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

Old March 16th, 2018 #381
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 a statement by Prime Minister of Georgia Grigory Kvirikashvili



12 March 2018 - 19:03



Moscow paid much attention to the statement made by Prime Minister of Georgia Grigory Kvirikashvili on March 9. We are pleased about his intention to continue and deepen the process of bilateral normalisation. Nobody should doubt that, as before, Russia is interested in improving relations with neighbouring Georgia and is ready to do so to the extent that Georgia is prepared for this.

Mr Kvirikashvili’s mention of [Georgia’s] striving for progress at the Geneva discussions makes us hope for a constructive position from Georgia during the next round in late March. We are convinced that this approach will be supported by other participants in the talks regardless of who heads the Georgian delegation in Geneva.

We are bound to welcome the declared striving for direct dialogue with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is the only realistic road to settling issues that concern Georgia but go beyond the bilateral Russian-Georgian agenda. In particular, this applies to the recent regrettable incident with Georgian citizen Archil Tatunashvili.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3117514






Statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry



13 March 2018 - 11:54



Moscow is concerned about several Ukrainian radical nationalist organisations’ plans to hamper voting in the Russian presidential election on March 18, 2018, at Russian diplomatic and consular institutions in Ukraine.

Apart from a gross violation of Ukraine’s obligations under the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations, such threats are a direct consequence of the Russophobic policy pursued by the Kiev regime, rooted in flagrant nationalism and connivance of extremist groups of various kinds.

We demand that the authorities of Ukraine unconditionally ensure the security of the Russian Embassy in Kiev, the Russian General Consulates in Kharkov, Odessa and Lvov, and see that there are no obstacles to their unimpeded functioning and full availability to Russian nationals.

We urge international organisations and groups interested in the civilised and peaceful development of the situation in Ukraine to exert a proper influence on Kiev and guard it against inadequate actions that are contrary to universally recognised norms and rules.

The Ukrainian authorities will be fully responsible for any negative consequences of unlawful actions against Russian missions.

The Russian side will closely monitor developments around its diplomatic institutions and Russian nationals during the elections.

We expect Kiev to make every effort to ensure the timely prevention of any possible provocations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3117826






Press release on summoning the UK Ambassador to the Russian Foreign Ministry



13 March 2018 - 16:54



On March 13, Ambassador of the United Kingdom to Russia Laurence Bristow was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry, where First Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov strongly protested the evidence-free accusations by the UK authorities of Russia’s alleged involvement in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.

It was stated that the actions of the UK authorities are a clear provocation and that the Russian Federation was not involved in the incident that took place in Salisbury on March 4, 2018. From the Russian side, it was emphasised that Moscow will not respond to London’s ultimatum until it receives samples of the chemical substance to which the UK investigators are referring and until the UK demonstrates compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention that stipulates a joint investigation into the incident, for which Moscow is ready. Without that, there can be no sense in any statements from London. The incident appears to be yet another crooked attempt by the UK authorities to discredit Russia.

Any threat to take “punitive” measures against Russia will meet with a response. The British side should be aware of that.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3118416






Comment by the Information and Press Department on US threats to launch military strikes at Syria



13 March 2018 - 17:29



During the discussion of Resolution 2401 on the ceasefire and the humanitarian pause in Syria in the UN Security Council on March 12, US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley implied that the US might launch military strikes at Syria similar to last April when such actions were based on unfounded unilateral US accusations of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government. Russia and Syria were also accused of violating the ceasefire and causing the suffering of civilians, primarily in East Ghouta.

Such unfounded aggressive statements by the US Ambassador evoke indignation and extreme concern. This is the height of hypocrisy – to hear assurances of support for the political process in Syria on behalf of the US that is occupying a considerable part of Syrian territory in violation of the fundamental principles of international law and the UN Charter. In effect, Washington is going all out to protect and retain terrorist groups operating near Damascus and in other Syrian provinces. The real situation in the Damascus suburb of East Ghouta is being completely distorted in the process. Terrorists continue the systematic shelling of residential buildings in the Syrian capital from this suburb. The crimes of terrorists are not mentioned at all, including the shooting of those who would like to use humanitarian corridors. At the same time, nothing is said about the fact that real humanitarian relief is coming to this region only from the Russian Centre for Reconciliation of the Opposing Sides and with its assistance.

Attempts by the US and its allies to distort the meaning of UN Security Council Resolution 2401 that provides for the continued resolute struggle against ISIS, al-Nusra and other terrorist groups are absolutely unacceptable.

Against the background of the US Ambassador’s bellicose statements, there is growing concern that the militants may stage a false chemical attack by Syrian government forces against civilians to justify US unilateral strikes against Damascus and Syrian state-owned facilities.

Such criminal actions could create a threat to the life of Russian military advisors, including representatives of the Centre for Reconciliation of the Opposing Sides who are at offices in Damascus and the Syrian Defence Ministry’s facilities. In this case the necessary reciprocal measures will be taken.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3118471






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the bomb attack against the convoy of Palestinian Prime Minister in Gaza



14 March 2018 - 11:08



On March 13, the convoy of Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah, who arrived at the Gaza Strip from Ramallah to take part in the opening of a water treatment station in the north of the enclave, was hit by an explosive device, wounding seven members of the security personnel escorting the head of the Palestinian Government.

Moscow strongly condemns this criminal attack that further complicates the already challenging situation in Palestine’s internal affairs. We call on all sides in Palestine to abide by the deal reached in Cairo in October 2017 whereby Palestine’s legitimate government was to assume control over the Gaza Strip with a view to restoring the unity of Palestinian territories, improving the humanitarian situation in Gaza and enhancing security.

We believe that the ultimate goal of these efforts should be for the Palestinians to achieve true national unity based on the political platform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Russia proceeds from the premise that this would lead the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations out of the current impasse and facilitate progress toward a final settlement based on the well-known and internationally accepted legal foundation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3118781






Statement by the Foreign Ministry



14 March 2018 - 18:44



The March 14 statement made by British Prime Minister Theresa May in Parliament on measures to “punish” Russia, under the false pretext of its alleged involvement in the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter, constitutes an unprecedented, flagrant provocation that undermines the foundations of normal dialogue between our countries.

We believe it is absolutely unacceptable and unworthy of the British Government to seek to further seriously aggravate relations in pursuit of its unseemly political ends, having announced a whole series of hostile measures, including the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats from the country.

Instead of completing its own investigation and using established international formats and instruments, including within the framework of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons – in which we were prepared to cooperate – the British Government opted for confrontation with Russia. Obviously, by investigating this incident in a unilateral, non-transparent way, the British Government is again seeking to launch a groundless anti-Russian campaign.

Needless to say, our response measures will not be long in coming.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3119678
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 16th, 2018 #382
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 15, 2018



15 March 2018 - 12:59








Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the Russia‒ Land of Opportunity forum

Today, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will deliver remarks at the Russia ‒ Land of Opportunity forum in Moscow. He will speak about the world and Russia’s opportunities in it. The forum participants are those who took part in projects held on the Russia – Land of Opportunity (RLO) platform, which was established at the initiative of President Vladimir Putin. The forum participants will discuss the development of transparent means of climbing the social ladder and personal fulfilment of talented young people as well as professionals.

Sergey Lavrov’s remarks will be streamed on the Ministry’s official website and social media accounts.

I think it will be an interesting discussion. I suggest that you watch it.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Vietnam

On March 19 and 20, Sergey Lavrov will visit the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. He plans to hold talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh and to meet with other Vietnamese leaders.

The officials will discuss the current state and the possibility of further strengthening the comprehensive Russian-Vietnamese partnership, including our political dialogue and cooperation in trade, the economy, research and technology, as well as in the fields of military technology and culture. They will focus on preparations for the Russian-Vietnamese cross-year in 2019, as well as discuss current global and international questions of mutual concern.

Following the talks, the parties plan to sign a plan of cooperation between the foreign ministries of Russia and Vietnam for 2019−2020.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Japan

On March 21 and 22, Sergey Lavrov will visit Tokyo, where he will meet with Foreign Minister Taro Kono.

The ministers plan to discuss the entire range of matters related to bilateral relations, including political, trade, economic, cultural and humanitarian questions. They will also talk about current international problems, including the developments on the Korean Peninsula and in Syria, as well as interaction at multilateral organisations.

This visit will be part of a series of meetings held between the Russian and Japanese foreign ministers in the second half of 2018 and the beginning of 2018. It will also be the main stage in preparations for the upcoming visit by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to Russia in May of this year.

Following the talks, the parties plan to sign a plan of cooperation between the foreign ministries of Russia and Japan for 2018−2019

We will publish reference material for Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Japan on the Ministry’s official website.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Vietnamese and Japanese media

Let me share a little secret with you: as we speak, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is at an interview with Vietnamese and Japanese media. In his interview, the Foreign Minister will talk at length about Russia’s cooperation and relations with Vietnam and Japan.

The interview will be released on Friday evening.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to take part in the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund

On March 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair the annual meeting of Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund’s Board of Trustees to review the performance in 2017 and outline priorities for 2018−2019.

The Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund was established back in 2010 in accordance with the Directive of the President of the Russian Federation with a view to supporting public diplomacy, promoting international activities of Russian NGOs and drawing civil society institutions into the foreign policy process.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in an international high-level conference on Afghanistan, Peace Process, Security Cooperation and Regional Connectivity

On March 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in an international high-level conference on Afghanistan, Peace Process, Security Cooperation and Regional Connectivity, that will be held in Tashkent.

This event is designed to facilitate the emergence of a broad international consensus on the main principles of a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan, promote regional cooperation on security matters, as well as ways to draw Afghanistan into trade, transit, energy, cultural and humanitarian cooperation with Central Asia and beyond.

We view the Tashkent conference as a follow-up to the efforts by the international community, including within the Moscow format and the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group, to promote stability in Afghanistan and put the country back on track for sustainable development.



The Russian Foreign Ministry’s preparations for the presidential election

We are not ashamed of saying that our foreign missions have done a lot to prepare for the presidential election outside of Russia. Why do we say this and provide these assessments? The fact is that the geography of early voting has been expanded.

I would like to point out once again that we have opened 394 polling stations in 144 countries (as against 378 for the previous presidential election and 365 for the Duma elections).

The geography of early voting has been expanded. The number has grown from 270 (during the Duma elections) to 356 in 90 countries. This form of work has never been used on such a scale before. Over 150 such ballots took place as of the end of the day on March 14.

The manning of the polling station commissions has been completed. These are headed by 44 ambassadors and 62 consuls general.

We had problems and we are still facing a few hitches. For example, apart from Ukraine (we regularly reported on problems in Ukraine and posted relevant comments on the foreign ministry website), only Latvia and Estonia made it difficult for us to establish polling stations. As we already mentioned, the authorities in those countries did not allow us to open additional polling stations or organise remote voting.

According to consular registration statistics, about 1.8 million Russian citizens live or are in temporary residence abroad. The Russian Foreign Ministry and its foreign missions are doing their best to enable all those wishing to do so to enjoy their constitutional rights.

I again would like to draw your attention to the fact that our foreign missions (embassies and consulates general) regularly post updates on preparations for and the holding of early voting on their websites and social media accounts.

On March 18, all citizens of this country will hold elections and participate in them. You can follow the voting practically online: I mean the Russian Federation’s foreign missions.

If you have questions or want to cover the elections in some particular country, our embassies’ websites provide both hotline and press-service telephones (people in charge of press accreditation). Please use this opportunity. If you have any problems, contact the press centre of the Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department. For our part, we will provide all the necessary assistance.



Situation unfolding in Syria

The military and political situation in Syria remains very tense. Nevertheless, we note a gradual shift in the development vector towards stabilisation and the building of peaceful life in the country.

Russia, being committed to UNSC Resolution 2254, continues to work towards an early political settlement in Syria and the eradication of the remaining seats of international terrorism. On March 16, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the foreign ministers meeting of the guarantor countries of the Astana process – Russia, Turkey and Iran – which is to be held in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan. The issues to be discussed include the situation on Syrian land, de-escalation processes and specific measures on restoring peace and security there.

The Russian military in Syria have continued to actively pursue contact with local armed groups in order to persuade them to lay down arms and distance themselves from terrorists. Detailed information on how the situation is unfolding “on site” is published by the Defence Ministry of the Russian Federation.

Syria’s government forces are conducting a large-scale counter-terrorist operation in Eastern Ghouta. The Syrian authorities, with the active support of the Russian Centre for the Reconciliation of Opposing Sides and in compliance with the provisions of international humanitarian law, take all possible measures to minimise civilian casualties and to arrange safe passage for the civilians from the areas controlled by militants. Daily five-hour humanitarian pauses continue. Two new safe corridors have been created. One of them was opened by the Russian military in the south of the enclave, near Jisrayn and Mlikha, and the other, at the initiative of the Syrian side, in Harasta. About 60 individuals, including 26 children, were evacuated from the liberated town of Misraba. On March 9, the local authorities allowed the entry of another humanitarian convoy, organised jointly by the UN, International Committee of the Red Cross and the Syrian Society of Red Crescent, and carrying humanitarian aid for 12,000 people.

The extremists, for their part, continue to boycott the humanitarian pauses, and sabotage initiatives on evacuating civilians from combat areas. The Faylaq ar-Rahman group opened fire on a convoy of civilians who tried to use the Jisrayn-Mlikha corridor, killing a woman and two children. The terrorists also fire artillery and mortars on residential districts of Damascus. On March 11, several dozen mortars hit the Syrian capital. The shelling targeted the districts of Qaymariyya, Barza, Bab Tuma, Al-Qassaa, Bazuriyya, Hamidiyya, Shaghour and Rukneddine. According to the Syrian Interior Ministry and Health Ministry, on that day alone, four civilians died and 26 were wounded.

We once again call on our regional and international partners to take part in a genuine and mutually respectful cooperation for the sake of reaching an early political settlement in Syria, and prevent the disruption of joint efforts to normalise the situation in that country. We would like to send a separate warning to Washington and to remind it about the need to rigorously comply with international law and the inadmissibility of military actions against the sovereign state of Syria, a member country of the United Nations.



UK’s accusations against Russia over the Skripal case

Yesterday, we posted the Ministry’s statement on this subject on its official website.

As declared yesterday, the Ministry certainly intends to take retaliatory measures in response to the UK’s announcement of relevant unfriendly steps and measures with regard to the Russian Federation. These retaliatory measures are at the elaboration stage and will be adopted shortly.

I would like to inform you that the Russian Embassy in the United Kingdom has sent several diplomatic notes to the Foreign Office with the aim of starting an active dialogue with London concerning the situation involving the use of chemical agents on UK territory. The notes called for the beginning of concrete joint work towards providing material and all possible information. They also spoke of the need to engage the Chemical Weapons Convention and the OPCW institutions and capabilities and contained a strong request for Russia to be allowed access to Yulia Skripal, a Russian citizen.

The Foreign Office was sent a separate document regarding the broadcast and published information on the likelihood of official UK structures launching a cyberattack against the Russian Federation.

There were 4 notes all in all. In response, we received meaningless non-committal messages. As of today, the UK is refusing to cooperate with Russia on its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and as an OPCW member state. Among other things, this was stated to the OPCW. We tried to make London revert to legality so as to address the existing matters and serious problems.

We are extremely concerned over the developments that took place in the UK several days ago. It is with much concern that we accept the entire incoming information on the use of chemical weapons in the UK. I can officially confirm that as of now London is refusing to provide any factual information on the case in hand. The possibility of making samples of the substance discovered at the scene of the crime available to Russia is not even mentioned. I can also officially confirm that London has failed to provide Russia any details, data or information capable of shedding at least some light on this tragedy either through bilateral channels or at international organisations.

We can see the continuation of this information and political show as well as an obvious information and political campaign. We are witnessing an attempt to use, among other things, the mechanisms of the UN Security Council in order to stoke with a renewed force the anti-Russia hysteria and campaign. I think that many members of the international community have drawn conclusions on the degree of trust that London deserves.

We once again officially call on the UK to provide all available material related to the incident (as they describe it) involving proliferation of chemical weapons on the territory of this country.



Developments in Myanmar

We continue to closely monitor the developments taking place in Myanmar, whose authorities are doing their best to launch a peace process there. Tension persists in some regions of Myanmar, where irreconcilable ethnic armed groups are staging clashes. In particular, the explosion of improvised bombs rocked Sittwe, the capital of Myanmar’s northern Rakhine State.

The Myanmar authorities are working to create conditions for the return of those who had fled from their homes in the Rakhine State to Bangladesh. Camps are being established for receiving these people, and tight security measures are being taken.

The Myanmar government is giving priority attention to the humanitarian situation in the Rakhine State. Schools, which closed last year following the extremist attacks, are reopening. In early March, the fifth group of young volunteers went to the Rakhine State to deliver and distribute humanitarian aid among the residents of the affected villages and the internally displaced persons. Work is underway to resume round-the-clock electricity supplies to the northern parts of the Rakhine State.

The authorities are verifying the documents of over 8,000 refugees whom the Bangladeshi authorities turned over to Myanmar in February. To prevent militants from entering the Rakhine State, the border guards of Myanmar and Bangladesh are patrolling the common border and have increased the number of police and border guard roadblocks.

The Myanmar government is trying to supply the international community with reliable information about the developments in the Rakhine State. In February, it organised three visits by members of the diplomatic corps to the border areas, which foreign and local journalists visit regularly.



20th anniversary of the Foreign Ministry’s veterans’ organisation

On March 28, we will mark the 20th of the Foreign Ministry’s Council of War and Labour Veterans. It was established at a general meeting of veterans and registered with the Russian Justice Ministry in January 1998.

The founding fathers of the veterans’ organisation included prominent diplomats such as member of the FM Collegium Nikolai Sudarikov, Ambassador Georgy Farafonov and Minister-Counsellor Nikolai Kustovsky. One of its current members is Hero of the Soviet Union Sergey Romanovtsev. The Council used to have three Heroes of the Soviet Union, a full cavalier of the Order of Glory, as well as three Heroes of Socialist Labour among its members.

At present, the Council of War and Labour Veterans comprises 1,558 members, including some 500 female veterans who are also members of 34 grass-roots veterans’ organisations at the Ministry’s departments. Among them there are 158 veterans of the Great Patriotic War, 20 Merited Workers of the Diplomatic Service of Russia, 112 Merited Workers of the Foreign Ministry, 144 ambassadors and 250 minister-counsellors.

The Council’s priorities are socioeconomic assistance to the veterans (healthcare services and financial aid), as well as help in the organisation of various events.

The Ministry officials, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, pay special attention to the veterans and their organisations and help them to deal with their problems.

Sergey Lavrov regularly meets with the leaders and active members of the Council of War and Labour Veterans.

We believe that this work should and will be continued.



Regional charitable public fund of socio-legal and additional material aid to the veterans of the diplomatic service “The Fund of the Veterans of the Diplomatic Service”

A regional charitable public fund of socio-legal and additional material aid to the veterans of the diplomatic service “The Fund of the Veterans of the Diplomatic Service” has been established at the Foreign Ministry’s Council of War and Labour Veterans.

The main goal of the fund is to facilitate the targets and tasks of the Russian Government’s policy on social support for veterans, disabled and the disadvantaged, as well as veterans of the diplomatic service who are going through hard times.

A Supervisory Board headed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has been established for implementing the fund’s strategy and determining priority areas of its activities.

Considering the fund’s important role in providing socio-legal and material aid to veterans of the diplomatic service, the fund’s Council headed by Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Vladimir Chkhikvadze (Ret.) invites government, public and other organisations, representatives of business circles and all interested citizens to take part in its work.

I must say that even young people can envy the vigorous activities of our veterans. We will regularly inform you about them.



Reports of the potential formation of a Russia-Artsakh Friendship Society

Before the briefing we received a request from the Azerbaijani media to comment on a report by a Russian news agency on the holding of the round table discussion “Free Artsakh - 30 Years” on February 22, which was attended by the employees of the permanent mission of the Republic of Artsakh in Moscow headed by Permanent Representative Albert Andryan. The report also mentioned the establishment of the Russia-Artsakh Friendship Society in Russia.

We found out what it was all about. There is no mission of the Republic of Artsakh in Moscow, as it was formulated in the question. To my knowledge, Mr Andryan mentioned in the report is in reality a counsellor of the Embassy of the Republic of Armenia. At any rate, he is accredited by the Russian Foreign Ministry in this capacity.

To be honest, I see no need to comment on the establishment of a Russia-Artsakh Friendship Society. We have most diverse public organisations. The main point is that this should not violate Russian law.




Excerpts from answers to questions:



Question:

At the moment, the President of the unrecognised Nagorno-Karabakh republic, who is currently visiting the United States, is meeting with US congressmen. He is also planning to hold meetings with expert circles and at analytical centres. Could it have to do with some new circumstances concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement? Is it possible to talk about the prospect of the Nagorno-Karabakh leader paying a similar visit to Moscow in the future?



Maria Zakharova:

You know, I find it pretty hard to give my comments, when someone from a certain region visits another region, when it does not concern the Russian Federation. Since it has to do with the US Congress, then, I believe, your question should rather be addressed to the United States. As for the Russian Federation, I know nothing about such meetings. I can be more precise. I can say that we are committed to all our obligations concerning a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement within the framework of the existing agreements. We are actively trying to assist in promoting a really full-format solution to this very complicated problem.



Question:

Yesterday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, meeting with his Turkish counterpart, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu, noted that the situation in the South Caucasus is always present on the Russian-Turkish agenda. Does it mean that the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is also periodically discussed by Russia and Turkey?



Maria Zakharova:

The issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is being discussed with a whole number of our partners. This involves the co-chairmen, the countries of the region. This is normal and is part of our diplomatic work.



Question:

The day before, there were media reports alleging that pressure had been put on Russian diplomats in the UK even earlier. Specifically, some of our colleagues quoted Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as saying that even his appeal to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson failed to solve the visa problem plaguing our diplomatic staff. Is this so? It would also be nice to get your comment on the statement entitled “Crimea is Ukraine” posted on the website of the US Department of State in response to President Putin’s visit to this constituent entity of Russia.



Maria Zakharova:

Regarding the pressure placed on Russian diplomats in the UK and the solution of the visa problem, I can say that yesterday you could draw your own conclusions from Ms May’s pronouncements as to whether there was pressure or not. This is the manner in which the prime minister of that country (a nuclear power, let me remind you again) for some reason deemed it possible to deal with Russia and Russian diplomats. In principle, she was addressing Russian citizens yesterday and said something about friendship and love for our people. We saw yesterday how the UK sees its love for Russians. We continue to see this, apart from other things, at international organisations, where this love is particularly conspicuous. Regrettably, far from all people can see this, because talks are held behind closed doors. There, our British colleagues are really at ease “loving” the Russian people across the board. But I can say that they always get a fitting reply.

As for the “visa war” (and I certainly can describe the situation in these terms), we have for a long time thought it right to try and reach a settlement through Russia-UK bilateral channels. We did make comments, of course, but we were very polite. But if London has taken steps that everyone knows of today, let us tell the whole story and this is what we did yesterday.

In fact, Russian diplomats have been literally squeezed out for a number of years. The British authorities were putting all sorts of obstacles in their way, specifically through the use of the visa mechanism. It looked very simple. After visas issued to Russian diplomats expired, relevant diplomatic notes for visa extensions were sent (as you understand, diplomats do not leave the territory of a state and remain embassy employees). These extensions had no time limits. There was no timeframe for executing the documents and receiving a reply from London. As you understand, visas are issued within established timeframes stipulated by the agreements: relevant international documents specify terms of interaction between the diplomatic staff and the authorities of a country of residence. Apart from everything else, there is common sense pure and simple. All of that was trampled underfoot by UK officials. Visas were not extended for many Russian diplomats and embassy employees. During high-level meetings, at the level of foreign ministers, the Russian side repeatedly mentioned the need to solve the existing problem, because at some point we came to realise that the situation had been specially created rather than cropped up by chance. To reiterate, every expedient was used to maximally complicate the work of the Russian embassy staff in the UK.

As for the DOS statement that Crimea is Ukraine, it reminds me of a lecture I heard on dreams once.



Question:

Yesterday, it was announced in the UK Parliament that in the event that Russia expels British diplomats from Moscow in retaliation for Britain's expelling Russian diplomats, Britain would do the same and will expel more diplomats. Who will win in this “competition” when each side responds with tougher measures?



Maria Zakharova:

You should ask London. The question of who wants to win or can win should be posed to those who have unleashed this campaign. And we have not the slightest doubt that this is a campaign. From the very beginning, we requested all available information on the circumstances of the incident. From the very beginning, we proposed using international law documents and mechanisms not just for settling the issues (which are impossible to settle in one or two days) but for beginning a thorough analysis of what happened.

As a reminder, in an extraordinary event that occurred in Europe, according to the British side (and we still have not received any official data), a chemical poisoning agent was used to attack a citizen of Great Britain and a citizen of Russia. Everything that was required to be done from the Russian side was done. In response, we received zero information, zero data and a clear unwillingness to cooperate. So all questions should go to them. Do they want to win? What do they want to win in? How do they conceive of victory in this case? We are certainly not the ones to be asked these questions.

Even amid this hysteria we saw from London, this show, even in this format and these circumstances, we acted in the most constructive way possible and made efforts to maintain a normal (although this is not normal in the usual sense of the word) dialogue rooted in law. This is not about sympathy or special feelings we should have for each other. This is about standard legal work to investigate what happened. Once again, this is an informational and political campaign in which the conclusions were made on the first day. What is there to talk about?



Question:

What chances are there to normalise relations with Great Britain? But probably this is also a question for them as they caused this mess.



Maria Zakharova:

Chances for normalisation... I will think about the answer.



Question:

What is your reaction to yesterday’s statement by the US Ambassador during the UN Security Council meeting and the very fact that the United States unconditionally backed Britain’s stance in the case of Sergey Skripal?



Maria Zakharova:

An excellent question. Thank you very much. We, too, have some questions about that. Is this the position of the US Ambassador to the UN, of the US Department of State, of those American structures that deal with non-proliferation, including chemical weapons, of the US Presidential Administration? Whose position is this? Was it coordinated?

If this is part of a global campaign, then there is no need for it to be coordinated. For those taking part in such propaganda shows, this is very easy to do, as there is no need to verify the facts, no need for concrete data, no need to understand what kind of information they use. Actually nothing is needed, all they need to do is to stick to the mainstream – the mainstream of Russophobia – and support everything that has to do with this Russophobia.

I have one question: When some delegation or another declares that it stands in solidarity, for example, with UK Prime Minister Theresa May and what she said, what is this based on? Did anyone provide any information to them? If so, are they concealing it? We, for our part, understand that, in all probability, nothing was provided. So what do these allegations rest upon? No one has provided anything to us, nor has anyone provided anything to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Do you see? There are such things as samples and substance: samples of the substance that was found. Does anyone, except the British authorities, possess this specific information? No one does.

How can you stand in solidarity for things that you cannot comprehend because you do not have the original concrete data? This is just incredible! Everyone is speculating on the origin of the substance without having the slightest idea what substance they are talking of. Just as easily, you, your colleagues or simply people off the street can come and support Theresa May. It is a matter of ignorance, rather than facts, of ideological support, rather than investigation. This ideological support is what we are seeing. It has nothing to do with investigation, as Britain has not provided any data to anyone.

You and I, we all saw that Theresa May had some telephone conversations with her European partners and, perhaps, with someone else. But I’m not sure that samples of a chemical substance can be provided over the phone. I understand that technology (especially following statements by certain officials in London on the possibility of cyber attacks against Moscow) is virtually unlimited. But still, samples of a chemical substance cannot be provided over the phone. After all, this is a kind of work that takes experts to perform. When talking of aggression against some state, the more so when it happens at the UN Security Council, people have to present factual evidence.

Let me say again: Why, prior to bringing this matter before the UN Security Council, did no one want to discuss it at a conference of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)? There is a whole organisation for such matters. Are they playing for time? Do they want to “polish up” something and present it later, perhaps? Are they afraid or reluctant to present it now? The truth is obviously being concealed. No one is providing information about the incident to anyone. We do not even know the circumstances of how it happened. Was there an attacker, or many attackers, a group of people, an organised crime group or a private person?

Who was it? How did it all take place? No one knows that. Yet, conclusions of a truly cosmic scale have already been made.



Question:

Is there a legal mechanism that Russia can use to include this issue on the agenda of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons?



Maria Zakharova:

Of course there is. We have discussed it. We released an official statement and handed over a corresponding diplomatic note to Great Britain. Let's say it again. Several concurrent steps have been made. Russia sent a diplomatic note after British Prime Minister Theresa May announced to the whole world that Britain was attacked and that the traces and the origin of the poisonous agent, which was not made available to anyone (only Britain has it), are somehow linked to Russia. A diplomatic note was sent to the British Foreign Office through the Russian Embassy in London with a proposal to use the mechanism of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in particular Article 9.2. We also said this publicly in order to avoid things such as “Theresa May might not be updated about something” or “Theresa May might not have read something.” We have run into these kinds of things. Look, for example, into how a meeting between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and former US State Secretary Rex Tillerson was organised. We made the information about this meeting available, while we and you were told that they were not informed. That's why we did it. Just to avoid such things as “the note didn’t come,” “the Russians didn’t send the note,” or “the Russians made it up.”

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov publicly spoke about our proposal to official London, which was to use the corresponding paragraph of the corresponding article of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In addition, speaking at a meeting of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on the same day, Permanent Representative of Russia to the OPCW, Russian Ambassador Alexander Shulgin described in detail the Russian proposal regarding the work under the convention, which was addressed directly to the British delegation in the presence of experts and delegations from other countries. We have not received any response to this, either. The debate in the OPCW continued. Britain declined our proposal to use this mechanism.

We have explained everything we knew about this mechanism, assuming that our colleagues from Britain or other countries may not be aware of certain things. We said that according to this mechanism, ten days are given to draft an answer to a cooperation proposal. However, at the same time, it is necessary to make all the materials and the data that the UK has at its disposal available to Russia. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also said that if this article is not acted upon for some reason, the OPCW has other mechanisms which can also be used. Already at the next meeting of the organisation, Permanent Representative of Russia Alexander Shulgin presented to the British side all possible options for working on the Convention in the OPCW. However, what we received in response was a volley of propaganda and an actual refusal to work with the Convention. This is what we have as of today.

You also saw and heard what took place in the UN Security Council. Go over the remarks by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Vasily Nebenzya. This is another political show, but this time with the involvement of UN Security Council mechanisms. I want to reiterate what we have repeatedly stated. Russia is officially announcing its willingness to work with all mechanisms that imply work within the OPCW and on its platform, using the appropriate tools.

However, at the moment, this trend is only gaining momentum, with London refusing to work within this legal framework. Everything has been transferred to the public sphere. This is another campaign and the next step in taking Russophobic hysteria to a new level.



Question:

Wess Mitchell of the US Department of State said during his visit to Pristina that the United States supports the transformation of the Kosovo security forces into a fully functional army and that nobody has a veto right when it comes to Kosovo security. Can you comment on the situation? Do you think that pushing for establishing a full-fledged army in Kosovo can lead to deteriorating security in the region?



Maria Zakharova:

We know this for a fact. It is not a question whether we think so or not, we have spoken about that with confidence. The formation of Kosovo and the way it was done, the goals pursued during the disintegration of Serbia and the sundering of a territory from a sovereign state, the way the new entity was invested with media and political support and what that all has led to – all this is undoubtedly a grave source of instability on the European continent. Creating armed forces in an entity, which in no way has approached the state character, will further aggravate the already tense situation in the region.



Question:

British Prime Minister Theresa May said that not only diplomats would be expelled from the country. The UK is prepared to freeze Russian assets and cancel the Royal family’s visit to the FIFA World Cup to be held in Russia. What do Russia’s measures in response to Great Britain entail?



Maria Zakharova:

Response measures are being worked out and will be made public shortly.



Question:

In you view, how dangerous is the current situation?



Maria Zakharova:

What scale do you suggest for evaluating it – in percentage points? A colour scale? There are currently different colours for danger levels. What paradigm are we talking about here? If you are asking whether the current situation is dangerous, it is definitely dangerous. Let me repeat, the leader of a nuclear power goes to her parliament, that is, two branches of government meet, those who take critically important decisions, and groundlessly accuses another country of aggression against her own country, gives 24 hours, issues ultimatums and generally acts in a way that is detached from any reality, which in itself is the most scary and dangerous, because the actions are not commensurate with the real situation. It creates the impression that it was a sort of a talk show without real communication or knowledge of international law and the way the world lives, but is rather an opportunity to speak out and make a multi-part saga out of it. In this respect, the situation is extremely dangerous, without a doubt.

As to the scale, please figure out a paradigm, and we will think it over. I think what matters is not the degree of danger but understanding the absolute irresponsibility of those who came and keep coming to power in a number of countries on the wave of populism. These people come with empty promises. Even if earlier politicians used to make promises and proposals to their people as they were fighting for power, being aware from the outset that some of them would never come true, it was not dangerous. Whereas today there is a perception that we are watching a real crisis of the political system in many countries, when not only an external factor is needed to solve internal problems, but a large-scale non-stop campaign which presupposes the use of the complete arsenal of declarations, measures, threats to impact domestic, internal processes. I have no doubts that British Prime Minister Theresa May’s actions also have a domestic subtext. Perhaps, she wanted to present herself as a strong leader but she presented herself the way she did. I think there is no use in offering an assessment of her. You saw everything yourselves.



Question:

My question concerns the German political refugees who are currently staying at the Russian Embassy in Riga. Sources claim that the issue of transferring Marcus Bergfeld to Moscow has been settled – he will be here basically tomorrow. I would like to understand if the refugees will be granted temporary or political asylum? Mr Bergfeld is a former serviceman who served at an airport in Germany where, according to him, US nuclear weapons are stored in case of war. Does this mean the value of this classified information, which he happened to obtain and is ready to share with Russia, has been confirmed? Will help be rendered to unite him with his family and children who are currently in Germany?



Maria Zakharova:

I do not have information on the matter. I can only clarify this if it is regarding the Russian consulate, and offer you the information.



Question:

Can you forget about your telephone and come to Bulgaria?



Maria Zakharova:

I will definitely think about your invitation to visit Bulgaria, thank you. Unlike Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who did not accept the invitation of the British side to visit the UK, I accept your invitation that was made sincerely and in person.



Question:

The city council of Vilnius demanded that the Lithuanian military history association “Forgotten Soldiers” remove the headstones on the graves of the Red and Imperial Russian Army soldiers at Antakalnis Cemetery before March 31. The Russian Ambassador to Lithuania Alexander Udaltsov said that even though Russia is reluctant to do so, it is ready for a symmetrical response to such initiatives meaning Lithuanian graves in Siberia. How possible is this response and what needs to happen for Russia to review its attitude towards Lithuanian graves on its territory?

On Tuesday, the Justice Ministry of the Russian Federation included the International Elections Study Centre registered in Lithuania on the list of organisations whose activities are undesirable in Russia. Can you comment on the situation? Also, do you think there is an attack on the Russian presidential election by the West?



Maria Zakharova:

While answering earlier questions, I gave a fairly salient narrative of what is going on regarding the Russian Federation, in particular, on the part of Great Britain. Did London set out to make this story coincide with our domestic processes? I think we will learn about this one day. This is an attempt to smear our reputation (I hate this word, but I cannot come up with a better one) and do anything it can to resuscitate the campaign to contain Russia and keep it isolated. It did not work before; they failed to create a united front where entire regions would join the isolation coalition, but the desire to do so remains. This is the reason behind these attempts. There is no doubt that these attempts will continue, judging by what is happening on the part of official London and how it is being supported, in particular, by representatives of the US political establishment, because the stakes are too high to give them up.

Our reaction to the incident with the headstones was voiced by our Ambassador to Lithuania Alexander Udaltsov. I can only add that this is part of a history re-writing campaign. Monuments are visualisations of historic dates, memories and events. Not everyone reads or refers to historical chronicles, all the more so now that a lot of time has passed since the end of World War II. Whereas earlier new generations learned about the events from their older family members, today this natural historical memory within a family is fading one way or another, in particular, in Eastern Europe, because there are no witnesses to those events who can talk about everything. The new generation will indeed not acquire the historical truth “with their mothers’ milk.” This is why since olden times people created such things as monuments so that people could visually remember, know and preserve this memory as they walk or drive by. Unfortunately, the more time passes, in particular, since World War II, the fewer people know and refer to authentic sources. Therefore the removal of monuments is an attempt to clear this information platform so that nothing prevents building new concepts narrating a modified history of World War II. This is happening throughout Eastern Europe. Not in all, but in many countries, in particular, those you mentioned, in Poland and a number of others. For example, there are sort of hybrid efforts where the authorities are doing everything they can to avoid the dismantling process, sincerely honour the memory of our Red Army’s and our soldiers’ contributions to the liberation of those countries, but a lot of political movements stand up for the demolition of monuments. This is why vandalism and desecration continues. Currently, a large-scale global attempt is underway to clear the information space (and monuments are part of it) so that nothing will impede to build up a new so-called modified history of World War II.

Regarding the specific response measures you mentioned, I will make enquiries and give you that information.



Question:

On March 13, 2018, the United States announced a meeting would be summoned on the southwestern zone in Syria, which operates under special terms. Has the meeting taken place, or will it take place? Can we say the platform in Amman is still operating?

On March 16, 2018, the ministers of foreign affairs [of Iran, Russia and Turkey] will meet in Astana. Is the next regular round of talks in Astana being worked on in the previous format, or is it too early to discuss this?



Maria Zakharova:

It is definitely not too early to ask about the Astana platform and the process underway. The format and the level of participants in the process can differ depending on the situation. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, along with heads of corresponding agencies and the country's leadership, have repeatedly confirmed Astana's relevance and the process that is taking place there with Kazakhstan playing an effective, very important role as the host. As regards the announced meeting, I will look into it.



Question:

My question concerns the appointment of the new head of the Central Intelligence Agency. According to reports in US media, Gina Haspel was involved in torture.



Maria Zakharova:

Not only in the media, by the way. Advocacy organisations released a special statement on this.



Question:

The detention and outright kidnapping of Russian citizens and the use of torture against them by western and US special services is a regular occurrence. Can a new spike in these activities be expected in connection with this appointment?



Maria Zakharova:

I have not heard of cases of Russian citizens being tortured, though they are kidnapped, detained and sent to prisons. If you have any materials, forward them to us, please. I can only say there are issues of, so to say, improper detention of Russian nationals, with a lack of medical aid and access to contacts that should be provided to a person as a prisoner, an arrestee or even a convict. However, as regards torture, let us be more careful with words. This is not about populism, this is about being specific. From my side, I will seek more information on what you are talking about.

This is an internal US appointment. This is a decision of the US Administration. As regards the reaction by non-governmental organisations, I think they have every right to express concern over various decisions, because they are non-governmental organisations involved in human rights issues. Once again, this is a solely internal appointment that has been made by the leadership of a sovereign state. If they believe this will make their work easier, more efficient and better, that is their decision.



Question:

Do you expect the United States to join Britain’s sanctions against Russia following yesterday’s meeting of the UN Security Council?



Maria Zakharova:

This is up to the United States to decide. We see that a number of representatives of the political establishment have made a career, and some even a fortune, let us be frank, on the introduction of the anti-Russia sanctions, the lobbying of anti-Russia laws and the adoption of anti-Russia measures. All this lobbying for corresponding laws does not come free, which is something that we also need to understand. The political system in the United States allows for direct lobbying for money and for influencing legislative bills. People, in the United States in particular, have made a career, a name and many even a fortune on this anti-Russia campaign. Many have just tried to keep afloat with this Russophobia for decades. So, in what way this campaign will continue in the United States, how they will spin it – this question is definitely not for us. We can spend a long time discussing who has benefited from this. There is not a single parameter or motive that could prompt the Russian Federation to either commit such things or refuse to cooperate in this case. Today, we are eager to begin concrete work on the issue with the British side. We cannot understand why specific information has not been provided – not only to us, but to anyone. Even if it is provided in some closed format to those who backed this campaign, it will raise still more questions. Why are the existing international mechanisms not being used? Why is all this happening? We see the desire to take this anti-Russia campaign to a new level, it is obvious.

What was happening inside the UN walls yesterday leaves no doubt that this case has yet another track, namely an attempt to tie up all elements related to chemical weapons, including the problems that are currently being whipped up in Syria – endless accusations against Damascus of the alleged use of chemical weapons and support from Russia – with what happened in London yesterday. Look at the logic that was spelled out yesterday and is being suggested to the so-called expert community: here is proof that official Damascus in Syria uses chemical weapons and Russia supports it, and the final point in all that is the fact that Russia used chemical agents on British territory. Can you see how nicely all this fits together? This is where it is all heading. One of the tracks of this campaign is to tie up all these elements and “press through” the chemical weapons plot in Syria. No one is making a secret of that. Leaks, statements and comments to that effect have been pouring in. This is part of a huge well-orchestrated plan.

Nobody who supports, retranslates or quotes all these versions thinks or asks themselves why Moscow or Damascus need it. Damascus finally has a real chance to restore peaceful life. And suddenly, when most of the territory has been liberated from terrorists, when people are returning to their homes, for example, in Aleppo, and agreements are starting to be made, official Damascus starts using chemical weapons. Why? What for? This is what the West accuses Damascus of. When this idea starts to collapse under its own absurdity, a massive information strike is necessary (or the people behind this flight of fancy think so) to make it work. They made up a story about Moscow allegedly using chemical weapons in the United Kingdom. Why would we need this in the spring of 2018? Have any of reasonable people asked this question? Is there any sense to it? Who benefits from this situation? Those who have been making up stories about Russian aggression for several years.

Yesterday the Foreign Office published a really amazing video on its website: “The pattern of Russian state aggression.” Our aggression allegedly started in 2006, with the Litvinenko case. It seems that before this we were a normal country, and then everything started to fall apart. The next fact presented is dated 2008, meaning Russia’s “disrespect” for Georgia’s sovereignty. In fact, before this, it was called Russian “aggression” towards Georgia, and now it is called “disrespect” because it has been proven that is was Mikheil Saakashvili who was the aggressor. The next stage involves cyberattacks on German official agencies followed by aircraft violating the air space. Then a photograph of President of Russia Vladimir Putin, probably, to leave no doubt that it was he who was behind all these events, personally. I have one question: Why does this video not include cyberattacks and interference with the US election, which we are blamed of? Does official London admit we have nothing to do with it? They listed everything, including the cyberattacks on German official agencies. Or does the UK have doubts in this regard?

It is all just total nonsense. Logic does not work here. But the massive scale of the media used, as well as the public diplomacy and speeches at the UN Security Council and the UK parliament form the whole picture. All this is really very dangerous for global peace and stability.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3120170
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 17th, 2018 #383
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 UN Security Council meeting on Salisbury chemical incident



15 March 2018 - 15:15



On March 14, the UN Security Council convened an emergency meeting in New York to discuss the chemical incident which took place in Salisbury, Great Britain, the so-called Sergey Skripal case. It was the Russian Federation that had asked for the format of the meeting to be changed to an open briefing. The Russian representative provided a tough and well-argued response to the groundless accusations against Russia, as well as London’s insinuations and ultimatums with US Permanent Representative Nikki Haley joining this chorus without delving into any details.

At the same time, the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Vassily Nebenzya highlighted Russia’s readiness to cooperate with the British investigation under the Chemical Weapons Convention, especially since a citizen of the Russian Federation, Yuliya Skripal, suffered in this incident. The response to this statement consisted of a series of propaganda statements that are only suitable for ill-informed and unassuming members of the public that can be easily impressed.

To confirm the seriousness of Russia’s intentions, the Russian delegation proposed to draft immediately, on the same day, a coordinated and depoliticised statement by the Security Council on the incident reflecting the international legal perspective on the matter. In doing so, we also sought to avoid any interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state (in this case, Great Britain) and the investigation by its national authorities. It should be said that it is not uncommon for London and other Western countries to engage in practices of this kind.

The draft statement that we prepared reads as follows:

“Reports on the alleged use of a toxic agent in Great Britain is a matter of grave concern for members of the UN Security Council, who call on all interested member states to hold consultations and cooperate on investigating this situation in keeping with their commitments under Par. 2, Article IX of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Members of the Security Council reiterated their resolute support for the Chemical Weapons Convention and noted the need to create a world free from chemical weapons.”

However, the British delegation suggested amendments that distorted the very gist of the document, which led us to stop the drafting process and in fact thwarted its adoption.

In doing so, London continued its provocative and hysterical actions of the recent days, once again showing that it is not really interested or committed to conducting a full and trust-worthy professional investigation into the Salisbury incident. For us this was no surprise.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3120330






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Polish plans to exhume remains of Soviet soldiers buried in Starachowice



16 March 2018 - 15:17



We have learned that Polish authorities are planning to exhume the remains of Soviet soldiers buried in Starachowice in the Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship and to reinter them in a military cemetery in Kielce.

Obviously, the intention here is not to properly honour the memory of Soviet soldiers killed in January 1945 while liberating Poland and the Poles from Nazi invaders.

To justify the reinternment of their remains, Polish authorities claim that they are allegedly unable to protect the Starachowice memorial from recurring acts of vandalism. This explanation is amazingly cynical. First, the authorities create a favourable media background for vandals’ actions, and then they claim that they are unable to stop them. The example of Starachowice shows that, despite all official assurances, even military cemeteries are not safe from vandalism in Poland.

We would like to recall that Article 5 of the 1994 bilateral inter-governmental agreement on burial sites and sites commemorating victims of wars and repression allows the reinternment of human remains in a state where they are buried only in exceptional cases. The situation in Starachowice can by no means be seen as exceptional. No one has the right to disturb the resting places of soldier-liberators. We are urging Polish authorities to resume civilised approaches towards the sensitive war memorials issue.

On March 16, 2018, Polish Ambassador in Moscow Włodzimierz Marciniak was summoned to the Foreign Ministry whose representatives lodged a protest in connection with the planned exhumation in Starachowice. The Russian Ambassador in Warsaw Sergey Andreyev has been instructed to visit the Polish Foreign Ministry and to demand an end to such illegal actions.




The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/28743






Comment by Information and Press Department in connection with another march of the Waffen-SS legionnaires in Riga on March 16, 2018



16 March 2018 - 16:32



Again, with the tacit approval of the Latvian authorities, on March 16, Riga honoured those who committed mass crimes against humanity in the ranks of the “voluntary Latvian SS Legion” and were involved in large-scale punitive actions against hundreds of thousands of civilians and the extermination of Jews. It is noteworthy that this march of “innocent victims and defenders of freedom” was supported by deputies of the ruling coalition.

Such rallies are shameful displays in modern Europe and involve representatives of the political establishment. We recoil at them and the blasphemous attempts to legally give this day official status.

We strongly condemn this shameful gathering and look forward to hearing principled reactions to what is happening in Latvia from the world community and relevant international organisations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3126446






Statement by the Foreign Ministry



16 March 2018 - 20:38



The decision by the Ukrainian authorities, released on March 16, 2018, not to allow citizens of the Russian Federation to the Embassy and general consulates of Russia on the day of the election of the President of the Russian Federation causes nothing but indignation. Such actions are unprecedented and do not fit into generally accepted ideas about civilised countries.

The above steps contradict not only the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations, but also international human rights standards, in particular, the provisions of the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

One gets the impression that the Ukrainian leadership, which came to power in the wake of a coup four years ago, having provoked its own citizens in Crimea and Sevastopol to vote for accession to Russia, today, in impotent rage, decided to take it out on ordinary Russian citizens in Ukraine. Concerns about the safety of Russian diplomatic and consular institutions sound like pure hypocrisy.

We would like to note that Russia, even at the most difficult moments, never allowed itself such an attitude towards the rights of Ukrainian citizens residing in our country and never created barriers for voting in Ukrainian elections, including the election of the current president and the Verkhovna Rada.

This is open interference in the purely internal affairs of the Russian Federation that will lead to an escalation of tension amid the already fairly dysfunctional bilateral relations.

The calls of the Ukrainian side not to recognise the legitimacy of the forthcoming presidential elections of the Russian Federation are also surprising. We would like to point out that Russia does not need the Kiev regime to recognise our elections.

We expect Kiev's actions to receive principled assessments from the UN, the OSCE and other authoritative international institutions.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3126625






Press release on summoning UK Ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow to the Russian Foreign Ministry



17 March 2018 - 11:10



On March 17, Ambassador of Great Britain to Russia Laurie Bristow was summoned to the Foreign Ministry, where he was handed a note stating that in response to the provocative actions of the British side and groundless accusations against the Russian Federation with regard to to the incident in Salisbury, UK on March 4, 2018, the Russian side has taken the following decisions in response.

Twenty-three diplomatic staff of the UK Embassy in Moscow are declared persona non grata and are to be expelled from Russia within a week.

Taking into account the disparity in the number of the two countries’ consular missions, the Russian Federation recalls its agreement on the opening and operation of the Consulate General of the United Kingdom in St Petersburg. Respective procedures will be followed in accordance with international legal practice.

Due to the unregulated status of the British Council in the Russian Federation, its activities are terminated.

The British side is warned that in case of further unfriendly actions against Russia, the Russian side reserves the right to take further retaliatory measures.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3126746
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 24th, 2018 #384
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov speaks and takes questions during the forum, Russia – Land of Opportunity, Moscow, March 15, 2018



15 March 2018 - 16:47








Friends,

Thank you for the invitation. I am very pleased to be able to speak in such a format. Recently, many of you, I believe, participated in another activity, the finals of the National Manager Contest “Leaders of Russia” in Sochi, where I also had the chance to participate.

I believe it is critically important to create a proper environment for promoting talented and creative youth to positions which will determine the country's advancement towards the future, which is one of the decisive steps that our country must make. I believe everyone is aware of and supports President Putin’s focus on this.

I am pleased that you take an interest in foreign policy. The broad support for our actions on the international arena in pursuit of the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation approved by President Putin ensures our confidence and stability in what we are doing. Thank you once again for this support and interest in our foreign policy.

Ensuring the continuity of our actions in the world is very important today, because the situation is not getting any easier. President Putin outlined the reasons behind the deep crisis in international relations in his Address to the Federal Assembly on March 1. I will not dwell on them.

The gist of what is happening is the categorical refusal of the United States and its Western allies to accept the fact that the 500-year-long Western domination in international affairs is coming to an end. The transition to a new multipolar, more democratic and fair system will be a long one in a historical perspective. Of course, even now the transition to a new system is painful for those who have been used to governing the world for centuries. This is not criticism or condemnation, but a statement of fact. They are used to the fact that they call the shots. This was particularly evident at the time of the demise of the Soviet Union, when they started talking about the “end of history,” meaning that from now on only a liberal way of life and Western liberal international politics will be the only ones applicable in the modern world. This has failed to materialise. The West has been nervously responding to Russia's return to its legitimate position, which we inherited from our thousand-year history, the conquests of our ancestors, and they absolutely and rightfully belong to us. The return of Russia as an equal partner who is not imposing anything on anyone, but that will not take diktat and ultimatums from its partners, either, is very painfully taken by our Western partners. There’s no need for that, because we are not seeking confrontation with anyone. We want to work with everyone honestly, based on mutual respect, and the search for a balance of interests and generally acceptable approaches.

This policy applies to security issues as well. President Putin spoke in detail about us being forced to ensure a balance of interests in the military sphere in connection with the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the ABM Treaty. We are forced to react asymmetrically, but so as to ensure a balance of interests.

The necessity for seeking commonly acceptable agreements also concerns, of course, the trade and economic sphere, where application of unilateral measures of unlawful pressure as a means of unfair and unscrupulous competition are unacceptable.

Of course, a balance of interests should also prevail in the humanitarian communication of people, in the relations between various cultures, civilisations, and religions. This is the only way we can secure the integrity of today's world.

So far, sadly, we are nowhere near this harmony, but it is necessary to make every effort to avoid falling into the abyss of confrontation. Russia is proposing a positive agenda that is aimed at consolidating, rather than isolating anyone, aimed at peaceful settlements to the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, the Korean Peninsula, Ukraine, as well as the numerous conflicts in Africa and any other place in the world, based on international law and the UN Charter, through a dialogue between all sides involved and encouraging peaceful steps by every participant to a conflict.

Other priorities of our activity certainly include creating new forms of partnership of nations that will not be rigid and based on block mentality but will be open to anyone willing to cooperate based on equal rights and mutual advantage. These principles are at the basis of the EAEU, the SCO and BRICS, and we use these principles in building relations with ASEAN. We are ready to resume our partnership with the European Union as soon as our European neighbours loose interest in following US-initiated anti-Russia policies, including the sanctions and provocations, and putting up with outrageous actions that we are witnessing from the UK and that are far beyond the limits of basic decency.

We respond to these irritants in a calm manner, and are willing to talk with anyone and discuss any issues concerning us. Naturally, we will reserve the right to pose questions we might have concerning our partners, but we will do this in a respectful way, without stirring up hysteria and using confrontational approaches, solely based on the standards that have been universally coordinated for decades and centuries (that is, international law), whose essence is embodied in the UN Charter.

I am ready to take any questions from you and listen to your comments.



Question:

I come from war-torn Lugansk.

How long will Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Russia in general, tolerate all this joint scheming by the United States and other countries against the Russian Federation?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would like to express our solidarity with you in connection with this hard and illegal blockade, during which virtually every member of your population has been branded as a terrorist. This happened after Donetsk and Lugansk voiced their unwillingness to accept the illegal armed coup d’etat, and after they asked Kiev to leave them alone because they wanted to understand what was going on. But Kiev launched an “anti-terrorist operation”, involving the Ukrainian Armed Forces and security forces, against you, although you did not attack anyone. Those who illegally seized power attacked you. Therefore we will not allow them to stifle you with this blockade, to force you to basically accept Kiev’s ultimatum and to force Donetsk and Lugansk to renounce the Minsk Agreements. We will not allow these absolutely worthless attempts to succeed. The UN Security Council approved the Minsk Agreements. This international law must be implemented.

How long can we tolerate the behaviour of our Western colleagues who violate all conceivable norms of international law, including the Minsk Agreements, and who are unable to discipline Kiev? This is a philosophical question. In principle, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and the entire Russian nation are extremely patient. As I see it, history provides many examples of attempts to abuse this patience. Vladimir Putin also noted this in his Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly. We knocked on all doors after 1991, but no one listened to us. I believe this period is now over.



Question:

Would you agree that given the developments around the world over the last decade, democracy and its tools have somewhat lost a bit of their appeal, just as the ability to govern today’s world and promote cooperation?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is an exceedingly good question. Generally speaking, democracy is the rule of the people and a fundamental principle. The way that this principle is followed by specific societies probably depends on their traditions, history and culture, religion as well as many other factors too. The rule of the people is certainly a fundamental principle of democracy.

Over the last 15 or 20 years, it has become obvious that democratic procedures sometimes fail in terms of satisfying the current Western leadership. Some 15 or 20 years ago elections were held in Austria, and a radical right-wing party headed by Jorg Haider won the democratic election, and he was supposed to become prime minister. However, given his right-wing conservative views, the liberal democratic leaders of the European Union did everything they could to force him to renounce his victory that he had won democratically. There was another example to this effect. In 2007, elections in the Palestinian National Authority were to be held in the Middle East, contested by Fatah, currently headed by the President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas, and Hamas, based in the Gaza Strip and universally regarded as a radical and extremist, and sometimes even a terrorist organisation. Back then Russia voiced concern over holding the elections against the backdrop of the heightened tension with this stand-off between the two Palestinian parties. We floated the idea of holding the elections at a later time. But then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted that the elections be held. The vote did take place, and Hamas won the election. The US issued a prompt statement saying that it did not recognise Hamas’ victory, since they were terrorists, even though all international observers confirmed that the number of ballots cast was equal to the number of voters. All the procedures were respected.

As you can see, Russia is currently facing accusations of an attempted government coup in Montenegro in order to prevent the country’s accession to NATO. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have done no such thing, while the current Montenegrin leadership, pressured by Brussels, did just that in order to sidestep democratic procedures. They refused holding a referendum on NATO membership, even though opinion polls show that there is no unity on this matter among the people of Montenegro.

There are many examples of this kind. I think that there are more to come. The election results in Italy and Austria have also become a matter of concern for the European Union. I cannot rule out that they will come up with something once again in order to make sure that democracy follows a pre-determined course.

The last observation refers to democracy in international affairs. When our Western colleagues hold talks, and we discuss some documents that are later to become public, they always require that every country state its commitment to the rule of law and democracy. However, when we discuss specific sections of a document dealing with international affairs, and we propose mentioning “democracy and the rule of international law,” they do not want this to be in the text, since they find it more convenient to simply leave it out.

There are many such examples. I hope you get the general gist of what I’m trying to convey.



Question:

Russia has recently delivered its famous S-400 missiles to Turkey. Are these deliveries timely? As history shows, Turkey is sometimes Russia’s friend and sometimes Russia’s enemy. Won’t Turkey become Russia’s enemy once again in the future, and won’t the United States reestablish its air base in Incirlik?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, Incirlik Air Base is still there. I have not heard of any plans to dismantle it. Second, as this is a military-technical matter, I hope that you have addressed it to Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu, or that this subject was raised during today’s meeting with him. Regarding this topic’s foreign policy aspect, your question is very interesting. Indeed, Russia and Turkey have repeatedly fought each other, and our wars were bloody and ruthless. The current generation of Turkish and Russian leaders who comprehend this controversial history are determined to steer towards partnership (strategic partnership, I would say). This fact shows the wisdom of the leaders who make such decisions. There are no eternal enemies. In some cases, one is unable to implement policies that would heed your interests but which would not encroach upon, offend or ignore your partner’s interests. Turkey is our neighbour, and I am absolutely convinced that one cannot quarrel with neighbours. Neighbours cannot be pitted against each other, just like they tried to do in Ukraine. Unfortunately, this wonderful country and its people have been plunged into a profound crisis.

Speaking of S-400 deliveries once again, I don’t think that we should fear anything in this respect. The agreements we managed to reach on Syria are unprecedented. We were able to bring together three actors (Russia, Turkey and Iran) that voice different opinions concerning the situation in Syria and which also have absolutely different interests in this region. In my opinion, this is a comprehension of the fact that all of us live next door, and that we need to understand each other’s interests and to look for agreements making it possible to work on this foreign policy front in such a way as to prevent a confrontation between these interests. On the contrary, we need to reconcile these interests. Actually, this comprehension is a major achievement. The current Russian-Turkish trade and economic cooperation, including the Turkish Stream project and nuclear power stations, amounts to long-term projects that would take years and decades to implement. As we are becoming convinced in many other regions, an economic foundation is the best guarantee of various countries’ joint work, and this would also prevent these countries from reverting to any completely unnecessary confrontation.



Question:

I have a question about London and the case of Sergey Skripal. London announced yesterday that it would expel 23 Russian diplomats and suspend Russian-British relations. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova said that Russia would provide a fitting reply without specifying. What reply could it be?



Sergey Lavrov:

You surely understand that we are polite people and will first notify our British colleagues, unlike what they do when they make public statements blaming everything on Russia, claiming that we have poisoned Sergey Skripal and his daughter, and that we produce chemical weapons contrary to our international obligations. Whenever we have any doubts or suspicions, we try to avoid asking any questions in public until we discuss the matter with those concerned. This is polite, and this is how gentlemen should act. But the number of gentlemen is rapidly decreasing, as you can see.

Regarding this story, two meetings were held yesterday. One was held at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague, and the other at the UN Security Council. Both were convened on Britain’s initiative. And at both meetings the British demanded that Russia be condemned for staging a chemical weapons attack on a British citizen in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Just as we did several days before, we asked for evidence of our guilt. The reply was that they do not need any evidence. Next we asked for an official request in keeping with the CWC. They replied that they know everything and that the request was incorporated in the speech that Theresa May made in parliament. Can you see how seriously these grown up people make such statements? We proposed acting under the CWC, which includes sending a request, involving experts from the OPCW Technical Secretariat, as well as analysing the substance involved in this case. Following this, a request should be sent to the suspect country, which must reply within 10 days, which is what we will most certainly do. If the said answer does not satisfy the requesting party, in this case, the UK, they have the right to convene an emergency meeting of the OPCW Executive Council and set up an expert group to deal with this matter. The CWC, which the UK has signed and ratified, stipulates a series of such steps. The UK representative in The Hague said they would not send any request and that we must make a clean breast of it.

At the meeting in New York, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzya put forth our position, replying politely and in a well-argued manner to totally impolite and unsubstantiated allegations. He proposed adopting a document on the investigation of this accident based on the Chemical Weapons Convention. The British representative blocked the adoption of this proposal. You can judge for yourself the reasons behind the actions taken in this case by the British and the Americans, who have supported them unconditionally. Europeans have taken a more restrained stand, but they are being put under pressure to act in keeping with the so-called NATO solidarity. I believe that this story above all demonstrates the desperate state of the current British government, especially in a situation when they cannot comply with the promises given to their people in connection with Brexit. As for our reply, I can assure you it will not be long in coming.



Question:

President Putin has declared 2018 the Year of Volunteers in Russia. Our country has a vast number of great volunteer projects, socially significant projects. How can we take these projects to the international level? I would not say that the projects in other countries (such as Israel, Sweden or Switzerland) are better or superior to ours, to our experts’ projects. How can this be done?



Sergey Lavrov:

Are these trips to other countries held as part of volunteer programmes?



Question:

No, they deal with professional activity related to the exchange of specialists. But even at the World Festival of Youth and Students in Sochi, when we talked to our friends from other countries, they were eager to start implementing these projects in their own countries. But we do not know how that is done in practice.



Sergey Lavrov:

If these projects were designed to have an international dimension from the start, or are dedicated to national development, but are also of interest to your foreign colleagues, I am ready to help. But first, we need to know what they are about. You can send details of your projects to us; I will make sure they are dealt with properly, especially in view of the fact that we now have a public organisation called the Council of Young Diplomats, which, by the way, has recently held the first international meeting of young diplomats in Sochi. I believe that this will be a very good public mission to assign to the Council of Young Diplomats so that its members can help you find the best, ideal way to establish stable ties abroad. So please, send your projects in.



Question:

Do you believe that a woman could win presidential elections in Russia? It is possible in other countries, obviously, but is it possible in Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

Why are you separating us from the rest of the progressive world? I believe that it can happen anywhere. The most important thing is that it should be the qualities that a person possesses that help him or her win the elections, not that a woman should win.



Question:

I think that it is harder for a woman to win.



Sergey Lavrov:

Perhaps, there are some factors – objective, subjective, historical, civilisational, religious, to some extent. I proceed from the fact that we are moving towards a situation where we can make an objective comparison between the competency and personal qualities of everyone running for public office.



Question:

Was it appropriate to make a contribution to the International Olympic Committee before the final day of the Winter Olympics? Does this mean our country agrees that the decision to ban us from the Olympics was fair?



Sergey Lavrov:

I prefer not to comment on issues that are not my direct responsibility. The Russian Olympic Committee, which is independent from the Government, is responsible for this decision. I do not know all the details, but when it comes to contributions, we obviously have to make them, unless there are exceptional circumstances. In this case, athletes decided to participate in the Winter Olympics, so we are talking about the decision made by the Russian Olympic Committee.



Question:

I express gratitude for everything you have done on behalf of all the Syrian people, whose youth I represent at the Forum. The situation in Syria has improved thanks to Russia. Thanks to Russia we can now live and receive education. What do you think of the current situation in the north of Syria? How can Russia help cope with this? How can Russia develop relations with US colleagues who are against our ties?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have made a number of detailed statements with assessments of the developments there. Several times, we have drawn the attention of our US colleagues to the fact that, in spite of their numerous solemn promises to respect Syria’s sovereignty, they still, in fact, take action contrary to this. We will be aiming to ensure that this story does not fade into the background and that the UN Security Council achieves the implementation of its resolution, which requires respect for the territorial integrity, freedom, independence and sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Only yesterday, we received Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu in Moscow, and spoke with him about the north of Syria. At a joint news conference with me he publicly confirmed that Turkey respects Syria’s sovereignty and does not intend to maintain its presence there after the completion of their current operation. As for the operation itself, it was clearly provoked by US actions in the eastern part of Syria, to the east of the Euphrates. The USA did not just put a stake on Kurdish armed units to counter terrorists, but even after the terrorists were driven away, the US announced that together with the Kurds it would take control of the entire Syrian border with Iraq, with the Kurds responsible for this “security zone”, as they called it. This was absolutely unprofessional, incompetent. If those who issued this statement expected Turkey to sit quietly and watch developments unfold, they have no idea at all about the alignment of forces in the Middle East and in Syria in particular.

On the topic of Syria, I would like to conclude by saying that we will continue to fight terrorists, we will finish them off, and we will help to eradicate them in Eastern Ghouta where the Syrian army is currently conducting the necessary operations with our support. We will definitely make humanitarian exceptions, as was announced yesterday by our Defence Ministry. Those who want to leave and obtain humanitarian aid can use those corridors. The main thing in Eastern Ghouta, and other places, is that the US coalition, which operates there from the air and has numerous special forces on the ground, should stop supporting Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists. All the other groups deemed by the West as non-extremist, for some reason, work under the Jabhat al-Nusra umbrella (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham), and they have established a joint command. UNSC Resolution 2254 demands disassociation from bandits, and then nobody will suffer collateral damage from the uncompromising anti-terror fight that has never been banned by the UN Security Council.

Apart from the continued fight with terrorists and solving humanitarian problems – the Syrian government and the sane opposition can do much more in this respect, especially in the de-escalation zones created under the Astana agreements – political process should get off the ground at last. Russia, Iran and Turkey, as the guarantors of the Astana process, with the participation of a large number of groups from Syrian society (almost all groups were represented in Sochi), held the Syrian National Dialogue Congress. A final statement was approved which received full support from the UN and should be brought into practical implementation as soon as possible. The first step would be the establishment of a constitutional committee under UN auspices that should start working in Geneva and draft Syria’s new constitution. We are meeting with the foreign ministers of Iran and Turkey in Astana tomorrow. We’ll look into how the Sochi statement is being implemented and we will formulate our recommendations to all parties – both the Government and the opposition.



Question:

What do you think of the education problem in Latvia which discriminates against the Russian-speaking population?



Sergey Lavrov:

This applies, probably, not only to Latvia but also Ukraine. There are intentions less radical yet negative for Russian-speaking minorities in other neighbouring countries, too. When a country, where a third of the population speaks a language other than that of the titular nation, is trying to force that third to give up their history, culture and language heritage, it is the gravest violation of all thinkable UN and Council of Europe conventions protecting regional languages and languages of ethnic minorities.

We raise these issues at the OSCE, the Council of Europe and in the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. For understandable reasons, not everyone there is ready to act with integrity and stand up to the norms long enshrined in international law, merely because Latvia is an EU member, and the EU has what they call solidarity and we call mutual cover-up. The idea is that decisions must be taken by a consensus while any country may lead it in the opposite direction.

But there are judiciary bodies including the European Human Rights Court. With all the ambiguities of some of its decisions, they cannot avoid considering applications by residents and public organisations. I strongly recommend you to do that. I will definitely be accused later of inciting anti-government protests in Latvia, but this means protection of human rights which has never been regarded as something devoid of protection under the pretext of a country’s sovereignty. We must seek justice, go to courts. It will be a long process, but there is no other way.

We have the same attitude towards the law on education recently adopted by the Verkhovna Rada in Ukraine and which they refuse to amend now even though the Council of Europe acting through the Venice Commission demanded that the law should be changed, and very significantly. We will keep supporting you.



Question:

Kazakhstan has recently allowed visa-free travel for US citizens. How might this affect Russia-Kazakhstan relations?



Sergey Lavrov:

You know, and I am not deceiving you, I didn’t know about that. You see, I will be in Astana tomorrow, and I will talk this over with my colleague, Kazakhstan’s foreign minister, Kairat Abdurakhmanov. Basically, such things will inevitably entail a need for approval within the Eurasian Economic Union, which also has a visa-free travel policy. We are now engaged in talks with our Belarusian friends so as to reach an understanding on a joint visa policy. If Kazakhstan has also unilaterally granted visa-free travel to Americans (honestly, I did not know about that), we have to consider its possible implications for our common visa space. Not all US nationals that can travel to Kazakhstan are allowed in Russia. You understand that we, just like the Americans and other countries, have certain lists. They will have to be agreed on and verified. I will sort it out tomorrow. Thank you for the lead.



Question:

How do you see the role of the Astrakhan Region in the strategy of building relations in Eurasia, I mean Caspian Sea relations? Can you give us a brief evaluation of the relations between the Caspian Sea nations with a view of Caspian Sea status, which has not been completely defined as of today?



Sergey Lavrov:

To begin with, I love Astrakhan. Unfortunately, I haven’t visited the Volga Delta for a long time. Second, Astrakhan hosted the 4th Caspian Summit two and a half years ago where basic directions for work on the status of the Caspian Sea were approved. I can say with a high degree of confidence that the relevant Convention will be signed at the fifth summit to be held in Kazakhstan.

Last December, we gathered the foreign ministers of the Caspian nations in Moscow – Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Azerbaijan. We agreed on all the clauses of the Convention at our level. Now the final text has been agreed on. At present, the texts in the languages of all member-countries are being compared; the English text is being verified so that it is common for all the participating countries, taking into account that five countries, including Iran are signatories to the Convention. I am confident that it will be signed. Knock on wood, but I don’t see any obstacles. For many years we have been thinking about uniting the issues of economic cooperation on the Caspian Sea into a common agenda and ideally to establish an organisation of Caspian economic cooperation. But as a first step, in case everyone is not ready for that, to set up a mechanism of annual meetings on economic cooperation. We promote Astrakhan as the venue for such events.



Question (via the interpreter):

Russia-US relations are not very good now, nor are US-Mexico relations. Do you think this is an opportunity for Mexico to build stronger relations with Russia? Can Mexico help with the “tough order” in the West?



Sergey Lavrov:

You are right. But US relations with Russia are not like US relations with Mexico if only because a physical wall is being built between them, whereas the wall between us and the United States is so far imaginary. We do not have a common border except the Bering Strait, but no wall is needed there. On a serious note, we are interested in having good, close relations with Mexico. This is what our presidents used to say, and they have met a number of times on the sidelines of various forums, this is what my colleagues used to say. When Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico Luis Videgaray Caso came to Russia recently, we had very good talks. I am currently reading yet another salvo of speculation that first appeared last autumn, then died down and is now revived again, that you forthcoming elections will be manipulated by the Russian Federation. Nobody even cares to explain why we would need to do this. Do we want to set up a base in Mexico to attack the United States? We wouldn’t be able to do that since the wall will be there. I have great hopes that the smart, generous, energetic and talented Mexican people understand everything quite well and will not allow to be dragged into some confrontational plot which is being imposed on you by the Western countries, including your neighbours.

Regarding Mexico’s role in Latin America, it is hard to overestimate. We very much appreciate that Mexico was an initiator of CELAC, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, which united for the first time ever all the Latin American countries of North and South America. I think this is the greatest achievement for the emergence of Latin American identity while preserving good relations with the US and Canada. The CELAC members in the modern world still have a somewhat different civilisation, culture, identity and self-perception. There are some challenges involved – the Venezuela problem, and a number of others. But a desire to be one of the pillars of a multi-polar world, which is inevitably emerging, I think is absolutely legitimate and justified. We support in every possible way such a role for Latin America in the world.



