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

Old January 21st, 2021 #241
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference on the results of Russian diplomacy in 2020, Moscow, January 18, 2021 - PART I



18 January 2021 - 19:17






Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues,

This is our traditional news conference on the foreign policy outcomes of 2020. It is traditional, but remote. We opted for a format that was widely used over the past year due to the coronavirus pandemic and restrictions imposed in almost all countries, including Russia.

Despite the pandemic, our Ministry kept in close contact with you and your colleagues at all levels. I myself had the pleasure of speaking to you following talks, which did take place several times in Moscow, and will continue to do so. I also spoke to you in a video format. My deputies regularly talk with agencies. The Ministry’s official spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, conducts regular weekly briefings and, in between them, interacts with most of you. I am sure you are aware of the facts and information about what Russian foreign policy is currently promoting in the international arena.

The pandemic has dealt a severe blow to all forms of communication, particularly contacts between people in culture, research, sports and tourism. This caused major shifts in public consciousness in many countries. We know this from daily reports coming from European and other countries. In Russia, we are also trying to minimise the inconveniences caused by objective sanitary restrictions on everyday life. However, certain and not too positive changes are still being felt. You are probably following the discussion focusing on Russia’s epidemiological policy, including the Sputnik V vaccine, EpiVacCorona and the third vaccine, which is on its way.

We reiterate what President of Russia Vladimir Putin said in August 2020 when announcing the registration of the world's first coronavirus vaccine: we are wide open to cooperation in these matters. We had a positive response to the proposals that the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) had made to its foreign partners with regard to organising licensed production. This topic is being discussed with our colleagues in Asia, the Arab East, Africa and Latin America. Not long ago, President Putin and Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel also briefly discussed the prospects for Russian-German and Russian-European cooperation in producing and improving vaccines. I think this is the right path to take based on the desire to consolidate our efforts and the solidarity of humankind. Unfortunately, not everywhere and not always has this quest for solidarity and joint work manifested itself during the pandemic. Some of our Western colleagues, primarily the United States and its closest allies, tried to take advantage of the situation and to ratchet up pressure, blackmail, ultimatums and illegitimate actions while introducing unilateral restrictions and other forms of interference in the internal affairs of many countries, including our closest neighbour Belarus.

The West unanimously ignored the calls by the UN Secretary General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to suspend, at least for the duration of the pandemic, unilateral and illegitimate sanctions regarding the supply of medications, food and equipment needed to fight the virus while Russia was ready to back up this approach. President Putin put forward a parallel initiative during the G20 summit to create green corridors in the economy that are free from sanctions and other artificial barriers. Unfortunately, these sensible appeals - both ours and those of the UN leaders - were left hanging in the air.

Last year we observed the 75th anniversary of the end of WWII, the birth of the United Nations and the entry into force of its Charter. Against the backdrop of these anniversaries, we are very concerned about the continuous arrogant actions of the United States and most of its Western allies, which are aimed at undermining international security, which is based on the UN, its Charter and its agencies and replacing the traditional norms and standards of international law with a “rules-based international order.”

Some exclusive mechanisms – groups of so-called co-thinkers began to be set up in this context outside the UN and its universal agencies. These narrow groups are trying to impose their decisions on all members of the international community. One of the manifestations of these rules on which the West would like to establish a new international order is the concept of multilateralism, which our German and French colleagues have started promoting in the past two years. The descriptions of this concept in the public statements of the German and French foreign ministers make it very clear that the EU wants to present itself and everything it does as a foreign policy ideal. The EU views the establishment of specific rules as its exclusive right in the belief that all others must follow these standards. Examples are many.

The EU has held special events on cybersecurity, freedom of the media and international humanitarian law outside UN agencies. These events have been attended by several dozen countries. Holding them outside the UN framework is very indicative. It is based on the understanding that in the UN the advocates of this concept will have to meet people with somewhat different views on ensuring cybersecurity, freedom of the media, especially in today’s world, and on how to ensure the equal application of the standards of international humanitarian law. In my opinion, unless I am convinced of the opposite, these are apprehensions of competition and the understanding that in today’s world the West can no longer dictate its own orders to others as it has over the last five centuries. History is moving forward, it is developing. This has nothing to do with ideology. This is just a statement of fact. It is necessary to consider the views of the countries that now have a much greater weight in the world arena (completely incomparable with that of the colonial era) and the countries that want to preserve their civilisational identity and that do not see in the West the ideals for their societies. Tolerance of diversity is another characteristic that the West is losing very quickly.

There are situations where half a dozen people that have created their own technological empires do not even want to know what rights they have in their own states. They determine their rights themselves proceeding from so-called corporate standards and completely ignore the constitutions of their states. We have seen this clearly in the US and this is a source of deep concern. Much has been said about this recently in television reports and special analytical materials. We are not pleased by the attempts of the Western elites to find external enemies to resolve their internal political problems. They find these enemies in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. The list of these countries is well known.

We all see the response to the news of Alexey Navalny’s return to the Russian Federation. Carbon-copy comments on this event are coming in one after another. They are full of joy because they allow Western politicians to think that in this way they can divert public attention away from the deepest crisis of the liberal development model.

I am convinced that it is necessary not to seek outside excuses to justify one’s own actions or sidetrack attention from one’s deepest problems and crises. On the contrary, it is essential to play an honest game and look for opportunities to resolve domestic problems via fair and equitable international cooperation. No one can expect to resolve its own problems outside multilateral formats any longer.

Russia strives to act as constructively as possible in the international arena. We are convinced that we must sit down and discuss all existing grievances rather than wrangle with each other. We have always been ready to do so: back when Russia was accused of “interference” in the US elections, in Barcelona, ​​during Brexit, the Skripal case, the Malaysian Boeing, which was shot down over Ukraine in July 2014, and with regard to Alexey Navalny. I can later cite in more detail the arguments that you are well aware of. In every above case and in other cases where we were accused of something specific, we have never been given evidence that would corroborate these unfounded accusations. We've only heard “highly likely,” “no one else has these motives” or “only you have such capabilities, so you are guilty, so we don’t need to prove anything.” They just don't provide the facts, which is what decent people always do in order to justify their discussions.

We are interested in addressing problems through a dialogue. However, “forcing a closed door” that the West keeps “under lock and key” is beneath our dignity. Your governments are well aware of our proposals that we have made repeatedly, starting with the dialogue on strategic offensive arms, arms control and nonproliferation to interaction on cybersecurity and non-deployment of weapons in space. There are many such areas. For each of them, Russia has proposals for establishing honest cooperation on key threats that are common to all countries around the world instead of using these threats to achieve unilateral geopolitical advantages by means of unscrupulous competition. President Putin’s initiative to hold a summit of the five UN Security Council permanent members is a manifestation of such a desire to start a dialogue. All other leaders of the Group of Five responded positively to this proposal. Unfortunately, the pandemic made holding such a meeting impossible. We are convinced that the leaders must meet in person. We hope this summit will take place the epidemic situation permitting.

With regard to promoting a positive agenda, we invite our Western partners to return to common sense and to consider under the UN umbrella their ideas on cyber security, freedom of the media and many other problems that they are trying to resolve among themselves.

We will introduce similar approaches in other organisations of which Russia is a member, including the SCO, BRICS, the CSTO, the CIS and the EAEU.

President Putin’s initiative, which we are promoting, is to form the Greater Eurasian Partnership that is open to all Eurasian countries without exception by way of an equal collective dialogue. This covers the EU countries along with the EAEU, the SCO and ASEAN members. Generally speaking, it covers countries that are not part of any regional organisations, but are located in Eurasia. I would like to note the importance of the G20, an association that unites the Western G7, which is no longer able to overcome global challenges all by itself. The G20 also brings together the BRICS countries and the like-minded nations which share our common philosophy: to say no to confrontation and to address existing problems on a balance of interests.

Today we will discuss ongoing conflicts as well. We are working with other countries to advance a settlement in Syria, to break the deadlock of the intra-Libyan conflict that erupted after NATO countries’ aggression had undermined the Libyan statehood almost 10 years ago.

We will also talk about other hot spots in the Middle East and North Africa, primarily the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which they are undeservedly trying to put on the back burner.

Quite recently, we released a multi-page document on the main foreign policy results of 2020. It contains a lot of hard facts. I hope you have had a chance to read it.

Today, we will focus on challenges facing the world which quickly change our daily lives.



Question:

In what direction are relations between Russia and Italy developing, especially in the coronavirus pandemic year?



Sergey Lavrov:

Relations between Russia and Italy are good. Italy is one of those EU countries that follow the discipline and principles of solidarity in the EU, but that still do not consider it appropriate to take an aggressive position against the Russian Federation. Conscientiously, in joining the consensus on certain sanctions, Italy does not consider them to be effective tools for influencing anyone, in this case the Russian Federation. Not without objections from Brussels, Italy insists on its right to develop bilateral relations with Russia and does so sincerely. This policy reflects a correct understanding of the national interests of the Italian Republic, the interests of its business and its citizens seeking to continue humanitarian, sport, cultural and other contacts between people.

We have a good tradition with Italy with our cross cultural years. They are dedicated to topics that interest citizens of both countries, primarily in areas of culture, language, literature and regional contacts. This is a very good tradition. It actually helps respond to the needs of people and businesses, which is important.

Russia and Italy have a 2+2 mechanism where the defence and foreign ministers of the two countries meet and review the key issues in the world, in the Euro-Atlantic area and other regions where both Italy and the Russian Federation have interests.

Information on the specific events we held last year and what are scheduled for the future is available in the Results of Foreign Policy Activities in 2020. All this is described in detail there.



Question:

I am one of the seven journalists in Latvia who were detained in December by local security service officers for cooperation with Sputnik Latvia and the Baltnews agency. In December, they carried out a search of our office and took away our office equipment, computers and dictaphones, bringing criminal charges against us over the violation of international sanctions. During the six weeks that have passed since then we have not heard of any reaction from international human right organisations to this out of the ordinary event, to put it mildly, including from the leaders who yesterday vehemently reacted to the detention of Alexey Navalny only five minutes after it happened.

Why do you think international officials say nothing about this outrageous, in my view, incident – the detention of seven journalists in Latvia? Can the Russian Foreign Ministry throw its weight behind the journalists representing Russian media abroad?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are doing our best. I do not use these words to give you the runaround. We are really taking important measures. We discuss this issue at the meetings I hold weekly with my deputies and Foreign Ministry Collegium members. Not only must we voice our disapproval of a flagrant violation of the national law and international commitments like this, but we must also resort to international mechanisms. We spoke about this incident at the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. We will continue this work.

Whenever we have incontestable and hard facts that freedom of the media has been flagrantly violated coupled with threats to bring criminal charges, the mechanisms existing in the UN human rights formats – and there are plenty of speakers there reporting on various aspects of human rights violations; they have the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe and the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media – cannot justify what they are doing to you. Quite a few incidents like this happen now and then in the neighbouring Baltic States. Usually, they write letters to us. But we want to use mechanisms provided for in relevant conventions that require that a country in question rectify this type of violation. These mechanisms must – pardon me for the parlance that is not altogether diplomatic – put a squeeze on the violator until things are put right. Our colleagues at multilateral institutions show much less zeal seeking to establish the truth when it comes to a Russian-language media outlet. Although in the case of Latvia, Russian is a native tongue, as about half of the population in this country – no less than 40 percent – think in Russian and use this language in their daily life. One should have a very specific political orientation to want to show complete disrespect to one’s own compatriots in this way.

We will continue to seek reasonable actions from international agencies, but at the same time we want to involve NGOs in these efforts. They have every reason to appeal to the courts, but a denial in a court allows them to address the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It has dealt a few times with the subject of the media. Such precedents did not exist before but they have been created in connection with Western reproaches concerning the Russian media. So at this point the ECHR has to consider a situation that does not allow for any dual interpretation. It is so obvious, and I don’t think the court should take a long time to pass a ruling.

At the same time, we are working and will continue working with international lawyers. We will also use the Russian Fund for the Support and Protection of the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad that is willing to help journalists among others.

I confirm our support for Sputnik and not just because it’s a Russian media outlet. Citizens of any country, including Latvia, have the right to alternative information sources. Access to information is provided for by the numerous decisions of the OSCE. It is guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This principle of access to information was recently trampled underfoot in the United States to the accompaniment of perplexed silence or indistinct comments by US allies. Now attempts are being made to hush it all up by saying that Donald Trump’s Facebook account has been restored (but not his Tweeter account). But this is not about Trump but about the big failure of the state to comply with its commitments to ensure access to information. They said it was not the US Government that has shut out all those that were recognised by these platforms as sources of unreliable information. After all, corporations have not signed any pacts. All this comes “straight from the devil.” The Pacts and top-level decisions of the OSCE, which the West never tires of quoting (at least this was the case until recently), oblige the state to ensure free access to information for every person on its territory. So, Sputnik enjoys our full support. I know it is also popular with my Western colleagues. They consider media like Sputnik and RT important because their views differ from the common opinion that is being imposed by the Western media at every more or less important instance.



Question:

Antony Blinken will probably become the next Secretary of State and Victoria Nuland, whom we all know, will be his deputy. What can you say regarding these candidates? What are your expectations with respect to working with them further in the future?



Sergey Lavrov:

I try not to have any expectations on any subject. As for what to expect from the new US Administration, so much has already been said about it that I don’t want to take up your time with that.

We know these people. On the one hand, this makes it possible, given their reciprocal wish, to respond to many of our proposals on the Russian-US agenda, which are still on the table, and start talks without a large pause and preparations. On the other hand, we can easily imagine what line will the “new old” members of the incoming US Administration’s foreign policy team take; moreover they do not conceal their intentions and plans. From regular interviews, articles and advice given by US think tanks, including NATO’s North Atlantic Council and other entities, we can see that the line will continue to pursue the goals of US state and way of life, without understanding other countries’ patterns of life. The containment of Russia and China will undoubtedly be present on the foreign policy agenda. They are already discussing how to prevent Russia and the PRC from joining forces to such a degree that they could become more powerful than America. There are proposals of playing on the confrontation between Russia and China. All of this has long been a part of US policy.

Possibly, their manners will be more polite with respect to Russia, but the essence of their policy will hardly be different. When the Americans find it beneficial, when they realise that they cannot achieve anything without Russia and China, then they will have to be ready for agreements. This concerns combatting infections (by all appearances, it is a long-term topic); climate change, which also implies specific and practical interaction between many countries, including Russia and China; fighting terrorism and other forms of organised crime – drug trafficking and human trafficking. Most importantly, they should deal with the situation in arms control which is absolutely abnormal. We have heard about the intention of Joe Biden’s Administration to resume the dialogue with us on this subject, including trying to agree on the extension of the New START treaty before it expires on February 5. We will wait for their proposals. Our position is known very well and remains in force.

We have heard about the plans to revise the decisions of the outgoing US administration to withdraw from quite a number of other multilateral agreements and organisations, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), UNESCO, and the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

We harbour no illusions. We are realists. We have our proposals on all agenda items that are important for all humankind, and a number of them are being implemented. I would mention the UN work on international information security and curbing cybercrime, which our Western colleagues do not want to continue in a universal format, but rather to concentrate it within a close circle of likeminded parties and work out the rules, and then demand that everyone observes them.

In brief – we do not expect any radical changes. However, the methods of promoting US “leadership” will be somewhat different.



Question:

What move by the Biden Administration do you think could indicate its readiness to reset relations with Russia? What is Russia ready to do to display a desire to improve relations with the United States?



Sergey Lavrov:

We do not have to do anything to indicate our desire to have good relations with the United States, relations that would reflect the responsibility of the world’s two largest nuclear powers for security at the global, regional and any other level. We have put forth proposals to this effect, and the Biden Administration is well aware of them.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulated Joe Biden on his victory in the presidential election, he reaffirmed our commitment to cooperation with the United States on all issues of mutual interest and importance for the world. This can be interpreted as invitation to dialogue.

The most important thing is that our proposals on cybersecurity and on investigations into our alleged interference in US affairs, as well as on space projects and arms control, are on the table. As recently as in September 2020, President Putin publicly invited the United States – not President Trump or anyone else, but the United States as a power which, we hope, has retained at least a degree of respect for continuity and compliance with foreign policy agreements – to reboot our relations in the sphere of cybersecurity and non-intervention into internal affairs of each other. He proposed exchanging guarantees of such non-intervention and restoring a regular full-scale bilateral dialogue on all aspects of the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) related to the military-political security of states and the possible use of cyberspace by all kinds of criminals, including terrorists, paedophiles and human traffickers. We have not received any response to that proposal, just as to our initiative put forth two years ago for reaffirming the statement made by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan to the effect that a nuclear war is unacceptable, cannot be won and so must never be fought.

