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

Old May 13th, 2017 #81
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Statement by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council, Fairbanks, USA, May 11, 2017



12 May 2017 - 09:18





Mr Chairman, Mr Governor, colleagues,

I would like to express our appreciation for the hospitality of our American hosts and to congratulate them on their successful chairmanship of the Arctic Council.

Russia has been working hard to promote the development of the Arctic as a territory of peace, stability and cooperation. There is no potential for conflict here. International law is reliably protecting the national interests of the Arctic states, which bear special responsibility for long-term development in this region.

During a ministerial dinner yesterday, some of my colleagues raised the issue of security in the Arctic. I would like to remind you in this connection that the chiefs of general staff of the Arctic states met annually until 2013. These meetings were very useful for building trust and mutual understanding. Regrettably, they have been suspended for over three years now, but this did not happen at Russia’s initiative.

As the largest Arctic state, Russia continues working to bolster the region’s resistance to global challenges and to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development approved by the UN General Assembly.

It is obvious that cooperation cannot develop sustainably without the strengthening of its resource potential. In this context, I would like to highlight the importance of the Artic Council Project Support Instrument, which provides the means for applying new technological solutions and implementing environmental initiatives, in particular, to reduce black carbon emissions and collect hazardous waste.

Although the Arctic is no longer a terra incognita, the region is still one of the least studied on the planet. The Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation, which we signed today, will give a fresh impetus to the cooperation of researchers from the Arctic states.

The promotion of mutually beneficial economic ties is among our priorities. We welcome the launch of Arctic Council cooperation in the sphere of telecommunications. We propose using this to stimulate the work of the Arctic Economic Council and urge Finland, which is assuming the chairmanship of the Arctic Council, to draft practical proposals on this issue with due regard for the opinion of all members of the Arctic Council.

We invite our partners to contribute to the implementation of the Russian programme of Arctic economic development, which combines environmental protection and measures to improve the quality of life, culture and traditions of the indigenous peoples of the North.

We wish Finland every success as it takes over the chairmanship of the Arctic Council. Russia will provide all-round assistance to ensuring the efficient operation of the eight Arctic states. We are committed to creating more comfortable conditions for the work of representatives of the Russian indigenous peoples in the Arctic Council.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2752051






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions following the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, Fairbanks, May 11, 2017



12 May 2017 - 09:21







A regular Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council has come to an end in Fairbanks. Meetings of this kind are held every two years. This time, it focused on reviewing a number of draft documents. A ministerial declaration was approved by all eight Arctic states, reaffirming the commitment to the peaceful development of the Arctic and mutually beneficial cooperation with a focus on environment protection. It also stressed the importance of devising joint steps to adapt to climate change. This overlaps with the objective articulated recently by President of Russia Vladimir Putin at The Arctic: Territory of Dialogue forum in Arkhangelsk.

Russia affirmed its commitment to resolving all issues that may arise in the Arctic through political talks and in full compliance with the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, which sets forth all the necessary provisions for solving any issues related to the Arctic. In our opinion, there are no issues that could require military action. Our partners agree. We reminded them that until 2013 the regular meetings held by the eight Arctic counties included annual meetings of their chiefs of general staff. In 2014, Russia’s partners decided to suspend this format, although it is my belief that it did not help build trust or promote cooperation and mutual understanding, if anyone was interested in doing so, as we reminded our colleagues today. I think that this made them think whether the decision to suspend this very useful format had been the right thing to do.

Apart from the declaration, a legally binding intergovernmental agreement was signed. This is the third document of this kind adopted by the Arctic Council. The first two dealt with preventing oil spills and organising search and rescue operations in the northern latitudes. Today, an Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation was signed, since it is clear that the Arctic is a region that still needs to be explored and may be one of the world’s least studied regions. This is especially important in terms of environmental protection and adaptation to climate change, as well as promoting regular systematic exchanges between researchers from the eight countries. This is also essential for reconciling economic development with environmental protection, while promoting development, fulfilling the needs and improving the living standards for the indigenous peoples inhabiting the North and the population of the Arctic in general.



Question:

In your statement, you mentioned the initiative to revive the meetings of the chiefs of general staff.



Sergey Lavrov:

I have just said that.



Question:

How did your partners respond to this initiative?



Sergey Lavrov:

I said that too. This gave them some food for thought.



Question:

You also mentioned the international law of the sea. Does the US intend to ratify the 1982 Convention?



Sergey Lavrov:

I cannot guarantee that, but everyone noted that although the US has yet to ratify the Convention, in its actual actions the US by and large abides by its provisions.



Question:

Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland surprised everyone today by beginning her statement in Russian to welcome the delegation. Did you have any contacts with her? What are the prospects for removing her from Russia’s black list?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yesterday we talked at the informal dinner reception that was open to ministers and representatives of the Arctic Council only. Russia-Canada relations were among the topics that were raised. We had a brief conversation ahead of this event. During the dinner the Ukraine issue was mentioned and how it affected Russia’s relations with western countries, which gave rise to a small debate. I highlighted the manifestations of neo-Nazism and chauvinism we are currently witnessing in Ukraine. In fact, radicals have hijacked the agenda from the president and prime minister in our neighbouring country that we care about. I referred to the draft law on the state language whereby, if adopted, all the citizens of Ukraine would have to use only the Ukrainian language in their day-to-day activities regardless of the language they prefer (be it Russian, Hungarian, Romanian or Polish). This initiative is clearly discriminatory and runs counter to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. My Canadian colleague was not aware of this draft law, and I promised to send it to her. I am looking forward to her comments on the situation. The Russian delegation was surprised to discover that she is fluent in Russian (today she addressed the representatives of the indigenous peoples of Russia in Russian), but while Chrystia Freeland is free to speak Russian here in Alaska, in Ukraine, where Russian has long been a native language for a huge number of people, it could soon lose its standing and status. This was an interesting conversation. We will see where it takes us.



Question:

It is still unclear how much the Americans will be involved in monitoring the situation in the de-escalation areas in Syria. Has US President Donald Trump or Secretary of State Rex Tillerson promised to send American observes to these areas? If so, when will this happen? And will Iran be present in these de-escalation areas?



Sergey Lavrov:

We did not discuss this issue. We said that we would welcome any US contribution to the implementation of this initiative, considering that it was Donald Trump who was the first to speak about creating safe zones in Syria for the people. As you know, experts from Russia, Turkey and Iran, the guarantors of the ceasefire in Syria, will meet in 10 or 12 days to discuss concrete parameters for the administration of these areas, including the security zones around them, with observation posts and checkpoints. The memorandum signed in Astana says that third parties can be attracted for the administration of these areas, by consensus of the concerned parties, primarily the Syrian Government. We are in talks with the potential participants in this process. I hope that we will be able to discuss this with our partners in greater detail soon.



Question:

Did you discuss the possibility of re-launching the working groups of the Russia-US Bilateral Presidential Commission? Can this happen in 2017 or in the near future?



Sergey Lavrov:

No, we did not discuss this issue on the practical plane. Everyone knows that the Bilateral Presidential Commission was a very useful instrument. Since the United States has a new administration, we will leave the issue of the best forms of developing cooperation with Russia to the discretion of President Trump and his team. During our meeting in the White House yesterday, President Trump reaffirmed his resolve to normalise relations. He later wrote about this on Twitter. We are ready to go as far and as fast as the US administration is willing to, although the formation of the new US team is not complete yet, including its foreign policy group.



Question (retranslated):

Why did you visit the Alaska-Siberia Airway monument today? What does it have to do with the Arctic Council’s work?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking in English):

Well, I did come to the Arctic Council ministerial. I attended during my tenure each and every Arctic Council ministerial except one, I think, four years ago. And being here, and not to visit this memorial would have been a shame. We highly appreciate the way the Alaskans keep the memory of our common fight against fascism in World War II.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2752061
 
Old May 13th, 2017 #82
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Statement by the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting, Vienna, May 11, 2017



12 May 2017 - 09:53



Response to reports by Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine Ertugrul Apakan

and OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Special Representative

in Ukraine and in the Trilateral Contact Group Martin Sajdik





Mr Chairperson,

Ambassadors Ertugrul Apakan and Martin Sajdik,

I would like to start with words of support for the SMM monitors who are working in Ukraine under dangerous conditions. Russia understands the reasons for the internal restrictions enacted by the mission. Ensuring OSCE SMM security should be placed front and centre, and should not only be a matter of having monitors take the appropriate precautions, but also the responsibility of the conflicting sides. In this context, it is essential that closer contact between the monitors and the authorities on the ground be established. Russia emphasises once again that it would be advisable from a practical standpoint to reintegrate representatives of the Donbass people’s militia into the Russia-Ukraine Joint Centre on Control and Coordination (JCCC). This would greatly facilitate coordination on security issues and further efforts regarding incidents with the monitors.

There is a need to promptly clarify the circumstances of the April 23 SMM vehicle explosion near Prishib that killed a US citizen. We call for full cooperation with an investigation conducted by the authorities of some districts in the Lugansk Region, relying on communication channels offered by the Contact Group and JCCC. It is important to understand for what purpose the section of the road where the explosion took place was under video surveillance from the Ukrainian side of the contact line (the video was posted online). There is increasing evidence to suggest that this incident was a deliberate provocation. We expect Kiev to provide original footage.

Incidents with mines and explosive devices are reported almost daily in the conflict area. The Armed Forces of Ukraine continue to lay mines along the contact line in violation of the March 3, 2016 decision of the Contact Group. In its May 8 report, the SMM reported new mines in territories controlled by the security forces in Zolotoye-1, Popasnaya and near a checkpoint of the Armed Forces of Ukraine close to the Donetsk water purification plant. Commandos from the Armed Forces of Ukraine have stepped up their operations in the conflict zone. On May 3, a four-strong sabotage unit of the Armed Forces of Ukraine tried to penetrate militia-controlled areas in the Svetlodarsk-Debaltsevo district in order to lay mines. According to information confirmed by the SMM, the bodies of the sabotage group members were delivered to the government forces. On May 8, there was another assassination attempt against the head of certain areas in the Donetsk Region, Alexander Zakharchenko. Two explosive devices went off when his cortege was about to pass on its way to Saur-Mogila memorial complex.

Russia strongly condemns any threats against the monitors. This relates to all possible incidents, from SMM vehicle explosions and mortar fire against patrols, as was the case near Kominternovo on March 10, to reproachful conduct by armed people, especially when alcohol-fuelled, which was reported on both sides of the contact line.