Question:

We are now at the educational forum, Russia – Land of Opportunity, where the continuous education issue runs through each session as a keynote. Education goes beyond our school and university, extending to our entire future life. That is, to make us competitive, we need to continue to read books, attend training and lectures. What do you do in terms of continuous education, self-education? What was the last book you read?



Sergey Lavrov:

I will begin with the last part of your question about the last book I still have not finished. It is a book by Viktor Pelevin iPhuck 10. You've probably heard about it.

Regarding self-education, in my case, it is an ongoing process. Every day we have to consume hundreds, thousands of pages of information that come from our ambassadors. It is not limited to a fairly general description of local problems that can be obtained from the media and the internet, but it is also from personal contacts. I regularly (two or three times a week) talk to my colleagues, ministers. As a result, I am not just saturated with information (because information is one part of continuous self-education), but also better understand the way they think, how they assess a situation analytically. Often, I get clues. During meetings like this, or at news conferences, when a question is asked, while keeping strictly within the boundaries of the issue under discussion, but leads to more system-wide thoughts or concerns some other problem.

Apart from what I do, the Ministry has a fairly well-established education system. First, when people apply for jobs after university, they are interviewed and tested before they can join the Foreign Ministry. After that, at a fairly early stage, they undergo advanced training courses at the Diplomatic Academy as young diplomats. After some time, as they climb the career ladder and take higher positions, there are training courses for executives, including a separate programme for those who go abroad as ambassadors, deputy ambassadors, consuls general, etc. Many diplomats who work in Moscow also attend these courses.

I'm talking about this very generally. If a person does not want to be educated, no training will help them. And if they do, they might not need any formal training at all. In today's world, one can find a lot of other opportunities.



Question:

I represent the Sevastopol regional department of rescuers. Are their plans to organise foreign internships for rescuers and volunteers who work in medicine and rescue as part of the Volunteer Year, so they can learn in those regions and countries where this work is done at a higher level?



Sergey Lavrov:

Ever since our current Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu built the Emergencies Ministry (EMERCOM) from scratch, it has been one of the reference agencies in search and rescue. Many people, including myself, consider it the best in the world. So, I do not really understand what else volunteering you are talking about. You must share your experience with others. There is an International Civil Defence Organisation. Civil defence is part of the name of your ministry. This organisation is headed by Russian national Vladimir Kuvshinov, who used to work at EMERCOM Russia. I think that as a member of this international organisation, EMERCOM can possibly initiate various types of volunteer and other events.



Question (via the interpreter):

How will the diplomatic crisis between Moscow and London affect the upcoming presidential elections in Russia?

How do you assess Algeria’s role in the region? Is Algeria a strategic partner for Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not even presume to judge the motives our British colleagues might have had. I think that their motives are shady in any case. If they were clean, we would have been informed, and presented with answers to the questions that we ask, and the procedures envisaged by the Chemical Weapons Convention would have been started.

Algeria is our strategic partner. I recently received Algerian Foreign Minister Abdelkader Messahel. We reaffirmed our mutual interest in deepening our partnership in all areas. I think in the near future, we will take some additional steps in trade, economic and investment cooperation. We are very closely cooperating on foreign affairs, including Libya, which is a most complicated issue created by our Western colleagues, when the country was actually destroyed, causing problems for all its neighbours, including Algeria, but not only in northern Africa. There are also bandits in the Sahara-Sahel region armed by those who wanted to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. There is a huge amount of illegal weapons and other ills that have beset this region and that directly affect Algeria.

We regularly communicate in a variety of formats. Most recently, Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Nikolai Patrushev visited Algeria. I spoke with my colleague the other day in Moscow. We have a strategic partnership and determination to help each other to develop the economy and social sphere of our countries, secondly, to provide opportunities for free communication between our people in humanitarian and cultural formats, and thirdly, to seek conflict resolution in the region on a just basis.



Question (via the interpreter):

South Africa as a member of BRICS is interested in how the New Development Bank will work in such areas as technology and the economy, taking into account the interference by the imperialists? We have seen some countries change governments outside electoral periods. What are the plans within BRICS to stabilise the situation?



Sergey Lavrov:

The New Development Bank, established by the BRICS countries, is just beginning its operations; the new bank will soon be working at full capacity. The projects that are being discussed at the initial stage concern only the five BRICS countries. Possible projects outside the BRICS are the next step. Clearly, the African continent will receive special attention, because a New BRICS Development Bank branch will be located in South Africa.

As for our imperialist friends (as you called them), who are trying in every way to impede the development of economic cooperation within BRICS, this is not the only focus of their work. They are in principle interested in breaking up any associations where they do not call the tune. I am confident that such countries as China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Russia have too much dignity and will not allow anyone to dictate their foreign policy or to forbid us to communicate with very close friends we are bound to, including the brotherhood-in-arms between my country and South Africa during the latter’s struggle for independence.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3120578






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu following a meeting of the Astana process guarantor states, Astana, March 16, 2018



16 March 2018 - 12:01








Ladies and gentlemen,

We have just ended a trilateral meeting of foreign ministers of the Russian Federation, the Turkish Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran that guarantee compliance with the ceasefire regime in Syria. I avail myself of this opportunity to sincerely thank the leaders of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev and our colleague and friend, Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Kairat Abdrakhmanov, for their hospitality as well as for their assistance to the Astana format throughout the last year.

We have reviewed the results of our work since the Astana process was launched in January 2017 in the capital of Kazakhstan. Since that time, our high-ranking representatives of guarantor countries have held eight rounds of detailed talks in Astana. This made it possible to approve specific measures for scaling down violence on the ground, restoring trust between the conflicting parties, improving the humanitarian situation and incentivising efforts to search for a political solution. It is also important that successful collective efforts made it possible to considerably expedite the complete elimination of ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist orgnisations, as listed by the UN Security Council. Today, virtually no one can offer any well-substantiated arguments denying the fact that the Astana format and its achievements have become an effective tool for facilitating peace and stability in Syria, that this format has proved its viability, and that it remains highly popular.

I would like to make a reservation here that unsubstantiated attempts have been made and are being made to downplay and even nullify the significance of the Astana process. We can see this very clearly. This is being done by those who don’t like the very fact of partner-like cooperation between Russia, Turkey and Iran, as well as by those who do not want to preserve Syria as an integral state and who want to turn this vitally important country into another chaos-ridden territory where it would be convenient to play geopolitical games.

Contrary to this adventurous line, the three guarantor countries firmly display their invariable commitment to Syria’s sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity. They remain committed to fundamental principles that are formalised in the UN Security Council’s resolutions, primarily UN Security Council’s Resolution 2254. In January 2018, representatives of all sections of Syrian society clearly confirmed these highly important principles during the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, held in Sochi on the initiative of the Presidents of Russia, Turkey and Iran. Today, we have agreed to continue assisting the Syrians in restoring the country’s unity and achieving a political settlement, including through the establishment of the Constitutional Committee, as agreed at the Congress in Sochi, and to launch its work in Geneva in the near future. As before, this implies our firm support for this political process being implemented by the Syrians themselves. As the UN Security Council has decided, the Syrians themselves must reach a mutual agreement without outside interference. It is the people of Syria alone who have to determine their country’s future.

Further coordination of efforts of Russia, Iran and Turkey as guarantor countries is particularly important today when the situation in Syria and such areas as Eastern Ghouta, Yarmouk, Fuah and Kefraya, Al-Rukban, Raqqa, the Idlib and Hama provinces, has been seriously aggravated. We can see a lop-sided interpretation of the situation around Eastern Ghouta, similar to comments on the situation in Eastern Aleppo. Obviously, some of our Western colleagues want to save terrorists and to preserve their combat potential. First of all, this concerns Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists acting as provocateurs in scenarios of Western geopolitical stage directors who are guided by anything, except the interests of the Syrian nation.

Despite daily humanitarian pauses being introduced since February 27, constant fire attacks on Damascus kill civilians, and convoys with humanitarian aid are being blocked. This creates an atmosphere of fear in the Syrian capital and provides a pretext for far-fetched accusations against Syrian authorities and also Russia who reportedly are not doing enough to fulfil the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2401. We would like to remind everyone that any use of force against Damascus on the basis of far-fetched pretexts is unacceptable. Recent threats regarding possible unilateral US military strikes against Syria, including Damascus, just like in April 2017, on the basis of groundless accusations as regards the use of chemical weapons by the Government of Syria, are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. We have stated this to US representatives with all clarity via diplomatic and military channels.

Despite the entire fuss raised around Eastern Ghouta, we continue to assist the efforts being made by the Syrian authorities to evacuate civilians, the sick and the wounded and to provide access to humanitarian convoys, and this work is producing obvious results. Yesterday alone, over 12,000 people left Eastern Ghouta. The UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross have sent a convoy with 137 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Douma. We are determined to continue our efforts to ensure strict and unfailing compliance with all provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2401 in their entirety, so as to help consolidate the ceasefire regime as well as to improve the humanitarian situation all over Syria, while resolutely combating terrorists who will be targeted despite any resolutions. We are urging all other parties to be guided by these principles.

I would like to speak separately about yesterday’s first meeting of a new mechanism of the Astana format held in Astana. This mechanism is a working group to release detainees and hostages, to exchange the bodies of the deceased and to locate missing persons. Apart from representatives of our three countries, the meeting involved representatives of the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross. This group’s initial practical work is an important contribution to the process of restoring trust between the Syrians and normalising the overall situation in Syria.

Our working document that was coordinated yesterday determines the parameters of our future work and creates all necessary conditions to make this work effective.

In conclusion, I would like to note once again that the Astana format continues to develop successfully. But it is even more important not to stop after these achievements and to expand the accumulated potential. Today’s meeting confirms our common desire to continue our joint work in the interests of a reliable and long-term Syrian peace settlement. The agreed-upon joint statement made by the three ministers, being circulated after our meeting, reflects our assessments and future plans.

We have also agreed to prepare for a regular summit of the three countries’ leaders, scheduled for April 4 in Turkey. This event is acquiring particular significance today and is called on to strengthen our coordinated efforts for achieving equitable peace in Syria. I am confident that as soon as this goal is achieved, it will positively influence the overall situation in the Middle East.

I would like to thank our colleagues for this extremely close cooperation. We would like to thank our Kazakhstani hosts once again. I am confident that this is not our last meeting in hospitable Kazakhstan.



Question:

Did you agree today to extend the duration of the de-escalation zones? If so, how long will they function? Will the extension last six months, as usual, or any other term? Did you discuss the possibility of expanding these de-escalation zones to include new territories including the Afrin area? I would like to clarify the remarks by Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu: Do I understand correctly that a congress similar to the one in Sochi will be held in Istanbul and later in Iran?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would like to start with this. The interpretation was inaccurate. It implies that the November 22 Sochi summit with the Presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey would not be a one-time event. The next summit of the three presidents is scheduled for April 4 in Turkey. After that, we will, naturally, be ready to accept an invitation from our Iranian friends. We are not talking about a congress, as mentioned by the interpreter, so we ask you not to create any ambiguity in the media.

Regarding your first question, the de-escalation zones continue to function, and these zones are not permanent, as was noted during their creation. This regime has already been extended once. When the current period expires, we will decide on the future of the zones, with due consideration for the situation on the ground and the developments around the zones. We are interested in ending the violations of the ceasefire as soon as possible. And what is also important, we are interested in establishing contacts between the local authorities inside the de-escalation zones and the Syrian government agencies on maintaining normal human life and supporting the local population. This is a key aspect of the de-escalation zone concept. We did not discuss expanding them or the creation of new zones.



Question:

Only yesterday, efforts by the Russian Centre for the Reconciliation of Opposing Sides enabled 12,000 people to leave Eastern Ghouta. How would you explain the fact that the UN is not playing a role in this process? Are you satisfied with the UN’s overall contribution to the Geneva process to establish a constitutional committee?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already shared information on Eastern Ghouta. As you have said, more than 12,000 civilians left Eastern Ghouta, and this process continues. I just received a phone call from Moscow. I apologise for having to answer the phone call, but it was on the subject we are now discussing. There are serious problems: people are leaving the area, but the militants are trying to prevent them from doing so. Nevertheless, little by little, efforts to reach out to field commanders in Eastern Ghouta are yielding results. I hope they go further and separate their forces from Jabhat al-Nusra which controls a considerable part of Eastern Ghouta. Humanitarian aid is being sent into this enclave, primarily by the Russian military. As I said in my opening remarks, the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) yesterday sent a humanitarian convoy with 140 tonnes of aid. This happened after a lengthy pause when the UN was not very active in dealing with these matters. Of course, this was partly attributable to security concerns. Overall, it is obvious that the international community must step up humanitarian assistance.

As I said, humanitarian assistance is being delivered to Eastern Ghouta, and there are now more deliveries like this. There are problems with people leaving Eastern Ghouta, since they need accommodation, and even the most basic goods are lacking, including blankets and essential supplies. We call on those within the international community who have voiced concerns about the humanitarian situation in Syria and the fate of civilians, and primarily the UN and other humanitarian organisations, to provide immediate relief to the people who are fleeing terrorists and are moving from Eastern Ghouta to territories controlled by the Syrian Government.

As for the UN’s role in the Geneva process and efforts to establish a constitutional committee based on the resolutions of the Sochi Congress, I think that it would be premature to draw any conclusions. The Sochi Congress was held just over a month ago. Agreements on how the constitutional committee is to be formed were reached at the Congress. It is obvious that the UN must play a coordinating role, while its actions should be based on the contributions of the three guarantor states. Based on the resolutions of the Sochi Congress, the UN must ensure that the constitutional committee is inclusive and representative in its composition in terms of the participation of all ethnic, religious and political groups in Syrian society.

This is not easy, and let me remind you that today we discussed this matter. In fact, in took our friends from Saudi Arabia more than six months to unite the so-called Riyadh, Cairo and Moscow opposition groups into one delegation, which was a very useful initiative that everyone supported.

I am not saying that the creation of the constitutional committee should take that long, but I would refrain from any estimates at this point, since this is work in progress. This is quite a complicated process, and probably a decisive phase in the political process. As soon as the committee is established and accepted by everyone as a competent body, it is then that the work on constitutional reform can begin. Of course, as stated in all UN Security Council resolutions, any agreement can only be reached by common accord between the government and the opposition. Nobody can impose anything on anyone.



Question:

We have to ask about Washington and London’s latest statements and actions regarding Russia. What can you say about the recent statement by the US State Department regarding plans for new sanctions against Russia over the poisoning of Sergey Skripal as well as the steps taken by the US Treasury Department under the so-called Mueller list?

Also, I would like to repeat what the chief UK military official has said: “Russia should go away and shut up.” Do you remember the last time such a high-ranking official used this language in relations with Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is highly impossible to remember [spoken in English]. No, I do not recall this, of course. We no longer take notice of this, and we do not get angry over the new sanctions – not that we ever did. They invented a story about our interference in their elections. It began more than a year ago. They have held investigations and hearings. But not a single hard fact has been presented to the public. They are compensating for the absence of facts with ever new sanctions for the same crime, which, it should be said, runs contrary to Anglo-Saxon law. In fact, we have seen a completely unusual side of the Anglo-Saxon system of law and justice. On the other hand, it has happened so many times of late that we should be used to it.

What is happening? I watched BBC and CNN news today. Their manner of providing information is very simple. They say that France, Germany and the US stand in solidarity with Britain. They demand to know why Russia has poisoned that colonel. But Russia says it has not poisoned him. This is how they present the matter. They do not say that an investigation is underway, that it is not over yet and that the results of this investigation have not been submitted to any court, in particular a UK court. They do not say that the UK has referred this problem to the OPCW and hence should act in keeping with its CWC commitments. They do not say that Russia has legitimately asked to see any evidence of these allegations, or that Russia is acting in accordance with an international treaty that has been ratified by Russia, Britain and all other countries, which are seriously concerned about this now. They have told us openly that they would not talk with us. It is a flagrant violation of the CWC provisions, under which any signatory state, before doing anything, must directly interact with the state that is suspected to be the origin of the poisonous substance in question. But they tell us arrogantly that they will not talk with us. Your colleagues from the BBC and other media outlets do not tell this to the Western reader. They phrase the news very simply but they announce them with very meaningful expressions on their faces. Russia has been called upon to explain why it did this, but Russia has denied the responsibility. Needless to say, this is how ordinary people will remember this. These are the methods of Western propaganda. I hope we will never stoop so low.

In principle, I feel embarrassed talking about this situation. I think we did all we could and we have asked absolutely legitimately that the UK do what it should do under the CWC. But you can see the reaction this has produced. Even in British parliament, when an opposition leader asked the country’s leaders to show them what they have on Russia, they refused to do so. I want to repeat that they completely disregard our request that in this case we should wait until the poisoning victim gets better – I pray for this – just as his daughter, who is a Russian citizen. They refuse to say anything about her, although they should. Likewise, they do not share any information about the death of Nikolay Glushkov, even though they should. Why not ask Mr Skripal, when he gets better? He will probably be able to tell us what happened on the day of the tragedy. There is no evidence indicating when a hearing of his case could be held.

We initially cooperated with the British justice authorities in the notorious case of Alexander Litvinenko. But when we started asking concrete questions related to the investigation of his death, our British colleagues stopped working with us and held the hearing behind closed doors. The ruling refers to confidential materials which have not been shown to anyone outside the hearing. Despite the fact that it was a well-orchestrated mystery, they at least held a hearing, after which the British government reviewed its activities and drew conclusions. But no hearing has so far been held in the case of Skripal.

I no longer want to comment on this. It is on the conscience of those who have launched this shameless and unjustified anti-Russia game.

As for the statement by the chief UK military official, as you put it, the UK Defence Secretary is a nice young man who probably wants to make history with his loud statements. “Highly possible” is the main argument of Theresa May regarding Russia’s alleged guilt. And his contribution is, “Russia should go away and shut up.” Or maybe he did not receive a proper education, I don't know.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3121196






Joint Statement by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey on Syria, Astana, 16 March 2018



16 March 2018 - 10:26



The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey, as guarantors of the observance of the ceasefire regime in Syria, gathered in Astana on 16 March 2018 at the invitation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in order to take stock of their trilateral cooperation since the first International Meeting on Syria in Astana held on 23-24 January 2017 and

1. Highlighted the current high level of tripartite coordination on implementing the provisions of the Joint Statement by Presidents of Iran, Russia and Turkey of 22 November 2017 in Sochi;

2. Agreed to continue the effective interaction that would have positive effect on the situation in Syria and the entire region and reduce the risk of ethnic and sectarian divide;

3. Took note of the upcoming Trilateral Summit which would be held in Turkey on 4 April 2018;

4. Expressed their satisfaction with concrete contribution of the Astana process to improvement of the situation in Syria during the last year, emphasizing in this regard the success of their collective efforts in the fight against international terrorism, particularly the defeat of ISIL in Syria and the creation of favorable conditions for the political settlement on the basis of the UN Security Council resolution 2254;

5. Emphasized that the Astana format and its achievements had become an effective instrument for contributing to peace and stability in Syria;

6. Expressed joint determination to continue their coordinated efforts with a view to ensuring that the progress in the reduction of violence on the ground was irreversible;

7. Reaffirmed their strong and continued commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic. They also highlighted that none of the actions, no matter by whom they were undertaken, should undermine these principles, confirmed by relevant UN resolutions and by the will of representatives of all segments of the Syrian society, clearly and unequivocally expressed during the Congress of the Syrian National Dialogue in Sochi;

8. Reiterated their conviction that there was no military solution to the Syrian conflict and welcomed the progress achieved in eight high-level meetings held in Astana with a view to contributing to international efforts for ending the Syrian conflict through the adoption of measures to reduce violence on the ground, build confidence between the conflicting parties, alleviate the humanitarian situation and give impetus to efforts aimed at finding a political solution;

9. Took note of the state of implementation of the Memorandum of 4 May 2017 on the creation of the de-escalation areas in Syria, reaffirmed their determination to continue implementing its provisions with respect to all four de‑escalation areas and also emphasized that under no circumstances the creation of the de-escalation areas should undermine the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic;

10. Reaffirmed their determination to continue their cooperation in order to ultimately eliminate DAESH/ISIL, Nusra Front and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaeda or DAESH/ISIL as designated by the UN Security Council in Syria and to prevent their relocation to other countries and regions;

11. Underscored the necessity to assist the Syrians in restoring the unity of their country and in achieving a political solution of the ongoing conflict through an inclusive, free, fair and transparent Syrian-led and Syrian-owned process leading to a constitution enjoying the support of the Syrian people, and free and fair elections with the participation of all eligible Syrians under appropriate UN supervision;

12. Welcomed the convening of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi on 30 January 2018 as a major contribution giving momentum to the process of the political settlement under the UN auspices and reaffirmed their commitment to the results of the Sochi Congress, especially to form the Constitutional Committee and to facilitate the beginning of its work in Geneva with the assistance of the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria as soon as possible;

13. Called upon the representatives of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the opposition committed to the sovereignty, independence, unity, territorial integrity and non-fractional character of Syria as well as the international community to support the work of the Constitutional Committee;

14. Underscored the need to ensure rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to areas affected by the ongoing conflict;

15. Expressed their concern with the ongoing violations of the ceasefire regime, and declared that, as guarantors of the ceasefire regime, they would step up their efforts to ensure observance of the respective agreements;

16. Welcomed the UN Security Council resolution 2401 in response to the grave humanitarian situation all across Syria, including in Eastern Ghouta, Yarmouk, Foua and Kefraya, Idlib Governorate, Northern Hama Governorate, Rukhban and Raqqa;

17. Expressed their readiness to continue efforts with a view to implement the provisions of the above-mentioned resolution, aimed at strengthening the ceasefire regime and improving the humanitarian situation all across the Syrian Arab Republic, and called upon all parties to fully support this process, inter alia by sending additional humanitarian aid, facilitating humanitarian mine action, restoring basic infrastructure assets, including social and economic facilities, and preserving historical heritage;

18. Welcomed the convening of the first meeting of the Working Group on the release of detainees/abductees and handover of the bodies as well as the identification of missing persons on the eve of the Ministerial Meeting, and expressed their conviction that the efforts of the Working Group would further contribute to building confidence between the conflicting parties in Syria;

19. Expressed their sincere gratitude to the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, His Excellency Nursultan Nazarbayev and the Kazakh authorities for supporting the Astana process and hosting International meetings on Syria;

20. Decided to hold the next high-level International Meeting on Syria in Astana in mid-May 2018.



Astana, 16 March 2018




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3120957






Comment by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov following a meeting with President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev on the sidelines of a meeting of the guarantor states of the Astana process, Astana, March 16, 2018



16 March 2018 - 15:49




On my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues from Iran and Turkey, I would like to thank President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev and the entire Kazakh leadership for the hospitality accorded to the participants in this regular meeting within the framework of the Astana process. This time, it was a meeting of foreign ministers and it marked a very important step in promoting a settlement in Syria.

We assessed the work of the Astana format over the past year.

We stated that, despite sporadic incidents, the level of violence has dropped significantly after the establishment of four de-escalation zones and that essential progress has been made in tackling humanitarian problems.

Certainly, we reaffirmed our determination to continue the painstaking, uncompromising fight against remainder of terrorist groups identified as such by the UN Security Council.

We again reiterated that positive changes on the ground in Syria enable us at present to transition to active efforts towards launching political negotiations on the future state system of Syria on the basis of the principles approved by the overwhelming majority of Syrian ethnic, religious, political and social groups that gathered in Sochi on January 30, 2018. The Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi adopted the Final Statement creating all necessary pre-requisites for the UN to step up its work and in keeping with the recommendations of the three guarantor states – Russia, Turkey and Iran – to form a constitutional committee that will represent all layers of Syrian society. I hope that this will be done fairly quickly.

We agreed upon a summit meeting of the presidents of Russia, Turkey and Iran to be held in Turkey on April 4, during which new additional approaches will be coordinated on how to advance and put to life the principles of a settlement, approved at the UN Security Council and actively supported by the Astana process.

Yet another important decision reached today is the creation of a working group to liberate the detained hostages, recover the bodies of those killed and search for those missing, which is setting down to work in cooperation with representatives from the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

We again thanked President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev for his attention to our work and the efforts being taken by our Kazakh friends to create the most favourable and comfortable atmosphere possible for our work and for addressing complicated political matters.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3123354
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 24th, 2018 #385
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Remarks by Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OPCW, Ambassador Alexander Shulgin, at the 87th Session of the OPCW Executive Council, The Hague, March 14, 2018



14 March 2018 - 18:08




Mr Chairman,

This year is special for the our organisation – we are completing the fifth cycle of the Convention on the Prohibition and Elimination of Chemical Weapons (CWC) and are looking forward to the review conference. This is a time when we can start summing up some results.

Naturally, the OPCW has reasons to be proud of itself. Last year, the Russian Federation completed the destruction of one of the world’s largest chemical arsenals – three years ahead of time. We hope this significant fact will be duly reflected in the documents of the Fourth Review Conference.

The completion of the elimination of chemical stockpiles removed from Libya with the active participation of the international community is an event of equal importance. We also welcome the completion of the chemical demilitarisation programme in Iraq, which was announced, and a relevant report was submitted the other day.

In total, all these successes represent a tangible contribution of the OPCW to the consolidation of international peace and security and major steps on the way to the common noble goal – the elimination of a whole class of weapons of mass destruction.

Today, there is only one participating state that has declared stockpiles of chemical weapons. We would like to call on it to consider possibilities for destroying its stockpiles and, following our example, to do so before the deadline in strict conformity with the CWC. We believe this is a fairly feasible task considering that our partners possess all the necessary financial, material, human and technological resources.

Mr Chairman,

The OPCW working groups on future priorities and preparations for the CWC Review Conference are making a significant contribution to the current review process. We highly appreciate their activities and are grateful to their leaders – ambassadors Vusi Koloane, Sabine Nolke and Gusti Puja. We had interesting discussions and we heard many different views on the future of the OPCW and its priority activities. Some of these ideas are dubious. Some of them go beyond the convention. Nonetheless, we believe that by yearend we will develop common approaches that will receive support based on consensus.

Mr Chairman,

In recent years, the so-called Syrian dossier on chemical weapons has remained at the top of the OPCW agenda. The destruction of chemical weapons removed from the country was completed in 2016, becoming an important milestone. For reference, we would like to say that past supplies from companies in France, Germany, the Netherlands and some other countries from among those who now loudly voice their concern over Syria’s former military chemical weapons programme were used to create Syria’s stocks of chemical weapons.

We welcome efforts by the Technical Secretariat and Syria to eliminate Syria’s two remaining chemical weapons production facilities, which were inaccessible earlier.

We believe that further efforts to this effect in Syria should be purely technical, pragmatic and depoliticised.

We believe that close cooperation between the OPCW Mission to verify Syria’s initial declaration under Article III of the CWC and the Syrian authorities will secure real progress in verifying Syria’s initial declaration. These activities should be carried out on a regular and continuous basis and target specific results. All parties to this process, including the Executive Council, must finally demonstrate political will and start taking topics that do not need further discussion off the mission’s agenda.

We took note of information from the Technical Secretariat regarding the two previous inspections of the Syrian Research and Development Centre in Barzeh and Jamrai, which showed that the centre was not carrying out any activities prohibited under the CWC. It begs the question, how many more inspections of the centre have to be carried out to finally stop raising the issue of the need for monitoring?

Mr Chairman,

We all are certainly moving towards the noble goal of banishing chemical weapons from the life of human society. But, regrettably, the path to it is full of thorns. Our convention is not universal and much has yet to be done for it to acquire this status. At the same time, we see relapses into the use of chemical weapons in “hot spots” happening with alarming frequency. We see evidence of this in Syria, where chemical agents are actively employed by terrorist groups, who often do so with provocative goals in mind in order to point a finger at Damascus for using chemical weapons.

We – like everyone in this room – are highly concerned over the recent reports about chlorine being used in Eastern Ghouta and in Idlib Province. This information comes from terrorist groups and their affiliated NGOs like the White Helmets, which operate in the country. These plants are willingly echoed in capitals of certain states, where top-level officials pelt Syria with accusations, alleging that the information on the use of chlorine is supposedly reliable. At the same time, none of the recent cases of the alleged use of chlorine was investigated and documented by independent international organisations, primarily the OPCW.

But after making high-sounding statements about the Syrian authorities’ culpability, some of our partners in certain capitals start refuting their own claims, stating that there is no real evidence on this count. We would like to remind you about the recent quite eloquent admissions made by the Pentagon chief James Mattis, who, according to the February 8, 2018 edition of Newsweek, said that the Defence Department had no proof that the Syrian government had used sarin.

What we hear from Paris is also indicative. President Emmanuel Macron has drawn the “red lines,” promising to order an attack on the “Syrian regime” the instant he is given evidence that the Syrian authorities did use chemical weapons. But as he said later, France still has no documented facts that would corroborate the use of prohibited chemical weapons against civilians in Syria.

After all these high-level statements to the contrary, why do we hear repeated charges, including in this room, that the Syrian authorities use chemical weapons? Some capitals went as far as saying that they contemplate a “retaliatory” strike on Syria to punish it for chemical attacks. We estimate these threats as calls for an aggression against a sovereign state in violation of all norms of international law. We think this absolutely unacceptable.

We must ensure that the Technical Secretariat works closely, within its mandate, on clarifying the situation in connection with all cases of presumed use of chemical weapons and cases of finding the toxic chemicals in Syria. For this, all OPCW missions created to carry out investigations or help Syria should do the job thoroughly and competently. Importantly, the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria should strictly conform to the high standards of the CWC and provide verified and doubtless investigation results that make it possible to recreate the real picture of what has happened.

It is a matter of grave concern that certain states, instead of assisting the OPCW in its efforts, are creating some separate organisations, allegedly intended to prevent those guilty of using chemical weapons from getting away with it unpunished. Specifically, in January, Paris hosted a meeting meant to launch so-called International Partnership Against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons. We regard this as nothing else than an attempt to form a narrow circle of states that are bracing up to implement their geopolitical interests in circumvention of the universal international institutions, such as the OPCW and the UN Security Council. It is clear that this initiative is targeted at the Syrian government, which some people call a “regime.” Different explanations are not misleading us. We view this initiative as a highly harmful trick. It is also worrying that they clearly intend to somehow relate the OPCW Technical Secretariat to the “partnership.” This means undermining the mainstays of our Organisation and involving it in unseemly political games. It is only in this way that we estimate the intention to hold yet another presentation of the “partnership” on the sidelines of the current session.

Mr Chairperson,

Instead of maliciously accusing Syria, as well as Russia, of alleged violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), Washington and London, which have claimed the role of prosecutors, should think about their own compliance with their commitments under this international document.

Between 2003 and 2011, the United States and Britain found over 4,500 chemical artillery shells and missiles and aviation bombs in Iraq, which were stored there during the rule of Saddam Hussein. They covertly destroyed these chemical warfare systems without the verification of the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat in violation of Clause 1(a) of Article III of the CWC. The main reason for keeping these operations secret was Washington’s unwillingness to make public its past contribution to Iraq’s chemical weapons programme. In particular, markings on the 155mm shells for conventional artillery guns indicated that they were manufactured in the US or in other Western countries under US licences.

The United States only forwarded an official report regarding these operations to the OPCW in 2009 in a bid to convince the OPCW’s Executive Council that the measures they took were in strict compliance with the spirit of the Convention. The Technical Secretariat only acknowledged this report in light of the emergency nature of the situation and the absence of a CWC provision regarding the procedure for destroying chemical agents in wartime conditions.

Therefore, the United States and Britain flagrantly violated the CWC provisions without any criticism on the part of the international community. There is no precise information regarding the total number of chemical weapons the United States has found and destroyed on site or has removed from the country.

Back in early 2017, we asked the Technical Secretariat for additional explanations regarding this matter. They recommended that we request them at the bilateral level from our American colleagues. We duly asked our American partners for this information. However, they have not done anything in this connection. This is how half-heartedly they go about their work. At the same time, they demand that others honour their commitments meticulously and without delay.

Here is one more relevant example. Under Clause 1(b) of Article III of the CWC, the United States is obliged to notify the Technical Secretariat of abandoning chemical weapons on the territory of other states. Washington did not do so after ratifying the Convention and is now trying to prevent the publication of this information by other countries, fearing that this would result in accusations of CWC violations.

In particular, the US has not acknowledged ownership of seven aviation bombs and one air spray tank with phosgene and cyanogen chloride, which the Pentagon left behind in Panama, on the island of San Jose in the Las Perlas Archipelago, despite the fact that experts from the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat confirmed beyond any doubt the US origin of these weapons back in 2002.

Washington, acting with assistance of the Technical Secretariat’s Office of the Legal Adviser, ensured that the leadership of Panama agreed to identify the eight munitions as “Old Chemical Weapons” and pledged to destroy them. Following that, the government of Panama revised its original CWC declaration to reflect the presence of chemical weapons on its territory, thereby assuming responsibility for their origin and destruction.

In all, the United States left in Panama several thousand units of toxic chemicals and the achieved agreement makes it possible to ensure their elimination with minimal damage to the US reputation. In addition, it is necessary to remember that apart from the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada are also directly involved with the chemical weapons left in Panama.

And, finally, a considerable amount of chemical weapons left by the US after the Vietnam War were also discovered in Cambodia. In particular, 58 US chemical munitions with CN and CS, and 12 air spray tanks with containers for poisonous chemicals were found in Mondulkiri Province in 2012. A special commission of the OPCW determined that they belong to the United States.

In 2017, 34 dump sites of chemical weapons were discovered in Svay Rieng Province: US Air Force bombs equipped with the CS irritant, drop cassettes and barrel bombs with remote detonators. Tellingly, the Americans refused to discuss with Cambodians the negative impact of toxic chemicals on the local population, flora and fauna and are ignoring their requests to help them dispose of these chemicals.

Mr Chairperson,

We welcome the activities of the Working Group on Terrorism and its subgroup on non-government structures. We are convinced in the need for the OPCW’s specific anti-terrorist work. That said, we would like to emphasise that our organisation is not anti-terrorist in character and its capabilities in that area are considerably limited.

However, the OPCW can still make a serious contribution to international anti-terrorist efforts. We believe that there is serious unused potential for expanding the work of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), whose mandate is to investigate terrorist activities linked with the use of toxic chemicals. After all, it is an indisputable fact that terrorist organisations – that are operating not only in Syria – possess technology for producing chemical arms and have the required industrial capacities. They are actively using their deadly products to achieve their horrible aims. Incidentally, the chlorine recently found by the Syrian army on territories freed from terrorists confirms that the militants have reserves of toxic chemicals.

Esteemed Mr Chairperson,

Naturally, what I have said does not cover the entire range of activities of our organisation. Our delegation will express its opinion on other urgent issues as they are put on the agenda of the current session of the Executive Council.

Thank you for your attention.

We would like to ask you to disseminate this speech as an official document of the 87th session of the OPCW Executive Council and publish it on the OPCW’s external server.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3119668






Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov’s remarks at the Rome II Ministerial Meeting to support the Lebanese Armed Forces and the Internal Security Forces, Rome, March 15, 2018



16 March 2018 - 10:21




Your Excellences Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, Prime Minister Saad Hariri and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres,

Colleagues,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Russia is firmly and consistently committed to supporting the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the Lebanese Republic. We want Lebanon to be a stable and safe state with efficient branches of power and government agencies. We stand fast for the solution of all the acute questions on the national agenda by the Lebanese themselves without foreign interference but through dialogue based on respect for the interests of all the leading political forces and ethnic and religious groups of people in Lebanon. We maintain ties both with all government agencies and all political forces in Lebanon without exception.

We have been working consistently to uphold these principles at various international platforms, including the UN Security Council and General Assembly, as well as in our bilateral and multilateral contacts, including within the framework of the International Support Group for Lebanon (ISG), where Russia has been active since the group’s establishment.

Lebanon has been thrown to the forefront of the fight against international terrorism. The Lebanese authorities and army have demonstrated strong resolve, military skills and political wisdom in the process of eliminating ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists in the country.

We believe it is vital to contribute to the strengthening of the combat capability of the Lebanese army and law enforcement forces, which are protecting peace and stability in Lebanon. Relations between defence and interior ministries are playing a major role in the multifaceted Russian-Lebanese relationship. Moscow is paying close attention to the requests made by our Lebanese partners for the further strengthening of our relations in these spheres. A bilateral agreement on military and technical cooperation was signed on February 25, 2010, and we are preparing to sign an agreement on military cooperation, which provides for building up the exchange of information on defence matters, counterterrorism cooperation, the joint training of military personnel, as well as cooperation in the field of military education, medicine and military topography. We are finalising an agreement between the interior ministries of Russia and Lebanon. Our relations in these spheres are absolutely transparent. They are not spearheaded at any other countries but are designed to serve the mutual interests of Russia and Lebanon.

In light of Lebanon’s limited finances due to the current unfavourable regional economic situation and an unprecedented inflow of refugees from neighbouring Syria, we have decided to supply part of the military items free of charge within the framework of our military-technical cooperation.

We categorically reject any attempts to dictate any terms regarding our bilateral military-technical cooperation with Lebanon. These matters are regulated by our bilateral agreements with Lebanon and the existing international obligations of Russia and Lebanon.

Over a year ago, Russia helped Lebanon deal with the crisis of power through the election of President Michel Aoun and the establishment of a government led by Saad Hariri. The agreements that were reached by the leading Lebanese political powers in keeping with constitutional procedures proved to be effective. Stability and security are growing stronger in the country. The streamlining of the operations of the executive power system helped facilitate the practical efforts to resolve current problems on Lebanon’s national agenda, including the fundamental goal of eliminating the seat of international terrorism in the country.

Currently, international aid in order to maintain stability in Lebanon is especially important in light of the upcoming parliamentary election on May 6. We believe it is important to hold this election within the coordinated timeframe. Russia does not and cannot maintain any privileged interaction with any particular part of the Lebanese political system. We regard Lebanon, with its unique diversity, as a united family bound by a shared national identity. Any attempts at external interference in this self-regulating system would be counterproductive. We will always respect the choice of the Lebanese people and their sovereign decisions, including regarding Lebanon’s right to the unhindered use of their natural resources. We urge our partners to act likewise.

We have high regard for the operations of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which are aimed at maintaining stability on Lebanon’s southern border. The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2373 in August 2017 has given UNIFIL additional capabilities for the implementation of all provisions of UNSC Resolution 1701. We firmly stand for ceasing any infringements on Lebanon’s sovereignty on the part of Israel, whose aircraft regularly violates Lebanon’s airspace. We believe that the construction by Israel of a new wall along the Blue Line, which is not an internationally recognised border with Lebanon, runs counter to the international legal framework for a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East and will not strengthen security and stability in the region.

We share Beirut’s concern over the heavy burden on the country's economic and social infrastructure, as well as on its law enforcement system, due to the presence of a huge number of Syrian refugees in Lebanon. As per the instructions of President Vladimir Putin, we have provided financial assistance to these refugees via the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as by directly sending the Russian Emergency Ministry’s aircraft with humanitarian aid to Lebanon. At the same time, it is clear that this problem cannot be resolved without an early political settlement in Syria and the creation of favourable conditions for the return of Syrian refugees home. We will continue to work actively towards this goal. We expect our international and regional partners to take balanced and substantiated decisions in this sphere.

On the other hand, there is an opportunity to proceed to practical measures now to settle some of the Syrian refugees’ urgent and painful problems in Lebanon within the framework of bilateral contacts between Beirut and Damascus.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3120947






Remarks by Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, March 15, 2018



16 March 2018 - 12:29




Mr Chairperson,

Russia welcomes the five-fold drop in the number of ceasefire violations since the Spring Truce entered into force. However, there is the lingering threat that hostilities could resume. Kiev has not given up on its warlike rhetoric or plans to cleanse Donbass of those who refuse to follow its line.

For the ceasefire to take root, it is necessary that both sides publish orders announcing the ceasefire, hold violators to account, eliminate creeping offensive tactics that bring the firing positions of the two sides closer to one another, withdraw heavy artillery to the agreed distance, especially in terms of the distance from residential areas, and ensure civilian infrastructure safety.

We have no evidence to support the notion that the Ukrainian government is ready to begin the withdrawal of heavy artillery, the disengagement of forces near Stanitsa Luganskaya, where according to the Special Monitoring Mission the ceasefire has been observed for no less than the required seven days. There are now expectations that the disengagement may take place March 18. The Contact Group met in Minsk on March 14 to discuss an Easter truce starting April 1. At the same time, troops are being transported to the line of contact. In the week between March 5 and 11, monitors detected 20 pieces of military equipment operated by the Ukrainian Armed Forces in violation of the Minsk Package of Measures. They also reported more than 200 weapons units missing from the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ warehouses. On March 6, a Mi-8 Ukrainian helicopter was detected in Maryinka in violation of Par. 7 of the September 19, 2014 Minsk Memorandum. The next day, March 9, the Ukrainian Armed Forces held a military training exercise with battle shooting near Lomakino, in violation of a decision adopted by the Contact Group on March 3, 2016.

If Kiev cannot be forced to observe the truce, the least we can do is prevent the situation from escalating. The SMM must step up its patrols along the line of contact.

It is unacceptable that the Ukrainian military and security officials refuse to review applications for repairs filed by authorities from specific Donbass districts. The requirement to have the documents drafted in the Ukrainian language is only indicative of Kiev’s intention to keep fanning the flames of conflict. Russia calls on the Italian Chairmanship and the interested countries to influence Kiev authorities.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces have been regularly shelling communications leading to the water purification station in Donetsk lately. On March 7, a truck delivering fuel to the station came under fire. Over the last week, a bus carrying workers to the station was shelled three times.

We are grateful to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission for its prompt intervention – accompanying a regular shift of the Donetsk water purification station, which made it possible to continue its operations. We urge the heads of the SMM to continue this practice until it is provided with proper security.

We would like to draw your attention to the exacerbation of the political struggle in Ukraine and the invigoration of the nationalists. We call on the SMM to more attentively document all manifestations of aggressive action by extremists.

We would like to warn our US colleagues against the continuation of the policy of encouraging Ukrainian nationalism. If you really care about consolidating Ukraine’s sovereignty, compel Kiev to fulfil the Minsk agreements and reach a comprehensive political settlement, including the special status for Donbass, local elections and constitutional reform. Flirting with radicals, especially those that preach neo-Nazi ideology and worship Nazi accomplices will only lead to trouble.

Ukrainian radical nationalists are expanding their activities and are vigorously searching for support abroad. They recruit young people in Britain, Germany and other European countries. Publications on this issue have even appeared in the Western media – Der Spiegel and the Guardian. Radical nationalism is creating a threat to the stability of European society. It requires a collective international response.

Nationalists continue attacking Orthodox churches in Ukraine. On the night of March 10 radicals set fire to a bell tower at a Ukrainian Orthodox church in Kiev. This is not the first attack this year. In January, Molotov cocktails were thrown into the Church of the Icon of the Mother of God.

As usual, radicals are also pursuing criminal goals by trying to take away expensive land in the centre of Kiev. Criminal excesses are on the rise in Ukraine. During the infighting in Kiev on March 7 and 8 two hand grenades were thrown into a car with SSU (Security Service of Ukraine) officers inside, and a restaurant was fired from a grenade launcher.

Ukrainian nationalism is becoming increasingly ugly. The Verkhovna Rada has come up with a draft bill on total Ukrainisation. The proposals include the exclusive use of the Ukrainian language during exams and certifications, medical services, work with pensions, household services, posters and exhibitions. The abrogation of the law on the foundations of a language policy has proved that there are no limits for nationalists.

Esteemed Mr Chairperson,

The presidential election in Russia will be held on March 18. In accordance with international practice, voting stations will be opened abroad as well, including the Russian Embassy in Kiev, and consulates-general in Kharkov, Odessa and Lvov. Ukrainian nationalists from the Right Sector, National Corps and Svoboda (Freedom) have openly threatened the security and safety of the Russian diplomatic missions and any citizens that might use these voting stations. They promised to bloc entrances to Russian foreign missions to prevent Russian citizens from freely expressing their will.

We are urging Kiev to fully abide by its international commitments, including those under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

In conclusion, we would like to remind our colleagues that the only road to a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis lies through the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures and direct dialogue between Kiev and Lugansk and Donetsk. As before, we are ready to facilitate this in every possible way. We hope that other OSCE countries will also work in this vein.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3121244






Statement by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the case of Sergey Skripal, Vienna, March 15, 2018



16 March 2018 - 12:39




Mr Chairperson,

We have listened to a flurry of irresponsible accusations and speculation in what has become the trademark British “highly likely” style. The UK acts in an openly provocative manner. On March 6 already, head of the Foreign Office, Boris Johnson, spoke in the parliament as if the investigation was over, and Russia was to blame for what happened in Salisbury. The haste is stunning.

As you may recall, the information about the incident appeared in the media on March 4. There wasn’t even the slightest attempt to contact us in order to figure out what happened, despite the fact that Russia immediately expressed its willingness to do so. We have not received any information through the official channels regarding the circumstances of the case despite repeated requests and the fact that Yulia Skripal is a Russian citizen. Our Embassy in the UK sent several diplomatic notes to the Foreign Office, in which it indicated that Russia was not involved in this incident, and asked to provide samples of the agent used in the attack and to start a joint investigation. These requests were declined. What we got in exchange were ultimatums in the spirit of neo-colonialism. And not a single piece of evidence of the alleged “Russian trace” was provided. The presumption of innocence was forgotten by London altogether.

Notably, when discussing this matter in the British Parliament, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn suggested making the results of the investigation available at least to MPs, but this was rejected as well.

We expected the United Kingdom to file an official request and to avail itself of the procedures of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. As is known, Article 9, paragraph 2 of this Convention provides for seeking clarification and providing a response to the requesting State as soon as possible, but in any case no later than 10 days after filing such a request. Failing to receive such a request, we pro-actively did this in the Hague on March 13 at the 87th session of the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). However, there’s still been no properly formulated request in accordance with the Convention, which we were willing to answer from the very beginning. The British also failed to use the tools available under the Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.

A few words about the toxic agents that are allegedly part of this story. After chemical weapons had been destroyed in Russia (this was confirmed by the OPCW in 2017), their development continued in the UK, as well as in the United States, the Czech Republic and Sweden. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, laboratories for the production of toxic agents of the above category remained in a number of other states, including the Baltic countries. By the way, there is a government laboratory for weapons of mass destruction in Porton Down, not far from Salisbury. If London is so confident that this is Novichok gas, it means they have its formula and samples, and maybe are even making it. Vil Mirzayanov, gas inventor, has been living in the United States for a long time now, where he was taken together with the technical documentation about this agent. Meanwhile, no research work under the name of Novichok has ever been conducted in Russia.

The main question − who needs this scandal and why − is taken off the table altogether. In jurisprudence, there is a principle − you look for the person who benefits (cui prodest). Who benefits from this incident in the run-up to the presidential election and the World Cup in Russia? Most importantly, why would Russia dispatch of Skripal who posed no threat to our country? However, I can name several states which would benefit greatly at this particular point from this incident and from accusing Russia of it.

As always, the context is important. What is happening now in the political life of Great Britain? First, just like the Conservative Party, the Cabinet led by Prime Minister Theresa May is split on the subject of Brexit. There’s no doubt that spinning the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter is nothing more than an attempt to divert public attention from the problems arising from Brexit.

Another scandal, from which the authorities are trying to divert the attention of UK residents with the poisoning of the Skripals, is much more frustrating. The issue is about a network of pedophiles in the town of Telford, which was active for as long as 40 years. Over 1,000 children were abused while police and local authorities looked the other way. We will provide more information about this flagrant violation of the rights of children in the United Kingdom at the next meeting of the Permanent Council.

Just yesterday, speaking at the UN Security Council, Russia’s representative proposed adopting a statement of its President calling for cooperation of all parties to establish the truth. Britain blocked this initiative. We are forced to conclude that the British authorities are least of all interested in establishing the truth, and are driven by other motives entirely. As they say on your islands, it is not cricket.

Even in this room, we can see that all the attempts to start a professional discussion are re-directed by our British colleagues and many participating states which have shown solidarity with London in the form of political rhetoric and Russophobia in hope that the Western world will customarily fall into line and snap a salute without giving it a second thought for the sake of questionable solidarity. You don’t need the truth. It is even hazardous to you.

Thank you. Please attach our statement to the daily log of this session of the Permanent Council.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3121292
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 24th, 2018 #386
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview to Vietnamese and Japanese media, Moscow, March 16, 2018



16 March 2018 - 23:00








Question:

How would you assess the role and the importance of your upcoming visit to Vietnam? What is Russia’s part in the Asia-Pacific region?



Sergey Lavrov:

We maintain very close ties with our Vietnamese friends. We describe these relations as a strategic partnership. Our presidents regularly interact. President Vladimir Putin met many times with the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, and the foreign ministers maintain close contact, just as do the heads of nearly all ministries, including the ministries of industry and trade, economic development, finance, transport and communications. In fact, absolutely all sectors of our Government maintain contacts with their Vietnamese counterparts.

Of course, ties in education, cultural exchanges and humanitarian cooperation have always featured prominently in our strategic partnership with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. One of the landmark events, which we will discuss during my visit to Vietnam, is the preparations for the Russian-Vietnamese cross-year. We will hold it in 2019, when we will mark the 25th anniversary of the interstate treaty on the basic principles of bilateral friendship.

Regarding the Asia-Pacific region, we are working with our regional friends, not just Vietnam but also other ASEAN countries, as well as ASEAN dialogue partners, to promote a unifying agenda aimed at creating a sustainable and stable architecture of security and cooperation, so that the situation in this crucial part of the world, which has become the driver of the global economy, is not determined by closed bloc agreements but by a dialogue involving all regional countries without exception. We highly value ASEAN’s central role in rallying the efforts towards creating conditions for this dialogue through the annual ASEAN Regional Forum on regional security, the annual meetings of ASEAN defence ministers, which are attended by defence ministers from ASEAN’s dialogue partners, as well as many other meetings between ASEAN and individual dialogue partners, including Russia.

I would like to point out one more promising format that has been initiated by the regional countries. It is the East Asia Summit. During the past few years, these summits of ASEAN and its main partners, such as Russia, China, the US, India, Japan, as well as several other countries, namely Australia and South Korea, have been discussing the importance of creating an open security and cooperation system in Asia Pacific, a system based on the principle of equality of all and indivisible security, so that no country would attempt to ensure its own security to the detriment of other countries’ security.

In short, these are the questions we will discuss in Vietnam much more thoroughly than I have just described them now.



Question:

What is your opinion of trade and economic cooperation between Russia and Vietnam, as well as between Vietnam and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)? What are the prospects for the further development of Russian-Vietnamese relations?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have mentioned our bilateral relations. Speaking in greater detail about our trade and economic interaction, I can say that our trade grew by over 35 per cent last year and reached a record high level since 1991, when Russia became the state it is now. Last year, our trade amounted to some $5.35 billion. As I already said, it is a record high level since 1991. Of course, this result, that is, a more than 35 per cent growth, is largely due to the Free Trade Agreement that was signed between Vietnam and the EAEU in 2015 and entered into force in 2016. I am sure that we will see comparable figures if we look at Vietnam’s trade with the other EAEU countries, the figures that are evidence of the benefits of the FTA for all EAEU countries and Vietnam, of course.

As for the additional action we can take, these include the encouragement of regular direct ties between our business communities. Work is in process on this matter. The more direct ties we have the more joint mutually beneficial projects our business people will be able to implement. It is important to encourage meetings, business forums, round tables, exhibitions and fairs. There are many opportunities for strengthening ties between our countries’ business communities, especially since we have a new platform that is located closer to you than the traditional St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), which our Vietnamese friends attend. I am referring to the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF), which will be held in Vladivostok this year, just as three years ago.

There is one more potentially very promising format. We worked with our Vietnamese friends to establish a High-Level Working Group that is co-chaired by our ministers of industry and trade. This group is focused on concrete investment projects and is promoting broader ties between our companies in hydrocarbon production and oil processing, as well as in other energy sectors, infrastructure, transportation and communications, including telecommunications. First of all we have achieved good results, and secondly this is clearly not the limit. It is very important that we have started working and our efforts will certainly produce good results in the near future.



Question:

A popular saying goes, “Those who don’t want to talk with Lavrov will have to talk with Shoigu.” Thankfully, both you and Sergey Shoigu can conduct talks with your Japanese partners in the 2+2 format. How good is this format for strengthening trust? Does this form of cooperation have a future?



Sergey Lavrov:

We would like all our key partners to want to talk both with Sergey Shoigu and Sergey Lavrov, because I am sure that the 2+2 format, which we use not only in relations with Japan, is a good platform not just for comprehensive and fruitful discussions on military and political security and the settlement of conflicts in different regions, but also for taking practical and prompt decisions. When foreign ministers work alone, they need time to see if the questions on their agenda can match military plans. When defence ministers work alone, they also need to see how their decisions will be reflected in their countries’ diplomacy. But when defence and foreign ministers work together in the 2+2 format, they are able not just to exchange opinions but also to take prompt decisions on many different matters.

We appreciate Japan’s initiative to resume this format. A year ago, Sergey Shoigu and I visited Tokyo. Now we are discussing the timeframe for a return visit by our Japanese colleagues, the foreign and defence ministers. We are glad that the period when this format was put on hold for reasons that have no connection to Russian-Japanese relations is over.

I hope that the other countries with which we have created this format will do likewise. This primarily concerns European countries that appear to be interested in resuming work in this format. They see that suspending cooperation is a short-sighted policy, at the least, as well as counterproductive and even harmful to those who initiate this suspension.



Question:

Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe has proposed an 8-point plan to Russia, which provides for boosting economic cooperation and business ties. This is how Russia and Japan can build up confidence and bilateral relations. This can help them to settle the most difficult problems in their relations – the territorial problem and the peace treaty. On the other hand, Japan has an agreement with the US allowing it to deploy their bases in Japan. What do you think about this twofold problem where the need to strengthen trust in relations with Japan is complicated by the US-Japan agreement?

On March 1, President Putin demonstrated a new type of arms during his Address to the Federal Assembly. He said that the US missile defence system is useless against them. Do you think that these arms will resolve Russia’s concern over the deployment of the US BMD system, including near Japan?



Sergey Lavrov:

I can say in response to the first part of your question that our trade, economic and investment cooperation is based on the documents that are designed to implement the agreement reached between the President of Russia and the Prime Minister of Japan regarding joint economic cooperation in the southern Kuril Islands. On a broader plane, there are Russian documents listing priority projects and the 8-point plan that was proposed by Japan. Taken together, they form the basis for our movement towards broader economic interaction in a variety of spheres.

I can tell you that the majority of these initiatives have already produced positive outcome. But we certainly want even better results. I hope that this is also in the interests of our Japanese colleagues. At any rate, our mutual trade is growing steadily, and the next contacts between our ministries and agencies, as well as my visit will highlight the proposals that can be prepared for the next summit meeting between the President of Russia and the Prime Minister of Japan. The focus of our general policy of promoting and deepening economic cooperation is on joint economic operations on these four islands.

As for the Japan-US Security Treaty, which was signed in 1960, if memory serves, Japan is a sovereign state that is free to take independent decisions on the basis of its foreign and defence policies. This fully applies to the conditions of Japan’s alliance with the US. We will not tell Japan what to do in this or any other sphere. Demands and ultimatums are not our methods. We openly tell our Japanese friends that Japan’s military relations with the US, including the plans to deploy the Asian segment of the US global BMD system in Japan and South Korea that are being implemented now, directly affect Russia’s national security.

You have said correctly that President Vladimir Putin pointed this out again in his March 1 Address to the Federal Assembly. He said how we worked for many years, at least for 15 years since the Americans announced their decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, to dissuade them from taking this destructive stem. Later we proposed creating a joint mechanism to discuss ballistic missile defence. But all our efforts were in vain. Everything our American colleagues did convinced us that their global BMD system is not designed to protect them from the Iranian or North Korean threats, but to surround Russia along the entire perimeter with these missile defence systems, which are actually designed to render our strategic nuclear capability useless, as our military experts have concluded.

We tell this frankly to our Japanese friends. We tell them that in order to remove all irritants from our bilateral relations, just as the President of Russia and the Prime Minister of Japan agreed to do – to remove irritants, deepen cooperation and build up strategic and friendly relations, to achieve this goal, we will have to discuss the issue on our current agenda, that is, to find a way to correlate problem resolution in our relations with the fact that the US BMD systems, which are a threat to us, are to be deployed in Japan.

This is why we say that if we really want to find a lasting solution to all security issues in the Asia-Pacific region, including in Southeast Asia, East Asia and Northeast Asia, we must look not for a solution in blocs and military alliances, such as exist between Japan and the US and between South Korea and the US (Australia is also involved in these closed blocs), but work out an inclusive format when all the interested parties sit down at the negotiating table to discuss their concerns and find a common denominator, so that everyone’s concerns are settled in an acceptable manner based on a balance of interests, and so that no country would try to strengthen its security at the expense of others.

We may be wrong but we do believe that Japan has a sovereign right to take decisions regarding military alliances, while we have a sovereign right to make conclusions regarding the influence of these decisions, in particular, the decision regarding the BMD systems, on our security. I believe that no one should be offended by this. We are ready for dialogue, including on this issue. However, in this particular case Japan cannot take decisions on behalf of the US, which is avoiding a dialogue on BMD or, for that matter, on the majority of other issues. On the other hand, Washington has recently reaffirmed its desire to resume strategic stability consultations with Russia. We are ready for this, and we will maintain contact with our Japanese neighbours and will inform them about our views on the progress of these consultations. We are not going to keep this secret.



Question:

Is this a serious disagreement?



Sergey Lavrov:

I hope I have explained it clearly. We respect Japan’s right to choose the methods for ensuring its security and to choose partners and forms of military cooperation with them. At the same time, we have the right to assess the influence of these agreements [regarding systems deployed near the Russian border] on our security.



Question:

My question concerns joint economic activities on the disputed islands. In your interview of February 11, 2018, you said that there is no need to establish some supra-national body. What does this mean? What is your attitude to Japan’s position on this matter? Do you agree that we need some special systems, as the Japanese party insists? Does Russia want an agreement that will leave out the issue of the islands’ ownership, such as the 1998 Russian-Japanese agreement on fishing, which has a provision that precludes any activities or measures that may be interpreted as prejudicing the positions or views of any party?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, I have already said that our leaders agreed at their meeting in Japan in December 2016 to promote joint economic operations on the islands. They also adopted a short statement that sets out the sequence of actions to be taken towards this goal. First we will choose a series of economically significant projects that Moscow and Tokyo will support. Next, depending on the scale of these projects, they will choose the legal framework for their implementation. The focus should not be on the legal aspects but primarily on the joint economic activities. This is the essence of our agreement.

If the finalised list of projects is very long – so far, we are only discussing five very important and concrete, but not very large projects in culture and tourism – and our Japanese friends decide to take part in these projects if there are incentives similar to those offered by the Russian legislation in this part of Russia, for example in the priority development areas (PDA) and the Free Port of Vladivostok (FPV), these incentives will be offered. If the scope of the economic projects we coordinate requires additional allocations, we will be ready, as I have already said, to sign an intergovernmental agreement on additional incentives for the implementation of economic projects within the framework of joint economic activities on the four islands. We see no need for some supra-national body. As I have said, the current policy includes incentives for the FPV, which comprises some 15 ports in the Russian Far East, as well as the PDAs. If any of the new projects reach a scale where these incentives are not enough, we will be willing to sign an intergovernmental agreement with our Japanese friends.

We proceed from the assumption that the Japanese party will not sign legally unacceptable agreements. However, these deliberations seem to be premature. Before formalising anything, you need to have some substance first. We have not yet coordinated anything. We are only discussing five quite interesting but not very large, medium-scale projects.



Question:

What are your expectations from the upcoming meeting between the US and North Korean leaders? How can the resignation of US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson influence it? Has Russia’s position regarding North Korea changed? Russia and Japan are members of the six-party talks. Will Russia work with Japan to resume this format?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, we welcome progress that began in this process before the PyeonChang Olympics and is developing regardless of the Paralympics. We believe that this process was given momentum when the sides took the responsible decision of making use of the Olympic truce to exchange very positive signals. We approve of the upcoming contacts and hope they will be successful, primarily the inter-Korean summit that will be held in April, as our colleagues told us. The decision to hold a personal meeting announced by North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump engenders hope. If they do meet, we will be happy.

We were surprised at the situation in the UN Security Council yesterday, when the US delegation blocked the Russian-Chinese proposal for adopting a statement by the council’s president in support of the agreements, even if tentative ones, on an inter-Korean summit and a meeting between the North Korean and US leaders, a statement that would express the council’s encouragement for the movement away from military tension and toward a political settlement. It is very difficult for me to say who exactly sets the direction of movement on Korean problems. In principle, this is of no concern to us. It is for the US President to decide who will be in charge of this policy, former US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, his successor Mike Pompeo or CIA Director Gina Haspel. We will watch the US position as it emerges. Maybe there will be several positions – I would not venture to make any guesses. We will see what Washington does and who takes the upper hand there.

Back when President Trump said he would meet with the North Korean leader to resolve all the problems, some members of the US administration promptly said that additional pressure must be placed on Pyongyang, which is allegedly wavering. This is not done in diplomacy. When you discuss a meeting, you try to guard the agreement rather than call for actions that can be interpreted as a provocation aimed at preventing the summit. But, I repeat, this is the US administration’s concern. We are closely monitoring the situation, because we are interested, as much as any other country, in a peaceful settlement and the prevention of a catastrophic military scenario on the Korean Peninsula. We share a border with North Korea. Many Russian populated areas and commercial facilities are located in direct proximity to it. If something leads to hostilities there, we will not be happy at all. This is why Russia and China proposed several years ago that the focus be shifted to a political process and settlement. We regularly discuss this approach with all the countries that took part and, I hope, will take part in the six-party talks, including Japan. We hold regular consultations with the diplomats who are responsible for this sector. I hope that the “party of peace” in the Korean settlement will prevail in all capitals.



Question:

You said Russia had no motive and described as absurd Britain’s accusations against it. What steps do you think Russia can take in the current situation? What can Russia do to establish the truth?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is not what Russia can contribute to the search for the truth – Russia is already doing much more than any other country toward this end, including the United Kingdom. The British authorities said that this incident (when the man and his daughter were found) was the result of poisoning, that they investigated it themselves and discovered that the toxic chemical was produced in the USSR and that Russians had it because not all stockpiles of chemical arms had been destroyed. Therefore, the only conclusion is that Russia did this on instructions from its leadership or because it lost control over chemical arms reserves. But in the latter case Russia is still to blame because it was supposed to destroy all chemical weapons.

Practically every word of these accusations requires confirmation but nobody is presenting anything to anyone. When this issue was discussed in British Parliament, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn asked those in charge to submit the results of the investigation to parliament. His request was denied as well. This alone should give rise to questions in traditional, established democracies.

As for the rest, we expect the United Kingdom to submit an official request and implement the procedures of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which describes all of these procedures.

Meanwhile, we are being told that Prime Minister Theresa May’s statement in parliament and the fact that UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson summoned the Russian ambassador amount to a formal appeal. But this is not so, this statement is absolutely unprofessional. Under the CWC, if its participant wants to find out what happened on its territory, it should do so officially, in writing. I have no doubt that our British colleagues know everything perfectly well. They are clever people. They categorically refuse to send an official inquiry and are deliberately and arrogantly fanning anti-Russian rhetoric and whipping up hysteria, which shows that they are well aware of the lack of formal grounds for legal procedures. They are trying to reduce all this to political rhetoric and Russophobia in the hope that, like in many other cases, the Western world will fall in line and stand at attention, all the more so since the US has already expressed its full support for the UK position.

We cited numerous facts that cannot be ignored, including those from Western scientific journals of the past 15 years. Let me emphasise again these are Western publications describing the work on the toxic chemical, which Britain decide to call “Novichok.” After chemical weapons were destroyed in Russia, this work continued in the US, Britain, the Czech Republic and Sweden, if we believe Western publications. All this began when the USSR disintegrated in 1991-1992, and labs producing the toxic chemicals that are mentioned in connection “Novichok” were left in several other republics apart from Russia, including the Baltic states and Uzbekistan. The Uzbek lab and depots were eliminated with the participation of US experts. So, it is very difficult to establish who saw what and took something away. But this is a fact that well-known chemical expert Vil Mirzoyanov (who left the USSR and now lives in the US) was taken to the West along with at least two or three other experts and relevant documents. We have presented all of these facts. The fact that the other side is disassociating itself and does not even want to discuss this makes us think.

The fact is that Sergey Skripal and his daughter are alive. If, hopefully, they recover, they may also shed light on what happened. Nobody wants to wait for this. Everything has already been decided and, as our British colleagues said, they will not show us anything, as they know everything and the only thing left to us is to confess that we have done this, following which they will punish us. This is a literal translation from English of what they are saying.

However, when asked – not by us but by Western specialists – if they are sure that this is really so, they answer that it is “highly possible”. The flexibility of the English language notwithstanding, it is not serious to base these absolutely provocative actions, including the expulsion of diplomats and threats of further aggravation of relations, on “highly possible.”

Yesterday, The Hague hosted an OPCW Executive Council meeting. We again recommended that the procedures contained in the Chemical Weapons Convention be followed. Britain’s representative said arrogantly that Britain did not have to do this – I do not know why – and would not do this. In principle, a party to the convention, probably, can say that it does not want to go through this body. But they did! Once one chooses to go through this organisation, one must be guided by the articles of the convention, under which they should forward an inquiry to us, since they suspect that we are the country which has made and even used this nerve agent, and give us a sample of it, so that we can analyse its chemical composition jointly with OPCW experts. Under the convention, after receiving a formal inquiry from Britain, we must reply within 10 days. Moreover, in keeping with the convention procedures, if the British party is not satisfied with the reply, it has the right to ask that the OPCW Executive Council to hold an extraordinary meeting to take a corresponding decision. The British do not want to take any of these steps and they said as much into the microphone. You know, when in the face of such a position and conduct, some countries speak about their solidarity with London, it is pure sacrilege and a mockery of common sense.

There are other avenues as well. If they are not happy with the OPCW and the CWC that underlies its work, there is also the 1959 Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. The mechanism provided by this Convention can be used. However, the message behind Britain’s remarks and rhetoric is that they don’t have to show anything to us or anyone else. They decided that they are beyond doubt and suspicion, and, therefore, urge everyone to punish Russia. It is ridiculous.

You mentioned the absence of any motives. Let’s face it, they really don’t exist. In principle, under no circumstances can we assume that Russia could have done this. Even if we hypothetically adopt the sick and perverse logic of our Western colleagues, who in their right mind can assume that in the run-up to the presidential election and the World Cup, Russia would suddenly decide to create any problems whatsoever? There is no motive. However, those who continue to exert pressure on us, including, to look for more reasons (after doping and other things) to make holding the World Cup in Russia more complicated, do have such motives. Everyone is aware of it. Thinking about the motive of the British government, the Tory government (this was already indirectly mentioned by many Western media observers), clearly, London found itself in a difficult situation during the talks with the EU about Brexit. The popularity of this government is going downhill. Public opinion in Great Britain is aware of the fact that the government cannot wrest from Brussels what it promised to its people, its constituents. This ploy, staging a provocation around Sergey Skripal, is deflecting attention. The second reason is (it may be my subjective opinion, since I know the British a little) their desire not to be forgotten and to be leaders. In this case, they opted for Russophobia because, perhaps, there remain fewer and fewer platforms where Britain could reasonably be a leader. To reiterate, we are open to dialogue, and we said so at the OPCW Executive Council in The Hague, when we proposed using all the opportunities – and there are many – that the CWC provides for investigating this issue. We also propose using the Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Yesterday, speaking at the UN Security Council, we suggested adopting a statement by the Security Council President calling for cooperation among all parties in order to establish the truth. This statement was blocked by our British colleagues, which once again confirms what I have already said: they do not want to establish the truth, but instead want everyone to take what they are spreading around the world at face value. I don’t think they will succeed.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3126672






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the TV and Radio Complex of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan



17 March 2018 - 14:19








Question:

What is your view of today’s meeting between the foreign ministers of Russia, Iran and Turkey? What can you say about the outcome of the Astana process over the past twelve months and Kazakhstan’s role in it?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia has a very positive view of the Astana format meeting. My colleagues from Iran and Turkey are of the same opinion. We have actually summed up the results for a period of over a year, since the first Astana format meeting at the level of senior officials was held in January 2017. Since then, eight rounds of meetings were held, and our hosts from Kazakhstan obviously participated in them. Even more importantly, these meetings brought together the representatives of the Syrian Government and opposition, as well as observers from the US and Jordan. We have accomplished quite a few things during that time.

The main achievement was the creation of the de-escalation zones where a ceasefire was declared, which helped scale back the violence. However, it is also a fact that the ceasefire is not always respected. Specifically, particular emphasis has been placed lately on Eastern Ghouta. Unfortunately, this de-escalation zone is controlled by Jabhat al-Nusra. It is also unfortunate that Jabhat al-Nusra overwhelmed the armed groups that were to be part of the negotiating process. They created a joint command, which meant that three groups, namely Failak al-Rahman, Jayish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham, joined forces with Jabhat al-Nusra, a group listed by the UN Security Council as a terrorist organisation. The Russian military was proactive in helping the Syrian representatives in their contacts with these three groups, in order to persuade them not to work with terrorists, so that counter-terrorism efforts can proceed without any ambiguity. This process was very slow to get off the ground. There is now some hope that these armed groups will distance themselves from Jabhat al-Nusra. Most importantly, in order for the de-escalation zone to function properly, the shelling of residential neighbourhoods in Damascus should stop. In several incidents, the neighbourhoods where the Russian Embassy and trade mission are located came under artillery fire. Of course, in this situation it would not be enough for us to ask that the shelling stop. We need guarantees that there will be no ceasefire violations coming from Eastern Ghouta. But all this applies only to Eastern Ghouta.

Let me reiterate that violence has generally subsided. The de-escalation zone in the south was established alongside the Astana process with input from our colleagues from Jordan and the US, and is successfully operating. In the Idlib zone, I think that everything is moving in the right direction. Our Turkish colleagues will soon have created the required number of observation points that would enable them to control the military situation. The Homs de-escalation zone is functioning properly, more or less.

The second achievement of the Astana process was its substantial contribution to the overall efforts to facilitate humanitarian access. There are some shortcomings in this area as well, including the fact that some of our colleagues adopted a somewhat biased stance. While calling on the Syrian government to work with international organisations on humanitarian deliveries, which is a legitimate claim, they did not show the same insistence when it came to delivering humanitarian aid to territories besieged by the opposition fighters. I think that we need to remove this imbalance. Today, we confirmed that humanitarian aid was among our priorities.

My third point is that of course we need to build confidence and promote confidence building measures. In this respect, one of the specific and new results that we have been able to achieve at the ministerial meeting was to establish a working group on the exchange of detainees, hostages, the sick and the wounded. Yesterday our experts agreed on the working group rules of procedure, and we approved this document today. It sets forth all the criteria underpinning this very important humanitarian activity that is poised to enhance trust.

