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

Old January 22nd, 2019 #541
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, November 30, 2018



30 November 2018 - 14:59







Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the International Volunteer Forum

On December 2-5, Moscow will host an International Volunteer Forum as part of the Year of Volunteers held in Russia in 2018. The forum will be attended by members of the Russian Government, heads of large NGOs and representatives of the business community and educational organisations.

Sergey Lavrov will deliver his remarks on December 3 at the plenary session titled The World: Opportunities for Russia. He will speak about Russia’s involvement in international cooperation in the field of volunteering aimed at consolidating international efforts towards the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as the projects for promoting volunteering that are being implemented together with the UN Development Programme and the UN Volunteers Programme.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting

On December 6-7, Sergey Lavrov will attend the 25th OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Milan.

We expect to hold an open high-level political dialogue based on mutual respect to discuss the situation with European security, common challenges and cooperation prospects among the OSCE member states. We hope that these discussions will help ease military and political tensions in the Euro-Atlantic region, boost the fight against transnational threats, give momentum to the settlement of conflicts and harmonise the participating states’ positions on current issues of economic and humanitarian interaction.

The Russian priorities we will promote in Milan include the fight against terrorism and the drug threat, the alignment of integration processes and the protection of traditional values. We also intend to raise the issue of NATO’s growing military infrastructure and its advancement towards our borders accompanied by aggressive anti-Russian propaganda. We will be speaking about the violations of language and education rights, attacks on the freedom of the media, as well as the rise of neo-Nazism and growing ethnic and religious tensions in Ukraine, the United States and EU countries, primarily the Baltics. We plan to support the OSCE efforts to promote the settlement of conflicts, including in eastern Ukraine, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as its work in the Balkans and at the Geneva International Discussions on Stability in the South Caucasus, which the OSCE is co-chairing.

Russia and its allies have prepared four draft decisions for the Milan meeting: on combating terrorism, on the OSCE’s role in combating the global drug threat, on free access to information for the media, and on the protection of the national minorities’ language and education rights. We hope the OSCE ministers will approve these documents. Overall, there are over 20 draft documents on the meeting’s agenda. Our experts are taking part in their coordination.

Sergey Lavrov plans to meet with several of his counterparts from the OSCE countries and the leaders of the OSCE and other international organisations on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Milan.



Update on Maria Butina

We are outraged by yet another decision to once again toughen the detention terms of Russian citizen Maria Butina who was arrested in the United States last summer on trumped-up charges and whom we see as a political prisoner.

These restrictions are to completely isolate her 22 hours a day. She is allowed to leave her cell and use the general-purpose facilities for only two hours a day and only at night. It goes without saying that this will negatively affect her health, and not just because of her individual needs. This would negatively affect the health of any person, even the healthiest person. That said, she is not receiving any professional medical treatment.

On November 27, Russian diplomats visited Ms Butina and lodged a protest with the prison administration; they also demanded that the authorities stop treating her in a degrading manner. Russian diplomatic missions in the United States have also sent a note containing tough-worded demarches in this regard to the US Department of State.

We see the actions of the US authorities as a means of pressuring Ms Butina prior to the upcoming trial, due to begin December 19. Certainly, we will continue to demand the release of this Russian citizen who is the victim of outright arbitrary rule.

Not only is Ms. Butina a political prisoner; today, we can safely say that she is also a hostage of the US authorities who only want to manipulate her for political purposes.



Update on Syria

On November 28-29, Astana hosted the 11th international meeting of high-level representatives on Syria. In addition to the Syrian government’s delegation headed by Syria’s UN Ambassador Bashar al-Jaafari and the opposition’s delegation headed by Ahmed Tuma, and those of the guarantor countries (Russia, Turkey and Iran), the meeting included observers represented by UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, the Jordanian delegation, and representatives from the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

Generally, we have a positive view of the results of this meeting. The participants discussed a wide range of issues regarding the Syrian peace settlement: from the political process, including the ongoing effort to complete the establishment of a Constitutional Committee in line with decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, to plans to hold an international conference on facilitating the return of Syrian refugees back home.

The sixth meeting of the working group on releasing detained persons, exchanging bodies and searching for missing persons took place on the sidelines of the event. Efforts in this format are beginning to yield practical results. On November 24, the first ten citizens of the Syrian Arab Republic, held by illegal paramilitary units, were exchanged in Al-Bab city in the northern sector of Aleppo Governorate for ten armed-opposition militants, held in government prisons. This was done with the assistance of Russian service personnel. We hope that such exchanges will continue in the future, and that they will assume greater proportions.

The agreements reached at the meeting in the capital of Kazakhstan have been formalised in a joint statement by the countries, the guarantors of the Astana process, which has been published.

The sides focused on the situation on the ground, including in Idlib. Despite Turkey’s efforts to fulfil the September 17 Russian-Turkish memorandum, the situation there remains volatile. Terrorists are trying to thwart measures to disengage them from the so-called “moderate” forces and to establish a demilitarised zone. The scale of provocations continues to increase. On November 24, al-Nusra militants fired chlorine-filled mortar rounds at residential areas in Aleppo, poisoning over 100 people, including eight children. In this connection, the Syrian Foreign Ministry sent letters to the UN Secretary General, the UN Security Council’s President and the OPCW Director General.

Once again, we urge the international community to respond appropriately to this barbaric attack. We have repeatedly warned that the terrorists were preparing to stage chemical weapons provocations in Idlib, including provocations involving the so-called White Helmets. In the past, their efforts were aimed at provoking the US-led coalition into launching all-out strikes against Syrian government forces. And now, as we see it, their goal is different: they want to thwart the implementation of the Russian-Turkish memorandum, to disrupt cooperation in the Astana format, including between Russia and Turkey.

The latest, 11th Astana meeting on Syria shows convincingly that such terrorist plans are futile. The joint statement of the guarantor countries notes that they resolutely condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and demanded that the OPCW, as the main international agency charged with investigating the use of chemical weapons, conduct a timely and professional investigation in full compliance with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction.

We regret to say that the United States, which had observer status at the Astana format, abstained from sending its representative to the 11th international meeting of high-level representatives on Syria. It appears that our US partners have their own plans for Syria, and they show little concern for efforts to achieve a political peace settlement in that country. This is evident from US actions on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River that evoke growing concern in Russia and elsewhere.

The US military is basically safeguarding a quasi-state entity, which they established with the help of separatist-minded Kurdish activists in northeastern Syria. Last week, again, they continued to establish US observation posts along the Syrian-Turkish border in the vicinity of Tel Abyad and Ayn Al-Arab (Kobani).

It is hard to imagine how these steps show a commitment to Syrian unity, sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity – things that have repeatedly been declared by the United States in international and bilateral documents, and passed with its involvement. In principle, it is impossible to say that these actions conform to international law.



Martial law in Ukraine

The Kiev leadership continues “playing with fire.” The other day, the Verkhovna Rada approved the imposition of martial law in 10 provinces of Ukraine. This event is part of a carefully planned scheme and its first stage was the Ukrainian Navy staging a provocation off the Russian coast in the vicinity of the Kerch Strait. The Russian leadership has provided all the necessary assessments of this provocation.

The plot devised by the Kiev regime, its representatives and, of course, President Petr Poroshenko, is quite clear and aimed primarily at using martial law for improving their plummeting electoral ratings in a bid to score points riding the crest of yet another anti-Russia wave. Under the pretext of standing up to a phony “Russian aggression,” they have imposed severe restrictions on the main constitutional freedoms of Ukrainian citizens, including a ban on the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of movement. Now the Kiev authorities, if they so wish, can make the population surrender just about anything, from personal property to documents. The Ukrainian military and law-enforcers are granted exceptional powers, up to using force without trial or investigation, which in itself is a serious threat fraught with the civil conflict spreading to the rest of the country’s territory.

We also noted that martial law is imposed selectively and applies mainly to the predominantly Russian-populated regions whose inhabitants, if we are to believe sociological polls, mostly disapprove of the actions of the current authorities.

We regard what is happening in Ukraine as yet another alarming signal indicating that the vector of developments points to an all-out confrontation. We call upon the UN, OSCE, Council of Europe and other international organisations to pay attention to the threat of a power-projected scenario and the dismal human rights situation in Ukraine. We warn the Western sponsors of the Kiev regime about the extreme danger of President Petr Poroshenko’s artifice. In a desperate attempt to retain power, he is dragging his country into yet another gamble fraught with disastrous consequences for Ukraine itself and European security as a whole.

Take the so-called “murder” of journalist Arkady Babchenko, a story that shook the entire world community but proved a plan hatched and carried out by the Ukrainian secret services. Nevertheless, this fake reached the UN Security Council, where it died after the world saw the safe and sound journalist. I think, the naval provocation in question was planned by the same people using identical methods. Being provocative is the main characteristic feature of the current Kiev regime. They have no other opportunities to influence the situation. There is no positive dynamics in the economy, no positive shift in civil society integration, no opportunity to implement at least something from the Minsk Agreements. In general, they have no achievements to show to their voters in the upcoming elections. After all, it is clear that you must report to the public on how you delivered on the promises you gave before your first term rather than promise again in an attempt to be reelected for a second presidential term. There is nothing to report. It is for this reason they had to stage a naval operation, a provocation with long-playing consequences.

It seems to me they have forgotten about the main thing – the country and the people – as they seek to build up their ratings and keep themselves afloat under any circumstances.



Completion of a UN enquiry into the acts of the Ukrainian delegation on the sidelines of the UN Committee on Information, 40th session

As you may remember, about six months ago the Ukrainian delegation to the United Nations held a fake event as part of a forum on fighting fake news convened by the Ukrainian delegation. What I mean is that the Ukrainian delegation organised a workshop on fighting fake news, but at the end of the day this turned out to be a fake event since the Ukrainian diplomats alleged that it was part of the UN Committee on Information’s agenda. As a matter of fact, it was not related in any way whatsoever to the session of the Committee on Information. Furthermore, as I said earlier, some of this forum’s participants, who were present at the UN Headquarters, including snipers, wore camouflage uniforms and openly threatened the Russian diplomats. We asked the UN Secretary-General to look into this issue, and now we have the results.

The enquiry took more than six months. Here is what we find in the official response from UN Under-Secretary-General for Safety and Security Peter Drennan on the enquiry into the provocative actions by the Ukrainian delegation during the 40th session of the UN Committee on Information in early May 2018.

Again, Ukraine organised a fake event that was presented as being held on the sidelines of the UN Committee on Information meeting. Its participants included snipers who had taken part in the counter-terrorist operation. They threatened to inflict bodily harm on a Russian delegate while in a UN building.

In the document we received, it is said the guests attending the Ukrainian event were on the second floor of the UN Headquarters without authorisation, since these premises are subject to additional restrictions, including the requirement to be accompanied by accredited delegates from an inviting mission. Let me remind you that the Russian delegation and Permanent Mission asked the Secretariat to review CCTV footage from multiple cameras installed throughout the UN Secretariat, considering that Ukraine alleged that Russia was spreading disinformation and that “everything was wrong” in the way we presented the incident. We pointed out this hard evidence and asked the UN to analyse it.

Having carried out this review, the UN came to the conclusion that the Ukrainians who threatened a Russian diplomat were not accompanied by representatives of the Ukrainian Permanent Mission at that time.

We are glad to see the UN Secretariat leadership complete the enquiry into this incident and officially recognise the violations committed by the Ukrainian delegation. That incident was a frame-up within UN walls. We strongly believe that the United Nations, the primary platform for promoting peace and international cooperation, should not serve as a venue to stage political provocations. Any abuses within UN premises must be stopped in an implacable and prompt manner, especially when coming from those for whom living in constant disregard of the law and any other norms has long become a norm.

I would like to say that we will not fail to release additional materials on this subject on the Foreign Ministry website. We will show how Ukraine, including the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, said that it was all not true and that the Russian Foreign Ministry was making false claims. But now we have a conclusion from the enquiry.

Once again, provocation has become the trademark of the current Ukrainian authorities (https://bit.ly/2P8I0RC, https://bit.ly/2zzv96a).



Statements by National Security Adviser to the Afghan President Hamdullah Mohib on the Moscow format meeting on Afghanistan

The Foreign Ministry took note of the statements by the National Security Adviser to the President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Hamdullah Mohib on the second Moscow format meeting on Afghanistan that took place on November 9. Among other things, he alleged that Russia “put Afghanistan’s sovereignty into question, while Afghanistan attended the meeting as a guest.”

Russia has been consistent in its efforts to facilitate intra-Afghan reconciliation in cooperation with its regional partners. This Moscow format meeting brought together Afghanistan, China, Pakistan, Iran, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and the United States. The countries represented at the event shared the view that the meeting was a significant step toward a direct peace dialogue between Kabul and the Taliban.

It has to be noted that President of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani has declared on a number of occasions that he was ready to engage in peace talks with the Taliban “anywhere and at any time.” It was his initiative to bring a delegation of the High Peace Council to the Moscow format talks to represent civil society. As the host country, Russia ensured that Kabul enjoyed the same rights as the other participants in the Moscow format. Among other things, Deputy Head of the High Peace Council Hajji Din Mohammad was placed first on the speakers’ list at the meeting.

Let me remind you once again that Russia merely provides a dialogue platform for the opposing sides in Afghanistan and is far from seeking to replace them at the talks. We stand ready to continue cooperating with Kabul to promote peace in order to help Afghanistan emerge as an independent, peaceful, self-reliant country free from terrorists and drug trafficking.

If Afghanistan’s official representatives have doubts regarding who puts the sovereignty of their country into question, I believe they should look for answers not on the territory of the Russian Federation, that’s for sure. I would suggest looking for answers at another continent.



Terror attacks in Pakistan

The Pakistani television channel Sach TV has asked us to comment on the recent terrorist attacks in Pakistan, including an explosion near a Shiite mosque in the Orakzai region, as well as an armed attack on the Chinese Consulate General in Karachi, responsibility for which was claimed by a separatist group known as the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). The Pakistani correspondents would also like to know our response to reports that BLA leader Khair Marri, who has long been residing in London, has political asylum in Britain.

The answer with regard to those terror attacks is obvious. Russia condemns in the strongest possible terms any terrorist attacks, for which there is no and can be no justification whatsoever. Earlier, we expressed our view on the extremist raids in Orakzai and Karachi by supporting a corresponding statement of the UN Security Council.

As for BLA leader Khair Marri, we do not possess information on his current status in Britain, or his place in the BLA hierarchy, or the extent of the group’s involvement in the Karachi incident.

As regards his status in Britain and his residence there, this part of the question should be addressed to the British authorities.



Russia’s position on UN Security Council reform

One of the topics brought up at our previous meetings concerned Russia’s position on reforming the UN Security Council.

Russia supports reforming the UN Security Council to make it more representative and better able to reflect the current geopolitical realities.

Considering the major differences that persist in the approaches of UN member states, it is necessary to continue searching for a reform plan that would win support from as many member states as possible – far more than the required two-thirds majority as formally envisaged in the UN Charter. The best case would be consensus support. It is important that negotiations be comprehensive and transparent and that all existing proposals be considered, without any schedules or deadlines.

Another key aspect is that efforts to impart a more representational character to the Security Council must not undermine its efficiency or capability. No matter what path reform takes, it must be able to respond promptly and adequately to emerging challenges and threats. In that regard, it is necessary that the reformed Security Council stay relatively compact.

It is our principled position that the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America should be represented in the Security Council on a broader scale. We have no doubt that many countries in that large group of states are able to significantly contribute to maintaining international peace and security.

We do not conceal that we are sceptical of ideas on restricting the veto power. We regard it as an important tool in working out balanced and verified solutions by the Council and protecting the interests of the minority. It is no secret that Western countries can easily mobilise a sufficient number of votes in the UN Security Council to block projects they are opposed to without resorting to a veto. The ways these votes are mobilised are far removed from the relevant norms of the UN Security Council Charter.

Russia consistently stands for a harmonious system of international relations based on such essential principles as the political settlement of emerging crises and the renunciation of the policy of forcible regime change. Common adherence to these principles would objectively tamp down the polemics over the veto power.



Adoption of laws against “manipulation of information” in France

On November 20, the French government passed a package of scandalous legislative acts against “manipulation of information,” developed at the initiative of French President Emmanuel Macron. The legislative novellas were approved despite objections from the Senate that voted against them twice during their reading in the Parliament, and also despite the criticism from the opposition parties, representatives of the country’s expert and journalist communities, including Le Monde and Le Figaro.

According to the laws that were passed, the French Superior Council of the Audiovisual is to be granted the authority to suspend the operation of media outlets disseminating “fake news” during a period of up to three months before the national elections. Digital platforms are also obliged to take action against misinformation online and to report to the council on its efforts annually.

We have repeatedly stressed the discriminative nature of these legislative initiatives and their obvious purpose to clear the media space of the views that are not welcome in Paris.

Meanwhile, we have no doubt that, on the pretext of fighting misinformation, the French officials set a goal for themselves to create legitimate grounds for the persecution of above all Russian media whose rights have been systematically violated for quite a long time.

I would like to remind you about the course of events over the past year. Sputnik and Russia Today employees have not been able to obtain press cards required for their journalist activity in the country in order to attend official events taking place in government agencies.

The politics I am talking about is accompanied by provocative statements made by French officials who in this case act as instigators of this fake news as they accuse Russia Today of what it did not do and of which it is absolutely not guilty.

The latest example is quite embarrassing. The information concerned the Foreign Ministry directly. Russian media representatives were not allowed to attend Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s news conference in Paris. This is absurd. This is an attack on the freedom of speech and media representatives from two directions, by legislative and “manual” means.

We hope that the laws which have been passed will receive adequate assessment from competent international bodies and human rights organisations as to their compliance with such fundamental principles of international law as the freedom of expression and equal access to information for all. Of course, we will raise this matter at the upcoming OSCE Ministerial Council meeting on the sidelines of which a great number of relevant meetings and events take place.

I cannot even imagine how our French colleagues would choke with outrage if a similar bill was passed in the Russian Federation or if similar measures were taken against the French media in our country.



The latest surge in anti-Russian propaganda in Great Britain

The end of November in Britain was marked by another surge in anti-Russian rhetoric, which is not surprising. The aggravation of the domestic political conversation around Brexit, which led to a number of resignations in Theresa May’s Cabinet and the inability to reach a consensus in society on this matter, forces the authorities to seek out distractions. What could be better than the tried and tested “external threat” of which Russia is the main source. The ploy was developed long ago.

On November 24, the day before the EU summit on Brexit, which proved fateful for the British, Chief of the General Staff General Mark Carleton-Smith gave an interview to Daily Telegraph, in which he portrayed Russia as a greater threat to Britain’s national security than terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda or ISIS. That’s a strong statement, given that the terrible terrorist attacks in London and Manchester by international terrorists are still fresh in our memory.

The creation by ISIS of a major Caliphate in the Middle East, with all the ensuing consequences, was prevented solely thanks to Russia’s intervention. However, the British commander still believes that Russia is the main threat. It’s more than a sad delusion; it’s plain dangerous.

The so-called Skripal poisoning is at the forefront of the anti-Russian information campaign unleashed by Great Britain against our country this year. It is no longer possible to understand what really happened there. At some point, it appeared that the passions had begun to subside, because there’s nothing to discuss in the absence of official information. As you saw, it turned out differently. It started all over again. On November 22, a new “sensational investigation” was released in the form of a film made by British journalists. I believe everyone can and should form their own opinion about this film. I’m positive that everyone needs to watch it for a variety of reasons.

Clearly, the film is an attempt to recreate the timeline of events. Contrary to the narrative that the authors tried to build, the numerous facts mentioned in the film produce the exact opposite effect. There are inconsistencies and contradictions in the official British version of events. There is, of course, the emotional component, which is also interesting. The authors are clearly drawing on classic Hollywood techniques with the unsettling and mysterious background music. Salisbury is presented as a quaint town with bucolic landscapes – a perfectly green pasture, grazing animals and locals strolling down the streets – an idyll, against which Moscow appears as a dark, ominous and frightening place. Our Foreign Ministry is portrayed as a citadel of evil. The way it is shown in the film could scare children.

Of course, it was necessary to have a protagonist to build the story around. Perhaps, like me, you expected that either the victim or the alleged perpetrator should be the main character. That is a logical assumption. The life of Sergeant Nick Bailey, who was allegedly poisoned by a nerve agent, is the key storyline. This is the only person who can be presented to the world. Nick Bailey can be presented to the world and you can talk with him. You can ask him questions and get answers. You can touch him, which we can’t say about the others. By design, the viewer must feel a sense of deep compassion for this rank-and-file British policeman who risked his life in the line of duty, and lost all his property as a result. However, even the elementary question of compensation was omitted by the authors. If there was no compensation, then this is a question for the authorities; if there was, then at least the material losses were covered. There’s no answer to the question of why only one of the three policemen who inspected Skripal’s house was affected. Are the rest not worthy of being mentioned in the film? What happened to them? Dozens if not hundreds of such questions come to mind as you watch the film. By and large, the film is, of course, a success. As they say, the tea was excellent, they just forgot to add water.

The key question remains open. Where are the Skripals? What's going on with them? Are they alive? Are they in the UK? Have they been taken somewhere? What condition are they in? Are they together or have they been separated? Who is working with them? I’m using the word “working” deliberately, because even before the incident, British intelligence worked with people like him and, I think, a whole group of specialists in all areas are working with him now after the “poisoning.” Where are these people who are working and interacting with the Skripals? Why were the law enforcement bodies willing to assist journalists preparing the story in everything, except providing access to the Skripals? Former chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service MI6 John Sawers (he was the UK's permanent representative to the UN Security Council) hints in the film that he is privy to much more detailed information about the current situation of the Skripals. Why does a retired officer know more about them than the public and Russia, given that Yulia Skripal is a Russian citizen. Big question. What are these hints for? Say it straight. It’s a film after all.

The film reconstructs the events of March 4 and the days after minute by minute, starting with the travel of Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, the response by the ambulance and the police to poisoned Skripals, up to interaction with the Porton Down laboratory. There are questions, though. What about the Skripals? What were they doing at the time? We saw Yulia on British television once. She could at least let us know what happened to her on that day, what she remembers, some fragmentary memories or feelings. Why did everything have to start with talking about the people whose participation in this incident wasn’t proved, and make it the central part of the film? As we understand, there’s at least one living real character of this drama – Yulia Skripal, who could tell us the story, because she was there, as we were told earlier.

To reiterate, the timeline is reconstructed all the way to the interaction with the Porton Down laboratory. The question about the movement of the Skripals themselves remains a big hole in that story. We know from police reports that they left at 9.30 am and drove northeast. If you look at a map, driving northeast will take you straight to Porton Down. They turned off their mobile phones, and then left the house again at 1.30 pm. Where did they go and why? Why did they return if they did? Who did they meet with? When did they come back home? Are all these questions of interest only to Russia, but not the British journalist who made this film?

Let’s go further. The police are reported to have studied 11,000 hours of CCTV footage in Salisbury. And where are the Skripals there? There is a recording with Petrov and Boshirov. Fine. It is absolutely unclear who those people are and what they were doing in the city in the context of the charges made. The key question is where are the stills with the Skripals?

Does anyone believe that a former British intelligence agent, who was brought back to the UK and remained there, was not under surveillance of the British authorities? His house is surrounded by a large number of CCTV cameras. Where is the footage?

When it comes to the substance allegedly used in the poisoning, even more questions emerge. The film says the investigators immediately found that the nerve agent had been applied on the door handle of Sergey Skipral’s house. What about the numerous versions of the ways the Skripals might have been poisoned that were dutifully published by the British media including the BBC? In that case they should offer some sort of apology, say that what you see in the film contradicts the information we used to spread on the same channel before “we don’t want to be a fake channel,” state that the earlier version is contrary to the facts. Or smooth it out to at least “could not confirm.” I remember at one of the briefings we even collected all those versions by the British media which totalled nearly a dozen.

Why doesn’t the journalist ask whether everyone was deliberately misinformed? How can we trust the media altogether if they are used to manipulate people?

Regrettably, fairly dubious and even odd circumstances inside and around Porton Down were not investigated during the compiling of that material (we also spoke about it and paid attention to it). The journalist doesn’t ask about the activities related to producing Novichok in the laboratory.

The authors of the film are not bothered by apparent inconsistencies in the details concerning the properties of the nerve agent. The Soviet chemist Vil Mirzayanov, who has been residing outside our country for a long time, claimed in the aired interview that Novichok easily degrades when it comes into contact with water and allegedly it was due to the humid weather on that day that the Skripals did not receive a fatal dose. Let’s go back to the beginning. If they did not get a fatal dose, it means they are alive. If they are alive, show them. Why were they not shown even in this film?

If everything is the way it is presented in the film and it all comes down to Britain’s humidity, why did the authorities stage a large-scale decontamination operation using powerful ingredients? Why were all the houses visited by the Skripals on that day demolished? They could have just hosed them down with water. Wasn’t it an operation to conceal another chemical, among other things? Why did the British media pay no attention to that?

Another expert quoted in the film, a “Professor Tim” from Porton Down (they use fictitious names in the film while the faces of the interviewed scientists or special agents are in plain view; they may actually also be “crisis actors”) claimed that the identified amount of the substance could have killed several thousand. Why then were only a few affected in reality? Even though the Skripals’ house is “on the outskirts of Salisbury”, it is not in the middle of nowhere, it is surrounded by other residences.

Special mention should be made of the number of artistic flourishes used, some of which I have already mentioned. In particular, to translate the interviews of the Russian experts and the Skripals’ relatives a speaker was chosen who speaks English with a pronounced Russian accent. Where are we living? Can you imagine a native speaker of English translating from Russian butchering his native tongue so that the audience has a feeling of total verisimilitude, as if they are hearing the words of the real participants of the drama? This is something entirely new in journalism.

And, of course, the cherry on top is the sketch from Vladimir Rezun’s bestseller on showing future participants of similar dramas what could happen to them, in particular, a film on burning a traitor of the Motherland. All that is right out by John Cipher, a former CIA agent in Moscow. Reciting fairly tales could have been equally successful. It is some sort of absurdity disguised as journalism. The interesting point is that the journalists did their job but in such a way that it did not answer any questions with the material presented. More questions have arisen.

All this is happening in a country geographically very close to France where laws on fake news are being drafted. Amazing.



Prosecution of Latvian journalist Yury Alekseyev by security police

Last week, Latvian Security Police arrested Yury Alekseyev, the chief editor of the Imhoclub.lv news website, and one of the leaders of the Latvian Non-Citizens' Congress, a public association that defends the rights of Russian-speaking people and supports education in Russian.

According to the attorney, Latvian law enforcement officers have behaved extremely rudely during his detention, have been violent with him, and later, pressured him psychologically. The journalist faced prosecution in the past, in December 2017. He said pistol cartridges were planted by police during searches in his house at that time.

In fact, these are flagrant reprisals against an opposition journalist, who is undesirable to official Riga, and an attempt to silence him. Similar incidents of the detention of progressive media workers have become routine in Latvia. The authorities, adopting a policy of suppressing dissent, continue to deal with undesirable human rights defenders and Russian-speaking public activists, including by resorting to outright falsification and criminal pressure.

We believe such actions should not go unanswered. We call for a reaction by specialised international agencies and international human rights organisations. We expect an OSCE assessment. We would like to hear public comments from Brussels on how such actions by an EU member state, infringing on freedom of speech and violating international law, are consistent with common European democratic values.



Marking the Day of the Unknown Soldier

On December 3, Russia marks the Day of the Unknown Soldier, honouring the memory of the fallen sons of our Fatherland. This commemorative date was established only recently – in 2014. It was on this day in 1966 that the remains of an unknown soldier were moved from the mass grave at the 41st km of the Leningradskoye motorway to a place of eternal burial, the memorial at Alexander Garden near the Moscow Kremlin wall. This was done to commemorate the anniversary of the defeat of the Nazis.

Every year on this day, our offices abroad, in close coordination with the embassies of the CIS countries, hold commemorative and wreath-laying events. This tradition, which is important in terms of maintaining and preserving our historical memory, has already spread around the world – to China, Europe, the US and Canada.

A more detailed story about each event is available on our embassies’ online resources. Today I would like to talk about the unveiling of memorial plates with the names of 2,455 Soviet prisoners of war who died in Nazi captivity and were buried in a mass grave at a memorial in the central cemetery of Sokolov in the Czech Republic. For the first time in the history of that country, a long list of names of Soviet soldiers was immortalised directly at the place of their burial.

These names, returned from oblivion, are the result of an entire year of painstaking work on cataloguing the wartime graves of the Karlovy Vary Region carried out by the representatives of the Russian Ministry of Defence with the support of the Russian Consulate General in Karlovy Vary, the embassies of the CIS countries and the leadership of the Russian Federation regions. In the course of the archival and research work to recover the dead soldiers’ personal data, the mission staff studied more than 25,000 prisoners’ cards. As a result, they established the fate of more than 2,000 people who had previously been considered missing.

The official event organised by the city administration is expected to be attended by the leadership of Sokolov and the Karlovy Vary Region, representatives of the embassies of Russia and the CIS countries and, of course, the relatives of the fallen soldiers. For them, this day will be of particular importance.

The fact that this initiative was eventually brought to practical implementation is especially important in the context of recent events. During our briefings, we more than once mentioned the outrageous and cynical actions aimed at the destruction of monuments to Soviet soldiers in a number of Eastern European countries. Poland is high on the list – there, such events happen with the local authorities’ tacit consent, if not direct involvement. The saddest thing is that these are not isolated instances or acts of vandalism, but a trend.



Russia’s position on the situation around the General Framework (Dayton) Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina

At the last briefing, a question was asked about Russia’s position on the General Framework (Dayton) Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina in connection with the 23rd anniversary of signing the Dayton Agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina that was marked on November 21. As you know, the other day Milorad Dodik took the office of Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In his interview to a Serbian state TV channel, Dodik said that after taking his new post, he would continue to seek the elimination of the Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Does Russia, as one of the signatories to the Dayton Agreement, consider Bosnia and Herzegovina to be ready for this move?

I would like you to note that our position on this issue remains unchanged. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has talked about this subject while on his numerous visits to the region and, generally, has answered these kinds of questions.

Russia consistently speaks in favour of the need to comply with the basic principles laid down in the General Framework (Dayton) Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina of 1995. These principles are respect for this country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity; giving broad powers to the two entities making up Bosnia and Herzegovina (the Serb Republic, or Republika Srpska, and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina); and ensuring equality among the country’s three constituent peoples – Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. This approach is fully shared by all parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which they reiterated during Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s working visit to Sarajevo and Banja Luka on September 21.

Russia is actively involved in the efforts to push the stabilisation process forward in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including at the UN Security Council and the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Our position has always been that responsibility for the situation in the country must be placed in full in the hands of the country’s sides. We have stated many times and at all levels that we believe the elimination of the Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina as soon as possible to be long overdue. We believe that this type of protectorate over the country has ceased being effective and is only impeding the normal development of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a sovereign and independent state.

We believe that the successful functioning of Bosnia and Herzegovina (as a state) is only possible if the fine-tuned system of checks and balances provided for in the Dayton Agreement is effectively used. This system was designed to help the people in Bosnia and Herzegovina to independently, that is, without outside interference, seek consensus-based decisions on all current issues. We believe that the role of the international community in the Bosnian settlement should be confined to efforts to help the Bosnians expand their constructive joint agenda. This approach completely meets the interests of the people living in Bosnia and Herzegovina and helps them address the basic task of strengthening stability in the Balkans.



Aspects of the Ottawa Convention

During the last briefing, a question was asked about the Ottawa Convention.

Russia shares the goals and objectives of the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines (Mine Ban Treaty, Ottawa Convention). We are successfully implementing our approaches to dealing with the mine threat within the framework of the convention and its Amended Protocol II (AP-2) and are making rigorous efforts to create a world free of mines.

In recent years, Russia has disposed of more than 10 million mines, including anti-personnel mines. Since 1994, our country has imposed a moratorium on the transfer of undetectable anti-personnel landmines (APLs), as well as mines not fitted with a self-destructing mechanism. Taking into account the humanitarian aspects of the mine problem, since 1998 Russia has completely stopped the production of anti-personnel high-explosive mines, which are one of the main sources of civilian casualties. In 2001, the Russian Ministry of Defence released guidelines on international humanitarian law for the Russian Armed Forces, which outline the basic requirements for the use of anti-personnel equipment in accordance with AP-2.

Russia’s engineer troops have accumulated solid scientific, technical and expert capabilities allowing them to participate in demining programmes of any complexity. At different times, units of the Russian Armed Forces and the Emergencies Ministry participated in demining operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Nicaragua, and Serbia. Since December 2016, the Russian military has conducted several anti-mine operations in Syria: two in the architectural and historical center and residential areas of Tadmor (Palmyra) and one each in Allepo and Deir ez-Zor. Currently, work is underway in South Ossetia.

The International Mine Action Center (IMAC) established in 2014 by the Russian Armed Forces plays an important role in the mine actions carried out by Russia. In particular, it trains specialists in detection and neutralisation of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), demining the terrain, operators of mobile robotic systems, and mine search service personnel.

We underscore IMAC’s openness to international cooperation and its willingness to share its achievements with all interested states. In order to share our experience of humanitarian demining, we are making efforts to register the IMAC with the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) to include it in the list of subcontractors for humanitarian demining under UN auspices on a commercial basis, as well as in the UN Peacekeeping Capability Readiness System (PCRS).

At the same time, we note that APLs remain an effective and low-cost means of protecting the Russian borders. Therefore, at this stage, we deem it unadvisable to join the Mine Ban Treaty, considering Russia’s national defence interests.

Please note that the states that do not share the idea of ​​a complete ban on anti-personnel landmines constitute quite a large group, including the leading producers and users of such mines. Alongside Russia, it includes Israel, India, China, Pakistan and the United States. Other countries such as Azerbaijan, Armenia, Vietnam, Egypt, Iran, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Cuba, Mongolia, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Singapore, Uzbekistan, South Korea and others are not parties to the Mine Ban Treaty either.








Excerpts from answers to questions:



Question:

A few days ago, the head of the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Bako Sahakyan, visited Moscow. In response to that, Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry said that the permission to enter Russia, which he was granted, undermines efforts to promote the peaceful Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process and violates Russia’s obligations as a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group. Could you clarify the position of the Russian Foreign Ministry on the matter?



Maria Zakharova:

His trip cannot be regarded as anything other than private. Its nature is obvious. In that capacity it does not violate either the Russian laws, or existing international agreements, or the mediation mission. The claims against the Russian side, which were expressed by Baku in its recent statement, are groundless from our point of view.



Question:

Washington has issued warnings to Russia. The Pentagon called for refraining from on-site falsifications of the suspected chemical attack that was committed in Syria’s Aleppo on Saturday. How do you assess such warnings? Do they have reasons to believe that Russia might hinder this investigation in any way?



Maria Zakharova:

This is an absurd assumption. Unfortunately, it is in tune with many other absurd statements by our American colleagues. I have just commented on this topic and said that the OPCW must conduct an unbiased investigation and analysis of the incident. It seems to me that Washington does not follow formal statements by Russian officials, including our diplomats. Perhaps, they should look up our website more often?



Question:

Just an hour ago, it was reported that Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko imposed an entry ban on Russian male citizens aged from 16 to 60. How will the Russian Foreign Ministry respond? Should we expect reciprocal measures?



Maria Zakharova:

With respect to Ukraine, not so much the state as the regime that is currently in power there, it is simply frightening to talk about reciprocity. If anyone tries to reciprocate what is going on in Kiev now, it might lead to insanity, or, speaking in nationwide terms, total collapse. The somersaults we are witnessing in Kiev and Ukraine as a whole attest to the complete dysfunction of the government system and the state as an entity. This is the consequence of, if not unplanned, certainly wild moves by the country’s leadership. As regards that decision, I think that it fits what I have just said.



Question:

Have Ukrainian diplomats voiced an intention to visit their compatriots among the crewmembers arrested after the provocation in the Kerch Strait?



Maria Zakharova:

The Ukrainian side sent us a note demanding consular access to its detained citizens. Actually, this is the usual practice when it comes to high-profile detentions widely covered in the media. In other cases, the Ukrainian diplomats do not demonstrate similar enthusiasm.



Question:

Georgia has recently held its presidential election, which was won by Salome Zurabishvili. We know her as a long-serving diplomat, an ambassador and Georgia’s former Foreign Minister. Has the Russian Foreign Ministry had the pleasure of working with her before? What are we to expect from the Georgian people’s President-Elect?



Maria Zakharova:

You already know the answer to this question since you have just mentioned that she used to be a foreign minister. Yes, of course we knew her well in that capacity.

But as for expectations, this is not a question for the Russian Foreign Ministry to answer. You are well aware of our position on this, too.

It was not Russia who initiated the severing of diplomatic relations. We believe this was a colossal mistake on the part of those who were in power in Georgia at the time. We do understand, however, that this situation affects the people of both countries. On different levels, which have nothing to do with interstate relations, such as the cultural dialogue, economic relations and humanitarian ties, the contacts between the people of our countries continue. But they are, of course, seriously complicated by the lack of proper diplomatic relations between the two states.



Question:

How does the Foreign Ministry assess relations between Iraqi Kurdistan and Baghdad? How can Russia contribute to improving relations between the two countries?



Maria Zakharova:

As we have stated repeatedly, we believe Iraq to be a unitary state. We are currently enhancing cooperation between Moscow and Baghdad. At the same time, as you know, we develop economic ties and energy cooperation with Iraqi regions as well – based on respect − the main principle, which is necessary for developing interstate relations and ties.

As for our possible contribution to improving dialogue, it seems to me that practice precedes theory in the way Russia treats Iraq and the Iraqi people. We do not simply talk about the importance of dialogue and mutually respectful relations in theory; we also act accordingly, so that this concept is realised in practice.



Question:

It was reported yesterday that, regrettably, there would be no Russian-American dialogue at the G20 summit, and in addition Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said that he had no intention of meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The dialogue on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty is also frozen. What is your opinion of the future of Russian-American relations after the US’s decision? What will happen to the INF Treaty?



Maria Zakharova:

As for the future of the treaty, you can reference Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s recent briefing on this subject http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3420936

As for the future of our bilateral relations, we said long ago that it was time to lead them out of this deadlock. You understand that it is difficult to analyse what is going on in Washington in terms of the political elites’ everyday strategy because it changes every minute and every second. In terms of the world in general, it is clear that we are witnessing a really tough domestic political infighting that, among other things, complicates America’s relations with other countries, and not just countries but also organisations, international treaties, and so on.



Question:

As you know, Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe and President Vladimir Putin will meet on December 1. Japan puts high hopes on continuing the talks on a peace treaty based on the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956, and, as a consequence, coming to specific agreements. Does Russia share this attitude? What agreements can be reached?



Maria Zakharova:

We can endlessly repeat the magic words about our expectations and how to encourage them, and we can add emotional colouring and continue to be vague. But there is a definite plan of action which can be implemented to make real progress. This is a well-known fact not only to our Japanese partners but also to the media. This strategy or plan of action, as we call it, the operating procedure is no secret. Looking forward to a meeting is fine and organising diplomatic contacts is great. We take every opportunity to do this and we are grateful to Japan for the same approach. As you know, several days ago, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with his Japanese counterpart Taro Kono in Rome. In terms of making progress, meetings and contacts are important but it is also important to implement the agreements that have been reached.



Question:

Yesterday, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov said that one should not joke around with the President of Russia and he also joined Bulgaria’s President in calling for the release of the ships seized in the Kerch Strait.



Maria Zakharova:

I do not agree. I think the Russian leaders have no problem with a sense of humour. Provocation is a different matter. This is a fact.



Question:

Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov said a new gas hub was to be built. Can Bulgaria provide a hub within Europe?



Maria Zakharova:

Bulgaria had such opportunities for many years. The country itself rejected them. Everyone has a chance. The question is whether the state seizes the opportunity or not.



Question:

Turkish President Erdogan stated that Ankara is ready to act as a mediator in resolving the Kerch Strait incident. What do you think of such statements?



Maria Zakharova:

We heard the same statements from our German partners. The Russian side pointed out that in this particular case it is a matter of Kiev being reigned in by those countries, states and officials who for many years encouraged it to pursue its present policies. The regime which is now in full blossom is a man-made phenomenon - for both Ukraine and the world in general, it is the outcome arising from the experiments on statehood and democracy conducted by Western colleagues: the US, European structures and certain European nations. Now it’s time for a responsible approach, and, let us speak straightforwardly and without sarcasm, the moment has arrived for real help to Ukraine. Because under the leadership of its President, Petr Poroshenko, the country has gone too far in its provocations.



Question:

We are alarmed to witness growing extremism towards diplomatic missions and diplomats in Ukraine. If this continues to escalate, might it be possible to move some diplomatic functions from Kiev and Lvov to Donetsk and Lugansk? This would support the legitimacy of Donbass as a Ukrainian territory that defied the 2014 military coup, ensure the safety of diplomats and reinforce the Malorossiya political project bequeathed to us by Alexander Zakharchenko.



Maria Zakharova:

This is a long and multi-faceted question. Let me focus on the essence – the diplomatic missions. Media outlets regularly cover and show footage of what Ukrainian radical nationalists dare to do with regard to Russian diplomatic and consular representatives. The outlets do not do this on purpose, to promote the material on the federal channels, but because the internet and social networks are full of photos and videos, information people send to each other.

I have only one question: Are they aware in Ukraine that the Russian public may at some point run out of patience? I would like to remind you that Ukrainian diplomatic and consular missions also operate in Russia and there are Ukrainian diplomats here. We maintain contact with them, we respect and protect them. The point is that, being realists, we are perfectly aware that people (such as yourself, for example, as I sensed indignation in your voice) get the feeling that there is a limit to people’s patience.

Radicals allow themselves new provocations against Russian political sites and facilities in Ukraine. They are not average people and not from the population of the country that keeps on working and toiling. When people work, they have no time to roam about and destroy, they are earning money (this is all the more important there now, in view of the current situation.) They are caring for their families and in general dealing with the issue of survival. They would definitely not spend time throwing Molotov cocktails at the embassy and consulate and setting cars ablaze. All that is done either by people who are paid in advance to do it or by dedicated nationalists (perhaps not so much dedicated as trained).

At the Foreign Ministry, every day, we get thousands of such questions along with demands to stop this lawlessness. They must understand in Ukraine that officially Moscow will do everything to stay committed to all the conventions on diplomatic relations and to protect the Ukrainian diplomatic missions in our country. But there is a limit to people’s patience. This needs to be kept in mind.

Regarding your question on transferring the diplomatic missions elsewhere, an example from recent history shows that sometimes such a transfer is not necessary: sometimes the status of the diplomatic missions changes. For example, we had a Consulate General in Simferopol which later became the Foreign Ministry’s Office in the region. Things like that happen.



Question:

I would like to thank you for your answer to the question on the Chinese Consulate attack in Pakistan that was asked earlier today. What is your assessment of Britain’s policy of double standards? On the one hand, the United Kingdom is supporting a terrorist leader in his home country. On the other, Britons are defending human rights in their own country. They also accuse other countries of interfering in the UK’s domestic affairs. For example, they have accused Russia many times.



Maria Zakharova:

I have partly answered your question. We have no information that a representative of the extremist organisation you have mentioned is currently in Britain. If you have facts to prove this and if you have Britain’s official position regarding this, we will eagerly make a political statement about it. But today I cannot comment on a person’s stay in Britain as I lack the relevant information. You were right in saying that this is what makes us different from London. We do not engage in speculation in the absence of information. If you can pass the information you have to us, we will analyse it.



Question:

Will Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov meet with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin on the sidelines of the upcoming OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Milan? If there is a meeting, what will be discussed?



Maria Zakharova:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s schedule is still being made up. Currently, the minister is in Argentina as a member of the Russian President’s delegation. He can meet with other heads of foreign ministries there. I think that next week we will be able to tell you about his scheduled meetings at the OSCE meeting in Milan. So far, I have no details on the meeting you mentioned.



Question:

On Friday night, November 30, British Prime Minister Theresa May said new sanctions should be imposed on Russia because of the Kerch Strait incident. Can you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

As far as I am concerned, we should take this quietly as there is no need to cite any reasons [for imposing sanctions]. This does not make sense. We all know too well that Britain and a number of foreign politicians largely from Western countries firmly adhere to a policy of pressuring Russia through sanctions. And not just Russia but other countries as well. They think this is the right way to either solve their own problems or to influence the international agenda. This is their approach.

What is the point of talking about the situation in the Kerch Strait, or the Syrian settlement, or the situation in other regions? It is just redundant. It seems to me that it would be honest and fair and also less energy intensive – and today Britain needs its strength for Brexit – to say directly that new sanctions against Russia are needed. It is likely that no one will even complain about the United Kingdom. These are simply mantras it cannot stop repeating. The set design changes but the dance remains the same.



Question:

You have already mentioned the cancellation of the Russian-American meeting at the G20 summit in Argentina. How wise is it on the US part to cancel the meeting with President Vladimir Putin with less than 24 hours notice?



Maria Zakharova:

I believe this is a question for US political experts who know the internal situation in their country. Whether it was wise or not should be seen in the context of the US domestic political agenda.

We talk about expediency, solving problems, the future of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and issues on the global agenda. From this viewpoint, any contact, especially at the level of heads of state, which was announced in advance and seriously prepared, means progress. Whether it was wise or not, is a question that should be addressed to the American society.



Question:

At the beginning of the briefing you mentioned that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov intends to touch on issues related to the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement at the coming OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Milan. Is there a plan to discuss further steps to resolve this conflict?



Maria Zakharova:

If we are talking about the Minister’s speech at the OSCE Ministerial Council, it will include everything related to the OSCE agenda, especially those issues in which Russia is involved. We will share our views.

Certainly, there will be bilateral meetings during which these topics will be discussed in more practical terms. These meetings can result in concrete steps and initiatives.



Question:

Do you believe that Donald Trump’s latest refusal to meet with Vladimir Putin was due to the Kerch incident? Who will the Russian President meet with in Buenos Aires instead of Donald Trump? Is the US always this incapable of reaching agreements or is this a new factor in Russian-US relations?



Maria Zakharova:

Donald Trump is an entirely new phenomenon. He is a trailblazer in many fields.

Is the Kerch provocation planned by Kiev the real reason for the cancellation of the meeting? We heard this public explanation and we took it into account. In my opinion, the real reason is in the internal political situation in the US, which takes precedence in decision making.

On the whole, everything that has taken place in our bilateral relations over the last few years really stands out. It began with Barack Obama and, sadly, is still going on. The deterioration of our bilateral relations and efforts to escalate the situation were the conscious choice of US President Barack Obama and his team. Now, I believe, we are dealing with the aftermath of that policy that cannot disappear overnight. The situation reflects the fierce political struggle that is ongoing in the US.

As for Vladimir Putin’s schedule, it is for the Presidential Executive Office to comment.



Question:

The US Senate unanimously adopted a resolution attributing blame to Russia for aggression against Ukraine in connection with the provocation in the Kerch Strait. The resolution calls on the international community to unite in opposition to the actions of the Government of the Russian Federation in the Kerch Strait since they “infringe upon fundamental principles of international law affecting all nations.” Is such a resolution designed to put pressure on all the other countries?



Maria Zakharova:

I am not really up on the issue, maybe you know – has the Senate sorted out the matter of the disappearance and murder of the journalist who used to work for the US media? Did you see anything? Did they say anything? They are not interested, are they?

As for the resolution, it is a sign of the extremely low intellectual and educational level of those who put it forward. Its authors haven’t got a clue about the matters they are discussing, they do not know the texture, do not understand and have no knowledge of the problems they are making statements on.

I would like to remind you that it is the US and its foreign policy officials that are responsible for the fate of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people in recent years. The “Maidans,” the seizure of power, the dissolution of legally-elected structures and all the other changes we witnessed happened under the direct guidance of the US Department of State officials. The future of Ukraine was “drawn” under the dictate of US diplomats, officials and security agencies, shaping state power and politics, in particular regarding Donbass.

Rather than putting forward yet another piece of paper, the US should realise the role of their country and its officials in the Ukrainian tragedy and adopt a different resolution, for example, on the role of the US Department of State in the 2013-2014 events in Ukraine.



Question:

On December 6, the CSTO countries will discuss the new candidate for the position of the organisation’s Secretary General. As you are aware, there are three options: appointing an Armenian or Belarusian candidate, or Deputy Secretary General Valery Semerikov will be acting as Secretary General. Are the foreign ministries of Armenia and Russia holding consultations on this matter? Which of the three options is Russia most inclined to accept?



Maria Zakharova:

Consultations on this issue are underway, not only between Armenia’s and Russia’s foreign ministries, but also among all CSTO member-countries since the issue concerns the leadership of the entire organisation.

Regarding the options you voiced, it is a matter of study by experts and, obviously, a decision based on this by the countries’ leaders.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424753
__________________
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

Last edited by Alex Him; January 22nd, 2019 at 08:40 AM.
 
Old January 24th, 2019 #542
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's speech and responses to questions at the International Volunteer Forum, Moscow, December 3, 2018



3 December 2018 - 19:17







Dear friends,

I am pleased to have this opportunity to address participants at the International Volunteer Forum, a dynamic and proactive group of people. I understand my compatriots are here, but also representatives from over 120 countries. I am also happy to welcome representatives from international organisations who encourage the volunteer movement.

I would like to say from the onset that we have seen that you have a powerful and infectious energy. A sympathetic approach to an issue and a willingness to come to the rescue have turned the volunteer movement into an important factor in uniting society, a tool for resolving urgent issues in various areas. I would like to express my deepest respect for your noble efforts.

The fact that you are here at the volunteer forum shows Russia’s openness. We are invariably ready to develop the broadest possible cooperation with our foreign partners in all geographical areas and in all formats, based of course on consideration and respect for each other’s interests.

Russia consistently stands up for the principles of international law, primarily the fundamental principles in the UN Charter such as equal rights for all people, sovereignty, non-interference in the domestic affairs of others, and the peaceful resolution of debate. Unfortunately, we are seeing a drifting away from these principles by a whole group of nations. They are trying to slow, if not reverse, the objective process of an evolving multi-polar world order which relies not on one or two poles but on several large poles, poles that are now objectively evolving.

Powerful centres of economic growth and financial influence are being established, and they include the potential to effect political relations on the global arena. It is this process that is being targeted in order to preserve a system that is historically dead, while trying to replace universal multilateral structures with bloc-based mechanisms that advance the policy of one group of nations to the detriment of others’ interests. Thus, the premise of multilateral agency is being undermined, something that was enshrined, among other things, in the UN Charter and which was widely developed in past decades especially after the Cold War. In this sense your forum offers an example of true dialogue where people listen and heed, respect their partner’s opinions, where they try to find a balance of interests rather than simply impose their view on their partners.

We are interested in boosting all areas of humanitarian contact. The fact that we are actively supporting contact between people is evident in our hosting of the Olympic Games in Sochi, the 29th World Festival of Youth and Students, the FIFA World Cup when millions of foreign fans and visitors came to see Russian cities and life in today’s Russia. And also to see how the real picture of life in Russia differs from what is read in biased media outlets.

I would like to sincerely thank all the volunteers who have put their backs and hearts into helping to organise these major events in the Russian Federation. I have no doubt that the accumulated experience will be fully used by the volunteer movement in the future as an integral part of what we call public diplomacy. In 2020, the world will celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Victory in World War II. For us, this means the Great Patriotic War, first and foremost. Now, the Volunteers of Victory National Public Movement is establishing the International Volunteer Team of the 75th Anniversary of Victory to contribute to the organisation of events dedicated to this great anniversary. We expect that volunteer organisations of our compatriots abroad will join this initiative.

I know that the UN General Assembly set the objectives of integrating volunteering into the causes of peace and development. In accordance with these decisions, volunteering has already become an important tool for the implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. We are aware of your contribution and appreciate it.

The United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme remains the key contributor to global volunteering. It is gratifying that volunteers in 126 countries, where 30 UN agencies work, take part in its work. Volunteers actively help to implement projects aimed at strengthening peace and security, protecting the climate, providing basic services to the population, including in the field of primary health care, fighting various infections, developing education, reducing poverty, and much more.

Russia actively encourages the volunteer movement. A network of volunteer associations has been formed, and volunteer support programmes have been launched. This year, as you know, was declared the Year of the Volunteer in our country. We want to see Russian volunteers being represented as widely as possible at multilateral venues and having opportunities for greater interaction and experience sharing with colleagues from other countries.

In July 2018, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and the United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme signed an agreement to implement a joint innovative volunteering project. The Memorandum of Financing involves the participation of 20 volunteers from Russia in the activities of the UN organisations in such areas as peaceful settlement, the creation of partnerships in social areas, environmental protection and much more. The selected Russians are sent to the states of the CIS, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East for a period of one year. I hope that they will share their experience when they return, and we will be able to put cooperation with UNV on a regular basis.

Another initiative to develop the volunteer movement, supported by the Foreign Ministry, is the Consolidation of the Volunteer Movement in the CIS project of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). A special account was set up to finance it, the so-called ‘youth window’ as part of the Russia-UNDP Trust Fund. It is our expectation that this practical project will also help bring together volunteer organisations in the CIS countries.

We continue to contribute to consolidating the international volunteer movement, among other things, by getting Russians involved in the common efforts to fulfil the 2030 agenda. In 2020, Russia will submit a national survey on progress in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). We would be happy if volunteers, as an integral part of Russian civil society, also participate in this work in addition to federal government agencies and business and academic circles.

Dear friends,

We are your allies in supporting the atmosphere of friendship and mutual understanding between nations. We are always open for a constructive dialogue with you. We will continue to encourage your initiatives.

In conclusion I would like to congratulate you on the occasion of International Volunteer Day coming in a few days. All the best to you.







Question:

What is your attitude to the initiative of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area to set up a volunteer humanitarian aid corps? This year this organisation was represented at forums held by the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation. Its goal is humanitarian missions to deliver food and basic necessities to Russian regions and abroad.



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not have specific information on the subject but I always strongly support such initiatives. Currently, the Russian Humanitarian Mission, headed by well-known journalist Yevgeny Primakov, is working in the Middle East, primarily in regions inhabited by Christians but not only Christians. The mission gives priority to Christians because in recent years they have been leaving this region on a mass scale. There is a real danger that the Middle East and North Africa that were the cradle of Christianity, as well as of other world religions, will remain without this integral part of its peoples.

If you have projects for rendering humanitarian assistance to those who need it in other countries, do not hesitate to write to us. We will assist you in getting visas if required and help solve other logistical issues.



Question:

We would like to organise legal education for volunteers. Will you help us?



Sergey Lavrov:

As a citizen of the Russian Federation I one hundred percent agree with you. But, as you might understand, the Foreign Ministry can hardly be of assistance in this area.

You are right in raising this question. I believe that First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration Sergey Kiriyenko and his staff have heard you and will organise the legal education of volunteers, all the more so as today we are taking part in an event focused on the exchange of experience on these matters.



Question:

There are 14th-16th-century maps on the Russian Geographical Society’s website where our country is designated as Great Tartary. Is our country prepared to present its globalisation concept?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our country, in particular the late Academician Yevgeny Primakov, was the first to have put forward this concept. Yevgeny Primakov did quite a lot for our foreign policy in his post as Foreign Minister and to preserve and make our Foreign Intelligence Service more effective when he was in charge of it, and, of course, as Prime Minister when the country was going through a very hard time, and also when he held other offices, including at the Russian Academy of Sciences.

It was he who after being appointed Foreign Minister in 1996, put forward a multi-polar world concept and proposed a new Russia-India-China format that has survived to this day. The day before yesterday, a regular top-level meeting in this format took place in Buenos Aires. This group of three countries is at the core of the BRICS organisation of like-minded people that was created to promote the globalisation concept on terms of equality, mutual respect and respect for one another’s interests, rather than through dictating various decisions [to other countries], exerting economic pressure and imposing illegal sanctions.

The fact that the aggregate GDP of the BRICS countries, who are also members of the G20, has already exceeded that of the G7 countries means a lot. The creation of the Group of 20 countries that meets every year to address key challenges facing the world today also shows that the G7 countries are unable to take decisions concerning everyone in the world alone. They might want this but it’s already impossible.

The BRICS countries have supporters among other G20 countries who are not members but who share our approaches and views, I mean, say, Mexico, Argentina and Indonesia.

As they say, dripping water wears away a stone. A multi-polar world is gradually forcing its way through not because someone has put forward a concept but because someone has seen the objective processes that cannot be stopped.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, where does Motherland begin for you?



Sergey Lavrov:

With my mother. I think this is obvious. My mother is still alive. May God keep her healthy. She turned 90 recently.



Question:

I have lived in Russia for five years. My mother is Russian and my father is from Syria. Based on my roots, I would like to establish a Russian volunteer centre in Damascus. How realistic is this goal?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe it is quite realistic. You have my sincere support. There may be only one difficulty, which is security situation. Please explain your concept in writing and submit it through the International Volunteer Forum. I promise to read it personally and we will recommend things you can do.



Question:

Are there any plans to adopt a document providing visa-free travel for volunteers?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am absolutely in favour of this. The thing is that it is very difficult to establish criteria. Suppose we suggest that the world community should sign a treaty on visa-free travel for volunteers all over the world. I can tell you immediately that there will be a lot of questions from many countries. The main one is who will issue the document in addition to the passport which will give the right to visa-free travel?

We have signed and ratified one agreement with the European Union on facilitating the visa regime when the EU still saw its core interests in developing a strategic partnership with Russia, among other things. Then we agreed to sign another document which enumerated groups of people entitled to visa-free travel. It included journalists, human rights activists and participants of youth and academic exchange. However, that document did not have a direct effect and, sadly, did not come into force. If it had, then each of the groups I mentioned would have been to be interpreted. How do you decide if someone belongs to an academic or youth exchange? The agreement assumed that each trip would be preceded by sending a list which, for example, would be officially sent on behalf of our youth delegation to the European Union explaining that this delegation falls under the category of people who do not need visas. All this must be specified.

However, I am ready to support the idea of volunteer exchanges on extremely relaxed terms. Probably, it is easier to affirm or approve of this concept than to agree upon the concrete parameters of its implementation, especially now. People take advantage of many different situations. For example, many people join migrants from Africa and the Middle East going to Europe, even though these people have nothing to do with legal migrants who qualify for refugee status. They are either wealthy people or people with hostile intentions.

We should take every idea to its logical conclusion. I am ready to support this idea but at the moment I cannot see how we could get it to a point where it’s functional.



Question:

We were born in the Soviet Union. It also had volunteers but they were called Timurites, or members of Timur’s Squad. Do you remember anything you did as a child that makes you proud and for which you could be called a Timurite?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have never been an official member of Timur’s Squads, and so I do not have a squad card. But I was an Octobrist, a Pioneer and a member of the Komsomol movement. My mother taught me to help the elderly and to stand up for them. When I lived in a village as a child, I helped bring water from a well or buy foods. But I was never a member of Timur’s Squads.



Question:

There is a special project under which couples will take care of orphans: they will set up special villages with separate houses for such families. The foster parents are trained to properly take care of orphans, after which they take eight or nine orphans and live with them in these special villages. However, there is not enough money for building and maintaining such villages and for training foster parents. There are about a hundred such villages across Russia. Where can they turn for government funding?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think you should go to the Education Ministry. I know about this movement. I have a very good friend, a priest from Pushkin in the Leningrad Region, who has created a similar village. Both the children living there and their foster parents are happy. They feel that they are part of a very good and noble cause. They received funds from a private investor. I can help you contact them. He cannot finance all your projects, but he can tell you which methods you can use. Please, leave your phone number with the organisers, and he will call you.



Question:

We have created a mobile application based on the neural network technology, which people can use to help each other. Could you consider this project and consult us on how to better promote it to our foreign colleagues from neighbouring countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

I suggest that you start with proposals to launch this cooperation within the CIS. As soon as you are ready to work with your CIS colleagues, we will support you by proposing roundtable discussions where you can present your project.



Question:

I have been living in Russia for 18 years. It is said that Russia is a land of opportunities. What opportunities does Russia offer to its people and to foreigners?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is a question for you. I was born in Russia and feel at home here. It’s terrific that you have felt good living here for 18 years. As for the details, we can discuss them.



Question:

How do you deal with or hide your emotions?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is always a place for emotions, but sometimes you must keep them in check. Sometimes you have to check your emotions even though you want to give them free rein.



Question:

Who can we ask to open a Sberbank branch in Sevastopol or elsewhere in Crimea, so that we won’t have to go to mainland Russia for the presidential grants?



Sergey Lavrov:

I’m sure you know that I have nothing to do with banks. The government cannot order banks to work in the regions on which absolutely unfair sanctions have been imposed. Crimea and Sevastopol residents cannot receive Schengen visas. I suggest that you take your problem to the Presidential Executive Office and the financial bodies whose representatives are here. I wholeheartedly support your desire to have the same standard of living as other Russian citizens do.



Question:

We often use volunteers from Georgia, who have had problems with Russian visas. Are there any forecasts for the improvement of relations with Georgia?



Sergey Lavrov:

We not only have forecasts but also hard facts. Air service was restored between some cities in Georgia and Russia several years ago.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3425696






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at the Dialogue for the Future meeting, Moscow, December 4, 2018



4 December 2018 - 16:45







Good afternoon,

I am pleased to have you here at our Ministry. We are supportive of the activities of the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund and the Primakov Centre for Foreign Policy Cooperation which work to promote Dialogue for the Future. This format is designed to enable young people from different countries to talk and gain information from different sources about what is happening in foreign policy, so that you can get together, express your opinions, listen to what others have to say, and try to identify things that constitute the main goal of diplomacy which is general understanding and balance of interests. The better and deeper you understand the unfolding events and the more you are aware of the positions of the key participants of international relations, the better off the entire international community will be. Now, more than ever, the world is experiencing a shortage of constructive approaches and stances aimed at forming a common vision of how to move forward, not only with regard to specific conflicts that need to be resolved and settled, but also in a much broader conceptual context – a common vision of where the world is headed and what methods will be used to regulate it.







Problems have taken on a global dimension and they are clearly interconnected. No one can avoid particular risks even if they choose to stay within their national borders. Terrorism, drug trafficking, other types of organised crime, the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, risks to the global trade system, attempts to move away from universal formats which are used to form consensus and to replace them with unilateral actions, such as blackmail, sanctions, extraterritorial enforcement of national laws, are in fact destructive for humanity and lead to confrontation. Perhaps, someone will use these attempts to address their fleeting concerns about raising GDP, creating new jobs, or improving the trade balance, but in the long run all this will have a negative effect. So, it is necessary to understand that actions in the pursuit of short-term, self-serving gains can be ruinous, including in the long term, for those who undertake them.

Today, we will talk about everything that is of interest for you. I am aware that post-Soviet countries and European countries are represented here. I would love to listen to what you have to say, primarily in order to better understand what makes today's youth tick.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3427664






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s greetings to Organizers of and Participants in the VIII International Forum "Arctic: Today and the Future"



6 December 2018 - 13:05



I extend my cordial greetings to the organizers of and participants in the VIII International Forum "Arctic: Today and the Future".

Russia has consistently advocated solving the Arctic's pressing problems based on the principles of constructive dialogue and mutually beneficial cooperation to ensure the security and stability of the region's future.

Our discussion forum makes a valuable contribution to the establishment of a positive Arctic agenda and the promotion of Russian priorities in this area by bringing together those who care about the future of the Arctic. Recommendations developed by the forum are widely put into practice to achieve comprehensive development of the Arctic zone that belongs to the Russian Federation, preserve its unique ecosystems, and improve the quality of life of the Far North's population, including indigenous peoples.

I am confident that this meeting, just as the previous ones, will be held in a constructive spirit and will foster greater synergies between the State and civil society with a view to further unleashing the great potential of the Arctic territories.

I wish you fruitful work and all the best.


SERGEY LAVROV

6 December 2018




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3436377






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 25th OSCE Ministerial Council, Milan, December 6, 2018



6 December 2018 - 15:13







Mr Chairperson-in-Office, colleagues, Mr Secretary General,

First of all, I would like to thank the Italian chairmanship for hosting this meeting and creating an atmosphere of mutually respectful dialogue and cooperation. These values ​​are reflected in the Helsinki Final Act, which remains the basis for state-to-state interaction and the implementation of a positive European agenda.

Unfortunately, compliance with its key provisions is not to everyone's liking. In an effort to achieve primacy, a small group of countries are using blackmail, pressure and threats and even stooping to blatant interference in other countries’ domestic affairs. The support of the coup in Ukraine and the unprecedented pressure on Macedonia are vivid examples of such behaviour. The relentless expansion of NATO, the build-up of the Alliance’s capabilities on the Eastern flank, the deployment of the US missile defence system in Europe and the illegitimate sanctions under far-fetched pretexts have led to a crisis of trust in the Euro-Atlantic area. New tensions are being created as the US is planning to bury the INF Treaty.

Today, the CSTO member countries adopted a special statement to this effect which is being circulated as an OSCE document.

Russia is in favour of discussing concerns in a professional manner rather than through a “megaphone.” We supported Germany’s initiative for a structured dialogue on security challenges. If we manage to keep this process depoliticised, we will be able to contribute to de-escalation, prepare the ground for arms control work, and improve the tools used for preventing dangerous incidents. Clearly, this cannot be done without regular contacts between the military, but the West froze them and has so far refused to resume cooperation.

We appreciate the OSCE’s contribution to fighting terrorism, terrorism propaganda and financing, and its involvement in exchanging information about foreign terrorists and militants. It is important to enhance the role of this organisation in fighting the illegal drug threat.

The economic interconnectedness and harmonisation of integration processes have unifying potential. The Platform for Co-operative Security adopted by the OSCE at the EU’s initiative is a good basis for establishing contacts between the EAEU and the EU.

Unfortunately, the situation in the human rights area is deteriorating. The freedom of media as well as linguistic, education and religious rights are under attack. The shameful practice of statelessness remains in EU countries such as Latvia and Estonia. Ukraine passes laws that prohibit the use of languages other than Ukrainian in all spheres of life. Kiev promises leniency, but only with regard to languages ​​spoken in EU countries, thus showing that its goal is to discriminate and, ultimately, to destroy the Russian language, which, as you may be aware, is used by a majority of Ukrainian citizens. I hope that the EU countries are well aware of this design, which flagrantly violates not only Kiev’s international commitments, but the Constitution of Ukraine as well. All this requires the immediate intervention of the High Commissioner on National Minorities.

We are concerned about a number of countries seeking to mop up the information space to remove dissent under the pretext of opposing propaganda. It appears that we are on our way back to censorship. Journalists are subjected to discrimination in France, the US, the UK, Ukraine and the Baltic countries. Any attempts to whitelist or blacklist media outlets are unacceptable. The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media must respond to that.







We submitted for consideration at this meeting draft documents on upholding the language and education rights of ethnic minorities and free access for journalists and media outlets to information. We support the OSCE declaration on the Mediterranean dimension. We must reiterate the importance of adopting declarations in defence of Christians and Muslims. This needs to be done urgently in light of the plight of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa and the growing interfaith tensions in the European Union.

Year after year, we underscore the danger of rewriting history and glorifying Nazism. This has taken on fairly ugly forms, in particular, in Latvia, which honours Waffen-SS veterans. In Ukraine, radical nationalists under the SS banners are rampant. We hope that the recently adopted resolution of the European Parliament, On the Rise of Neo-Fascist Violence in Europe, which cites the corresponding UN General Assembly resolution, will help the EU members to take a principled stand on such disgusting behaviour.

The OSCE anti-crisis efforts are clearly needed. With our support, the OSCE representatives are coordinating talks between Kiev and Donbass in the Contact Group. The Special Monitoring Mission is working in Ukraine in strict accordance with its mandate. There is no reasonable alternative to the Minsk Package of Measures if we want to overcome the internal Ukrainian conflict. However, Kiev continues to relentlessly sabotage it and the decisions made by the Normandy four leaders. Efforts to resolve the Ukraine crisis are running into more obstacles, including flagrant intervention by the state in the affairs of the church, which further aggravates the already complex internal political situation and divides society. It is amazing that the Kiev regime enjoys total impunity with its Western patrons, who forgive or even justify its escapades. This fully applies to the most recent provocation orchestrated by the Ukrainian Navy in the Black Sea and military preparations by the Ukrainian armed forces near the contact line in Donbass.

We support the OSCE efforts to promote the Transnistrian and Nagorno-Karabakh settlement and its co-chairmanship in the Geneva discussions on the South Caucasus.

The Balkans should never leave our focus. As you are aware, the mandates of the OSCE institutions and missions do not provide for promoting Euro-Atlantic integration for the countries of that region. We must respect these mandates. Kosovo cannot participate in the OSCE activities as a state, and Pristina should not be encouraged in its actions that violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244. We expect the EU to get Pristina to comply with the agreements that it reached with Belgrade through the mediation of Brussels, including the creation of a Community of Serb Municipalities in Kosovo.