I don’t know how the new US Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control will formulate President Biden’s position, but Marshall Billingslea, who will leave the post in two days, cannot let up but continues to give interviews and write for the media. He said openly in one of his statements that the new administration must not fall into the Russian trap by making a statement on the inadmissibility of a nuclear war. This is not a whim of Mr Billingslea or any other American official, who consider it unacceptable for the United States to agree that a nuclear war must never be fought. This position reflects the US doctrinal provisions on the use of military force and nuclear weapons. Lowering the yield of nuclear charges so that they can be used on the battlefield, and refusal to formalise a provision on the no-first use of nuclear weapons – these nuances of the US doctrines speak volumes. We would like to know who will ultimately determine the US position on strategic offensive armaments (not only nuclear ones) and how this will be done.

New technologies can be used to boost the US Prompt Global Strike project designed to create powerful conventional precision weapons that can deliver an airstrike anywhere in the world within one hour.

We called on the outgoing US administration to consider formulating a new arms control document, to extend the New START treaty so that we have at least one effective arms control document, and in the meantime to coordinate a new document that would cover all types of weapons, including not just those mentioned in New START but also strategic armaments that could be considered a threat to our national territories. I believe that this is an understandable consideration, and a much more important one than the idea of recounting all warheads of any type, which we are being encouraged to accept, while our US partners reject our proposal to focus on the current and very probable threats.

Let’s wait and see. Joseph Biden is an expert on disarmament and arms control. I think he would rather have a team of professionals than propagandists.



Question:

Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi has said recently that China and Russia would continue to provide an example of the development of neighbourly and friendly relations between world powers, boost the revitalisation of the global economy and maintain global strategic stability. What possibilities do you envision for the further development of ties between our two countries? What can Russia and China do to hinder foreign interference and attempts to drive a wedge between their cooperation?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have very close strategic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Our leaders are good friends who maintain regular trust-based communication. Their personal contacts were complicated last year, yet they managed to have at least five detailed telephone conversations and videoconferences. We have held a regular, 25th meeting of our heads of government, contacts between the five subcommissions set up under the guidance of our prime ministers, and a meeting of the Russian-Chinese Inter-Parliamentary Commission. We held joint celebrations of the 75th anniversary of the end of WWII. A Chinese delegation led by Defence Minister Wei Fenghe and a Chinese Honour Guard company attended the parade held on Red Square on June 24, 2020. We appreciate this.

We are now implementing a major project, the Year of Russian-Chinese Scientific, Technical and Innovative Cooperation. It is currently the most important matter designed to give a second lease of life and a new quality to our trade and economic interaction. Unlike many other countries, we managed to prevent our mutual trade from decreasing during the pandemic. It is developing quite sustainably. We are implementing major infrastructure, industrial, agrarian, energy and investment projects.

We have been collaborating closely to stop the spread of the COVID-19 infection and to overcome its impacts since the start of the pandemic. When our Chinese friends identified the problem at Wuhan, they collaborated closely and effectively with us to help repatriate Russian citizens. We are working together to provide humanitarian assistance to each other. There are such examples on both sides. We are working on the vaccines at present. I have no doubt that we will succeed.

We are cooperating within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS. The People’s Republic of China and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) have signed a cooperation agreement. We are aligning integration within the EAEU and China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Last December, we signed a protocol on extending the agreement on notification of the launch of ballistic missiles and space carrier rockets for another 10 years. Also in December 2020, the Chinese Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Forces conducted the second joint patrol mission over the Sea of Japan and East China Sea. This is evidence of the trust-based and forward-looking nature of Russian-Chinese relations and our mutual commitment to maintaining stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

Some of our other colleagues, for example, the United States, have been trying to build up tension by conducting military activities that are openly spearheaded against China and are aimed at isolating Russia, as well as within the framework of practical US plans to deploy the components of the US ballistic missile defence system in Asia Pacific. These components have the capacity to reach the territory of both China and Russia.

A lot more can be said about Russian-Chinese cooperation. It is ongoing in a wide range of spheres, in fact, in nearly all spheres of human and state endeavour. I would like to mention our close coordination at the UN on many practical matters. It is based on Russia’s and China’s commitment to protecting international law and preventing the erosion of universal structures and the replacement of the UN with extraneous formats and partnerships, which Western countries are using to formulate rules suiting their own purposes and subsequently force them on the rest of the world. Russia and China firmly stand for protecting the achievements set out in the UN Charter, which are based on the principles of equality, respect for the sovereignty of states, non-interference in their internal affairs and a peaceful settlement of disputes.

This year we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Russian-Chinese Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation. We have huge plans for celebrating this memorable occasion.



Question:

Several days ago now, the entire world was amazed by how easily, virtually with a snap of a finger, corporations banned Donald Trump from social networks. In your opinion, how does this “digital GULAG,” that is holding captive politicians and their supporters, journalists and ordinary people all over the world, align with the concept of American democracy? Is it possible that in the future, such selective blocking of accounts becomes a fundamental of international policy and common practice?



Sergey Lavrov:

Everybody is talking about it on all the television channels and social networks. I heard that Telegram was threatened with blocking their services. It will be rather interesting.

I have already mentioned the topic of states’ obligations and now want to remind you about them. The US is a member of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Interestingly (however, this issue is often omitted) there have been two international treaties, one for civil and political rights, and the other the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Having signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (it was in the 1960s), the US flatly refused to sign the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This is a refusal to take any responsibilities related to providing adequate quality of life to its population and solving social and economic problems. But the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is an obligatory document for the US. The Helsinki Final Act and an entire series of OSCE documents (the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul in 1999) say that every person has the right to freely express their opinion. This right includes the freedom to search, receive and distribute various kinds of information and ideas regardless of state borders, by mouth, in writing, using the press, creative forms of expression or other means. “Other means” meant the visionary prediction that social networks would appear. There is no exception to this. It is said that each person has the right to access information. The state signed under it. So, claiming that Google, Facebook, YouTube and other corporations have no responsibilities is childish nonsense. The state has to assume responsibly for them, and if they misbehave, the state must bring them to order and to its legal obligations.

I do not know what will happen next. There have been many different forecasts. There is a state, private capitalism. Who will be changing the rules of the game now? Many recalled Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin and other analysts of capitalism and imperialism as its last stage. I do not know. The only thing I am sure about is that if the US fails to make the violators comply with the freedom of speech and its own Constitution (let alone international covenants), the US will present itself to the world as something other than a champion for democracy.

Speaking of the freedom of speech. Every year, the UN General Assembly at our initiative adopts a resolution on inadmissibility of glorification of Nazism and other forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, and the US votes against it saying that the voting for prohibiting neo-Nazi movements is a violation of the First Amendment. They state this openly. By the way, only one country, Ukraine, votes against this resolution alongside the US. And for obvious reasons: neo-Nazis freely march there and hold torchlight processions and in addition to all that really influence the practical policy of this, so to speak, state. In the US, the situation is slightly different, but they also do not want to violate the First Amendment.

Let us hope that American society will not allow the elites in their fight against each other to use blatant censorship in violation of the Constitution and international obligations. But this is their problem. If the American society fails to cope with it, we cannot do anything about it. But then everybody should be ready for the ramifications of this failure of the American state. And these ramifications will be grave on the global stage. I think everybody understands this. It is no coincidence that Europe is preparing EU documents about how to start a dialogue that takes into account all possible scenarios immediately following Joe Biden’s inauguration.

I would suggest paying attention to how the US has found itself in a position that bears risks to undermine the American state if it fails to bring private corporations that are fewer than 12 to order so that they would comply with the state mechanisms, legislation, and first of all, its own Constitution.



Question:

A politician and Russian citizen has alleged that Russian security services attempted to poison him. Alexey Navalny has provided facts which nobody has reliably invalidated so far. He has decided to return to his home country, where no criminal case of his poisoning had been opened. The plane he boarded was diverted to another airport. The people who came to welcome him home, including journalists, and Navalny himself have been detained. How does this make Russia look? Don’t we care about our image any longer?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course, one should care for one’s image, but we are not a young girl preparing for a ball. We must first of all do our job, which is to implement Russia’s foreign policy. A foreign policy aspect has been added to the Navalny case artificially and without any justification. Everything associated with his return and detainment is the competence of the law enforcement authorities. There is a detailed statement by the Federal Penitentiary Service, which provides facts and violations and explains why the complaints have been put forth. This is not something that can be placed on the Foreign Ministry’s doorstep. The matter concerns compliance with Russian laws. As we pointed out, if some countries regard respect for their own laws to be of secondary importance compared to their geopolitical goals, that is their problem. In our case, the law enforcement agencies have clearly formulated their position. And they spent a long time doing this, since August, several days after the blogger left the Omsk hospital.

Alexey Navalny has said that he is returning home with a clear conscience, because he had not left Russia of his own free will. He inferred that he was well-nigh forced to leave. In fact, he was unconscious; it was a dramatic life-or-death situation. It was his wife who insisted that he must be allowed to leave Russia and who was responsible for putting him on a German plane, as well as the German authorities, who demanded quite aggressively that we hand him over without delay. We did so.

Euronews broadcast a story today. Correspondent Galina Polonskaya, who was on the plane with Alexey Navalny, said that according to Charité doctors Navalny had been poisoned with a chemical warfare agent, which the OPCW later confirmed. She added that the Russian authorities repeatedly denied the allegation. According to the initial information provided by Germany, doctors at the civilian Charité hospital, just like their colleagues in Omsk, had not found any traces of warfare agents in Navalny’s samples. They were later found at the Bundeswehr hospital. First Germany refused to provide test results to us, claiming that this would enable us to learn about Bundeswehr technologies for identifying chemical weapons. How do you like that? Actually, they should not supposedly have such technology at all, because after the alleged poisoning of the Skripals with Novichok the West claimed that it did not have the relevant knowledge or technology.

However, in the case of Navalny it took the Bundeswehr barely a few days to determine that he had allegedly been poisoned with Novichok or a similar agent (we don’t know for sure to this day, because they have not provided any materials to us). The French and even Swedes have reaffirmed that it was a Novichok-class agent even though it was not on the list of substances prohibited by the OPCW. In accordance with their numerous commitments under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), both bilateral and European ones, we requested to see the results of these tests. First they told us that it was a multilateral matter and that all materials had been sent to the OPCW. OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias refused to answer our questions, but later he admitted that they had taken samples from Navalny but could not provide them to us because they “belong” to Berlin. It was Berlin that requested the analysis, so we should ask Berlin for its results. Berlin told us that it was not a bilateral matter and redirected us back to the multilateral organisation. I believe this is sheer mockery. There is no question about the OPCW, which has long been privatised by the West. It has been trying to do the same with other organisations, but it has been especially successful in the case of the OPCW. Only after a long time, during which we were directed from Berlin to The Hague and back, were we told that there was another reason for their refusal to give us the test results: Alexey Navalny does not want Russia to have this information.

Several days ago, Germany happily announced that it had answered the four requests it received from the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia. The reply consisted only of answers they had received from Navalny and his wife. That is all we got. No factual evidence, nothing about water bottles with traces of poison, copies of toxicology results, biological samples or test results. Navalny claims that he has been poisoned by the Russian state and by President Putin personally. The West accepts this without asking any questions. The Western countries only provide facts as they had been presented by Navalny himself during his interviews with the law enforcement authorities. I regard this as total contempt for the procedure.

The German parliamentary party Alternative for Germany (AfD), which is widely seen as being cultivated by Russia, has officially requested relevant information from the German government. They have not received any reply. They asked concrete questions: Who had the water bottle during the flight from Omsk to Berlin? Was it known before the flight that its organisers allowed the bottle to be taken? The answer was that the German government had no information regarding this. How can this be? There were not only doctors but also representatives of German special services on board the plane that delivered Navalny from Omsk. Everyone knows this. If they don’t know who took the bottles on board the plane, this is on their conscience.

First it was said that Navalny had tea at Tomsk airport; this version had been planted in the public space at the very beginning. Later it was removed. It turned out that a close associate poured tea for Navalny. Then they presented the version with the water bottle. It fizzled out as well. The next version concerned clothes, and then they revived the bottle version again. It has been said recently, several months after it all happened, that attempts to poison Navalny had been made before that, but as a result it was Yulia Navalny who was poisoned. When increasingly more surprising news is made public, we as a foreign policy agency have a question for our German, French and Swedish colleagues: Ladies and gentlemen, please act on your international obligations and present the results of the tests which, as you claim, contain an unidentified toxic substance that is not on the OPCW lists. We have not received any replies in the case of Alexander Litvinenko, which was kept secret, or in the alleged poisoning of the Skripals. Those who expelled Russian diplomats at Britain’s request said they would provide the facts later. They have not provided a single fact, any information one can get is in the public sphere. “Highly likely” and that is it. Those who trusted the British may be sorry now, but they will never admit this out of a misguided sense of solidarity.

Neither do they say anything about interference in the US elections now. Former US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has refused to provide the “irrefutable proof” he had said publicly they have. They will not provide any proof, full stop. The same is true about the Navalny case. If you want to know the truth, just be polite and respect the law, honour your obligations and do not resort to diplomatic insolence by saying that you would not give anything to Russia, which is a poisoner by default. That is no way to talk to us. This is the foreign policy dimension for which the Foreign Ministry has been responsible throughout its history. This is not how our partners should behave.



Question:

Will Russia send another request to Germany regarding the case of Alexey Navalny, since Moscow wasn’t happy with the previous answer they got? Did I understand correctly from your previous answer that without Navalny’s permission Russia will not get access to his test results from Germany and no criminal case will be opened?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding the Prosecutor General's Office’s inquiry, this is its prerogative. I think that an additional request must be sent so that our German colleagues do not feel like they have already performed their functions. It was a perfunctory reply, which is unworthy of a department in charge of the law enforcement cases’ legal aspects.

Doctors in Omsk, who saved Mr Navalny’s life before he was literally ripped away from their hands unconscious, asked his spouse to sign a paper to the effect that she insists on taking him away. They made their findings and test results available to German doctors, who also gave a receipt thereof. In August, the Charite Clinic reported that nothing had been found. This is a civil clinic, just like the one in Omsk. The samples were made available to a Bundeswehr clinic, which detected traces of a chemical agent. Since nothing was found in Mr Navalny’s tests in Russia which would indicate poisoning with warfare agents, there’s no reason, under our legislation, to initiate a criminal case, no matter what someone may tell us.

If there’s something that makes someone suspicious, the matter could have been settled long ago as follows. The Germans say that this is no longer a bilateral, but a multilateral issue, and sent it to the OPCW. We suggested that the OPCW Director-General use the CWC article, which provides for according assistance by its Technical Secretariat to the participating country. They were offered to come to Russia. They have samples of Navalny's biomaterials. We also have them. They are being kept in the Omsk hospital (maybe they have already been transported to the corresponding laboratory). There’s an OPCW-certified lab in Russia. Their and our doctors first examine one set of samples, then another, or vice versa. They will perform these tests together so as to be able to establish mutual trust. The lab is adequately equipped to conduct such tests. If they believe they need innovative sophisticated equipment, they can bring it in, we have no objections. The only condition is to do it together. After a number of episodes involving the alleged use of chemical agents in Syria, and after the Secretariat’s reports, we said outright that we have no trust in that. So, we want to use Ronald Reagan’s paraphrased principle “trust but verify.”

For a very long time they tried to avoid providing a direct answer. They said they were internationally recognised and asked for our samples, saying that “they will let us know afterwards.” This will not happen again. There will no longer be a one-way street approach. There will be no trust in the Bundeswehr clinic, the French or Swedish clinics, or the one that the OPCW may choose for its internal purposes without our participation until we are convinced that these people are honest researchers and specialists. I don’t see how anything can be done until we see the requested materials, or until they carry out the experiment that we asked for. They chickened out, probably, meaning that their conscience is not clear. It is not for nothing that the organisation, which the Germans mentioned saying that they now own it, is saying that it is Berlin’s property. The circle is complete. As Vladimir Putin said, don’t try to make retards out of us.



Question:

The future of prisoners in Baku is what concerns Armenia’s public opinion most. As we understand it, this matter remains unresolved. Azerbaijan is manipulating the prisoner issue. Armenia is hoping that Russia will help. What is being done to get the prisoners of war back home? Is there an understanding of the time frame within which a positive decision on this matter can be made? Armenia has released all the prisoners of war, but its move was not reciprocated. Processes are underway that do not quite fit into the framework of the declarations signed on November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021. Are there any classified attachments to these declarations that we are unaware of? Is there any progress in determining the status of Nagorno-Karabakh? How delayed is it? There are rumours in Karabakh that since Russia has helped it out so much in this situation, perhaps it may become part of Russia? Is this option on the table?



Sergey Lavrov:

The issue of prisoners of war was indeed discussed. It is part of the agreements signed in the early hours of November 10, 2020. It was further discussed during telephone conversations between President Vladimir Putin and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, and in my conversations with Foreign Minister Ara Ayvazyan and Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov. It was also part of rather lengthy discussions during the visit of the leaders of the two countries to Moscow on January 11.