The movement of monitors is restricted on both sides of the contact line. In areas controlled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, entire districts including near Schastie, Stanitsa Luganskaya, Popasnaya, Katerinovka and Bogdanovka, are out of reach for the SMM under the pretext that they are mine-infested. Special attention should be paid to these areas.

Regarding the SMM juggling figures on weapons that have not been withdrawn from the designated areas, we can see that the SMM reports include the weapons that were part of the Victory Parade in Donbass. Even the tank that was used by the self-defence forces for clearing mines has been reported as a violation of the Minsk Agreements.

We urge our colleagues to see the truth which is that other weapons are being used to bomb Donbass cities and infrastructure, weapons that are deployed on the other side of the contact line. It is regrettable that SMM observers cannot see, for reasons of their own safety, the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ weapons. But it is impossible to conceal the consequences of the use of these weapons.

Even limited monitoring by the SMM provides evidence of the continued indiscriminate shelling of the LPR- and DPR-controlled territories by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. According to the SMM’s latest information, a woman was killed in Dokuchayevsk, three people were wounded in Donetsk, and buildings were destroyed in Bezymyanny, Kominternovo, Stakhanov and Frunze. The SMM cameras in Avdeyevka, Shirokino and the Oktyabrskaya Mine showed that intensive exchanges of fire on May 7-8 were provoked by shooting at the areas controlled by the self-defence forces from the deployment areas of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

The issue of disengagement merits special attention. The process has been dead-locked by the Ukrainian party, which has deliberately prevented the withdrawal of forces in Stanitsa Luganskaya. On May 3, the SMM camera installed there recorded one projectile in flight from north-northeast (the government-controlled area) to south-southwest, which was followed by an exchange of fire.

Colleagues,

We are deeply alarmed by Kiev’s policy of forcing Donbass out of Ukrainian political and economic space. This policy includes the termination of social payments and government services, the closure of banks, restrictions on the movement of people and goods across the contact line, power and water cuts, and the transport blockade. All these measures contradict the logic of the Minsk Agreements.

We see that dialogue in the Contact Group is proceeding under the “one step forward, two steps back” formula. Kiev’s representatives on its subgroup on political issues are not even willing to put on paper the so-called Steinmeier Formula, which combines local elections with the law on special status for Donbass.

The path to settling the internal Ukrainian crisis lies through the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures. Kiev should launch a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk and provide legal and material guarantees of compliance with the rights of their residents. It must adopt a law on the special status and seal it in the Ukrainian Constitution, hold local elections, provide guarantees of non-persecution of people in connection with developments in eastern Ukraine, and restore the severed cultural, economic and financial ties.

We are urging our colleagues and SMM observers to look closer at the situation across the whole of Ukraine rather than only in the conflict zone. The mission has the necessary resources for this. It is important that the SMM tries to monitor all socially significant events.

We appreciate the courage and loyalty to ideals which thousands upon thousands of Ukrainians have shown by attending the May 9 victory celebrations over Nazism. It was a heroic decision in modern-day Ukraine.

The current members of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), the so-called Azov Regiment, the Right Sector and other followers of Nazi henchmen did their very best to prevent this. They attacked peaceful marchers and war veterans, and they even got away with it in some cities.

In the cases when police did their duty by protecting the peaceful marchers from attacks by nationalist provocateurs, this provoked a negative reaction in Kiev. In modern Ukraine, people can lose not just their jobs but also their freedom and even life for resisting radicals and nationalists.

We resent Kiev’s decision to ban the use of Victory symbols. This year, Ukraine was the only country among more than 50 states where police arrested peaceful marchers for the non-violent use of Soviet-era symbols.

The so-called de-communisation in Ukraine is proceeding hand in glove with the rehabilitation of Nazism and the distortion and falsification of history. The atrocities committed by members of the OUN and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), who killed thousands of people including Ukrainians, Jews and Poles, are being presented as fighting for freedom. We are shocked by the attempts to equal UPA fighters to those who fought against and defeated Nazism.

A recent case in point is the criminal case opened in April against war veteran Boris Steklyar, aged 94, on charges of killing Nil Khasevich, an UPA member who collaborated with the Nazis, in 1952. What will we see next? The Ukrainian Prosecutor Office bearing down on Nazi hunters? We believe that the weapons of de-communisation will be ultimately turned against those who are holding them now.

Elements of aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism fall under the SMM’s authority. Regrettably, torchlight processions, attacks on WWII veterans, Nazi symbols on the uniforms of the so-called volunteer battalions, the desecration of monuments to Soviet soldiers and the Babi Yar Memorial, as well as all other elements of anti-Semitism have become facts of daily life in Ukraine.

We urge the observers to keep their eyes wide open so as to be able to report such instances, as well as to report the persecution of journalists and attacks on churches. We believe that it is high time for an integrated SMM report on these issues.

In conclusion, I would like to express our appreciation to Ambassadors Martin Sajdik and Ertugrul Apakan and to wish success to the observers.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2752169
 
Old May 13th, 2017 #83
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the results of the Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development



12 May 2017 - 20:08



The Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) was held in Nicosia, Cyprus, on May 9–10. A Russian interdepartmental delegation led by Minister of Economic Development Maksim Oreshkin took part in it.

The violation of Russia’s rights as one of the Bank’s faithful shareholders and compliance of the so-called political leadership implemented by the Bank since July 2014 on terminating new operations in our country with the EBRD statutory documents and procedures was one of the key items of the agenda introduced by Russia.

As a matter of fact, this independent multilateral development institution has joined in the sanctions pressure on Russia under politically biased pretexts. To be sure, this was done in the toughest form possible, in which the restrictions were imposed not on individual economic sectors or institutions, but rather were applied to all new EBRD operations in Russia.

Our attempts to resolve the situation through an open dialogue during almost three years did not yield any results. No one heard us. As a result, the Russian side was forced to submit a draft resolution on the illegitimacy of restricting Russia's access to EBRD resources for consideration by the Bank's supreme management body, demanded the abolition of the so-called political leadership and provided, to substantiate its claims, a detailed legal analysis of violations of the Bank's constituent documents when it was adopted and implemented, which was put together using, among other things, the expertise of independent European lawyers.

Our goal was not to raise the issue of "lifting the sanctions." We, as is well known, do not discuss this issue with anyone. Lifting the sanctions is up to those who imposed them. However we, as a major shareholder and the most profitable country of operations, are concerned about the fate of the EBRD, which, through the fault of a number of short-sighted Western shareholders, can simply "go downhill."

Speaking at a meeting of the Board of the Governors, Russian Minister of Economic Development Maksim Oreshkin drew the attention of the participants to the Bank's deteriorating financial situation and prospects related to the emergence of a number of negative trends and managerial setbacks hidden behind their generally upbeat reports. In fact, he provided an exhaustive and reasoned analysis of the current state of affairs at the Bank, indicating that persisting with the current approach, especially in the context of continued blocking of the Bank's operations in Russia, which deprives the Bank of the most lucrative operations, makes the EBRD's financial position unsustainable. This may lead to lower credit ratings and, in the future, may require additional capitalisation of the Bank.

Our concerns were met with understanding by many EBRD members. However, the shareholders of the EU and G7 countries blocked Russia’s resolution, supporting instead the Bank's proposal that the political leadership, with regard to Russia, does not contradict its rules and procedures. Thus, the EBRD members recognised as “lawful” the discriminatory policy within this international financial organisation against one of its bona fide members for political reasons, and the Bank's management, having offered such a decision, lost its neutral status. Once again, fleeting political interests were placed above the principles of sound financial cooperation and international economic interests, thus turning the EBRD from a development institution into a tool of political pressure.

The Western shareholders’ vote against the first item of our proposals – that the rights of the Bank’s members cannot be limited except when provided for by its statutory documents – deserve a special mention. This can only be described as the ultimate political cynicism. In fact, the donors admitted that they had been using the bank for political purposes in circumvention of all rules and procedures.

It should be noted, however, that the Bank's management was at some point willing to resume non-financial cooperation with Russia, given its role as a significant shareholder and country of operations. This could include the EBRD's consulting services in the areas of public-private partnerships, small business, export support and a number of other areas. However, the Western shareholders opposed the idea of resuming even such minimal interaction, which, by the way, does not contradict their own concept of political leadership. Once again, we are forced to state with regret that our Western partners were unable to demonstrate not only political foresight, but basic sound economic judgement either.

As a result, the EBRD is the only loser: its image suffered significant damage, and its financial performance and the quality of its loan portfolio should become the subject of a thorough analysis by international rating agencies.

The state of our relations with the EBRD once again confirms the correctness of Russia's choice in favour of stepping up interaction with new players on the international lending and financial market, in particular, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New Development Bank of BRICS.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2754374
 
Old May 16th, 2017 #84
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions, Beijing, May 14, 2017



14 May 2017 - 13:21





Question:

What happened in Washington with the photographer?



Sergey Lavrov:

The White House has explained that there was no scandal concerning this.



Question:

It was the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharava who said that there wasn’t any scandal.



Sergey Lavrov:

No, it was the White House. On their website they posted that everything was agreed upon in advance, just as in the case of other ministers.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2754479






Excerpts from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's interview with Channel One’s Vremya weekly news and analysis programme, Beijing, May 14, 2017



14 May 2017 - 22:30





Question:

The meeting with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson only lasted forty minutes, compared to the Moscow meeting which was took one hour longer. Nevertheless, it seems that you had enough time to achieve the needed results. Specifically, you said that you talked about Syria at length, and the Americans were people of action. Could you be more specific about the action you were referring to here? Could you share some details about this meeting?



Sergey Lavrov:

Firstly, Rex Tillerson’s visit to Moscow was important because of the mere fact that it provided an opportunity for the first face-to-face meeting at foreign minister level and a meeting took place with President of Russia Vladimir Putin. Since this was the first contact of this kind, we spent quite a lot of time going through all the subjects on the agenda related to bilateral ties and international and regional issues. The visit to Washington was a follow-up to the conversation already started in Moscow. Rex Tillerson and I had a meeting that lasted about two hours, and a little less than an hour in the White House, where we talked at length with US President Donald Trump about Syria (as I have already said at the press conference in Washington), primarily focusing on the groundwork that was laid last year, and further efforts along these lines by the new administration.