We are in favour of continuing the OSCE reforms. The organisation needs a Charter, procedures for its executive bodies, election monitoring rules, and regulations governing the human dimension as well as staffing and financial matters.

We are convinced that mutual respect and consideration of interests are the only prerequisites for allowing the OSCE to reach its full potential and help it move towards the goal set by the Astana summit which is to build a community of equal, comprehensive and indivisible security. The interests of ordinary people should guide us in our work. It is people who - in spite of everything - strengthen ties in culture, science, education, sports and business; who seek peaceful and secure lives and do not want confrontation. Let us not sacrifice the interests of our citizens for the sake of geopolitical games, be it in the Mediterranean or Ukraine.

In closing, I would like to wish every success to Slovakia as the next OSCE chair.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3436544






Joint Statement by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Heiko Maas on holding the Russian-German Cross Year of Research and Educational Partnerships in 2018-2020



6 December 2018 - 19:15



In light of the success of the Cross Year of Regional and Municipal Partnerships held in 2017 and 2018, we deem it necessary to continue to promote our communication, mutual understanding and trust by stimulating cooperation in research and educational partnerships. A special role in this belongs to the existing forms of cooperation between our universities and research institutions, which are enriching Russian-German ties in these areas of crucial importance for the future of our countries. We intend to call public attention to the intensity and diversity of this cooperation and to use its progressive development for encouraging new partnerships between Russian and German universities and research institutions, thereby strengthening mutual trust. We share the belief that partnership in the fields of higher education, science and research based on the existing agreements is an integral fundamental part of Russian-German cooperation.

In addition, the Cross Year of Research and Educational Partnerships should contribute to the positive development of interaction and contacts between the civil societies of the Russian Federation and the Federative Republic of Germany. We share the desire to make use of the growing number of research and educational partnerships so as to enhance the intensity of cooperation between German and Russian research institutions and the volume and depth of direct contacts between Russian and German citizens, thereby promoting dialogue and mutual understanding between our societies. Such visible signs of cooperation are particularly important at a politically difficult time.

Therefore, we the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation and the Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany have decided to assume patronage of the Russian-German Cross Year of Research and Educational Partnerships in 2018-2020, which will carry on the tradition of successful cross years held by our countries. We invite our universities and research institutions to take part in this dialogue.

We have great expectations for the 2018-2020 cross year. The contacts and ties this will promote among people from all research and civil spheres will create an invaluable background for the future cooperation among Russians and Germans.

December 6, 2018




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3436942






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the Greek daily Efimerida ton Sindakton, published on December 7, 2018



7 December 2018 - 07:00








Question:

How would you characterise the present stage in Russian-Greek relations?



Sergey Lavrov:

The latter half of the outgoing year was not easy for Russian-Greek relations. A political and diplomatic crisis provoked by the actions of the Greek authorities, who expelled a number of current and former employees of Russian foreign missions in Greece, has led to a temporary suspension of the interstate dialogue. For our part, we did not take any action to curtail cooperation and only responded to accusations that were levelled at us.

This freeze could satisfy neither side because it was at variance with the long-term interests of both states. In this connection, an agreement has been reached on a working visit that the Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, will pay to Russia on December 7. We regard this agreement as timely and very important. We proceed from the assumption that his talks with President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev will make it possible to normalise the bilateral dialogue.

We are confident that there are no real obstacles that would impede progress in Russian-Greek relations. We are able to build up joint efforts so as to intensify contacts in all areas, including trade, economy and investment. We should prioritise the implementation of major joint projects, something that will allow us to reach new highs in cooperation. Concrete areas could be discussed at the upcoming 11th session of the mixed Commission on Economic, Industrial, Scientific and Technical Cooperation.

We still view Greece as an important partner in maintaining peace and stability in Europe, specifically in the East Mediterranean region and the Balkans.



Question:

How would you assess the situation in the Balkans?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are concerned about the situation in the Balkans. We see that NATO and Brussels have redoubled their efforts to absorb this region. They are insistently forcing the Balkan countries to make a false choice between Moscow and Washington plus Brussels. This is further destabilising the security architecture in Europe, increasing tension and creating new dividing lines.

Kosovo remains the biggest source of instability. Pristina is openly sabotaging the agreements reached with Belgrade through the mediation of the EU and has staged numerous provocations. For the past five and a half years, nothing has been done to create the Community of Serb Municipalities in Kosovo. The so-called Prime Minister of Kosovo Ramush Haradinaj has initiated draft laws that run counter to UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and has even proposed creating a regular army contrary to the Kosovo Constitution. This army will be clearly spearheaded against the Serbs living in the province, especially in its northern regions. On November 22, Pristina introduced 100 percent duties on imports from Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, in violation of the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA). This measure is also designed to create unbearable conditions for Kosovo Serbs.

This has actually put in question the reputation of the EU and its ability to force Kosovars to honour their commitments. The Serbian leadership has been acting very responsibly in this situation. President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic has pointed out more than once that he hoped to ease the tension and that Belgrade would not take any mirror measures so as not to aggravate the crisis.

The High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina is playing a destabilising role in the republic. This protectorate regime is hampering the republic’s development and reconciliation, as well as drawing it away from strict compliance with the Peace Agreement, the implementation of which the High Representative must oversee. Attempts have been taken to discredit the outcome of the elections which Bosnians have held in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to question the legality of the victory of Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik.

We also see gross interference in the internal affairs of Macedonia by the United States and the EU. Macedonians were openly encouraged on a daily basis to vote for the Prespan Agreement [to rename Macedonia] at the September 30 referendum. The referendum has not attained its goal, as you know. But on October 19 the constitutional amendments were pushed through the Assembly [Macedonian parliament] by means of blackmail and the bribing of opposition deputies. Foreign diplomats, including the US Ambassador, were directly involved in this. They are working hastily now to formalise the deal in early 2019.

It is notable that this hasty process is fully in keeping with Washington’s goal of ensuring that Skopje joins NATO as soon as possible. The allegation that the Prespan Agreement should be approved to accelerate the country’s integration into the EU does not stand up to scrutiny. As we know, accession talks with Brussels can go on for decades.



Question:

What is Russia’s perspective on the situation in the South Mediterranean region?



Sergey Lavrov:

Unfortunately, the southern part of the Mediterranean Region remains a major hotbed of international tension and a source of a number of dangerous threats including terrorism, illegal migration, drug trafficking and organised crime. The mass exodus of the Christian population has disrupted the ethnic and religious balance. As I have said time and again, this sad state of affairs is the direct consequence of geopolitical engineering and the interference into the sovereign affairs of MENA countries, as well as imposing alien development models and reform recipes.

Russia has been expending considerable efforts in order to improve the situation in the region. It is through the actions by the Russian military and the proactive initiatives by our diplomats that Russia has dealt a destructive blow to terrorists in Syria, helped launch a political process and create conditions for the return of refugees. Together with Iran and Turkey, who are guarantor countries as part of the Astana process alongside Russia, we are working on forming a Constitutional Committee in keeping with the outcome of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress that took place in Sochi. The current agenda for the Syrian Arab Republic consists of the formidable challenge of restoring its infrastructure, which will require the international community and international humanitarian organisations to combine their efforts without any preconditions or double standards. Once these challenges are addressed, the migration burden on Europe is expected to ease.

Russia continues to contribute to the overall efforts aimed at restoring Libya’s state institutions, territorial integrity and sovereignty. The Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev attended the International Conference for Libya that took place in Palermo on November 12-13. Russia proceeds from the premise that there is no alternative to an inclusive intra-Libyan dialogue based on the 2015 Skhirat Political Agreement. We remain committed to further facilitating the UN initiatives to this effect.

Stability in the Mediterranean would hardly be possible without overcoming the long-standing Palestinian problem based on the UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions we all know, as well as the Arab Peace Initiative. Unilateral steps to review the international legal framework of the settlement process do nothing to advance this cause. Just as before, Russia will seek to promote intra-Palestinian reconciliation and facilitate the resumption of dialogue between parties. In particular, we proposed holding a meeting between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Moscow.

We remain committed to a comprehensive, fair, solid and viable settlement of the Cyprus problem. We strongly believe that Cypriot communities must have a final say on the various aspects of the settlement resulting from the talks held within the framework of the UN Security Council resolutions. We believe any attempts to impose ready-made recipes and artificial deadlines to be unacceptable. Our proposal remains on the table to get all the permanent members of the UN Security Council involved in devising a final resolution on the settlement’s external aspects.

I have no doubt that we can strengthen security and stability across the Mediterranean and ensure peace and prosperity for its people only through international law, as well as the values of mutually respectful dialogue and diplomacy.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3437070






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference following the 25th OSCE Ministerial Council, Milan, December 7, 2018



7 December 2018 - 16:42







Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to once again express our satisfaction and gratitude to the Italy’s OSCE Chairmanship and personally Foreign Minister Moavero Milanesi and his team for making the annual Ministerial Council meeting, which was held yesterday and today, very productive and successful.

We had a very beneficial exchange of opinions on current regional and international issues. The Russian delegation provided concrete examples to explain our concerns about the unhealthy situation in the OSCE space, in particular because of the growing military and political tensions. We see that our colleagues from the NATO countries are pursuing a policy of containing Russia, increasing their military activity on our borders, creating a military infrastructure on the “eastern front”, as they say, and resorting to unsubstantiated accusations instead of diplomatic methods, something that cannot promote dialogue even though it is only through dialogue that we can understand and remove any mutual concerns.

It is also alarming that our Western colleagues use the term “international law” less and less often. Instead, they talk more about a rules-based order. I do not see the difference between a rules-based order and international law, but judging by the situations in which this new term is used, our Western colleagues believe that international law is something that calls for universal coordination, while a rules-based order is something they can invent themselves. This is very sad. We urge our colleagues to comply with the agreements reached within the framework of international law.

We are concerned about the disregard for the language, education and other rights of national minorities, including religious rights, as well as the rise of neo-Nazism in many European countries and discrimination against and the persecution of dissenting media outlets. I hope you have taken note of the initiatives that have been advanced in Europe to weed out those media outlets that do not reflect mainstream opinion. All of the above prevents us from working together on the key issues that must bring us together. I am referring above all to aligning the integration processes that are taking place in western and eastern Europe and fighting transnational threats such as terrorism, drug trafficking and cybercrime. Approaches based on ideological preferences and a desire to make use of political methods from the Cold War era are preventing us from working together on important problems to remove very real – not imagined – threats and risks.

For the Ministerial Council’s meeting, Russia prepared four draft resolutions on very important subjects: combating terrorism, enhancing the role of the OSCE in addressing the global drug problem, protecting the language and educational rights of ethnic minorities, which, more and more often, are not simply restricted but eliminated, as well as the need to reaffirm the agreements that were concluded within the OSCE framework since the 1990s. They stipulate that free access be ensured to information for media organisations, the public and the people. As I have already mentioned, attempts are being made to artificially regulate such access.

Unfortunately, none of these resolutions has been approved, although no one doubts their relevance, I am sure. Our initiatives have failed to win support because they were proposed by the Russian Federation.

Not a single document on military and political aspects of security has been coordinated. Nevertheless, Russia will continue participating in the “structured dialogue on security challenges” initiated by Germany last year, provided that they are businesslike discussions. We will look at concrete facts and not engage in politicised talk. The main thing is to restore – in various formats in Europe, including the OSCE, and, above all, the Russia-NATO Council – concrete professional contacts between the military. This is important in order to better understand each other’s intentions and reduce the risk of potential dangerous incidents.

The agreements on economic and environmental topics that are being reached at the OSCE are in line with Russia’s priorities. I mean, in particular, the development of human capital and the digital economy.

We have taken note – and credit Italy’s chairmanship for it – that the OSCE is becoming more focused on the problems of the Mediterranean. This was one of the topics included in the Helsinki Final Act (and, in fact, the fourth basket). The debates that were held on Mediterranean matters revealed common interest in deepening cooperation in combating illegal migration and human trafficking, particularly given the problem of migrant children who have found themselves in Europe without parents and without any support.

We were surprised at the failure, for the fourth consecutive year, to implement the decision, adopted at the OSCE Ministerial Council’s meeting in Basel in 2014, to work out two additional OSCE declarations – on combating Christianophobia and Islamophobia – following the declaration on anti-Semitism. For reasons that are not clear to us, our Western partners are shunning discussions of phenomena which directly affect the interests of Christians and Muslims and which, unfortunately, keep growing. We are convinced that the virtual collapse of all the projects that were considered within the framework of the OSCE humanitarian dimension is the result of a deep crisis in our Organisation that, as we have repeatedly stressed, needs drastic reform and to be cleansed of all manner of distortions and “double standards.”

Conflicts in the OSCE space were also considered. A statement on the Transnistrian settlement was adopted; this is not a breakthrough, but at least it marks the readiness of all participants of the 5+2 format to continue working together. The OSCE Minsk Group’s three co-chair countries for the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement (Russia, the United States and France) coordinated and, together with Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers, made a statement on our intentions and determination to continue seeking a settlement to the conflict.

There was much discussion on Ukraine. It has become a sort of ritual for our western partners. Whatever is discussed, they always mention the Ukrainian conflict. We are not averse to discussion, but we call on everyone, instead of unfounded demands addressed to Russia for some reason, to urge Kiev to perform its obligations under the Minsk Package of Measures, which was adopted in February 2015. We highly value the work being done by the OSCE on coordinating talks between Kiev and Donbass in the Contact Group with our support, as well as the activities of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, which must operate on the country’s entire territory. Its functions, among others, include monitoring manifestations of nationalism and radicalism in all regions of Ukraine; such manifestations are increasing.

Of course, we made efforts to reflect support for the Minsk process in the final documents of the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting. However, Kiev’s destructive stance, with its attempts to fill any document with totally unacceptable and far-fetched ideas, prevented adopting any document on the issue.

We regret that once again we all have failed to adopt a general political declaration, the main final document which is planned each year but was last adopted in 2002.

Overall, the discussion was useful. I believe that many are coming to realise that confrontational approaches are no good. I think that everyone is starting to understand – although not everyone is speaking about it yet – that it is necessary to go back to the conceptual framework proposed by the best minds in Europe dozens of years ago – the necessity to create a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, as well as a space where security would be common and indivisible. This idea was confirmed at the OSCE Summit in Astana in 2010, where participants coordinated an appeal for creating a community of equal, comprehensive and indivisible security based on cooperation. These words were voiced and put into the document. They have to be implemented, and Russia is ready to do this.







Question:

There was talk about new sanctions yesterday. I would like to ask, do you think that these sanctions will really be a problem for Russia, will they have economic effects for Italy and can they help to find a solution?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our Italian colleagues and many, if not a majority, of the OSCE countries emphasise in their conversations the counterproductive character of sanctions, their harm – for all, by the way, including for those who are imposing the sanctions. However, in this situation we can only continue our course, which boils down to protecting the development of the Russian Federation from any possible relapses of sanctions policy. And if that is really the case, as far as I know, if awareness of the sanctions’ toxicity is growing, then, perhaps, those who set this spiral in motion should stop it and take appropriate decisions. I will say it again: we will be ready for this and will respond with reciprocity. Yet at this stage, with the European Union held captive by a small but very aggressive Russophobic minority, we will do everything possible to reduce our dependence on any economic ties that may become a target for new sanctions from our Western partners.



Question:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., has said that Washington might withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty because, in his opinion, Russia is not honouring its commitments. Considering the 60-day ultimatum presented by Washington, does Moscow plan to take any action to preserve this treaty?



Sergey Lavrov:

President of Russia Vladimir Putin and the Foreign Ministry have repeatedly commented on the INF Treaty. As a reminder, several years ago, the United States started accusing Russia of violating the INF Treaty, without providing any evidence. We basically had to pry the information from the US, information that would help us understand what it was all about and what they meant. The US eventually mentioned the 9M729 missile, claiming that it had been tested on certain days at a certain testing site, and that the range violated the treaty’s provisions. Our data concerning these tests showed the opposite. The missile’s range is allowed under the treaty.

NATO foreign ministers met several days ago to support the US position. According to media reports, they did this after Washington presented certain irrefutable documents confirming that the treaty was violated. If this is so, we have not received any such documents from the US side. This is what we have been asking the US to do for a long time. We are still ready for a serious and professional discussion. Instead, the Americans resort to unfounded accusations, and again and again, from high rostrums, make allegations for the entire international community to hear about things that should first be clarified with the other party to the treaty. This would be a more appropriate, polite and correct approach.

Regarding the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that we are interested in launching talks on extending it. The document is set to expire in 2021, and there is not much time left. This proposal remains in force.



Question:

Vice-President of the European Commission Andrus Ansip called on European countries to close ranks against Russian propaganda, given the upcoming European elections. What is the reason for the new attacks on the Russian media and new insinuations of election interference by Russian “trolls”?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is an eternal and inexhaustible topic. There is nothing to add here. This is part of the same story, when we are accused of violating the INF Treaty, of election interference, of an attempt to bend cyberspace and the whole media space in general to our own interests. But I have not seen a single fact so far.

Every time a problem occurs, we ask very specific questions. For example, the crash of the Malaysian Boeing in Ukrainian airspace in July 2014. Where is the data from the Ukrainian radars? We provided our data. Where are the records of what the Ukrainian dispatchers said? No answer. Where is the data from American satellites that surely exists? No answer again. The questions are very specific. So in the case of Salisbury, where are the Skripals? There is no room for “highly likely” here. There can only be two answers here: yes or no, alive or not. Therefore, it is very difficult for us – we talk with our so-called partners in different categories.



Question:

A question on compatriots. Even at this Forum, we saw that almost everyone beat up on Russia, accusing us of all sorts of things. At the same time, our compatriots, working under the supervision of Rossotrudnichestvo, are engaged in soft power, which is really soft. This includes Maslenitsa festivals, exhibitions, and dance performances. At the same time, in the current conditions, with a cold war practically underway, it probably makes sense to pay attention to changing the concept underlying work with compatriots. To give them the opportunity to engage in historical and patriotic work, in fighting Russophobia and breaking through the information blockade. Are there any plans to change how work with our compatriots abroad is handled?



Sergey Lavrov:

Any person belonging to a certain society or association, or just an ordinary individual has the right to engage with historical matters and promote patriotic ideas in the society in which he or she lives, and educate children and, in general, the youth in this spirit. We strongly support such initiatives and, if necessary, we will provide relevant materials and access to archival documents. We are engaged in this work.

Of course, we cannot command the communities of our compatriots who are citizens of the countries in which they live. This is not in our interests. Or goodness knows what we will be suspected of.

But the Congress of Compatriots is held regularly in Russia. The latest one took place quite recently, at the end of October, and President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke there. All the questions you are raising were addressed there. We are ready, within the framework of international law and the laws of the countries where our compatriots live, to provide them with all kinds of support.



Question:

The United States is making statements at different levels on the future of the START Treaty. Do you feel that the United States is trying to play it up in order to scrap the treaty eventually? Does Russia have Plan B for this scenario?



Sergey Lavrov:

I saw a statement to the effect that if the INF Treaty is discarded, then START-3 will become questionable. It seems that the ground is being prepared to destroy this document eventually.

We have come up with proposals that we have repeatedly made available to the United States, including in Helsinki, when President Putin met with President Trump. I myself presented one such proposal to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. We re-submitted our proposals during a visit by US National Security Adviser John Bolton to Moscow in August and later in October, when he was in Moscow again. These proposals are about starting a serious, candid and professional dialogue on the INF Treaty, compliance with the START Treaty, and a number of other proposals regarding our approaches to ​​strategic stability. We got nothing in response from the US partners. We occasionally remind them about it. They keep saying that we need to correct our mistakes and stop the violations. Adults don't talk like that.



Question:

The creation of a mechanism to advance Russia-Japan talks on a peace treaty was announced earlier. Is there any progress? Have any meetings been scheduled?



Sergey Lavrov:

As President Putin and Prime Minister Abe announced in Singapore, an agreement was reached to give additional impetus to talks on concluding a peace treaty based on the 1956 Soviet-Japanese declaration which says that a peace treaty must be concluded before any discussion on anything becomes possible. Concluding a peace treaty means nothing less that recognising the outcome of World War II. We keep telling our Japanese partners that this is an absolutely indispensable first step if we want to conclude a peace treaty. We hope this step will be taken, otherwise we won’t be able to discuss anything.



Question:

Yesterday, we all heard, more than once, various foreign ministers urge Russia to release the Ukrainian sailors and ships. Are you ready to do so now?



Sergey Lavrov:

They are under investigation now, and our Commissioner for Human Rights does see them from time to time. Consular access to them has been provided. They are in good shape. Nothing is threatening their health. There will be a trial after the investigation. They violated international law and Russian laws, illegally entered Russia’s territorial waters and refused to leave or to respond to our requests for information. This is a crime by the standards of any country. On the Mexico-US border, an order was issued to shoot to kill anyone who crosses the border. We did not do that.

With regard to deadlines, several options are available under Russian law once the court proceedings are over. Then, we will be able to discuss concrete steps with regard to their future. However, this can only be done after trial.



Question:

President of Russia Vladimir Putin said Russia would issue passports to Ukrainian citizens in connection with this situation. Does this mean that the “passportisation” of Donbass residents will begin? And, do you have the latest information on the exchange of POWs?



Sergey Lavrov:

President Vladimir Putin said what is envisaged in our laws. We have an opportunity to facilitate the procedure for granting citizenship, including to Ukrainian citizens, considering that those who want Russian citizenship cannot, for objective reasons, provide a document confirming their withdrawal from Ukrainian citizenship. Basically, no one will give them such a document and if they apply for it, they risk being persecuted.

As regards issuing passports, the law does not prohibit people who live outside a certain country from obtaining citizenship in that country. The same is happening in Moldova, Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In Ukraine too, there are Hungarian citizens and Russians with Russian passports. I do not see any problem or any false bottom here.

As for the exchange of POWs, there was a somewhat successful experience last year. I say somewhat because an unexpected thing happened. The lists of people were coordinated by Ukraine, Donetsk and Lugansk. We assisted with that. In all, dozens and even hundreds of names were verified. They were verified and re-verified several times. When those people were brought to the exchange site, the Ukrainian side claimed that 23 people could not be released because they had been included on the lists by mistake. These dishonest tactics make further talks on POW exchanges difficult. Nonetheless, we bring these matters up. We were the initiators of the clause in the Minsk Agreements that calls for an “all for all” exchange. We stand by this policy as before. Simply, the Ukrainian side, when it comes to coordinating the lists, tries to include people who have nothing to do with the events in Donbass. And it is those individuals who were involved in the events in Donbass that are being referred to when we call for an “all for all” exchange as was agreed.



Question:

Is it possible to grant visa-free entry to family members of Russians who live in Europe, Italy in particular?

In recent years, Italian husbands denied permission for children born by Russian wives to receive Italian citizenship. Is it possible to simplify Russian citizenship formalities for such children?

Is any work under way to authorise the use of Russian driving licences in Italy similar to education diplomas?



Sergey Lavrov:

I support the idea of granting Russian citizenship to children of mixed marriages upon the request of one of the parents, the mother in this case. I know that is not the practice now. We have proposed the introduction of this practice into our regulations. I hope that they will become a reality.

As for the introduction of visa-free entry for relatives of Russian citizens, this needs to be done. We will absolutely address this matter, but the simplest way for them in this situation is to obtain Russian citizenship. The closest relative has the right to obtain citizenship through a simplified process. But we will look into the possibility of expanding visa-free entry for the closest relatives of a Russian citizen.

As regards driving licences, I think that in this case an intergovernmental agreement has to be reached. We are currently preparing a similar multilateral treaty within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union. If our partners propose this, we will respond in a constructive way and be ready to consider it.



Question:

High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini said you had good talks yesterday during the bilateral meeting, but added that your invasion of Crimea was illegal. What are your thoughts on yesterday’s talks with Ms Mogherini?

Following the NATO summit in Brussels, statements were put out regarding the INF Treaty to the effect that new weapons have been developed that jeopardise the Euro-Atlantic security. What are your thoughts on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already commented on the INF Treaty. The people I met with yesterday, including German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, expressed concern about this situation. If they are concerned, they should talk to their ally, the United States, and have the US sit down and talk substantively, rather than accuse us without any grounds from across the ocean. We are ready for such a dialogue and suggested considering the INF Treaty at the Russia-NATO Council. In response, our NATO colleagues completely blocked all communication channels between the Russian and NATO military. It is very difficult to stick to that position if you want to get your message across.

With regard to Ukraine, Crimea, annexation, occupation, and so on, I don’t need to come up with any assessments, because there are hard facts. The facts are that the West supported the state coup in Ukraine in February 2014. A day before the coup, Germany, France and Poland used their signatures to guarantee the agreement between then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. They turned out to be not amenable to talks. This coup humiliated them. Instead of the “government of national unity” stipulated by the agreement, the putschists announced the creation of a “government of victors.” Our appeals to Berlin, Paris and Warsaw regarding their guarantee of an agreement which supposedly led to a creation of a government of national unity and the holding of early elections, with a provision on the need to rein in the putschists who spit on their guarantees, remained largely unanswered. The first thing the putschists did after they illegally seized power was to rescind the law providing benefits for the Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine. We knew who these new people in power were from day one. Two days after the coup, one of the leaders of the violent behaviour during rallies in the central square of Kiev and head of the neo-Nazi organisation Right Sector, now a deputy of the Verkhovna Rada, Dmitry Yarosh, said that there was no place for Russians in Crimea. He claimed that the Russians will never understand the Ukrainians or honour Ukrainian heroes, meaning those who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II. So, Yarosh went on, Russians must either be destroyed or be banished from Crimea. This is what kicked off the processes that led to the referendum in Crimea and the Crimeans’ decision to reunite with Russia. Do not forget about this.

When I remind our colleagues, including participants of those events who put their signatures as a guarantee of the implementation of the agreement on the settlement of the political crisis in Ukraine dated February 21, 2014, about this, they say that this has already happened and now we need to do something about it. They suggest that we take the first step. We do not need to take the first step. The Minsk agreements must be fulfilled - this is what matters most.

In 2014, our Western colleagues “swallowed” the anti-constitutional armed coup in Ukraine, and since then they’ve been unable to hold that government accountable, although they have long since understood who they are dealing with. Having once branded them democrats and partners, they cannot publicly criticise them now. That's the problem.

President Poroshenko and his regime enjoy impunity and plan provocations like the one that occurred at the entrance to the Kerch Strait from the Black Sea.

Literally a day after this blatant provocation, the text of the order that these people received from their command was found on one of the boats, as you may be aware (President Putin spoke about this). It said that the boats should covertly, without requesting authorisation of the Russian authorities, pass through the Kerch Strait into the Sea of ​​Azov. To emphasise: covertly. Although 45 days before that, similar military boats strictly complied with all the rules of passage through the Kerch Strait: anchored and requested the services of a marine pilot, which were provided to them. They were led through the strait, and then sailed to their port of destination across the Sea of ​​Azov. Why didn’t they do the same this time? There may only be one answer: they wanted to provoke a scandal.

A day after that, President Poroshenko declared martial law, and three days later the US declared that they need to increase their military presence in the Black Sea. It went like clockwork: first, an incident was inflated into a scandal followed by martial law, which will be used to shore up the absolutely groundless hopes of the incumbent president of Ukraine in the run-up to the upcoming elections. Instantly, we see initiatives come out that are in line with the US plans to build up its military presence near our shores. If you follow the logic of “who stands to gain?” you can draw your own conclusions.



Question:

German media are now reporting that German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas is proposing to expand the activities of the OSCE mission to the Sea of ​​Azov, including because of the incident in the Kerch Strait. This idea will be discussed at the upcoming Normandy Four meeting on December 11. Did you discuss this matter yesterday at the bilateral meeting? What are your thoughts on the idea?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas raised this matter at our meeting yesterday and expressed a number of other ideas. I explained to him the futility of such initiatives.

Of course, no one will forbid discussing this on December 11 or on any other day, but the OSCE has a specific mandate that extends to the entire land area of Ukraine. It even lists areas in which there is a representative office of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission. No monitoring or intermediaries are required either in the Sea of ​​Azov or in the Kerch Strait. Safety rules must be strictly followed during passage through the Kerch Strait, as Ukrainian naval vessels did in September but decided not to do on November 26. Of course, it is necessary to strictly observe and respect the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, not to violate our laws.



Question:

How does Russia regard the detention of the daughter of the Chinese company Huawei’s founder?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe that this is another example of a policy that has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of normal countries and people: a policy of extraterritorial application of national laws.

As I understand, she was detained in Canada at the request of the US due to the fact that this company does business in Iran. This is prohibited by US law. But what does China have to do with it? And what does Huawei have to do with it? This is very arrogant, great-power politics that no one supports. It is being rejected even by the closest allies of the United States. They should put an end to this.



Question:

Turkmenistan persecutes people with dual citizenship and creates problems when they try to leave the country or get a national Turkmen passport. Are there ways to help them? There are many people who want to leave Turkmenistan and move to Russia. Can the procedure for receiving emigrant status be simplified?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding the issue of dual citizenship, we have been working on this with our Turkmen colleagues on a regular basis since our agreement on dual citizenship was denounced. As I understand it, the matter concerns a relatively small group of people who failed to settle all the formalities before the denunciation of the agreement. Our Turkmen partners have assured us, at the highest levels, that they would address these issues.

We expect to get specific information on this soon.



Question:

We have information that your colleague, former Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan Boris Shikhmuradov and several other people were accused of a “terrorist attack” and stripped of Turkmen citizenship. They have only Russian citizenship. Is there any way to influence the Turkmen authorities to find out if these people are alive or not?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have not heard that Boris Shikhmuradov was stripped of his citizenship, but I will look into this.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3437709






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Khabar Agency, Kazakhstan, for Maya Bekbayeva’s project The Era of Revival, Moscow, December 9, 2018



9 December 2018 - 20:00







Question:

Which of Kazakhstan’s peace initiatives do you see as the most important and why?



Sergey Lavrov:

Since it gained independence, Kazakhstan has become a leader in advancing initiatives designed to improve the situation in the world and primarily in our region. One of the first such initiatives was Nursultan Nazarbayev’s idea of Eurasian integration, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which he put forth during the remarks he delivered at Moscow State University. Many years later, his forward-looking initiative has become reality that is benefiting all the EAEU countries.

Another notable idea advanced at the early stage in the history of independent Kazakhstan is President Nazarbayev’s proposal to convene the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA), which has developed into a unique venue. CICA is probably the only platform, apart from the UN, that brings together representatives from the United States, Iran, Israel and Arab countries. CICA was created as a platform for discussions, but the participating countries eventually started using it to coordinate common approaches and to formalise them in documents, which was a humble beginning. Anyway, this is a very important, positive and forward-looking strategic initiative.

Kazakhstan now holds a non-permanent seat at the UN Security Council, where it is providing active support to the efforts aimed at creating a nuclear-free world, fighting the threat of a global armed conflict and international terrorism and promoting a settlement in Afghanistan. One of Kazakhstan’s greatest achievements at the UN Security Council was the adoption of the Code of Conduct Towards Achieving a World Free of Terrorism, which was adopted at President Nazarbayev’s initiative and opened for signature in late September on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly. Russia was among the first to sign this code.

As we are on the theme of Kazakhstan’s peace initiatives, I must speak about the contribution made to the Syrian settlement by your capital, Astana, which hosts a process that is now known as the Astana Format. It has brought together representatives of the Syrian Government, the opposition groups that are fighting the Syrian Army on the ground, the guarantor countries – Russia, Iran and Turkey, plus observers from Jordan and the United States. The contribution of a hospitable, delicate and constructive host is highly appreciated.

Many peace initiatives have been advanced, and I am sure that Kazakhstan will advance many more of them.



Question:

What can you say about our president? What are his main features as a politician?



Sergey Lavrov:

Nursultan Nazarbayev is one of the most experienced and wise leaders in the post-Soviet space and on a larger scale. He has a very broad horizon of responsibility for his people and his country. He understands that it is impossible to ensure the prosperity of the nation in isolation from the rest of the world. President Nazarbayev is not only trying to make use of the advantages of our common geopolitical space, where we had lived within a single state for years, creating complementary infrastructure, economic, financial, management and other capacities. He also knows that in this world one must make use of the opportunities offered within a broader geography.

Kazakhstan’s multi-vector policy is certainly the brainchild of President Nazarbayev. It has very much in common with the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. Russia also wants to maintain good and mutually beneficial relations with all countries that are ready for this in the east, west and south.



Question:

How would you describe Kazakhstan’s contribution to the settlement of a conflict between Russia and Turkey in 2015?



Sergey Lavrov:

It was a very tense period. Of course, we all knew that it was a tragedy that can be settled if the other side offered an apology. I can say without going into detail that President Nazarbayev, who is a very experienced person, found the words of apology which Turkey offered and Russia accepted.



Question:

As a diplomat, you surely know and admit that since it gained independence Kazakhstan has developed a distinctive style of diplomatic behaviour on the international stage the main achievement of which is that Kazakhstan has not had a single open conflict with any other country.



Sergey Lavrov:

You are spot on there. Kazakhstan has a distinctive foreign policy. It is implemented under the guidance of your president and based on the legislative decisions adopted in the country. Kazakhstan’s foreign policy comprises a series of areas that are connected with Russia and our other neighbours. It includes allied relations within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), high-level integration ties within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and, lastly, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which has a number of mechanisms created by the heads of state that are actively used to deal with current problems of great importance to our nations.

Kazakhstan also has its obligations within the framework of the UN, the OSCE and the organisations that have been established in Central Asia, such as the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS).

When I spoke about Kazakhstan’s contribution to the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking, including in Afghanistan, I failed to mention the Central Asian Regional Information and Coordination Centre for combating the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and their precursors (CARICC), which was created long ago and is successfully operating in Almaty.

In short, Kazakhstan’s foreign policy can be described as highly responsible and stipulating independent actions with due regard for the activities of the integration organisations which Kazakhstan has joined at its own initiative in the best interests of the people.



Question:

Will you please comment on the outcome of the Fifth Caspian Summit?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Caspian Summit held in Aktau has completed the more than 20 years of work on the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea. It was necessary to do this primarily so as to make the best possible use of the benefits of the Caspian Sea, that is, its energy and biological resources as well as transport routes.

I believe that the best part of the convention is that all the five Caspian states have clearly confirmed their responsibility for everything taking place on the sea. They will solve issues related to the Caspian Sea falls within their exclusive competence. States that are not parties to this convention are invited to cooperate with the five littoral states on the conditions coordinated in the convention.

Another important thing is that the five states have coordinated the criteria for discussing the subjects related to the delineation of their sovereign and fishing zones. It is a very important achievement. The parties have also mapped out their activities in the area of ecology and conservation, plus the conditions of economic operation that will be beneficial and environmentally safe. There are many more parts. I have only named the most important of them.

I believe that this convention will give a powerful boost to the development of cooperation between the Caspian states in the economy, the ecology and the conservation of the sea’s biological resources for the future generations. In other words, the signing of the convention was a major success of the summit.



Question:

Another global topic on today's agenda: the trade war is now unfolding between the United States and China. Surely Russia will support its ally, China, in this matter. What should Kazakhstan prepare for, as any change in the economic situation in Russia is felt very strongly in our country?



Sergey Lavrov:

We primarily care about Russia’s interests. In any case, trade wars do not benefit anyone, not even the participating sides. We care about the economic interests of the Russian Federation and our partners in the Eurasian Economic Union.

China is certainly our leading trading partner. This year’s mutual trade is approaching $100 billion. But we also have partners in Europe, in the European part of our common continent, and in the Eurasian Economic Union. Another of Russia’s partner, Iran, is also the target of very tough US sanctions. However, we prefer dealing with these problems not through taking sides in a trade war, but through applying legitimate legal procedures of the World Trade Organisation, something we are doing now. China and the European Union are doing the same with the United States.

We would like the global trading system to remain open, and to remain in place in general. Of course, Washington’s actions are doing little to help – the US has already reshaped the North American free trade zone and abandoned the Trans-Pacific partnership. It is difficult to say now what will come in their stead. Our American colleagues clearly believe that their economic muscle, as President Donald Trump said, is such that they are capable of resolving any matter alone, not really worrying about any multilateral platforms or working to fulfill the obligations the United States had assumed before and that the current administration deems obsolete.

However, I am confident that in the end, the US administration will come to understand the need to work collectively and continue following the rules that have been adopted for decades for the World Trade Organisation.



Question:

How does Russia feel about Kazakhstan’s transition to the Latin alphabet? Is this seen as a breakaway?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is a sovereign decision of Kazakhstan and its leadership. If they feel it is in the interests of the Kazakh people, we cannot make any comments here. This is your sovereign right.

There is no dictatorship in our “common home,” the CSTO, or the EAEU, unlike in other alliances, like, say, the North Atlantic Alliance. We never impose anything on anyone. When we are told that there is complete consensus in NATO, and our countries sometimes vote unequally in the UN on important political matters, the answer is very simple – we know what it costs NATO to reach that consensus. This is not a partnership at all; there is no comradely approach; but there is dictatorship. True, there is a minority that is always ready to listen to the Big Brother; as for everyone else, they are persuaded, or forced by threats, in different ways.

With our country, this never happens neither in the CSTO, nor in the EAEU, nor in the CIS. The consensus that is reached in our organisations is indeed the consensus of equal partners, and does not reflect the dominance of the minority over the majority (or vice versa); it reflects the balance of interests of all the participants of an association without exception.

I repeat: we will view everything that is in the interests of the Kazakh people in this way.



Question:

When we watch Russian channels in Kazakhstan on the subject of the Syrian crisis, your journalists often accuse other CSTO member states of “non-interference.” They claim that Russia alone is actively involved in this process. Does the opinion of your journalists reflect the opinion of the state?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not think our journalists will blame other CSTO countries for not participating in resolving the Syrian crisis.



Question:

Vladimir Solovyov does.



Sergey Lavrov:

It is his private agenda. He has many interesting guests, smart people who have their own idea of ​​what is happening there.

But for me, there is an objective fact: some of our allies, including Kazakhstan and Armenia, participate both in peacekeeping operations not mandated by the UN (in Afghanistan, for example), and in full-format UN missions (Kosovo); yet, they never participate in any efforts to stabilise Syria. In Afghanistan, there is a NATO operation, and in Syria, we would be ready to organise a CSTO humanitarian mission. The first steps in this direction are being made.

Not so long ago, together with our Armenian colleagues, we initiated a joint campaign for the delivery of Armenian humanitarian aid by Russian aircraft to the Syrian people. I am confident that Kazakhstan is interested in participating in such humanitarian initiatives. We are discussing this with our partners from Kazakhstan and other CSTO countries.

When, say, the French contingent participates in the UN peacekeeping operations, they always fly the EU or NATO flag over their headquarters in Africa alongside the French flag. With the European Union, it is understandable. It is no longer an economic cooperation mechanism, but also a political and defensive alliance; therefore, EU members also associate peacekeeping with this common flag. I see no reason why the CSTO flag should not be there with a national flag at command posts, where military contingents, observers, or police from the CSTO countries participate in peacekeeping operations. I am confident that here we have nothing to be ashamed of – we always try to help the UN peacekeeping efforts.

When we work together to meet humanitarian goals not only around us, in our space, but also use our humanitarian capacity to help ease tension in other parts of the world, I think it will only benefit our common authority, and reputation of our organisation and each of its members.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3438074






The following events are not displayed in the English version.


3 December 2018

Meeting od S. Lavrov with the African Union Commissioner for Peace and Security S. Scherghi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3425749


4 December 2018

Meeting of S. Lavrov with a member of the Chamber of Deputies of the Lebanese Republic, former Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Lebanon Najib Mikati - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3427770


5 December 2018

Telephone conversation of S. Lavrov with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus N. Christodoulidis - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3430297


6 December 2018

Meeting of S. Lavrov with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Vice-President of the European Commission F. Mogherini - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3436558

Meeting of S. Lavrov with OSCE Secretary General T. Greminger - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3436606

Meeting of S. Lavrov with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway I. Eriksen Sereide - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3436796

Meeting of S. Lavrov with the Chairman of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly G. Tsereteli - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3436848

Meeting of S. Lavrov with the head of the foreign service of the Vatican P. Gallacher - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3436927

Meeting of S. Lavrov with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany H. Maas - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3436968

Meeting of S. Lavrov with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kyrgyz Republic Ch. Aidarbekov - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3436982


7 December 2018

Sergey Lavrov's answer to the media question on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting, Milan, December 7, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3437719
__________________
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

Last edited by Alex Him; January 24th, 2019 at 06:23 AM.
 
Old January 24th, 2019 #543
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Most personal and non-personal events have not been translated to English.





Personal events:





Statement by the Head of the delegation of the Russian Federation the Chief of the Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control of the Russian Foreign Ministry Mr. Vladimir Yermakov at the Meeting of States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention Item 5 of the Agenda: «General Debate», Geneva, December 4, 2018



5 December 2018 - 19:29




Mr. Chairman,

We note with satisfaction that at a regular Meeting of Experts to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in August positive steps forward have been taken on some of the key issues of Convention’s implementation.

Primarily it concerns Russian initiative on the use of mobile medical and biological units within the framework of the BWC. Russia and the United Kingdom submitted two working papers devoted to this issue. They were addressed in a constructive way at a high professional level.

A high potential of the concept of mobile medical and biological units has been confirmed, and so has its relevance with regard to strengthening the Convention. It is very important in the context of creating efficient mechanisms for implementing Article VII (on the assistance and protection from biological weapons).

For this meeting Russia and the United Kingdom have prepared a joint document devoted to emergency response. We offer to consider a number of ideas on promoting the concept of mobile medical and biological units.

Our document will be presented and addressed at the side event which will take place on Thursday, December 6, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. in room XXIV. We encourage everybody to take the most active part in it.

At the Meeting of Experts in August other useful ideas were pointed out.

Since time is limited, I will draw your attention only to the working paper on institutional strengthening of the Convention prepared by Cuba. We agree with our Cuban colleagues that we all should continue to carefully preserve the legacy of the negotiating body for the elaboration of a legally-binding protocol on strengthening the Convention – Special Group of the States Parties. We support the idea of conducting targeted work in the intersessional period on the new review of the results achieved by the Special Group in order to consider the possibility of updating and active use of those achievements that continue to receive wide support of the States Parties.

The Chinese initiative on elaborating a common export control mechanism within the BWC on the basis that is clear and equal for all states is essential.

Mr. Chairman,

The BWC is a universal international treaty, and its importance to ensure global security cannot be revised.

Russia has consistently stood for building the negotiating process within the BWC that is aimed at improving implementation of all its provisions. The absolute majority of states shares our view. This is the reason why we consider any attempts to create parallel mechanisms circumventing the Convention as inappropriate.

We are particularly concerned with the situation when such moves are a product of secret bureaucratic work following “we-decide-all-for-you-and-you-follow-it” principle, rather than a result of a negotiating process between states.

In this context we once again draw your attention to the fact that Russia, as well as other states, has serious questions with regard to the biological section of the “Agenda for Disarmament”, presented by the UN Secretary-General in May. The fragmentation of interstate processes, let alone any attempts to replace negotiating work conducted by states within the BWC with “alternative” activities of international bureaucracy that is not controlled by states is inadmissible.

We believe one of the objectives of the meeting is to ensure financial stability of the intersessional programme. Outstanding contributions of States Parties and irregular balance of payments are the main problems here. Unless we solve them, we cannot guarantee that our work will be successful.

The Russian delegation intends to ensure good performance of the forum and is ready to cooperate fruitfully with all its members.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3430315






3 December 2018

Meeting of G. Karasin with head of Transnistria V. Krasnoselsky - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3425646


4 December 2018

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Minister for Government Affairs, National Security Advisor of the Union Government of the Union of Myanmar Town Thun - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3426816

Meeting of S. Vershinin with African Union Commissioner for Peace and Security Smail Sherga - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3427654

Meeting of S. Vershinin with Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel A. Bar - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3427809


5 December 2018

Participation of A. Pankin, in the UNGA High Level Meeting on Middle-Income Countries - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3428134

Meeting of S. Vershinin with the delegation of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3428166

Participation of S. Ryabkov in the meeting of the BRICS Sherpas and Sous-Sherpas - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3429825

Meeting of V. Titov with the President of the National Council of Austria V. Sobotka - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3430159

Telephone conversation of G. Karasin with the UN representative at the Geneva discussions J. Sultanoglu - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3430251


6 December 2018

Consultations of M. Bogdanov in Beijing - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3436906


7 December 2018

Meeting of G. Karasin with the Ambassador of Turkmenistan to Russia B. Niyazliev - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3437258

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the Ambassador of the Republic of Costa Rica in Russia A. Fournier Fazio - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3437797

Speech by Vladimir Nebenzi, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the plenary session of the 73rd session of the General Assembly under the agenda item "Situation in Afghanistan", New York, December 6, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3437883


8 December 2018

Speech by Deputy Director of the Department of European Cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia A. Polischuk at the closing session of the 25th OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting, Milan, December 7, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3438011







Non-personal events:





Joint Statement in support of the BWC at the Meeting of States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, Geneva, 4 December 2018



5 December 2018 - 19:31




Mr. Chairman,

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the following delegations: Armenia, Belarus, Brazil, China, Cuba, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Serbia, Tajikistan, Venezuela and my own country Russia.

Since 1975, the Biological Weapons Convention has remained one of the pillars of disarmament and international security prohibiting an entire category of weapons of mass destruction. The international community’s action to ban the weaponisation of disease is a laudable step towards making this world a safer place.

The BWC, as a collective endeavour, enshrines commitments by its State Parties to promote co-operation for peaceful purposes and provide assistance and protection from biological weapons.

We remain committed to the BWC and its effective implementation. However, the BWC continues to face challenges and requires institutional strengthening of the Convention. These technical, legal, financial and other challenges need to be addressed collectively by the States Parties.

The intersessional programme leading up to the Ninth Review Conference in 2021 provides a valuable opportunity for the States Parties to make efforts to resolve these challenges. The States Parties should endeavor to achieve concrete and meaningful outcomes and decisions in order to promote the object and purpose of this Convention.

We emphasize the indispensable and important nature of multilateral processes within the BWC based on its provisions. This should be pursued in a universal, inclusive, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. In order to maintain the credibility, universal acceptance and legitimacy, it is essential to uphold the BWC as the only multilateral forum to address matters pertaining to biological weapons.

We believe that only multilaterally negotiated decisions agreed to by the States Parties by consensus can provide the necessary assurances of compliance by the States Parties and act as an effective deterrent against non-compliance and use or threat of use of biological weapons.

We request that the statement be attached to the records of the meeting and uploaded on the website.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3430325






Joint Statement by the Heads of Delegation of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair Countries, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, Milan, December 6, 2018



6 December 2018 - 16:43



On the occasion of the OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting in Milan, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries (the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and France) and the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov and Acting Foreign Minister of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan agreed to continue working toward a just and lasting peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

The Co-Chair countries welcomed the significant decrease in ceasefire violations and reported casualties following the conversation of the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan on the margins of the CIS summit in Dushanbe in September. They appealed to the sides to continue implementing the understandings reached there and to take concrete measures to prepare their populations for peace. The Co-Chair countries expressed hope that an intensive results-oriented high-level dialogue between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia to promote a just and lasting settlement of the conflict can resume in the near future.

The Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan and the Acting Foreign Minister of Armenia reaffirmed their commitment to work intensively to promote a peaceful resolution of the conflict and to further reduce tensions. They agreed to meet again early in 2019 under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs for this purpose and in order to facilitate high-level talks. They recognized the strong engagement and good-faith mediation efforts rendered by the Co-Chair countries, as well as the activities of the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-office.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3436710






Press release on the adoption of a Russian resolution on international information security at the UN General Assembly



7 December 2018 - 17:24



On December 5, the UN General Assembly adopted a Russian resolution on international information security (IIS) titled “Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security.” It was supported by an overwhelming majority of states and co-authored by over 30 countries from different parts of the world.

This document has opened a new page in the global discussion on international information security, which was launched 20 years ago. The issue of international security was placed on the UN’s agenda in 1998 at Russia’s initiative.

It is notable that breakthrough decisions aimed at strengthening IIS have been adopted in the anniversary year of 2018. These decisions aim to protect the interests of all countries in the sphere of cyber security regardless of their level of technological development.

The document includes a number of innovations, starting with a provisional list of 13 international rules, norms and principles of responsible behaviour of states in this sphere. These actually form the world’s first code of conduct in the digital sphere, designed to create the foundation for peaceful interaction and to prevent war, confrontation and any other aggressive action.

These are crucial provisions, such as the commitment to use information and communications technology (ICTs) exclusively for peaceful purposes, to respect the sovereignty of states in the information space, to cooperate in the fight against the criminal or terrorist use of ICTs, and to prevent the proliferation of malicious ICT tools and techniques and the use of harmful hidden functions.

This document also includes the following provisions:

- Accusations of organising and implementing wrongful acts brought against states should be substantiated.

- States must not use proxies to commit internationally wrongful acts using ICTs.

- The United Nations should play a leading role in promoting dialogue among member states to develop common understandings on the security of and the use of ICTs.

- State sovereignty and international norms and principles that flow from sovereignty apply to State conduct of ICT-related activities and to their jurisdiction over ICT infrastructure within their territory.

- States have a primary responsibility for maintaining a secure and peaceful ICT environment.

Second, we have recommended making the United Nations negotiation process on security in the use of information and communications technologies more democratic, inclusive and transparent.

With this aim in view, we have proposed convening an open-ended working group (OEWG) acting on a consensus basis. This means that all UN member states without exception will be able to take part in its activities. We are convinced that the era of “club” arrangements is over and that all countries, regardless of their level of technological development, have a right to take a direct part in talks on IIS at the UN and to influence the decision-making process. Every vote counts and must be taken into consideration. Only in this way can we create the basis for a fair and equal world order in the digital sphere.

The OEWG will be authorised to consider the entire range of issues related to IIS. It will continue, as a priority, to further develop the rules, norms and principles of responsible behaviour of states in information space, study how international law applies to the use of ICTs by states and build up the digital capability of the developing countries. It is the first time that the UN group on IIS has been given such a mandate. The OEWG will offer an opportunity to all countries to contribute to discussions and decision-making on these subjects.

Moreover, the status of discussions on IIS at the UN has been enhanced. Unlike the previous UN group of governmental experts on IIS, the OEWG will be a fully-fledged body of the UN General Assembly with the right to draft and recommend any documents to member states, including drafts of international treaties.

Another new element of the OEWG mandate is the right to study the possibility of establishing regular institutional dialogue with broad participation under the auspices of the United Nations. In other words, the OEWG is to analyse different options for creating a permanent UN negotiating body on IIS.

This resolution for the first time stipulates the establishment of a mechanism of the group’s intersessional consultative meetings with the interested parties, namely business, non-governmental organisations and academia, to share views on the issues within the group’s mandate. This will allow involving these interested parties in discussions on the crucial aspects of the use of ICTs.

It is regrettable that the Western countries, primarily the United States and the EU, voted collectively against these progressive ideas, which all the other states have supported. By doing this, the Western countries have set themselves off against the international community. It is indicative that these very states are promoting an atmosphere of mistrust in the media and accusing other countries of cyber attacks. This leads to the conclusion that they have only their own mercenary goals in mind and have no interest in looking for objective and pragmatic solutions to the problem of information security, or in ensuring that talks on this topic are open and transparent for all parties.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3437775






3 December 2018

On the entry into force of the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica on mutual visa-free travel of citizens of September 28, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3425656

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the death of civilians in Helmand and Paktia provinces [Afghanistan] - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3425666

On the meeting of the UN Security Council dedicated to the discussion of the humanitarian situation in Syria - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3425771


4 December 2018

On the preparation for the implementation of the Russian-Georgian agreement - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3427780


5 December 2018

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia regarding plans to create a Kosovo "army" - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3429811


6 December 2018

On the approval by the United Nations General Assembly of Russian documents on space issues - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3437060


7 December 2018

Russian-American Consultations on the Situation in Afghanistan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3437747

On voting in the UN General Assembly on the American draft resolution condemning the Palestinian movement Hamas - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3437787

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the voting in the UN General Assembly on the draft resolution “Situation in Afghanistan” - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3437873


8 December 2018

On the exchange of congratulatory telegrams between the ministers of foreign affairs of Russia and Equatorial Guinea - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3437952
__________________
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

Last edited by Alex Him; January 24th, 2019 at 08:14 AM.
 
Old January 24th, 2019 #544
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 5, 2018



5 December 2018 - 16:15







Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Milan

I said at the previous meeting that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov would take part in the OSCE Ministerial Council, which will take place in Milan on December 6−7. Today I would like to tell you in more detail about the minister’s meetings on the sidelines of the upcoming event. As you know, the coordination of such multilateral meetings’ programme continues to the last possible moment. Changes are still possible, but we will try to update you on them.

As of now, we are coordinating a meeting of the CSTO countries’ foreign ministers. Sergey Lavrov may have talks with High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly President George Tsereteli, Vatican’s Secretary for Relations with States Paul Gallagher, and foreign ministers Ine Marie Eriksen (Norway), Heiko Maas (Germany) and Chingiz Aidarbekov (Kyrgyzstan).

Last week you also asked me about the upcoming meeting on Nagorno-Karabakh.

The foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan plan to meet today, ahead of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Milan, to discuss the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement with mediation from the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group (Russia, the United States and France). Russia will be represented at this meeting by Ambassador at Large Igor Popov. The parties involved issued an announcement on this meeting on December 3. A statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement may be adopted at the meeting in one of two possible forms: either by the co-chairs or in the 3+2 format together with the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation for Supporting and Protecting the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad

On December 10, Sergey Lavrov will chair a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation for Supporting and Protecting the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad.

The participants will consider the foundation’s performance amid the deteriorating international situation and increased pressure on members of the Russian diaspora in some Western countries. They will also discuss the foundation’s tasks for the near future and new forms and methods of its activities.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to chair joint meeting of the MGIMO University Supervisory Board and Board of Trustees

On December 12, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair a joint meeting of the Supervisory Board and Board of Trustees of Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MGIMO).

The members of the Supervisory Board and the University’s Trustees will hear a report from MGIMO Rector Anatoly Torkunov on the results and main activities of the University, and will consider projects for its future development. Special attention will be paid to events marking the 75th anniversary of MGIMO in October 2019.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to attend seminar for heads of state legislative (representative) bodies of Russia’s regions - members of the Council of Legislators of Russia’s Federal Assembly

On December 13, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in a seminar for heads of state legislative bodies of Russia’s regions - members of the Council of Legislators of Russia’s Federal Assembly, where he will deliver a report, “The International Situation: Current Challenges and Trends”.

The programme also includes presentations by Government members, representatives of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and experts from Russia’s leading research centres. The event, organised by the Federation Council and the Russian Academy of Sciences, is held annually starting in 2016.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to attend meeting of the Foreign Ministers Council of the eleven member states of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization (BSEC)

Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov will take part in a meeting of the BSEC Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs (BSEC) on December 14 in Baku.

The participants will summarise the six-month Azerbaijani Chairmanship-in-Office of the group under the motto of “Boosting Trade through Connectivity” in the Black Sea region. A wide range of issues of the regional economic cooperation agenda will also be discussed, including relevant sectoral issues such as transport, energy, agriculture, science and technology, and healthcare.

Russia will use the forthcoming Ministerial Meeting to promote a unifying agenda and proposals in support of the BSEC strategic objectives, including the coordination of the Russian Economic Development and Trade Ministry-initiated framework for the development of e-commerce and Single Window projects. We will work to help strengthen the BSEC as a depoliticised platform for intergovernmental dialogue in the interests of expanding mutually beneficial economic cooperation in the region, enhancing economic ties, making them more sustainable and increasing the practical benefits of ongoing projects.

Russia is actively involved in the BSEC activities aimed at enhancing the prosperity and progressive development of the Black Sea region, and acts as a donor for the BSEC and a shareholder in the Black Sea Trade and Development Bank affiliated with it. In 2016, a project cooperation development mechanism in the Black Sea region was launched on the initiative of and with the financial support of Russia, and is steadily gaining momentum.



Update on Maria Butina

We are outraged by the pressure that the American authorities are exerting on Russian citizen Maria Butina, who was arrested in the US last summer on trumped-up charges.

Once more, her detention terms have been toughened. She is in solitary confinement for 22 hours per day. Ms Butina is not receiving proper medical care. We consider this an attempt to intimidate and break her down ahead of the court hearing - I should note once again on a fabricated case - scheduled for December 19.

Russian diplomats in Washington take every effort to support Ms Butina, visiting and calling her on a regular basis. They have sent a resolute protest to the prison officials, demanding that this degrading treatment stop. A note containing a harsh demarche in this connection has been sent to the Department of State.

We will continue demanding the release of Ms Butina, who is a victim of this blatant outrage. Meanwhile, we have heard numerous statements and comments by US officials as regards the detained Ukrainian sailors. No such measures have been imposed on any of the detained Ukrainian sailors. If our American partners think they can comment on the detention of people who violated Russia's state border, they should start by commenting the situation around the political prisoner held in their country.



Update on Syria

The parties continue implementing the Memorandum on Stabilising the Situation in the Idlib De-escalation Zone that President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan coordinated in Sochi on September 17. Turkey has been making efforts to disengage the “moderate” opposition from the terrorists. Despite this, not all extremists obey the requirement on creating a 20-kilometre belt of the demilitarised zone. Thus far, it has been impossible to stop the militants’ daily provocations aimed at disrupting the joint Russian-Turkish activities.

According to information available to the Russian military, violations of the ceasefire regime are still recorded. Shells were fired at the residential areas of Zellakiyat in Hama province and Jub-al-Mgara in Latakia province, as well as at Hai al-Ansari district in Aleppo. As a result of the Zellakiyat shelling, one Syrian serviceman was killed and another wounded.

As is common knowledge, President Putin and President Erdogan, meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires on December 1, confirmed the existing agreements on Idlib and coordinated further steps for their implementation.

The dubious activities of the US-led “coalition” in Syria are a source of growing concern. The Americans continue their illegal occupation of the 55-kilometre zone surrounding the Al-Tanf military base, where they behave as if they were its rightful owners. In the night of December 3, several missile strikes were launched from there at the positions of the Syrian government forces deployed outside the zone in the Al-Gurab area. The US side claims that the attacks were directed at ISIS deployment sites, but the official Syrian media deny this.

We believe that these US actions speak to an unwillingness to ensure at least minimal stability in this part of Syria, which is needed for organising regular humanitarian aid deliveries to the Rukban refugee camp located inside the zone.

In the larger scheme of things, the aim of the illegal US presence, as we see it, is to try and play the “Kurdish card” in the area beyond the Euphrates River and steer towards a banal division of sovereign Syria, despite official claims about their alleged commitment to its unity and territorial integrity.

The Western coalition forces achieved a “major” success in southeastern Syria, where they at last managed to win from ISIS northern Hajin. But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Syrian government forces managed to mop up ISIS on 380 square kilometres of the Al-Safa plateau, Suwayda province (92 kilometres from Damascus), within a much shorter timeframe than the six-month-long US operation. In so doing, they seized a lot of weapons from the militants, including US-made anti-tank guided missiles.

Positive developments include the fact that by December 3, over 1,000 refugees had returned to Syria from Lebanon and Jordan within a 24 hour period. A special focus is on creating favorable conditions, including legal conditions, for the repatriation of Syrian nationals. Specifically, the Syrian authorities continue the work to formalise amnesty for evading military service, including among refugees and former members of illegal armed groups, as part of the effort to implement President Assad’s executive order of November 9, 2018. As of December 1, over 14,000 persons went through the procedure.



Developments around the UN-designated Blue Line between Israel and Lebanon

Media have reported on the Israeli military's intention to launch Operation Northern Shield. The operation aims to destroy the tunnels allegedly built by Hezbollah in the area of the Blue Line between Israel and Lebanon and in the northern part of the Golan Heights to send infiltrators to Israeli territory.

To this end, the Israeli army has reinforced its forces in the northern part of the country. According to the statement made by Israeli military officials, the operation will take place solely on the territory controlled by the Israeli army.

Israel's right to defend its national security and prevent illegal entry into the country is indisputable. Yet, we express hope that the actions taken will not go against the provisions of UN Security Council’s Resolution 1701, which defines the rules for the parties' conduct in the Blue Line area, which - it should be noted - is not an internationally recognised border. We expect that the contingent of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, deployed in the territory, will carry out its monitoring mission and prevent any violations.

We call for all sides to show necessary responsibility and restraint, and avoid any provocative acts and strong statements that could escalate tensions in the Middle East.



Update on Ukraine

At the November 30 briefing, we already mentioned that martial law in Ukraine is part of a well-devised plan with clear domestic political undercurrents. In order to retain its grip on power, the Kiev regime is ready to do anything, even to unleash a new blitzkrieg in southeastern Ukraine.

Unfortunately, recently, we have been hearing about ongoing preparations for possible military actions by the Ukrainian armed forces in Donbass. Again, the Kiev regime is trying to use the cover of information noise to direct the international community’s attention to its own provocation in the Kerch Strait which it tries to pass off as aggressive actions taken by Russia. Substantial offensive forces are being redeployed in that region and dispersed along the contact line. The other day, photos of tank units redeployed to Mariupol were posted on social media. In addition, airborne assault and mechanised brigades of the Ukrainian armed forces are being redeployed in the conflict zone. In November, the personnel of these brigades underwent training at the training ranges in the Zhytomyr and Lvov regions overseen by the US, Canadian and British instructors.

Exercises in the Zaporozhye, Kherson and Chernigov regions, as well as training for reservists, were announced. Members of foreign private military contractors were spotted on the contact line as well. They trained Ukrainian spec ops personnel with an eye towards carrying out, I stress, offensive operations. The defence industry and the repair and maintenance capacities for the Ukrainian army are being switched to a wartime mode of operation.

In a word, martial law is a disguise or a screen, if you will, behind which Poroshenko’s regime is clearly trying to conceal its plans to stage another provocation in Donbass. Today, I will provide specific figures and facts to back this up. Again, we think this will be presented as hard evidence of “Russian aggression.”

We also noted the piece of news carried by the British media about sending to Ukraine the 77th brigade of the British armed forces, the main tasks of which include conducting special cyber operations, as well as psychological and information warfare.

Such information is indicative of London’s continued provocative policy aimed at destabilising the situation in Ukraine and can be interpreted as a direct attempt to provoke a new round of military confrontation in Donbass and to disrupt the peace process. Such actions are absolutely unacceptable.

Now, on to the specific examples which I mentioned above. Clearly, Kiev is openly sabotaging the Minsk Package of Measures. This causes concern on our part. To reiterate, martial law imposed by President Poroshenko on November 28 in 10 Ukrainian regions, including Donbass, is at odds with not only the letter and the spirit of the Package of Measures, but is also fraught with a major threat of resuming hostilities. I would like to note once again that, to date, an offensive group of the Ukrainian armed forces has been formed in this zone, which is capable of unleashing large-scale hostilities along the contact line at any time. In November, the OSCE SMM monitors recorded over 50 units of military equipment of the Ukrainian armed forces in violation of paragraph 2 of the Package of Measures and more than 150 units of weapons deployed immediately behind the withdrawal line. They spotted a BUK anti-aircraft system in Donbass near the town of Shevchenko on November 12, an S-300 anti-aircraft system outside the village of Nikolskoye (formerly Volodarskoye), R-934B/BM radio suppression stations outside Prechepilovka, and other weapons.

In addition, in violation of the Package of Measures which prohibits UAVs along the contact line except for those used by the OSCE Monitoring Mission, the Ukrainian armed forces are using UAVs, including warfare-grade, in Donbass.

Mimicking the ISIS terrorists in their tactics of using UAVs, the Ukrainian military uses drones to drop hand grenades and mines on civilian targets thus causing civilian casualties. For example, a resident of the village of Mineralnoye was wounded on November 7 by a Ukrainian army-operated UAV equipped with hand grenades, and residential buildings were damaged in Staromikhailovka following such an attack.

According to our information, last month alone, the military of the people's republics destroyed nine Ukrainian army’s UAVs, which in itself is indicative of their wide use by Ukraine. When I say Ukraine, I mean the Kiev regime.

In this regard, the incoming information about the possibility of all sorts of provocations by the Ukrainian military in Donbass, including the use of chemical agents, cannot but cause our concern. Such actions can cause civilian casualties and are at variance with not only the Minsk agreements, but international agreements on the prohibition and restriction of weapons of mass destruction.

We urge the OSCE SMM to step up its activities in Donbass. What is needed is not fragmentary information, but a comprehensive look at the military preparations by the armed forces of Ukraine. All the more so as we not only made these facts public today, but passed them on to our colleagues at the OSCE as well. It is not enough to record the direction of fire or be limited to recording instances of shelling. What is needed is a detailed analysis of incidents and the adoption of appropriate measures. Each civilian casualty or injury resulting from shelling must be included in a separate detailed situational report, and the perpetrators must be punished no matter what including through international courts.



Restriction on Russian nationals’ entry to Ukraine

Now, the continuing anti-Russian hysteria of the current Ukrainian leadership. Recently, it was announced that Kiev decided to impose restrictions on Russian nationals’ entry to Ukraine.

The restriction concerns Russian men aged 16 to 60. Without any solid grounds, they are now banned from crossing the Ukrainian border. Crossing the border has become almost impossible. The restriction has already affected prominent Russian performers, cultural workers, to say nothing about ordinary Russians who were travelling to Ukraine to visit their relatives and loved ones in connection with humanitarian cases.

It is absolutely ridiculous of the Kiev officials to claim that Russian nationals may form squads of private armies in Ukraine and, therefore, their entry must be restricted. This is absolutely absurd.

The actual motive behind this decision is quite obvious. It is very mundane. No imagination is necessary here. The incumbent Ukrainian leadership is desperately trying to keep its falling rating afloat at the expense of ordinary people, by making advances to nationalist-minded voters. We see the Kiev officials’ absolutely Russophobic initiative as an intention to harm ordinary people in everyday life. We believe that within several months, Ukrainians will duly assess the actions of the current Kiev leadership.

In addition to political statements and political analysis that exist, I think Ukrainian citizens must ask themselves and their leaders “enthroned” in Kiev some very simple questions: “Why do you need this? Why is this measure being implemented at such a scale and speed? Where is this going? What are we getting from this? Is our life becoming better because of this?”

I would like to repeat the statement made by Russian President Vladimir Putin. On our part, we do not intend to impose any restrictions against Ukrainian nationals who are currently staying in or planning to visit Russia. We are not going to create unnecessary problems for anybody.

Almost daily, we hear dramatics from Ukrainian officials regarding the number of agreements, treaties and legal acts with Russia that they have already terminated or are in the process of terminating or will terminate in the future.

One does not have to be too smart to make such statements, first of all, and, second of all, to terminate what they should not. The question is how they will go on. Do they have a legal alternative – not for Russia but mainly for their own citizens – that would regulate the relationship important for the peoples of the two countries?



INF Treaty update

A number of bold statements on the INF Treaty came yesterday from Brussels where the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting took place. Let me update you on the situation.

In the evening of December 4, the US Embassy in Moscow delivered an official note to the Foreign Ministry notifying us that the US intends to suspend its obligations under the INF Treaty within 60 days unless Russia returns to full and verifiable compliance. We accepted these documents for further consideration.

This notice reproduces groundless accusations of alleged violations by Russia without any evidence to back these claims.

Today, I would like to take this opportunity to stress that Russia has repeatedly said that these are far-fetched allegations. We have yet to see evidence confirming the position of the US. If this evidence was presented to NATO members, why is the US not willing to share it with Russia? Let me emphasise that Russia has never received any materials, data or facts from anyone proving that Moscow was in breach of this treaty or failed to comply in good faith with its provisions.

We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to the INF Treaty as one of the cornerstones of strategic stability and international security. Russia is categorically opposed to the breakdown of this framework. We are ready to continue dialogue in the relevant formats on all matters related to the treaty. Of course, this must be a mutually respectful and professional dialogue free from groundless accusations or ultimatums. Our proposals to this effect are well known and remain on the table.



Plans to deploy US military infrastructure in Cyprus

A number of sources have reported that the US is proactively exploring a military build-up in Cyprus, making little secret of the fact that this effort is designed to counter Russia’s growing influence in the region in light of the progress in the Syrian operation by the Russian Aerospace Forces.

Specifically, a delegation of US experts has recently inspected military and strategic sites on the island with a view to setting up a forward deployment base for the US Armed Forces. Washington is actively discussing with Nicosia ways to expand military-technical cooperation.

Russia has pointed out to the leadership of the Republic of Cyprus on numerous occasions that further efforts to militarise the island and draw it into US and NATO plans for the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East regions would inevitably lead to dangerous destabilisation effects for Cyprus itself. Moscow cannot turn a blind eye to the anti-Russia nature of these plans and, should they materialise, will be forced to take retaliatory action.



Outcome of the Fourth Review Conference of the Chemical Weapons Convention

First of all, I would like to express our deep regret over the failure of the participants of the Fourth Review Conference of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which took place in The Hague on November 21-30, to coordinate the final document even though they were so close to reaching a consensus.