Summing up the developments, indeed, the Armenians had more problems initially. First of all, both countries needed to get together lists of the missing people who they want to rescue from captivity. Azerbaijan provided such lists, which were fairly short. Not right away, but everyone mentioned on the Azerbaijani lists were released. There were no more questions to Azerbaijan about missing, captive or involuntarily held persons. The lists provided by Armenia were incomplete and overdue.

Subsequently, there were exchanges of the participants in the events that ended on November 9, 2020. Now, the focus is on the issue that arose already in early December 2020. In late November 2020, a group of 62 Armenian servicemen was sent to the Hadrut region and captured within a week. Azerbaijan then stated that since they came to the area after the ceasefire had been announced and the hostilities had ended, they should be considered separately, rather than falling under the Declaration of November 9, 2020. Nevertheless, during our contacts with our colleagues, President Putin and I promoted the need to continue to consider this matter in order to bring it to a closure based on the “all for all” principle. I spoke with Mr Ayvazyan in an effort to clarify the final lists of those missing. It turned out that there are many more than 62 of them.

In a collaborative effort with their colleagues from Armenia and Azerbaijan, our military are checking the lists person by person in order to locate these people’s whereabouts. Of course, the issue is there. If it were not for the Russian peacekeepers, the matter would probably be even more complicated. Commander of the peacekeeping contingent Lieutenant General Rustam Muradov maintains direct contact with his Armenian and Azerbaijani colleagues.

I did not quite understand the assertion that the processes “on the ground” do not quite follow the agreements of November 9, 2020 and January 11, and whether there are any secret protocols or annexes in this regard. Where specifically do events “on the ground” “not follow” the agreement? I believe that the Declaration of November 9, 2020 is being implemented quite effectively. This is what both Ilham Aliyev and Nikol Pashinyan are telling us. That is, with the exception of the POW issue, which remains unresolved for reasons I already mentioned and which, in its current form, arose in early December 2020, a month after the signing of the agreements. The issue concerning the peacekeepers’ mandate is in the process of being settled. It should be the subject of a trilateral agreement as discussed in Moscow on January 11. There are no secret annexes. I don't understand what topics might be classified.

Regarding the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, it is not mentioned in the agreements of November 9, 2020. This was done deliberately. The territory where the Russian peacekeepers are deployed is the area of responsibility of the Russian peacekeeping contingent. We operate on this premise in our contacts with Yerevan and Baku. The nuances and details related to organising transport routes, delivering supplies to the peacekeepers’ area of responsibility and providing humanitarian aid to returnees (50,000 already) are being worked through. The International Committee of the Red Cross has been working there for a long time now in coordination with the Russian peacekeepers. International organisations, including UNESCO, the United Nations Office for Refugees and Humanitarian Affairs, are now coordinating the format of their assessment mission with Baku and Yerevan. There are issues primarily related to differences concerning the status. Exactly because the problem of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh is controversial, if we take the positions of Yerevan and Baku, the three leaders decided to leave it be for future consideration.

The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs should also be involved in this. They have renewed their contacts with the parties and are going to visit the region again. The faster Baku and Yerevan comply “on the ground” with their assurances that the most important thing is to improve the daily life of the ethnic and religious communities that coexisted in Karabakh and to restore peaceful and neighbourly life, the sooner the status issues will be resolved.

As for the exotic proposal to make Nagorno-Karabakh part of Russia, as far as I understand it, the independence of Karabakh is not recognised by anyone, including the Republic of Armenia. We are not even close to having thoughts like that. We believe that all matters in this region must be resolved between the countries of the region, primarily, Armenia and Azerbaijan. We are ready to help look for and find solutions which will ensure peace and stability in this region. The safety of the people who have always lived here and should live in the future is of paramount importance.



Question:

Azerbaijan protested against the visit of Armenian officials to Nagorno-Karabakh. Why are Armenian officials unable to obtain Azerbaijan’s permission while visiting Nagorno-Karabakh? How will the Russian peacekeepers resolve this issue? Have you taken note of Azerbaijan’s protest on this matter?



Sergey Lavrov:

All agreements, especially those made on November 9, 2020, stipulate the parties’ agreement that Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh will communicate via the Lachin corridor, which will be controlled by Russian peacekeepers. No one has ever denied ties between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. During the decades of talks, there has never been any discussion of cutting off Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenia. This is why no one has rejected the Lachin corridor as a concept. The parties still agree on this matter, and this includes the consent of our Azerbaijani neighbours. In addition to the Lachin corridor, which will be run along a new route, reliable and permanent lines of communications will be established between western districts of Azerbaijan’s main territory and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. The leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia have formalised this agreement. Everyone agrees that Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh and those in Armenia should maintain communications, and I see no reason for hampering contacts at this level.

Armenian officials are involved in providing humanitarian assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh, and this has not caused any negative reaction in Baku. It would be strange if things were different. Certain Armenian officials make sufficiently politicised statements in Nagorno-Karabakh, and this causes tensions. I believe that it would be better to avoid this. Prior to the 44-day war, we saw how emotional statements from Nagorno-Karabakh or about the region and dealing with a new war and new territories became a reality. Words become a material force. In this event, words from different sides became a highly negative material force. Consequently, we pay so much attention to establishing contacts between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia and creating an atmosphere of trust. This became yet another important essence of the Moscow meeting between President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia. I hope that these emotions will now be relegated to the background.

Now is not the best time to prioritise Nagorno-Karabakh’s status. This subject will be discussed in the future. I guarantee that the zone of Russian peacekeepers’ responsibility (and this is how this status is defined in practical terms) will guarantee the interests of both Azerbaijan and Armenia. We will review this matter later on. There are co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group; but, most importantly, future discussions between Armenia and Azerbaijan on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh should be specific and calm, and they must be based on law and on neighbourly relations that all of us together should restore in the region.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4527635
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 21st, 2021 #242
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference on the results of Russian diplomacy in 2020, Moscow, January 18, 2021 - PART II



18 January 2021 - 19:17







Question:

Your Greek counterpart, Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias has recently singled out Russia as the only power recognising Greece’s right to extend its territorial waters to 12 miles. Despite such positive aspects, I would say that Russian-Hellenic relations are developing painfully. For the first time in many years, opinions are being expressed in Greece and Cyprus that Russia is pursuing destabilising activities in the Mediterranean region. This is what American diplomats openly say. Others say that Moscow is abandoning its historical partners and changing its policy for an alliance with Turkey alone. Is this true? Is cooperation possible between Greece, Cyprus and Russia in today’s conditions? Or do we have diverging interests?



Sergey Lavrov:

You have said that in Greece and Cyprus they say more often that Russia is playing a destabilising role in the region and then you added that it was American diplomats who were saying this. If American diplomats are saying this in Greece and Cyprus, they also say it in every other country. So don’t be surprised about this. In any country an American diplomat would openly, against all rules and traditions, take a microphone and say that the state where they serve as ambassadors should stop communicating with Russia. Sometimes China is also added, for example when US State Secretary Mike Pompeo was touring Africa, he demanded Africans stop trading with Russia and China, because the Russians and the Chinese had some “hidden agenda” while the US would trade with Africa selflessly. Fairly primitive, but this is the diplomatic way today.

I have recently visited Greece and Cyprus. Moreover, I have recently talked with Foreign Minister of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulides by telephone. I can see no reason why these countries should be persuaded that Russia is an enemy of theirs or has carried out an unfriendly policy towards them. Someone is trying to convince them, but politicians with common sense can see the whole truth: that they are only trying to make an enemy out of the Russian Federation and saying that our presence in the Balkans prevents these countries from moving into NATO, hinders their Euro-Atlantic integration.

There is no diplomacy here, only crude public leverage. Not everyone in such countries as Cyprus and Greece can publicly respond to such battle cries because they are scared to offend “Big Brother.” There is no underlying enmity between anyone in Russia, Greece and Cyprus.

We have very warm and close relations, a spiritual connection. Our American colleagues are actively trying to undermine this spiritual connection: they made Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew follow the path of schism, undermining centuries-old traditions of Orthodox Christianity, the path called Popery. It has always been rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is a reason that there is no analogue of the Pope in the Orthodox world. There is the Ecumenical Patriarch, who until recently was revered as the first among equals. Under the gross and open pressure from Washington, he chose schism in Ukraine creating a puppet Orthodox Church of Ukraine and deceived the Church by cutting off the rights promised to it. Now, together with the Americans, he is trying to work on other Orthodox churches, including the Greek Orthodox Church and the Primate of the Cypriot Orthodox Church, in order to continue deepening these subversive anti-canonical actions against Eastern Orthodoxy. The Pandora’s Box Bartholomew opened has already led to a split in the Cypriot Orthodox Church and unrest in other Orthodox churches. The mission the Americans have assigned to him (they do not even hide that they are actively working with him under the slogan of “freedom of religion and confession”) is to bury Orthodoxy’s influence in today’s world. I can see no other explanation for his actions.

As for the disputes that you indirectly mentioned asking if Russia recognises the 12 nautical mile zone of Greece’s territorial waters. It is not Russia who recognises it, it follows from the universal 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The convention, which everyone (except the United States) signed, states that a country has the right to establish territorial waters of 12 nautical miles.

When Greece announced that, we said the same thing I have said now: this is an absolutely legitimate solution. It is a different thing when territorial waters chosen by a state challenge the interests of a neighbouring state. If these interests are identified as legitimate, considering the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, it is necessary to search for a solution through dialogue and a balance of interests. We call for all the problems related to the exclusive economic zones of both Greece and Cyprus to be addressed via a dialogue.

I hear that my colleague, Foreign Minister of Greece Nikos Dendias has agreed to have a meeting with Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu in late January. I believe this is the right format for discussing and finding solutions to such issues. Of course, no one wants the use of any kind of force in the Eastern Mediterranean. As for Russia, it is ready to use its good relations with counties involved in these disputes if it might be helpful. We will be ready if we receive any such request.



Question:

You spoke about the strategic partnership and great relationship between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin. How do you see the evolution of India-Russia ties in the changing geopolitics, particularly in the context of the threat of sanctions from some countries on India-Russia defence trade, including the S-400 missile system?



Sergey Lavrov:

The partnership between Russia and India is called slightly differently. You called it a strategic partnership. This was the original title. Some years later, the Indian side proposed to call it a privileged strategic partnership. And a few years ago, when Prime Minister Modi became the head of the Indian government, we changed it to a specially privileged strategic partnership.

I believe there is room for further improvement, but the current terminology indicates a special kind of relationship. India is our very close, very strategic and very privileged partner. Take the economy, take innovations, high technology or military and technical cooperation, India is one of our closest partners in all these areas. We have close political coordination in the United Nations and within BRICS. We did a lot to make sure that India and Pakistan join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation where, I think, we now have a configuration which is very representative, to promote constructive, positive and stabilising ideas both for the Eurasian region and, in broader terms, for the Asia-Pacific.

We discussed with our Indian friends, at the level of the president and the prime minister, at the level of ministers, experts and consultants, we discussed, in a very open way, both practical things and conceptual issues, including issues emanating from the new concept which is called the Indo-Pacific Strategy. We do not believe that this is just a terminological change. Because if you take it literally from the geographical point of view, then “Indo” means the entire Indian Ocean, all littoral states of the Indian Ocean. But East Africa, we were told, is not included in the Indo-Pacific Strategy. The Persian Gulf, which is part of the Indian Ocean, is not included. What is included? As the American sponsors of this concept say, the US, Australia, Japan and India, which is the backbone of, as US State Secretary Mike Pompeo recently said, the free and open Indo-Pacific Region. We have reasons to believe that when the Australians, the Japanese and the Americans promote this format and, well, they almost openly say that this is important to ensure stability in the South China Sea and this is important to contain China. We discussed this with my good friend, Foreign Minister of India Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, and our Indian colleagues fully understand that some countries would like to use the Indo-Pacific Strategy in a manner that is not inclusive and that is confrontational. ASEAN, by the way, feels the same way. They are concerned that this aggressive promotion of the Indo-Pacific concept will undermine the central role of ASEAN in the Indo-Pacific Region, the East Asian Summits (EAS) and other formats, the center of which has been ASEAN for many years.

I know that in India this issue is very actively discussed. And I know that India is not going to move this Indo-Pacific cooperation in a way that would be not positive and not constructive. I say so in much detail because some of my previous statements on this issue have been widely discussed in the Indian media which I belieive is not very friendly towards the Indian government, but we don’t want any misunderstanding with our friends, the Indian people: we are friends with India. We are doing our utmost to make sure that India and China, our two great friends and brothers, live in peace with one another.

This is our policy which we promote not only in the context of the SCO or BRICS. We have a special trilateral format, a “troika” or RIC – Russia, India and China. It was established in the late 1990s, and it is still functioning. The last meeting at the level of ministers took place in Moscow in September 2020. We adopted a joint communiqué recognising the role of the three countries in promoting peace, stability and security in Asia and the world and confirming the cooperation between our countries.

I am glad that, besides the political dialogue between the three countries, we have plenty of formats that involve people-to-people contacts, including academic formats, youth formats and many others. We all are wise enough to see that if a strategy is indeed intended to be not inclusive but rather divisive, then the wisdom of our countries will certainly prevail. And in no way will our closest cooperation and partnership with India be affected. The most sincere and honest dialogue, even on the issues where we do not one hundred percent see eye to eye, is the key to the further development of our partnership.



Question:

The next question has to do with the situation in Northeast Asia. Japan is seriously concerned about the nuclear build-up in North Korea, which has forced it to strengthen its security, or more precisely, buy a missile defence system. Russia does not seem to share our concern, but regards our efforts to protect our security as a threat. The problem has been complicated with the US intention to deploy its medium-range missiles in Asia Pacific. Several media outlets have reported that Russia and China are considering joint countermeasures if the United States does deploy its missiles. Is this true? It appears that two military blocs are being created in the region, one comprising the United States, Japan and South Korea, and the other made up of Russia and China. I believe that current relations between Japan and Russia are relatively good and neighbourly. What should be done to prevent their deterioration or even a confrontation, in light of the current situation in the region? Do you think we can maintain our positive ties amid the deteriorating Russia-US relationship?



Sergey Lavrov:

Tension between the United States and North Korea and between the two Korean states has persisted during the past 18 months. We hope that the parties will refrain from taking any dramatic moves in the military sphere that could aggravate tension around the Korean Peninsula. The parties have not abandoned their previous commitments. At the beginning of last year, North Korea, followed by South Korea, reaffirmed their readiness to honour the agreements reached between the leaders of the two Korean states in 2018. A military parade held in North Korea to mark its anniversary attracted considerable attention. In general, no actions that could lead to the development of a material basis for escalation have been taken so far.

Let’s wait and see what policy the Biden administration adopts in this sphere. We would like to see stable peace on the peninsula. Together with our Chinese colleagues we prepared a roadmap of our common vision of movement towards peace back in 2017. We discussed it with the other members of the six-party talks, that is, with Japan and the United States, as well as with North Korea and South Korea. Based on our common views and that roadmap, we and our Chinese partners prepared an action plan, which we are ready to submit for discussion as soon as contacts are resumed. I would like to once again express our sincere desire to promote the achievement of a lasting peace and agreement in the region.

As for our relations with Japan, we regard them as positive. The Russian President and his Japanese colleagues, the prime ministers, have always maintained friendly ties based on personal sympathy. I am sure that such personal contacts will be established with Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga as well.

Touching upon the military situation in the region, it is true that Russia and China are working together, including in the form of military exercises. Russian-Chinese military exercises are nothing new at all. We have held several army exercises within the framework of the SCO and at the bilateral level. We have held joint exercises of our aerospace forces. They are not spearheaded at Japan but are held to check the combat readiness of our air forces, which are guarding the safety of Russian and Chinese borders. What is threatening them? There are quite a few threats, including the one you have mentioned, the US plans to deploy ballistic missile defence systems and ground-launched medium and shorter-range missiles, which were prohibited by a treaty from which Washington has withdrawn, in Japan and South Korea.

We have forwarded to Tokyo a list of our practical security concerns, which are directly related to the possibility of continuing constructive talks on a peace treaty. We are still waiting for a reply. The deployment of a US BMD system and the potential deployment of US ground-launched medium- and shorter-range missiles in Japan are among our concerns. When it comes to BMD systems, our Japanese colleagues assure us that they would control the Aegis Ashore systems they would buy, and that the Americans would have no connection to their management. With all our respect for our Japanese friends, this is impossible. They will be unable to prevent the Americans from controlling these systems. As for medium- and shorter-range missiles, the Japanese government is not happy with this US idea, as far as I am aware, and it has attempted to turn the talks around from ground-launched to sea-launched missiles. But this will hardly change the essence of the matter, because medium- and shorter-range missiles, even if deployed on warships in the Sea of Japan, will be able to target a substantial part of the Russian territory.

