, and this is an essential point, it is the unwillingness of the Ukrainian side, represented by the official government in Kiev, to free a Lugansk representative in the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination Andrey Kosyak, who has been taken prisoner, which blocks the work of the Contact Group’s subgroup on security. Despite statements by officials, Kiev has not bothered to grant the Russian consular staff access to this citizen, who, for the record, holds a Russian passport. The Russian Embassy in Kiev and the Consulate General in Kharkov persist in their efforts to arrange a meeting with Mr Kosyak. Unfortunately, the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission has not mentioned in its reports the incident with the Lugansk representative in the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination. Russia insists on the Mission’s strict compliance with its mandate and on including facts on violations of this kind in its reports in a timely manner. It seems that Kiev intentionally seeks to drive the talks within the Contact Group into an impasse in order to free its hands to return Donbass by military means. The continuing arms and ammunition supplies that are flowing into Ukraine from Western countries, and their military training missions in the country make the Ukrainian leadership even more confident that a solution by force is possible. The same goes for the multiple joint military exercises with NATO countries. There must be a reason for this military aid and military presence in Ukraine. If we switch from military language to literature, Anton Chekhov offers a description that is quite pertinent. He wrote: “If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off.” (This is from Anton Chekhov’s letter to literary critic Alexander Lazarev-Gruzinsky. He wrote this quite a long time ago, in 1889, but this phrase has not lost any of its relevance). The same applies to weapons that the Western countries are delivering in huge quantities to Ukraine. Let me remind you, yet again, that there is no military solution to the conflict in southeastern Ukraine. This has been stipulated by the same countries that care for civilians and the developments in Ukraine. Attempts to settle the conflict by force will have the most regrettable, unpredictable and tragic consequences. We call on the Western capitals who are delivering all these weapons to Ukraine, primarily Washington, as well as Berlin and Paris as the Normandy format participants, to stop encouraging the country’s militarisation and use their influence to set Kiev back on the path to achieving sustainable peace in Donbass by political and diplomatic means. Western instructors training Ukrainian neo-Nazis I would like to say a few words about an issue we have been trying to raise with our Western partners over the past few years. They pretended that this problem does not exist. It concerns not only Western countries but also international organisations, many of which have not been working efficiently in the area of their concern, according to their statutory documents. I would like to tell you about the Western instructors working with the Ukrainian neo-Nazis. We tried to attract our partners’ attention to this subject for several years, in 2014, 2015 and subsequent years. They did not hear us. This subject is now gaining momentum, including at various human rights NGOs. Maybe these activities will make the international community see that this subject deserves direct attention here and now. The Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (IERES) at the George Washington University (USA) has published a report about Western countries helping train far-right extremists in Ukraine. We can hardly suspect the George Washington University of sympathising with or having special affection for Russia. It is an American institution and whatever leanings it may have definitely do not include Russia. The American researchers analysed the activities of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi group Centuria, which has made its home in Ukraine’s major western military training hub, the National Army Academy (NAA). The neo-Nazis receive the necessary military training and experience at the academy, where they also recruit new members among cadets. Upon graduation, they seek appointment with the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including at units that are connected with the notorious Azov Battalion. What attracts special attention in this case is the role of Western instructors. The authors of the report are aware of cooperation between NATO experts and the NAA and have also concluded that NAA cadets, including those with far-right views, had access to military instructors from France, the United States and Canada. Moreover, Kiev sent neo-Nazis to be trained at European military schools. At least two such cases are known for a fact: NAA cadet Kyrylo Dubrovskyi attended an 11-month Officer Training Course at the United Kingdom’s Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, and another apparent member of Centuria, Vladyslav Vintergoller, attended events held by the German Army Officers’ Academy (Die Offizierschule des Heeres, OSH). In other words, the Europeans and Americans, contrary to their governments’ statements, are using the taxpayers’ money to finance the training of neo-Nazis in Ukraine. In fact, these young people never made secret of their political affiliations, posted many pictures taken at their military training courses, and boasted about their promotion and new ranks. Some public figures in the West expressed their outrage at these facts, which should have happened long before. The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre (FSWC) has called for an investigation by Canada’s Department of National Defence in response to the report, saying that the training of Ukrainian neo-Nazis by Canadian instructors insulted the memory of the veterans, who had fought to defeat Nazism during WWII. The matter would not have attracted any attention if not for the IERES study. Hundreds of photographs of the training of neo-Nazis, nationalists and extremists in Ukraine, including with NATO funding and instructors, have been posted on these people’s personal pages and accounts. Far from keeping their views secret, they are proudly showing them off and are trying to force the public and even the whole of civil society in Ukraine to accept this new normal. Why did the public organisations and institutions, established to protect human rights and the noble principles of humanity, shut their eyes to this for years? The request by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre says that the involvement of Canada’s instructors in the training of Ukrainian nationalists is an insult to the memory of WWII veterans. The Centre also urged the Canadian authorities to react to this problem, one of many. For our part, we would like to point out that such collaboration between Western governments and the NGOs they are sponsoring with the far-right nationalist forces in Ukraine is absolutely unacceptable. The military training of neo-Nazis is not just unacceptable but inadmissible and extremely dangerous, including for Ukraine itself. We hope that our foreign partners, first of all in NATO countries, will read the George Washington University study and will at least rethink the modality of their collaboration with Ukraine’s defence department. We would also like journalists accredited at the NATO headquarters in Brussels to do their job by asking the Alliance about its views on such collaboration, whether it is aware of it, and if it is, why it has not reacted in any way. It is bound to know about this, because it is NATO countries that are involved. Council of Europe’s Venice Commission releases opinion on Ukrainian “transitional period” bill for Crimea and Donbass The developments around the Ukrainian draft law On the Foundations of State Policy for the Transitional Period are a matter of concern. The bill, submitted to the Verkhovna Rada in August, contains a number of grotesque provisions “regulating” the way people live in Crimea and Donbass after those regions, allegedly “occupied” by Russia, are reintegrated in Ukraine. The bill ignores the results of the Crimean referendum that supported Crimea’s reunification with Russia, as well as the Minsk agreements, which require Kiev to grant Donbass a special regional status. The Kiev regime only sees as much as it can see, judging by some of its representatives. In other words, the document shows complete disregard for the interests of Crimea or Donbass residents and confirms that Kiev wants land, not people. The Ukrainian authorities sent this draft law to the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission in an attempt to give their “lawmaking” some international legitimacy. The Commission members, ignoring the opinion of their Russian colleague, released an opinion on the bill on October 18, 2021. Those