You’re probably wondering what this is all about? Both countries, as well as other major players in the Middle East, including Turkey, Iran and Persian Gulf states, should use their influence over various actors in Syria in order to induce them to implement in good faith the UN Security Council Resolution whereby talks should be held, a new constitution drafted and elections prepared. Russia has reached an understanding with the US on this issue. The fact that it is always easier to agree on such things than to actually implement them is another matter, especially given the multitude of actors on the ground in Syria: primarily the Syrians themselves, ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, and those who are working with it. It is for this reason that it is so important to ensure that all these forces are separated from one another. We reached an agreement to this effect with Barack Obama’s administration, but it was unable to deliver on its part of the deal.

This time, in our contacts we focused on the initiative put forward by Donald Trump in the early days of his presidency, when he proposed creating security or de-escalation areas free from any military action, the only exception being terrorists, if any, who were to be chased away from these areas so that civilians would feel safe. As you know, building on this agreement, several days ago at the meeting held in Astana, we agreed on a memorandum with Turkey, Iran, the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the armed opposition, establishing zones of this kind in four regions of Syria, with the intention to have the whole Syrian territory covered by this initiative in the future.



Question:

On the photo image that, as we have found out, was initially intended for publication, we see you and US President Donald Trump warmly greeting each other. Only two months ago there were reports saying that the relations between Russia and the US were worse than during the Cold War. How did everything change so quickly? What was the President’s attitude during the meeting?



Sergey Lavrov:

Neither during his campaign nor after becoming president did Donald Trump say that he wanted to have bad relations with Russia. On the contrary, he said that he wanted to build normal, mutually respectful relations with all countries, including with the Russian Federation, based on well-informed, common interests. Fighting terrorism is one such example. In my opinion, Donald Trump’s position in this respect has always been consistent.



Question:

Did you discuss with him the dismissal of FBI Director James Comey?



Sergey Lavrov:

No, we did not. We have nothing to do with this issue that falls within his authority.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2754493
 
Old May 16th, 2017 #85
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the latest application of the so-called “Law on Occupied Territories” in Georgia



15 May 2017 - 19:08



We took note of the announcement by Georgian authorities that former Mayor of Moscow Yury Luzhkov would be added to the list of “persona non-grata” due to his past visits to the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia.

As we can see, official Tbilisi continues its systematic provocations, undermining the process of improving relations with Russia. It is difficult to provide rational explanations for this behaviour, because Russia-Georgia normalisation brings with it tangible benefits for the economy and citizens of Georgia.

Regardless, the Russian Foreign Ministry is forced again to advise Russian citizens to carefully weigh the risks of travelling to Georgia. For obvious reasons, local authorities did not dare to apply the penalties associated with the “Law on Occupied Territories” to Yury Luzhkov, and released a “verdict” only after he left “hospitable Georgia.” However, in recent years, unfortunately, there have been other instances where Russian citizens in similar situations were repeatedly subjected to fines and even imprisonment. As a reminder, the law provides for a fine of up to $3,000 or imprisonment for up to four years.

Please be advised that in the absence of diplomatic relations, which were severed by Georgia, the Russian Interests Section at the Embassy of Switzerland in Tbilisi has very limited capabilities to protect fellow citizens from the arbitrary behaviour of the authorities.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2756235
 
Old May 17th, 2017 #86
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the latest Ukrainian sanctions against Russia



16 May 2017 - 16:26



The decision made by the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine to extend the 2015-2016 sanctions against Russia and to adopt new restrictions against individuals and companies came into effect as of May 15. Kiev’s “black lists” have been considerably expanded to 1,228 people, with Russian citizens making up the overwhelming majority, as well as 468 companies, most of them Russian too.

For the first time ever, Kiev has approved sanctions against Russian-language online resources that are very popular in Ukraine, such as Yandex, Yandex.Ukraine and Mail.ru, as well as social networks VKontakte and Odnoklassniki. The sanctions also include cybersecurity and anti-virus providers Kaspersky Lab and Doctor Web, which looks really strange against the backdrop of the recent hacking attacks around the world, and several Russian media outlets.

Ukrainian authorities' flagrant disregard for international law and morality and its own commitments to human rights and freedoms have become a fact of life. Fearing the smallest signs of dissent, Kiev is rapidly moving toward establishing an authoritarian state that is clamping down on freedom of the press and free access to information.

This is hardly in keeping with European and global principles and the values of a civil society. On the other hand, Kiev probably has its own interpretation of global civilisation based on universal values. Obviously eager to finalise its mythical 'divorce from the Russian Empire,' as President Poroshenko said the other day, and hence from centuries of its own history, Kiev will put blinkers on people’s eyes and plugs in their ears to prevent them from getting a picture of the situation in Ukraine and other countries that differs from the one provided by Ukrainian propagandists.

It would be interesting to see how our Western partners, who are so closely concerned about democracy and information security, would react to this brazen disregard for universal international standards and obligations.





The source of information -
http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2756619
 
Old May 17th, 2017 #87
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question regarding Russia’s alleged attempts to hinder a Cyprus settlement



16 May 2017 - 20:40





Question:

What can you say about the allegations advanced by some Western media outlets that Russia is trying to hinder a settlement in Cyprus?



Maria Zakharova:

Moscow is baffled by media claims regarding Russia’s alleged attempts to hinder the reunification of Cyprus.

These allegations reflect the dissatisfaction of some political forces, which adjust their actions to certain groups in the United States and Britain, with our principled position on Cyprus. Our position has not changed; we stand for a comprehensive, fair and viable settlement of the Cypriot problem in the interests of all Cypriots. We will support any decision the Cypriots take. We regard as unacceptable any attempts to use external influence to artificially accelerate the process and achieve a settlement at all costs. We welcome the decision of the Cypriot communities’ leaders to resume negotiations. We are closely monitoring the current stage of the inter-communal dialogue in Cyprus and wish it success.

It should be said that the anti-Russia allegations are a smokescreen created to obscure the problems that should be addressed within the framework of the Cyprus settlement, such as the island state’s external security issues. It is disappointing that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are not involved in the discussion of these issues. It is obvious that the system of guarantees that was forced on Cyprus under the 1960 London and Zurich agreements is ineffective. We are convinced that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus following reunification can be safety protected by UN Security Council guarantees.

I would like to reaffirm our belief that a Cyprus settlement can be truly lasting and reliable only if it is based on the expression of the political will by both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, that is, the combined population of Cyprus. As far as we know, the leaders of both communities accept this formula. It is based on common sense.

As for the absurd allegations about Russia’s attempts to hinder the intra-Cyprus talks, there are no facts to support them.

We are successfully developing relations with the Republic of Cyprus in various spheres, and we believe that our relationship will continue after the island’s reunification. We know about the Cyprus leaders’ resolve to gradually strengthen cooperation with Russia. We believe that the anti-Russia allegations made by some media outlets will not benefit the settlement process and do not meet the interests of the Cypriot people.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2757820
 
Old May 17th, 2017 #88
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the ICTY ruling against Ratko Mladic’s provisional release



16 May 2017 - 20:41



Several days ago, the Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) denied the defence’s motion on provisional release of former military commander of the Bosnian Serb Armed Forces Ratko Mladic in order to undergo medical treatment in Russia.

Meanwhile, Mladic’s condition continues to cause serious concern. Recommendations by Russian doctors from the Bakulev Research Centre for Cardiovascular Surgery, who examined Mladic in 2015 at the place of his detention, were not taken into consideration by the ICTY. The claims by Mladic’s defence about his health significantly deteriorating recently were also ignored.

In these circumstances and based on the principles of humanity, the Russian Federation responded to Mladic’s appeal and announced that it was ready to accept the general for medical treatment, and provided the ICTY with guarantees of his timely return to the Tribunal’s location as well as guarantees of fulfilment of any other terms that may be stipulated by the ICTY Trial Chamber.

The refusal to transfer the Serbian defendant for medical treatment is quite telling for the administration of justice in The Hague. Previously, the ICTY granted temporary release even on less substantial grounds. Therefore, the Tribunal’s ruling and argumentation is nothing but perplexing.

It is seriously disturbing that the ICTY Trial Chamber, in its conclusion that Mladic’s medical supervision is allegedly adequate and his condition has an age-related nature, relied on the opinion of the medical staff at the ICTY penitentiary institution as well as the opinion of “independent medical specialists”, although the reputation of the prison in Scheveningen after several deaths in unclear circumstances has long been compromised. Over the entire term of the ICTY and under its jurisdiction, a total of 18 people have died, including 16 ethnic Serbs.

The Russian Federation has repeatedly expressed concern over the death rate among ICTY defendants, a record-breaking figure for international tribunals, and the court’s refusal to consider the defence lawyers’ claims on life-threatening conditions, as it happened in the case of former president of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic, who was refused medical treatment in Russia by ICTY in 2006, weeks before his death.

Russia has filed a request with the UN Secretary-General regarding an investigation into the activity of the medical service of the ICTY penitentiary institution by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). We expect the investigation to be carried out immediately.

The ICTY Trial Chamber bears full responsibility for the ruling and the consequences of its conclusions which indicate another act of neglect of such fundamental rights as the right to life, health protection and medical help.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2757830
 
Old May 17th, 2017 #89
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,170
Default

I think Mariya should run for political office or have her own TV show.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old May 17th, 2017 #90
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Allan View Post
I think Mariya should run for political office or have her own TV show.
What for?
I believe that public policy, including those related to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is in essence a kind of show.
So Mariya already has her own show.
 
Old May 20th, 2017 #91
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding a media question about changes in the Hamas Palestinian movement



18 May 2017 - 16:15



To begin with, it should be pointed out that Russia has always stood for the restoration of Palestinian unity based on the PLO’s political platform and the Arab Peace Initiative. We are convinced that the settlement of intra-Palestinian differences will create the necessary conditions for finding a fair negotiated solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and for the implementation of the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to an independent state of their own.

In light of this, Moscow welcomes the changes that have happened with Hamas. We would like to remind you that Ismail Haniya was elected the new head of the movement’s Politburo in early May. At the same time, Hamas has published its new political programme, which was adopted after lengthy consideration.

We regard some provisions of the new Hamas charter, in particular the possibility of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, as moving in the right direction. We believe that the goal of Palestine’s national unity implies that Hamas and other Palestinian groups should take further steps in this spirit.