We are ready to continue dialogue, but first of all we would like to receive answers to our security concerns about which the Japanese partners are well aware. In addition to the material aspect of the planned weapons deployment in Japan in one format or another, there is also a military-political dimension, that is, Japan’s union with the United States, in accordance with which the United States may deploy its weapons in any part of Japan. As far as we know, Tokyo has reaffirmed its full commitment to this military union on numerous occasions, including last year, describing the Americans as its main allies. This is taking place at a time when the United States describes Russia as its main adversary and even enemy, as Mike Pompeo noted recently. When our Japanese friends reaffirm and promote their union with a country that considers Russia an enemy, we see this as a specific situation that should be clarified.



Question (retranslated from Spanish):

I am a journalist from a public television channel in Buenos Aires, Argentina. This is an important subject for our Latin American region and particularly for the Argentine Republic. I am referring to the sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas. I would like to ask you about the Russian Federation’s position on this score and on changes following the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union?



Sergey Lavrov:

We support all resolutions of the UN General Assembly on the Islas Malvinas. We have been voting for them ever since the UN started reviewing this subject, and we will continue to demand that these resolutions be fulfilled. There is such a notion as double standards. The problem of the Islas Malvinas came into being a long time ago. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland insisted very sternly that the residents of the Islas Malvinas (that London calls the Falkland Islands) have a right to self-determination. We reminded the UK’s representatives about this when they became overexcited about the March 2014 referendum in Crimea. We asked them whether the Islas Malvinas, located 10,000 miles away from the UK, had the right to self-determination, and whether the people of Crimea who have been part of this country all their life were denied this right. The answer was very simple; they replied that these were two different matters. Let this rest with their conscience. We are convinced that it is necessary to settle the dispute through dialogue, as stipulated by the UN General Assembly’s resolution.



Question:

On January 12, 2021, Berlin hosted this year’s first meeting of the advisers of the Normandy Four leaders. As Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office, Dmitry Kozak, said they failed to come to terms on a single issue. What do you see as a way out of the deadlock in the Ukraine crisis?



Sergey Lavrov:

In our opinion, the only way out is to implement the Minsk agreements. What were the advisers of the Normandy Four leaders doing at this meeting? They were trying, once again, to put together a roadmap for moving towards this goal. Our participation in compiling or trying to compile this roadmap is a serious concession on our part. A concession was also made by Donetsk and Lugansk with whom we closely coordinate our position before every meeting in the Normandy Four format.

The Normandy format merely accompanies the main work that is being conducted by what the Ukrainians call the trilateral group. We call it a contact group. But it can be called a trilateral group since there are three sides— Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk, while Russia and the OSCE are the mediators. The roadmap that the Germans and French suggested drafting three or four years ago has now reappeared. At that time, the idea was to synchronise movement along the security track: the disengagement of forces, withdrawal of heavy weaponry, and usable checkpoints for civilians. It was also necessary to move towards a political settlement by making progress on the status of the regions in question, preparing for an election, announcing amnesty, etc. However, at that time these goals were not achieved because Ukraine adamantly rejected this parallel progress and insisted that security issues must be resolved first and political problems settled later. At one point, the election issue faced a similar stumbling block.

According to the Minsk agreements (if they are not politicised or viewed through the prism of ideology), it is first necessary to ensure the special status of Donbass and then hold an election on this basis. But Ukraine had a different position: “Let’s first hold the election and if we like those who are elected, we will give it special status. If not, we won’t give them this status.” At that time, the sides reached a compromise with the participation of President Vladimir Putin and the leaders of France, Germany and Ukraine – the so-called Steinmeier formula that synchronised the election and the granting of the special status to the region. All this was confirmed at the summit in Paris in December 2019. President Vladimir Zelensky committed himself to introducing this formula into legislation.

Few decisions from the Paris summit were carried out. The disengagement of forces and weapons took place in some sections, and a small exchange of prisoners and other detainees was carried out. Attempts to come to terms on another exchange of prisoners, which were going on all these months, ended in failure due to Ukraine’s position of introducing more and more contrived demands.

The DPR and the LPR announced, with our support, that they planned to unilaterally transfer to Ukraine some of its citizens that were detained on their territory as a goodwill gesture. Let the Ukrainian authorities at least feel ashamed that an “all for all” exchange, as agreed on earlier, was delayed for reasons that had nothing to do with humanitarian considerations. Now, at the recent meeting, the leaders’ advisers made another attempt to compile a roadmap. If the Minsk agreements are presented as the accords of indirect action, let’s specify each and every step they envisage. As for Ukraine, its position is completely obstructionist.

Here’s one example. The Minsk agreements read: forces and weapons must be withdrawn to a certain distance from the contact line. Thus must be done all along this line. On the eve of the December 2019 summit, the negotiators harmonised a final statement from the leaders that contained an item on the disengagement of forces and arms all along the contact line by a certain deadline. The statement was signed by the negotiators, ministers and advisers. President Zelensky said he could not do this but was only willing to agree to the proposed disengagement at three new check points. The German and French leaders were taken aback. Ukraine was saying at every instance that its priority is to achieve security on the ground. All of a sudden, the president that inspired so many hopes for progress to peace, and made the goal of peace in Donbass the main slogan of his election campaign, said “no” to the disengagement of forces and weapons except in three villages. This makes you think twice. It is possible to lament this approach but the bottom line is the inability or reluctance of Berlin and Paris to compel their protégés in Kiev to stop undermining the Minsk agreements.

According to President Zelensky, Ukraine needs the Minsk agreements to maintain the sanctions against Russia. Otherwise, he would have withdrawn from them. Paris and Berlin remain completely silent. The Kiev representative in the contact group, former President Leonid Kravchuk, declared that the Minsk agreements were the main obstacle to settling the Donbass problem. This means only one thing: these agreements stand in the way of Kiev’s attempts to impose its own rules. Another member of the Kiev delegation in the trilateral group, Alexey Reznikov claims that the Minsk agreements are not so bad, but they are not legally binding and simply amount to a political wish... This is total lack of competence. The Minsk agreements have been approved by the UN Security Council’s unanimous resolution and have therefore become part of international law. He also said “it is possible to change the priority of some measures; the main goal is to first introduce Ukrainian border guards to occupy the entire border with the Russian Federation, thereby surrounding the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics; then the Ukrainian defence and law enforcement agencies will encircle them and in this case the election will become unnecessary.” They will appoint their own governors-general and imprison the leaders of these republics because they will be labelled terrorists.

Now, the main task for me is to understand what the French and Germans think about themselves. In response to our numerous appeals, including my own letters, to bring Kiev’s representatives to reason at the talks with Donbass, they are simply retreating into the shadows and refraining from public statements. If there is an instruction not to offend the country (or Ukraine’s leaders, to be more precise) in order to realise a desire to deter Russia, let them be straight about this. In this case, we will have a different policy in this area.



Question:

Here is a question from SANA news agency and the people of Syria who have been suffering from Israel’s aggressive actions all this time. Israel continues to bomb our cities, our villages, and it has now considerably expanded the territory of its operations in Syria. At the same time, the people of Syria are suffering from aggressive sanctions, imposed on them by the United States and its allies. The people of Syria are experiencing hard times. Tell me, please, what can you say about this situation?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have repeatedly expressed our assessments of the developments in Syria. Everyone signed the unanimously approved UN Security Council Resolution 2254 that calls for respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the Syrian Arab Republic. US actions in Syria blatantly violate this resolution. Washington’s line to block humanitarian relief aid distribution to Syria in any way they can, including blackmail and ultimatums, also crudely violate this resolution. UNSC Resolution 2254 calls for providing humanitarian relief assistance to the people of Syria. The United States is doing everything it can to prevent this from happening. It has declared extremely tough sanctions, the so-called Caesar Act. It has also forbidden international organisations and other parties to take part in the November 2020 Damascus conference for repatriating Syrian refugees and temporarily displaced persons. Nevertheless, the conference gathered about 20 countries, including five Arab states that did not fear the domineering United States.

At the same time, while forbidding everyone to even send humanitarian goods to Syria, the United States occupied substantial territories on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. It ruthlessly exploits Syrian hydrocarbon deposits, Syrian national wealth, plundering and selling it and using the money to support its proxies, including Kurdish separatists, and to persuade the Kurds not to hold a dialogue with Damascus while encouraging a separatist atmosphere. This is also causing problems in Turkey. But the main thing is that all this is happening in the Syrian Arab Republic, and no one invited the United States or its Western allies there.

We, including the President of the Russian Federation, have repeatedly expressed our position on this. Yes, we maintain contacts between the military with the United States but we are not doing this because we recognise the legitimacy of their presence there but simply because the United States must act within certain boundaries. We cannot expel it, and we will not clash with US forces. Now that US forces are deployed there, we are conducting a dialogue with US representatives on so-called deconfliction. During this dialogue, we demand compliance with certain rules, and also sternly note the unacceptability of using force against Syrian state facilities.

Regarding Israel, we maintain close contact with Tel Aviv. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly discussed this subject with Benjamin Netanyahu. We strongly noted the need to honour UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the resolution on Lebanon. Israel also violates this while using Syrian air space to hit facilities in Lebanon. This is a serious aspect of our relations. Israel insists that it is forced to respond to national security threats emanating from Syrian territory. We have repeatedly told our Israeli colleagues: “Please give us the relevant information if you see these threats.” We absolutely don’t want Syrian territory to be used against Israel or as an arena for an Iranian-Israeli confrontation, as many people would like. To our Israeli colleagues: please notify us immediately of any facts that a threat to your state emanates from some part of Syrian territory. We will act to neutralise this threat. So far, we have received no specific reply to this appeal, but we continue to press the point.



Question:

If possible, I would like to go back to the developments in the United States. They were quite dramatic, especially in Washington. All of us remember the footage of the Capitol and the violence we saw happening there. But the subsequent events, the reaction to these events are notable as well. Many people in the United States are now using the old rhetoric we remember from our own history. They are talking about purging the Republican Party of extreme Trumpists, which actually amounts to a cleansing campaign. You have mentioned that some people, including the US President, have been deprived of access to social media platforms. Mr Lavrov, isn’t this reminiscent of anything to you personally? Also, do you expect new political and information attacks against Russia considering that many people in America continue to believe that Donald Trump came to power four years ago with the help of Russia? Thank you.



Sergey Lavrov:

We have already spoken, in part, about this subject. As for whether this is reminiscent of anything to me, I will not answer this question, because this may be reminiscent of different things to different people. There have been different periods and forms of persecution in different periods of human history. I don’t think people can easily forget this. Although people tend to have a short memory, we have history textbooks and we must teach historical truth to our young people. Otherwise, future generations may decide that there has never been anything apart from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other platforms, which have a monopoly on the truth. Like all other normal people, I take no pleasure in watching problems come to a head in the United States.

Some people could be tempted to say, “The Americans have been lecturing the world, and have tried to lecture us, driving us into all kinds of corners, and now they are on the receiving end.” The United States is a huge country, and we cannot steer clear of it, because whatever happens there is bound to have global consequences, if only because the so-called digital giants are global corporations. Unlike the global corporations of the past, when Ford and other industrialists moved production to developing countries, these new corporations are producing ideas. As the classic saying goes, “A thought expressed becomes a lie.” This explains the risks we are facing.

If we look back on history, customs and manners of US foreign policy activities, it is always “America is Number One,” “America must prevail, “American democracy is an example to be emulated by others” and “democracy must be spread everywhere.” They have tried and continue trying to spread American democracy in the Middle East contrary to the region’s civilisation, traditions and culture. They have tried doing this in Afghanistan and Iraq and are trying to do this in Libya with complete disregard for the traditions, history, and ethnic and religious aspects of the countries concerned. They have changed the government in a European country, Ukraine. In which of the countries I have mentioned, or any other country where the Americans have tried to spread democracy has life become better for people? There are no such countries.

During the past few years President Donald Trump has been saying that there would be no wars during his term. No new wars have been launched indeed. But US interference in the internal affairs of others went on very energetically. The physical methods of interference are giving way to interference through social media. Reliance on NGOs and the nursing of opposition forces loyal to the West are complemented with a dramatic increase in the power of social media and their capabilities. The American state is now facing the issue of whether they should be taken under control or left with regulation “standards” based on the liberal ideology and world outlook. No restrictions are being placed on the US’s freedom of expression, freedom that has been set out in corporate standards that gives the Americans the right to restrict the others’ freedom of expression. This is a serious problem, and I sincerely hope that the Americans will settle it. After all, it is their country where they will have to live.

This shows once again how important it is to take multilateral decisions. I hope that those who have tried for years and even decades to hinder discussions on making internet governance more democratic, and those who have been putting spokes in the wheels of the Russian initiative set out in the UN General Assembly resolution on advancing responsible state behaviour in cyberspace and in the draft Convention on Cooperation in Combating Cybercrime will see the problem in a different light, especially when it comes to more democratic internet governance. This subject has been under discussion for years at a specialised UN body, the International Telecommunication Union. Nearly all countries are willing to coordinate universally acceptable forms, but the Americans are categorically against this.

Touching upon the events that have led to this situation, it would be worth recalling – a lot has been said about this – how the social media reported on voting during the US presidential election and how they worked to form a lop-sided public opinion of the developments in the United States and across the world.

Many people are talking now about the things that were obvious from the very beginning but have been glossed over. Two months before the actual election day, ballot papers were mailed to voters in several states for casting postal votes. They mailed 95 million ballots. Two-thirds of them turned out to be filled in prior to the election day. One-third of the ballots were not completed despite aggressive encouragement. This campaign of forcing people to cast their ballots by postal vote did not fit in with the US election standards. When both candidates got more than 40 percent of the vote, postal voting became a serious problem. As I have already said, those who received ballots by mail could send them back, take their ballots to the polling stations or cast them in some other way. This went on for weeks and was reported on social media as a normal practice and accepted by those who had criticised our voting on constitutional amendments. Curbside voting is child’s play compared to what has been done to the voting mechanism in the United States. Social media played the decisive role in covering the process. They openly supported one of the two parties and did not make any secret of their desire to have a system of government based on one ruling party. American society’s problem is their own election system and the way they hold political debates. This is a war on dissent, something which our Western colleagues have always claimed to be against. But they have taken up this banner now and are unlikely to cede it to anyone in the near future.



Question:

Thank you, Maria and thank you, Mr Minister, for taking my question. I need some clarification on Alexey Navalny, on what you are saying about the findings because the Germans have said that they have given you the blood and tissue and clothing samples, that you would need to carry out a proper criminal investigation. I am not entirely clear on what would hold you back?

We are also at the police station where he currently is and he said there is a hastily convened court hearing which is not part of the standard legal procedure. Why is he not receiving normal recourse through Russian law like a normal citizen would?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t know where you received the information that the Germans have given us tissue samples and other bio materials. This is not true. The reply that the German authorities sent us three days ago, obviously preparing for Navalny’s return on January 17, only quotes the information provided by Navalny himself and his wife Yulia. To say nothing about bio materials or the bottles involved in this case, we don’t even have the results of his tests or a toxicological conclusion! We don’t have any of these. If you were told we were given his clothes, bottles and biomaterials, you were misled.

As for the legal procedure, let me repeat that biomaterials were taken and tests made at the Omsk clinic (a civilian clinic). Nothing like a chemical warfare agent was discovered in them. The Charite Clinic (also a civilian clinic, as the Germans reported) has not identified anything like a toxic chemical agent. The Omsk and Charite clinics are civilian clinics. The Germans, as they said themselves, transferred Navalny’s samples, taken at the Charite Clinic, to a Bundeswehr clinic. Its military staff who evidently possess the required knowledge discovered a prohibited chemical warfare agent, but of some new modification. Where did the Bundeswehr and the Germans in general receive this information? This is an interesting question. We asked this in the queries sent by the Russian Prosecutor-General’s Office to the German Ministry of Justice. It is necessary to find this out.

Recently they told us almost in unison in Germany, and in Britain after the Skripal case, that they did not conduct any research on the so-called Novichok. Hence, researchers in Germany, France and Sweden couldn’t have the relevant markers and technology for identifying Novichok, albeit of a new version, in a matter of three to five days.

To initiate a criminal case in our judicial practice, we must have justification in the form of evidence that a crime was committed or an attempt to commit it was made. Since no chemical warfare agent was detected in Navalny’s samples taken by our doctors, we have asked for the OPCW tests made in Germany, France and Sweden. I hope you heard that I described in detail our proposal to this organisation to conduct a joint investigation. I find it hard to believe that our Western colleagues are so high-handed and arrogant that they deem it possible to demand explanations from Russia without presenting us any evidence. You (I mean the West) say you have evidence that he was poisoned and this is beyond doubt. But when we are told that we won’t be given this evidence, allow us to at least remain skeptical as regards to what happens with Navalny.