My forth point is that the Astana process brought renewed attention to political settlement talks. Before Russia, Turkey and Iran convened the first Astana meeting in January 2017, our UN colleagues, to be honest, were passive and merely stood by observing the Government and the opposition, waiting for someone to do something. They did not show any initiative. But when the Astana process came into being, the UN resumed its efforts, just for the sake of being present and showing that it cares for the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 2254. We welcome these efforts, as well as the fact that the UN was represented at all Astana format meetings, and today’s meeting was not an exception. The Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General, Staffan de Mistura, was unable to attend for medical reasons, since he had to undergo a planned operation, but his deputy was here. We made it clear to him that Russia, Iran and Turkey as the three guarantor states of the Astana process and the three countries that initiated the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, which brought together all the main groups of the Syrian society, will be proactive in supporting the efforts made by Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General Staffan de Mistura in developing a mechanisms for undertaking a constitutional reform. Today we confirmed that this mechanism should be based on the principle whereby only Syrians themselves can determine the fate of their country without any outside interference or imposed recipes. All agreements as part of the political settlement should be approved by the Government and the opposition, as stated in UN Security Council resolutions to this effect. This is a guarantee that the decisions that are about to be developed actually work. Perhaps, this would require more time than just drafting the Syrian constitution somewhere in Europe or overseas and bringing it to Damascus. It is possible to make the opposing sides in Syria work within this framework for several weeks or months, but this will not last very long. In any case, geopolitical engineering of this kind is doomed to failure.

In conclusion, I would like to say how much we appreciate Kazakhstan’s role, as was said during today’s meeting. Someone could say that this is just a matter of being a hospitable host. This is not the way things are. Hospitality and creating the right sort of working environment is important in itself, since it removes distractions and enables participants to focus on their work. Secondly, Kazakhstan not only provides for all the arrangements and comfort, but also sets the political climate. Kazakhstan invariably stands for a unifying agenda, offering compromises on the main regional and international matters. It currently promotes these views within the UN Security Council as a non-permanent member. President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev has met with the participants in the Astana process on numerous occasions and his personal involvement serves as a political impulse. My colleague and friend Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Kairat Abdrakhmanov also accompanies this process. This is a very important contribution. Let me highlight that everything is done with much consideration and sensitivity, and with a sense that the three guarantor countries are the main drivers of the process, and are taking into account all the circumstances. All the conditions are created for our troika to function properly. For this, we are grateful to our friends in Kazakhstan.



Question:

Thank you for this assessment. You have said that the people of Syria should independently determine their own future. These events have been called a proxy war since the beginning of the conflict. A number of developments have taken place since February 2018. After all this, one can probably say that the countries supporting certain parties to this conflict are in open confrontation with each other. Why did this happen? Can we say that Syria will be divided, as many analysts, including Western ones, believe? Many experts are inciting the situation as if World War III is about to begin.



Sergey Lavrov:

Mikhail Bulgakov wrote that one should not read Soviet newspapers in the morning. Today, we live in a world where one should not read Western newspapers. All stories are unprecedentedly simplistic, crude and propagandistic. The public is being brainwashed. We are watching this time and again and in various situations, including Eastern Ghouta or some absolutely unimaginable incident in connection with the poisoning of yet another character and his daughter in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, Western propaganda is, on the one hand, becoming more primitive. On the other hand, it is becoming more brazen. Ordinary people have to read unsophisticated stories without any comments.

Speaking of a proxy war, this, in principle, denotes a situation when outside players send their “clients” to the battlefield, while keeping a low profile. This has nothing to do with us. The legitimate Government of Syria, a UN member country, officially and openly invited us to support their counter-terrorism efforts and those aiming to protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Russian Aerospace Forces have been actively doing this since October 2015. This was a decisive contribution to eliminating the main base of the so-called ISIS. Russian military advisors and numerous military police officers are operating on the ground at the invitation of the Syrian Government. Russian military police units were deployed there after the liberation of Eastern Aleppo. It may be interesting, but about 200,000 civilians who had fled that city from terrorists have returned back home to date. However, Western media outlets, including newspapers, television channels and online publications, were yelling that the liberation of Eastern Aleppo amounted to a humanitarian disaster. There was no “yelling” (please excuse me for using this word) and no such hysterics during the US-led coalition’s efforts to liberate Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa, Syria. In retrospect, if we compare these operations in Eastern Aleppo, Raqqa and Mosul, there were no humanitarian corridors in Raqqa and Mosul. There were no opportunities allowing civilians to flee the war zone. Service personnel stationed there did not care much about humanitarian aid deliveries.

Raqqa has been devastated, as confirmed by various sources, and dead bodies have not yet been removed. Our representatives at the UN Security Council insist that a humanitarian mission be sent there at once. UN members are so far in no hurry to do this, and this also raises some questions. One would also like to ask why humanitarian organisations are unable to visit the huge territory of the US-controlled Al-Tanf community in southern Syria and the local Rukban refugee camp. The US side has unilaterally established control over that area. We saw to it that the Government of Syria support this approach, and now humanitarian organisations have to go there.

Speaking of the current situation, it appears that the opposition is waging a proxy war because US, British and French special forces, as well as those from some other countries, are operating on the ground. The US does not even deny this fact. So, this amounts to direct military involvement, rather than just a proxy war.

Certainly, we denounce the illegitimate presence of foreign armed forces in Syria. The US-led coalition is illegitimate, from the standpoint of international law and the UN Charter. But we are realists, and we understand that it would be pointless to fight them. Therefore we coordinate our actions so as to be able to prevent unintentional clashes, to say the least. Our service personnel maintain permanent contacts with US commanders in charge of operations in Syria. In addition to this, we have established more or less regular dialogue between chiefs of general staffs, liaison officers and everyone directly supervising the operation on the ground.

I would not over-exaggerate the situation with the attack of US-controlled forces on Syrian or pro-Syrian forces. In reality, this deserves to be denounced because we have been repeatedly assured that the United States and its coalition aim to fight terrorists alone. They have attacked Syrian government forces, as well as Shayrat Air Base a year ago under an absolutely far-fetched pretext of allegedly deployed chemical weapons. I don’t know who authorised US Ambassador at the UN Nikki Haley to say that the United States will be ready to bomb Damascus and President Bashar Al-Assad’s Palace, and that it didn’t matter that Russian representatives are staying there. We have responded very strongly to this absolutely irresponsible US statement, via both military and diplomatic channels, in Washington and Moscow. I don’t think that we should even discuss Syria’s possible division, but it is our duty to demand that these plans being hatched by someone be thwarted at once.

Aided by the Kurds, the Americans have expelled terrorists from large territories on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. But, after liberating these territories, they are imposing local authorities who are deliberately distancing themselves from Damascus and stating that they will be supported without any interaction with the Syrian authorities. And here is one more aspect. Proxy war or not, but the Americans who are relying on the Kurds in their counter-terrorist operations have already entered the political dimension of the Kurdish issue that goes beyond the territory of Syria. This is a major political mistake and a political blunder. Of course, those who have at least some idea of the Kurdish matter, as well as the positions of Turkey, Syria and Iran could not have made this statement. We have what we have. However, it is precisely the Astana troika who are demanding that the concerned parties comprehend the need for a pragmatic and an absolutely consistent approach towards all Syrian issues in the context of the Syrian state’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity. Therefore the Astana process is highly promising and principled.



Question:

Since you mentioned violations of international law, can we talk about moral degradation in foreign policy? Is it possible to change things or reformat international relations in general? Is it possible to change the activities, the work and the structure of the UN? There is the sense that there is a need for a new approach and new solutions on a global scale.



Sergey Lavrov:

There is a saying that everything new is well-forgotten old. This is an age-old adage. In this particular case, the old is the UN Charter which is as relevant as ever. In order to overcome the current chaos, disorder and disregard for international law, it is necessary to return to the sources - the principles of the UN Charter - which requires ensuring, in practical matters on the international arena, the sovereign equality of states and unity among the UNSC permanent members. Hence, the right of veto, which is not a privilege, but a huge responsibility. The right of veto was created by the very countries that are now trying to blame Russia for abusing it. The veto is a tool to ensure that the decisions, which are at odds with the interests of one of the great powers, will not be adopted. Not because someone wants to retain this privilege, but because the decisions do not work in life otherwise, and are non-starters. A principle like non-use of force is now discarded and trampled upon, except by the decision of the UN Security Council or in self-defence. For example, when our US colleagues submit a resolution to the UN Security Council, and we propose holding talks on it, because there are alternative points of view, we are accused of blocking the work, and they decide to do it alone. Immediately, they come up with ultimatums, sanctions and so on, which is absolutely unacceptable from the standpoint of the UN Charter. Or, they try to reform the UN in a way that is not in keeping with the Charter. The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is a good case in point. Now, the US administration is beginning to say that this council is adopting unnecessary decisions, or does not adopt the decisions that they need, and proposes reforming the very process of its formation and membership, and agreeing upon a list of countries that have no place in this council (so that only "democratic regimes" are represented and are entitled to delegate their representatives there). I believe this is all very clear, and it is not even worth explaining how arrogant and unacceptable it all sounds. There will be a list of Category One, Category Two, and so on.

I believe there’s no need to try to pursue grand schemes. In Soviet times, high-profile initiatives were adopted every year at every session of the UN General Assembly. Some of them worked, but most of them were sheer propaganda. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is worth mentioning in this context. I’m aware that Kazakhstan signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We discussed this matter in detail with our friends from Kazakhstan. We will not sign it because we believe that banning nuclear weapons in such a directive manner is unrealistic. Five official nuclear powers, as well as unofficial nuclear powers, will not do it because the already agreed upon principle of moving towards a nuclear-free world is included in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and this principle is tied in with ensuring universal security and stability. New factors that affect the global environment, such as non-nuclear strategic weapons, the US plans to take weapons into space, the notorious global missile defence system, and the non-entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), primarily because of the United States being reluctant to do so affect strategic stability no less than nuclear weapons. So, we are for moving towards a nuclear-free world based on the universal agreements that are part of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). We are conducting such discussions with the countries which, out of good intentions - there’s no doubt about it - advocate introducing a rapid ban on this deadly weapon. These discussions are very useful in order for us to be able to better understand each other.

In closing, I would like once again to point out that we should approach every reform with great care and try to understand the consequences. Before advancing any initiatives, one must try to find a common language to make sure that the initiatives are viable. However, the UN Charter cannot be touched.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3126872
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 26th, 2018 #387
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Director of the Foreign Ministry Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Vladimir Yermakov, Moscow, March 21, 2018



21 March 2018 - 21:29








Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, friends,

Good afternoon.

We are glad to see you at the Foreign Ministry on this cold wintry day that nevertheless carries a promise of spring.

We are grateful to you for responding so quickly to our invitation, which we issued only yesterday.

The situation is indeed unusual. There is an urgent need for a non-politicised and highly professional discussion of the Skripals’ poisoning case. We have distributed a position paper. We ask you to bring it to the notice of your governments.

The language of this position paper, just as any other such paper, is dry legalese with technical details.

It would be wrong to invite you here just to say this. I propose that we hold an open discussion in this closed diplomatic group.

Let us look at hard facts, beginning with the humanitarian aspects of the case at hand.

On March 4, 2018, two people, one of them Russian citizen Yulia Skripal, were attacked in Salisbury, a flourishing city in the south of England.

Various versions of the circumstances of this tragedy have been voiced in the UK. They highlight the use of chemical agents, which the British call Novichok, for some reason. All of these versions do not stand up to any criticism.

In this situation, UK officials have laid the blame on Russia hastily, hysterically and without presenting any evidence, and demanded explanations from us.

I would like to repeat that it was a Russian citizen who has been attacked in the UK. Logic suggests two possible variants. Either the British authorities are unable to ensure protection against such terrorist attacks on their territory, or they were directly or indirectly involved in the preparation of this attack on a Russian citizen. There is no other alternative.

We are surprised, to put it mildly, that the British authorities had denied even consular access to the Russian citizen who has been attacked contrary to the elementary norms of civilised interstate relations. They are prevaricating, but at the same time they distribute video footage from the hospital where the Skripals are allegedly being treated. But this only raises more questions.

The British have refused to share the information obtained by their investigators and have not replied to the Russian requests regarding Yulia Skripal. We have no reliable information about what happened to this Russian citizen over the past two weeks and why this happened to her. This is hard to comprehend: these events are unfolding in the 21st century in a country that is considered civilised.

Naturally, demanding any explanations from Russia in this situation is simply absurd. Russia does not owe anything to anyone in this context, and it cannot be held accountable for the activities or inactivity of the British authorities in their national territory.

We see that the British authorities are becoming increasingly nervous, which is logical. The clock is ticking. They have driven themselves into a corner. Ultimately, they will have to answer a growing number of questions, but they have no answers.

The inference that they have made a mess of things but Russia is responsible anyway and must be held accountable is the wrong kind of logic. This logic may be good for a British or US movie, but it does not work in real life, especially in relations with Russia.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury is most likely a clumsy staged provocation. We must expose those who have orchestrated this attack and the reasons behind it.

One thing is clear: Russia has absolutely nothing to do with this if only because such an audacious undertaking would be unacceptable and damaging for Russia in every respect.

But the United Kingdom has a completely different record. Suffice it to recall how former Prime Minister Tony Blair openly admitted not so long ago that the British leadership and intelligence services lied to themselves and to the British nation while plunging it into the bloody war in Iraq. Well, he did make this confession now, but hundreds of thousands of absolutely innocent Iraqi citizens had been killed as a result of that war, and no one has been brought to account for this.

One can only speculate as to who is trying to plunge the United Kingdom into another dirty and a priori unwinnable campaign against Russia, and for what purpose. Is this some kind of a hypnotic trance under the influence of Michael Basset’s ‘Strike Back’ television series, aired in the United Kingdom several months ago and featuring the Novichok chemical agent?

Now let us look at the more serious and more formal aspect of this affair.

According to our British colleagues, this incident involved the use of chemical warfare agents.

This prompts the question whether these British officials have any idea of chemical warfare agents. Any self-respecting expert will tell you that the use of real chemical warfare agents inevitably causes numerous casualties in the immediate vicinity. However, judging by statements from London, the situation in Salisbury is absolutely different.

The subject of the investigation has not been accurately determined so far, and all the facts are being deliberately concealed. Moreover, real evidence could have disappeared during this time period, as has repeatedly been the case in the United Kingdom. Therefore it is difficult to understand what they are talking about, and what CWC obligations have to do with this.

Let us go on.

They are telling us that the United Kingdom contacted the OPCW on March 8, 2018. But London suffered a setback straight away.

The United Kingdom declined to cooperate with Russia, although the CWC stipulates a clear mechanism for interstate cooperation and for eliminating suspicions through open information exchanges and consultations. It appears that there is no other more constructive, simpler and more logical option. All one had to do was send an official inquiry to the Russian side and receive an official reply in ten days, as stipulated by the CWC. However, the British side rejected this option from the very beginning. In other words, London clearly demonstrated that it was not interested in resolving any issues and that it was probably pursuing some other goals.

I repeat, the CWC stipulates a simple and transparent mechanism of bilateral consultations. If the parties concerned really want to resolve issues, then this seems to be the most acceptable scenario for launching dialogue, to say the least. And if one of the parties does not want to resolve issues, then the entire affair inevitably becomes deadlocked.

Instead of conducting constructive expert dialogue and searching for solutions, one can, of course, run out into the marketplace and start screaming that someone has attacked him or her, that the culprit is obvious, but that, for some reason, that attacker is unexplainably far away. But this resembles some substandard thriller, one of many being generated by the film industry, and has nothing to do with politics.

It is unclear why all this surrealism should become part of real politics and real interstate relations.

In any event, Russia certainly has no intention of encouraging or even responding to these brazen actions of a seemingly civilised state.

Nevertheless, we met the British side halfway once again and suggested jointly investigating the Salisbury incident, so as to expose the culprits.

To this end, we, naturally, requested access to all materials of this case being investigated by the Scotland Yard. Otherwise it is simply impossible to gain an insight into the March 4 Salisbury incident.

Well, they turned down our proposal once again, without explaining their motives.

Moving on, we learned that on March 19, 2018 experts from the OPCW Technical Secretariat paid a visit to Great Britain after being invited formally by Mrs Theresa May to independently verify the analysis that had been made by the British government of the Salisbury incident.

Yesterday, the UN Security Council held a meeting with Director-General of OPCW Technical Secretariat Ahmet Uzumcu to discuss chemical weapons in Syria. However, our British colleagues also mentioned the Salisbury chemical incident. At the meeting, Russia was provided with yet another opportunity to ask Director-General of OPCW Technical Secretariat, as well as our British colleagues a few simple questions. Unfortunately, we did not get any convincing answers. The speakers provided elusive replies to the questions that we viewed as being most important.

Russia expects both London and the OPCW to provide a formal detailed review on all matters related to the Skripal case. We need full opinions with detailed evidence of the implementation of the appropriate chain of custody procedures under the CWC.

In addition to this, we intend to clarify with the OPCW under which paragraph of CWC Article VIII is the OPCW Technical Secretariat cooperating with Great Britain. It is important to note that Article VIII is devoted to the OPCW structure and the distribution of powers among its bodies.

Moreover, another thing to keep in mind is that under the CWC the Technical Secretariat is not entitled to analyse national findings, as Britain has requested.

Here is another very important element.

Our British colleagues went as far as questioning the performance of the OPCW, the most reputable and effective international organisation in disarmament affairs.

The Russian Federation has successfully completed its national programme to eliminate its chemical weapons stockpiles in cooperation with 17 reputable OPCW state parties and the whole European Union and under OPCW’s strict control. The chemical weapons stockpile of about 40,000 tonnes that Russia inherited from the Soviet Union was eliminated in its entirety. These data were carefully reviewed and confirmed by multiple inspection teams sent by the OPCW Technical Secretariat.

On September 27, 2017 the OPCW officially confirmed that Russia had completed the elimination of its chemical stockpiles ahead of schedule. For Russia, this matter was settled once and for all.

To be honest, dirty attempts by British politicians to muddy the waters of this noble undertaking do them no credit. London will never succeed in undermining the OPCW and CWC. We strongly believe that all 192 full CWC state parties will prevent this from happening.

London’s malign attempts also suggest that the whole affair could have been orchestrated from the other side of the Atlantic. There is no secret that Great Britain’s closest partner remains the only country in possession of the largest chemical weapons stockpile in the world. Of course, the increasing critique from CWC state parties does not suit them. Maybe this is the reason behind the dirty fuss around the Salisbury incident?

It is not my intention to indulge in conspiracy theories at this point. This is not something Russia plans to do. At the same time, we have more and more questions we would like to ask Great Britain, and not a single one of them has been answered so far in an intelligible manner.

The main issue still remains unclear. What actually did happen on British soil to two Russian citizens? So far, our British colleagues have been saying a lot of things which are rather confusing. There were too many inconsistencies.

Let me emphasise that we are carefully monitoring the developments around the Skripal case, and take note of all the details. We are confident that the masterminds and perpetrators of this provocation will be held to account.

In conclusion, allow me to mention one more important element so that you get a clear understanding of the matter.

Russia is not accusing anyone of anything.

May I ask foreign capitals not to distort messages coming from us.

Yes, in our statements we referred to chemical and technology capabilities of the Czech Republic, Sweden and several other countries. This was just to provide an example of advances in research and development across the world.

Again, please note that in this context Russia is not accusing anyone of anything. Professing groundless accusations against someone is not our style.

Thank you.

My colleagues from the Defence Ministry and the Industry and Trade Ministry have joined me for this briefing, which means that we can have an in-depth, substantial and open discussion.

I give the floor to Major General Igor Kirillov, head of the Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defence Forces of the Defence Ministry.



Igor Kirillov:

Ladies and gentlemen,

We invite you to take a broader look at this problem. In light of the developments in Eastern Ghouta, Damascus has been again accused of using chemical weapons. At the same time, the international community prefers to close its eyes to the fact that the terrorists use chemical weapons against the Syrian government forces and civilians.

The Syrian government forces have found secret facilities for the production of chemical weapons in the liberated populated areas in Eastern Ghouta. It is obvious that these facilities were used to manufacture chemical munitions for provocations, which were subsequently blamed on the Syrian government forces.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry announced in early March that the militants in Eastern Ghouta were preparing a large-scale provocation against the Syrian government. Damascus officially confirmed readiness to provide all the necessary assistance for investigating chemical attacks in Syria. International organisations refused to cooperate with the Syrian government, thereby abetting the terrorists’ illegal actions. The Syrian Foreign Ministry pointed out that over 40 tonnes of chemical warfare agents had been found in the areas liberated from the terrorists. The ministry added that the Syrian authorities had requested more than once that OPCW experts be sent to Aleppo, Khan Sheikhun and Eastern Ghouta. But the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat rejected the request, arguing that this would be too dangerous.

Before of the 87th session of the OPCW Executive Council, the Russian Foreign Ministry received information to the effect that the terrorists were preparing provocations using chemical weapons to discredit Bashar al-Assad’s government and to provide grounds for an anti-Syria decision that is being advocated by the US together with its allies.

The revelation of these intentions has prevented the US-led coalition from delivering the planned attacks at the key military facilities in Syria with the purpose of changing the balance of forces in favour of the so-called moderate opposition.

The fact that the 87th session of the OPCW Executive Council has shifted its focus from the Syrian chemical file to accusing Russia, without good reason, of the chemical attack in Salisbury and of violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is proof of the inability of the US-led coalition to attain its goals in Syria.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has made a series of tough statements, saying that the Novichok nerve gas, which was allegedly used to poison Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia, could only be produced in Russia. Our British colleagues have not provided any hard evidence. They disregard our requests for mutual consultations, explanations or samples collected at the site of the tragedy. It looks like Britain is afraid of what an objective and professional investigation by top experts might reveal.

In fact, all groundless accusations against Russia are based on the interview and statements by Vil Mirzayanov. Let me remind you that he immigrated to the US in 1996, and now lives in Princeton, New Jersey, and works for the US Government. He supported the Russian opposition on numerous occasions and signed a petition titled Putin Must Leave. In 2008, Vil Mirzayanov published “State secrets: An insider's chronicle of the Russian chemical weapons program.” The book featured a formula of the substance known in the UK as Novichok along with a detailed description of how to synthesise it.

According to Mirzayanov, Novichok is a nerve agent that is ten times more deadly than any agents known or developed until now. This powerful chemical warfare agent can be easily produced using formulas provided in this book. All is needed for that is to have a degree in chemistry, the necessary equipment and elements.

The Russian Federation views the publication by Vil Mirzayanov of the formulas for making toxic agents and ways to synthesis them as an act of abetting terrorism. Consequently, all questions on Novichok’s alleged existence and properties should be addressed to Vil Mirzayanov, who works for the US Government. It was he who said that Novichok was a powerful chemical warfare agent. Russia has nothing to do with this.

Since 1970s, programmes to develop new-generation toxic agents have been carried out in Western Europe. Great Britain was and still is one of the countries involved in this programme, and has extensive experience and expertise in developing substances of this kind. Let me remind you that it was Great Britain who developed and on June 21, 1962 filed a patent under the number GB1346409A for the production of VX organophosphorus chemical agents. The patent was later sold to the US.

One of Great Britain’s most important facilities in terms of developing and researching toxic agents is the Porton Down laboratory, located just a few kilometres from Salisbury – what a strange coincidence. It is well known and was officially acknowledged by the British Government in 2006 that the country carried out experiments on Ronald Maddison and 360 other people to study the effects of sarin on humans.

The Porton Down laboratory remains a top-secret location. Its official purpose is not only to dispose of old chemical weapon systems, but also experiment on protections against chemical and biological weapons, as the laboratory’s official website claims. Recent media reports on the allocation by the UK Government of about 50 million pounds to the laboratory beg the question whether Porton Down researchers were planning to destroy that same Novichok they have been talking about so much. Yesterday, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said in an interview that the country had samples of this agent.

According to recent media reports, the Porton Down laboratory was under a lot of pressure to conclude that the toxic agent used in Salisbury was of Russian origin.

As countries across the world seek to get rid of the existing chemical weapons stockpiles, Great Britain on the contrary expands its Porton Down laboratory and continues experiments, putting its own people in great danger, under the pretext of developing ways of countering chemical and biological weapons.

At the same time, the Russian Federation has been acting in good faith strictly in keeping with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). This fact was confirmed by Director-General of OPCW Technical Secretariat Ahmet Uzumcu, who issued a statement on September 27, 2017 confirming that Russia completed the elimination of chemical weapons on its soil. Despite the confirmation that Russia had eliminated its chemical weapons stockpile, Great Britain and the US continue to make groundless accusations against Russia of violating the CWC.

Accusations against Russia coming from the US are especially cynical, since the US has been unable to eliminate its chemical weapons stockpiles so far, citing the lack of resources to complete this effort. This is perplexing and outrageous. Can it be that a country with the largest defence budget in the world is unable to allocate funds in order to deliver on its commitments under the CWC? This is impossible to believe, taking into consideration that the US points to deficient funds whenever it faces international commitments that run counter to its interests, despite having ratified international instruments to this effect.

Comparing the Salisbury situation with the earlier provocations in Eastern Ghouta and Khan Sheikhun, it is obvious that Western countries are ready to use any dubious or illegal methods and means in order to discredit the Russian Federation and its legitimate Government.



Vladimir Yermakov:

You will receive a memo in English. Our statements today serve as additions to it. What we said today was hardly news to anyone as we basically relied on the recent statements made by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and our permanent representatives to the OPCW in The Hague and the UN in New York.

It is exceptionally important that there are no unanswered questions on such serious matters. If we do pursue the goal of resolving the existing problems then they must be uncovered, discussed and solved. This is the only way to achieve a positive result. Unfortunately, we have not seen any positive steps on behalf of our British counterparts. I hope there will be a time when our British colleagues return to their highest diplomatic professionalism and top expertise. This was my personal attitude towards Great Britain and British experts. I am shocked at what we had to hear from their so-called politicians (it is hard to even call them politicians). It is a shame for the diplomats and experts from the UK with whom I have been in constant contact for years that such people are speaking out from London.



Question (representative of the Slovakian Embassy):

Foreign Ministry Official Spokesperson Maria Zakharova named several countries developing chemical substances, including Slovakia. Would you please comment on this?



Vladimir Yermakov:

Fortunately or unfortunately, Slovakia was named as part of Czechoslovakia. Later, we checked our database and Czechoslovakia indeed had a high potential of chemical technology development. Once again, this does not mean at all that we are accusing Czechoslovakia of anything. On the contrary, we positively described the high potential of the chemical industry in the country. By accident, through an oversight, it happened that not only the Czech Republic but also Slovakia were named on this list. We apologise for the accidental mistake. Again, we have absolutely no claims against the Czech Republic.



Question (representative of the British Embassy) (retranslated):

In the context of this briefing it would be helpful to shortly clarify the situation and the actions taken by us with regards to the Russian Government, as they are seen through the British perspective.

After the said incident, we proposed to discuss the matter with Russia in a bilateral format but we have not received any constructive response yet. Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal were poisoned with the Novichok agent, which we consider an attempted murder. Great Britain concluded that there is a high probability of Russia being responsible for attempting to murder those people based on the following facts: the chemical substance was identified by our leading scientists and we had information that Russia used to produce the substance and still has the capacity to produce it. Russia did not offer any explanation on how the substance could be used in Great Britain and why Russia has an undeclared chemical programme in violation of international law. We have seen misinformation, attempts to manipulate facts and came to the conclusion that force was used against Great Britain, that the British society was put at risk, which is a breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention and international law.

We need an answer. Did Russia produce the agent and why did Russia not declare it according to the CWC? We have asked Russia to explain how the agent got into Great Britain. We have not been given a response.



Vladimir Yermakov:

I am very pleased that we have an opportunity to hear the British view. I think it is very helpful to everybody and confirms how far we are in our evaluations and approaches.

We are talking about two Russian nationals attacked in Great Britain. We have asked that you provide all the evidence of, as we believe, a terrorist attack against Russian nationals in Great Britain. The British refuse to give us anything and instead talk about some ‘Novichok’ and some Russian ‘attack’ against Great Britain. It is not our duty to provide anything to Great Britain as it was an attack on two Russian nationals on British soil. Let’s carry out a joint investigation with fully transparent data instead of making absolutely vague assumptions regarding any “novichoks,” “starichoks”(old-timers), or “durachoks”(fools). Please understand this is the verbiage of British television shows. Aren’t you embarrassed to speak about this in the presence of this audience, ambassadors from 150 states? This is ridiculous. I feel sorry for British diplomacy.

Russia has completely different goals and objectives in the world. Perhaps you should try and shake off your Russophobia and insular thinking (I do not mean to offend you, I hold very high regards for the British diplomacy and I am ashamed to hear all this). We have learned so much from our British colleagues and experts. Your expertise is of the highest possible level. So how about our experts and yours sitting down together and finding out what did happen? Why did you simply shut down and hide behind a shell? Why are you pointing fingers at us and saying that everything is our fault? What will happen next? We will definitely not respond to that.

I would like to give Viktor Kholstov, Director of the Centre for Analytical Research on Chemical and Biological Weapon Conventions under the Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade, an opportunity to speak.



Viktor Kholstov:

I would like to say the following regarding the question from a representative of the British Embassy. I want to make it perfectly clear that Russia has not produced any toxic agents other than those it has declared under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 1997. Consequently, we have no such weapons among our stockpiles. Russia declared all its chemical stockpiles, which were subsequently inspected by experts from the OPCW Technical Secretariat, whose inspection teams also verified the destruction of Russian chemical weapons.

The problem developed following publications by Vil Mirzayanov, who had moved to the US, probably to improve his financial standing after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the ensuing economic hardships. Let us look at what he writes. His first publications did not contain any formulas of any new toxic agents. His first large monograph was published in Russian in the early 2000s. It did not contain any formulas or descriptions of a production technology, despite the fact that many other known toxic agents could be included in the category he subsequently named. I can cite the following examples. Slovakia has been mentioned here in connection with Czechoslovakia. I have great respect for the Czech scientist who was working on protecting the public from potential chemical weapon attacks. Professor Jiri Matousek is a big scientist, and I do respect him. However, back in 1994 he wrote about the danger of certain toxic agents in terms of their use in chemical warfare. Other scientists, including Ivan Macek, identified several dozen such chemicals.

Here is a list of such agents that was compiled back in 1994. It has no relation to Russia or any of the other current developments. The list provides complete data on the toxicology of these agents and their structural formulas. There are several dozen such agents. The CWC was submitted for signature in 1993 and any amendments to the text, despite the fact that the convention stipulates a procedure for amending the list of toxic agents, would have delayed its implementation. This is why no state with knowledge about such chemicals did anything at the time.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that extensive research involving these toxic agents was conducted at the Edgewood Arsenal facility of the US Department of Defence. I cannot say that this research was based on the data provided by Professor Matousek or other scientists. Here is the database for one such toxic agent, with the spectra of toxic chemicals, which was a novelty at that time. Professor Matousek did not have this information; he only had the toxicology data. It is an official database for one of such compounds. It dates back to 1998 and comes from the Edgewood Arsenal.

Vil Mirzayanov did not have these formulas in the early 2000s. Trying to earn a living and to improve his finances, Mirzayanov published a new book, probably in cooperation with the Edgewood Arsenal, titled “State secrets [An insider’s chronicle of the Russian chemical weapons programme].” This book included some formulas. Naturally, he implied a Russian connection for political reasons, as he would not have benefitted from this publication otherwise.

Why didn’t he write this before, if he knew about it? Because he had to provide proof, which was only available in the above database. The US sent the book to the OPCW Technical Secretariat. The OPCW’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) carefully analysed the problem and ultimately presented its conclusions.

According to the SAB, the issue of new toxic agents has been attracting increasing attention in recent years, particularly among non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Although only a small amount of information has been made public, it was claimed that a new type of nerve agents named Novichok has been developed. In December 2008, a former Soviet defence scientist published a book, claiming that the toxicity of certain Novichok agents may exceed that of VX. At the same time, the SAB stated that it had insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of Novichoks. In this connection, the SAB said that the OPCW as the organisation established to oversee the implementation of the CWC must expand its knowledge about such toxic agents in order to facilitate the implementation of the Convention.

Any state has the right to issue a statement if it has the data for creating a database and submit it to the CWC. However, Mirzayanov clearly provided the formula only after this information had been confirmed by Czech scientists within the framework of permitted research, which takes a very long time, and only after he gained access to the data of the Edgewood Arsenal facility. And he probably did so at the prompting of his American colleagues.

As it was rightly said by General Igor Kirillov, head of the Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defence Forces, Article I of the Convention stipulates that “each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone.” The publication of materials such as those in Mirzayanov’s book is evidence of indirect transfer of knowledge about chemical weapons, which is tantamount to indirect transfer of chemical weapons. Why has the US administration published this book? Can anyone answer this question? I don’t think so, because it is a clear and flagrant violation of Article I of the CWC.

This problem was later discussed many times at the OPCW’s review conferences, all of which adopted similar decisions.



Question (by a representative of the Embassy of Serbia):

Serbia was exposed to hysteria coming from Western countries in the 1990s as well. Fake news and lies were rife. I would like to draw a parallel with what led to the bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and then Serbia. I’m referring to the Sarajevo market bombing, of which the Serbs were accused. Later, in 1999, when they wanted to take Kosovo and Metohija away from Serbia, the British and the Americans collected the bodies of the Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army soldiers and invited CNN reporters over telling them that the Serbs killed those people. This caused the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 with the use of unconventional weapons, such as depleted uranium. As a result, the cancer incidence in Serbia increased 12-fold. Those who bombed us did not pay attention to this. Remember, in 2003, Colin Powell showed a test tube allegedly containing a chemical substance and accused Saddam Hussein of producing chemical weapons, which led to bombing Iraq, including, reportedly, with the use of chemical weapons. Do you draw any parallels with the current situation surrounding Sergey Skripal's poisoning?



Vladimir Yermakov:

I believe, one can draw lots of parallels. We understand the assessments of our Serbian comrades and brothers, with whom we, of course, agree. We’ve been helping them and will continue to do so. By the way, I appreciate Colin Powell as a professional. I knew him personally. We talked when I worked at the Russian Embassy in Washington and was responsible for the military-political aspect of relations between our countries. Of course, this was a case of high-level policy when Powell mustered enough strength to admit his mistake. I would like to see more politicians in the UK who are really trying to understand what is going on, rather than jump to hasty conclusions, so that at the end of the day you don’t have to regret what you did earlier. Probably, such a parallel is more appropriate in this particular case. Pigeonholing is the easiest thing to do. Our goal is different though. We want to build mutually beneficial relations with all states, including, of course, the UK. Perhaps, everyone would benefit from reducing the number of such cases in our interstate relations. It would be much better if we gathered for briefings to discuss absolutely different topics and talk about our interaction in addressing real matters, rather than some fictitious events.

We are grateful to our Serbian comrades for remembering those events which may not be forgotten under any circumstances. NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia is a black stain on relations between the states. Nobody should forget this, because, unfortunately, back then the world was a place where just about any state could be subjected to such a bombardment based on the contents of some obscure “test tubes.” However, we hope that such a world is already history, and no one will now even harbour such a thought. Right in the centre of Europe, civilised democratic states and members of the European Union use bombs filled with uranium. Talk about the highest degree of democracy, humanism and European values at their best​​... I can keep talking on this subject, as there are things to say.



Question by a staff member of the French Embassy in Russia (via interpreter from English):

First, I would like to express our solidarity with our British colleague in connection with the chemical attacks in the UK. We are interested in an investigation conducted by the British authorities. Notably, chemical weapons have not been used in the EU since World War II. That's why the Salisbury incident has become a matter of international security for us. I believe we can all agree that the OPCW is one of the most reputable international organisations. Will you trust the results of the work being carried out by the OPCW experts in conjunction with British experts on the Salisbury incident?



Vladimir Yermakov:

I already answered this question today. I can only remind you that it’s not possible to assess what happened in Salisbury acting within the framework of the OPCW and the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In any case, more in-depth expert assessments will be needed for Russia to be able to draw any conclusions. We need to conduct our own investigation. Frankly, such unseemly plans as investigating this incident without disclosing the facts, and then presenting the results as the ultimate truth will not fly with us. We are aware of how some reliable – as you call them – mechanisms worked in Syria. However, and it was fully confirmed, it was a sham. So, I can’t assure you that Russia will accept actions taken by the OPCW experts and the results of investigation in Salisbury as the ultimate truth. We will definitely not do so. If you want to investigate it – we are ready to work together. If you don’t, it’s a completely different matter. I’m somewhat surprised by your phrase that France fully supports the UK and the investigation. Well, good for you. We understand that you were forced to do so. Why say it here? That's just ludicrous. You, in France, don’t have any information about this case whatsoever. This is some kind of morbid solidarity within NATO and the EU.



Igor Kirillov:

I would like to add to that. The stance adopted by the UK in this very serious matter is surprising. The OPCW Technical Secretariat proved that ISIS is using and manufacturing sulphur mustard gas in Syria and Iraq. Are you really more interested in accusing Russia than conducting a thorough investigation into the incident? Is it that Britain, as a country, doesn’t care about its people? The capabilities of the militants are quite large, we can all see it, and it was confirmed. So let's conduct a professional-level investigation, rather than simply blaming Russia for the fact that “Novichok” was manufactured there a long time ago. What’s “Novichok” after all? I know what methyl-phosphonic acid isopropyl ether fluoride is. What do you have in mind when you say “Novichok?” Let's have the professionals take care of the investigation.



Question by a representative of the Embassy of Sweden, (via interpreter from English):

I have two comments that, in my opinion, might be useful. The first comment is linked with what my colleague from Slovakia has already said. Sweden has also been mentioned in this context. I would like to note that Sweden has stated its position on this issue very clearly. We have denied unacceptable accusations, expressed by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, that the nerve gas used in Salisbury might have been originating from Sweden. Second, I would like to say that, like my colleague from France, Sweden, as well as the EU, has expressed solidarity with the United Kingdom and expressed support for it.



Vladimir Yermakov:

I would like to thank the representative of Sweden very much. If you have come across any accusations with regard to Sweden in the remarks of Maria Zakharova, Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department, then I am ready to apologise to you because the Russian side certainly did not express any accusations with regard to Sweden. It is probably good that you are showing solidarity with the United Kingdom because you have to help each other. Maybe we should all solidarise and start a truly professional investigation of this matter, instead of misusing such words as novichok, starichok (old man) and durachok (fool). There are many such words in the Russian language.



Question by a representative of the Embassy of Germany (via interpreter from English):

Earlier, you said that to resolve this issue, the United Kingdom should have addressed it in a bilateral format, under the Chemical Weapons Convention. On March 13, the Russian Foreign Ministry made its first statement on this issue. If I am not mistaken, it suggested that, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the official British response was a clear provocation aiming to discredit Russia. In your opinion, does this statement meet Moscow’s obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention to resolve the issue in a conscientious manner and bilaterally, especially with due consideration for the legitimate questions raised before Russia the previous day by British Prime Minister Theresa May?



Vladimir Yermakov:

To be honest, I don’t know what your area of expertise is. Any expert on arms control knows the procedure for setting forth one’s position and how to conduct international talks. It goes without saying that if you want to accomplish something, you first present an argument and then jointly reach a conclusion. If a representative of another state approaches you and starts accusing you of something, without presenting any evidence, it is impossible to quickly resolve the issue.

I don’t quite understand your question. I would like to emphasise once again that Russia insistently and consistently advocates a comprehensive investigation of the Salisbury incident. We are ready to take the most active part in this process. If they simply tell us that someone has found something somewhere, and that we are to blame for everything, then we won’t make any headway. The United Kingdom’s actions are its own problem. To put it simply, we will not respond to the question if it is put this way. If you want to conduct an investigation – invite us and disclose all data, and we assure you that we will find out the truth together. That’s all, everything is simple and easy-to-understand. This is how serious interstate issues are resolved. Otherwise nothing will come of it.



Question (representative of the US Embassy):

It is important in this forum to demonstrate that we in the United States also stand in complete solidarity with our partners in the United Kingdom, in the European Union and in NATO. It’s important, especially in this forum, since you have mentioned former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the courage that you suggest he demonstrated. It is very important that you, instead of demonstrating a similar type of courage, you attack, attack, attack my British colleague. In this forum in particular, instead of demonstrating the type of courage that we would hope to have seen in the 21st century, the Russian Federation continues its tried and true tactics of denying responsibility, distracting and disinforming. Again, we stand with our colleagues in the United Kingdom, and we will, as our colleagues in the United Kingdom, hold Russia accountable for its illegal actions.



Vladimir Yermakov:

We are grateful to the respected representative of the US Embassy for his remarks. It would be interesting to know what American lawyers would make of them. You probably worked at the US State Department? Have we met before? I used to know everyone at the US State Department, and everyone there used to know me. That’s water under the bridge… In the past, nobody in the US State Department talked to me in this manner. You are probably on a mission from Washington. Well, everyone has a mission to accomplish.

As for solidarity, we would like to see the day when the United States expresses solidarity with the Serb people who have been affected by the NATO bombing raids. Nobody can understand what happened in Salisbury. It is very good that you stand in solidarity with your NATO ally, your closest NATO ally. Overall, I can respect that. I am not being sarcastic. This is really very good, and it is the right thing to do. But we need to move forward. Let us really investigate this event. We have heard so many accusations thrown at Russia that we have stopped worrying. So, if you really want to investigate the Salisbury case, let’s do it. This will be real solidarity.

Again, there is nothing to answer, because the question has not been formulated so far. We must have complete information regarding the investigation that is underway – I hope – in Salisbury, starting with the video monitoring cameras. This is the 21st century, after all, and the United Kingdom is one of the most technologically advanced countries. You have recorded everything. Share it with us, and we will help you to investigate this case.

Our Serbian colleague has said correctly that some analogies come to mind. Or take the crash of the Malaysian Boeing.

Do you remember that you had information blaming Russia for that tragedy even before the plane hit the ground? Or have you forgotten this? You ought to be ashamed. Don’t you in the United States have any recorded data showing who really shot down the Malaysian Boeing? I understand that you will tell me that you work for the US State Department and that you have no relation to this. But you did record everything, because your satellite was right over the site. You know for sure who shot the Malaysian Boeing down. But everyone kept silent, and the investigation was deadlocked. And Russia was not invited to take part in it. Again, the blame was laid on Russia even before the Boeing crashed, which has been proved without any doubt. The United States has complete information regarding who did this and how it was done. Have you shared this information with Malaysia or the Netherlands?



Question (from the Ambassador of Venezuela):

I would like to express our support for the Russian Government as it strives to resolve this matter in a responsible and transparent manner, and to invite the Government of Great Britain to do so as well.

We would also like to know who these people are who are bringing charges. As our friend from Serbia said, there were the bombers, as it was in Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why do you think this was done?



Vladimir Yermakov:

You are asking interesting questions, but they are not quite in my portfolio. I deal with arms control, while your questions are more philosophical in nature. In general, your question already suggests some answers. Perhaps, you had the chance to hear the assessments that were provided at the high political level with regard to this incident, so I will not repeat them here, so as not to be misunderstood.

Our main job is not to wonder whether someone wanted to hurt Russia with this incident. Frankly, we have recently grown accustomed to painful blows from our colleagues in the United States and Great Britain, now even France has started making some obscure gestures. We almost don’t react to them. We talk and think about ways to build new relations between states under the new abruptly changed circumstances. The world is definitely past the era of unipolarity, and it is absolutely clear that US clout is no longer what it used to be in the 1990s, when almost everything was decided by Washington, and no one dared to object. Our country and the Foreign Ministry were led by the people who couldn’t even think about doing anything in defiance of what the US State Department said. Every person must decide for themselves whether it's good or bad. These times are gone forever. We must build our state-to-state relations based on the realities of 2018, rather than rely on past schemes developed by Colin Powell and Tony Blair, for which they had to apologise publicly.

Frankly, if you ask me for my personal take on what happened and the underlying reasons for what happened in Salisbury, I would say these were some pre-planned actions against Russia that could not stop this flywheel. So, it somehow manifested itself. I hope that reason will prevail in London. They may even not admit that they made a mistake – we do not need this. Let's interact to address matters that arise. We will not demand an apology from you. If there’s a problem, let's deal with it. If you don’t have a problem, then roll it back quietly. The key problem is that people are suffering. Two Russian citizens were hurt in the UK. We have serious doubts that anyone will be held responsible. This is not the first time such things are happening.

Drawing an analogy, we can evoke the case of Boris Berezovsky who asked President Putin to allow him to come back to Russia, but then committed suicide in London. Such “accidents” never stop happening to our British colleagues. This is not an isolated incident, it has already become a trend with the potential to make conspiracy theorists out of all of us. I would very much like not to see such accidents happen. If they do happen, then let's investigate them, if you want. If you are a civilised state, then make all the data available and let's investigate it together. Blaming Russia is foolish. Russia will never answer to you.



Question (from the Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina):

I’d like to ask my colleagues not to use the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the sake of these deliberations.



Vladimir Yermakov:

We understand. Everyone has their own position, which is only right. Good thing we didn’t touch upon the conflict between North and South Korea, otherwise we would continue for another three or four hours here. I’m not saying this tongue-in-cheek. Each state has its own stance, which it must make public. Of course, we will not use the Bosnia and Herzegovina conflict in our discussion here.

We have already gone over our allotted time. I would like to thank everyone again. Thank you very much for coming here and participating in this discussion. I would like to express my hope that our briefing today was helpful for our British colleagues in finding avenues of interaction. I can’t say we have aided the investigation in any way. Of course, it’s up to you how you want to go about it. However, since Russian citizens are involved, we will demand that all pertinent data be disclosed.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3134581






Aide-memoire to clarify the state of affairs as regards the so-called ‘Skripal case’



21 March 2018 - 21:33



1. On 12 March 2018, Prime Minister of Great Britain Theresa May, addressing the House of Commons, said it was "highly likely" that the Russian Federation was responsible for the poisoning of former GRU colonel, double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal on 4 March 2018 in Salisbury, with a nerve agent identified according to British classification as A-234.

The United Kingdom has publicly raised a question about Russia's "concealing" and "using" part of its chemical arsenal, thus alleging that Russia has "violated" its obligations under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (CWC) – one of the most effective multilateral treaties in the disarmament and non-proliferation field, which was initiated, among others, by our country.

Thus, the United Kingdom has come out against Russia as well as against the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) itself and the tremendous work that has been done within this organization during the last two decades, including with participation of the United Kingdom.

Pursuant to the requirements of Article III of the CWC, the Russian Federation submitted a full and complete declaration of all its chemical weapons stockpiles. That data was thoroughly checked and verified by the inspection teams of the OPCW Technical Secretariat. The fact of the full elimination of Russia's chemical arsenal has been officially confirmed by the authorized international institution – the OPCW.

2. On 12 March 2018, given the gravity of the accusations brought against our country, the Russian Embassy in London sent a note verbale to the Foreign Office of Great Britain requesting access to the investigation materials, including samples of the chemical agent that British investigators were referring to, so that it could be tested by our experts in the framework of joint investigation.

Thus, we proposed to act in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article IX of the CWC. It stipulates that States Parties to the Convention should first make every effort to clarify and resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves, any matter which may cause doubt about compliance with the CWC. Under the provisions of that Article, Russia would be ready to respond to the United Kingdom's request within 10 days.

Unfortunately, the British side rejected that option and, instead of following the existing norms of international law, chose to unscrupulously politicize the issue.

3. British Prime Minister Theresa May suggested that a special Security Council meeting to discuss the matter be held on 14 March 2018. Suspecting that London would play dirty, Russia insisted on making the Security Council's meeting open.

It is incomprehensible what the British side was trying to achieve by bringing the issue to the UNSC. This matter by no means falls within the mandate of the UNSC. It is quite obvious that all discussions are pointless until the OPCW gives its assessment of the Salisbury incident (it is important to know whether a nerve agent was actually used; if it was, how the likely origin of the chemicals was determined; what, and on what basis, actions were taken with regard to the victims, etc.).

4. On 14 March 2018, British Prime Minister Theresa May, apparently having come to senses, finally sent a letter to Director-General of the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW Ahmet Üzümcü (circulated to all OPCW Executive Council Member States on 15 March 2018) inviting the OPCW Technical Secretariat “to independently verify the analysis” of the British investigation into the Salisbury incident.

As indicated in the press release by the British Foreign Office of 18 March 2018, following the letter by Ms Theresa May, the UK’s Permanent Representative to the OPCW invited experts of the OPCW Technical Secretariat to visit the United Kingdom to carry out an independent analysis of the findings of the British Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down in connection with the Salisbury incident. On 19 March 2018, OPCW experts arrived in the United Kingdom.

Russia expects the OPCW to make an official detailed account of developments around the ‘Skripal case’. We proceed from the understanding that the OPCW Technical Secretariat shall conduct a full-fledged independent investigation in accordance with all relevant provisions of the CWC.

5. Russia has more and more questions both in legal and practical terms. And we intend to seek answers through the OPCW.

Russia states that it has not used chemical weapons against Great Britain. We suppose that the attack on the Skripals with toxic chemicals shall be deemed a terrorist act. As Yulia Skripal, a Russian citizen, is among the victims to the incident, we propose cooperation with the British Side under Article IX of the CWC.

We would like to ascertain the following issues.

Where, how, and by whom were the samples collected from Sergei and Yulia Skripal? How was it all documented? Who can certify that the data is credible? Was the chain of custody up to all the OPCW requirements when evidence was collected?

Which methods (spectral analysis and others) were used by the British side to identify, within such a remarkably short period of time, the type of the substance used ("Novichok" according to the western classification)? As far as we know, to do that, they must have had a standard sample of such agent at their disposal.

And how do these hasty actions correlate with Scotland Yard's official statements that "the investigation is highly likely to take weeks or even months" to arrive at conclusions?

What information and medical effects led to a hasty decision to administer antidotes to the aggrieved Skripals and the British policeman? Could that hastiness lead to grave complications and further deterioration of their health status?

Which antidotes exactly were administered? What tests had been conducted to make the decision to use these drugs?

How can the delayed action of the nerve agent be explained, given that it is a fast-acting substance by nature? The victims were allegedly poisoned in a pizzeria (in a car, at the airport, at home, according to other accounts). So what really happened? How come they were found in some unidentified time on a bench in the street?

We need an explanation why it is Russia who was accused on the ‘Skripal case’ without any grounds whatsoever, while works to develop the agent codenamed "Novichok" in the West had been carried out by the United Kingdom, the USA, Sweden and the Czech Republic. There are more than 200 open sources publications in the NATO countries, highlighting the results that those countries achieved in the development of new toxic agents of this type.

6. Even from purely humanitarian perspective London’s action appears simply barbaric. On 4 March 2018 (as British authorities themselves claim) a nerve agent attack against Russian citizen Yulia Skripal was committed in the territory of the United Kingdom.

Russian Federation has demanded exhaustive information on the course of investigation into the Salisbury incident involving a Russian citizen (the Russian Embassy in London sent the relevant note verbale on 12 March 2018).

The United Kingdom is breaching elementary rules of inter-State relations and is still denying, without any explanation, Russian officials’ consular access to Yulia Skripal envisaged by the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. For more than two weeks now, we have not been able to credibly ascertain what happened to our citizen and what condition she is actually in.

On 16 March, the Main Directorate for High-Priority Cases of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation initiated a criminal investigation into the attempted willful murder of Russian citizen Yulia Skripal committed by dangerous means in the territory of the United Kingdom.

The investigation will be conducted in accordance with the Russian legislation and the norms of international law. Highly qualified experts will contribute to the investigation.

The investigators stand ready to work together with the competent authorities of the United Kingdom. We expect a cooperative approach of the British side.

7. In the UN Security Council as well as in the OPCW and at other international fora, the Russian Federation has been a consistent and insistent proponent of thorough, comprehensive and professional investigation of all crimes involving toxic chemicals, and of bringing perpetrators to justice.

We are ready to engage in full-scale and open cooperation with the United Kingdom in order to address any concerns whether in bilateral format or within the OPCW and other international instruments, working within the purview of international law.

As a responsible member of the international community and a bona fide State Party to the CWC Russia will never speak the language of ultimatums or answer informal and word-of-mouth questions.

The Western countries’ action on the fabricated ‘Skripal case’ contravenes the norms of international law and the general practice of inter-State relations, as well as the common sense itself. Naturally, we run a detailed record of all that, and when time comes, those guilty will inevitably be brought to justice.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3134591
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 26th, 2018 #388
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 promotion of “International partnership against impunity for the use of chemical weapons”



16 March 2018 - 13:13



On March 15, another presentation of the so-called “International partnership against impunity for the use of chemical weapons” was held on the sidelines of the 87th session of the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) at the initiative of France and its allies in the anti-Assad club in the Hague.

Let’s recall that that this quasi-non-proliferation regime was launched in Paris on January 23 by representatives of 24 states that present themselves as “friends of Syria” while supporting an armed opposition that is openly extremist and even terrorist in nature. The goal of the club is clear to many analysts – to remove the government of Bashar al-Assad by creating a critical mass of highly dubious and often falsified evidence of Damascus’ “alleged involvement” in the use of chemical weapons. It is also obvious that the founding documents of this partnership are aimed at the joint pushing of anti-Syrian sanctions in the UN Security Council and the OPCW based on the political commitments fixed in these documents.

We have repeatedly criticised the founders of this partnership out of principled consideration for their desire to promote it at respectable international venues such as the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva where an event similar to the Hague action took place on February 28. This time its main sponsors simply outdid themselves in cynicism by initiating an all but propaganda campaign in the OPCW, the specialised international organisation the authority and integrity of which they are undermining by this “project.” Almost all of the delegations from NATO and EU countries represented in the OPCW Executive Council and their supporters appealed to the hesitant countries to join the partnership without delay. Indicatively, none of them are even remotely embarrassed by the fact that the format they created undermines the fundamental provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

We again urge the states parties to the CWC to display political wisdom and responsibility and not associate themselves with politically motivated projects that are destructive to chemical disarmament and non-proliferation of chemical weapons.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3121647






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the recent report by the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine



19 March 2018 - 16:33



We have familiarised ourselves with the 21st report of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine covering the period from November 16, 2017, to February 15, 2018, which was circulated in Geneva.

We took note of the information about lower number of civilian casualties in the Donbass conflict. However, the statistics of losses are still shocking at 12 killed and 61 wounded.

Of particular concern is the fact that the number of casualties from shelling civilian targets from rocket systems has doubled. At the same time, observers managed to reliably establish that the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics account for three quarters of all the casualties during the reporting period, for which likely “the government is responsible”.

The number of civilian deaths resulting from explosions of mines, booby-traps and IEDs remains inordinately high.

We join the appeal of the Monitoring Mission to the parties to the conflict asking them to strictly comply with the ceasefire agreements, including to withdraw heavy artillery from the line of contact. We emphasise the need to restore critically important infrastructure. Disruptions in the work of water treatment and power plants have left more than half a million residents of Donetsk without drinking water, electricity and heating, and put the region on the brink of an ecological disaster. We would like to remind the Ukrainian authorities that the shelling of civilian infrastructure is a direct violation of their international legal obligations.

The level of gross human rights violations on the part of the Ukrainian law enforcement agencies and the Security Service recorded by the Monitoring Mission, which, according to the most recent UN reports, are systemic in nature, causes major concern. These include unlawful confinement, kidnapping, detention with no outside communication, torture, sexual violence, and using anti-terrorism legislation to crack down on political opposition and dissent in society. Again, the UN mission members had to admit that the Ukrainian authorities lacked political will and interest in conducting a full-scale investigation into all the cases of human rights violations by members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Security Service. This feeds the atmosphere of permissiveness and impunity in the country.

The lack of progress in investigating the crimes committed in Odessa in May 2014 is no longer surprising given these circumstances.

We are seriously concerned by the findings of the UN mission members regarding Kiev’s discriminatory policy against the citizens of Ukraine residing in Donbass. The authorities' reluctance to pay pensions and social benefits to residents of southeastern Ukraine, lack of procedures for reimbursing their own citizens for the loss of housing and property resulting from the actions of the Ukrainian military, the artificial restrictions on crossing the contact line by the people have led to further impoverishment of the poorest groups of the population, further dividing Ukrainian society and, thus, reducing the chances for national reconciliation in the future.

We share the Monitoring Mission’s concerns regarding the mounting offensive by the Ukrainian authorities against civil and political freedoms in that country, including increased attacks on freedom of expression, freedom of the media and physical attacks on journalists. According to the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine, 90 media workers were attacked in 2017 alone. We support the UN demand to ensure prompt, effective and unbiased investigations into all violations caused by the work of the Myrotvorets website, to revise state policy on forming TV and radio content, and to cancel the disproportionately strict bans on imports of printed products into that country.

We are concerned about the numerous cases of discrimination and violence against representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and its worship sites established by the UN mission. According to the Monitoring Mission, the issue is not about isolated instances of intolerance against the UOC, but a coordinated campaign which is being carried out with the obvious connivance of official authorities and law enforcement officers.

We urge Kiev to carefully heed to the assessments and recommendations provided by the Monitoring Mission and the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe regarding the law On Education, which grossly violates the rights of the linguistic minorities living in that country, especially Russian speakers. We look forward to the authorities making the necessary amendments to article 7 of the law, withdrawing private schools from its sphere of application and providing for sufficient education in minority languages at public schools.

Again, we are forced to remind everyone that the mandate of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine does not include reviewing the situation in third countries. The Republic of Crimea and the city of federal importance Sevastopol are part of the territory of the Russian Federation, and the latest attempt to include an assessment of the human rights situation in this Russian region in the report on Ukraine is inappropriate.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3128250






Comment by the Information and Press Departmenton the statement of the EU Foreign Affairs Council of March 19, 2018, on the incident in Salisbury (United Kingdom)



19 March 2018 - 21:03



The speed with which EU member countries rushed to call British allegations of Russia’s involvement in the tragic incident in Salisbury “extremely serious” was perplexing.

Despite the attempts of the EU nations to observe some semblance of balance, the statement of the EU Foreign Affairs Council on March19 is based on the British version of the incident and, as a consequence, suffers from the same speculation and lack of proof. There is no mention in the document of the fact that Britain has not sent us any information on the circumstances of the case, refused to investigate it jointly or on a bilateral or multilateral basis through the OPCW, and blocked the Russian proposal in the UN Security Council to adopt a statement on behalf of its President with an appeal for cooperation on all sides in order to establish the truth. EU foreign ministers did not mention either that London had not provided information on the results of the “investigation” not only to its allies but even British MPs headed by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The EU Council ignores the fact that Russia has destroyed all chemical weapons, as the OPCW confirmed in 2017. Should this be interpreted as EU and British mistrust of the international chemical weapons watchdog? We have absolutely nothing to “declare,” as the EU demands. Russia does not produce or store any toxic chemical Novichok. Probably the EU should address this demand to Britain and some other EU members, which are apparently still developing such substances. We recommend that our EU partners start their fact-finding mission by visiting the British government laboratory for weapons of mass destruction in Porton Down, located just several kilometres away from Salisbury.

In addition, before helping London to fan media hysteria over the Skripal case, the EU countries should understand the motives of their British colleagues. There is every indication that London is up for any tricks that would divert the attention of Brits from its failure at the Brexit negotiations. The uproar over the mysterious poisoning of our two compatriots, fanned up by the local media in the best traditions of spy mania, will be helpful in this respect. Apparently, London believes that, having received demonstrations of support from partners in (for now) fellow EU countries, it will be easier to steer discussions at the European Council session on March 22-23, which was initially supposed to focus on the British-EU negotiations.

We regret that these circumstances and undeniable facts are being ignored and that the EU has again acted out of mistaken notions of European solidarity and anti-Russian reflexes. Needless to say, such conduct does not reflect well on the EU’s common foreign policy.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3128381






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the situation in Damascus’ suburb Eastern Ghouta



20 March 2018 - 22:00



We note with satisfaction that the situation in Eastern Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus where terrorists and extremists had ruled supreme and had sporadically shelled the capital of Syria and committed other crimes for a long time, is now becoming more stable. The government forces have reestablished control over most of this district’s territory. Talks, now underway with credible members of military units, aim to end the confrontation as soon as possible.

At the same time, representatives of the Russian Armed Forces are conducting a unique and unprecedented in scale operation in keeping with the unanimously adopted UN Security Council Resolution 2401. The only aim of the operation is to help the residents of Eastern Ghouta. As a result of this operation, over 70,000 civilians have been evacuated via humanitarian corridors. In addition to this, the UN, the Syrian Red Crescent Society and the International Red Cross Committee have sent in three humanitarian convoys there.

Those Syrians who have escaped from Jihadist captivity are openly talking about the crimes of extremists and lawlessness, including the confiscation of humanitarian aid, the use of civilians as a human shield and efforts to hamper voluntary evacuation.

Representatives from the UN humanitarian agencies working on the ground unequivocally praise the efforts of Russia and Syria to resolve Eastern Ghouta’s humanitarian problems in extremely difficult conditions. However, it appears that these reports are being suppressed by senior UN Secretariat officials and are also being ignored by Western politicians as well as media outlets that prefer to circulate unverified and openly false stories, including those about the alleged use of chemical weapons by the government forces. Their only goal is to discredit Moscow and Damascus, no matter what.

The initiative of some Western members of the UN Security Council to hold a special meeting on March 19, to invite UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, who is known for his biased and subjective opinions concerning the situation in Syria and in many other countries and whose actions as well as comments are unacceptable for such a senior UN official, and to review the human rights situation in Syria speaks volumes in the context of the propaganda campaign. But their plans aiming to organise yet another emotional show at the UN Security Council, to slander Russia and Syria and to formalise human rights matters in the Council’s agenda (in violation of its mandate) were not realised. Indicatively, this initiative did not receive the required support at the UN Security Council. Mr Al Hussein’s successor will have to work hard in order to restore the high reputation of the responsible position of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that he had undermined.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3132240






Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding the latest terrorist attacks on Damascus



21 March 2018 - 16:56



On March 20, militants in the village of Ein Tarma in Eastern Ghouta, which is controlled by Faylaq al-Rahman (the al-Rahman Corps), launched rockets at the Kashkoul market in Jaramana, a suburb of Damascus with a mostly Christian and Druze population. According to the latest information, 37 people have been killed and another 35 wounded.

The Russian Centre for the Reconciliation of Opposing Sides has reported that four attacks on Damascus originated from Eastern Ghouta that day. Four civilians were killed and two wounded in the Mezzeh municipality.

Moscow strongly condemns these heinous terrorist attacks as a link in the long chain of provocations aimed at disrupting the nascent positive trends in Eastern Ghouta and the rest of Syria. They are also evidence of the extremists’ stubborn disregard for the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2401.

In this context, any attempts to prevent the Syrian government army from eliminating the terrorist strongholds in Eastern Ghouta can be interpreted as the tacit encouragement of terrorists. Obviously, Syria does not need a situation where the terrorists have a free hand, but rather resolute progress towards restoring peace and unity in Syria through a political settlement based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3134352






Foreign Ministry statement



23 March 2018 - 12:50



The conclusions issued by the European Council on March 22 regarding the chemical attack in Salisbury are regrettable. The wording used by the European Council attributing Russia with the responsibility for the incident solely on the grounds of “no plausible alternative explanation” essentially constitutes an accusation against us without giving any evidence. The European Council’s readiness to agree with the British version of the events in Salisbury can only be explained by the desire to support UK Prime Minister Theresa May who found herself in a difficult situation. It should be noted that every day more and more discrepancies emerge in the said scenario, from an unprecedented swiftness with which the British identified the ‘Russian origin’ of the toxins found at the site of the attempted murder of Sergey Skripal and his daughter to the fact of chemical laboratory employees in Porton Down being pressured by British officials which was revealed by the media.

We have not yet received any reasoning from Great Britain that would demand “answers” from us with respect to the tragedy in Salisbury as the European Council proposes. We are absolutely ready to work together with Britain; however, our British counterparts are avoiding cooperation. We see further exchange of opinions possible within the competent international body of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). We believe that if EU leaders had a sincere desire to help the investigation they would prompt our British partners to begin constructive consultations with Russia according to applicable OPCW procedures. Even more so, because support of the dialogue and cooperation in the interests of strengthening international non-proliferation instruments such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, is expressly envisaged not only in the 2016 EU Global Strategy but in the 2005 roadmap on the Russia-EU common external security space too.

It is regretful that instead, the European Union prefers to be at the vanguard of yet another anti-Russian campaign triggered by London and its overseas allies with an obvious goal to put another obstacle in the way of normalising the situation on the European continent.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3137615






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the UN Human Rights Council adopting the resolution “Judiciary System Integrity” initiated by Russia



23 March 2018 - 19:13



On March 22, during its 37th session, the UN Human Rights Council voted to adopt the “Judiciary System Integrity” resolution, the draft of which was submitted by the Russian delegation. The document was co-authored by Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Syria, Tajikistan, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

The resolution calls on the states which have military courts or tribunals to investigate criminal cases to ensure that these bodies are an integral part of the national judicial system and apply the internationally enshrined principles of judicial proceedings as guarantees of justice. Every person under the jurisdiction of any state should enjoy the right to be recognised as a person before the law and to have access on a general basis to a judicial system functioning on the basis of respect for human rights and democracy.

Departures from these criteria lead to major and systematic human rights violations. The prison at the US military base in Guantanamo, where torture was routinely used and continues to be used with regard to its detainees without trial or investigation, is a striking case in point. Inthis regard, the recent decision by the US administration to give up the earlier announced plan to liquidate this prison causes deep concern.

This resolution calls on states to immediately close all secret penitentiary institutions under their jurisdiction or control, and to conduct an immediate independent and impartial investigation into all instances of so-called emergency extradition, secret detention, torture and ill-treatment, including under the pretext of combating terrorism. The resolution emphasises the need to hold accountable all persons involved in sanctioning or committing these crimes, including those who hold or held earlier higher state positions.

We are disappointed by the position of the US and Georgian delegations who voted against this resolution, as well the position of a number of EU member states who abstained from voting. Such a demonstrative disregard for the principles of justice and, most importantly, humane treatment is indicative of the true attitude of these countries towards promoting and protecting human rights internationally.

We call on the international community, non-governmental human rights organisations, and special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to urge the United States, Great Britain and other participants of the “global antiterrorist coalition” to disclose all information about their own and their allies’ human rights violations during the “war on terror,” and to conduct an objective and impartial investigation into all such incidents and to bring those responsible to account.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3139600
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 26th, 2018 #389
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the deportation of Rossiya 24 television channel’s correspondent Natalia Goncharova from Ukraine



19 March 2018 - 15:14



On March 17, the Security Service of Ukraine announced the deportation of yet another Russian journalist, Rossiya 24 television channel’s correspondent Natalia Goncharova, who will be banned from entering the country for three years. This outrageous act is motivated by the alleged preparation of “inflammatory materials” that distort Ukraine’s image and damage its international prestige.

In reality, it is precisely these actions of Ukrainian authorities aiming to completely censure the country’s media space that completely discredit Ukraine as a member of the international community. On Kiev’s initiative, the worst totalitarian methods of suppressing dissent are being practiced in 21st-century Europe.

We would like to point out that Ukrainian media outlets enjoy complete professional freedom in Russia, and we demand that Ukraine treat Russian journalists in the same way.

We call on the international community and specialised international institutions and NGOs to resolutely condemn Ukraine’s repressive policies with regard to media outlets.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3128058






Remarks by head of the Russian delegation to the 50th session of the Working Group on Verification Issues of the CTBTO Preparatory Commission (March 12 - 23, 2018), Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to International Organisations in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov, Vienna, March 19, 2018



19 March 2018 - 21:57




Mr Chairman,

Mr Executive Secretary,

I would like to confirm our delegation’s readiness for productive and intensive work at this session of the Working Group on Verification Issues.

We highly value the well-coordinated and successful work of the PTS of CTBTO Preparatory Commission to establish and maintain the operational readiness of the International Monitoring System and the International Data Centre. The CTBTO has shown good operational capabilities with regard to the developments in North Korea, which means a high degree of readiness of the verification regime stipulated by the Treaty.

However, the CTBT verification regime does not exist in isolation, but is an integral part of the Treaty. This mechanism will be fully functional only after the Treaty comes into force. Over the years, we have been working on it actively, accelerating the launch of the International Monitoring System (IMS) facilities and individual elements of the International Data Centre (IDC), and building up the inspection component to the level of operational readiness. Our attitude was based on a premise that positive changes will soon begin around the Treaty, and the verification mechanism should be fully prepared. We primarily hoped that the CTBT would be rapidly ratified by Washington, followed by other key signatories.

The recent refusal by the United States to ratify the CTBT dealt a huge blow to the work of the Preparatory Commission. Over more than 20 years, Russia and, I think, other states that have ratified the CTBT, have come to regard it as an integral part of international security and stability. Washington’s revision of its CTBT policy undermines not only the future of the Treaty, but also the many years of efforts to establish its verification mechanism. We are not sure that in these conditions, the “business as usual” formula is the best choice. It will be necessary to carefully analyse the qualitatively new situation and, if necessary, make adjustments to the line of further action.

The US intention to keep the nuclear test moratorium for the time being is not a solution. The moratorium is known to be a voluntary measure and cannot in any way replace legal obligations under the Treaty.

The US plans to concentrate on supporting the IMS and IDC instead of on-site inspections are a matter of serious concern. In fact, Washington, as we understand it, intends to focus only on those measures that meet its utilitarian national interests. This is not possible in the framework of a multilateral agreement. To facilitate the achievement of the CTBT objectives, we need to continue the gradual and balanced development of all three verification regime elements – the IMS, IDC and on-site inspections (OSI). We would like to emphasise that these three elements are mutually complementary, equivalent and inseparable. The selective approach the US intends to use is unacceptable here.

The Visual Observations and Radionuclide Monitoring training course organised as part of the third training cycle for inspectors (Nevada, October 2017) is also evidence of America’s non-constructive approach to the establishment of the OSI regime and disrespect for the Commission member states. Because of problems with obtaining US visas, Russian participants, as well as a number of specialists from other countries, could not take part in it. We consider this situation unacceptable. If a country offers itself as a host, it must ensure flawless organisation of the event. The inability or unwillingness to do this harms not only the reputation of the host country, but also the interests of the project. Therefore, if the host country is not sure that it will be able to fulfil its responsibilities in full, it must say so in advance, so that the event could be organised in a different location.

Mr Chairman,

We express our gratitude to Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission Lassina Zerbo for his informative report on the verification activities in the second half of 2017. On the whole, we positively assess the activities of the Secretariat in the reporting period.

We are satisfied with the certification of 6 IMS stations (including the Russian radionuclide station RN57 Bilibino) and two radionuclide laboratories over the time since the 49th WGB session.

We are pleased to note that the establishment of the OSI regime is being successfully implemented on the basis of the approved OSI Action Plan, with the projects it involves implemented consistently and on schedule.

We thank the Secretariat for developing a concept for the preparation and holding of the future OSI build-up exercises. We generally see this concept as an acceptable basis for further in-depth work in preparation for the exercises. We have a number of comments about the text, which we will list at the respective meeting. With the right approach and clearly defined tasks, the implementation of a series of three exercises will be an important step towards completing the OSI regime development. We view the preparation for these exercises as an essential component of the Commission’s work in the next few years.