Russia will continue supporting the Palestinians in every possible way when it comes to this matter.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2761421
 
Old May 20th, 2017 #92
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 following talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus Ioannis Kasoulides, Nicosia, May 18, 2017



18 May 2017 - 17:24





Mr Minister,

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held very useful talks. Cyprus is our reliable and time-tested partner in Europe. Our ties are based on sincere feelings of friendship and the sympathies of our peoples, on their spiritual and cultural affinity.

We examined the state of our bilateral affairs. We are satisfied with our intensive and result-oriented political dialogue. We noted that after a major setback in bilateral trade for well-known reasons, there has been a trend toward growth in trade in recent months. We discussed contacts between our foreign ministries, our joint work at international organisations. We considered the educational and humanitarian exchanges that are extremely robust and attract large numbers of Russian and Cypriot participants.

As regards international issues, we considered them, above all, in light of common threats to all countries. The challenges posed by international terrorism certainly call for a unifying agenda, rather than the continuation of the confrontational policy that we are witnessing on the part of some Western countries. The fight against terrorism is linked to the need to resolve conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa, above all, in Syria. We informed our Cypriot friends about the efforts being taken by Russia both within the Geneva format and in Astana in cooperation with Turkey and Iran and with the participation of observers from the United States, the United Nations and Jordan.

We also exchanged views on the situation in Ukraine. Here, as the Minister said, we share the same position. It is necessary to thoroughly and fully implement the Minsk Agreements. Unfortunately, the latest actions by the Ukrainian authorities show that Kiev is either unwilling or unable do its part. Those actions indicate that the authorities are under extremely heavy pressure from the most radical forces in society. I mean attacks on the languages of ethnic minorities living in Ukraine, the blocking of mass media and internet resources, attacks on the Church and attempts by the government to interfere in its affairs. We both reaffirmed our support for OSCE efforts to organise work to advance the implementation of the Minsk Agreements within the framework of the Contact Group and the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

Russia reiterated its commitment to a just settlement of the Cypriot problem. We support a lasting, viable and comprehensive settlement based on UN Security Council resolutions and agreements between both Cypriot communities.

We touched on the current state of affairs in relations between Russia and the European Union, which is unsatisfactory. We are interested in getting our dialogue back onto a normal, equal and mutually respectful track. For that, of course, it is necessary that Brussels stop playing a one-sided game. Over the past one and a half years, we passed on to the European Commission, including through Russian President Vladimir Putin, our informal ideas on what could be done to smooth our relations and how to establish contacts between the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) and the European Commission (EC). As before, we will be ready to discuss a response to those documents. There has been none so far.

We expressed our gratitude to our Cypriot friends that they are part of the group of EU countries that are calling for the current abnormal situation to be overcome.

Thank you.



Question (via interpreter):

The Turkish side insists on tying energy development in Cyprus with negotiations to settle the conflict on the island. Some people think this may lead to a confrontation because the Republic of Cyprus is not going to put off its energy development programme. I would like to know Moscow’s view on this situation. How can Russia contribute to enhancing stability in this region which is already facing problems?



Sergey Lavrov:

We can only reiterate that all disputes must be resolved within a legal framework by seeking the consent of the parties involved. This fully applies to the situation you have just mentioned. Of course, we think that in this, just like in any other situation, it is essential to refrain from threatening to use force, not to mention actually using force. We hope that all the parties involved will be guided by this.



Question:

Ahead of US President Donald Trump’s first foreign tour his advisers have said that Washington is considering an initiative to create an alliance of Persian Gulf nations similar to NATO. What is your assessment of the prospects of such an initiative for security in the region?



Sergey Lavrov:

You are aware of our generally negative attitude towards settling any issues of international security via narrow and closed military political blocs. The media now abounds in speculation regarding US President Donald Trump’s upcoming talks in the Middle East. We prefer to wait and see what happens. Then there will be more clarity about what is going on. It is our principled stance that the extremely complicated problems of the Middle East and North Africa can only be solved on a collective and inclusive basis with the involvement of all the so-called “actors”, without trying to isolate anyone. Of course, it is crucial to avoid “driving wedges” of an ethnic or religious nature into the relations between the regional nations.



Question (via interpreter):

I would like to hear your opinion on the recent controversy surrounding reports that the US President passed classified information to Russian officials. It was said to be “wholly appropriate.” Some people say it is better to share information on fighting international terrorism. You yourself said that we should cooperate more. Will the information that was passed along save Russian lives?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about that in detail at a news conference following his talks in Sochi yesterday. Since you raised the issue again, I can say the following. I sometimes get the impression that many US media outlets work according to a principle which was common in the Soviet Union. Back then people used to joke that the newspaper Pravda [Truth] had no news in it, and the Izvestia [News] paper has no truth in it. I get the impression that many US media operate in the same way.

Regarding the substance of the issue, we do not comment on rumours. We read in your newspapers that the main accusations are centred on the following: allegedly, secrets were divulged regarding terrorists’ ability to put “undetectable” explosives into computers, laptops, iPads and so on. If memory serves, maybe one or two months earlier, the Trump administration instituted a laptop ban for passengers from seven Middle Eastern countries, if I am not mistaken, which was directly connected to a terrorist threat. So if you are talking about that, I don’t see what the secret is.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2761442
 
Old May 20th, 2017 #93
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Smile

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remark before talks with Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland, Nicosia, May 18, 2017



18 May 2017 - 18:24





Thorbjorn Jagland (referring to the protocol photoshoot):

These pictures won’t cause any problems for you?



Sergey Lavrov:

It depends on what kind of secrets you pass on to me.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2761749
 
Old May 20th, 2017 #94
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, May 18, 2017



18 May 2017 - 18:55





The situation in Syria

Recently, some positive trends have emerged in the evolution of the military and political situation on Syrian soil. They are largely related to the implementation of the memorandum on the establishment of de-escalation zones in Syria, which was signed on May 4 at an international meeting on Syria in Astana.

Ceasefire monitoring is ongoing. Russian Defence Ministry experts assess the situation in de-escalation zones as stable. Most cases of sporadic small-arms fire have been reported in areas controlled by the Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS terrorist groups.

Amid the strengthening ceasefire regime and the defeats suffered by the terrorists, internecine conflicts between the various illegal armed groups are spreading. Syrian government forces are continuing operations to destroy ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists, as well as other terrorist groups affiliated with them in the Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Hama and Dara’a provinces. ISIS militants are sustaining losses in personnel and equipment and have to abandon their positions.

The Syrian Army has freed the Syrian Air Force Jirah airbase in eastern Aleppo not far from the al-Assad water reservoir on the Euphrates River. The Qaboun district in northeastern Damascus is now under control.

Syrian democratic forces, represented mainly by Kurdish fighters, and the Manbij Military Council have expelled the militants from areas around the town of Tabqa and the eponymous dam on the Euphrates. Kurdish detachments are gradually advancing on Raqqa.

In the small hours of May 15, 23 local residents were killed as a result of an air strike by the US-led so-called anti-ISIS coalition against the town of Abu Kamal. According to some reports, the target of the attack was ISIS militants in that town, but Syrian civilians fell victim to it.

Terrorist gangs are trying to attack vulnerable elements of Syrian civil infrastructure. In Deir ez-Zor, ISIS militants fired mortars at the residential districts of al-Jura and al-Qusur, injuring at least 15 civilians, mainly women and children.

I would like to highlight another issue and bring it to your attention. This week the US State Department published a new report on the “Assad regime’s crimes.” The document contains a well-known set of unsubstantiated clichés. All allegations regarding the numerous violations of the norms of international law by Damascus, including human rights and the conduct of military operations, are not backed up by any facts. Incidentally, our assessments of the US missile attack against the Syrian Air Force’s Shayrat airfield on April 7, a gross violation of international law, are well known.

As is traditionally the case, Washington cites human rights organisations and US intelligence reports, which, unfortunately, cannot be verified or analysed. The same goes for the methodology of preparing those materials. In this context, we hope that instead of standard proposals that their assertions be accepted at face value, our US colleagues will make public conclusive evidence to substantiate their high-profile statements. Otherwise they can only be treated as an element of information warfare against Syria.

We took note of a video featuring the testimony of a mercenary soldier from the armed Syrian opposition to the effect that the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun on April 4 was staged. It states in no uncertain terms that the chemical attack was staged to discredit the Syrian Government ahead of Russian-US contacts. A former member of the pseudo-humanitarian organisation White Helmets confirmed that this provocation was designed to provide false evidence of Damascus’ failure to honour its obligations to destroy chemical weapons, which were used against Idlib civilians. Earlier, citing a US veterans’ movement, the media reported that the videos of Khan Sheikhoun civilians being treated in the aftermath of the gas attack were made by the film crews of Qatar’s al-Jazeera and Britain’s Reuters news agency in the course of four days. We hope that this evidence will be closely studied and, if confirmed, corresponding conclusions will be drawn, especially considering that it is high time to build a dam to stop this fake river.



Statements by Acting US Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Stuart Jones on the alleged mass executions in Syria

We have taken note of the May 15 statement by Acting US Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Stuart Jones about the alleged mass executions and the burning of bodies in a large crematorium in the Sednaya prison complex near Damascus. We have also noted that the US official has not provided any factual evidence of the US accusations against the Syrian authorities.

This is yet another example of US “test-tube” propaganda, which may be impressive but lacks substance. Regrettably, such statements have a negative effect on the situation in Syria, fuelling the conflict and hindering a peaceful settlement.

However, we hope that the new US administration will take a constructive stance and will shift its focus from trying to change the regime in Damascus, including with the use of mass media as a tool, to fighting terrorism. The Obama administration did not regard fighting terrorism as the core task, but was instead doing its best to protect the Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist group from Russian Aerospace Forces strikes, even though al-Nusra is a division of al-Qaeda, which killed 3,000 Americans in the September 11, 2001 attack. Although supporting terrorism is a serious crime in the United States, the Obama administration pursued a no holds barred policy aimed at overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad and was ready to use the services of the al-Nusra cutthroats and terrorists. We suggest that the American public take note of this highly ambiguous and outrageous fact.



The preliminary report by the OPCW FFM on the alleged use of chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun in Idlib Province, Syria

We continue to monitor the activities of the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals in Syria. We have taken note of the preliminary FFM report on the April 4 chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun in Idlib Province, which was published on May 12. This report has concluded with a high degree probability that chemical warfare agents, presumably sarin or a sarin-like substance, were used.