That document could have been coordinated thanks to the goodwill and readiness for compromise shown by the majority of delegations. During consultations, Permanent Representative of the Republic of El Salvador to the OPCW Vasquez Gomez who presided at the conference managed to coordinate a largely acceptable document. Its adoption would have shown that there are chances for improving the situation based on consensus, despite the split in the OPCW over the so-called Syrian file, the Skripal case initiated by the UK and, recently, over the attribution initiative.

Regrettably, the United States and its closest allies have buried the almost finished consensus-based document. At the last possible moment, they deliberately added provisions about which the member sides have intractable disagreements. We have to say that this approach has become the norm.

When the issue concerns politics, it is extremely important to discuss not only outcomes or the external aspects of foreign policy activities, but also aims. In this particular case, the US delegation and its supporters did not aim to restore the OPCW’s unity or to enhance its efficiency. They had completely different goals in mind.

Because of their destructive actions, the conference only ended with the publication of a non-binding report of the conference chair. This pathetic result points to a growing disunity within the OPCW. This certainly has a negative impact on the organisation’s work and, consequently, its prestige.

Moreover, the idea of giving attribution functions, that is, the right to assign blame for chemical attacks, to the Technical Secretariat of this essentially technical organisation, which a small group of countries have forced through, will not do this organisation any good. This actually amounts to direct interference with the exclusive authority of the UN Security Council and runs contrary to the CWC and international law.



Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius's anti-Russian invective

We have noted the article by Foreign Minister of Lithuania Linas Linkevicius, which has been posted on the Delfi news website. In the article, he made derogatory comments about Russia and it leadership in connection with the recent incident in the Kerch Strait.

This is not the first time official Vilnius has made rude attacks, with the Lithuanian authorities pursuing a policy of straining relation with Russia to divert attention from the numerous problems in their country. Such an approach goes against the interests of the Lithuanian people who, we are confident, would like to maintain mutually beneficial, neighbourly cooperation with Russia. To say the least, this is impolite on the side of the Lithuanian Foreign Ministry.



Article in Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad

We also must comment on the latest attempt by western journalists to once again exploit the topic of Russian spy mania. This time, it was the seemingly well regarded Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad, which posted a lengthy verbose article under the catchy but hardly fresh title, “Putin's spies in the Netherlands."

In the article, journalists went even further and called the Russian Embassy in the Hague the “think-tank of espionage” and half of its staff members spies. They listed the names of former and current staff members of the diplomatic mission and the defence attache office, naturally, without giving any factual information. This is speculation, false stories and well-worn cliches, and there is no evidence that can be used in any way, as always.

These allegations are not surprising. What is surprising is the fact that they appeared in a respected publication. We see that the official Hague has been making every effort to ruin bilateral relations with Moscow. We also noted another thing: the article was posted just following the statements by the Dutch ministers of foreign affairs and defence, who highly assessed the Netherlands' security services which allegedly managed to obtain their own “evidence” of Russia's violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Earlier, they praised the achievements of the Dutch counterintelligence services, which had prevented a cyber attack on the OPCW headquarters allegedly planned by Russia's Main Intelligence Directorate.

Let’s be realistic and look at the facts to see why this has been done. This was done to make the Dutch think that more budget spending is required to maintain the special services. These are the blunt methods our Dutch partners employ, using truly democratic institutions and mechanisms to address entirely pragmatic issues.



Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen’s statement at the European Parliament

We could not overlook the statement Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen made in the European Parliament on November 28. In particular, he mentioned that his mother witnessed the bombings of Bornholm by the Russians after Denmark regained its independence in May 1945. She saw a burning fire when bombs fell from heaven, he said. Any mockery or sarcasm with regard to the memories of eyewitnesses of those events would be blasphemous. You know how we feel about this. But this is not what we are talking about now.

These statements by the head of the Danish Government are a classic example of distorting historical truth for propaganda purposes.

Let us recall what actually happened and what Lars Lokke Rasmussen’s mother could have seen at that time. We are talking about the Soviet troops’ operation to liberate Bornholm from the Nazi invaders.

Allow me to remind you the chronology of those events. At the end of World War II, the island of Bornholm was vigorously used by the Germans as a rear transshipment base for its troops in the Baltic States and East Prussia. A 12,000 strong garrison was stationed there. On May 7−8, 1945, after the German commandant refused to capitulate, Soviet troops carried out air strikes on German units in the ports of Ronne and Nexo and landed on the island. The Danish side was informed that the Soviet troops were there temporarily until military issues were resolved in Germany. Bornholm remained under the control of the Danish administration.

On March 16, 1946, the Soviet government notified Denmark that the troops would be withdrawn from the island within a month. On April 4, an act transferring Bornholm to representatives of the Danish authorities was signed, and on the next day, the commander of the Soviet units on the island, General Alexander Yakushev, left it on a military ship, thus completing the withdrawal of Soviet troops.

There are numerous testimonies of contemporaries of those events, documented in Soviet and Danish sources. Here are some examples.

Foreign Minister John Christmas Moller said on the radio on May 10, 1945: “The Danish people express their gratitude to Russia for assisting in the liberation of Denmark, and send their wishes for a happy recovery period. We also hope that in the future, the Soviet Union and Denmark will build their relations on the basis of the friendship that arose between our peoples during the difficult days of the war. ”

The Danish newspaper Politiken wrote at the time: “Russian troops have left the best impressions, as their discipline was exemplary. They came as friends and brought with them liberation. We will never forget it.”

A memorial has been installed at the mass grave of Soviet soldiers who died during the landing on the island, with the words, “Eternal glory to the Russian heroes who died in the battles of Bornholm” written in golden letters.

The current head of the Danish government has distorted historical truth citing the Red Army liberation operation on Bornholm as an example of WWII horrors rather than the Nazi invasion, which brought death and destruction to Europe.

One naturally wonders if he paid enough attention in his history classes in school, as he doesn’t seem to know the history of his own country, let alone of other countries and peoples. Or, maybe he did it on purpose, despite knowing the history of his own country quite well? Then it is a crime. In any case, such statements further aggravate the negative atmosphere that the official Copenhagen has been recently shaping in Russian-Danish relations.

I would like to address the Prime Minister of Denmark, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, personally now: Please, stop disgracing your mother.



Russian journalists injured during Paris protests

We were concerned to hear the news from Paris about the Russian journalists who were injured while covering the protests. According to RT, a total of eight RT France employees, two RT International journalists and two Ruptly video agency stringers were injured during the mass protests, with one of employees shot by a rubber bullet and another hurt by a tear gas canister launched by the police. Another correspondent, VGTRK employee Darya Grigorova, suffered a leg injury and gas poisoning.

We call on Paris to refrain from excessive use of force, and, of course, refrain from using any kind of force towards journalists, bearing in mind the norms of respecting freedom of speech and ensuring that media representatives can go about their work safely, which Paris has committed to doing, as well as to enforce the law while adhering to the principles of humanism. We demand that France provide the completely safe working environment necessary for journalists. They must not be targeted by the police. I would like to remind you that this is what our colleagues from the French Foreign Ministry kept lecturing us about. Do not forget what you have been teaching us.



“Spy” scandal in the UK

We noted another scandal in the UK focusing on two Russian employees of the Channel One TV station, namely, correspondent Timur Siraziyev and cameraman Dmitry Volkov. On November 21, the journalists were filming next to the 77th Army Brigade in Berkshire, in other words, they were doing their routine journalistic work. They never entered the grounds of the military unit, and presented their papers to a guard at the checkpoint to avoid a possible misunderstanding.

However, this caused a stormy reaction from the British media, which instantly called our reporters spies. Almost all leading UK print media stated that Siraziyev and the cameraman were covertly filming on the grounds of the “top secret army unit” that works with British intelligence services in “electronic and psychological warfare.” This is despite the fact that information about the supposedly “top-secret” 77th brigade is readily available online. There is even an article on Wikipedia with photos of military facilities and their coordinates.

It is also noteworthy that the BBC film crew, which later arrived on the scene to make a report about the incident and was filming literally from the same spot that our journalists used for their filming, got away with no questions asked.

Of course, this episode is another case of discrimination, political pressure and an atmosphere of toxicity with regard to our media in the UK. The position adopted by the "independent" British media is stunning. I would like to say a few words to the British media: you should change a thing or two in the carbon-copy materials that are being passed on to you (by we know who) or add your own words to them. Clearly, you are doing someone’s bidding, which is reflected in the articles published by the so-called independent UK media.

I would also like to remind the British authorities about their obligations to ensure a proper working environment for the press as part of existing international agreements, including the need to observe such principles of international law as freedom of speech and equal access to information for all.

We demand a stop to the policy of stoking intolerance and hostility with regard to Russian media. British media work in our country under the most favourable arrangements. Yet not only they, but other foreign correspondents as well, violate these rules. Nobody is calling them spies, persecuting them or publishing their personal data. We have all the information about the number of times British correspondents did their so-called reports while breaking Russian law, in what circumstances and even for what purposes. If this situation continues, we will come up with a reciprocal response. For example, we will publish information about British journalists and tell everyone how many times they have actually violated the rules of accreditation. Notably, these are not the rules invented by the Russian Foreign Ministry, but a well-known legislative act that has been in effect in our country for many years.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

On November 29, the Sakhalin Regional Duma adopted an appeal to the Russian Foreign Minister with a request to exclude the territorial issue from the agenda of the discussion of peace agreements with Japan. On November 3, the Foreign Minister of Japan declared that their basic position is to conclude a peace treaty after solving the territorial problem. The Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly stated that Russia’s sovereignty over the southern Kuril Islands is beyond doubt. What is Russia’s position in the negotiations with Japan? If Russia’s sovereignty over the southern Kurils is beyond doubt, then what provisions of the 1956 Soviet-Japanese Declaration are taken as the basis of the negotiation process?



Maria Zakharova:

We so extensively and frequently comment on and state our approach to talks with our Japanese colleagues, that I just cannot accept any questions or reproaches that the Russian approach is unknown or not stated. If you visit the Foreign Ministry’s website and look through the texts of our briefings, speeches, answers to media questions, and the Foreign Minister’s interviews, you will see that this topic has recently received a lot of attention. Also, the steps taken by the Russian side are presented in detail.

We saw the appeal from the regions that you mentioned. By virtue of the current legislation and the organisation of work of our ministry, we take into account such an appeal as an expression of the will of a certain group of citizens. These can be individuals, groups of legislators, and representatives of political parties and public movements. For us, this is also part of the job. Of course, their opinion is not just acknowledged by the Foreign Ministry, but is also taken into account in our work, and answers are given. In this case, we carry out the same procedure. The applicants will get answers on an individual basis.

As for the Russian approach, once again I would like to say that it is fully and completely stated on the Ministry’s website. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that on November 14, at a meeting in Singapore, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe agreed to speed up the negotiation process based on the 1956 joint declaration. In the postwar period, this document served as the legal basis to build relations between the USSR, the successor state of which is Russia, and Japan. The declaration was ratified by the parliaments of both countries and registered with the UN Secretariat. This concerns the question of whether anyone wants to add or withdraw elements from the negotiation process. In this case, the negotiation process is based on the existing legal framework. It was developed, ratified by the parliaments of both countries, and registered with the UN Secretariat. It formally declares the end to the state of war and restores diplomatic relations between the USSR and Japan.

As such, references to the declaration and the political dialogue with Japan are justified and natural. Of course, the Russian side proceeds from the need to take into account, within the framework of the negotiation process, all the existing bilateral documents and diplomatic correspondence, including memoranda of the Soviet Government of January 27 and February 24, 1960. Here is an additional brief summary on this subject. But once again I want to say that the Russian position in this case, despite the intensive dialogue with the Japanese side, is based on a very solid legal foundation. This position did not come about spontaneously but on the basis of current law.



Question:

The other day, a draft resolution on the possible refusal to ratify the Russian-Estonian border agreement was submitted to the Estonian Parliament for consideration. A few days before this move, the Estonian MPs condemned Russia’s actions in the Kerch Strait and suggested introducing new sanctions on Russia. How Russia can respond to these statements and initiatives?



Maria Zakharova:

These initiatives are not designed to improve relations between the two countries, far from it; they are not even designed to maintain normal relations between them.

As for concrete statements by Estonia’s official representatives regarding the situation in the Kerch Strait, I can assure you that if they are asked about the details of this incident, about what really happened there, they will not be able to give even a rough answer – this will be something very different from a detailed answer based on facts that were presented, recorded and posted on the internet by Russia. They will not even be able to provide a general description of what has happened.

First, this is indicative of their political bias. These statements have been made not to diffuse the situation but only in order to toe the line that is currently being peddled, that is, to criticise everything that Russia is doing and blindly accuse it of everything without taking the trouble to produce facts to support their accusations.

Second, this shows that this country lacks a strong and sovereign position in international affairs. This is a repetition and copying of someone else’s utterances. Alas, this is becoming normal practice, in particular, for the Baltic states when they address various issues. This is a cause for much regret.

I believe the Estonian people should think about this because these statements are being made on behalf of their country. They should ask their politicians, their incumbent leaders if they have closely looked into the matter and if they have asked Russia to provide the details of the incident. Might they have had any additional questions about what happened? What information were they basing the decisions in question on?



Question:

During his meeting with President Vladimir Putin at the G20 Summit in Argentina Chinese President Xi Jinping accepted the offer to attend the St Petersburg International Economic Forum in 2019 and invited Vladimir Putin to take part in the second One Belt, One Road Summit in April next year. What do you think about new progress in relations between Russia and China? What opportunities are these forums likely to offer?



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to remind you that the Presidential Executive Office normally comments on the presidential agenda.

I cannot agree with you that it is new progress. In this case it is a sign of the progress achieved so far and a manifestation of the high point that relations between Russia and China are currently at.

It is good that these invitations have been made and accepted. These are not isolated instances. Our leaders regularly exchange visits, attending historical and economic events in Russia and China, have telephone conversations and delegate representatives of their countries’ executive and legislative branches to hold talks on expanding cooperation in various areas and take part in the events which they are unable to attend due to their demanding schedules.

We attach special importance to the development of ties with China in all areas. In addition to our relations being as valuable as they are and not dependent on the international situation and the situation in other regions around the world, we are neighbours. We are connected by a common border, geography and history, as well as our nations’ interests. It is evident that in today’s world that is lacking any movement toward stability, it is important to have a close dialogue with countries who are responsible global players. Moscow and Beijing have demonstrated these qualities many times.



Question:

One of the persons detained in the Kerch Strait, Vladimir Varimez, is an ethnic Bulgarian. Can the Russian Foreign Ministry grant us the opportunity to go where he has been detained to do a story on him?



Maria Zakharova:

This is a question for law enforcement agencies. They deal with the press without our help. But we will try to help you get in touch with them since you represent foreign media.

I never knew that ethnic origin is taken into consideration in such cases. I am not sure about the ethnic origin of other detained Ukrainian sailors. Never thought about it. We will help make your request known to law enforcement agencies.



Question:

Russia has shown magnanimity in all its wars. Can it release all rank-and-file soldiers who were captured in the wake of the Kerch Strait incident?



Maria Zakharova:

First, there are not only rank-and-file soldiers, but also members of the security service. Second, an investigation is underway. From the public rhetoric that we are now witnessing, they were clearly acting upon an order, which was part of a pre-planned provocation. President Putin said that it was imperative to establish all the details. An investigation is underway.

You said that Russia has always shown humanism. We were also called upon to respect the law, and we embarked on this path with respect and gratitude.

The state border of the Russian Federation was violated. The way in which the border was defended – and the amount of patience shown by Russia with regard to the people who, upon an order by the Kiev regime, had to perform these provocative actions – is precisely an example of such humanism.

I also want to draw your attention to the history of incidents similar to the Kerch Strait. There are hundreds or even thousands of them. You are well aware of how they are usually resolved. No one spends hours asking the perpetrator to stop acting crazy and beg for recognition signals to be given. Nobody spends hours in an attempt to stop the provocative actions. Russia, as you rightly said, did not forget about humanism, and acted as I described. Every other country, including Bulgaria, whose media you represent, knows what the protection of the state border is all about. Check the history, including the latest, and look at how countries carry out the legitimate activities to protect their state borders. No country would be too soft in such circumstances. Moreover, no country would even try to stop this madness by putting its own citizens at risk for so much time.

I realise that these are completely different stories, but every week, every day, publicly and in closed diplomatic format, we discuss the situation with Maria Butina, who did not violate any borders and had a legal right to reside in the country in which she arrived. She did not threaten anyone, was not engaged in subversive activities, and did not pose a threat to anyone. However, she has been victimised and been the object of psychological experiments for a long time now. Where are you, representatives of Western media, why don’t you write about her on the front pages of your publications? Why don’t you ask questions at the State Department briefings about when Maria Butina will be released, and when Washington shows some humanism?!

Let me remind you about Kirill Vyshinsky, a journalist who did not threaten anyone and was not engaged in any kind of terrorist or subversive activities, or any other activities that could be construed as a threat to anyone in Ukraine. What about humanism in his case?! He’s a journalist who simply wrote his pieces. Someone may have not liked them, to be sure. But just think of how long he has been behind bars!

Let us think about Nadezhda Savchenko. How many people and international organisations were acting hysterically in order to have her released despite the fact that she was provided with everything she required at her first request at a time when she was facing very serious charges that were later upheld.

Do you remember that the whole story about humanism and calls for Russia to display it ended the moment Savchenko crossed the Ukrainian border? Her name was taboo after she was arrested in her home country. What about humanism in all these situations?

Let us standardise our approaches and operate on the basis of law and respect for law.



Question:

Official Kiev does not deny crossing the border into Russia’s sovereign territory but insists that it had notified Russia of that step. Does the Foreign Ministry have information about those notifications? What were the information channels that Ukraine should have used?



Maria Zakharova:

There is a Transport Ministry regulation on the procedure of foreign vessels navigating in that sea area. Not only has this regulation been made available to our Ukrainian partners, but it has been published and is available to everyone interested in this subject, especially those who navigate in that region. According to this regulation, there is a clear navigation procedure, which does not change from day to day or depending on Ukrainian President Poroshenko’s mood.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we are talking about Ukraine as a state in which some very specific events have been going on for the past few years. For example, coups, complete rewriting of the legal foundation for the state structure and replacing the political elite. All these are facts and not emotions. Moreover, this was not the first coup in Ukraine. Ukraine is a state where other countries, such as the United States and EU countries, directly interfere in internal political processes. They not only moderate but also model them. You understand that in these conditions the situation in the region is rather delicate. Accordingly, clear rules regulating the navigation procedure are a guarantee, as we see it, that such incidents will not occur.

Earlier, in September, Ukraine followed these regulations with no questions asked. What was inconsistent in these regulations? What elements did they contain that encroached on Ukrainian sailors’ honour, pride and national dignity? Or maybe there was something that contradicted the international maritime law? What was wrong?

Maybe Ukraine sent us a note with a suggestion of setting up a working group to organise easier navigation for its vessels? No, it did not.

What we are dealing with here is a provocation. So there is no point in discussing what was wrong in that particular situation: it had been planned in advance for things to go wrong.

Ukraine decided to carry out a full set of certain actions with a predetermined result. This result is obvious now: introducing martial law to resolve internal political problems, in particular in the run up to the elections.

Look at the instruction and regulation of the Russian Transport Ministry. It is easily accessible and we have cited it repeatedly. It contains the notification procedure. In this case it was not even that it was violated: the Ukrainian ships did not take it into account at all while navigating in that water area.



Question:

The US has threatened Russia with “consequences and pain” for its detention of Ukrainian sailors in the Kerch Strait. This was reported by a senior State Department official at the recent North Atlantic Council meeting. What will be the Russian Foreign Ministry’s response?



Maria Zakharova:

Do you remember someone say “hurt me?” I think this expression it is from the same batch.

I saw the original and, honestly speaking, I am not pleased with the translation made by many Russian media. In fact, the original phrase is more involved than it was rendered. It was shortened in the process of translation. I think it has a complicated and clumsy structure. The question is, of course, what precisely our US partners wanted to say?

Statements of this sort – and there are a lot of them coming from Washington – resemble the rhetoric of a mad doctor, a Dr Evil of sorts. The US actions are aimed at making the situation worse, not better. It’s like a horror film scenario. I would put it that way.

I again urge everyone to be more accurate translating things. I know this can be very difficult. We were thinking, too, how this could be rendered. But this absurd phrase is untranslatable and in any event it will remain what it is – an absurdity.



Question:

What is your comment on a recent statement by the US State Secretary’s Special Representative for Syria Engagement James F. Jeffrey, who said that Washington suggested phasing out the Sochi and Astana processes unless they helped to form Syria’s Constitutional Committee by mid-December?



Maria Zakharova:

These are fairly strange statements. First, we repeatedly identified Washington’s hints at “consequences and pain,” if Russia implemented the political settlement projects in Syria that did not benefit the United States. Now they are saying this openly.

Second, we also invariably stressed that any timeframes that would be imposed as a prescription are out of place in this case because they are not only ineffective but also destructive. This is a subtle and difficult process of creating a future government system for the multi-faith and multi-ethnic nation of Syria that has many different political movements. Moreover, the latter are not the movements that figure in political science analysis but parties that were at war with each other just recently. And it was the Sochi process that made it possible to bring them to the negotiating table. Not so long ago, these people fought among themselves and looked at each other through gun sights. The “broad” statements like “if it doesn’t happen in December, it won’t happen at all” are out of context, while for experts they show the lack of professionalism of those who make this sort of assessments.

Of course there is a third aspect in this case. These statements are not made for the good of the peace process and play into the hands of those who are against it. They are an added argument for the remaining extremists and militants: if there is no obvious progress on this track by December, then all peace initiatives have failed to materialise.

In their totality, we regard these pronouncements as, mildly speaking, unconstructive. The political settlement process, aided, among others, by Russia, is edging forward, if with difficulty. Our experts and their colleagues are working on this every day, something that we regularly highlight.



Question:

I would like to talk once again about US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statements on the INF Treaty. You mentioned the word “ultimatum”, which is how Russia interprets these statements. We know that Washington under the Trump administration leaves hardly any time for negotiations and has already pulled out of several major international agreements, such as the Iran deal and the Paris climate agreement. Maybe there is still enough time left for holding top level consultations on the INF Treaty?



Maria Zakharova:

Regarding the “ultimatum”, this is how the matter has been presented by our colleagues, including in the media. We have only reacted to this.

The thing is that a careful analysis of the text must be conducted to see if there is a provision on suspending the treaty. Let’s get back to the legal aspects. Hybrid schemes such as a 60-day deadline, suspension, freeze, defreeze and partial freeze are all part of the political vocabulary. There are legal experts who must analyse the text, in particular the subjects that directly concern suspension, withdrawal or termination of the treaty. A decision to suspend the treaty or the conclusion that the text only stipulates its termination can be made only based on the analysis of the treaty that both sides have signed.

At this point, as I have already said, the document we have received from the US side is being analysed for compliance with the text of the treaty. Our lawyers are doing this.

As for the contacts, they have not been suspended. We remain in contact with the US Embassy, which has sent the note. Our embassy in Washington is communicating with the US Department of State.



Question:

A Russia-India-China summit meeting was held within the framework of the G20 summit. Before that, such meetings were held at foreign minister level. What is the reason for holding it at the top level this time? What are the prospects of this format?



Maria Zakharova:

Its prospects are very positive. As for raising the level of this meeting, this is a rhetorical question. This was done because we needed to do it, because our countries have made considerable progress over the past years in politics, diplomacy, international relations and other spheres, which can be discussed at the level of heads of state.

In addition, it was clear proof of the multipolarity of the world, which Moscow and Beijing have long been discussing as a reality that other countries refuse to accept, arguing that we live in a unipolar world and there is only one decision-making centre and no other centres are possible. We kept saying that there are many such centres. They are very real centres of power based on their economic development and geopolitical factors. [Such meetings are] a practical format used not only for adopting political statements but also for the purpose of applied diplomacy and for discussing matters that directly concern the three countries, as well as the international agenda.



Question:

Can you comment on the statement made by US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker regarding the new measures or sanctions against Russia if it refuses to release the Ukrainian sailors? He said that Russia should release them by Christmas or “before the new year.”



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to remind you that Kurt Volker’s job, as his mandate probably says, is to facilitate a settlement in Ukraine. This should be his number one mission. However, it looks as if his mandate instructs him to aggravate the situation in Ukraine and the region as a whole. It is actually shocking how little all of his statements, interviews and articles have to do with the accepted diplomatic practice and his official mission, which is to promote a settlement in Ukraine and help harmonise the situation in the region.

Second, it is surprising to hear a US representative demand the immediate release of persons who have been criminally charged, who have been not been arrested on trumped-up charges but for violating the state border. We would like to hear Mr Volker make an equally impassioned comment about Maria Butina. We look forward to this.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3430111
__________________
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

Last edited by Alex Him; January 24th, 2019 at 10:23 AM.
 
Old January 28th, 2019 #545
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Fund for Supporting and Protecting the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad, Moscow, December 10, 2018



10 December 2018 - 17:43







Colleagues,

Today we are holding a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Fund for Supporting and Protecting the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad. The purpose of our meeting is to assess the Fund’s work in 2017-2018 and identify its goals for the next two years. I am counting on your active engagement and interest in achieving positive results during our meeting.

Providing all-round assistance and support to our compatriots are among the undeniable priorities of Russia's foreign policy. A month ago, the 6th World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad was held, where President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin spoke. He confirmed that we will resolutely defend the rights and interests of the representatives of Russian communities and use all existing bilateral and multilateral mechanisms for this. The Congress identified specific objectives for the future.

It is symbolic that today we are meeting on the day of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the day after tomorrow, we will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Russian Constitution, which enshrines the basic provisions of the Universal Declaration, guaranteeing their implementation.

Unfortunately, the problems faced by our compatriots have not lessened. The Baltic countries still have stateless people, a totally shameful phenomenon. And in Ukraine, Russophobia has reached an unprecedented scale, actually becoming a part of state policy.

We are seriously concerned, among other things, by Ukrainian media reports on the Security Service of Ukraine in Poltava searching the apartment of Chairman of Ukraine’s Russkoye Sodruzhestvo (Russian Commonwealth) Association Sergey Provatorov, a member of the World Coordination Council of Russian Compatriots, on December 7. According to reports, he and his two colleagues are charged with actions allegedly aimed at no less than changing the state border of Ukraine, as well as public appeals and the distribution of materials calling for such actions. The fact that the search on December 7 was carried out on Provatorov’s birthday is particularly cynical. And today, when the whole world is celebrating International Human Rights Day, Provatorov and other compatriots have been summoned for questioning by the Security Service of Ukraine.

This latest shameful action by Ukraine was committed shortly after the completion of the World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad, where President Vladimir Putin decorated Sergey Provatorov with the Pushkin Medal. I will note that during the search, the medal and all certificates for it were seized by the Security Service of Ukraine.

Clearly, the Ukrainian authorities are continuing to clamp down on any manifestations of dissent. The purpose of such actions is clear – to suppress the freedom of speech and the fundamental right of every person to their language and their culture. In fact, the authorities are trying to root out Russian identity among the citizens of Ukraine by repressive means. I hope that these egregious facts will not go unnoticed by international human rights organisations, which will give a proper assessment.







I would also like to point out the ongoing lawlessness of the EU, whose representatives are dining with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin right now. During the meeting, according to EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini, the EU members will discuss what other assistance, quote, “Ukraine needs to be rendered.”

We know that in a number of other states, pressure is being put on activists of compatriots’ associations. Human rights activists and journalists face various restrictions, harassment, and even arrest.

This discriminatory campaign against Russian and Russian-language media causes deep concern. It is a direct violation of the principle of freedom of speech, and an attempt to introduce censorship. It is also an attack on the Russian language and Russian-language education aimed at severing young compatriots from their historical homeland, and forcing them to forget their cultural and linguistic identity.

The West continues to employ double standards in the field of human rights, turning a blind eye to flagrant violations where it is politically expedient.

These and other difficulties that Russian communities face require energetic and comprehensive efforts. In this regard, the Fund for Supporting and Protecting the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad remains one of the most important tools. Its activities have repeatedly been commended by the leadership of our country. Today we will discuss how to use the Fund’s potential, and the Centre for Legal Protection of Compatriots in Foreign Countries it opened, to ensure their legitimate rights and interests in full compliance with international law and certainly the laws of their countries of residence.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3438673






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 32nd meeting of the Foreign Ministry’s Council of the Heads of Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation, Moscow, December 11, 2018



11 December 2018 - 13:14







Colleagues,

Welcome to a regular meeting of the Council of the Heads of Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation. First of all, I would like to wish every success to the new members of the council which will be working for the next two years.

At our previous meeting we focused on combating attempts to falsify history, in particular the history of the Great Patriotic War and WWII as a whole, and to revise their results.

We adopted a number of recommendations at our previous meeting to neutralise these destructive trends. I am glad to say that the regional authorities are willingly applying them in their work, and direct dialogue with the general public outside Russia has intensified at the level of interregional ties.

I would like to say a few words about the work of the Sverdlovsk Region NGO Centre for the Implementation of Student Projects and Programmes, which is working with partners from the Polish cities of Krosno and Olsztyn to implement initiatives aimed at upholding historical memory. Sverdlovsk Region NGOs maintain close ties with Polish NGO Commonwealth of Kursk, which is looking after Soviet/Russian military monuments and graves. Other Russian regions should make use of this positive experience.

Despite the obstacles created by the Lithuanian authorities, the search parties from Pskov and their Lithuanian colleagues continue to implement the Historical Memory Wave military remembrance project. Search groups from Novgorod and Belgorod are working on the former battlefields together with their colleagues from Belarus, Kazakhstan, Britain, Germany, Spain and Ukraine.

The Belgorod Region leaders promote WWII-related subjects in their dialogue with sister cities in Germany, Serbia and Finland. Tuva State University has organised a series of lectures in the border regions of Mongolia on the importance of defeating Nazism.

The Rostov Region authorities and officials from the Russian Orthodox Church and Cossack associations have held roundtable discussions in Paris and Prague on the Revolutionary Developments of 1917 and the Fate of Cossacks. The newly discovered documents they provided have generated a broad public response. Orenburg Cossacks held events in France to commemorate the soldiers of the Russian Expeditionary Force as part of the centenary celebrations of the end of the First World War.

A number of major cultural events have been held. The Moscow Government organised the Victory Songs international marathon, which included concerts of WWII songs held in the central squares of Vienna, New York, Paris and Minsk. Performers from Adygeya gave concerts in Prague and Berlin on Victory Day and the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad.

I am sure that this work will proceed on a regular basis. Our council, acting in accordance with the long-term agreements reached at the previous meeting, will monitor the regions’ work in this sphere and will provide assistance whenever necessary.







Colleagues,

Today we will be talking about the regions’ contribution to the development of the tourism industry. It is clear that we need to attract more foreign visitors not only to more efficiently deal with our socioeconomic problems but also to promote objective information about our country.

Russia has a rich cultural and historical heritage and natural diversity. Russia is home to 29 UNESCO World Heritage sites, 26 federal resort cities and districts and over 140,000 landmarks, including some 150 especially valuable ones.

The World Tourism Organisation (WTO) presents Russia as a leading destination for international tourists. Last year we received some 25 million tourists (9th place in Europe). The largest event this year was the FIFA World Cup, which witnessed an unrivalled increase in the sphere of citizen diplomacy. The millions of foreigners who visited Russia this year saw a modern country with outgoing, friendly and hospitable people. We must make the best use possible of this positive experience and effect so as to boost our regions’ tourism potential.

I am glad to say that our regions regularly host and take part in large tourism exhibitions held in Russia and other countries. Next year St Petersburg will host the 23rd UNWTO General Assembly.

Tourism in the Russian Far East has been boosted by the establishment of the Kamchatka and the Vladivostok Free Port priority development areas. Since August 2017, foreigners can enter Vladivostok on electronic visas. This has greatly simplified foreign travel to the region. This method will be also applied in the Kaliningrad Region starting June 1, 2019.

Tourism information centres are being established in the regions. They have opened in Arkhangelsk, Petrozavodsk and Simferopol. There are also special tourism websites. They are working especially well in Arkhangelsk, Novosibirsk and Omsk. The regions are creating special interactive maps of their landmarks. Karelia is making wide use of federal television channels to advertise its tourism potential. It is another example of positive experience which should be promoted.

The Crimean authorities are giving priority attention to the development of the tourism industry. Information about Crimea has been published in the popular English-language magazine Travelife, which is available in the aircraft of 22 international airlines with over 3 million passengers.

The Foreign Ministry is making a great contribution to the development of the tourism industry. We have visa-free travel agreements with many countries and will sign more of such documents. We are conducting visa facilitation talks with many partners. In light of the decision to promote the system of electronic visas, we are ready to discuss a simplified entry for tourists from many countries who arrive in Moscow or the Moscow Region by plane. Our colleagues from St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region would like to make use of this system as well.

I hope that today we will be able to discuss these and other issues that can help us boost the development of our tourism industry and that we will coordinate recommendations designed to produce a positive result.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439277






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s message of greetings to Third International Kremlin Cadet Ball organisers, participants and guests



11 December 2018 - 18:30



I extend my warmest greetings to the participants, organisers and guests of the Third International Kremlin Cadet Ball.

Your creative project makes a positive contribution to the efforts to carry on, and build on, the best traditions of the Russian Armed Forces, allowing future defenders of the Motherland to enjoy its festive atmosphere and feel like they are a part of something beautiful.

It is symbolic that this year the event is timed to coincide with the celebration of several remarkable anniversaries, including the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the Suvorov military schools, which were the successors to the cadet corps, as well as the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of Kursk. It is important that the younger generation be aware of the continuity of their country’s history and the enduring significance of its key milestones for both the country and the entire world.

I believe the Ball will be a notable event in Moscow’s rich cultural life, while the involvement of representatives of educational institutions from a number of foreign countries in the event will help maintain trust and mutual understanding between nations.

I wish you good memories, good cheer and all the best.


SERGEY LAVROV

Moscow, December 11, 2018




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439780






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during a meeting with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, Baku, December 13, 2018



13 December 2018 - 19:27






Mr Aliyev,

I would like to thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to meet with you ahead of tomorrow’s events sponsored by the Organisation of Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), which Azerbaijan has chaired for the past six months. Let me congratulate you on the very successful performance of these functions by your colleagues. We proceed from the assumption that BSEC should continue setting into motion our joint efforts within the framework of Black Sea interaction.

I would like to convey best wishes and compliments from President of Russia Vladimir Putin. He sets great store by your personal relations, which make it possible to promote our strategic partnership. Agreements are being implemented that were reached in the course of your latest contacts. We counted that there were six of these during this year, including an exchange of visits.

Tomorrow’s meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation will certainly facilitate further progress along the lines you have agreed. I mean the easing of trade, the digitalisation of the budget and tax spheres, transport cooperation, establishment of joint ventures, and the humanitarian contacts that you have mentioned in a whole range of fields, including interaction between regions of Russia and Azerbaijan. This is also an important sphere of our cooperation.







We value interaction with Azerbaijan on the international stage, including at the UN and the Council of Europe, where now attempts are being made to revise the key provisions of its Charter that guarantees equal rights to all member-countries of the Council of Europe within all of its divisions.

We also work together at the OSCE. Of course, we would like to continue assisting the direct dialogue on a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement between Baku and Yerevan. I know you had contacts with the Armenian prime minister and that my colleague and friend Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov had meetings with Armenia’s Acting Foreign Minister Zohrab Mnatsakanyan. Today, we will be, of course, greatly interested in hearing your estimates of how you see further progress. We would like this settlement to take place on a fair and mutually acceptable basis. Russia in its national capacity and as a member of the Russia-US-France trio and co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group will do its best to facilitate a conflict settlement.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3441037






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s speech at the 39th meeting of the BSEC Council of Foreign Ministers, Baku, December 14, 2018



14 December 2018 - 09:57







Mr Chairperson, colleagues,

First, I would like to express gratitude to our Azerbaijani friends for their warm welcome and traditional hospitality.

We highly appreciate Azerbaijan’s activity during its chairmanship of the BSEC. We believe that Baku has generally managed to conduct a balanced line aimed at strengthening the organisation while preventing a politicised approach.

Symbolically, the Azerbaijani chairmanship has been held under the motto “Encouraging Trade through Interrelationship.” The Black Sea region comprises various countries which are also closely intertwined – historically and economically. Old trade routes and transport and energy corridors intersect in this region and new ones are being created. Various integration projects are ongoing. So, there is significant potential for economic cooperation. Unfortunately, we have failed to fully use it so far.

The BSEC can make a useful contribution to effectively tackling this task. The BSEC’s activities objectively help promote the identity of the Black Sea littoral states and create institutional conditions for pushing forward a common regional economic agenda.

The declaration passed at the May 2017 BSEC Summit on the 25th anniversary of the BSEC sets forth new and ambitious goals for a practical perspective and we hope to achieve practical results. One of Russia’s priorities is to expand intra-regional trade and qualitatively improve its structure. Here, we have good stepping stones. I mean two mutually complementary documents – the Russia-proposed Framework Foundation for the Creation of One Stop Shop and Turkey’s Regional Trade Facilitation Strategy. The adoption of these has obviously dragged out; not all countries have ratified them yet. I hope that this matter will be resolved as soon as possible.

I would like to draw your attention to the need to move forward on two key BSEC projects in transport – the coordinated development of the Black Sea Ring Motorway and marine routes in the Black Sea. Their implementation will promote intra-regional trade and lure investment into the tourist and transport sectors. Unfortunately, the October 25 meeting of our countries’ transport ministers in Baku failed to produce a final document due to groundless objections by one delegation.

The Russian side is open, as before, to the discussion of rational ideas on the reform of the organisation. We are ready to consider proposals to create – with regard for the experience of other international organisations – a BSEC internal pension system that would include the whole staff of the Secretariat, and not just the technical staff.

We are counting on more BSEC Business Council activity, something that received major impetus during Turkish chairmanship. For our part, we have delegated representatives of an authoritative Russian business association, Delovaya Rossiya, to the Business Council.

The role of the private sector in interstate cooperation has been growing everywhere. Its more prominent role in the BSEC will promote the regional dialogue and broaden the organisation’s support base. We welcome the decision approved at the last meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers to include entrepreneurs in delegations during working group meetings. Delovaya Rossiya representatives intend to participate in the working groups on small and medium-sized businesses, tourism and information and communications technology.







Russia has consistently advanced the “integration of integrations” concept. Regional cooperation formats should not be separate: it is necessary to build a common, harmonised economic space based on the aligned potential of various associations.

The BSEC has very good experience of partnerships with other multilateral structures. As a reminder, in the past the organisation established productive contacts with the Eurasian Economic Community. This grew into the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) which has become an important factor in integration processes in the region. The signing of a memorandum of understanding between the BSEC and the EAEU would benefit both organisations.

Another attention-worthy matter is trans-border cooperation between individual regions. Similar cooperation is already being successfully carried out in the Baltic and in northern Europe in general. The same could be done in the Black Sea area under the aegis of the BSEC.

We support the development of cooperation between the UN and the BSEC. The November 26 resolution adopted at the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly lends additional impetus to the joining of efforts by the two organisations with a view to strengthening economic growth and integration processes in the Black Sea region. Unfortunately, for the second successive year, we have failed to resume the practice of holding informal meetings of the BSEC Council of Foreign Ministers on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

As you know, a mechanism for project-oriented cooperation was set up within the BSEC framework at Russia’s initiative. We contributed $1 million to this fund. We hope that other countries will follow suit. Two projects have already been implemented: one through the Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB) and the other in cooperation with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Positive resolutions have been adopted on four other projects. New applications are being proposed. We will continue promoting initiatives in areas of interest to our citizens like, for example, improving the energy efficiency of buildings or popularising and branding original Black Sea cuisine dishes. We are grateful to the Secretary-General for ensuring the transparency of the work of the project-oriented cooperation mechanism. We hope that the fund can be used to finance joint projects with the European Union as well. Naturally, it is up to the littoral states themselves to determine these projects.

Colleagues,

Over a quarter of a century of existence, the BSEC has established itself as a sought-after regional platform. Further success will depend on how pragmatically we will be able to build our cooperation. Unfortunately, the situation in the Black Sea region has somewhat degraded in recent time. It is important to reverse this trend and make efforts to turn the Black Sea region into a zone of peace, stability and prosperity. We feel strongly that the organisation must not be an arena for political battles, let alone the squaring of accounts. The BSEC has a clearly defined economic profile and its status needs to be respected. This is a guarantee of the BSEC’s ability to assist in promoting integration ties.

In conclusion, I would like to wish success to Bulgaria which is taking over the BSEC chairmanship.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3441115






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference following the 39th meeting of the BSEC Council of Foreign Ministers, Baku, December 14, 2018



14 December 2018 - 14:39







A regular meeting of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) Council of Foreign Ministers has concluded in Baku. Our Azerbaijani friends’ chairmanship was effective, productive, result-oriented and promoted the organisation’s practical consolidation.

We have discussed the current state of cooperation in the Black Sea Region. There is considerable interest in it. In addition to the 12 BSEC member countries, about two dozen other states and 14 international organisations took part in the meeting as observers and partners. This demonstrates the prospects of cooperation not only for the Black Sea Region, but also in the context of aligning these efforts with other integration processes on the vast Eurasian continent. As you know, President of Russia Vladimir Putin proposed establishing a Greater Eurasian partnership, mentioning the EAEU, the ASEAN and the SCO. I believe that the BSEC should also be included in the list of organisations whose members can join these initiatives of ours.

We have discussed projects that are about to be implemented and are actively supported by Russia. This is, first of all, the project to build a motorway around the Black Sea and the project to harmonise sea routes. All in all, this will make it possible to develop more effectively and freely trade, tourism and human contacts in the region, as well as continue to create conditions for the member countries’ economic growth.

I cannot help mentioning that a large bilateral project is already being implemented in the region: TurkStream whose construction is already in full swing.

Russia is a donor of the BSEC. The project financing mechanism was created at our initiative. We have made a voluntary and non-reciprocal contribution: $1 million. This money has already been used to implement two useful projects, and four more are awaiting approval. We welcome other donors who would like to step in and we are ready to finance projects in the Black Sea Region together with the EU.

Fresh attempts to politicise the discussion were made during the meeting. It does not help the work of the BSEC, which was established only to address trade, economic and social problems and has no mandate for political debates. The rhetoric used by several our neighbours in the Black Sea region draw attention away from the real tasks. We express our gratitude to our Azerbaijani colleagues who did everything to prevent the discussion from turning unproductive or destructive while chairing the BSEC.

On the whole, we are very pleased with the way this work has been done. Now Bulgaria has taken over the chairmanship. Over the next six months we will be helping our Bulgarian colleagues with the initiatives under development.







Question:

Maria Butina pled guilty to one of the charges last night. Does the Foreign Ministry think she was pressured into this?



Sergey Lavrov:

The essence of making a deal with prosecutors, which is a popular practice primarily in the United States, is to receive a reduced sentence and return home as soon as possible.

Our diplomats met with Maria Butina yesterday. She is still being kept in very unusual detainment conditions, which are usually reserved for dangerous, hardened criminals. We again demanded that she be moved to a general population unit. She has said that she was not pressured and that she entered into the plea agreement on one of the charges voluntarily, the charge of conspiring to influence something.

I can understand her, considering the extremely difficult conditions of her confinement. She has been subjected to what amounts to torture for months now: she could be raised in the dead of night to take a walk and then be thrown back into the Special Housing Unit, and the like. I have grounds to assume that these conditions were designed to break her will and force her to plead guilty to crimes she most likely did not commit. But it’s her life and her decision. We will do our best to ensure respect for the rights of this Russian citizen and to bring her home as soon as possible.



Question:

It has been reported unofficially that Maria Butina could be deported. Are you negotiating this?



Sergey Lavrov:

As I said, the aim of her deal with prosecutors is to receive a lesser punishment and hope for the court’s generosity.



Question:

In your speech, you mentioned the possibility of developing cross-border cooperation within the BSEC. Is this a Russian initiative?



Sergey Lavrov:

This idea is on the surface – not that we had to rack our brain to invent it. Trans-border cooperation is a very important and clear element in any economic interaction. The fact that it is carried out through people who live side by side and have much in common geographically and economically (they must have common infrastructure) will make Black Sea economic cooperation stronger, more stable, and more responsive to people’s needs.



Question:

There have been several contacts between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia lately. Does Russia see any emerging shifts in the settlement process? What can be expected in this area next year?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yesterday, we had a very detailed and protracted talk with President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan. We felt his sincere willingness to resume negotiations and search for constructive solutions. Russia is a close partner to both Azerbaijan and Armenia and which, along with the Americans and the French, is a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group. We will do everything possible to create the necessary conditions for reaching compromise solutions.

The meetings between the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia, which, until recently, have taken place in St. Petersburg on the sidelines of Eurasian Economic Union and CIS events, and between the foreign ministers of the two countries in Milan on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council’s meetings, were fairly brief and preceded the December 9 parliamentary election in Armenia. Now that the election is behind us, the government of Armenia is to be formed. After that, the Armenian side will be ready, along with their Azerbaijani colleagues and the co-chairs, to resume the negotiation process. We will not be looking for all-new solutions – the foundations of the settlement are clear – but we need to find tactical and creative ideas that will help forge a consensus.


***






Sergey Lavrov:

In the past few days and weeks, we have been working within the framework of the Astana format with our Turkish and Iranian partners to assist the Syrian opposition and government in the creation of the Constitutional Committee, which needs to be functioning as soon as possible, to write the new fundamental law or to specify the existing one and use it as the basis for preparing general elections in the Syrian Arab Republic. At this point, our special representatives have visited Ankara and Damascus and tomorrow they will head for Tehran. We discussed this matter with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu today. Yesterday, I talked to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran Mohammad Zarif over the telephone. There is already an understanding between us that the list that is being worked out by the government and the opposition, with the assistance of Russia, Turkey and Iran is, on the whole, complete. We will be ready to present this list on behalf of the Syrian parties to the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura early next week. I hope this will make it possible to accomplish a very important stage in the efforts to advance the political process, and then, in the beginning of next year, the Constitutional Committee will be able to convene in Geneva.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3441557






The following events are not displayed in the English version.


10 December 2018

Meeting of S. Lavrov with the chairman of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission T. Sargsyan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3438586


14 December 2018

Meeting of S. Lavrov with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey M. Chavusoglu - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3441307

On the exchange of congratulatory telegrams between Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of the Cabinet of Foreign Affairs of Kenya M. Juma - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3441532
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 28th, 2019 #546
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Most personal and non-personal events have not been translated to English.





Personal events:





Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov’s interview with Interfax News Agency, December 14, 2018



14 December 2018 - 17:56




Question:

What is your opinion on the outcome of the Russia-ASEAN summit meeting held in Singapore in mid-November?



Igor Morgulov:

Without exaggeration, the Singapore meeting of the Russian and ASEAN leaders opened a new page in our relations with the association. The joint statement they adopted sealed the strategic nature of Russia-ASEAN partnership. This goal was formulated relatively recently, two and a half years ago, at the Russia-ASEAN summit in Sochi in May 2016. The path towards this goal was both simple and difficult.

It was simple because Russia and the 10 ASEAN nations act together on the international stage, jointly upholding the principles of the superiority of law, multilateralism, equality and mutual respect for the interests of all states. They also hold similar views on the majority of regional and global issues.

But it was also a difficult path because increasing international tension provoked by Western policy towards Russia has had a direct impact on our relations with the key players in the Asia Pacific Region. Our enemies did their utmost to leave us outside regional projects and to push us aside from the ongoing creation of a new regional architecture.

Now the formalised Russia-ASEAN strategic partnership will become a major factor in strengthening multilateralism in regional politics and will help create an open and equal system in the Asia Pacific Region. We believe that this system should be based on ASEAN and the offspring formats, primarily the East Asia Summit, as well as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which has greatly expanded its geopolitical resource following the admission of India and Pakistan last year.

The decision on strategic partnership was also well-timed because of the promotion of the so-called Indo-Pacific strategies. I am referring to the concepts that have been proposed by the United States, Japan and Australia, which, simply put, are designed to establish these countries’ domination in the region through the containment of China and the weakening of Russia’s influence. The ASEAN nations, who understand that the implementation of such strategies could create a dividing line in the Asia Pacific Region and marginalise the 10-member association, are considering their own concept of regional cooperation.

We believe that the improvement of the regional architecture calls for collective efforts, precluding the erosion of the existing system that took decades to develop. We will work together with ASEAN to promote this approach, since we have already established a solid dialogue on this subject.



Question:

What practical benefits will Russia enjoy from the new quality of relations with the Association?



Igor Morgulov:

We are talking about the possibility of expanding economically in a large and promising market with a population of 650 million. Even today, ASEAN collectively ranks as the sixth largest economy in the world and has an ambitious goal of becoming the fourth in the foreseeable future.

No less important in this context is the fact that, unlike Western states, none of the ASEAN countries have joined the anti-Russia sanctions. ASEAN has not closed its markets to Russian products and is ready to use the latest Russian technology. In the context of the challenges facing the Southeast Asian economies to ensure food and energy security, to strengthen interconnectedness, to reduce the development gap and create high-tech industries, Russian innovations are in great demand, especially in energy, space, transport, industry, agriculture and medicine.

Mutual investment cooperation looks very promising. Singapore, for example, is the eighth largest direct investor in the Russian economy, with more than $17.3 billion. Thailand, Vietnam, and Malaysia are involved in agricultural and industrial projects in Russian regions. Reciprocally, the volume of our country's accumulated investment in the region is $26 billion.

The Russia-ASEAN strategic partnership has a significant integration dimension. Russia, which currently chairs the Eurasian Economic Union, relies on increasing intra- and interregional connectivity just like ASEAN, and advances the philosophy of the indivisibility of economic development, which underlies the concept of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. On the sidelines of the summit, a memorandum of cooperation was signed between the EAEU and ASEAN. Its consistent implementation will contribute to broader integration in Eurasia, especially if the SCO becomes more involved in the process – such plans already exist.

At a meeting in Singapore, leaders adopted a statement on the security of information and communication technologies aimed at improving the effectiveness of the fight against cybercrime and the development of common approaches to the behavior of states in the global information space. Based on this document, it is planned to launch a regular expert dialogue.

The new level of relations between Russia and ASEAN will also make it possible to more effectively address the counter-terrorism coordination tasks relevant to the entire region, including countering the cross-border movement of foreign terrorist fighters. We will increase assistance to the ten ASEAN countries in training personnel for law enforcement agencies.

Shortly before the Singapore summit in Myanmar, the first meeting of the new Russian-ASEAN mechanism, the Working Group on Education, was held, the results of which were approved by the leaders. We expect that it will undertake the full range of issues of cooperation development in this area, including the organisation of educational and university forums, the establishment of academic contacts, and the joint development of curricula.

The steady growth in the number of Russian tourists travelling to Southeast Asia — over 2 million a year now — has objectively added the security and quality of tourist services to our agenda. Russia’s assistance in training ASEAN sanitary and epidemiological control specialists at our specialised centres, the development of emergency response and disaster relief contacts also contribute to meeting these goals.



Question:

What impression has President Putin’s first attendance at the East Asia Summit in Singapore had on the region?



Igor Morgulov:

The President’s attendance at the EAS was a major part of our efforts to strengthen Russia’s position in the Asia Pacific. It has had a very positive effect as evidence of Moscow’s increased attention to regional affairs.

I should clarify though that this was Vladimir Putin’s second appearance at the EAS. The first time was in 2005 when he attended the first EAS as a guest of the Malaysian government. It was only when Russia and the United States joined this format in 2010 that the EAS became a full platform for the regional leaders’ strategic dialogue on Asia-Pacific security and tackling emerging challenges, and economic development. The Singapore summit, which Vladimir Putin attended, has reaffirmed the increasing importance of an open dialogue between the world’s leading powers on current issues of regional development, especially amid the current turbulence in global politics and the economy.

Russia has consistently proposed a unifying agenda for the EAS aimed at maintaining stability and sustainable development and promoting practical cooperation in the Asia Pacific.

We emphasise joint counterterrorism efforts, and our approaches to this issue have been supported by our partners. Evidence of this is support for the Russian idea of the EAS leaders’ statement on countering the threat of foreign terrorist fighters and returnees and a similar document on countering the ideological challenges of terrorism and terrorist narratives and propaganda, which was adopted last year.

We have been working especially hard at the EAS to improve the security architecture. We are convinced that the system of interstate relations in the Asia Pacific must be based exclusively on universally recognised and legally binding principles, not some “rules-based order” that some countries advocate, with the implication that they would determine these rules themselves. Of course, we cannot accept this approach to international law.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the strategic breakthrough achieved at the November events in Singapore has opened a large window of opportunity for us in the Asia Pacific, which is a large and rapidly developing part of the world. This objectively strengthens the multi-vector approach of our diplomacy and, ultimately, the global position of the Russian Federation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3443135






10 December 2018

Interview of Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Permanent Representative of Russia to the Council of Europe, I. Soltanovsky, published on December 9, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3438255

Meeting of O. Syromolotov with the Ambassador of Austria to Russia J. Aigner - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3438400

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the delegation of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3438863

Consultations of S. Ryabkov with the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala L. F. Carranza Cifuentes - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3438903

Speech of G. Karasin at the conference “The Role of Parliaments in the Modern World. Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation - 25 years on the path of multi-vector development ”, Moscow, December 10, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3438913


11 December 2018

Speech by A. Shulgin at summing up the Fourth Review Conference of the Chemical Convention, The Hague, November 30, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439225

Speech by A. Shulgin during the Fourth Review Conference of the Chemical Convention on the theme of countering the threats of chemical terrorism, The Hague, November 30, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439235

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Iran in Moscow M. Sanai - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439659

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the special envoy of the chairman of the Congolese party "Union for Democracy and Social Progress" F. Chisekedi P. Muanda of the Congo - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439669

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China in Moscow, Li Huei - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439713


12 December 2018

Meeting of G. Karasin with the Deputy State Secretary of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland K. Marti Lang - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440196

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with Iranian Ambassador to Russia M. Sanai - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440326

Speech by Deputy Director of the Fourth European Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia L. Abramov at a ceremony on the occasion of the 141st anniversary of the capture of Pleven, Moscow, December 10, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440368

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Minister of Oil, Gas and Mineral Resources of Sudan, Chairman of the Sudanese Part of the Intergovernmental Russian-Sudanese Commission for Trade and Economic Cooperation A. Abdullah - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440578


13 December 2018

Answer by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Ryabkov to a media question on the subject of the INF Treaty - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440942

Speech by I. Morgulov at the III Forum of Research Centers of Russia and India, Moscow, December 13, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440956

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel in charge of strategic issues, J. Zarka - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440990

Meeting of S. Vershinin with the Ambassador of Mauritania in Moscow S. Taleb Amar - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3441023

Meeting of O. Syromolotov with the First Deputy Secretary of State of the United States and the Russian-American negotiations on counterterrorism - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3441068


14 December 2018

Meeting of V. Titov with the heads of the diplomatic missions of the North European states - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3443096

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of India to Russia V. Varma - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3443125

On the working visit of A. Grushko to the Republic of Cyprus - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3443233







Non-personal events:





Joint statement by Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bolivia (plurinational state of), Burundi, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russian Federation, State of Palestine, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Zimbabwe at the Fourth review conference of the chemical weapons convention, the Hague, November 30, 2018



11 December 2018 - 11:54



We, the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC), committed to achieving the goal of freeing the world of chemical weapons, strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere and under any circumstances.

We commend the contribution made by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to freeing the world from that type of weapons of mass destruction.

We emphasize that integrity and comprehensive universality of the CWC are of critical importance for achieving the object and the purpose of the Convention and maintaining international peace and security.

We consider the inviolability of the fundamental CWC provisions, as well as the operating principles of the OPCW, its principal and executive bodies, such as the Conference of the States Parties (the CSP), the Executive Council and the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW, to be an indispensable prerequisite for ensuring further effective functioning of the OPCW as one of the most successful multilateral mechanisms in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

We note with concern that the decision of the Fourth Special Session of the Conference entitled “Addressing the Threat from Chemical Weapons Use” (C-SS-4/DEC.3, dated 27 June 2018) which was adopted by vote, and the corresponding implementing measures of the Technical Secretariat may have a direct impact on the fundamental principles and provisions of the Convention and its Verification Annexes.

The disunity among the States Parties to the CWC due to the politicization of the problem of the use of chemical weapons significantly reduces the efficiency of our Organization’s work, as it prevents us from focusing on common and genuinely pressing tasks that are set out in the Convention and have been successfully performed for many years.

We emphasize the imperative to ensure transparency, non-discrimination and fair geographical representation in the process of recruitment of OPCW Technical Secretariat staff and experts while preserving continuity of accumulated expertise and specific knowledge.

We call for dialogue and consultations among States Parties to bridge their division and address their disagreements, so as to arrive at consensus on matters of substance as far as possible. We also believe that in order to better safeguard the integrity of the Convention and preserve the solidarity of the OPCW, it is necessary to explore the possibility of improving the Rules and Procedures of the Conference of States Parties.

We reiterate the commitment of the States Parties not to maintain among themselves any restrictions, including those in any international agreements, incompatible with the obligations under the CWC, which would restrict or impede trade and the development and promotion of scientific and technological knowledge in the field of chemistry for industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439249






Comment by the Information and Press Department on remarks made by US Secretary of State



11 December 2018 - 20:01



We have taken note of the brash tweet posted by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo regarding the training flight of Russian strategic bombers to Venezuela.

We understand that tweets are not anything binding in the United States and everyone is free to choose whether to cross the line or not. But in this case we are talking about a government official, and so we cannot regard this brazen disregard for diplomatic ethics as unimportant. What the US Secretary of State has tweeted is completed unacceptable, not to say unprofessional.

Before counting other people’s money, Washington should take a look at its own spending. The Inspector General of the US Department of Defence has more than once expressed alarm over the millions of US taxpayer dollars, which appear to have been wasted on assistance to Afghanistan that has never helped the people or even reached their destination.

The effectiveness of huge US military spending in other areas is equally questionable. Aimed at ensuring US hegemony in a world entangled in a network of Pentagon bases, US military spending has brought death and suffering and not freedom or democracy to people. The case in point is Iraq and Libya, where Washington has sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives to its ambitions and destroyed countries that used to be prosperous.

US public should think about the rationale of the US authorities’ decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty and hence to relaunch the arms race. This can only serve the interests of the US defence industry, because it holds the promise of huge military contracts. As for the American people, this will only make their lives less safe.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439854






Statement of the Russian Federation on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, Marrakesh, December 11, 2018



13 December 2018 - 09:54



The Russian Federation supports the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.

This compromise document covers many dimensions of international migration, including humanitarian aspect, development issues, human rights and fight against crime.

We expect the Global Compact to become a foundation for long-term comprehensive international cooperation aiming to, inter alia, create channels for legal migration and mechanisms for effective control over migration processes, elaborate instruments against illegal migration, including readmission, as well as fight against migration-related crimes.

It is equally important to facilitate the establishment of a solid basis for a peaceful life and return of people to their homeland in the States facing mass exodus of population. It is evident that many causes of migration-related issues can be addressed by achieving political settlement in the States of origin of migrants, as well as assisting these countries in their social and economic development and nation-building.

Every effort needs to be made to rule out the possibility of terrorists and other criminals infiltrating the States hosting migrants along with other people who need help for real. We should also work together to eradicate xenophobia, as well as social, racial, national and religious hatred and enmity towards migrants.

We reiterate our repudiation of the "shared responsibility" concept that, in its current form, merely implies sharing the burden of hosting forced migrants between the States that frequently have nothing to do with the causes of mass exodus of people. We are not in favor of shifting the burden to others, while the current complicated migration situation is largely a result of irresponsible interference into the internal affairs of sovereign States of Middle East and North Africa. In this context, the countries that were actively involved in such interference should primarily bear the greatest responsibility, including for the migration-related consequences.

We also believe it is inappropriate to refer to the activities and recommendations of the Agenda for the Protection of Cross-Border Displaced Persons in the Context of Disasters and Climate Change and the Platform on Disaster Displacement. As of today, there is no reliable and universally recognized scientific evidence pointing to the direct correlation between climate change and displacement, as well as the predominance of environmental factors in displacement. Besides, the work of the Platform does not have the support of all countries, and its conclusions have not been approved under the auspices of the relevant entity, which is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The Global Compact is certainly not a legally binding instrument and does not impose legal or financial obligations on the acceding countries.

At the same time, it sets out a specific direction for the development of current views of and approaches towards international migration and shapes a universal approach to this issue.

Specific mechanisms to implement the Global Compact are to be elaborated both within the framework of international cooperation and at the national level talcing into account the national interests of its parties, including in the field of security, and their priorities of promoting the interests of their citizens.

It should be mentioned in this regard that the Russian Federation has already actively embarked on this work.

On October 31, 2018, President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, approved an updated version of the Concept of State Migration Policy of the Russian Federation.

The Concept contains a number of provisions implementing the principles and objectives of the Global Compact. It envisages, inter alia, that;

Russia should remain open to foreign citizens considering it as a country with favorable conditions that meet their economic, social and cultural needs;

The rules for entering Russia, as well as acquiring the right to stay (reside) and to work in the Russian Federation should be simple, understandable and transparent;

Migrants should have equal opportunities to receive public services, including information services, in the field of migration regardless of their migration status, level of income and other circumstances;

Administrative procedures should be streamlined, including through the extensive use of modern digital technologies, to eliminate conditions conducive to corruption, decrease the probability of technical errors and reduce time-related, organizational and financial costs of all participants in the process.

We are ready to cooperate with all States on this crucial matter.

The foregoing represents the statement of the Russian Federation on the Global Compact that stipulates its adoption by the Russian Federation and will be forwarded to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for inclusion in the official documents of the Conference.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440694






10 December 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with Human Rights Day - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3438171

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia on the situation around the Rukban internally displaced persons camp in Syria - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3438615


11 December 2018

On the Russian-Turkish consultations on Syria in Ankara - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439305

About the 14th meeting of the Joint Committee on Monitoring the Implementation of the Russia-EU Agreement on the Facilitation of Visa Issuance - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439723

On the meeting of the Scientific Council under the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439804


12 December 2018

On the twenty-third session of the Joint Russian-Chinese Commission on the Border - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439909

On the meeting of the Board of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440210

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the events in Ramallah on December 10 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440510

About the terrorist attack in Strasbourg - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440556

About Security and Stability Consulting in Transcaucasia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440588

On the conversation of the Russian representatives with B. Asad - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440598


13 December 2018

On the second session of the Russian-Chinese Commission for the joint verification of two sections of the state border between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440841


14 December 2018

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the statement of the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States on December 13, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3441259

On the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Palau on the mutual abolition of visa requirements for citizens of the Russian Federation and citizens of the Republic of Palau - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3441317

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the adoption by the UN Security Council of a resolution on the extension of the regime for cross-border delivery of UN assistance to the Syrian Arab Republic - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3443049

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the inter-Yemeni consultations concluded in Sweden - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3443086

Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with plans to create a Kosovo "army" - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3443106

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the demolition of a monument at a mass grave of Soviet and Polish soldiers in Poland - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3443163


16 December 2018

Russia-Iran Consultations on Syria in Tehran - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3444934
__________________
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

Last edited by Alex Him; January 28th, 2019 at 01:01 PM.
 
Old January 28th, 2019 #547
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 13, 2018



13 December 2018 - 14:48







Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the Republic of Azerbaijan

As part of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s two-day visit to Baku in connection with the capital’s hosting the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) Council of Foreign Ministers, he will be received by the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. In addition, a meeting between Mr Lavrov and Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov will be held. The parties will discuss key aspects of bilateral cooperation, as well as regional and international agenda.

Detailed reference material can be found on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s official website.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the ceremony to transfer documents from Lev Mendelevich’ personal archives

This year, we are marking 100th anniversary of the birth of prominent Russian diplomat Lev Mendelevich, who left a strong impact on the relatively recent history of our foreign policy service. His rich biography reflects the multifaceted history of our country in the 20th century.

On December 17, as part of a series of events held to mark this anniversary, a ceremony to transfer documents and materials from the diplomat’s personal archives will be held. The documents to be handed over by Mendelevich’ family members contain information on his work at the OSCE, the UN and the Foreign Ministry in the 1970-1980s. The ceremony will be attended by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The documents will be stored in the Russian Federation’s foreign policy archives, and, without a doubt, will be of interest to historians and experts.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki

On December 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Palestine Riyad al-Maliki in Moscow.

The talks will focus on the current situation on the Palestinian-Israeli track, including in the context of preventing the revision of the established international legal framework for the Middle East peace process. The parties plan to consider in detail the issue of restoring Palestinian national unity as soon as possible, including assisting the implementation of the relevant inter-Palestinian agreement signed in October, 2017. They will also exchange views on ways to improve the socio-economic and humanitarian situation of Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The officials will also discuss current bilateral issues, including progress in implementing the agreements reached at the third session of the Russian-Palestinian Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation held on November 5-7 in Ramallah.



Update on Maria Butina

We are closely monitoring this situation. We note the absolutely unacceptable treatment of this Russian citizen by the US authorities.

Maria Butina is a young woman from civil society. She did not engage in anything reprehensible.

Things that the US authorities allow themselves in relation to Ms Butina are too much to take even by a person with special training.

Again, we demand that Washington observe her legal rights and that Ms Butina be released from prison as soon as possible.

I would like to emphasise specifically that the Foreign Ministry and the Russian Embassy to the United States are providing Maria Butina with the necessary support, including moral and psychological support, in this very challenging time for her.



Update on Syria

Over the past week, the situation on the ground in Syria has not changed much. Difficult work is underway to implement the provisions of the Russian-Turkish Memorandum on Idlib of September 17, the ultimate goal of which is to eliminate the terrorist presence in that zone at minimal cost to civilians.

Life is gradually returning to normal in the country’s liberated regions. The rebuilding of the destroyed economy is picking up. Special attention is being paid to creating proper conditions for the safe, voluntary and non-discriminatory return of the refugees and IDPs to their homes. Almost every day, over 1,000 Syrians come home from Lebanon and Jordan. The total number of returnees has reached almost 60,000 since the corresponding Russian initiative was launched in July.

We regard our role in the socio-economic reconstruction of Syria as an important element in strengthening Russia-Syria relations. The 11th meeting of the Permanent Russian-Syrian Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation will take place in Damascus on December 14. The Russian delegation, which includes representatives from industry-specific ministries and departments, is headed by Chair of the Russian section of the intergovernmental commission, Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov. Several meetings, including with the top leadership of Syria, will be held on the sidelines of the meeting.

Intensive contacts are underway which seek to advance the political settlement in Syria, to form a Constitutional Committee and then to launch it in Geneva under the decisions taken by the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

Unfortunately, the increasing positive trends in Syria, which have been secured primarily by the activities of the Astana format guarantor nations, Russia, Iran and Turkey, do not suit everyone. We noted the attempts to take over the Astana format initiative, to thwart Russian-Turkish agreements to create a demilitarised zone in Idlib and to destabilise settlement efforts to accommodate geopolitical goals, which are far from what the Syrians are looking for.

We have taken note of the most recent statement by the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS, Brett McGurk, on the progress of the counter-terrorist operation in Syria. According to McGurk, despite the fact that ISIS currently controls only 1 percent of Syria’s territory, the final victory is still nowhere to be seen as the remaining terrorists are allegedly well trained.

We see statements like this as a desire to justify the illegal US military presence on almost 30 percent of Syrian territory. According to our evaluation, not only is this at odds with the goal of eliminating all international terrorists in Syria, but it has effectively become an obstacle to ever achieving this goal. This concerns, in particular, the US policy to create quasi-state entities in the Euphrates area, which we regard as a destabilising factor, one that impedes the political settlement.

In its foreign policy, Russia is doing its best to make speedy arrangements for sending a second UN humanitarian convoy to Rukban IDP Camp located inside the US-occupied 55-kilometre exclusive zone around the illegal US military base at At-Tanf. Clearly, the 50,000 people living in that camp in the most unsuitable conditions need humanitarian supplies. It is critically important that this time they get the aid rather than the militants, including ISIS. Any other outcome will defeat the purpose of this high humanitarian mission.

We believe that the United States is responsible for compliance with this condition and for ensuring the safety of the UN, the ICRC and the Syrian Red Crescent Society staff who accompany the convoy. It must provide these guarantees, which should be acceptable to both the above organisations and the Syrian official government, which takes the final decision on conducting this humanitarian operation on their sovereign territory.



Election results in Armenia

Snap parliamentary elections took place in friendly Armenia on December 9.

Russian observers were stationed at polling stations both as part of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) mission and as part of the CIS mission. Members of the State Duma and the Federation Council of the Russian Federal Assembly monitored the election within the framework of the CIS Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union State of Russia and Belarus.