European “legal experts” failed to even ask any fundamental questions about the bill’s relevance from the international legal and political reality perspective, nor did they show any interest in how it relates to the Minsk Package of Measures. They seemed more interested in the content of specific articles and in issuing instructions on ways to camouflage their inconsistency with international law and the Ukrainian Constitution, to make the new law less vulnerable to criticism. It is not surprising that this approach was perceived with enthusiasm by the Ukrainian leaders. Russia views the Venice Commission’s opinion as being at odds with the principles of democracy and rule of law it champions, which should underpin the work of that consultative body of the Council of Europe. We note with regret that the Commission opted for encouraging Kiev in sabotaging the Minsk agreements. The Commission members who approved the opinion on that provocative Ukrainian bill have in fact signed off on the Kiev authorities’ final renunciation of the Minsk agreements. Could they be unaware of the consequences of such a step? I do not think they could. They are lawyers after all, so they should know. Someone had to tell them that the Minsk agreements were binding after they passed the UN Security Council. They are not just a deal between the parties. It is a document backed by a UN Security Council decision. The enactment of the law I have mentioned will not change the status of Crimea as a Russian region, which is obvious and unconditional, but will mean a derailment of the peace settlement of the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Paradoxically, the very agencies that were created to strengthen peace, law and democracy are not contributing to the peace process, but instead are turning a blind eye to violations of the law and refusing to recognise the results of a democratic expression of people’s will. Nuclear energy cooperation between the United States and Ukraine At the end of August, the Ukrainian national nuclear power generating company Energoatom and the US Westinghouse Electric signed a memorandum of understanding on building a power unit at the Khmelnitsky NPP, as well as four more reactors in Ukraine using American technology. The total cost of the projects is estimated at $30 billion. This document reflects Ukraine’s dreams rather than reality. It does not mention any sources of funding, while the likelihood of Kiev being able to find the money for the project is extremely small. The assumption that the United States can spend its taxpayers’ money for the benefit of Ukraine sounds like a fantasy. We have seen many times how Washington signed certain declarations – including at the White House – and gave assurances to countries concerning future multi-billion dollar deals and contracts. They were forgotten as soon as the representatives of the countries that received the promises reached home, wondering where the promised money was. I think this is a similar story. Israel’s plans to expand settlements in the occupied territories On October 24, 2021, Israel announced its plans to expand the Israeli settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan River. This time, tenders were published for 1,300 residences on the West Bank and 83 residences in the Givat Hamatos neighbourhood in East Jerusalem. We reaffirm Russia’s principled and consistent stance that Israel’s settlement activity is against the law. We believe that this one-sided action undermines the chances of building a viable and geographically continuous Palestinian state in conformance with UN resolutions. It also undermines the effectiveness of the international community’s efforts to create conditions for resuming the Palestine-Israel political dialogue as soon as possible. We would like to note that the continuation of settlement construction and the plans of the current Israeli government to double the number of Israeli citizens in the Jordan Valley by 2026 can be regarded as de facto annexation of a large part of the occupied Palestinian territories. We call on all parties to refrain from any steps that could escalate the tension in the region or forestall the outcome of the direct Palestine-Israel talks on the range of issues concerning final status. Monument in Chisinau to Romanian army soldiers who fought on the side of Nazi Germany We noted that on October 26, 2021, a monument was unveiled in central Chisinau to Romanian army soldiers who fought on the side of Nazi Germany, in a ceremony with military honours that was attended by high-ranking representatives of the Moldovan Defence Ministry and the Ministry of Culture. It is year 2021. We are no longer in the fervour of World War II nor are we awaiting the Nuremberg trials. Where we are is where the verdicts of the Nuremberg trials are recognised as fundamental for evaluating those historical events and are not subject to review. The plaque on the monument reads: “This is to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina by the Romanian army.” That is a reference to the invasion of the Soviet territory by Romanian Nazi occupants in 1941. This is a cynical act. One reason why is that in 1937, a memorial was installed on the same site to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the battles in eastern Romania near Marasti and Marasesti when Russian and Romanian troops fought together against the German army. We strongly condemn this outrageous glorification of Nazi abettors. The event was met with great resentment by the Moldovan public itself as Moldovans cherish the memory of the heroism of Soviet – and especially their own – soldiers. Why are the country’s officials forgetting this? We urge the official Chisinau to not pander to revanchist forces with their attempts to falsify history and instil tolerance to the blatant propaganda of Nazi ideas. The Foreign Ministry’s report on the glorification of Nazism and manifestations of neo-Nazism and racism This is the latest regular report and the facts cited in it confirm that the afore-mentioned negative manifestations are becoming persistent. We regularly cite a huge number of such examples practically at every briefing in addition to this report. We are increasingly often seeing the attempts of several Western and East European countries to revise the historical truth about the events of World War II. Efforts to distort historical facts are currently taking the most varied forms. Under the pretext of “decommunisation” monuments and memorials in honour of fighters against Nazism are being destroyed on a large scale. The accent in educational programmes is increasingly laid on “suffering during the Soviet occupation.” Hitler’s Germany and its main enemy – the Soviet Union – are equally blamed for unleashing World War II. A number of states are openly installing memorials to glorify the participants of the Nazi units and Nazi collaborators and holding celebrations in their honour. In addition to these efforts to whitewash criminals and desecrate the memory of the liberators, some countries are observing the growth of xenophobic attitudes accompanied by manifestations of aggressive nationalism, chauvinism and other forms of racial and religious intolerance. Quite often, this situation is a natural result of the policy pursued by the official authorities. It is aimed at speeding up the formation of mono-ethnic societies based on titular nations, and is accompanied by discrimination against national and ethnic minorities, especially in the linguistic and educational areas. This applies, in part, to Ukraine (we spoke at length about this today), and the Baltic states (we will speak about this today). Respect for the rights of these groups, primarily the Russian and Russian-speaking population, has seriously deteriorated in these countries. We are convinced that this state of affairs poses a direct threat to the fundamental values of democracy and human rights and represents a serious challenge to international and regional security and stability. Today, it is important to do everything we can to keep humanity from forgetting where the ideas of racial supremacy and even tacit support for any acts of chauvinism and xenophobia eventually lead. Importantly, the absolute majority of the members of the international community are upholding the same principles together with us. The main thing is to make sure that this support is not merely verbal. Sometimes, when you listen to discussions and debates and read statements, articles and interviews about this, it seems that everyone is committed to the same principles. As for deeds, they are expressed in a simple response: it is necessary to reject the destruction of memorials and the installation of monuments to collaborators. It appears we are the only ones who are speaking straight about this. Where are all the rest? Where are the countries whose soldiers these memorials also commemorate? We are supported by the absolute majority of the members of the