We regret to say yet again that judging by the report, the FFM experts’ conclusions are still based on indirect evidence that was provided by a certain NGO and the armed Syrian opposition. We are convinced that the true picture cannot be established without visits by FFM experts to the site and also to the Shayrat Airbase, where sarin was allegedly stored by the Syrian Air Force for use at Khan Shaykhun.

We welcome the OPCW Technical Secretariat’s steps taken towards this end with UN assistance. We urge the new leadership of the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism to urgently join the effort to study the situation on the ground, including by using alternative sources of information as per UN Security Council Resolution 2319 on fighting the threat of chemical terrorism in the Middle East.



Developments in Venezuela

Violence continues to escalate in Venezuela. The confrontation between supporters of the Nicolas Maduro Government and the opposition is accompanied by increasing protests and clashes. Unfortunately, there have been casualties on both sides, and their number continues to grow.

Russia’s position on the settlement of political differences in Venezuela remains unchanged, and it is a position you know well. Fuelling a conflict by provoking street riots and clashes is a road to nowhere fraught with chaos, bloodshed and more human tragedies. A rigorous negotiating process without any preconditions is the only possible way to address problems facing the country. Any actions by both sides, be it the Government or the opposition forces, should be completely in line with the law, in full compliance with the Constitution of Venezuela and without any counterproductive outside interference. All this equally applies to the convocation of the Constituent Assembly by President Nicolas Maduro.

We would like to stress once again that Russia has always advocated the resolution of domestic disagreements in Venezuela by peaceful and civilised methods. We are ready to negotiate with all Venezuelan political forces that are willing to engage in political dialogue and are sincerely interested in their country’s sustainable and stable development. We will provide the required amount of assistance, as requested, if Russia is asked to help normalise the domestic processes in Venezuela. We expect our partners, including international and regional players wishing to provide Caracas with mediatory services in resolving the domestic situation, will also adhere to this stance. Good offices must not be forced on anyone.

Regarding consultations on the Venezuelan issue at the UN Security Council, we believe that the situation in that country does not threaten regional peace and stability.

Naturally, we have taken note of the statement by US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley after this meeting. She said the situation in Venezuela could escalate into a Syrian-type scenario. Was that a Freudian slip? According to Haley, the United States would like to prevent such developments. Indeed, all reasonable people want to prevent this. But we know what factor caused Syrian developments to take on such a deplorable scale. Therefore let’s work together, so that tensions in Venezuela subside instead of being artificially aggravated from the outside.

There is another crucial aspect. We believe it is vitally important that developments in Venezuela receive unbiased coverage. The media has a special role to play in this respect. Media outlets should not turn into a tool for inciting violence, nor should they promote the interests of those forces that want to aggravate the situation to benefit their own ambitions and often portray events in a distorted and one-sided manner.



The situation in Macedonia

On May 17, President of the Republic of Macedonia Gjorge Ivanov authorised Zoran Zaev, leader of the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia, to establish a new government after early parliamentary elections were held on December 11, 2016.

We note the principled stance of the head of the Macedonian state, who deemed it possible to take this step, provided that Zoran Zaev publicly reaffirms that he has abandoned any plans undermining the country’s sovereignty and constitutional system.

We hope that political forces in Skopje will independently chart the way to overcome the crisis that has been caused by outside interference in the domestic affairs of the Republic of Macedonia.



Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire

We are monitoring the developments in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, where, since the beginning of this year, servicemen (most of them former militants integrated into the armed forces in 2010-2011) have staged protests demanding large financial compensations and improved conditions in the army as the government had promised.

The unrest that began on May 12 in Abidjan and several other cities has paralysed the work of government agencies, banks and schools; some roads were blocked. Unfortunately, there have been casualties.

The country’s government urged the protesters to end the unrest and search for a compromise. The population supported the government and an agreement was reached on May 15.

As of now, the situation in the country is returning to normal. According to media reports, the military have returned to their bases.

In Abidjan, including the area where the Russian Embassy is located, the situation is relatively quiet. There is no threat to the members of the diplomatic mission and their families. There were no Russian citizens among the victims of protests in Côte d’Ivoire.



US plans to deploy a permanent military contingent in Afghanistan

We noted the report, with reference to US Defence Secretary James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, about Washington’s plans to deploy US military contingent in Afghanistan on a permanent basis.

In this context, I’d like to remind you that US and NATO troops have been in Afghanistan for over 15 years. The results of their presence are disappointing: a fierce armed conflict continues in the country and drug production keeps growing. At the same time, the claimed “successes” in the economic development are doubtful, because the local unemployment rate is 25 percent and over a third of the population live below the poverty line.

We firmly believe that the only way to settle the crisis in Afghanistan is to reach national accord using political means. Russia and its partners are working on this within the framework of regional consultations on Afghanistan in the Moscow format.



A new series of US media fake stories on a Russian theme

We have received many questions from US media outlets. For example, you have followed the Foreign Ministry’s comments in connection with another spiral of paranoid US media publications on the results of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to that country.

It is impossible to overlook the latest incredible US media stories on a Russian theme. Claims that the Russian side had, in the past, repeatedly requested similar meetings with Barack Obama have become another media sensation after Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s recent meeting with US President Donald Trump. For example, Politico correspondent Susan Glasser claims that, since 2013, the Russians had allegedly begged to organise a White House meeting for Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. As usual, she is quoting some anonymous senior officials from the Obama administration. Ms Glasser, this is a lie.

Certainly, we have always remained open to any multi-level contacts, including those on a high level. Although the Obama administration moved to freeze bilateral cooperation, we, nevertheless, strove, tried and did everything possible to conduct active dialogue with the United States. We needed this dialogue because it was also in the interest of international security.

Since 2013, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has had 64 meetings and 192 telephone conversations with US Secretary of State John Kerry. Over 90 percent of these meetings and conversations were organised on the US side’s initiative. This shows who was falling down at someone’s feet. In 14 months, from May 2015 up until July 2016, the US Secretary of State visited Russia four times, with President Vladimir Putin patiently receiving him each time. There have also been numerous top-level contacts. I would like to deviate from our tradition and recall that President Vladimir Putin and President Barack Obama met each other 11 times and had 26 telephone conversations, many of which were quite lengthy and it was the White House that mostly displayed the initiative.

Given such a tremendous amount of top-level and high-level contacts, there was no need for a brief conversation and protocol meeting at the White House, all the more so as we remember perfectly well that the previous administration never heeded the voice of reason and did not show a desire to do at least something for changing Russian-US relations for the better.

Here is a specific example of yet another fake story, a conjecture and nonsense from a publication that has claimed over the few years of its existence that its stories should be quoted; and, unfortunately, this is exactly what is happening. For example, the US media acts as a Big Brother in European countries which blindly reprint all their stories, sometimes word for word. Here is a specific story by a certain female journalist who has invented something, while quoting an anonymous person. And this is happening all the time in all areas.



US Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson’s comments

We have noted US Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson’s interview with NBC News. He declared that Russia’s interference with the US presidential election in 2016 was well documented and there is no question that “the Russians were playing around in [US] electoral processes.”

I would like to point out again that there are absolutely no grounds for such accusations that have been replicated and spread around in the United States for months in various versions. We have heard this for a while and have asked many times for any evidence or any kind of supporting materials in any form, but to no avail. There has been no response. So far, the evidence has been limited to a fictional dossier by Christopher Steele and the infamous January report by US intelligence services that was initiated during the Obama administration and which looks more like a school essay with not a single true fact.

Our opponents have no proof, nor can they have any. Needless to say, they have nothing to show us because they can’t just pour hackers into a test-tube.

All the stories about Russia’s alleged interference are a fake through and through, one that has been artificially generated for use in US domestic political squabbles.

We have become used to this. And those who write these things will have to get used to our refutations which we will continue to publish. Such statements by high-ranking US State Department representatives cannot but cause disappointment.

These signals from our American colleagues clearly contribute to nothing but complications in our dialogue and are at odds with to what we hear during our bilateral contacts. In the past few months, we have been working in a completely different direction. Specifically, we have set our sights on establishing pragmatic and mutually beneficial relations, on dropping any artificial or contrived elements that hinder normal interaction.

Once again, we urge our partners to be more serious about what they say and do. It is time to put an end to this farce.



Comments by an Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry spokesman

We were perplexed by comments regarding the Russian Supreme Court’s decision to dissolve a Russian public organisation, the All-Russia Azerbaijani Congress, because of its repeated violations of federal laws, which were made by the press service of the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan and published by a local agency.

We deem it inappropriate that the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan makes comments about Russia’s domestic policy, “the balance of inter-ethnic relations, the reform concept and prospects for an inter-cultural dialogue” in our country. It is strange that the press service has estimated the Russian Court’s ruling on a Russian public organisation as an “unfriendly step” in relation of Azerbaijan.

It is deplorable that the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan has once again used media speculations about some “Armenian connection” and reproduced them in public.

We do not need dubious advice on how to build inter-ethnic relations in our own country. Russia is a multi-ethnic democratic nation, where the rights of every individual are protected and ensured regardless of their ethnic origin. This country has created all conditions for self-organisation and full-blooded activity by ethnic cultural and public associations. In particular, over 260 non-profit organisations represent the interests of Russian citizens of Azerbaijani origin. At a federal level, the Azerbaijani Youth Association of Russia is successfully operating, as are the Union of Azerbaijani Organisations of Russia, the Federal National Cultural Autonomy of the Azerbaijanis of Russia, and the World Azerbaijani Cultural Foundation.

Russia highly values its strategic partnership with Azerbaijan, whose course for an all-round strengthening of this partnership has been defined by the heads of the two states. We are confident that the just cited comments (possibly, not quite well thought-out ones) will not do harm to Russian-Azerbaijani relations.



Besmearing a memorial stone to Soviet war pilots in Kiviőli, northeastern Estonia

We are deeply shocked by yet another act of vandalism in relation of the memorial to Soviet war pilots who died in 1944 fighting for the liberation of Estonia near the village of Ryaza. These cynical acts cannot be regarded as anything other than an outrage against the memory of those who sacrificed their lives in the fight against the Nazis.

We hope that the Estonian side will take all measures necessary to bring the culprits to account and to prevent such incidents in the future. The Russian Embassy in Tallinn has already addressed a relevant request to the local authorities.