If you have nothing to hide, if you are not afraid to put the truth on the table and submit these facts to us, why aren’t you doing so? As soon as we see this, and if the attempt to poison him with chemical warfare agents is confirmed, we will start criminal proceedings. The pre-trial investigation conducted here in conformity with Criminal Procedure Rules has not revealed any grounds for opening a criminal case. I understand that you do many things on the sly. I have mentioned that the investigators in the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning in Britain have suddenly decided to classify this case and many details remain classified. We have received no information on the Skripals. Nothing has been disclosed to Britain’s allies in NATO or the EU. The case with the Malaysia Airlines crash (flight MH-17) is the same.

In accusing us, the Dutch have organised a trial with 13 witnesses, of which 12 are anonymous. They are refusing to reveal the names of 12 out of 13 witnesses. First, bother British and other European law-enforcement bodies and ask them why they are playing in the dark, what they are concealing and what they are afraid of. Then I will be ready to answer your questions if you receive sensible answers from them.



Question:

The past year was difficult for everyone, including the Russian diaspora abroad. In this context, as an NGO uniting the media of our compatriots, independent Russian-speaking internet journalists and bloggers, we are particularly interested in your assessment of the results of the year in this aspect of Russian foreign policy. What do you think about the performance of Russian compatriots in these difficult circumstances? What good news awaits us this year?



Sergey Lavrov:

We give a lot of attention to working with our compatriots in all aspects, including the media. This is one of the key areas in the Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, the updated version that was approved by President Vladimir Putin in 2016. Needless to say, the pandemic affected our communication. During the past year, the bulk of our planned events were converted to an online format, but some were held offline.

I would like to start by mentioning the programme to bring Russians home at a time when an almost global, universal lockdown was in place. What was done by our people, compatriots living in different countries deserved the highest praise. There was understandable turmoil. Flights were announced and then cancelled for objective reasons. In several cases these reasons were subjective. People who went to airports needed a place to spend the night. Our compatriots met them and provided them with accommodation and transport, gave them money and food and personal protective gear. They organised the publication of information via social media and support groups. We are very grateful to all participants in the action that we organised under the hashtag #WeAreTogether. Volunteers from among our compatriots were awarded with a special medal “For Selfless Contribution to Organising the Pan-Russian Mutual Assistance Action ‘#WeAreTogether’” and a certificate of honour from the President of the Russian Federation.

Regarding more traditional forms of work, I would like to mention the World Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots Living Abroad. It held its sessions online and soon it will have new members for the next four years. Its thematic groups continue to function, including trade and economic structures that are aimed at facilitating the development of business incubators for young compatriots. I think this is a very useful undertaking, and we will certainly support it.

As for our assistance in resolving the problems of our compatriots, Ukraine and the Baltic countries require the most attention for protecting the rights of Russian speakers. Russia has the Foundation for the Support and Protection of the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad that is operating under the aegis of the Foreign Ministry and Rossotrudnichestvo (the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation). It has established 49 human rights agencies in over 30 countries. These are centres for legal support, consultative offices, and regular legal columns in the media of Russian compatriots with useful consultations.

I would also like to thank, with your help, all those who took part in the actions devoted to the 75th anniversary of Victory – Immortal Regiment, St George’s Ribbon, and the Memorial Candle in Israel. All these actions evoked the keen interest of our compatriots and their sincere striving to not forget the memory of their fathers and grandfathers. In September, we held Eurasia Global, an in-personal youth forum. The Young Compatriots interactive platform was launched. This is also a very important new undertaking. The World Business Alliance of Russian-Speaking Women and its auxiliary, the Alliance of Business Women, are unfolding their activities. The Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad remains active. I head this commission, and we have a plan. Under this plan the central event of the year will be the Seventh World Congress of Compatriots in Moscow in the fourth quarter of 2021. I hope we will be able to meet at this event.

If the media you work with in the Media Alliance of Russian Communities encounter discriminatory actions by the host countries, we will certainly be willing to support you. Earlier we discussed how some countries are discriminating against the Russian media. I do not rule out that the media outlets of our compatriots are subjected to negative influence. If you have exhausted the procedures that you can resort to yourselves, we will be willing to render you legal and other aid.



Question:

Do you plan to be vaccinated? Considering the growing scale of vaccinations in all countries, how soon will it be possible to return to traditional, regular international politics in a personal, offline format? When will we be able to meet physically? The Group of Seven has planned to hold its summit offline. When do you think the first international talks at the high or highest level will be conducted in the traditional format?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for the highest level, preparations of the events for the President, this is the responsibility of the Presidential Executive Office. I do not want to get ahead of things in this respect.

As for the ministerial level, we are gradually moving forward. I made several visits in the autumn of 2020, for instance, to Greece and Serbia. I received guests here, including Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu. Representatives from a number of countries and international organisations are going to arrive here soon. We are doing this slowly and steadily, with the observance of all precautions and considering the health condition of each participant. I have anti-bodies because I already had a light form of the coronavirus. I heard yesterday that specialists still advise even those who have had the disease to get vaccinated. I will consult our physicians on this.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4527635
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 22nd, 2021 #243
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on the future of New START



20 January 2021 - 19:54



When it comes to arms control, the previous US administration worked consistently and systematically to destroy the agreements which prevented Washington from arbitrarily building up, projecting and using military force and which it saw as an obstacle on its way to “victory” in the “great power rivalry” it itself declared.

Judging by the counterproductive and openly aggressive negotiating policy of the Trump administration on extending the New START treaty, Washington was preparing an unenviable fate for that last remaining international legal mechanism of mutual restrictions on the nuclear missile arsenals of the world’s two largest nuclear powers. The United States launched a campaign to denounce New START as ineffective and irrelevant for the purposes of global security and strategic stability.

It is noteworthy that these efforts did not attain the desired result: the international community and even US allies did not support Washington’s desire to sacrifice a treaty that ensured strategic predictability, had a stabilising effect worldwide and greatly contributed to the cause of nuclear disarmament.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration was willing to disregard the opinion of the international community and face serious reputational losses when it announced that it would not extend New START unless its ultimatum preconditions are accepted. These preconditions actually amounted to revising the treaty and reforming its verification regime in favour of the United States. Washington also demanded that Russia unconditionally accept its paradigm even though this amounted to dismantling the arms control foundations that had performed effectively for many decades.

The Trump administration obviously intended to ensure unilateral military and political advantages for the United States by enforcing one-sided extension conditions that undermined Russia’s interests or by destroying the treaty. At the same time, Washington officials openly threatened to start increasing the number of deployed strategic delivery vehicles and related platforms, including by de-mothballing the systems that the United States has “converted” and hence removed them from the treaty limits contrary to the treaty provisions. This actually put the viability of the treaty in question.

For our part, we have always advocated and continue advocating the extension of New START based on highly realistic positions. We believe that the treaty can only be extended as it was signed and without any preconditions. The best option would be to extend New START for five years as it is stipulated in the text of the treaty. This would give Russia and the United States enough time to get down to a joint search for answers to the international security and strategic stability questions that are currently emerging. At the same time, this would preserve the current level of transparency and predictability in the sphere of strategic offensive weapons, which will be in the interests of both parties and the rest of the world.

Our views on the framework for this work were sent to the American party in writing, and they are still on the table. These proposals are based on the invitation to work together to find a new “security formula” which would take into account the entire range of strategic stability factors, including the evolution of weapons and military technology. We believe that attention should be focused on all types of offensive and defensive, nuclear and non-nuclear weapons capable of attaining strategic objectives, but primarily on the systems that can be used in the first counterforce strike against targets in the parties’ national territory. It is also important to hold a meaningful discussion on ensuring the safety of outer space activities and preventing an arms race in outer space.

It is obvious that the practical implementation of these ideas entails complex and largely innovative efforts. We believe that the extension of New START for five years would create conditions for success in this sphere.

We hope that the new US administration will take a more constructive stand in its dialogue with Russia and that it will take into account all of the above-mentioned factors. For our part, we are ready for such work on the basis of equality and respect for each other’s interests.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4529343






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with a joint delegation of representatives of the Syrian opposition, Moscow, January 21, 2021



21 January 2021 - 16:01







We appreciate our relations and regular contacts. This is a good moment to see how we can facilitate the Syrian peace settlement and help ensure the all-inclusive nature of the political process within the framework of the Constitutional Committee and the entire international community’s efforts to help the Syrians reach agreements on the future of their country.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4529669






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla



21 January 2021 - 18:01







On January 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke by telephone with his Cuban counterpart Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla.

The two foreign ministers reviewed current aspects of the development of the bilateral strategic partnership, including trade and economic cooperation. They pledged their countries’ commitment to expand cooperation in priority areas.

Foreign Minister Lavrov noted the similarity in the two countries’ approaches to supporting the fundamental goals and principles in the UN Charter and the principled disapproval of the use of unilateral sanctions, a practice that flies in the face of international law. They reaffirmed their common position on the need for the trade, economic and financial sanctions on Cuba to be lifted by the United States as soon as possible. Sergey Lavrov unequivocally condemned Washington’s decision to include Cuba on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4529842
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 22nd, 2021 #244
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, January 21, 2021



21 January 2021 - 19:18






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with a united delegation of Syrian opposition representatives

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will receive a delegation of prominent Syrian opposition representatives today, part of the Moscow and Cairo platforms: Qadri Jamil, Khaled al-Mahamid, Jamal Suleiman and Muhammed Dlikan.

Mr Lavrov’s meeting with a joint delegation of the patriotic opposition is aimed at encouraging constructive inter-Syrian dialogue with a view to promoting political settlement in Syria in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and facilitating the involvement of all Syrian public and political forces in the concerted efforts on a post-conflict national recovery.

In addition, the Foreign Ministry has also scheduled consultations between the Syrian delegates and supervising Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov.

***

I would also like to remind you of events we announced previously. On January 22, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Peter Szijjarto.

***

On January 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Acting Foreign Minister of the Republic of South Ossetia Dmitry Medoyev

On January 25, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is expected to meet with Acting Foreign Minister of the Republic of South Ossetia Dmitry Medoyev. The officials are to exchange views on key bilateral issues and foreign policy coordination in the international arena.

Russia and South Ossetia maintain friendly relations based on alliance and integration. They rely on a firm contractual foundation and are immune to opportunistic considerations. In accordance with the policy approved by the President of the Russian Federation, Russia is actively helping South Ossetia develop a modern democratic state, enhance its international status, and ensure reliable security and socio-economic recovery in the country. The republic is given comprehensive aid in countering the new coronavirus infection and resolving other urgent tasks in different areas of cooperation.

The two countries maintain an intensive top-level dialogue. In 2020, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of South Ossetia Anatoly Bibilov met in Moscow on two occasions – March 13 and June 24 on the sidelines of the ceremonies devoted to the 75th anniversary of the Great Victory.

They have developed vigorous cooperation in the Russia - South Ossetia Intergovernmental Commission on Socioeconomic Cooperation. The Investment Programme for Promoting South Ossetian Socioeconomic Development in 2020-2022 is being carried out. Russia and South Ossetia maintain regular contact between their foreign ministries and other relevant ministries and departments.



Foreign Minister of Sweden Ann Linde’s visit to Russia

On February 2, Moscow will host talks between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Foreign Minister of Sweden Ann Linde who will be in Russia on a visit as OSCE Chairperson-in-Office.

The ministers of Russia and Sweden will discuss a wide range of issues related to the OSCE’s activities as well as developments in security in the Baltic Sea area and Northern Europe, cooperation in the Arctic, and current topics related to bilateral relations.



Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of Jordan Ayman Safadi’s visit to Russia

On February 2-3, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ayman Safadi of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan will be in Moscow on a working visit. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with him on February 3.

The ministers will have an in-depth discussion on topical aspects of the international and regional agenda with an emphasis on the development trends in and around Syria. They are also expected to have a detailed discussion on the promotion of the Middle East settlement process as well as developments in Iran. Of course, they will also talk about further strengthening bilateral cooperation in various spheres.

We note that Russian-Jordanian political dialogue is carried out on a regular basis and is characterised by a high degree of trust with Moscow and Amman having close or similar approaches to many key problems today.



Entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) will enter into force on January 22. The Russian approach to this treaty has been expressed repeatedly at the relevant multilateral venues and is well known. It will remain the same after the treaty becomes valid.

Let me emphasise once again that we respect the views of those who want to renounce nuclear weapons as soon as possible. However, we do not share these positions on reaching this goal, which envision an artificial acceleration of nuclear disarmament. This is why we consider the TPNW a mistake. This treaty is unable to contribute to the limitation and reduction of nuclear arms. It obviously provokes discord in the international community. The treaty was drafted without considering the fundamental principles underlying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or existing strategic realities. Nor does it consider in any way the key problems that must be resolved to achieve sustainable nuclear disarmament on a global scale.

The treaty will not be binding on Russia or on other countries that will not sign or ratify it. We do not think that it establishes universal standards or norms or facilitates the development of common international law.

We are firmly convinced that real progress in nuclear disarmament can only be ensured through consensus solutions. It must be accompanied by the consolidation of international security and stability and enhancing the security of all states without exception. The treaty clearly fails to meet these criteria.



Developments around the Open Skies Treaty

Following our statement on January 15, I would like to elaborate on our explanation of the Treaty on Open Skies.

The United States and its allies are fully responsible for abolishing the Open Skies Treaty. It is the US’s withdrawal from the treaty that has drastically changed its format and upset the balance of interests of its participants.

US participation was a major condition for ratifying the treaty by the Russian Parliament in 2001: in effect, Russia and the NATO countries agreed to monitor each other’s territories. Unfortunately, Washington and Brussels are very reticent about the fact that after November 22, 2020, the NATO countries maintained the opportunity to observe Russia’s entire territory whereas US territory was closed to monitoring by Russia.

However, even under these destructive conditions, we did all we could to save it. We offered the Western participants the chance to fulfil at least the minimal requirements: deny the US the information obtained during observation flights over Russian territory and let Russia monitor their entire territory, including US military facilities deployed there.

In effect, our proposals were dismissed. In doing this the Western countries scrapped forever the once vital measure of transparency and mutual trust in the Euro-Atlantic space from Vancouver to Vladivostok.

Considering its national security interests, Moscow has decided to start national procedures on a withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty. The depositories will be notified about them in accordance with the treaty provisions.



Appointment of Jan Kubis as Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General on Libya

As you know, Jan Kubis has been appointed as the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General on Libya. We congratulate Jan Kubis on his appointment as Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General on Libya. We are confident that his extensive diplomatic experience will make a significant contribution to advancing the Libyan settlement and establishing an inclusive and sustainable political process involving all influential forces in the country. The UN has a special role to play here as an honest and impartial mediator committed to Libya’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.

We look forward to working closely with Mr Kubis to facilitate the success of his challenging yet noble mission.



EU sanctions against Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Faisal Mekdad

I have to once again bring up the topic of the misguided Western practice of unilateral sanctions against countries regarded as objectionable. Unfortunately, this practice is being applied ever more widely and could erode international law and undermine the domain of the UN Security Council. This is probably the goal of those who are advocating a new “rules-based international order.”

The issue concerns Syria this time. The unilateral sanctions pressure stepped up by Washington and Brussels, including the notorious Caesar Act and many others, is having an extremely negative impact on the situation in that long-suffering country.

The UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen, who addressed the January 20 meeting of the UN Security Council, painted a grim picture of the current situation and the suffering of Syrian people. He addressed those whose activities and decisions are complicating the situation in Syria and making life worse for Syrian civilians.

Taking into account the factor of the coronavirus pandemic, such illegal unilateral Western sanctions seriously exacerbated the socioeconomic crisis in Syria last year.

Syrians are unable to deal with such challenges alone; they badly need the support of the international community. What should be done to help the Syrians? The first obvious step should be to stop making their lives even more difficult. Instead of this, we see mounting political pressure on Damascus and ongoing attempts to strangle the Syrian economy. The deliberate application of sanctions is hindering a political settlement, the economic revival and the return of refugees. It is primarily peaceful civilians who are suffering as a result of the sanctions. No earnest attempts have been made by the West to ease the sanctions pressure even amid the pandemic in Syria and despite the calls of the international community. The so-called humanitarian exemptions, which have been bombastically announced by the European Commission turned out to be ineffective and all but useless. Instead of encouraging EU operators to maintain business ties with representatives of the sanctioned states, primarily in the humanitarian and health spheres, they are aimed at discouraging cooperation through numerous bureaucratic obstacles and restrictions.

The recent decision to impose EU targeted restrictive measures on the new Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic, Faisal Mekdad, for participating or enabling “the Syrian regime’s violent repression” against the civilian population is a link in the chain of actions that are hindering normalisation in Syria and around it. In fact, it is a pointed refusal to hold talks with the Syrian Government. Can this be described as EU assistance to a Syrian settlement? The answer is obvious.