international community. This is confirmed every year by the adoption of a resolution by an overwhelming majority vote at the UN General Assembly. The resolution has a complicated name and a difficult destiny but a clear message. It is titled “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” These provisions formed the foundation of this report. We hope the authorities of the countries mentioned in it will realise the negative consequences of the efforts to glorify Nazism. We assume the people of these countries must give their own assessment of these events and will be able to take measures to counter these shameful and dangerous phenomena. We believe that one of the main goals in this area at the international level is to pool efforts in preventing the restoration of false values of supremacy or exceptionalism of one race or nation, its religion and culture over other nations and cultures. The full text of the report is published on the Foreign Ministry website. Criminal persecution of Russian-speaking journalists in Latvia It came to our knowledge on October 26 that the Latvian State Security Service had completed the investigation into a 2020 criminal case involving 14 journalists, who had cooperated with Russia’s Sputnik Latvia and Baltnews. In keeping with the investigation findings, the journalists were officially charged with a breach of EU sanctions. But if we call things by their proper names and do not hide behind political and legal formulas, the intention is to punish these correspondents for simply doing their job as journalists. Now they are facing heavy fines and actual terms of imprisonment. The picture is dismal. Riga has fully ignored our numerous appeals to renounce its destructive, politicised policy of segregating the media into “loyal” and “undesirable” and to stop purging its information space from Russian and Russian-language media. Instead, Latvia is stubbornly pushing its agenda, turning all its claims concerning its commitment to freedom of speech, pluralism, and the need to protect journalists into empty declarations. It is not for the first time that the Latvian authorities have sheltered behind far-fetched references to the European sanctions in a bid to lend a veneer of legitimacy to their direct and aggressive attack on press freedom. We have repeatedly appealed to the relevant international human rights organisations. We urged them to come to grips with this problem and give an objective and comprehensive assessment of these actions. Despite Riga’s obvious violations of its international obligations to protect freedom of speech and pluralism of views, there is no meaningful and effective response from the duly authorised institutions. In this situation, it is not surprising that the Latvian authorities, profiting from this tacit approval of their policies, are only intensifying their efforts to oust the information sources that provide an alternative to the official narrative and maintaining the pace of their offensive against the Russian language. Where is the OSCE? Where are the special representatives for media freedom? Where are the Institutions? Where is the Office of these representatives? It employs a lot of people. Where are the statements? Where are at least a few tweets? Where are the relevant interviews? Where are the conversations with the authorities of these countries, specifically Latvia? Where is any of this? Where has it all gone? What has happened? Have they revised the mandate of the OSCE Special Representative? No, we know nothing about that. Have they perhaps made an amendment to the mandate, which no longer requires a response to this sort of action? To tell the truth, we have repeatedly posed this question to OSCE leaders and Office representatives. We would like to have a meaningful response. But if previously we asked for a reaction, now we are demanding a report [on the topic], because we have a right to this. The developments in Latvia are a clear example of double standards that have become deeply engrained in the West. They shamelessly keep silent about gross violations of fundamental freedoms, if the culprits are “their own sort.” Those accustomed to shouting from the rooftops about their high democratic standards should think carefully lest this connivance rebound on their moral authority in the human rights sphere. The 50th anniversary of the Pompidou Group On October 28, the Council of Europe’s Pompidou Group for international cooperation on drug policy and addiction marks its 50th anniversary. In these 50 years, the Group emerged as an important platform for intergovernmental interaction in this sphere in the Eurasian region. Today, it has 42 members, including three non-European states. The Russian Federation joined the Pompidou Group on May 18, 1999 and plays an active part in its activities. A representative of the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Health is a Permanent Correspondent at the Pompidou Group and a member of the Group’s Bureau of Permanent Correspondents. The approval of the Group’s new regulations in 2021 is a key event ahead of its 50th anniversary. Russia directly contributed to coordinating this document, which made it possible to retain the Group’s well-balanced agenda and to formalise its human rights mandate, as well as healthcare and law enforcement cooperation aspects. We congratulate the Pompidou Group on the anniversary and hope that its member states will continue their constructive cooperation. Russia’s contribution to Tajikistan’s school nutrition system under the UN World Food Programme On October 26, 2021, the Russian Embassy in Dushanbe, acting in cooperation with representatives of the UN World Food Programme, took part in delivering 1,485 tonnes of enriched wheat flour and 61 tonnes of vegetable oil for rural schools in some central districts of Tajikistan, as well as the Khatlon and Gorno-Badakhshan autonomous regions. This aid consignment has been provided to improve food security under a memorandum of understanding between the World Food Programme and Russia’s Ministry for Civil Defence, Emergency Situations and Natural Disaster Relief. It is part of the World Food Programme’s school nutrition programme, which covers 450,000 primary school pupils in 52 rural districts of Tajikistan. In 2021, Russia allocated $3.5 million for this purpose. Using this support, the WFP staff have already delivered 945 tonnes of enriched wheat flour and 60 tonnes of vegetable oil to rural schools in the Sughd Region. In total, since 2005 Russia has provided over $87.5 million worth of food aid through the WFP alone. Russia’s attention to the needs of the friendly state’s young citizens shows that the strategic partnership and allied cooperation with the Republic of Tajikistan is a high priority for our country. The 40th independence anniversary of Antigua and Barbuda On a separate note, I would like to mention an upcoming special date: on November 1, Antigua and Barbuda will mark the 40th anniversary of independence. This Caribbean country’s path to sovereignty was not easy. It experienced colonial oppression and natural disasters. However, despite all the difficulties, the people of this country overcame all the ordeals and became independent. Thanks to their painstaking efforts, Antigua and Barbuda became a tourist paradise and a modern independent democratic state. It consistently advocates compliance with the generally recognised principles and norms of international law and calls for strengthening multilateral concepts in global affairs with the UN’s central role. We note with satisfaction that, although we are located thousands of kilometres apart, our countries are linked by bonds of friendship and readiness to expand constructive and mutually beneficial cooperation. This is reaffirmed by the Treaty on the Fundamental Principles of Relations, which was signed in June 2021. This document lays the foundation for the long-term and comprehensive development of bilateral ties. On behalf of all my colleagues, I would like to use this opportunity to wish the people of this wonderful country all the very best, prosperity and well-being. I personally wish them health during the current challenging period. 