According to the observers, the elections were held in compliance with the law and no major violations capable of influencing the outcome of the vote were recorded.

Armenia’s Central Election Commission is expected to announce the official results on December 16.

We favour a constructive dialogue with the new Parliament of Armenia and the Government that will be formed soon in order to continue bolstering cooperation between our countries, including within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation and the Commonwealth of Independent States.



War preparations in Ukraine

At our previous briefing we talked about preparations by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) for potential military action in Donbas. Unfortunately, we continue to see alarming reports from that region. According to available information, Kiev is plotting an armed provocation on the line of contact, taking advantage of the imposed martial law, including in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, to stage a surge attack in the direction of Mariupol in order to seize the Donetsk-controlled areas along the Sea of Azov and reach the border with Russia. The attack is to be conducted by a massed troop contingent that the AFU has been reinforcing over the past few months, as repeatedly reported by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine. From December 1 to 7 alone, OSCE monitors discovered 190 units of heavy weapons prohibited by the Minsk Agreements outside the designated storage facilities.

As Kiev strategists believe, Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko desperately needs a new sharp aggravation of the situation in yet another attempt to stop his steadily falling popularity ratings from declining even further. However, even the potential failure of his reckless scheme might play into his hand. A sharp escalation in tensions in Donbas will give Petr Poroshenko an excuse to extend martial law and cancel the presidential election.



Human rights update in Ukraine

The human rights situation continued to deteriorate in Ukraine. There is ongoing persecution of those who refuse to join the anti-Russia campaign, the mainstream policies and everything else the current Kiev authorities are praising.

Another act of violence against representatives of Russian compatriots in Ukraine was reported the other day. The officers of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) in Poltava searched the flats of Sergey Provatorov, a member of the World Coordination Council of Russian Compatriots and chair of the board of the Russian Commonwealth, and Viktor Shestakov, head of the Russian Community of the Poltava Region. They have been accused of distributing material that is allegedly destabilising the situation in Ukraine and charged with infringement on the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The SBU officers have confiscated Provatorov’s Pushkin Medal, which he received from President Vladimir Putin personally. In the opinion of Ukrainian law enforcement, the medal is definitely an instrument for destabilising Ukraine.

A while ago, Ukrainian security service officers stormed into the flat of famous human rights activist Yelena Berezhnaya.

Pressure is mounted on the clergy of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church ahead of the planned meeting of religious schismatics in Kiev. As part of the religious war that is being incited by the ruling regime, searches have been conducted at the premises of Metropolitan Pavel, the abbot of the Kiev Caves Lavra. The clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church have been summoned for humiliating interrogations at the SBU that lasted hours on end. This has become a routine practice in a state that has pledged commitment to human rights and complained that it had been prevented from doing this before by Russia. Nothing prevents them now from searching the flats of religious leaders and human rights activists. They have improved human rights standards in the country to an unbelievable level.

The notorious Mirotvorets site continues to violate personal and information privacy. Kiev has disregarded the public demand to shut down this site, which the people have come to see as a “death list.” Two Russian diplomats working in Ukraine have been recently added to this list, which has imperilled their safety. We urge the Ukrainian authorities to honour the provisions of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations on the protection of diplomatic and consular staff by the receiving country.

I would like to say once again that we not only issue warnings. We have the capacity to respond to such acts. And we will do so unless measures are taken to protect the security of the Russian diplomatic missions and Russian diplomats. Kiev should know that they have gone too far. They will not get away with what is happening to the Russian diplomatic missions and Russian diplomats.

It must be said in this connection that the so-called information booklets published by the SBU to demonstrate Russia’s alleged involvement in the destabilisation of Ukraine are a sham. As far as we can tell, it was a deliberate act and it is a deliberate falsification.

The other day we learned about the death of Russian citizen Valery Ivanov under unclear circumstances in Penitentiary No. 40 in the city of Drohobych, Lvov Region. Ivanov was found dead in a political and social education room, which does not rule out the possibility of violence. We have sent a request to the Ukrainian authorities to conduct a thorough and objective investigation into the causes of his death. We will closely monitor the process.

Overall, there are clear political undertones of the developments in Ukraine. Kiev is using the contrived anti-Russia hysteria to curry favour with the nationalist electorate, intimidate Russian speakers and drive them underground, as well as demonstrating activity, even though the goal of this activity is unclear. Those who refuse to toe the line following such “preventive treatment” are arrested, as in the case of Russian journalist Kirill Vyshinsky, or killed, as they have killed famous Ukrainian writer Oles Buzina and other Ukrainian dissenters.

The recent statements made by the Ukrainian authorities regarding their commitment to democratic European values sound especially cynical against the backdrop of the ongoing excesses. But their Western curators pretend not to see this and even express their support. The flagrant violations of human rights in the fields of language, ethnicity and religion are rapidly pushing Ukraine towards a red line.



Amendments to the Ukrainian education law

To follow up on the humanitarian theme, it was reported recently that the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine dismissed a draft law submitted by a number of deputies to make amendments to the scandalous education law. The amendments were drafted in line with recommendations by the Venice Commission.

Let me remind you that back in December 2017 the Commission advised in its findings that Kiev should amend Article 7 of the law due to its discriminatory provisions regarding some ethnic minorities’ languages, including Russian, and to delay implementation of the article to 2023.

By voting down the draft amendments, the Kiev authorities have deliberately ignored the Commission’s recommendations in order to please the advocates of the “Ukrainisation” of the country and total extermination of other ethnicities’ languages from public and political life in Ukraine. It is sad that our European partners once again “swallowed” this act of apparent neglect by Kiev of its obligations in the Council of Europe.

We call on international organisations and human rights groups to issue an appropriate response to Kiev’s discriminatory policy against legal interests and human rights, primarily those relating to education and language. History proves that the forceful imposition of a monoethnic and monolingual state leads to quite tragic consequences.



Adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

The Russian Foreign Ministry website has posted the Statement of the Russian Federation on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. I would like to draw your attention to the document.

The Russian Federation supports the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.

This compromise document encompasses many aspects of international migration including the humanitarian component, issues of development, human rights and combatting crime.

Russia expects the Global Compact to become a basis for long-term comprehensive international cooperation aimed, among other things, at establishing channels for legal migration and mechanisms to effectively monitor migratory processes, designing instruments for countering illegal migration including readmission, as well as fighting crime in the migration sphere.

Of course, the Global Compact is not a legally binding document and does not impose legal and financial obligations on the countries which join it.

However, the Global Compact sets a certain trajectory in the development of contemporary views and approaches to the issues of international migration, and shapes a universal approach to this problem.



Incident with biathletes in Austria

Just last night we received the strange news from Austria that Austrian police officers came to the training camp of the Russian national team in Hochfilzen and presented notices addressed to several leading Russian biathletes accusing them of doping.

To be honest, I cannot quite understand what is resurfacing in Europe and what kind of traditions are emerging there to barge into a training camp at night (on the eve of important sporting events) and create a strange, destabilising and oppressive atmosphere of threats and mistrust when trying to explain and hand something over. It seems that the answer is that the police officers rushed to work as soon as the documents to be presented had been signed. When were the notices issued? They are dated December 11. I wonder where Austrian police officers were for two days. They left their precinct on December 11 to arrive at the Russian training camp on Wednesday night; what or who delayed them?

That night Russian Ambassador to Austria Dmitry Lyubinsky described the measures taken by the embassy to clarify the circumstances and provide the necessary support to our biathletes.

I would like to note that our diplomatic mission has received no official requests related this situation. The Russian Foreign Ministry has not been informed about it either.

Let me draw your attention to the fact that our diplomats are already in touch with their Austrian colleagues.

It is important to note that the organisers of the 2017 Biathlon World Championships have made no claims against Russian athletes, the same as now.

As of today, we cannot recreate the full picture because we do not have complete information, so it is too early to discuss what is happening or the political character of events. If information comes out about some political component to the story or attempts to put Russian biathletes under some sort of psychological pressure, our reaction will be swift.



Russia’s reciprocal steps following the expulsion of a Russian military diplomat from Slovakia

This November, the Slovakian authorities expelled a Russian military diplomat.

In accordance with well-established, common diplomatic practice, such unfriendly actions are always responded to with reciprocal measures, so a Slovakian military diplomat in the Russian Federation was declared persona non grata and must leave the country in two days. The Slovakian ambassador to Russia received a corresponding note on December 11. I would like to stress that, unlike our colleagues, we act in accordance with the rules and laws of diplomatic ethics. First, we inform our partners and then publish our contacts and information, not the other way around.

We regret Slovakia’s unfriendly action that is at odds with the traditions of our bilateral relations.



Statements of US Ambassador at Large Samuel Brownback

We have noted the recent statement made by US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo about placing Russia on a Special Watch List for governments that have engaged in or tolerated “severe violations of religious freedom.” What is it with people at the US State Department? It is difficult to understand. Are there any professionals left there? What we have recently heard from top American diplomats is a whole array of non-professional statements. I am addressing my American colleagues, given that all this was stated publicly: Could they clarify what severe violations of religious freedom they have detected in the Russian Federation?

Commenting on his boss’s move, US Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom Samuel Brownback told reporters at a briefing about Washington’s intention to apply sanctions against our country in the future due to certain violations of religious freedoms. Are you serious? I would like to ask a question: Could you by any chance be confusing Russia for Ukraine while writing your speeches? It seems that the material was about Ukraine, but they changed the word to Russia at the last moment.

I would like to remind you that the ongoing events in Ukraine around the canonical Orthodox Church, the persecution of its priests and laity, and constant threats of physical violence against them do not seem to concern the United States in the slightest, not even Samuel Brownback. Moreover, he personally is intervening in the religious affairs of Ukraine, imposing an autocephaly alien to millions of its believers, and in every way encouraging the schismatic moves of Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko and Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew.

We understand what is behind the actions of Samuel Brownback and the entire area of American diplomacy that deals with these matters: it is an attempt to divide the peoples of Russia and Ukraine spiritually, and even better play them off against each other, now on religious grounds. Anyone trying to resist will be either interrogated and imprisoned by the security service, or come under American sanctions.

This is a brief overview of the absurdity of American foreign policy. Honestly, this has already gone too far.



“Russian meddling in American elections”

We have to return again and again to the topic of Russia being accused of meddling in the American elections. Insinuations to the effect have been spread in the US for the third year running, and all this time we have been trying to collect some proof confirming these claims first from the previous Washington administration and now from the current one. Each time we stressed that we are ready to answer to any claims, to conduct a professional conversation, discuss any concerns the American colleagues may have in this context.

However, no real proof has been forthcoming. We were either told that “the Russian special services must know everything themselves” or were referred to some material circulating in the media and social networks which cannot be taken seriously. I would like to recap some of the American arguments. My favourite one is the claim made on October 20 that the chief accountant of the Federal News Agency Yelena Khusyaynova was implicated in influencing the elections to the US Congress through social networks. I would have thought that if an accountant can influence US Congress elections why pay all the special services (CIA, FBI, NSA). What a woman, she counts money and at the same time elects the Congress.

The lack of real evidence did not deter the American authorities from using false pretexts for further unfriendly moves against Russia. We were not surprised when, after the November 6 Congress elections, the State Department sent us Internet material claiming that it confirmed Russia’s attempts to influence the voting.

The send material contained reprints of pages from the “usaira.ru” website and “@IRA_USA1” Twitter account which, several days ahead of the elections, carried messages purporting to come from the above-mentioned Petersburg Internet Research Agency to the Americans claiming that the Russians “control your elections whether you vote or not.” Attached was an article on the same subject published by “thinkprogress.org” resource on November 6 which seeks to link the above-mentioned website with Azimut LLC company which figures in the Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigation. Even a schoolchild can understand that all this is a fanciful and brazen fake.

Even so, we have taken a close look at the material handed over to us by the US State Department and conducted a cyber search. The study of the “usaira.ru” domain meta-data has established that it was first registered in the early 2017 and until November 2018 was owned by a Russian-language Internet shop selling electrical goods (electric kettles, heaters). On November 2, i.e. right on the eve of the elections, its domain name was bought for a term of one year by unknown users who indicated Azimut LLC company in the registration data section.

Then, using the above domain name, they executed the technological design of the website that supposedly belonged to the Internet Research Agency.

No evidence has been found of the participation of Russian citizens and organisations, including Azimut LLC, in creating this website. It’s like in the popular Stierlitz joke which may ring no bells to the Americans but is known to our people.

Since no verification of the buyer is required in registering a domain we can only guess who needed this anti-Russian provocation and why. We have noted, however, that the fake was spread through the “thinkprogress.org” resource affiliated with Washington’s Centre for American Progress financed by George Soros and closely linked with the leadership of the US Democratic Party.

I have but one question. Before giving us all this stuff could you have checked it with your special services? Secretary of State Michael Pompeo recently wrote to us about corruption and taxpayers’ money. Why don’t you count your taxpayers’ money and ask your special services what they are doing if American diplomats deliver such rubbish to Russian officials at a high level. Moreover, this is rubbish in terms of accusing Russia, but it is anything but rubbish from the point of view of those who prepared this fake.

I would be interested to know the reaction of President Trump if he is told this story. It would be a good idea to show Donald Trump the source of this fake and all the fake news to which he refers so frequently.

The roots of this story, and indeed of the whole slander campaign around “Russian meddling,” which has long become “a theatre of the absurd,” are inside the United States and the American internal politics. It only remains to recommend to the Washington strategists to put an end to this farce, stop misleading their own citizens and the world public opinion and be more professional in performing their duties.

I would like to say that the results of this Internet investigation will shortly be sent to Washington via official channels.



Remarks by European Commissioner for the Security Union Julian King published in The Guardian

We have taken note of the recent article in the British newspaper The Guardian devoted to the November 25 border incident involving Ukrainian navy vessels in Russian territorial waters. The article cites the words of the European Commissioner for the Security Union Julian King which cannot be described as anything other than brazen disinformation. The British representative claims that Russia had made lengthy and careful preparations for “the seizure of Ukrainian ships in the Sea of Azov” spreading in advance false charges against Ukraine. Julian King attributes the reports that Ukraine had “infected the Sea of Azov with cholera” and that it had been trying “to ship a nuclear bomb to Crimea” to the sinister hand of Moscow, constantly haunting the West, and dismisses the reports as “a disinformation campaign.”

I am afraid I have to disappoint the European official. As someone in charge of security issues, he ought to have paid attention to the alarming reports coming out of Ukraine about the worsening sanitary-epidemiological situation in the country, especially after 2014. This is due to the inability of “the government of victors” to ensure the healthcare system functions properly because of a lack of money arising from, among other things, Kiev’s expenditure on “the war with Russia.”

Last summer, the Ukrainian media reported the detection of cholera bacterium in samples of water taken in Berdyansk, Melitopol and in the Nikolayev Region. Earlier, Kiev reluctantly admitted flare-ups of tuberculosis, measles and other infectious diseases in Ukraine, information which incidentally has been confirmed by the World Health Organisation.

I would like to ask The Guardian, considering that it lent its pages to this fake report, even if not bylined by its own journalists, to make some kind of disclaimer. I have named all the alternative sources of accurate information. It would be a good idea if the journalists themselves prepared the material. I don’t think we should publish any denials. It is up to the newspaper itself to do so.

As for the allegations concerning “a nuclear bomb in Crimea,” let us leave it to the conscience of Julius King who is probably woebegone in face of the early prospect of parting with the EU and his current job. It is hard to understand what prompted the man to publish such a fake report. I understand that from his point of view Russia is to blame for everything, but this is going too far, especially in an interview with such an authoritative newspaper.



Lithuania launches another hostile act against Russia

Vilnius recently announced that it has entered the names of 20 Russian citizens in its blacklist in connection with the Kerch Strait incident. Without waiting for its American and European partners who are still studying the situation, Lithuania has become the only country to decide of its own accord, to mete out (as always misdirected) “punishment” to Russia for the gross provocation of the Kiev regime in the Black Sea.

We have repeatedly stressed that no anti-Russian actions by the Lithuanian authorities will go without an appropriate response on our part. In this case, the response will be tit-for-tat.



141st anniversary of the liberation of Plevna

December 10 marked the 141st anniversary of the Russian victory in one of the decisive battles of the Russo-Turkish liberation war of 1877-1878, the Battle of Plevna (now Pleven). The capture of that city became a symbol of the heroism and self-sacrifice of the Russian soldiers and Bulgarian militia who fought for the freedom of the Balkan peoples.

Each year, a remembrance ceremony for the heroes of Plevna is held at the memorial chapel in Moscow. The ceremony on December 10 was attended by Bulgaria’s Ambassador to Russia Atanas Krastin, representatives of Russian government and non-governmental organisations. Similar events to mark the 141st anniversary of the liberation of Plevna were held in Bulgaria in the presence of the Russian Ambassador to Sofia, Anatoly Makarov.

We are convinced that a respectful and careful attitude to common history is the historical foundation of the relations between Russia and Bulgaria.

Incidentally, I have lately been receiving messages from Russian social network users, with one woman asking me to convey to the Bulgarian Ambassador to Russia words of sincere gratitude from her and her family for the preservation of the monuments I have mentioned.



Special edition of The Crimean Magazine about the work of the local media

A year ago, we presented a special edition of The Crimean Magazine in English (http://journalcrimea.ru/wp-content/u...017/02/MID.pdf), so that you and our foreign partners would be able to obtain first-hand information, without go-betweens, about life on the peninsula. We have decided to continue this tradition. Today’s special edition of The Crimean Magazine deals with the situation with regional media outlets.

I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that the magazine’s editorial office employs Crimean journalists who lived in the region before 2014 and who continue to live there today, rather than people from mainland Russia who moved to Crimea after 2014. They have prepared a survey on the status of Crimean media outlets, and you can read it. We will also send this affordable magazine to international organisations. You can also find all the contacts here.

We read very many strange news stories about Crimean media outlets in so-called surveys by human rights organisations. Those who write them have never been to Crimea, and they have never even spoken on the phone with Crimean residents and journalists. Now, they can read this publication and contact Crimean residents direct.



Russia’s response to the submission of a draft resolution to the Parliament of Estonia on a possible refusal to ratify Russian-Estonian border treaties

At the previous briefing, there was a question about Russia’s response to the submission of a draft resolution to the Parliament of Estonia on a possible refusal to ratify Russian-Estonian border treaties. Here is what I would like to say.

To the best of our knowledge, the Conservative People's Party of Estonia has already taken a similar initiative, but the Parliament did not support it. We will continue to monitor the current situation.

Our approach towards the process of ratifying border treaties remains the same: To promote this process, it is necessary to guarantee a normal non-confrontational atmosphere with regard to each other. In addition, the Estonian side should fulfil its share of the ratification process without any political additions, ploys or reservations.



OPEC after Qatar’s withdrawal

During the previous briefing, I was asked to comment on Russia’s perception of OPEC after the withdrawal of Qatar from this Organisation.

It is common knowledge that Russia actively cooperates with OPEC countries in the bilateral format and also under OPEC’s Declaration of Cooperation with non-OPEC producers. Since the Declaration’s inception two years ago, the sides have achieved tangible results: global commercial oil reserves have decreased considerably, the critical disproportion between supply and demand has been reduced, and average prices for 2018 were much higher than during previous crisis years.

As an active member of the Organisation, Qatar made a substantial contribution to the success of the Vienna agreement and played an important role in the work of the Joint OPEC-non-OPEC Ministerial Monitoring Committee. We praise these efforts, and we would like to thank Qatar for this.

We are confident that the decision of Qatar’s leaders to withdraw from OPEC will not impair Russia’s intensive cooperation with partners from among oil-producing countries. The parties to the Declaration of Cooperation are determined to continue their joint efforts aimed at improving the oil market and making it more stable and predictable. Participants in the December 7 OPEC-non-OPEC Ministerial Meeting agreed to extend the Declaration by another six months and set new targets for reduced oil output.

On the whole, Russia maintains sufficiently intensive mutually beneficial energy cooperation with Qatar, and we are confident that this will continue to expand successfully. We work effectively within the Gas Exporting Countries Forum.



Answers to media questions about Russian-Japanese contacts

Question No. 1:

When is Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov scheduled to meet with Japanese Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Takeo Mori under the new mechanism?



Maria Zakharova:

Deadlines for such consultations have not been set yet. The sides continue to coordinate issues linked with launching initial dialogue on the question of the peace treaty in a renewed format.



Question No. 2:

Is the dismantling of US military bases in Japan under the January 27, 1960 Memorandum of the Government of the Soviet Union to the Government of Japan a key pre-condition for signing the peace treaty?



Maria Zakharova:

It goes without saying that the entire range of issues, including security issues, will be discussed during the negotiating process. At the same time, we consider it necessary to take into account all available diplomatic correspondence, including the January 27 and February 24, 1960 memorandums of the Government of the Soviet Union.



Question No. 3:

What are the prospects for signing the peace treaty by the summer of 2019?



Maria Zakharova:

There are no specific agreements on deadlines for resolving the peace treaty issue. Moreover, the sides have not yet launched talks under a mechanism that has been coordinated by the leaders. Obviously, we will have to do a lot to strengthen mutual understanding and trust and to expand practical cooperation for the purpose of imparting a new quality to Russian-Japanese relations that would make it possible to address the most complicated bilateral issues.



Question No. 4:

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan Taro Kono visit Russia on December 27?



Maria Zakharova:

So far, I cannot say anything specific about the deadline, venue or format of the visit. We will certainly inform you as soon as this meeting is included in Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s schedule, be it participation in talks, a meeting on the sidelines of any specific event or a visit.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

At the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Milan, a joint statement was adopted by the heads of delegations of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. As is known, at the same time, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Acting Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan met on the sidelines of the CIS informal summit. In Moscow’s opinion, can this be regarded as a dialogue between the parties to the conflict?

The statement included the co-chair countries’ call to take concrete measures to prepare the peoples of the two countries for peace. What specific steps is Moscow expecting?

Will Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discuss this issue with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev today?



Maria Zakharova:

There is definitely a dialogue. No official statement is required here, because following the adoption of the documents that you mentioned and the contacts that have taken place, it is obvious that there is an ongoing dialogue. We presume that Russia, as a co-chair, will actively assist the positive dynamics aimed at achieving the main goal.

It is necessary to develop a series of specific steps, which the sides should carry out with the assistance from the co-chairs.

The Narorno-Karabakh settlement is always a focus during Sergey Lavrov's trips to the region, when he visits Baku and Yerevan.



Question:

Can you comment on the European Parliament’s resolution that calls for the Nord Stream 2 project to be cancelled? Do you think similar steps may be taken with regard to the extension of the TurkStream pipeline across Europe?



Maria Zakharova:

It is not the first time that European politicians have tried to block peaceful, beneficial and promising energy projects. I am sure you know that many of these people, who claim to represent public opinion, are in the pay of certain lobby groups. Worse still, they are paid not only by lobby groups, which is normal practice for European democracies, but also by special bodies. Because speaking up against energy cooperation and its diversification and modernisation is insanity for Europe, which needs energy so much.

As for what the MEPs wanted to say and why, this is a big question. If they are thinking about global warming, this is a good story, but when will it happen? If they are not counting on global warming, what are they counting on? Some countries have shut down nuclear power stations and are calling to stop importing Russian gas. What will they use then, firewood? But you know where they can get firewood, too.

Whose interests do these people represent? It is not true that they are acting in the best interests of the people. The people need heating, and they want it at a fair price. As a responsible supplier who has faithfully honoured its obligations for the past decades, Russia is ready to continue to deliver quality energy products at fair prices that are consistent with the market situation.

Another aspect is the politicisation of energy cooperation. The statements such as the one you mentioned have nothing to do with the market, the economy or energy requirements. This is politics pure and simple. Wasn’t it the MEPs who used to tell not only Russia but the whole world (they think, for some reason, that they are in a position to lecture the world because they represent the European Parliament) that politicians must not influence the economy and energy cooperation? That used to be their rallying cry for years – energy and the economy free from politics. I would like to remind them that the free market and democratic development are based on the principle that politics must not play a key role in the economy. Why do they think in this particular case that they can enforce their political rules on everyone and set economic rules based on politics?

As for whether similar statements can be adopted in the future, and not just in the cases you mentioned, yes, this is highly likely. The reasons are the same. These people represent not their electorate but political forces, and sometimes even security services, which are using them in their own interests and for attaining their own goals. These people represent those who do not want Europe to be stable, prosperous and independent. But we want Europe to be all of these things, because we want to sell our energy, which only prosperous clients interested in stable cooperation can buy.

When they say that Russia wants to influence Europe through its energy deliveries, this is not true. We have had all kinds of situations with our European colleagues, including sanctions, threats, cold spells and severed relations, for example, with NATO, when dialogue exists only formally but is actually suspended for years on end. Did this have any effect on Russian energy deliveries to Europe? No, never. These are not just words but a fact that has been recognised by European businesses and ordinary people, who know that their homes are kept warm every winter without any additional conditions.

Who has been trying to sour our relations all this time? Regrettably, it is Ukraine, though not the Ukraine as a country but Ukrainian politicians who, goaded by their American curators, used blackmail in the sphere of energy cooperation and presented this as Russia’s pressure. In fact, they were trying to undermine the decades-long energy ties between Russia and Europe.

I would like to remind you what was said at Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with European businesses in Moscow. It was not Sergey Lavrov but European business people who said that everything has changed in Russia, including the political system, but Soviet/Russian energy cooperation with Europe remained unaffected, although the Soviet Union was building socialism and communism, while Russia opted for democracy and a free market. Russia has always honoured its commitments on time and at the highest possible level. But some forces have always wanted to prevent this.

There is also competition. Much is being said about the delivery of shale gas by LNG tankers, which is very expensive but would bring huge revenues to certain quarters. But nobody wants to speak about the safety, stability and, judging by the prices, apparent unprofitability of such projects.



Question:

Given that, to our knowledge, the Armenian Foreign Ministry and its policies will remain the same, does Russia intend to intensify the dialogue in the Nagorno-Karabakh process and come up with any new proposals, possibly based on the Madrid Principles?



Maria Zakharova:

Why don’t you ask me about an expansion of the dialogue in all areas? I think we need a broader approach. We have great potential for developing bilateral relations with the new leadership (although, according to your information, which I don’t personally have, the leadership will remain the same as before). We should increase our interaction not just on one track, but we should also initiate and maintain, if possible, the dynamics that previously existed in our relations, that have developed over the years, to the benefit of the peoples of both countries. I think Armenia knows how much political will and how many resources Russia has invested in the development of this interaction.

We are always interested in seeing our neighbours and close nations and countries prosper. There is an obvious benefit for all of us. So we need to maintain the dynamics of expanding and deepening interaction in the current areas and also perhaps open new areas of cooperation.



Question:

What is your opinion of the decision of the Time magazine to name a group of journalists, and not an individual, its Person of the Year for 2018?



Maria Zakharova:

There’s no need to be so blinkered. I understand that there are world trends, but only for as long as you play into them. As long as you – as journalists who work in hotspots, carry out real journalistic investigations and achieve fantastic results – care who is on the cover of Time and who Time wrote about, they will continue to engage in this manipulation, the compilation of facts, the shaping of public opinion for certain purposes. There’s no other way to describe it.

As for the objectivity of selecting the Person of the Year or the Most Influential People of the Year, which is so popular in Britain, it is absolutely unclear what criteria are used. It’s ridiculous and it is hard to understand what they reflect. Obviously, there is some kind of process for producing these pieces. You realise perfectly well that there are journalists whose words, deeds and lives not only push world journalism forward, but really change the world. Not from the point of view of negatively impacting the profession, as Arkady Babchenko did, but from the point of view of changing people’s ideas about what is happening behind the curtain of world affairs and international relations. There was not a line or space for a small photograph left for these people. Therefore, it seems to me that it’s all a game. But it only matters if you play it. The selection process and procedures are unclear, but the goals and tasks are clear.

Is it by chance that on virtually the same day that Arkady Babchenko was put on a certain Time list, he also filed complaints with the European Court of Human Rights? This coincidence indeed looks odd. Perhaps, that was why he was included on the list? Filling such lawsuits after what Arkady Babchenko did, actually crippling world journalism with his provocative actions, was doomed to fail – no one would have taken it seriously. But time has passed and his name has been laundered through Time magazine – a nice time for a lawsuit. Now everyone remembers Arkady Babchenko not as the man who covered himself in pig’s blood and made everyone think he was dead, and was then resurrected, but as a person from Time magazine.

No one even bothered to ask what kind of a list it is or what kind of Person of the Year he is or what is it that those people influenced. Why are they getting so much attention? And why were others left off, for example, Kirill Vyshinsky? Not a word was said about him despite the fact that he is a real prisoner and that he has been behind bars for more than half a year solely due to his professional activity. It’s all hypocritical and sad.



Question:

What is the current situation when it comes to Russians trying to obtain US visas?



Maria Zakharova:

It has not changed. Different visa-issue deadlines are stipulated in Moscow and other Russian cities. The US side has complicated the matter concerning US visas to Russian citizens to the greatest possible extent.



Question:

On December 10, the United States excluded Russia from a list of countries that are not recommended for visits. Can this step be regarded as positive in Russian-US relations?



Maria Zakharova:

All I can say is that this absurd story is now over. It is hard to say what the US side wanted to formalise by introducing these recommendations. Perhaps this was linked with the 2018 FIFA World Cup, so that no one would be able to attend this major event. Perhaps now that the World Cup is over, these recommendations have become irrelevant. These things are not subject to serious analysis.

When we organise press tours and invite journalists, including to the Chechen Republic and the city of Grozny (we regularly organise such familiarisation tours to various Russian regions hosting major events, forums and boasting achievements of interest to foreign audiences), I always hear Western journalists and many people following in the wake of Western concepts that it is dangerous there. I remember the 1990s and the early 2000s when hundreds of Western journalists used to visit Chechnya each month. At that time, a counter-terrorist operation was conducted there, and it was really dangerous to simply walk the streets and to stay in the republic. Our press service established a special division to assist journalists leaving for the counter-terrorist operation’s zone. They were issued with bullet-proof vests, helmets and special communications systems. At that time, this was really dangerous, but nothing stopped hundreds of Western reporters from going there.

This was dangerous not only because of the ongoing hostilities and because people could get killed or wounded there. It was also dangerous because the terrorists mostly profited by abducting journalists because such abductions caused an immediate public outcry. The publication where the abducted journalist worked immediately focused on the matter. Multi-million dollar ransoms were paid. This amounted to a real slave trade. Despite these developments, the journalists still went there.

If you recall, the counter-terrorist operation’s press centre was established in a building on Zubovsky Boulevard, now belonging to the Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency. To make things safer for journalists, regulations for visiting Chechnya were drafted in the run-up to the counter-terrorist operation in Chechnya, and the journalist accreditation procedure was modified. This was done only once since the Government of the Russian Federation passed its Resolution No. 1055 of September 13, 1994 that regulates the accreditation of correspondents of foreign media outlets in Russia and their stay here. At that time, nothing stopped anyone from going there. It’s quite the other way around.

Today, Chechnya has become a prosperous territory, and Grozny is a thriving city with schools, religious institutions, universities, theatres, cinemas, etc. And now, it is dangerous to visit this region all of a sudden. This is absurd. They are writing nonsense and saying that the region should not be visited because it is dangerous. This is not true.



Question:

I would like to ask a question specifying Russian-Japanese relations. What is meant by “diplomatic correspondence?” Apart from the January 27, 1960 Memorandum of the Government of the Soviet Union to the Government of Japan, does it include the January 27 and February 24, 1960 memorandums of the Government of the Soviet Union?



Maria Zakharova:

I will simplify my answer and make it as specific as possible.

First, it goes without saying that the documents mentioned by you are the legal framework for the current talks. Second, they will be taken into consideration during the full-fledged negotiating process. I have even enumerated them in line with your specific question. This implies diplomatic correspondence, including the January 27 and February 24, 1960 memorandums of the Government of the Soviet Union. And, third, experts are now busy working with these documents and specifying their interpretations.



Question:

President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan has announced a military operation against Kurdish paramilitary units in Syria. What is Russia’s position on this issue? Did the Turkish side coordinate this operation with Russia and Iran?



Maria Zakharova:

We maintain contacts with our Turkish colleagues on all matters linked with the situation in Syria and the organisation of counter-terrorist operations there. Of course, you should ask military experts about the details.



Question:

Could you comment on media reports about Washington’s possible recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights?



Maria Zakharova:

As you know, the Russian Federation voices a principled position that the Golan Heights belong to the Syrian Arab Republic. This is confirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 497 of 1981. Our assessment of Israel’s illegal decision to extend its sovereignty over the Golan Heights, under the 1981 fundamental law, remains the same. Changing the status of the Golan Heights, in circumvention of the UN Security Council, directly violates UN decisions.

Russia is interested in maintaining tranquility in the Golan Heights, as well as security and the ceasefire regime between Syria and Israel. Complete compliance with the 1974 agreement on disengaging Israeli and Syrian forces guarantees this status. President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin stated this on July 16, 2018 after his talks with President of the United States Donald Trump in Helsinki.



Question:

After the Russian-Turkish-French-German summit in Istanbul, it was decided to launch the work of the Commission on the New Syrian Constitution this December. Are the sides making any headway in this direction? Does Russia believe that Kurdish paramilitary units are terrorist groups?



Maria Zakharova:

We maintain contacts on all matters regarding the regional situation with the Turkish side. You know our principled assessments. They have not changed in the last few days. Turkey has its own perception of this issue. We have repeatedly noted that Russian and Turkish positions do not coincide on all issues. At the same time, we have similar positions on many other issues. We try to make our positions closer in areas where we cannot find identical answers. This is normal diplomatic practice.

Regarding the constitution, this work is now underway. Today, Russian special representatives maintain highly intensive contacts in the region. I believe that some progress will be made in the near future, and we will be able to provide you with additional information on this.



Question:

On December 11, the media reported that the Defence Ministry of the Czech Republic was dissatisfied with the Russian Foreign Ministry’s note that members of the inter-governmental commission on military burial sites would not hold their meeting in 2018, and that Russia was in no hurry to set up plaques in memory of Czech legionaries. In November, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic said it was necessary to step up media countermeasures against Russia. Is this pressure part of a “hybrid war” waged by the Czech Republic against Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

Let’s divide these issues. I will contact our experts and specify the deadlines for holding the Commission’s meetings. To avoid all-out premature assessments, we should look into the matter.

As for the political statements about an alleged Russian threat, we commented on them immediately. We consider them groundless, and they do not reflect the potential of our bilateral relations. Nor do they take into account the relevant provisions of bilateral documents.



Question:

Russian Ambassador to Serbia Alexander Chepurin said in an interview that any decision on the delimitation of Serbia’s borders with Kosovo, if taken, must be formalised in a UN Security Council resolution. Does this mean that Russia would not protest against a resolution that will determine the situation in Kosovo in the future? What should be the essence of such a resolution, and on what conditions would Russia vote for it? Will it take the Serbian public opinion into account?



Maria Zakharova:

Knowing Mr Chepurin and the subject of delineation, I am sure he said more than that. As for a resolution, he most likely spoke about the work ahead, the talks that need to be held, the interests of Serbia and the Serbian people, as well as the history of the problem.

And now I would like to add a few details. So, we are speaking about a new resolution, because Russia’s position is that at this point UN Security Council Resolution 1244 remains effective with regard to this territory and this issue. It has not been cancelled. Therefore, any changes regarding this can be made exclusively with the agreement of Belgrade and only in the interests of the Serbian people. It is our position of principle. Any changes, if they are made, must be followed by the amendment of international law. Therefore, I am sure that Ambassador Chepurin did not talk solely about a UN Security Council resolution, but also about a process that would entail, inter alia, changes to the international legal framework.

Any UN Security Council resolutions, not only those on the Kosovo settlement but any such resolutions are adopted by a vote held following consultations and preparations.



Question:

First of all, I would like to thank you on behalf of our readers for liberating Bulgaria from the Ottoman rule. Secondly, you recently mentioned global power brokers. I would like to ask in this connection if the notions of honour, morals and dignity are still valid in global politics and diplomacy.



Maria Zakharova:

Yes, certainly, for otherwise the world would have long been thrown into the abyss of endless wars and conflicts. As long as there are legal relations, negotiations and universal rules and norms, the notions you have mentioned remain valid.



Question:

Yesterday Russia marked Constitution Day. Does Clause 4 of Article 15 of the Russian Constitution, which deals with the supremacy of international law over national legislation, remain topical in modern realities?



Maria Zakharova:

I am not in a position to judge the topicality of constitutional articles. As part of the executive branch, we honour the obligations imposed on us by the Constitution. I think you should take your question to the expert community and political analysts, who know more about such subjects. This is the only answer I can give as a representative of a body that is part of the executive branch.



Question:

What is your opinion of the current stage of trade and economic relations between Russia and Azerbaijan in light of the recent official meetings and the session of the Azerbaijani-Russian intergovernmental commission, which will be held tomorrow and where a number of documents will be signed?



Maria Zakharova:

Our bilateral relations are well developed and have a positive future in various spheres, not only politics. The dynamics of our relations is very positive.



Question:

The US Congress yesterday approved a non-binding resolution calling on the EU to stop Nord Stream 2 and to adopt new sanctions. Can you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

This would suit those who don’t want Europe to be stable and prosperous, to be warm in winter and to have normal relations with other countries that are part of Europe, or with non-EU members in the case of the European Union. We have heard not only calls but also threats from US officials and members of the US legislative and executive branches. US President Donald Trump has issued statements threatening or warning Germany against energy cooperation with Russia. All this has a clear goal. This is dirty rivalry on the global scale. It has long moved beyond the limits of normal relations between financial and economic competitors. They are using methods that are prohibited in the Western countries. Back in the past, they advocated the development of global economic relations, economic freedom and the creation of all kinds of zones and regulatory organisations with as many members as possible. They invented the rules which they are violating now, and they are using an aggressive vocabulary against those countries that want to promote and have the experience of promoting normal mutually beneficial relations based on mutual respect, including in energy.



Question:

ABC reported yesterday that Maria Butina agreed to cooperate with the investigation. What could you say about it?



Maria Zakharova:

Regarding Maria Butina, I would like to say that we are watching the events. It is dangerous to rely on media leaks, especially where it concerns a person who is kept in custody like a political prisoner and subjected to physical and psychological experiments. I am talking about physical experiments because if you are allowed to telephone and talk to your family only late at night, if you are searched every hour, if you have endless wake-ups at night and in general are kept in such tough conditions without having a clear understanding of who you could threaten or harm on the outside, who you can communicate with and what can have a negative effect on the course of the investigation that has failed to state specific charges apart from a couple of generalities – it means real psychological pressure accompanied by physical components used to drive a person to a certain frame of mind.

We are rendering Maria Butina all the necessary support. We will support all the decisions aimed at securing her release that she will take together with her attorneys and family members, considering that she is a political prisoner and that all that is happening around her has nothing to do with justice or an investigation but is purely political pressure and blackmail using a wide range of tools. We have been supporting her from the very beginning and we are doing it also since we are aware that she is not an experienced person, a servicewoman or a professional human rights fighter who rushed to the barricades for the umpteenth time and regards this situation as normal, but a young woman who was attacked so viciously by Western democracy.



Question:

I would like to ask you about human rights violations in Ukraine. Ukrainian authorities have declared martial law, and terrifying footage of forcible mobilisation, including weeping mothers, and boys who are being forced into the army are showing up on the internet. At the same time, President Petr Poroshenko is making very aggressive statements in English on a Western television channel. Is there any international mechanism for recalling a high-ranking state official who threatens the security of his country and the international community from his presidential post? Can the international community, including Russia, refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the Ukrainian President, all the more so as it is common knowledge that the Kiev regime came to power illegally?



Maria Zakharova:

I don’t think there are any special mechanisms. This could only be accomplished through political processes and diplomatic practice. There are different mechanisms used in domestic state policies. History knows relevant examples.

I don’t believe it is necessary for us to comment on this specific situation. Ukraine is to hold an election in the near future. We see the conditions under which this election will be held, and we see what the authorities are doing to boost their falling ratings. This is obvious, everyone can see this. But the people of Ukraine will be able to make their choice even under these conditions.



Question:

Can you comment on a report about the sentencing of Michael Cohen, the former lawyer for US President Donald Trump?



Maria Zakharova:

According to media reports, a member of US President Donald Trump’s inner circle has been sentenced, another one has been indicted, and the activities of someone else are being investigated, and some other people are being interrogated as well. Against this backdrop, it is surprising to read statements by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who is calling some regimes corrupt. All we can say is look in the mirror.

This is a purely US domestic affair. We realise that it is the result of an extremely tough political divide between political parties. Does US history suggest similar developments in the past? These situations happen on a regular basis and all the time. Does this reflect the concept of democracy? Yes, this reflects the US democratic system. On the one hand, the US political system is declared a democracy in terms of outward appearance. On the other hand, these fierce political clashes where nothing is held back, serve to describe this state system.

Take any decade and any election, and you will find many similar incidents. Statements and impeachment discussions have always hinged on violations of the law. This has happened many times. But the situation has never taken such a turn; it has never been so heated and has never assumed such a global scale. In the past, they were always able to contain the situation. The current infighting is so fierce, and domestic resources have hit such an all-time low that it’s acquiring global proportions which far transcend the boundaries of regional policies and now encompass the entire world. This reflects domestic US crises to a certain extent. This is their own business, but, considering the fact that this all-out political battle affects global relations, we have a right to comment on it.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3440823
__________________
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

Last edited by Alex Him; January 28th, 2019 at 03:54 PM.
 
Old January 31st, 2019 #548
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Radio Komsomolskaya Pravda, Moscow, December 17, 2018



17 December 2018 - 22:05







Question:

Mr Lavrov, we met with you in the same format one and a half year ago.

We began by stating that the foreign policy situation surrounding Russia at the time was growing alarming. But you assured us that there would be no war because the Russian leaders were absolutely against it. Our partners, as you said, were certainly not interested in it either. Now, one and a half year later, we can see no improvements. On the contrary, things are growing increasingly alarming. Some of our listeners even feel scared. Others compare the current situation with the late 1930s. One of the readers even asks: “Please be honest and say what we should expect? Will we be attacked?”



Sergey Lavrov:

There are comparisons that go farther back into history. Both in this country and elsewhere, there are figures who predict that a situation will arise resembling that on the eve of World War I. They are referring to the pent-up antagonisms existing in Europe, including, by the way, in the Balkans. But it is my strong, firm conviction that the politicians in the key countries cannot allow a big war to happen. The public opinion and the nations themselves will not let them. I hope that the parliaments in each Western country will also display maximal responsibility.

But I absolutely agree that tensions are being fomented in an unprecedented way. We see international agreements collapsing. Not so long ago, the United States unilaterally disrupted the ABM Treaty. We had to adopt measures that would prevent this extremely negative event from undermining strategic stability. Next in line is the INF Treaty, which Washington believes to be outmoded, while accusing us of violating it. In so doing, they are hinting in no uncertain terms that they would like to extend the restriction identical to that assumed by the USSR and the United States to China and a number of other countries, including North Korea and Iran.

We are categorically against this initiative. We are in favour of keeping the INF Treaty. The entire international community has repeatedly recognised it as a cornerstone of international security and strategic stability. Today at the UN, we will make a second attempt to submit a General Assembly resolution in support of preserving this Treaty.

Apart from that, we have presented the US with our concerns regarding how it implements this Treaty. These concerns are based on concrete facts and developments in the military technical sphere, specifically the deployment of a US military base in Romania and deployment plans for Poland. We hear statements by our US colleagues that the only way to save the Treaty is to destroy the 9M729 missile, which Russia has allegedly developed with a range exceeding the limit imposed by the Treaty. In response, Minister of Defence Sergey Shoigu, following similar steps at the expert level, has officially suggested that he and US Secretary of Defence James Mattis meet and start a professional discussion. The US did not even reply or at least formally acknowledge the receipt of the invitation. Possibly, if they had done this, they would have had to explain why they are evading a professional discussion and continue to act in the notorious “highly likely” style, as though wishing to say that what remains for us is to repent because we are allegedly to blame for everything.

While we are on this subject, I would like to say this. I have no doubt that US President Donald Trump was sincere when he said during his election campaign that he wanted good relations with the Russian Federation. Regrettably, the consequences of Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton have caused a tsunami in US domestic political life, primarily because the so-called system elites have felt uncomfortable. They saw the current developments as something that was putting power within reach of ordinary voters. Since then, no one has ever corroborated with facts the repeated charges of Russian meddling in the US elections, hacker attacks on the Democratic Party and other US agencies, etc.

Let me note that this Russophobia, as we are convinced, is to a decisive degree linked to the internal political infighting [in the US]. The United States, no matter who would advocate good relations with Russia, sees us as a rival as it does China. It is not accidental that for the lack of facts proving our “sins” against US democracy, the Russophobic campaign has brought no results whatsoever.

In recent days, the US propagandists have pitched in at China. In their view, China is already the “chief hacker” undermining the mainstay of US society. It is regrettable that the interests of the international community, global strategic stability and international security are being sacrificed for the sake of domestic political squabbles. But we will always be ready for dialogue. Even under these circumstances, we never refuse to take part in a professional discussion in areas where our partners are prepared to consider the existing threats and problems in an equal and honest manner.

After a long break, yet another round of talks on fighting terrorism has been held. Our security services are in contact on a number of other issues, including Syrian settlement, the North Korean nuclear problem and Afghanistan. We maintain regular enough contacts, even though we are not always on the same page.



Question:

They write, with such friends, who needs enemies?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have this proverb in Russian.



Question:

When we mentioned the growing tension in the world, we actually meant Ukraine. The Kerch Strait incident is going too far. We also had in mind Donbass, where almost every day they are expecting an attack. Why do we compare poorly to Ukraine, according to the opinion of the world community?

Ukraine has assumed a clear ideological position: Russia confronts us, so we fight Russia, defending ourselves, and so on. We – Russia – are declared the enemy. Soon our church, our priests may become great martyrs, because we do not know what will happen to them. Some get imprisoned, and criminal cases are brought against them. Then, there might be a religious war, we have already gone this far. With the situation so aggravated, we still hold a sluggish, relaxed position, when Ukraine has openly declared us an enemy, and introduced martial law. Why don’t we declare Ukraine a Nazi regime? We have a lot of evidence: the new law on the Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army recognising Hitler's rabble as heroes. This has already been proven. Why do we not explicitly declare that Nazism is a rabid dog one doesn’t talk to, but shoots? This would give us a moral trump card in the global community. This would not be a conflict with Ukraine, which has declared us an enemy and has already declared martial law, but a fight against the Nazi regime. The Ukrainian people are not our enemy. The enemy is the Nazi regime. Why not declare it directly?

We are putting our diplomats who remain there at risk (our readers write about this). Why not withdraw the Embassy from that country?

Many people ask us when Russia will recognise the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics.



Sergey Lavrov:

We are not at war with the Ukrainian regime, which has all the features of the Nazi and neo-Nazi. The Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine who live in Donbass are fighting it.



Question:

Then maybe we should break off the relations with them? How can we have a relationship with the Nazi regime?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have relations with the Ukrainian state. The Ukrainian state is much more important for us than the regime that came to power thanks to the West betraying all norms of international law and international behaviour.

The Ukrainian people have nothing to do with it. The overwhelming majority, I am sure, wants peace in the country, wants to get rid of this shameful regime and return to normal relations with the Russian Federation. For that, the internal problems of Ukraine will have to be resolved, of course. They are much wider, and much deeper than just the DPR and the LPR. As a reminder, it all happened because the West has committed criminal connivance, I should say. Back in February 2014, the European Union, through the foreign ministers of Germany, Poland, and France, guaranteed an agreement between Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. The next morning, the opposition destroyed that agreement. Neither France, nor Germany, nor Poland, nor the United States, which did not sign the document, but actively supported it, lifted a finger. They did not even apologise to those who had hoped that the agreement would lead to a peaceful settlement.

Three days later, Dmitry Yarosh who led all the military operations on the Maidan, publicly stated (it was his official statement and is still available) that “Russians should not be in Crimea, because they will never glorify Stepan Bandera or Roman Shukhevych and will never think in Ukrainian.” Therefore, he said, Russians in Crimea “must either be destroyed or expelled.” After that, unrest began among the Crimean people. When Yarosh later tried to organise an attack on the Supreme Council, it erupted in a protest, which led to a referendum and eventually to the decision to return Crimea to the Russian Federation.

Now we are obliged to fulfill the Minsk Agreements.



Question:

They collapsed long ago. You spoke about this 18 months ago. Nobody remembers that now, except Donbass.

If you come to the village of Zaitsevo, where every household has buried someone, and if you mention the Minsk Agreements, I don’t know what they will do to you. They honour them, and the fact that they are being killed on a daily basis – is that Minsk Agreements as well?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe that there is no alternative to the Minsk Agreements, and I also said that back in 2016. The UN Charter has also been violated many times, and it has also malfunctioned on many occasions. But we must not give in to panic. Are you suggesting that we recognise the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics?



Question:

Yes, of course.



Sergey Lavrov:

And then what?



Question:

After that, we would defend our territory, recognised by us, and we would help our fraternal peoples.



Sergey Lavrov:

Do you want to lose the rest of Ukraine? Do you want to leave it at the mercy of the Nazis?



Question:

As I see it, we should go to war against the Nazi regime because they declared martial law against us, they have called us enemies, and they attack our ships.



Sergey Lavrov:

We will not go to war against Ukraine, I can promise you that.



Question:

What should be done about the church?



Sergey Lavrov:

You suggest recognising the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and declaring war (I don’t know how you imagine that Russia would attack Ukraine). That would just amount to a nervous breakdown and weakness. If we want to preserve Ukraine as a normal, adequate and neutral country, we must ensure that people living in Ukraine have a comfortable life. I disagree with your position if you want the rest of Ukraine to celebrate the creation of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, as well as the birthdays of Roman Shukhevych and Stepan Bandera, rather than May 9, as their national holidays. The Minsk Agreements formalise the principle of Ukraine’s decentralisation and the use of the Russian language where Russian-speaking people want to speak it. Today, this regime is moving to wreck its own constitution, which guarantees the rights of the Russian language, as well as its international obligations; but this does not mean that we must abandon all Ukrainians who are governed by this regime to their own devices.



Question:

Why don’t we officially recognise it as a Nazi regime, and why don’t we say that we will not have any dealings with it because it is impossible to have dealings with Hitler?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is an appealing position. Somewhere in the village of Zaitsevo people will probably rejoice for a week if we now sever all relations with this regime. And what will happen next? After that, you will need to explain why progressive and civilised humankind lost Ukraine.

We want to keep it. Today, we have the right under international law to demand this from Ukraine and, most importantly, from the West, which now controls Ukraine.



Question:

What do you think of the OSCE’s work in that region? Its representatives are coming here while in fact working against us, spying against the Donbass defenders and communicating their information to Kiev. After the OSCE visits a town or a village, they become subject to strikes. It is a known fact. The OSCE is never on our side.



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, it is not true that the OSCE brings shells to their targets. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) is indeed under very serious pressure – mainly from pro-Western Ukrainians; but the mission is also susceptible to our influence and is gradually making steps in the right direction, although it takes a while to be pushed first. I will give you an example. We have been asking the SMM to stop writing such things in their reports as “this week, so many strikes took place, so many civilian facilities were destroyed, there were so many civilian casualties”, but to specify from which side of the contact line [the strikes came], which victims and what kind of destruction. A year ago, with great difficulty, we managed to get the OSCE to write its first report on this matter which said that the eastern side of the contact line – where the self-defence forces are living and defending themselves – account for the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties and destruction in the civilian sector.

Ukraine tried hard to stop this report, to stop it from being published. But it failed. The OSCE eventually did what it was supposed to do and the required statistics became publicly available.

We have one more concern regarding our Western partners (who, I believe, discredited themselves in this Ukrainian story starting in February 2014, when they failed to compel the opposition to fulfil the agreement with the government). This, in fact, has to do with the media. You, for example, go to Donbass. Our television crews are working at the contact line 24/7 to show the frontline from the perspective of the self-defence forces. When our Western partners claim that the self-defence forces are to blame for all the clashes and attacks, that they provoke them, we show them our journalists’ work, which is always available on air and is broadcast repeatedly on the news. We ask them: if they are so sure that the Ukrainian government is acting in the right way and they want to show the truth to international audiences, then why are there no Western journalists working on the western side of the contact line the same hours as our journalists? There were a couple of cases when, I think, BBC reporters travelled there for a few days and, by the way, filmed a rather objective report (perhaps this is why this practice was stopped).

They can’t wait for us to break off the relationship with Ukraine and withdraw from the Minsk Agreements. Just like after the coup of February 21, 2014, they will wash their hands of them and say, “so it died” – meaning they are not bound by anything. It will be a huge mistake.



Question:

If President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko now sends troops to Donbass or warships to break through the Kerch Strait, what will we do?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am sure that there will be provocations. The day before yesterday we heard Petr Poroshenko speak at a show called Unification Council for Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Actually, he has never stuck to the diplomatic language before, but this time he crossed all lines imaginable and unimaginable. I have never heard such rudeness from a leader who considers himself a politician. He seemed to actually lose control a few times. Apparently, something is happening to him. But this is not my problem.

Commenting on the martial law he wanted to introduce for 60 days, then 30, first across the country, then only in Russian-speaking areas, where he has a very low popularity rating (it is low enough everywhere, but there he is not popular at all, and does not even enjoy minimum understanding), Poroshenko said they would not extend martial law unless there are armed provocations along the contact line in Donbass or, as he put it, “on the administrative border” with Crimea.

The 30-day martial law expires on December 25. We have information (official Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova has mentioned this more than once) that Ukraine has concentrated around 12,000 troops and a large amount of equipment on the contact line. American, British and, apparently, other instructors are actively helping them. An American drone regularly patrols the area. We have reported this. According to additional information that we tend to believe, in the last ten days of December, President Poroshenko is planning an armed provocation on the border with the Russian Federation – Crimea.

He will get a response. He won’t find it funny, I can assure you.

This is our country, our border, and we will not allow him to try in any way to defend “his interests” as he sees them and violate those rights that the Crimeans have defended in full accordance with international law. Moreover, according to our information, he is discussing this provocation on the border with Crimea with his Western curators and “trustees.”

According to our data, which seem credible, he is advised to maintain low-intensity hostilities to support the ongoing outcry in the propaganda space about “Russians attacking Ukraine” and “Russians need to be further sanctioned,” but in no case should military operations be allowed to reach a phase to elicit a full-blown response. Nasty, petty provocation. Our respective services take all necessary measures to prevent such excesses from happening.



Question:

I would like to talk about Russian-US relations again. Mr Poroshenko is behaving boorishly, but I think he is emulating US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who made unacceptable comments about the Russian Government after our bombers arrived in Venezuela, telling us how we must spend public funds.

As for President Donald Trump, he doesn’t seem to know his own mind. You said he was really willing to meet with President Vladimir Putin. He said when boarding the plane for the G20 summit that he was looking forward to a face-to-face with President Putin. But when he disembarked in Argentina several hours later, he said he had called off the meeting. He did an about-face, as the saying goes. Maybe they really don’t want to conduct a constructive dialogue with us?



Sergey Lavrov:

They are extremely pragmatic people. They want to talk when this can benefit them, especially now that the business mentality is taking a hold in US foreign policy.

This is a very short-sighted position, because it can help you get something today but will undermine your long-term positions and harm your strategic interests. The Americans live in two-year cycles. Every two years they need to show everyone that they are tough guys who can do what others can’t, and that everyone else is soft.

Look at the unilateral sanctions that have been imposed not only on Russia or China but also on some of the US allies. The United States continues to threaten others with sanctions and imposes new sanctions simply for violating a US law that prohibits trade with Iran. There are no such laws in France or Germany. But when their companies engage in business that is perfectly legal from the viewpoint of their own legislation or international law, they are forced to pay billions of dollars in a deal that would allow them to work in the United States. This is racketeering.

There are also sanctions that concern settlements in US dollars. In the near future before the next elections, these sanctions may benefit US companies, weaken their rivals and increase employment in the United States, but in the long run they will undermine trust in the dollar. This will harm the fundamental interests of the US because many countries are thinking of reducing their dependence on the dollar.



Question:

Do the Americans see this danger?



Sergey Lavrov:

Analysts possibly do. But politicians think in the moment, they want to win the election, and they don’t care what happens afterwards.

As for Mr Pompeo, it’s a long time since we met. I think he is no longer involved with US policy towards Russia. But both of us understand that we need to meet and to talk.

As of now, US foreign policy has been clearly delegated to John Bolton. He has come to Russia several times. He has met with President Putin and his counterpart, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev. I have held rather lengthy talks with Mr Bolton. There is a kind of dialogue.

We have not met for a long time at the level of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the US Department of State. The last time was in New York in September, when the foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council held a traditional meeting. But it was not a bilateral meeting. Our deputies and department directors hold meetings, although the Americans often pull stunts and cancel meetings with barely a day’s notice. But as I said, we don’t hold on to grudges.



Question:

Why?



Sergey Lavrov:

Because a grudge is a heavy burden to carry.



Question:

Well, a grudge is, indeed, a heavy burden to carry. For example, what is Russia doing in the Council of Europe, where it has no right to vote? Why does such a sovereign state as Russia submit to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg? Why don’t we withdraw completely from such organisations, where we don’t play any role at all? We can use this money to build schools. What are we doing there? And how much do we pay to the European Court of Human Rights?



Sergey Lavrov:

We don’t pay anything to the European Court of Human Rights. We pay for its decisions. Do you know what percentage of our payments to the ECHR has to do with Russian courts’ decisions on payments to our citizens that the Russian Treasury violates and withholds the payments?



Question:

In that case we must get back to our own problems. Why are we running to foreigners for help?



Sergey Lavrov:

As you probably know, we are now facing a situation that we are actively discussing: the future of Russia’s Council of Europe membership is in question. There is no doubt that our decision to join this organisation was sincere and met the country’s interests. You should discuss this matter with judges, representatives of the Supreme and Constitutional courts and the Ministry of Justice. A huge set of laws that make life easier for Russian citizens and protect their life and rights was passed during our cooperation with the Council of Europe and as a result of our perception of the practices that could be applied to Russian legislation. Russian citizens are forced to apply to the European Court of Human Rights after a Russian court has ruled that the state must pay them. If the state has failed to pay a citizen in compliance with a Russian court’s ruling, do you think that therefore he or she does not deserve this payment?



Question:

Of course, they deserve them. But instead of taking the case to a foreign court, we need to sort things out at home. What is your opinion of this?



Sergey Lavrov:

In some cases, we were unable to rectify the situation without the ECHR. I will tell you more: Russia is now by no means the main client of the European Court of Human Rights.

We make an overwhelming majority of payments under Russian courts’ decisions. Please keep that in mind.



Question:

Are we going to leave the Council of Europe?



Sergey Lavrov:

To show that we don’t care?



Question:

If they don’t take us seriously, yes, we should show them that we don’t care.



Sergey Lavrov:

No, we shouldn’t do that. Instead we should have a sense of dignity.

Speaking of the Council of Europe, we have no right to vote only at the Parliamentary Assembly, which would be an unimportant body if it weren’t for its function to elect judges, the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

No one has deprived us of any rights at the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which is a regulatory, rather than consultative, body.

Today, we are trying to convince the Council of Europe that this situation cannot last indefinitely, and that, under the Council of Europe Statute, all member countries have equal rights at all its bodies. The incumbent Secretary General’s legal findings state that the PACE decision runs counter to the Council of Europe Statute and should therefore be modified.

We have repeatedly explained to our colleagues that there can be no halfway decisions here. They tried to assuage our concerns by proposing to reinstate our right to elect officials, including judges, the Secretary General and the Commissioner for Human Rights, but to withhold all other rights for the time being. We emphatically rejected this offer.

The moment of truth will come in June, when the new Council of Europe Secretary General will be elected. If we don’t take part in this election, it would send a message that the Council of Europe is losing its importance for us as an organisation that does not respect the principle of equality.



Question:

You mentioned dignity. As I see it, our dignity is being trampled in various situations.

Poland has destroyed many monuments to Soviet soldiers. Actually, 600,000 of our boys were killed there. Why doesn’t Russia give an appropriate response in line with diplomatic traditions?

Do you want to hit our monuments? In that case, we will send bulldozers to Katyn, and we will demolish your monuments if you touch ours.



Sergey Lavrov:

Are you serious?



Question:

Absolutely. Why can they wreck our monuments?



Sergey Lavrov:

I wish you were not serious. I was hoping this is a joke.



Question:

Unfortunately, my colleague is voicing a common opinion that is expressed by our audiences. What can you say on this score?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe this position has nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity or Christianity in general.



Question:

Are they acting like Christians?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course, not.



Question:

So, where is our symmetrical diplomatic response? You do something nasty to us, and we will reciprocate. Where is our dignity?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our dignity tells us that we must be above all this, and that we must never descend to the level of these neo-Nazis.



Question:

We are always above that. We were above it in the Skripal case too.

But what about the Skripals? Where is our consul? Where is Yulia Skripal? Local lawyers ask me why our consuls are not suing to see Yulia Skripal – dead or alive. After all, she is a Russian citizen. The West operates only through courts. The state should sue and demand access to Yulia Skripal. All conventions are on our side. Why are we being so sluggish?

Why don’t we sue, when British Prime Minister Theresa May accuses our President of having committed murder? We could hire Swiss lawyers and sue. Could it be that there are things we don’t know and an action of this sort is being pursued?



Sergey Lavrov:

If you followed our Ministry’s reports, including the information delivered by the ministry spokesperson at her briefings, you would have a somewhat different picture of what is happening.

We have been acting in full conformity with international law, because English law is of no help in this case. There is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which makes it mandatory for the British government to grant us access to a Russian citizen. Sergey Skripal is an arguable case because he has dual citizenship, but Yulia Skripal is only a Russian citizen.



Question:

But we can apply to the British court, can’t we? Lawyers in the UK explained this to me. And Swiss layers also said we could apply to the British court for the Russian citizen to be delivered to us or at least in order to arrange her meeting with a Russian consul.



Sergey Lavrov:

No court will help us. There is an international obligation, the Vienna Convention, which is absolutely irrevocable. And we will demand that it is obeyed.



Question:

What stage are the talks at now?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am not yet through with the courts. Let me remind you how we tried to deal with the Litvinenko case, when [Litvinenko] was also allegedly poisoned.

The court did not want to prove anything. The court just made the investigation secret and conducted it in a format that banned the demonstration of security service documents.

In this instance, when we demanded information on the Skripals that was linked, among other things, to the British exploiting the Skripal theme at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, we got an official reply to the effect that this issue was related to British security. For this reason, it is not subject to any disclosure or London’s meaningful reply.



Question:

But international law has precedence over their law, hasn’t it? Does the Vienna Convention have precedence?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes it does.



Question:

Can’t we achieve anything through the courts?



Sergey Lavrov:

We will continue to press for a meeting with our citizen.



Question:

But isn’t it their minister who said that Russia should “shut up and go away?”



Sergey Lavrov:

He (the UK Defence Secretary. – Ed.) is a man whose oversized amour propre is superimposed upon an inferiority complex. I saw his colleague too, and it is very sad that the UK assigns foreign ministers of this sort to handle foreign policy.

He contacted me when five ministers of foreign affairs of the five permanent member states of the UN Security Council were meeting in New York. The five of us were just sitting around a table. After that he went out and started saying that he had challenged me on 12 counts and accused me of everything.



Question:

What did you say to him in response?



Sergey Lavrov:

I didn’t say anything: you can’t talk with people like that.

As for the Skripal case, I can assure you that we will not drop this issue. I am absolutely convinced that we must demand answers, just like with the Malaysian Boeing. And the longer our partners delay with a response, the more out of line they will look.



Question:

But we have been sued by the relatives of those who have died in the Boeing crash.



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, they have sued us. There is one thing we need to understand. They say that we have done it to the Skripals and that we must say whether it was done on orders from President Putin or whether he had lost control over the secret services which did this without his consent. Nobody else had a clear reason [to poison the Skripals], so it is highly likely that Russia is responsible, they say.

This is baby talk, not a serious investigation.

We put concrete questions to them: Where is Yulia Skripal? Why has her cousin been denied a visa which we requested officially many times? Unfortunately, you can’t sue for a visa.

We ask similar questions about the Malaysian Boeing. Why haven’t they included in their investigation the material that has been provided by Almaz-Antey, the producer of the Buk systems? Why haven’t the Ukrainians provided their radar data, unlike Russia, or the transcript of what their air controllers said? Why haven’t the Americans provided their satellite information? No answer. But we will continue to ask these questions and we will keep reminding everyone that a day will come when these shameful intrigues will end.



Question:

Maybe we should not remind but demand? There are already jokes about your recommendations on social media. Can I tell one of them?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, certainly. I have read many things about myself.



Question:

Sergey Lavrov enters a room for talks with Mike Pompeo, opens his briefcase and takes out a jar of fat chance, a dead donkey’s ears and a heap of fig leaves. He lights a cigarette and politely says “Hello” to Mike Pompeo.

Maybe this is how we should talk with them, not “express concern” or “draw their attention” to problems?



Sergey Lavrov:

The meeting I had in this joke was not with Pompeo but with Taro Kono.

Really, do you want us to use four-letter words in international discourse, so that we will all be in the same league? No, I think that if Jupiter is angry, it means he is wrong.

I have read your reports from hot spots, and I respect you for what you are doing. We have criticised our Western colleagues for not sending their journalists to Donbass to report the truth. There are few Western journalists in Syria as well. When somebody wants to drive you mad and you resort to foul language in response, I would caution against this, even if we are not full of grace ourselves. We must not exceed the bounds of decency even if we ourselves set the boundaries.



Question:

Is it true that the Foreign Ministry cellars are stocked with coffers of your great patience?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have no cellars.



Question:

I have worked in Armenia and Georgia. The situation there is dramatic.

I am shocked that we have let go of the situation in Georgia. The Americans are building a deep-water port in Anaklia, a stone’s throw from Sochi. Initially, they planned to deploy their nuclear submarines there, which would be extremely dangerous for us. A NATO base is under construction near Tbilisi. They have signed an official declaration to this effect. And there are three bio laboratories in Georgia.

The Americans are training nine motorised battalions. When I asked who these battalions would be used against, the answer was, “Against our enemies, against Russia.”

President Elect Salome Zurabishvili said at her inauguration that she would do her utmost to fight the Russian occupation.

The situation is very serious, considering that the Americans have failed to build a naval base in Crimea. But now they will build it on our doorstep, on Abkhazia’s border with Georgia. Yet we remain silent.

The Georgians who are on our side – 40 per cent of people in Georgia are for rapprochement and 80 per cent for dialogue with Russia – say that we are feeding them.

Their shops are stocked with Russian goods. There were 1.6 million [Russian] tourists.



Sergey Lavrov:

I know this.



Question:

They ask why we keep silent, why we don’t say to them that either they shut down the bases, which are a direct threat to our security, or we close the border to their goods.



Sergey Lavrov:

Where did you find these highway advisers?



Question:

Why do we sell Georgian wines? They are making money through us, and at the same time they are fighting against our “occupation.”



Sergey Lavrov:

You surely know that Ukrainians earn millions of roubles in Russia.



Question:

We must respond to this. Why do we remain the whipping boys?



Sergey Lavrov:

We don’t say that we know all the answers. How can we respond? Close the border? Sever all ties?



Question:

The Georgians themselves have proposed closing the border and suspending trade and money transfers until the construction of a base on Russia’s doorstep is stopped. They complain that we don’t have a policy towards Georgia, that we are glad that Mikheil Saakashvili is no longer in Georgia. But we forget that there are very many other anti-Russia forces working there.



Sergey Lavrov:

Just imagine how it would be if we severed the relations which we have been developing in recent years.

First we launched chartered flights. Now we have scheduled flights, and their number has increased to include Tbilisi, Moscow, St Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and Kutaisi. The planes are filled with tourists. Our trade is on the upswing. I believe Russia has become Georgia’s largest trade partner. Our civil societies hold regular events. People are meeting, talking and trying to understand which point in our relations we have reached.

Imagine that we stop all this simply to please your friends, who feel hurt. We stop all this, but they complete the base anyway and train the battalions, and the bio laboratory continues working. Who will stand to gain from this?







Question:

Should there be some response from our side? What should we do?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would like to ask you, do you think that we need to respond just to establish our importance or what?



Question:

We do need to show our importance.



Sergey Lavrov:

And that’s all?



Question:

No, that's not all. There are levers of economic pressure, similar to military ones. If Georgia lives at our expense, it will howl when it has nothing to eat.



Sergey Lavrov:

I assure you, they will find a way to live. I would like to look at this from a different angle. Are you proposing to choke Georgia? What for? You say 40 percent of the population supports contacts with Russia. Break these contacts, and it will be 2 percent.



Question:

But we will need to explain why we are doing this. We can say: it threatens our security.