Faisal Mekdad is a career diplomat. This is known not only to us. He is also well known in the West because he has worked for years at the Permanent Mission of Syria to the UN in New York, including as permanent representative. He worked on a number of UN committees and represented his country at international conferences and forums. For a long time he held the post of first deputy foreign minister and was appointed minister after the death of his predecessor, Walid Muallem.

The accusations made against Faisal Mekdad sound strange indeed. In what repressions could he be involved? It is deeply regrettable that such EU actions are not helping overcome the consequences of a drawn-out and highly destructive crisis in Syria but are only aggravating it.

We urge the European Union to show common sense and return to the framework of international law. It is time to lift the illegal unilateral EU restrictions against Damascus, for the benefit of the Syrian people, whose well-being is allegedly a major concern for the Western community, and will help promote regional stability and security.



New US sanctions

The outgoing US Administration has imposed new sanctions against Russia. On January 19, the Fortuna pipe-laying barge and its owner involved in laying the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline were added to the sanctions list.

The US authorities’ stubborn desire to do their utmost to hinder the completion of the pipeline project is astonishing. The threat of the use of discriminatory initiatives has stirred the resentment not only in Russia but also among the official, business and public circles in the majority of European countries. Berlin, Paris, Vienna and other capitals have wondered and continue to wonder whether Washington should aspire to regulate Europe’s energy policy and implement it via US ambassadors to European countries. How can Europe’s increased spending on imported gas help strengthen its competitiveness or “develop democratic institutions”?

Russia, for its part, has pointed out on numerous occasions that Nord Stream 2 is a commercial project designed to strengthen Europe’s energy security and promote transition to a low-emission energy system. Doesn’t this meet the interests of Europe?

The hostile actions taken against the companies engaged in Nord Stream 2 construction show that the United States is pursuing its own energy interests and is using every trick in the book to become the main “legitimate” energy supplier in Europe. Washington is not embarrassed that its actions are nothing other than open disregard for the norms of fair competition and free trade, which it has always advocated.

We would like to point out once again that such illegal restrictions have not influenced and will not influence Russia’s principled stance on the international stage. The US unilateral sanctions are not in the interests of our nations but are only further aggravating our far from easy bilateral relations.



Communications problems at the Russian Consulate General in New York

Over the past few days, since January 18, 2021, the Russian Consulate General in New York has been unable to access local telephone lines, which has had a huge impact on the work of the diplomatic mission. In effect, the mission has been deprived of an opportunity to duly provide consular services to Russian and American citizens, and those of other countries.

We would like to specially note that in the current situation, the US Department of State, which was officially notified about the technical problems, has done nothing to rectify the situation. This position of the US authorities once again confirms the groundless nature of accusations by the US Embassy in Moscow, which claims that, unlike Russian diplomats in the United States, US diplomats in Russia have to fulfil their duties in the most constrained conditions and circumstances.

We demand that Washington take all necessary measures to restore normal communications for Russian diplomats in New York as soon as possible. I would like to note once again that many people contacting the Consulate General are American citizens. So, don’t make things more difficult for them and others.

We hope that this incident is not an invitation from the United States to take reciprocal actions. I am confident that there are more interesting spheres for displaying such reciprocity.



Report by the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence

We have read a report by the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence published on January 12. The document is called Cyber Threats and NATO 2030: Horizon Scanning and Analysis, and a substantial section in the report deals with Russia and efforts to counter an “asymmetrical” Russian threat.

The report’s introductory note states that the publication contains the opinions of its authors only and do not necessarily reflect the policy or the opinion of NATO. However, we have no doubt that NATO will use the document for further elaborating its cyberspace strategy. Frankly, this is what the report’s authors advise the bloc to do because such adversaries as Russia and China would otherwise obtain an advantage over the Alliance.

Acting in line with the standard Western practice, the report’s authors groundlessly accuse Russia of creating malware for espionage purposes, disrupting vitally important infrastructure and meddling in the domestic affairs of other states. There is no limit to their imagination. This is presented as commonly known information that does not have to be verified. Indeed, it is true that this information is widely known and does not require verification because it is not the M.O. of our Western partners, especially NATO, to check information before disseminating it in the media. Much of it amounts to conjectures that cannot be verified. This can become the Alliance’s slogan: this commonly known information that does not have to be verified, but they should add “because we made it up ourselves.” So far, they have failed to provide us with any evidence of Russia’s involvement in cyber-incidents.

NATO proclaimed cyberspace as yet another sphere of its activity at the Warsaw summit in 2016. By all indications, the agenda of the next NATO summit, scheduled for 2021, will also include the subject of cybersecurity and digital defence. Work is underway to expand the potential of the Cyber Operations Centre, established in 2018 as part of Allied Command Operations (ACO) at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). Notably, the Centre is called on to conduct offensive operations in cyberspace.

In this connection, we would like to recall numerous Russian initiatives and proposals aimed at using information and communication technologies solely for peaceful purposes. They include a statement by President Vladimir Putin of September 25, 2020, on a comprehensive system of measures to restore Russian-US cooperation in international information security. The statement urges all countries to conclude a global agreement on not being the first to deal a strike involving information and communication technologies.



Presentation of prize for democratic values to Norwegian organisations engaged in cybersecurity

We have noted the presentation of the Gunnar Sonsteby Prize (WWII Norwegian Resistance hero) for the defence of fundamental democratic values to some Norwegian state agencies and organisations, including the Police Security Service, the Intelligence Service and the National Security Authority for the so called “counteraction to cyberattacks.”

Given the context of this event, the developments in the West in the field of digital technology and the statement made on this occasion by the Russian Embassy in Norway, we would like to say the following.

For past several months now, the Norwegian media have been repeating numerous accusations against Russia, saying that it hacked the electronic systems of the Norwegian Parliament in August 2020. Cabinet members also spoke about this. Despite the stir caused by this subject, an investigation held by the Norwegian party did not provide any proof that Russia had played a part in the cyberattack.

It is an interesting idea to award prizes for the fight against those who never attacked. We also congratulate everyone who received the award for this fake activity. They have been provided financing for years to come to boost their offensive cyber potential.

This event reflects the common destructive approach of Western countries to building relations with Russia. This trend is obsolete now and does not meet the current demands of mankind. There are real challenges and threats, like the pandemic and its consequences. We need to unite our efforts and act together, and only then award each other prizes.



Alleged cyberattack of “Russian hackers” on state agencies and private companies in Denmark

We took note that the Danish media have developed anti-Russian sentiments regarding the alleged involvement of the Russian authorities to organising a large-scale hacker attack on state agencies and private companies of Denmark in December 2020. The media point to some “experts” and the data provided by the US authorities, but no facts have been given.

It is a plan consisting of many parts and a high-quality job carried out by institutes working under the auspices of Brussels and developing information attacks and campaigns against our country in order to disseminate news about allegedly offensive, unconstructive, illegal actions of Russia in the cyber space. We have just looked at several puzzles of this overall picture.



Ukraine toughens discrimination against Russian and other languages

Article 30 of the Law on the Functioning of Ukrainian as the Official Language, adopted in April 2019, entered into force on January 16, 2021. Under this article, the entire services sector must use the Ukrainian language. Employees at organisations and companies providing trade, social, educational, medical and other services will have to talk to their customers in the Ukrainian language alone. They are allowed to use other languages only at the request of their customers.

The office of the commissioner for the protection of the national language, a repressive body, will monitor compliance with the new law. It will not only issue warnings on the use of Russian in the services sector but also impose fines on violators. This is a truly repressive body; we wonder if its agents will be present at every catering facility or conduct raids at random. The commissioner himself, Taras Kremen, has urged “conscientious citizens” to complain (if a waiter in a restaurant suddenly gets confused and addresses his foreign guests with a “hello” or “good afternoon” in Russian). In other words, these citizens are encouraged to report on their Russian-speaking compatriots.

The atmosphere of resentment and fear, which is being imposed in Ukraine, is obviously part of Kiev’s official policy that is aimed at destroying multilingualism and the unique multicultural space that was created in Ukraine for centuries. Contrary to its own Constitution, the conclusions of international agencies and the realities in which Ukrainian citizens live, Kiev continues violating the rights of Russians and dozens of other ethnic groups that have historically lived in Ukraine. Often, the struggle of the Ukrainian authorities against representatives of other ethnic groups and people who do not share official views, is acquiring odious forms. For all their comic nature, these forms are not very funny because they bring us back to times we would rather forget but must remember because they are lessons of history for which humanity paid a very dear price.

Just look at the decision of the National Union of the Writers of Ukraine to impose a ban on publishing the writings of authors from countries that do not support Ukraine’s views during the vote in the UN. The black list includes 17 countries. This decision is ignorant and ridiculous and contradicts Ukraine’s own commitments. It is also paradoxical. The Ukrainian authorities are conducting what they call de-communisation. In other words, they are destroying everything that is linked with the Soviet past in Ukraine, as they present it. This was not the case in the Soviet Union. If it happened in the Soviet Union, the Soviet citizens would never know who Jack London or Mark Twain are. Just imagine what would have happened if the Soviet people read only books written by the authors from the countries that vote properly on UN resolutions? This is what is happening in Ukraine now. Linking voting on UN resolutions e with the publication of books by authors from these countries is a “great” decision. Previously, Kiev merely imposed restrictions on books and other publications from Russia but now these phobias are multiplying. They have turned into an ideology that is hard to qualify. Some people call it an ideology of general “Ukrainian superiority.” I am not sure this description is correct but this is how it is labelled by some political scientists. To a large extent, this is an absolute misunderstanding of the realities and the mid- and especially long-term consequences of these activities and the reluctance to remember the afore-mentioned lessons of history. All this brings to mind the history of one Western European country in the 1930s and early1940s. It’s a pity that modern Ukraine finds this European experience most attractive but it’s a fact.

Ukrainian authorities are expanding their offensive on freedom of expression, toughening censorship, and intensifying its pressure on the media and literary circles. We are seeing that not all people in Ukraine are willing to reconcile with this suppression of their rights. We believe that the residents of multiethnic Ukraine, who respect themselves and their ancestors, will not allow the destruction of the rich culture of their country and will resist this obscurantism.

We would like to hope that our European partners will find the courage to properly assess the actions of Kiev unless they support Ukrainian leaders’ policy of promoting the supremacy of the Ukrainian nation.

I would like to quote a fantastically impressive saying by Vladimir Zelensky: “I would like to address the current authorities. I could say many unpleasant words but I am talking on a respectable channel, and I will respect you and ask you to respect the people. If people in the east or in Crimea want to speak Russian, leave them alone, back off. Let them speak Russian legally. A language will never divide our country. I have Jewish blood and I speak Russian, but I am a citizen of Ukraine. I love this country and don’t want to belong to another country.” This is what Vladimir Zelensky said. The only problem is that he said this not now but in March 2014. So, what has changed in the views of the esteemed Mr Zelensky now that these words are glaringly at variance with the policy carried out under his presidency in Ukraine?



A new edition of Hitler’s Mein Kampf to be released in Poland

We often talk about the falsification and the rewriting of history at our briefings. We provide examples, facts and material on this subject. We are often asked whether there is any general and comprehensive definition of history’s falsification, and how this can be determined not just by specific examples.

In brief, the war against Soviet-era memorials being waged by the central and local authorities in some countries is a graphic example of history’s falsification by erasing and distorting it. This phenomenon is manifested particularly vividly in Poland where the government disregards bilateral relations and agreements, signed with Russia regulating the matter of memorials. Each year, it destroys dozens of memorials and monuments proving that Soviet soldiers had saved the Polish nation.

The falsification of history in Poland is also manifested by the fact that, on the one hand, Poland’s de-communisation law artificially lists our historical memory landmarks, including common ones. On the other hand, the Polish authorities do not find any legal grounds for banning or at least coherently responding to the sale of Adolf Hitler’s book Mein Kampf in Poland. The media reported just the other day that Bellona Publishers are preparing to print additional copies of this book in Poland in late January. It was precisely this book which justified the need for eliminating the Polish nation together with other nations. This is what the falsification of history is all about.



The arrest of Russian bloggers in South Sudan

Over the past few days, the media and the blogosphere have closely been following the “adventures” of Russian bloggers in South Sudan. Perhaps someone found it interesting to keep an eye on this incident, but we were alarmed, rather than interested. The situation could have started developing into a dramatic scenario. I would like to use this example for making some generalisations and to try and attract attention to the fact that everyone wishing to conduct journalist activities in a country with a complicated political situation should draw the appropriate conclusions.

Blogger Ilya Varlamov and his fellow travelers were recently arrested in South Sudan. The Russian Embassy in the Republic of Uganda (also responsible for the Republic of South Sudan) insistently advised Russian citizens to put off their planned trips to Uganda because of the upcoming general election and current travel restrictions.

Unfortunately, they ignored these recommendations. Moreover, the people concerned did not state their intention to leave Uganda for South Sudan. As we know, they were detained in South Sudan. First, they were detained in Kapoeta in the country’s southeastern region and later in Juba, the national capital.

After learning about the arrest of the Russian citizens, the Russian diplomatic mission unhesitatingly acted to ensure their release. Following talks with representatives of South Sudan, it became possible to quickly secure the detained persons’ release and to eventually ensure their unimpeded exit from the country.

It appears that the incident with the arrest of Russian citizens that, fortunately, did not harm their health, once again reminds us of the need to display a responsible attitude towards trips to countries where there is a complicated domestic political situation and insufficient security levels for foreign citizens.

To avoid such incidents that can lead to their arrest in a foreign state and to their subsequent deportation, Russian citizens should unfailingly comply with the goal of their trip, as stated by them while applying for visas. We insistently urge them to remember the simple truth: It is impossible to use tourist trips and the relevant tourist visas for engaging in journalist activities. Some countries do not require any special documents for those engaged in journalist activities, but this concerns a small number of states. Most countries require people engaged in journalism to obtain special visas. Many countries also require them to obtain accreditation from the relevant agencies. Russia stipulates the very same procedure: journalist visas and the Foreign Ministry’s accreditation are required.

We advise those planning to visit such regions to follow the information posted on various updated Russian Foreign Ministry resources, including the sos.midhelp.ru website of the Crisis Management Centre, the @mid_travel special Twitter account and the Foreign Assistant mobile app, as well as some other information sources, including the website of the Consular Department (https://www.kdmid.ru/). The above-mentioned Foreign Assistant mobile app provides various useful options and allows Russian users to voluntarily register the routes of their foreign trips and to list minimal personal data for informing the Russian Foreign Ministry and ensuring feedback in case of an emergency. People traveling to countries with a complicated sociopolitical situation should better prepare well in advance, all the more so as there are all the opportunities for doing this.

The Foreign Assistant app facilitates the Foreign Ministry’s comprehensive cooperation with Russian citizens temporarily staying abroad. It also notifies them about hypothetical or current emergencies and crisis situations in the receiving country. Those using the mobile app can register their temporary stay abroad in advance and promptly maintain interactive contact with on-duty operators of the Crisis Management Centre.

A hyperlink for downloading the Foreign Assistant app is posted on the main page of the Crisis Management Centre’s Safe Stay Abroad information/consultative website sos.midhelp.ru and also in Google and Apple app stores.

We are always open and ready to provide consultative services, on the part of our Ministry, to all Russian journalists planning their foreign visits for the purpose of conducting journalist activities. To do this, they should inform the concerned Russian Embassy in the country where the journalists are headed. The Information and Press Department is always ready to promptly cooperate.



International cooperation on combatting coronavirus

On January 18, 2021 the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and the Gamaleya National Centre of Epidemiology and Microbiology announced the creation of an international scientific advisory board on the Sputnik V vaccine. The board comprises leading experts in virology, microbiology, genetics and biotechnology from nine countries: Argentina, Croatia, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Russia, Sweden and the United States. On the base of this international platform, the developers of the vaccine will be able to exchange information, opinions and expertise with their leading colleagues from other countries in order to unite the global research potential and develop international partnership, including on the coronavirus vaccine.

The RDIF is in a dialogue with the European Medicines Agency (EMA). This week, a meeting brought together over 20 international experts and scientists for a research consultation. The recommendations developed at the meeting will be submitted to the developers of Sputnik V. The process of gradual evaluation will begin in February.

The number of countries that have approved the use of Sputnik V is growing. At the moment, the Russian vaccine has been registered in Russia, Belarus, Serbia, Argentina, Bolivia, Algeria, Palestine, Venezuela, Paraguay and Turkmenistan. Several other countries will join this list within the next several days.

On January 22, the World Health Organisation (WHO) will begin the preliminary procedure for the submission of the Sputnik V registration application.

We will keep you informed on this issue.



Russian Ambassador to Zambia Alexander Boldyrev passed away

On January 20, 2021 Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to the Republic of Zambia Alexander Boldyrev died suddenly. Mr Boldyrev had worked as Deputy Director of the Foreign Ministry Information and Press Department for several years (2010-2012) and many journalists knew him well. We are receiving condolences from many media representatives who knew him as a professional and a kind-hearted and caring man.