100th anniversary of Russia-Mongolia diplomatic relations November 5 marks the 100th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and Mongolia. The Treaty on Friendly Relations between Russia and Mongolia signed by the Government of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) and the People’s Government on Mongolia in 1921 was an important milestone in our common history that determined the development of our traditionally friendly ties for many subsequent years. It is a well-known fact that Russia was the first country in the world to recognise the freedom and independence of the new Mongolia. Our friendship and neighbourliness were solidified through the Battles of Khalkhin Gol, the Great Patriotic War and the final stage of World War II. They grew stronger through many joint construction projects in Mongolia during peacetime. The Russian Federation and Mongolia have a long-established constructive political dialogue and mutually beneficial cooperation in trade, the economy, science, technology, cultural, humanitarian areas and other fields. Our shared border stretching for 3,500 km is our tremendous advantage. Our cross-border and region-to-region cooperation contribute significantly to the development of Russian-Mongolian ties. The Treaty on Friendly Relations and Comprehensive Strategic Partnership signed by our presidents in September 2019 in Ulaanbaatar opened wide prospects for the progressive development of our cooperation in many different areas. In addition to the consistent strengthening of our trade, economic, investment and business partnership, we strive to develop cooperation in a great number of fields, including culture, education, science, media, youth exchanges and sports. We are committed to encouraging and supporting Russian language learning in Mongolia and Mongolian language learning in Russia. During a telephone conversation on October 1, 2021, the foreign ministers of our countries praised the successful implementation of the joint calendar of events marking 100 years since the establishment of our diplomatic relations. A Russian delegation headed by Deputy Speaker of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation Federal Assembly Konstantin Kosachev will take part in the anniversary events in Ulaanbaatar on November 4-6. Great Ethnographic Dictation On November 3-7, the International Educational Activity “Great Ethnographic Dictation” will take place for the sixth time. The event’s slogan this year is “Many peoples but one country” and its mission is to strengthen inter-ethnic peace and accord. We are pleased to see that the dictation has attracted a lot of attention both in Russia and abroad. While in 2016, the number of participants was around 90,000, by 2020 it had grown to 1,742,661 participants from 85 Russian regions and 123 foreign countries. Thanks to the organisers of this year’s dictation, the Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs and the Ministry of Ethnic Policy of the Republic of Udmurtia, the dictation will be held in Russian, English, Spanish and, for the first time, in Chinese. Anybody who is interested in the history and culture of multi-ethnic Russia are welcome to participate in the dictation. This educational event will be held online. More information can be found at miretno.ru and on social media via the same link. Answers to media questions: Question: Russia has recently made several public announcements to the effect that it was willing to host major international events. In particular, Moscow wants to host World Expo 2030. Could you assess Russia’s chances of hosting such a large-scale event keeping in mind the geopolitical factor? Maria Zakharova: Are you really questioning Moscow’s capabilities? They are boundless, in the best sense of the word, and we know it from the international events that have already taken place in our capital. The FIFA World Cup was held at the highest level in a number of our cities. A great number of international political, economic and cultural, you name it, forums took place in Moscow. We can only wish Moscow, which is one of the most beautiful cities on our planet, success in promoting this application, which is more than an application from Moscow, but an application from our entire country. Tomorrow is the last day for submitting applications for the right to host World Expo-2030. This is such a strange question. Everyone who comes to Moscow for the first time is vastly impressed. People say they want to come back, haven’t spent enough time here and admit that Moscow surpassed their expectations. They wonder why they have been reading all that nonsense about Russia when, in reality, things are very different here. So, answering your question, I can say that the Russian capital stands ready to host events of any level. No confirmation is needed. There’s no doubt about it. Moscow is a metropolis with developed infrastructure, and it has proved this status on many occasions. The concerns that we heard in the past in the run-up to major international events have always been dispelled by how everything turned out in reality and the high level at which Moscow usually holds these events. Go Moscow! Good luck. Question: The European Commission has released the EU strategy for the Arctic. Brussels claims the right to ban the production of coal, oil and gas in the Arctic and neighbouring regions and criticises Russia. President Putin has made a response. The new Prime Minister of Norway also made critical remarks. Sergey Lavrov met with his Norwegian counterpart on October 25. Were the European Commission’s claims to the Arctic discussed during these talks? Maria Zakharova: Even before his talks with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store started, when he was in Tromso, several hours before leaving for Oslo, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov provided an answer to this question and outlined Russia’s position. The question was what the Russian Foreign Ministry had to say about the EU initiative that you mentioned. Sergey Lavrov said that he agreed with the Prime Minister of Norway, who had already provided his assessment. You also mentioned this assessment now. So, Russia outlined its position before the meeting, including in the context of the remarks made by the Prime Minister of Norway. Yes, this issue came up during the meeting. With regard to Russia’s fundamental approaches, the EU’s Arctic strategy released by the European Commission has come to our attention. It proclaims the intent to push for a moratorium on the production and sale of hydrocarbons in the Arctic. To this end, Brussels plans to work with its partners on making a multilateral legal commitment to prevent further development of hydrocarbon reserves in the Arctic and not to buy these hydrocarbons if they are still produced. Russia is the largest Arctic state, which, just like the other coastal Arctic countries, has a special responsibility for the future of this region. We are no less concerned about the future of the Arctic, the ongoing climate change and its consequences than the EU, which is not an observer in the Arctic Council, by the way. Russia promotes a comprehensive approach to ensuring sustainable development of the Arctic, including its environmental and socioeconomic dimensions. The Arctic is not only an integral and integrated part of our country’s economy, but an important component of global supply and production chains as well. The region also has a major role to play in the context of global energy transition. In this case, the issue is about supplying metals, rare earth elements, LNG and natural gas, which is essential for the production of green fuels, such as hydrogen, ammonia and methanol, as well as about effective navigation solutions which will help reduce the global human impact, decarbonise vulnerable ecosystems and achieve the 2015 Paris Agreement objectives. Clearly, the attempts to address global climate challenges by artificially limiting economic activity in a particular region do not hold water. They run counter to expert opinions, including in the context of implementing the ESG (Environmental Social Governance) principles. Speaking about banning anything, one should keep in mind and be cognisant of the fact that the consequences of these decisions will affect specific consumers, in this case, Europeans. These decisions will also adversely affect the population of the Arctic, including its indigenous peoples, for whom sustainable economic activities are fundamental in the efforts to improve their well-being. Going back on the idea of producing oil and gas in the Arctic instead of building plans for joint work in developing a package of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the introduction of the best available technology may undermine the global energy market’s stability, which could lead to far more serious shocks than the ones that are currently sweeping through Europe. Is anyone coordinating these activities in the EU at all? When something goes wrong in Europe, they immediately start looking for an external enemy, not even thinking about their own mistakes, which is, perhaps, due to lack of coordination in their actions or some other reason. The fact that these analytical chains lack coordination is obvious. For all these reasons, we cannot but be alarmed by the EU’s aggressive attempts to promote its political ambitions in the Arctic region, to spread its influence to it and to weaken the prospects for sustainable development of the Arctic. Question: According to Reuters, seven people have been killed and 140 injured in protests against the military coup in Sudan. The head of the Russian diplomatic mission’s consular department in Khartoum previously said that the Russian Embassy and Russian citizens in Sudan were safe. How many Russians were there in Sudan at the beginning of this week? Maria Zakharova: The Russian Embassy in Sudan is maintaining contact with Russian citizens, including amid this emergency situation. We do not have the exact figures, because not all Russians register with the consular department. This is the modern-day practice, which has its pros and cons. According to our information, there are approximately 300 Russians in the country. Question: During a one-day visit to Azerbaijan this week, President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Azerbaijani counterpart, Ilham Aliyev, laid the foundation of the Zangezur Corridor project, which has been a disputed matter between Armenia and Azerbaijan for a long time. Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan pointed out that such actions and any discussions related to the corridor were only aggravating hostility in the region. What is Moscow’s opinion of the start of the Zangezur project? Maria Zakharova: We believe that the best platform for discussing the unblocking of transport links in the South Caucasus is the Trilateral Working Group co-chaired by the deputy prime ministers of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia, which was set up following the Moscow summit on January 11, 2021. The group has held eight meetings. All the sides appreciate its activities. Comments on the results of these meetings are published and available. We believe that it would be appropriate to comply with the statements and to take steps that can promote the implementation of the trilateral agreements on resuming economic ties and transport links in the South Caucasus. Question: During his statement at the Valdai Club, President Putin said that Russia was moving towards the recognition of the Taliban Movement. Does this mean that under certain conditions Russia might recognise the Taliban even before the UN has lifted international sanctions against it? Maria Zakharova: I would like to point out that in his statement at the Valdai Club meeting the President of Russia said that the world should come together to decide whether the Taliban can be excluded from the UN Security Council list of terrorist organisations. At this stage, it would be premature for Russia to consider an official recognition of the new Afghan authorities. At the same time, we believe that Kabul’s practical steps to meet the expectations of the international community and regional partners, in particular regarding the creation of an ethnically and politically balanced government, the continued fight against terrorism and drug trafficking, and respect for fundamental civil rights and freedoms may have a stimulating effect on these processes. Question: Recent public opinion polls in Finland showed that 60 percent of the population perceive Russia’s actions as a military threat. Where do you think such sentiments in a neighbouring country come from? Maria Zakharova: Russia and Finland are good neighbours. Our bilateral relations today rest on intensive interdepartmental interaction, growing trade and economic cooperation, interregional and border ties, as well as direct contacts between organisations and people. As is traditional, a diverse and regular political dialogue at the highest level paves the way for continued interaction. According to that poll, 59 percent of Finns agree, to a greater or lesser degree, with the statement on Russia being ‘a significant military threat.’ Why is this surprising? There is an aggressive information campaign against Russia underway. Thousands of articles containing fake news and misinformation about Russia and everything Russian are published daily. Northern Europe is being spooked with all sorts of stories. The same myths have been nurtured for decades, albeit never confirmed, and continue to be presented as real developments. For example, Sweden keeps looking for some submarines, apparently mistaking the sound of bubbles emitted by herring for Russian vessels lurking in their waters. This is not even surprising, just sad. This is misinformation and its damaging effect, something the West is talking about, and doing, too. Unfortunately, Finnish journalists are contributing to this Russophobic propaganda instead of dispelling myths about our country. They shouldn’t be doing that. If it harms bilateral relations, which are based on neighbourliness and mutual respect, it harms the people in Finland, too. According to the same survey, 76 percent of respondents still consider Russia an important trade partner, and 43 percent believe that non-economic factors should have no bearing on Russian-Finnish trade relations. In spite of everything, curiosity and interest in interaction are the prevailing sentiments. This is exactly what the anti-Russia lobby is aiming to destroy or reduce to nothing. But, despite all the planted stories, we need to develop ties relying on neighbourliness, partnership, mutual assistance, respect for and observance of the legal framework for interaction. I think this will be the best answer for those who are wondering whether it is true that “the Russians are coming” (this is what most of the Western press materials are actually saying). And then the “Russian threat” will just go away. All it takes is to develop relationships, which is what we are doing. Question: Earlier, you described a letter published by Meliza Haradinaj-Stublla, the former Foreign Minister of Kosovo, on her Twitter account as misinformation. The letter was allegedly sent by the Russian diplomatic mission in Pristina to the Foreign Ministry of Kosovo. Nevertheless, the Russian and Serbian public continues to actively debate the authenticity of this document. Did this letter really exist? And if so, did top Russian Foreign Ministry officials know about its contents, or was this an “excess” of the executor? Maria Zakharova: This is an “excess” of the Kosovo provocation and its agents-provocateurs. What I commented was a series of provocations, not an isolated incident, including those in the media that we are witnessing. The incident you are referring to was not the only one. We don’t even inform the public about many such cases because we can see that Kosovo’s agents-provocateurs are perpetrating disgraceful, absurd and, to some extent, aggressive acts. My commentary was not about one or two incidents. There are many of them, especially lately. There should be no doubt that these provocations will continue and we will give our response to them. We know what they are after, we understand their purpose. Their aim is to do everything possible to convince the public that Russia’s position with regard to Kosovo, under UN Security Council Resolution 1244, is changing and teetering. You can use any comparisons and epithets that are widely circulated online. This is the aim of the information campaign. Everything will be done to achieve it. It seems to be vitally important for certain forces in Kosovo that are in charge there and for their supporters. We know this very well, and I believe that you know this, too, since this is your area of expertise. We are not going to comment on each incident or its element separately. This would be pointless since there are dozens and hundreds of them. First of all, we are saying that this is a series of provocations. Second, our position has not changed in any way; it strictly relies on and proceeds from international law, including UN Security Council Resolution 1244. Our approaches to this matter are well known. We spelled them out at all levels, spoke about them with our partners. Should it become necessary, we will prepare a separate text devoted to these media provocations. To be honest, when you see the main goal pursued by these forces, details no longer matter. We understand the purpose of all these actions. We understand it, and I think you understand it, too. Question: In November, the UN Security Council is to vote on the extension of the EUFOR mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. What does Russia think about the advisability of continuing this mission in the future, and will it support extending the mission? Maria Zakharova: In principle, Russia is not against extending EUFOR’s mandate in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, we cannot accept attempts by some of our Western partners in the UN Security Council to add irrelevant political provisions to the Security Council draft resolution that have nothing to do with this purely specific matter. Work on this document continues at the UN Security Council in New York. Question: The press release distributed by the presidential press service following a telephone conversation between President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Great Britain Boris Johnson says that “they expressed the shared opinion that…it is necessary to establish cooperation between Moscow and London in a number of areas.” What are these areas? What areas of cooperation are already underway? Maria