Sergey Lavrov:

Once again. The most serious threat here is the biological laboratories. I am confident that they will not go anywhere with their battalions. They understand that we have allied relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and we will not allow anyone to attack our allies. There are bio labs not only in Georgia, but also in Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. It will be useless to talk about it with Ukraine. We are talking about it with Georgia through the relevant organisations, the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological and Toxin Weapons. Similarly, we are talking with Kazakhstan and Armenia. Georgians have already invited diplomats to their bio lab to look around. We thanked them because it was a large group of diplomats and we noted that we would be more interested in sending professionals who understand what is being done in this bio lab better than diplomats. We need to know how big a threat these experiments pose to the Russian Federation and neighbouring countries.

On principle, I am categorically against a foreign policy that amounts to breaking off relations every time someone does us wrong. Otherwise we would have to break off relations with America and Britain. Do you by any chance have friends there who offer you advice?



Question:

America clearly responds with sanctions. We do not impose sanctions. Introduce sanctions against Georgia. Armenia is our strategic ally. Why did we allow the building of three US bio labs there in 2016? We have the best friendship in the Eurasian Economic Union.



Sergey Lavrov:

With Armenia, we are completing the work on a document that will guarantee the non-presence of the foreign military in these biological labs and full transparency.



Question:

And Kazakhstan?



Sergey Lavrov:

The same.



Question:

Will they remove these labs? Or make sure there are no foreign nationals?



Sergey Lavrov:

You are not listening to me. I have just told you that an agreement is being prepared that will guarantee that there will be no foreign military in the bio labs and everything that is done there will be transparent, with guarantees, without any threats or risks.



Question:

Consider this example: When you come to Armenia, you find 19 Russian diplomats and 2,500 American workers there – an impressive ratio, of course. I do not understand how we can have only 19 diplomats in such a strategically important country. Political strategists in Armenia say: “Russia really uses clumsy force against the former Soviet republics. It never works with the opposition, so for Russia, Nikol Pashinyan came as a huge surprise. Russia never works with the civil society, but only with people in power who are hated in society and whose ratings, according to your Russian officers, are below zero. What is it, the blindness of your diplomacy? I do not know; it is unexplainable. There are normal people in the opposition with whom you could be cooperating.”



Sergey Lavrov:

Who writes all this to you?



Question:

Political observers with whom I spoke in Armenia.



Sergey Lavrov:

This “your diplomacy” – have Armenians written this?



Question:

Yes, Armenians. Why isn’t Russian diplomacy working with the opposition? Remember the last time we argued about soft power? There are 5,000 US NGOs that are canvassing young people who then grow up pro-America and anti-Russia, but there are no Russian NGOs or media there. We have already spoken about this many times.



Sergey Lavrov:

So what is your bottom line? As I understand it, the options are either to send 3,000 diplomats and create 5,000 NGOs there, or to break off diplomatic relations.



Question:

This is where I think soft power is the best option.



Sergey Lavrov:

Why?



Question:

At least the people’s attitude to Russia was good; now it has grown worse. It will continue deteriorating. The youth is growing up.



Sergey Lavrov:

We are treated well in Georgia. And you propose breaking off relations.



Question:

What ideas are being fed to young people? They are raised on the idea that Russia is bad. They are now arguing who was the first to attack.



Sergey Lavrov:

Where – in Georgia?



Question:

I just watched a talk show where they are proving to children that it was Russia who attacked Georgia ten years ago. And the children are listening.



Sergey Lavrov:

There is a report prepared for the EU by a group of experts led by Heidi Tagliavini, which clearly blames Saakashvili for starting the war. Nobody in the EU has contested this conclusion. Now they say that our response was unacceptable. This is sheer hypocrisy.

As for soft power, I fully agree on this. There are two or three times fewer Russian diplomats in Armenia or any other CIS country than American ones. Our diplomatic staff numbers 2,500 together with rotation personnel.



Question:

The Americans have the largest staff in Bagdad and second largest in Armenia.



Sergey Lavrov:

They have their own criteria for their work. And we have our traditions and financial limitations, because their non-governmental team working in the former Soviet republics costs big money. In most cases, these NGOs are financed by the Agency for International Development of the US State Department, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), which is affiliated with the Democratic Party, or other similar organisations. George Soros is very active there, just as in many other parts of our space and beyond. Of course, they have the advantage in numbers. We cannot respond in kind; we cannot create the same number of puppet organisations. Very many of them have a provocative negative agenda.

I agree that we must work with all political forces, which we are doing. We are working with everyone not only in the South Caucasus but also in other post-Soviet republics. We are working with registered opposition groups. We don’t work with nonregistered or underground groups. I believe that this is correct. We have maintained ties with various parliamentary groups, including the nine MPs who represented Nikol Pashinyan’s party when Serzh Sargsyan was president of Armenia.

It is another matter that we have probably acquired immunity against revolutions, because everything the West is doing in the post-Soviet space is preparing revolutions. This may be our problem, but we definitely cannot be blamed for this. We have survived several revolutions, which claimed a great number of lives and destroyed cities and villages. We don’t want to see a repetition of this, and we don’t wish it on others.

Therefore, the conclusion is simple: we must work with society and people, promote projects of interest to them in culture, language, sport, education and people-to-people interaction. I believe we can report certain positive results in this sphere. But we must not stop now. You can't have enough of such events. We have established interregional forums, days of culture and educational exchanges with nearly all CSTO countries. We are opening branches of our universities there. I have recently visited Azerbaijan where MGIMO University is opening a branch. It is a very popular form of cooperation.



Question:

Yet the most influential instrument is mass media. But Margarita Simonyan cannot work for all of us. We need our own local media outlets that will look to you in their work. Very many people would like to work in this way. But they simply don’t have the money.



Sergey Lavrov:

Exactly.



Question:

Do you mean that we don’t have the money for this?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Foreign Ministry doesn’t.



Question:

Why cannot we ask our oligarchs? They could be made responsible for certain areas.



Sergey Lavrov:

Those of our people who have big money buy media outlets, including in Russia. If they do the same abroad, we would not complain.



Question:

The Americans do this. They have more money.



Sergey Lavrov:

But they don’t buy on behalf of the state.



Question:

They set up a state fund to finance such projects.



Question:

Why not lease the Kuril Islands? The sovereignty would be ours either way. Hong Kong was once leased on these terms. China leased a village and got a major modern city.



Question:

There is such a thing as zugzwang in chess, when any move leads to a worse position. We have not had this peace treaty, so why do we need this “piece of paper?” We have diplomatic and economic relations, but no military relations. Nor will there be any in the future. Why do we need a peace treaty with Japan, if we consider the Kuril issue on this basis?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are interested in having good relations with Japan.

The situation is very simple. We are people obeying international law. In 1956, the USSR signed an agreement with Japan, the so-called 1956 Declaration. When the USSR was dissolved, the Russian Federation was recognised not just as the legal successor state (all constituent republics except the Baltic states became legal successors) but the USSR’s only continuing state. This is the legal status under which we assumed all the obligations as well as all the assets of the USSR. This was one of the grounds for signing, within the CIS, a treaty on the “zero option” for properties abroad. We assumed all of the USSR’s debt obligations as all the properties were transferred to us (something that is happening today). This is why, when President Vladimir Putin was elected and this issue came up for the first time during his presidency in some situation (I think it was a meeting with then prime minister, Yoshiro Mori) he said that as the successor to the USSR we assumed the 1956 Declaration and were prepared to sign a peace treaty based on that.

In Singapore, we agreed to declare that we had come to terms on revisiting negotiations on signing a peace treaty based on the 1956 Declaration. In this regard, it is very important to understand what this document is all about and basically what situation has taken shape around it. It says: You shall sign a peace treaty. After that, the USSR – as a goodwill gesture and with regard for the interests of the neighbourly Japanese people, not as a move to return [the islands] – will be prepared to transfer the Habomai Ridge and Shikotan Island. President Putin has repeatedly explained, including at his news conference in Singapore and later in Buenos Aires, that this was not a directly applicable obligation of the USSR that had transferred to Russia and that the parties would have to discuss how, to whom, when, and in what form to transfer [whatever there is to transfer].

This was in 1956. After that were the events of 1960, when Japan and the US signed the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, under which the Americans could deploy their military bases practically wherever they wanted, in any part of Japanese territory. Under the same treaty, the US is creating the Asian segment of its antimissile defence system and deploying antimissile launchers that can be used to fire Tomahawk missiles.

Japan has withdrawn from the Declaration of its own free will. Of course, the USSR responded to the signing of the US-Japan security treaty. Therefore, when we say “based on the Declaration,” we cannot ignore the fact that the events of 1960 have taken place since then, which, from the point of view of a US military presence on the Japanese islands, are increasingly of a very serious nature as a threat to our security. We have explained all of this to our Japanese colleagues at talks with foreign ministry and security council representatives. We are waiting for a response. For us, this is a problem of direct practical importance.

But, most importantly, when we say “based on the 1956 Declaration,” this expresses Japan’s unconditional recognition of the results of World War II. So far, our Japanese colleagues are not ready for this, and they are sending all sorts of signals to the effect that this will not work out. This is a serious issue.

Recently, my Japanese counterpart went on record as saying that he apologised to the Japanese media for having avoided answering the question about the upcoming talks, on several occasions. He stated that he was unwilling to discuss the subject because Japan’s position was unchanged but, if he said this he would provoke his Russian colleagues to state their point of view. Consider that it was not he who provoked us. It is just that we were never ashamed of our position. If Japan’s position is unchanged then we are in the same position we have always been in. This is basically a refusal to recognise the results of World War II, while recognising the results of World War II is an inalienable first step in any talks, let alone any legal negotiations.



Question:

Should we perhaps leave this matter to the judgment of future generations and place it on record as is?



Sergey Lavrov:

We do not refuse to talk, but I have outlined the terms and the framework, within which these talks will proceed.



Question:

May I ask you a few private questions that are often asked by our readers – in the blitz mode?



Sergey Lavrov:

Go ahead.



Question:

You are one of the most popular and best-known politicians in our country. How do you feel in that capacity?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have never thought about it. It is a pleasure for me to communicate with people when I go somewhere, whether on a working mission or not. I talk to young people. It is interesting to listen to questions and comments. If my work meets with a positive response, I am pleased for our Ministry.



Question:

As you know, the former Soviet Foreign Minister Alexei Gromyko was dubbed in the West as nothing other than “Mr No”. Andrei Kozyrev must have been a “Mr Yes”. How would you describe your own image in similar terms? Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov is “Mr what?”



Sergey Lavrov:

Whatever, but certainly not “Mr Yesman.”



Question:

In your interviews, you nearly always refer to our foes as partners. Why?



Sergey Lavrov:

Sometimes, I fail to express irony through intonation.



Question:

In one of your interviews, you said that you respect Vladimir Vysotsky’s work. What words from his songs would you use to describe the current international situation?



Sergey Lavrov (laughing):

“Lukomorye exists no more…” and so on and so forth. ["Lukomorye" is a magical place created by the imagination of Alexander Pushkin. Vladimir Vysotsky wrote a song about it. In this song, all the magic characters are engaged in purely ordinary and selfish things. In essence, this is the song about the degradation of the magic Lukomorye.]



Question:

Your opponents were talking such nonsense lately. What self-composure you have. Is it hard to deal with a negotiating partner if you feel that he or she has a grudge against you?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have grown used to it.



Question:

What helps you remain so calm and coolheaded?



Sergey Lavrov:

Maybe life has hardened me over the past years. In New York, I had a good schooling in terms of responding to all sorts of crisis situations at the UN Security Council. Someone would dash in and say that something had erupted, broken out and it was necessary to urgently adopt a resolution, when we wanted to work the matter through and take no abrupt steps.



Question:

Were there episodes during your service as minister, when things grew very alarming and even frightening?



Sergey Lavrov:

Probably not, considering that I was already accustomed to crisis situations in my work prior to my appointment to this post. Maybe, that experience helps.



Question:

Do you feel like putting work aside
And sailing down the river with a guitar,
Making a campfire at sunset
And talking of peace and love?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, certainly. Moreover, I even do that.



Question:

What is the largest fish that you caught during your river trips? Where did it happen and how much did it weigh?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not remember, because, actually, I am not really a fishing sort. When we go canoeing down the river Katun, two of our group members handle the fishing and I break camp and watch the campfire.



Question:

Suppose you had a time machine, who of our country’s rulers of the past years or even centuries would you like to talk to and what essential question would you ask that person?



Sergey Lavrov:

Among our fellow countrymen – Alexander Gorchakov. Much has been written about him and all his diplomatic achievements are well known. I would ask him exactly the same thing that you asked me – about his self-composure that enabled him to return Crimea.



Question:

Who of the US presidents of the past would you like to talk to and what would you ask him?



Sergey Lavrov:

Maybe, Harry Truman. After Franklin Roosevelt’s policy, he made a sharp turn towards the “cold war”. It would be interesting to understand why. Though, as a matter of fact, it looks like everyone understands everything. The USSR was a real ally of Britain and the United States in the war, but maybe a situational ally, after all, though that situation was about the life or death of the whole of humanity. Almost. And it was a genuine alliance. Nevertheless, they never fully considered us to be one of theirs, and back then they already saw a threat.



Question:

If you had the opportunity to turn back the clock and influence some event in our country or elsewhere, what would you change?



Sergey Lavrov:

First, I have no opportunity to turn back the clock. Second, I do not want to. Third, we all know that history has no “ifs”. Whatever God does is for the best. There are many proverbs, for example, “it does not hurt to dream.”



Question:

Will the Eurasian Economic Union survive as an entity, considering our problems with President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko and Kazakhstan?



Sergey Lavrov:

It will survive. In any event, we have common interests. In the five years of its existence or even less (there used to be a Customs Union, followed by the Eurasian Economic Union), we are making great strides forward, as compared with the deadlines that allowed Europe to achieve the same level of integration.



Question:

It was easier for us.



Sergey Lavrov:

Nevertheless, economic ties were disrupted considerably after the breakup of the Soviet Union.



Question:

President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko says that he is planning to leave the Eurasian Economic Union.



Sergey Lavrov:

Just like other countries’ leaders, we judge the policies of other countries by their deeds, rather than words. When US President Donald Trump conducts talks, he also makes all kinds of statements.



Question:

Is this blackmail?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is preparations for talks, if you like. I cannot say that US President Donald Trump is blackmailing anyone, although he exerts tough pressure.



Question:

What would be the first thing you saved if the Foreign Ministry building caught fire?



Sergey Lavrov:

God forbid. We don’t need any self-fulfilling prophecies, and we have a good fire safety system.



Question:

What do you eat to improve your mood?



Sergey Lavrov:

I prefer tasty food.



Question:

Could you be more specific? All of us like tasty food.



Sergey Lavrov:

Sauerkraut shchi and borsch. I like soups very much.



Question:

How do you relax? And what is your favourite music? How do you manage to stay in shape all the time? Perhaps you like rap music?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am not into rap music. I like bard singers, including Vladimir Vysotsky, Bulat Okudzhava, Yury Vizbor and Oleg Mityayev. And I love the outdoors.



Question:

If on New Year's Eve you found a magic lantern that could grant any personal wish, what would it be?



Sergey Lavrov:

A personal wish? I don’t know. Never thought about it. I am not used to making wishes. I am more of a realist than a dreamer.



Question:

So when the Kremlin chimes welcome the New Year in, you never make a wish?



Sergey Lavrov:

No. On my rafting team, we have this principle – never drink to anything in advance. We do not celebrate what is to come, but celebrate what happened. If it’s someone’s birthday, we raise a glass of champagne. But we never toast what is still to come. It is even considered wrong.



Question:

Figuratively speaking, if we take Russia’s foreign policy in recent years, was there anything you would toast with a glass of champagne with your colleagues?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am not assessing the work of my Ministry now. One of our most significant projects in recent years was the chemical disarmament agreement in Syria, which helped us avoid an act of American aggression. This agreement was documented in a UN Security Council resolution, but, unfortunately, after that, the OPCW, whose job was to physically remove and destroy toxic substances from Syria, suffered a hostile takeover from the inside.



Question:

Do you mean following the Skripal case?



Sergey Lavrov:

No, this was not following the Skripal case. It primarily had to do with Syria. It was a separate story. Some of our western partners are now trying to replace international law with a “rules-based order.” But what they mean is not any universally agreed rules, but those they consider convenient for themselves. Western media are already openly writing about it. In particular, the British newspaper The Times wrote that the departure from international law is leading to a very unstable system, where relationships will be determined by the balance of power, brute force or economic and financial pressure such as blackmail, and bilateral agreements. This is roughly what the Americans are trying to do now, breaking the multilateral structures, including the World Trade Organisation, and moving from relations with the EU to resolving all problems bilaterally. Therefore, the agreement on chemical disarmament in Syria was indeed a serious achievement. Now, under various far-fetched pretexts, the Americans and their closest allies are trying to claim that not everything has been destroyed. Although international organisations, namely the OPCW, in the presence of observers, including those from the United States, verified the destruction of all chemical facilities and substances in Syria. Such are our partners.



Question:

Do we still have any influence in that organisation?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes.



Question:

Do you remember the most unusual New Year gift you received or gave?



Sergey Lavrov:

My “hard drive” does not store such things. They have been erased from memory. These days I am more busy thinking about work than about the New Year.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all the listeners and readers of Komsomolskaya Pravda a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. All the best to you, good health and good luck.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3448023
__________________
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

Last edited by Alex Him; January 31st, 2019 at 10:52 AM.
 
Old January 31st, 2019 #549
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Chairman of the Executive of the Jewish Agency for Israel (Sochnut) Isaac Herzog, Moscow, December 17, 2018



17 December 2018 - 18:37







Mr Herzog, gentlemen,

We are pleased to welcome you to the Russian Foreign Ministry.

I did not have the opportunity to congratulate you personally on your appointment to the post of Chairman of the Executive of the Jewish Agency for Israel (Sochnut). I believe your vast experience in the political life of Israel will certainly lead you to success in your new area of activity. We welcome this opportunity to discuss and review with an authoritative and experienced Israeli politician bilateral relations, which we greatly value, both at the level of the political dialogue and the economy, trade and investment cooperation, as well as regional matters in which we cooperate on the basis of agreements achieved between President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. They had a telephone conversation during which an agreement was reached to explore the possibility of a new meeting.







The Russian and Israeli militaries have been cooperating closely on Syria after the tragic incident in September. Precautions were taken to ensure the safety of the Russian contingent in Syria, and several meetings were held between representatives of the Russian General Staff and Israeli General Staff. I think they were held at a professional level, and we hope that cooperation will continue so that the lives of Russian soldiers are not put in harm’s way and problems are not created for the efforts to support Syria in its fight against terrorism, as well as to ensure the security of Israel, which we believe is critical for a comprehensive settlement in this region.

We must always remember – especially in light of the increasing attempts to question the outcome of World War II – the Holocaust and the crimes condemned by the Nuremberg Tribunal. We greatly appreciate Israel’s firm stance with regard to opposing the revision of World War II outcome.

Once again, I would like to express our gratitude and appreciation for the decision of your parliament to make May 9 an official holiday in Israel.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3447905






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the ceremony to transfer documents from Lev Mendelevich’s personal archives to Russia’s Foreign Policy Archives, Moscow, December 17, 2018



17 December 2018 - 20:17







Esteemed Dmitry Lvovich and Sergey Lvovich,

We are pleased to have you here at the ceremony for transferring Lev Mendelevich’s personal archives to the Foreign Ministry, for which I would like to express my sincere appreciation to you and your family.

We know Lev Mendelevich as an outstanding Soviet diplomat who made an enormous contribution to our foreign policy, to overcoming the challenges that our country faced in the international arena at various, sometimes pivotal, points. As I understand, the archives that you are transferring to the Ministry include documents relating to work at the central office, the UN, and the OSCE. This is an invaluable addition to our archives. Again, thank you very much for this.

Mr Mendelevich was a multifaceted man and a captivating personality. He fought during the war and worked with security agencies, including in the area of ​​foreign intelligence and the Committee on Information - there was such an experimental unit that we heard about, but never had the chance to deal with professionally due to our age, although reportedly it was very effective.

Mr Mendelevich left an indelible impression on the Foreign Ministry and our foreign policy. He worked on important documents such as the NPT, the Helsinki Final Act and, of course, he made an invaluable contribution to analytical research and our foreign policy planning (there was such a unit, then a directorate and now we have a Foreign Policy Planning Department). But this work really reached a new level during Mr Mendelevich’s tenure. Back when I was a young diplomat, his notes, if young diplomats were lucky enough to get access to them, evoked deep admiration for his professionalism and deep insight into the subject matter, not only in terms of the past, but the future as well.

We are very pleased to have these documents now, as they will allow us to pay tribute to the memory of this great man once again. He was the recipient of numerous state awards, such as the Order of the Red Banner of Labour and numerous medals, including For Courage and For the Capture of Berlin. It says a lot about him. Of course, we are looking at a unique biography.







I would like to thank our Council of Veterans and the Council of Young Diplomats, who spare no effort to cherish the memory of Lev Mendelevich alongside our other senior colleagues. On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Mr Mendelevich’s birth, Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn published selected materials about his activities. An exhibition dedicated to him and his work opened in the lobby of the Foreign Ministry’s main building.

We do our best to tend to the graves of our senior comrades. So, on the birthday of Lev Mendelevich and Diplomats’ Day, representatives of the Foreign Ministry’s Council of Veterans and Council of Young Diplomats lay wreaths on his grave.

I want to once again express my appreciation and satisfaction with the fact that our archives are now enriched with materials which will tell our younger generation and acting diplomats, too, in detail how Mr Mendelevich saw the world, himself in this world and our country, and how he upheld its interests.

Thank you very much again.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3447993






Joint Statement by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey on Syria, Geneva, 18 December 2018



18 December 2018 - 18:50







The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey as guarantors of the Astana format held the trilateral meeting and consultations with the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Syria Mr. Staffan de Mistura in Geneva on 18 December 2018.

The Ministers:

1. presented the positive results of their consultations with the Syrian parties on the composition of the Constitutional Committee;

2. reaffirmed their determination to facilitate the beginning of the Constitutional Committee’s work, inter alia by elaborating its general guiding principles through interaction with the Syrian parties and the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Syria, on the basis of which the rules of procedure that will ensure its efficient and sustainable work will be determined. The work of the Constitutional Committee should be governed by a sense of compromise and constructive engagement aimed at reaching general agreement of its members which would enable the outcome to receive the widest possible support by the Syrian people;

3. agreed to take efforts aimed at convening the first session of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva early next year;

4. expressed their conviction that these steps will lead to the launch of a viable and lasting Syrian-led, Syrian-owned and UN-facilitated political process in line with the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi and the UN Security Council resolution 2254;

5. reaffirmed their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and emphasized that these principles should be respected by all sides.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3449134






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with President of the Russian Jewish Congress Yury Kanner, Moscow, December 19, 2018



19 December 2018 - 11:46








Mr Kanner,

I am delighted to see you. I congratulate you on the enhanced status of the Russian Jewish Congress, which now represents Russia at the World Jewish Congress. We will continue to work together on major issues of concern to us on the international stage.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3449579






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a joint meeting of the Supervisory Board and the Board of Trustees of Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) of the Foreign Ministry of Russia, Moscow, December 20, 2018



20 December 2018 - 15:56







Mr Torkunov, colleagues,

I am delighted to greet everyone at this regular joint meeting of the Supervisory Board and the Board of Trustees of MGIMO University. These boards have a responsible mission to prepare practical proposals on strategic matters related to university management, the improvement of its financial and economic positions, recommendations on its development paths and support for major projects.

Next year we will mark 75 years since the founding of the university. However, some people believe we should have celebrated it this year because the School of International Relations of Moscow State University was established in 1943. We decided to celebrate and have celebrated the 75th anniversary of the university’s School of International Relations this year. Next year, MGIMO will celebrate its own anniversary.

The celebrations programme includes many events. In April, the fifth International Forum of MGIMO Alumni will be held in Uzbekistan. In September, the Krymsky Bridge student festival will be held in Gorky Park in Moscow. The Krymsky Bridge is a memorable symbol for the former MGIMO students, including myself, who used to walk from the old university building to Gorky Park via this bridge. Researchers will meet at a special convention of the Russian International Studies Association (RISA). The gala event will be held at the Bolshoi Theatre in October 2019.

We hope that these and other MGIMO celebration events, which would take too long to talk about now, will further strengthen well-known MGIMO camaraderie.

A few words about our current work. We are honoured by the granting of the right to assign academic degrees to the university, which is recognition of MGIMO’s research potential. Over a dozen people have defended their candidate and doctoral theses under the new system. Of course, the MGIMO dissertation councils’ new authority means that these councils must act even more meticulously and responsibly.

The reform of the Institute for International Studies (IIS), which is the main research and forecasting segment of the university, is ongoing.

I am delighted to say that MGIMO continued to develop dynamically this year, building up cooperation with Russian and foreign universities and other partners. It has implemented many projects and opened up new training avenues.

One of these was the creation and implementation of three networking programmes jointly with Russian technical universities. MGIMO and the National University of Science and Technology MISIS (NUST MISIS) launched an MBA programme and a master’s programme on the international commodity markets. I am convinced that this will help meet the requirements of Russian business for skilled managerial personnel in the related sectors of the national economy.

MGIMO and MIPT universities implement joint Digital Economy MBA programmes. Further plans include launching a joint bachelor degree programme between these two universities. In digital economy and artificial intelligence, MGIMO even attracted Microsoft to its Master's Programme, as its leadership includes the University’s graduates.

Furthermore, MGIMO negotiated with the Ministry of Agriculture on the preparation of our embassies’ agricultural attachés, establishing systematic contacts with Russian Agricultural Bank, Kuban Agrarian University and the Timiryazev Academy. As a result, they are to open Master’s and MBA programmes on international agricultural markets. A relevant department at the Ministry of Agriculture, of the same name, will play a key role in implementing these programmes. MGIMO will sign a cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture here today, immediately after my opening remarks. I am pleased to welcome Minister of Agriculture of the Russian Federation Dmitry Patrushev.







On September 3, when the 2018-2019 academic year started, a strategic agreement was signed between MGIMO and VTB Bank, which transformed several programmes and the specialised banking department of MGIMO into the basic educational components of the VTB Group.

Plans also call for creating a separate division on the basis of the Far Eastern Federal University by 2020 in accordance with a relevant Government resolution.

Stronger ties between MGIMO and the Diplomatic Academy, another Foreign Ministry educational institution, are highly relevant today. Incidentally, MGIMO has taken the initiative to train personnel for schools operating at Russian foreign missions. This is a very specific and important project for our diplomatic service.

It is gratifying that the University is paying special attention to the development and modernisation of its infrastructure. The construction of a new hostel is underway. By mid-2020, almost 2,000 students are to be accommodated at the renovated campus on Prospekt Vernadskogo. The Odintsovo campus is being adapted for the needs of MGIMO. A whole floor there is used by MGIMO’s high school, the Gorchakov Lyceum, which has the most modern infrastructure. For this, I would like to thank Governor of the Moscow Region Andrei Vorobyov at whose initiative this project is being implemented very successfully.

Many students at Gorchakov Lyceum are enrolled in its boarding school programme, using more than 20 rooms in the MGIMO Hotel in Odintsovo, specially refurbished for this purpose.

MGIMO is strengthening its positions abroad. At the request of the leadership of Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, the University has conducted preparatory work to establish branches in those countries. Today we will have to make appropriate changes to the MGIMO Charter, to open branches in Baku and Tashkent. This decision will certainly contribute to the expansion of the Russian humanitarian presence in the CIS.

I am also pleased to note that the University is not only the main “talent foundry” for the Foreign Ministry, but also an entity that makes a major contribution to building up public and science diplomacy, participates in the implementation of popular joint initiatives such as the Russian-Czech Discussion Forum and the Russian-French Trianon Dialogue civil society forum, launched at the initiative of the presidents of Russia and France, Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron.

In the coming year, MGIMO faces no less important tasks. The university needs to accelerate the process of reforming economic education, and to complete system-wide reforms in political science and public administration. Other plans include modernising the sports centre at the Prospekt Vernadskogo campus, and reorganising the libraries at Prospekt Vernadskogo and in Odintsovo into full-fledged intellectual clubs. This is also one of the important aspects of working with young people, fostering a culture of discussions in them.

I hope that the construction of the MGIMO-Odintsovo compact modern hostel will soon begin with the support of the authorities of the Moscow Region and the Odintsovo District, which is being transformed into a municipality. It is also expedient to resolve the matter of exempting the University from having to pay any rent. We hope for Mr Vorobyov’s cooperation in resolving these issues for the benefit of a new educational centre’s development in the Odintsovo District.

I know that in 2019, MGIMO is interested in receiving additional budget financing and being added to Project 5-100 and to the programme for supporting the export potential and internationalisation of Russian universities. These plans sound ambitious and very appealing, I should say. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will actively support them.

In general, we have no doubt that during the year of its 75th anniversary, the University will continue the progressive, integrated development, in tune with the times and even ahead of time in some spheres. Mr Torkunov, I am sure that you can handle it.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3454050






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki, Moscow, December 21, 2018



21 December 2018 - 11:37







Mr Minister,

I am delighted to welcome you and your delegation to Moscow. We communicate regularly, and this is yet another opportunity to discuss primarily the situation in the region, relations between Palestine and Israel and between Fatah and Hamas, as well as exchange opinions on the additional steps that are being taken to deepen our bilateral relations in all spheres.







We will also talk about the progress being made when it comes to our cooperation in the fields that were discussed during President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas’s two visits to Russia this year.

Once again, welcome to Moscow.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3455869






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions during a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the State of Palestine Riyad al-Maliki, December 21, 2018



21 December 2018 - 14:12







Ladies and gentlemen,

We had good and substantive talks on a wide range of issues of mutual interest in the context of regional events and bilateral relations.

We highly value our friendly relations with the State of Palestine, which have markedly intensified over the past years, primarily due to a regular political dialogue between the presidents of Russia and Palestine.

Today, we reiterated our willingness to continue to help solidify the foundation of Palestinian statehood, resolve the urgent tasks of creating effective governing institutions and improve the socioeconomic situation.

Our trade remains modest, but the participants of the most recent meeting of the Russian-Palestinian Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation held last month discussed ways to encourage rapid and broad economic ties in all areas. In particular, they reviewed the activities which started a year ago following a Russian business mission’s trip to Palestine. Specifically, the issue is about a number of agricultural projects and creating joint ventures in industrial zones in Bethlehem and Jericho.

I’m confident that the Eurasian Economic Commission’s decision to make the State of Palestine part of the group of countries enjoying preferential tariffs will help promote economic ties and trade.

The number of Russian tourists is on the rise. Last year, 360,000 Russian citizens visited Palestine, primarily, holy places, which is almost 20 percent more than the year before.

This year, Palestinian students received 150 state scholarships for studying at Russian universities.

In turn, we appreciate the fact that the leadership of Palestine is encouraging the spread of the Russian language in their state. Russian is taught at the Russian-Palestinian Friendship School built with Russia’s assistance, the Russian Centre for Science and Culture in Bethlehem and its branch based in Hebron.

We are energetically promoting cooperation with the Palestinians in the sphere of culture. We took part in creating a multi-purpose complex in Bethlehem which is now fully operational. The historical centre of Bethlehem across from the Church of the Nativity is being renovated by Russian specialists and with our country’s financial support.

The museum and park complex, which is home to cultural events and guided tours, was created in Jericho with our participation and enjoys wide popularity. An archaeological exhibit is being built there following the joint Russian-Palestinian archaeological mission.

Russia has provided and will continue to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinians through bilateral channels, the World Food Programme and the World Health Organisation.

When reviewing the Middle East peace process, we expressed our deep concern about the deteriorating relations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. We agree that it is important to work to prevent the escalation of tension, which plays into the hands of extremist forces in the Middle East and North Africa. As you may be aware, Russia’s initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders of Palestine and Israel in Moscow without preliminary conditions in order to consider all the many problems that are not growing any smaller, is still highly relevant.

Russia will continue working to create conditions to resume the negotiating process in the interest of achieving a comprehensive, fair and lasting settlement on the well-known international legal basis. The UN General Assembly supported this recently with an overwhelming majority of votes. This provides for creating an independent Palestinian state within the corresponding borders, which would coexist in peace and security with its neighbours.

We touched on US policy, which has for a long time now been trying to present the result of its mediating mission to the international community as the “deal of the century.” No one has seen this deal yet. Our common position is that international mediation should nevertheless be carried out in collective formats. The Quartet, which includes Russia, the United States, the UN and the EU, is the best option, which should work closely with the League of Arab States.

Of course, we see that certain external players want to push the Palestinian problem into the background, downgrade it as a priority in regional affairs. We believe that early restoration of Palestinian unity is of particular importance if we want to counter such attempts.

Russia maintains regular contacts with all representatives of Palestinian society. In 2017, we held a multilateral round of intra-Palestinian dialogue. Today, we discussed the possibility and feasibility of holding this dialogue again in 2019 with the participation of all Palestinian forces, including Fatah and Hamas.

We agreed to maintain contacts on all the issues discussed today and other matters that may show up on our agenda.

I’m thankful to my colleague, Foreign Minister of the State of Palestine Riyad al-Maliki, for the very good work we did together today.







Question:

What do you think about the prospects of a Middle East settlement given US President Donald Trump’s hostile statements on Palestine?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are worried by the attempts to undermine the international legal foundations of the Palestine-Israel settlement, which are fixed in UN resolutions, including binding ones. We are seeing how easily the US renounces its international legal agreements, such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme, which was approved by the UN Security Council, and now the INF Treaty and many other documents that concern not only security and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction but also trade and the economy. Such revisionism as regards international law and attempts to replace it with some rules that Western countries are inventing and trying to impose on others, point to a very dangerous trend.

As for the Palestine-Israel settlement, it is no secret for anyone that for many years Washington has sought to uphold Israel’s interests and consider its position in all respects. We are acting in the same vein, considering our special relations not only with Palestine but also with Israel. We want to help reach a stable agreement that will ensure Israel’s legitimate security interests. However, they should be part of the balance of Palestinian and Israeli interests sought by all valid UN resolutions and the UN-approved Arab Peace Initiative.

Therefore, we believe, as my colleague has already said, that no agreement can be reached single-handedly for all the importance of the US role. Clearly, it will likewise be impossible to reach such an agreement without the US. So it is necessary to return to the collective formats of the Quartet of international mediators – the US, Russia, UN, and the European Union – in close coordination with the Arab League.

It is very dangerous to look at all regional problems through the prism of confronting Iran, as we are regrettably seeing from the US and some of its allies. This is a highly dangerous policy that is fanning confrontation and is fraught with a Shia-Sunni explosion in the Islamic world. If this happens, the Palestinian issue will simply pale in comparison to the much more painful crisis in the region.

Problems in this region, as anywhere else, should be resolved only through dialogue rather than on the basis of ultimatums, demands and dictates. It is necessary to sit at the negotiating table and come to terms. This also applies to the problems that have accumulated in relations between Russia and the West. It is essential to work on all international issues – be it the Palestine-Israel peace process, the problems between the Arabs and Iranians in the Gulf region or relations between Russia and the West – on the basis of equality and mutual respect.



Question:

Today you have revived the Russian proposal for the Palestine-Israel meeting. At which stage is this initiative? What or who is obstructing its implementation?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, we regularly revive this proposal. Every time the President of Russia meets with Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu or President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas, he reminds them of this proposal that was made a couple of years earlier. Abbas always says that he is ready for such a meeting without any preconditions, as Netanyahu asked. The Israelis do not reject the possibility in principle but are not yet ready to fix a date.

As for what is obstructing the proposed meeting and what can help bring it about, the answer is clear. It is obstructed by the absence of Palestinian unity and may be facilitated by the restoration of this unity. All Palestinians should speak in the same voice through the legitimate structures in Ramallah.



Question:

In what way will the withdrawal of US forces from Syria announced by President Trump affect the alignment of forces in the Palestine-Israel conflict, considering that Iran maintains a presence there?



Sergey Lavrov:

Any withdrawal of troops that are illegally deployed in this or another country is a step in the right direction. But it raises many questions. Have the details of this initiative been coordinated? How will it be carried out, if at all?

At yesterday’s news conference President of Russia Vladimir Putin mentioned that the US withdrew from Afghanistan more than once, returned and withdrew again. There are other examples, such as Iraq. The situation was similar there: they withdrew and then came back.

I would prefer to watch the implementation of the initiative following its announcement. To my knowledge, many people questioned it in the US. Let’s wait and see.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3456114






The following event is not displayed in the English version.


21 December 2018

Telephone conversation of S. Lavrov with Sudan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Al-Dirdiri M. Ahmed - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3454541
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 31st, 2019 #550
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Most personal and non-personal events have not been translated to English.





Personal events:





Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s interview with Kommersant published on December 19, 2018



19 December 2018 - 10:13




Question:

More than two weeks have passed since US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo presented Russian with a 60-day ultimatum on the INF Treaty. Is Moscow ready to accept Washington’s terms and destroy or modify the violating item, specifically the 9M729 missile?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I don’t want to talk about this and other steps by Washington in terms of an “ultimatum.” I believe there are still politicians in the US administration that realise that it is pointless and counterproductive to talk to Russia in the language of blackmail. I suggest we put aside the propaganda fuss with which the US covers up its actions on the INF Treaty and analyse the practical meaning.

In this context, Washington’s statement of December 4 that if Russia does not stop “violating” the Treaty, the US will suspend its commitment in 60 days, that is, after February 2, and will start the six month period until its withdrawal from it, has not introduced anything new into the existing situation either as regards international law or military political consequences.



Question:

Why?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Let me explain. First of all, it is necessary to realise that there is nothing to suspend in the implementation of the INF Treaty since elimination and verification procedures were completed as far back as 2000. Basically, the Treaty can be only explicitly violated by the production and deployment of the prohibited missiles.

Washington claims that it is not planning to produce or deploy these missiles during the “suspension” period. However, they are being economical with the truth. First, although the Americans have not yet developed these advanced weapons, they are conducting research and development that is not directly banned by the Treaty in full.

Second, the elements of missile systems that are banned are already deployed in Europe and this deployment continues. Specifically, they are deploying multi-mission Mk-41 launchers on land as part of the Aegis Ashore system, which is capable of combat use of Tomahawk medium-range cruise missiles.

So Washington is not marking time. Naturally, we will continue thoroughly monitoring and analysing the development of these programmes and consider them in our own defence planning in terms of our response, if necessary.

One more important point is that Russia is strictly abiding by the INF and is not guilty of any of the violations that are ascribed to it by the Americans. Hence, Washington’s legal pretext for “suspension” because of the alleged “material breach” of the Treaty by Russia is absolutely groundless.

Thus, Washington’s decision is legally null and the INF Treaty will continue being valid for all parties even after the 60 days period announced by the Americans.



Question:

But if Russia does not abide by the US ultimatum, Washington will begin the withdrawal procedure in early February.



Sergey Ryabkov:

Washington said in public as early as in October that it would withdraw from the Treaty. It was confirmed to us via bilateral channels at high political level that the said decision is final and is not “an invitation for dialogue”.

They did not make a big secret out of the fact that the problems between the US and Russia do not matter as much as the US desire to discard inconvenient contractual bans. They believe the INF Treaty substantially restricts US military potential as regards the countries with arsenals of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles that threaten American interests, in Washington’s opinion. China, Iran and the DPRK are directly mentioned in this context.



Question:

In other words, you don’t think the US really expects Russia to comply with an ultimatum?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We have to proceed from the premise that regardless of the opinion and actions of Russia, other parties to the Treaty and third countries, the US will purposefully move to denunciation of the INF Treaty. Washington’s plan to suspend the Treaty is no more than a political game with the public and key NATO allies who apparently persuaded the US to pause for two months. Obviously, the Americans will use this pause for military technical preparations and attempts to make at least part of the international community critical of Russia. I wish I were mistaken but the facts implacably point to this approach.



Question:

Several days ago, Russian military leaders suggested holding consultations with the Pentagon. Have they received any reply?



Sergey Ryabkov:

As far as I know, no reply has been received.



Question:

And does Russia plan any other actions to prevent the Treaty from being discarded?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We have introduced a draft resolution in support of the INF Treaty to the UN General Assembly. When it comes to a vote on this document, it would be interesting to see how countries that are active proponents of the current arms control system and those advocating rapid nuclear disarmament measures, including the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, would respond. I am talking about countries, parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Earlier, when the issue was discussed in the UN General Assembly’s First Committee, many of these countries took advantage of the “explanation” that Russia had allegedly acted against the rules of procedure. But how could we adhere to specific deadlines at that time when Donald Trump’s statement and the explanation of these developments by his National Security Adviser John Bolton took place two days after the expiration of the formal deadline for submitting resolutions? Today, it would be interesting to see how everyone responds and to find out what the price would be for assurances that the above countries would advocate the inviolability of the arms control system. They should support our draft document, if this is really their position.



Question:

Quoting its sources the other day, Nikkei reported that Russia had suggested that China join talks on the future of the INF Treaty. Is that so?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I cannot confirm this report. We are very grateful to the Chinese for their consistent support of our line to maintain the INF Treaty, including at the UN and other international venues. And we are conducting a related dialogue with Beijing. Indeed, attempts were made many years ago to turn the INF Treaty into a multilateral, if not universal, document.



Question:

Are you talking about Moscow’s 2007-2008 initiative?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Yes, we also conducted this dialogue with our Chinese colleagues at that time. Today, we have not forwarded any proposals to Beijing, nor have we suggested that it join talks that simply don’t exist. I think that some kind of confusion has occurred or someone is just trying to create a sensation out of nothing.



Question:

The other day the US Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats released the most detailed US description of the specific nature of Russia’s alleged violations of the INF Treaty. He said that Russia initially flight tested the 9M729, a ground based missile, to distances well over 500 kilometres from a fixed launcher, which is only allowed by the Treaty for air and sea launched missiles. Russia then allegedly tested the same missile at ranges below 500 km from a mobile launcher. The sequence of these tests as described by the United States amounts to a violation. What can you say to this?



Sergey Ryabkov:

As I said, we firmly reject all the US allegations of our violation of the INF Treaty. These accusations remain completely unfounded. In the five years of our discussing this problem with the United States, they have not provided a single concrete piece of evidence of our guilt.

I want to make it perfectly clear that Russia has not produced or tested missiles that are covered by the INF Treaty and have a prohibited flight range. This fully applies to the 9М729, the designation of which the United States only provided after several years of our attempts to drag it out from them.

I would like to point out that this situation has been shamelessly turned inside out in the information provided on the State Department’s website. It claims, in part, that Russia changed its story several times. But to change a story, one has to be formulated to begin with. Over the past few years, we have been pressing the United States for its version of events. As soon as we learned which missile they were referring to, we supplied complete information on what we did or didn’t do in this sphere.

Washington took time answering our repeated requests for those flight tests which provoked the US Side’s concern. We kept asking them for five years but received information about the dates of the flight tests only five days before the United States announced its intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty, when the decision was most likely already made. In this way, the Americans demonstrated a complete lack of interest in clarifying the matter. They were marking time for five years, doing their best to drive the situation into a dead-end.



Question:

Have the Americans provided the data on the basis of which they have made their conclusions about the “violating missile”?



Sergey Ryabkov:

No, the United States has not provided any data on the basis of which they determined the missile’s range and concluded that we flight tested the 9М729 in those cases. These data are crucial for holding practical military and technical discussions.

During experts meetings, we tried to explain why the Americans’ estimates of the duration and nature of the 9М729 tests were wrong. We told them about the real timeframe of the tests. We also pointed out Washington’s mistaken views on the type of launchers used for this missile’s flight tests. In addition, we told them that many flight tests of various types and classes of missiles using different launchers were held in the area of the Kapustin Yar range the coordinates of which the Americans provided. We pointed out that all these tests were held in full compliance with the requirements of the INF Treaty.



Question:

Western media reports indicate that the United States has some intelligence data on the Russian missile.



Sergey Ryabkov:

Specialists understand that serious and complex arms control issues are not resolved on the basis of vague intelligence information. Especially since we know the value of US references to this kind of intelligence. We’ve seen this before. So, it is hard to figure out whether this mysterious intelligence, which the US is also spreading among the NATO countries, as we understand it, is fabricated or erroneous. The fact is, however, that the United States categorically rejects the possibility of a joint analysis of these data with our military experts.



Question:

Allow me to ask again, for clarity: does this mean Russia has not tested the 9M729 missile from a ground-based launcher, and exceeded the range threshold of the INF Treaty?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We provided the Americans with information and arguments that show that the 9M729 missile, which seems to concern them, was not tested at such a range.



Question:

Why can’t the Russian authorities hold a demonstration of the 9M729 missile for the American side? Perhaps this would remove some of their concerns. Can the inspection format previously used under the INF Treaty be used for this?



Sergey Ryabkov:

The inspection format for the INF Treaty was aimed at destroying specific weapons possessed by the parties at that time. As I said, the elimination and verification procedures for these systems ended many years ago, and the Treaty has been fulfilled in this respect.

As for a demonstration of the missile, there are several implications. The INF does not require us to do this. There are no other obligations that could apply in this case. Therefore, on our part, a demonstration would be a manifestation of increased transparency beyond the framework of the Treaty. At this point, we do not feel that such a step is justified from either the political or technical perspective.



Question:

Why? What’s the problem?



Sergey Ryabkov:

A missile demonstration would seem an undesirable precedent amid the US’s extremely intrusive attempts to “scan” Russian advances in missile technology and development. For example, during the expert consultations, we were asked to inform Washington not only about the dates and areas of all the tests of the 9M729 missile; they also wanted to know what missile systems had been tested at a specified test site over a period of several years that the American side pointed out. Such requests go far beyond the scope of our INF obligations, although we have already shown additional transparency in the dialogue with the Americans over and above the requirements of the INF.

If you follow this logic, give them an inch and they'll take a mile: the United States will continue to demand that we show almost any military equipment they do not like. This would lead to a disclosure of sensitive information to a country that has Russia on top of its external threat list at the doctrinal level.

In addition, transparency cannot be a one-way street. The Americans, however, approach it very selectively, even in cases when it directly arises from existing agreements. So, for example, the New START Treaty provides for some verification procedures for SLBM launchers, which, naturally, are located inside of submarines. These provisions are agreed upon and ratified by the United States. However, practical implementation is often blocked by the Americans’ refusal to allow our representatives inside their submarines, citing the intrusive nature of such a procedure.

Therefore, it is extremely difficult to argue under these circumstances about unilateral measures of transparency and enhancing confidence on our part.



Question:

Did the US even ask you to show them the missile?



Sergey Ryabkov:

No, they did not. Instead, they categorically proposed, in fact demanded, that it be destroyed in a “verifiable way.” They did not start this multi-move game to look at our missile. We assume they have already decided everything for themselves.



Question:

According to Daniel Coats, Russia no longer wants to be bound by the INF Treaty’s limitations and wants to be able to strike European NATO member countries. What do you say about that?



Sergey Ryabkov:

As a diplomat, by definition, I tend to discuss ways to strengthen international security and resolve existing problems by political and diplomatic means. I prefer not to focus excessively on analysing who can strike whom with what kind of weapons. This matter is better left to military professionals to discuss.

I can only reiterate what we have repeatedly said at different levels: Russia is not threatening anyone, but has all the necessary forces and means to beat back any aggressor. Of course, this means that to respond to potential attacks under various scenarios, we need comprehensive defence planning and appropriate military and technical support.

In recent years, in order to maintain the strategic and regional balance and taking into account current military dangers and threats, Russia has undertaken efforts to improve and expand its defence capabilities in the most advanced, including high-precision, weapons. Within the limits of reasonable transparency, we are informing the public and other countries about this. This leads us to believe that rationally minded military experts are fully cognizant of the fact that in the absence of a fundamental change in the security situation - both in Europe and across the world - Russia has all it needs to fully ensure its security interests without going beyond our obligations under existing international agreements.



Question:

What if the INF Treaty is longer there?



Sergey Ryabkov:

The United States and European countries should be aware that Russia cannot and will not ignore the possible deployment of US intermediate- and short-range missiles threatening us and our allies when Washington eventually has such missiles. We will have to take effective compensatory measures. I would like to warn against pushing the situation toward new “missile crises,” which, I am convinced, no sensible country wants.



Question:

The US government says it has no plans to deploy medium- and short-range missiles in Europe. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg also says that such weapons will not be deployed there. Do you believe them?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Against the background of an enormous lack of trust in our current relations with the United States and NATO, it is hardly possible to talk about taking anyone at their word in military and political matters directly related to core national security interests. Even if we assume that Washington and its allies have no such plans today, we cannot rule out such ideas and plans coming up tomorrow, especially if we take into account profound worsening of the security situation in the Euro-Atlantic area, the unwavering anti-Russian stance of the US Congress and the prevailing Russophobic sentiment in NATO.

Clearly, political deals and even legally binding agreements cannot provide full and indefinite guarantees either, as we can see from Washington upending the INF Treaty. However, in the case of achieving at least a framework understanding with regard to sensitive aspects of security with their subsequent codification, there is a possibility to expect to see, in the foreseeable future, some stabilising predictability and mutual restraint.

However, achieving any such hypothetical agreements is possible only on the basis of systematic and equal dialogue. At the moment we, unfortunately, do not see Washington or its allies being willing to interact with us on the basis of equality or to take Russia’s legitimate interests into account. Moreover, our US colleagues are clearly not in a hurry to restore the format of full-fledged dialogue between our respective militaries, which is crucial for overcoming challenges in this area.



Question:

Speaking about hypothetical arrangements, are you referring to some joint statement or agreement on non-deployment of medium- and short-range missiles, if the sides acquire them, in Europe and the European part of Russia?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I’m saying that we consider extremely illusory even a hypothetical prospect of reaching some agreement on the INF Treaty but we are not shutting the door to dialogue on it. We have repeatedly confirmed this to the US, including in our recent statements. We are ready to search for a solution to issues but we are not going to confess to something we didn’t do.



Question:

The US announced that Russia has equipped several divisions with new missiles. Is this true?



Sergey Ryabkov:

While I, of course, deal with arms control, I wouldd like to remind you that I represent the Foreign Ministry rather than the Defence Ministry. So this question is somewhat misdirected.

The only thing that I can confirm is that the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are equipped with these missiles. It is no secret. Our military colleagues explained to the Americans that this amounts to the upgrading of Russia’s cruise missile that is part of the Iskander-M system. The main goal was to make its warhead more effective. This led to some other changes but the missile range did not exceed the INF-imposed limits.

We also reported about a combat training launch of the missile during the Zapad-2017 exercises. It was launched to its maximum range and flew for about 480 kilometres, which is fully in line with the Treaty’s restrictions.



Question:

Many experts say that given the political will it may be possible to find a technical method of settling the claims of Russia and the US against each other under the INF Treaty. What is your opinion about this?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Speaking hypothetically, given the political will it is possible to venture even most ambitious tasks. However, there is one detail – such will must be clearly expressed by both sides. Our American colleagues have not yet expressed it. I’d like to emphasise once again that the US decision to withdraw from the Treaty was described to us as irreversible.

Nevertheless, we leave the door open to practical and constructive dialogue on ways of preserving the Treaty, which would be aimed at achieving mutually acceptable results. In such a case Russia’s concerns must be considered by all means. Let me recall that for many years we have witnessed Washington's complete reluctance to remedy its violations of the Treaty, including the land deployment of Mk-41 launchers that I have already mentioned, and other well-known complaints.

We are ready to discuss a broader agenda – a whole package of issues of strategic stability and arms control. At the July 16 Russia-US summit in Helsinki we submitted to the Americans our specific proposals on stepping up such dialogue and its potential formats.



Question:

Has the US replied to them?



Sergey Ryabkov:

No, we haven’t yet received any reply, which led us to the conclusion that today the US is not willing to come to terms with us on an equitable basis. This is unfortunate.



Question:

You have repeatedly said that breaking the INF Treaty can have an extremely negative impact on the future of the New START Treaty. Why? Will Russia continue to propose extending the New START Treaty to the US if it withdraws from the INF?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Obviously, in the event that the INF Treaty is scrapped, a new reality will emerge, fraught with further degradation of the international security situation. It would strip the nuclear missile control architecture of one of its load-bearing pillars, which helped develop and conclude the New START Treaty back then.

We are certainly heeding the signals coming from the American side. Washington’s attitude to the New START Treaty is ambiguous, to put it mildly. Very different points of view are being voiced there. In particular, in the US Congress, regular attempts are being made to link the future of these two treaties, with the alleged Russian violations of the INF brought to the forefront. At the same time, US lawmakers seem to deliberately overlook the problems with US observance of both agreements.

In fact, at this stage, the Americans are systematically creating uncertainty around the prospects for extending the New START Treaty. Perhaps it is their way of trying to put additional pressure on us to achieve concessions.

Be that as it may, we keep our proposal to begin a serious discussion of aspects of the possible extension of the New START Treaty open. The Americans know about it. In the future, we will evaluate the feasibility of such a step, comprehensively examining the general political situation and the state of affairs in the strategic sphere. And, naturally, to extend the Treaty, we will have to first resolve the abnormal situation related to the US withdrawal from accounting for a significant part of its strategic weapons.



Question:

I conclude from talking to you that, from Moscow’s perspective, the blame for the INF Treaty’s collapse lies with Washington. But, if the US representatives are telling the truth, the situation is exactly the opposite. The Department of State recently said the Americans had raised the question of the future of this agreement some 30 times in one way or another, during talks with their Russian colleagues. Now, according to the United States, the ball is in Russia’s court.



Sergey Ryabkov:

The Americans are able to describe black as white and white as black. Sometimes they stigmatise our position as disinformation, without even having studied it. Now, they say they raised the question of the INF Treaty more than 30 times with us, but this is not even propaganda – it is like trying to sell air. If I now list all the cases where we urged the Americans to avoid megaphone diplomacy, but to really discuss the problems, if I tell you about the documents we gave them and what proposals we made, then I assure you that the statistics will not be in favour of the US. Our figures will be much more impressive. But this “look who’s talking” exchange is beneath serious people. When the Americans are short of substantive arguments, they begin juggling facts, which gives their position some external credibility, although it is completely empty. We see no willingness on the part of the United States to truly address the issue.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3449525






17 December 2018

Meeting of A. Pankin with the Director of the Bureau of the International Labor Organization in Moscow O. Kulaeva - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3447365

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with a member of the leadership of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan L. Talabani - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3447606


18 December 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs M. Loukok - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3448195

Consultations of O. Syromolotov with Assistant to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of China Zhang Hanhui on the fight against international terrorism - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3448305

Consultations of I. Morgulov with the Special Representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea on peace and security issues on the Korean Peninsula Lee Do Hoon - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3448632

Meeting of V.Titov with the heads of diplomatic missions of Central European states - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3448963

Meeting of A. Grushko with the Ambassador of the Republic of Serbia S. Terzic - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3449020

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the US Ambassador to Moscow, J. Huntsman - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3449063

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with a delegation of the leadership of the Kurdish National Council composed of Ibrahim Barro and Kamiran Hajo - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3449082

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Special Representative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrant Affairs of the Lebanese Republic Amal Abu Zeid - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3449092

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the heads of diplomatic missions of Central Asian states in the Russian Federation - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3449198


19 December 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the representative of the leadership of the Syrian opposition Front for Change and Liberation, the head of the "Moscow Platform" of the Syrian opposition K. Jamil - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3449673

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the Director General of the General Directorate for International Economic Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile (with the rank of Deputy Minister of Commerce) R. Yanes Benitez - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3451390

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Minister of State under the President of the Republic of Guinea on issues of national defense M. Diana - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3451400

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with T. Rod-Larsen, President of the International Peace Institute - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3451847


20 December 2018

Interview of G. Karasin to RIA Novosti news agency, published on December 19, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3452106

Meeting of G. Karasin with the Ambassador of the Republic of Moldova to the Russian Federation A. Negutz - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3453949

Interview with I. Soltanovsky of the RAPSI information portal, published on December 19, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3453977

Consultations of I. Morgulov with the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China Kun Xuan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3453987

Commentary by S. Ryabkov on Regular US Anti-Russian Sanctions - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3454075

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania in Moscow S. Taleb Amar - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3454085

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Jordan in Moscow A. Adayle - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3454109

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Yemen in Moscow A. Al-Vaheishi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3454186

Meeting of A. Grushko with the political director of the German Foreign Ministry A. Leendertse - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3454196

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Lebanese Ambassador in Moscow Shauki Bou Nassar - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3454206


21 December 2018

On awarding the Chairman of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation V. Volodin with the Primakov Medal - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3454337

Consultations of G. Karasin with the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kyrgyzstan D. Kemelova - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3456359

Consultations of S. Ryabkov with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran A. Arakchi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3456449

Speech by the Russian Foreign Ministry Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, Deputy Director of the Department of Humanitarian Cooperation and Human Rights of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs G. Lukiantsev at the ceremonial meeting of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, New York, December 18, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3456463

Comment by M. Zakharova on the Increase in Fees for Issuing US Visas - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3456493

Consultations of I. Morgulov in the People's Republic of China - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3456503

Speech by A. Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk agreements, Vienna, December 20, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3456537

Speech by A. Lukashevich at the meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the establishment of the "armed forces" of Kosovo, Vienna, December 20, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3456547

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of the Republic of Cote d'Ivoire in Moscow R. Nyango - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3459243







Non-personal events:





Press release on the UN General Assembly adoption of a Russian-proposed resolution on combating cyber crime



18 December 2018 - 16:50



On December 17, the UN General Assembly adopted, by majority vote, the Russian-proposed resolution on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes. The resolution was supported by 94 member states with 59 voting against and 33 abstaining.

The key aim of our initiative is to launch a broad transparent political discussion on combating information crime and to search for and create responses to one of today’s most pressing challenges. The resolution is aimed at promoting a global consensus and working out concrete and practical approaches to countering cyber crime in the absence of effective international legal instruments.

These concepts met with wide support in the international community. The resolution was co-authored by 36 countries, including all our BRICS, SCO and CSTO partners. The majority of the developing counties in Asia, Africa and Latin America favoured adoption.

During the vote, the United States and European Union countries vividly demonstrated that they do not intend to bring up the problem of fighting cyber crime for discussion at the UN. Their strategic goal is to maintain the current state of affairs in the international information space, which suits them and which is aimed at maintaining digital inequality between various members of the international community.

Indicatively, it is Russia that, against the backdrop of regular groundless accusations of cyber aggression hurled against it, is pushing forward a constructive and open dialogue on combating cyber crime. We believe that the first ever separate resolution on this problem, adopted within the framework of the UN General Assembly, will make it possible to overcome some negative trends in this sphere for the international community. We hope for maximum productive and relevant dialogue within the UN framework.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3449030






17 December 2018

On the entry into force of the Agreement on Amendments to the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Latvia on the facilitation of mutual trips of residents of the border areas of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Latvia of December 20, 2010 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3447189

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the visit of the Sudanese President O. Bashir to Syria - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3447355

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the refusal of the Russian historian Gennady Bordyugov to enter Latvia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3447558


18 December 2018

Preparations for the XII Session of the Russian-Arab Business Council and the IV International Exhibition Arabia-EXPO - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3448185

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the adoption by the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly of a resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3448617

On the admission of the Russian Federation to the number of non-regional observers of the Central American Integration System (SICA) - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3449213

Outcomes of the Russian-Iranian interagency consultations on international information security - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3449223


19 December 2018

On the entry into force of the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on mutual visa-free travel of citizens - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3449565


21 December 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the celebration of the “Bandera Day” in 2019 in Ukraine - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3454527

On the results of the second round of the presidential elections in the Republic of Madagascar - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3456308

Comment of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the death of a citizen of Russia V. Ivanov in the Drohobych jail No. 40 of the Lviv region of Ukraine - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3456424

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the next report of the UN Observer Mission on Human Rights in Ukraine - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3456473

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding statements by US Deputy Secretary of State J. Sullivan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3456483

About plane crash in the Democratic Republic of Congo - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3456523


22 December 2018

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the results of voting in the UN General Assembly on the Russian draft resolution in support of the INF Treaty - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3459276
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 31st, 2019 #551
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 19, 2018



19 December 2018 - 18:07







Meeting of the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad

A regular meeting of the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad will take place in the Foreign Ministry on December 24 under the chairmanship of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The participants plan to sum up the results of the commission’s performance in the outgoing year that was capped off by the Sixth World Congress of Russian Compatriots Living Abroad. The forum was a great success. It was attended by over 400 delegates from 98 countries. President of Russia Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the forum.

The work with young representatives of the diaspora remains the commission’s priority. Its members will review the performance of the affiliated Interdepartmental Council on Youth Affairs in 2018.

Statements by representatives of the Government of the Republic of Crimea will be a separate item on the agenda. They will share with the audience their own experience of working with compatriots abroad.

The members will also plan a schedule of the commission’s meetings in 2019.



Update on Maria Butina

During court hearings on December 13, Maria Butina confirmed her deal with US prosecutors and pleaded guilty to acting as a foreign agent.

Butina made this decision under strong pressure from US authorities. Ahead of the court session the conditions of her detention were substantially toughened. So we will leave it to you to assess the situation. I think your judgement will be more objective than that of the US justice system.

Here are the facts. She was transferred to a prison block for highly dangerous criminals, was kept in her cell for 22 hours a day and denied medical treatment. There is no doubt that in this way she was shown what to expect if she refuses to cooperate with investigators.

As a result, we saw how the justice system operates in the US. It is being presented as essentially a model of respect for human rights. Others are continuously told how to behave on this track. Having created unbearable conditions and threatened Butina by citing real examples that are also unfortunately numerous, our compatriot was literally compelled to admit to absolutely absurd charges.

We continue to regard Butina’s detention, arrest and confinement under guard as political pressure and an act of political blackmail, and her as a political prisoner.

We are convinced that the criminal case against Butina is linked exclusively with the desire of some political forces in the US to fan anti-Russia hysteria and find at least something that may point to Russia’s alleged “interference” in US domestic affairs.

We will continue working for Butina’s release and return home.



Investigation of the assassination of Andrey Karlov

Today marks two years since the tragic death of Russian Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Republic of Turkey Andrey Karlov as a result of a terrorist act in Ankara.

Turkish law enforcement authorities have completed the criminal proceedings in this incident and have submitted an indictment request to the court. Russian investigators who are in constant cooperation with their Turkish colleagues will study the materials.

We expect that, as a result of the forthcoming judicial proceedings, all those involved in this crime will be identified and held responsible under the law.

The Russian Foreign Ministry and the Russian Embassy in Turkey continue to monitor this issue closely.



Update on Syria

It is time to review Syria in 2018, a year that saw serious progress in the developments in and around Syria. The nature and scale of the progress are especially apparent in the capital city of Damascus and other large cities like Aleppo, Homs and Latakia. Today, these cities are living a peaceful life without the tense expectation of daily terrorist bombings and shellfire, as it was in the past. In spite of the bitter trials that the people have been through, they are preparing for the New Year, which many people mark in a traditionally tolerant Syria, and Christians are also preparing for Christmas. There is a festive mood in the territories controlled by the Syrian government.

Sadly, the approaching celebrations will likely be neglected in Idlib where Al-Nusra terrorists still reign. The administration, which they set up and called the “salvation government,” is doing its best to eliminate any signs of New Year’s festivities in everyday life as allegedly offensive to Muslims.

The destroyed city of Raqqa is no better. There is no one left to celebrate Christmas at the desecrate church ruins there, as almost all Christians have left this ghost city.

New Year’s Eve is a time of hope. For Syrians these hopes are mostly associated with further progress in settling and overcoming the consequences of the protracted war; the re-establishment of the country’s full sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity; the final elimination of the terrorist presence; a political, social and economic rebuilding; and the return of the refugees and internally displaced persons.

A very important step forward on this road is the positive results of the talks with the Syrian groups on the list of the Constitutional Committee members, which the foreign ministers of Russia, Turkey and Iran handed over to UN Special Envoy on Syria Staffan de Mistura in Geneva yesterday. I would like to remind you that the decision to set up the committee was made at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. We expect this important committee to meet in Geneva and start work in early 2019 with the goal of preparing constitutional reform in Syria, which will be the basis for a general election organised in compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 on Syria.

We closely follow the developments in the northeast of Syria where tension is growing due to the continuing illegal US military presence. Washington’s continuing overtures to separatist-minded Kurdish politicians have triggered a serious concern in Ankara over a threat to Turkey’s national security in this connection. The US cannot dispel this concern. As a result, the situation on the east bank of the Euphrates along the Turkish-Syrian border and in the areas that have recently experienced ISIS attacks has come to the boiling point and is threatening to come to a major crisis. Both the Kurdish and Syrian people will become hostages of this situation and only the remaining ISIS holdouts, who are starting to raise their heads again, will stand to gain.

We have repeatedly addressed the subject of the US occupation of a considerable part of Syrian territory and pointed out that the illegal US military presence can no longer be considered a contribution to the fight against international terrorism but can be regarded as a dangerous obstacle in the way of a settlement. This can be seen in in the Rukban refugee camp, located in the 55 km “exclusive zone,’ single-handedly set up by the US around the illegal military base in Al-Tanf. So far, the US is not admitting representatives of the Syrian government to this zone, but they are patronising militants who find refuge there, including those connected with ISIS, whom they train and arm. As a result, illegal armed groups still control the 50,000 person camp, which the majority of people want to leave and return home but cannot do so in an organised way.

Currently we continue to discuss the issue of organising the next UN humanitarian convoy to Rukban, to relieve people’s suffering as winter approaches. It is obvious that people need urgent assistance. However, to successfully carry out this humanitarian operation it is essential for the US, as the country actually occupying the area, to provide a full security guarantee to the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Syrian Red Crescent Society, as well as to guarantee the targeted distribution of the humanitarian goods among the people in the Rukban camp. Otherwise, they will be supporting the militants rather than the residents of the camp.



OPCW Technical Secretariat delaying investigation of Aleppo chemical incident

We are gravely concerned that the OPCW Technical Secretariat has not yet sent its Fact-Finding Mission to investigate the November 24 chemical attack in Aleppo despite the repeated official requests from the Syrian government.

An advance group of FFM experts visited Damascus on December 4−6, where it received a large amount of factual information concerning the Aleppo incident and assurances of every assistance from the Syrian authorities and the Russian military. As far as we know, the UN Department of Safety and Security has not issued any warnings against the experts’ trip to Aleppo.

Nearly a month has passed since that chemical incident, but the situation has not changed, regrettably. The more time elapses, the more difficult it will be for FFM experts to collect factual evidence at the site. Since chlorine, which was used in the primitive chemical bombs fired by the terrorists at Aleppo, is a highly volatile substance, the probability that the experts will find any chlorine traces is decreasing every day.

On the one hand, Syrian officials have provided information to prove that this crime was committed by the terrorists. On the other hand, high-ranking officials from several Western countries claim that the November 24 attack on Aleppo was staged by Damascus with Russian assistance so as to put the blame on the opposition. In this situation, it is extremely important to conduct a thorough and comprehensive investigation without delay directly at the attack site, rather than remotely as is often the case.

The impression is that the OPCW Technical Secretariat is deliberately dragging out the investigation, which amounts, by the way, to neglect of duty. I wonder if they are doing this to suit the Western trio, which, seeking to attain their geopolitical interests in Syria, used military force against this UN member state and CWC signatory before the investigation was even launched.

In our opinion, dragging out the investigation of the Aleppo incident and failure to send FFM experts there contradicts the CWC provisions and common sense, considering that innocent civilians have suffered in that chemical attack.



Increased tension in the West Bank

Tension on the West Bank of the River Jordan has been growing since early December. Three Israelis have died in attacks staged by Palestinian extremists and the Israeli military have killed seven Palestinians in the past few days. Many people have been wounded on both sides. The situation was further exacerbated when Israel expanded the operations to apprehend the attackers, which has provoked new Palestinian protests and clashes with the Israeli military.

Claiming to respond to the “Palestinian terror”, the Israeli government took additional measures in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 to build new and legalise the existing housing units in the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including in Ofra.

We are seriously concerned about this new outbreak of violence between Israelis and Palestinians. We urge both sides to resume effective coordination in the field of security so as to normalise the situation as soon as possible. We are convinced that the accelerated construction of illegal settlements will not strengthen Israel’s security. It is clearly necessary to boost the Israeli-Palestinian political process based on the relevant decisions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly, as well as the Arab Peace Initiative.



UN General Assembly votes on Ukraine’s draft resolution on the alleged militarisation of Crimea and parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov

On December 17, the UN General assembly held a plenary session to review a draft resolution sponsored by Ukraine and titled “The problem of militarisation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine), as well as parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.”

This is a politicised document built on unacceptable accusations against Russia and intended to “write off” all the problems Ukraine is currently facing in terms of domestic politics and the economy as deriving from some kind of mythical “Russian aggression,” as well as boost Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko’s record-low approval ratings.

In addition to this, the draft resolution contains a distorted and untrue interpretation by Kiev of the November 25 provocation, when three Ukrainian ships attempted to penetrate the Kerch Strait without notifying Russia in advance. The documents that were found on board these vessels, as well as the testimonies made by the Ukrainian crew members clearly suggest that this was a deliberate and premeditated initiative.