Statements by President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker

We have noted statements by President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker during his visit to Romania. In the context of the anti-Russian rhetoric that has become so common and is based on a pattern of Russophobic clichés, the statements by Mr Juncker turned out to be level-headed and quite constructive.

In his interview with the newspaper Adevarul (“Truth”), the president said that relations between the European Union and Russia must be restored and it is possible. “Even if our relations are currently overshadowed by problems and a lack of trust, it does not mean they are ruined.” As Jean-Claude Juncker noted, despite disagreements, the communication channels must stay open. His address to a Romanian audience at the National Museum of Art had a similar tone.

Unfortunately, the statement was not widely publicised. The media stayed “eloquently silent” as we like to say in such cases.

We hope that this constructive and positive attitude will prevail in our relations and will help everybody abandon the Russophobic claims that we have to address too often.





Answers to media questions:



Question:

After the trilateral meeting between the foreign ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia on April 28 in Moscow, Yerevan and Baku have been sending signals that another meeting may be organised again and that it will focus on more specific actions to settle the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. However, as you know, there was recently an abrupt escalation on the contact line with casualties on both sides. Do you think that after another major incident, the possibility of arranging this trilateral meeting still exists or should we forget about it for now?



Maria Zakharova:

Russia, as a mediator in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, condemns the violation of the ceasefire and calls for the parties to take the necessary measures to prevent further escalation of tensions in the conflict zone.

It is true that, according to various sources, on May 15, the Azerbaijani side shelled a military facility across the contact line. Therefore, the other party retaliated. The data on the nature of the facility, the damage as well as casualties among personnel are contradictory. I just voiced Russia’s principled stance on this issue.

As concerns a meeting and further contact, I have nothing to announce yet. If such a meeting is planned, we will inform you.



Question:

Ukraine has recently introduced a ban on Russian social networks, with Ukrainian politicians saying this is a way to protect the public from false information. Many organisations have already voiced their indignation. What is the purpose of this decision, and what can it lead to?



Maria Zakharova:

No one is hiding the motives behind this decision. It is needed to block as many sources of alternative sources of information as possible. Obviously, it does not even amount to censorship. On the contrary, this policy, which directly violates Ukraine’s obligations to guarantee the freedom of speech, began to be implemented immediately after the 2014 anti-constitutional coup. Russia has repeatedly drawn the attention of our partners to this fact. Back then they told us it was a time of troubles, a transitional period and a certain moment of chaos. They also said that after the presidential election Ukraine would have to adhere to the same standards and would be urged to reinstate the rule of law and various norms that were adopted by Ukraine as a member of the international community. How many years has the president of Ukraine been in office now, the man who is recognised by the international community as a legitimate head of state elected by the people of Ukraine? He assumed office under the slogan that he was a president of peace, not war. In the end, there is no peace, nor are there any generally accepted democratic principles, including those aiming to honour the freedom of speech and to protect journalists. I don’t have to tell you what is happening to journalists there. As a journalist working for Life News, you know first-hand that your own correspondents have been abused in every conceivable way and have endured every conceivable suffering at the hands of nationalists. It is hard to describe everything that has happened to them. Russian and Ukrainian journalists are treated the same way, and not just those voicing alternative viewpoints. The Kiev regime has gone even further and included in its sanctions those very same Western media outlets that have always been loyal to the Kiev regime. Unfortunately, all this will only get worse. I can say clearly and unequivocally that Russian social networks, internet resources and other media products will continue to be blocked, as well as the resources of other countries.

I would like to draw your attention to the treacherous tactics employed in accomplishing this task. These huge lists stipulating additional sanctions contain some 1,500 positions, so we can conclude that it did not take a day or two, or even a month to put this list together. It was finalised down to the smallest detail, and this idea was conceived a very long time ago. I would also like to point out the specific deadlines: this was done just a day or two after Kiev hosted the 2017 Eurovision Song Contest. It turns out that, despite all the European bonuses received as an incentive for democratic processes in Ukraine, Kiev has once again deceived Europe after reaping all the fruits of the so-called approval of Ukrainian developments by the European family. Another helping of these absolutely undemocratic measures was issued the very next day. This is not the only example. I repeat, this is only the beginning of a major rollback.

I would also like to note that the Verkhovna Rada has approved a bill banning the manufacture and wearing of St George ribbons. People who don’t understand and don’t know history might think this is not very important. However, those who have a good understanding of history and the etymology of the current Ukrainian crisis understand clearly that there is no political will in Kiev to reunify people in its own country. This is not at all on Kiev’s agenda; in fact it pursues the opposite goal: to disunite and divide people to the greatest possible extent.

I repeat, uninitiated people who are not familiar with the history of the Soviet Union, Ukraine, Russia, the Russian Empire and Rus may perceive this as an unimportant fact that means nothing. In reality, this drives a colossal wedge between people living in Ukraine and, of course, it is an indication that Kiev is not even thinking of fulfilling the Minsk Agreements in any way. As always, all this is superficial, illusory and deceptive. The same can be said about all those measures being implemented by the European Union, which turns a blind eye to many things and which incentivises Ukraine, one way or another, to engage in reforms. To put it simply, Ukraine blatantly deceives the EU – not Ukraine as a country but the Kiev regime. Once again, you will find out about this, and you will read it for yourselves. This is the beginning, and things will only get worse.



Question:

Russia is planning to launch cargo and passenger maritime traffic to and from North Korea soon. The pilot ferry vessel arrived today in Vladivostok. Regular operations will begin on May 25. Is this launch of cargo and passenger maritime traffic subject to the UNSC sanctions?



Maria Zakharova:

No, it is not.



Question:

Why were journalists not allowed to cover this event, including the filming of the ferry vessel’s arrival?



Maria Zakharova:

I was not aware of this. We were not the organisers of this event. But I can clarify it. If you wish to tell your audience about this facility we can find the entity responsible for it and see what we can do to arrange a visit for you.



Question:

What do you think of the United States’ intention to supply arms to the Kurdish armed groups that are fighting ISIS over Raqqa in Syria?

Last May, during the election campaign, President Trump proposed establishing safety zones in Syria. Russia submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council. Does this indicate a development in Russian-US cooperation on Syria?



Maria Zakharova:

All arms supplies must conform to the laws of the country. This is how Moscow acts in its relations with the Middle Eastern countries. It is important to always refer to this fundamental rule.

We are doing everything we can to begin constructive interaction with the new Administration. We have invited the United States to cooperate in the Astana talks where its ambassador currently serves as an observer. We are willing to cooperate with the US at a higher level. Our embassies maintain regular working contacts.

Undoubtedly, particular attention was given to Syria during the talks between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US President Donald Trump. Syrian settlement is widely discussed during telephone conversations with our American counterparts at the level of the Minister and deputy ministers, as well as during personal contacts. All of this is to develop concerted actions and to start a constructive dialogue. We are ready for cooperation within the UN.



Question:

The US media reported that during the talks in Washington, President Trump passed on classified information to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Will Russia present the transcript of the meeting?

Are talks in progress regarding the upcoming meeting between President Trump and President Putin at the G20 summit?



Maria Zakharova:

President Vladimir Putin announced that it is possible, if a relevant request is made.

Your second question is within the competence of the President’s administration and his press service. Russian President’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have repeatedly commented on this.



Question:

Not so long ago, Novaya Gazeta published an article about a Russian officer, Sergey Dubinsky, suspected of transporting the Buk system that downed the Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 in July 2014. Does the Russian Government know Sergey Dubinsky? Is he really paid a pension? Could you comment on him saying that this was done by “the monsters from Moscow?”



Maria Zakharova:

We will prepare a reply and provide it to you shortly.



Question:

A sea route was launched between the DPRK and Russia earlier today. Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga has made a statement that Tokyo is watching closely how Russia’s actions will impact international efforts to solve the North Korean nuclear problem. Your response?



Maria Zakharova:

We see no connection between the launch of the project and the DPRK nuclear problem. We are sufficiently active in our position on the DPRK nuclear problem, in promoting it at the UN Security Council, which is the proper venue for this issue to be considered. You know about our efforts in this area in bilateral and multilateral formats. This issue has been raised with our colleagues at relevant levels. There are special representatives and experts who are dealing with this issue.



Question:

There are many apprehensions about this North Korea – Russia project. Does the Foreign Ministry have a position on this issue?



Maria Zakharova:

We have no apprehensions in this regard. There is no link between an infrastructure project and what we discuss at the UN Security Council and other international organisations.



Question:

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga had a different response to the ferry’s launch. He said he would contact the Russian Foreign Ministry through diplomatic channels and state his position. Has contact been established? Do both countries’ positions coincide?



Maria Zakharova:

We are in permanent contact with the Japanese side both through the Japanese Embassy in Moscow and the Russian Embassy in Tokyo. Contacts between Russia and Japan are very effective. I can find out whether a Japanese request of this kind has been made.



Question:

Today, a number of Japanese citizens have visited the islands on a visa-free basis and expressed concern that they were unable to visit their former villages. What is your comment?



Maria Zakharova:

I didn’t see these reports. We will provide an official comment.



Question:

US President Donald Trump has promised President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey that he will support his country in its fight against terrorism. How far will this go toward establishing a global antiterrorist coalition, given that Turkey has maintained successful cooperation in this area with Russia and Iran?



Maria Zakharova:

Each country has the right to establish a dialogue of its own with any other country, including on issues of terrorism. The United States and Turkey also have this right. It is the legitimate right of two sovereign powers to promote their counterterrorism cooperation. The US and Turkey are actively involved in projects where the topic of counterterrorism, particularly with regard to Syria, is being actively addressed, for example, at the Security Council and the International Syria Support Group (ISSG). The issue of counterterrorism should be addressed collectively. There is a need for collective action, since we know the history of this crisis and the number of countries or groups behind various militant forces. Both countries have the right to cooperate. We proceed from the assumption that this cooperation should be constructive and should not contradict the documents approved within the framework of this project.



Question:

A special envoy of the new president of the Republic of Korea is arriving on May 22. Will he be meeting with anyone from the Foreign Ministry? What issues will be discussed?



Maria Zakharova:

I do not have any information about his meetings at the Foreign Ministry. We will update this information and let you know the answer in the near future.



Question:

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions earlier appointed former head of the FBI Robert Mueller as special prosecutor to investigate Russia's interference in the presidential elections in the United States in 2016. I would like to know Russia's position on this appointment.