Mr Chairman,

During the current session, there was a discussion on changing the WGB report structure. We believe that the idea of ​​dividing the final report into a consensus and non-consensus part is harmful and even dangerous. The proposed initiative is, in fact, a deviation from the rule of consensus, which has been at the heart of the work of Vienna international organisations for many years. We cannot support such a decision. Today, unity and cohesion is needed more than ever to jointly achieve our main goal – the entry into force of the CTBT.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3128449






Deputy Director of the Information and Press Department Artyom Kozhin’s answer to a media question on cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Central African Republic



22 March 2018 - 16:17




Question:

Recently, Western media have published articles on the nature and content of Russia's bilateral relations with the Central African Republic. What is your take on the state and prospects for Russia-CAR cooperation?



Artyom Kozhin:

The Russian Federation and the Central African Republic have a long history of mutually beneficial partnership.

Since the time diplomatic relations were established on December 7, 1960, cooperation between our two countries has unfolded steadily in a friendly atmosphere. Unfortunately, the ensuing long period of internal political turmoil in the CAR led to a decrease in intensity of interaction between our states.

According to the results of the presidential election held in the CAR in 2016, Faustin-Archange Touadera was elected head of state.
The international community positively assessed the democratic nature of the elections and the transparency of the electoral process. The CAR’s new government, led by the president, embarked on a course to restore domestic political stability and diversify its international relations.

The meeting between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and CAR President F.A. Touadera that took place in Sochi on October 9, 2017 was an important milestone in our bilateral cooperation. The participants re-affirmed their commitment to restoring practical cooperation in politics, trade, the economy, research, education and healthcare.

Under existing agreements, Russia is exploring the possibilities of the mutually beneficial development of Central African natural resources. The prospecting mining exploration concessions began in 2018. We believe these projects will help stabilise the economic situation in the CAR, promote the construction of the infrastructure, and serve as a basis for drawing additional investment to the country's economy.

Moscow welcomes the policy adopted by Faustin-Archange Touadera to establish an inclusive political process in the CAR, to put an early end to interethnic and inter-confessional clashes, and to restore state authority throughout the country. We believe measures taken by the CAR leadership to reform the security sector are important. Such steps are designed to facilitate, including with the support of the international community, the normalisation of the situation in the republic, as well as to implement the National Defence Plan in order to gradually transfer all responsibility for the state of affairs to the legitimate authorities.

Responding to a corresponding request from the president of the CAR, Russia decided to provide Bangui with free military-technical assistance. With the consent of the UN Security Council Committee created pursuant to UNSC Resolution 2127, an allocation of small arms and ammunition from the stocks of Russia’s Defence Ministry was made available to the Central African Army in late January - early February. Five military and 170 civilian instructors from Russia were sent to train CAR service personnel with the knowledge of this committee. This assistance is provided in strict accordance with the sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council on the country. Russia’s assistance is carried out as part of the common efforts of the international community to strengthen the national security units of the CAR, to transfer full responsibility for maintaining security and law and order throughout its territory to the local authority and, ultimately, to normalise the situation and to provide a lasting solution to the drawn-out internal armed conflict.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3136399






Reply by Deputy Director of the Information and Press Department Artyom Kozhin to a media question on Russia’s cultural and humanitarian cooperation with the African countries



22 March 2018 - 16:27




Question:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently returned from a tour of a number of African countries. Various issues of Russian-African cooperation were discussed during talks in several countries. Education was regarded as a priority of cooperation. How important is education for the further development of Russia’s relations with the African states?



Artyom Kozhin:

The Russian Federation is successfully implementing programmes of cultural and humanitarian cooperation with various African countries, which include contacts in education, science, culture, art, the media and sport. These efforts are aimed not only at consolidating cooperation with the African countries but also at resolving key African problems such as overcoming social inequality and the involvement of young Africans in sustainable economic development, to name a few.

Education is a major priority in our relations with Africa. Russian universities are open to African students. Apart from the main subjects they have programmes oriented towards key areas of the region’s public and economic life.

The importance of specialised knowledge is growing in conditions of globalisation and increasing use of information technology. Modern education projects are being created and will be carried out in this context. African specialists educated in Russia will help their countries use the advantages of high technology and enter a new stage of scientific and technological progress.

This area fully conforms to the goals and tasks of Russian foreign policy.

In practical terms, more than 1,800 people from 50 African states were admitted to Russian universities in 2017. In all, about 15,000 Africans study in Russia at present, including about 4,000 whose education is funded by Russia. Other Africans study on a contract basis.

During his tour of African countries, Mr Lavrov held talks with Chairperson of the African Union Commission Moussa Faki Mahamat. Following the talks, the officials published a joint statement in which they described education, science and technology as priorities in further cooperation. In this context, Russia and Africa plan to develop partnerships between Pan African University and Russian universities, including the implementation of scholarship programmes with an emphasis on the education of natural sciences and mathematics teachers. Russia reaffirmed its interest in developing the current practice of organising the practical training of African diplomats at the Diplomatic Academy of the Foreign Ministry.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3136414






Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich’s remarks at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, March 22, 2018



23 March 2018 - 11:41




Mr Chairperson,

The number of ceasefire violations in Donbass and the use of weapons that have been prohibited under the Minsk Agreements have decreased thanks to the so-called spring truce. However, an increased number of shoot-outs has been reported recently. The shelling of residential areas has resumed, and civilians have been affected. The OSCE SMM has reported that a woman was wounded in Kominternovo on March 14 and a building was damaged in Sakhanka on March 17 in attacks that originated from the government-controlled territory.

On March 12 and 13, Ukrainian forces shot at buses carrying the staff of the Donetsk Filtration Station (DFS). Damage control carried out leaves no doubt as to the origin of the attack. We are grateful to SMM observers, who have accompanied the DFS staff since March 14.

We are seriously concerned about the situation, because the government forces are using the truce to regroup and reinforce their positions. They have established positions in the disengagement zones in Petrovskoye and Zolotoye. The SMM has reported seeing Ukrainian soldiers, flags, equipment and munitions there. The number of Ukrainian military equipment deployed on the contact line is growing. Over the past week, SMM observers reported seeing over 30 items of military equipment in government-controlled areas, including four MLRS systems in Khlebodarovka, in violation of the Minsk Package of Measures. They have also confirmed that the government forces held live firing exercises on the contact line.

On March 18, Kiev once again openly refused to withdraw its forces in Stanitsa Luganskaya despite the fact that conditions have been created for withdrawal and the self-defence forces have indicated their readiness for the disengagement of forces.

We urge all OSCE countries that can influence Kiev to do their best to prevent a military escalation in Donbass. General Sergey Nayev, the new commander of the punitive operation in Donbass, which has been renamed the Joint Forces Operation, has said in public that he will only deal with Donbass militarily. It is a path to catastrophe.

We support the initiative advanced by Donetsk and Lugansk on an additional re-verification of the ceasefire during Easter, which should at long last result in a lasting and sustainable termination of hostilities on the contact line.

It should be recalled that a sustainable peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis is only possible through the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures, including the provision on a comprehensive political settlement, by means of a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk.

We call for launching this process as soon as possible, because there are evident signs of destabilisation in the situation in Ukraine.

Nationalist radicals are increasing pressure on the Kiev government. The SMM has reported new demonstrations by the radicals, as well as growing instances of nationalist behaviour, which is especially evident in the western regions of Ukraine. Over the past week, nine vehicles with Hungarian licence plates have been damaged in Uzhgorod and Beregovoi, a grenade was thrown into a residential building, and active protesters against a nationalist march were beaten. The nationalist march was nevertheless held on March 17. The birthdays of military criminals from the UPA and other “black” dates in the Ukrainian history are marked on a large scale.

Radicals have attempted to pressure Ukrainian courts. On March 15, they burned flares at the Kiev court where a trial over the Maidan events was underway. On March 14, they gathered at the Italian Embassy to demand that the suspect in the murder of Italian journalist Andrea Rocchelli be set free.

Attacks on the Orthodox Church continue. On March 10, a chapel was set on fire in Kiev. This is yet another crime committed by the radicals under a zero-tolerance campaign launched by the ultra-right group C14 against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. We share the concern of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights over the failure of law enforcement agencies to effectively prevent these actions, to thoroughly investigate them and bring the culprits to account.

They are drafting a new state language law that will not respect the linguistic rights of ethnic communities living in Ukraine. We are urging the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities to focus on this matter and to prevent the country’s all-out Ukrainisation.

The Myrotvorets (Peacemaker) website continues to function unhindered on US-based servers and to publish personal data of journalists and people disagreeing with the official line. Experts from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights believe that the posting of personal data of media employees and NGO activists on this website violates the right to privacy and the presumption of innocence.

Nadezhda Savchenko has been arrested in the Verkhovna Rada and charged with preparations for a terrorist attack. Information about her is also posted on the Myrotvorets website. We are confident that people who had closely followed her fate three-four years ago will be interested to learn what is happening to the “hero of Ukraine” today.

Journalists are still being actively harassed in Ukraine. On March 17, the authorities deported Natalia Goncharova, a journalist from Rossiya 24 television channel, under far-fetched pretexts. We are noting that the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media has drawn attention to this outrageous act by Kiev authorities on his Twitter account. We are expecting a more detailed response to this illegal act.

This is the eighth incident when Russian journalists are being mistreated in violation of Ukraine’s international obligations and the country’s domestic legislation. From November 16, 2017 until February 15, 2018, experts from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights documented nine incidents involving attacks or the use of force against journalists by employees of state agencies or members of far-right groups acting with impunity. There is no progress in investigating instances of violence against journalists, which contributes to creating an atmosphere of impunity and fear. Those responsible for the murders of Oles Buzina and Pavel Sheremet have not been exposed to date.

Ukrainian authorities use more brutal methods for harassing those who disagree with the policy of rampant nationalism and hatred for Russia. The Security Service of Ukraine continues to operate secret prisons. Amnesty International submitted new evidence of this the other day, citing cases of torture and illegal detention without court verdicts and official warrants. According to Amnesty International, by denying the existence of secret prisons of the Security Service of Ukraine, the authorities deny victims the right to establish justice and hamper the investigation of continued major human rights violations.

Experts from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have recorded new cases of illegal detention, torture and mistreatment on Kiev-controlled territory. Masked persons abducted the victims, beat them up and threatened them, forcing them to confess to allegedly cooperating with the Russian secret services or armed groups. The Security Service of Ukraine subsequently arrested those people. They are noting the lack of progress in bringing the culprits to account for major human rights violations during the murder of Maidan protesters and the May 2, 2014 acts of violence in Odessa. Investigations and trials linked with the conflict show the reluctance of law enforcement agencies and politicians to impartially investigate human rights violations by state agencies.

The apologists of the Kiev regime claim that nationalists who are allegedly strengthening the sovereignty of Ukraine should not be criticised. This is a major fallacy. No one, except nationalists, has done so much for the sake of degrading Ukraine and undermining its sovereignty and unity. Today, it is precisely these people who are the main advocates of a policy for resolving the crisis by military force, and they also oppose a peace settlement, dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk, as well as the implementation of the Minsk agreements.

There are enough reasonable people in Ukraine who reject the ideas of war, hatred and officially imposed Russophobia, but they have to live in conditions of an impending all-out ban on dissent and tough pressure from the nationalists, on the one hand, and security and law enforcement agencies, on the other hand.

In conclusion, we reaffirm Russia’s absolute commitment to the peaceful settlement in Ukraine, and we are ready to continue facilitating this process in all available negotiating formats. There is no alternative to resolving the crisis but to fulfil the Minsk Package of Measures through direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3137355
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 26th, 2018 #390
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Deputy Director of the Information and Press Department Artyom Kozhin, Moscow, March 23, 2018



23 March 2018 - 13:38








Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Uzbekistan

On March 26 and 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will visit Tashkent to attend the International High-Level Conference on Afghanistan, Peace Process, Security Cooperation and Regional Connectivity.

Moscow believes that this major international event can facilitate national reconciliation and stabilisation in Afghanistan, including as part of the efforts taken within the framework the Moscow format and the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group.

Sergey Lavrov will hold several bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the international conference.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Special Representative of the President of China, State Councillor and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi

On March 27 and 28, Special Representative of the President of China, State Councillor and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi will make a working visit to Russia. On March 28, he will hold talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The two ministers will exchange views on Russian-Chinese strategic partnership as well as prospects for its further development. They will also discuss bilateral cooperation on the international stage and current regional matters.



Foreign Ministry statement

The conclusions issued by the European Council on March 22 regarding the chemical attack in Salisbury are regrettable. The wording used by the European Council attributing Russia with the responsibility for the incident solely on the grounds of “no plausible alternative explanation” essentially constitutes an accusation against us without giving any evidence. The European Council’s readiness to agree with the British version of the events in Salisbury can only be explained by the desire to support UK Prime Minister Theresa May who found herself in a difficult situation. It should be noted that every day more and more discrepancies emerge in the said scenario, from an unprecedented swiftness with which the British identified the ‘Russian origin’ of the toxins found at the site of the attempted murder of Sergey Skripal and his daughter to the fact of chemical laboratory employees in Porton Down being pressured by British officials which was revealed by the media.

We have not yet received any reasoning from Great Britain that would demand “answers” from us with respect to the tragedy in Salisbury as the European Council proposes. We are absolutely ready to work together with Britain; however, our British counterparts are avoiding cooperation. We see further exchange of opinions possible within the competent international body of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). We believe that if EU leaders had a sincere desire to help the investigation they would prompt our British partners to begin constructive consultations with Russia according to applicable OPCW procedures. Even more so, because support of the dialogue and cooperation in the interests of strengthening international non-proliferation instruments such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, is expressly envisaged not only in the 2016 EU Global Strategy but in the 2005 roadmap on the Russia-EU common external security space too.

It is regretful that instead, the European Union prefers to be at the vanguard of yet another anti-Russian campaign triggered by London and its overseas allies with an obvious goal to put another obstacle in the way of normalising the situation on the European continent.



The situation in Syria

The situation in Syria remains tense.

The international community continues to focus on Eastern Ghouta where an unparalleled counter-terrorist operation is being carried out by the Syrian army with the support of the Russian Aerospace Forces. The goal is to eliminate the terrorist threat to Damascus from Jabhat al-Nusra extremist armed groups, which took control of this densely populated suburb of the Syrian capital. The operation is unusual in that to be successful, it is necessary to separate the terrorists from the civilians whom they are using as human shields.

With the assistance of the Russian Centre for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides, over 80,000 civilians have been evacuated to date from Eastern Ghouta through dedicated humanitarian corridors, which represent a large part of the local population. The people were evacuated under the supervision of representatives from UN institutions, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC), which did not find any violations of international humanitarian law during the evacuation process.

The residents left the place of their own accord, and none of them were subjected to violence or robbed by the Syrian military or security forces who kept order. Once free, the people started crying and talking about the suffering they experienced while held hostage by the terrorists. Their hatred of the extremist groups which arbitrarily killed civilians, robbed them of their property, appropriated humanitarian aid and forced ordinary people to starve, was running high.

The Syrian Government deployed three camps for the temporarily displaced persons outside the towns of Dumayr, Adra and Hirjillah. The Russian military are actively involved in providing food, bedding and first aid. We expect that the international community will join these efforts.

The terrorists tried to prevent the evacuation of the civilians from the fighting zones, intimidated people and opened fire at the humanitarian corridors realising that the presence of a significant number of civilians in Eastern Ghouta hampered the actions of government forces as they tried to avoid collateral damage.

Residential areas of Damascus are coming under regular rocket and mortar attack. On March 20, gunmen launched rockets at the Kashkul market from an area outside Ain Terma in Eastern Ghouta, which is controlled by the Failaq ar-Rahman group, killing 37 and wounding 35.

By now, the Syrian army has liberated about 80 percent of Eastern Ghouta. In accordance with the agreement reached with the assistance of the Russian Centre for Reconciliation of the Opposing Sides, the evacuation of illegal armed groups from Harasta to the province of Idlib began on March 22.

In liberated Eastern Ghouta towns, the Syrian military found several makeshift workshops for manufacturing munitions and reservoirs with poisonous agents, in particular, chlorine, weighing about 40 tonnes, which is indicative of the scale of the provocations planned by the terrorists.

The town of Afrin in northwestern Syria was taken as part of the Olive Branch operation by the Turkish military on March 18. Fully cognizant of their responsibility for the lives of the local residents, the command of the Kurdish units had decided to leave the city without a fight. Syrian illegal armed groups entered Afrin and proceeded to ransack the town. The mayhem was stopped only a few days later thanks to the decisive actions of the Turkish army, which arrested over 100 marauders.

We note the lack of progress in implementing UNSC Resolution 2401 concerning the situation in Raqqa and Rukban Camp for temporarily displaced persons. To reiterate, access to these sites is controlled by the US military, and has so far been closed to representatives of the legitimate Syrian authorities, the UN and independent media. During a meeting of the international task force on humanitarian assistance to Syria in Geneva on March 16, the UN Resident Coordinator in Syria Ali al-Zaatari confirmed the willingness of the Syrian government, the ICRC and the SARC to start delivering humanitarian aid to Rukban after receiving written security guarantees from the Americans.

We plan to continue our efforts to implement the provisions of UNSC Resolution 2401, which is aimed at reinforcing the ceasefire and improving the humanitarian situation throughout Syria while resolutely fighting terrorists, and call upon all parties to help us in any way they can.

We consistently work on the political track seeking to achieve a settlement in Syria. A trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia, Iran and Turkey as guarantor countries behind observing the ceasefire in Syria took place in Astana on March 16. The ministers agreed to continue to assist the Syrians in restoring the unity of their country and achieving a political settlement of the crisis under UN Security Council Resolution 2254, in particular, by creating a Constitutional Committee and launching its work in Geneva, as stipulated by the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

The first meeting of the working group on releasing detainees/hostages, transferring the bodies of those who lost their lives and searching for missing people took place on the sidelines of the ministerial meeting in the capital of Kazakhstan, and was attended by representatives of the UN and the ICRC. The start of its practical work has become an important contribution to the process of restoring confidence among the Syrians and normalising the situation in Syria in general.



Developments in Afghanistan

The security situation in Afghanistan causes us considerable concern. The Taliban movement is actively engaged in terrorist activities, systematically carrying out attacks in various parts of the country, and continues to keep up to half the country's territory under full or partial control.

The activity of ISIS, a terrorist group banned in the Russian Federation, remains an essential factor in the deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan. ISIS is consistently increasing the number of militants in the north of the country. The network of ISIS camps set up in the north of Afghanistan for the training of militants, including those from Central Asia, Russia and other countries, is a cause for special concern. We have documented facts of interaction as well as clashes between ISIS and the Taliban in the north and east of Afghanistan.

We are seriously concerned about the increase in terrorist activity. At the end of January, a series of bloody terrorist attacks occurred in Afghanistan, killing over 200 people and injuring more than 400.

On March 21, the first day of Nowruz (the Afghan New Year), another terrorist attack took place near Kabul State University, killing 33 people, presumably carried out by a suicide bomber from among ISIS extremists.

We strongly condemn this barbaric act. Again, we express our condolences to the families and friends of the victims, and wish a speedy recovery to the injured.



Death of a large group of Indian citizens at the hands of ISIS, banned in Russia

We express our sincere condolences to the relatives and friends of the 39 Indian citizens who were captured in 2014 in Iraq and later killed by militants of ISIS, a terrorist group banned in the Russian Federation. This sad news has been officially confirmed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of India.

We declare our solidarity with the leadership and people of friendly India in resolutely combating terrorism and extremism. This bloody crime confirms the correctness of Russia's position concerning the need to form a broad international antiterrorist front involving all countries.



Air safety over the Baltic Sea

We remain concerned about the increasingly more active NATO, Swedish and Finnish military planes’ flights near the Russian border in the Baltic Sea region. Between September-November 2017, two-thirds of NATO, Finnish and Swedish state-owned aircraft flew with their transponders switched off. These actions may provoke dangerous incidents with far-reaching consequences.

Russia, for its part, has done a lot to reduce tension in the region. In 2017, members of the ICAO-sponsored working expert group for military-civil cooperation coordinated off-route flights for Russian military aircraft flying from St. Petersburg to Kaliningrad and back. Under the Russian Defence Ministry’s voluntary air-safety maintenance measures, all aircraft fly with their transponders switched on and in accordance with previously submitted flight plans.

Recommendations for resolving conflict situations in regional air space, being used by civil and military aircraft, have been drafted and have entered into force. This has been done to reduce the possibility of aviation incidents.

Unfortunately, we don’t see any response on the part of NATO member-countries. The group’s ICAO mandate has now virtually expired. Despite earlier promises, we witness NATO’s reluctance to launch an expert discussion of this subject at the Russia-NATO Council. This is the right format for discussing all military aspects of this matter, which would help scale down overall tension between NATO and the Russian Federation. We are noting the fact that NATO is not prepared to go beyond measures that have already been coordinated by members of the working expert group for military-civil cooperation.

In addition, we note that NATO member-countries have failed to comply with agreed-upon recommendations. For example, they continue high-risk and unjustified intercept missions against Russian aircraft formations flying with their transponders switched on and whose flight plans have been submitted in advance.

It appears that European countries and the United States don’t need really transparent confidence-building measures over the Baltic Sea region. They aim to uncontrollably build up their military potential.

As far as Russia is concerned, we reaffirm our readiness to discuss ways of scaling down tension in the Baltic Sea region and to hold constructive consultations on this topic. We are ready for bilateral consultations with all the concerned countries and for those within the Russia-NATO Council. This will make it possible to coordinate recommendations for preventing aviation and high-seas incidents.



Ukraine’s decision to end economic cooperation programme with Russia

Ukraine, primarily its current government, is a constant supplier of news that call for comment.

The other day, Kiev announced yet another victory over common sense – the decision of its government to terminate the 2011-2020 economic cooperation programme with Russia. In this way Kiev is consistently and stubbornly working to advance its “strategic goal” – to damage its own economy as much as possible. By refusing to cooperate with Russia, the current Ukrainian authorities, in their anti-Russian frenzy, are actually destroying their inheritance from the Soviet Union in advanced areas – the nuclear industry, nuclear power and aerospace engineering, space and aviation technology, transport and the defence industry. These are the areas that the Ukrainian people could be rightly proud of in the past.

The rupture in trade and economic ties with Russia is not compensated for in any way by the EU and the miniscule quotas allowed for the supply of “strategic” commodities to the EU – honey, mushrooms, juices, condensed milk, grain, tomatoes and poultry. We are witnessing Ukraine’s de-industrialisation. Next, Western curators – the “benefactors” of Ukraine – will demand higher gas prices for consumers, the lifting of the ban on trading agricultural land and permission to supply the EU with round timber, to name a few. In the future, Kiev will be compelled to pay through the nose for American liquefied shale gas, as is now the case with American coal.

Looking at these not quite adequate actions of the Ukrainian authorities, we can only feel compassion for the residents of Ukraine who are bound to hear new “victorious” reports from Kiev. We are convinced for some reason that more than enough pretexts will be found.



Blacklisting of independent international observers at the elections in Crimea by the Ukrainian extremist website Myrotvorets

We noted that the personal information of independent foreign observers that were in Crimea during the presidential election in Russia were included in the data base of the website Myrotvorets (Peacemaker), the server of which is located in the United States. On March 18, the website published the names of observers from Italy, Spain and Sweden. The names of three Cypriot observers appeared there a bit later. Independent observers from Finland, Germany, Norway and Italy that visited Crimea before were included in the website’s data base before March 18. The website noted that these foreigners “deliberately violated Ukraine’s state border” and “engaged in propaganda efforts.”

We would like to note that UN human rights agencies have already drawn attention to the website's violation of the right to a private life and presumption of innocence, and advised Kiev to conduct an investigation and shut down the server. Similar concerns are expressed in the report of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine published in September 2017. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights emphasised in this report the lack of progress in the criminal investigation of the website Myrotvorets and called on the Ukrainian authorities to guarantee that a credible investigation of its violations be held immediately. The latest, March report of the Monitoring Mission contains similar appeals. It notes that although the Ukrainian police launched criminal proceedings against it, nothing has yet been done.

In 2016, Dunja Mijatovic, the then OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, also expressed her concerns to Kiev when the website Myrotvorets published life-threatening personal information of journalists accredited in Donbass.

The reluctance of the Ukrainian authorities to conduct a credible investigation of the activities of the notorious website and take relevant measures is a violation of their commitments in the Council of Europe, which are established by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. The notorious website is not only using and spreading personal data for illegal purposes but is also violating the right to privacy.

In its practical activities the European Human Rights Court proceeds from the premise that in similar cases the state’s practical and effective protection of an individual’s private life consists in the adoption of effective measures to identify and prosecute the violators, which has not been done since the website is still functioning with the clear tacit approval of the Ukrainian authorities. The website publishes more personal information about citizens of foreign states, including the EU, every week.

Apparently, this is how Ukraine is fulfilling its obligations in the Council of Europe, the UN and the OSCE – it continues subjecting its own and foreign citizens to lethal danger. By now all observers that were mentioned in its data base have returned to their home countries. In their opinion, the elections in Crimea were held at the proper level and without serious violations. Kiev’s antagonistic reaction is the best proof of this.



Latest outrage committed by radical Ukrainian nationalists

We were outraged to learn that radical Ukrainian nationalists have desecrated the monument to General Nikolai Vatutin in the town of Berdichev in the Zhitomir Region of Ukraine, where neo-Nazi young men in broad daylight broke the commemorative plaque and mocked, with impunity, the memory of the commander who led the Red Army to liberate Ukraine from Nazi invaders.

We strongly condemn this raid by vandals who call themselves “patriots.” We are convinced that this and similar shameful actions are not supported by millions of Ukrainian citizens whose fathers and grandfathers helped save the world from the scourge of fascism. Yet again, we call on the Ukrainian authorities to take necessary measures to protect the symbols of victory of our peoples in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-45 and end its policy of indulging extremists.



Accusations against Russia of cyber attacks

We have noted the resumed frenzy in the German media and the spreading of reports on Russia’s involvement in an alleged attack on the computer system of the German government by Russian hackers. It is alleged that that attack damaged sensitive personnel data of the German Foreign Ministry and Ministry of Defence.

We should point out that throughout the years of the West’s campaign regarding the so-called “Russian cyber threat” Moscow has received no requests to clarify the situation or respond. Instead of choosing to engage in political dialogue and go through diplomatic channels, as well as formats for partner cooperation between special services, and legal assistance through law enforcement agencies, which Russia has repeatedly offered, the emphasis has been on drumming up public support and making unfounded accusations against us that are not supported by the slightest bit of credible evidence or proof.

Considering all this, it appears that the anti-Russian hysteria is purposely being escalated, in particular, to justify the spending, ostensibly for defence in cyberspace, including the creation of cyber forces and headquarters, primarily for preparing attacks on the internet infrastructure of Russia, their supposed opponent, as part of their offensive strategy.

In response, we reaffirm that we are ready for serious discussion of all pressing issues at the negotiating table.

Russia has put forward a constructive agenda: developing rules for states’ responsible conduct in the information space and seeking mutual understanding regarding incidents there, as well as expanding confidence-building measures in this field and taking advantage of multilateral negotiation platforms.

We expect that the partners will resume seeking mutual responses to cyber threats through dialogue on international platforms and bilateral channels.



Time magazine’s pseudo-investigation into alleged Russian-Venezuelan collaboration to create the petro cryptocurrency

We have taken note of a pseudo-sensational item, which is very similar to many other fake news that have popped up recently, about Russia’s alleged contribution to the creation of the Venezuelan cryptocurrency, the petro. This “exclusive investigation” into the alleged involvement of the Russian authorities in the creation of the state-backed Venezuelan digital currency is a deliberate falsehood. The Russian Finance Ministry made a comment on this matter to our colleagues from Times. It said the following:

The Finance Ministry of Russia did not and does not have any connection to the Venezuelan cryptocurrency, the petro. The Russian financial authorities did not take part in this project in any capacity. During a meeting in Moscow on February 21, 2018, Venezuelan Finance and Economy Minister Simon Zerpa gave a promotional booklet about the petro to Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov. Mr Zerpa’s only goal was to inform the Russian partners about this project. The ministers did not raise or discuss the possible use of the digital currency in Russian-Venezuelan cooperation.

We would like to ask our colleagues from Time and other journalists who are interested in this issue to use reliable official information, because the sources which you often cite either do not have the information or deliberately misinform you.

Also, I would like to point out that under the Russian Constitution the only legal payment instrument in Russia is the rouble issued by the Bank of Russia. The issuance and use of any other payment instruments are illegal in Russia. Anton Siluanov spoke in detail about the possibility of using any form of blockchain technology for financial settlements in Russia in a recent interview with the RT television channel (LINK).



Large-scale demolition of monuments to Soviet soldiers in Poland

We resent the large-scale campaign to demolish monuments to Soviet soldiers who fell during WWII while liberating and saving Poland and Polish people.

According to our information, such monuments have been demolished in the towns of Inowroclaw in the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Pulawy in the Lublin Voivodeship, Skierniewice in the Lodz Voivodeship, Strzegom in the Lower Silesian Voivodeship, and Choszczno in the West Pomeranian Voivodeship.

Poland is flagrantly violating the February 22, 1994 intergovernmental agreement on burial sites and places of remembrance of victims of wars and repression. This is brazen disregard for the history of our peoples’ joint struggle against the Nazi invaders.

The financial aspect of the hasty demolition of monuments is especially cynical: the Polish decommunisation law, which provides for the demolition of all memorial and cultural history facilities that do not suit the current Polish authorities for ideological reasons, also stipulates government payments to those who demolish historic memorials by March 31, 2018.

It is painful when these considerations take priority over human decency, tribute to the memory of the fallen and a country’s international commitments.



Russia’s response to demolition of monuments in Lithuania

During the previous briefing, the Sputnik news agency asked about Russia's response to the demolition of monuments in Lithuania. We would like to say the following.

First of all, it should be noted that the court proceedings concerning the headstones on the graves of Red and Russian Imperial army soldiers in the Antakalnis Cemetery continues, and that a final ruling has not been handed down thus far. Therefore, the Lithuanian military history association Forgotten Soldiers still expects to prevent the demolition of these monuments.

However, in principle, in the event of any disrespectful actions with regard to Russian memorial sites in Lithuania, we believe it possible to take reciprocal steps, in particular, concerning Lithuania’s memorial activities on the territory of the Russian Federation.



Entry procedure to Macedonia for citizens of the Russian Federation

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia has updated us on the decision taken by the Government of the Republic of Macedonia on March 13 to extend visa-free entry of Russian citizens on short-term trips to Macedonia for another year.

According to the established procedure, Russian citizens need to have a valid foreign-travel passport and insurance to enter Macedonia. This procedure applies only to short-term trips, implying a less than 90 day stay in Macedonia in every six months, counted from the day of first entry.

The visa-free travel of Russians to Macedonia, previously introduced by Skopje, is extended until March 15, 2019.




Excerpts from answers to questions:



Question:

Is the fact that the Turkish army has recently occupied a number of villages in the suburbs of Aleppo, previously controlled by the Syrian army, a violation of the Astana agreements that established de-escalation zones in Syria?

The second question concerns the statement made by Prime Minister of Finland Juha Sipila after a high-profile meeting in Brussels that Finland has not yet decided on the expulsion of Russian diplomats from Helsinki, but, he said, a number of European countries have already made this decision. In particular, he named France, Poland and the Baltic countries. What reaction will follow from the Russian Foreign Ministry?



Artyom Kozhin:

About the first question, I have to say that all the agreements reached in Astana have been widely covered at the news conferences of Russia's special presidential envoy on the Syrian settlement, Ambassador-at-Large Alexander Lavrentyev. All information is published on the official website of the Russian Foreign Ministry and on official accounts on social networks.

Send us, please, the list of villages you are talking about, and we will give you an answer, because such facts have to be geo-referenced, as they say.

I will not say much about the departure of European diplomats from Moscow or the expulsion of Russian diplomats. We know about this only from the media – from your colleagues in fact. No one has addressed us on the issue in an officially established procedure. If someone does, we will explore this topic.



Question:

We understand that the EU has decided to recall its Ambassador to the Russian Federation, Markus Ederer, for consultations. How do you feel about UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s call for a tough response to the Salisbury incident? Do you think the EU has already taken a decision on anti-Russian measures, as Ms May demanded?



Artyom Kozhin:

As for UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s statements, I can say that I started this briefing with a statement. Our position on this issue will be in the transcript. As for the departure of foreign diplomats and the alleged decision to recall EU Ambassador to the Russian Federation Markus Ederer for consultations, we are only aware of this from media reports. No one addressed us according to the established official procedure.



Question:

Should we expect any changes in Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept approved by President Vladimir Putin on November 30, 2016, or Russia's foreign policy priorities after the presidential election? In particular, we are interested in cooperation with the countries of the South Caucasus. Or will the country’s foreign policy continue to be based on the 2016 Concept?



Artyom Kozhin:

This is too broad a topic. If you are interested in a detailed answer, we are ready to give it to you separately. I can only say that, in general, Russian foreign policy, based on compliance with international law, will not change fundamentally and will continue to be implemented in accordance with generally accepted international norms.



Question:

Will representatives of the Taliban movement participate in the conference in Tashkent?



Artyom Kozhin:

I do not have such information. I will clarify and will get back to you with an answer.



Question:

I have two questions for you. What do you think about changes in the Trump administration, in particular, the appointment of a new national security adviser, John Bolton, who is considered a hawk?

We can see that the Skripal case has become a kind of a watershed dividing all the countries in their attitude to Russia and Great Britain. The European Union is officially supporting Britain, yet refuses to take tough measures. Which countries support Russia? At the most recent briefing, we saw Serbia and Venezuela voice their support. China and India supported us in the UN Security Council. Have the countries of the CIS, the CSTO, and the EAEU expressed their solidarity with the position of Moscow?



Artyom Kozhin:

The first question is not for us, but the Americans. We do not interfere in government appointments made in other countries. We will work with whoever is appointed.

With regard to the Skripal case, many statements have already been made. You are aware of Russia’s position and all the details. Recently, Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Vladimir Yermakov gave a very detailed briefing. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also had a lot to say on this matter, in particular, during a news conference following talks with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono in Tokyo. I can say that we are not sure if there is such a “case” or not. No evidence or data have been presented. So far, it has been more like creative writing.

With regard to supporting Russia in particular issues, such as the one you mentioned, such support is provided by the countries which observe international law, rely on UN rules and conduct themselves in a civilised manner.



Question:

In the context of the most recent telephone conversation between President Putin and President Trump, the media reported that respective foreign ministers were instructed to make arrangements for a bilateral summit in the near future, which gave rise to rumours of the pending resignation of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. How is that connected?



Artyom Kozhin:

This is not your first time visiting our briefings. We do not comment on rumours, because they are rumours. We will not waste our time on this. With regard to arranging special meetings at a particular level, keep an eye on official information sources.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3138333
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 30th, 2018 #391
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 at a joint news conference following talks with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, Tokyo, March 21, 2018



21 March 2018 - 11:35








Question:

You have already touched upon the Salisbury incident. Will Russia respond if London makes good on its threats and continues to adopt measures against Russia? Are such British threats fraught with the further aggravation of bilateral relations? Will Russia request access to the Novichok chemical agent during the expert checks being conducted by the OPCW?



Sergey Lavrov:

We will demand answers to all our questions that have been formulated down to the smallest detail and that have been submitted to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We are asking absolutely professional questions. These clear and absolutely specific questions lack any lyrical aspects, unlike the position of the British Government, which insists that there are only two scenarios: either this was done on the orders from the Russian leaders or the Russian leaders have lost control over certain chemical substances. I want to point out that we have eliminated them, as confirmed by the OPCW in the autumn of 2017.

On the whole, there is no doubting the fact that the current British leaders are deliberately undermining Russian-British relations. If this line continues in the form of new anti-Russia actions, then, of course, the reciprocity principle still stands.

I believe that everyone, primarily the official London, would benefit if people there stopped being nervous (and they are obviously nervous because of this situation) and calmed down. Today, we are witnessing frantic shuttle diplomacy all over the world and efforts to talk partners into siding with the UK on this issue, without presenting any facts. I believe that everyone realises this, but, out of misguided solidarity, they are forced to utter statements that could be interpreted as support for London’s position.

I would like to once again draw your attention to the fact that all this is being done when the investigation remains incomplete (according to Scotland Yard professionals, this investigation will take months), when no trial has taken place, and when no verdict has been passed. Therefore the Anglo-Saxon legal system is getting some very interesting new precedents.



Question (addressed to Taro Kono):

Your latest meeting with your Russian counterpart lasted longer than planned and you must have conducted in-depth discussions on many issues. The Russian side has pointed out that if the Northern Territories are transferred under Japanese jurisdiction, the US Armed Forces may deploy their bases there under the Japanese-US Security Treaty. How does Japan respond to these Russian remarks? How did the Russian side respond?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Taro Kono):

In reply to this question, I would like to reaffirm that we perceive security-related issues in this region (in the context of talks on the bilateral peace treaty) as highly important. We have formulated our concerns and submitted them to our Japanese colleagues. We have suggested discussing them separately, and we hope that such a dialogue will take place in the near future.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3134000






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a news conference following talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Vietnam Pham Binh Minh, Hanoi, March 23, 2018



23 March 2018 - 10:46








Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to our Vietnamese friends, on behalf of our delegation and personally, for their hospitality.

This morning we had a meeting with the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Nguyen Phu Trong. We have had very substantive talks and we also plan to have a meeting with President of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Tran Dai Quang.

Our talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Vietnam Pham Binh Minh were held in a friendly atmosphere. We exchanged opinions on a broad range of matters. Vietnam and Russia are old and reliable friends, as well as strategic partners. We maintain a trust-based political dialogue at the high and top levels, as well as cooperation between nearly all the concerned ministries, agencies and services.

Today we discussed the implementation of the agreements that were reached during the official visit made by the President of Vietnam to Russia in the summer of 2017, as well as during our presidents’ meeting on the sidelines of the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in Danang in the autumn of 2017 and during a meeting of our prime ministers at the East Asia Summit in Manila, also last autumn.

We pointed out the sustainable deepening of ties between our parliaments, ministries and agencies, political parties and public associations, as well as between people, as evidenced by a considerable increase in the mutual tourist flow to Russia and Vietnam last year.

We have agreed to speed up the preparation process for the programmes and events due to take place during the cross-years of Russia and Vietnam in 2019.

We pointed out with satisfaction that bilateral trade increased by over 30 per cent last year, although figures differ. According to our statistics, bilateral trade has exceeded $5 billion, whereas the Vietnamese data put it at slightly below $5 billion. But growth is evident in both cases. We agree that this was made possible largely thanks to the implementation of the free trade agreement signed between Vietnam and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

We talked about the efficient operation of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, which convened its 20th meeting in Ho Chi Minh City in September 2017.

Vietnam and Russia want to develop not just trade but also mutual investments. We believe that progress in this sphere will be facilitated by the recently established working group on priority investment projects. We will encourage direct ties between the business communities of Russia and Vietnam. In particular, we expect to see large Vietnamese business delegations at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) and at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok.

We share a high opinion of the operation of joint ventures between the leading Russian and Vietnamese oil and gas companies. It is a key area of our economic partnership. We also discussed the future of our cooperation in electricity production, the peaceful use of nuclear energy, agriculture, mechanical engineering, banking, as well as transportation and infrastructure. We have agreed to promote our cultural ties and educational exchanges. The number of government scholarships that are assigned to Vietnamese students in Russia every year is growing constantly and is rapidly approaching 1,000.

Vietnam and Russia hold identical views on the world order. They stand for respecting international law and the central role of the UN, for a collective approach to any problems, as well as for an exclusively peaceful settlement of any disputes. We also uphold this position with regard to the situation in the Asia-Pacific Region. Our countries want to create a regional cooperation architecture there that will ensure the sustainable development and protect the security interests of all regional countries without exception. We pointed out that military and technical cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is in full compliance with these criteria.

Regarding our ties with regional countries and our views on the collective development of a new, inclusive and non-bloc architecture, Russia believes that these efforts must be based on ASEAN’s central and inspiring role. The plan of cooperation between our foreign ministries, which we have signed for the period of 2019 and 2020, is designed to further improve our foreign policy coordination.

We share the opinion that this visit and the talks we have had in Vietnam have greatly contributed to the strengthening of our comprehensive strategic partnership.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3136961






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions, Hanoi, March 23, 2018



23 March 2018 - 21:05




Question:

Could you comment on media reports saying that some countries, including France, the Baltic states and Poland may recall high-ranking diplomats following the Skripal case.



Sergey Lavrov:

The British are running around the world, demanding that their partners follow their lead. When taking a decision, every country is guided by its own understanding, its sense of dignity. Let us wait and see. No facts have been produced, which leads us to think that it is a provocation. Although the investigation is still in progress, they are feverishly trying to force their allies to take steps towards confrontation under the pretext of solidarity and consensus. They are charting a course towards the most serious crisis possible in their relations with Russia, artificially driving all issues into a deadlock. The examples to follow are people calling for dialogue, who constitute a majority.



Question:

Could you comment on HR McMaster’s replacement by John Bolton?



Sergey Lavrov:

This was a decision of US President Donald Trump, who makes decisions of this kind in line with his understanding of the tasks facing the US Administration.



Question:

Have you met him before?



Sergey Lavrov:

I worked with him when he served as the acting US Ambassador to the United Nations. He was acting US Ambassador because the Senate did not confirm his appointment. He served in that role less than a year. However, after he resigned from this position, he remained active in politics and we called each other from time to time. Once when he came to New York from Washington, I met with him and we discussed the situation that was evolving at the time. Of course, he is a professional.



Question:

Did he strike you as a hawk, as a tough man, as you read in the media?



Sergey Lavrov:

He is definitely a tough diplomat and politician. But I would like to repeat that he is a professional. Clearly, he will pursue the policies outlined by President Trump. Despite everything, Trump’s policy – and he reiterated this the other day in his conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin – is to return relations with Russia to normal and start cooperating in order to resolve issues of common concern to both countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3139633






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the meeting of the Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund Board of Trustees, March 26, 2018



26 March 2018 - 14:01








Colleagues and friends,

I am happy to welcome you to the regular meeting of the Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund Board of Trustees.

Our meetings take place every year and are called upon to determine priority tasks in the interests of the best use of this important mechanism. The representative line-up of participants in our events makes it possible to discuss a broad range of issues in practical terms and to adopt balanced decisions on improving domestic public diplomacy and helping Russian NGOs.

Today we are witnessing a growing anti-Russia campaign and continuous attempts to discredit Russia and its domestic and foreign policy. Naturally, in these conditions efforts to intensify dialogue with our foreign partners with a view to telling them the truth are acquiring special importance. Obviously, direct contact between people, depoliticised expert discussion and different educational projects facilitate the maintenance of trust and mutual understanding in interstate relations. It is necessary to emphasise the useful contribution that is being made to these efforts by the Gorchakov Fund that has asserted itself as a sought-after tool of support for the steps made by civil society in foreign policy.

The Fund’s activities are diverse. Its initiatives have already become well known in civil society. The Fund responds to various developments in the world arena through its events. We support the Fund’s striving to diversify, which is manifest both in the grants given to non-profit organisations and its own public diplomacy projects.

I am pleased to say that Fund-supported undertakings have embraced all priority areas that the Board of Trustees suggested at its last meeting in 2017. Priority was given to the consolidation of ties in the post-Soviet space, development of ties between Russia and the Euro-Atlantic countries and promotion of international cooperation in countering new challenges and threats. It is worth mentioning the international conference “Russian-American Relations: 210 Years” that was held in April and was organised jointly with the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of US and Canadian Studies, and the Moscow Nonproliferation Conference-2017 (MNC-2017) held in October 2017.

We welcome the efforts of the Gorchakov Fund to promote public dialogue as part of Eurasian integration that is aimed at involving new NGOs and experts from Russia and other member states in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) in this process. The initiatives on holding Eurasian schools, expert discussions on issues, such as the link of the EAEU and China’s Silk Road Economic Belt project, remain current.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin is promoting the concept of Greater Eurasia. Members of the EAEU, the SCO and ASEAN have already shown interest in this process. It is always open also to the EU in the context of developing equitable and mutually beneficial ties that rely on a balance of interests.

In any case, we live on the common Eurasian continent and it would be short-sighted to continue renouncing the use of obvious relative advantages in this highly competitive world.

The Gorchakov Fund’s online lectures have won a good reputation. I believe the Fund’s leadership will continue improving this format by inviting reputable lecturers and broadening the scope of the discussions.

We are active supporters of the Fund’s programmes for the younger generation. Last year the Fund launched the youth versions of the Primakov and Potsdam readings. The Fund did much to organise its own section in the World Festival of Youth and Students in Sochi last autumn.

We also support young foreigners’ increased interest in annual scientific and educational projects, such as “Dialogue in the Name of the Future,” and “School on Central Asia and the Caucasus Dialogue.” The resumption of other regional discussions, including “The Balkan Dialogue” is on the agenda.

The practice of holding international contests for young specialists is quite useful. These contests on the issues of the Middle East and the Balkans have revealed and supported young talent and broadened the range of potential partners and participants in the Fund’s programmes.

The Fund’s long-standing project on supporting expert mobility has won broad recognition. Under this project, the Fund helps domestic experts travel abroad. Some of them travel to promote the positions of our society on different venues. I consider it important to continue supporting this undertaking in the future.

Colleagues, today we must discuss our plans for the future and review priority tasks for 2018. The Fund has submitted its proposals which you have. I regard this as fairly urgent. They correspond to the country’s multipronged foreign policy that deserve constructive discussion and, I hope, support. Please express your opinion during our discussions.

In conditions of rigid financial discipline in 2017, the Fund received requests from non-profit organisations to help them with projects that cost five times more than the amount the state was ready to provide. We are particularly grateful for the participation of the trustees in the Fund’s activities. I would like to make special mention of the members of the board, Sergey Chemezov, Mikhail Prokhorov, Fattoh Shodiyev, Alexei Mordashov, Nikolai Tokarev and Vladimir Yevtushenkov. They actively supported the Fund last year. I probably haven’t mentioned everyone but these made the biggest contribution to our common work. I am sure next year we will continue developing our cooperation with the trustees I mentioned as well as with others.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3140633






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the International High-Level Conference on Afghanistan: “Peace Process, Security Cooperation and Regional Connectivity,” Tashkent, March 27, 2018



27 March 2018 - 10:44








Colleagues,

Your Excellences,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Central Asia has a special place among Russia’s foreign political priorities. Russia maintains relations of strategic partnership and alliance with the states of the region in almost all areas of cooperation in the bilateral format as well as in the framework of the CIS, CSTO and other integration organisations. The political dialogue, even at the highest level, boasts an exceptionally high degree of openness and mutual trust.

Economic ties are making good progress. We productively cooperate with Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan in the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union. In total, Russian investment in the region is $20 billion, with over 7,500 Russian and joint companies working there.

During the last nine years, the total volume of our aid to Central Asian countries, including participation in the programmes of the UN and other multilateral institutions, has exceeded $6 billion.

Cooperation between law enforcement agencies is also developing dynamically. We provide significant help to the Central Asian states, sometimes without compensation, in order to strengthen their armed forces and special services.

The scale of Russia’s multifaceted cooperation with the Central Asian countries and its support strengthen their abilities to face such challenges and threats as terrorism, extremism, organised crime, drug trafficking and illegal migration.

We can state with satisfaction that recently relations inside the five Central Asian states have shown positive dynamics. This means not only conditions to resolve interregional problems, but also to contribute more effectively to assisting Afghanistan. We value the level of cooperation we have reached with the Central Asian states on Afghan issues.

Today common efforts are especially needed. The situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate. In the absence of an intra-Afghanistan political process the Taliban fully or partially controls almost a half of the country, waging active hostilities and organising sabotage.

The expanding penetration of the Islamic State, first of all in the northern provinces that have borders with CIS countries, is a matter of special concern. The group establishes strongholds where they train people from Central Asia, Russia and other states. We regard this as a direct threat to regional and international security.

Drug trafficking is another serious challenge from Afghanistan. According to the data provided by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, last year Afghanistan saw record opium poppy production once again. The Afghan heroin provides substantial financial support to terrorists and extremists both in Afghanistan and even far abroad.

All of this explicitly calls for redoubling our efforts in order to stop the common threats we all face as well as for enhancing cooperation in order to create a peaceful and independent Afghanistan, free from terrorism and the drug business.

It is clear that the conflict cannot be resolved by force, no matter which strategies foreign capitals may approve. Ideas of a military solution are disconnected from historical experience and today’s reality. It is possible to achieve true peace and stability only by launching a constructive dialogue between the Afghan government and Taliban. We welcome the inclusion of this key statement in the final document of the Tashkent conference, as President of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani has said today.

To achieve this goal, Russia is ready to foster close cooperation with allies and partners in Central Asia as well as other countries that understand the lack of alternatives to searching for an intra-Afghan agreement.

We are convinced that a comprehensive approach to a settlement is necessary through a search for balance between Afghan parties’ interests as well as taking into account the approaches of Afghanistan’s neighbours and other countries in the regions. We consider it to be a priority to actively involve such important organisations as the SCO and the CSTO, which have already proven their positive role in the Afghan issues in practice.

We welcome the growing understanding of the importance of the regional context in the Afghan settlement process. As has been demonstrated many times, “recipes from afar” that fail to take into account local traditions and specifics do not help but rather harm. We believe that it is necessary to more actively engage the resources of organisations with Central Asian states as members. The principle of regional representation and honest and equal partnership between all key actors, which is the foundation of the Moscow format as well as the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group, suits the goal of launching an intra-Afghan peace dialogue best. Consolidation of this understanding must be the main outcome of our conference, which was held very timely at the initiative of President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev.

All reputed experts agree that a political settlement process will promote further economic cooperation in Central Asia. In its turn, Afghanistan will be able to make good use of its northern neighbours’ capacious market, their transit potential and firm economic connection with the EAEU as the domestic situation in the country normalises.

We put high hopes on this conference, which should promote the common efforts of everyone who is sincerely interested in stability, peace and prosperity in the states of the region.

Once again, I would like to express my gratitude to our Uzbekistani friends for this initiative, which we fully support.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3141288






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov takes media questions on the sidelines of the International High-Level Conference on Afghanistan "Peace process, security cooperation and regional connectivity," Tashkent, March 27, 2018



27 March 2018 - 15:40








Question:

Don’t you think that effective cooperation on Afghanistan is impossible without proper relations between Russia, the EU and the United States?



Sergey Lavrov:

We hear many questions like that from our partners. We ourselves have always advocated that key international players, such as Russia, the EU, the United States, as well as China, India, the Latin American and African countries, should also be represented. It is hardly possible to seriously deal with a global challenge without them, and Afghanistan has become a global issue considering that drug trafficking from there has increased by 10 to 15 times over the past 12 to 13 years, and, of course, given the continuing terrorist threat, including ISIS attempts, following the fall of the caliphate in Iraq and Syria, to hole up in Afghanistan, specifically, in the north, which is close to the borders of our Central Asian allies, thus posing a threat to them and, accordingly, to Russia.

Unfortunately, so far Washington has been stonewalling our proposals to start serious talks on Afghanistan. As you may be aware, today’s conference in Tashkent was initiated by President of Uzbekistan Mirziyoyev and was actively supported by President Putin. The participants include all of Afghanistan’s neighbours: Russia, China, India, Iran, and the Central Asian countries, without which it is difficult to seriously discuss ways to overcome the current Afghan crisis, as well as many European countries, Japan, and the Gulf countries. We welcome the participation of those who, without being directly involved in the efforts to overcome the crisis, are willing to help create a proper environment, mobilise assistance, including economic and financial, for rebuilding Afghanistan.

It is also clear that direct “bargaining” is appropriate, probably, in any political crisis. In this case, we are talking about the need to create proper conditions for a direct dialogue between the Government of Afghanistan and the Taliban, an idea that received support from the President of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani, at today's conference. In order to do this in a meaningful way, it is possible and necessary to use the political impulses given by the conference like the one that was held today in Tashkent, but there should be more participants from the practical spheres in order to translate these proposals into practical solutions. The Moscow format, with the participation of Afghanistan’s neighbours, Afghanistan itself, Russia, the United States, India and China, represents such format. Unfortunately, the United States chose to abstain from participating in this format for unknown reasons. We believe they did so for purely politicised reasons, just because the format was initiated by Russia. We are not after any kind of falsely understood prestige, or some high profile achievement on the international arena. Everything that we are doing in Afghanistan is designed to make that country a peaceful, calm and prosperous place, so that neither terrorist nor narcotic, nor any other kinds of threats ever come from there.

Achieving a settlement in Afghanistan is in our national interest. Some other external players see Afghanistan as an opportunity to re-affirm their influence in this region. As practice shows, they believe that it is easier to influence a situation that is not stable, that remains unsettled, that is always degrading and develops in ups and downs, forwards and then backwards.

That said, I will once again answer your question and I would like to point out that it would be preferable that Russia and the United States, together with other participants that can influence the Afghan parties, play a greater role in assisting the Government of Afghanistan and the Taliban as the leading opposition force, to sit down and start dealing with their issues directly, rather than play on the discord between the external players.



Question:

Prior to the conference, the Russian Foreign Ministry published a comment stating that Russia is concerned about the Taliban’s growing terrorist activity. Does this mean that the idea of ​​talks with the Taliban without any preconditions remains overly optimistic?



Sergey Lavrov:

I put forth this idea, and it was once again reiterated today by President of Afghanistan Ghani, who put it bluntly that Afghanistan is in favour of talks with the Taliban without any preconditions.

Notably, the UN Security Council has adopted resolutions in the past, which remain valid, calling on the Taliban to sit down at the negotiating table based on a recognition of the Afghan Constitution, a refusal to form relations with terrorists and attempts to resolve the Afghan issue with military force. I think that if the Taliban sit down at the negotiating table, it will automatically mean that they are ready to follow this path.

They remain involved in terrorist activities. Most recently, just a few days ago, they blew up a power line leaving a significant portion of Afghanistan without electricity for two days. Of course, in this context, it is important to calm things down in order to be able to deal with Afghanistan’s economy so that instead of the attempts at sabotage that do nothing but scare investors away, we saw a dialogue and joint productive work, which would encourage investors from other countries to approach Afghanistan without being concerned about their investment.



Question:

When and how are we going to respond to the US and the countries of Western Europe for the expulsion of Russian diplomats?



Sergey Lavrov:

This question has already been commented upon by Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov and the Foreign Ministry. We will respond, have no doubt about it. Such rudeness will not stand, and we will not tolerate it.



Question:

What conclusions can we draw from the sheer number of the countries that made this decision? Specifically by numbers. What does the decision to expel one diplomat, for example, mean?



Sergey Lavrov:

The first thing that comes to mind is that we were right when we pointed out on several occasions how few countries remain independent in the modern world and in modern Europe. Second, of course, when one or two diplomats are asked to leave a particular country, and the authorities of that country are whispering an apology in our ear − we know for sure that this is the result of enormous pressure and blackmail, which, unfortunately, has become Washington's primary tool on the international arena. Whether it's this particular situation or the Palestinian issue, when they state outright that the US will not allocate money to Palestine unless they agree on an idea that has not yet been articulated. That is, they suggest buying it without looking, just like they bought Prime Minister of Great Britain Theresa May’s statements in a situation where such statements were simply an insult to the Anglo-Saxon and British justice system.

Of course, this probably reflects the desire of the ruling elite not to listen to the voice of the people. Today, I was shown the German Die Welt, which polled its readers on whether more sanctions should be imposed on Russia. Over 80 percent said no. So, direct democracy mechanisms should also be used more often.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3141694






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s reply to a media question about Russia’s retaliation against the expulsion of Russian diplomats, Moscow, March 29, 2018



29 March 2018 - 21:20




Question:

Will you retaliate against the expulsion of Russian diplomats using tit-for-tat methods or something stronger?



Sergey Lavrov:

We will retaliate in kind, but there will be more. Virtually right now, US Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman is at the Ministry and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov is explaining to him the substance of our retaliatory measures with regard to the United States. These include the expulsion of the same number of US diplomats and our decision to withdraw our consent to the operation of the US Consulate General in St Petersburg. As for the number of diplomatic mission staff from the other countries who will be leaving Russia, it is also a tit-for-tat procedure. Basically, this is it.

I would like to say right away that in addition, we want to do more than just respond to the absolutely unacceptable actions taken against us under the harshest ever US and British pressure predicated on the “Skripal case.” By the way, I would like to mention with some satisfaction that earlier today the British authorities informed us about the condition of at least Yulia Skripal. They said Yulia is rapidly recovering. We again urged them to provide us with access to Yulia as a Russian citizen. I hope our British counterparts will be able to perform its obligations under the Consular Convention and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

We will not just respond reactively to what the Anglo-Saxon tandem is doing with regard to Russia, forcing everyone to follow the anti-Russian course. We would like to establish the truth. Since the very start of this crisis, we have repeatedly stated that British Prime Minister Theresa May has baselessly accused Russia of being implicated in the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter. She urged us in an ultimatum-like manner to answer a question that could not be answered: she demanded that, within 24 hours, we confirm that the Russian leadership had ordered the poisoning of the Skripals or that they had lost control over their chemical arsenal. Clearly, it is impossible to respond to these things, even if we tried hard to find some answers. Instead, we suggested that they refer to international law, the Chemical Weapons Convention which contains a special article. Under this article, if any party to the CWC has questions for another party, it is recommended that they get in contact with each other, hold a bilateral exchange of views and information, and hold consultations. Great Britain arrogantly turned this down and instead dug out of the CWC a technical clause to the effect that a party to the Convention can apply to the OPCW Technical Secretariat for technical assistance. Under that clause, OPCW experts have now arrived in Britain at its invitation to form an opinion and analyse the substance, which, as the British allege, was used to poison Sergey and Yulia Skripal. I would like to note right away that this article only enables the OPCW Technical Secretariat to identify the chemical composition of a substance that will be presented for analysis. The OPCW Technical Secretariat has no power to confirm or verify Britain’s conclusions. It has no such rights. Also, the investigation itself is not over yet. As you know, Scotland Yard says that it will take months, but the verdict has been returned nonetheless. This is sad, because we have not seen so much mockery of international law for quite a long time.

To get a normal discussion and to establish the truth, we have officially proposed to convene an extraordinary session of the OPCW Executive Council on April 4, where we will present a summary of the specific questions that we have repeatedly asked. I hope that our Western partners will not evade an honest conversation. Otherwise they will confirm once again that what is happening is a premeditated gross provocation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3145578
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 30th, 2018 #392
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 the adoption of amendments to the Education Law by Latvian parliament



24 March 2018 - 13:26



On March 23, the Saeima (parliament) of Latvia adopted amendments to the Education Law in the final, third reading. These amendments stipulate a gradual transition to Latvian as the only language of instruction in general secondary education by the 2021/2022 academic year. This “reform” will be launched next year.

The Latvian authorities have not responded and, moreover, disregarded the mass protests and appeals by the Russian-speaking public to the President of Latvia and the leading international human rights organisations, as well as the proposals regarding these amendments submitted by LAShOR, the Latvian association for support of schools with education in the Russian language.

These odious decisions, which are hypocritically explained by concern for the benefit of the people and are allegedly taken at the request of schoolchildren and their parents, actually have no connection whatsoever to respect for the interests of ethnic minorities in Latvia. On the contrary, they are part of the discriminatory policy of the forceful assimilation of Russian-speaking people that has been conducted for the past 25 years.

The legitimate interests and internationally recognised rights of more than one third of Latvia’s population have been trampled underfoot once again under the banners of “integration” and “the strengthening of the state language.”

These amendments, which have been adopted by the nationalist majority of the Latvian parliament, contradict the national authorities’ statements of commitment to the high democratic standards and values, as well as several international laws.

The Latvian authorities must know that it is such unfriendly activities that are complicating bilateral relations and they should also understand that we hold them fully responsible for this.

We hope that the concerned international organisations will provide an objective assessment of these Latvian actions.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3139695






Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding missiles launched at Saudi cities from the territory of Yemen



26 March 2018 - 13:30



On March 25, missiles were launched from the territory in Yemen that is controlled by Ansar Allah (the Houthis) at the Saudi capital of Riyadh and several cities in the south and southwest of Saudi Arabia. In all, seven missiles have been intercepted by the Royal Saudi Air Defence. However, debris from one of the missiles killed one person and wounded two near Riyadh.

Moscow strongly condemns such indiscriminate missile attacks that can affect populated areas and civilians.

The Houthi representatives in Sana have stated that the missiles were launched on Saudi Arabia in response to the large-scale Arab coalition bombing raids on Yemen, which claimed huge numbers of lives and destroyed vital infrastructure facilities.

In this context, we confirm our principled position in favour of ending the hostilities in Yemen as soon as possible, so that the parties abandon the logic of retribution and the attempts to settle their differences militarily. The humanitarian suffering of peaceful people, in whatever country they live, must be brought to an end. We again urge the Yemeni opponents to resume talks in order to coordinate a consolidated vision of their country’s future based on a broad national dialogue, mutual respect for the interests of the main political forces, as well as on decisions taken by the international community.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3140467






Foreign Ministry statement



26 March 2018 - 16:52



We express our strong protest in the wake of the decision taken by a number of EU and NATO member countries to expel Russian diplomats.

We consider this as an unfriendly step that is not consistent with the goals and interests of establishing the underlying reasons and searching for the perpetrators of the incident that occurred in the town of Salisbury on March 4. The provocative gesture of the so-called solidarity of these countries with London, which blindly followed the British authorities in the so-called “Skripal case” and which never got around to sort out the circumstances of the incident, is a continuation of the confrontational policy to escalate the situation.

Presenting unfounded charges against Russia in the absence of explanations of what happened and refusing to engage in meaningful interaction, the British authorities have de facto adopted a prejudiced, biased as well as hypocritical stance.

This is an attempt on the lives of Russian citizens on the territory of Great Britain. Despite our repeated requests for information addressed to London, Russia does not have any information in this regard. British allies don’t have any objective and exhaustive data and blindly follow the principle of Euro-Atlantic unity at the expense of common sense, the rules of civilised state-to-state dialogue and the principles of international law. It goes without saying that this unfriendly move by this group of countries will not go unnoticed, and we will respond to it.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3140946






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the incident in Kosovska Mitrovica



27 March 2018 - 16:14



On March 26, a heavily armed police task force attacked a peaceful meeting of Serbs that live in the north of Kosovo. As a result of this cruel provocation dozens of people were beaten up. The Director of the Office for Kosovo and Metohija of the Government of Serbia, Marko Djuric, who arrived in Kosovska Mitrovica following all the required procedures, was detained in a violent manner and ousted from the area.

We resolutely condemn this action that is aimed at intimidating all Kosovo Serbs and arbitrary treatment of Djuric who is the head of the Serb delegation at the talks with Pristina. Overt connivance of international agencies – the Kosovo Force and the EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo watched the events as an outsider and did not implement their mandate – they did not try to prevent the illegal actions by Kosovars and ensure peace and stability in the area. This suggests the conclusion that Pristina, the EU and the United States do not intend to consider the rights and interests of Serbs and are going to crudely suppress their striving to defend their legitimate interests. It is also obvious that the Kosovars, as they were taught, follow the example of their patrons from the US and Europe that are trampling underfoot the foundations of international peace as well as acting without any regard for the law.

This extremely dangerous line is fraught with the repetition of armed clashes in Kosovo and the destabilisation in the Balkans in general. Continued attempts made by Pristina to establish control over Serb-populated areas in Kosovo will obviously only make the situation worse and bring to naught the long-term efforts of the international community to achieve a peaceful post-conflict settlement.

We are calling on all those who can influence the Kosovo powers that be to realise their responsibility for these events, deter their mentees and facilitate the de-escalation of tension in Kosovo.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3141741






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the 37th session of the UN Human Rights Council



27 March 2018 - 17:11



On March 23, the 37th session of the UN Human Rights Council ended in Geneva.

During a month of intensive work, session participants passed over 40 resolutions and decisions on important issues on the international human rights agenda, including the link between human rights and development, efforts to counter torture, guaranteeing the right to privacy, the rights of people with disabilities and the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities. They organised a number of special procedures, conducted eight discussions on specific subjects, including high-level discussions, as well as dialogues with the council’s special sections and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

In his policy speech, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who took part in the high level session, talked about Russia’s human rights priorities. He also opened the extremely popular photo exhibit Only Wings Matter: Breaking the Stereotypes that highlighted Russia’s positive experience in involving disabled people in cultural and sport activities.

A high level discussion on the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 25th anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Action Programme, initiated by the Russian Federation, made a substantial contribution to the session’s work.

During the session, the Russian delegation consistently defended the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of states, the unacceptability of unilateral coercive measures, commitment to the rule of law, advocated more active efforts to combat racism, neo-Nazism, ethnic and religious intolerance, the protection of ethnic minorities, efforts to reduce the number of stateless persons and to encourage human rights through sport and the Olympic movement’s ideals.

The council adopted the “Judiciary System Integrity” resolution submitted at Russia’s initiative. It contains an unequivocal appeal to states to ensure for all people under their jurisdiction equal access to justice, close all secret detention facilities and abstain from using the fragmentation of the judicial system as a loophole for not fulfilling the obligation on promoting and defending human rights. It is regrettable that the US delegation demanded voting on this draft resolution apparently against the background of Washington’s refusal to abide by its promise to close the special prison at the Guantanamo military base.

Important supplements were included in the updated resolution of the council on human rights and sport, which is traditionally co-authored by Russia. It emphasises the correspondence of IOC activities with the Olympic Charter and the unacceptability of discriminating against athletes.

The Russian delegation drew attention to the serious human rights problems in a number of countries, primarily Ukraine, and emphasised the need to thoroughly investigate the violations and crimes by Ukrainian security service agents. Kiev’s inaction on the Minsk agreements and adoption of laws restricting the rights of national minorities in education and use of native tongue were resolutely denounced.

Russia’s representatives also expressed their concern over US human rights violations, including torture, arbitrary executions, racial profiling, and the position of migrants in a number of European Union countries including Great Britain, preservation of mass-scale lack of citizenship rights in Latvia and Estonia, and the persisting trends towards growing intolerance, radicalism, reduction of media pluralism and harassment of dissidents in the Baltic region and Ukraine,

Regrettably, a number of countries continue using the council to reach their own political goals that are far from true concerns about human rights. This again led to confrontation-prone manifestations that accompanied the discussion of human rights in individual countries throughout the session. Proceeding from opportunistic considerations, some countries, primarily the EU, Ukraine and the US refused to denounce terrorist acts against civilians in Syria and join the appeal not to finance terrorism on much-suffering Syrian soil. We consider this approach not only as a manifestation of double standards but also as an indirect encouragement of terrorism.

It is perplexing that some countries try to put on the Council’s agenda items the elaboration and implementation of which are not within its competence: issues related to the maintenance of peace and security, healthcare, and the struggle against terrorism, drug trafficking and corruption. For our part, we will firmly adhere to the observance of the existing “division of labour” between the relevant UN agencies and avoid the doubling of their functions.

We believe that the equitable and respectful cooperation of states, based on the universally recognised norms and principles of international law, should be the cornerstone of the council’s activities. We welcome the adoption of the resolution on promoting mutually beneficial cooperation in human rights that reaffirms this principle.

We note the growing interest of representatives of Russian civil society in the participation in the Council’s activities and conduct in parallel events on its sidelines.

We will continue striving for the maximum depoliticisation of the Council’s work and preservation of its inter-governmental character because this is the only way of retaining the confidence of the entire international community in this important UN body.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3141816






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the upcoming visit by Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Kim Jong-un to China



28 March 2018 - 11:27



We welcome the meeting between the Chinese and North Korean leaders that has been held in Beijing. We assess the talks held there as a big step towards strengthening the recent positive developments on the Korean Peninsula and around it.

Working in close coordination with its Chinese partners, Russia intends to continue to work towards a comprehensive settlement of problems in this subregion by exclusively peaceful political and diplomatic means through a direct dialogue between all the parties concerned.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3142282






Press release on Kiev’s new anti-Russian escapade



28 March 2018 - 12:01



On March 26, the Kiev regime decided to expel 13 Russian diplomats in a gesture of “solidarity” with the Russophobic provocation engineered by London in connection with the so-called Skripal case, which, incidentally, has no relation whatsoever to Ukraine or the grave problems that are tearing the country apart.

Kiev’s thoughtless course for the consistent infliction of maximal damage on Russian-Ukrainian relations is a reflection of neuroses afflicting the current Maidan functionaries, who seized power in Ukraine as a result of the 2014 coup. Eager to pander to their Western patrons and sponsors, the Ukrainian authorities are willing to make themselves agreeable to their higher-ups at any cost.

It should also be noted that Kiev has orchestrated its moves in unison with Western nations, including France and Germany, which is creating a negative backdrop for talks on Ukrainian settlement, including in the Normandy format.

It stands to reason that the utterly hostile anti-Russian step taken by the current Kiev authorities will not be left without our fitting and very painful response. The brazen political hacks should have no illusions in this regard.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3142319






Foreign Ministry statement



28 March 2018 - 12:26



The British authorities have demonstrated their inability to ensure the safety of Russian citizens more than once. The glaring examples include the poisoning of former FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko, the death of businessmen Badri Patarkatsishvili and Alexander Perepelichny under unclear circumstances, the mysterious “suicide” of Boris Berezovsky and the strangling of Berezovsky’s business partner Nikolai Glushkov, and lastly, the recent attempt on the lives and health of Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia.

In the latter case, London acted contrary to all the norms of international law, ethics and even common sense. London has accused Russia of poisoning Russian citizens without providing any evidence or the complete picture of the crime. At the same time, it has provided the alleged name of the toxic agent, which has never been used in Russia, and has launched a large-scale political and media campaign against Russia. It has initiated the campaign to expel Russian diplomats from a number of countries and representative offices at international organisations and has announced a package of other sanctions. Meanwhile, it has completely disregarded our legitimate requests to share the samples of the alleged toxic agent.

On March 16, 2018, Russia’s Investigative Committee initiated criminal proceedings regarding the attempted murder of Russian citizen Yulia Skripal and submitted a relevant request to the British side. We expect London to cooperate with us within the framework of the investigation that has been launched by the Russian legal authorities.

The actions of the British authorities raise many questions. The British public is being kept in the dark regarding the key elements of this incident, which has been described as extremely dangerous, and the number of the people affected is kept secret. No information has been provided about the activities of Britain’s secret research facility in Porton Down near Salisbury, where chemical research was conducted. No information has been provided about Operation Toxic Dagger, an annual chemical warfare exercise conducted at the Porton Down facility together with the UK military, which was completed shortly before the Skripals’ poisoning.

Meanwhile, London has initiated a worldwide campaign to spread the presumption of Russia’s guilt. We see a deliberate and purposeful escalation of confrontation and a demonstration of military force on Russia’s border. It is an obvious effort to undermine the political and diplomatic interaction that could lead to an objective and comprehensive investigation of the Salisbury incident.

The analysis of all these circumstances shows that the UK authorities are not interested in identifying the real causes and the real perpetrators of the crime in Salisbury, which suggests a possible involvement of the UK intelligence services. Unless we receive convincing proof of the opposite, we will regard this incident as an attempt on the life of Russian citizens as part of a large-scale political provocation. We emphasise that the burden of proof rests solely on the UK.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3142491






Press release on the 20th anniversary of the National Committee for Promoting Economic Cooperation with Latin American Countries



28 March 2018 - 20:09



On March 28, members of the National Committee for Promoting Economic Cooperation with Latin American Countries (NCPECLA, or CN CEPLA in Spanish) met to mark the 20th anniversary of this organisation.