Furthermore, the Ukrainian provocation was carried out in violation of the UN Charter and international law, including Article 19 and 21 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which set out the procedures and rules regarding innocent passage, as well as the rights of the coastal state to ensure safety in its territorial sea.

The allegations in the resolution on the militarisation by Russia of Crimea and parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov are also at odds with reality. Russia is not building up its military presence in the Sea of Azov, and there are no naval bases there. The forces that are located there are used to protect the Crimean Bridge and ensure the safety of navigation. Let me remind you that from the very first statements on plans to build the Crimean Bridge we heard from Ukrainian officials, politicians and security establishment loyal to the current Kiev regime direct calls to prevent the construction and then to destroy this civilian infrastructure facility.

The measures undertaken by Russia (selective ship inspections, including Russian vessels) are quite adequate considering the threats coming from extremists, including Ukrainian politicians, regarding the Crimean Bridge and our country in general.

At the same time, it is Ukraine’s actions that are aimed at militarising the Sea of Azov. In fact, Ukraine announced the establishment of a naval base in Berdyansk and regularly closes specific areas of the Sea of Azov for artillery practice.

Unfortunately, even amendments to the draft resolution submitted by a number of delegations in order to reflect the essence of the November 25 provocation in a more balanced way did nothing to change its counterproductive and malignant nature.

Against this backdrop, Russia had no choice other than to initiate a vote on the resolution and to vote against it. The vote showed that positions of UN member states vary greatly, with most countries abstaining and a significant number not present during the vote, which can be viewed as eloquent proof of a one-sided interpretation of the situation around Crimea and the Sea of Azov. It is also a fact that many countries were directly pressured to support the resolution. Nevertheless, two thirds of UN member countries did not support it.

It is unfortunate that Kiev’s counterproductive anti-Russia initiatives within the UN General Assembly and other structures and bodies of this universal organisation are solely intended to veil the disastrous domestic policy of this country’s leadership and do nothing to promote the settlement of the internal crisis in Ukraine.



Situation around Nord Stream 2 project

The other day, Washington and some European capitals have once again made statements opposing the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, citing the project’s allegedly non-profit making nature and its alleged threat to European energy security. We have repeatedly noted the absence of logic as well as common sense in such statements.

In any event, Europe will buy as much Russian natural gas as it needs. We don’t hear any answer to the question why Ukraine’s monopoly rights to maintain Russian gas transits are better than the diversification of gas delivery routes.

Our opponents should also look at the map and note the fact that, in the past decade, Russia’s main gas production region has shifted to the north and is now located in the Yamal Peninsula. A route linking Yamal with Europe via the Baltic Sea’s seabed is almost 2,000 kilometres shorter than the route via Ukraine. Gas transportation prices are also different, all the more so as Ukraine has officially stipulated rates that exceed current rates three times over.

The motives of our US colleagues’ actions are clear. They want to sell US liquefied natural gas on the European market using fair or foul means. So they should not tell us profusely about market principles and fair competition. Russia is ready for precisely such fair competition, as regards the sales of pipeline gas and LNG. Washington, rather than Moscow, is coercing its clients and threatening to impose sanctions on companies implementing optimal gas supply projects for their clients. Washington is actively using sanction regimes and “big stick” as political pressure. At the same time, the corporate reorganisation of energy resources’ production and transportation with the aim to make this project more competitive amounts to our attempts to make our efforts more competitive, efficient and transparent.

Even less clear is the logic of some European politicians who are trying to force ordinary people and businesses to pay for their Russophobia. It appears that the developments in France provide a clear answer to the question whether European consumers are ready to pay much more for gas, as compared to the price of Russian gas.

Speaking of Ukraine, we would like to note that, after four years of discussions about the so-called division or un-bundling of the Ukrainian gas transportation system’s management not a single partner whom it would be possible to deal with has appeared.

We are ready to confirm that the concept of the Nord Stream 2 and Turkish Steam projects does not aim to completely abandon existing routes for delivering natural gas to Europe. The same is true of Ukraine. Russian gas transits via this country can continue only if the concerned companies settle their disputes, if the Ukrainian route is profitable, and if a normal atmosphere for talks is created. So far, we don’t see any progress in any of these areas.

Nevertheless, Russia has met its European partners halfway and has agreed to continue trilateral gas-transit consultations involving the European Union and Ukraine. It was precisely the Ukrainian side that refused to hold a regular meeting this December. Unfortunately, one has reason to believe that, if this meeting takes place in January, Kiev will take advantage of it to politicise this matter and to conduct anti-Russia propaganda for scoring political points in the Ukrainian election campaign.



The establishment of the Council of Europe’s Working Group to compare national legislations of states that will host the games of the 2020 UEFA European Football Championship

In December 2018, a working group to compare national legislations of states that will host the games of the 2020 UEFA European Football Championship, was established on the initiative of the Russian Ministry of Sport under the auspices of the Standing Committee of the European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events and in particular at Football Matches.

The group’s main job is to guarantee compliance with UEFA requirements during the championship. States hosting the event have to provide the so-called guarantees that, in turn, should be formalised in their national legislations, including a visa-free regime for football fans. To the best of our knowledge, Russia has voluntarily provided more guarantees than any other country or the number of guarantees stipulated by the UEFA.

Thanks to the successful 2018 FIFA World Cup, Russia has demonstrated its ability to organise large-scale sporting events and ensure the safety and comfort of the fans. We believe we can share our experience within the framework of the working group.



Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on visa-free travel

On January 7, 2019, the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on the terms of cancellation of visa formalities in mutual travel of the citizens of the Russian Federation and the citizens of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, signed in New York on September 27, 2018, enters into force.

According to the Agreement, citizens of the Russian Federation holding valid passports that give them the right to cross borders, including diplomatic and service passports, and citizens of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines holding valid national, diplomatic and official passports will be able to enter, exit from, transit through and stay in the territory of the other state visa-free for up to 90 calendar days within any 180-day period starting from the entry date.

Citizens of either state who intend to stay or reside in the territory of the other state for more than 90 calendar days or engage in work or other commercial activity must obtain a visa at the diplomatic or consular office of this state in accordance with its legislation.



South Africa commemorates Soviet servicemen killed in the south of Africa

On December 13 in Pretoria, the Russian segment of the Wall of Names was unveiled in the Freedom Park memorial complex, with names of 67 Soviet military personnel killed during the armed conflicts in Angola and Mozambique, which South Africa considers as stages in the fight against apartheid. The event took place as part of the systematic cooperation between Russia and South Africa on preserving their common historical memory and teaching the young generation the long-term traditions of solid friendship, in the spirit of the Joint Statement on the Strategic Partnership between Russia and South Africa signed by presidents Vladimir Putin and Cyril Ramaphosa on July 26, 2018.

The ceremony was attended by Russian Ambassador to South Africa Mikhail Petrakov, South African Minister of Arts and Culture Nathi Mthethwa and Lindiwe Zulu, Minister of Small Business Development and Head of the African National Congress Subcommittee on International Relations, who stressed in her speech that modern, democratic and free South Africa owes its very existence to our country. The event participants also included ambassadors of Belarus, Angola, and Mozambique, as well as Azerbaijani charge d'affaires ad interim in South Africa and other representatives of the diplomatic corps.



Cancellation of the meeting of the Russian-Czech Intergovernmental Commission on Military Burial Sites in 2018

We took note of the interview by Coordinator for War Monument Maintenance within the Czech Defence Ministry, Pavel Filipek, with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty on December 11. In this interview, he accused Russia of violating the bilateral intergovernmental agreement on the maintenance of military burial sites dated December 15, 1999.

Let me explain a few things in this regard.

It is true that Russia decided that it would be inadvisable to hold the next meeting of the Joint Russian-Czech Intergovernmental Commission on Military Burial Sites on the implementation of the above-mentioned agreement in 2018. A note to this effect was sent to the Czech Republic in November 2018.

This decision arose as a result of the failure by the Czech authorities to take action in response to the placement of a plate on the monument to Soviet Marshall Ivan Konev in Prague, the text of which is at odds with his role in history. Let me remind you that Soviet troops liberated most of Czechoslovakia and saved Prague under the command of this merited officer, and we have archival evidence to prove this should anyone put this into question. Ivan Konev received more than 50 military decorations, including the Order of the White Lion, the highest order of Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic that exists to this day. He was also awarded the title of Hero of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic.

In the diplomatic note that I have mentioned, we proposed holding a working meeting in Moscow in order to discuss Russian-Czech cooperation on war monument maintenance. Unfortunately, the Czech Defence Ministry representative failed to mention this to the media, while providing an otherwise detailed account of our diplomatic correspondence. We have yet to receive a reply to this proposal.

Consequently, instead of a constructive dialogue on all the matters related to war monuments, Pavel Filipek reports bits and pieces that are taken out of context, perorating about the “historical myths” in the Russian Federation.

The Russian side in the Joint Intergovernmental Commission will send a detailed response to Pavel Filipek, representative of the Czech side in the Commission.

Russia honours its treaty obligations toward its Czech partners regarding war monument maintenance, promotes constructive dialogue on all matters and expects the Czech side to do the same.



Safety of journalists

Last week, on December 15, Russia marked the Remembrance Day of Journalists Killed in the Line of Duty.

According to UNESCO, 94 journalists have been killed worldwide as a result of their professional activity since the beginning of 2018. This statistic includes both journalists covering military conflicts and those working during peacetime, defending the people’s right to receive reliable and urgent information.

The Russian Federation pays special attention to the safety of journalists, the problem of the impunity of those who commit crimes against them, and the prevention of such crimes. We are doing everything possible to bring to justice those who stand in the way of the professional activity of journalists. We monitor the violations against them and cooperate on these matters with international organisations like the OSCE and UNESCO.

We are rightfully concerned about the situation regarding the safety of journalists in Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly drawn the attention of the international community to the dangerous trends there that lead to censorship and gross violations of journalists’ rights, including their physical elimination.

There is still no progress in the investigation into the murders of journalists Anatoly Klyan, Anton Voloshin, Igor Kornelyuk, Andrei Stenin, Andrea Rocchelli, Oles Buzina, Sergey Dolgov, Vyacheslav Veremiy, Pavel Sheremet and others. Journalists in Ukraine continue to be physically abused, at the instigation of the official Kiev, which long ago embarked on the path of repression of the media and the silencing of dissent.

We urge the relevant international agencies and human rights non-profit organisations to react and condemn all forms of pressure on the media by the Ukrainian government, including the elimination of unwanted journalists.

We consider the December decision of the OSCE Foreign Ministers Council on the safety of journalists a breakthrough. The organisation demonstrated to the professional journalistic community its commitment to defend the interests of journalists.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

Last Thursday, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Baku, where he held talks with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. Mr Lavrov said that Azerbaijan was willing to resume negotiations and search for constructive solutions to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and that you are pondering creative ideas that would be used as the basis for a settlement. Do you know which creative ideas Russia could propose for a settlement in Karabakh?



Maria Zakharova:

He was talking about the future and that we need to find ideas [for reaching compromise solutions] and that these ideas must be creative. It is such ideas that are likely to be supported. Experts are working on them.



Question:

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said that the United States has confirmed via bilateral channels that the decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty is final and is not “an invitation for dialogue.” How does Russia view this approach?



Maria Zakharova:

We view it as destructive.



Question:

Can you comment on the latest statements made in the US concerning interference in Venezuela’s affairs and the danger of a provocation, which President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro noted?



Maria Zakharova:

I did not see the statements you have mentioned. I don’t know what you mean, but everyone knows about the US attitude to the regional countries. Washington has not treated foreign states as equal partners or even junior brothers for a long time, unfortunately. The US attitude is disrespectful, is based on interference in the internal affairs of both adjacent and other regional states and does not stipulate an equal dialogue.

The Latin American countries have not had to prove their sovereignty for a long time. They are accomplished political, economic, humanitarian and cultural members of the international community, and they are making a huge contribution to the development of international law and the settlement of crises. Nevertheless, the United States does not view this region as an equal partner with equal rights.

Venezuela has become the target of US aggression in all meanings of this word. We have cited facts and cautioned against these activities, saying that they have nothing in common with the proclaimed US goals of protecting human rights and promoting democracy but are harming the people of Venezuela and, most importantly, hampering the country’s development.

Any political, economic or humanitarian processes must be developed in the country by the people themselves. If the country needs help and assistance, it can issue a relevant statement to other states or international organisations. I don’t remember Venezuela asking for US support to settle its internal affairs, especially since such assistance brings the opposite results. Regrettably, this is a fact. But I would be delighted – no, this is not true. I will not be delighted to see any statements on this subject, because the American politicians’ statements on Venezuela cannot be described as constructive.



Question:

It was announced today at a joint news conference of Lithuania’s State Security Department, the prosecutor’s office and the police that they had uncovered a network of Russian spies. Several Lithuanian citizens and one Russian citizen have been detained. We already knew about it yesterday, and the Lithuanian security services have confirmed at the news conference that the Russian citizen in question is Valery Ivanov, a 70-year-old historian. They broke down his door and allegedly found a gun in his flat. It is a favourite method of the Baltic security services.

One of the arrested Lithuanians is Algirdas Paleckis, a former leader of Lithuania’s Socialist People’s Front. It is said that they made public subjects that are painful to Lithuanian society, in particular, the January 13, 1991 case. It now appears that any communication with Russian journalists, citizens or business people is regarded as spying. I think they will soon bring accusations against our news agency, because Sputnik and RT seem to be involved in everything taking place in Europe. We are waiting for this to happen. Can you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

First, this is part of the Russophobic policy of the country you have mentioned, regrettably. Second, it amounts to a huge rollback from the democratic rights and freedoms which some countries, including in the Baltics, searched for, turning to the West, and politically integrating with it, and in particular NATO and the EU, in the process. The main goal of joining these organisations was not the financial prosperity. Judging by the available data, the level of these countries’ development is incomparable to that of 30 years ago. These countries declared freedom of speech, human rights, non-interference in private life and the protection of personal rights and liberties as the goal of their chosen path. We now see a huge rollback in these areas. It could be worse than a rollback even curtailment. It could be a complete renunciation of the declared democratic policy. I see no other explanation for what is happening.

As for the possible reaction to the material and work of Sputnik and other Russian media outlets, the more you do to provide reliable and objective information and the better you do this, the less you will be liked, judging by what I have just said.



Question:

Today, State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin called for, or rather expressed hope that Armenia would be able to resist the US blackmail. Was there a reason for this statement? Is it connected with the voting on Crimea?



Maria Zakharova:

I think there is nothing to add here. We will not allow blackmail to be used against a state that has barely entered the difficult path of development and is still searching for its identity and future. Why was the above statement or answer made? It was probably a reply to a question. We should ask the journalists. I don’t think Grigory Karasin just stopped a passing journalist and asked him or her to write down his ideas on this subject. No, I think he said this in reply to a question.



Question:

The statement by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov concerning the memorandum to be signed with Acting Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has been interpreted differently in Armenia and Russia.



Maria Zakharova:

You simply haven’t seen this interview. Those who have seen it have no questions as to why there were conflicting interpretations and some misunderstandings. The interview conducted by the correspondents, the Komsomolskaya Pravda journalists, was overcharged with emotion. It was less an interview than a live question and answer broadcast, with the questioners interrupting Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov without giving him a chance to reply (I was present in the room where it was recorded). We have nothing against the journalists, but it turned out to be a cross between an interview and a conversation. Because of the emotional intensity and the fact that questions kept interrupting the answers, not all the t’s were crossed. Realising that clarification was needed, we posted a transcript with all the necessary clarification regarding the terminology.



Question:

Does it also apply to Russian military facilities?



Maria Zakharova:

Pay attention to the transcript. It is about military laboratories.

I am grateful to the Armenian media representatives who promptly rang us up to clarify the matter without spreading what might have given rise to questions. Thank you for the clarification provided.

I repeat, it is not my intention to boost anybody’s approval ratings, but this interview was indeed a case apart in terms of the way the questions were couched.



Question:

Secretary of the Ukrainian Security and Defence Council, Alexander Turchinov, said that Kiev was again planning to send ships to the Kerch Strait. He said he had invited his partners to take part in the action. Could you comment on that?



Maria Zakharova:

This is the announcement of another provocation, it has the same provocative character. It is absolutely irresponsible and is designed to aggravate the situation even as many of Ukraine’s partners are trying to defuse tension and seek de-escalation. Making such a statement against the background of the attempts being made by a number of states, including EU members, amounts to acknowledging that provocation is the Kiev regime’s calling card.



Question:

As you have mentioned, December 15 marked the Journalists’ Remembrance Day. We all know what pressure is exerted on the Russian media in many countries, including Ukraine. The recent introduction of the state of emergency may worsen the position of Russian journalists and make them still more vulnerable. Meanwhile, the situation with Ukrainian journalists in Russia is the opposite. They are free to attend any events and they encounter no obstacles. Why doesn’t Russia take tit-for-tat or at least asymmetric measures with regard to the Ukrainian journalists?



Maria Zakharova:

I am at a loss how to answer your question because, unfortunately, I get many such questions, I am not only reproached, but castigated over the fact that unlike the situation with Russian journalists in Ukraine, the regime of the work of Ukrainian journalists has not changed and fully complies with the accreditation rules for all foreign correspondents.

I receive angry letters asking why our journalists are barred not only from official events, but even from the border are (and we are talking about well-known seasoned journalists), while we not only allow Ukrainian journalists to be present at our events, but even let them ask questions.

I was surprised to see the wave of criticism, including in the public space, over allegations that the Foreign Ministry and I personally had allegedly intervened on behalf of a Ukrainian journalist who had been detained by the Moscow law-enforcers. People said that we should have shown to Ukraine, to journalists and the public how the Russian media feel in Ukraine when they are detained and interrogated for hours on end, making no distinction between men and women, seasoned journalists and newcomers to the profession.

First, it would be wrong to be like those whom we criticise. Second, we strictly follow the law. Our law and accreditation rules are the same for everyone. Third, many Russian journalists become victims of aggressive and politically motivated actions, false charges and discrimination. In such situations, we use a number of mechanisms: we try to resolve the problems on a bilateral basis and, failing that, we go one step further and write letters to specialised international organisations.

There are situations where, in addition to intimidation and political pressure, Russian journalists are directly threatened by the security forces and the authorities of this or that country, including the threat of deportation. When it comes to something like this, unfortunately, we have in recent years been forced to act in a tit-for-tat manner. Such instances occur, and not only Ukrainian, but other journalists may write out-and-out fakes and openly stage provocations. It is our duty – and we will stick to it – to offer them every opportunity to work on the territory of the Russian Federation in accordance with our laws. It is about legal culture and our commitment to the obligations we have assumed. On top of everything else, these are not just commitments, but a certain style and mode of information work which Moscow and Russia adhere to and profess.

Whatever criticism I get as a person directly dealing with such issues, I believe that we should be guided by the rules of accreditation that are the same for everyone here. But in cases like the one I have just cited, when journalists are expelled, our response has to be tit-for-tat.



Question:

At the end of the year, everyone sums up its results. Many organisations and publications choose the person of the year. Who would you choose?



Maria Zakharova:

I have no right to make personal statements from this rostrum, but I will, however, make an informal comment as someone working with the media, someone who has been working in the information sphere for a long time.

I do not like nominations like “person of the year”, “person of the last five years”, “person of the century” and so forth. Frankly, these are nothing but empty, meaningless, formalised titles to me. But in the context of the safety of journalists, which we have touched upon today, as something that we regularly discuss and comment upon, I would like to focus on the media instead of talking about some interesting people and their incredible achievements in economy, culture, peacekeeping, healthcare and filmmaking.

Tatyana Felgengauer was the person who showed me that no circumstances can break someone who is dedicated to their profession, who keeps on loving it in spite of everything. I say this with absolute sincerity.

We often speak easily about the troubles other people face in their lives, focusing on our own minor troubles and misfortunes. But Tatyana Felgengauer went through things that most of us, thank goodness, cannot even imagine, and still found the strength to return to her profession, showing that nothing had changed. When you speak about this from the outside, there might be differing views. But when you try to fathom what the person really went through and how it felt to walk again down that same corridor in the same office where everything happened – you realise that this is what true courage is.

Perhaps, I disagree with Tatyana on many things. But the strength that she managed to find, showing that one can overcome even something like this – having a knife held to your throat – made me look at life in a different way.

This has nothing to do with analysing political views. The very fact that someone found the strength to return to their profession, despite the fact that this crime against her took place at her workplace, shows how courageous she is.



Question:

Thank you for explaining the situation around the Marshal Ivan Konev memorial. People in many cities of the Volga River area and Siberia have an extremely negative opinion of the Czech Defence Ministry’s programme. For example, people in the Czech Republic are delighted that the Russian Foreign Ministry, in the person of Valery Konnov, who heads the Russian Defence Ministry’s mission for military-memorial work at the Russian Embassy in the Czech Republic, can say that it is no good to desecrate the Konev memorial by installing the plaque you mentioned on it. After that, the Mayor of Bugulma attends the ceremony of unveiling that monument, which involves the Defence Minister of the Czech Republic. Czech media outlets are saying that the Russian Foreign Ministry exerts no ideological influence on the mayors of our cities. What can you say about the Foreign Ministry’s ideological influence?



Maria Zakharova:

This has nothing to do with ideological influence. We do not aim to influence anyone. Our clear task is to provide information in response to specific requests, to explain the Russian side’s main foreign policy initiatives and actions, and to comment on events taking place under the auspices of the Russian Foreign Ministry. At the same time, the Russian Foreign Ministry coordinates Russia’s foreign policy activities. Certain provisions regulate and explain various concepts.

For example, Russian agencies, ministries and departments, as well as the country’s regions and territories, coordinate their foreign trade and international activities with the Russian Foreign Ministry. Therefore, this concerns coordination, rather than influence.



Question:

It turns out that the people of the Czech Republic have a different opinion of this. They can see that there is no coordination in a certain sense, and they appreciate this.



Maria Zakharova:

Yes, some people want to take advantage of disagreements, to find some discrepancies and to turn them into major problems. But we are not divided on this issue. We closely cooperate with the Military Historical Society, with historians, activists and regional agencies.



Question:

There has been much speculation lately about Turkey’s plans to launch a military operation against the Kurds. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has reportedly already discussed this matter with US President Donald Trump. Russia gave Turkey time – first until October and then until November, and now it looks like it will be next year – to separate Jabhat al-Nusra from the moderate opposition. In fact, however, according to reports, explosions continue, which means that Turkey has failed to honour its commitments with regard to Idlib. Is there a red line, after which we will step in and tell our Turkish partners that much time has passed, but progress is hardly in sight, while the Syrian people continue to suffer.



Maria Zakharova:

For that, regular meetings are held with the Turkish side at various levels. Yesterday, for example, there were talks between the foreign ministers of the three guarantor countries of the Astana process. We maintain contacts with our Turkish colleagues at the level of heads of state and special representatives.

The Syrian settlement is not a pre-arranged plan that simply has to be implemented, but a dynamically changing situation influenced by a large number of players. This is not a planar situation, but a volumetric one, which makes it even more complicated. Maintaining all sorts of contacts – between diplomats, the military and experts, delegation exchanges – is not as simple as synchronising our watches. These contacts are intended to bring our positions as close as possible where we have common approaches and to do everything to find common ground on difficult matters. This is an ongoing process.



Question:

Could you comment on reports that Ukraine is preparing a provocation, something that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mentioned in his recent interview.



Maria Zakharova:

Mr Lavrov clearly said that we have corresponding information. Let me draw your attention to the fact that the same was confirmed by Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service Sergey Naryshkin in his interview on the Rossiya 1 television channel.

We indeed have corresponding information, which we cannot disclose as the case in point is provocative actions. All this fits into the same logic: as far as we can see, it is impossible for Kiev to implement the Minsk Agreements due to the internal processes there, despite the fact that in words everyone agreed that this document has no alternative. But it is necessary to somehow resolve the situation in the region, including in the context of the upcoming election. People there are demanding an answer to the question of what has been done over the past years and how the situation will be addressed. At our last briefing, we said that, from the point of view of the Kiev government, such a military campaign is the sole, though crazy, move that might help certain candidates score points.

For more specifics, I suggest you read Sergey Lavrov’s and Sergey Naryshkin’s comments.



Question:

Reports about provocations that are being plotted by Ukraine came from the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) as well. Today, we have heard symmetrical accusations against Russia from the United States – specifically, the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW), which claims that it is Russia that is, in fact, plotting a provocation against Ukraine, including a chemical one, and is directly seeking to escalate the conflict. Today, US Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker discussed the introduction of peacekeepers in Donbas. Is the US setting the stage for a major offensive?



Maria Zakharova:

We have repeatedly talked about Kurt Volker’s role. At first, we made delicate hints. Then, we had to put it straight, because his role is absolutely not peacekeeping. The statements and actions with Mr Volker behind them are not of a peacekeeping nature. They are not aimed at bringing closer the positions inside Ukrainian society or at organising mediation efforts to promote the implementation of the Minsk Agreements (though, what does the US have to do with them?). In any case, any constructive efforts would have been welcomed. Yet, here, unfortunately, we see the opposite.



Question:

It has been reported today that the Moscow City Court upheld the court ruling to deport a Ukrainian journalist, Yelena Boyko, from Russia. Can the Russian Foreign Ministry assist in a more detailed review of her case so as to prevent her from being deported, given the quite specific situation in Ukraine?



Maria Zakharova:

There exists a certain mechanism for adopting such decisions. In some cases, we undoubtedly can express our point of view. Sometimes, within the framework of court proceedings, we receive inquiries on whether or not this or that person is indeed a journalist and whether the Foreign Ministry can provide corresponding documents confirming his or her accreditation, visa and so on.

But once a court ruling is delivered, the Foreign Ministry cannot contradict it in any way. I have just been talking about that: there are provocative materials, downright “fakes” – pre-planned or spontaneously made. But the law is the law. There are the existing accreditation rules. That means that we should work more actively in terms of providing information and being more prompt in commenting.

We get involved in the work of journalists only as a symmetrical measure in response to threats to the safety of Russian journalists abroad or direct interference in their work (the case in point is the termination of their activity and their expulsion).



Question:

How would you sum up relations between Azerbaijan and Russia in the multilateral and bilateral formats in 2018?



Maria Zakharova:

I would not like to devote today’s briefing to relations with any individual state. It is my hope that next year our relations with our partners, allies and friendly countries will develop successfully.

We have big plans, including for the development of bilateral relations with Azerbaijan. New Year is a time of hope. One wants peace, stability and the implementation of constructive ideas.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3451919
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old February 2nd, 2019 #552
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the international news agency Rossiya Segodnya, December 24, 2018



24 December 2018 - 12:00




Question:

The election cycle will begin in the United States in 2019. Should we expect relations to further worsen, or can we hold out hope that top level contacts might develop? Where and when can they be held, considering the cancellation of the planned summit meeting in Argentina? Is it true that the two presidents may meet in January?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have grown used to the fact that short-term considerations of the domestic US policy influence our bilateral relations and create additional obstacles to our dialogue. The effect of these factors has recently ceased to depend on the stage in the US electoral cycle. Of course, some Washington politicians may try to play the Russian card increasingly actively with the approaching presidential election in November 2020. We hope that this will not seriously erode the already brittle foundation of our bilateral relations.

Our consistent position is for developing a normal and predictable dialogue with the United States based on mutual respect for each other’s interests. So far, we have not advanced towards this goal because of Washington’s unfriendly actions and continued attempts to use economic, military-political and other instruments to put pressure on us. This has slowed down our interaction in the crucial fields of the bilateral and international agenda, including those related to the maintenance of global stability and security.

On a broader, philosophical plane, the main problem in our ties is that the United States has never considered them as intrinsically valuable. The US establishment views Russia as an object. We are being demonised to keep Europe at bay and to strengthen Euro-Atlantic ties. For example, they are seriously discussing the possibility of using Russia against China. The attempts to provoke a change of government or policy in Russia, which many in Washington believe possible, are based on a desire to turn Russia into an instrument serving US interests.

We know that the Americans have forced some countries to play this role, but they will not succeed in our case, of course. Our relations will not improve as long as the US elite continue to see Russia as an object, an attitude that goes back to the Cold War. “Selective interaction” is a flawed idea. It will not help boost positive trends or a predictable future.

For our part, we view ties with any state as intrinsically valuable. We are ready to develop such relations with the United States as well. As I have already said, the potential of creative bilateral collaboration is huge, but it has remained untapped for decades. I believe that our people deserve a much better situation than we have now.

As for contacts at the top level, President Vladimir Putin said at a news conference following the G20 summit events in Buenos Aires that he was ready for a meeting with his American colleague and that this meeting will eventually take place when the American side is ready. At this point in time, it is difficult to say when or where this meeting may be held.



Question:

It appears that the INF Treaty will be scrapped. Are we holding talks with the United States and the European Union about certain guarantees that such missiles will not be deployed in Europe? Are our partners ready to provide such legally binding guarantees? If not, how will Russia respond? Will it have to deploy missiles in Cuba again?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are confident that the scrapping of the INF Treaty could have a serious impact on international security and strategic stability. We are forced to issue a warning that we cannot and will not ignore the deployment of new US missiles threatening Russia and its allies. There should be no doubt that we have the necessary resources to guarantee our own security and to strengthen our defence potential still further. But, just like any country with common sense, Russia is not interested in an arms race and new “missile crises.”

If there are still any forces in the United States that deem it possible to use the current pause, taken by Washington, to search for various ways to save the INF Treaty, then we are ready for this. We call for an end to the attempts at blackmail and the circulation of groundless accusations in favour of truly detailed and constructive work to alleviate current concerns. A recent letter from Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu to US Secretary of Defence James Mattis contained an official proposal to launch this work. We have repeatedly suggested launching professional dialogue on the INF Treaty and establishing contacts between the Foreign Ministry and the Department of State. We have received no response so far.

During the July 16 summit in Helsinki, we provided the US side with specific comprehensive proposals on the agenda of a long overdue in-depth discussion on strategic stability and arms control issues. Unfortunately, it appears that the United States is so far in no mood to reach agreement with Russia. They are shying away from dialogue, they are not suggesting any guarantees, and they probably want to obtain a complete carte blanche.

On the whole, we are ready to work in various formats involving all countries that are aware of their responsibility for peace and security.



Question:

What are the chances for a direct armed conflict between Russia and the United States, as well as between Russia and NATO? Is Russia preparing for such a scenario?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe that everyone in the world realises that an armed conflict between two leading nuclear powers, Russia and the United States, would have disastrous consequences for humankind. There is no doubt that no one can win a nuclear war, and that such a war should never be unleashed.

At the same time, we have to state that Washington and its allies, fixated on their own geopolitical ambitions, are not ready to adapt to global realities that are not changing in their favour. This explains their striving to hamper these processes, no matter what, and their increased aggression in foreign affairs. Confrontation is being incited, and channels for dialogue are being frozen. We are particularly concerned about efforts to scrap international agreements in the area of strategic stability.

This conflict-oriented line, relying on military force, inevitably serves to further destabilise the global security system and facilitates an arms race. A situation could arise where the price of a mistake or misunderstanding could prove fatal.

It goes without saying that we are exerting all necessary efforts to defend our national interests and to strengthen this country’s defence capability. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly mentioned this. At the same time, we are expecting common sense to prevail. Despite their different positions, Russia and Western states jointly bear tremendous responsibility for the future of the entire human race and for finding effective responses to the numerous challenges and threats of our time.

We are urging Western leaders to act predictably, to unfailingly honour international law and to rely on the UN Charter. Such issues would then just fade away.



Question:

The people of Ukraine are to elect their president in the spring of 2019. The main candidates have already been announced. Is there any hope that some of them will be able to improve relations between Moscow and Kiev? Or should we not expect this in any event? Will Russia then be prepared to take such tough measures as the introduction of a visa regime and the severing of diplomatic relations?



Sergey Lavrov:

I will refrain from commenting on the main presidential candidates because elections are a domestic Ukrainian affair.

But, of course, we have no choice but to feel concerned with the current election campaign situation. The level of Russophobia, being imposed by Ukrainian authorities, exceeds all reasonable limits. The incumbent authorities in Kiev are guided by their own ambitions, rather than by the interests of their country; and they are also guided by “recommendations” and sometimes by direct instructions from other capitals. This affects rank-and-file Ukrainians. This is confirmed by the unresolved domestic conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Hopefully, adequate people capable of conducting constructive dialogue and perceiving reality in a responsible manner will eventually gain power in Kiev. We have not taken any unilateral actions to curtail relations with Ukraine, nor do we have such intentions. On the contrary, we advocate the preservation as well as the creation of conditions for the restoration of diverse ties and contacts.



Question:

This year, it became possible to make substantial headway in resolving the situation around the DPRK. When will sanctions against North Korea be finally mitigated? Will Russia demand that a ban on North Korean workers be lifted, perceiving it as an initial measure? Isn’t it high time for reinstating the format of six-sided talks? Is a six-sided summit possible? When and on what conditions can it take place?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, positive nascent trends took shape on the Korean Peninsula throughout 2018. On the whole, the regional situation developed under a 2017 road map, drafted by Russia and China. Military activity was scaled down considerably as a result of North Korea’s moratorium on nuclear tests and missile launches and the decision of the United States and the Republic of Korea to put off large-scale military exercises. Inter-Korean relations have improved, and the first ever summit involving US and North Korean leaders has taken place. As an inalienable participant in the overall process of resolving the situation around the Korean Peninsula, Russia helped achieve these results, and it will continue to do this: a lot of work lies ahead.

First of all, I am talking about the need to implement US-North Korean agreements and those between the two Korean states. We expect that Pyongyang and Washington will manage to more actively establish “new” relations in all spheres throughout 2019 under their leaders’ Joint Statement, to strengthen mutual trust and to help establish lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula and its denuclearisation in line with our common efforts. We also support the striving of Seoul and Pyongyang to expand their mutual ties and to facilitate practical inter-Korean cooperation. For example, we are interested in resuming work on a trilateral project to link the Trans-Korean Railway, now being studied by both Korean states for the purpose of restoring and upgrading it, with the Trans-Siberian Mainline.

We believe that a gradual revision of sanctions against North Korea should become an important part of these processes. This does not imply the instant abolition of international restrictions: This will become possible only after the complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. But one should not delay launching a revision of the current regime of sanctions. One should not pretend that Pyongyang has not made any constructive moves in its striving to achieve the sub-region’s nuclear free status. We are confident that the UN Security Council should respond to them quickly and positively.

Today, we and the concerned parties are discussing measures that should be implemented. Indeed, this might call for extending a possible deadline for the stay of North Korean migrant workers in third countries or for applying new exemptions from the sanctions regime to implement inter-Korean projects. Or this might imply any other moves aiming to convince North Korea that it has made the right choice in favour of renouncing nuclear weapons. In this context, we are urging other partners to abolish in full their own unilateral sanctions, as regards cooperation with North Korea, and illegitimate attempts to persuade other countries to implement them, and do it as soon as possible. Obviously, the current situation does not facilitate establishing trustful relations between the parties to the settlement.

We constantly discuss the need to establish multilateral contacts, similar to the previous six-sided process to resolve the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula, with all the countries involved. Of course, we don’t insist that its work be reinstated in the same form. But, in principle, we are confident that it is possible to resolve the entire range of the sub-region’s problems on a multilateral basis and through joint efforts alone. We are launching this work in various configurations. Certain results have been achieved. On October 9, 2018, Moscow successfully hosted the first trilateral meeting of deputy foreign ministers from Russia, China and North Korea. A joint communique, issued after the meeting, set forth joint approaches towards the Korean settlement. We are ready to involve other states in this format; moreover, Russia is ready to take part in other possible multilateral events. I hope that a joint multilateral mechanism to maintain peace and security in Northeast Asia will be established as a result of our work with all partners. We believe it has a great potential: quite possibly, the leaders of regional states will start meeting on a regular basis and hold regional summits, like those taking place within the framework of other regional and international organisations.



Question:

Considerable progress has been made on Syria in 2018, primarily in collaboration with Turkey and Iran. However, the Syrian government does not yet control many regions in the country. Will we discuss plans for these regions with the United States, for example, in southern Syria and east of the Euphrates, just as we coordinated plans for Idlib with Turkey?



Sergey Lavrov:

Relations with each of these parties are unique unto themselves. We are cooperating with Turkey and Iran within the framework of the Astana format. It is an effective mechanism of interaction that is based on international law and UN Security Council documents on a settlement in Syria, primarily Resolution 2254. It is an effective mechanism because its decisions are coordinated with the Syrian government delegations and the armed opposition. We are working with our Iranian and Turkish partners to facilitate reaching such decisions and also act as the guarantors of their implementation. This is why we are called guarantor countries. This is the practical implementation of the provision that Syria’s future must be determined by the Syrians themselves in a political process they themselves conduct and control with international mediation. Evidence of this approach is the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, which was held in January 2018 and became the first truly inclusive intra-Syrian forum. The congress boosted a political process towards a settlement in Syria and revitalised the Geneva track and work on the Syrian Constitution. I would like to remind you that the guarantor countries of the Astana process also co-organised the Syrian National Dialogue Congress. We have recently forwarded to UN representatives a list of candidates for the Constitutional Committee, which the Syrian government and the opposition coordinated with the mediation of Russia, Turkey and Iran.

The Russian-Turkish arrangements on Idlib, which were formalised in a memorandum we signed in Sochi on September 17, became possible thanks to the previous decisions adopted in Astana to create a de-escalation zone in that part of Syria and to deploy Turkish observation posts along its internal perimeter and Russian and Iranian posts along the external perimeter. Therefore, the deployment of Turkish military units there was coordinated with the Syrian government, which welcomed the Sochi Memorandum I have mentioned here. The memorandum was also supported by Iran, the third guarantor country of the Astana format.

To the contrary, there are no legal grounds for the US military presence east of the Euphrates and in the 55-kilometre security zone around the illegal US base at al-Tanf in southern Syria. Washington’s references to Article 51 of the UN Charter, which gives the member states the right to self-defence, are absolutely untenable in terms of international law. ISIS has been defeated in Syria, yet the United States has not pulled out of the country. In fact, the United States has occupied nearly 30 percent of Syrian territory. Self-governments that reject the authority of the central government are being created there with US assistance. This is destabilising the military and political situation in the country and hindering a settlement.

The Russian Aerospace Forces have a different status. The Russian military have been deployed in Syria in full compliance with international law. By the way, three of the four de-escalation zones – in Eastern Ghouta, Homs and the South – were eliminated primarily thanks to the work of Russian negotiators directly with field commanders on the ground.

It will not be easy to settle the problem of the illegal US military presence in Syria. Washington advances ever new conditions that would infringe on the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria, although these principles have been sealed in the basic UN Security Council resolutions. We will see what President Donald Trump’s declared decision to pull out of Syria comes to.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3459466






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Foreign Minister of Pakistan Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Moscow, December 26, 2018



26 December 2018 - 12:58







Mr Minister,

Colleagues,

It is a pleasure to welcome you to Moscow. We recently met in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly and discussed the details of our bilateral relations. Today we have agreed to focus on the Afghanistan peace process, which is very relevant. Thank you for your proposal to discuss it.

We have a common interest in creating conditions for the earliest start of a political process that would be orchestrated by the Afghans themselves and take into account the interests of all neighbouring countries.

There is an abundance of various formats, as well as international intermediaries eager to help start this process. Some formats are too narrow and do not represent the entire range of interests of all the countries and Afghan parties that need to be considered at this stage; other formats are overly expanded, which makes it impossible to concentrate on the immediate task of launching the political process.







We try not to impose anything on anyone, but it seems to me that Russia, Pakistan and other participants of the Moscow format have found a very effective framework, which should be also useful for the Afghan parties.

The accession of India and Pakistan to the SCO has given a new breath to the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group. This is a very promising format. We are grateful for this opportunity to work very closely with Pakistan and other countries. We will be very interested to see today what else we can do. It is very important for us to listen to your assessment of the results of the tour to a number of countries where you discussed the Afghan issues and which ends in Moscow.

Welcome.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3465526






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Ayman Safadi, Moscow, December 28, 2018



28 December 2018 - 11:34







Mr Minister,

My dear Ayman,

I am delighted to welcome you and your colleagues to Moscow. It is our sixth meeting this year, and we had had numerous telephone conversations as well. They are evidence of our intensive interaction, the parameters and spheres of which are set out by our leaders, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Last month we held a meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation, during which we discussed our bilateral relations in detail.







Today we have agreed to focus on the situation in the Middle East, primarily the settlement in Syria and Jordan’s role in it, which we highly appreciate, as well as the Palestinian-Israeli developments. As usual, the exchange of opinions and views, in particular trust-based conversations, is extremely important for Russian-Jordanian cooperation on regional affairs.

We hope that our meeting today will become a major contribution to our interaction.

Once again, welcome to Moscow.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3467823






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's opening remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Ayman Safadi Moscow, December 28, 2018



28 December 2018 - 12:48







Ladies and gentlemen,

We have had very productive talks with my Jordanian counterpart, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ayman Safadi.

We focused on the developments in Syria and reaffirmed our commitment to that country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence.

We are unanimous about the need to fully implement the UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which requires all problems in Syria to be resolved on the basis of the consensus of the Syrian people. The implementation of this resolution also implies the complete eradication of terrorism on its territory.

We also believe that it is right to support the emerging trend of restoring Syria’s ties with other Arab countries.

We closely cooperate on Syrian topics both in the bilateral format and as part of the Astana process, in which Jordan traditionally participates as an observer.

One of the serious matters of concern to Jordan is the Syrian refugees, as 670,000 of them remain in Jordan. A particularly alarming situation is in the Rukban refugee camp on the Syrian-Jordanian border in the At-Tanf security zone unilaterally declared by the United States. Today we discussed ways to deal with this camp where the refugees do not have access to humanitarian aid even though the US provides regular supplies to its military members there, and could also take care of the refugees.

We have agreed to discuss this problem and ways to resolve it in detail in the Russian-Jordanian operational headquarters in Amman with representatives of the United States and the United Nations occasionally joining in its work. It is clear that the problem of the refugees, not only at the Rukban camp, but the problem of the refugees’ return to Syria in general, requires generous international support.

We also discussed the problem of a Middle East settlement. Both of us expressed deep concern that the generally accepted international legal framework for the Palestinian-Israeli settlement is eroding. Russia consistently supports the earliest possible resumption of direct dialogue between the leaders of Palestine and Israel, and reaffirms its proposal to provide a venue for direct dialogue without preconditions. We consider it fundamentally important to resume as soon as possible the collective work on rescuing the foundations of the Palestinian-Israeli settlement with the participation of the Quartet of international mediators and representatives of the League of Arab States.

We are very worried about the continuing split among Palestinians, primarily between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Fatah and Hamas. Russia is trying to help overcome this split, and welcomes and supports the mediation efforts of Egypt in this sphere.

In conclusion, I would like to express satisfaction with the development of our bilateral relations with Jordan, which is based on the framework agreements reached between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and King Abdullah II of Jordan.







Question (translated from Arabic):

I have a question for the Jordanian Minister: Does the Government of Jordan have a programme for repatriating Syrian refugees and for keeping them safe? What role does Russia play in maintaining the safety of returning Syrian refugees, with due consideration for the fact that, as you know, a list of people wanted by Russia has been compiled? What will be done in this area?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Ayman Safadi):

I can only confirm that we advocate the return of refugees in full compliance with the norms of international humanitarian law, including efforts to guarantee their safety, property rights and, of course, their worthy living conditions in the places, due to receive them. Russia has already helped the Syrian Government to create normal living conditions, including water and electricity supplies and medical services in communities that have already received tens of thousands of refugees, and that continue to receive them.

As I see it, the West’s current refusal to do the same and to help the people of Syria restore normal life in the country (that would allow refugees to return calmly and confidently) is counter-productive, and it runs counter to the norms of international humanitarian law as well as human rights.

During the first months of 2019, Brussels will host another conference on aiding and restoring Syria. We will see to it that Western donors completely comprehend their responsibility in this sphere and revise their negative position on efforts to help create favourable conditions for the return of refugees all over Syria.



Question:

After announcing his decision to withdraw US troops from Syria, President Donald Trump has also noted that Turkey will continue to deal with the remaining ISIS strongholds, and that Saudi Arabia is ready to finance the restoration of Syria. At the same time, President Trump said the United States will, if necessary, hit ISIS positions from Iraq. Does Moscow understand the algorithm of US actions regarding Syria? What does Moscow think about Ankara’s plans to attack Kurdish paramilitary units in Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is hard for me to assess the algorithm of current US actions regarding Syria; therefore we should wait and see when deeds will replace words. The Americans don’t always keep their promises. They promised to withdraw from At-Tanf, their unilaterally proclaimed security zone, long ago, but later they changed their mind.

I hope that they will explain their position via communications channels between Moscow and Washington. So far, we have heard that the United States is withdrawing its forces but remains part of the coalition which continues to operate, including on the ground. To the best of my knowledge and according to your question, Washington wants its coalition partners to assume responsibility. French, British and German service personnel are also illegally deployed on the ground. Of course, there are also the coalition’s air forces and, as you have said, regional allies on whom they want to shift an extra financial burden. We hope to receive specific explanations via the available channel, on the assumption that the end goal of all counter-terrorist operations in Syria (the US-led coalition’s officially declared goal) is to restore Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We perceive Ankara’s plans to conduct additional counter-terrorist operations in eastern Syria from the same standpoint of eradicating terrorism in Syria and restoring the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We and our Turkish colleagues will discuss the situation (in connection with the US decision to withdraw its armed forces from Syria) in Moscow, due to receive Turkey’s Foreign Minister and Defence Minister. We will tell you about our agenda later on.

Let me repeat: The final goal of our efforts in the Astana format, together with Turkey and Iran (we also coordinate these efforts with Jordanian colleagues), as well as our cooperation with the United States on Syria, is to expel the terrorists from Syria, to restore peaceful life and to create conditions for launching the political process. This process should help restore life back to normal in Syria where all ethnic groups and denominations, including, of course, the Kurds, would feel safe and comfortable.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3467932






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's statement for the media on the results of Russia-Turkey negotiations on Syria in the interdepartmental format, Moscow, December 29, 2018



29 December 2018 - 17:33







We held a very useful meeting of our interdepartmental team of foreign ministers, defence ministers and heads of intelligence services. Developing the agreements reached by our presidents, we reviewed further steps on implementing the tasks set forth in the Astana format, primarily in countering terrorism, resolving humanitarian issues and creating conditions for the return of refugees.

We paid special attention to the new circumstances that have emerged after the US-announced withdrawal of its military from Syria. Today, an understanding was reached on how military representatives of Russia and Turkey will continue coordinating their steps “on the ground” under new conditions with a view to the ultimate eradication of the terrorist threat in the Syrian Arab Republic. Both sides emphasised that all this work will be carried out in strict conformity with UN Security Council Resolution 2254, including unconditional respect for Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Second, the parties mapped out specific measures on invigorating our joint work aimed at creating conditions that will allow more refugees to return home.







Third, the parties discussed the political process that was launched by the guarantors of the Astana platform and that received fresh impetus after the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi last January. It was noted that, with the participation of their Iranian colleagues, Russia and Turkey did everything they committed to do as regards the formation of the Constitutional Committee that is to begin working in Geneva. This was achieved through the active mediation of our countries between the Syrian government and the opposition.

We will continue actively facilitating the start of the Committee’s work as soon as possible, now with Geir O. Pedersen, new UN Special Envoy for Syria. He will assume office in the first ten days of January. We are hoping that all parties, including our Western colleagues who so persistently urged the Astana Three to complete its work on the formation of the Constitutional Committee in the past few months, will not obstruct our further efforts.

I would like to thank my colleague and friend and all our Turkish friends once again for our joint work and particularly for the conversation that we had today and that allows us to enter the New Year with more optimism regarding the Syrian settlement.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3469256






Interview with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov for the show, Moscow. Kremlin. Putin, Moscow, December 30, 2018



30 December 2018 - 15:15







Question:

What is the main outcome of the year for you?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is difficult to highlight something specific. If we speak about foreign policy, I cannot make an evaluation myself. We have tried to do everything that is necessary in order to fulfill the instructions of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, to implement the foreign political course set by him. It is not for me to judge how successful we were. This should be left to the people to decide, of course, and to the leadership of the Russian Federation.

Probably there is no need to mention that this was a difficult year. As well as the fact that Russia is under constant pressing by those who consider it a rival for some leading position in world politics. We see an example of this in the actions of the United States. They speak openly about the need to suppress Russia and China. They do not like Iran or North Korea either.

Unfortunately, our European colleagues, whose independence we would like to see in their practical actions, are not too ready for this and follow the USA even in those cases when it contradicts their interests. Let me give an example: voting regarding the Russian resolution in support of preservation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). We heard most concerns about the United States’ decision to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty in Europe. But the entire European Union voted against our proposal, so that the INF Treaty would in fact cease to exist, and that US missiles, prohibited in accordance with the Treaty, would be deployed and this would threaten Europe once again. The next step, of course, will be counter measures by the Russian Federation. This is not our choice but they must understand in the EU capitals the threat this poses to the Europeans themselves. This is why it is impossible to explain their voting against our proposal by anything but misunderstood solidarity. This is just one of examples. It is the last of the expiring year’s events, but a very demonstrative one.



Question:

Do you believe there will be useful, full-format talks held with US President Donald Trump next year, which would lead to specific results?



Sergey Lavrov:

This question needs to be addressed to Washington. Our President and his representatives have declared many times that we are ready for such talks as soon as Washington will be ready for them, of course, on the basis of equal rights, mutual understanding and the mutual consideration of both countries’ interests.

We understand how foreign policy in relation to Russia in America has been taken hostage by their internal political struggle. It is already considered beneficial there to compete against each other as to who will lash out against Russia more in order to win additional electors’ votes. We cannot do anything about this, but as always we are ready for an equitable dialogue with any country, including the United States of America.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3469351







The following events are not displayed in the English version.


24 December 2018

Telephone conversation of S. Lavrov with the Deputy Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan R. Meredov - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3459493


27 December 2018

Sergey Lavrov's talk with the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia Z. Mnatsakanyan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3468212
__________________
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

Last edited by Alex Him; February 2nd, 2019 at 07:28 AM.
 
Old February 2nd, 2019 #553
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Most personal and non-personal events have not been translated to English.





Personal events:





Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on upcoming provocations by Kiev in southeast Ukraine



24 December 2018 - 16:33



Last week, in a Komsomolskaya Pravda radio interview, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed concern over a military build-up by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the southeast of the country, and over Kiev’s active preparations for possible military action against the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. He stated that the Ukrainian authorities are taking these steps with a view to organising armed provocations along the conflict line, and in the Russia-Ukraine border area near Crimea, in order to extend martial law, which expires on 25 December 2018. An extension would allow Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, with his low ratings, to postpone the upcoming presidential election.

On precisely the same day, 17 December, at a meeting with students from the city of Dnipro (formerly Dnepropetrovsk), Petro Poroshenko confirmed the additional deployment of several Ukrainian military units in the Donbass. Kiev is no longer hiding its aggressive intentions. Every day we see news of increased Ukrainian military activity along the entire conflict line in the Donbass, especially around Mariupol and Gorlovka. It is possible that in the coming days, the Ukrainian army will progress to full-scale hostilities.

Meanwhile, we see that Kiev is considering other options for inflaming the situation in the region and extending martial law. We are deeply concerned about claims in Ukrainian media coming from so-called “experts” about the possible use of chemical weapons by armed units of the Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republics. We recall a statement from Irina Friz, head of Ukraine’s permanent delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, on "the development by Russia of chemical and biological weapons for future use against Ukraine". This circumstance suggests that Kiev strategists have thoroughly studied and are ready to put into practice the experience of their foreign overseers, in organising provocations with the use of weapons of mass destruction.

We also note that a few days ago, Major General Volodymyr Rapko, head of the Ukrainian General Staff’s Main Directorate for Communications and Information Systems, announced the transition of cyber-security units to combat readiness. For such a high-ranking figure in the Ukrainian military to be ratcheting up this issue, suggests the possibility of cyber provocations. Representatives of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (stationed in Tallinn, Estonia) and members of the British army’s 77th Brigade, which specialises in psychological and information warfare, are likely to provide advice and practical assistance to Ukraine to accomplish such an operation. All of this is consistent with the political trajectory of Ukraine’s leadership, aimed at escalating tensions with Russia through artificial means, just as the election campaign gets going.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3462742






24 December 2018

Meeting of A. Grushko with the Ambassador of Turkey to Russia H. Driyoz - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3462499

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the Ambassador of India to Russia V. Varma - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3462728


25 December 2018

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of Japan to Russia T. Kuzuki - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3465165

Telephone conversation of I. Morgulov with the special representative of Sweden on the settlement of the situation on the Korean Peninsula K. Herstedt - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3465386


26 December 2018

Interview of the Ambassador of Russia in the Republic of Korea, A. B. Kulik, to the TASS news agency, December 24, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3467396


27 December 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of South Sudan in Moscow C. Dzhang - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3467672


28 December 2018

M. Zakharova's comment on the EU reaction to the events in the Republika Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina) - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3468385







Non-personal events:


24 December 2018

On the meeting of the Government Commission on the Affairs of Compatriots Abroad - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3464092

On the decision of the UN GA to convene a Conference on the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3464102

On the completion of a series of events dedicated to the 100th anniversary of L. I. Mendelevich - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3464472


25 December 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the terrorist attack in the Libyan MFA building - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3465424


26 December 2018

About Israeli air strikes on Syrian territory - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3465756


27 December 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with another extension of the term of arrest of K. Vyshinsky - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3467695


28 December 2018

Cooperation of the Russian Federation with the International Committee of the Red Cross - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3468164


29 December 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the terrorist act in Egypt - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3468693

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the joint statement of A. Merkel and E. Macron dated December 28, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3468917

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with a statement by the Advisor to the President of Ukraine, Yury Biryukov, about taking control of the “gray zone” in the Donbas - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3469315


30 December 2018

Answers of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia to the questions of the BBC TV and Radio Corporation - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3469325

On the return of underage Russian citizens from Iraq to their homeland - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3469378
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old February 2nd, 2019 #554
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 26, 2018



26 December 2018 - 15:25







Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ayman Safadi’s visit to the Russian Federation

On December 28, Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ayman Safadi will pay a working visit to Moscow.

The two foreign ministers will exchange views on important current issues on the international and regional agenda, with a focus on the Syrian peace process. They plan to discuss ways to address pressing humanitarian issues regarding facilitating the return of Syrian refugees to their homes. Special attention will be paid to the Palestinian-Israeli developments and current issues of bilateral cooperation.

The Russian-Jordanian political dialogue is rich and diverse. Our countries share a high degree of trust, and our approaches to many key international and regional problems are the same or similar.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's annual news conference on the results of Russia's diplomacy in 2018

By tradition, at the beginning of next year, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will sum up the results of Russia’s foreign policy over the past 12 months.

His annual news conference will be held on January 16 at the Russian Foreign Ministry Press Centre. We invite representatives of domestic and foreign media to attend.

Accreditation for the media will open immediately after the holidays.



Syria update

The situation in Syria over the reporting period has not changed significantly.

The implementation of the Russian-Turkish memorandum of September 17 on the liquidation of terrorists in the Idlib de-escalation zone is ongoing. The focus is on minimising civilian damage.

The Syrian Government is organising restoration efforts in the regions liberated from the illegal armed groups. Peace is gradually returning to these regions, without fear of surprise attacks and shelling by the militants.

Efforts are being taken to implement the Russian initiative to assist the repatriation of Syrian refugees. Since July 2018, over 70,000 people have returned to Syria from Lebanon and Jordan.

The Syrian authorities are working to create conditions for a safe, voluntary and non-discriminating return of refugees and internally displaced persons. In particular, they are implementing the November 9, 2018 Executive Order of President Bashar al-Assad on amnesty for military deserters and draft dodgers. This group also includes refugees and former members of illegal armed groups. As of December 23, over 20,000 persons have been granted amnesty.

We are closely monitoring the implementation of US President Donald Trump’s decision of December 19 to withdraw US troops from Syria. In our opinion, this decision is important in that it can promote a comprehensive settlement of the situation. We have pointed out more than once that the US occupation of a considerable part of Syrian territory is a major obstacle to such a settlement.

At the same time, the reasons for and causes of this decision remain unclear, as does a timeframe for the pull-out of US troops. So far, we are relying on media reports that suggest the US army can be pulled out of northeast Syria and the al-Tanf region in the south of the country within two or three months.

US officials have indicated that troop withdrawal from Syria does not mean the termination of the US-led international coalition’s operations against ISIS. We have not seen any clear statements by US officials regarding their strategy, apart from veiled hints. The conclusion we can make from these is that the counterterrorist operations have entered a new phase. Does this mean that the US will continue to deliver air strikes and conduct limited operations on the ground with reliance on their bases outside Syria? Surprisingly, this issue concerns a state that is prioritising respect for freedom of speech, the public and journalists. They claim to give free way to information, yet we do not see any clear position, assessment or strategy on a vital international issue such as the situation in Syria. The point at issue is not national US territory but the territory of a sovereign state. Since the declared actions will change US strategy, we would like to understand exactly what they have in mind.

The question of fundamental importance is who will assume control of the regions the Americans will vacate. It should be the Syrian government, yet we have no information about any contact on this issue between Washington and Damascus.

We believe that any positive change on the ground in Syria will produce a lasting positive effect only if it is backed by major improvements on the political track based on respect for Syria’s unity and territorial integrity and sovereignty.



Update on Syria’s Rukban IDP Camp

The situation at Syria’s Rukban internally displaced persons (IDP) camp located in the US-occupied al-Tanf area near Syria’s borders with Iraq and Jordan remains critical.

Humanitarian activists, with varying degrees of emotion, are continuing to demand that humanitarian aid be delivered there as soon as possible. At the same time, the opponents to the legitimate Syrian authorities are saying that the position of the authorities in Damascus, who have not yet agreed on the passage of a UN aid convoy, is allegedly the only obstacle to this.

However, the obvious fact that these are Americans who are to bear the brunt of responsibility for the humanitarian situation at the Rukban Camp is, for some reason, being ignored. In turn, the Americans are continuing to insist that the illegal armed groups deployed in the area should ensure safe passage for aid convoys through the al-Tanf area. This, actually, means that militants will be given an excellent opportunity to lay their hands on some of the humanitarian aid. By the way, this is precisely what they did during the passage of the first convoy to Rukban last November. At the same time, the United States delivers tonnes of goods for their military stationed at al-Tanf, without taking the trouble to coordinate these shipments with anyone.

We understand the position of the authorities in Damascus, who oppose any support that the international community represented by the UN might provide to the militants and practically legalise the US occupation of the area. Of course, it is also unacceptable that militants are supplied with food and medicine at the expense of civilians who are bleeding white. The US approach that holds people at the Rukban Camp hostage appears absolutely cynical and unprincipled.



Investigation by the OPCW Technical Secretariat into the incident in Douma, Eastern Ghouta

At the last briefing on December 19, we already expressed our concerns about the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) delaying the deployment of a special mission to investigate a chemical weapons incident in the Syrian city of Aleppo on November 24, 2018. It is gratifying that our signal was heeded, and the very next day, we received information that OPCW specialists were ready to travel to the site of the incident in early January. We will welcome concrete work in this sphere.

However, we do not see such progress on other similar cases. On the contrary, we express the deepest regret that the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW has for some reason failed yet to complete the investigation into the chemical weapons incident in the city of Douma in Eastern Ghouta, Syria, on April 7, 2018.

There was plenty of time and data to draw conclusions about this chemical incident. It is important that the experts of the OPCW special mission have visited the crime scene (for the first time during the entire period of their investigations), and were able to take samples (that is, the chain of custody principle stipulated in the CWC was observed) and also to personally talk to the witnesses.

I would also like to remind you that on April 26, Russia and Syria held a news conference at the OPCW with the participation of civilians who unwittingly became actors in the White Helmets’ production. Among them was a six-year-old boy, Hassan Diab. The victims of the provocation came to The Hague to give firsthand testimony to those who are really interested in hearing the truth about what actually happened in Douma on April 7. In the presence of dozens of delegations from the OPCW member countries, they spoke in detail about how the White Helmets filmed the video, what equipment they brought, how they were taught to fake asphyxiation, and so on. All those present in the room had no doubt that what happened in Douma was nothing more than a sloppy false flag.

It is noteworthy that the representatives of the United States, France, Great Britain, NATO and the overwhelming majority of the EU countries, as well as some of the Asian allies of the United States, failed to attend the briefing. They demonstratively boycotted this event, apparently out of shame for the Western trio that on April 14 used military force against a full member of the UN and the OPCW, in violation of international law, including humanitarian law.

It seems that Western countries are the ones dissatisfied with the progress of the investigation into the Douma provocation, because the evidence collected does not fit into their scenario. Apparently, now they are making every effort to ensure that the OPCW special mission’s report contain statements they need, not reflect the real facts.

We urge the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW to get down to its immediate work and complete the Douma incident probe as soon as possible, and do it independently, transparently, professionally and without regard for the political orders of any Western countries, even the most influential.



Update on Afghanistan

The situation in Afghanistan remains tense. The Taliban movement and other extremist organisations are stepping up their combat activities across the country, a fact that was corroborated by the high-profile terrorist attack on an administrative building in Kabul on December 24 which killed more than 40 people, mostly civilians. It remains unclear what extremist organisation is behind this barbaric attack. We are closely monitoring the developments.

Russia has repeatedly pointed out to the United States and its coalition partners in Afghanistan the mistake they are making by focusing on a military solution to the Afghanistan problem and the need to make use of political and diplomatic channels to launch an inclusive peace process in that country. Today, we see that reality has made Washington step up its efforts with an eye towards ending the armed confrontation and beginning a political dialogue between the opposing Afghani groups. I am referring to the talks recently held in Abu Dhabi with representatives from the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan and the Taliban Movement. In principle, we welcome these efforts and consider it important that they be transparent and take into account the interests of Afghanistan’s people, their neighbours and other states in the region that are directly affected by the threats coming from Afghanistan.

We also drew attention to a statement by the US on their plans to withdraw up to half of the US military contingent personnel from Afghanistan. We consider this a move in the right direction, which can bring the start of the peace process closer. It remains to see how it will be implemented in practice.



The Verkhovna Rada discusses “violations of the rights of the indigenous peoples in the Russian Federation”

Recently, a roundtable discussion was held at the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on existing, in the opinion of its deputies, “massive violations of the rights of the indigenous peoples in the Russian Federation, including freedom of speech, conscience, assembly, and education in their native language.” The Ukrainian deputies apparently have nothing better to do than discuss the situation with the indigenous peoples in Russia.

Clearly, Ukrainian lawmakers believe that the current Kiev authorities’ policy regarding ethnic minorities, which, in fact, boils down to denying them their basic rights, specifically, the right to live according to their culture, traditions and native language, can pass for a “model" of how this should be done. So, they are trying to teach other states and export their proven experience in suppressing ethnic identity. For the umpteenth time, the elected Ukrainian officials are resorting to a gross distortion of reality, incompetent evaluation and speculations under the pretext of protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.

I would like to note that historically Russia has formed and evolved over centuries as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state. The ethno-territorial autonomies in the form of the republics, granting official language status ​​in these territories to more than 30 languages, ethnic minorities' self-governing in the form of ethnocultural autonomies, the availability of several dozen languages in the education system and the special legal status of the indigenous peoples of the north, Siberia and the Russian Far East who have preserved their customary types of economic activity - is far from a complete list of legislative and administrative measures in the area of interethnic relations in Russia, which provides preservation in the Russian Federation of both ethnocultural diversity and civilisational unity.

The practice of resorting to alleged violations of the rights of ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples in order to denigrate Russia’s policy is not new. This is a common ploy used by those who, during the election campaign, are trying to gain political favour by looking for external enemies. As the saying goes, we’ve been there and know all there is to know about this. The cynicism of the Ukrainian legislators who are, basically, legitimising the assimilation policies of their country’s leadership, exceeds all conceivable limits. City leaders, government representatives and journalists cannot provide the Russian language, which is spoken by the majority of the country’s residents, with at least some status in a state whose culture was created, in part, with the use of this particular language. At the same time, they hold roundtable discussions regarding our indigenous peoples and their rights.

The Ukrainian deputies and politicians need to pay attention to their own problems and look for ways to address their complex socioeconomic issues and conflicts in their society, including those with an ethnic, linguistic and religious dimension.



New anti-Russia initiatives in Kiev

We have noted yet more anti-Russia initiatives prompted by the current Ukrainian leadership.

In addition to the recent resolution approved by the Verkhovna Rada on including Stepan Bandera’s birthday in the list of 2019 public holidays, President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko has decided to once again cater to Ukrainian nationalists. Without any doubt or twinge of conscience, he signed a bill on awarding the status of military veterans to the militants of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Now there is no room for doubt as to who supported the arrival of the incumbent authorities in their posts and what serves as the basis for their election campaign. This is an event that must be appreciated by the nationalist and fascist elements, which are the target audience of the current Kiev regime. Now Hitler’s former henchmen have equal rights and benefits as veterans of the Great Patriotic War. Red Army fighters who liberated the world from the brown plague could never imagine that many years later, the Ukrainian authorities would be glorifying the accomplices of the Nazis and praising an ideology full of xenophobia and anti-Semitism.

This is how the current Ukrainian officials, not even slightly embarrassed by their nationalist inclinations and promoting the slogans that glorify the Nazi sidekicks, are paving the way to the ‘common European house.’ It is sad to see that lately, this house has turned a blind eye to its supervisees’ rather dangerous play with the ideas of National Socialism.

With all this happening, Kiev continues to make provocative statements. Specifically, Secretary of the Ukrainian Security Council Alexander Turchinov announced for the entire world to hear that Ukraine is preparing a new provocative act in the Kerch Strait. This time, Ukraine plans to involve NATO and OSCE representatives as observers of their venturesome plans. Apparently, they did not learn their lesson from the recent incident with Ukrainian sailors who became hostages of the Maidan authorities’ aggressive politics.

We expect that Ukraine’s Western curators will not only refrain from participating in this insane initiative but will find ways to reign in the ruling regime in Kiev and make it drop any incautious steps that could lead to another escalation in the region.



Participation of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists headed by Stepan Bandera in war crimes and collaboration with the Nazis

As I have already said, just a few days ago the Verkhovna Rada included the birthday of the odious Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera (January 1) on the list of official celebrations in 2019. Earlier, the Lvov Region administration passed a resolution to declare 2019 as the “Year of Stepan Bandera” in that part of Ukraine.

Let me just take a moment to tell you whose name will be celebrated in Ukraine on January 1 so that you have a better understanding who this person was. In fact, many have no idea who this is all about.

The name of Stepan Bandera is used by the Kiev regime as a foundation for building the state ideology of today’s Ukraine by presenting him as a hero and patriot and imposing this image on Ukrainian society. At the same time, evidence of collaboration by Stepan Bandera and his acolytes with the Nazi regime and crimes against civilians are either denounced as fakes, swept under the carpet or derided. However, no matter what the Kiev regime does, the truth about Stepan Bandera and his Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists is well known. Let me remind you a few facts.

In the late 1930s, the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) maintained close cooperation with the secret services of Hitler’s Germany. In August 1939, the Abwehr (German military intelligence) created a 600-strong subversive operations unit, consisting of OUN members, code named “Bergbauernhilfe” (“peasant’s help”). It was tasked with engineering an anti-Polish insurgency in Western Ukraine and cleansing the territory of “unwanted elements,” meaning Polish and Jewish people. After the invasion of Poland, these members were assigned to police units in the eastern part of the occupied Poland. It did not take long before the OUN was granted a legal status by the Nazis, and its members were sent to guard industrial sites on the Polish territory. In the spring of 1940, the Master Plan for the OUN Insurgency Headquarters was prepared. It was aimed at staging an anti-Soviet armed insurgency in Western Ukraine, and was used as a guide to action by the so-called Krakow Krajowa Egzekutywa OUN, headed by Stepan Bandera. Guided by this document, OUN fighters operating in Western Ukraine compiled the so-called blacklists of people belonging to ethnic minorities “hostile to the insurgency” (Jews, Russians, Poles), as well as those who cooperated with the Soviet government, Red Army officers, members of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD) and those who came from eastern Ukraine. This is what lies at the core of the ideology and policy currently promoted by Kiev. No one is even trying to hide this. So Stepan Bandera is viewed as a hero. The problem is that everything that was done within this framework in the late 1930s happened under the direct supervision of the Nazis. But now everything is done to conceal these links, so that no one remembers about it.

In April 1941, the OUN broke up when its most radical leaders followed Bandera to form the OUN-B, while more moderate members supported Andriy Melnyk and came to be known as the OUN-M. In May 1941, the OUN-B developed a new insurgency plan titled The OUN Struggle and Operation During the War. It contained special provisions on “neutralising” Russians, Jews and Poles as the main supporters of “the NKVD forces and Soviet power in Ukraine.”