We mourn his death together with his family and friends.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

Could you explain the logic of the authorities’ actions against Alexey Navalny in the Yves Rocher case? He has been arrested because the Federal Penitentiary Service has asked to replace Navalny’s suspended sentence in this case with a real prison term. Back in 2018, Russia paid compensation to Navalny for his criminal persecution, which the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared to be “arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable.” Why has the Federal Penitentiary Service asked to replace Navalny’s suspended sentence now if Russia had accepted the ECHR ruling and paid compensation? If the ruling was not recognised, why was Navalny paid compensation?



Maria Zakharova:

You should really direct your question to the law enforcement authorities. I believe that lawyers specialising in this sphere will be able to give you a better answer. However, I do not see any contradiction here. The issue concerns compliance with Russian laws.



Question:

Sorry, I missed the point. The Justice Ministry has paid compensation to Navalny, thereby accepting the ECHR verdict that the court decisions against him were “arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable.” And now they demand that his suspended sentence be replaced with a real prison term?



Maria Zakharova:

I suggest once again that you ask the lawyers specialising in such cases about this. This matter is not within the competence of the Foreign Ministry. If you are unable to contact colleagues at the law enforcement agencies for some reason, I will be glad to help you. I can transfer your question to them. I am willing to act as an intermediary in this matter. But I believe the answer is obvious and has to do with compliance with Russian laws.



Question:

In what part?



Maria Zakharova:

You have misdirected your question. All matters related to criminal persecution and detainment on Russian territory are commented on by the Russian law enforcement agencies, and not by the Foreign Ministry.



Question:

Could you comment, please, on an article by President of the Russian International Affairs Council and former Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, “The 46th, do you copy?”, recently published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta? He believes that Russia and the United States should take a number of proactive steps that would enable them to come to agreement in several spheres, including on New START, regional conflicts, Iran, North Korea, the Arctic and climate change. What is the Foreign Ministry’s position on this?



Maria Zakharova:

Russia has made every proposal to its American partners and advanced every imaginable initiative to stimulate interaction and contacts in various spheres. We would like our American colleagues to at least provide answers to the proposals which Moscow has already made and which are on the negotiating table.

We really do hope that the new US Administration will display a desire to respond to the numerous proposals we made a long time ago, which have not been removed from the agenda. We have not received any constructive reaction or even feedback on many of our initiatives. The ball is in Washington’s court. I can provide factual examples.

During the Russia-US summit in Helsinki on July 16, 2018, an agreement was reached to establish a business advisory and an expert council. However, this initiative has not been implemented because of the American side’s unconstructive stand.

On October 22, 2018, we forwarded to National Security Adviser John Bolton a draft joint statement on the inadmissibility of a nuclear war and on strengthening strategic stability. We have not received any response.

Attempting to overcome mutual mistrust, which had increased following unsubstantiated accusations against Russia of interfering in the 2016 US elections, we proposed exchanging letters on the mutual commitment not to interfere in each other’s internal affairs, similar to the private letters on the re-establishment of diplomatic relations President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov exchanged at Washington’s request in 1933. Moscow decided to repeat that positive experience. We have not received any response to that initiative.

During Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Washington on December 10, 2019, we proposed launching bilateral expert negotiations on the entire range of issues related to the Libyan crisis. Instead of the response we expected, we received a package of aggressive accusations of Russian military presence in the region.

We have called on our American partners on numerous occasions to join in the collective efforts for a Middle East settlement. For example, we proposed convening the Madrid Quartet at the ministerial level on the sidelines of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly in order to outline potential joint actions. The Americans disregarded that proposal without any explanation.

These are only few examples from the long list of initiatives we have advanced over many years, inviting our partners to cooperation and reminding them about the importance of our collaboration for settling numerous international and regional problems, as well as improving the bilateral agenda.

We do hope that the new team in the White House will pursue a more balanced policy without further aggravating Russian-US relations, which are already excessively confrontational, not through our fault.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4531975
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 22nd, 2021 #245
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,173
Default

I will wait and see if Joe Bite-me employs an empty-headed US State Department spokeswoman like the Trump administration's Heather Nauert. I had fun with the 'Maria Zakharova vs. Heather Nauert' thread a while back where Maria said intelligent things and Heather exuded idiocy.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old January 22nd, 2021 #246
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Allan View Post
I will wait and see if Joe Bite-me employs an empty-headed US State Department spokeswoman like the Trump administration's Heather Nauert. I had fun with the 'Maria Zakharova vs. Heather Nauert' thread a while back where Maria said intelligent things and Heather exuded idiocy.
What does a great American thinker Jen Psaki not suit you, Ray?
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; January 22nd, 2021 at 08:57 PM.
 
Old January 23rd, 2021 #247
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Him View Post
What does a great American thinker Jen Psaki not suit you, Ray?
Oh yes, Jen Psaki was Obama's State Dept. mouthpiece. Deja vu time here. Pedo Joe is recreating the cabinet he was part of as Vice-President.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old January 27th, 2021 #248
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,173
Default

Jen Psaki is now Biden's White House press secretary, so it would have to be the 'Dmitry Peskov vs. Jen Psaki' thread.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old January 28th, 2021 #249
Dawn Cannon
Senior Member
 
Dawn Cannon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The Vampire Ball
Posts: 6,411
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Anthony View Post
Alex, if war broke out between Russia and the West (and I hope it does not), how much danger would the city of Burgas BG, be since it is a port city and a major transport zone?

I am asking you because I would like to hear the Russian perspective. Thank you.
Here, Paul. This should help.

https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1411469&postcount=7
 
Old January 28th, 2021 #250
Paul Anthony
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Austria
Posts: 2,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn Cannon View Post
Thank You Dawn! That was nice of you!
 
Old January 28th, 2021 #251
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Allan View Post
Oh yes, Jen Psaki was Obama's State Dept. mouthpiece. Deja vu time here. Pedo Joe is recreating the cabinet he was part of as Vice-President.
I don't blame Biden for that.

It's natural to prefer to work with someone you know well (especially for an old person).



Quote:
Jen Psaki is now Biden's White House press secretary, so it would have to be the 'Dmitry Peskov vs. Jen Psaki' thread.
I still don't know where I can find out what Peskov was talking about.

I only learn about this from the media.






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter Szijjarto, Moscow, January 22, 2021



22 January 2021 - 15:41






Mr Minister, my dear Peter, colleagues, friends,

Welcome to Moscow. You have a very busy programme, which is indicative of our countries’ commitment to full implementation of the agreements reached at the highest level, including during President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Budapest in October 2019.

We are mutually committed to energetically promote the entire range of trade and economic relations, including energy in its various dimensions. You have discussed these issues in detail with Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak.

Fighting the coronavirus pandemic is a new area of ​​our cooperation. Today, you had a productive meeting with Minister of Healthcare Mikhail Murashko and CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund Kirill Dmitriev, following which important documents were signed.





A test batch of our Sputnik V vaccine was a success in Hungary. We are in favour of continuing cooperation in this area.

Cultural, educational, and research exchanges play a significant role in bilateral relations. We are interested in responding to our citizens’ request to expand people-to-people contacts.

We hope that, during the meeting, we will focus on international issues, the state of affairs in Europe, transatlantic relations, and the conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East and Nagorno-Karabakh. We will also be willing to exchange opinions on a difficult dossier such as relations with the EU and NATO.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4534708






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during a meeting with Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Ossetia Dmitry Medoyev, Moscow, January 25, 2021



25 January 2021 - 14:38






Mr Medoyev,

Friends,

We are delighted to again welcome the head of the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of South Ossetia to Moscow. It is a good opportunity to continue discussing both bilateral relations and the international agenda. A plan for inter-ministerial consultations for 2021-2022 will also be signed, aimed at the further strengthening of joint coordination.

Our peoples are linked by centuries-old brotherly ties. Today, Russia and South Ossetia are building their interstate relations on the basis of alliance and integration. An intensive political dialogue is also underway. Last year, the presidents of our countries met twice – they had talks on March 13 and met during the celebrations marking the anniversary of the Great Victory on June 24.

We have close and rich contacts between our foreign ministries and other agencies. The legal framework regulating relations is being strengthened and already includes more than 100 documents that help to build systematic work based on specific plans and deadlines.





Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, we have been cooperating in this area as well. Russia provides South Ossetia with the necessary assistance including consultation, practical action and material supply. A military mobile detachment from Russia played an important role in stabilising the sanitary and epidemiological situation in South Ossetia by deploying a multidisciplinary hospital and dispatching radiation, chemical and biological defence personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and civilian specialists from our country.

Our bilateral trade is growing even despite the pandemic. According to statistics from the Federal Customs Service of Russia, in the first three quarters of 2020, it grew by almost 20 percent compared to the same period in 2019.

Bilateral cultural and humanitarian ties are also expanding. I am confident that today's meeting will contribute to the advancement of relations in all the areas that are of interest to the citizens of Russia and South Ossetia. People-to-people contacts are a very important component of our work.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4542140






Statement by the Head of Delegation of the Russian Federation to the Vienna Negotiations on Military Security and Arms Control K.Gavrilov at the meeting of the 84th session of the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC), Vienna, 25 January 2021



26 January 2021 - 12:49







Distinguished Mrs. Chairman,

Distinguished Colleagues,

In May last year, the Treaty on Open Skies was for the first time in its 30-year history faced with an unprecedented situation when one of its States Parties – the United States of America – announced the intention to leave its legal framework.

Let me remind you that Washington’s participation in the Open Skies Treaty (OST) and the possibility to observe the U.S. territory was one of the main conditions for its entry into force. It was with consideration of this factor that our parliament ratified the Treaty in 2001 having agreed to accept observation flights over the entire territory of Russia. I should stress that the decision to open our territory for observation from the air was not an easy one and it took almost a decade to negotiate it. By ratifying the Treaty, the Russian Federation reaffirmed the fundamental importance that we attribute to building cooperative security, and the enhancement of politico-military predictability in Europe.

Right from the outset did we warn of destructive consequences of the U.S. decision both for the Open Skies Treaty and the pan-European security in general. Washington’s withdrawal from the Treaty on 22 November 2020 fundamentally changed the configuration established when the OST was conceived and destroyed the balance of interests of the States Parties. This dealt a serious blow to one of the pillars of confidence building in military field. Inevitably, the Treaty on Open Skies started losing its viability.

The U.S. announcement of its withdrawal from the Open Skies regime was accompanied by artificial accusations against the Russian Federation of allegedly “violating” the Treaty and “distorting” its essence. The Russian side repeatedly explained both at the OSCC and in bilateral contacts with our partners that such claims were unfounded and provided facts to substantiate its arguments.

For some reason it escaped the attention of the U.S. and other States Parties that Washington for years ignored the questions addressed to it as a result of really serious facts of incompliance with the Treaty. In violation of the OST, the U.S. side established maximum flight distance over the Hawaii islands from the Hickam refueling airfield. It denied Russian crew members night rest stops at the Robins and Ellsworth refueling airfields. For years, it allowed shorter flight distance from the Elmendorf airfield than required by the Treaty. Without any documentary support, it introduced limitations of flight altitude of observation planes not provided for under the Treaty and contradicting ICAO recommendations.

Russia also has some other questions concerning compliance with the Treaty both by the U.S. and some other States Parties. Nevertheless, at all stages we continued to implement our obligations under the Treaty in full measure and demonstrated openness for meticulous work to settle mutual concerns.

In a situation when the U.S. decided to leave the Open Skies community Russia did it utmost to save the Treaty. We put forward specific proposals in line with fundamental Treaty provisions in order to maintain its effectiveness under the new circumstances. At the same time, we did warn that we would take decisive reciprocal steps in case the rights of Russia as a State Party are to be constrained.

The Open Skies Treaty is based on the principle of equal rights and obligations of the parties. But Washington’s withdrawal from the Treaty called it into question: whereas all members of the North-Atlantic Alliance continued to have a possibility to observe the territory of Russia, the territory of the main stakeholder in the NATO, the U.S., remained closed for Russian observation.

Besides we have clear evidence that the U.S. demands from its allies to sign documents under which they would transfer to the U.S. side the data obtained during observation flights over Russia and deny Russian Open Skies missions flights over U.S. military facilities in Europe. This would not only considerably shift the information balance within the Open Skies Treaty, and not to Russia’s benefit, but also be a grave violation of the Treaty. From the point of view of our national security, such situation would be absolutely unacceptable for our country.

In order to resolve the problem of data protection within the Open Skies Treaty, last year the Russian delegation put forward at the OSCC a draft updated Decision No. 9/02 “Protection of data collected during observation flights and transfer of recording media containing this data” with an explicit ban on transferring such data to third parties.

Naturally, the guarantees of data protection should be ensured not only through blocking standard access thereto provided under the Treaty (i.e. by means of submitting official requests through the OSCE Communication Network in the respective format “Request for data collected during an observation flight”), but also non-transfer of such data by any other means. It is not a secret that the U.S. does have backchannels for receiving data obtained during observation flights. NATO has the Joint Intelligence and Security Division at its headquarters in Brussels with a special analytic group lead by a U.S. senior officer.

The second requirement that would cost minimum effort to the remaining States Parties but be of principled importance for our country was a confirmation of their readiness to allow observation over their entire territory, including U.S. military facilities in Europe.

In late December, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent the States Parties a Note Verbale calling them to reaffirm in a legally binding form their obligation not to share data obtained during observation flights with non-States Parties and not to create obstacles for Open Skies missions over U.S. military infrastructure in OST States Parties.

Regretfully, it followed from the answers that we received that our partners were not ready to take responsibility for the future of the Treaty and make swift steps to keep it alive.

Since May 2020, the Russian Federation carefully followed and analyzed statements and actions of the States Parties and warned them on many occasions that our future steps depended on them. The situation we were facing in the past weeks showed that our partners chose to artificially delay and put on a shelf the resolution of issues immediately affecting our national security. The reasons behind such policy are rather clear: obligations of most remaining States Parties came into contradiction with their obligations to the U.S. within the NATO.

Since our proposals for ensuring the viability of the Treaty were ignored and given the remaining threats for the Russian Federation in this respect, the leadership of our country took the decision to initiate domestic procedures for the withdrawal from the Treaty. Upon their completion, respective notification will be sent to the Depositaries of the Treaty.

We regret that the lack of political realism and constructive approach on the part of the States Parties led to this situation. If our Western partners wish to make reproaches, they should only address them to themselves.

I thank you, Mrs. Chairman, and ask that this statement be attached to the Journal of the day.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4542593






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, Moscow, January 26, 2021



26 January 2021 - 14:19






Mr Minister,

Dear Javad,

Colleagues, friends,

I am delighted to welcome you to Moscow once again. We highly value the constructive and permanent nature of our dialogue, which helps us discuss any matters of bilateral relations and the international agenda in an effective trust-based manner.

The presidents of Russia and Iran communicate regularly. Today, we have a good opportunity to assess the fulfilment of agreements that were reached at the highest level, primarily in the context of bilateral relations.

We have a packed regional and international agenda. The task of saving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) ranks among the most topical subjects. Russia and Iran are sincerely interested in seeing all JCPOA signatories resume the fulfilment of their obligations.





Considering the regional role of our countries, we are interested in deepening dialogue on such matters as security in the Persian Gulf and the Afghan peace settlement. We will discuss the situation in Nagorno Karabakh following the agreements reached by the presidents of Russia and Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia on November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021.

The continued exchange of opinions with our Iranian friends as regards the Syrian peace settlement, Yemen and other conflicts in the Middle East is of great interest in the context of keeping alive the decision on the Palestinian peace settlement.

The task of fighting terrorism, drug trafficking and other forms of organised crime is a traditionally important aspect of our bilateral dialogue, as well as in the context of cooperation at international organisations. The agenda is quite packed. I am convinced that today’s talks will prove useful and result-oriented.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4542663






Foreign Ministry Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and replies to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, Moscow, January 26, 2021



26 January 2021 - 19:40






Ladies and gentlemen,

The talks with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif were fact-based and trustful. We have worked with each other for quite some time. This helps in resolving many issues that must be reviewed and implemented under the agreements between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Iran Hassan Rouhani. They regularly communicate and discuss the entire range of bilateral relations, as well as current regional and international issues. Today, these issues were reviewed in detail, including our cooperation in trade, the economy, energy, agricultural, transport and industrial areas.

We spoke about cooperation in building new units at the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. We welcomed the efforts of our colleagues from the economic bloc of our governments to develop our comprehensive partnership.

We praised our humanitarian and interregional ties and noted our cooperation in countering the COVID-19 coronavirus. Our relevant agencies keep in contact. The Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) takes part in this cooperation on Russia’s behalf. Our Iranian friends reported that the fund’s partners in Tehran are ready to complete the consultations that will allow us to develop practical cooperation.

We signed the intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in ensuring information security. It opens opportunities for us to coordinate our actions related to the growing importance of problems in cyberspace and the increasing impact on international relations and the situation in individual countries.