Created in 1998 with vigorous support from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the committee has become one of the main mechanisms, in its own right, for establishing mutually beneficial cooperation channels. It is with good reason that it enjoys authority and the confidence of Russian and Latin American government bodies, as well as business circles, including big, mid-sized and small businesses.

The committee is significantly contributing to the strengthening of effective partnership between Russia and Latin American countries in the trade, economic, investment, scientific and technological, cultural and humanitarian areas; enthusiastically carrying out activities to raise awareness of the Russian language and culture; and promoting ties between Latin Americans and entities of the Russian Federation. In its role as a co-founder, the Russian Foreign Ministry is providing necessary support to the committee, with which it has maintained close friendly cooperation since the committee’s inception.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sent a message of greetings on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the NCPECLA to Chairperson Alexander Starovoitov and General Director Tatyana Mashkova.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3144223






Press release regarding consultations on security and stability in the South Caucasus



28 March 2018 - 21:19



A regular round of consultations on security and stability in the South Caucasus took place in Geneva, Switzerland, on March 27−28. The Republic of Abkhazia, Georgia, the Republic of South Ossetia, the Russian Federation and the United States took part in the consultations co-chaired by the EU, the OSCE and the UN. The Russian delegation was led by State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin.

Contrary to Georgian Prime Minister Grigory Kvirikashvili’s reassuring statement of March 9 on his country’s resolve to make progress at the talks in Geneva, the Georgian representatives have turned the meeting into a publicity event. They again spoke about the alleged Russian occupation and attempted to shift the blame for their own inability to normalise relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia onto Russia.

The Russian delegates pointed out the futility of Georgia’s attempts to use the Geneva talks for voicing their ideological clichés. Instead, Georgia should start thinking about ways to restore trust in relations with its neighbours, launch a direct dialogue with Abkhazia and South Ossetia based on mutual respect, stop encouraging other countries to deny visas to these republics’ residents, abolish the law On Occupied Territories, and stop hindering the republics’ cultural and humanitarian events abroad.

The Tbilisi delegates tried to shift the focus to the so-called Archil Tatunashvili case and to lay the blame for the death of this Georgian citizen not just on South Ossetia, but also on Russia. Murat Dzhioyev, head of the South Ossetian delegation, provided convincing arguments against this approach.

During a discussion of the situation on the ground, the Russian, Abkhazian and South Ossetian representatives expressed their concerns regarding the activities of the EU Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM) in the areas adjacent to the two republics. Onsite patrolling and the biased position of EU representatives at meetings of the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism (IPRM) raise numerous questions. The number of violations by EUMM observers of Abkhazia’s and South Ossetia’s state borders has increased fivefold over the past three months. The EU observers have been urged to respect the borders of these Caucasus republics so as not to provoke any incidents.

At the same time, all participants at the talks excluding the Georgian delegation have agreed that the situation in the region is stable and manageable, and that the number of violations has not exceeded the average. The data for the number of crossings on the Georgian border with Abkhazia and South Ossetia point to the absence of serious hindrances to the freedom of movement.

Regrettably, the participants at the talks failed to coordinate the draft of a joint statement on the non-use of military force. This time, US delegates proposed unacceptable wording characterising the August 2008 events.

The Russian delegation pointed out, citing the August 12, 2008 agreements, that the Russian provisional forces in the regions of Georgia that are adjacent to Abkhazia and South Ossetia were replaced with permanent EU observers back in October 2008 and that Russia does not have any other obligations in this sphere.

The Russian, Abkhazian and South Ossetian delegations expressed their concerns regarding Georgia’s military cooperation with NATO. They pointed out that there are no guarantees that Georgia, which is being equipped with Western weapons, will not resume its militarist policy regarding its neighbours. This poses a threat to stability in the South Caucasus.

Discussions in the humanitarian group were blighted by a recent resolution on cooperation with Georgia adopted at the UN Human Rights Council, which includes provisions on access to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which were added to the text at Tbilisi’s request. Just as in the case of the UN General Assembly’s annual resolution on refugees, this technical document has been turned into a propaganda instrument that is hindering dialogue in Geneva.

Nevertheless, those who took part in the consultations have reaffirmed their resolve to continue to search for ways to attain the agreed humanitarian goals in the region, including in the sphere of environmental safety, the preservation of cultural legacy and the search for missing persons, as well as education.

The next meeting in Geneva has been set for June 2018.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3144233






Press release on ambassadors of Latin American and Caribbean countries’ flower-laying ceremony at the memorial to the Kemerovo victims



29 March 2018 - 18:15







On March 29, the ambassadors of Latin American and Caribbean countries accredited in Moscow came to the Alexander Garden and laid flowers at the memorial to the victims of the shopping centre fire in Kemerovo. The heads of the Foreign Ministry’s Latin American Department also took part in the ceremony.

The heads of the diplomatic missions conveyed, on behalf of the governments of their countries, deep condolences to the families and friends of those who died in this horrible tragedy, expressed solidarity with the Government and people of the Russian Federation and wished a speedy recovery to the injured.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3145358






Press release



30 March 2018 - 13:19



On March 30, the heads of diplomatic missions of a number of countries accredited in the Russian Federation, that took unfriendly actions against Russia “in solidarity” with the United Kingdom in the Skripal case have been summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry.

The ambassadors will be handed notes of protest and informed of Russia’s reciprocal measures.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3149318
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 31st, 2018 #393
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 29, 2018



29 March 2018 - 18:29








Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of Bangladesh Abul Hassan Mahmood Ali’s working visit to Russia

Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of Bangladesh Abul Hassan Mahmood Ali will pay a working visit to Moscow on April 2 at the invitation of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

It is planned that the ministers will review the current state of Russia-Bangladesh relations, the prospects for promoting political dialogue and ties in trade, economic, cultural and other practical areas, as well as ways to improve the bilateral treaty and legal framework.

With regard to the international and regional agendas, the participants will focus specifically on expanding cooperation in international organisations, primarily the UN and its specialised agencies.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to participate in the 7th Moscow Conference on International Security

On April 4-5, the Defence Ministry is holding the 7th Moscow Conference on International Security which is one of the most important political events of the year and a popular platform for professional discussion of the most pressing issues in this area. It is traditionally attended by high-ranking representatives of many states.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will deliver a report.



Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger

On April 5, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger, who will be in Moscow to attend the 7th Moscow Conference on International Security, organised by the Russian Ministry of Defence.

During the talks, the officials will discuss current issues on the organisation’s agenda and ways to increase its effectiveness. Russia regards the OSCE as an important tool for building an indivisible security community in the Euro-Atlantic region based on equal dialogue and cooperation between all member states. We prioritise reducing tensions and restoring trust in order to overcome the current security crisis in Europe.

The officials are set to exchange their views on the role and contribution of the OSCE to settling the conflicts in Donbass, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as to co-chairing the Geneva discussions on stability in the South Caucasus. They will also touch upon the organisation’s field missions in the Balkans and Central Asia.

The activities of the OSCE institutions such as the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), High Commissioner on National Minorities and Representative on Freedom of the Media, who unfortunately do not always act impartially and without prejudice, will also be an important subject of the talks.

We believe that the OSCE reform, which is the key factor to improving the organisation’s effectiveness and involvement, must aim to fix these shortcomings. The reform’s main goal is to develop an OSCE Charter and procedural rules for its executive agencies. Maintaining the organisation’s international character as well as the leading role of its directive agencies and strict compliance with the consensus rules when making decisions remains its absolute priority.

We hope that during the talks the officials will discuss ways to rectify the thematic, geographical and personnel imbalances in the organisation as well as to enhance transparency of its programme and finance sphere, including off-budget projects.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to take part in the meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers

On April 6, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in a regular meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Commonwealth of Independent States in Minsk.

The ministers will discuss current issues on the international and regional agenda as well as prospects for enhancing multifaceted cooperation in the CIS format.

The participants are to sum up the results of implementing the 2017 plan of multi-level consultations between the CIS countries' foreign ministries and approve the next year’s plan. They are also expected to approve a number of documents in the law-enforcement, military, humanitarian and cultural areas aimed at expanding CIS ties.

Russia together with its Belarusian partners is planning to introduce a draft joint statement of the CIS foreign ministers affirming that it is unacceptable to undermine the principle of non-interference in the affairs of sovereign states for approval of the CIS countries as part of its work to promote foreign policy coordination.



Syria developments

The counter-terrorist operation in Eastern Ghouta is coming to an end. Only the city of Douma remains under the control of armed gangs; but a significant part of the civilian population was able to leave the city through an organised humanitarian corridor. With the assistance of the Russian military, negotiations are underway on the possibility of a peaceful transfer of control over the city to the government forces of Syria.

Unfortunately, these negotiations have repeatedly been interrupted by the radical militants, who advocate the continuation of hostilities, claiming that “help is near.” These are the real consequences of the hysteria raised in the West around Eastern Ghouta. Ongoing unfounded or fabricated accusations against the Syrian government, as well as Russia, of the indiscriminate use of force, the killing of civilians and other lies, allegedly imbued with concern for the fate of the civilian population, in fact create obstacles to negotiations, reaching decisions and saving human lives.

Let me remind you that with the direct involvement of Russian military, more than 128,000 people were withdrawn from the zone of the counter-terrorist operation in Eastern Ghouta. At the same time, militants with families were given the opportunity to move to territories beyond Syria's lawful authorities’ control in the de-escalation zone in Idlib Province.

In the process of this mass exodus, there were no violations of international humanitarian law, according to the UN experts that monitored the process. Syrian citizens who left their homes were placed in temporary centres and provided with food and basic necessities. The Russian military transferred 427 tonnes of humanitarian aid – food, water, bedding, to people in need, providing real humanitarian access to the affected population, as stated in UN Security Council Resolution 2401.

The withdrawal of civilians and the evacuation of militants were carried out absolutely transparently – in front of the world. The Russian Defence Ministry’s website offers live broadcasts from video cameras located in Eastern Ghouta. In real time, you can see the movement of columns of militants towards the province of Idlib. Simultaneously, there are broadcasts from CCTV cameras installed at the checkpoints of Muhayam al-Wafedin and Arbin.

We expect that the UN agencies that literally rushed to help people in Eastern Ghouta, when it was under the control of criminals and terrorists, will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the affected population of this suburb of the Syrian capital with the same enthusiasm after its liberation.

Every day, new facts and eyewitness accounts appear, forming an appalling picture of life in Eastern Ghouta under the rule of militants: bloody showdowns among the terrorists, violence against civilians, stolen humanitarian aid, and profiteering of medicines. Like in Aleppo, cashes of food and medicines were found in tunnels where the terrorists took refuge in Eastern Ghouta. By the way, these tunnels were built with the forced labour of captives that supported the Syrian government.

The current situation in Syria urgently requires coordinated international efforts to promote peace, including providing humanitarian assistance.

We again call on the international community to fulfill its duty and provide effective assistance to the affected population of Syria.

We are still concerned about reports that the United States and its allies are consolidating their illegal military presence in Syria’s sovereign territory. In particular, heavy vehicles are coming to the area arbitrarily established by the Americans around the town of Al-Tanf in the southeast of the country. The Damascus-Baghdad highway remains blocked.

Russia is doing its best to achieve the earliest possible political settlement in Syria based on international law. Today, on March 29, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura. They will discuss the entire range of issues to restore peace and stability in Syria, including the establishment and operation of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva in accordance with the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, held in Sochi on January 30 this year.



Russia’s proposals regarding cooperation in investigating the Skripal case that remained without response

Russia has repeatedly addressed the British authorities through official channels with a proposal to establish cooperation in investigating the alleged poisoning of Russian citizens, as well as with requests to provide information on their condition and, of course, the circumstances of the incident. The corresponding notes were sent via the Russian Embassy in London on March 6, 13, 14 and 22.

Unfortunately, in response to Russia’s legitimate demands and constructive proposals seeking to establish cooperation, Britain has remained silent or is simply responding incompetently. The issue is not about factual or even spelling mistakes. It is as if children wrote them. It’s about incomprehensibly scribbled notes that are difficult to read or figure out what they are specifically about. The note to Ambassador of Russia to the United Kingdom Alexander Yakovenko, which was supposed to contain a response about the condition of the Skripal family, contains information about the health of the Ambassador himself. To reiterate, this is not about factual error, but either a deliberate desire to introduce a note of absurdity in this situation or the total incompetence of the British authorities.

We have witnessed Russian representatives being denied access to injured Russian citizens. Thus, the United Kingdom, openly and without scruples, is breaking international legal provisions, in particular, the Consular Convention between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of 1968. Notably, Article 36 of this document contains provisions that “a) a consular officer shall be entitled within the consular district to communicate with, interview and advise a national of the sending State and may render him every assistance including, where necessary, arranging for aid and advice in legal matters” and “b) No restriction shall be placed by the receiving State upon the access of a national of the sending State to the consulate or upon communication by him with the consulate.” This text was written in 1968 which can be seen from the language. To reiterate, this document remains valid. As we can see and assume, Britain, in fact, is deliberately demonstrating legal nihilism and is not doing so for the first time.

Of course, the fact that mysterious poisonings and deaths occur regularly on the territory of this particular state, and its authorities traditionally accuse outsiders of committing them while making ample use of propaganda and, on top of everything, they classify investigations, also leads to certain conclusions. On the one hand, political decisions rather than findings and results of investigations and court hearings are made available to the general public and, on the other hand, the public is not provided with any actual evidence but rather obscure pictures, as were published in the media the other day. As a result, Britain has left behind a grave trail of unsolved deaths of Russian citizens and British subjects.

Why go far? Here’s an example. Remember the mysterious death of scientist David Kelly? It was he who exposed the lies of London about the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

We will soon compile and publish on the website of the Russian Embassy to the UK a list of questions that we have asked the British side. These questions were sent through official channels and were repeatedly asked by Russian Ambassador in London Alexander Yakovenko. London constantly accuses us of not providing information and not proving our innocence. I would like to note that as soon as we saw, heard and read in the media about the so-called Skripal case and learned the facts (we cannot even state that these are facts), which were published in the media, we promptly tried to contact Britain which shunned all contact with the Russian Embassy. Verbal and written requests for information, as well as telephone conversations, which the Russian Embassy in London immediately resorted to, failed to bring even basic information about the incident.

We were forced to learn from the media the date and the time of the incident, the number of people involved in it, and the level of damage to their health.

We have certainly seen and continue to observe the “performance” that was staged and continues to be played out by British politicians for their political purposes and for the political establishment of their country. However, let’s face it, how can one possibly get any information when Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson, or Prime Minister Theresa May will not even talk with Russia’s representatives and only make catchy political statements in their parliament?



Insinuations around the Salisbury incident

As I said, the media published the same materials that were presented at the closed (closed to Russian representatives) briefing at the UK Embassy in Moscow. I would like to emphasise again that this is yet further evidence that Britain is deliberately excluding Russia from the list of states that were given at least some information.

Russian representatives were not invited or admitted to the briefing at the UK Embassy.

Indicatively, “the charges” that made up the backbone of this presentation were the same accusations that are not based on any real facts or evidence. But the most interesting point is that the number of grievances expressed by our British colleagues against the Russian Federation is growing at a rapid rate. I would like to show you some slides.

On March 14, propaganda slides from the Foreign Office quoted just eight facts of so-called “Russian state aggression.” Let me repeat that this was published by the UK Foreign Office on March 14. There were eight items on which Britain had grievances against the Russian Federation. The materials disseminated at the closed briefing in Moscow contained 12 facts. Only 10 days passed between the two publications. It’s obvious inconsistence. What should we talk about? What should we believe and how do we proceed? We do not even analyse the absurdity of these accusations. We are pointing out the quality of the presented information. Apparently, additional accusations against Russia in a historical perspective appeared after consultations with an “elder brother.”

The wording in the accusations has also changed. Take Russia’s so-called “aggression” against Georgia in August of 2008. On March 14, Russia was accused of not respecting Georgia’s territorial integrity whereas the presentation slides published recently are now accusing Russia of “invading Georgia.”

Especially perplexing is the accusation against Russia of hacking into the German Bundestag in 2015 that Britain added to its growing list of grievances. Colleagues, we would like to remind you that we broke into the Bundestag only once, in 1945 while liberating Berlin from the Nazi scourge, and at that time it was called the Reichstag.

As for the so-called “Lisa’s case” and some disinformation campaign against Germany, we would like to emphasise that this issue was resolved by Moscow and Berlin in a bilateral format. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier discussed the matter during their talks. This was mentioned on the record and officially. As distinct from Britain, Germany conducted a serious investigation of this case when the information appeared. I would like to remind those who were involved in compiling all this nonsense that official representatives from the Russian and German foreign ministries made relevant statements after “Lisa’s case” went through an investigation and the court handed down a verdict on a man who was found guilty. This was the end of this case.

So why are you involved now in classic disinformation? Let me recall once again that there was a guilty verdict in the German court against a defendant – he actually committed crimes that were thoroughly investigated by German law enforcement.

In general, it is of course surprising that these materials were presented as highly convincing evidence of Russia’s responsibility for the incident in Salisbury. The painted pictures are certainly creative in building an argument and an evidence-based case.

After we paid attention to the publication of these materials in the media, the British Foreign Office thanked us in its twitter. Can you imagine? Nobody replied to four diplomatic notes. Nobody informed us about the condition of the Russian citizens. We have not been granted any information on the grounds that they do not deem it necessary to communicate with Russian representatives. But we were thanked in the twitter! This is the height of cynicism.

So you thanked us – fine. And we will thank you, the British Foreign Office, for admitting that these were the materials you distributed at the closed briefing at the UK Embassy for the ambassadors accredited in Moscow. I personally doubted that you would do this, but you did. You admitted that this was the evidence-based case about which US Ambassador Jon Huntsman spoke in Moscow. I doubt that you did this consciously, like everything you do, all the mistakes you make. I think that you thanked us and admitted that you considered these pictures “convincing evidence” simply by mistake. But you did this and it will remain in your history forever.

Now that the world has seen this “convincing evidence,” the propaganda machine, anonymous sources, experts and fake accounts in social media began distributing information that the British Ambassador to Russia presented the main and, this time, indisputable evidence at his briefing.

I am even afraid to assume what this indisputable evidence of Russia’s guilt is if our British colleagues were afraid to quote it in the presence of a Russian representative, who, of course, was not admitted or invited to the briefing. Naturally, what we are witnessing now is absolute and total fake on a global level.

I would like to say that the propaganda machine is already working at full steam. Yesterday radio stations sponsored by US tax payers gave the floor to experts from analytical centres that are also funded by US taxpayers. They were vying with each other to prove that there is no need to assess this evidence seriously because it is clear as it is.

One of these experts (let me repeat that he spoke in the US media that is also funded by American money) pondered the following question: Why do we need evidence if so many countries have already supported Britain? He then asked: Do you really think that the whole world consists of idiots whereas only Russia is smart? Note that these words were not uttered by the Russian Foreign Ministry but by an expert from an American analytical centre. You know, such things do happen, and this was the case with Iraq when our Western partners – Washington and London – showed a test-tube to the world public. And the whole world believed them because they showed it in the UN Security Council.

Ten years have passed since then and everyone understands (forgive me for quoting the expert from the Carnegie Foundation) that they were “the idiots.” Later, they apologized for this for a long time but it is impossible to bring the dead back to life.



British officials at the Olympic Games in Nazi Germany in 1936

On March 14, British Prime Minister Theresa May said that officials and members of the Royal Family would not attend the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia.

On March 21, answering questions from members of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson agreed with a suggestion that the upcoming FIFA World Cup Russia was comparable to the 1936 Olympic Games in the Third Reich. “I think that your characterisation of what is going to happen in Moscow, the World Cup, at all the venues – yes, I think the comparison with 1936 is certainly right,” said Johnson, commenting on the statement.

Mr Johnson, what are you talking about? Let us look into this.

First, what are you talking about – is it sport? If you are talking about sport and the organisation of international sporting events, including the Olympic Games, you should admit that the International Olympic Committee at the time officially appreciated the high level at which those Olympic Games were prepared and held.

We looked into the archives and retrieved messages from Soviet Ambassador Yakov Surits, who reported to Moscow that he agreed with the assessment of the International Olympic Committee regarding the order and the competent organisation of the Olympic Games.

Second, might British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson have meant things other than sport and the organisation of a sporting event? What was he talking about? One is likely to assume that he was talking about the political situation in Germany at the time and how the British political class saw it. We would like to remind Boris Johnson and all Britons, for that matter, of who officially represented Britain at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin. We managed to find an official brochure, “Guests of Honour at the XI Olympic Games,” which was published in Germany in 1936. I am holding it in my hand. Frankly, I feel disgust whenever I have to hold anything relating to that period, events and, even more, political situation – it is a kind of “greeting” from the past. However, I had to read it.

So, who represented Britain at the 1936 Olympic Games?

1. Lord Portal of Laverstoke, Chairperson of the British Olympic Association;

2. Captain Evan Hunter, O.B.E., Secretary of the British Olympic Association;

Britain’s representatives at the International Olympic Committee:

1. Lord Aberdare

2. Lord Burghley, Marquess of Exeter

3. Sir Noel Curtis Bennett;

International Sporting Federations:

1. William Jones, Secretary of the International Basketball Federation;

2. Sir William P. Burton, President of the International Yacht Racing Union;

3. Major Heckstall Smith, Secretary of the International Yacht Racing Union.

This means that the above persons attended official events during the Olympic Games, including the opening ceremony, attended stadiums and maintained contact with local authorities in Berlin in 1936.

Unlike the representatives of the diplomatic corps, who were accredited in Germany at the time and whose responsibility it was to attend the sporting events, the members of the British establishment mentioned in the brochure arrived in Germany of their own free will. I would like to emphasise again that they came to Adolf Hitler in Berlin in 1936 as members of the British establishment, the House of Lords, aristocrats.

I would like to remind you that Germany had already been “infected” with its well-known ideology by 1936. I will not talk about the political atmosphere that prevailed then. But I would like to remind you that the system of concentration camps for the opponents of the Nazi regime, asocials, convicts and other categories of citizens had already been created by that time and the so-called “Nuremberg” race laws had been enacted.

Importantly, until 1952, when Finland hosted the Summer Olympics, the Soviet Union did not take part in the Olympic Games. The USSR also ignored the Olympic Games in Berlin. There were a number of political and ideological reasons why Soviet athletes did not take part in the Olympic Games at the time. One reason for this was that the International Olympic Committee refused to establish direct contact [with the Soviet Union] but it appreciated the organisation of the Olympic Games in Berlin. The USSR National Olympic Committee was established on April 23, 1951. I will not delve deeply into the history of these events, you can do it yourself.

Mr Johnson, do you not find it shameful and, as you like to say, “emetic” that so many British officials attended the opening ceremony of the 1936 Olympic Games? What were all those respectable British sporting functionaries and lords doing as Hitler’s guests? Tell your countrymen about this.



UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s statement in connection with the so-called “Skripals affair”

UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, speaking on March 28, compared the so-called “Skripals affair” with actions described in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment.

“It’s rather like the beginning of Crime and Punishment in the sense that we are all confident of the culprit – and the only question is whether he will confess or be caught,” Boris Johnson said in his speech published on the official website of the UK Foreign Office.

Mr Johnson, have you ever read Crime and Punishment to the end or you stopped reading at the beginning? Since you evoked Fyodor Dostoyevsky, then let us turn to the image and thoughts of magistrate (prosecutor) Porfiry Petrovich, who, unlike you, investigated the murder of a pawnbroker and her sister in a very meticulous and scrupulous way. We, unlike, you, have read Dostoyevsky and we love him and know him.

“From a hundred rabbits you can’t make a horse, a hundred suspicions don’t make a proof, as the English proverb says, but that’s only from the rational point of view – you can’t help being partial for after all a lawyer is only human.”

This was a citation from Dostoyevsky translated into English especially for Boris Johnson: “From a hundred rabbits you can’t make a horse, a hundred suspicions don’t make a proof.” Boris, read Dostoyevsky. It will be good for you.

“But you will ask me: Supposing you are certain of your proofs? Goodness me, batyushka! you know, perhaps as well as I do, what proofs are – half one’s time, proofs may be taken either way; and I, a magistrate, am, after all, only a man liable to error. Now, what I want is to give to my investigation the precision of a mathematical demonstration – I want my conclusions to be as plain, as indisputable, as that twice two are four.” That is also from Dostoyevsky – the words of Porfiry Petrovich.

At this point, let me remind you again that the UK, in defiance of all international standards, quite hastily accused Russia of involvement in a poisoning without any investigation or proofs. Up to now, London has not presented any evidence, nor has it given any concrete picture of what happened. If you have any specific facts, present them.

We have heard multiple accusations against Russia of poisoning its own citizens, of using a toxic combat agent; a large-scale political and media campaign was unleashed. I would like to stress again that Russia has nothing to do with this incident and that it has not received any official information from London.

While drawing literary parallels, a better candidate for the role of Rodion Raskolnikov is former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who made a decision to launch an aggression against Iraq in 2003 on the pretext that it had weapons of mass destruction. And everyone knew that Iraq had no such weapons. Later, Tony Blair apologised, repented and confessed. Let me remind you what Mr Blair said: “I will take full responsibility for any mistakes – without exception or excuse. I will express my profound regret at the loss of life [during the operation in Iraq] … I will pay tribute to our Armed Forces.”

Mr Johnson, will you have the strength and the courage to repent for having no proof whatsoever of Russia’s alleged involvement in the poisoning that took place on British territory?



Links between the scientific potential of the Czech Republic in chemical research and development and the expulsion of Russian diplomats

We noted a large number of materials in the Russian and Czech media which, among other things, touch on expelling our diplomats from the Czech Republic. The statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry that mentioned the Czech Republic among those countries that might have produced chemical poisoning agent Novichok is quoted as the reason for that. There were a lot of insinuations and official statements on the subject.

Given the heightened interest in this subject and, in general, in the Skripal affair, I would like to note again that a memo clarifying the actual situation in the “Skripal case” posted on the official website of the Russian Foreign Ministry on March 21, says the following: “Clarifications are due as to why Russia was absolutely unfoundedly accused of being the perpetrator in the Skripal case at a time where activities under the conventional Western name Novichok were conducted in the United Kingdom, the United States, Sweden and the Czech Republic. The achievements of these countries in creating new toxic agents of this type are mentioned in more than 200 open sources from NATO countries.” This is our official position. They began to draw conclusions about the culprits. There were no accusations, as we stated in this room. There were facts. We were asked questions, including through the media, about materials in open sources. Let's figure out what we are talking about specifically.

This is not a secret or a revelation. It is absolutely basic information for those who know the history of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation (WTO). For a long time, Czechoslovakia, now the Czech Republic, possessed and continues to possess a highly developed chemical industry. The scientific potential in this area was in high demand back when Czechoslovakia was a WTO member. At that time, as part of that organisation, Prague had a special responsibility in the sphere of chemical protection within the Eastern Bloc.

Various media sources (you can find these materials) have published information on this subject, which say that after the dissolution of the WTO, the Czech scientific potential in this field was called upon by its new Western partners, and ultimately, in a sense, inherited by NATO. The chemical defence unit of the Czech army has performed special missions in the Middle East on several occasions. In particular, Czech service personnel were in Iraq and provided relief to the use of weapons of mass destruction in Kuwait. This is absolutely open information.

Media publications about the activities of the research centres in the Czech Republic, which carry out research programmes on chemical warfare agents, allow experts to conclude that nerve agents have an important place in these studies and are named Novichok under the Western classification.

This research is led by the Department of Toxicology and Military Pharmacology of the Faculty of Military Health Sciences of the Defence University of the Czech Republic, the Institute for Defence Against Weapons of Mass Destruction at the same University, and the Defence against Weapons of Mass Destruction Section of the Military Research Institute. The 31st Regiment of Radiation, Chemical and Biological Defence of the Czech Army closely cooperates with these entities, which is tasked, among other things, with providing the necessary data on the use of chemical warfare agents obtained during the stay of the Czech military in the Middle East. To reiterate, these are materials that are readily available online. There is an official reaction to specific facts, for which you can contact the Czech authorities.

The most ambitious research projects on chemical warfare agents are conducted by the above department, the staff of which is using unique research equipment of its own design intended solely for studying the consequences of nerve agents. The lab complex includes high-tech equipment to study disorders in the nervous system and organic tissues as a result of toxicological damage to living organisms by chemical agents.

The development of antidotes as well as the “binding substances” and enzymes to absorb components of the nerve agents until the moment they damage vital organs represent a separate area of ​​research by Czech toxicologists.

This research work is carried out by the Czech specialists in close cooperation with the specialised organisations of NATO countries. As a result of these studies, Czech researchers were awarded grants from the NATO Science Committee three times recently. US military specialists also participated in the work of Czech research centres.

Notably, the NATO Centre against Weapons of Mass Destruction in the town of Vyskov, South Moravia, is the leading research center of the alliance in this sphere. The centre opened on November 22, 2007 at the Czech Institute for Defence Against Weapons of Mass Destruction of the Defence University. Reportedly, 63 specialists from eight NATO countries, namely, Great Britain, Germany, Greece, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic, formed the core of this Centre during the initial period of its activities. This year, military specialists from Canada, who already carry out a number of joint programmes with the Czech Republic, are supposed to join the Centre's projects. It remains absolutely unclear, however, whether the Centre is accountable to the Czech authorities both with respect to its own developments, and in the context of the materials at its disposal, including, perhaps, the unaccounted-for warfare agents. Does this Internationale on warfare agent development say anything when we are told about solidarity? That, strictly speaking, is what it is based on, among other things.

On March 23, the Czech Military Science Medical Journal (we love reading newspapers), with reference to numerous Western sources, including scientific publications, published a piece containing detailed information about a nerve agent classified in Western countries as Novichok. According to the article, the Novichok family agents include more than 100 structural variants. Clearly, the ease of the Czech chemists with regard to specific information about Novichok class agents, possible production processes, and the symptoms and the consequences of their use testifies to wide availability of this information and calls into question the assertions of the British side about Russia's exclusive possession of the relevant technology and designs.

On the same day, another Czech publication, Lidove Noviny, published an article which, with reference to Czech scientists (of course, on condition of anonymity), assumed that the research centres in the Czech Republic, in strict secrecy, could be developing Novichok-type chemical warfare agents. However, the source expressed certain reservations that such activities should have been aimed at creating effective methods of protection against toxic agents. Are there goals other than protection?

So, nobody blamed or is blaming Prague. Unlike our British colleagues, we have never come up with any charges, especially in such a way. We are only saying that this is not propaganda, not Russian media, or social media, but Czech publications which have a long track record. The media space has a large number of materials confirming the high scientific potential of the Czech Republic in the area of chemical research, and this must be taken into account.



Mikhail Lesin’s death

We have seen new articles and statements in the US media regarding the death of former Russian Minister Mikhail Lesin in Washington on November 5, 2015. We are puzzled by this renewed speculation.

Claims are made again that he was murdered and that there is a “Russian trail”. Such claims are based on the statements by well-known British expert Christopher Steele, who has compiled a dossier on US President Donald Trump.

The fact that Christopher Steele is a former British intelligence officer renders the matter even more interesting, remarkable and amusing. The British secret services are famous for their provocation techniques. There are TV series on the topic and also James Bond films which grew into the Austin Powers series. Shifting the blame for their operations onto others is their signature style.

According to the US official forensic investigation, Mikhail Lesin’s death was caused by an accident. There is nothing more to say because the case materials are confidential. But if US law enforcement agencies have new information, we believe they should notify the Russian side first of all since it concerns a Russian citizen. I would like to say that as of now no one has contacted the Russian side about this issue.



Situation on the Korean Peninsula

Russia has been working to strengthen positive developments as regards the situation on the Korean Peninsula and around it. In particular, we are trying to arrange a number of forthcoming meetings in Moscow with representatives of the countries involved. We will provide more information upon agreeing it with our partners.



Poland’s contract on US Patriot air and missile defence systems

We are concerned with Poland’s growing militarisation, which was recently confirmed by Poland’s signing of a contract to buy US Patriot air and missile defence systems. Warsaw is raising its defence spending and is making significant efforts to modernise the military and technical capabilities of the national army, reforming the army units management system and increasing their number. The country’s leaders insist on building up NATO allies’ forces and equipment on Polish territory. The US plans on establishing a missile defence base in the north of Poland are going ahead.

We regard the steps being taken as an element of destabilising the military political situation in Europe and as a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation. At the same time, we state that Russia has sufficient defence resources to secure the integrity of our western borders and to protect our territory.



Anniversary of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia

On March 24, Belgrade commemorated the victims of NATO’s aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Nineteen years ago, by ignoring the UN Security Council and by violating international law and all imaginable moral standards, the North Atlantic Alliance barbarically bombed Serbian cities for 78 days, killing over 2,000 innocent civilians including over 400 children, which are referred to by the West as “collateral damage.”

The pretext for those tragic events was the so-called Racak incident, where Serbs allegedly killed Albanian “civilians.” The Finnish forensic pathologists debunked that propagandistic false information, which was used to justify NATO’s aggression. The dead were Kosovo Albanian terrorists dressed in civilian clothes after their death. Nobody ever was held responsible for that. And nobody even offered apologies. Apparently, apologies do not fare well with NATO.

Almost 20 years have passed, but the methods of our Western colleagues remain the same. This is about revisiting the question from a Carnegie Foundation expert: Do you really think that the whole world consists of idiots? This is a quote from a person who spoke on the radio sponsored by US taxpayers’ money. And the world played that “bloody game” back then. Those were the propagandistic manipulations of the United States and their European allies. Unfortunately, we are witnessing the same practices now. I have covered them extensively today. This situation sets one thinking about the whole Salisbury story, the primitive and hastily drawn so-called “chemical attack” pictures.



The Nord Russian fishing vessel detained by Ukrainian border guards

In connection with the detention of the Russian fishing vessel, The Nord, with 10 crew members aboard in the Sea of Azov on March 25, we need to state the following:

This is clearly another provocative act by the Ukrainian authorities against Russian nationals. Ukrainian border guards acted like Somalian pirates with regard to the crew members.

The ship’s crew had all the papers necessary for fishing in the Sea of Azov and was fishing in strict compliance with current fisheries regulations.

We view Kiev’s actions in this case as an attempt to avenge the conscientious choice of the residents of Crimea to reunite with Russia that was made in March 2014.

We demand that the crew members be released immediately and that The Nord be returned to its legal owner.

We call on the Ukrainian side to restrain from similar illegal acts and strictly comply with its international obligations.



Stepped-up migration control in Ukraine

Recently Kiev’s intentions to toughen migration regulations for foreigners surfaced yet again, primarily for Russian citizens. This includes a mechanism to verify eligibility for entering Ukrainian territory with advanced online notification.

We regard Kiev’s initiative as another step in building up artificial barriers between our countries and peoples. The authorities in Kiev are running out of ideas as to how to prevent Russians and Ukrainians from maintaining family ties, and social and business contacts.

We hope these attempts to limit the normal communication of our peoples will prove ineffective.



Event in commemoration of the uprising at the Sobibor Nazi concentration camp arranged in Vienna by the Russian Alexander Pechersky Foundation and the Austrian Freedom Party’s Education Institute

With regard to the upcoming 75th anniversary of the uprising of the prisoners in the Sobibor Nazi extermination camp led by Soviet serviceman Alexander Pechersky to be marked this October, an event was held in Vienna on March 22 dedicated to that historic event. It was organised by the Alexander Pechersky Foundation and the Education Institute of the Austrian Freedom Party.

Taking part in the event were Pechersky’s great granddaughter, Russian, Austrian and Israeli politicians, public figures, media representatives and compatriots.

We believe that events of this nature carry a very important message – they help preserve the objective memory of the past, of the Jewish people’s tragedy, of the Red Army’s contribution to stopping the “death factories” – the Nazi concentration camps where people of various nationalities died.

It is particularly important to preserve this memory today in an atmosphere where some countries attempt to falsify history, revise the causes and results of World War II, demolish monuments erected in honour of those who gave their lives for the victory over Nazism.




Excerpts from answers to questions:



Question:

Despite the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO, Ankara has refused to take action against Russia in connection with the Skripal case. What is Russia’s view on this step by Turkey?



Maria Zakharova:

We understand what great pressure London and Washington (now we have no doubt that these were synchronised actions) have put on their partners. Strangely enough, they always say "partners in the EU and NATO." In general, the US does is not a member of the EU, but they always say this. We understand what kind of inhuman pressure they have exerted on their partners, using the principle of solidarity and the implementation of a unified foreign policy course. We understand that London and Washington are also the beneficiaries of the whole story with the provocation and deportation of Russian diplomats. Look, how many diplomats have been expelled from these countries – 23 and 60. At the same time, one more Russian Consulate General in the United States was closed. Is this a momentary impulse of solidarity when it comes to such a scale? Of course it isn’t. We proceed from the fact that countries, which, unfortunately, have succumbed to this pressure and continue to do so, are making a big mistake.

Today I gave many examples of how countries succumbed to various pressures – political, financial, have committed these mistakes, and then repented. You can read about it in memoirs, in the appropriate archives and collections of documents. Everyone is repentant about what was done in Iraq and Serbia. Everyone considers it shameful, including their participation in these campaigns. We proceed from the assumption that countries that have not joined this action demonstrate a responsible approach not only to bilateral relations with Russia, but, first and foremost, to international law. Any state could be subjected to the same political and information aggression and provocation any time, when, without a trial, without investigation, without presenting concrete facts, an accusation of any crime can be made. It is worth repeating that this is a matter of responsibility and the responsible behaviour of every state.



Question:

What do you think about the statement made by Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland on the decision to expel Russian diplomats? She said that the Skripal case is not the only reason. She said this concerns Russia’s unacceptable conduct in Syria, Crimea and Ukraine.



Maria Zakharova:

This was the questions asked by all Russian ambassadors who were summoned to the foreign ministries of states where they are accredited and given lists of Russian diplomats to be expelled or to announce their decision. All Russian ambassadors asked for an explanation. I will give you an answer. There is a notion of solidarity in the EU and NATO. The EU summit has just been held. By the way, the participants spent a lot of time on the Skripal case but did not even mention Savchenko. It would seem that they spent so much time yet failed to come up with a common explanation to give to Russia an explanation why its diplomats are being expelled. Every country suggested its own reasons. In the beginning they began saying that this was a manifestation of solidarity. When asked whether this amounted to an accusation against Russia, they did not come up with any credible answers. They just said that it seemed to them that there was a likelihood of involvement. We did not hear anything else. We heard such an explanation from several countries. Others simply said they were not going to make any comments when it came to this situation and this was exclusively a manifestation of solidarity. When asked about grievances to the people that are expelled representatives from various countries occupied completely different positions. The attitudes were different not only inside NATO (at least it would be possible to explain this). All sorts of departments gave a varied range of explanations. Thus, if the ambassador was told that there were no grievances and this was exclusively an act of solidarity, later on one could hear on television that Russia’s “spying network” was exposed. Make up your mind. Have you exposed a spying network in two days, have you done it out of solidarity or this does not matter anymore. The main thing is to select first eight and then 12 pictures (it is not important that their numbers and titles have also changed in two weeks) and do it quickly somehow. This is exactly “somehow.”

Now let me explain why all this was necessary. The anti-Russia campaign and Russophobic polemics – this is all understandable. You said correctly about Syria. This is directly linked with it and with what we discussed today. Look, just a month or a month and a half ago the situation in Eastern Ghouta was front-paged – in your reports as well. You told everyone about a humanitarian catastrophe in Eastern Ghouta. So how come? Is there no humanitarian catastrophe there? Eastern Ghouta is gradually turning into Aleppo and returning back to a peaceful life one way or another. It transpires that the Russian Defence Ministry has launched online broadcasting on its site from its web cameras in Eastern Ghouta. So it is no longer possible to cheat everyone by saying that people are killed when leaving this area, that they are now allowed into it or that children are shot instead of commandos. Literally for several months now the efforts of all global media were aimed at recounting this horrible story about Eastern Ghouta. What is to be done now in order to shift the attention of the world press and public from Syria to something else?

There is a British sitcom “Yes, Prime Minister” made in 1984. This comedy was made in 30-40 episodes. One of the editions is devoted to exactly this subject: how to compel everyone to stop talking about some problem that harms you. This question was answered by British actors way back in 1984. They said it is simple – just expel as many Soviet diplomats as possible and invent a good legend, for instance, that the driver of the Soviet ambassador is a KGB high-ranker. Then everyone will realise that this is a threat to our national security. This was right back in the year 1984! A video is available on our website. This is a classic example of what to do.

As for the second moment – why is this necessary, throughout several years chemical weapons remain the red line at all negotiations, meetings and conferences of the international community on Syria. Incidentally, these weapons were destroyed in cooperation with Western countries. This was an unprecedented operation initiated by Russia and conducted by all countries under the UN auspices. These weapons were destroyed. However, our Western colleagues claimed that they were still being used by Damascus. Russia continuously dismissed this as a provocation. How was it possible to try and exclude Russia from the discussion of chemical arms, in particular, in Syria? This was very easy – to say that Russia uses chemical weapons itself even on British soil. Of course, Russia is using chemical arms with President of Syria Bashar al-Assad. This is a classic of the genre.

Now nobody would even like to look at what is happening in Eastern Ghouta. Everyone is saying that Russia is using toxic chemicals but there are no facts to support this. But why bother with facts when pictures are available?



Question:

What do you think of Bulgaria’s decision to recall its Ambassador Kotsev for consultations? What will be Russia’s response?



Maria Zakharova:

I would rather you do not ask about each particular country. I have already spoken about the countries’ responsible behaviour. Each state should understand that it makes a decision from the perspective of certain material and data as well as convincing evidence. I think your question should be addressed to Bulgaria’s officials – what are the grounds for recalling their ambassador, what are the grounds the decision was taken on. Maybe Bulgaria possesses some data which absolutely, even without any investigation, court and international expert evaluation testify to Russia’s guilt. If it does, will you please share it. I believe in the Bulgarian media – what if they indeed get it.



Question:

Are symmetrical response measures to be expected to the expulsion of Russian diplomats?



Maria Zakharova:

Yes. However, we should not concentrate on whether the measures will be symmetrical or not. They will be foremost adequate. The measures are currently being developed and will be announced shortly. The form and content – you will learn everything when they have been worked out. Not all the surprises at one go.



Question:

The Russian Foreign Ministry has issued multiple advisories to Russian nationals traveling abroad on the risks of their arrest at the US request on the territories of third countries. In view of the escalating relations between Russia, the USA and a number of other countries in the context of the Sergey Skripal case, are these advisories still in effect? Are their concerns that the number of arrests will go up?



Maria Zakharova:

Yes, they are still in effect and may go up. I cannot predict what will happen in this case. It is a warning that was made and still remains effective.



Question:

Poland’s Ambassador to Russia said in a recent interview with TASS that many Soviet monuments were esthetically pathetic and do not deserve to be preserved. What comments would you like to make concerning this statement taking into account that the diplomat represents the interests of his country in Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

Going this way may lead you too far, you can say that some people are not pretty and they do not deserve to live. This logic may lead to such conclusions.

Those monuments were not made for beauty. They were erected at a time when no contests were held on the most esthetic, beautiful or hi-tech monuments. It is still a mystery to me how those monuments were erected in completely devastated, poor, hungry and cold Europe. The necessary primary infrastructure was being restored that would let people live. The end of WW II – the Great Patriotic War for us – did not mean the end of battles to finish off fascists and Nazis. We are perfectly aware of how long it took to finally clear all the surviving enemies. It took years, not just months. In the conditions when Europe lay in ruins (just take a look at the photos), people were thrown out of their normal way of life for several years. A huge number of wounded, maimed, disabled needed social support (food, medicine and just hope that they would get their life back), there were enough resources, will and internal, spiritual powers to erect those monuments. The survivors were erecting the memorials to the dead. I feel ashamed to speak on the topic, to explain that it is not a matter of esthetics. I feel ashamed that people living in 2018 under human rights laws, the humanitarian law, empathy, compassion, shared responsibility and pain, can use such notions in principle. I personally feel ashamed.



Question:

I understand you cannot speak about Russia’s measures in response to the deportation of diplomats yet. What point does Russia want to make by its measures, whatever they may be?



Maria Zakharova:

This is a provocation. If you ask me to briefly describe Russia’s point, I don’t think the format of this briefing will allow me to do it.

I think the Carnegie Institute expert said everything there is to say by asking his rhetorical question. It is unlikely I can phrase it better and think of something else. Most often the journalists I see in this room, or just people I know or don’t know that I meet at various events ask me what this world is coming to. I can’t answer this question although it is part of my job. Perhaps the questions regarding whether these countries understand where this is going and how they will be developing relations with each other is part of the Carnegie Institute expert’s rhetorical question. One hand washing the other and unsubstantiated accusations, allocating blame without evidence is a crime. Please read your national criminal and administrative codes.



Question:

For the past year, Sputnik journalists in France have not been able to get accreditation for events at the French Foreign Ministry, the Elysee Palace and various French agencies. Our journalists can’t attend a briefing like I was able to do today. Meanwhile, the French officials are accusing Sputnik of biased coverage of the government’s policies. How many French journalists representing the country’s state-run media are accredited by the Russian Foreign Ministry? When will retaliation measures be taken against them?

Also, what is the Ministry’s position on resuming the citizenship procedure for people residing in Abkhazia?



Maria Zakharova:

We are well aware of the situation with Sputnik. We have repeatedly communicated our opinion to officials in Paris. We have discussed the problem with representatives of the French Embassy in Moscow, during talks between Russian and French foreign ministers. We have communicated our concerns to OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. All we hear from France is that the decision to bar access and discriminate (let’s call things by their names) against a media outlet that meets all the requirements otherwise, the decision not to allow a media outlet to attend an event for which it is applying for accreditation is a personal decision of French President Emmanuel Macron. We have not heard any other explanation at any level. Nor have we heard references to any standard violation or misconduct.

As concerns your question about Abkhazia, we have no information on a possible resumption of the Russian citizenship procedure for Abkhazia residents, a procedure simplified by Article 13 of the Alliance and Strategic Partnership Treaty of November 24, 2014, between Russia and Abkhazia. A bilateral agreement on this issue is being drafted.



Question:

Many countries don’t believe Russia which denies its complicity in poisoning Sergey Skripal, nor do they believe alternative theories voiced by Russian officials. Does the Foreign Ministry realise that there is a major problem regarding trust in Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

In that case, let’s sort things out: Are we playing a game of cards or are we doing serious business? Is this poker or international relations? Does this mean common responsibility before international law and a real international game under the UN Charter’s rules, or does this amount to the unlimited use of force and pressure? For decades now, the West taught Russia that it was impossible to use the factor of force, no matter what, and that it was impossible to use political or ideological pressure. This happened immediately after the breakup of the Soviet Union and during initial democratisation. We learned these rules off by heart. We started building equitable relations with our partners and using such terminology as economic and financial competition, as well as competition in various other areas, we started offering more profitable and interesting projects to our partners, plus we launched competition along real, democratic and transparent lines. It appears that no one expected us to succeed though. They, sort of, taught us all this, but they did not believe that we would be able to start playing in real earnest. But we succeeded. We started establishing integration associations, one way or another, we started proving convincingly that, in effect, the world was not unipolar in terms of its nature and political essence. They started calling Russia a reliable energy partner, although Russia had completely changed its structure together with its political system. They also noted that no economic, political and even geographical changes in Russia ever put gas deliveries to Europe, launched in the 1970s, at risk. In addition to this, they noted that Russia could experience the same difficulties as other countries, that it could ask others for help, that other countries could request assistance from Russia, that Russia was ready to share intelligence data, that it could be a reliable counter-terrorist partner, despite our different perceptions of resolving the situation in Afghanistan. They said Russia was ready to support the United States in this respect, and that it was among the first countries to do so. Russia became open and transparent in a positive sense, and it acted as a real player when it came to international relations.

When Russia started succeeding, just like various countries in various regions do, then, all of a sudden, we got the feeling that, for some reason, the United States became dissatisfied with the energy projects that we were offering to Europe. The United States is doing its best to hamper the implementation of these projects. Actually, the United States and Europe are far apart. And we would like to know why the United States is so concerned about our European affairs. At the same time, we started noticing that our Western colleagues moved to implement an absolutely anti-Russia policy in states with which Russia maintains traditional ties (the composition of our families remains unchanged, and some of their members live in other former Soviet republics). Instead of taking offence and saying that we no longer want to play this game, now that they don’t want to maintain equitable relations with us, we started asking questions and saying that this was not correct with regard to Russia and other countries, and that this would cause an all-out international crisis.

You are talking about trust toward Russia, but if everything is being done to undermine such trust, just like the United Kingdom and the United States are doing, then one probably has to talk about a crisis in terms of trust. Do current developments amount to support or solidarity? The most fantastic thing is that the word “solidarity” has an absolutely different meaning than the one they are trying to explain to us. The most fantastic thing is that solidarity denotes a situation when you support someone, despite various difficulties and circumstances, rather than when they are forcing you to support someone, and when they are putting pressure on you. These are different things.

What solidarity are you talking about here? This amounts to direct pressure and threats. The EU summit has taken place, and it became possible to draft a standardised response, public explanations and actions. Supposing some decisions are made on one and the same day, virtually all EU member-countries (I cannot even say whether the United Kingdom is a member of the EU or not, but I am talking about remaining EU members) decided to expel between one and three, or even four diplomats each. These parameters don’t stipulate a thorough evaluation of this matter, as is the case with the United States that has expelled 60 people. It is possible to quickly decide on expelling one, two or three people. They all made this decision on different days, and explained them differently. Some called us and mentioned one statistic, and lists with other statistics were later submitted. This means that they are experiencing tremendous pressure. Some representatives of the diplomatic corps told us openly about this. You are well aware of this. If you are not, then this is very sad, and this means that you are not interested. What kind of solidarity is this? What trust can one talk about? These are not categories from the novels of Alexandre Dumas when solidarity and trust had existed. These categories highlight the current behaviour of global heavyweights that don’t rely on any laws or moral values. That’s it.

And do Western countries and other coalition members deserve to be trusted after the anti-Iraq campaign? What do you think of it? I am asking you this question, and I hope you will have the guts to answer it.



Question:

Are you really asking me this question?



Maria Zakharova:

Yes I am. You don’t come here very often, but we maintain an interactive dialogue.



Question:

I am the one who is asking you.



Maria Zakharova:

Yes, I have replied to your question, and now I would like to ask you. Do you have the guts to say whether countries that had launched the anti-Iraq campaign or had joined it deserve to be trusted?



Question:

I don’t represent the British Government. I am a journalist, and I am here to ask you questions.



Maria Zakharova:

The thing is that I have asked you as a journalist, rather than a representative of the British Government, although it supports you and also provides you with financial support. I am not demanding an official answer from you. Instead of demanding something from you, I am asking you as a person and a journalist. Just say, if you don’t have the guts to answer my question.



Question:

This does not concern me. It is not my idea.



Question:

According to international law, do US officials have the right to expel UN-accredited employees? If so, what is this organisation’s future?



Maria Zakharova:

The US cannot unilaterally expel diplomats working at the UN. There are procedures regulating the termination of diplomats’ activity. We are trying to understand how the US intends to enforce this decision. As we understand, the said procedures were not observed. Our Permanent Mission to the UN is looking into this.



Question:

Do you feel support and sympathy from ordinary people, members of the public and foreign organisations?



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot say we feel support or the lack of it. The right way to put it would be to say that official representatives of different countries, the public and journalists are extremely bewildered and perplexed and trying to understand what is going on and where this is taking us. There is confusion and realisation that the world is balancing on the edge. It is a very dangerous situation. This, as well as the failure to understand the real situation and ignorance of the facts is what I and Russian ambassadors in their countries of accreditation can feel in conversations and discussions with foreign representatives.

As concerns the public at large, we are receiving a great number of messages from the Russian and international public. They all convey the feeling that the world is constantly in the state of turbulence. Who is responsible for that? What is going on and why? So many lessons have been learned from similar situations that started with a provocation and resulted in irreparable consequences. Once again, we cannot qualify London’s actions as anything other than a global international provocation.



Question:

As a mother, I would like to convey my condolences over the tragedy in Kemerovo.

I asked recently how dangerous the current situation is and you said that there is no scale to measure it. Today you made a reference to Iraq. So, is this war?



Maria Zakharova:

No, it means that we are giving examples of past provocations and saying who was behind them. When we speak about trust we have to look at the facts. The images that were displayed at the embassy and that are being circulated in Great Britain claim that Russia carried out similar attacks against Russian nationals in Great Britain in the past. None of the investigations regarding those Russian nationals killed or otherwise harmed in mysterious circumstances ever got to the bottom of what had happened in such a way that the public or at least the Russian side understood the essence of the matter. The cases of Alexander Perepelichny, Boris Berezovsky, Alexander Litvinenko and several other mysterious deaths still remain classified. Therefore, it is impossible to say that this is a similar situation in which Russia acts as an aggressor. We have no idea about what happened in those other cases.

At the same time, there are proved cases of manipulating global public opinion. I am talking about Iraq or Libya where, because of certain claims, the country was devastated and the situation resulted in a tragedy for the Libyan people. The current events there are unfolding in a rather ugly way, involving money and European politicians. The whole situation there right now is appalling. As a representative of the European media, you know what is going on there better than me.

There are many examples of irresponsible and provocative behaviour by countries like the UK and the US. I mentioned Iraq as the most vivid example of how we were all deceived. They failed to fool Russia. They also failed to fool Germany and France. But Italy and several other countries were, unfortunately, among those deceived.

I want to say to the Sky News representative: look at the similarity between the methods used while building a coalition on Iraq and now, with their so-called solidarity. These are the same methods. For example, there was no point in sending ten people from a small European country to join the anti-Iraqi coalition. Those five to ten people did not make any military, political, scientific, financial or even moral contribution to that campaign. Why do it then? To show that the West is marching out as a large united front, that the countries are expressing their ‘solidarity’, which was in fact something else. Solidarity has a completely different meaning. The coalition was built to invade Iraq and destroy a ‘tyrant’ who ‘threatened the world’ with his weapons of mass destruction. It is the same plan and scheme, but a different scale, storyline and situation.

Do you want to forge another political front? To what effect? So that you could, in the absence of proof, present a list of countries that supported you? This list is of no use to us. We know how it was made and you know, too. Some were threatened, some were asked, some were promised things, some realised that they should not wait for threats and just signed it. This is the only reason why I gave Iraq as an example.

Thank you for your sympathy and condolences regarding the tragedy in Kemerovo. We have received words of support from all over the world, from both members of the public, who came over to embassies to lay flowers, light candles, leave notes and toys, who wrote in their blogs, and from journalists and officials.

We expressed our incomprehension of the fact that on the same day, somebody could express condolences at the official level and yet announce their unfriendly measures against Russia, literally in the same document. This happened with a number of countries. However, we are grateful to everybody who supported Russia and its citizens, the people of Kemerovo and those who lost their loved ones and especially children in this terrible tragedy. Thank you very much.



Question:

On the same day that the Polish Foreign Ministry announced that it was expelling four Russian diplomats, it was announced that the Polish secret services had detained a “Russian spy,” a Polish citizen employed by the Polish Energy Ministry, who allegedly was tipping off the Russian secret services on the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which is odd because it is being built by Russia. According to the Polish media, their evidence is that the detained person was an active commentator on internet forums and even created a forum of his own on Facebook to discuss Poland’s energy policy. What do you have to say about this?



Maria Zakharova:

No comment. I will check up about this.



Question:

What do you think about the massive expulsion of diplomats, which is a new precedent created in international law?



Maria Zakharova:

I have repeatedly commented on this. The case in point is not the expulsion precedent; expulsion, regrettably, is part of diplomatic routine and, as a rule, the exchange is not brought into the limelight. Occasionally, when countries want to emphasise the dramatism of a situation, they make it public, even though these aspects are specified in advance. This time around, we are speaking about an action based on dangerous foundations in the sense that the actions and steps undertaken by some EU countries are being used by London, which, incidentally, is leaving the European Union, as evidence proving the Russian Federation’s guilt.

No one is against countries expressing their point of view on some or other matters in so extravagant a manner. The point is that all these signs of so-called “solidarity” were only needed as the sole argument that could be presented to the international community. Just recall the Carnegie Centre expert saying that so many people and states simply cannot be mistaken. This is what the substitution of the legal basis is all about. It is a very dangerous precedent, where some so-called “solidarity” is used as evidence, although it has nothing to do with what took place in Salisbury.

You are journalists and you can apply to your governments and officials and ask them to provide the material. Practically a month has passed after all. What should have happened for these materials to be provided only two or three months later rather than right now? All these questions remained without a reply. Their list will be published shortly.



Question:

Shortly before the recent expulsions, the Russian and US presidents talked over the phone and said that it was necessary to hold a summit and further contacts. Do the latest events mean that the contacts will be discontinued and preparations for the summit halted?



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot comment on things pertaining to the preparations for summits. You better ask the Presidential Executive Office about that.

As for contacts between the foreign ministries, it has been announced, as you know, that Rex Tillerson will be leaving the Department of State and that Mike Pompeo will take over as Secretary of State. But he has not been appointed yet and therefore there are no grounds for talking about contacts. We are in touch with the US Embassy and we regularly exchange lists as the case may be: they are handing their lists to us and we will be handing our lists to them later. This can also be described as contacts.



Question:

Western countries are expelling an unprecedented number of Russian diplomats (over 140) in connection with the so-called “Skripal case.” What fate will befall these diplomats in the future?



Maria Zakharova:

I have mostly commented on how we assess the expulsion of our diplomats. As for their further fate, I can say that all employees of Russian foreign missions, whose jobs have been groundlessly abolished at the initiative of host countries, will certainly receive relevant appointments under the effective Russian legislation. All Russian diplomatic returnees will continue their careers because their professional knowledge and experience are in high demand.



Question:

What chances of normalising the situation do you see?



Maria Zakharova:

We have repeatedly spoken about this. The absurdity of the situation is in that the British official statements – the British media are here today and they will correct me if I am mistaken – create the impression that it is Russia that has refused to cooperate with the British side. This is the way the situation is being interpreted. Meanwhile Russia has asked the British side for at least some information as a basis for further exchanges: we are willing to exchange whatever you like – opinions, material, contacts, experts, delegations… We have suggested using a relevant Chemical Weapons Convention article. All of that has been unilaterally communicated to the British side but received no continuation or reply. We are still waiting. We reaffirm our interest in getting some information from London in order to start working on this matter, reply to questions, comment, and ask questions directly with regard to this situation. That’s the way out of this situation. But you can’t knock on the door that was not just closed but bolted from the inside, with residents running to the last floor, opening a window and shouting something from it. We are standing and waiting for a reply. Perhaps they can’t reply the way we expect them to, but there are other ways. If they don’t want to reply by sending notes, let them send an expert, we will exchange views; give us samples, accept our experts. We will go along with any option that suits them. But the whole thing began with an address to parliament rather than the furnishing of information, questions, or an application to the specialised organisation. This is absurd, it’s a game for internal consumption. A clear case, where you don’t have to receive any explanations or additional material! But a position has been formed and off they go making a statement in parliament. Just recall all the three speeches.

I can answer your question without equivocations: Britain has everything it needs to normalise the situation. I am referring to our formal enquiries that they can quite easily answer by providing the available information. But they are withholding, concealing and classifying this information. Therefore, they need this for some reason.



Question:

Will Russia accept the results of the OPCW analysis?



Maria Zakharova:

It is difficult for me to talk about this again. We have international law, which stipulates measure for dealing with complicated situations, including tragic and even dangerous ones. We have the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the Chemical Weapons Convention, which sets out the methods and rules for dealing with such problems.

The first thing we did was resort to these instruments. We want Russia to be involved in the settlement of this situation and in the analysis of the available material. As for our attitude to the conclusions, it is a hypothetical matter. We are dealing with practical matters. There are CWC articles, so let us use them. There are Russian experts, who can start working alongside British experts, and there are also OPCW experts. What is the problem? Why is our assistance rejected? Do you understand why? I, for one, do not. We do not understand it. This is the problem. We do not see any desire to cooperate. Quite to the contrary, we see the intention to obstruct equal cooperation within the OPCW based on the existing legal framework.

Is this a game of poker? Is it a game of cards when the outcome depends on the luck of the draw? Or are we talking about serious matters? Don’t roll your eyes and say that you have heard this before. We have heard this as well, but the difference is that we have not received a single piece of documentation regarding this case. And now you are asking if we will accept the conclusions. Which conclusions? What is the basis for these conclusions? Do you know who has been inspected? And were they inspected at all? Who have the OPCW experts visited? Do you know? You do not, of course. And neither do we. I will explain the situation. The matter concerns citizens of the Russian Federation, which means that the Russian Federation has the capability to verify their identity. Who have the OPCW experts been taken to, if at all? Can you tell me? Which documents have they been shown? Who has been shown to them, if at all? Do you know this? Do you have any proof? You do not have anything.

How can international experts say who they have seen if, according to media leaks and Theresa May’s statement, these people are lying unconscious, unable to communicate in any way and “may never recover fully”? In other words, these people cannot say who they are or show their IDs. Who has been shown to the OPCW experts, if anyone has been shown to them at all? This is not fair play. You ask if we will accept the results if the other side is cheating? Let us launch an official dialogue.

I have a question for you. Why do you reject Russia’s statements to the effect that we had nothing to do with this case and our requests to see the materials concerned with it? Is it business as usual, Iraq-style, or will we have a serious conversation? This reminds me of the situation with Colin Powell. If somebody asked him for the vial back then, there would not have been a 10-year-long war and hundreds of thousands of victims. But everyone believed him. And now you ask if we will believe them. What should we believe? More vials? Let us begin with the elementary things so as to engender trust. Let us begin with the formula, with the name and a sample of the toxic agent involved. Is that too difficult to do? Given the modern technology, why should it be so difficult to give Russia a sample of this toxic agent?

Suppose we rephrase the question. Why has Britain refused to communicate with Russia? Why? Nobody has the answer to that. But there is a supposition that the refusal is part of the plan. When you do not communicate, you do not feel obliged to do anything; you do not feel obliged to answer any questions or provide any material. There is no communication. What should we believe? A photograph? A sample? What should be the outcome of this? A decision? A statement? A statement about what? That this toxic agent is similar to a certain reference chemical? What are the OPCW experts supposed to confirm? The similarity of this toxic agent to what? To a family of compounds that can be found where? Based on what has been published over the past three weeks, chemicals of this class can be produced at any ordinary laboratory. The technology for its production has been made public. If there are any facts proving how it happened, or how this chemical was delivered [to Britain], we ask that you share this information with us. What should we believe otherwise? The same old vial held up to us and the demand that we “own up”?

The British presentation mentioned the Malaysian Boeing. This is a powerful comparison. The current situation is very similar to what happened back then. The accusation was immediate, and then we begged that the wreckage be collected. They told us that they had collected enough. We said that there was more, but they replied that they did not need any more.

And now again, we are being accused and kept away from the investigation. What is this? Initially, Malaysia was not allowed to take part in the investigation either for fear that it would ask embarrassing questions. It was allowed to join the investigation several months later. Must we always believe a hand holding up a vial? We saw once how the world believed it. We will not believe this again. We want to believe proof. Not even that, we want to analyse things, have access to materials and see an official position. What we have seen so far is a show, a provocation and political statements. Moreover, this is all you have seen as well. The only thing we have acquired so far is the above presentation. Nobody has shown us anything else. Six slides, one of them just a headline.



Question:

Is Russia conducting air strikes in the Idlib de-escalation zone?



Maria Zakharova:

This question should be referred to the Ministry of Defence.



Question:

You have mentioned that efforts are underway to arrange a number of meetings on the Korean Peninsula with the interested parties. Is a visit by DPRK Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho to Moscow among these meetings? Can you tell us the approximate date of the visit and its agenda?



Maria Zakharova:

Contacts of this kind should not be excluded. We will definitely provide confirmation on the dates, format and level of the talks. So far, this work is in progress, although this could happen in the near future.



Question:

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi was scheduled to visit Moscow this week, but his visit was rolled back. Could you tell us what caused this decision? Is there a new date?



Maria Zakharova:

The causes are obvious, as we have already said in a statement. The schedule of the Russian leadership changed when national mourning was announced in Russia. This is the only reason. We said so and published a comment to this effect on the Foreign Ministry website. We are grateful to our Chinese partners who were receptive to our decision to delay the visit, and expressed condolences to Russia at all levels.



Question:

The US Ambassador to Russia Jon M. Huntsman said that Russian assets and property could be arrested in the US following the poisoning of Sergey Skripal. Is Russia ready to respond? Will Russia go to court if this happens?



Maria Zakharova:

If this happens, we will analyse it and respond accordingly. To be honest, we cannot speculate on what may or may not happen.



Question:

I would like to start by expressing my deepest condolences on the Kemerovo tragedy. As we all now know, Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Kim Jong Un, visited the People’s Republic of China between March 25 and 28. What is your view on this historic event?



Maria Zakharova:

We regard contacts between countries based on equality and mutual interest as an important element when it comes to international relations. Russia proceeds from the premise that we must welcome any activity in the region that can ease tension on the Korean Peninsula. If this visit pursued this objective, among other things, it should be welcomed, and so should the visit itself.

There is no doubt that only sovereign states enjoy the right to exchange visits and delegations at all levels. We are usually guided in our actions by diplomatic practice and do not comment on visits of this kind, since these are sovereign states, as I have already pointed out. However, in this case we assume that activity of this kind and top-level meetings can improve bilateral relations as well as promote a settlement on the Korean Peninsula.



Question:

The Russian diplomats expelled from the United States and the United Kingdom are being called secret service operatives. How correct is this wording and what purpose does it serve?

Some Western publications, including Bloomberg, cover the Kemerovo tragedy in a rather inflammatory and ambiguous manner. Do you think our Western partners are trying to take advantage of the situation in Kemerovo to destabilise the situation in Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

Regarding your first question on the purpose of expelling diplomats, I have replied to it in great detail today. These people were accredited as diplomatic officials in various countries, and they had diplomatic immunity. I don’t know what else I can say on this score.



Question:

But they are being called secret service operatives, that is the point.



Maria Zakharova:

I repeat, there is an established diplomatic practice. These dreamed up clichés and labels are part of a large-scale campaign, and we must realise this. We are talking about people who are called diplomatic officials. Of course, all this commotion will do nothing to enhance bilateral relations with the countries that have made this decision, as well as international relations as a whole.

Regarding the coverage of the situation in Kemerovo by Western media, I don’t know what materials and what Bloomberg story you are talking about. It is appalling when people try to capitalise on tragedy and score political points. There are no other words. I think the whole of Russia shuddered after this tragedy, and this is fairly obvious. On an emotional level, we need to assess mistakes, find and punish the culprits and help the people cope with their grief. All of my friends and co-workers, as well as people speaking on television (I have been watching television a lot these past days, even at night), were clearly devastated, and I could not see anyone who was not overwhelmed with shock. I can see people’s facial expressions change, and tears well up in their eyes when they talk about Kemerovo.

My co-workers and I watched the news reports with sinking hearts. I cannot imagine how one can say that someone in Russia does not care about this situation. On the other hand, some people here are trying to use the situation in their own interests. But even this pales before the horror with which people preaching different political views responded to this tragedy. To my mind, this is obvious. Indeed, I don’t want to talk about this Bloomberg story. Perhaps this was someone’s private opinion or a blog piece, but I simply refuse to believe that a journalist could have written this. Honestly, I can’t believe it.



Question:

Today, you have talked a lot about the British report, presentation and the six slides. Is their level indicative of the degree of British analysts’ professionalism? Did anyone even bother to substantiate their stand?



Maria Zakharova:

A large-scale campaign is underway, and its end justifies the means. It is not the quality of those videos and presentations that tells us about their intelligence levels: we get that information from officials’ statements, including Boris Johnson, who tells members of parliament that the EU has expelled the Russian Ambassador out of solidarity with the United Kingdom. In reality, the EU has recalled its Ambassador from Russia. This has something to do with intelligence and professionalism. This merely proves that they are staking on force, rather than arguments. They think the presentation and the number of slides don’t matter; in fact, they made the same statements two weeks ago. Their public statements indicate that there is “high likelihood” of Russia’s involvement, and these slides show that Russia is certainly to blame. What difference does it make? All this is irrelevant. They are staking on force, on pressure and coercion. They think they can force everyone to act out of solidarity with the UK and to act as a single front. This merely proves that they are counting on such a powerful partner with a mighty hand as the United States.



Question:

We have sent our condolences on Kemerovo. I would like to return to 2003…



Maria Zakharova:

Thank you for your condolences.



Question:

In 2003, 43 people perished in a fire at a student residence of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. It seems that no conclusions were drawn from what happened back then. Three or four people were sentenced to six years in jail, and they served their sentence for just two or three years. This is ridiculous. In 2018, we do not even remember what happened back then. The fact that this tragedy happened again shows that no lessons were learned from the 2003 fire. Maybe it is time that the death penalty be reinstated in Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

Russia remains true to its obligations.



Question:

The Bulgarian Orthodox church complex in Moscow faced an attempted takeover in the summer when a football field and a fitness club were built on its territory. At the same time, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan helped restore a Bulgarian church in Istanbul. Can it be that the Prime Minister of Turkey is doing more to restore and strengthen the Orthodox faith than brotherly Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

We have already answered this question. I can provide additional information on this subject. It is not a matter of what I think about this. I can file an official request.



Question:

Can Russia take steps to have its citizens, Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal, returned back to Russia, and will Russia take any steps of this kind? If Great Britain does not provide any information, does it mean that they were taken hostage? Are there any international legal mechanisms for repatriating them to Russia?

Compared to the British enquiry, a much broader and presentable investigation was carried out in Bulgaria. Our Bulgarian colleague Dilyana Gaytandzhieva investigated US activity related to biochemical weapons. Her report was published just a few days ago both in Russian and in English. I hope that experts will take note of the facts contained in this very detailed and serious investigation by our fellow journalist. According to her report, Great Britain’s refusal to cooperate can be explained by the fact that the US and Pentagon provide generous funding to the Porton Down laboratory.

Who is in charge of controlling chemical weapons in this day and age? This investigation shows that Novichok could have come from elsewhere, and those who are now pointing the finger at Russia could be behind the attack. The report features documents and contracts of the US Department of Defence. Let the experts take over this case.

Could the UN convene an emergency meeting to understand what really happened in the Skripal case? This way there would be no need to force other countries to show solidarity.

Let me remind you that Bulgaria has not changed its position when it announced that no Russian diplomats would be expelled.



Maria Zakharova:

Russia asked Britain about access to Russian nationals. We did not receive any reply via diplomatic channels. We are stating this in public.

As for the Bulgarian investigation that you have mentioned, I will gladly look at it. So far I have no information in this regard.

As for international organisations, this is what we have been saying all along. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is part of the UN system. We believe that the UN has all the mechanisms it may need to conduct a thorough and competent investigation into incidents of this kind. Instead of using force or trying to suppress dissent, this work must be undertaken in compliance with the fundamental legal requirements for investigations of this kind. Russia is very interested in learning what actually happened in Salisbury. We do not want this to become yet another unresolved mystery on British soil.