Zakharova: During a telephone conversation on October 25, the heads of state expressed satisfaction with progress in promoting bilateral cooperation in trade, the economy and culture. Even though we have made many materials public, I can provide facts and figures to tell you more about it. In 2020, Russian-British trade continued to grow. Compared to 2019, it was up by 53.6 percent at $26.5 billion, which is significant. About 3,500 British companies engage in economic relations with Russia, of which about 600 are physically present in our country. As of January 1, the volume of accumulated British direct investment in Russia’s economy amounted to $32.8 billion. A number of joint projects are underway. A ceremony for expanding the Shell lubricants plant was held in the town of Torzhok, Tver Region, in May. Gazpromneft and Shell signed a memorandum of cooperation in hydrocarbon exploration and production, technological interaction and carbon footprint reduction at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum in June. Mutual interest in implementing production projects in Western Siberia was reaffirmed. AstraZeneca factories in the Kaluga Region and GlaxoSmithKline in New Moscow are operating successfully. ZiO-Podolsk, a subsidiary of Rosatom State Corporation, has begun supplies of waste processing equipment to the British company, Riverside. In October, the annual Russian-British investment forum RussiaTALK was held in Moscow under the auspices of the Russian-British Chamber of Commerce with the support of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Cross Year of Music was held in our respective countries in 2019-2020 as part of cultural cooperation. The idea of holding a Cross Year of Knowledge in 2022-2023 is being discussed. A project to create the joint Britten-Shostakovich Festival Orchestra was realised with the support of Rosneft and BP. The 22nd New British Film Festival is being held in Russian cities this October-November. Cooperation between Russian and British higher learning institutions is underway. The 2nd Forum of Rectors of Universities of Russia and Great Britain will be held at Moscow State University in January 2022. During the call, Prime Minister Johnson submitted a proposal to President Putin that they establish a regular bilateral dialogue on those international matters on which the positions of the parties are close or overlap. In particular, they reviewed in detail the situation in Afghanistan and the JCPOA-related developments. We have consistently and repeatedly stated (truth be told, our statements drown amid the ones that we have to make in self-defence as we disavow aggressive British rhetoric) that Russia stands ready to improve relations with Britain inasmuch as Britain is willing to do so. The foundations for this are obvious and include mutual respect, mutual benefit, legal basis, equality and mutual trust. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4919845
__________________
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 |
November 2nd, 2021 | #20 |
Senior Member
|
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’ video address to participants of the XVI Union of the Baltic Cities General Conference, Moscow, October 29, 2021
29 October 2021 - 11:15 Mr President, Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to welcome the participants and guests of the XVI General Conference of the Union of the Baltic Cities (UBC). The Baltic has always been a common home for millions of people. Ensuring their security and prosperity is a noble goal for diplomats, politicians, local governments and the business community. All of us would like the Baltic to be a sustainable, prosperous, environmentally clean and forward-looking region when it comes to socioeconomic development and the implementation of innovative technology. The attainment of this goal is being promoted by a ramified network of Baltic cooperation, which includes national, regional and municipal levels. During last year’s ministerial meeting of the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS), Russia spoke out in favour of strengthening inter-level synergy by creating a vertical cooperation system involving the CBSS, the Baltic Sea States Subregional Cooperation (BSSSC) network and the UBC. The UBC is a vital mechanism of Baltic cooperation with a 30-year-long history. Over the past years, it has become an in-demand platform that offers regional cities broad opportunities for exchanging experience in various spheres of joint project activity. Cooperation in the Baltic could be more effective if new members were invited to join the UBC. Russia is working towards this end. So far, St Petersburg is the only Russian member of the UBC. We hope that other cities in North-West Russia will join the union soon. Between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024, Russia will coordinate two Baltic cooperation bodies: the Council of the Baltic Sea States and the Group of Personal Representatives of the Baltic States’ Heads of Government on Organised Crime. We are convinced that the UBC should be involved in the implementation of initiatives within the framework of Russia’s cross-presidency. We are always open to mutually beneficial contacts and constructive dialogue with our partners. This must not be prevented by our countries’ differences regarding a number of issues on the common European agenda. Only by joining forces and focusing on practical efforts in the interests of people in the region will we be able to greatly improve the quality of life in the Baltic Sea region. I hope that Baltic cooperation will not only maintain momentum in the next few years, but that it will also continue developing to become a major factor for preserving the region as a zone of confidence, stability and neighbourliness. I would like to wish you every success. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4920113 Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s reply to a media question about the functioning of Russian and US diplomatic missions 29 October 2021 - 20:53 Question: What can you say about the current functioning of Russian and US diplomatic missions? Maria Zakharova: We have long ceased being surprised by all kinds of leaks and statements by US officials about the ostensibly unbearable conditions in which the US Embassy in Moscow has to work. Let me recall that it was Washington that ratcheted up the spiral of confrontation by resorting to its destructive practices of confiscating Russian diplomatic property and expelling employees of our foreign missions en masse, in violation of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. For our part, we displayed restraint for too long, appealing to common sense and warning Washington about the consequences of these Russophobic attacks, but it continued making them. However, patience eventually runs out in any situation. The Americans are now reaping the results of their aggressive and shortsighted policy. Having now faced a new reality of reciprocal painful restrictions, they are histrionically pretending to be innocent victims of arbitrary treatment, as if asking “What have we done to deserve this?” We have repeatedly described in detail the damage done to Russian diplomatic missions. Our consulates general in San Francisco and Seattle are closed down. Over a hundred of our employees and their family members have been expelled under different pretexts, including as “persona non-grata” since the end of 2016. And what is completely unheard-of in the canons of diplomacy and the right to property that has always been held sacred in the United States, the US authorities seized six Russian properties like raiders and surrounded them with a police cordon. They have not allowed Russian diplomats to go there since then. We asked the US Department of State to return them or at least to let us inspect the buildings and land but our requests were regularly turned down without explanation. We merely received non-committal replies. Moreover, the deceptive assurances of US representatives in their commitment to normalising the functioning of Russian and American embassies and consulates do not contain even a hint of willingness to negotiate as equals. They are complaining on the record about Moscow’s groundless ban on hiring local personnel. They are lamenting that it disrupts the work of all embassy services, including the consular function that is of primary importance in the diplomatic missions of any country. Of course, we prefer to discuss all these internal problems in regular order. We believe it is necessary to conduct a professional dialogue with a view to searching for solutions in this complicated situation that has taken shape not through Russia’s fault. Nothing prevents the Americans from fully filling a more than sufficient quota of 455 people for personnel, including consular officers that are so much in demand. Instead, Washington is deliberately leaking to the media inaccurate assertions, to put it mildly, that the Russian diplomatic presence in the US exceeds that of the US in Russia four times over. They count the members of our permanent mission to the UN in New York although it has nothing to do with our bilateral diplomatic missions. A comparison of embassies and consular offices shows a completely different picture. The Americans now have about 130 employees in Russia, while our mission in Washington and two consulates general in New York and Houston have under 200 people. Considering that Washington demands that another 55 Russian diplomats, as well as administrative and technical workers leave the US in the next few months (which is tantamount to expulsion), the situation on the diplomatic front will only go from bad to worse. The persistent attempts to take a confrontational course of action in the hope of gaining unilateral benefits, cutting off our oxygen, is a road to nowhere. Every hostile US action will be followed by a swift and commensurate, although not necessarily symmetrical, response. We suggest again stopping the flywheel of escalation and starting a meaningful, honest and mutually respectful dialogue on all irritants in bilateral relations. Washington is well aware of the option we prefer – to remove all mutual restrictions that have piled up in the past few years. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4920730 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during a meeting with Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China Wang Yi, Rome, October 30, 2021 30 October 2021 - 17:57 Mr Minister, My dear friend, Colleagues, We are maintaining intensive contacts, which is evidence of the unprecedented level and quality of relations between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. The tasks our leaders have set to us are being implemented at all levels of government and are reflected and receive positive feedback in our civil societies. By the end of this year, we will hold the 26th meeting of the heads of Russian and Chinese governments. It will be preceded by the meetings of five intergovernmental commissions. This will be a serious contribution of our governments’ economic blocks to the preparation of the scheduled summit meeting. We are also maintaining close contact on foreign policy matters. I hope that today we will be able to discuss all the key issues with due regard for our leaders’ opinions and for the rapid and sometimes contradictory changes on the global stage. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4920769 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Executive Director of the UN World Food Programme David Beasley, Rome, October 30, 2021 30 October 2021 - 19:07 Mr Executive Director, Today, it is important that we coordinate our approaches and discuss specific areas of our future cooperation. In the past five years, our cooperation has reached an unprecedented level, and we are planning to expand it further. I am interested in hearing your views on the current challenges and your vision of what Russia could do to resolve them. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4920844 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during a meeting with Director-General of the World Health Organisation Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Rome, October 30, 2021 30 October 2021 - 19:15 Mr Director-General, We believe that we should support the World Health Organisation and its central role in any configuration of healthcare-related international efforts. We will discuss this matter during the G20 Summit, where we will clearly point out that the WHO can be relied upon and that it is necessary to support its work in every possible way. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4920854 Statement of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations during the consideration of agenda item 69, entitled “Report of the Human Rights Council”, New York, 29 October 2021 30 October 2021 - 20:22 1. It is an honor for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to take the floor on behalf of the Member States of the “Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations”, made up of Algeria, Angola, Belarus, Bolivia, Cambodia, China, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nicaragua, the State of Palestine, the Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Syria, Zimbabwe, and my own country, Venezuela. 2. At the outset, we congratulate Ambassador Nazhat Shameem for her leadership at the head of the Human Rights Council during its fifteenth cycle, corresponding to 2021, and express appreciation for the presentation of the report of this body to the General Assembly, in accordance with its Resolution 60/251, of which we have taken due note. 3. The Group of Friends considers the Charter of the United Nations to be a milestone and a true act of faith on the best of humanity. It is the code of conduct that has ruled international relations between States for the past 76 years, on the basis of timeless principles; such as, self-determination of peoples, sovereign equality of States, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, and refrainment from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. These are all basic norms and principles that, apart from being the foundation for modern-day international law, today remain as relevant as back in 1945. 4. In addition, we consider that ensuring compliance with and strict adherence to both the letter and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations is fundamental for ensuring the realization of the three pillars of our Organization, as well as for advancing towards the establishment of a more peaceful and prosperous world and of a truly just and equitable world order. 5. In this context, we express our serious concern at the current and growing threats against the Charter of the United Nations. We refer, among others, to the growing resort to unilateralism; to the attacks against multilateralism; to the claiming of non-existent exceptionalisms; to the attempts to ignore and even substitute the purposes and principles contained in the UN Charter with a new set of so-called “rules” that have never been discussed in an inclusive or transparent manner; and to selective approaches or accommodative interpretations of the provisions of the UN Charter. These practices have resulted, as history and facts prove, in massive violations of human rights and other tenets of international law, which, in many instances, remain unpunished to this very date. 6. Seventy-six years ago, the international community rallied around a series of common purposes and principles, all contained in the Charter of the United Nations, and declared their commitment to defend life, freedom, independence, justice and human rights, the latter being, precisely, one of the three fundamental pillars of our Organization. Hence, achieving the full enjoyment of human rights in all their dimensions represents a noble ideal and objective that is today more relevant than ever. 7. The Group of Friends attaches a supreme value to the promotion and protection of all human rights, both individuals and collectives, including the right to development, without distinction of levels or categories, and considers also that their promotion and protection is enhanced on the basis of dialogue and cooperation, in accordance with the principles of impartiality, objectivity, transparency, non-selectivity, non-politicization and non-confrontation, and within a framework of equality and mutual respect between States. 8. In this regard, we reject all kinds of double standards that undermine human rights and prevent a harmonious environment and progress in this field, and we are concerned by the proliferation of unilateral mechanisms that pretend to conduct an impartial assessment of the human rights situation in specific States, especially when they do not count with their due consent and participation. The continuation of this practice infringes upon the spirit that must guide the higher ideals in favor of the genuine promotion and protection of human rights, while representing also a clear violation of the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, which has committed us to promote and encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind. We recall, in this regard, that the Universal Periodic Review (UPU) of the Human Rights Council is the proper mechanism to discuss in a constructive manner human rights situation. 9. To conclude, while calling for an end to the politicization of human rights, the Group of Friends reaffirms its willingness to continue contributing to the institutional strengthening of the Human Rights Council, on the basis of an approach that promotes multilateralism, and that it is complemented in a transparent manner with other United Nations instances. If we really seek to advance universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, we must rely on consensual political and diplomatic mechanisms for their promotion and protection, while preventing that the name of our Organization and the spirit that should guide its endeavors be misused for objectives that are contrary to the purposes and principles enshrined in its very own founding Charter. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4920883 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s comment and answers to media questions following the G20 Summit, Rome, October 31, 2021 31 October 2021 - 18:35 Good afternoon, The G20 Summit is rounding up. After the first session yesterday, today the second session was held, focusing on the common problems of recovering from the economic recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and coordinating our measures against the coronavirus more effectively. The third session was dedicated to sustainable development in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations for the period until 2030. The main conclusion of this summit and the outcome of the work by both leaders and experts who agreed upon an extensive multi-page declaration is that the attempts to promote unilateral approaches have proved to be unpopular. The overwhelming majority of participants supported the G20 being able to set an example by developing collective solutions that can ensure a balance of interests, when it comes to countering COVID-19, maintaining a comfortable climate as well as regarding energy security. As far as energy security is concerned, it has been agreed that G20 will support the future-oriented decisions in energy policy that are based on a sustainable balance of interests between energy suppliers and consumers. Regarding climate change, the reasoning of the Paris Agreement, which is essential to us, has been reaffirmed, as the agreement is based on voluntary action by each state to curb carbon emissions, while respecting national interests in economic development and growth. I think it is a positive outcome. You will be able to read the declaration today. Commitment to collective work is the main trend that we must support in every possible way. We have always supported it. Question: The 6th Fleet of the US Navy has dispatched one of its command ships to the Black Sea. Did the United States give an advance warning? What does this action by the United States mean? Sergey Lavrov: This is not so much about warning as it is about complying with the international regulations concerning ships of non-littoral states entering the Black Sea. This issue is regulated by the Montreux Convention, according to which the flag state of a warship must notify Turkish authorities. As far as I know, the requirement has been fulfilled. At least we monitor compliance very closely. We know that it is not the only time that the US Navy has displayed its flag in the Black Sea. The United States has directly declared several times that its warships need to enter the waters in order to contain Russia and prevent risks posed by Russia to allies of the United States in the Black Sea. That does not help stability. Americans are actively pushing the littoral states that are NATO members to pursue a rather confrontational policy. They are talking about building new naval bases on shores of Romania and Bulgaria. I do not think that these measures serve the interests of neighbourliness in the Black Sea region. We are ready for any threats. We are capable of securing Russia’s territory on the Black Sea without any problems as well. We always favour the promotion of projects of cooperation rather than initiatives based on confrontation. There is the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation with members not only from among the littoral states but also other states in the region and the European Union. We support cooperation rather than the exacerbation of tensions as a means of forming the basis of the relations between the states in this part of our region. Question: The Foreign Minister of Iran visited Moscow this week to discuss the nuclear deal. Yesterday in Rome, representatives of Europe and the United States met to talk about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Does the more active engagement on this matter mean that the parties are ready to resume talks on the deal in the foreseeable future? Can it happen without preconditions? Sergey Lavrov: If engagement is intensifying, it probably means that the parties want to resume the agreement. The deal can be resumed only in the same form in which it was approved by the UN Security Council in 2015. Any additions or exemptions are unacceptable to Iran. We fully support this kind of approach. If certain terms were agreed upon and later a party withdraws, it is important to insist on returning to respecting and complying with the initial agreements in full. Question: Have there been any signals from NATO that they are ready to continue the dialogue? Do you know who will represent NATO interests in Moscow? Sergey Lavrov: You are asking the second question as if the first answer were positive. We have no information about what NATO is going to do. We rely on facts, and the facts are as follows: NATO does not want any contact with us. When our representatives were still there, and the Russia-NATO Council was active, all they wanted was to lecture us, demanding to convene the Council every time they felt like discussing Ukraine. Their entire interest was to whip up propaganda and put pressure on Russia. The question is closed. If NATO has any reason to contact us, the Russian Ambassador to Belgium is there, who is responsible for bilateral relations. We have informed the North Atlantic Alliance that, if necessary, they can send signals through that diplomat. Question (in English): On vaccines, did you make progress on vaccine certificate acceptance at this summit? And how do you promote vaccine efficacy when President [Vladimir] Putin did not attend this summit despite being fully vaccinated? Sergey Lavrov (in English): On vaccines, you would read the declaration – it is clear that the leaders want the mutual recognition of certificates on vaccination. On vaccines and physical presence, I do not see any connection. Many leaders today in their speeches supported what President Putin said on vaccines. Question (in English): And then, on US relationships with Russia, did you meet with your counterpart Secretary [Antony] Blinken? And with President Putin not here, is there an opportunity, by the end of the year, to meet with President [Joe] Biden? Sergey Lavrov (in English): I have not seen Tony Blinken in Rome. I do not know whether he is here or not. But yesterday, over dinner, we managed to talk with President [Joe] Biden. He did not send any regards. Question (in English): I would like to go back to the summit. Why did Russia not subscribe to net zero by 2050? And how do you appraise the work of the Italian Presidency of the G20? Sergey Lavrov (in English): Why do you believe 2050 is some “magic” figure? I want an answer because you are asking the question being convinced that 2050 is non-negotiable. Question (in English): 2050 was the ambition put forward by the European countries, for instance. The European Union. And it was written in the initial formulation of the communiqué. Sergey Lavrov (in English): No, look, if this is an ambition of the European Union, then other countries also have the right to have ambitions. As for the communique, we highly appreciate the work by the Italian presidency. They managed, just this morning, early this morning, to help negotiate and agree the declaration, which will be circulated. We would prefer though that the original draft declaration be given to us earlier than it was eventually. And the reason, as we were explained privately, was that G7 negotiated the draft declaration first, and then decided to circulate it to others. That is how the original declaration contained 2050 as a date, but it is not very polite to use this negotiation process the way the G7 tried to do. And if the media in Italy is convinced that if the European Union, the United States and G7 have an ambition to do it by 2050, and if the Italian media presents this as the final truth, I am afraid this is not respectful to other members of the G20 and all other members of the international community. We have calculated – we do not like to go by empty ambitions and empty promises. The European Union promised to do away with Russian gas pipelines, purchases, and to buy all its needs on the spot. What happened with this ambition, we all know. So we have announced that we will do this, we will reach carbon neutrality by not later than 2060. This is our calculated commitment, and we are sticking to it, and I stand to be corrected, but nobody has proven to us or to anybody else that 2050 is something everybody must subscribe to. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4921036
__________________
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 |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|