Marching units were formed within the OUN-B even before the hostilities broke out. Their mission was to follow Wehrmacht’s advancing forces. A special unit headed by OUN-B leader Yaroslav Stetsko was sent to Lvov. In the morning of June 30, the Nachtigall (Nightingale) Battalion of Ukrainian nationalists, formed by the German Abwehr and commanded by Roman Shukhevych, followed by Yaroslav Stetsko’s group, entered Lvov. Posters of the local OUN-B branch appeared on the walls around the city. I will not quote word for word what these posters said, but the message was to call on the people to remember that Moscow, Poland, the Magyars as well as other ethnic groups were the enemy that was subject to extermination. The posters also said that the Ukrainian nationalists from the OUN were to take control, and declared Stepan Bandera as the leader of this force. This is a historical fact that must not be forgotten. This is not a monument that can be destroyed. This is something that will always remain part of the history of the Second World War.

The roughnecks under the OUN-B banners (the so-called “militias”) started Jewish pogroms in the city. At the same time, special groups were formed within the Nachtigall Battalion tasked with eliminating people on the blacklists that I have already mentioned. Within just a few days about 4,000 Jews were killed in Lvov by Ukrainian nationalists in cooperation with members of Einsatzgruppe B. German documents show that in addition to Lvov, the Ukrainian nationalists staged anti-Jewish campaigns in a number of other major communities. For example, a campaign comparable in scale to what happened in Lvov took place on July 2 and 3 in Zolochev (Złoczów), Lvov Region, where some 3,500 civilians were killed.

In August 1941, the Abwehr decided to stop supporting the OUN-B since Hitler saw no benefit in the emergence of an independent Ukrainian state. Nevertheless, the OUN-B continued to declare its allegiance to the Nazis. For example, Yaroslav Stetsko called on Ukrainians “to help the German army defeat Moscow and Bolshevism throughout the land.” In December 1941, the OUN‑B sent a memorandum to the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories Alfred Rosenberg, offering its assistance in fighting the “covert agents” of the “Bolshevik Moscow.” They did not come up with anything new. All they could think of was to use the old models and schemes.

In the autumn of 1942, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) was formed from OUN-B’s paramilitary units. According to witness accounts, the need to fight Soviet partisans was one of the reasons that pushed the nationalists to create the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. It also declared the Polish population in the Volhynia region as its enemy. In the summer of 1943, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army carried out ethnic cleansing in the Polish communities, killing 40,000 people, according to Polish historians, in what came to be known as the “Volhynian slaughter.” Jews, Roma and Red Army soldiers who had fled from captivity and were hiding in Ukrainian villages were also targeted.

When the Eastern Front reached a turning point at the end of 1943, the Nazi command revived the idea of making use of the Ukrainian nationalists and contacted the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. When the Nazi troops were pushed out of Ukraine, the Third Reich’s secret services continued to use the Banderovites in subversion and intelligence operations behind the Red Army lines. Stepan Bandera gave his go ahead to subversion operations carried out in the Red Army’s rear. He visited Abwehr’s training schools for intelligence officers to give instructions. An officer of the German military intelligence S. Muller confirmed during interrogation that in early April 1945 Stepan Bandera, acting on the instructions of the Reich Main Security Office (Reichssicherheitshauptamt), formed Ukrainian nationalists into combat units as part of Volkssturm to defend Berlin from the Red Army offensive.

In 2007, Chairman of the Soviet Officer’s Union of Crimea Sergey Nikulin asked German Chancellor Angela Merkel to help find data on the casualties suffered by Nazi troops from the OUN-UPA (https://ria.ru/20141015/1028407140.html). This request was forwarded to a number of major German research institutions, and the answer was that they did not have any information on the losses suffered by Wehrmacht’s combat units from the OUN-UPA. This is a telling example in the context of the attempts by the Kiev authorities to portray the Banderovites as fighters against Nazi occupation.

What conclusions can be drawn from all this? First, terror campaigns carried out by Ukrainian nationalists and Banderovites against the Jewish, Polish, Russian and Ukrainian population were planned in advance rather than spontaneous. This is what many prominent historians believe. Preparations for exterminating the unwanted elements were underway even before the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War, as confirmed by the OUN’s internal documents. Stepan Bandera as the OUN’s leader was aware of and approved all the pre-war plans and instructions to liquidate the unwanted population in Western Ukraine and people on all the blacklists. For this reason, all claims that Stepan Bandera was not aware of these plans or, for example, did not sanction the massacres in Lvov and other cities in Western Ukraine in the summer of 1941, and all the crimes committed by his subordinates later during the war, are absurd. They are nothing but lies.

Second, from the very outbreak of the Second World War and until its very end in Europe Stepan Bandera and the OUN-B were obedient tools in the hand of Hitler’s forces, who used the Banderovites when they deemed fit. Even when the OUN-B was out of favour with the Germans, its leaders nevertheless continued to take their cues from Berlin and did not engage in any active combat action against the German occupants. Stepan Bandera later resumed his cooperation with the Nazis, which continued until the very last days of the Third Reich.

“The Year of Bandera” in Lvov is an insult to the beautiful city, where one of the worst pogroms in history was carried out at the orders of the leader of Ukrainian nationalists. Celebrating Stepan Bandera’s birthday is an insult to the people of Ukraine, since Banderovites killed thousands of their ancestors. All this mayhem is an insult to all those who liberated the world from the Brown Plague.



Dutch media reports on the glorification of Nazism in the Dutch army

We have taken note of the recent Dutch media reports, including by the Telegraaf newspaper, about Dutch service members expressing support for the Nazi ideology. Journalists write that Dutch military personnel exchanged extremist views via a messenger, used the swastika and other Nazi symbols in their correspondence, and expressed interest in the ideas of Hitler and his collaborators and in Nazi literature.

Any attempts to glorify Nazism, which has brought incalculable suffering and pain to the European people, including the Dutch, are unacceptable and must be universally condemned. It is especially alarming that this time the Nazism virus has likely been revealed in the Dutch armed forces. In 2016, the Dutch Ministry of Defence carried out an investigation into reported radical sentiments among the military. This time, the ministry had to launch three investigations into the unacceptable behaviour of service members who presumably made racist and unacceptable statements in relation to Nazi Germany.

The Russian Foreign Ministry wrote in its 2018 report Neo-Nazism – a Dangerous Threat to Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law that the activity of right-wing politicians in the Netherlands is creating conditions for the spread of racism and xenophobic sentiments. In light of this, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance urged the Netherlands to draft a national strategy to combat racism in all walks of life. The Netherlands failed to produce such a strategy. The local authorities see no need for such a strategy because they have a 2010 action plan against discrimination.

We hope that this condonation of the spread of far-right radicalism in the Dutch armed forces will be promptly and firmly condemned not only in the country but also by the international community, in particular, by the states of the former anti-Hitler coalition.

This is especially important now that the Kingdom is preparing to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands from Nazi occupiers.



Russia’s interference in the affairs of foreign countries

During the outgoing year, Russia has been flooded with an inexhaustible stream of accusations of notorious interference. No one even bothers with specific facts anymore. The main goal is to form a stable stereotype: whatever global misadventures might befall, be it a rise in social tensions or centrifugal trends in integration associations, or the outcome of a referendum – Russia is to blame.

The geography of our alleged interference is vast, with supposed traces of Russian influence found in Europe, Asia, North and South America, and Africa. We have allegedly interfered in the elections in South Africa and attempted to arrange a coup in Montenegro and to influence the referendum in Catalonia; we provoked the ‘yellow vests’ protests in France; supported anti-immigrant movements in Germany; in one form or another, Russia allegedly interfered in India and Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, Argentina and Peru, in the Middle East and in the post-Soviet republics.

From the most recent examples, US Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan said during his visit to Skopje on December 18 that Russia supposedly opposes Macedonia’s accession to NATO and is trying to undermine the Prespa Agreement against “the clear will of Macedonian citizens.” The cynicism of this statement, considering the circumstances – the US Ambassador’s personal presence and active involvement in the shameful voting procedure in the Macedonian parliament – does not cause anything but disgust.

Actually, unsubstantiated accusations from Washington and London of interfering in electoral processes have long since become permanent background noise, notwithstanding the absence of arguments or evidence based on established norms. The ‘highly likely’ approach is certainly a novelty in international law, at least we all are being persuaded that this is so. By the way, the story has its own logic, one way or another. Western society is being zombied with this ‘highly likely’ phrase and the endless repetition of any absurdity in combination with it.

It looks like no major event in the US can take place without our involvement. Only recently, US intelligence allegedly discovered that Russia, China and Iran had interfered in the 2018 elections. If the US Attorney General confirms this, new sanctions will be imposed. This news easily caught on: in Washington, the hype still continues around the reports submitted to the Senate by a group of independent experts on the Kremlin’s “scope of influence operations” on the US election process.

While US congresspersons, politicians, journalists and analysts animatedly relished the details of the reports and their implications, it became known that one of the authors, Jonathon Morgan from the New Knowledge research group, was caught trying to influence the outcome of US elections. According to publicly available data, he was responsible for creating fake Russian troll accounts during last year’s special elections to the Senate in the state of Alabama. The idea was to help a Democratic candidate rally votes by replicating rumours of Kremlin support for his Republican opponent. As far as the experts behind these reports are concerned, this is certainly a worthy representative. The scheme was sponsored by billionaire Reid Hoffman, a supporter of the Democratic Party, through American Engagement Technologies, a company headed by Barack Obama’s former chief technology officer Mikey Dickerson. The Republicans even demanded a criminal investigation after the Alabama scheme was exposed.

However, this information is unlikely to be widely disseminated in the US media or in other Western countries. It is equally unlikely that we will hear high-profile statements or demands for nationwide investigations. This trend is different.



Hacking of the website of the Russian Embassy in London

On December 17, the website of the Russian Embassy in London and the website of the Russian Mission to the International Maritime Organisation were subjected to a powerful hacker attack that completely destroyed their database. Access to the websites was blocked for almost a day.

We would like to draw the British authorities’ attention to this incident and note that I receive reports on efforts to hack the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website every month. By the end of the year, we will definitely compile a comprehensive report for you to understand from which countries the hackers actually operate.

We would like to recommend the British officials to stop spreading rumours about mythical Russian hackers and start paying close attention to what is going on in their segment of the internet, and also not to forget about the benefit and importance of cybersecurity cooperation.



Tsunami in the Sunda Strait, Indonesia

On December 22, at about 9.30 pm local time, a devastating tsunami hit the islands of Java and Sumatra in the Sunda Strait with waves up to 20 metres high. According to the latest data, a total of 429 were killed, 1,485 were injured and 154 more have gone missing. The tsunami destroyed some 1,000 homes and businesses.

There is no available information on Russian citizens in the disaster zone, and Russians have not sent any requests in connection with the tsunami to the diplomatic mission, the Russian Embassy in Indonesia reports. Relevant warnings and recommendations for our compatriots were posted on the embassy’s website.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev sent condolences to Indonesian President Joko Widodo.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

At the end of the outgoing year diplomatic activity on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue has gained momentum. In recent days Azerbaijan has been positive in its statements on the prospects of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement in 2019. Armenia on the whole also assesses the developments positively. Azerbaijan continues putting forward initiatives: the Azerbaijani community in Nagorno-Karabakh suggested renewing contacts with the Armenian community and the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry pointed out that Azerbaijan is ready to guarantee security for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh during the settlement of the conflict and grant them the right of autonomy at a high level within internationally recognised borders. How can Russia as a co-chair of the Minsk Group evaluate the trends and the likelihood of a settlement in 2019?



Maria Zakharova:

We do not set any time frames. Still, if we talk about time we are certainly always in favour of an early settlement and measures aimed at achieving it. Unfortunately, this is a protracted conflict. Russia will do everything on its part as a co-chair of the Minsk Group and as a country that shares a common past and a common history with Azerbaijan and Armenia.



Question:

You have been talking for a long time about a new provocation on Kiev’s part which would be an excuse for extending martial law in Ukraine. Today, incidentally, the current martial law expires. When will this provocation take place and will Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko extend the martial law?



Maria Zakharova:

If you deal with political analysis you should be aware of the reasons for such declarations. They are made to take every possible effort to prevent acts of provocation. When we make public the information about the pending plans that we have at our disposal, in plain terms, attracting the attention of the Ukrainian regime’s sponsors, who are concerned, as we understand it, about the situation in the region, we do not engage in aggressive rhetoric but take practical steps to prevent provocations. Specifically, all these actions were aimed at thwarting this provocation.

To answer your question when to expect provocations, we hope very much that we will not have to go through one again. Russia’s unprecedented tolerance and a very friendly attitude towards Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are not without limits. We spent many hours minimising the aftermath of that provocation. It was a very serious issue. Many people were involved in preventing the situation from becoming catastrophic.

As for martial law, it is a question for Kiev. It is like in a well-known film: they do the breaking and they do the mending.



Question:

Information is emerging in the media about the arrival of a great number of military instructors from Great Britain, as well as other Western countries, to Ukraine. Some believe this is a way of secretly increasing NATO presence in the country. How does Russia view this threat?



Maria Zakharova:

As for specific details concerning what these people are and what structures they represent, I think you’d better address our military experts.

The political assessment remains unchanged: we see this as actions aimed at escalating the intra-Ukrainian conflict, not at settling it, sadly. The current authorities set a goal to ensure peace; it is perplexing what military advisors and deliveries of various armaments have to do with that. For some reason, the West does not send advisors for human rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, humanitarian issues, restoring economic ties, setting up bank payment systems, or any other issue. No one is rushing to help solve the main task that the authorities face, which is restoring peace.



Question:

Yesterday, for the first time since the beginning of the war, people were celebrating Christmas on the main streets and squares in Syria. Let me show you photos of these celebrations. This was possible thanks to the Syrian army and the Russian Armed Forces that provide assistance to the Syrian people.



Maria Zakharova:

Thank you for these photos. I saw news videos, including on the RT accounts, and interviews by people who were saying that at long last Christmas celebrations returned to their lives and pushed away the war and terror. Just watching this brought me to tears. The joy of these seemingly ordinary things is like a miracle for people, many of whom never thought that something like this could ever be possible.



Question:

What is Russia’s position on the withdrawal of US forces from Syria and US President Donald Trump’s decision to shift the responsibility for fighting ISIS to Turkey? Are any contacts in the Astana format planned for the immediate future?



Maria Zakharova:

I have spoken in detail on one of your questions, about these plans. We have seen statements regarding this, and we would like to see Washington’s official reaction regarding its strategy and plans. Regrettably, there is none. As I have already said, we believe that if the US troops pull out of Syria after all, this will promote positive and constructive developments. We would be glad if this did happen. I have provided our arguments regarding this today.

We said more than once that US military personnel, as well as the military of some other countries, have been deployed in Syria without any legal grounds. These countries’ repeated declarations on respect for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Syria as a UN member state sound unconvincing. People see something different. They see that occupation forces have been deployed and are acting correspondingly in Syria without any legal grounds.

We believe that the Syrian government is equipped to maintain stability through dialogue and interaction with all the national patriotic forces. This dialogue in the interests of all Syrians can help complete the routing of the terrorists and preclude their reappearance in Syria. It is important not to interfere with the Syrian society’s efforts on the political track.

As for fighting ISIS, it is the responsibility of all members of the international community to fight Jabhat al-Nusra and all the other groups associated with al-Qaeda and ISIS, which the UN Security Council has declared to be terrorist groups. Russia has long been urging the creation of a united international anti-terrorism front. You probably remember the statement and the relevant proposals the President of Russia put forth several years ago. This initiative remains topical, and its implementation rather than the shifting of responsibility to individual countries would create conditions for delivering a really comprehensive and effective blow at the terrorists not only in Syria but in all other trouble spots around the world as well. The international community has the necessary international mechanisms at its disposal to legalise such action or interaction. What all of us need is the political will to do this.

As for the Astana format, we have stated repeatedly that the three guarantor countries – Russia, Iran and Turkey – maintain very close ties on Syria. A recent meeting has proved this once again. I am referring to the ministerial meeting in Geneva. The main thing is that our joint efforts have produced practical results. The efforts of the three Astana countries have made it possible to maintain the cessation of hostilities, which has helped end the violence and has started to improve the humanitarian situation in Syria. It was thanks to the Astana format that the composition of the Constitutional Committee has been coordinated in the form that is acceptable to all Syrian parties, both the government and the opposition. The coordination of the list of Syrian constitutional committee members with the UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura in Geneva on December 18 has shown that the launch of the Constitutional Committee early next year is a landmark achievement on the path towards a political settlement in Syria.

I would like to remind everyone that the three guarantor countries of the Astana format maintain intensive contacts via different channels. Of special importance in this respect are the meetings of the heads of state, as well as foreign and defence ministers. The parties maintain cooperation at both the bilateral and trilateral levels. I can tell you that new meetings are planned for the near future, including in Moscow. As soon as we know the details, we will share them with you.



Question:

Recent reports suggest that another meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is to take place. Does Moscow plan to organise this meeting?



Maria Zakharova:

I have no information on Moscow’s involvement as an organiser [of this meeting]. These meetings have generally been held under the agreements reached by the two countries. I can clarify the format of a meeting but, of course, if there is a meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers, you should ask them.



Question:

2018 is a special year for the Caspian countries. After 20 years of talks, the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea was signed. How has Russia’s foreign policy on the Caspian changed? What is the outlook for closer integration in this region?



Maria Zakharova:

The signing of the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea at the Fifth Caspian Summit in Aktau is expected to enhance the stability in relations between the five Caspian countries and make them more predictable, as well as create conditions conducive to expanding mutually beneficial cooperation and generally help shape a clear legal framework in the region.

The five countries’ exclusive rights and responsibilities for the future of this unique water body are built into the convention. The convention regulates navigation issues and specifies a procedure for the collective use of the Caspian Sea; it lays down the principles of the non-presence in the region of the armed forces of countries other than the Caspian states and the use of the water area only for peaceful purposes; it regulates the establishment of the borders of the territorial waters and fishing zones; delimits the bottom of the Caspian Sea and its mineral resources for the purpose of managing mineral resources; as well as other matters that are of vital importance for the littoral states.

We believe this document will promote economic cooperation and increase the appeal to investors and the competitiveness of the five Caspian countries, as well as facilitate the implementation of joint projects to accelerate the development of the most advanced national industries and fully tap their potential. Everyone will benefit if one of the most important regions in Eurasia is more stable and less exposed to risk of various kinds.

The work on the convention that yielded the agreement is an example of how the countries that were involved in the process can find solutions to very complicated issues. This is a theoretical assumption that became a reality. These were protracted negotiations and they went differently at various stages. It is quite normal and natural that each country had its own national interests. But this is a great example of how, through diplomacy and negotiations, they managed to reach a decision that suits everyone and will be beneficial for each country.



Question:

Could you provide an update on our colleagues in Ukraine, in particular Kirill Vyshinsky.

How do you explain the EU authorities’ tolerance and indifference to the reemergence of a kind of Nazism, to the fact that Nazism is welcomed, as you have just described. In particular, I would like to mention that the same thing is happening in Washington, where the Jewish lobby is quite strong in matters of politics, in Ukraine, in Poland, where the Warsaw government is waging war against the Soviet soldiers who died in that country.



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot agree with your statement that Nazism is welcomed in a number of European capitals. This is not so, either in form or in content. We have never heard any European or world capital make statements praising or promoting neo-Nazi ideology.

In official papers, international documents, official statements and plans for domestic and foreign policy, everyone seems unanimous that the tragedy of the 20th century should not be repeated, and everyone should be committed to the conclusions and lessons learned by the world community from the outcome of World War II. There is a different problem through – neo-Nazi manifestations are not condemned at the appropriate level, and sometimes not condemned at all.

Yet another concern, there is no proper reaction (and sometimes none at all) to certain obvious attempts at rewriting history. Again, I cannot say it is being done for the sake of glorifying neo-Nazism or fascism, or for the reincarnation of Nazism in the form of neo-Nazism – no, but they are changing the nuances. This is what is really typical of Europe (Western Europe and, unfortunately, Eastern too), and our transatlantic partners. We regularly see these trends.

To give specific examples, we have seen the demolition of Red Army memorials and the alteration of plaques at memorials that cannot be demolished because they are protected as historical landmarks, either by international law or simply by the residents of a particular town; we have seen changes in the perception of history. There are piles of false materials, not exactly fakes, but classical misinformation that changes the essence of the Red Army’s role in World War II. And we have regularly pointed out the total indifference of some countries to those nationalist, neo-nationalist, neo-Nazi, and fascist tendencies in Ukraine.

Your question was why, under the current regime, Ukraine is building such an agenda. We have answered it today. I can discuss it briefly, although much has been written about this. It happens because it is always very difficult to unite a nation, difficult to build a new state. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine began emerging as a new, young state. It is difficult to do this while relying on a constructive agenda – implementing economic reforms, sometimes unpopular, but necessary, developing a unification agenda, smoothing controversy between people of different income groups, from different strata of society and different political views. Another point is that building a state based on its people’s historical experience is much more difficult than rewriting history. It is very difficult. It is much easier (almost as simple as ABC) to take a nationalist idea built on the simplest explanation of all life phenomena, such as, you lack something because it is taken by someone else who has a different nationality, religion, hair or skin colour, ear or nose shape. This is the most banal, simple and inherently the most easily accessible explanation of all human problems. This model, unfortunately, has been exploited by many in Ukraine over the past decades. And the current Kiev regime has made it official policy. It is very difficult (really daunting) to rally the various regions of Ukraine, which have a different historical past, different cultural priorities, even, perhaps, a different vision of the future. That would have taken effort. It would have required the work of historians, scientists, cultural experts, futurologists, and philosophers. That would have been a consolidation of society involving dialogue and work to minimise these disagreements. Once again I say, that takes work, and it is difficult.

Ukraine has chosen a different and much simpler way. We can see where this has led them. We can see it because the borders of Ukraine have changed so much as a result of its exit, actually because Crimea just fled, realising what would happen. The situation has changed within society in Ukraine, which used to be peaceful and focused on peaceful development. That kind of society, that version of Ukraine seceded from the Soviet Union or emerged after its collapse. The most interesting thing is that after the Soviet Union collapsed, few post-Soviet republics emerged with little or no major problems. Each dealt with controversy – territorial and ethnic issues, internal agendas, bloodshed that could not be stopped for many years, or conflicts moving into a more calm, yet unresolved phase. We often talk about this at briefings.

Ukraine was one of the most prosperous states, which seemed to have an absolutely cloudless future. It is a beautiful land, with amazing people, access to the sea, a neighbour that offered different development vectors and potential for their harmonisation. But politicians did what they did with that bright future. Today, a country with a complex history, but without any conflicts in active phase has become a country with internal confrontation. Try talking to political analysts living in Ukraine now – few will give you any guarantees of how the situation will develop further. That's all.

I highly recommend watching an old film today, which I think sheds light on very many aspects of nationalism, on the Nazism you asked about – Triumph Over Violence. I think it should be watched and revisited as often as possible. And many things will become clear. This film has been around for decades, it has been made on the basis of facts and is more relevant than ever before.



Question:

Several days ago US President Donald Trump made a decision to reduce the strength of US troops in Afghanistan. How will this affect the political situation there?



Maria Zakharova:

I just commented on this. In addition I’d like to emphasise once again that the words of US presidents on US troop withdrawals from Afghanistan very often diverge from concrete actions. Let’s at least try to understand what is meant this time. Once we understand what the Americans plan to do in Afghanistan at least in the near future, we will be able to reach certain conclusions. Over the last two and a half years we have repeatedly seen radical changes in US strategy as regards Afghanistan. We’d like to understand what is being implied this time. Let’s wait for some official explanation.



Question:

The Moscow Government presented a New Year’s Tree to Sofia with the support of the Russian Embassy in Bulgaria. Our readers are very grateful for this and consider this an expression of traditionally friendly relations. I have no question.



Maria Zakharova:

I thought you’d ask me about the pipeline.



Question:

Everything is okay with it. Many Russians traditionally visit Bulgaria’s alpine resorts and summer spas. About 300,000 Russians have property in Bulgaria. Maybe you’d like to convey New Year’s wishes to them?



Maria Zakharova:

I’ll deal with it after answering your questions.



Question:

I’d like to wish you and all employees of your department a happy New Year and a merry Christmas. Now I will continue talking about Syria. Reports are coming in to the effect that a delegation from Syrian Kurdistan visited Moscow and held meetings on talks with Damascus. At the same time, another delegation went to Khmeimim and met with the Russian military command. Do you confirm that such talks are being continued and that Moscow is playing the role of mediator in them? Please comment on the statement by Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on the intention of the Turkish authorities co conduct a military operation to the east of the Euphrates River as soon as possible?



Maria Zakharova:

As regards your first question, I’ll clarify this and present specific information to you soon.

As for your second question we are closely coordinating our specific line on the Syrian track with our Turkish colleagues both as regards foreign policy and military counterterrorist operations on the ground. Please contact our colleagues from the Russian Defence Ministry for specific details. Our military experts comment on everything that is taking place on the ground in this respect.



Question:

Recently, I read Minister Lavrov’s interview with RIA Novosti. The interview mentioned a very interesting fact: observers from Russia and Iran will be posted at the external border of the de-escalation zone in Idlib while observers from Turkey will be posted at the internal border. Could you please clarify how this will work? Can you comment on the presence of Iranian military advisers in Syria?



Maria Zakharova:

As concerns the first question, I can confirm the information that was published in the interview on the Foreign Ministry’s official website. I will find out the details and answer your question.

As concerns the presence of military advisers, be it Iran or any other country, it is a matter that the respective states must discuss with Damascus. Syria is a sovereign state and has every right to accept or reject military advisers on its territory. Therefore, it is an issue that Damascus must negotiate and, perhaps, is negotiating with Tehran directly.



Question:

At the end of the year, I do not want to ask any negative questions. It would be nice to hear some positive news.



Maria Zakharova:

In the middle of the year as well.



Question:

Please tell us about the good deeds you and your colleagues from the department carried out. Perhaps not everybody saw your post on Facebook but many watch and listen to your briefings.



Maria Zakharova:

We have quite a few interesting news and good deeds to report. We go on air on a regular basis, publish reports and organise various media events. From the professional point of view, all this is good deeds.

You are right, the department indeed has a tradition. During the holiday season we sometimes get involved in small-scale targeted aid programmes for those who need it.

We have received a great number of requests. Of course, we cannot fulfil all of them but we do resolve some of the problems. In particular, our department raised funds to provide financial assistance.

Actually, it is a tradition of the Foreign Ministry. It has long been established that our team is always ready to help. When something happens to our colleagues, their family members, to our fellow nationals who live in the countries where our diplomatic services operate, etc., then, in addition to our direct duties, we also organise charity campaigns.

Our work is with the media. Quality performance of our professional responsibilities constitutes our assistance to you. But sometimes we receive letters that we respond to.

This time, we helped a disabled person. We also received a request from Donetsk regarding a shelter for stray and injured animals. During the military conflict in the DPR, many pets were left without supervision, many were injured. We were asked for help and we provided it. These are not large campaigns but just small acts of kindness.



Question:

The British newspaper The Daily Mail called the calendar published by the Russian Defence Ministry “a chilling Christmas greeting to the West from Vladimir Putin.” The newspaper’s journalists described the calendar as an outright and deliberately timed mockery of Western countries. Do you think London should be afraid of Moscow?



Maria Zakharova:

I won’t mention the paranoia that has recently become the most widespread disease in certain countries, at the prompting of their politicians.

Every day in this country, our officials make hundreds of statements and a vast number of events and undertakings take place, ranging from many hours of news conferences by President of Russia Vladimir Putin to the opening of exhibitions, the staging of joint military exercises and the launch of educational projects. Schools are being opened, roads are being built, and there are the premieres of theatre plays, charitable acts, anniversaries, historical events and seminars. Everyone is free to select a personal message from all of this. If the British journalists considered this particular message interesting and described it in this way, the problem is no longer in the Russian Defence Ministry’s calendar.

Why are we always faced with an absence of positive and interesting news from Russia, in particular, in the British press? This is segregation of news, a selection of information that will create an image of this country as a potential aggressor. Naturally, this is part of the general picture and the anti-Russian information campaign.

It would be great if our British colleagues from the media would also pay attention to different news, for instance, if they focused on reports about cultural life in Moscow. If they did so, they would learn many new things about Russia.



Question:

Journalists pay attention to details. Today we see you with a brooch for the first time. Stateswomen often use jewellery as symbols. What does your brooch depict? Is it a symbol of something?



Maria Zakharova:

I have avoided these particular pieces of jewellery because I realised they would give rise to numerous questions and attempts to see some kind of symbol in them. This is why I have always tried to be very minimalistic. Today, I’ve made an exception.

Moscow hosts the Ladya fair several times per year. The Foreign Ministry, in particular, supports the event. Crafts masters from all parts of this country participate in the show. They are involved in folk crafts and different types of applied and decorative arts. At such fairs, visitors can see a range of ceramic and china pieces, shawls and knitwear, woodwork, jewellery, furs and even food products (for instance, Crimean teas and herbs).

These fairs are held on two storeys of the Expocentre. I visited one of them this year and this brooch is one of the results of my visit. I think it’s beautiful.

I’d like to say goodbye to you for this year. By tradition, I’d like to wish you, your families and friends as well as the vast audience of our mass media peace, happiness and health.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3465746
__________________
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

Last edited by Alex Him; February 2nd, 2019 at 09:28 AM.
 
Old February 3rd, 2019 #555
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

In the week lasting from December 31, 2018 until January 6, 2019, only two comments were made on the Russian MFA website. Both were not translated into English.


5 January 2019

On the attempt to seize the container ship "Mandi" - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3469459

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the arrest of a Russian citizen in the USA - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3469425







That week (7-13) did not translate anything except the briefing of Maria Zakharova.


9 January 2019

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry on the results of the presidential elections in the Republic of Madagascar - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3469759

On events in New Delhi with the participation of S. Ryabkov - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3469769

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Palestine in Moscow A.Nofal - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470037

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of Japan to Russia T. Kuzuki - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470081

Telephone conversation of M. Bogdanov with a member of the political bureau of the Palestinian movement Hamas M. Abu-Marzuk - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470091


10 January 2019

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of China to Russia, Li Huei - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470188

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Egypt in Moscow I. Nasr - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470267

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the Presidential Election in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470277

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the situation in Afghanistan and around it - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470353

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Senior Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran on Special Political Issues H. Jaberi-Ansari - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470420

Russian-Iranian consultations in Moscow - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470498


11 January 2019

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the assumption of the post of the President of Venezuela - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470516

Speech by A. Lukashevich at a special meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council in response to the presentation of the Slovak Minister of Foreign Affairs M. Lajcak of the priorities of the Slovakian OSCE chairmanship, Vienna, January 10, 2019 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470791

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of the State of Kuwait in Moscow A. Al-Advani - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470825

Telephone conversation of S. Lavrov with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, B. Atamkulov - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470835

Telephone conversation of G. Karasin with First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus A. Evdochenko - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470871

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the statements of NATO Secretary General J. Stoltenberg - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3471072

Meeting of S. Lavrov with ambassadors of the CIS member states - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3471082

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Morocco in Moscow A. Lesheheb - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3471107

Meeting of S. Vershinin with UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Yemen M. Griffiths - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3471206








Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, January 11, 2019



11 January 2019 - 14:32







Talks between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono

According to the agreements reached by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe in Singapore last November and in Buenos Aires last December, the first round of Russia-Japan talks on the peace treaty between the two countries will take place on January 14 in Moscow. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Foreign Minister Taro Kono will head the parties’ delegations.

The ministers will also discuss practical aspects of developing bilateral ties as well as a number of topical issues on the global and regional agendas.



Update on Maria Butina

We are closely following the situation around Russian national Maria Butina who was arrested in the United States on fabricated charges six months ago.

Recently, diplomats of the Russian Embassy in Washington paid another consular visit to Maria Butina. The Russian national is holding up well, spending a lot of time reading and exercising.

She was finally transferred into the prison’s general population. Previously, as is known, she was held in a section for dangerous offenders where she was allowed to leave her cell only for two hours per day and only at night.

On our part, we will continue to provide support to Maria Butina and will make further efforts to secure her speedy return home.



Dmitry Makarenko detained in the United States

We are closely following the situation with Russian national Dmitry Makarenko who was detained by the FBI on December 29 on the Northern Mariana Islands which are subject to US jurisdiction.

We would like to stress once again that the Russian Embassy in Washington did not hear about the incident from American law enforcement but heard about it from Mr Makarenko’s family. In violation of the bilateral Consular Convention, US officials did not notify us of his detention within the prescribed three days. The subsequent attempts to justify it by stating that the notice was sent to our Consulate General in Seattle – which Americans themselves shut down last March – do not hold up.

On January 9, our diplomats finally managed to get in contact with the Russian national. He is about to be transferred to Florida but at that time had been taken only as far as Honolulu, Hawaii. He is being held in a local prison. He said that he feels well and did not voice any complaints.

Naturally, we will be closely monitoring developments in Dmitry Makarenko’s case. We insist that his rights be fully respected by US officials.

At the same time, we would like to remind Russian citizens that they should thoroughly consider all risks when planning travel abroad, especially if there is reason to believe they may be subject to action by American law enforcement. This mainly concerns travel to the United States and the countries bound by extradition agreements with Washington. The list of these countries can be found on the US Department of State website (www.state.gov).



US charges against Natalya Veselnitskaya

We took note of the latest twist of the anti-Russian campaign in the United States. This time, US law enforcement agencies made a number of statements shot through with traditional Russophobic sentiment in connection with our compatriot Natalya Veselnitskaya, a practicing lawyer. She is accused of obstructing an investigation into alleged money laundering by Prevezon in New York.

Opening criminal cases with unclear accusations against Russian citizens has become a habit with the United States. We provide regular comments on this. We are not going to put up with this, so we expect Washington to provide clear and intelligible clarifications regarding the accusations against Ms Veselnitskaya. All the more so as court proceedings involving the aforementioned company have long since ended. The US authorities tried to build a case against this company based on the notorious Magnitsky Act and tie it to his tragic death in a Moscow detention centre in 2009, but their case fell apart.

It all looks as if US prosecutors are simply striking back at private lawyer Ms Veselnitskaya who used to represent Prevezon’s interests. In particular, she exposed the false assertions made by the notorious financial scam artist, William Browder, which were used by Washington politicians as the basis for the anti-Russian Magnitsky Act.

It is becoming plain for all to see that the US law enforcement system is being used to settle personal scores, including on clearly political orders.



US violations of international law

Let’s take a brief historical detour. What we keep hearing from Washington politicians at various levels, including those holding official executive positions, are never-ending accusations that our country allegedly has violated and disrespected international law.

The start of the year is a good time to jog memory and think back to all the instances in history where the United States – without a doubt the most “peace-loving” nation in the world – committed acts of intervention and military aggression around the world throughout its recent history, grossly violating international law, but every time finding excuses, including legal, for its actions.

True, at first, the US politicians did not bother with the now routine juggling of phrases and concepts, and made no bones about calling things for what they were. In particular, following his inauguration in March 1913, President Wilson unashamedly talked about how he was going to “teach the South American republics to elect good men.”

Over time, the professional lexicon evolved, apparently in the wake of human rights activism, and in 1922 US Secretary of State Robert Lansing, justifying the military occupation of Haiti, said it was necessary to “protect American and foreign lives and property.” Soon, this particular thesis becomes a favourite phrase intended for “wide use.” In the same vein, in his state of the union address in August 1945, President Truman claimed the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified by military necessity. Historians do not agree on the military expediency of these terrible actions. However, the fact is indisputable that this is the only case in the history of humankind when atomic bombs were dropped on populated urban areas.

During the Cold War again, without the least embarrassment, the Americans began to justify their military aggression in the international arena by pointing to various factors that are incompatible with the norms of international law, and mostly come from the realm of ideology. For example, commenting on the upcoming operation to overthrow the Castro government in Cuba, President Eisenhower in March 1960 openly stated that Washington would not allow the creation of a regime in the Western hemisphere which would be dominated by “international communism.” The US leaders used similar motives to cover up their actions in 1961, as they were gearing up for a bloody military intervention in Vietnam. This is reflected, for example, in the Memorandum of November 8, 1961. Later, though, in the so-called the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of August 7, 1964, the Americans rather “elegantly” justified the use of military force with the objective of “promoting international peace and security in Southeast Asia.” The United States also used ideological slogans that do not rely on any norms of international law for overthrowing the leftist government of Francisco Caamano in the Dominican Republic in April-May 1965.

It should be noted that the UN General Assembly has repeatedly condemned such actions by the United States as illegal. For example, in its Resolution 38/7 of November 2, 1983, the Washington military operation in Grenada in October 1983 was unequivocally qualified as “gross violation of international law,” although President Reagan, for example, in his televised address to the nation, justified the aggression by the need to help small peaceful nations and protect American citizens. Similarly, the UNGA in its Resolution 41/38 of November 20, 1986 condemned the US military attack on Libya in April 1986, qualifying it as a “violation of the UN Charter and international law,” although US politicians tried to explain their actions by their “right to self-defence.” The invasion of Panama by US troops, too, allegedly in self-defence, as indicated in the letter by the US Permanent Representative to the President of the UN Security Council on December 20, 1989, in accordance with UNGA Resolution 44/240 of December 29, 1989, was qualified as flagrant violation of international law.

Once the 1980s were over and the Cold War was history, Western countries led by the United States achieved excellence in casuistry, justifying their actions in violation of international law by citing international law itself. One can make entire dictionaries with the terms they invented and which they used to cover and justify violations of international law. In particular, explaining the bloody and destructive operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999, US President Clinton spoke of the need to restore peace, degrade military capabilities, etc. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President George W. Bush used the mythical “threat” that Saddam Hussein allegedly represented to the world as cover. Already at this stage, in April 2017, under the far-fetched pretext of defence against proliferation and the use of deadly chemical weapons, an order was issued to deliver illegal strikes on Syria.

The unlawful seizure of Russian diplomatic property and the expulsion of diplomatic representatives also qualify as a violation of international law, which US politicians justify with arguments rooted in international law. It would be naive to believe that this sentiment in the American political establishment may change in the foreseeable future. As the recent events show, unfortunately, Washington is increasingly trying to replace the concept of international law with the so-called rule-based order. The White House may have different administrations that can change the strategy regarding migration policy, healthcare or taxation, but they remain constant in their deep conviction of the “exceptionalism” of their own nation. This exceptionalism has for more than one century granted them “license” to violate the rules underlying the international order.

I cite these historical parallels not so much because we love history, which we do, but because lately we’ve been hearing numerous accusations that our country is engaged in the very actions committed by those who are accusing us.



Progress of Andrei Karlov murder trial

On January 8-10, a preliminary court hearing on the murder of Russian Ambassador to Turkey Andrei Karlov was held in Ankara. The case is against 28 defendants; ten of them are on the international wanted list.

As is known, the indictment prepared by Turkish law enforcement agencies was submitted to court in November 2018 following an investigation. At the same time, the materials received from Turkish officials are being studied by Russian investigators as part of their own investigation in Russia.

We continue to monitor the progress of the trial. We presume that, as a result, all those involved in this atrocity will be identified and duly prosecuted under the law.



Syria update

The situation in Syria has been changing rapidly.

As a result of successful actions by Syrian government forces, with a decisive role by the Russian military, terrorists from Jabhat al-Nusra and other radical groups have been confined to Idlib and some areas east of the Euphrates River.

We reaffirm our commitment to the implementation of the Russian-Turkish Memorandum of Understanding on Stabilisation of the Situation in Idlib's De-escalation Zone of September 17, 2018. At the same time, an increase in the number of ceasefire violations is of major concern – there have been more than 1,000 such cases since September 2018. The ceasefire must not be disrupted and all radical groups and heavy weapons must be fully withdrawn from the demilitarised zone. At the same time, this should not serve as a pretext for the Idlib de-escalation zone becoming a refuge for thousands of Nusra terrorists. We presume that the establishment of the demilitarised zone, as well as the de-escalation zone itself, is temporary.

As you know, at the end of December 2018, US President Donald Trump announced the US forces’ pullout from Syria. We believe that the fulfillment of the plans announced by Washington would be a step in the right direction. We proceed under the premise that the US and other foreign military units now deployed illegally in Syria must eventually leave the country. We believe it important that the territories vacated by the Americans should come under the control of the Government of Syria. In this regard, the establishment of a dialogue between the Kurds and Damascus is of particular importance. The Kurds are an integral part of Syrian society. The return of official authorities’ control over the territories populated by the Kurds should also neutralise the security risks for Syria’s neighbours.

Also as part of a political settlement, we continue working to launch the Constitutional Committee in Geneva based on the progress made by the Astana format guarantors. The efforts of Russia, Iran and Turkey to set up this committee will help launch a sustainable and long-term political process. The Syrian parties – both the Government and the opposition – have approved the membership of the committee, thereby confirming their intention to participate in this work. Any other enforced decisions could lead to a breakdown of the negotiations. In this regard, we reaffirm our focus on constructive work with the new special envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Syria, Geir Pedersen.

Providing humanitarian assistance to all those in need and creating conditions for the refugees and IDPs’ voluntary and safe return home are equally important issues on the Syrian agenda. In the context of efforts to rectify the humanitarian situation in Syria, we are providing the appropriate assistance to the country's civilian population directly, as well as through various international mechanisms, including the UN system. Since September 2015, the Russian military has implemented over 2,000 humanitarian projects (delivering a total of more than 3000 tonnes of products).

With regard to the Syrian refugees’ problems, we are making efforts to facilitate the process of Syrians returning to their homes. We are carrying out consistent work to provide them with the necessary assistance in coordination with the Government of Syria, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other interested parties. Thanks to the measures taken, the repatriation of the Syrians is gaining momentum. Since September 30, 2015, more than 320,000 refugees (over 90,000 of them after mid-July 2018) and about 1.3 million IDPs have returned to their homes from abroad. We believe that this process should not be complicated by any artificial conditions or politicised. Russia's principled position is that all refugees have the right to return to their homeland. This is the fundamental right of the citizens of Syria.



Investigation into the chemical incident in Aleppo

It is with satisfaction that we can state, following repeated requests by the Syrian and Russian sides to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), that experts of the Fact-Finding Mission to establish facts regarding chemical weapons use, finally arrived in Syria on January 6 to investigate the incident with the use of chlorine, which took place in Aleppo in November 2018.

The OPCW specialists are reportedly planning to visit the hospitals and medical centres where the injured were given aid and to question witnesses and eye-witnesses of that chemical attack. We hope that the OPCW experts will also visit the scene of the incident in the very near future.

Aware of how much time has passed since that chemical incident, we urge the OPCW Technical Secretariat to speed up the investigation and submit a corresponding report to the organisation’s Executive Council.



The White Helmets pseudo-humanitarian organisation

According to our information, a group of so-called activists of the White Helmets pseudo-humanitarian organisation are still located in Jordan. The White Helmets are actively involved in provocative actions on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR) and in collaboration with terrorists.

In the middle of the summer of 2018, the While Helmets, through the active support of their Western masters, hastily fled the areas that were being liberated by the Syrian Government in the south of the country. It is well known that the patrons of those pseudo-humanitarian workers promised to provide them with shelter in European countries within a short time. You saw reports how, for example in the European Union, the possibility of granting them asylum, temporary residence, citizenship, protection and infrastructure was discussed. But months later, the matter still remains unsolved.

Evidently, the West is reluctant to accept those who were involved in the most serious crimes or, at a minimum, closely cooperated with the most notorious terrorists. The promises given to the Jordanians are simply not being fulfilled. It is one thing to patronise the provocateurs in another country, using geopolitical motivation, and quite another thing to host them in one’s own country, creating threats to one’s own citizens by giving all those people all the rights as guests or in some cases, probably, as citizens of those countries. Besides, it is quite likely that some White Helmets, once they find themselves outside the Middle East, might, for various reasons, be ready to talk about what they were really up to in Syria. Of course, their sponsors are not interested in that.



The Somalia’s government decision to declare UN Special Envoy Nicholas Haysom persona non grata

On January 3, the Federal Government of Somalia declared Nicholas Haysom, appointed Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on August 17, 2018, persona non grata.

We confirm our support for the UN activities in Somalia, including the work of the UN Assistance Mission and the UN Support Office aimed at strengthening peace and stability as well as sustainable development in that country.

We call on the Federal Government of Somalia and the United Nations to continue their fruitful cooperation for these purposes.

We point out the need to implement as soon as possible the June 2018 agreements between Mogadishu and the regions on sharing revenues from oil and other mineral production and promoting national dialogue on such pressing domestic issues as preparation of a new constitution, judicial reform and holding general presidential elections in 2021.

We underscore the key role of the African Union and its Mission in Somalia in combating the Al-Shabaab terrorist group and raising the Somali National Armed Force’s (SNAF) potential.

We reaffirm our respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and unity of Somalia.



Torchlight processions in Ukraine

We have commented many times on the blasphemous decision of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to include the date of birth of notorious Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera – January 1 – on the list of the country’s official holidays for 2019 and the Lvov Region administration’s decision to declare 2019 the Year of Stepan Bandera. I spoke at length at the previous briefing about the frightening trend to glorify Nazis in Ukraine and to rewrite history, which is driven by short-term motivations. Beyond juggling historical facts, the Kiev regime seems to be trying to replace the Ukrainian nation’s heroic past in the memory of the Ukrainian people with quasi-heroes who in reality were involved in the massacre of innocent people. Further evidence of this is the decision by the Ukrainian Ministry of Education and Science to delete any mention of Roman Shukhevich’s collaboration with the Nazis during World War II from history textbooks.

Instead of supporting their Great Patriotic War [1941–1945] veterans, Kiev and some other regions in the country held nationalist party torchlight processions on January 1. Ukraine has entered this year with the official celebration of the birth of a criminal who took part in murderous acts. Several years ago when we were pointing out the emerging trends in the incumbent Kiev regime’s policy we were told that we were overdramatising things. It turns out that we did not overdramatise things but provided realistic predictions of how the situation would evolve. And it did evolve precisely as we said.

What do we hear from Western countries defending “democratic values” while we are sounding the alarm over the continuing exacerbation of the situation and growing neo-Nazi sentiments in Ukraine which are starting to receive support at the official level? We hear nothing. Where is the reaction of the European Union, international and human rights organisations that condemn any manifestation of Nazism? There is none. As far as I remember, a couple of years ago, in particular, in 2017, the leader of the Polish Law and Justice Party, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, said that the glorification of Stepan Bandera in Ukraine might obstruct the country’s aspirations to integrate into the European Union. Glorifying him is now a matter of the past, and what we have is his birthday declared a national holiday. I wonder what those in the EU think about this now.

The Western international community’s silence not only shows disrespect for the victims of Nazism but it is also an attempt to remain blind to what is happening in Ukraine in order to achieve their own ends. It is terrible to think where this hypocritical non-interference could lead to.



Regarding Ukrainian visa issuance

We have taken notice of an interesting visa issuance practice adopted by the Ukrainian Embassy in Mexico. It turns out that in addition to the set consular fee, those wishing to visit Ukraine have to make a voluntary contribution to the Ukrainian armed forces. This was reported by a Ukrainian TV channel, referring to the complaints of two Mexicans who faced this kind of a scheme when they applied for visas at the Ukrainian Embassy’s consular office.

According to the Mexicans, after they completed all the necessary formalities and paid the consular fee, they were forced to write a letter about an alleged voluntary contribution of a certain amount of money, which, by the way, was not much less than the visa fee. This way, judging by media reports, the Embassy has managed to raise 5,000 US dollars.

How can it be? Is it a normal practice?

As far as we understood from media reports, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry has failed to see any violations in the actions of its employees. It appears that the scheme involving alleged donations has been in effect since 2014. An interesting story.



Bellicose statements by British Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson

We have taken note of the recent statements by senior officials of the British Ministry of Defence on plans to build up their military presence in different parts of the world. Indicatively, not only is London using this bellicose rhetoric to demonstrate support for certain allies (like solidarity with Kiev during the Black Sea incident), it is also attempting to present the UK as a “truly global player” in the international arena after Brexit. This will be reflected, in part, by new military bases in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia.

Statements by British Defence Secretary Williamson in favour of the further militarisation of British policy are perplexing, to say the least. Naturally, like any other country, Britain has a right to independently plan its military development. However, against the backdrop of growing general military and political tensions in the world and the efforts of the more responsible international players to achieve peaceful settlement of crises, these statements on building up military presence in third countries are counterproductive, destabilising and often provocative. The main point is that they run counter to Britain’s constant accusations against the Russian Federation of aggressive expansion. We are not engaged in this. Britain is open about its aspirations, and we consider this an obvious contradiction.

Of course, we reserve the right to respond to any measures that pose a threat to the security of Russia and its allies.



Presentation of British State Awards

On December 29, the traditional list of New Year Honours for British citizens presented with UK state awards was published in Britain. This is an annual event, but this time it is noteworthy that the British authorities emphasised the contribution of Foreign Office employees in the “formulation and delivery of the Government’s policy towards Russia.” Thus, UK Ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow was appointed Companion of the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George. During the past year we have spent much time discussing his provocative quotes at our briefings (his famous statement on Moscow’s involvement in many crimes committed on government orders, including those in Britain in response to which we had to update the knowledge of the British diplomat on the history of his own homeland, stand out). His Deputy Lindsay Skoll received the same order; Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE) Eastern Europe and Central Asia Directorate.

Charlotte Louise De Warrenne Waller — Deputy Director Russia Policy of the Eastern Europe and Central Asia Directorate of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office received the title of Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), as did First Secretary of the British Embassy in Moscow Emma Jill Nottingham, while officer of the department on strategy on Russia, S. Anthony, became a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE). For what strategy have these orders been given? Our bilateral relations with Britain are practically deadlocked, which is their fault, and now orders are being given for this achievement. Have you ever heard of this before? I haven’t.

Let’s be straight and objective. These awards were conferred on those who, in the UK Government’s opinion, made the biggest contribution to the British line on the Skripal case. As we see it, this is what they were awarded for, rather than for developing bilateral ties, something that is not really happening. Any progress in bilateral ties that promote Russian-British cooperation is not talked about, not through any Russia’s fault.



NATO countries violating Swedish borders

Recently, Russia has been endlessly accused of all manner of violations and interference in the affairs of other states. As is known, North European countries specialise in phobias of aggressive Russian intentions and alleged repeated violations of their borders. Sweden is one of these countries. Of course, propaganda does exist but it is difficult to argue with official statistics.

So, at the end of last year, the Swedish armed forces published the final statistics of illegal crossings of the national border. According to the report, part of which was published in open access, foreign state (mostly military) vehicles crossed into the country 13 times illegally last year. Without exception, all of the violations were committed by NATO member countries, but only Russia was accused of such violations.



Hacker attacks on the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia

At the last briefing I informed you that the official website of the Russian Foreign Ministry is regularly subject to attacks by hackers. Today I would like to share with you the available summary data, based on which you will be able to understand the volume of information attacks directed against our Ministry.

Between January 1 and September 30, 2018, more than 77 million attacks on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website were recorded. According to our specialists, hacker attacks were carried out from IP addresses registered in Japan, the United States, Ukraine, Romania, Germany, Denmark, Italy, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Poland, Turkey and China.

On April 20, 2018, a massive DDoS attack was recorded not only on the official website but also on all public online resources of the Ministry. Its total impact amounted to more than 150 gigabytes per second, which briefly took down the official website of the Ministry and the sites of Russian foreign missions located in the domain mid.ru.

Nonetheless, all the information attacks were successfully repelled and did not damage the integrity of the official website of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the information resources of Russian foreign missions.

In this regard, I would like to once again draw the attention of our Western colleagues, who so often accuse Russia of hacker attacks without any evidence, to the issue of cyber security and the need to jointly combat threats in cyberspace.

We are ready to interact with these countries on cybersecurity issues, provide data, and conduct consultations. If interest is expressed in the data indicated, we are open to interaction.



Rospotrebnadzor’s donating mobile laboratories to partner countries

Last year, Russia’s Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare (Rospotrebnadzor) donated its mobile anti-epidemic laboratories to partners from the Kyrgyz Republic, Republic of Uzbekistan and Mongolia. This January, Rospotrebnadzor is planning to deliver these complexes to the Republic of Guinea and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

These mobile laboratories are unique modern Russian developments for carrying out diagnostics in epidemic sites, hard-to-reach regions and emergency zones. Twelve similar systems that Rospotrebnadzor previously donated to post-Soviet countries are now used for carrying out urgent examination of epidemic sites located near the Russian Federation border, as well as for conducting diagnostic studies and ensuring biosafety of the entire Eurasian region.

Apart from providing material and technical assistance, Rospotrebnadzor's programmes also include carrying out joint research with experts from partner countries that is aimed at studying the characteristics of infectious diseases’ epidemiology and further development of Russian test systems, diagnosticums and vaccine formulations.

Rospotrebnadzor’s scientific organisations regularly host training courses on sanitary control, laboratory diagnostics and infection prevention, and responding to outbreaks of dangerous diseases for foreign employees.

Donating Russian developments to partner countries and introducing them to national sanitary and epidemiological welfare systems serve as a prime example of Russia’s contribution to combating epidemics by means of strengthening the potential of countries abroad.



23rd St Petersburg International Economic Forum

According to the decision of the President of Russia, the 23rd St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF 2019) will be held on June 6-8, 2019 in St Petersburg.

The forum has taken place since 1997, and since 2005 it has been held under the patronage of the Russian President in order to discuss topical issues related to the Russian and global economy as well as a wide range of international problems. The forum has earned international acclaim as one of the most important political and economic events of the year in Russia.

With each year the forum is held, its popularity grows as a globally recognised, prestigious and politically neutral platform for businesses and government to have an informal dialogue, forge personal business contacts and engage in an open exchange on current global problems, with the participation of government officials, academics and representatives of the business elite and civil society from various countries.

The number of Russian and foreign participants grows each year.

We invite you to attend the discussions at SPIEF 2019 and take part in its busy agenda.

Details about the forum and its events are available at the forum’s official website www.forumspb.com.



Russia’s position on UN reform in the context of the Aachen treaty between Germany and France to be signed on January 22

The Aachen treaty the parties plan to sign is a bilateral French-German document drafted in a closed process. It is difficult for us to comment on a document that has not been published yet based on some “excerpts.”

Speaking about Paris’s general support for the German aspiration to acquire a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, there is nothing new here: France has declared it many times before. In particular, a paragraph on this was included in the joint declaration made by President of France Nicolas Sarkozy and Prime Minister of Great Britain Gordon Brown in March 2008, which later the French delegation often used during intergovernmental talks on reforming the UN Security Council in New York.

The issue of the permanent status of Germany in the UN Security Council will not be addressed in the bilateral French-German format. Such a decision must be made by the UN General Assembly following intergovernmental talks held in New York with the participation of all UN members.

Russia calls for continuing the search for a reform model that would win as much support from the member states as possible during the intergovernmental talks: much more than two thirds of votes needed according to the UN Charter. Consensus is the best option. It is important for the talks to be comprehensive and transparent and to consider all the proposals without setting any deadlines.

Russia’s principled position on UN Security Council reform is to expand the representation of developing African, Asian and Latin American countries. We have no doubt that there are many countries among them that can make a significant contribution to supporting international peace and security. In the current Security Council, including its permanent members, we can see an obvious inclination towards certain regions; above all the regional group of Western European and other states, including the US, that exists within the United Nations.

In any case, we cannot allow efforts to make the Security Council more representative affect its effectiveness and performance. Whatever form the reform takes, the UN Security Council must respond to challenges and threats swiftly and adequately. This means that it is necessary for the new council to remain quite small.

We will not deny that we are skeptical of the idea of limiting the veto, as advocated by France and several other countries. We see this mechanism as an important element of searching for balanced and calibrated decisions and protecting the interests of the minority. It is no secret that the Western group could easily mobilise the necessary votes to block unwanted projects without the veto.

Russia consistently speaks in support of a harmonious system of international relations, whose key principles include the political resolution of all crises and an end to violent regime change. If everyone followed these principles, the polemics around the veto right would not be so heated.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

Statements have been made in the US Congress about US plans to impose sanctions against countries that would in any way support the Government of Syria. What do you think about this?



Maria Zakharova:

You know our position on the sanctions policy: we insist that sanctions are the competence of the UN Security Council and its agencies. Only their decisions are legitimate. In our understanding, if we are talking about building peace on legitimate grounds, no unilateral sanctions should be involved.



Question:

We know that the Russian Foreign Ministry has already published a comment on developments in Venezuela. Unrest began in front of Venezuelan embassies in other countries after elected President Nicolas Maduro took office. Is there any chance that the UN Security Council will consider these circumstances? Will Russia be able to assist in this?



Maria Zakharova:

We commented without delay on the situation that followed Nicolas Maduro taking office as President of Venezuela. A detailed commentary is available on the Russian MFA website.

As for raising this issue in the UN Security Council, any state, in particular Venezuela, is entitled to include its problems on the UN Security Council agenda. Therefore, in the commentary I mentioned, Russia reaffirmed its determination to work closely with friendly Venezuela, its people and the legitimate authorities.

Regarding the rallies in front of the Venezuelan embassies in various countries, we know how they are organised. We have repeatedly talked about the funding of such “performances.” Do you recall the performances, worthy of a modern art museum, staged in the context of the Syrian settlement, in particular, in the UK? It turned out they were funded by sources, including those from the state budgets, with direct information support from Brussels. We know very well that Western countries know how to organise these protest actions outside various embassies, who finances them and how.

We have repeatedly said that what is happening in Venezuela is the internal affair of Venezuela, and urged everyone not to interfere but to allow the people of Venezuela to resolve their problems by legal means based on their own laws, and on respect for the constitution and history of their country. We assume that this position has not lost its relevance.



Question:

According to CNN the United States has started the first shipments of its materiel from Syria. What are Russia’s and Turkey’s plans in Syria, given that the United States is withdrawing from that region?



Maria Zakharova:

It’s good that they started taking out their materiel. Sometimes they take someone else’s. Do you know how much of someone else’s property was taken from Iraq? It is being auctioned still.

As for your question, you are speaking about US plans with such confidence as if you know them. We are judging, first, by tweets, then by the comments that appear in Twitter right after the publication of new portions of such Twitter messages.

To date, we have a feeling that the Americans are leaving the region, as the favorite film goes, to stay.

We said on many occasions that we would like to learn more about their strategy. It seems to me that the world community is in the position to know what the United States is going to do in Syria and on its borders and within what time frame. I can remind you that we also made similar statements regarding Afghanistan. We asked questions all the time, including in this room, as to what is the strategy and time limit of the US troop presence in Iraq, then in Afghanistan and now in Syria. Many times we heard from the US political establishment that they are pulling out from somewhere but sometime later the numbers and quality of their forces were even higher.

I cannot share your assurance that the United States is withdrawing from Syria because we have yet to see their official strategy. What we see is a patchwork of statements, messages in social media, adjustments, remarks, repudiations and reconfirmations – all this stuff over the past two weeks.

This is about the world’s biggest and mightiest state in military terms being illegally present on the territory of another sovereign state for many years. The presence of US forces in Syria does not help to remedy the situation but only aggravates it. At least this is the trend that was demonstrated by the presence of the US force in Syria over the recent years. It was engaged in fairly selective warfare against terrorist groups. We have not got from them any assistance in arranging the political process. We only heard a regularly repeated message about the need to change the political regime in the country.

Given the totality of the above facts and factors, it seems to me that the world community has the right to know what the United States is going to do in Syria and in the region: go in, pull out, increase or reduce its forces? The question remains open. This is why I cannot confirm the assertion contained in your question.

If US intentions are confirmed, we think that the withdrawal of troops from Syria is a step in the right direction because their presence in the country was illegal. Indeed, there is always the possibility of dialogue with the official authorities, in particular with respect to counterterrorist activities. It is common practice. If the United States has such intentions, why not enter into dialogue with official Damascus?



Question:

What stage is the Paul Whelan legal investigation at? Who will have access to him, considering that it is rather complicated to get access to the Lefortovo prison? Can he be remanded on bail? Is there a chance he can be exchanged for Maria Butina?



Maria Zakharova:

I can provide you with updated information. Let me remind you that during the New Year holidays the Foreign Ministry repeatedly commented on the situation with Paul Whelan detained in Moscow on December 29. He was caught while carrying out an act of espionage.

He is being held at the Lefortovo Detention Centre. If in the past we could definitely say that an individual was a US citizen or a British subject, when commenting on the current situation, we can only call this detainee a foreigner, given the number of passports he has at his disposal. He has been charged with a crime under Article 276 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which is espionage.

Paul Whelan entered Russia on a US passport. In this connection, US representatives received consular access to him under the bilateral Consular Convention signed in 1964. This was done without delay, on January 2, even though that was a holiday period in Russia.

During the investigation it was found that the detainee was a citizen of three other countries including the UK, Ireland and Canada.

The embassies of these countries were promptly informed of this and in turn requested permission to visit him, in this case, under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. They will be granted this permission by mutual consent at a mutually convenient time. I would not like to make comparisons but when we are asked how promptly these countries will have access, I would like to draw your attention to the practice in the countries that have applied for access to their citizen.

I would like to specially emphasize that at this point we are not talking about exchanging Paul Whelan for anyone kept in prison abroad. There are plenty of materials in this respect. There are assumptions, outright speculations and fakes. I have expressed Russia’s official position now. I would like to emphasize that the versions put forward and discussed in the media are no more than their authors’ guesswork. The detainee is facing a court trial.



Question:

Can you elaborate on how talks are proceeding between Damascus and the Syrian Kurds? Is Russia playing any role in these talks?



Maria Zakharova:

I already commented on Syria today, and a large part of my comments was devoted to the Kurdish issue. Certainly, we are paying close attention to the situation with the Kurdish population in Syria because we consider it an inalienable part of the political settlement “on the ground.” The current internal talks are the sphere of responsibility of Damascus; nevertheless we express our position, bring it to Damascus officials and regularly share it with you publicly.



Question:

At the end of last year, the leaders of Russia and Japan agreed to step up the negotiating process on the signing of a peace treaty based on the 1956 Joint Declaration, under which the USSR was ready to transfer two islands of the Small Kuril Ridge after the peace treaty was signed. Will it be right to say now that there is a certain set of conditions that if fulfilled by Japan, it may be able to get back those islands? Russia will hand them over. Could you specify these conditions?



Maria Zakharova:

For all my respect for you as media representatives, I am surprised to hear this question, considering how many materials we already spelled out during our briefings and published on the Foreign Ministry website. It is not clear why you are asking such questions, all the more so on the eve of the meeting.

We have heard so many statements by various representatives on the Japanese side during the holidays that we had to invite the Japanese ambassador to the Foreign Ministry, something that we announced yesterday. The Japanese media are in no small part to blame for creating this strange information atmosphere ahead of the beginning of the negotiating process. We outlined the Russian approaches to the issue openly and clearly. They are all available from our official sources. Nevertheless, we notice that after each official statement, after each round of talks, preliminary talks, attempts are made to find discrepancies and unravel inconsistencies in the approaches of the sides or the position of one side.

It seems to me that the best thing for the moment would be to give the experts, especially of such a high level, and the leadership of the two ministries an opportunity to start this specific work, and then listen to comments on it.

I also noticed how the Foreign Ministry of Japan reacted to the questions asked after the Japanese ambassador had been invited to the Russian Foreign Ministry. It was said that the talks needed a calm atmosphere and silence. That is the way it was formulated. I am not proficient in Japanese, but in translation it sounded as though it was necessary to create a certain atmosphere of silence to enable the experts to do their work. It was not us who disturbed the work of the experts. In large part, we heard inappropriate and strange statements from the Japanese side. So, I can only agree with the opinion of Japanese Foreign Ministry representatives in that it is time to create a normal constructive atmosphere, free of speculation and disinformation, for the work of the heads of the diplomatic departments who are scheduled to meet and hold talks very soon.

Again, Russia’s official stance is available on the Foreign Ministry website.



Question:

Why is the Russian military police patrolling Manbij in cooperation with the Syrian Democratic Forces rather than the Syrian Army?



Maria Zakharova:

I think it is better to address this question to Russian military experts.



Question:

I would like to clarify the situation in the de-escalation zone in Idlib. What is the strategy with this? How can terrorist groups be eliminated without conducting military operations and compelling Turkey to fulfil its promises?



Maria Zakharova:

I have already talked about this in great detail today. In theory, there are many methods of countering the terrorists in non-active, non-combat ways: the disarmament of the militants, the voluntary surrender of weapons in exchange for amnesty, and negotiations on achieving disarmament.

This regularly takes place in Syria and we regularly report on it. The methods may be different, but of course this is a subject for military experts, and I have already described today the specific situation on the ground.



Question:

Tehran declared the other day that the time for talks with the EU is over. More than seven months ago US President Donald Trump cynically walked out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme. Trying to save face, the EU first announced its intention to create its own financial mechanism for further trade and economic relations with Iran. High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini has repeatedly spoken about the need to develop a mechanism for protecting European companies from US sanctions and for reimbursing them for potential damages. Recently she said such a mechanism would be launched before the end of 2018, but it was announced just the day before yesterday that it is unclear when this will be done. President Emmanuel Macron of France declared that, as regards cooperation with Iran, they will never decide to exacerbate relations with the US and that they will not reimburse European companies that are affected by the sanctions.



Maria Zakharova:

You can see for yourself what a bold and resolute statement he made.



Question:

EU sovereignty is undergoing serious tests. Could Russia as a co-sponsor of the negotiations on Iran’s nuclear deal, that were conducted for 10-12 years and considered the highlight of world diplomacy, somehow affect the position of the European countries with a view to making a decision?



Maria Zakharova:

If you are talking about a test, I think Russian diplomacy has passed it. As you noted, this was a long-term test on preventing the aggressive development of the situation and on searching for a mutually acceptable solution. The EU should be given credit for the art of high-level diplomacy. The test took place after the signing of the agreement on implementation and after the US decision to withdraw from it.

As for Russia’s potential influence, we are regularly raising this issue before our European colleagues in Brussels and in the EU member states. As for the consequences for international law, it is necessary to consider that this is not simply a commercial or bilateral deal, but a multilateral agreement that was approved by the UN Security Council and became a binding document. We raise these issues, and we do discuss the different aspects (not just politics, but also the economy and finances). After all, if we are talking about protecting business and developing world economic relations, what should we do about the trends that took shape many years ago when the international business community was inspired and oriented towards developing relations with that region and that country? How quickly should it react now to the changes on the political agenda?

We know what this redistribution of capital and deals on futures are about. We know very well what investment means. If the international community represented by the biggest powers maps out an area as an excellent opportunity for business, provides a political legal foundation for it and business goes into action, the following question suggests itself: how quickly can large companies learn to change their strategies if the whole thing is rapidly falling to pieces before their eyes? The point is that it is falling to pieces not because the deal was bad but because someone does not like it anymore.

For our part, we have undergone a multi-level test and are working in different areas. You are right that this is a very serious test for our European colleagues, for Brussels. I don’t think there is a question as to whether they passed the test on their own foreign policy sovereignty. I believe we all know the answer: no, they haven’t, and not only in the context of the deal you’re talking about.

Look at what happened with Cuba – it endlessly followed in the wake of US policy without understanding the deep-seated motives. Look at the triumphal arrival of the huge delegation led by US President Barrack Obama in Cuba. Big business was reoriented as well. How many entrepreneurs did he bring? Hundreds of big ones came to make deals. This is what business was oriented to. I think everything was rolled back within half a year. Everything was backtracked. As for Europe’s policy, it first started to follow the US course but then found itself confused for the umpteenth time now. But this is not a question for me. Address it to the EU representative in Moscow.

We have been saying all along that it would be good for the EU and the European states to think about preserving their foreign policy sovereignty and their own independent role in international affairs.



Question:

Recently, the US made another anti-Russia move blocking the sale of the Sukhoi Superjet 100 aircraft to Iran and the supply of euro-composites for MS-21 aircraft. Is there a way out of this situation?



Maria Zakharova:

I have already answered this question in other contexts. We are working on ways to maintain economic relations with various states in this very strange geopolitical situation, when certain countries block third countries’ financial and economic contacts for the sake of their own geopolitical interests.



Question:

Have Russian Foreign Ministry specialists studied materials on the murder of Russian journalists in the CAR last year, as published in various media including CNN and Novaya Gazeta?



Maria Zakharova:

I saw messages on this matter and answered questions from your colleagues yesterday. We have an investigation underway, which is not yet completed. It is necessary to raise questions, including for law enforcement agencies, in particular, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. Given that your media source is committed to not circulating fake news, but publishing objective information, please note that while the investigation is underway, no materials containing direct accusations can be published without comment from the official investigating authorities. How do you generally approach such cases in your company, or in the many others who reprint it? The investigation is underway. Does nobody know about this? Amazing.