Question:

Today you mentioned the anniversary of the bombings in Yugoslavia. We know how it all ended.



Maria Zakharova:

You know. But I am not so sure Sky News has even heard of these bombings. It is obvious. These days nobody even knows who started World War II. I have seen public opinion polls from American streets and people believe it was the Soviet Union. They sincerely believe that. What are we talking about? What Belgrade? What bombings? There is a BBC correspondent present here, so there is some hope because he is Russian. But of course they don’t know what happened in Europe where uranium was used and children died horrible deaths. Those who have been to Belgrade know about it. When you go to Belgrade, even if you do not know history, you still understand the idea. The defence ministry building and several other buildings have been left untouched since the bombings. For example, the Chinese know about it because Chinese diplomats were killed in those bombings. Why would anybody else remember? This is just a story, something that happened somewhere. It started with a provocation and ended in tragedy.

During a joint briefing by the Russian Foreign Ministry, Defence Ministry and the Ministry of Industry and Trade for foreign ambassadors on March 21, a spokesperson for the Serbian Embassy in Moscow said that it was not just a tragedy of those days when people were killed, lost their families, did not know how to go on living and how to walk the streets of a European capital under falling bombs, dropped by their partners from the common European family. The truth is that the uranium used in those bombs contaminated the territory, which resulted in a massive outbreak of cancer related diseases.



Question:

How to go on living is still a very relevant question for Serbia. After the bombings, the UNSC passed Resolution 1244 and NATO military contingent was sent to Kosovo. Russian military personnel were there as well and later left Kosovo. Now the Serbs who live there are left to the mercy of fate and their security is the responsibility of the Western countries.



Maria Zakharova:

Kosovo was a horrible undertaking. That story was unique in terms of trust issues. Several years have passed since the Americans unilaterally built a coalition of solidarity and separated a part of a sovereign state, having created a quasi-state there without the consent of the legitimate government. Mind you, the investigation of crimes was held there and a statement was made by Carla Del Ponte – in an official, rather than a personal capacity.

Despite the fact that there are tonnes of documents written about those heinous events, Kosovo was given some sort of statehood. Several years later, then US President Barack Obama said that the events in Kosovo were legitimate, there was a referendum there. What trust can we talk about? Whoever does not believe the American president, will suffer. It is a trust imposed by force. Even if there was no referendum, everyone should trust the words of the American president. It is a new reality.



Question:

Three days ago, there was an upsurge in violence against Serbian residents in northern Kosovo, for no reason. What should people do? A European mission is there as well as NATO personnel who are providing security. Are there any international documents on this? What can Serbs do if those documents are not respected?



Maria Zakharova:

We have commented on this many times. Just recently Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Belgrade. The ministry’s view of the developments in Serbia was published on the official website.

I can elaborate on the issue at the next briefing.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/s...ent/id/3145417
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old April 2nd, 2018 #394
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on Russia’s response to unfriendly UK steps



30 March 2018 - 14:44



On March 30, UK Ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow was summoned to the Foreign Ministry, where he was handed a note of protest against the provocative and unfounded actions by the British side, which had orchestrated a groundless expulsion of Russian diplomats from a number of countries.

The ambassador was informed that as a retaliatory measure the British side must equalise, within a month, the total number of employees at the UK embassy in Moscow and the UK consulates in Russia with the number of Russian diplomats and administrative and technical workers who are on long-term tours of duty to the UK by making relevant cuts in their staffs.

The Russian Federation, as has been repeatedly stated, is ready for a substantive and responsible interaction both within international legal formats and bilaterally in order to establish the truth as well as look for and find the individuals involved in the Salisbury incident.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3149403






Press release on a Foreign Ministry Collegium meeting



30 March 2018 - 16:22



On March 30, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov chaired a meeting of the Foreign Ministry Collegium on the subject “Current issues of economic diplomacy.” The meeting was attended by Minister of Economic Development Maxim Oreshkin, Minister of Energy Alexander Novak, and Deputy Finance Minister Sergey Storchak.

The Collegium members noted the growing role of Russia's economic diplomacy in creating a favourable external environment for accelerating the country's socioeconomic development, expanding domestic non-primary exports, promoting priority projects, and countering illegitimate unilateral restrictive measures on the part of the West and discrimination against domestic companies on foreign markets.

The meeting participants reviewed ways for deepening integration within the EAEU and diversifying foreign economic relations, primarily through developing new markets, and prospects for forming Greater Eurasian Partnership. Based on the need to coordinate foreign economic and foreign policy efforts, a productive exchange of views took place on using the potential of various multilateral formats, including the G20, BRICS, the SCO, APEC, and international economic and financial organisations in order to promote a positive agenda aimed at maintaining stability in the global economy, complying with WTO standards and rules, preserving the stability of key markets and openness of the global trading system, and democratisation of the global financial architecture.

At the end of the meeting, specific areas of work in economic diplomacy were determined in light of the goals set in President Putin’s Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of March 1, 2018.

The results of the discussion are included in the resolution adopted by the Collegium.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3149750






Press release on summoning foreign ambassadors to the Foreign Ministry



30 March 2018 - 16:50



On March 30, the Foreign Ministry summoned the heads of diplomatic missions from Australia, Albania, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Canada, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Finland, France, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Estonia.

They were handed notes of protest and told that the Russian Federation declares persona non grata the relevant number of diplomats from these countries working in diplomatic missions in Russia in response to their unjustified expulsions of Russian diplomats based on Britain’s proof-free accusations of Russia related to the Skripal case.

Considering that Belgium, Hungary, Georgia and Montenegro decided to join these countries at the last minute, Russia reserves for itself the right to take response measures as regards these states.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3149819






Press release on the results of the presidential in Egypt



30 March 2018 - 16:51



The presidential election took place in Egypt on March 26–28. According to reports, the current head of state, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, gained a solid victory with support from over 90 per cent of Egyptian citizens who voted.

The results of the election, confirmed by high voter turnout, indicate the broad support for President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s course to promote nationhood, to provide domestic stability and to implement the necessary reforms in order to create conditions for further progressive development based on protecting the rights and interests of various groups and segments of Egyptian society.

Moscow reaffirms its principled stance to continue developing and strengthening an all-round partnership and mutually beneficial cooperation with friendly Egypt as well as close interaction in international and regional affairs in the interests of maintaining peace and security in the Middle East.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3149829






Comment by the Information and Press Department on provocations against Russian diplomatic staff in the US



30 March 2018 - 17:12



The Foreign Ministry notes the growing number of provocative actions against Russian diplomats in the US. After the groundless decision to expel 60 members of Russia’s diplomatic staff from the US, the US secret services have been undertaking feverish attempts to enter into contact with the staff of Russia’s diplomatic missions in recent days. In a series of appalling episodes, those forced by Washington to leave the US were offered “assistance” at the cost of entering into covert relations “of mutual benefit.” Our colleagues are being virtually harassed by proposals of this kind.

The US has clearly come up with a scheme whereby the authorities expel Russian diplomats for no reasons, while the increasingly assertive secret services try to take advantage of the challenges these Russians are facing. The ploy is not working, but their behaviour is cynical and distasteful, as if Washington has stepped completely beyond the bounds of common decency.

We take note of all incidents of this kind and draw conclusions.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3149854






Comment by the Information and Press Department on clashes on the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip



31 March 2018 - 13:58



Tension has flared up on the Gaza Strip border in recent days as the Palestinian leaders announced their plan to support the Palestinian refugees’ right to return to their lands by holding The Great Return March from March 30 to May 15. For their part, the Israeli authorities have built up their military presence on the sector’s border.

By March 30, an estimated 30,000 Gaza Palestinians were massed on the border with Israel. Despite march organisers’ repeated appeals for restraint, riots began, to which the Israelis responded with small arms and tank fire. Incoming reports say that 17 persons died.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called for an independent and transparent investigation.

We express our sincere condolences to the relatives and friends of the dead Palestinians and wish an early recovery to all those injured during the clashes on the border between Gaza Strip and Israel. We resolutely condemn the indiscriminate use of force against civilians. We call on the parties to refrain from steps capable of leading to an additional rise in tension and the deterioration of the situation.

The dramatic surge in tension on the Israeli-Gaza border reaffirms the need for the international community to urgently step up efforts to resume the search for a fair Palestinian-Israeli settlement on a generally recognized international legal basis. It is only in this case that the Palestinians can implement their legitimate national aspirations and Israel can reliably ensure its security.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3150115






Russia’s questions to the United Kingdom regarding the Skripal case fabricated against Russia



31 March 2018 - 19:00



On March 31, the Embassy of the Russian Federation in London delivered to the British Foreign Ministry a note with a list of questions to the British side regarding the Skripal case fabricated against Russia:

1. Why has Russia been denied consular access to two Russian citizens who were injured in the UK?

2. Which specific antidotes and in what form were the victims administered? How did the British doctors at the scene of the incident happen to have such antidotes in their possession?

3. On what grounds did France become involved in the technical side of investigating an incident in which Russian citizens were injured?

4. Has the United Kingdom notified the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) of France’s involvement in the investigation of the incident in Salisbury?

5. What does the incident involving two Russian citizens in the United Kingdom have to do with France?

6. Which norms of British procedural legislation allow for the involvement of a foreign state in a domestic investigation?

7. What evidence was handed over to France for testing and to conduct its own investigation?

8. Were French specialists present when biological samples were collected from Sergey and Yulia Skripal?

9. Did French specialists conduct their own tests of the biological samples collected from Sergey and Yulia Skripal and, if so, at which specific laboratories were the tests conducted?

10. Does the United Kingdom possess the results of the investigation carried out by France?

11. Have the results of the French investigation been submitted to the OPCW Technical Secretariat?

12. Based on which attributes (markers) was the alleged “Russian origin” of the substance used in Salisbury established?

13. Does the United Kingdom have control samples of the chemical warfare agent which British representatives refer to as Novichok?

14. Have samples of the chemical warfare agent of the Novichok type (in accordance to British terminology) or its analogues been developed in the United Kingdom?




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3150129






Russia’s questions to France regarding the Skripal case fabricated against Russia by the United Kingdom



31 March 2018 - 20:30



On March 31, the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Paris delivered to the French Foreign Ministry a note with a list of questions to the French side regarding the Skripal case fabricated against Russia:

1. On what grounds did France become involved in the technical side of the United Kingdom’s investigation of the incident in Salisbury?

2. Has France officially notified the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) of its involvement in the technical side of the investigation of the incident in Salisbury?

3. What evidence did the United Kingdom hand over to France as part of the technical side of the investigation?

4. Were French specialists present when biological samples were collected from Sergey and Yulia Skripal?

5. Did French specialists conduct their own tests of the biological samples collected from Sergey and Yulia Skripal and, if so, at which specific laboratory?

6. Based on which attributes did the French specialists conclude that the chemical warfare agent of the Novichok type (in accordance to British terminology) or its analogues were used in this case?

7. What expert knowledge does France have in studying chemical warfare agents of this type or its analogues?

8. Based on which attributes (markers) was the alleged “Russian origin” of the substance used in Salisbury established by French specialists?

9. Does France have control samples of the Novichok chemical warfare agent (in accordance to British terminology) or its analogues?

10. Have samples of the chemical warfare agent of this type or its analogues been developed in France and, if so, for what purpose?




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3150139






Comment by the Information and Press Department on a road accident involving Russian citizens in Poland



1 April 2018 - 14:21



Around 10 am on March 31, a bus carrying 31 Russian tourists from St Petersburg, Moscow and Arzamas overturned in the environs of Dobromierz, Swidnica County (Powiat), Lower Silesian Voivodeship, with 8 causalities who were promptly given medical assistance. One female tourist remains at a specialised Polish clinic under the supervision of highly qualified doctors. The other Russians are returning back home.

The Russian General Consulate in Poznan is in contact with the relatives of the casualties and is taking the necessary measures jointly with the local authorities.

The Police Commissariat in Swiebodzice is investigating the accident.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3150191






The Russian party’s questions for the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat regarding the UK’s fabricated “Skripal case”



1 April 2018 - 19:39



On April 1, the Permanent Representation of the Russian Federation to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) sent the following questions regarding the fabricated “Skripal case” to the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat:

1. What kind of assistance has London requested from the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat?

2. Will the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat, acting in accordance with the established procedure, share information with the Executive Council, including Russia, which the UK will provide to the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat as per Clause 38 (е) of Article VIII of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which stipulates the provision of “technical evaluation to States Parties in the implementation of the provisions of this Convention, including evaluation of scheduled and unscheduled chemicals”?

3. Has the UK party provided the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat with the current, medical, legal or any other additional information regarding the British inquiry?

4. What exactly would the British like the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat to confirm: the fact of the use of a nerve gas, or that it was a type of nerve agent known as Novichok according to the Western classification?

5. What kind of data and material evidence have the British provided to the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat (samples, the results of analysis of these samples, any other evidence)?

6. Who headed the OPCW group of experts who visited Britain? What specialists formed the group? How long did they work? With whom did they interact?

7. What procedure was used to collect samples? Was this carried out in compliance with the fundamental principle stipulated for OPCW investigations, that is, the “chain of custody”?

8. Which certified laboratories will analyse the samples which the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat received during the visit of its experts to Britain?

9. How much time does the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat need to reach a conclusion?

10. Has the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat approved the disclosure of the investigative material by the UK to the EU countries (according to available information, France has become fully involved in the investigation)?

11. Has France notified the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat of its involvement in the technical assistance as requested by the UK?

12. Has France provided its material on the investigation, if any, to the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat?

13. Can the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat provide the French investigative material, if any, to Russia for perusal? If not, why?




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3150201
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old April 7th, 2018 #395
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, Moscow, March 29, 2018



29 March 2018 - 21:24








Ladies and gentlemen,

We have had very productive talks with UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and his delegation.

For our part, we reaffirmed that Russia attaches great importance to the United Nations’ role in searching for solutions to the Syrian conflict. The steps that the Syrians agreed upon at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress convened at the initiative of Russia, Iran and Turkey in Sochi, will be implemented jointly under the guidance of the United Nations and in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We have discussed this in detail today. We talked about the coordinated principles of how the Syrian state should operate, which a large and representative group of the Congress participants have in fact confirmed and consolidated. I am referring to the 12 principles that Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura formulated after taking office as the foundation for promoting a political settlement and constitutional process.

We have certainly noted – this is our common position – that the idea stipulated in the UN Security Council resolutions remains fundamentally important: a political settlement is possible only through direct negotiations between the Syrian parties on the basis of their mutual consent.

For obvious reasons, we paid special attention to the humanitarian situation in Syria. The counterterrorist operation nearing completion in Eastern Ghouta has left that suburb of the Syrian capital almost cleared of terrorists and extremists who have been killing, injuring and endangering the civilians of Damascus for years, shelling residential quarters, infrastructure facilities and foreign diplomatic missions from mortars, including Russian missions. It is very important that during the operation in Eastern Ghouta, Syrian troops and officers of the Russian Reconciliation Centre for Syria organised humanitarian corridors making it possible for civilians to leave the combat area. Until recently, militants actively prevented this, using residents as a live shield. Unfortunately, the operation was accompanied by a veiled campaign to support the militants (as we are accustomed to), including planted information about famine as a result of the siege and indiscriminate bombing, also using prohibited types of ammunition. Rumours were again circulated about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army despite the absurdity of such statements, even from the military tactical point of view; about alleged mass arrests and massacres of those who left the towns in Eastern Ghouta – that is, the same accusations we heard during the operation for the liberation of Aleppo and which turned out to be myths.

I would like to note that humanitarian workers who directly observed the exit of civilians from Eastern Ghouta on the site, and who know the situation firsthand, not from reports of the White Helmets or any kind of British observer groups, did not confirm such speculations and praised the actions of the Russian military. This was also confirmed by the residents of Eastern Ghouta who escaped from the terrorist captivity.

Now most of the militants have been evacuated, and peaceful life is being restored. Government forces have reclaimed control of about 90 per cent of Eastern Ghouta. The provision of urgent assistance to internally displaced persons (IDPs) is of the utmost importance. We hope that the UN will increase its involvement in the collective effort to help the residents of the areas that suffered from the tyranny of terrorists to return to their homes as soon as possible. We have discussed this in detail today. Russia is already doing a lot to this end. We deliver humanitarian aid, and recently we ensured the passage of several UN convoys. We expect this joint work to become more and more effective.

At the same time, we should certainly not forget about other affected areas, where the need for humanitarian and other assistance is no less acute. In particular, I mean the enclaves of Fua and Kefraya, the Rukban camp located in a zone illegally staked by the US in the southeast of Syria, as well as Raqqa, which was razed to the ground by US-led coalition forces without any humanitarian corridors. Only now, after urgent demands, did we finally reach an agreement involving the Syrian Government on sending a UN assessment mission to Raqqa.

We also agreed that we need to continue coordinating our actions, and to decide how we will work following the upcoming summit of the Astana process guarantor nations – Russia, Turkey and Iran – due to be held on April 4 in Ankara. We consider it very important to make sure ahead of this summit that we are on the same page with UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and his team, given the Astana trio’s focus on continued support of the political process under the auspices of the United Nations, as well as the role of Russia, Turkey and Iran in eliminating the remnants of terrorist groups, improving the functioning of de-escalation zones, consolidating the ceasefire and creating conditions for more effective solutions to pressing humanitarian problems.

I am sincerely grateful to UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and his colleagues for this important meeting.



Question:

Many criticise Russia for changing its stance towards the Syrian Kurds. Could you provide an update on the relations between Russia and the Syrian Kurds against the backdrop of Turkey’s operation?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia’s relations with the Syrian Kurds remain unchanged, and the same applies to the relations with Kurds residing in other countries and forming an integral part of society in Iraq, Iran and Turkey. We strongly believe that not a single conflict in areas where Kurds live can be settled without the Kurdish people.

We are fully committed to implementing UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which calls for a political settlement with the participation of all ethnic and religious groups within the Syrian society. Russia feels empathy toward the Kurdish people, including in Syria. It has to be taken into consideration that our US colleagues attempted to speculate on the Kurdish factor as they sought to put the Syrian territory under their control in what amounted to a flagrant violation of international law. What we are witnessing in Afrin results from attempts to create some kind of a sanitary cordon by relying on Kurdish armed groups. We insist on all sides coming to an agreement on ways to end the hostilities and promote efforts to bring life back to normal, while fully respecting Syria’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.



Question:

Have you discussed the creation of the Constitutional Commission on Syria in Geneva? If so, at what stage is this process?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Staffan de Mistura):

As Staffan just mentioned, we circulated the final document of the National Dialogue Congress that was held in Sochi as an official document of the UN Security Council. The document states that the declaration alongside the Sochi Congress contribute to promoting a political settlement under UN Security Council resolution 2254, including the creation of the Constitutional Commission. For understandable reasons agreeing on the lists requires a rigorous effort. The Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General, Staffan de Mistura, will be the one to sum up the outcome of this work. Russia supports the view whereby this should be completed as quickly as possible. However, you must also understand that the situation is far from simple. After so many years of conflict, I think that a little more patience would not hurt. In this case, what matters the most is the quality of this work, and not expediency, so that the Constitutional Commission overseen by Staffan de Mistura is effective.



Question:

Will the expansion of the de-escalation zones be on the agenda of the upcoming Ankara summit? Will Idlib remain a de-escalation zone considering that many military organisations’ fighters, including Jabhat al-Nusra, currently operate in this region?



Sergey Lavrov:

De-escalation zones will remain in place as agreed by Russia, Turkey and Iran. The southwestern zone was formed by Russia, US and Jordan. So far there are no plans to increase the number of these zones. Our efforts in Eastern Ghouta are about to be completed. With 90 per cent of its territory liberated, we hope that the cessation of the hostilities regime will be restored in this and other de-escalation zones. The regime was not respected after fighters from Jaysh al-Islam, Failak ar-Rahman and Ahrar al-Sham failed to honour their obligations under the agreement to set up a de-escalation zone in Eastern Ghouta. Instead of separating themselves from Jabhat al-Nusra, they formed a joint command of sorts just as they had promised in order to fight the Government army. These violations have now been suppressed. I strongly believe that life in Eastern Ghouta will get back to normal quite rapidly in the near future.

As for Idlib, the situation is quite challenging as well. I hope no serious combat action will take place there soon. This question will be on the agenda of the summit in Ankara on April 4.



Question:

Will you provide a reciprocal response to the expulsion of Russian diplomats, or are you planning a stronger measure?



Sergey Lavrov:

The response will be more than just reciprocal. This very minute US Ambassador Jon Huntsman has been invited to the Foreign Ministry, where Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov will notify him of our response. It includes the expulsion of the same number of US diplomats and also our decision to cancel our permission for the operation of the US Consulate General in St Petersburg. As for the other countries, our response regarding the number of diplomats to be expelled from Russia will be reciprocal as well. That is all, for the time being.

I would like to say that we will not just respond to the absolutely unacceptable actions taken under tough US and UK pressure under the pretext of the Skripal case. By the way, I note with satisfaction that the UK authorities have at least informed us about the health of Yulia Skripal today. They write that Yulia’s condition is rapidly improving. We have again asked them for permission to visit Yulia, who is a Russian citizen. I hope that the British side will honour its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

We will not just react to the actions taken against us by the Anglo-Saxon group, which is forcing others to follow their anti-Russia policies. We want to establish the truth. We said at the very beginning of this crisis that UK Prime Minister Theresa May has accused Russia of involvement in the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter without any proof. She issued an ultimatum to which we could not respond, giving us 24 hours to admit that the Russian authorities had ordered the poisoning of Skripals or that they had lost control of Russia’s chemical stocks. We could not respond to this ultimatum even if we tried hard to find any answers. Instead, we proposed applying international law and the Chemical Weapons Convention, which contains an article regarding such situations. According to it, in case of any doubts regarding compliance with the convention, the signatory states should first establish contact and exchange information and consultations to clarify the matter. The British side arrogantly refused to do this and instead found a technical clause in the convention allowing signatory states to seek the assistance of the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat. OPCW experts have arrived in Britain at the invitation of the government to form their own opinion and to analyse the agent that was used to poison Sergey and Yulia Skripal, as the British side claims. I want to point out that the article cited by the British side only allows the Technical Secretariat to establish the chemical composition of the agent submitted for analysis. The Technical Secretariat cannot confirm or verify the conclusions made by the British side. It has no right to do this. By the way, the inquiry is not over yet. As you know, Scotland Yard has said it could take months, yet the verdict has already been delivered. This is highly regrettable. We have not witnessed such mockery of international law for a very long time.

Seeking to launch normal interaction and to establish the truth, we have officially proposed convening an extraordinary session of the OPCW Executive Council on April 4, where we will provide a summary of the practical questions we have asked many times. I hope our Western partners will not evade an honest discussion. If they do, it will be further proof that the current developments are a deliberate and crude provocation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3145592






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov speaks at a gala meeting dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the Foreign Ministry’s Council of War and Labour Veterans, Moscow, March 30, 2018



30 March 2018 - 16:35








Friends,

I would like to congratulate you on the occasion of a remarkable date: the 20th anniversary of the Foreign Ministry’s Council of War and Labour Veterans.

The council was founded by prominent diplomats, many of whom have a glorious track record fighting on the fronts of the 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War, participating in the defence of Moscow and Leningrad, the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Kursk and other combat operations. Four of them were Heroes of the Soviet Union, one full Cavalier of the Order of Glory, and three Heroes of Socialist Labour.

From the outset, this veteran organisation’s activities were not limited, for all their importance, to socioeconomic and everyday issues. As an integral part of the tightly-knit Foreign Ministry team, the council members have worked and continue to work productively in a variety of important areas, including the Association of Russian Diplomats, the Centre for the History of the Russian Diplomatic Service, the Patriotic Education Centre at the Foreign Ministry, the Diplomatic Academy, and MGIMO University.

We welcome and support your efforts to ensure the continuity of generations in the ministry building on Smolenskaya Square, and to uphold your traditions of mentoring. The meetings, conferences, and commemoration meetings organised by the council contribute to preserving and multiplying the best traditions of Russian diplomacy.

On a separate note, I would like to mention the work on releasing memoirs of old-time diplomats, who open little-known chapters of international relations to the general public, and contribute to promoting historical truth and fighting against the falsification of history.

We support the Council of Veterans’ activities to perpetuate the memory of outstanding diplomats, as well as the glorious events from the centuries-old history of our ministry. On the council’s initiative, a memorial plaque dedicated to employees of the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs – members of the people's militia in 1941 *– was attached to a building on Kuznetsky Most Street, which housed the Foreign Ministry from 1918 to 1952. In the Smolensk Region, an obelisk in memory of the militia from the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs who gave their lives for the freedom of our Motherland was installed. Memorial plaques were unveiled in honour of outstanding Soviet diplomats Anatoly Dobrynin and Vasily Kuznetsov. Of course, this practice will continue.

The participation of our veterans in the events dedicated to the anniversaries of the Great Victory both in our country and abroad, as well as maintaining ties with the veteran organisations of foreign countries, has become a good tradition.

The Council of Veterans is in every way contributing to the successful implementation of the foreign policy guidelines approved by President Putin. We appreciate your contribution to the common cause. Many veterans have been presented with state and departmental awards and titles.

Friends,

As we give credit to your services, we are making significant efforts to provide you with the necessary assistance and support. Thanks to the Government’s focus on the Foreign Ministry’s activities in recent years, the pensions for several categories of former staff have been increased. We will continue to do this consistently.

I would also like to mention your efforts to create a Foundation of Former Employees of the Diplomatic Service designed to effectively address the social, legal and financial issues faced by our senior comrades. The Board of Trustees will work to make sure that various organisations, representatives of the business community, and individual citizens take an active part in its activities.

I am convinced that this organisation with over 1,500 members will continue its diverse activities and remain a reliable pillar of Russia's foreign policy service. I wish you good health and success in all your endeavours, and all the best.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3149764






Answers to media questions by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during a joint press conference following talks with the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh Abul Hassan Mahmood Ali, Moscow, 2 April, 2018



2 April 2018 - 13:32








Question (back translation):

There is increasing talk of a new Cold War. The term is being used to describe relations between Russia and the West. How dangerous is this escalation? How far is Moscow prepared to go in its “diplomatic war” with Great Britain?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, there is a lot of talk of a new Cold War. Many say that the situation is worse than it was during the first Cold War because then there were some kind of rules and appearances were kept up. Now, as I see it, our Western partners, and I am referring mostly to Great Britain, the US and some countries which blindly follow them, have cast aside all the proprieties and are resorting to open lies and disinformation. Our response to this is, I think, is fairly calm and level-headed. We insist that any charges, any claims have to be backed up by facts. When there are no facts, our recourse is the steps you mentioned. They take it out on the diplomats who by definition are to maintain relations, defuse complicated situations and look for ways to overcome difficulties. The opportunities for such dialogues are shrinking as diplomats are expelled under specious pretexts. It does not depend on us how far we will go. The principle of reciprocity in diplomacy has not been suspended. This principle will be consistently followed. So, like we said as children, the one who started it has to stop first. We do not want to play children’s games, but so far this is exactly what our partners have been doing.



Question:

The Western media, citing a source close to the Skripal poisoning investigation, say that the attack was so sophisticated that it is likely (the word “likely” again) to have been authorised at the highest level in Russia. What is your reaction?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for the “Skripal case” and the reference to a source close to the investigation, let me repeat that Russia had nothing to do with the poisoning of the Skripals. But we are very interested (perhaps even more interested than anyone) in the truth being established and the truth about the fate of Russian citizens being made known. I think it is outrageous that to this day our numerous requests for access to these Russian citizens are being turned down or ignored. This despite the fact that our British colleagues have apprised us, in a note to the Russian Embassy, that Yulia Skripal has recovered from her coma, feels much better and is making a speedy recovery. Nevertheless, the situation on access to the Russian citizen has not changed. I hope that Sergey Skripal will follow the same course because the signs are that he was affected by the incident in the same way as his daughter. We are glad that the police officer who found the Skripals unconscious has recovered and is back to normal.

I mentioned the condition of Yulia Skripal and the police officer, and that Sergey Skripal is still alive and, thank God, nothing untoward has happened to him. I hope nothing will. Against this background, how can one take seriously the words of a source you said is close to the investigation about the attack being sophisticated? As I understand it, sophisticated attacks usually lead to a lethal outcome instantly, especially since we are talking about a military substance whose chemical composition our British colleagues have described without facts or without any opportunity for us or anyone else to verify the substance. If it was a chemical warfare agent which was, on top of that, used in a sophisticated way, you can imagine what might have happened to the people targeted by such an attack. And then these words to the effect that “it is highly likely that Russia did it because there is no other credible explanation.”

There are explanations, and we have tried to obtain them from our British colleagues from the start, from the first day. We proposed urgently invoking the procedures envisaged under the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. A country that has suspicions with regard to any other state has a right and even an obligation to refer to that state which has to provide an exhaustive answer within ten days. If the country which has raised a query deems the answers to be insufficient, it has the right to call an extraordinary session of the OPCW Executive Council and take a number of steps as stipulated under the convention. However, as you know, the law is not written for everyone. Apparently, for our British colleagues, this is not binding. They made up their minds and, without turning to the Convention, right away publicly presented us with a verdict through the mouth of the British Prime Minister Theresa May using the words “highly likely” and demanding that Russia answer the question as to whether it was an order from President Putin or a case of Russia losing control of its chemical arsenal. Our colleagues, including the French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian, recently interviewed on this topic, say that there are many unanswered questions being addressed to Russia on whether it was an order “from the top” or a loss of control (somebody took the poison and used it in Britain). This is thoughless, unworthy and unacceptable in any sphere of activity, especially in diplomacy and especially when human lives are at stake.

President Putin personally commented on the situation with the claims that “the order came from the very top.” Only an absolutely biased person who initiated this hideous and crazy provocation can insist, as do the British colleagues, that Russia had a motive. What motive? Ahead of the presidential elections in Russia or the FIFA World Cup? That’s if one takes a cynical view of the problem.

We could not have had any motive. A man had been released and pardoned in exchange for Russian representatives several years ago now. If we had anything against him he would probably not have been subject to an exchange. There are other explanations in addition to those put forward by our Western colleagues who say that only the Russian extension can be the final answer. This has been suggested by experts who note that it may well have been in the interests of the British secret services notorious for their actions with license to kill, and of the British Government, which has obviously found itself in an embarrassing situation having failed to deliver to their voters on the promises concerning the terms of Brexit. There may be a whole range of reasons which are not to be swept aside. Serious experts do not simply push things under the rug. They and the heads of a number of governments ask these questions publicly. I don’t think these questions can be dodged at this stage because they are too obvious as is the fact that our British colleagues have gone just a bit too far.

We will insist on all the facts being cleared up and on the establishment of the truth. As I already said, a special session of the OPCW Executive Council will be held the day after tomorrow, on April 4, at our initiative. In full conformity with the Chemical Weapons Convention we conveyed the strictly specific questions addressed to the OPCW Technical Secretariat and to our British and French colleagues because reports have suddenly appeared (the French President Macron spoke about it) that France has actively joined the investigation. It is important for us to know on what grounds this happened. There are many questions. If our British colleagues fail to answer them, this would mean only one thing: all this is fiction, or to put it more bluntly, a gross provocation.



Question:

Would you like to comment on President Trump’s recent statement concerning the withdrawal of troops from Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

President Trump’s statement about an early withdrawal of American troops from Syria is, first, a statement by the US leader and Supreme Commander-in-Chief. It has to be borne in mind that the USA sent its troops, special forces and air force and put together a coalition for work in Syria illegally, in gross violation of the UN Charter which demands respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the member states. We have drawn attention to this more than once. Our military and our diplomats have regular contacts with the USA because we are interested in an early end to the crisis, the establishment of peace, transition to the political process and the solution of humanitarian problems. From that point of view, we need to interact with all those who have a presence in Syria. But it is still a fact that the USA is present there illegally. We are particularly worried that in spite of repeated assurances that the only aim the USA pursues in Syria is to fight terrorism, we have seen in recent months the USA digging in on the eastern bank of the Euphrates and in a big chunk of Syrian territory stretching to the border with Iraq, and they are not just setting up military facilities, but creating administrative bodies that are loyal and accountable to them and which they are going to finance. Meanwhile all these regions are being isolated from the rest of Syria. We were told that the USA has no plans of splitting Syria. The assurances were unconvincing. If the US President has announced that American troops will soon be withdrawn from Syria, this at least means that he is committed to the earlier statements to the effect that the USA would leave Syria after ISIS is defeated. We shall see.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3150962






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 7th Moscow Conference on International Security, Moscow, April 5, 2018



5 April 2018 - 10:45








Colleagues,

Ladies and gentlemen,

We are so happy to have this opportunity to once again address the Moscow Conference on International Security organised by the Russian Defence Ministry. We would like to welcome all of you taking part in this conference, including the high-ranking representatives from many countries, the heads of international organisations, members of the legislative authorities and civil society, as well as respected scientists and experts.

Over the past years, this conference has become an attractive venue for the professional exchange of opinions on key military and political topics. This open and constructive dialogue offers an opportunity to find mutually acceptable formulas based on a balance of interests of all the parties involved.

My Russian colleagues spoke about this yesterday. They provided a detailed presentation of our positions on the key questions concerning the global and regional agenda. For my part, I would like to share with you our views on the current problems in international affairs, because the global situation continued to deteriorate since our meeting last year, despite our efforts to prevent this.

The main reason for this, and this has become obvious to very many people, is the continued unilateral actions of the US-led Western countries. Many of these actions are openly destructive and can dangerously unbalance the global governance mechanisms.

Washington, London and other Western capitals have not drawn proper conclusions from the tragedies of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine. The latest US National Security Strategy and National Defence Strategy openly look at the world through the prism of military-political rivalry and the friend-foe or with-us-or-against-us logic.

We see increasing disregard for international law and multilateral organisations such as the UN. The US ability to honour its commitments is raising questions, especially in light of the attempts to dismantle major international agreements such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program, the UN decisions on the Middle East settlement, the Paris declaration on climate change, as well as basic WTO principles. Taken together, this amounts to attempts to revise the system of international affairs.

Attempts have also been made to revise the Minsk Agreements on a settlement of the internal Ukrainian crisis the implementation of which Kiev is sabotaging. The Kiev government’s patrons in the US and Europe prefer to turn a blind eye to these developments while encouraging Kiev’s party of war, which wants to resolve the problem of Donbass militarily.

Questionable zero sum games, which are actually negative sum games, are being enacted around the world. They continue to flirt with the terrorists and to divide them into bad and not very bad ones, which Russian speakers pointed out at this conference yesterday, providing examples of the situation in Syria and other Middle Eastern countries. The impression is that the Americans are trying to maintain a situation of controlled chaos in this huge geopolitical region, hoping to use it to justify the open-ended US military presence in the region within the framework of their unilateral agenda.

Washington’s policy in the sphere of strategic stability is focused on undermining parity to ensure the US military superiority. Continued efforts are taken to deploy the US BMD system around the world. NATO capability and military activity near the Russian border are growing. We are particularly concerned over the US policy of lowering the nuclear threshold. It has been proposed to deal with the problems in cyberspace in keeping with Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty that was signed in Washington. At the same time, our calls for launching a professional discussion on confidence-building measures and on combating threats in cyberspace have not evoked a positive response in Washington or Brussels.

Crude political provocations are staged to fuel confrontation and demonise Russia. The so-called Skripal case has been used as a contrived or orchestrated pretext to expel large groups of Russian diplomats not just from the US and Britain but also from many other states, which were pressured to do so. It has been a long time since we last saw such open mockery of international law, diplomatic ethics and elementary decency. I would like to say that, although we will continue to provide appropriate responses to these unfriendly actions, what we do want is to establish the truth. We demand that a substantive and responsible investigation be held in keeping with the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The legitimate questions we have asked on the basis of CWC will have to be answered, as the special session of the OPCW’s Executive Council on April 4, which was initiated by Russia, has shown.

It is unacceptable when unsubstantiated accusations are presented without the provision of hard facts or the results of an honest investigation, as it happened with regard to the Salisbury case and in many other cases, from the US presidential election to the chemical weapons attacks in Syria and the referendum in Catalonia. It is only in the famous book by Lewis Carroll that the Queen could demand, “Sentence first – verdict afterwards.” But Lewis Carroll’s book only looks like a fairy-tale for children while in fact it is a political satire. The discussion held in The Hague yesterday has shown that adult and self-respecting people do not believe in fairy-tales. We again urge our colleagues to deal with any problems within the framework of international law, honestly, and with hard facts. We are ready for this collective work, as President Vladimir Putin has reaffirmed at a news conference in Ankara.

Colleagues,

Growing confrontational trends and mutual mistrust are compounding strategic uncertainty, provoking an arms race and, most alarming, contributing to the militarisation of public mentality. Ultimately, they are eroding the post-WWII security architecture that is based on the primacy of the UN Charter.

This is greatly limiting our possibilities for cooperation, which we badly need if we want to effectively react to the common challenges and threats facing humankind, such as international terrorism, organised crime, drug trafficking, WMD proliferation, as well as global climate change.

I hardly need to tell this representative audience about how much the global landscape has changed over the past 25 years or that it continues to change. New centres of economic and financial power and the related political influence are growing ever stronger and pursuing a foreign policy in their own national interests. Nobody can deny them this legitimate right. The developing countries have raised their voice to demand a fair implementation of their desires and aspirations.

It is in our common interests to add a constructive element to the objective but so far chaotic polycentric world order, so that it will facilitate the development of mutually beneficial cooperation and fruitful partnership among the key states. To attain this goal, we must abandon phobias and stereotypes, set aside our differences together with imperial and neo-colonial aspirations that are based on short-term considerations. We must learn to respect each other’s interests and find the strength to work together towards a safe and prosperous future of the humankind. In other words, we must make international relations more democratic. So far, our Western colleagues, who claim to be promoting democracy in all other countries, have avoided signing any multilateral documents that would stipulate stronger democracy in the global system of interstate relations.

In this context, Russia as an independent centre of political power will continue to promote a positive international agenda in the interests of global stability. We are not forcing anything on anyone, we are not claiming national exceptionalism, or, worse still, the right to act as we please. Our relations with our partners are based on international law, the central role of the UN, as well as on respect for the interests, traditions and distinctive character of all nations.

We have no need for confrontation or the arms race. However, Russia will protect its own interests, sovereignty and independence consistently and efficiently, using the instruments at its disposal. President Vladimir Putin spoke about this many times, including in the March 1 Address to the Federal Assembly. The West must at long last accept the fact, that developing a one-sided relationship with us does not pay, that they will not gain unilateral advantages at our expense, and that security in the Euro-Atlantic and Asia Pacific regions and across the rest of the world must be equal and indivisible.

We have been consistently advocating a broad dialogue on the priority questions, including the maintenance of all elements of strategic stability with due regard for the factors affecting it in the current conditions. The presidents of Russia and the US spoke about this during a telephone conversation on March 20. We hope that our leaders’ awareness of the importance of this topic will not be dampened by bureaucratic red tape or fall victim to domestic political intrigues.

Russia stands for working consistently to strengthen arms control and WMD non-proliferation regimes based on the principles of openness and predictability. Russia has completed the destruction of its chemical weapons, implemented its obligations under the New START treaty and is encouraging the US to work together to settle the problem of conversion of part of the US strategic delivery vehicles, as this is stipulated in the treaty. We have submitted to the Geneva Conference on Disarmament our proposals for drafting a convention for the suppression of chemical and biological terrorism, as well as a Russian-Chinese initiative on preventing the placement of weapons in outer space.

Russia will continue to contribute to a political and diplomatic settlement of many conflicts, in particular, in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as the situation with the Korean Peninsula. We will continue to promote the sustainable development of partnership within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) through deeper Eurasian integration and we will help settle problems arising between our neighbours.

As President Putin said in his Address to the Federal Assembly, “let us sit down at the negotiating table and devise together a new and relevant system of international security and sustainable development for human civilisation.” The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the Collective Security Organisation (CSTO) and BRICS are contributing to our common movement towards this goal. The G20, where both the G7 and BRICS countries are represented, has solid potential in this sphere as well. Russia is ready for honest, open and equal cooperation based on and mutual respect with everyone who is sincerely interested in a common peaceful future and prosperity for the humankind.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3153953
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old April 7th, 2018 #396
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the failure to issue US visas to the Russian freestyle wrestling team



28 March 2018 - 21:25



The US Moscow Embassy’s refusal to organise visa interviews for the Russian freestyle wrestling team due to take part in the Freestyle Wrestling World Cup in Iowa City on April 5−9 has caused an utter outrage. In spite of a relevant note we filed in early February, the Americans, after waiting until the last moment, have only now sent an offhand reply that once again gives the excuse to the effect that they allegedly are short of consular staff.

We would like to remind them again that it was not us but Washington that approved the decision, last summer, on which staff should be reduced to achieve parity in the number of employees between both countries’ foreign missions.

We estimate this US move as yet another notorious example of efforts to prevent Russian athletes from participating in international competitions. To bring pressure to bear on Russia, Washington has long discarded even the O Sport, You Are Peace principle. In addition to this, the US authorities are clearly out to eliminate strong rivals to their athletes.

The thing is, however, that the failure to issue visas to the Russian athletes is a gross violation on the part of the United States of its obligations as a host country to international competitions. It is a case of direct and open discrimination with regard to the team of one of the participating countries.

We hope that the world sports movement will pay attention to this crying circumstance. It is clearly no longer possible to hold international competitions in the United States – they are playing unfairly there.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3144243






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s meeting with US Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman



29 March 2018 - 20:27



On March 29, US Ambassador Jon Huntsman was summoned to the Foreign Ministry where Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov handed him a note on the US authorities’ outrageous and groundless demands for 60 Russian diplomats to leave the United States and to shut down the Russian Consulate General in Seattle as well as on the US authorities’ intention to seize its building after the seizure of another five buildings in the US belonging to Russia in 2016–2017.

In response, and based on the principle of reciprocity, 58 diplomatic staff at the US Embassy in Moscow and two employees at the US Consulate General in Yekaterinburg have been declared persona non grata for activities incompatible with their diplomatic status. They are to leave Russia before April 5, 2018.

The agreement to open the US Consulate General in St Petersburg has been revoked. US representatives must vacate the administrative building granted for the mission by March 31.

We have demanded that Jon Huntsman explain his public statements on the possible seizure of Russian government assets in the United States. The US has been warned that the implementation of this threat will lead to a serious deterioration in bilateral relations, which will result in dire consequences for global stability.

In addition, the ambassador has been warned that in case of further hostile actions against Russian diplomatic missions and consulates in the United States, Russia will take additional measures against the personnel and property of the US Embassy and consulates general in Russia. It is recommended that the US authorities, who are promoting and encouraging this defamation campaign against Russia, come to their senses and stop their unreasonable actions aimed at destroying bilateral relations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3145543






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko’s meeting with Ambassador of Serbia to Russia Slavenko Terzic



30 March 2018 - 15:34



On March 30, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko met with Ambassador of the Republic of Serbia to Russia Slavenko Terzic.

While reviewing the situation in Kosovo, they unanimously condemned the March 26 provocation, staged by Pristina authorities and aimed to intimidate the local Serbs. The Russian side reaffirmed its commitment to assist Serbian partners in their efforts to defend Serbia’s legitimate rights and interests with regard to Kosovo and emphasised that the Kosovo issue needs to be resolved under UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

The sides noted their mutual readiness to expand and strengthen all-round cooperation between Russia and Serbia.

They exchanged opinions on the situation in the Balkan region.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3149532






Statement by Mr.Dmitry Polyanskiy, First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN, during General Debate at the UN Disarmament Commission 2018 session, New York, April 2, 2018



4 April 2018 - 12:57




Dear Madam Chair,

First of all, let me congratulate you on your election to this responsible position and express the hope that under your able leadership we will manage to maintain the positive momentum in the work of the UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) that was developed during the previous session.

Russia is a consistent supporter of the consolidation of the UN central role in maintaining strategic stability and international security and the strengthening of the arms control and non-proliferation regimes. We firmly believe that our priority is to comprehensively strengthen the UN disarmament machinery with the UNDC being its integral part.

This year the UNDC starts a new three-year work cycle with a new agenda. We are to continue our work on reaching agreement upon recommendations for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation as well as initiate discussion on a brand-new subject – developing recommendations on facilitating practical implementation of transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities with the goal of preventing an arms race in outer space. As usual, the Russian delegation is willing to exert maximum efforts in order to achieve results in both areas.

As a responsible and consistent supporter of nuclear disarmament and the noble objective of building a nuclear weapons-free world, Russia continues to make its special contribution to this process. On 5 February 2018 we confirmed that our country had fully complied with its obligations under START on reducing such weapons: our overall capacity turned out to be even lower than the limits on carriers and warheads provided for by the Treaty. Thus, Russia cut its nuclear arsenal by over 85 per cent as compared to its stockpiles at the height of the Cold War.

We are convinced that the efforts of the international community with respect to nuclear disarmament should at this stage focus on creating conditions for further advances in this area. On the one hand, it is necessary to involve in the efforts aimed at reducing and limiting nuclear weapons all States possessing military nuclear potential. On the other hand, systematic collective efforts to create favourable conditions for continuing nuclear disarmament process including ensuring both global and regional security are gaining particular relevance.

To this end, it is necessary to take into account the whole range of factors that influence international stability including the unlimited deployment of the U.S. global missile defense, the development of high-precision non-nuclear strategic offensive weapons, the U.S. reluctance to abandon plans of deploying strike weapons in outer space, the increasing qualitative and quantitative imbalances in conventional arms, etc.

In this context, we are particularly concerned about the fact that some States develop doctrinal documents, which provide for a significantly increased role of nuclear weapons in military planning while establishing a sharp lower threshold for their use. The continuing practice of so called NATO nuclear sharing missions when non-nuclear NATO Member States are trained to apply nuclear weapons in direct violation of the NPT is considered unacceptable. Such developments raise the risk of a nuclear conflict.

We learn from history that attempts to strengthen one's security at the expense of the security of others are, a priori, doomed to failure. A dialogue is needed ensuring that such notions as equal rights, mutual respect and consensus are not only declared, but also applied. Only such approach makes it possible to find mutually acceptable balance of interest and ensure that key international security issues are taken into account. We are ready for such dialogue.

In the context of heightened international military and political tensions, in order to prevent the most dangerous scenarios and preserve strategic balance, we were obliged to take technical military measures announced by the President of Russia in his Address to the Federal Assembly on March 1, 2018. It is particularly noteworthy that all work towards enhancing defense capacity of the country has been done and is being done in strict compliance with existing arms control agreements.

Moving towards elimination of nuclear weapons is neither possible without due account of all factors that impact strategic stability and principles of ensuring equal security for all. This objective cannot be reached using the methods set out in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons recently opened for signature.

This initiative not only fails to facilitate progress towards the objective of creating a nuclear-free world that we totally share, but rather causes problems with securing viability and effectiveness of the fundamental Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). An international agreement of this kind may become relevant when it comes to ensuring irreversibility of nuclear disarmament process. In the meantime, raising the issue of immediate total nuclear disarmament is clearly premature.

The situation surrounding the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) remains a matter of serious concern to us because one of the key States withdrew from the ratification and support of entry into force of this instrument. In the current circumstances the CTBT apparently requires more than ever the support and assistance of the entire international community. More active work is needed to promote the Treaty at all levels and in various formats.

We are pleased that participants of the first session of the Preparatory Committee (PC-1) for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) generally reaffirmed their commitment to work together to ensure sustainability and universalization of the NPT, as we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of its opening for signature. At a time of increased tensions on a variety of issues of the Treaty agenda the focus should be made on preserving its regime and implementing the decisions of the previous Review Conferences.

We believe that the balanced approach to the consideration of three components of the NPT, namely non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and peaceful use of the atomic energy, with an emphasis on maintaining and strengthening the international stability, peace and security, has no alternative. We assume that, during the current review cycle, the 2010 NPT Action Plan, that remains fully relevant, could serve the basis for the work.

Russia has been and remains committed to its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Last year, we completed the destruction of our chemical arsenal, ahead of the agreed deadlines. The destruction of the Russian chemical weapons was confirmed by the OPCW.

In this regard, any insinuations that Russia still possesses or continues to develop chemical weapons, and references to the alleged "Russian trace" in the "Skripal affair" are absolutely groundless and absurd. If States that drop or support such accusations have evidence of Russia's involvement in such incidents, then it must be presented. We believe that reacting to such groundless accusations and insinuations is useless and pointless. As you know, we have sent a list of specific questions to the British government and we are waiting for specific answers to those questions. We do not expect the responses in terms of “highly likely”. Otherwise, we will presume that this is a deliberate provocation by the US and the UK intelligence services.

Keeping outer space free from weapons and use of force remains one of our most important foreign policy priorities. We consider this task equally, if not more significant than the total elimination of nuclear weapons. What is more important it is practically realizable.

In order to reach the objectives of prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) we have to work on a number of areas at the same time.

We continue to consider the Russia-China draft treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space and the threat or use of force against outer space objects (PPWT) as a key initiative. After Russia, together with China, submitted a new version of the PPWT at the Conference on disarmament (CD) in June 2014, the project had already become a full-fledged multilateral initiative reflecting approaches of all responsible UN nations. Despite the considerable international support and interest in developing this instrument, we are still unable to launch a substantive work on it due to difficulties to agree on the CD programme of work, which is regrettable.

In order to make the PAROS discussions more substantive, last year, we, together with our Chinese colleagues, proposed to establish the UN Group of Governmental Experts on PAROS. The approval of the relevant Russia-China resolution by the UNGA in December 2017 opened up real possibilities to create a serious groundwork for the transition to negotiations regarding the international agreement on PAROS based on the PPWT.

In accordance with the mandate, within the two-session timeframe the Group will review the elements of a possible legally binding agreement on PAROS, including in the field of preventing the placement of weapons in outer space.

We cannot fail to mention the efforts being made in the United Nations Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) in Vienna to develop a set of guidelines for ensuring the long-term sustainability of space activities.

We believe that the UNDC is also able to make a significant and invaluable contribution to these multilateral efforts in accordance with its mandate. We consider the preparation of recommendations for the practical implementation of Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space Activities, which could be used to prevent an arms race in outer space, the ultimate goal of the activities of the relevant UNDC Working group. We hope that we will succeed in it.

Madam Chair,

Let me conclude by reiterating the Russian delegation’s determination to most close cooperation.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3153347






Statement by Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Georgy Kalamanov’s remarks at the 57th Meeting of the OPCW Executive Council



5 April 2018 - 21:03




Mr Chairperson,

Members of the Executive Council,

The Russian Federation insisted that this extraordinary meeting of the OPCW Executive Council be convened in light of the extreme tension created by Britain’s claims against Russia over alleged violations of its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

On March 12, Britain openly accused Russia of involvement in the March 4 incident in Salisbury, where, according to the British police, an attempt was made on the lives of Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia using a nerve agent named Novichok under some Western countries’ classification.

Regrettably, the discussion held on this matter at the 87th Session of the OPCW has not produced the desired results. Russia’s proposals to the UK to launch a direct dialogue to clarify the situation as stipulated in the CWC have not been accepted.

Moreover, the UK opted for dramatically increasing tension in bilateral relations with Russia, appealed to its allies and provoked the expulsion of Russian diplomats from London and several other countries. Russia responded harshly. The situation is extremely dangerous and unpredictable, and the tension continues to escalate.

The UK still avoids any interaction with Russia. At the same time, it publicly presents certain demands to Russia. I will repeat what we have already said more than once: Russia is interested in the establishment of the truth more than the UK, because the matter concerns the attempt on the life of Russian citizen Yulia Skripal, and the way it was done very much looks like a terrorist attack.

The summons of the Russian Ambassador to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office on March 12 cannot be interpreted as an offer of cooperation, as the OPCW has put it, or as a request for legal assistance. We were given an ultimatum to admit to committing this crime within 24 hours. No comment is necessary, I believe. Moreover, it has been said that Russia refused to answer the questions presented to it. This is not so. We answered to that ultimatum absolutely openly and clearly: Russia has nothing to do and is in no way connected with the Salisbury attack.

I would like to say the following regarding the current situation. Appeals have been made to us to cooperate with the OPCW. These appeals have come from many capitals. The Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, Stef Blok, has recently made a statement to this effect. We are saying officially in the OPCW headquarters that we are open to dialogue in any format and form. We are ready to cooperate with the OPCW and at the OPCW. The Russian Federation does not only want this but also intends to do so in strict compliance with the CWC provisions.

Evidence of the seriousness of our intentions is the way we prepared for this session. Our interdepartmental delegation includes representatives from the leading Russian agencies concerned with the subject matter of the OPCW, including the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Ministry. It also includes a Russian expert who can answer technical questions.

We have a question for our British colleagues: Are they really ready for cooperation with us, as they claim to be? Can they bring their experts to The Hague? We would listen with great interest to a statement made by a delegate from Porton Down, whose experts of global renown, according to our British counterparts, have established following the analysis of the toxic agent found at the site of the Salisbury incident that it was a nerve agent of the Novichok class and that it was manufactured in Russia.

What do we see now? Yesterday, the UK based television network Sky News presented an interview with Gary Aitkenhead, chief executive of the UK Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, who admitted that they were unable to determine the country where the toxic agent was manufactured. He also said there was no known antidote to Novichok, which means that no antidotes were used in the Skripal case.

Think about the concrete evidence of Russia’s involvement in the alleged poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter. Buttress your words with facts. It is not enough to make statements to the effect that Russia has allegedly refused to respond to the UK’s requirement for information regarding our involvement in this crime. A statement regarding the UK allegations of the alleged use of a nerve agent in Salisbury will be made by Professor Igor Rybalchenko, a Doctor of Chemistry and an expert of the Russian Defence Ministry.



STATEMENT BY IGOR RYBALCHENKO




Mr Chairperson,

British Prime Minister Theresa May has made a number of sharp-worded statements, saying that Sergey and Yulia Skripal had been poisoned by a Novichok-type nerve gas that could only have been manufactured in Russia. The British side has failed to provide any hard evidence.

In the first days after the Salisbury incident, the British side claimed that the Skripals had been poisoned by fentanyl. Subsequent claims involved poisoning by a nerve gas. It should be noted that the above-mentioned substances influence the human body in an entirely different manner. Their casualty-producing effects are also different. In this connection, one would like to ask why British experts and the media have mentioned such substances that produce completely different effects on the human body.

Today, the UK mostly claims that the Skripals had been poisoned by the Novichok nerve gas.

The public learned the name of some Novichok compounds, minus any structural formulas, after the publication of a report Chemical Weapons Disarmament in Russia: Problems and Prospects by The Henry L. Stimson Centre in 1995 in the US. Its authors are Amy E. Smithson, Vil Mirzayanov, Roland Lajoie and Michael Krepon.

The Handbook of Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents by D. Hank Ellison 2nd Edition, 2007, listed data on the structure of the family of phosphorus-organic compounds, also known as the Novichok family, for the first time. The publication mentions the structures of 58 compounds. According to the author, they are related to the Novichok group. In fact, they are organic phosphates with various combinations of substituting hetero-atoms, including oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, fluoride, chlorine and bromide atoms. All compounds feature indexes under the American Society Chemical Abstract System, thereby proving that they had been synthesised.

In 2008, Vil Mirzayanov’s book State Secrets: An Insider's Chronicle of the Russian Chemical Weapons Program was published in the United States. It mentioned structural formulas of five compounds and their codes (A-230, A-232, A-234, A-242 and A-262), also listed by the author in the Novichok family. These formulas did not match structures, mentioned in Ellison’s 2007 book.

On April 4-6, 2011, participants in the 16th session of the OPCW’s Scientific Advisory Board discussed the publication of Mirzayanov’s book. The final report of the session says: “In December 2008, a former defence scientist published a book, which included information on structures reported to be those of the new agents. Some of these structures meet the criteria for Schedule 2 B4 (S2 B4); however, all others are non-scheduled chemicals. The author claimed that the toxicity of certain “Novichok” agents may exceed that of VX. In a discussion of the issue, SAB members emphasised that, to date, there has been no confirmation of the author's claims, nor has any peer review been undertaken in regard to the information on these chemicals in the scientific literature on this subject.”

After Vil Mirzayanov’s book was printed, numerous other open research papers dealing with compounds listed by Mirzayanov and Ellison in the Novichok family appeared. In 2009 and 2011, these research papers were published in the United States and the Czech Republic. In 2014, they were published in Iran and Italy. A US patent was filed in 2015. In 2016, similar research papers were published in the United States, Iran and India. In2018, they were published in the Czech Republic. It should be noted that real substances had to be synthesised for research purposes.

The structure and mass-spectrum band of a substance mentioned in Mirzayanov’s book was listed in the 1998 spectral database of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST 98) in the United States. The database contained an affiliation noting that the spectrum had been submitted by an author from the US Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC). It should be noted that this fact shows unequivocally that this substance had been synthesised and subjected to spectral and probably some other research.

Considering the above-mentioned facts, one can unequivocally note that agents, listed by some authors in the family of Novichok chemicals since the mid-1990s, have become quite widespread and can be obtained from numerous laboratories. In this connection, it appears that claims that the Russian Federation alone manufactures them are incorrect, to put it mildly, and they are basically absurd.

Any modern chemical laboratory boasting the required structural formulas and synthesis methods, protection levels and skilled personnel will be able to synthesise and study Novichok-type substances. Many states can easily buy all the semi-products for synthesising these compounds. Consequently, there are no unique markers capable of unequivocally pointing to a country that has manufactured the substance used to poison the Skripals.

The United Kingdom and Russia will have to work together while conducting an authentic investigation.

More profound expert assessments will be needed for drawing any conclusions. Russia reaffirms its readiness for subsequent cooperation with the UK.



STATEMENT BY GEORGY KALAMANOV

(Continued)




Mr Chairperson,

In light of the facts provided by the Russian experts regarding the creation of toxic agents around the world, as well as the UK’s refusal to provide evidence and denial of consular access to the affected Russian citizens, we can conclude that the actions taken with regard to these Russian citizens can be identified as a terrorist attack using a chemical toxic agent. Therefore, we propose holding an investigation in keeping with the decisions of the OPCW Executive Council and the report of the Third Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties to Review the Operation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (Third Review Conference).

The UK continues to accuse Russia of a grave violation of the CWC, namely, the illegal use of chemical weapons on British territory. Article IX of the CWC stipulates a clear procedure in such cases, which includes consultations, cooperation and fact-finding.

However, our UK partners have refused to hold direct consultations with us and have instead requested the technical assistance of the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat. This request for assistance was subsequently rephrased, according to our colleagues, as a request for an independent technical analysis to verify the results of the inquiry held by the UK. A group of OPCW experts went to the UK. However, it is unclear what these experts really did there. The OPCW Executive Council has no information regarding this. The Technical Secretariat has said they can only share the information at its disposal with the permission of the UK. This is a completely abnormal situation. I would even say that it is undermining the integrity of the OPCW.

Therefore, it can be said objectively that despite the numerous cooperation appeals to Russia, we have been denied any information regarding this case. Moreover, the Executive Council has no access to this information either.

In this connection, I would like to share with you our views on ways to return this situation to the OPCW’s legal framework. The UK request to the Technical Secretariat for verifying the UK conclusions is not stipulated in the CWC. More importantly, what verification does the UK expect?

Some delegations may wonder why this meeting was convened if the results of the OPCW experts’ work have not been made public yet. I would like to remind everyone that in keeping with its mandate, the Technical Secretariat can only draw conclusions that do not entail attribution of responsibility. It can only make a technical analysis of the agent that was used in Salisbury. What next?

This brings us back to the need for Russia’s cooperation not just with the UK but also with the Technical Secretariat so as to be able to clarify the circumstances of this very serious incident. We have many questions we would like to ask our British partners and the Technical Secretariat. We also have questions that we would like to ask France as well, which is providing technical assistance to the investigation into the Salisbury incident at the invitation of the British partners, as far as we know.

I would like to point out once again that we have a very responsible attitude to working in strict compliance with the CWC provisions.

More precisely, we believe that this meeting of the Executive Council, considering our confirmed readiness for cooperation, should adopt a decision the draft of which we have submitted for your consideration. The core element of this document is the Executive Council’s appeal to Russia and the UK to work together in keeping with the CWC provisions, as well as instructions to the Director-General to facilitate the development of such technical cooperation.

We point out that Russia will accept the conclusions of any investigation, especially since this particular case concerns not just the interests of the UK but also the OPCW sphere of competence, that is based on hard facts and evidence and is conducted in compliance with international law as well as with the obligatory involvement of Russia.

Mr Chairperson,

Russia has proposed convening this meeting of the Executive Council not only so that the delegations will have an opportunity to speak up and present their positions. All sides need to calm down, use the CWC mechanisms and launch constructive cooperation.

In light of Britain’s unfriendly attitude to Russia, to put it mildly, we want to say outright that we would accept any option. If they reject direct cooperation with us, we would agree to indirect relations, provided the Technical Secretariat is also involved, for example, within the framework of a multilateral expert group created by decision of the Executive Council and including specialists from the concerned countries. The UK would be able to invite those it wants, while we would ask some of our partners to dispatch their representatives to this expert group. In other words, let us look for an option that will be accepted as the best and will help to establish the truth.

We are ready to go as far as possible. Lying on the table of this meeting is a draft decision that is constructive and focused on resolving this problem. If the Executive Council judges this decision to be acceptable and we adopt it, the implementation stage will begin tomorrow. It is only in this manner and only by making use of the OPCW’s entire potential that we will be able to settle this crisis. I ask the delegates to support our draft.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

I ask that my statement be designated an official document of the 57th special meeting of the Executive Council and placed on the OPCW public websites.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3154928






Statement by the head of the Russian delegation, Permanent Representative of Russia to the OPCW, Ambassador Alexander Shulgin at the 57th session of the OPCW Executive Council



5 April 2018 - 21:10




Mr Chairperson,

As you understand, we need to respond to three statements at once: the statements made by Bulgaria’s permanent representative who read out the statement of EU countries, and permanent representatives of Great Britain and the United States.

We hoped to have a constructive discussion today. We made our national statement. It was balanced, thought-out and full of concern for returning the tense situation to the legal terrain and acting strictly in compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). We addressed the member states with a reasonable and composed appeal for cooperation. And what did we hear in response?

Suddenly, Bulgaria’s representative takes the floor and reads out a statement on behalf of the European Union that contains a volley of allegations, such as that Russia is allegedly not responding to the UK’s legitimate questions, that the Salisbury attack was with a high probability carried out by Russia, and much more in the same vein. We are hearing the same old unfounded accusations against Russia.

I would like to say a few words about how we view the speech by the British representative and then touch on the statement by the US representative. Strangely, our British partners made it look like they acted in strict accordance with the CWC when they demanded explanations regarding the chemical incident in Salisbury via the Russian Ambassador in London Alexander Yakovenko on March 12. This is absolutely untrue. I have to remind you that the questions asked by the British side were essentially an ultimatum to Russia. We were offered a choice: to confess to one of the versions made up by the British themselves, specifically, that either the poisoning of Sergey and Yulia Skripal was a direct act by Russia, or to admit that Russia had lost control over its chemical arsenal. Note their devious wording. Both options suggest that Russia has undeclared arsenals of chemical weapons. US Permanent Representative, Kenneth Ward, repeated the same assertions in his statement today.

First of all, I would like to say that the Russian Federation is an honest and responsible member of the OPCW. Back in 1992, a presidential executive order scrapped all chemical weapons projects. After its accession to the CWC, Russia carefully and thoroughly followed up on its obligations under this international treaty. Dozens and hundreds of OPCW inspectors monitored this for years. Finally, in 2017 we finished our chemical disarmament ahead of schedule, which was confirmed by the Organisation. I want to stress once again: Russia has fulfilled its obligations in full; we have nothing to hide. We have destroyed all our chemical weapons.

However, there is still one country which seems to be in no rush with its chemical disarmament and that is the United States. The Americans cite the lack of finances, of all things. We have disarmed ourselves completely while they still have a large chemical arsenal. Why are they saying nothing about this? Why do they stay silent?

I would like to return again to these notorious questions that we were asked by the British side. Nothing in the way of facts or even remotely reasonable arguments has been provided to Russia. Just allegations! And until we see the facts, we will regard all of this as a blatant lie. We waited and hoped that our British colleagues, after their first impulsive reaction, when they dared to deliver an ultimatum to a great power, Russia, will calm down and offer at least some explanations. We can understand that at first they obviously travelled in their minds to the remote past, when the “sun never set on the British Empire.” Regrettably, our hopes failed.

The British permanent representative was referring to a briefing at the Russian Foreign Ministry and statements made by certain Russian representatives. As for me, I would like to refer to the briefing the British held at their Embassy in Moscow. They invited the diplomatic corps and the media pool and it could be expected that the British would come up at least with some explanations or present at least something to corroborate their accusations against Russia. But no, emptiness again!

We have been told time and again that the nerve agent, Novichok, was only produced in the Soviet Union, in Russia, and nowhere else. Our military expert, Prof. Igor Rybalchenko, has just clearly demonstrated in his statement where these chemicals could have been produced; he has even indicated the laboratories and countries. This information is from open sources. You have just received Russian reference documents. You can find online all the references they contain and check all the formulas and calculations. This entire “chemistry” can be produced by any laboratory, provided it has the right equipment.

So, back to the briefing at the British Embassy in Moscow. Speculating about the Novichok-type agent, the British Ambassador said: We have no information that Novichok has been produced anywhere other than Russia; the conclusion is that the Salisbury Novichok was made in Russia. This is the kind of simple logic they use: We have no information, but take our word for it, because we know that this is a Russian chemical. How can they talk like that? They just have no information!

The British Ambassador was asked at the same briefing: Why don’t you want to share with Russia the results of your investigation and the samples that you have taken? He replied: We have the bitter experience of cooperating with Russia on the Litvinenko case. I must tell you that their investigation into the Litvinenko case also consisted of nothing but assumptions of the “highly likely” type. They proved absolutely nothing. They failed to establish what had happened there in reality.

With regard to making the samples available to Russia, the British Ambassador said that Russia would study them proceeding from its national interests. Just think what he is saying! And why, in studying the samples, should we close our eyes on our national interests? Don’t the British care about their national interests? That’s the kind of speculations we hear. It’s absolute nonsense!

Finally, here, earlier today, the British and US representatives alleged in passing that Russia’s motive was to kill off spies abroad and that eliminating traitors was a state policy. As he addressed his briefing in Moscow, the British Ambassador referred to numerous statements by Russian leaders. Mildly speaking, this is not true to fact and the Russian leaders have never said anything of the kind. I am addressing the British representative and the US Ambassador, too: please give us at least one example of such a statement. They are ready to preach to the winds, so let them stand by their words. Let them say, who and where said that the Russian leaders were pursuing a state policy that involved exterminating spies. It’s a pack of lies!

Now the Bulgarian, US and British ambassadors are trying to convince us that London is a shining example as far as complying with its obligations under the Convention is concerned. But these are, mildly speaking, very doubtful assertions. Let us look at the Convention. Article IX, Consultations, Cooperation and Fact-Finding, makes it incumbent on States Parties to hold bilateral consultations on all disputable points. However, the British prefer to see this as an option rather than an obligation. Reluctant to abide by the Convention’s provisions, they have invented a new format: “independent verification by the OPCW Technical Secretariat of the British side’s findings.” There is no such clause in the Convention. The British are toying with the CWC as they like, reading it this way one time around and that way another time. What is this? They are a State Party to the Convention! They must strictly follow its letter and spirit. Whom are they trying to mislead pretending they proceed from the Convention?

The British are clearly engaging in chicanery; they are trying to adapt the Convention to their needs by misrepresenting its provisions and are demonstrating an undisguised reluctance to cooperate on the investigation into the Skripals case.

Frankly speaking, I have been affronted by the remarks made by the UK, US and Bulgarian representatives. They are full of insinuations, inferring that Russia is lying, does not answer questions, that it is doing horrid things and, in general, is behaving unethically. As I listened to US Representative Kenneth Ward, I fully expected him to say that the Russian statement was yet another Potemkin village. The distinguished representative claims to know Russian history. He spoke about Potemkin villages before, probably at last year’s conference of the member states, where he also kicked one more country by describing it as Russia’s Trojan horse. This is the kind of language he uses.

This time again, he offered a similar description of Russia’s initiative, which is based on the CWC and should have not provoked any reasonable arguments. This time he said it is a smokescreen. Just have a think about this! The situation is surrealistic.

We are being accused of being unethical. I would like to point out that we do not accept lessons in ethnics from those whose record is not exactly satisfactory.

The representatives of Bulgaria, the UK and the US all said that Russia is guilty of the first chemical weapons attack in Europe since WWII. This claim has not been proved. We have stated clearly and more than once that we have nothing to do with the Salisbury incident.

We have proposed investigating the matter. But they do not want this. They refuse to provide any information. They only continue to repeat their lies. Just stop lying and stop making up lies in public.

I would like to ask you: Who conducted the first blanket air strikes in the centre of Europe in 1999 without a UN sanction? Was it Russia or the US together with the UK and their allies? People in Serbia still remember with horror that hundreds of people, including children, died in these bombing raids.

We all remember how US Secretary of State Colin Powell held up a vial with a white substance at the UN in 2003, blaming Saddam Hussein of manufacturing chemical weapons, which led to the invasion of Iraq. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed, citing certain intelligence data, that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. He later apologized for the Iraq war. Today everyone knows that the vial and intelligence data were a hoax.

Today we remember the tragedy of Khan Sheikhoun, which happened a year ago today, on April 4, 2017. We observed a minute of silence for the victims of all chemical attacks, including in Iran, Iraq, Vietnam and Cambodia.

The truth about what happened in Khan Sheikhoun has not been established to this day. I would like to remind you that Ambassador Ward got nervous at the special session of the Executive Council in April 2017 when the Russian delegate asked that the photographs of the children with enlarged pupils who were allegedly poisoned with sarin be displayed on a screen. The numerous questions we put to the chairs of the Fact-Finding Mission – two UK citizens – have not been answered. We are convinced that it was a crude provocation staged by the notorious White Helmets, who are lavishly financed by the US and the UK – we know this for sure. In short, those who staged that provocation sacrificed those children. A day will come when they will be called to account for this.

As we see it, the Skripal case is a provocation against Russia that was devised long ago. We remember very well how the US, the UK and other Western countries, bent on overthrowing Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, flagrantly violated the UN Security Council resolution on the no-fly zone over Libya, which these countries had pressed for so energetically. They kept telling us that a no-fly zone must be established without delay to save the Libyans. Ultimately, we voted for that resolution. Do you remember what happened after that? And what has become of Libya?

On the other hand, London habitually violates its own rules. Our Argentinean colleague most likely remembers how the light cruiser General Belgrano was heinously torpedoed by the British during the Falklands / Malvinas War in 1982. The warship was sunk beyond the 200-mile maritime exclusion zone declared by the UK, taking with it over 300 Argentineans.

The absurd and incredible accusation presented to us by the UK, supported by its overseas partners, is remindful of the attempts to blame the assassination of President Kennedy on the Soviet Union because Lee Harvey Oswald studied in the Soviet Union and had a Russian wife. Solid facts, indeed!