Maria Zakharova:

We have no position whatsoever on this issue. This is an internal matter of the United States, part of the internal political wrangling. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to move on from the election cycle and resume the normal course of affairs. Unfortunately, this election campaign has become a drawn-out affair, or at least the post-election period has dragged on, and there’s no sign of the situation in the United States calming down. On the contrary, there are major suspicions that this post-election wave won’t die down before the next elections to the US Congress. The issues will remain the same, such as confrontation with Russia and countering the existing Russian threat and cyber attacks.

As we draw closer to US congressional elections, there will be more stories about their servers being hacked. We have a corresponding mechanism with the United States to prevent cyber threats and cyber attacks. This is an officially established mechanism, a clear-cut structure, which has its own procedure.

If the United States suspects there have been cyber attacks in the United States originating in Russia, then the relevant information must be provided via this channel, and the competent Russian authorities will immediately begin to work on these issues. They use their capabilities to find out what the problem is, and begin an internal investigation and checks. Throughout the entire existence of this mechanism, it was used only once. It was not used in any other cyber attacks, since it was necessary to provide specific data, such as location, the part of cyberspace affected, and the time the signals were registered. These data are not available in the public domain or within the existing mechanisms for tracking cyber attacks. The story about Russia's involvement in the US elections is a campaign story of one candidate, at least with respect to international matters. Clearly, they weren’t able to accept defeat and start looking into the mistakes in their own policies and failures after the election, so they needed an “eternal” enemy.



Question:

The other day, the US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved a bill proposing to name an intersection in front of the Russian Embassy in Washington after Boris Nemtsov. What is Russia’s reaction?



Maria Zakharova:

This shows what the political establishment in the United States is like at this moment, its level. You may expect me to say that it’s wrong, bad and destructive. I won’t say that, because this story is much deeper, more cynical and more terrible than you might think. I’m not sure if there are US journalists or journalists who specialise in such issues in the United States. I saw these reports. The fact is that the spot in question is now vacant, a barren plot of land. Some time ago, the municipal authorities informed the local community and the Russian Embassy in the United States (as our building is located in this area) about their plans to build a homeless shelter in this spot. Just think of the place the legislators decided to name after the Russian politician. You can think whatever you want about legacy, the activities, and life of Mr Nemtsov, agree or disagree with his ideas, but he represented our country. He was one of the most vibrant Russian politicians of the early 1990s, a member of the Government.

Why do that to this person's name? Either it’s an act of stupidity on behalf of the political forces that make such decisions in the United States, or it’s some kind of devilish cynicism. Who did they want to hurt? The memory of Boris Nemtsov? You have to be inhuman to do so. Of course, as soon as we were informed, we immediately asked for clarifications. The local residents even held the meetings after the local municipality announced its plan to build a homeless shelter there. We asked for information about whether these intentions have become legally binding or still remain that, intentions. After today's decisions, we have even more questions. Clearly, they believe they would hurt Russia if they did so.



Question:

The House of Representatives of the US Congress has adopted a new bill, which provides for imposing new sanctions on the countries that bomb civilians in Syria. How do such bills affect US-Russia relations in their joint fight against terrorism?



Maria Zakharova:

The worst part here is the type of people who make such decisions. They have a very vague idea of ​​what’s happening in the region, engage in lobbying and are very far from reality. Basically, they are relying on what their own media put out, and its quality leaves much to be desired. However, there are specific organisations and people who engage in counterterrorism cooperation and are well aware of the situation. We maintain contact with these people in various multilateral and bilateral formats, and are prepared to interact with them and encourage them to do so as well. You are well aware that these pieces of paper are churned out in order to keep the topic of Syria and Russia afloat, and just to go through the motions. Unfortunately, we cannot expect anything constructive from such statements.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you and your colleagues on the occasion of receiving a well-deserved award. As I recently learned, the Spanish-language version of the Russia Today television channel had received a special prize of the Mexican Club of Journalists for contributing to diversity of perspectives, which is awarded jointly with the Autonomous University of Carmen. No matter what countries we visit as part of the delegation led by Minister Sergey Lavrov, we are told every time, even if people do not agree with the point of view of your television channel, the things that were praised in Mexico – your contribution to diversity of viewpoints.



Question:

The leaders of Iraqi Kurdistan said they would hold a referendum on the independence of Kurdistan this autumn. If the leadership of Iraqi Kurdistan asks Russia to send its observers to the referendum, will Moscow do so?



Maria Zakharova:

This is a hypothetical question. I think that actions matter more than predictions here. It is imperative to proceed based on concrete steps taken by a given state and to respond to them. In this particular case, I would leave such futuristic ideas to experts and political scientists. We will proceed based on the official position of Baghdad and the processes that will take place in that country. We are in touch with the Iraqi leadership and representatives of foreign ministries, and we are holding meetings and talks. So, I repeat that we will act based on Baghdad's official position and we will respond to it.



Question:

They did say they will talk with Baghdad and try to agree on this issue. In this case, will Russia be willing to send its observers?



Maria Zakharova:

We will comment on it when it becomes a reality.



Question:

In one of his interviews, Russian political scientist Igor Shatrov said that the Astana talks on Syria dealt with more pressing issues than the Geneva talks. In Geneva, they discussed overarching but at the same time complex issues, in particular, the future political structure of Syria. Issues on the Astana process agenda included compliance with the truce zone, and delineating the zone of responsibility. According to a Russian political scientist, the Geneva talks have become a philosophical discussion club. What would you say to that?



Maria Zakharova:

I treat it like a comment by a Russian political scientist. You are aware of the official point of view on both processes. We see them as two concurrent processes where one stimulates the other, and the other is enriched by the first. So, both these processes must be considered together. They are mutually dependent, advantageous and important.



Question:

Early on during your briefing, you mentioned Russia’s willingness to provide Venezuela with assistance of every kind. Could you specify the kind of support in question, diplomatic or other?



Maria Zakharova:

Of course, I made it clear that we are talking about mediation efforts, if any are required to overcome the political crisis in the country.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2761759
 
Old May 20th, 2017 #95
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on anti-Russian activities in Canada



18 May 2017 - 20:51



We are compelled to warn official Ottawa that we consider its strong support for a Canadian version of the US Magnitsky Act, as a means to make unsubstantiated human rights claims against Russia, to be another openly hostile move. Should the Canadian parliament approve this punitive legal act, it would seriously damage relations between our countries, which are not experiencing the best of times already.

Canada does not stand to gain from this. Its government, which is following the lead of political agitators like financial con man William Browder from Britain, prefer to distance itself from Russia instead of promoting mutually beneficial cooperation, including economic cooperation and cooperation to develop the Arctic. Of course, Ottawa is free to act as it deems appropriate, but it is a short-sighted policy.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2761810
 
Old May 20th, 2017 #96
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Reply by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova to media question about recent anti-Russian protests in Lithuania



19 May 2017 - 12:19





Question:

What would you say about the new protests of the so-called Russian non-systemic opposition in the Lithuanian capital?



Maria Zakharova:

We were not at all surprised because the Lithuanian leadership has been pursuing an openly hostile policy against our country.

We have noticed that only political marginal figures tend to find shelter in Vilnius, including persons under criminal prosecution at home that have been put on the wanted list. In our opinion, it was not a good idea for the Lithuanian Foreign Minister to personally oversee this farce.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2762065
 
Old May 20th, 2017 #97
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following a session of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, Nicosia, May 19, 2017



19 May 2017 - 16:14





The latest session of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers has ended in Nicosia. The session was opened by Cyprus President Nicos Anastasiades; the discussion was moderated by Cyprus Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides. Important decisions were made at the conclusion of the session, in particular opening for signature the Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property. It is directly related to the barbarity demonstrated by terrorists with regard to Christian and Muslim sanctuaries, including in the Middle East and North Africa. The convention is open for signature, which is a major achievement in consolidating the Council of Europe’s convention mechanisms. It is an organisation that ensures a single legal space for all countries on our continent.

Deep gratitude was expressed to the Cypriot chairmanship for the productive work and the hosting of wide-ranging medical, youth, social and sport policy events. The discussion also addressed the implementation of Council of Europe members’ obligations to observe human rights and freedoms as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

In this context, we drew attention to the situation in Ukraine where these obligations are grossly violated. The European Convention is ignored on a significant part of the country’s territory. You are aware of what is going on in that territory regarding the Church, the media and members of parliament, not to mention Donbass, where the Ukrainian government has imposed a full blockade in an effort to thwart the implementation of the Minsk agreements.

We believe the Council of Europe should continue its efforts to prevent discrimination against human rights and the glorification of Nazism, which is still reported in some countries. We also drew attention to the problems of ethnic minorities in Ukraine following the enactment of a new law asserting the Ukrainian language in all areas of public life to the detriment of other ethnic groups living in that country.

Attention was also given to the problem of statelessness in Estonia and Latvia. I cannot say that all Council of Europe members are ready to fight these violations but they have almost no convincing arguments. We are willing to deal with all disputes peacefully but the European Convention is mandatory and the violations that we have listed are absolutely obvious. This concerns attempts to punish some groups of people on the basis of their political persuasions and on the territorial principle – insofar as concerns visa discrimination measures introduced by some EU countries against Russian citizens living in Crimea. We will continue to uphold our position on all these issues.



Question:

Could you comment on the US-led coalition’s strike on Syrian pro-government forces in the al-Tanf area? Did the US warn Russia about the attack in advance?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am not aware that such a warning was issued. We are still clarifying all details of the attack but according to some reports, several dozen civilians were killed as a result. All of this requires verification. However, my understanding is that the US command justified the strike against the positions of Syrian government forces or tried to justify it by claiming that those government forces posed a threat to the opposition that collaborates with the US military – with the US-led coalition. Whatever the reasons of the US command’s decision to attack might be, they are unlawful. This is another gross violation of Syria’s sovereignty.

We are concerned by the ongoing loss of consensus on the need to combine the efforts of all those who are standing up to ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists on the ground and in the air. Once again we are seeing the intention of Jabhat al-Nusra and its affiliates to use the opposition and some extremists, including Jabhat al-Nusra, in the fight against Syria’s legitimate government. All of this is happening amid growing calls from Washington and some other Western capitals for all contacts with Bashar Assad to be stopped. The US Congress has passed legislation that seeks to punish all those who cooperate with Syria’s legitimate government. All of this distracts us from efforts to achieve a settlement in Syria and from the main goal of that settlement: to prevent the takeover of Syria and other parts of the Middle East.