Question:

Russia received an ultimatum over the alleged non-fulfillment of the INF Treaty – a so-called last chance. It expires on February 2, 2019. Can we expect decisive action by the United States and NATO countries after this deadline? Is it possible to save the treaty? Are there any negotiations on this?



Maria Zakharova:

We are exploring the possibilities for contact with the American side on this matter. As Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said on December 9, Moscow would like to resume a meaningful dialogue with the United States on arms control in the near future.



Question:

How does the Foreign Ministry see the statements by President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko that if Moscow refuses to compensate Minsk for losses from the tax manoeuvre in the oil sector, Russia could lose an ally? Is this possible?



Maria Zakharova:

We have received several requests to comment on the statements by President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko. Belarus is our reliable ally and partner. The policy of expanding strategic cooperation with Minsk is beyond doubt. This is codified, in particular, in our country’s Foreign Policy Concept.

We believe that a lot can still be done within the Union State to increase the effectiveness of this integration format. A Russian-Belarusian working group has been created for this purpose.

As for the specific issues raised by President Lukashenko (supply of agricultural products, tax manoeuvres, motor transport services, etc.), there is a dialogue underway between the relevant national agencies.



Question:

Will you please comment on Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh’s forthcoming visit to Moscow. If the visit has been postponed, until what date and for what reason?



Maria Zakharova:

I have seen these reports and had questions on the subject. At the moment I have no definite information to give you. We wonder about the source of those reports, considering that we did not make any announcements.



Question:

Information appeared in the media before the New Year that the Netherlands allegedly is not satisfied with Russia’s response to the proposition to hold talks on the crash of the Malaysian Boeing in Ukraine in 2014 and will explore the possibility of submitting this case to an international court. Is it true that Russia rejects dialogue with the Netherlands?



Maria Zakharova:

We have seen reports that Russia refuses to cooperate. This is absolutely incorrect. As is known, the Dutch government regularly reports to the country’s parliament on the investigation of the Boeing catastrophe. As the investigation is stalled, there is a temptation to lay the responsibility at Russia’s door, as usual. The plane crashed over four years ago but the investigation has not been completed yet and important circumstances of the accident have not been cleared up. In May last year, the Hague and Canberra, obviously forcing events, officially accused Russia of being involved in the crash of Flight MH-17, without providing any proof. In addition, those two countries, Australia and the Netherlands, proposed holding trilateral talks in this regard.

We have been actively corresponding about consultations on the “MH-17 case” through diplomatic channels since May 2018. The resulting meeting has not taken place yet, also due to differences in how the sides approach the subject. The Netherlands and Australia are interested only in discussing Russia’s legal responsibility and the ensuing consequences. They demand that we admit our responsibility for the crash of the Malaysian Boeing and repent. Russia definitely cannot accept this ultimatum. The Joint Investigation Team has not concluded its work, the guilty party has not been identified and the prospects of this case going to trial are dim. We still have many questions for the investigation team, including the fact that the air space was not closed to civilian airliners over the area of combat operations in Donbass. In addition, we would like to receive explanations how the data, that Russia has provided and keeps providing in considerable amount to the Netherlands, is used and taken into account in the investigation. I would like to mention that Russia always responds to all enquiries it receives.

There is still no clear response to the materials of the briefing carried out by the Russian Ministry of Defence on September 17, 2018 about the Ukrainian origin of the missile that hit the Boeing. They could also be instrumental in carrying out an unbiased and professional investigation of the reasons for the crash of Flight MH-17. This is only part of the questions to which we would like to have answers. We have been regularly asking them without getting a response.

The dialogue on organising a meeting is still going on and the first contact in the trilateral format can take place in the next few months, if the Netherlands and Australia stop employing ultimatums and evidence-free political accusations and agree to a meaningful and professional dialogue about key issues of the Boeing crash. We welcome the prospect of such a dialogue.

I would like to note that Russian and Dutch Foreign Ministers discussed the issue of consultations on the “MH-17 case” early in December 2018, during a brief interaction on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Milan. It is unlikely that the Dutch Foreign Ministry has a short memory.



Question:

Complaints and reports about ethnic Armenians being denied access to Azerbaijan appeared after the New Year. Could you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

We have indeed seen a lot of reports about this, including in social media. There were also some incidents during the New Year holidays. We were keeping track of them even earlier and regularly raised this question with Azerbaijan and said that such cases were unfortunately becoming a bad and wrong tradition. A large and detailed story was published in social media just a couple of days ago. This was not the first instance of discriminatory treatment on ethnic grounds of Russian citizens. As for statistics, last year we learnt about at least 16 cases of denying Russian citizens entry into Azerbaijan on ethnic grounds. The Russian citizens were detained at the airport for many hours and later forcibly removed from the country without giving a formal reason.

These occurrences constitute a gross violation of Russian citizens’ rights and run counter to the letter and spirit of the Russian-Azerbaijani Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Security of July 3, 1997, the intergovernmental agreement on visa-free travels for the citizens of July 3, 1997, and the Declaration of Friendship and Strategic Partnership between Russia and Azerbaijan of July 3, 2008.

The Russian Foreign Ministry repeatedly emphasised in conversations with the Azerbaijani side that the present situation is unacceptable and demanded the end of the practice of detention and expulsion as incompatible with the friendly relations between the two countries, which we also regularly mention.

During recent contacts with the Azerbaijani leadership we received assurances that the situation would be resolved. We very much expect it to be.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3470895
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old February 4th, 2019 #556
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference on the results of Russian diplomacy in 2018 Moscow, January 16, 2019



16 January 2019 - 13:46







Ladies and gentlemen,

We are delighted to welcome you to this traditional news conference on the results of our foreign policy performance last year.

We would like this meeting to take place, just as before, in the form of a direct dialogue. Therefore, I will try to keep my opening remarks as concise as possible, especially since President Vladimir Putin has already spoken about our approaches to the main current topics more than once, including at his annual news conference held on December 20, 2018, as well as during the interviews he gave to Serbian newspapers yesterday.

It is needless to say that the international situation remained complicated. The conflict potential increased last year, primarily because of the stubborn unwillingness of some Western countries led by the United States to accept the realities of the objectively developing multipolar world, as well as because of their desire to continue to force their will on others by means of pressure and economic and propaganda instruments. There have been attempts to steamroll multilateral institutions and erode their international mission and to replace the universal norms of international law with a “rules-based order.” This term was recently coined to camouflage a striving to invent rules depending on changes in the political situation so as to be able to put pressure on disagreeable states and often even on allies.

It is alarming that various non-consensual initiatives are advocated beyond the framework of international institutions, and that decisions taken behind closed doors by a narrow group of the select few are presented as the opinion of the international community.

We see no cause for optimism in Washington’s unilateral actions taken to undermine the crucial international legal instruments of strategic stability. We saw the latest example of this at the Russian-US consultations on the INF Treaty held in Geneva yesterday. Taken together, this is increasing mutual mistrust and militarising foreign policy mentality.

In this situation, we continued to pursue a multidirectional foreign policy focused on protecting Russia’s national interests. We worked to strengthen the positive trends on the international stage, to find collective solutions based on international law to the problems all countries are facing, and ultimately to promote a fairer and more democratic polycentric world order in keeping with objective modern realities. Towards this end, we closely cooperated with our allies and partners at the CSTO, the EAEU, the CIS, BRICS and the SCO, as well as working constructively in the key global governance bodies, primarily the UN and G20.

As part of our presidency of the EAEU, we worked to strengthen the organisation’s international standing. We did our best to align the EAEU with China’s Belt and Road initiative and to promote the Russia-ASEAN strategic partnership, including in the context of President Putin’s initiative for creating a Greater Eurasian Partnership based on the logic of harmonising our integration processes and open for accession to all countries and associations both in Asia and in Europe.

International terrorism has been dealt a defeating blow in Syria. This allowed to preserve the Syrian state and to launch economic recovery and the return of refugees back home. In keeping with the decisions taken at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, the guarantor countries of the Astana Process – Russia, Turkey and Iran – worked hard to help form the Constitutional Committee by convincing the Syrian Government and the opposition to approve the list of its potential members. This has created conditions for a political process in full compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 in the interests of a lasting settlement of the Syrian crisis.

We supported the positive trends on the Korean Peninsula based on the logic of the Russian-Chinese roadmap for a settlement. Of course, this calls for reciprocating Pyongyang’s constructive moves.

Another major result of the past year was the signing of the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea at the fifth Caspian Summit. This convention seals the coastal states’ exclusive rights to this unique body of water and its mineral and other resources.

We made significant efforts to ensure international information security and to fight cybercrime. In December, the UN General Assembly approved two resolutions on this matter on our initiative.

We paid special attention to the further development of contacts with the multi-million Russian world. The 6th World Congress of Russian Compatriots Living Abroad on October 31 − November 1 held in Moscow.

We expanded humanitarian, research and educational ties, and supported various initiatives aimed at introducing the world community to the best achievements of national culture and art. We assisted foreign countries in the training of their national personnel.

The FIFA World Cup was a highlight last year – a real triumph of public diplomacy. Millions of foreign guests visited Russia and saw modern Russia together with its citizens with their very own eyes.

This year, we intend to step up efforts in all the key areas. Among our priorities is the promotion of creating a truly universal antiterrorist coalition under the auspices of the UN, mobilising the international community to more effectively combat drug trafficking and other types of organised crime. We will help consolidate positive trends in Syria and on the Korean Peninsula, resolve other crises and conflicts, especially in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as in Ukraine, where there is no alternative to the full and consistent implementation of the Minsk Agreements. As before, we are interested in restoring normal relations with the US and the EU on the principles of equality and mutual consideration of interests. We will certainly continue to respond appropriately to the increased NATO military activity and its military infrastructure being moved closer to the Russian borders.

Our undoubted priority is to ensure the national security and other favourable external conditions for Russia’s dynamic development and improving Russians’ welfare. We are open for creative interaction with all those who do not make bilateral relations hostage of volatile political environment or use them as a tool to achieve geopolitical advantages, but are willing to cooperate honestly and find mutually acceptable compromises based on mutual benefit.

In conclusion, I would like to note that a few days ago, on January 13, Russia marked Russian Press Day. Taking advantage of this opportunity, I would like to greet everyone here, primarily the workers of the Russian media as representatives of the entire Russian journalistic community on your professional day. We highly appreciate your work, and efforts to promote high professional standards in the global information space, and your values ​​of honest and unbiased journalism. We are ready to continue close and constructive interaction with the media in a variety of formats. I can assure you that we will certainly continue to pay heightened attention to ensuring free and unhindered work of journalists, and to work to maintain the effective observance of the existing international guarantees by all states.

Thank you. I am ready to answer your questions.







Question:

What additional measures can Russia take considering that the term of detention has been extended for Kirill Vyshinsky several times? Is there a possibility of exchanging him or taking reply actions against our Ukrainian colleagues?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have spoken more than once about the actions we have taken through various international organisations and journalist unions, as well as within the framework of our bilateral contacts with different countries, calling for influencing Kiev to stop persecuting a journalist for his professional activities under absurd charges of treason.

I don’t think that the idea of exchange, which some people may consider interesting, can help convince the Ukrainian authorities to strictly comply with their obligations regarding journalistic activities. Such ideas would only encourage those who are ready to use journalists as small change in the pursuit of their sinister goals. I can assure you that we will do our best to ensure the primacy of law so that Kirill Vyshinsky is released and takes up his profession again.

It is not the only problem with journalists in Ukraine. Nearly all the Russian media outlets represented here have been either prohibited from working in Ukraine or restricted in their activities.



Question:

If the United States withdraws from the INF Treaty after all, will Moscow consider the extension of the Treaty?



Sergey Lavrov:

As I already said, yesterday we provided our constructive proposals that allowed the US to make expert conclusions on the 9М729 missile, which they claim was created in violation of the Treaty parameters. However, the US delegation came to the talks with a pre-set position which was presented in the form of an ultimatum demand that we destroy the missile, its launchers and all the related equipment under the Americans’ supervision. They turned a blind eye to our request for analysing our proposals and the real specifications of this missile. Likewise, they refused to listen to our proposals regarding access to information on our concerns about the Americans’ non-compliance with that Treaty if we take action to allay the Americans’ suspicions. They rejected all our proposals. The logic of the American approach as expressed yesterday is as follows: Russia violates the Treaty, while the US does not. Therefore, Russia must do what the US demands, while the US does not have to do anything. This approach is not at all constructive. It obviously is part of the policy for destroying all the agreements in the sphere of strategic stability, starting with the ABM agreement. The INF Treaty is another victim. Many countries fear that the US administration also intends to pull out of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty as well. We hope this is not the case. We are ready to keep working in order to save the INF Treaty.

I hope that those European countries that should be interested in this more than others will do something constructive instead of docilely following in the US wake, adopting NATO decisions that only blame Russia, ignoring the facts we provide and are ready to provide. I hope that they will try to influence Washington so that it takes a more responsible position regarding all members of the international community, primarily the Europeans.

As for the START Treaty, we are doing a great deal, as you know, to remove all the possible hitches and to ensure its extension. But we do have logical questions about the US efforts to exclude a significant number of strategic offensive arms from the accountability by presenting them as conventional weapons. We have informed US and other Western experts about our concerns. We hope that professionalism and a responsible attitude to the international community will take priority in Washington’s approach to the dialogue on strategic stability.



Question:

There were a lot of questions in the United States over the fact that President Donald Trump did not share the content of his conversations with President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, including with his official representatives. Is the Kremlin influencing the transparency of these conversations?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is difficult for me to comment on what is happening in the United States and President Trump accused of being a Russian agent. I would say this is a lowering of the standards of journalism for the American press and a thankless job. I cannot believe that journalists in the United States sincerely and professionally deal with these problems. There is such a thing as the culture of diplomacy, the culture of negotiations, the culture of communication at the interstate level. This implies following the decorum, approaches and norms accepted in each of the parties in interstate relations. As far as I know, the US Constitution authorises the President to set and carry out the country’s foreign policy. We know that this right is now being attacked by Congress. They write a lot about this, including your colleagues. But this does not make these attacks constitutional or legitimate. I will not comment on the actions taken by the US Administration in accordance with the President’s and his Administration’s powers.

Since you have raised this topic, I would like to make the following point. Maria Butina is charged with having certain subversive motives for her interactions with Americans. They could charge literally any Russian citizen, a public official or someone like Butina, who wants to receive an education and interact with American and other foreign colleagues. They get accused of espionage and promotion of certain goals that are illegitimate and contrary to the interests of the United States. But if you look at the circle of contacts of American diplomats in Moscow, the scope of their Russian acquaintances, you will see that the Russians, who are under illegal American sanctions, are primary targets for the attention of American diplomats. Yet, no one charges US diplomats for communicating with people they are prohibited to contact and who are barred from entering the United States as outcasts.

There is another example of the absurdity of what is happening. Prosecutor Robert Mueller has been working for almost two years now. He interviewed dozens, if not hundreds of people, but found no leaks that would confirm alleged collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian Federation. No facts and no leaks were presented, which is very strange for the American political system. Leaks usually happen instantly there. There have been some; several facts have been mentioned regarding Ukraine’s involvement in the US election campaign, but not Russia.

Here is one example. Michael Flynn served as President Trump’s national security adviser for several days. I read with interest what he was specifically accused of. Prosecutor Mueller accused him of two things: first, Flynn called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak before President Trump’s inauguration and asked him not to reciprocate in response to the sanctions that Barack Obama imposed on Russia in the last days of his presidency, urged us not to take the path of escalation and confrontation. Was that so bad? Was it against the interests of the American people or the American government that a potential member of the administration urged us not to harm the American diplomatic mission in the Russian Federation, not to take away property or expel diplomats? This was one accusation against Flynn. The second charge against him was that he also asked Ambassador Kislyak to influence Moscow’s position on the resolution discussed in the UN Security Council, which required Israel to stop building new settlements in the occupied territories. Since the Obama administration decided not to block adoption of this resolution and, unlike in the previous cases, to abstain rather than vote it down, Flynn, according to Mueller, asked the Russian side to veto this anti-Israeli resolution.

I am not talking about the substance of the mater right now, whether it was necessary to adopt that resolution or not. But he essentially called on the Russian side to defend the position that the United States had been promoting in the UN for decades. Here are two accusations against this person. I do not know what sentence he will get. But the absurdity of the situation is obvious to me. This is just one example of the bacchanalia going on around the so-called Russian dossier.



Question:

Recently, Russia and Japan began a new round of talks on a peace treaty, which should be aimed at taking bilateral relations to a new level. The treaty must be supported by both nations. Like, probably, the whole of Japan, I do not understand that you set a precondition for us. It lies in the fact that Japan, above all, must recognise all the results of World War II, including the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over the disputed islands. Is this not an ultimatum? You do normally criticise ultimatums in diplomacy. One gets an impression that Russia is again demanding unconditional surrender from Japan. I do not understand Russia’s logic. We are discussing the ownership of the islands. If Japan recognises Russia's sovereignty over the Kuril Islands, then the question will be closed and there will be no problems. Then what are we going to negotiate?



Sergey Lavrov:

I already spoke on this subject immediately after the talks with my Japanese counterpart, Taro Kono. I reiterate, the recognition of the outcome of World War II is not an ultimatum, not a precondition. This is an unavoidable and inextricable factor in the modern international system.

With the support of the Soviet Union in 1956, Japan became a member of the UN, signed and ratified the UN Charter, in which there is Article 107. It states that all the results of World War II are unshakable. So, we do not require anything from Japan. We urge our Japanese neighbours toward practical actions in line with their obligations under the UN Charter, the San Francisco Declaration and a number of other documents, including those you mentioned.

What does our position regarding the need for Japan to align its approaches with the UN Charter mean? The term “northern territories” is included in your country’s legislation. It is included in a number of laws, including the one adopted in September 2018 which ties implementation of the joint initiative by President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on joint economic activities on the islands to the need to return the northern territories. No one agreed on that. This is directly contrary to Japan’s obligations under the UN Charter.

So, this is not a preliminary requirement, but a desire to understand why Japan is the only country in the world that cannot fully recognise the outcome of World War II.

Of course, there is still a number of other passing details. I do not want, again, to go over the problem of the military-political alliance with the United States, the deployment of US bases in Japan. All this was covered in sufficient detail.

Our leaders also spoke about the need for qualitative improvement, as you rightly said, of our relations in the economy, trade, culture, science and international affairs. To resolve any complex issues, not only under a peace treaty – there is a number of other issues to be resolved with our Japanese colleagues. Of course, it is necessary for us to feel like we are partners in the international arena, not countries standing on the opposite side of the barricades. But Japan joined a series of sanctions imposed on Russia which hardly fits into the understanding of achieving a qualitatively new level of relations. Japan joined the anti-Russian statements adopted by the G7. On all UN resolutions that are of interest to Russia, Japan votes not with us, but against us.

Just before his visit to Russia, Taro Kono was in Paris where a meeting of the ministers of defence and foreign ministers of France and Japan was held. A declaration was adopted following the meeting. After you read it, of course, you will understand that we are still very far from not just being partners in international affairs, but even being cognizant of the need to look for constructive approaches that will bring our positions closer.

Taking this opportunity, I would like to note that this Japanese-French declaration at the end of the “2+2” meeting contains an obligation by Japan and France to coordinate their actions as part of Tokyo’s G20 presidency and the G7 presidency of Paris. This raised questions on our part, because the G7 is part of the G20. The chairman of the G20, which is Japan this year, should provide proper conditions that allow consensus to be developed by all 20 participating countries, rather than work only in the interest of one group within the G20. I hope this was just a misunderstanding when formulating the language of this declaration.

In our practical steps, we proceed from the fact that our Japanese colleagues with their inherent professionalism will contribute to developing consensus solutions that unite both developed and developing countries, in a word, all the G20 members, and will also take into account the interests of all other states since the decisions of the G20 touch upon matters that concern all members of the international community.



Question:

What do you think about the further development of the Union State after fairly strong statements by President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko? What further steps could be taken if one side is obviously against this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am simply surprised at the din in the media and elsewhere over this issue.

The Treaty on the Establishment of the Union State is an open document. It was possible to read it immediately after signing. It is also possible to refresh memories about it now. The document contains many ideas that united us and encouraged us to establish a union state at that time. The treaty provided for the adoption of the Constitutional Act, the formation of the Union Parliament, and the establishment of the Court of the Union State. At that time Moscow and Minsk agreed to all this of their own free will.

However, it became clear with the passage of time that the formation of a common constitution, common parliament and common court was not yet possible. But we do not insist on this, either.

During the recent contacts of our presidents in December (three December meetings) our team and our Belarusian colleagues discussed those provisions of the treaty that concern strictly practical economic and trade issues, as distinct from a common constitution, parliament and court. I am referring to the treaty’s provisions on creating a common monetary unit and common credit and tax policies. They are directly linked with economic and financial relations within the Union State.

We had no disagreements with our Belarusian colleagues on how to take these strictly practical steps. As you heard, a working group headed by the economy ministers of Russia and Belarus was set up at the decision of our presidents. The group has been authorised to deal directly with the issues I have just mentioned. We are not inventing anything. Considering that our Belarusian colleagues are interested in many matters related to setting economic, monetary, credit and tax policies, we are asking them to look for ways of bringing closer our positions on the issues that were supposed to be resolved by the treaty 20 years ago and that directly concern the problems that Belarus wants to see resolved, including the so-called “tax manoeuver.”

I hope that pragmatism will prevail over the attempts to look at this routine situation as reflecting some geopolitical plans inside or outside the Union State.



Question:

German Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, that is, Heiko Maas will soon visit Russia. What will you discuss with him?



Sergey Lavrov:

Now I will also be accused of a plan to capture Germany.

As for Mr Maas’s visit, as he announced himself, we will primarily discuss the situation in Ukraine and Syria. There are decisions on both issues, which should be carried out. We are ready to discuss them.



Question:

Several countries, including the United States, do not recognise Nicolas Maduro as the President of Venezuela. What is Russia’s stance on the matter?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our stance is to avoid any interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Throughout the entire Venezuelan crisis we did our best to support efforts to establish a dialogue between the government and the opposition, including the efforts of the countries in the region. We know that this dialogue, which many Latin American countries counted on, eventually fell apart because the so-called irreconcilable part of the opposition was influenced from abroad, mainly by the United States. The said influence made that part of the opposition irreconcilable. It is deeply regrettable. We have heard statements that allow for a military intervention in Venezuela, and statements that the United States will recognise or may begin to recognise President of the National Assembly Juan Guaido as the legitimate President of Venezuela rather than Nicolas Maduro. All this is very disturbing and indicates that the United States continues to break down unfavourable governments as its priority strategy in Latin America and other regions. We can talk about this in more detail later.



Question:

Jair Bolsonaro has taken office as the President of Brazil. He is dubbed the Trump of the Tropics. Are there any concerns that he could be a Trojan horse for BRICS?



Sergey Lavrov:

President of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro contacted our representatives, including State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, who represented our country at his inauguration. He confirmed his intention to ensure continuity in relations with the Russian Federation and to participate in the further development of BRICS, in which Brazil took over the presidency this year. Literally the other day, our Brazilian colleagues made us aware of their presidency plans, the schedule of ministerial meetings and the summit, and the programme that they propose to other members of this group. I do not see any reason to assume that Brazil will play a destructive role in BRICS. On the contrary, the country affirms that the group is one of the priorities in Brazil’s foreign policy.



Question:

Asked about Paul Whelan, who was officially charged with espionage, your American colleague demurred and said that he could not and would not go into detail. Can you update us on this case? Is it true that American diplomats are just about to visit him? Was there any talk about an exchange? Is this the reason for launching a new phase of diplomatic pressure on Russia? Have three other countries who stated that the man was also their citizen – Canada, the UK and Ireland – made new attempts to get in contact with Paul Whelan to influence the situation?



Sergey Lavrov:

US Ambassador Jon Huntsman has already visited Paul Whelan. An Irish diplomat either has visited him or is going to see him. We have got a request from the American Embassy for another visit and we will satisfy it. Britons never mention the 1965 Consular Convention signed by Moscow and London, under which access must be granted to a national detained in the other country. They do not use two-way diplomatic channels to invoke this convention, probably, because previously they either did not answer or formally turned down our numerous requests to be granted, in compliance with this Convention, access to Julia and Sergei Skripal. They might realise that they themselves have rendered this convention void. Even so, if we receive such a request, I can assure you that we will act in a more civilised manner.

Regarding the detention itself, our competent bodies informed us about the circumstances of Paul Whelan’s arrest. His family was informed about the situation and his detention conditions. We have received no complaints about these conditions. However, it is pitiful that the countries whose citizenship Whelan holds, including Canada, are strongly demanding that he be freed without delay while some of them have even started threatening to impose sanctions. I will not speak now about the Russians who are languishing in US prisons, as no action is taken on their case nor is any human concern even shown for them, although in the majority of cases the charges against them are absolutely fictitious or unsubstantiated.

Paul Whelan was detained while committing an unlawful act at a hotel. This was also reported. Incidentally, about 20 US nationals are held in Russian penitentiary institutions and detention centres, over half of whom do not hold dual citizenship. At the request of the US Embassy, American diplomats are regularly granted access to them. We did not hear any high-profile statements in connection with their detention like those that are being made on Paul Whelan. It might be worthwhile to think why this is happening.

The investigation is underway. If your question implies that Whelan’s arrest might be motivated by the desire to exchange him for a Russian national, it is absolutely untrue. We never get involved in things like this. He was caught red-handed.



Question:

Last year Russian diplomacy achieved impressive successes in Syria. What actions in the spirit of unity and the struggle of opposites will be taken in the east of the Euphrates after the departure of US troops?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is a very important issue. On the whole, the Syrian settlement process is making headway, although slower than desired and with problems that were hard to predict before. Nonetheless, progress is obvious. We are convinced that the fight against terrorism should be completed. Now the main hotbed is the Idlib zone where almost all of the militants have been taken over by Jabhat al-Nusra, a banned organization that the UN Security Council qualified as terrorists. We are highly interested in the implementation of the Russia-Turkey agreements on the Idlib zone. But they do not give carte blanche to terrorists that continue shooting at Syrian troop positions and civilian facilities from the Idlib zone, including the demilitarised area, and who are trying to attack the Russian Khmeimim air base.

We hope that President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan will be in contact soon. A meeting has already been scheduled, and this will be the central issue of the talks.

As for the eastern bank of the Euphrates, the US has indeed announced its intention to withdraw from there. It is common knowledge that it has established about two dozen military facilities there, including fairly big and strong military bases. It is no secret either, that the US supplied arms to the Kurdish self-defence units that collaborated with it. This gives rise to the following question that is of interest, in part, to our Turkish colleagues: what will happen with these arms and military facilities? We are convinced that the most rational and the only correct solution to this issue would be to put these territories under the control of the Syrian Government, Syrian armed forces and Syrian administrative structures with the understanding that the Kurds should be provided with all the necessary conditions in the places of their traditional residence.

We welcome and support the contacts that have been established between Kurdish representatives and the Syrian authorities with a view to coming to terms on ways to restore life in a unified state without outside interference.

There is a problem with the American plans. First it was announced that the withdrawal would take place in two months, then in six rather than two months and later on that the withdrawal may be delayed. That brings to mind a quote by Mark Twain “Giving up smoking is easy. I’ve done it a hundred times.” This is also an American tradition.

There is still another big problem – the Al-Tanf zone with a radius of 55 km, which was illegally set up by the US. It contains Rukban refugee camp access to which is practically closed. A humanitarian convoy that was organised with our support and the consent of the Syrian Government entered this zone several weeks ago. Contrary to US assurances, representatives of the Syrian Red Crescent and the convoy were not allowed to meet with the refugees directly. Control over this was given to militants, including terrorists that live, conduct training sessions undisturbed and receive material and other support in Al-Tanf.

Nobody knows for sure what happened with these humanitarian goods – whether they were received by the refugees to whom they were sent or if militants used them in their own interests. Now our UN colleagues are calling for a second convoy to this place. The situation is indeed hopelessly bad – there are between 30,000 and 50,000 refugees there without access. Supporting the position of the Syrian Government, we insist that this time complete safety and transparency be ensured and measures taken to make sure that the goods are delivered to the refugees rather than illegal armed units.

In addition, as a power that occupies that part of Syria, the US is fully responsible for the destiny and living conditions of the civilians there. After all, the US service personnel in Al-Tanf are supplied with all they need from Iraq. If food and other essentials are delivered to US troops, it is easy to do the same for the refugees, using the same routes.



Question:

As is known, the Kurdish people live in countries of the Middle East. They complain that their political issues have not yet been discussed, and that no attempts to solve their problems have been made. What is your position regarding the future of the Kurdish people in Syria and Iraq?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our stance is very simple. The issues concerning the Kurdish people in Syria, Iraq or anywhere else in the world (these are not the only two countries where these people live) should be addressed in accordance with the national legislation of the respective countries.

The rights of national minorities, such as the Kurdish people living in Iraq and Syria, must, of course, be ensured with the help of dialogue between these minorities, their representatives, and central governments. We firmly advocate preserving and respecting the territorial integrity of every state in this region. In recent years, these countries have been subject and remain subject to severe trials relating the aggression organised against Iraq, then Libya, and now, Syria. It is vital for us to avoid the redrawing of borders here. I believe that the Kurdish people in both Syria and Iraq understand the necessity of reaching mutually acceptable agreements with the central government, which would take into account their interests without undermining the territorial integrity of the respective states.



Question:

Foreign Ministry representatives, including Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko yesterday, have on many occasions criticised the idea of changing the name of our neighbouring state, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. You have repeatedly mentioned the UN Security Council resolution on this matter. I would like to clarify what Russian diplomats mean when they refer to this UNSC resolution? Do you want to somehow thwart the Prespa agreement? Are you dissatisfied with it?

In this connection, I would like to get a clearer picture of the situation in the Balkans. You criticise the United States and NATO for expanding their positions in the Balkans and not just there. The United States and NATO respond that they are only trying to stop your aggressive actions in the region. What is happening in reality?



Sergey Lavrov:

Good question. I have never heard anyone say that the implementation of a UN Security Council resolutions can be viewed as an attempt to get in the way of resolving the issue of the resolution - I mean the resolutions that launched the UN mediation process between Skopje and Athens on agreeing on the name of Macedonia. We have always been supportive of this dialogue and have advocated that a solution be found in a manner that is acceptable to the public, the people and, of course, the governments of Greece and Macedonia.

We are not against this name, and our position was articulated and announced. We ask questions about the legitimacy of this process and to what extent it is based on the desire to find a consensus between Athens and Skopje, or on what you just said - the desire of the United States to “drive” all Balkan countries into NATO as soon as possible and to put an end to any Russian influence in the region. That’s what we talk about.

Of course, we cannot agree with those who say that Russia has no place in the Balkans, as High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini said not long ago. She said that the EU is already working in the Balkans and anyone else has no business doing anything there. However, when we met on the sidelines of the OSCE meetings in Milan in December, she said that she was misunderstood. Perhaps, it was a misunderstanding, because not just the EU, but also NATO is playing the main role there now. Where there is the EU, there is a place for NATO, and, perhaps, its place will be more important.

We always wanted the UNSC position - which was that the resolution should be legal - to be respected. When a name is confirmed by a document signed at a level that is not consistent with what the constitution, for example, of Macedonia, requires, we have questions about how legitimate this process is. When the Parliament of Macedonia adopts a law on amendments to the constitution and also a law on languages which President of Macedonia Gjorge Ivanov refuses to sign, as required by the constitution, this also raises questions with us. When we are accused of mortal sins and troubles that somehow manifest or may manifest themselves in the Balkans, we have a question: what do our Western colleagues think about the shameless campaign waged by the West in the run-up of the referendum in Macedonia? At that time, the heads of government of the EU countries, the NATO Secretary General, the leaders of the European Commission and the EU in general, went to Skopje and urged everyone to vote for membership in NATO and the EU by way of changing the name of Macedonia. That’s what they were calling for. Not a name change that would reconcile Macedonia and Greece, but voting for membership in Euro-Atlantic bodies by changing the name. I think the impropriety of such an approach is clear.

I mentioned in my opening remarks the trend, which can now be seen in the approaches of the United States and its closest allies, to replace the term and the concept of international law with some rules-based order. Regarding the name of Macedonia, there is a UN Security Council resolution, which is part of international law, that requires respecting the constitutions of Greece and Macedonia and looking for a solution within this framework. But instead of a law-based approach involving the adoption of a law that would be signed by the president of Macedonia, a rules-based approach is being used. A rule was made up according to which, contrary to the Macedonian constitution, a decision may be signed at the level of minister rather than the presidential level, and the results of a referendum can be ignored, etc. The rules that are now being advanced in the Balkans, and not only there, are fairly dangerous and reflect obsession and the desire to “drive” all the Balkan countries to NATO as soon as possible.

I read the other day that the United States has been having quite a long critical discussion with respect to Bosnia and Herzegovina to the effect that the Serbs are playing a destructive role in Bosnia. Recently, a think tank in the United States said that it is time to abandon the Dayton Accords, because the Serbs will slow down the entry of Bosnia and Herzegovina into NATO. That is, the goal is set, this time again, and it is not about the well-being of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its three constituent nations, but Bosnia and Herzegovina joining NATO. This is something we cannot agree with, because it represents the mentality of the past century, if not the century before it. In a situation where we all declared a desire to build a common economic and cultural space and to ensure indivisible and equal security in the Euro-Atlantic area, this is nothing short of replacing international law with NATO-centric, rather than universal, rules. Examples of this abound.



Question:

The UK Foreign Office has confirmed to me that they have requested consular access to Paul Whelan. I just wanted to clarify: you are saying that they will only be allowed that if Russia is allowed consular access to Sergey and Yulia Skripal, and also why is there so little information surrounding the actual charges laid against him?



Sergey Lavrov:

I said something different. I said that the United Kingdom is refusing to respect its obligations under the 1965 Consular Convention. And I said that at the moment I am not aware of a request from the British Embassy under the aforementioned Convention for consular access to Paul Whelan. But I immediately added that if there is such a request, we will not act in the same way as our British colleagues. We will act based on our obligations under this Convention and on diplomatic propriety.

As for the details on charges brought against Paul Whelan, this is open information. He was passing certain materials he should not have. Or actually, as I understand it, he was receiving certain materials. But I can assure you that there is immeasurably more information available about what is going on with Paul Whelan than there is about where Sergey and Yulia Skripal are now. This is totally ridiculous, forgive my unparliamentary expression, but it has been almost a year, and not only we don’t have any access to these people in response to our numerous requests based on the same Consular Convention, but we are not even told where they are and have not even seen them. So there is more than enough reason for us to question the actions of the British legal system, but we are committed to resolving all problems through dialogue, naturally, and based on respect for each other’s interests. It is unacceptable to treat the Russian Federation like a country to which no one owes anything while it has all the obligations to everyone (as we sometimes observed in the behaviour of some of our Western colleagues). Let's cooperate, let's work on the basis of equality.



Question:

Last year trade between Russia and China set a historical record by exceeding $100 billion. China is Russia’s largest trade partner. How do you regard the prospects of trade and economic relations between Russia and China?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is true, last year we really reached a record level in trade and there is more to come. We and our Chinese friends share quite ambitious plans that were discussed during the meeting between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of China Xi Jinping, during Vladimir Putin’s visit to China last summer and Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia during the Eastern Economic Forum and other contacts our leaders had on the sidelines of international events held by BRICS, G20 and other organisations. Our economic representatives that prepare meetings between heads of state also meet regularly. The latest meeting summed up the results of activities carried out by about 60 organisations operating in various areas of our cooperation. We are developing and already granted support to about 70 projects worth over $100 billion in various spheres such as energy, including nuclear energy, agriculture, transport and cooperation in space. As you know, our space agencies coordinate global navigation systems, GLONASS and Beidou. I believe that our prospects in trade, the economy and investment are very significant.

Let me also comment on our close cooperation and common approaches in international affairs, such as cooperation within BRICS and the SCO as well as in the context of developing ties and harmonising processes with the Eurasian Economic Space and the Belt and Road Initiative. In the United Nations, including the Security Council, we share common approaches to settling conflicts based on international law and dialogue strictly by political means, whether it is the conflict in Syria or elsewhere in the Middle East, or the Korean Peninsula. Our relations are developing steadily and progressively in all areas.



Question:

Next month Poland will host a US-organised summit on the Middle East that will be primarily devoted to Iran. Will it be attended by a Russian representative? What do you think about the idea of holding this summit, considering that it is organised by the US but in Poland? Some media call it anti-Iranian.



Sergey Lavrov:

I was just going to ask who organised this summit because the Polish Foreign Ministry announced it as a joint US-Polish initiative whereas during his tour of the Middle East US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said the US will hold a summit in Poland. Indeed, we received an invitation and the agenda that is primarily devoted to the conflicts in Syria and Yemen, problems with now the Iranian missile programme, and Iran’s actions in the region.

If the forum is focused on the Middle East, the key issue – an Arab-Israeli including Palestine-Israeli settlement – is not part of it. As you said yourself, it seems that the entire agenda is aimed at promoting US approaches on deterring Iran in that region. This is the official US position. Obviously, the summit in Warsaw is aimed at achieving this goal.

It is also confusing that the invitation reads that ministers of the participating countries should not worry about the final document of the summit because its co-chairs US and Poland will write it themselves and present it as a joint summary without any possibility for other invitees to contribute to its wording. Frankly speaking, this is not routinely accepted. It appears that about fifty ministers have been invited to bless the document that the US will write itself, with all due respect to Poland. These are the reasons why we have huge doubts that the forthcoming summit will help to find constructive solutions to the problems of the Middle East.

As for the Iranian aspect and possible influence on relations with Poland, these are your bilateral affairs.



Question:

I would like to ask you about the fate of a specific individual. Today you spoke several times about Russian citizens whose interests are consistently protected by Moscow if their rights are violated in different countries. There is a young man by the name of Marat Yeldanov-Galustyan who has been kept in prison in neighbouring Azerbaijan on false charges. Azerbaijan is cynically ignoring all of Russia’s requests for his extradition. What measures are being taken to help Galystyan?



Sergey Lavrov:

During our bilateral contacts we regularly discuss issues related to our citizens who find themselves in a difficult position in a CIS or any other foreign country. Let me assure you that we discussed this particular issue during recent talks with our colleagues from Azerbaijan. I hope that, relying on dialogue and solutions based on legal norms, we will be able to find a way out that will suit everyone and return this person to Russia.



Question:

In an interview with RIA Novsti at the end of last year you said that you expect “adequate politicians” with a responsible perception of reality to emerge in Ukraine. What are the criteria for being “adequate”?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think that people in any country want to see adequate politicians. As for what is taking place in Ukraine now, I am far from being the only person who would like to see adequate policy there. It is enough to simply read the Ukrainian media and some websites.

As for the criteria for being adequate, these are respect for one’s own commitments, the Constitution and other laws. Everything else is inadequate, starting from the anti-constitutional coup d’etat when nationalists came to power and began to openly demand, like Dmytro Yarosh, the extermination or expulsion of Russians from Crimea. President Poroshenko’s policy seemed adequate to us during his election campaign, promising he would be “the president of peace.” But when he became the head of state, he no longer uttered such words. He is instead making bellicose statements and promises to liberate the so-called “occupied territories” and is categorically refusing to fulfil what he signed himself – the Minsk agreements. Subsequent decisions adopted by the leaders of the Normandy format are also being subverted, including those on the disengagement of forces and weapons in Stanitsa Luganskaya, Petrovskoye and Zolotoye and the Steinmeier formula on linking the special status of some districts of Donbass to the holding of elections there.

I can speak at length on this subject. We have more than enough facts. Speaking about adequacy, one of the criteria is an ability to abide by one’s own Constitution and commitments signed onto when joining international conventions. The Ukrainian law on education and the draft law on the status of Ukrainian as an official language directly violate Ukraine’s Constitution. You know this very well. They also violate Ukraine’s international obligations. Literally in December the Verkhovna Rada rejected the recommendations of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, in part, on repealing Article 7 of the Law on Education. Commitments show that people are willing and able to negotiate.



Question:

Why is Russia rejecting the possibility of the return of its citizens from Ukraine back to the country? Didn’t Ukraine propose to exchange Kirill Vyshinsky for Roman Sushchenko? Everybody seems to know about this offer, but there is a whole list containing a dozen names. Ukraine offers an exchange; however, you refuse it.



Sergey Lavrov:

As you know, just over a year ago, back in December 2017, with the participation of Viktor Medvedchuk we reached an exchange agreement. We agreed upon the lists of people to be exchanged, and repeatedly verified them. Everything was agreed upon. On the day of the exchange, when the people were brought to the location in order to be transported back to their homeland, the Ukrainian side said that it will not hand over 23 people agreed upon for transfer back to Russia; it said that literally at the point of transfer for the detainees and arrested persons. I refuse to even go through the reasons for this right now; it has nothing to do with the subject matter. It was said that these people had nothing to do with events taking place in Donbass, but the fact is, these lists were verified several times, the names were agreed upon, and Ukraine failed to keep another promise.

We still maintain the processes responsible for continuation of the Donbass prisoner exchange held within the framework of the “all for all” prisoner exchange stipulated by the Minsk agreements. These issues are currently being discussed in the Contact Group, but we are not seeing any particular constructiveness on the part of the Ukrainian government representatives.

As for the people detained in the Russian Federation without any relation to the events in the Donbass - we have a Commissioner for Human Rights, Ukraine also has a Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmila Denisova. As I understand, she is now in Russia; they are currently discussing these issues. I hope this dialogue will be effective, too. If it proves possible to reach any agreements, we will fulfil them.



Question:

This question is about our nearest partners not only geographically. Kazakhstan is switching to the Latin alphabet. What is planned in relations with Astana for Moscow to remain a key partner for Kazakhstan.



Sergey Lavrov:

As for our partners in the CSTO, the CIS and the EAEU, we have very good relations with them all, including Kazakhstan. As you know, it is one of the most frequent venues for talks. Our presidents meet several times a year and regularly talk on the phone. We have a shared position on promoting the Eurasian Economic Union as members of this union.

It is true that Kazakhstan is making decisions that involve moving the Kazakh language to the Latin alphabet. This was our Kazakh friends’ decision. At the same time, we cannot see any steps to restrict the Russian language and Russian-speaking people’s rights in Kazakhstan. At any rate, we constantly monitor these issues. Wherever our fellow citizens live, we always give priority to their rights and interests and the need to uphold these rights and interests in the countries of their residence. These issues are top priority on the agenda of talks with Kazakhstan and all other countries, where our compatriots live, including the CIS, Europe, the US and other regions.



Question:

We are still witnessing unfriendly actions by our partners from Eastern Europe. It is next to impossible to receive an education in Russian in the Baltic states. Monuments continue to be pulled down, while those who assisted the enemy are declared heroes today. What is being done in this area? Can efforts to increase public awareness of those events put an end to this?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding the revival of neo-Nazi, revanchist and nationalist sentiments in Eastern Europe – primarily, unfortunately, in the Baltic states and Poland – we strongly condemn any attempt to rewrite the history of World War II, or the Great Patriotic War. Generally, rewriting history is not what politicians should do, leave this to historians. Even in these uneasy times, historians in the commissions we set up jointly with Poland and Lithuania meet in various formats and develop common approaches. This is very useful work.

You mentioned Kazakhstan and other CIS countries. We talked with our colleagues from the Institute of General History who are overseeing teams of Russian and foreign historians. I would support similar efforts within the CIS. We had a single common state like nobody had and it is very important to us to understand what foundation and principles underpinned that country and how we lived before we became one country and how we continued to be allies and partners after 1991.

We adopted many resolutions at the UN that say that glorifying Nazism is unacceptable. The most recent resolution was approved last month by the overwhelming majority – only the US and Ukraine voted against it – which speaks for itself. Packages of documents condemning, among other things, the war against monuments were adopted in the CSTO and were later distributed at the OSCE and the UN. A recurrence of this war can be seen in other European countries, including Bulgaria, Hungary and Germany. We note that the authorities mostly respond quickly and efficiently, in keeping with their commitments. But we have failed to reach an understanding on this issue with our Polish colleagues. The statements to the effect that monuments that are not erected at the graves are not covered by our bilateral agreement are based on a misinterpretation of this document. Any legal expert familiar with the document will confirm this. We would like to reach an understanding on this issue, given that in the Russian Federation there are many monuments to foreigners, including those from Eastern Europe, who died on our land. We cooperate closely on the majority of cases. I would like to quote the example of Slovenia where not only monuments of the past are maintained in perfect order but also new monuments dedicated to our wartime brotherhood are put up. Now we in Russia plan to have a monument dedicated to Slovenes who perished in our country during the war. That is why what you called “increasing public awareness” is important and it is important to engage in this work so that youth in Russia, the CIS countries and other European countries know their history lest they degenerate into people without kith or kin. This would be damaging for European civilisation and culture. Of course, in addition to educational work and, in a good sense of the word, explanatory work and propaganda, it is important to work to ensure that the European countries deliver on the legal obligations they assumed with respect to the World War II monuments.



Question:

Parliamentary elections will take place in Estonia on March 3. The Estonia 200 party is suggesting the creation of joined schools where Russian and Estonian children will study together in the official, that is, Estonian language. In the opinion of that party, this will help overcome the split in society and the feeling of segregation as if Russians are in some ghetto. In this way, everything will be united; everyone will be united. What do you think about this?

Estonian Minister of the Interior Katri Raik saw a foreign ministry statement on this issue and commented on so-called “grey” passport holders – stateless people. There are about 70,000−78,000 of them. In her opinion, during a limited period they could simply apply for citizenship and receive it. By way of criticism, she received a reply that stateless people in Estonia may not wish to do this because they have the right to go to Russia visa-free. If they do they will create problems for themselves and lose the opportunity to come to Russia and keep in touch.



Sergey Lavrov:

Frankly, I have not heard about the idea of joint schools, but judging by your description, this is simply unacceptable. It suppresses the interests of the Russian minority and is aimed at incorporating this minority by force into the Estonian-language space, thereby depriving it of an opportunity to receive an education in their native tongue as is required by numerous international conventions, including the Council of Europe convention on regional and minority languages.

In principle, I believe that what is happening with the Russian language in Estonia and Latvia is very serious and gives no credibility to these countries, the EU, and NATO, which, by the way, positions itself not only as a military alliance but also as a community of democracy.

I have repeatedly written letters to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, EU high commissioners and leaders of the UN, Council of Europe and OSCE, drawing their attention to the unacceptable practice of discriminating against Russian speakers, not to mention the shameful phenomenon of “statelessness.”

As for Interior Minister Katri Raik’s idea to grant citizenship to all those who have lived in Estonia since 1991, I will leave this decision to an individual person. If someone believes that this is not what we call “a wolf’s ticket,” that the passport of a non-citizen provides some benefits, this is a choice for every individual. But I heard that after this initiative was voiced, Foreign Minister Sven Mikser announced that the idea of granting citizenship to those who have lived in Estonia since 1991 was the personal opinion of Estonian Minister of the Interior Katri Raik.

This is not correct, this is not true. This is not the personal opinion of the Estonian Minister of the Interior but is one of the recommendations of the Council of Europe and the OSCE, which has long been addressed to the Estonian authorities. Therefore, I am hoping that the solution to the problem of non-citizens will be found in this or another form. In this respect, international agencies, primarily the EU and NATO as I have said, as well as the OSCE and the Council of Europe should play a much more active role.



Question:

Yesterday the Financial Times wrote about the elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Would you call them fraudulent? Do these results lack credibility?



Sergey Lavrov:

The official results have been published. I have nothing to add to this. I heard that once announced, the results of these elections were put into doubt. My French colleague Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and other representatives demanded that these results be revised and the votes recounted, as I understand it. We do not interfere in the internal affairs of the Democratic Republic of the Congo or any other state and are confident that people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are able to find solutions to any arising questions, including the results of the elections themselves. It is very important to respect their rights and abstain from imposing agreements on them, which happens often in your country and France in Africa, in the former colonies with which it is of course necessary to continue some relations and we welcome this. They are interested in this. It just happens that very often these old ties turn into fairly obtrusive advice from the outside. We still suggest and are trying to do this ourselves, to conduct affairs with African and all other states in a more respectful manner.



Question:

US President Donald Trump has recently called for a 20-mile safe zone in the north of Syria. President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan also spoke in support of this plan. How would you assess it?



Sergey Lavrov:

We will assess it in the context of the general evolution of the situation in Syria. I have already spoken about President Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from Syria. The idea of a 20-mile safe zone was floated in this context. We should take a long view of all this, including the restoration of the central authorities’ control over the entire territory of Syria as soon as possible. This issue will be discussed, among others, when the Turkish President comes [to Russia] for the next round of talks with President Vladimir Putin. I would like to repeat that the ultimate goal is to restore the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as has been agreed by Russia, the United States, Turkey and all other UN member states. At the same time, we will keep working to ensure full respect for the interests of all the parties involved and of Syria’s neighbours. Of course, the security interests of all countries in the region, including Turkey, will be included in the agreements which we will try to coordinate.



Question:

Iceland has joined the sanctions against Russia, thereby losing a fish market that was very important for it. [Russia] was one of the largest markets for Icelandic fish and sea foods. Many fish companies have gone out of business. What should the Republic of Iceland do to re-enter the Russian market?

There is a monument to Soviet soldiers in Iceland. There have not been any cases of desecration in Iceland, unlike in some other countries.



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding the sanctions, the situation should be clear to everyone, I think. When sanctions were introduced against Russia, we had to respond in kind on the agricultural and food markets. The EU sanctions, which were adopted several years ago and which Iceland has supported, stipulate restrictions and limitations against Russian banks, including those that issue agricultural loans. This amounts to discrimination against our agricultural producers because they cannot take out the loans they need for their operations. This is why we took retaliatory measures against food and other agricultural imports.

There is a simple solution to this problem: stop using these methods in international affairs, although they are becoming increasingly popular in the West, in particular, in the US. There is only one way out: stop using diktat and unfair methods of competition, such as sanctions. Those who were the first to use these methods must be the first to act. It is often said that they have taken the first step but we must help them, because they want to lift the sanctions but Russia must also do something. This has been said about many problems which we did not create, such as sanctions or the crisis in the Council of Europe over the situation in PACE. They understand that they are wrong and we are right. They should act on this understanding to solve the problem, but they are asking us to provide a pretext for this, which they would present as our compliance and agreement to do something positive for the West. I don’t think it is a constructive approach. It is much better to act openly. If you did something which the majority of people consider to be wrong, you must put it right. Be assured that we will reciprocate. And we will do so very quickly.



Question:

Last year a fairly representative delegation of the Foreign Ministry (about 20 Russian ambassadors) visited Yamal to study the investment potential of the area. I would like to hear your assessment of how productive the cooperation with the Russian regions is today? Will this practice continue?

Are we satisfied with the state of cooperation in the Arctic?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would like to convey my gratitude to the leadership of the region for inviting our ambassadors. We have used this practice for a long time. Every two years, there is a meeting of Russian ambassadors in Moscow, at which the President of Russia speaks, and numerous sessions are held where various aspects of our overseas agencies’ work are considered. It is of fundamental importance for us that ambassadors, especially in today's conditions, when diplomacy becomes all-embracing and discusses not only purely political matters, but also considers initiatives that allow us to promote the country’s economic interests, our economic operators, see firsthand how the Russian regions, the constituent entities of the federation, live today. Every time ambassadors come to this meeting, we ask various regional heads to host us, usually alternating them. Last year, there were two regions (the Tula Region and the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Area) where our ambassadors went, including Yamal. It was very beneficial for them. I talked with some of them. It is very important to see how the region lives – one of the driving forces of economic growth not only of Siberia, but also of the Russian Federation as a whole. The projects that are being implemented there are world class; I will not even talk about them now.

The role of the regions in the implementation of our foreign policy is also very important – firstly because the regions, along with the federal centre, are really the Russian Federation, and secondly, because the regions are increasingly acquiring a taste for external relations. A presidential executive order regulates the regions’ external relations and stipulates the Russian Foreign Ministry as the coordinator of these activities to ensure a coordinated foreign policy. We are not engaged in any micromanagement. All the economic agreements that the regions enter into with their neighbours or other parties are signed independently in most cases, or they receive support through federal ministries responsible for economic affairs. We make sure that it all fits into our common foreign policy line.

The Foreign Ministry's Council of the Heads of Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation includes seven regional leaders (they are rotated), representatives of the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Federal Customs Service and other services that are involved in dealing with the issues of interest to the regions in their foreign economic relations.

The Arctic Council is a very useful organisation. We strongly support what’s going on in this agency. This is probably one of the few bodies that are not affected by geopolitical squabbles. Its work is extremely specific and depoliticised. We think this is a role model. Finland is presiding there now. Events are planned, which our Finnish neighbours will most likely announce later. Substantive work is being done on the development of the resources of the North while preserving the environment and ensuring the interests of the indigenous peoples and minorities of the North. There is a special group that works on this and monitors the situation. All this is very important. Along with the development of the transport infrastructure, we are making our contribution by ensuring increasingly safe and efficient use of the Northern Sea Route.



Question:

Russia’s foreign policy – constructive, tough and serious – has become an important factor of international security. Russia returned to the Middle East, it is being respected and reckoned with. Due to Russia’s policy, many global challenges have been toned down.

It is absolutely obvious that the European Union does not have the potential to solve the problems related to the US’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. It has been eight months since the EU promised to develop a financial mechanism to continue the dialogue with Iran and provide compensation to European companies if they suffer from the sanctions.

At the dawn of the Soviet Union, a Soviet-Persian bank was created with a capital of $5 million, while the total capital of the Iran Central Bank was $500,000. This bank was a powerful stimulus for the development of trade, agriculture and industry of both countries, as well as for the strengthening of the Soviet Union’s position in Iran.

There are no banks currently operating in Iran. We are waiting for the EU’s decision, but Brussels seems to be unable to develop this financial mechanism. You lead Russia’s foreign policy and could become the driving force for such ministries as the Ministry of Industry and Commerce and the Ministry of Economic Development and assist them in creating a Russia-Iran bank which would work in national currencies to protect it from the sanctions of the US and other Western countries.



Sergey Lavrov:

As you know, in accordance with the Constitution, Russian foreign policy is defined by the President. We are doing our best to implement it. Thank you for your kind words.

As for the concrete situation with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran nuclear deal, its participants minus the US met in July 2018 in Vienna, and then in September 2018 – at foreign minister level – on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. We have brought up this subject repeatedly with the European Union. Brussels has long promised to create a so-called special purpose vehicle, a special payment mechanism that will not be dependent on the US and the SWIFT system, which is controlled by the US through the artificially high position of the dollar. The European Union keeps promising that the work will be finished soon. My deputy and representatives of the European foreign policy service have met recently and we see that the job is being done slowly and time is flying by.

You have probably read news about this subject causing conflicting commentaries in the political circles in Iran. This does not help either. This is not the only situation when the EU cannot reach a result. I do not know what the reason for this is. We mentioned the Balkans and Kosovo where the EU played a very positive role. We thought that the EU assisted the agreements between Pristina and Belgrade in a series of important issues: several years ago, the creation of the Community of Serb Municipalities of Kosovo was announced in order to help defend the rights of the Serbs living in the region. It still has not been established. Pristina adamantly refuses to do anything, while the EU shrugs its shoulders and is unable to call it to order.

I heard about the successful experience of the Soviet-Persian bank. It is not important whether it’s a bank or some other mechanism. The goal is crystal clear: to make sure that trade between Iran and other countries, including the Russian Federation, doesn’t depend on the unilateral actions of the US. I can assure you that the Russian Ministry of Economic Development as well as other agencies are taking relevant measures. Our Iranian partners know about them. Tehran’s other trade partners are doing the same. So we are speaking now about a much faster transition to national currencies in mutual trade than it was planned earlier. There are other ideas as well that are being discussed by the economic ministries.



Question:

The whole of Europe is anxiously watching the situation around Brexit. Tension in relations between Russia and Britain is at its highest, particularly after the Skripal case. What Brexit scenario would be especially interesting to Russia, given its interests in Europe?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is a matter for Britain and its subjects, and for the country’s Parliament. Certainly, it is not all the same to us in what way this might affect the European Union since the EU is our top trade partner as an organisation (while China is the top one at a national level), even despite the fact that our combined goods turnover fell from its record high of 400 billion euros to around 270 billion euros due to the sanctions.

There are many processes going on in connection with Brexit, and not just Brexit alone, which will influence the functioning of the European Union. It is very important for us to understand how this might affect our relations, above all, trade and economic relations. As for talk about what option is “more interesting” – this psychology is characteristic of countries and politicians seeking to interfere in and trying to “orchestrate” processes in other states. We do nothing of the sort. I cited examples how preparations for the Prespa Agreement in Macedonia were openly “orchestrated” without any scruples. Attempts are now being made in Germany, through the US ambassador, to orchestrate the positions of German companies with regard to Nord Stream 2. We do not use such approaches.

We say nothing about Brexit, but someone writes that Russia is “rubbing its hands” and “gloating”. Nothing of the kind. We always said, long before Brexit shaped up, that we are interested in a single, strong and, most importantly, independent European Union. It remains to be seen what will happen. Of course, we are ready to cooperate both with the EU and Britain, in case the latter eventually pulls out of the EU. As for what are the best forms in which this could be carried out, we will consider that after we understand what has really happened.



Question:

Serbia is trying to avoid choosing between Russia and the EU, nevertheless, voices are being heard inside the country that the choice has to be made. Last year, you paid a fruitful visit to Belgrade. And now, President Vladimir Putin of Russia is preparing to go there. What are the goals of the Russian foreign policy in Serbia?



Sergey Lavrov:

You were right to observe that in Europe they think that Serbia will eventually have to make a choice between Russia and the EU. This too is a mentality that has long outlived its usefulness. It reflects the old colonial ways. I have repeatedly cited an example of the EU embarking on unilateral demands in the zero-result game logic. During the first “maidan” in Ukraine in 2003, Belgium’s Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht, who later became a European Commissioner, openly called on the Ukrainians to decide who they are with – with Russia or Europe. Such provocative approaches reflect great-power moods and contradict the decisions that we adopted all together, including in the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and within the framework of the Russia-EU relations.

Pre-accession talks on various chapters are currently under way in Serbia. The EU is not shy as to say that, first, Serbia must recognise the independence of Kosovo in order to access the EU and, second, it must join the EU policy towards Russia, including the sanctions. Taking such positions is utterly inappropriate. I said more than once that that the EU keeps priding itself on its unity, but lately, however, it is being achieved on the basis of the lowest denominator, when the fairly aggressive minority presses the other EU member states to take positions with regard to Russia that are obviously biased and discriminating.

I would advise dropping the “either with Russia or the EU” logic. Anyway, let us return to those times when great Europeans, including Charles de Gaulle and other politicians, were putting forward their vision of a common space from the Atlantic to the Urals and then to the Pacific Ocean. This is all confirmed in the OSCE, Russia-EU and Russia-NATO documents (on equal and indivisible security), but in reality the negotiability somehow does not manifest itself.

We stand for the return to the philosophy of joint cooperation based on the balance of interests, rather than attempts to impose on anyone the views that are worked out by a fairly small group of states, no matter how influential they are.



Question:

Some time ago, they actively discussed a peacekeeping mission in Donbass. Has everything calmed down now? Or is something cooking behind the scenes?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is part of what I have discussed today: This implies a correlation between international law and various regulations being conceived and presented as incontestable truths.

Speaking of international law, we have the Minsk Agreements that have been approved by the UN Security Council. Under these agreements, all issues should be resolved through direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk, with OSCE mediation. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine has been deployed in Donbass and Ukraine as a whole, including other regions where its members should monitor compliance with Ukraine’s human rights obligations and with other aspects of European life. Security problems began to arise for members of this Mission, and some incidents have been recorded. For example, one of the Mission’s officials, an American citizen, was killed by a landmine. The Mission’s officials investigated the incident and established that the landmine had not been planted by self-defence fighters; immediately after that, the issue was shelved, and no one has actively discussed it since.

In this connection, I would like to recall that we have repeatedly urged our OSCE colleagues and top officials of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine to issue more transparent reports because, most often, they write about a certain number of attacks on various communities during one day or one week, and they also provide casualty estimates; but it is unclear who fired at whom. In September 2017, the Mission members at long last prepared a report (under our influence) showing casualties among self-defence fighters and targets on their territory, as well as a similar breakdown for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It is clear enough that in most of the cases the Ukrainian service personnel usually attack communities first, with self-defence fighters retaliating. The number of attacks on settlements by the Armed Forces of Ukraine is several times higher than the corresponding statistics for the self-defence fighters. The same can be said about civilian casualties.

Today, we are meeting with journalists, and you work for media outlets. Therefore I will mention what I have told my Western colleagues many times (when they tried to convince me that Donetsk and Lugansk are to blame for all the troubles along the demarcation line, and that it is precisely the self-defence fighters who start all the firefights and combat operations): Representatives of Russian media outlets work on the eastern side of the demarcation line virtually in real-time mode. Your colleagues regularly make onsite reports showing real-life developments in areas controlled by self-defence fighters. I have repeatedly advised my Western colleagues who doubt real facts that they should tell Western journalists to launch the same work in areas controlled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. I don’t remember that anybody had ever worked there permanently or at least showed up there at regular intervals. Eighteen months ago, a BBC film crew visited the region and prepared what I can call an objective report; but no one has been there since then.

If journalists from the BBC, Euronews or any other media outlet are interested in spreading the truth, if your governments are not persuading you to work in one of the most problem-ridden geopolitical hotspots, then I would like to ask you to start working on the western side of the demarcation line in Donbass. In any event, you will learn much more than you do now, while watching reports that, for some reason, have offsite status.

Speaking of the Mission once again, when they faced security problems, we responded to concerns voiced by representatives of Germany and France and suggested issuing small arms to OSCE representatives. The OSCE refused. By the way, the Germans and the French also said this was no good because the OSCE lacked any experience of such armed peacekeeping operations. President of Russia Vladimir Putin then suggested establishing a UN mission that would help protect OSCE representatives, and we submitted the relevant resolution to the UN Security Council. The extremely simple resolution hinged on an international law document, namely, the OSCE-UN mandate in support of the Minsk Agreements. The resolution noted that UN security guards should escort OSCE observers wherever they go within Donbass.

This was an international law approach. In response, our Western colleagues, primarily US colleagues, once again suggested a “regulation” conceived by US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker. These regulations did not aim to facilitate direct dialogue between Kiev and the self-defence fighters under the Minsk Agreements and to help resolve all issues during this dialogue with OSCE mediation. On the contrary, they called for deploying a 30,000-strong UN military contingent with heavy weapons in Donbass, including every conceivable armed service, and to establish control over the entire perimeter of Donbass territory that we are now talking about. After that, local self-defence fighters, police forces and local administrations would be disbanded in Donetsk and Lugansk, and UN police officers and administrators would be deployed there, deciding everything.

This US-backed “regulation” would rule out any elections there. It would impose a unilateral solution instead of consensus and compromises between Donbass and Kiev. We explained the reasons why we were unable to renounce the logic of UN Security Council decisions and to replace international law with this regulation conceived by Mr Volker. I believe all of us understand this but pretend that it is the only way to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, that is, to follow in the wake of the incumbent government and to force Donbass to surrender. It is absolutely unrealistic to hope for this. It would be better if our German and French colleagues who supported the Minsk Agreements in the Normandy format, as well as other members of the international community, including the United States, would, nevertheless, help launch direct talks to implement the Minsk Package of Measures.



Question:

At the end of last week, the US media announced the country’s intention to strengthen its position in the Arctic in response to Russia and China’s excessive claims in the region. In particular, a report, citing Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer, indicated that Washington plans to send warships to the Arctic this summer, in the first US Navy operation to ensure freedom of navigation in the region.

Earlier, at the Arctic Council ministerial meeting in Alaska in May 2017, you said there was no potential for any conflict in the Arctic. How do you assess the US intention to increase its military presence in the Arctic? Could this step serve as another reason for the heightening tension between Russia and the United States? Will Russia take any retaliatory action if the United States sends warships to the Arctic?



Sergey Lavrov:

The United States is an Arctic power. In accordance with international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United States is entitled to use the sea routes in this region, like all other Arctic and non-Arctic powers.

If we are talking about warships of any country planning to use the Northern Sea Route, then there are rules for this. Last autumn, a French warship passed along the Northern Sea Route. My French colleagues and I discussed all the details, no questions arose.

We presume that everyone will respect these rules, because it cannot be otherwise. The Russian Federation is responsible for ensuring the effective functioning and security of the Northern Sea Route.

Regarding the reasons why the United States wants to pay more attention to this region, I repeat, it is an Arctic power. I see no problem here if they respect the law, including the Russian laws on the use of the Northern Sea Route. Whether they want to create additional potential for conflict through this, I do not know. I do not want to jump the gun. In a number of other regions, the United States is doing this, including the South China Sea, where they are trying to intervene in territorial disputes between China and the countries of South-East Asia. I really hope this will not happen in the Arctic, this way of creating factors that aggravate relations between countries in the relevant parts of the world. This will not facilitate cooperation within the Arctic Council.



Question:

This year, the US started a trade war against China. Russia is also facing a more complicated global situation. Some experts believe that this situation is only strengthening our solidarity. Do you agree with this? How will our foreign relations develop?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is a lot of speculation about how relations are developing in the Russia-China-US triangle. Many people want to go back to the time of President Richard Nixon when the US decided to normalise its relations with China to contain the Soviet Union. Many people want that.

Recently, some members of Japan’s governing party have voiced the idea of signing a peace treaty with Russia, above all, to contain China.

When everything that happens in the relations between our countries is regarded as an attempt to “drive a wedge” into them and divide our positions, it only causes deep regret, because it reflects the “either with us or against us” mentality.

Russia and China have not made friends to oppose anyone. We are friends because we are neighbours and strategic partners in international affairs; we share many common interests and see the same need to make the world more stable, secure and democratic. This is the foundation of our strategic partnership and comprehensive cooperation. We also have a shared interest in trying to preserve the global trade system and making it easier to understand and govern, as well as less dependent on the unilateral whims of any state. I believe we have to work in this area for many years to come, but we intend to deliver results.



Question:

How would you rate Russia-Azerbaijan relations in 2018? Do you believe it was a breakthrough year? Why didn’t the Russia-Azerbaijan-Iran summit take place in Moscow last year? What are the prospects for holding it any time soon? What are the prospects for creating a Russia-Azerbaijan-Turkey format?



Sergey Lavrov:

With regard to our relations with Azerbaijan, I wouldn’t use the term “breakthrough,” because our relations are developing not by leaps and bounds, but rather in a steady and progressive manner. Last year, there were fairly productive presidential level meetings, and I met with my colleague Elmar Mammadyarov in Baku and Moscow as well. Our economic departments also cooperated closely. The Baku International Humanitarian Forum met again under the joint patronage of President Putin and President Aliyev. And the list goes on.

We are connected by numerous formal, official and unofficial functions, including the International Music Festival Zhara (Heat), which is widely popular both in Russia and Azerbaijan.

I would assess the past year fairly positively. We cooperated well within the CIS, the UN, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe which is rather prejudiced with regard to Azerbaijan. PACE is also trying to discriminate against the Azerbaijani parliamentarians’ rights.

The government in Armenia changed last year, so our contribution to the work of the co-chairs in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement has so far been limited to introductory meetings. This month, the co-chairs from Russia, France and the United States will meet with the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan. I think we will be able to contribute to the settlement of the conflict, which has already become long standing, but can still be resolved provided the goodwill of Yerevan and Baku and the support of the international community, including the co-chairs. I think the statements about willingness to search for solutions, including from Baku, deserve to be thoroughly supported. We hope that our Armenian friends will reciprocate.

As for the second part of your question − the Russia-Azerbaijan-Iran format − there was no agreement to convene such a format on a yearly basis. So, it is not entirely correct to say that it was not possible to convene a meeting of the three presidents. Indeed, it's our turn to host the next Russia-Iran-Azerbaijan summit. We are preparing it, and I assure you that it will effectively take place.

Regarding other possible formats with the participation of Azerbaijan, the discussions have yet to be put into practice. We need to look at how much “added value” these formats will have. A format for the sake of the format is, probably, not something that is in the interests of Azerbaijan, Russia and other possible participants. To reiterate, if any particular form of our interaction has “added value,” then, of course, we will gladly consider such an option.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3476729
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old February 4th, 2019 #557
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,170
Default

Suggestion for Alex: Could you start a second thread on this same subject? Same for the Moscow/Zelenograd photos thread? There is so much text and photos in them, they are taking a LONG time to load up.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old February 7th, 2019 #558
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Allan View Post
Suggestion for Alex: Could you start a second thread on this same subject? Same for the Moscow/Zelenograd photos thread? There is so much text and photos in them, they are taking a LONG time to load up.
Ray, I have already opened the following topic about the Russian Foreign Ministry.

It is here - https://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=553222
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:16 PM.
Page generated in 3.00356 seconds.