In 2013, our Organisation received the Nobel Peace Prize, and with good reason. Until now, it has been the most successful mechanism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation. All of us can see how, due to the persistent efforts of our Anglo-Saxon “friends,” the OPCW has been turning into a scene for squaring political accounts over the past two and a half years. The “collective West” acts in strict accordance with the Convention when reviewing the Syrian chemical file. Otherwise the West prefers to overlook the Convention whenever it finds this profitable.

By the way, the Russian Federation has been reproached for suddenly convening the Executive Council’s session, without talking to anyone. “Why didn’t you, Russians, contact us?” they ask. Wouldn’t it be wise to wait for the results of the Technical Secretariat’s technical assistance? Everything would then become clear.

And what kind of confirmation is the British side expecting from the Technical Secretariat? We have already asked this question. As British Prime Minister Theresa May has said, a Novichok-type nerve gas, manufactured solely in the Soviet Union and Russia, was used in Salisbury. Are they expecting the Technical Secretariat to confirm this?

Today, while sharing updated information, Director General Ahmet Uzumcu confirmed that the Technical Secretariat was working on this case in line with its mandate. The Technical Secretariat can only provide its findings on the chemical composition of the substance that has been used, without determining its origin and without blaming anyone for using it.

Moreover, it turns out that the highly professional experts from the British Porton Down laboratory have just confirmed the existence of some chemical substance, but they are unable to say where it had been manufactured. We have been saying from day one that there are no unique markers for determining the origin of a toxic agent.

In that case, one is inclined to ask what would happen if we wait for another week, and if we obtain the results of tests involving the chemical substance’s sample and its formula. It would be necessary to answer numerous questions, including how this substance was delivered to Salisbury, how it was used, etc. The British side will again say that this substance is from Russia. As for replies to other questions, they will tell us to view everything as an axiom. They will tell us to believe them, and they will say that any investigation is no longer necessary.

Supposing our British colleagues don’t want to directly work with us, believing that the Russian Federation is a rogue country. In this event, they can act via the Executive Council. It is also possible to establish an international expert group if they don’t want to act via the Executive Council. Incidentally, our draft resolution suggests this scenario. If they don’t want to establish a bilateral group, then it is possible to set up a multilateral group that would include their American colleagues. They can invite Bulgarian partners who would be only too happy to cooperate. Russia would also include some of its partners. If they don’t like this option, let’s convene a conference of OPCW member-states. The Convention stipulates all these options. In turn, we are ready to work actively for the sake of establishing the truth.

Mr Chairperson,

Today, I am speaking and listening to other speakers, and it’s like talking to a brick wall. We are reaching out to our British partners and urging them to cooperate, to sort things out and to act in line with the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention that stipulates everything. And here is what we hear, including just now from the Bulgarian Ambassador: Russia has failed to reply to the United Kingdom’s legitimate questions, Russia refuses to cooperate in the establishment of the truth.

I am stating with all responsibility that Russia is ready to cooperate. We are ready to accept any possible scenario under the Convention. We are ready to cooperate with the OPCW or within its framework. But we are not ready to accept some far-fetched verdict that Russia is guilty. It appears that our British colleagues have already rubberstamped this verdict. Or, quite possibly, their senior partners from the United States have suggested this verdict to them. We will never accept this verdict!

We advocate an honest, open and full-fledged investigation of the Salisbury incident that a priori cannot be conducted without Russian experts. We will accept the investigation’s results if they are exhaustive, and if they are based on irrefutable facts, rather than on something far-fetched.

Our British colleagues are sitting in their quiet offices at 10 Downing Street and saying that Russia has done this, Russia has done that, and that it is highly likely that the Russians have also poisoned the Skripals. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson made a sensational statement that President of Russia Vladimir Putin had personally ordered the Skripals eliminated. He also blasphemously compared the upcoming 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia with the 1936 Summer Olympic Games in Nazi Germany! To be more exact, no Soviet athletes attended the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. On the contrary, British athletes greeted Hitler with Nazi salutes. I myself have seen such photos. People working with Boris Johnson should at least show him relevant documents before he makes such statements.

Mr Chairperson,

Some of our colleagues claim that Russia turns everything on its head. It has been said here that we should wait for the results of the OPCW expert analysis and then meet again and discuss the matter.

Actually, I suspect that our British and American colleagues are hiding something from us. They fear that the truth will out. Many of our partners from dozens of delegations told me off record that this dark story must be taken from the shadows into the sunlight, to determine what really happened honestly and objectively. But our British colleagues do not want this to happen. They want everything to remain as it is, so that they will be able to declare Russia guilty.

We will never accept the role of a scapegoat. We will not be held accountable for somebody else’s crime. We insist that the OPCW rise to the occasion at this difficult time and play a positive role. The Technical Secretariat is chaired by Director General Ahmet Uzumcu, thanks to whom the OPCW has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Mr Uzumcu is a man of experience and knowledge. He must also play his part. We call on the Executive Council to adopt the decision we propose to conduct an investigation into this incident based on the OPCW standards. We believe that the Director General has a serious role to play in this.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3154942
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old April 7th, 2018 #397
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 extradition of Russian citizen Yevgeny Nikulin from the Czech Republic to the United States



2 April 2018 - 12:28



We are outraged with the Czech Republic’s decision to extradite to the United States Russian citizen Yevgeny Nikulin who was detained at the request of the US side and incarcerated in Prague since October 2016. We are disappointed with the fact that, while making this decision, the Czech side was guided by a striving to display its “allied loyalty” that has now been elevated to the rank of an absolute priority, rather than by legal norms.

For example, this is proved by the rapid examination by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic of a complaint made by Nikulin’s lawyers regarding the verdict of lower courts on the possibility of his extradition to the United States.

The Czech side has ignored the official request of the Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation on Mr. Nikulin’s extradition to Russia. Our repeated calls to note the fact that Mr. Nikulin cannot expect an unbiased and fair trial in the United States during the current anti-Russian hysteria, unleashed there, have gone unheeded.

We perceive Prague’s decision as the Czech side’s deliberate and politically motivated step aiming to undermine the constructive foundation of bilateral cooperation.

We will do our best to guarantee the rights of Russian citizen Yevgeny Nikulin and to protect his interests.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3150846






Press release on summoning Ambassador of Montenegro Ramiz Basić to the Foreign Ministry



2 April 2018 - 16:59



On April 2, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Montenegro Ramiz Basić was summoned to the Foreign Ministry.

He was given a note of protest and was told that, in response to the unjustified demands of Montenegro on expelling a diplomatic official in line with the United Kingdom’s groundless accusations against Russia in connection with the so-called “Skripal case,” the Russian side declared an official of the Embassy of Montenegro persona non grata.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3151278






Press release on summoning the Hungarian ambassador to the Foreign Ministry



4 April 2018 - 13:55



On April 4, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Hungary to the Russian Federation Janos Balla was summoned to the Foreign Ministry.

The Ambassador was given a note of protest and informed that in response to Hungary’s unfriendly and unfounded expulsion of a Russian diplomat on the basis of Great Britain’s unsubstantiated accusations against Russia in connection with the “Skripals case,” Russia declares persona non grata an employee of the Hungarian Embassy.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3153369






Press release on the international practical and research conference on the priority tasks of international cooperation in countering extremism and terrorism



4 April 2018 - 17:59



The Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of the Interior held an international practical and research conference on the priority tasks of international cooperation in countering extremism and terrorism at the Ministry of Interior’s Vladimir Kikot Moscow University. The conference was initiated by the Interdepartmental Commission on Countering Extremism in the Russian Federation.

The conference was opened by Minister of the Interior Vladimir Kolokoltsev, Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov and Head of Kikot Moscow University Igor Kalinichenko.

Opening remarks were also made by Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Office Vladimir Voronkov, Director of the Federal Financial Monitoring Service Yury Chikhanchin, Head of the Federal Service for the Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media Alexander Zharov, member of the Federal Assembly Federation Council Committee on Defence and Security Frants Klintsevich, Deputy Minister of Education and Science Irina Potekhina and Head of the CIS Anti-Terrorist Centre Andrey Novikov.

The conference was attended by experts from the relevant Russian agencies, major academic institutions, representatives of public and religious associations, and also heads and employees of counter-terrorist units from key international organisations – the UN, the SCO, the CSTO, the CIS, the OSCE and the Council of Europe as well as a number of states (China, Iran, Serbia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan).

Successful Russian legal and practical experience in countering extremism and terrorism was presented in detail at the first plenary meeting. Russian representatives focused on efficient functioning of the state system for countering and preventing terrorism and extremism. They convincingly demonstrated how the potential of domestic civil society is actively joining these comprehensive efforts in all areas. This primarily applies to traditional religious communities and their leaders, Russian NGOs, the media, the scientific community and education institutions.

Employees of related agencies, public figures and experts described in detail Russia’s practice of neutralising terrorist and extremist activities on the internet and social media and suggested ways to improve this work and giving it an international dimension.

Deputy Head of News at RT International Alexey Kuznetsov emphasised that it is unacceptable to provide any information support for the crimes of terrorist groups. He quoted a number of instances when Western official agencies and the media directly connived at the provocative and disinformation activities of the pseudo-humanitarian organisation White Helmets that is cooperating with terrorists in Syria.

During the conference, the Russian participants promoted the initiative of “counter-terrorist restrictions for the media and officials” that implies consistent and effective abstention (self-censorship) of the media, politicians and other public figures from creating or stirring up a media report that could provoke the radicalisation of the attitudes of some groups or individuals, thereby leading to extremism and terrorism. They quoted by way of example Russia’s successful experience in this area – the elaboration of the Anti-Terrorist Convention of the Rules of Conduct for the Mass Media in Case of a Terrorist Act and an Anti-Terrorist Operation that was adopted by the Russian media in 2003.

During the second plenary meeting the participants discussed in detail priority tasks of international anti-extremist and anti-terrorist cooperation based on Russian reports and information provided by invited foreign guests. Following the conference the organisers will prepare recommendations for promotion at major international venues.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3153580






Press release on presidential election in Sierra Leone



5 April 2018 - 18:43



On March 31, Sierra Leone held a presidential election run-off. It was won by the leader of the Sierra Leone People’s Party Julius Maada Bio, who received more than 51.8 percent of the popular vote.

Foreign observers, including from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union, described the election as free and fair.

Moscow hopes that the election outcome will help Sierra Leonean society to advance further along the path of stable democratic development.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3154898






Press release on a meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers



6 April 2018 - 18:33



On April 6, a regular meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers took place in Minsk. The heads of the delegations were also received by President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko.

The ministers exchanged views on important international and regional problems and a wide range of tasks to expand the diverse cooperation in the CIS format. Documents to expand law enforcement, cultural, humanitarian and military cooperation were considered.

For the purpose of advancing joint approaches to the most important international topics, it was agreed that a statement of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the CIS member states will be adopted regarding the need to protect the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.

A decision was adopted to begin work to update the provisions of the Concept for the Further Development of the CIS and draw up a new action plan on its implementation in order to adapt them to present-day realities.

The ministers made a number of important decisions in the law enforcement, cultural and humanitarian spheres.

They summed up the implementation of the 2017 plan of multi-level consultations between the CIS countries’ foreign ministries and approved a similar plan for the current year. Documents on the activities of the CIS Council of Defence Ministers, its Secretariat and the CIS Anti-Terrorist Centre were considered.

The adoption by the CIS foreign ministers of a joint statement in connection with the 90th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding writer and diplomat Chingiz Aitmatov cemented the cultural cooperation of the CIS member nations. A Russian-Kyrgyz exhibition commemorating the anniversary of Chingiz Aitmatov’s birth was organised on the sidelines of the meeting.

It was agreed that the next regular meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers will be held in Dushanbe on September 27, 2018, on the eve of a meeting of the CIS Council of Heads of State.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3155410






Comment by the Information and Press Department on new US sanctions against Russia



6 April 2018 - 21:59



On April 6, the number of attempts to pressure Russia through sanctions topped fifty. Despite the failure of previous rounds of sanctions to achieve anything, Washington continues to threaten Russians with visa denials and to scare Russian business by freezing property and financial assets, forgetting that the seizure of private property and other people’s money constitutes theft.

Having failed to achieve the desired effect from the previous sanctions, Washington politicians are pursuing absurd policies. They are lashing out at our companies that have maintained business ties with the United States for a long time and on which thousands of jobs depend there. In other words, they are hurting average Americans, their own voters, and destroying economic cooperation to their own detriment.

It seems that we are witnessing America’s decline in real time. The United States is increasingly turning its back on what it used to characterise as fundamental “American values.” Also, the seizure of Russian diplomatic property by force is not only a crude violation of international norms. It also shows that property rights, which Americans once considered sacred, are now meaningless in that country.

By endlessly turning to sanctions, particularly to remove competitors from foreign markets by administrative methods, Washington has actually become an opponent of the market economy and free and honest competition. Obstacles to the broadcasting of the Russian television channel RT speak to a desire to eliminate a source of alternative information and restrict freedom of speech. Finally, there are the practices of medieval torture in the early 21st century and keeping prisoners in the legal vacuum at the Guantanamo Bay military base and CIA secret prisons, which testifies to Washington’s attitude to human rights.

American democracy is obviously in decline. The US simply hopes to maintain its global hegemony by all means, in particular, by exerting pressure on countries that pursue independent policies and express opinions that are at odds with those of Washington’s NATO allies.

As we have noted repeatedly, no pressure will divert Russia from its course. It merely reveals the inability of the US to achieve its goals and helps to rally Russian society.

Needless to say, this latest anti-Russian move will not go unanswered. However, above all we wish to advise Washington to disabuse itself of the illusion that it is possible to speak to us in the language of sanctions.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3155463
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old April 7th, 2018 #398
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 4, 2018



4 April 2018 - 19:17








Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tajikistan Sirodjidin Aslov’s official visit to the Russian Federation

On April 8-9, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Tajikistan Sirodjidin Aslov will be in Moscow on an official visit at the invitation of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

During the talks, the ministers will exchange views on a wide range of important issues related to the international situation and bilateral foreign policy interaction based on the principles of strategic partnership and alliance.

Particular attention will be paid to implementing the results of the Russian-Tajik summit held in Dushanbe on February 27, 2017, with an emphasis on the trade, economic and cultural spheres, and cooperation within the CIS, the CSTO and the SCO. The ministers will compare notes on their approaches to regional security in Central Asia, the situation in Afghanistan and combating extremism.

A cooperation programme between the foreign ministries of the two countries for 2018 will be signed during the visit.



The official visit to the Russian Federation of the Foreign Minister of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Ri Yong-ho

On April 9-11, Foreign Minister of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Ri Yong-ho will pay an official visit to the Russian Federation.

The foreign ministers will hold talks on April 10 to discuss bilateral relations and to exchange views on key international and regional matters with an emphasis on resolving the situation on the Korean Peninsula.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to meet with Minister of International Relations and Cooperation of the Republic of South Africa Lindiwe Sisulu

Minister of International Relations and Cooperation of the Republic of South Africa Lindiwe Sisulu will visit Moscow on April 12-13 to participate in the 15th meeting of the Russia-South Africa Mixed Intergovernmental Committee for Trade and Economic Cooperation as its co-chairman.

The meeting will be preceded by Minister Sergey Lavrov’s conversation with Minister Sisulu to discuss ways to further strengthen the strategic partnership between Russia and South Africa, including building up investment cooperation and strengthening foreign policy coordination on important international and regional matters. The participants will focus on the forthcoming BRICS summit in Johannesburg on July 25-27.



Meeting of the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad

On April 16, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair a regular meeting of the Government Commission Compatriots Living Abroad.

Commission members will focus on the active involvement of compatriots living abroad during the March 18 Russian presidential election.

They will review the results of the efforts of the Russian Federation’s federal and regional executive agencies to implement the 2017 state policy with regard to compatriots living abroad.

Commission members will discuss a separate matter, namely, the implementation of a state programme to facilitate the voluntary resettlement of compatriots living abroad to the Russian Federation. In all, 61 Russian regions are currently implementing this programme.

They will chart future plans and approve the 2018-2020 comprehensive plan of main measures to implement the Russian Federation’s state policy with regard to compatriots living outside this country. Russian NGOs and specialised humanitarian foundations took part in drafting this document together with the concerned ministries and agencies.

The 6th World Congress of Russian Compatriots Living Abroad, scheduled for late October and early November, will become the main event of 2018.Itis perceived as highly important. Meeting participants are to discuss the relevant concept for holding the congress.



Syrian developments

In the past few days, service personnel from the Russian Centre for the Reconciliation of Opposing Sides in Syria have helped reach agreements on evacuating militants from Douma town, the last community in Eastern Ghouta being controlled by them.

The evacuation began last Sunday, April 1, with militants from the Faylaq al-Raḥman group leaving the town. Over 1,100 people, including their families, were relocated to areas of Idlib Province, that are not controlled by Syrian government forces. On April 2, the first group of the so-called “die-hard” Jaysh al-Islam militants followed in their wake.

This implies precisely “die-hard” militants because members of illegal paramilitary units who have decided to lay down their weapons under the Syrian President’s executive order can take advantage of the amnesty law, improve their legal status, resume normal life and even join the Syrian Army. There is no reason for them to relocate to Idlib or Jarabulus in the northern sector of Aleppo.

Radical militants are trying to hamper the negotiating process, they are circulating rumours about an impending massacre and violence with regard to civilians staying behind in the city. Few people believe this misinformation. Douma residents have had more than enough of bandit tyranny and arbitrary rule. As has been the case in other Eastern Ghouta towns and villages, they are looking forward to reinstating the legitimate government capable of guaranteeing their safety and tranquil life, of giving them an opportunity to work normally, to raise their children and to resume their peaceful lives.

In other Eastern Ghouta areas, local residents have already started returning to their homes. This fact also dispels the propaganda myth, created by radicals and their sponsors, that certain “Shia settlers” will enter the enclave after its native population leaves. But people who have awakened from the long terrorist nightmare no longer believe these lies which are being spread very actively.

One can also see changes in Damascus itself. The multi-million Syrian capital whose population recently feared daily sporadic shelling of residential areas from Eastern Ghouta is marked by a positive atmosphere linked with hopes for quickly and finally overcoming the crisis by restoring the country’s unity and through a political peace settlement.

Russia continues to exert vigorous efforts in this area, including through efficient cooperation with its partners, guarantors of the Astana format, namely, Iran and Turkey. The situation in Syria is a highly important subject of discussions at the second trilateral Russian-Turkish-Iranian summit in Ankara.



Anniversary of US missile attack on Syria

On April 7, 2017, the US launched a large-scale missile attack on Syria’s Shayrat Airbase located south of Homs, in violation of the UN Charter and international law. The pretext they used was the media allegations that Syrian aircraft based at Shayrat were responsible for the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun that claimed many lives on April 4, 2017. The US administration, allegedly shocked by the Syrians’ suffering, decided to use military force on a UN member state without investigating or verifying the tragedy. They even forgot that US experts played a major role in the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons in 2013−2015.

After 60 cruise missiles were launched at the Syrian pilots who were protecting their homeland from international terrorists, the West had no doubts left that Damascus was guilty of the chemical weapons attacks.

I would like to remind everyone that international experts refused to go to the site of the tragedy in Khan Sheikhoun for security reasons. Neither did they go to the bombed airfield at the Shayrat Airbase despite the security guarantees they received, although it would have been logical to search for the traces of toxic agents there.

There is only one explanation for this: the experts probably felt certain that they would not find any evidence of the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian pilots, because that version was based on provocation.

US Defence Secretary James Mattis has recently made a statement indicating that Washington has no evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government. It figures.

Soon afterwards, President of France Emmanuel Macron said that if France acquired such evidence it would definitely use military force. This means that Washington and Paris do not have any evidence. Come now, what about the samples from Khan Sheikhoun, which the French and British scientists allegedly analysed?

Despite this, it has become clear during the recent counterterrorist operation in Eastern Ghouta, which the Syrian government forces conducted with assistance from Russian military, that the West is likely to use the chemical weapons pretext again.

Makeshift workshops with large stocks of toxic agents, including chlorine, have been found in the populated areas after their liberation from the terrorists. Local residents told the authorities that the terrorists were preparing chemical provocations together with the notorious White Helmets. The goal of such attacks is clear: to create a pretext for bringing new “irrefutable” accusations against Damascus.

It is alarming that these questionable preparations were underway while US officials were allegedly issuing harsh warnings. In particular, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley warned that that if the Syrian Government used chemical weapons in Eastern Ghouta, Washington was prepared to act as it did over Khan Sheikhoun.

As you know, Russia has taken resolute measures to stop this dangerous game. On March 13, Chief of the Russian General Staff and Deputy Defence Minister Valery Gerasimov said that the Russian Armed Forces would take response measures if Russian military lives in Syria were endangered.

We believe that in Syria, just as in any case that involves a global political issue, all international and regional players must act in strict compliance with international law based on the UN Charter. Collective efforts to facilitate the Syrians’ movement towards a settlement must be based on UNSC Resolution 2254 and respect for the unity, sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria, whose future can only be decided by the Syrian people themselves. Any measures taken outside the international legal framework can only aggravate the situation and increase the conflict potential, which tends to grow with the increased involvement of external forces that are pursuing their own goals in Syria.



Civilian losses from air strikes in Afghanistan

Reportedly, the Afghan Air Force attacked a madrasah in northern Afghan province of Kunduz (Dasht-e Archi district) killing and wounding over 60 people, including Taliban militants. However, according to eyewitnesses, a large number of civilians came under the attack along with the Taliban, since a graduation ceremony with over 300 people in attendance was being held in the madrasah building at that very moment.

This causes us serious concern. This kind of “mistakes” on the part of the government forces, and especially the Western coalition, which lead to loss of life, are occurring increasingly more often and have become almost routine. In March alone, the US air force used drones to carry out several attacks on targets in the provinces of Nangarhar, Helmand, Kandahar and Farah, which resulted in casualties among the Afghan non-combatants. On March 19, the Parliament of Afghanistan sent an appeal to the Afghan President demanding an investigation into the bombing by the US aviation of villages in the provinces of Nangarhar and Kandahar. The appeal noted that the Americans delivered three air strikes in these areas on March 17−18 killing 19 and wounding 24 civilians.

We are aware of other similar cases that the Afghan command and its Western allies try to keep under the radar.

Civilian losses cause us major concern. All this goes to show once again that the new US-led strategy in Afghanistan, which emphasises wider use of force, is a failure that multiplies crimes against humanity and implicates their allies in them. Such military solutions only lead to an increase in the number of opponents of the current government in Afghanistan and reduce the support for the recent peace initiatives of the leadership of that country.



Statements by US representatives about Russia’s alleged support of the Taliban

Certain media continue to circulate absolutely unsubstantiated allegations by US representatives about Russia’s military assistance to the Taliban. Above all, the matter is about recent statement by General John Nicholson, the commander of US Forces Afghanistan. US officials continue to repeat these charges without even bothering to provide the slightest bit of evidence.

Meanwhile, there is a lot of evidence (acknowledged by the US political circles) that the Taliban have successfully and in sufficient numbers been acquiring weapons in Afghanistan itself, including from batches of arms and equipment made available to Kabul by Washington.

Thus, a report of the Office of the Inspector General of the US Department of Defence released on March 21 admits that the Pentagon is unable to account for military assistance to Afghanistan in the amount of $3 billion. You can imagine the number of weapons involved. This does not rule out the possibility of misuse or theft of delivered ammunition, fuel and vehicles. For example, there are no inventory records for tens of thousands of military vehicles.

In 2016, the Pentagon's report, in particular, claimed loss of about half of the 1.5 million small arms supplied to the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan, including 978,000 M4 and M16 assault rifles. According to the Special Inspector General of the United States for the Reconstruction of Afghanistan, in 2014, 43 percent of the weapons provided to the Afghan armed forces probably fell into the hands of ISIS or the Taliban. In his book Funding the Enemy: How US Taxpayers Bankroll the Taliban, US journalist Douglas Wissing estimates the Taliban's revenue from US aid to Afghanistan in the amount of $1 billion a year. The 2010 report of a Congress committee entitled “Warlord, Inc.” states that the US military contribute to replenishing income of extremists by paying tens of millions of dollars in compensation to the Taliban for the unimpeded passage of their convoys across the territory controlled by them.

Notably, all this is not Russian propaganda, but information taken directly from official US sources.

In this regard, we once again stress the futility of the US attempts to shift responsibility for degrading situation in Afghanistan to our country. Earlier, we repeatedly stated that we are supportive of direct talks between the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban (our contacts with them were aimed precisely at this), and are pleased that the Americans, eventually, reached the same conclusion and supported the call of Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani to direct talks with this movement during the recently held forums in Kabul and Tashkent.



The Russian agenda at the extraordinary session of the OPCW Executive Council

Today, on April 4, Russia has convened an extraordinary session of the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) under the clause “Addressing the situation around the allegations of non-compliance with the Convention made by one state party against another state party with regard to the incident in Salisbury, and measures that may be adopted in this connection.” We are initiating a comprehensive analysis of the situation in the light of the incendiary actions undertaken by the United Kingdom, the official London and the Government of that country, which began by baselessly accusing Russia of “involvement” in the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury on March 4 and later, based on their own false accusations, provoked the biggest diplomatic scandal in modern history and an absolutely groundless expulsion of Russian diplomats from a number of Western countries.

For a month now, we have been seeking a speedy and objective investigation into this unsavoury affair. But none of the questions we posed to the UK received a coherent response.

We realise that our concrete questions bearing on the substance of the case (you could ascertain that they were not politicised and were only related to the course of the investigation, provision of evidence and the granting of access to the Russian citizens) may have perplexed those countries that made haste to show incomprehensible “solidarity” with the UK. But this has nothing to do with solidarity and is only a travesty thereof.

But even under these circumstances, we are prepared for an all-round, highly professional and open cooperation with the UK both on a bilateral basis and within the OPCW, including with the participation of Technical Secretariat representatives as well as other parties concerned in the so-called Skripal case.

I would like to note once again that, as it transpires from the Western media, including UK and US media, the European public and ordinary people are absolutely certain that Russia has refused to provide information to the UK and to discuss this matter, rejecting all opportunities for cooperation. This is essentially an absolute lie. From the first moment, we used note correspondence, diplomatic channels, our Embassy in London, and contacts with British colleagues in Moscow to insistently ask for, offer and later demand a reciprocal discussion and study of the classified materials available to London.

The UK, at its own initiative, has officially and even publicly refused to have any contacts with the Russian Federation, while doing its best to mislead the public that it is the Russian side that is refusing to cooperate.

By convening this special session, Russia hopes that it will be possible to resolve this problem based on international law by using the entire potential inherent in the Chemical Weapons Convention. It is important to stop fomenting tensions and focus on the search for truth and solutions to the existing predicament. We are absolutely certain that it is only a thorough and comprehensive investigation of this incident based on multilateral cooperation that will facilitate the clarification of all circumstances of what has happened in Salisbury. Russia is ready for this.

It should be realised that all participants without exception will sooner or later have to answer the questions posed, given the seriousness of charges against Russia and the subsequent concrete anti-Russian actions.



Russians’ reaction to the so-called Skripal case

Another important aspect is not just that a whole state has been accused of this crime but that a crime involving toxic agents, and possibly even chemical weapons, has taken place in a state that is affiliated to the EU in one way or another.

As I have said, we only have at our disposal the scanty information that is published in the media. Even the statements that were made yesterday by officials at Porton Down, a secret laboratory of the UK Ministry of Defence, have not been provided to us officially.

We are drowning in a steady stream of misinformation regarding this topic. The absurd part of this is that the UK is accusing Russia of spreading fake news.

We can understand the Russians’ outrage over this matter. We have received hundreds of letters from Russian citizens who demand that we give a harsh response to the UK and offer their versions of such answers. This public outrage, which is based on solid ground, is, regrettably, turning into sarcasm. A growing amount of sarcastic material has been posted online, including videos, photo collages and the like. This could actually be really funny, but I am asking you to remember the difficult situation in which these Russian citizens have been placed. So far, we have only received official information about the health of Yulia Skripal and gather all the other information from the media. We ask you to respect people’s privacy and remember that this matter concerns Russian citizens who are in a very tough situation.

I would like to repeat that we continue to ask and will never stop asking for official information regarding the Skripal case and to request consular access to these Russian citizens.



Contacts with Viktoria Skripal

The Russian Embassy in London has contacted Viktoria Skripal, a relative of the Russian citizens and victims of the Salisbury attack, Sergey and Yulia Skripal. Our diplomats share the available information regarding the health of her relatives with Viktoria and update her on the efforts to gain access to them and to receive official UK information about the progress of the investigation.

It is difficult to imagine the feelings of the victims’ relatives amid a deep stream of misinformation and in almost total absence of official information.

Viktoria Skripal is planning to go to London to visit her relatives so as to offer them moral and psychological support. We consider this an absolutely natural and sincere desire, and especially important now, as Yulia Skripal’s condition has reportedly improved.

Viktoria is preparing the necessary travel documents. We hope that the UK Embassy in Moscow will issue her a visa without delay. She has probably already received her visa. At the least, according to our information, the visa was supposed to be ready today. We believe that this humanitarian situation should be considered outside any rules and regulations.

For our part, we are ready to provide assistance and consular support to Viktoria Skripal during her trip to Britain.



The situation surrounding the ongoing investigation into the Skripal case in the UK

Yesterday, head of the British Porton Down laboratory (an extremely off-limits and non-transparent agency by all accounts) Gary Aitkenhead said that he could not confirm that the nerve agent used to poison Sergey Skripal and his daughter was produced in Russia. According to Aitkenhead, the laboratory did not track down its origin, but provided scientific information to the British government, which then used a number of other sources to draw its conclusions.

We are well aware of these findings from the British media, which literally on a daily basis provide numerous versions of what happened referring to sources close to the investigation.

We have heard accusations coming from Britain that Russia engages in disinformation. They have counted about 20 “fake” scenarios that were allegedly voiced by the Russian side. However, this list includes experts, researchers, political scientists and journalists, whose opinions are presented as official versions of the attempted murder, which Moscow is “throwing in”.

I would like to emphasise that Moscow has not “thrown in” any scenarios whatsoever. This is about us trying to get something from the British side for a month now. We receive huge numbers of questions from Russian and foreign journalists regarding the accusations that London made against Moscow. Some allegations, I can’t even call them scenarios, are made public only in response to these questions in attempts to find at least some clues that could lead to an understanding of what happened. The official position is provided in our response to the questions and requests that we receive from the media.

What do we see in Britain at a time when Moscow does not have any official information and is trying to find at least some bits of information? The UK has all the materials on hand, but they are classified. At the same time, the media churns out vast numbers of versions with vast numbers of references to unnamed experts and representatives of obscure official agencies. Here are some of them.

Initially, it was claimed that the Skripals had been poisoned by Fentanyl, an opioid analgesic. Then, it turned out that the flowers they brought to the cemetery could have been poisoned. Then, there was a story that the poison agent was disseminated through the ventilation system of the vehicle, or that a vehicle part was treated with poison. They also said that the Skripals could have been poisoned outside. With reference to the police, it was reported that over 100 Salisbury residents could have been poisoned by the nerve agent, and the UK health authorities recommended everyone who visited the Mill pub and the Zizzi restaurant, which the Skripals visited on the day of the alleged poisoning, wash their clothes and clean their phones. This kind of advice was given after yesterday's information from the Porton Down laboratory that it was a chemical warfare agent. Indeed, this is what you would normally do in case of a chemical attack, wouldn’t you?

Then, there were reports that the poison was allegedly found on the door handle of the house where Skripal lived. Then there was another version that the agent could have been planted in Yulia Skripal’s suitcase, and also that it was used to poison the cosmetics, clothes or a personal gift to Sergey Skripal. One of the most recent versions has it that the poisonous agent could have been brought in with a package of buckwheat, or a package with “bay leaves and spices,” which Yulia Skripal didn’t have time to pick up before leaving for the UK and asked her friend, who was flying with her husband to London on another flight, to bring along.

This is being done purposefully in order to confuse people and to keep the subject afloat. Every day, more versions are thrown in with reference to “sources.” At the same time, the UK has all the official information, and it is all classified. This is nothing short of barbarity. As we are told, the people are in critical condition. Their relatives do not understand what is going on. International experts come to conduct lab tests and take samples of certain substances. Meanwhile, Russian officials from the consular service in the UK are unable to identify these people. Meanwhile, endless numbers of subjects are thrown in, which divert attention from the main questions.

Amid these constantly changing leads, from the door handle to the buckwheat, one conclusion remains unchanged: a “highly skilled team of Russian murderers” is involved in poisoning the Skripals. This is a quote from the Daily Telegraph. This is an example of classic misinformation: take a half-truth, constantly spin the subject and not provide any official statement about the course of the investigation with actual, not fictional leads.

Here’s another example. As the New York Times concluded, smearing a chemical agent on a door handle is so risky and sensitive that only superprofessionals, hence, Russians, could have done it... The fact that no one has so far been able to establish whether Putin personally gave the order to dispatch Skripal is accounted for by the fact that the Russian President is good at hiding information. It's just terrible that an officially registered media outlet is currently engaged in truly disruptive activities. This is nothing short of an information con game staged by official London and Western media.

It is puzzling why, instead of generating inferences, British law enforcement agencies don’t start a professional investigation into the incident and are reluctant to cooperate with the investigation, which could shed light on the case opened in Russia. They come up with their verdicts without bothering to wait for at least initial assessments by the OPCW, and do not ask for cooperation with Russia. Why, despite numerous requests, are we not provided with any investigation materials, including transcripts of telephone conversations from the Skripal family, records from surveillance cameras, evidence of consistency, the security and reliability of the entire chain of evidence gathering, detailed findings of the Porton Down laboratory on samples, including biomaterials allegedly taken by British experts from the people affected by this attack?

I want to remind you once again of a very important point: the British have not yet responded to our Embassy’s request to provide access to communication with the Porton Down laboratory. I understand that the idea of ​​direct communication with their experts is not received with enthusiasm. Why? Just because there are things to hide. After all, until now, Porton Down has not answered the key and simple question about whether Porton Down engaged in working with this substance. Did they produce, synthesise and study it? Do you have a sample of the Novichok family (by western qualification) that is talked about so much? Porton Down has not answered these questions.

Unfortunately, in violation of all generally recognised international legal rules, we have not been granted consular access to Russian citizen Yulia Skripal. We are making constant attempts to obtain this permission.

In addition, we now have information (we checked it, but I didn’t see it in the media) that Skripal had pets.

Is this relevant? Very much so, if the issue is about using chemical agents and the availability of numerous scenarios, which in one way or another are related to the house where Skripal lived. Where are they now? We have an understanding of how many of them there were, but this is a question for Britain. Where are the animals? What is their condition? Why did Britain, so active in “leaking” information to the media about the investigation as it refers to unnamed sources, hide such an important fact? After all, we are talking about living organisms, and if a poisonous agent was used in the house, they must also have been affected.

Why, without trial or investigation, was Russia so quickly accused, even though this toxic agent could potentially be made in 20 countries, including in a lab located only a few kilometres from the site of the incident? This is a big question, and no one has answered it.

While the Russian side, from all venues, is calling for logic and transparent investigation and a dialogue on the incident, Britain prefers to stage a misinformation campaign, refuses to provide evidence or facts, and builds its entire case on the assumption that it is “highly likely.”

This is more than just a violation of the generally accepted principle of presumption of innocence. We are talking about the reluctance of a UN Security Council member state, a subject of international law that possesses nuclear weapons and has a special responsibility for international stability and security, to conduct a logical, open and fair dialogue with another state through bilateral channels and international platforms, primarily, the OPCW.



US Department of State leaks on Novichok chemical agent published by Wikileaks

I would like to draw your attention to online material that has been on the internet for rather a long time but has failed to induce the UK media or the political establishment to start asking questions.

According to Wikileaks, the US and the UK have been actively suppressing international discussion on the now “popular” book on the Novichok nerve agent by Vil Mirzayanov, ever since its publication.

As it transpired, in April 2009, Hillary Clinton compiled drew up instructions for a DOS delegation due to attend an Australia Group meeting as a precaution against the eventuality of Novichok nerve agent and/or the Mirzoyanov book being mentioned during the talks.

The instructions were not a chance occurrence. After Mirzayanov published his book, experts from a number of countries working on chemical weapons problems, including within the OPCW framework, asked the Americans some uncomfortable questions. So, the instructions included five points. It would be a good thing if a State Department spokesperson commented on this information at a briefing.

1. Avoid any substantive discussion of the Mirazayanov book “State secrets: An insider’s chronicle of the Russian chemical weapons program” or so-called “Fourth Generation Agents.”

2. Report any instances in which the book is raised.

3. Do not initiate or provoke conversations about the book or engage substantively if it comes up in conversation.

4. Express a lack of familiarity with the issue.

(Please remember that these are US State Department instructions for chemical experts, who know about the book and the problem itself and who are going to attend meetings of relevant panels.)

5. Quietly discourage substantive discussions by suggesting that the issue is “best left to experts in the capitals.”

On March 28, 2009, not long before the instructions were written, Prague-based US diplomats reported by cable that they had informed their Czech colleagues at the Foreign Ministry that in future, it was undesirable to “publicly discuss next generation agents.”

The Czech media have attacked us for constantly mentioning Prague in the context of the Skripal case. We are doing this for a reason, because there are a lot of questions. But Czech citizens should answer these questions, as I see it, for themselves rather than for us. They need to understand what games they have become involved in and are being forced to play. Do the citizens of the Czech Republic understand what is going on in their territory within the framework of NATO-sponsored research? Do the country’s officials and representatives of relevant services have access to research pursued by NATO members on their territory?

These materials are available online. All of this can and must lead to a serious national investigation.

Besides, as is shown by a March 26, 2009 US cable from The Hague, where, incidentally, the OPCW Headquarters is located (earlier this fact was known only to experts, but now, I think, even children know as much), “The UK Ministry of Defence has spoken to its counterparts in the Netherlands and Finland, apprised them of the conversation, and asked each country to provide guidance to its delegates not to raise this issue in future.”

All of this is piecing together into a horrible jigsaw puzzle that shows the entire picture of what the world is being dragged into by the Western “grandees,” London in this case, behind whose back Washington is looming large.

In the 1990s, intensive research into agents of this type was conducted by the Edgewood Chemical Biological Centre of the US Department of Defence. In 1998, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology, an organisation registering all newly synthesised organic compounds, added A-234 spectral characteristics to its database. But by 2000, the entry was deleted, seemingly for reasons of national security.

Nevertheless, the structural formula of Novichok, which makes it possible for any high-tech chemical laboratory to resynthesise this nerve agent, was first published by Mr Mirzayanov in his book.

It should be kept in mind that under Clause 1(a) of the Chemical Weapons Convention, each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone.

Thus, the publication of the formula at the initiative of, or with the connivance of the then US administration can be seen as a transfer of knowledge about chemical weapons, that is, an indirect transfer of chemical weapons per se, and, accordingly, as a gross violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. No wonder that the Department of State recommended its staff to avoid the theme.

It is also notable that after the publication of Mirzayanov’s “revelatory” book, the OPCW Scientific Advisory Board repeatedly considered the expediency of adding A-234 to the CWC Schedules of Chemicals but invariably came to the conclusion that there was no verifiable data on its existence and it was not feasible to classify it as a warfare agent. British and US scientists, among others, associated themselves with this approach, while drafting the “instructions” that they sent to their experts.

Washington and London reversed their stand only after the March 4 Salisbury incident. As we see it, this U-turn and their unexpected interoperability is just further evidence of the preplanned and provocative nature of these developments.



Anti-Russian rhetoric by UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson

We noted the article by UK Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson in the Sunday Telegraph. He claims in the article that Russia’s development “of new long-range missiles and nuclear weapons” is “a serious threat” and it is allegedly proved by the “cold-blooded” chemical attack in Salisbury. Correspondingly, the UK needs to modernise its army. A direct link is made here: Russia attacked Great Britain – give us more money – we need more weapons.

Apparently, London’s anti-Russian rhetoric remains off the scale whereas officials’ statements increasingly leave the domain of common sense. Logic has abandoned UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson. Unfortunately, such things will be voiced again and again and will be talked about while we will be commenting on all that.

If we ignore British politicians’ striving to contain our country internationally and to feed an anti-Russian campaign, which has become a tradition with them, there has now emerged another reason that testifies to London’s interest in launching the Skripal case. We are constantly told that we have motives. Meanwhile, look how many motives our western partners have. By making an enemy out of Russia in the context of the Salisbury incident, the UK government is trying to solve a number of its own opportunistic and very costly tasks using such publications.



Handelsblatt newspaper’s material on OPCW’s potential role in investigating the Skripal case fabricated against Russia

The Foreign Ministry has to closely follow various publications regarding the Salisbury incident. In particular, we noted a recent article in the German newspaper Handelsblatt, which overreached itself in distorting Russia’s positions and approaches. The article was published on March 29.

Whereas Russia from the onset called on the UK to cooperate within the OPCW, the article’s author claims that “Moscow keeps silent and secretive, lies regarding the Novichok gas development and is trying to start a dishonest game with the Organisation by asking for an investigation on the clause of the OPCW which will allow Russia to remain unstained in the end.” The Handelsblatt takes no notice of the available material – either Vil Mirzoyanov’s book, or the US State Department’s instructions, or a huge number of mismatching theories being spun in the media, none of which leads them to the idea that the act must have been pre-planned.

In our opinion, the rhetoric used in this case not just by that German newspaper but also by a number of other western media outlets, clearly proves the inadequacy of the trumped-up accusations against Russia.

We would like to reiterate that it was on the British territory that illegal actions were committed against two Russian nationals. For that reason Russia has been insistently and consistently demanding a comprehensive, highly professional and open clarification of all the circumstances in order to ensure favourable conditions for finding solutions under the current circumstances.



Friedrich Engels on the Skripal case

It is highly indicative and possibly symbolic if not a mere coincidence that it is the German media that is so insistent in bringing across the message that Russia is to blame.

Media campaigns like the one we are witnessing have been used by our Western partners for long time. When I say that it has been used for a long time, I don’t mean contemporary history or even modern history. The Skripal case campaign on discrediting Russia has been cooked up and trumped up along fairly old patterns. It is not even retro, it’s an antique.

In late 19th century, the attention of the public in many countries was drawn to a series of explosions in London in 1883−1885. The media was naturally flooded with a wave of conjectures. German political figure, philosopher and entrepreneur Friedrich Engels came up with a theory that suggested Russia’s involvement in his article “Real Imperial Russian Privy Dynamiters” published on January 29, 1885 in the German newspaper Der Sozialdemokrat. The article is available in the 1961 Russian edition of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’s collected works, which was published by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. So this is a credible source. The article contains a citation of the original, the newspaper I mentioned, and is available in Russian.

Naturally, we had to double-check everything – on the screen you can see a photo of that newspaper; its archival number is also available. We have checked and the Russian translation completely corresponds to the German original. I would like to quote the article written by Friedrich Engels, let me reiterate, on January 29, 1885 in connection with a series of explosions in London in 1883−1885. “I do not hesitate, for the time being, to lay blame for the explosions in London […] at the door of the Russians […] it is more than probable that a Russian brain and money were behind it.” “Everybody knows that the Russian officialdom will shrink at nothing if only it leads to a desired end.” “The history of the Balkan peninsula during the last one hundred years shed enough light on the abilities of Russian officialdom in removing troublesome individuals by means of poison, the dagger etc.” “The timing of these explosions is too opportune not to raise the question – Whose interests do they serve? Who has most to gain from these otherwise pointless shots of terror aimed at nobody in particular, to which not only low-ranking policemen and bourgeois fall victim but also workers and their wives and children? Who?” Let me remind you that this was written in 1885.

I would like to stress that at the time of writing the article Friedrich Engels was living in Great Britain and was closely engaged, let’s call it that way, with the UK’s political establishment. It is worthwhile to emphasise that official Berlin called Mr Engels a spy and demanded his extradition from London but to no avail – British Prime Minister John Russell kept refusing Berlin’s requests. Does that remind you of anything?

As was established later as time passed, many countries and political interests were involved in that complicated story. Historians described the situation later relying on the investigation reports and Scotland Yard materials, the culprits behind organising and perpetrating a series of terrorist attacks in the British capital were extremist organisations with a dense network in Europe and the US. The police also found the suppliers of dynamite. They were citizens of different countries. But none of them ever had anything to do with Russia.

We very much hope that the current Scotland Yard officers will follow this historic example and resist unprecedented political pressure from their own government, which ultimately frames them as it pursues its own political agenda. We hope that all the true reasons behind the so-called Skripal case will be uncovered.



Bulgarian independent journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva’s expose of Porton Down chemical research laboratory

At the last briefing, Bulgarian journalists asked me about the March 27, 2018 publication of an expose by independent Bulgarian journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva about the British chemical laboratory in Porton Down. I did not have her story at that time, but I read it later. This story analyses scientific reports, articles, media publications, data from the register of US federal contracts, and information from the British Government under the 2002 Freedom of Information Act. The journalist has reached the following conclusions.

First, it turns out that the Porton Down facility never stopped testing various viruses, including the Ebola and Marburg viruses, encephalitis and anthrax, as well as the impact of mustard gas, phosgene and nerve gases on animals. In all, the laboratory’s experts have conducted experiments on over 122,000 animals since 2005, and it is unclear how many of them have perished.

Second, the journalist notes that such activities at Porton Down had been ordered and lavishly financed by the United States, a country that has so far failed to eliminate its chemical weapons arsenal, citing a shortage of funding. It makes sense for the US to sponsor a British lab and at the same time not to find funding for destroying its own chemical weapons. The Pentagon has paid tens of millions of dollars (about $70 million) to the British chemical laboratory. The Defence Threat Reduction Agency has set aside over $2 million. I very much hope that the US Department of State will also comment on this information. Their employees mostly specialise in monsters from the deep sea, but this information is also quite exciting.

According to the expose, apart from the above-mentioned activities, Porton Down conducted classified work with war gases. For this purpose, the facility received about $40 million from the Pentagon over the past few years. Where are all those people from the Pentagon and the US Department of State with their Twitter and social network accounts and briefings? This information deserves to be commented upon.

Obviously, US representatives should, first of all, officially comment on this data. Second, experts from all over the world should study it. Third, if this information is confirmed, then it would run counter to this chemical laboratory’s officially declared goals and tasks. This might point to violations of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction.

We analyse all publications on this subject, and we appreciate every author’s contribution. We are trying to dispel the lies that we see. At the same time, we draw attention to incoming data and try to find out whether it really has something to do with real life facts.



Russian citizen’s opinion on so-called “Skripal case”

I cannot help but tell you about a letter that we have received from a resident of Kazan with a PhD in pedagogics who has no experience when it comes to chemical laboratory research. He wants to know why British Prime Minister Theresa May is constantly saying “highly likely” during her discourses, and why no one in the West interprets this as being doubtful, but a doubt, nonetheless. The Russian citizen is asking us this question, and he is also asking it to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Legal practice interprets any doubt to the benefit of the defendant; but, for some reason, no one has paid any attention to this. To quote the Russian citizen’s letter, the defendant does not have to make any excuses and remains innocent unless proved otherwise.

I would like to thank everyone for sending letters to us. We read all of these letters, reply to most of them, and we will continue to do this.



US compliance with Chemical Weapons Convention

The United States remains the only signatory state of the Chemical Weapons Convention to possess chemical weapons. The US retains 2,616 tonnes of blister gases (mustard gas) and nerve gases (VX and sarin). Over 700,000 multi-caliber field artillery and howitzer shells, as well as over 60,000 free-flight 115-mm rockets for multiple launch rocket systems, contain these deadly chemicals.

Indicatively, the elimination of US chemical arsenals has virtually ground to a halt in the past few years. The United States has eliminated just 230 tonnes of chemical weapons over the last five years.

In the early 1990s when talks were underway to coordinate the text of the Chemical Weapons Convention, it was precisely Washington that insisted on extremely short deadlines for eliminating these weapons. At Washington’s insistence, under Article IV of the Chemical Weapons Convention that entered into force in April 1997, all signatory states were given only ten years to accomplish this task.

To be honest, that was an impracticable task. These schedules were repeatedly put off after 2007. In 2012, the Convention’s signatory states decided that it was necessary to eliminate the remaining chemical weapons as soon as possible.

Russia completed its chemical weapons elimination programme in September 2017. At the same time, the US side is in no hurry to fulfil its obligations, citing financial, organisational, technical and environmental difficulties. According to official estimates, there are plans to eliminate US chemical weapons stockpiles only by the fall of 2023.

This sounds strange for such a country as the United States that boasts cutting-edge technology and sufficient financial resources. One is inclined to ask why the United States is so reluctant to get rid of its chemical arsenals. What deters them? What considerations prevent them from eliminating these toxic agents? It is possible to ask more questions in this connection.



Situation around Konstantin Yaroshenko

We were seriously alarmed in connection with the appeal of the daughter of Russian citizen Konstantin Yaroshenko, illegally abducted by US secret services from Liberia in 2010, that has been received by the Foreign Ministry. She has drawn attention to the fact that her father is once again subjected to constant unjustified searches and humiliating body checks in the rudest form. Diplomats from the Russian Consulate General in New York immediately secured a meeting with the Russian citizen and prison authorities. Representatives of the Russian Embassy in Washington also met with US Department of State officials. This was done to stop the never-ending violations of his rights.

We believe that the behaviour of US prison officials is unacceptable, especially in the light of the fact that Mr Yaroshenko’s health has been seriously undermined by brutal beatings during his abduction. The creation of unbearable conditions during his detention is beginning to resemble medieval torture.

Nevertheless, we continue to hope that high-ranking US officials capable of influencing Mr Yaroshenko’s future will display humane behaviour, no matter what. For our part, we will also continue to take every action to prevent the violation of rights of all Russian citizens serving prison terms in the United States and to ensure their speedy repatriation.



Anti-Russia statements by French Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian

Unfortunately, French Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian has recently made a number of openly unfriendly statements with regard to Russia, which evoke dismay. As the French say, only a feeling of light sadness remains.

During his visit to Kiev on March 23, the French minister called for putting pressure on Russia and demanding that it honour its obligations under the Minsk Agreements. In his opinion, it is precisely Russia that must ensure a complete and sustained ceasefire on the ground.

We want very much to advise French Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian to reread the Package of Measures for fulfilling the Minsk Agreements, all the more so as this will not take very long. Russia’s obligations under this document are in no way different from those assumed by France and Germany. So, if anyone wants to make us responsible for the ceasefire, it would be logical to demand the same from them.

The three presidents issued their joint statement together with the Package of Measures, with France and Germany pledging to provide technical support for reinstating the banking system in the conflict zone, including through the creation of an international mechanism for facilitating social payments. Naturally, one would like to ask the following question: Do our “Normandy Format” partners plan to honour this obligation assumed by them?

To be honest, one gets the impression that Paris’ claims to play the role of an “honest broker” in the Ukrainian peace settlement are a mere pose. In 2014, the Europeans did not dare ask “Euromaidan authorities” to honour the then agreements with Viktor Yanukovich that were violated the very next day. Nor do they want to see Kiev’s ostentatious refusal to fulfill the Minsk Agreements, they prefer to shift the blame onto others and to demand something from Russia which is not party to the conflict.

Last week, Jean-Yves Le Drian also made a number of statements on the so-called Skripal case. His statements contained nothing new. Please forgive me, but claims that only Russians can manufacture the “Novichok” toxic agent and that there is therefore no other plausible explanation, remind one of Lewis Carroll. This does not sound serious for the Minister of Foreign Affairs from a serious state.

We expect the French side to stop hurling groundless accusations and to respond constructively and down to the point to our ten questions on the “Skripal case” that have also been addressed to Paris.

[By comparing Russia to Rodion Raskolnikov, the fictional murderer from Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment,”] British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has given us ample food for thought with his quotations from Fyodor Dostoyevsky. We would like to follow his example and to remind French Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian of the book “The Children of Captain Grant” by Jules Verne. I don’t know whether this author is popular in France, but the people of Russia love him, and this book is wildly popular with every child here.

According to the book’s Chapter 16, “Jacques Paganel touched upon this important matter of native tribes while talking to his fellow travelers. Everyone unanimously agreed that the colonial policy doomed native tribes to extinction and to exile from places where their ancestors once lived. This deleterious British policy affected all of their colonies, especially Australia. During initial colonisation, exiles and colonists themselves viewed natives as wild animals. They hunted them with rifles, killed them and ravaged their villages, citing influential lawyers who claimed that Australians were outlaws and that the murder of these outcasts was therefore not a crime. Newspapers in Sydney even suggested mass poisonings as a radical method for getting rid of the native population, especially near Lake Gunter.”

Incidentally, our citizens are sending us many allusions to works of fiction or documentaries.



Situation with Russian fishing vessel The Nord

On April 3, the Russian Foreign Ministry invited Ukraine’s charge d'affaires ad interim in Russia to serve him a note with a strong protest against the unlawful detention of the Russian fishing vessel, The Nord, by the Ukrainian state border service on March 25 in the Sea of Azov, its convoying to the port of Berdyansk and the unlawful detention of its ten crew members, all Russian nationals.

It was pointed out to the Ukrainian side that the crew is being held in inhuman conditions and has not been allowed to see officials from the Russian Consulate.

It was stated that these actions contravene the 2003 Treaty on Cooperation in the Use of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait between the Russian Federation and Ukraine and are a grave violation of the Agreement between the Russian Fishery Committee and the State Ukrainian Committee on Fishery and Fishing Industry in the Sea of Azov of September 14, 1993, as well as Ukraine’ obligations under Article 19 of the Consular Convention between Russia and Ukraine of January 15, 1993.

Russia requested immediate release of the unlawfully detained Russian nationals, the return of The Nord to its legal owner and prevention of similar provocations in the future.

We are outraged by yet another Ukraine’s provocation with respect to The Nord’s captain Vladimir Gorbenko who was on April 4 taken to Kherson in a service vehicle by the Security Service of Ukraine.

The Consular Department of the Russian Embassy in Ukraine immediately contacted the Russian national’s lawyers and found out that the Security Service of Ukraine’s Kherson Directorate for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea will petition the court for Gorbenko’s pre-trial arrest.

The lawyers reported that The Nord’s crew had to leave the ship due to unbearable sanitary conditions (as the entire catch had gone off) and go down to the pier where they are being held at gunpoint.

The Russian Consulate General in Odessa was instructed to continue insisting on a meeting with the captain. Ukraine has been rejecting our diplomats’ requests for visiting the Russians claiming that the entire crew, including the captain, are from Kerch and, therefore, are Ukrainian citizens. The Russians’ lawyers have drawn attention of local human rights organisations to the Ukrainian officials’ thuggish behaviour.

This is not the first provocation of this kind. There have been cases involving Alexander Baranov and Maxim Odintsov, who are currently being held in a detention facility, (V.) Vysotsky, who is serving a sentence, and others.

We continue to insist on the innocence of our nationals who have been submitted to unlawful and aggressive actions by the Ukrainian security and judicial bodies.



Latvian officials’ decision to assign the Latvian language as the language of instruction in schools for ethnic minorities

Recently we already spoke out about this issue. We cannot but feel concerned about the Latvian ethnocracy’s steps to force the Russian language out of all aspects of the country’s public life, in violation of a number of international legal instruments. It is deeply regrettable that Latvian President Raimonds Vejonis decided to sign the bill into law and ignore the opinion of a significant part of his own country’s population.

We have repeatedly pointed out to international competent bodies that the Latvian officials are pursuing a discriminative policy against our compatriots and are waiting for their adequate response. Of course, Riga’s unfriendly actions will be considered in the context of our bilateral relations.



The blocking of Federal News Agency accounts by Facebook and Instagram

We took notice of Facebook and Instagram blocking the accounts of a number of Russian media, including the Federal News Agency. We also took notice of Facebook Chairman and CEO Mark Zucherberg’s statement to the effect that Facebook was stepping up the fight against so-called Russian “troll factories.” It is clear that the blocking followed in the wake of the US official campaign to whip up anti-Russia rhetoric and to clear the information space of undesirable Russian media under the pretext of alleged Russian interference in the US elections.

Oddly enough, the social media intended to encourage openness in communication and information exchange, transparency and democracy are starting to use undisguised totalitarian control and censorship methods, based on dubious criteria of affiliation with the notorious “troll factories.”

We are well aware that Facebook, its heads and managers are in a difficult situation. On the one hand, they have to demonstrate loyalty to the US political establishment, which is seized by anti-Russia rage (let’s be more realistic: it’s not about demonstrating loyalty but saving the company and protecting it from outside pressures involving a range of repressive tools), while on the other, the company is positioning itself as an entity committed to free speech and upholding democratic values. We understand their attempts to steer a course between Scylla and Charybdis and find a path of their own. But when all is said and done it is the United States that declared freedom of speech an absolute value.

I would like to remind you again that every year the US delegation tries to do what it can to avoid voting on, and preventing other countries from voting on, the Russian draft of the UN General Assembly resolution concerning the unacceptability of certain new practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism and neo-Nazism. Our US partners claim that this could hypothetically interfere with the freedom of speech. In the meantime, the document is calling for only the good things, such as precluding a return to the times we left in the past, which led to global disasters. But we are told again and again that freedom of speech could suffer.

We call on our colleagues to do all they can to avoid turning the media into a weapon of information war and a means to serve timeserving political interests, which really do harm and are at odds with the principles of freedom of expression and equal access to information for all.

We hope that the response by the human rights community and the relevant international agencies responsible for online observance of these principles will not be long in coming.

It is not these hundreds of resources that they should block but rather the editions that publish absolute gibberish accusing Russia of having committed a grave crime, which they can’t prove through facts or arguments, and using the words and expressions that describe all of this. These are nothing but sheer accusations, but in the same breath they are giving up on the presumption of innocence and any principles of international law or respect for it.



Developments in Kosovo

At our previous briefing, I was asked a question about an unprovoked surge of violence against Serbian residents in northern Kosovo, where there is a European mission and a NATO contingent to ensure safety. Are there any international documents? What should the Serbs do if these documents are not respected? In this connection, I would like to say the following.

We proceed from the assumption that the international presences deployed in Kosovo under UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of June 10, 1999, bear the main responsibility for assuring the safety of the non-Albanian population in the area. The relevant duties are recorded in their mandates.

KFOR is one of these presences and it is actively cooperating with the Kosovo police. KFOR service personnel are regularly used to maintain law and order during visits of foreign delegations and public events.

The EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) was established under a UN Security Council decision and is formally based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244. EULEX has a function to assist the consolidation of rule of law in Kosovo in accordance with European standards. One of its main duties is to monitor Kosovo police operations.

Nevertheless, both KFOR and EULEX openly connived in the detention in Kosovska Mitrovica on March 26 of the director of the Serbian government office for Kosovo and Metohija, Marko Juric. They just watched and made no effort, in breach of their mandate, to prevent the Pristina authorities from engaging in wrongdoing.

This incident and the January 16 assassination in northern Kosovska Mitrovica of Oliver Jovanovic, leader of the Freedom, Democracy, Justice Kosovo Serbian opposition political movement, have sent tensions soaring in Kosovo. Ignoring the interests of Belgrade and the Kosovo Serbs, the Kosovo Albanians are actively trying to use the lack of real rule of law in the territory and the inactivity of the international presences – KFOR and EULEX – to implement their plans to transform the Kosovo Security Force into full-blown “armed forces.” This runs counter to the provisions of Security Council Resolution 1244, the main instrument for Kosovo settlement.

We took notice of press leaks on certain extra-regional forces being ready to give them every kind of assistance. Specifically, different publications quote US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Aaron Wess Mitchell as saying that the United States has supported most closely the transformation of the Kosovo Security Force and will continue to support this transformation at all levels. So we can assume that the Kosovo army will hold NATO standards. Serving this purpose are the resources and potential of the Camp Bondsteel base maintained by the international presence, which could be expanded under the pretext of rising tensions in the area. These developments will certainly do nothing to strengthen security in the region.

We count on all parties to a Kosovo settlement reaffirming their commitment to scrupulously implement UN Security Council Resolution 1244. We hope that NATO’s KFOR contingent will operate in strict conformity with its peace and security mandate rather than support one of the parties to the conflict.



The situation around Bulgarian Metochion in Moscow

In reply to a question that we received, I will say that there are indeed some difficulties regarding the issue of the legal status of the area on which the Bulgarian Metochion (Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God) is located. The problem dates to the early 1990s and was never ultimately settled. Bulgaria’s request is being considered by the Moscow authorities and the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate.



A statement by the JIT on primary radar data provided by Russia in the Malaysia MH17 case

We were asked to comment on a statement by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) with regard to the primary radar data provided by Russia. “The Russian radar data was examined by two independent experts. The experts confirmed the JIT’s earlier conclusions. The fact that there is no missile in the radar images can be explained by several things and does not mean that the missile was not in the air space.”

Here is what I would like to say. Specialists at Almaz-Antey Concern presented their expert assessments of the so-called conclusions by Dutch prosecutors. The concern refuted every postulate of the above experts, whose arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. As was explained at length at Almaz-Antey, Russian radar could not have failed to detect a missile if it had been launched from the site on which the Joint Investigation Team has been stubbornly insisting.

As a matter of fact, this is a strange approach. In Russia, entire departments, relevant organisations and corresponding agencies were involved in the analysis of the primary radar data that was subsequently handed over to the investigators, while the JIT entrusted this analysis to two unnamed experts. Who are these people? What kind of experts are they? What do they know? What can they do? Have they ever dealt with similar cases before? Nothing is clear. Anyway, this does not seem to be a professional, high-skilled approach.

The impression is that JIT representatives are looking for the slightest possible argument that more or less fits into the necessary version, looking for any justification that would support their initial assumptions. The experts they employed do not examine in their analysis the possibility of a missile flying from another direction, although the Russian radar data obviously points to that.

Let me remind you again what the initial radar data handed over by Russia represents: this is irrefutable, objective data which is impossible to forge, edit or change. Any expert in this area, above all an international expert, will confirm this. The data clearly shows that the missile that supposedly downed Malaysia Airlines MH17 could not have been launched from the area indicated by JIT representatives.




Excerpts from answers to media questions:



Question:

Are there any plans for a meeting between DPRK (North Korean) Minister of Foreign Affairs Ri Yong Ho and President of Russia Vladimir Putin in the presence of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov?



Maria Zakharova:

Spokespersons from the Presidential Press Service or the Presidential Executive Office comment on meetings involving the President of Russia in the presence or in the absence of the Foreign Minister.

While you and I were reading Jules Verne, we received a message (I always check everything, I hope this report is authentic, but we will certainly check it) that the British Foreign Office had deleted a message on its Twitter account that the substance used to poison Sergey Skripal had been manufactured in Russia. This makes a powerful point, doesn’t it? The deleting of Twitter accounts shows the price of all this. By the way, British Prime Minister Theresa May based her speech before members of parliament on these tweets. They are acting like real “shell-game artists.” They have published a tweet, made a million retweets, and now they have deleted it. Then they will say that we failed to understand them correctly, that in reality the “highly likely” statement did not imply direct accusations, that they wanted to investigate the matter on their own, but that Russia did not want to cooperate, and that everyone failed to get everything right. Such is the price of this entire terrible performance. In reality, the condition of the two people remains extremely serious, and it appears that a toxic agent/war gas was used on the territory of a European state which is a member of the relevant agencies for the prohibition of chemical weapons.

This is the real price of all these stories. Once again, I will confirm whether they deleted these tweets, but this story has been circulated by wire services. So it seems highly likely that this is true. We will certainly recheck this many times.



Question:

It is possible to say that the United States is now trying to stage a provocation involving the unprecedented expulsion of Russian diplomats? Is the United States trying to technically expel Russia from the UN Security Council?



Maria Zakharova:

This provocation is not linked with the expulsion of the diplomats. If, at long last, we obtain materials confirming the critical condition of Sergey and Yulia Skripal, confirming that they had been attacked using the substance now being discussed, we will assume that this was a terrorist attack. Foreign Ministry representatives have noted this in the past. All this amounts to a provocation. And the expulsion of diplomats is a continuation needed to make this process look legal and to legitimise the accusations against Russia.

There is no specific evidence; London has classified everything, and no materials are available. Official British agencies will not share any information. How can this affair be used to the detriment of Russia? By demonstrating a certain solidarity, the international community’s unity, and by punishing Russia through the expulsion of diplomatic mission officials.

Let’s look at the diagrams that the United Kingdom shows in its new accusations regarding Russia every time, including in the so-called “Lisa case,” and the so-called “hacker attack,” etc. They will show the Skripal case in the same way. And when future journalists and investigators try to find out who was behind it and try to gather evidence, they will be told that so many countries had supported London, and that they could not possibly be wrong. But these countries acted in line with intra-block discipline, and they toed a common line, although all discussions of this issue at the European Union’s summit took place behind closed doors. After these discussions, the so-called EU common opinion was voiced, and it turned out that a number of countries asked extremely loaded questions to British representatives. Despite EU and NATO intra-bloc discipline, a number of countries tried not to follow the line as much as possible. So it took them several days to make a decision on the expulsion of Russian diplomats. Each country made this decision under pressure from London and Washington, and therefore different measures were made public. These measures were taken on different days. Different data is available on this matter – at first, some countries announced one decision, and later they changed it due to pressure from their superiors. But we recall all these details only here and now. Some time later these details will eventually be erased, and a simple diagram, a six-page presentation with a catchy headline will be compiled, and everyone will know that Russia is also “guilty” of the “Skripal case.” Therefore the West and London have expelled diplomats to legitimise their accusations against Russia.



Question:

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has recently had a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping and will soon meet with South Korean President Moon Jae-in and US President Donald Trump. We wonder if he will also visit Russia. Or will Russia remain outside the efforts to settle the problems on the Korean Peninsula?



Maria Zakharova:

First, it is strange that a Japanese television company is concerned about a visit by the North Korean leader to Russia. Are you not wondering if Kim Jong-un will visit Japan?

Second, we maintain very close relations with all parties. Today I have told you about plans for a meeting between the foreign ministers of Russia and North Korea. Don’t worry, everything is fine.



Question:

Two years ago tomorrow, a new ceasefire and a new status quo was coordinated in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. How would you describe progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement over the past two years? What is the possibility of finding a solution to this problem?



Maria Zakharova:

We regularly report on this. I will ask the experts about the latest developments there so as to provide a detailed review of the problem at the next briefing.



Question:

During a meeting with the three Baltic leaders, US President Donald Trump assured them that the US would supply over $100 million worth of weapons to them. Will you comment on this?

Why did President Trump hold a simultaneous meeting with the leaders of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia? Is it because of his busy schedule, or is this evidence of vassal relations between the Baltic countries and the US?



Maria Zakharova:

Businessmen sell everything. As for arms supplies and global security, the US is located over the ocean. This is Europe, and it is Europeans who will pay for the supply of US-made weapons. The US will get benefits and the money, but what will Europeans have? Weapons? What for? On the one hand, weapons are supplied, and on the other hand, European countries are pitted against each other. What can this lead to? Historians have different answers to this question.



Question:

Will the Russian Foreign Ministry apply the principle of reciprocity against Facebook, which has deleted the accounts and pages associated with the Russian “troll factory”?



Maria Zakharova:

First, we will discuss the blocking of Russian media outlet accounts in the interdepartmental format, because this issue concerns not just the Foreign Ministry but also other specialised Russian agencies. Second, we will send letters to the OSCE and other organisations. And third, we are waiting for the official US reaction to this situation, because they are our counterparts. We would like to see the official comments by the US Department of State. When such steps are taken, we will analyse the statements, opinions and comments before making a decision. We want to know what officials at the US State Department and other US agencies think about the blocking of Russian media outlet accounts by a US social network. We also need to see an official reaction. We will analyse everything and subsequently make a decision. We will do so publicly.



Question:

Yesterday President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that Russia had 20 questions it wanted to ask at a meeting of the OPCW Executive Council. What questions are these?



Maria Zakharova:

We have already published everything on our website. Have you not seen it? We have a website, mid.ru. It is the official website of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Our briefing is being broadcast there right now. We often publish interesting materials on foreign policy and international relations there. Just a few days ago we published the list of questions we have for Great Britain, France, Germany and the ORCW. All of them are available.



Question:

13 questions have been sent to the OPCW, but yesterday night the President talked about 20 questions…



Maria Zakharova:

In total, there are many questions, for the OPCW and various countries as well. We received the OPCW’s answers before the briefing, and we are going to analyse them. Today a special session is taking place. Our permanent representative to the OPCW is planning to talk to the media after it is over. Either he or we will promptly inform you about the OPCW’s answers. Other countries have not given us their answers yet. There are more questions in total, not just 13 or 20. There are lots of them.



Question:

What does Russia want to achieve at the meeting? In two words…



Maria Zakharova:

I will try to sum it up in two words. The situation is difficult. It is a matter of truth and verity.



Question:

That is more than two words.



Maria Zakharova:

OK. Truth, verity.



Question:

Can you introduce visa-free travel for Bulgarian citizens?



Maria Zakharova:

This is an issue of bilateral agreements. The two countries’ corresponding agencies are responsible for this.



Question:

Can you do it unilaterally?



Maria Zakharova:

You have already become an international relations expert by visiting all our briefings. You understand very well that this issue cannot be resolved by one person, by the head. This is an issue countries discuss based on their commitments and on the legal side of this issue.



Question:

Are there any discussions about using the Russia–Turkey–Iran format not only to resolve Syrian issues but other cooperation issues as well?



Maria Zakharova:

We have bilateral cooperation with Iran and Turkey. This format is designed for cooperation on the Syrian settlement process due to the importance of the situation and the role each country plays in this matter. If it is found useful and necessary to use it to resolve some other issues, I think there will be no problems. However, this is the question of corresponding agreements between the parties.

A meeting at the highest level in this format is taking place now. Let’s wait for information from there. It will definitely be firsthand.



Question:

Uncompromising opposition groups are leaving the Douma zone for Jarabulus. Does this mean that the de-escalation zone in Eastern Ghouta will continue to operate? Or will some part of Jaysh al-Islam’s units remain in Douma?



Maria Zakharova:

This is a question for military experts. You should ask them about the situation on the ground.



Question:

Russian representatives have often stressed that the intra-Yemeni settlement process became more difficult after Ali Abdullah Saleh’s death. Meetings were held with Ali Abdullah Saleh’s son. Sergey Lavrov said that the Houthis were getting more radical. Does this mean that now Moscow works more closely with Abdrabbuh Hadi’s government?



Maria Zakharova:

We are maintaining relations and close contact with the parties involved in the intra-Yemeni settlement process as well as other actors, taken the gravity of the international situation around Yemen. Experts on the Middle East and North Africa monitor this matter carefully. I can give you more details at the next briefing. But let me say once again that we maintain very close contacts that must help overcome the deadlock the situation has come to. We will provide you with additional information.



Question:

You have already mentioned Mark Zuckerberg. Could you please comment on the “troll factories” and what has been done with regard to Russian-speaking citizens, including in Azerbaijan and other CIS countries? Why was it done? Where has Mark Zuckerberg got such data from?



Maria Zakharova:

He has never concealed it. During the past months or maybe even longer, the corresponding US agencies have been working hard with representatives of these “new media,” as they were called. Now they are beginning to act a bit differently. US special services had a serious “talk” with representatives of the social networks, who found themselves under serious pressure. So, US social networks had to take some measure, but so far not very radical.