Question:

What is the practical impact of the activity of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers compared to other regional cooperation formats? Could you give some other examples of cooperation apart from opening a document for signing?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have enumerated all the events hosted by the Cypriot chairmanship. They have been posted on the official website of the Foreign Ministry of Cyprus.

As for the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ role, it is unique because all the activity of this mechanism is based on legally binding documents. They regulate many areas of life on the continent, within the framework of which it is necessary to ensure human rights and freedoms. This sets the Council of Europe apart from the OSCE, which does not rely on a single legally binding document and is a political organisation. As you know, together with our CIS partners, we have for years been putting forward proposals to develop an OSCE charter, but our Western colleagues prefer to keep it flexible. We can see that this flexibility is important for manipulating OSCE tools, including the so-called Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the position of the representative on freedom of the media and some other agencies.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2762461
 
Old May 24th, 2017 #98
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Statement by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation Dmitry Balakin at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, May 18, 2017



22 May 2017 - 09:30





Mr Chairperson,

Tensions persist in the conflict zone in Donbass.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces have violated the ceasefire regime more than 250 times this week, bombing at least nine populated areas controlled by the self-defence forces. OSCE observers have reported 152 MLRS rounds fired by the Ukrainian army from Svetlodarsk overnight into May 13. An SMM camera in Avdeyevka recorded that large-scale shooting on May 12-13 began with a shot fired from north-west towards south-east, that is, from the government-controlled area. Such provocations happen all the time. By firing shots in the densely populated areas on the contact line, the Ukrainian armed forces endanger the lives of civilians on both sides of the line.

We demand that the Minsk Package of Measures be implemented immediately and in full as the only basis for a settlement. The disengagement of forces and hardware is an important means of the termination of hostilities on the contact line. This process has been suspended due to the ongoing provocations by the Ukrainian Armed Forces inside the disengagement zone in Stanitsa Luganskaya. An SMM camera installed there recorded a rocket-propelled grenade launcher (RPG) round fired from the government-controlled positions in the early hours of May 10. We hope that the Ukrainian Armed Forces will at long last disengage the forces deployed there today, as per the May 15 decisions of the Contact Group. This should be followed by the creation of new disengagement areas.

We point out the importance of strict compliance with the Package of Measures and its Addendum on weapons withdrawal. Over the week starting May 10, SMM observers have reported more Ukrainian weapons deployed in violation of the disengagement areas, including 16 self-propelled howitzers in Kremenyovka and 12 in Zelenoye Polye, 5 Grad multiple launch rocket systems in Khlebodarovka, 5 howitzers, a mine launcher and boxes with munitions in Lebedinskoye, 5 self-propelled howitzers in Tarasovka and 6 anti-tank guns in Zhelannoye.

According to the self-defence forces, the Ukrainian army is actively using drones, including US-made ones, in the contact areas. Photographs of the Shadow unmanned aerial vehicle that was downed by the self-defence forces on the southern flank of the contact line on May 5 have been posted online.

Long before an SMM patrol vehicle was heavily damaged by an explosion in Prishib on April 23, the Ukrainian forces limited the SMM observers’ access to Stanitsa Luganskaya, Schastye, Popasnaya, Bogdanovka and Katerinovka allegedly due to the risks posed by mines.

We would like to point out again that the security of SMM observers is an unconditional priority.

We urge Kiev to cooperate in full with the Lugansk authorities that are investigating the explosion of the SMM patrol vehicle on April 23.

The Ukrainian armed forces must end their subversive activities in the territory controlled by the self-defence forces in the interests of a peaceful settlement.

We would like to highlight the absence of any reaction to the SMM reports about men in military-style uniforms driving a white SUV in the government-controlled Avdeyevka on March 4 and April 1 with stickers whose design and colour were reminiscent of those on the OSCE vehicles.

A lasting settlement of the internal Ukrainian conflict can be only achieved if military measures are complemented with political steps in keeping with the Package of Measures. The Donbass residents want guarantees for their rights. Kiev has demonstrated its inability to move forward at the Contact Group meetings. On May 15, the Ukrainian negotiators again refused, citing a far-fetched pretext, to formalise the Steinmeier Formula on the procedure for granting a special status to Donbass and holding local elections there.

We expect the parties to finally bring it to realisation, at least, the ‘all for all’ exchange of hostages and unlawfully detained persons. We believe Kiev should remove the border checkpoint from the contact line, which, according to the SMM, causes backups of up to 2,000 people.

We again urge our Western counterparts to use their considerable influence on Kiev to stop the bloodshed in Donbass, which has already led to tens of thousands of wounded and killed, to millions of internally displaced persons, and to untold damage. No matter how painful it may be for the Kiev authorities to implement the Minsk Agreements, they are the only way to prevent an even greater catastrophe in Ukraine.

Mr Chairperson,

Cases of radical nationalism and gross violations of human rights in Ukraine require close attention of the SMM and other OSCE executive bodies. Kiev continues to take self-destructive steps to deepen the ethnic, religious, cultural, and value-based controversy in Ukraine.

The oppression of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is fraught with a major split in Ukrainian society. The SMM reports facts reflecting the policy of forceful alienation of church property, as was the case with a church in Ptichye in the Rovno Region. This has led to a sharp confrontation. However, the issue is much broader, and the OSCE should give it more attention.

Today on May 18, Verkhovna Rada plans to include in its agenda two draft laws, which, if adopted, will legitimise unheard of discrimination against the majority of Ukraine’s Orthodox population. This will be a glaring example of violation of human rights, freedom of religion, of international norms and obligations and the Constitution of Ukraine. This is not the first time Kiev is trying to draw the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the largest church in the country, into political confrontation. Another step in this direction will exacerbate the civil conflict in Ukraine, giving it a religious dimension, and will certainly complicate the implementation of the Minsk Agreements.

We expect an unequivocal response from the other Normandy format leaders, the Austrian OSCE chairmanship (Metropolitan Hilarion sent a letter to Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz), the executive agencies of our Organisation, and the member states on this undoubtedly emergency situation. Their response will show us how sincere and consistent they are in defending the norms and principles of the OSCE.

On May 15, the decision of the National Security Council of Ukraine came into effect introducing new restrictive measures against a number of individuals and legal entities. The ban hit the popular Russian-language search engine Yandex, the Mail.ru email server, the Russian-language social networks VKontakte and Odnoklassniki, and a number of Russian media. These moves, which run counter to Ukraine's obligations to uphold human rights and the freedom of speech, have further limited the rights of Russian-speaking Ukrainians to free access to information and communication in their native language. For some reason, we are not witnessing any outrage on the part of Western countries here in this room, despite their usual concern about the freedom of speech.

The St George Ribbon, one of the symbols of Victory over Nazism, is also banned in Ukraine now. This is outrageous and highly regrettable, but it no longer surprises anyone, since Russophobia, the promotion of neo-Nazism and the erasure of historical memory in Ukraine have been elevated to the level of state policy.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2763298
 
Old May 24th, 2017 #99
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on repeated accusations of Russian support for the Taliban



23 May 2017 - 17:23



Despite the assurances of the Afghan authorities that they will curb groundless accusations of Russia for allegedly supporting the Taliban, some Afghan MPs and heads of provincial Afghan security agencies continue to repeat these insinuations. This time, police chief of Kandahar Province Abdul Raziq alleged that Russia is helping the Taliban with money and arms supplies in cooperation with other countries. In addition, Fox News Channel in the US resorted to a well-known trick of manipulating public opinion by presenting in the same context reports about the appearance of unidentified helicopters in Kunduz Province bordering on Tajikistan and the smuggling of goods across the Tajik-Afghan border with the latest fantasies of Afghan pseudo analysts on the possible arrival of Russian military advisors to organise financial and logistics support for the Taliban.

The facts we have at our disposal show that the reality is completely different. Earlier the Afghan website Payam Aftab carried an article about the detention of three US servicemen with a consignment of arms in the Kokistanat District of the northern province of Sar-e Pol last January. ISIS commandos who were going to buy these arms from the Americans were caught at the same time with a huge sum of money. However, later on the US servicemen were released from custody and transferred to their command, while all documents, including interrogation records, money and arms mysteriously disappeared.

Even stranger is the release of Azizullah from the US Bagram Prison near Kabul in the autumn of 2016. He is the son of Tahir Yuldashev, head of the terrorist Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). Later on Azizullah was moved to the Darzab District of the Jowzjan Province in the north of Afghanistan, where he headed a unit of 25 militants that left the IMU for ISIS. As a result, Azizullah’s unit subjugated armed formations of the Taliban in some districts of the provinces of Jowzjan, Faryab and Sar-e Pol, compelled the local population to swear loyalty to ISIS and established a second open bridgehead of ISIS in the north of Afghanistan (after the first one in Nangarhar).

Finally, Sar-e Pol Governor Mohammad Zahir Wahdat confirmed on the record information about the night landing of two helicopters without identification marks in extremist-controlled territory in the Sayyad District. They went to the government air force base in Mazar-e-Sharif that also accommodates the NATO military base Camp Marmal.

One gets the impression that to distract world public opinion from numerous mistakes made during the more than 15 year-long stay of the US and NATO contingent in Afghanistan, some people are trying to slander Russia, both on their own and with the help of their henchmen in Afghanistan, while covering up their own support for terrorists, primarily ISIS militants.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2764002
 
Old May 27th, 2017 #100
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the Latvian Foreign Ministry’s talking points for Latvian officials justifying Riga’s decision to give up participation in Nord Stream 2



25 May 2017 - 17:33



As there is no real legal basis to oppose this obviously promising and economically beneficial project, its opponents have had to come up with increasingly absurd arguments to justify their destructive position.

In this context we could not help but note the talking points prepared by the Latvian Foreign Ministry for Latvian ministers that contain the “correct” explanation of the Government’s decision not to support efforts related to Nord Stream 2. They are more absurd than any previous statements by Latvian officials.

For example, they rely on scaremongering that the storage of pipes in the port of Ventspils may threaten the unity of the EU and NATO or that “Russian spies” may infiltrate the country “to undermine the main principles of environmental protection.”

The Latvian Foreign Ministry will apparently stop at nothing to complicate the construction of Nord Stream 2, even resorting to outright deception. This level of reasoning does not reflect well on Latvian diplomacy.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2764751
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 AM.
Page generated in 0.60146 seconds.