It would be interesting to know what information Facebook based its decision to block the accounts on, what US agency had provided the data and what data it was. We believe this data could have been first of all provided to Russia via official channels, because it concerns Russia and media outlets registered in Russia. We have experts in this area. But we have not received any data. In addition to this, I do not know of any accusations against Russian media that have accounts in social networks that Facebook made during the company’s contacts with official Russian representatives (such contacts have taken place recently.)

In any case, Facebook, being a channel of free information distribution, could have provided some of its data to Russia. I would like to point out once again that Russia supports the idea of “playing by the rules” and playing on equal terms, in particular, in social networks. If there are any accusations of some accounts or their moderators having violated some laws, we would like to understand what laws. These were not Facebook rules, because in that case each account would have been blocked, one by one, after a relevant complaint is received, instead of blocking a hundred of accounts at one fell swoop. This is not what happened. This means that some other rules, instructions or laws were violated. Which ones? Not Facebook’s, for sure. US laws? Please let us see. Who else infringes on US laws? Let us analyse it and make sure this will not happen in the future. How was the decision made and why? In addition to everything else, this means huge reputation losses for those media. This is more than just financial issues, or technology of reaching out to the audience. The social media accounts have been blocked for no good reason, based on conjecture and closed materials.



Question:

One gets the impression that Facebook is tracking Russian and Russian-speaking citizens in other countries. Will the Foreign Ministry make an official inquiry?



Maria Zakharova:

Of course we will. I have already said this. It goes without saying that we will try to understand what this is all about. What decisions motivated this action? What’s wrong with these accounts? What are they talking about? So far, Facebook’s statements have failed to clarify these issues. But they also faced tremendous pressure and were forced into showing their rejection of alleged election-meddling by Russia using social networks. This is obvious, and no one even tried to conceal it.



Question:

Has the candidacy of Mikhail Bocharnikov been approved for the post of Russian Ambassador to Azerbaijan? What were the Foreign Ministry’s motives for submitting his candidacy? When should we expect an agrément?



Maria Zakharova:

In the 1990s, we set the rule that, just like any other federal agency, the Foreign Ministry does not comment on the appointment of ambassadors. We will comment on these appointments, talk about these ambassadors, present them and introduce them after the presidential executive order on appointing a given ambassador has been issued. The Foreign Ministry did not invent this rule. This directive was approved in the 1990s.

Certainly, the Foreign Ministry presents all ambassadors. In the past few years, we have seen to it that Russian ambassadors be interviewed by the media, that their biographies and articles are published before they leave for other countries. All this takes place after their appointment and after the relevant presidential executive order has been issued. All discussions on this issue and regarding any country take place after the presidential executive order has been published.



Question:

At your previous briefing, you showed a very interesting brochure listing members of the British Parliament’s House of Lords who had attended the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin. Can you post this online or provide a link, so that everyone can “enjoy” this?



Maria Zakharova:

This is authentic brochure that was not found online but printed in Germany in 1936. We can give it to you so that you could look through it and make sure it is authentic, and we can also post screenshots. I have seen no hyperlinks for this document, but we can provide you with the title, and maybe you can find it in some archives.



Question:

Could you comment on the Polish Internal Security Agency’s detention of a certain Marek W., employee of Poland’s Ministry of Energy, who allegedly was in contact with Russian intelligence officers and passed on information about Warsaw’s plans regarding the Nord Stream 2 pipeline?



Maria Zakharova:

We learned about this from the media. The Russian Embassy in Poland knows nothing about this person. We do not rule out the possibility that this topic is getting more popular in the wake of the expulsion of diplomats, the anti-Russian sentiment, the Salisbury incident that is the object of much speculation. It does not have any basis in reality.



Question:

A week ago, the Polish Foreign Minister announced the expulsion of four Russian diplomats claiming that their activities were illegal. What do you think about his statement?



Maria Zakharova:

Clearly these are accusations in the “highly likely” vein. If there are specific allegations, they must be communicated to the Russian side and the public, when it is critically important. Do you know something about this? We do not.

Like I said at the previous briefing, every time our ambassadors visited their host country’s Foreign Ministries to obtain a list of expelled diplomats and corresponding notes, they asked that these decisions be explained. They were told that the reason was to show solidarity with London.

Referring to your question, I will also recall the strange footage published by some media outlet, when journalists tried to take pictures of expelled diplomats returning back home. We did not take pictures of them leaving for obvious reasons – people had just a couple of days to pack, there were many family members, including little children, too. We do not think that it was right to take pictures of these people under such extraordinary circumstances. However, somehow, local media managed to find out about the time of the diplomats’ departure, their vehicles and airports, so there were people taking pictures from behind corners and cars, practically hanging from the trees. The Russian media representatives were not very tactful either, as they were lying in wait for arriving diplomats. By the way, the list of people returning back home included pregnant women as well. No one was taking this into account – not the country expelling these people, not the media. We do understand that it is your job, too. Apparently, it is impossible to stop people who do not understand that doing this is not exactly ethical.

In order to put an end to all speculation that allegedly these diplomats were not being photographed on purpose, or that these were not the diplomats who got expelled and that the expelled ones were transferred in secret, I would like to state that in the near future (we will announce the date later) the Russian Foreign Ministry will organise a meeting with these diplomats, which will be attended by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. To prevent speculation, we will make this meeting as open as possible, invite media representatives, too. People returned home, they had an opportunity to get their lives back in order. No one is hiding them, this is absolutely absurd. How can one hide people who used to work and live abroad, whose names were made public in their host countries? We would like to put an end to such speculation.



Question:

Russia is currently retaliating against European countries that expelled Russian diplomats. NATO has recently reduced the size of the Russian mission by ten people. Will you take response measures against this organisation and its office in Moscow, the so-called NATO Information Office? Will you take tit-for-tat or asymmetric measures?



Maria Zakharova:

Nothing goes unanswered with us. Let me check with our experts how we can respond to this absolutely hostile gesture by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and answer this question later.



Question:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov plans to hold talks with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, tomorrow. What time will they meet tomorrow?

Will Foreign Minister of North Korea Ri Yong Ho only visit Moscow, or will he travel to other Russian cities?



Maria Zakharova:

The talks between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be held at midday tomorrow. They will include the talks, a news conference and a working lunch. These are the plans.

As for Mr Ri Yong Ho’s agenda, you should ask our North Korean partners, for example at the North Korean Embassy. If we have any additional information, we will share it with you.



Question:

Will the talks between foreign ministers Wang Yi and Sergey Lavrov be held in Moscow?



Maria Zakharova:

I have no information to the contrary.



Question:

First, we would like to thank you for supporting the Federal News Agency. We would like you to monitor this issue and possibly report on your findings at the next briefing.



Maria Zakharova:

We received questions from CNN regarding this. There is a representative of the Federal News Agency, the accounts of which have been blocked, in this room. I suggest that you meet to discuss this problem, probably ask this person for an interview and ask why access to the agency’s resources has been blocked. Maybe you can also tell US audiences that there are journalists who are open to the public. By the way, I see this person much more often than I see you. I don’t know what they do or why their accounts have been blocked, but I can assure you that they are actual journalists. If only you could express solidarity with your colleagues whose accounts have been blocked! I would like to repeat that if there is any information showing that the Federal News Agency engaged in activities that run counter to Facebook values, we would like to see it, not as representatives of government organisations, but because these media outlets are asking us about this situation. You can make many reports for US audiences, or you can talk directly with representatives of the blocked media outlet who are here today not because this problem concerns their agency, but because they come here every week and provide broad coverage of foreign policy issues.



Question:

There has already been disinformation coming from London regarding the notorious Salisbury incident but it is unclear what the purpose of the provocation is? Is this the vial we will be bombed over?



Maria Zakharova:

We have spoken many times about this topic. First, discussing these topics without facts is a thankless task, like reading tea leaves. However, when we try to formulate answers to your questions, London blames us for making up and imposing theories. We are trying both to answer the question (to guess why it was done) even though information is lacking, and at the same time to remain within a legal framework so as to avoid spreading information that does not correspond to reality.

We said that judging from what we observe, from the meagre facts that we have due to the absence and deliberate nondisclosure of facts, we conclude that it could be beneficial for diverting the international community’s attention, for instance, from Eastern Ghouta. It was a focus of attention for three months, and they either had to keep talking about it or to divert attention, because it appears that all the accusations made by western colleagues and their predictions were not borne out. Second, chemical weapons on the territory of Syria are definitely a factor, because the use of chemical weapons is a “red line” for all parties in terms of making decisions. The West and the US-led coalition ties the Assad regime’s legitimacy to chemical weapons. Previously we were told that he must go because he is so bad. Later they sidestepped this idea, they said that he is bad and should go because he violates international law by using chemical weapons. Now we started saying that facts need to be scrutinised. However, there were no facts again. By inventing a story about Russia’s using chemical weapons on British territory, they are trying to evict us from the legal domain for discussing Syrian chemical weapons in general under the pretext that it is impossible to speak with Russia about chemical weapons in Syria because look what it is doing in Europe. This is as regards motives. We hear a lot from Great Britain about Russia’s motives. However, none are named.

The suggestion that Russia took out the Skripals is just absurd. Russia had swapped Sergey Skripal. He had been duly convicted in a court of law. He served his time. His guilt was admitted and proved. He was given to the British side in good health. He arrived on British soil where he was living and where the British side, including their secret services, was responsible for his life as it was them he was working for. Consequently, there could not have been any motive for Russia to take out Skripal in principle, especially on the eve of the election. Everything that is unfolding now, all these factors undermine the absurd notion that Russia has a motive. The other side, meanwhile, has a great many motives.

Let me reiterate that speculating on these matters without facts in hand is a thankless task. I have listed all the facts we need. And not only we. These facts are now also needed by UK citizens, as they are being deceived on such a large scale. I think it is the United Kingdom that must explain itself, including to its own subjects.



Question:

Diplomat expulsions from different countries come at a price. When Russia prevails and all our enemies fall, will we demand reimbursement for the expulsions of the diplomats?



Maria Zakharova:

This is the first time I am hearing such a perspective in discussions of this problem. I have never thought about or contemplated it before. It is the first time I am hearing of a financial approach, even in history. Measures were taken, and there has been a symmetrical response to them.



Question:

I would like to elaborate on my colleagues’ question about the forthcoming talks of Russian and North Korean foreign ministers. Is the issue of a summit meeting going to be raised, among other issues?



Maria Zakharova:

My answer is similar to the previous one. Various aspects of summit meetings are commented on at the top level.



Question:

You have mentioned Vil Mirzayanov’s book. Can Russia institute legal proceedings for violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention against the United States for publishing that book?



Maria Zakharova:

This is exactly what our experts on non-proliferation, including of WMD, spoke about in this room. It was a briefing by military experts. This is exactly what they spoke about within these very walls, but to the diplomatic corps, not journalists. They spoke frankly, saying the publication of such materials directly violates the provisions of the Convention I mentioned today.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3153603
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old April 27th, 2018 #399
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excuse me. I has fought the Russian Foreign Ministry to correct a mistake on its website. - Alex Him.






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks during a joint news conference following talks with Member of the State Council and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi, Moscow, April 5, 2018



5 April 2018 - 16:03








Ladies and gentlemen,

The talks with Member of the State Council and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi took place in a friendly and trustworthy atmosphere and were fairly substantive. I would like to use this opportunity to congratulate my colleague once again on his appointment to the high ranking position of member of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China.

We noted the unprecedentedly high level of Russian-Chinese comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation. We pointed out that regular and intensive dialogue between our leaders is giving a powerful impetus to our cooperation. We discussed a schedule for bilateral political contacts, primarily at the top level. In particular, our heads of state will have an opportunity to meet not only in Russia and China but also on the sidelines of the BRICS, APEC and G20 summits. The visit by Premier of the State Council of China Li Keqiang is planned for the end of the year. He will take part in the 23rd meeting of the heads of government. This event will be preceded by the meeting of four profile commissions that take part in the preparations for the meetings between the prime ministers.

We focused on the most pressing international and regional issues. We share the view that our foreign policy coordination is playing an increasingly stabilising role in the international arena in conditions of the continued formation of a steady polycentric world order. We agreed to promote cooperation at different multilateral venues, including the UN, G20, BRICS, SCO, RIC, APEC and East Asia summits.

We supported the initiative of promoting a bloc-free, equal and indivisible system of security for all countries in the vast Asia-Pacific Region.

We held a detailed exchange of views on the situation on the Korean Peninsula and emphasised the importance of preventing an armed conflict there. We noted that political and diplomatic settlement has no alternative in this respect. We agreed to continue promoting the approaches recorded in the Russian-Chinese roadmap that was adopted last July. We stated with satisfaction that many of its provisions have already demonstrated their relevance, including our common appeals to all states to display mutual restraint and reaffirm their willingness to engage in dialogue.

Matters related to further development of the SCO were reviewed in the context of last year's expansion of its membership, China’s Presidency of the Organisation and the upcoming summit in Qingdao in June.

The prospects for launching an intra-Afghan dialogue and the role of the international community in this process were reviewed with consideration for the recent International Conference on Afghanistan in Tashkent. Our views on an Afghan settlement coincide. We agreed to continue to coordinate our steps in this important area.

We noted that we are on the same page regarding our approaches to the Syrian settlement. For our part, we informed our Chinese friends in detail about the results of the summit of the three guarantor countries in the Astana process which was held in Ankara yesterday, and the documents adopted by the presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey at this summit.

Just like China, we are concerned about the desire of certain forces to politicise Syria-related activities within the UN, the OPCW and use them against the government. We believe that such an approach could damage the efforts to achieve an intra-Syrian settlement based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 as part of the talks which we all want to resume in Geneva and get busy with creating the Constitutional Committee and making it operational.

We focused on implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme. We believe that the attempts to revise the terms of this agreement are at odds with the provisions of UNSC Resolution 2231 which was adopted in July 2015 and fully approved the deal. As I mentioned earlier, the attempts to revise it can only undermine long-term international efforts in this area.

We are satisfied with the outcome of the talks, which have once again confirmed our mutual willingness to further strengthen and expand the diverse relations between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China.



Question:

President Trump recently said that it was time for his country's troops to leave Syria. However, a day or two later, the US government reported that President Trump agreed to extend the stay of US troops in Syria for a short time. What is behind this contradiction? What does Moscow think about this?



Sergey Lavrov:

We know as much as you do. We use the same information that you did in your question. We find it difficult to comment on this. We have difficulties not only in understanding the goals and the functions of the United States in Syria, but also a number of other important matters on the international agenda. We have our assessments and assumptions, but we would prefer to have a clear understanding of the goals the United States pursues in various regions of the world, especially in places where the interests of many key states overlap, including the Western countries, Russia, China and, regarding Syria, the countries of the Middle East.

We note inconsistencies in the US policy on the international arena. None of the cabinet members responsible for foreign affairs, if I remember correctly, has spent even 12 months in office. Such a change of generations, perhaps, also affects the practice of announcing decisions and the way in which they are then implemented.

We would like to clarify matters. This requires a regular dialogue. In some areas, such a dialogue occurs sporadically. However, so far we have not accomplished much in understanding each other.

Notably, the military has come up with “de-conflicting” arrangements, i.e. a dialogue to avoid unforeseen incidents. It works, but Russia and the United States could do much more to ultimately eradicate terrorism in Syria and to meet the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people, not just a portion of its opposition groups supported by the United States as it harbours, apparently, plans to create a certain quasi-state in Syria. They could do much to launch a political process without preconditions, as required by the UN Security Council resolution. So far, we have seen preconditions in the positions of the United States and their Western allies. As before, they believe that the “regime” of the President of the Syrian Arab Republic, Bashar al-Assad, must go. To reiterate, this creates difficulties in implementing the decisions which we all unanimously supported at the UN Security Council.

We are not avoiding contact; but we are trying to get clear answers. There is no formula other than a dialogue.



Question:

The US has started a trade war against China and tightened sanctions against Russia. Could you comment? How can the polycentric world order be defended in such conditions?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are speaking about US President Donald Trump’s Administration that is taking revisionist steps on the global stage, revising almost all the recent key agreements reached by the international community, most of which were approved by the UN Security Council. This concerns the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme, which does not suit the US anymore (they demand that it to revised). The US also demands that the Paris climate agreement, the rules of the World Trade Organisation and many other things be revised. Today, in my remarks at the 7th Moscow Conference on International Security, I spoke about the US attempts to revise the Minsk Agreements approved by the UN Security Council. These attempts betray an intention to strengthen unilateralism in global affairs even more than former US President Barack Obama’s Administration. This does not help cooperation and greatly undermines and depreciates diplomacy’s role in today’s world. A claim is made, and as soon as the sides concerned provide their views on the issue, they say it is sabotage and threaten to impose sanctions without any serious attempt to hold talks. This is not diplomacy but an attempt to dictate their own interests while ignoring the interests of others.

Of course, there are cases when there is hope for dialogue. For example, today we have welcomed and discussed the interest the US has shown in holding a top-level meeting with the North Korean leadership. Let us hope such a meeting will take place, but this is still only in the planning phase. The outlier here is how the US promotes its interests on the global stage. Russia is always in favour of discussing any issues directly between the interested parties. We have never avoided a discussion of allegations made against us: about interference in the US presidential election, other interference in internal matters of Western states and many other things. It is our US partners who avoid concrete discussions. For example, when President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump met on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hamburg last summer they agreed to establish a professional dialogue on cybersecurity. The US bureaucracy tried to buck the president and started blocking implementation of this agreement. Finally, a meeting of cybersecurity experts was scheduled for last month. You may have heard that our interdepartmental delegation arrived in Geneva and when they got off the plane they learned that the US delegation had decided to cancel the meeting.

Recently our US partners have also cancelled a meeting to discuss cultural and humanitarian cooperation prospects between our counties. In this case, when they turn away from any dialogue, even most innocent form (what can be more unifying than culture?), and demand that some abstract preconditions based on mere assertion be met, we cannot do anything in response except reaffirm that we are ready to talk and answer any questions taking into account that any questions we have, in particular, questions of strategic stability, will also be subject to open and honest dialogue and will not be used to twist real facts or play to the public at home politically.

Unilateralism is always bad, but when it becomes more than a slogan used from time to time, but rather the manner in which all foreign policy is conducted, it is worse. Our position here is the same as China’s. We always speak in favour of dialogue. Russia and China have demonstrated repeatedly that they are prepared to make reasonable compromises based on the balance of interests among all the parties.



Question:

The OPCW is conducting an analysis of samples taken from the Salisbury incident site. The results will be announced next week. Whatever they are, is Moscow anticipating these results?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have repeatedly said that we will accept the results of any investigation in which we play an equal part and which is transparent, based on the procedures outlined in the CWC, and which is not secret. This is the opposite of what our British colleagues are now trying to do in their investigation of the Salisbury incident, or the Skripal case.

If I am not mistaken, since March 12, we have repeatedly, more than 10 times officially, through diplomatic notes, asked to be given access to the investigation, including the samples that were taken, all the facts that enabled the United Kingdom to come up with a categorical statement long before the British investigation into this incident was completed. But we were completely rebuffed.

The questions that we addressed to our British colleagues, as well as to the OPCW, which were completely professional, remain without a clear answer. In return, the British authorities demand that we provide answers to their initial questions, which, if I remember well, were formulated on March 12. But these questions are reduced to a very simple formula: they say, London has already determined that this is the Novichok agent that was produced in Russia, they know that we are to blame. It is necessary to answer the questions, how we got this Novichok and why the Skripal family was poisoned – on the Russian leadership’s instruction or because the Russian leadership lost control over stocks of chemical agents and they fell into the hands of some bad people who committed this crime. It is very difficult to respond to this kind of agitprop. In contrast to this frivolous approach, the questions that we formulated for the UK and France – which somehow appear to have been invited to join this investigation, it is unclear on what grounds – as well as the questions we formulated for the OPCW itself, are very professional and specific. We expect answers to be given still.

As for the OPCW itself, it is authorised by its foundational documents to determine the chemical composition of the agent that was taken for analysis. We are assured that the samples were taken in observance of all rules and procedures, that they were not tampered with on the way to the certified laboratory. We believe this, but we cannot support in advance the results of the investigation, in which we are not participating and which is kept secret. Even our proposal to establish a Russian-British working group with the participation of other interested countries, with the participation of the OPCW Secretariat, is rejected by our Western colleagues. London has already stated that the results of the analysis conducted by the OPCW will not be provided to Russia, and therefore they will not be provided to anyone at all, except for the UK that ordered this investigation.

Yesterday, we discussed this in detail at a meeting of the OPCW Executive Council, initiated by Russia, where we presented our point of view, our assessments of the situation to all members of the Executive Council. Again, we urged the British side to refrain from making unsubstantiated statements. We proposed, as I said, a joint, transparent investigation mechanism rooted in the Convention. Unfortunately, our Western colleagues blocked the adoption of this decision, which was submitted by co-authors, among them China. We have a common position that such incidents cannot be the subject of speculation and provocation, that they should be investigated in a transparent and honest way. We stopped taking anyone at their word long ago, including our Western colleagues (I will not even mention the 2003 Iraq crisis, when we were asked to believe on someone’s say-so). There were many other situations when, we were misled in fact, to put it very mildly, diplomatically.

Western countries blocked the adoption of a corresponding decision that would help ensure a fair investigation. But I note that twice as many countries did not support the West’s position, either by expressing support for our draft decision or abstaining from the vote. So proudly and arrogantly claiming that the overwhelming majority of the world community rejected Russian proposals is once again wishful thinking, misleading all those who are interested in establishing the truth about who is to blame for the Salisbury incident.

We will continue this work. Today, at our initiative, the UN Security Council will consider this situation. We do believe that it poses a threat to international peace and security, not only because, apparently, weapons of mass destruction were used (although the fact that the policeman has already recovered, Yulia Skripal’s medical condition is improving, and Sergey Skripal is, apparently, alive, requires that we understand what kind of a weapon of mass destruction it was, as it was unable to inflict mass destruction, but this is a separate topic). But even if the answer is satisfactory, which explains why such a powerful chemical agent failed to do what it was supposed to, the problem of threats to peace and security will still remain. The actions taken under the pretext of the Salisbury incident by the Anglo-Saxons and those whose arms were twisted by the Anglo-Saxons, really undermine stability, primarily in the Euro-Atlantic region, but also more broadly, and thus create problems for international peace and security. If you look at the actions intended to flex military muscles, including in Europe on our borders, which are to be taken in response to this incident, there is a direct link to threats to peace and security.

The UN Security Council will consider this issue comprehensively and, I hope, objectively. But the artificiality of this story is confirmed by many facts. I will give only one. Far from all the countries that were forced to vote against our draft decision under the influence of the United States and Great Britain yesterday in The Hague, managed to memorise what they were supposed to say. Some of the countries that supported the Western position and blocked our draft decision rather emotionally called on Russia in their speeches to join the investigation, which is being conducted by the United Kingdom. Such an interesting fact: this is exactly what we are demanding from the UK, but it is categorically refusing. In the future, the London authorities are advised to do more concrete work with those whom they rely on to perpetrate their hoaxes, so that their colleagues are not misled.

Of course, we paid attention to the statement made by Gary Aitkenhead, chief executive of the Porton Down defence laboratory, to the effect that the laboratory did not and could not conclude where the agent was produced. They determined the chemical composition of the agent. The question of whether there is an analogue in this laboratory that appears to have served as a marker for determining the Novichok agent remains open. In fact, there are some questions about how the laboratory’s activities fit under the obligations of the CWC. Nevertheless, an honest professional, a chemist, said that Porton Down had never certified the Russian origin, or any other origin, of the agent. After this, they immediately changed the wording on the website of the British Foreign Office, in which it was said that Porton Down had confirmed the Russian origin. I will not continue, this long story would be too time-consuming. My short answer to you is that we will accept the results of any investigation that is honest, not one that is being run crookedly.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3154615






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following the meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers, Minsk, April 6, 2018



6 April 2018 - 15:36








We have drafted quite a few documents on promoting economic cooperation and countering crime, in particular, money laundering and the funding of terrorism.

We coordinated further foreign policy steps. Last year we made a number of joint statements in the UN, the OSCE, as well as a few declarations in the Council of Europe and other international organisations on the need to counter attempts to glorify Nazism and curb what we call the “fight against monuments” to the soldiers that liberated Europe. We also made a statement on traditional family values, to name a few.

Today we have also mapped out a list of issues for joint statements by the CIS countries in international organisations. The meeting participants approved the Russian-Belarusian initiative to draft a document expressing our concern over the erosion of the principle on non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.

Naturally, we reviewed a number of issues that will be submitted for consideration by the heads of state and government. This information will be distributed.



Question:

Was the Skripal case discussed among other international issues? What can you tell us about a report in the British media that this Novichok gas is still being produced in the Saratov Region?



Sergey Lavrov:

A month or more time had to pass since British Prime Minister Theresa May said without any grounds that it was “highly likely” that this gas was produced in the Russian Federation, that they had information confirming this irreversibly, leaving no room for other interpretations. If they found out about some Saratov factory only yesterday, this is yet further proof that they are making feverish, frantic attempts to reaffirm their absolutely untenable position. It will continue to be untenable until Britain agrees to hold consultations and delve into this case explicitly and honestly in line with the procedures of the Chemical Weapons Convention. In so doing it will have to put all facts on the table rather than keep them secret, as was the case with Litvinenko, Perepilichny and Berezovsky. All of them (and there were others) died a tragic death. Accusations were made in connection with their deaths, as well as direct and indirect hints of Russia’s involvement. In each case the investigation was partially or fully classified. So we know the value of such assertions by our British colleagues. We cannot trust them. We want to verify them, but they won’t let us.

As for today’s meeting, all participants supported the position that was set forth in the joint statement of the CSTO member countries at the April 4 meeting of the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Let me say that this statement is not politicised in any way. Its goal is to urge all those that want to get to the bottom of the Salisbury incident to work professionally and specifically based on the Chemical Weapons Convention. The draft of this statement was made public. It was presented by the Belarusian delegation. Today we expressed gratitude to our colleagues for their specific professional action – the appeal to be guided by the international commitments recorded in this convention.



Question:

You said in January that Russophobia did not reach this scale even during the Cold War. Have we really entered the era without the diplomatic rules of decorum? If so, how are we going to live in the future? Is it possible to counter such provocations?



Sergey Lavrov:

All I can say is that we do not want to live like this in the future. But if our Western partners believe that this situation will stop only if Russia confesses all the “mortal sins” and admits that it was wrong all the way, says “forgive me, sinful soul, I will now play according to your rules,” if they still have these hopes, it means there are no more specialists on Russia there.

How do we live going forward? We still have a millennium-long history and many proverbs that the Russian people gained through suffering during this great history, including one relatively new proverb “God is not in power, but in truth.” These are the words of Alexander Nevsky, as recently confirmed in a work of fiction. I think this fully reflects what the Russian people, all the peoples of the Russian Federation are guided by.



Question:

There were no Ukrainian representatives here today. Kiev is making a clear statement on Ukraine’s intention to withdraw from the CIS. What do you think about this and what are the views of the other members?



Sergey Lavrov:

Their position was materially expressed today by the chair of the Ukrainian delegation and a sign with the word “Ukraine.” This is the rule and procedure in the CIS, a member country. Even its flag is there. You need to address Kiev with this question. Ukraine is losing a lot by ignoring the opportunities in the CIS. This is a fact. President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko spoke about this today. Our colleagues also expressed their opinions and we listened to them attentively. There is interest in Ukraine fully cooperating with its neighbours. It should not only use bilateral channels but also the opportunities afforded by the CIS. I think Kiev understands this. But apparently they are involved with something they think is more important than the development of their own economy, social issues and the interests of their citizens.



Question:

Is there contact with Ukraine regarding the release of Russian sailors?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is contact. Our border guards and the Foreign Ministry regularly report on this issue. All this information has been officially distributed.



Question:

Recently an 11 year-old girl from Belarus corrected Maxim Galkin, the host of a popular talk show. He called our country Byelorussia. What do you call it?



Sergey Lavrov:

There are national language norms. You can say Parizh, Paris or Pari, Landon or London. I don’t think this is related to nationalistic feelings or prejudice. These are normal language rules. As President of Byelorussia Alexander Lukashenko has emphasised more than once, we are speaking the same language. I think we understand each other when we call countries as we see fit at any moment. I have many Belarusian friends who say Byelorussia, whereas many Russians say Belarus. Let me repeat that there are language norms and they do not just disappear.



Question:

But do you say Belarus?



Sergey Lavrov:

I use both names.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3155286






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to questions from the Armenian media, April 8, 2018



8 April 2018 - 20:00








Question:

What do you think of the development of Russian-Armenian bilateral relations in recent decades?



Sergey Lavrov:

Relations between Russia and Armenia are relations of alliance and strategic partnership. These terms are formalised in bilateral agreements and in documents of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). These relations cover all the spheres of activity of the countries, and all areas of life of our peoples, from security and foreign policy to culture, the economy, technology, humanitarian contacts, education and many others. In the past 10 years, our bilateral relations have developed under the influence of direct, trust-based contacts between our Presidents, Vladimir Putin and Serzh Sargsyan. Several times a year, they hold top-level meetings in Armenia and Russia and communicate on the sidelines of numerous international forums.

I would like to emphasise that Armenia joined the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which gave a boost to our trade, economic and investment cooperation. Suffice to say that last year, trade between Russia and Armenia increased by over 30 per cent as compared to 2016 and reached, if I am not mistaken, $1.75 billion. It is a very large sum, not to mention the fact that hundreds of companies with Russian participation – be it Russian or joint Russian-Armenian companies – operate in Armenia and benefit our relations and the economy of our ally.

Military-technical cooperation is traditionally very intensive. In addition to the Intergovernmental Commission for Trade and Economic Cooperation, which is very active, we have a commission for military-technical cooperation. The commissions are operating well and producing good results.

Cultural cooperation has always been appreciated by our peoples. I can mention the Days of Armenian Culture in Russia last autumn, the opening of which in November 2017 was attended by both presidents.

As for education, the Russian-Armenian (Slavic) University operates in Yerevan. The university and eight branches of Russian institutions of higher learning in Armenia accommodate some 3,500 Armenian citizens and provide Russian higher education programmes. Moreover, 5,500 Armenians study in Russia, with 1,500 of them using the state scholarships provided by the Russian Government.

Our bilateral relations have witnessed very stable and high quality growth over the past 10 years. It is complemented by close cooperation in foreign policy. We are allies within the CSTO. I already mentioned the EAEU, of which Armenia is now a full member. The CIS, of course, is relevant too, as well as our coordinated actions in the UN, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe and the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation.

This does not cover everything that characterises our relations over the past 10 years, but I think that it indicates how rich these ties are and how they serve the current interests of our countries.



Question:

Analysts believe that the 2011 Kazan summit could have been a breakthrough in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process. How do you see this? What could be the key to successfully resolving this issue in the future?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process is one of our priorities in the post-Soviet space. Russia, along with the US and France, chairs the OSCE Contact Group in Minsk. We align our efforts with the two other co-chairs and at the same time try to propose our own initiatives in line with the decisions made on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by the chairmen, considering our special ties with Armenia and Azerbaijan. The work done approximately in 2009–2011 was very intensive. The presidents of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan met almost 10 times.

The next meeting, which was set to take place in Kazan, inspired hopes for serious positive results, because the draft documents prepared by Russia with the support of the US and French co-chairs addressed, in our view, all Baku’s and Yerevan’s concerns in a balanced way. However, additional questions and comments arose during the summit. This happens. It is no tragedy. The work will continue. I am sure that many things contained in the Kazan documents are still important. Yerevan’s and Baku’s reaction following the contacts between the presidents, ministers and co-chairs, who visit the region (Yerevan, Baku and Stepanakert) regularly, confirms this.

I do not think we have lost anything of what we developed during those years, although, of course, some new ideas appeared during that time, which the co-chairs promote in their contacts with the parties. The main thing is to get beyond the mistrust we can still sometimes see during talks and concentrate on realistic and pragmatic ideas. We have a lot of them. We only need to write them down, and, although all the parties generally agree that we need to do this, we face difficulties when it comes to exact phrasing, as sometimes happens in other situations as well. I believe we will continue to overcome them and achieve some results.



Question:

Armenia is often cited as an example of a country that advances relations both with the EU and the EAEU on an equal and mutually beneficial basis. Do you think such organisations as the EU and the EAEU will be able to find common interests and promote cooperation in the future?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is true that Armenia shows it has the sense to develop relations in all areas. It is a winning and beneficial policy for a country. Post-Soviet counties must not accept this false choice between Russia and the West. This is an ideologically and politically charged approach. I believe the fact that Armenia insisted on such relations with the EU – with Armenia’s rights and responsibilities in other integration processes recognised in approved documents – is a step in the right direction. Of course, it is very important for the European Union to drop this wretched logic of either/or, which has already resulted in the 2014 events in Ukraine, so that the rights and interests of Armenia, Azerbaijan or other participants of the EU initiative called the Eastern Partnership are not derogated. This is tantamount to robbing a people of their chance to fully develop cooperation with all their neighbours. This is the approach that Russia promotes consistently. Back in 2015, the Eurasian Economic Union proposed establishing contacts with the EU, but the European Union did not acknowledge the EAEU as a rightful partner due to ideological and political reasons. This biased and prejudiced attitude is still present to a certain degree. However, there already are sensible people in Brussels; and experts of the Economic Commission for Europe and the European External Action Service have already had contacts with experts of the Eurasian Economic Commission. Now there is interest in making these expert contacts permanent. The first step is to have them address regulatory issues. I think this is just the first step, because the demands of life will require our European partners work with the Eurasian Economic Union and the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission, which is currently headed by an Armenian citizen, as is the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. The EAEU member countries have delegated a wide range of responsibilities to supranational institutions, which means that many practical trade issues and practical steps in services and investment must be solved with the Eurasian Economic Commission.

I am quite optimistic about the future of EAEU-EU relations. Although this future will not arrive soon, the demands of life will force us to move closer together. I am sure that Armenia’s Tigran Sargsyan, who chairs the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission, will facilitate movement in this direction.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3155600






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Tajikistan Sirodjidin Aslov, Moscow, April 9, 2018



9 April 2018 - 13:47








Question:

What does Russia think about US President Trump’s threats addressed to Russia and Iran following media reports about a chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta? How will Russia react if Trump’s warnings about a possible US attack on Syria become a reality? Do you think there’s a connection between today's strike and these threats?



Sergey Lavrov:

We already had the opportunity to comment on what was happening before it became a reality. Our military on the ground in Syria issued repeated warnings that a major provocation was in the making aimed at issuing another accusation of Damascus of using a poisonous chemical agent against civilians. The Syrian government also spoke about this. As we warned, messages started coming in from the scene of events, which is the suburb of Damascus in Eastern Ghouta, the town of Douma. I’m sure that many people saw the video where children and adults were being washed off with water from the buckets. This was done by the people who were in no way protected from the possible impact of the agent which they were trying to wash off those people. This is reminiscent of the photos taken one year ago when the so-called White Helmets, which have a proven track record as frauds, without any special means of protection, worked in a shell crater, which, according to the White Helmets themselves, resulted from the explosion of a bomb filled with sarin. All serious researchers just shrugged their shoulders. All this resulted in a large-scale anti-Syrian campaign, which is now being deployed against us under the pretext that Russia is covering for a criminal regime, as they say.

As for the reaction of our Western colleagues in Washington, Paris, London and elsewhere, it boils down to very simple claims such as "of course, the regime did this, and since Russia supports it, Russia and Iran are to blame. Of course, this must be investigated." A person who is guided by logic may find it difficult to see the link. Especially when an honest investigation is required without delay. We are only for it. But when this investigation is packed into the need to end up at a certain point such as "President Assad did it with the support of President Putin," there can be no serious conversation. By the way, the news that French President Macron spoke on the phone with President Trump included the detail that they exchanged evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad "regime." The speed with which experts come to these conclusions and report them to leaders is fairly high. I don’t want to sound sarcastic, but it does not really fit with what could have actually happened there. Our military experts visited this site, as did representatives of the Syrian Red Crescent Society, who enjoy a very good reputation with international organisations, including the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). They did not find any traces of the use of chlorine or any other chemical substance against civilians there.

Our military have already reacted to the warnings coming from those close to President Trump to the effect that Washington does not rule out the possibility of attacking Syria. We have our commitments with regard to the Syrian Arab Republic, which are based on the treaty concluded with the legal and legitimate Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, a member state of the United Nations, at the request of its government.

As for today's strikes, we should figure this out. There are numerous media accounts with regard to those who flew or didn’t fly there. As far I understand it, Washington has so far been denying that these strikes were launched by the Americans or any member of their coalition. This goes to show once again that Syria is becoming a dangerous place. There are players there who no one invited, who invited themselves under the pretext of destroying ISIS and fighting terrorism. Later, goals began to appear, both openly announced and carefully concealed. However, experts agree that, in fact, these players, primarily the US-led coalition and the United States itself, have no plans of leaving the country, as President Trump said, and leaving Syria to others, but instead plans to settle in for a long time. Of course, we need to get to the bottom of the situation with the strikes. This is a very dangerous turn of events. I hope that at least the US military and military of those countries that are part of the US coalition realise this.



Question:

During a trilateral meeting of the leaders of Russia, Turkey and Iran in Ankara, Iran called on Turkey to return Afrin to the jurisdiction of Damascus. Official Ankara refused to do so. Does Russia consider this refusal an attempt to annex Afrin? What kind of governance does Russia think it will have?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not recall any such categorical statements being exchanged in Ankara. The issue of Afrin was actually discussed in light of the position that President Erdogan has repeatedly stated, in particular, as part of the position when the U.S. began to "flirt" with the Kurdish units to use them as a security blanket on the border with Iraq. President Erdogan saw such plans as a threat to the security interests of his country. He never said that Turkey wanted to occupy Afrin.

We always operate on the premise that the simplest way to normalise the situation in Afrin, now that the Turkish representatives say that the main goals they set for themselves there have been achieved, is to return the territory under control of the Syrian government. We have never had another position.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3160617






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting with Russian diplomats expelled from a number of countries on forged accusations in connection with Britain’s Skripal case, Moscow, April 9, 2018



9 April 2018 - 18:19








I am happy to see you in good spirits. Your faces are cheerful. I am sure this will be the case in the future, too.

I will not discuss in detail the reasons for the early end to your missions abroad. You know them full well. It has nothing to do with the work you did and the tasks you fulfilled, promoting cooperation and good relations between the Russian Federation and the countries where you served. The expulsion of 150 Russian diplomats from almost 30 countries is an unprecedented provocation that has nothing to do with the task of promoting international cooperation and the implementation of the agreements stemming from the UN Charter and recorded in numerous international documents, including, of course, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

As you know we have certainly given an appropriate response. We will never bow to ultimatums. This is not the language to speak with the Russian Federation. We will always do everything we can to protect the security and dignity of our citizens and the sovereignty and national interests of the Russian Federation in full conformity with international law.

I would like to express my gratitude to the members of your families that are with you through the hardships and uneasy situations that have been part of your work abroad.

As you know, the leadership of the Russian Federation did everything necessary to make your return home as comfortable as possible, doing everything we could in emergency circumstances and observing the deadlines that were categorically set forth by the countries of your stay.

I am sure that your future work will be productive and reliable. We will do everything we can despite the objective situation created by the unforeseen interruption of the missions of so many people to reduce your forced and short vacation and enable you to resume work on the foreign policy fronts of our large homeland.

I would like to wish you all the best, once again.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3161350
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old April 27th, 2018 #400
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Remarks and reply by Ambassador Vassily Nebenzya, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the UN Security Council meeting regarding the March 13, 2018 letter from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, New York, April 5, 2018



6 April 2018 - 20:03




Mr Chairman,

On March 14, the Security Council had an open meeting on the letter from the British Prime Minister Theresa May. It contains monstrous and absolutely unsubstantiated accusations against Russia over the use of chemical weapons on the territory of Great Britain.

Representatives of the United Kingdom promised to regularly brief the Council on the progress of the investigation. However, none have occurred. And so let us brief you in detail.

Today marks one month since Russian citizens Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found unconscious in the British town of Salisbury.

If chemical weapons were in fact used, this is a threat to non-proliferation and deserves consideration in the Security Council, particularly as we have what to say to our British colleagues and questions to ask.

So, what do we know about the crime and the victims?

Sergey Skripal, convicted in 2006 for espionage for Great Britain, had lived in that country since 2010 after being pardoned and retained his Russian citizenship. He was regularly visited by his daughter Yulia, a Russian national. According to the theory spun in the British media, Russia never forgave him for his treason and decided to take him out, even though he clearly presented no threat to Russia.

This gives rise to a number of questions. First of all, if we are to be entirely cynical about it, why should we wait eight years and decide to do this two weeks before the Russian presidential election and just several weeks before the FIFA World Cup in Russia? Why was he let out of the country at all?

Why take him out in such a strange, high-profile manner that poses danger to the perpetrators and bystanders?

Anyone familiar with detective stories (for example, the Midsomer Murders series, well into its 20th year) knows there are hundreds of relatively simple ways to cunningly dispatch a person. However, the assassins of Sergey Skripal and his daughter chose an extremely toxic chemical, that is, the most risky and dangerous method. And they did not even finish the job, as the victims, by all appearances, are alive and Yulia, thank God, is rapidly recovering.

This case involves a lot of murky questions. And the deeper you go, the more there are.

From the very beginning, the UK authorities said through experienced chemists such as Prime Minister Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson that the crime involved a toxic agent known as novichok and that it was “highly likely” that Russia was responsible for the poison attack.

If this super-potent agent was sprayed in Skripal’s house or on his door handle, which seems to be the favourite version of the investigation, how could Sergey and Yulia feel well for the next few hours, considering that Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, who was the first to rush to the Skripals’ assistance, lost consciousness immediately? And how have they survived the attack? The only plausible explanation is that they were immediately given an antidote. Experts agree that to be able to do so, those who had the antidote at hand would have known exactly, not probably, which poison was used.

Porton Down, a British chemical research centre, is located several kilometres away from the crime site. We have many questions about its operations.

Unfortunately, Porton Down chief executive Gary Aitkenhead said on Tuesday: “We were able to identify it as novichok, to identify it was a military-grade nerve agent. We have not verified the precise source.” This is a true quotation. Moreover, he said that no antidote was given to the Skripals and suggested that the UK government probably had additional information regarding this. You have to hand it to Mr Aitkenhead for sacrificing his professional reputation to buttress the UK authorities’ speculation. He also said that there is no way that anything like that “would leave the four walls of [their] facilities.” What exactly is “anything like that” that would never leave the four walls of the Porton Down facilities? And does the OPCW know anything about this?

Anyway, the above has destroyed the main UK argument that the novichok originated from Russia “without a doubt,” the argument that was used as the basis for the evidence regarding the “highly likely” level of Russian involvement. On the other hand, Mr Aitkenhead’s statement has made this case even more mysterious.

We once again want to tell the world – urbi et orbi – that novichok has not been patented in Russia, despite its undeniably Russian name. The name was created in the West for a family of military-grade toxic agents, which, as expert and research communities know, were developed in many countries, including the US and the UK. Boris Johnson said in reply to a direct question from Deutsche Welle that people at Porton Down have the samples of novichok. Yesterday the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office deleted the tweet that stated that novichok came directly from Russia. This has created scandal and speculation. But the Chip and Dale rangers from the UK security services rushed to the rescue of Boris Johnson, saying via The Times that they used research and intelligence data to establish the origin of the nerve agent several days after the Salisbury attack. They claim that the UK government knew as soon as March 7 that it was more than highly likely that the poison was manufactured in Russia. UK security services claim that they have pinpointed the location of the secret Russian laboratory where the nerve agent was manufactured. However, the security services’ sources further said that while they are not 100 percent certain, they have a “high degree of confidence in the location.” They also believe that the Russians conducted tests to see whether novichok could be used for assassinations.

And it is getting worse. The Daily Mail wrote yesterday that British intelligence agencies have “highly sensitive information” that Russia had been testing the deadly Novichok agent on areas such as door handles and everyday objects in the run-up to the Salisbury attack.

Gentlemen, I really don’t know what to say. This is absurd! Couldn’t you invent a more plausible fake story? On the other hand, we know about the credibility of British intelligence information from what Tony Blair said.

We have told our British colleagues that they have gone too far and will have to answer for this. There is a difference between making unsubstantiated accusations and talking professionally, which implies moving away from megaphone diplomacy to giving clear answers to warranted questions. I don’t think British investigators will thank their own government for its hasty and presumptuous statements.

Your politicians probably did not imagine that this could happen. They never thought that their sensational statements could backfire. They enthusiastically made public a fake anti-Russia story about a Russian chemical attack, never thinking that they would have to answer for their words when the dust settles.

London also started working to sour Russia’s relations with other countries. In an act of solidarity, several UK allies have expelled 150 Russian diplomats. We know that your ambassadors around the world are wringing the hands of sovereign states to make them follow this bad example. You have raised a wave that has reached New York. Your American allies have taken an unprecedented step: they have expelled 60 Russian diplomats, including 12 employees of Russia’s Permanent Representative Office at the UN, without providing any substantiation or holding consultations, as stipulated in the special headquarters agreement, which conflicts with US obligations as the host country of the UN Headquarters. Regrettably, this is not the first time that the US has neglected its commitments. The US has seized Russia’s diplomatic property, including the Russian property of the Permanent Representative Office at the UN in New York, has limited the freedom of movement for our diplomats to a 25-mile zone, and has refused to extend or issue US visas to them. We urge the United States to take a more responsible attitude towards its duties as the host state, to give up what it has illegitimately seized and to avoid taking such steps in the future.

Mr President,

We are witnessing very strange events. At the March 14 meeting, I spoke about the latest legal innovation, that is, accusations based on suspicion without any hard evidence. There is one more equally surprising thing. One is completely baffled by the debates, interviews and statements made by UK politicians. O tempora, o mores [Alas the times, and the manners]! What has happened to good old Britain? What is the explanation for this - a total lack of professionalism, or the degradation of political culture? Or is this a new political culture? I don’t know and suggest that those present draw their own conclusions.

The UK authorities have ridiculed Russia for suggesting 30 possible versions of what has happened. I would like to point out that these versions have not been proposed by the Russian authorities but by experts and journalists. Yes, there are many versions because there are no hard facts or evidence, and virtually everyone in Russia wants to get the facts straight in this murky story. The UK authorities have very few versions. More precisely, they have only one version, which they have presented as the verdict. At the same time, they cannot determine the source of the poison. Was it Skripal’s house, the door handle, flowers, buckwheat or the bay leaf, after all? It should be said that people and experts from the UK and other countries, those who have the ability to think independently, have proposed various versions and are asking many questions, to which no answers have been provided.

Here are some of them.

Where were the Skripals during the four hours when their cell phones were turned off? How were the samples collected? Who can verify their reliability? Why have the Skripals’ relatives not been asked for permission to collect blood samples? Where did the antidote against an unidentified chemical agent come from so quickly? Were the victims given an antidote at all? What did Sergey Skripal do [in the UK]? Who was he connected to? Where did he go? Who did he associate with? Did he meet with anyone that day or the day before? Where is the data from CCTV cameras? How do the hasty accusations correspond to Scotland Yard’s statements to the effect that the investigation will take weeks or even months? Why has Russia been denied consular access to Russian citizens against whom a terrorist attack was probably perpetrated on British soil?

The UK authorities have flippantly decided that they can get away with their unsubstantiated insinuations. No, friends, this story, this investigation is not over. In fact, it has not even begun. On March 12, we sent a note to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office requesting access to the investigation results, including the samples of the chemical agent to which the British investigators referred, so that experts could study them within the framework of a joint investigation. We did this in keeping with Clause 2 of Article IX of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which stipulates that member states should first make every effort to clarify and resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves, any matter which may cause doubt about compliance with this Convention. As per this article, Russia was prepared to respond to any UK request within 10 days.

Instead, London issued an absurd 24-hour ultimatum. Of course, we rejected it. Nobody has any right to speak to Russia like this, under any circumstances. According to that ultimatum, which Boris Johnson read out to the Russian Ambassador in London, “The Foreign Secretary made clear… that there are only two possible scenarios. Either the Russian State has attempted murder on the British soil using a chemical weapon or Russia lost control of its stockpile of nerve agents. The Foreign Secretary asked the Russian Ambassador to explain which of the two possibilities was true and to account for how this Russian-produced nerve agent could have been deployed in Salisbury.”

A 24-hour ultimatum! These are the “numerous questions” the UK side has asked us. No other questions! Knowing what we know today, including additional information and statements, this UK position looks even more absurd.

On March 14, Ms May sent a letter to Director-General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat Ahmet Uzumcu inviting the OPCW Technical Secretariat “to independently verify the analysis” of the British investigation into the Salisbury incident. Our British colleagues seem to forget that if they decide to act within the framework of the OPCW, which we consider as the only correct option, they will have not just rights but also obligations, including before Russia as a full member of the OPCW. We reminded them about this during the emergency meeting of the OPCW Executive Council, which was convened at Russia’s initiative yesterday. We proposed a draft decision on a joint investigation. The UK and its allies blocked the adoption of this decision and immediately hailed this as a victory, although the combined number of those who voted for this decision and who abstained was larger than the number of those who voted against it. Indeed, why should the UK conduct a joint investigation if it has appointed the guilty party even before launching an inquiry? A joint investigation could overturn their “streamlined version” that is based on such powerful arguments as “highly likely,” “overwhelmingly likely,” “highly plausible,” “there is almost no doubt,” “there is no other plausible explanation,” “Russia was almost certainly to blame,” “high likelihood of Russian responsibility” and “Russia is the likely perpetrator.”

Boris Johnson continues to claim that the UK has sent a number of questions to Russia and is still waiting for answers. But it is the other way around. As I said, we have not received any questions. I am asking my British colleagues now to send their questions to us, if they have any. But please, take note that ultimatums, accusations and the demand that we admit to the crime are not questions.

As for us, we have many questions for London, the OPCW and France, which has suddenly hastened to help verify the results of the British “express inquiry”, although this is not stipulated by any CWC provision. In reply to our question, France has said that the UK provided it with detailed information about its investigation. If London refuses to give us any information, maybe France will share it with us?

We have circulated a memorandum today, which you can read. We will also circulate some of the comments made by our Foreign Ministry spokesperson. You will find very interesting information there. I think you will find it very interesting. And we will also send you my statement and its translation into foreign languages.

Mr President,

The standards of intellectual substantiation of the accusations made against Russia and the search for motives for this crime are not even worth a laugh.

Boris Johnson, who claims to be a committed Russophile, has made an absurd – and this is putting it very mildly – and immoral suggestion that Moscow needed this incident to rally the people ahead of the election. In an equally immoral statement, he compared the upcoming FIFA World Cup Russia to the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, which the Soviet Union did not attend but to which the UK sent a large delegation, including high-ranking officials.

Boris Johnson cited the novel Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, comparing it to the Skripal affair and saying that they are similar in the sense that “we are all confident of the culprit – and the only question is whether he will confess or be caught.” In fact, this is not the essence of the novel. It is not a crime story, contrary to what the UK Foreign Secretary may think, but a very deep novel about the human being’s view of the world and self-knowledge. By the way, we have already quoted a British saying from this novel about a hundred rabbits from which you cannot make a horse. I would recommend Mr Johnson to read Dostoyevsky’s other novels or at least their titles. I will not provide them here.

The UK Ambassador in Moscow presented his colleagues with “substantiated” proof of Russia’s guilt in the form of a slide show consisting of six pages, including the cover page. These comics, which contain nothing more than “highly likely,” are passed off as an evidential basis! We presume that Theresa May demonstrated a similar “irrefutable document” to her EU colleagues, many of whom (not all, to their merit) took this as “hard evidence of Russia’s guilt.” Look at this disgrace. We will now distribute it to you. To argue with these “hexagons” from the slide show is an insult to mind and reason. How they must disrespect those they are trying to convince with this! With this! And those to whom this “convincing” evidence is shown, don’t they understand that they are being brainwashed and are conforming to collective psychosis?

Boris Johnson’s deliberations about “the dead cat on the table” as a way to divert attention away from other problems (if anyone here does not know what I am referring to, they should read his interview) are a clear example of the no-holds-barred propaganda warfare that the UK is now waging against Russia.

By the way, regarding dead cats, Skripal’s niece Viktoria says there were two cats and two Guinea pigs in his allegedly contaminated house in Salisbury. Where are these pets now? What has happened to them? Why has nobody said anything about them? Their condition is very important evidence.

Mr President,

We live in a period of collective debilitation of reason. I do not know exactly which mind-changing agents are being used to brainwash the general public, except for one – the media. It is a deadly weapon of our times. The media can be used to manipulate the mind. And we see how brilliantly the Western media is doing this. No advanced intellectual algorithms are needed. It is enough to invoke the very basic reflexes by regularly and purposely repeating the same unsubstantiated lie, gradually implanting it into public consciousness and presenting it as the ultimate truth, in accordance with the recipe of Dr Goebbels: A lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.

We will continue to press you for answers to our questions. And if you do not give them, if you do not answer, we will consider this as admission that you have slandered us without even giving any thought to the implications.

We will continue to press you into genuine cooperation on the Skipals’ case. And if you refuse, we will consider this as an attempt to conceal the truth.

Mr President,

The unfolding events have convinced us of what, as a matter of fact, was clear from day one. This is a coordinated and well-planned campaign. It is not something accidental. The main goal is clear. It is to discredit and even to de-legitimise Russia. To accuse it of using a terrible, inhumane weapon and concealing arsenals, as well as violating CWC provisions. To question its role not only in the settlement process in Syria, but wherever it may be. To question Russia’s political legitimacy in principle. Also, to discredit our position on the Syrian chemical dossier. And not just to do this to us, but to enjoy it. Since the British authorities, without a moment’s hesitation, have the audacity to claim that Russia is "highly likely" to be involved in the Salisbury incident, we, for our part, will also presume "with a high degree of probability" that special services of some countries are behind this enormous provocation.

Russia, which has nothing to do with the poisoning of the Skripals, has the greatest stake in establishing the truth. We will seek the truth based on the provisions of the CWC.

If Britain continues to operate on suspicions which it passes for evidence, if it continues to rely on assumptions based on speculation rather than facts, this will confirm our sense that it is highly likely that this murky business is a fiction, or, to be more precise, a crude provocation.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
We see the only way to create an objective picture as strict observance with CWC mechanisms and cooperation throughout the investigation. We are also waiting for the answers to obvious questions from the British investigation. We demand consular access to Yulia Skripal.

Here’s the bottom line. The Russian origin of the nerve agent has not been confirmed. We have stated our innocence even before that. However, we are still required to "plead guilty." The United Kingdom refuses to cooperate with us on the pretext that "the victim cannot cooperate with the criminal." Excuse me, but there is no validity in designating us "criminals" without any facts, evidence, trial or investigation A crime was committed, and possibly a terrorist act, against our citizens on the territory of Great Britain. They are the victims. So, we are entitled to demand cooperation, and the UK must provide it. By the way, it's funny that some allies of Great Britain encouraged us to cooperate with Britain at the session of the OPCW Executive Council yesterday. Apparently, they were not properly briefed in due time.

We have drafted a Security Council statement for the press. This is a litmus test for the sincerity of the UK and its allies. If you, like last time, bury this statement by turning what is says upside down, it will be more proof of your deceitful game.

Thank you.



In response to a statement by the Permanent Representative of Great Britain:

Mr President,

Unfortunately, today we haven’t heard anything new from some of our colleagues, who continue to claim without any hesitation and reservation that Russia is culpable. They urge us to shed light on this incident. We would also very much like to discover the truth.

We hope that as we move along, more and more “shoots of truth” will find their way up to the light. I was going to thank my Dutch colleague who insisted today that we must cooperate with the British side. But on second thought, I better refrain from doing this, because the cooperation he proposed differs from what we understand as cooperation.

Essentially, they demand that we answer one question only: “Admit that you did it.” We reply: “We did not do it.” To this, they say: “No, this is not enough. How did you do it?” We reply: “Give us the proof.” They say: “No, first you admit your guilt. This will be better for everyone.”

Can’t you all see that this is something straight out of the theatre of the absurd? We repeatedly pointed out that the UK had not complied with the OPCW rules and procedures. You can read about this in our memorandum we have just distributed.

I have to say, though, that today the UK Ambassador expressed readiness to share information about the investigation with the member states. We are looking forward to this. However, we hope that this new information will be based on more convincing materials than those that I demonstrated to you today. By the way, the explanation provided by the esteemed Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom regarding the reasons for the use and the legal nuances of the term “highly likely” in the context of British justice was quite amusing. We will make careful note of this.

Mr President,

In fact, there is nothing new under the sun. There used to be a wonderful British writer of children’s novels, Lewis Carroll. He was a mathematician who wrote books as a kind of hobby. He wrote a marvellous book, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. I would like to read out a short extract from it. It’s about the trial of the Knave.

“There’s more evidence to come yet, please Your Majesty,” said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry. “This paper has just been picked up.”

“What’s in it?” said the Queen.

“I haven’t opened it yet,” said the White Rabbit, “but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to--to somebody.”

“It must have been that,” said the King, “unless it was written to nobody, which isn’t usual, you know.”

“Who is it directed to?” said one of the jurymen.

“It isn’t directed at all,” said the White Rabbit. “In fact, there’s nothing written on the outside.” He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added, “It isn’t a letter, after all: it’s a set of verses.”

“Are they in the prisoner’s handwriting?” asked another of the jurymen.

“No, they’re not,” said the White Rabbit, “and that’s the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)

“He must have imitated somebody else’s hand,” said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

“Please, Your Majesty,” said the Knave, “I didn’t write it, and they can’t prove I did: there’s no name signed at the end.”

“If you didn’t sign it,” said the King, “that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you’d have signed your name like an honest man.”

There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.

“That’s the most important piece of evidence we’ve heard yet,” said the King, rubbing his hands.

“Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first--verdict afterwards.”


Does this sound familiar, Mr President? If you think that this only happens in old fairy tales, even if these old fairy tales are very relevant, I will show you one more thing. It is an article from today’s Independent titled “Whether we can prove Moscow’s involvement in the Skripal case or not is irrelevant.” A short quotation: “The Russian response to all of this is to say “Prove it,” as if in a court of a law. Even on a legal test such as being beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities, the Russians are plainly culpable.”

Mr President,

I have nothing to add.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3155420






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko’s meeting with Head of the Office for Kosovo and Metohija of the Serbian Government Marko Duric



11 April 2018 - 13:03



On April 11, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko met with Head of the Office for Kosovo and Metohija of the Serbian Government Marko Duric.

The officials confirmed the unity of Russia and Serbia’s approaches towards the Kosovo settlement process based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244. Russia’s intention to assist its Serbian partners in upholding the legitimate rights and interests of Serbia in relation to Kosovo was underscored.

The violence of the Kosovo authorities against Serbs and the non-Albanian population of the region and unilateral steps by the Kosovars were condemned as unacceptable. It was stressed that all existing issues should be resolved through dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina based on the unconditional implementation of agreed-upon arrangements, especially with regard to the formation of the Community of Serb Municipalities in Kosovo.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3163215






Remarks by the head of the Russian delegation, Permanent Delegate of the Russian Federation to UNESCO Alexander Kuznetsov during a general policy debate at the 204th session of the UNESCO Executive Board, Paris, April 10, 2018



11 April 2018 - 15:00




Mr Chairperson,

Madam Director-General,

Madam President of the General Conference

Colleagues,

The current session of UNESCO’s supreme body is taking place at a fairly weighty moment in the life of our organisation. It is necessary to develop constructive working relations between the Executive Board and the Director-General, outline a common vision for UNESCO’s future, and map out priority areas of reform in the organisation with a view to making it more efficient and increasing the importance of its unique mandate within the United Nations.

Prerequisites are in place for successful joint efforts. We note with satisfaction that the Director-General managed to substantially improve UNESCO’s financial standing in a short span of time. We consider quite interesting the concept of “strategic transformation” presented by Audrey Azoulay. Naturally, it is necessary to figure out specific details but I would like to say straight away – we should not forget the intergovernmental character of our organisation. For any reform to be successful, it must be based on the opinion of the member-countries and their active involvement in the process. Consolidating the practice of open-ended consultations in person will improve the quality of dialogue between the member-countries and the Secretariat. We are ready for constructive cooperation under these principles.

As we said more than once at past sessions, the key to reforming UNESCO is not a procedural issue, be it a change of rules for electing the Director-General or rotation of Executive Board members. It lies in the improvement of its programme activities. Its spectrum cannot be expanded without end due to financial limitations, so its focus should be on clear-cut priorities in the areas of its competence. Importantly, the organisation should not lose its capacity, in particular, in fundamental sciences as a basis of applied research.

Concentrating efforts also implies that UNESCO should give up activities that are contrary to its mandate. It is necessary to remove from the agenda politicised issues that cannot be resolved under its auspices by definition and that should be reviewed at other UN venues. At the same time we believe that UNESCO should not stand by while crude violations of its principles and values are committed.

I am referring to the Convention against Discrimination in Education. Its provisions have been flagrantly violated by the adoption of the law on education by Ukraine, repeal of the law on the foundations of state language policy, and amendments to the law on education in Latvia.

While we are discussing here in UNESCO the ideas of peace and non-violence, inclusiveness and equal access to education for all, these countries prohibit instruction in minority languages at their schools. The lawful interests of over one-third of the population are being infringed in Latvia, while Kiev is discriminating against not only Russian but also languages of several other countries whose representatives are present in this hall. We hope that UNESCO will give an objective public assessment of these actions.

Mr Chairperson,

We are satisfied with the close attention of the Director-General to a very important area of UNESCO’s competence – protection and restoration of the cultural heritage that was damaged by hostilities in the Middle East. This is the message of UN Security Council Resolution 2347. It is good that the Director-General is paying attention to the restoration of the old city of Mosul in Iraq. At the same time we hope that Syria’s world cultural heritage that does not have any political relevance will also become a major priority for the Director-General. We are calling on UNESCO to step up its activities and joint the efforts to restore cultural monuments damaged by terrorists in Palmira and Aleppo.

Colleagues,

We are watching with great concern the growth of manifestations of racism, aggressive nationalism and religious intolerance throughout the world. It has reached the point that in Europe, which sacrificed millions of lives to defeat Nazism, some people are rewriting history, whitewashing Hitler’s collaborators and fighting against monuments to the heroic liberators. We consider it necessary to pay close attention to this issue without any delay and ensure there is a legal framework for curbing such actions.

Our urgent task today is to preserve interethnic and interreligious accord and create conditions for peaceful mutually respectful co-existence of different cultures and ethnic groups. We hope that by pooling efforts we will make better use of the creative potential of our organisation for the sake of peace, stability, development and protection of cultural diversity and intransient moral values.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3163855






Remarks by Permanent Representative of Russia to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, April 12, 2018



13 April 2018 - 10:37




Mr Chairperson,

The situation in Ukraine continues to deteriorate. The conflict in the southeastern regions of the country, which broke out four years ago in the wake of the authorities' refusal to respect the rights of the local residents, is still far from over. The Ukrainian military and the nationalist battalions continue provocations on the line of contact by shelling civilian buildings, including hospitals, schools, kindergartens and blocks of flats, resulting in the deaths of civilians, including children, women and the elderly.

The Kiev authorities refuse to comply with the Package of Measures signed in Minsk on February 12, 2015. They adopt laws that run counter to the spirit and letter of this document, which is fundamental to resolving the domestic Ukrainian conflict. They continue the economic blockade of Donbass, thus increasingly alienating that region from the rest of Ukraine. As the presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine get closer, Kiev will continue to provoke tensions.

The spring truce and the Easter truce failed to improve the ceasefire situation. The Ukrainian military never published orders for a ceasefire, and didn’t remove the radical battalions from the line of contact. Apparently, the commandment “thou shalt not kill” means nothing to them even during Easter. They continued the random shelling of Donbass towns. According to the SMM, a woman was killed and a house damaged in Gorlovka on March 25; 12 buildings were damaged in Sakhanka on March 27; a block of flats was damaged in Dokuchayevsk on March 31, three buildings were damaged in Sakhanka on April 5, and a woman was wounded in Yelenovka on April 7. On April 1, an anti-tank guided missile launched by the Ukrainian military hit a militia ambulance with clearly visible signs identifying it as a medical vehicle. No one is spared, and international humanitarian law is grossly violated.

The disengagement of forces at Stanitsa Luganskaya failed again on April 10 through the fault of Kiev. The Ukrainian servicemen were seen inside the disengagement area in the town of Zolotoy (March 28). In violation of the Minsk Package of Measures, more than 40 pieces of military equipment belonging to the Ukrainian Armed Forces have been seen over the past two weeks, including multiple rocket launchers in Poltavka and S-300 surface-to-air missile systems in Volodarsky. Ukrainian forces are being relocated to Donbass via Rubezhnoye and Zachatovka railway stations. The threat of shelling by the Ukrainian military of the Donetsk filtering station remains.

We urge the SMM to focus on the situation near the line of contact. Detailed information is needed about damaged civilian infrastructure and civilian casualties. Observers should patrol both sides of the contact line, including with the use of drones.

Kiev is actively preventing the SMM from performing air observations. Although less than a week has passed since long-range drones were launched, the drones were jammed on four occasions in the area controlled by the Ukrainian military near the town of Dacha on April 4, outside Kleshcheyevka on April 5, in the village of Popasnaya on April 8 and in Stepanovka on April 9.

We urge the SMM to interact more closely with Donetsk and Lugansk on all current matters, including through the office of self-defence forces at the Joint Control and Coordination Centre (JCCC).

The Russian officers may rejoin the JCCC provided they are issued proper written guarantees for their security and legal status, requests for biometric data at border crossing are dropped, the JCCC rules of procedure are approved, and representatives of certain districts in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions are allowed back to the JCCC as full members. So far, we’ve seen that the Ukrainian authorities are not willing to take these considerations into account.

Kiev is not interested in normalizing the situation in Donbass. It is supporting the party of war and fueling militaristic attitudes. The so-called law “on Donbass’s reintegration” that entered into force on February 24 of this year has legalised a force-based solution of the domestic Ukrainian conflict and fixed the policy of persecuting people in connection with the events in southeastern Ukraine.

The signal from Kiev has already been received by the Ukrainian military. In an interview with the newspaper Government Courier, the commander of the United Operations Headquarters of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Donbass, Sergey Nayev, said that he will talk with the representatives of the Donbass fighters “from a position of military force,” and that the army would fulfil “any tasks to liberate the uncontrolled territory.” Are you planning “the final solution” to the Donbass issue? This evokes certain associations…

We asked the OSCE to conduct a benchmarking analysis, with the help of its Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM), to establish the extent to which Ukrainian law on so-called “Donbass’s reintegration” corresponds to Ukraine’s commitments under the Minsk Package of Measures.

Mr Chairperson,

It is no secret that official Kiev is acting with the encouragement and on instructions of its overseas sponsors that support “the Maidan government” with funds and military supplies. Hence Kiev’s hasty servile decision to join the US anti-Russia sanctions. It is surprising that not long ago France provided military support for Kiev. It decided to sell dual-capable helicopters to Ukraine. The Ukrainian authorities have already announced their plans on using them. It is unclear how Paris’s decision correlates with its role in the peaceful settlement in the framework of the Normandy format. Do you hope to extinguish a fire by pouring petrol on it?

By fueling militaristic attitudes on the eve of the election, Kiev has adopted a course of cleaning up the political field. At first, the authorities expelled the military criminal Mikheil Saakashvili whom they had invited before. Then they arrested Vladimir Ruban, a participant in the exchange of prisoners. Nadezhda Savchenko’s turn, a former “Ukrainian hero,” came the other day. Where are the voices of the Western countries whose representatives staged flash mobs with the appeals to free her immediately at the OSCE in 2016?

The Ukrainian judicial system is lawless and arbitrary. There are still no results from the investigations into the “Maidan snipers,” the arson attack on the House of Trade Unions in Odessa, and the murders of journalists Oles Buzina and Pavel Sheremet. Legal proceedings against Maidan supporters are put on the back burner. Recently, the General Prosecutor’s Office reclassified accusations against Ivan Bubenchik who shot people at Maidan Square into sections that fall under the law on amnesty. International human rights organisations confirm the use of torture in Ukrainian Security Service’s secret prisons. In its report on March 3, the SMM wrote about several cases of Ukrainian law enforcement officials and radicals pressuring the courts.

Aggressive Ukrainian nationalism is exacerbating with the connivance of the authorities. The SMM confirms the holding of regular rallies by the Right Sector, the National Corps and other nationalistic organisations that end with clashes with the police and other illegal actions. Radicals continue attacking the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. On April 6, the Transfiguration Church in Kiev was set on fire. On April 2, men dressed in military-style clothes burst into the church in the village of Ptychiye in the Rovno Region and pushed two elderly women out by force.

Communities of national minorities are being ousted and Ukrainisation is imposed by force. On March 25, the cultural centre Polish Note was set on fire. This is the third (after the Russian and Hungarian) cultural centres that was subjected to attack by nationalists with the connivance of the authorities. To suppress public discontent, Kiev is supporting radicals by force. Under the pretext of “the threat to Ukraine’s territorial integrity,” the Defence Ministry decided to deploy a 1,000-strong battalion in Beregovoye, where Hungarians live. Let me ask Ukraine’s representative: Are you planning an ethnic purge? We would like to recall once again that we urged the SMM to prepare a subject-specific report on the manifestations of radical nationalism, Neo-Nazism and extremism in Ukraine.

Mr Chairperson,

The anti-Russia campaign is gaining momentum in Ukraine. Kiev is adopting new legislative acts that are aimed at the further discrimination of Russian speakers and Russian citizens staying in Ukraine. At the same time it is infringing on the rights of ethnic minorities. Despite the critical conclusion of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe on Ukraine’s new law on education, it has not been repealed, but rather discriminatory amendments have been adopted. Kiev is making counterproductive attempts to sign separate agreements with “kindred states”, whose representatives are ethnic minorities in Ukraine, in order to prevent this law from affecting their languages. The law is a flagrant violation of the OSCE commitments on defending the rights of national minorities and contradicts a number of key international documents in this area, as well as item 11 of the Minsk Package of Measures.

There are other manifestations of Ukraine’s overtly provocative and anti-humane actions. On March 17, the decision of the National Security and Defence Council (NSDC) on urgent measures to neutralise threats to national security in migration policy entered into force. On March 25, Ukrainian border guards illegally detained the Nord fishing vessel under the Russian flag in the Azov Sea and moved it to the port of Berdyansk. On April 10, the application of the Ukrainian Prosecutor’s Office on the seizing of the Sea Breeze, a ship owned by a Russian company, was satisfied. The lists with personal data of individuals on the notorious Myrotvorets (Peacemaker) website are continuously being replenished. Now it is also based in a server in the United States. However, there is still no response from the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media to this flagrant violation.

Mr Chairperson,

Kiev is refusing to understand that it needs the Minsk Package of Measures even more than the other members of the international community. Peace can only be achieved through direct dialogue between Kiev and Donetsk and Lugansk. It is necessary to record on paper in the Contact Group the formula of Frank-Walter Steinmeier, which links local elections in individual areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions and the entry into force of the law on the special status of Donbass. It is time Kiev implemented serious de-escalation measures instead of encouraging radicalism and militaristic attitudes.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3166823
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 PM.
Page generated in 3.06801 seconds.