We discussed in detail the situation around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme. Our positions are identical. We are interested in its complete preservation. We are convinced that the way to this goal lies exclusively through the consistent, all-round implementation of the provisions of this major document by all involved parties in strict compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 2231. We hope the current efforts will produce a result and lead to the preservation of the JCPOA and that the US will resume full implementation of the said resolution. In turn, this will create conditions for observing the requirements of the nuclear deal by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The joint ministerial statement on the JCPOA (adopted on December 21, 2020) by the countries that remain parties to the plan shows how to move towards this goal.

We paid special attention to the Nagorno-Karabakh situation with account for the Russian efforts that made it possible to achieve a complete ceasefire on November 9, 2020.

We also spoke about the agreements reached on January 11, 2021 at the meeting of the presidents of Russia and Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia. These agreements provide for cooperation in unblocking all economic, transport and other ties in the South Caucasus with the participation of the region’s countries, including Iran. We are convinced that these efforts will make it possible to finally settle the remaining political problems in the Nagorno-Karabakh situation in terms of justice and in the interests of the people of Azerbaijan and Armenia and all of their neighbours.

We coordinated our approaches to the Syrian settlement. The Astana format is working and confirming its relevance. We discussed the preparations for a regular meeting of the Astana format that is scheduled for Sochi next February. We spoke about the regular session of the Small Body of the Constitutional Committee, which started its work yesterday. Russia, Iran and our Turkish partners in the Astana format are following these talks. We want these talks in the Constitutional Committee to be held strictly in accordance with their negotiated agenda.

We also reviewed other global and regional issues, including the situation in the Persian Gulf area, Yemen and Afghanistan. We emphasised the need to prevent the Palestinian problem from being buried indefinitely. Russia and Iran intend to closely coordinate their positions on all of these issues, including in the UN.

I believe our talks were very useful. I would like to sincerely thank the Foreign Minister of Iran and his entire delegation for the practical cooperation.







Question (translated from Farsi):

What do you think about Russia-Iran relations in the context of the current world situation, in part, the change of the US administration?



Sergey Lavrov:

These are relations between friendly and close countries that are neighbours in the Caspian Sea area. We cooperate in numerous formats in addition to our bilateral agenda. We are developing our relations in the interests of the two states and our nations. In building our plans, we do not look back at any third party.

Naturally, the world situation is affecting our relations to the extent to which some of our Western colleagues are trying to limit our opportunities to develop mutually beneficial cooperation between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation. In our opinion, these are illegal attempts to abuse unilateral restrictions that are at variance with international law, and impart exterritorial character to their national laws. Under the circumstances, we have chosen forms of trade, economic and investment cooperation that will not depend on the whims of anyone who violates international law.

As for the current status in international life, including the change of the administration in Washington, we have heard many statements by the Joseph Biden team on foreign policy plans. One of them was the announcement of the new President’s intention to fully observe the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme.

If this takes place, we will only welcome it. The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation have emphasised more than once that all signatories to the JCPOA approved by the UN Security Council must resume the fulfilment of their commitments. If this happens (and we believe we will achieve this result), relations between our countries will only benefit because they will be spared the illegitimate and illegal unilateral sanctions of the US and many other countries.



Question (retranslated from Farsi):

Iran took five steps to reduce its obligations under the JCPOA and announced that it had begun to enrich uranium metal, which is seen by many experts as a step towards developing weapons-grade plutonium. Is Iran ready to return to compliance with the JCPOA if the United States and other European participants in the JCPOA act accordingly? How will the IAEA international experts be admitted then?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Mohammad Javad Zarif):

As we have said more than once (and reiterated during the talks today), we are concerned that Iran was forced not to comply with its voluntary obligations under the JCPOA. We are aware that systematic long-term non-compliance, even violation by the Trump administration, of its obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which approved the JCPOA, lies at the root of the problem. The current situation is based not only on the systematic violation of this resolution by the United States itself, but also on the fact that Washington told other countries not to comply with it in the part that ensured unhindered trade and economic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. We understand that this lies at the root of the problem. We have worked persistently and continue to work with the European participants in the JCPOA, who clearly were unwilling to “fall out” with the United States. Many in the United States and elsewhere wanted to tighten the noose of sanctions on Iran.

We have heard many times that former US President Donald Trump was the first among his numerous predecessors in office not to start a war. Many people in the Trump administration and abroad wanted to use the US withdrawal from the JCPOA to provoke Iran and start another war in response, and thereby prevent the Trump administration from becoming such an exception. Perhaps, there are still many people who are willing to do so now. We are doing our best to ensure that, based on the statements by President Biden and his staff about their willingness to return to the JCPOA, all of us, including Iran, the EU and the People's Republic of China, find concrete ways to have all JCPOA participants fulfill their obligations in full. By doing so, we would return this greatest achievement in nonproliferation to the “treasure trove” of international diplomacy and knock the trump cards out of the hands of those who wanted to push this situation to the limit and bring it to a “hot” stage. Russia will do whatever it takes to prevent such a scenario from materialising. I’m sure this meets the interests of Iran, all countries in the region and, ultimately, Europe and the entire West, including the United States.



Question (retranslated from Farsi):

You said that Russia wants to create balanced relations in the Gulf countries, and the United States is hampering the implementation of this idea. Does Russia have specific proposals in this regard?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have never said that the United States is getting in the way of Russia’s initiatives. We have been discussing them in detail for a long time now. Almost 20 years ago, we put forward proposals to develop the Security Concept in the Gulf. Since then, we have not only repeated this, but we have been following the developments in the region and the rest of the world and we are doing our best to update our approaches and make them relevant.

In 2019, an updated Gulf Security Concept was presented. A scientific conference was held with the participation of all countries which we believe must be involved in this process. In October 2020, when Russia chaired the UN Security Council, a special debate was held on this subject. Despite all the differences, it revealed an obvious interest not only in continuing this conversation, but in ensuring that it has a concrete result, primarily in the sphere of confidence-building and the establishment of neighbourly relations like they did in Europe in the 1980s.

We are open to discussing other states’ ideas. China has come up with similar initiatives. Iran put forward the Hormuz Peace Initiative, which implies holding meetings and a dialogue format between the Gulf countries. Qatar and Kuwait have come up with similar ideas over the years.

If we go back to Russia’s proposals aimed at ensuring Gulf security, in the autumn of 2020, President Putin proposed holding a summit in a videoconference format (due to coronavirus restrictions) between the leaders of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, Iran and Germany. This offer remains on the table. We are also willing to join any process that pursues the above goal: peace, security, stability and neighbourliness in the Gulf with the support of all neighbouring states.

Importantly, some countries are tempted to link progress in regional security with restoring the JCPOA. We are not. On the contrary, we are convinced that the JCPOA must be reinstated in full without any preliminary conditions.



Question:

The President of the Russian Federation called the Nagorno-Karabakh situation the main event of 2020. The Nagorno-Karabakh settlement has become part of Russia’s daily agenda. Does this mean that Nagorno-Karabakh will become one of the main strategic priorities in Russia’s foreign policy for this year and many years ahead? What has been done to unblock transport and economic connections? Do you think this was the best option for moving towards peace in Nagorno-Karabakh? To what extent are Iran and other countries in the region willing to engage in multilateral cooperation?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is too simplistic to say that Russia considered Nagorno-Karabakh a priority only in 2020. We have paid very close attention to a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement for many years, if not decades. An unbiased analysis shows that of the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group that includes Russia, France and the US, we have been the most consistent initiators of different ideas in the framework of the agreed-upon common principles, which would allow the sides to reach a settlement.

Several years ago, we had an opportunity to reach an agreement that could have helped save hundreds and even thousands of lives in Azerbaijan and Armenia. It was supposed to be based on the Russian proposals supported by the other co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. Unfortunately, this did not work at that time. Now we are facing a real situation on the ground that was achieved as a result of the mediation by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, his talks for many hours with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan. This agreement is embodied in the Statement of November 9, 2020. Apart from the complete cessation of all hostilities, it includes the solutions on the ground, most of which fit in into the principles that were formulated at one time by Russia and the other co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.

In many respects, the situation follows these principles, but this has taken place at the cost of an enormous human toll. This must be a lesson for the future for all participants in similar conflicts.

We are not going to ignore the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. This was confirmed by the trilateral summit that took place in Moscow on January 11 of this year with the participation of President of Russia Vladimir Putin, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan. At this summit, they decided to create a mechanism that would implement their agreement on unblocking the economic ties, transport communications, and the economic and humanitarian life in the region as a whole.

You asked me whether the three countries will face challenges on the road to peace. If you have in mind Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, they are not the only ones that are interested in a calm, peaceful life and prosperity in the region. Iran, Turkey and Georgia (I mention Georgia as well, as part of the South Caucasus) have the same interests. In general, initiatives are being made to motivate the three republics of the South Caucasus to build their relations with the participation of their neighbours – Russia, Iran and Turkey – in the context of the new reality where there is no war and all parties agree to lift the embargos and other restrictions on normal life in this important part of the world.

There is no doubt that the Islamic Republic of Iran is interested in joining all of these projects. Russia will also take a direct part in the efforts envisioned by the agreements on unblocking economic and transport connections. There are specific ideas in this context. There is a trilateral mechanism at the deputy prime minister level that plans to hold their first meeting very soon.

In addition to Russia, Iran and Turkey, many countries, including several European states, are willing to join the efforts to restore the economy in Nagorno-Karabakh and around it. I think this intention can only be welcomed. The bottom line is that all external participants must realise that now it is important to create, strengthen, and make reliable and durable the economic foundation of future life in the South Caucasus.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4543027
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 28th, 2021 #252
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks at the UN Security Council Open Debate on the Middle East settlement held in videoconference format, Moscow, January 26, 2021



26 January 2021 - 19:52






Mr Minister, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to our Tunisian friends for convening today's meeting in a timely fashion. Clearly, a candid exchange of views on the Middle East settlement (MES) in the Security Council is long overdue. It is necessary to review the previous stage, to identify the reasons for the continuing deadlock in the MES, and to outline the key areas of joint work for the future.

The goal of achieving a sustainable and comprehensive MES should remain in the international community’s focus. The Palestinian issue continues to have a major influence on the overall situation in the Middle East and North Africa. This region is experiencing the disastrous aftermath of the geopolitical experiments in the wake of the “rules-based order” concept promoted by our Western colleagues.

Clearly, the steps to dismantle the international legal framework for a Middle East settlement approved by the Security Council, and replacing collective diplomatic efforts with the “art of the deal” diplomacy cannot produce the desired outcome. On the contrary, such unilateral actions delay the prospects for a just settlement of existing problems. Importantly, the process of normalising Israel's relations with the Arab states which was launched in 2020 and which we welcome, should be aimed at stabilising the Middle East region rather than be used to put the Palestinian issue aside, as they say, until better times.

The first step towards resuming the peace process should include confirming UN Security Council resolutions and other fundamental documents, including the Madrid Principles. This concerns Israel’s illegal settlement activities, plans to annex occupied Palestinian territories, the status of Jerusalem, the refugee problem and the borders. All of that should be determined in the course of a direct political dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Israel's legitimate security concerns must be addressed. The two-state solution remains the basis for a sustainable settlement benefitting both sides.

We are convinced that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is the only organisation that provides effective assistance to millions of Palestinian refugees in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as in neighbouring Arab countries. International financial support for UNRWA activities must continue.

In conjunction with our Egyptian and other partners, we will continue to help the Palestinian political movements restore unity among their ranks based on the platform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Overcoming the inter-Palestinian split will create conditions for a serious dialogue with Israel, stabilise the situation in general, and improve the humanitarian situation in and around the Gaza Strip.

We consider it important to step up, as soon as possible, the international efforts supporting the restart of direct Palestinian-Israeli talks in order to resolve a number of fundamental issues concerning a final status. We are convinced that in order to ensure progress on this path, we need to use the mediating functions of the Quartet of international mediators which is the only legitimate mechanism approved by the UN Security Council resolutions. We are confident that the Quartet, in close cooperation with the parties to the conflict and the key Arab countries, can play an effective part in the settlement.

Russia was receptive to President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas’ initiative to convene an international conference on the MES. Our country has advocated holding such a forum from the beginning, a fact enshrined in UN Security Council Resolution 1850.

To support this initiative, we propose holding a ministerial meeting in the spring or summer of 2021 with Russia, the United States, the UN and the EU as members of the Quartet, four Arab countries: Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and of course, Israel and Palestine. It is important to invite Saudi Arabia as the drafter of the Arab Peace Initiative. Such a meeting could become a working platform for a comprehensive analysis of the situation and help the parties start a dialogue.

Taking this opportunity, I would like to note again Russia's willingness to host a Palestinian-Israeli summit in Moscow as the sides requested earlier.

We are open to discussing these and other proposals. We will appreciate any comments. We encourage our regional and international partners to accept our invitation to start a dialogue in order to find ways of collective action in the name of establishing peace and stability in the Middle East.

Thank you.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4543041






Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation



27 January 2021 - 16:50



We have taken note of the January 26 statement by the G7 foreign ministers and the High Representative of the European Union regarding some aspects of the sociopolitical situation in Russia, in which, without any grounds whatsoever, they accuse Moscow of violating its international legal obligations.

We regard the publication of that statement as a flagrant intervention in our internal affairs and an openly unfriendly move. On the other hand, there is nothing fundamentally new in the document: the assessments put forth in it do not differ from the previous statements made by Western officials.

The deterioration of a once respected organisation, whose decisions used to influence global economic and political discussions, evokes nothing but regret. The G7, which has irretrievably lost its former prestige in international affairs, has attempted to pose, without any grounds, as a judge of others’ compliance with democratic norms and human rights.

We urge the G7 countries and the European Union, which has aligned itself with them in this case, to strictly comply with the universally recognised principles and norms of international law, to stop distorting facts and refrain from using other information war techniques, and to pay more attention to the current problems of their own citizens.

We highly recommend that each G7 country and the EU as a whole carefully analyse all the possible consequences of their involvement in such anti-Russia manoeuvres for the future of bilateral relations with Russia.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4543620






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s message of greetings to organisers and participants in the event held at the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Centre on International Holocaust Remembrance Day Moscow, January 27, 2021



27 January 2021 - 19:35



I would like to extend my wholehearted greetings to the organisers and participants in the event held at the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Centre on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

World War II brought unspeakable suffering to hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. The Holocaust was one of its most tragic pages, which Jewish people and humankind as a whole will never forget.

We must preserve the sacred memory of those events. It is vitally important to continue to stand up against the unscrupulous efforts to rewrite history and deny the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes against humanity. We must cut short any attempts to revise our country’s contribution to the Great Victory and to besmirch the honour, dignity and reputation of the liberators.

Forgetting the lessons of history can result in a repetition of horrible tragedies. It is our shared responsibility to do everything in our power to prevent a repetition of crimes such as the Holocaust. Systematic work to combat neo-Nazism, nationalism, extremism and religious intolerance must remain a key priority on the international agenda. Russia will do its utmost towards this end. We are ready to build up interaction with Jewish communities and organisations in Russia and beyond.

I would like to wish you all the best and every success in your noble activities to protect historical truth.

Sergey Lavrov




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4543768






Statement by the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation on actions of American internet monopolies



27 January 2021 - 20:31


We support the Statement by the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation - http://council.gov.ru/media/files/5f...DLVScAaK3D.pdf - in connection with the violation of the principle of freedom of speech by global American Internet companies.

The restrictive actions taken by the administration of American social media giants with regard to the content posted on their platforms have delivered a blow to the democratic system of values and the international information architecture.

The permissibility of arbitrary, without a court decision, and non-transparent censorship of media content by digital platforms puts in question the role of the state as the guarantor of compliance with international obligations on the freedom of expression by subjects under its jurisdiction.

This is a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents, which the United States signed.

This precedent shows that American IT giants are free to formulate the image of the communication infrastructure in the interests of their corporations and their curators, in complete disregard of the fundamental democratic and ethical norms.

Therefore, the international community is facing the challenge of ungovernable information space and the exposure of personal data accumulated by social media.

We have taken note of a large number of fake news about Russia posted by American digital platforms that systemically produce provocational content, which is, in turn, coordinated by the US Embassy in Moscow. On January 27, a US Embassy official was summoned to the Foreign Ministry of Russia, where he was handed a note of protest containing a warning that Russia reserves the right to take reciprocal action.

Discussions on the risks posed by American IT media giants’ monopoly to the freedom of communication and human rights have been ongoing at relevant international platform for years. However, any attempts to reinforce the regulation of social media have been hindered by our Western colleagues who interpret such proposals as an infringement on the freedom of speech.

It is obvious that the media sphere must be regulated and codified. Constructive dialogue must be established with all the interested parties for stimulating efforts to work out explicit requirements for transparent standards of social media content moderation and to formalise them in international documents.

There is pressing need for launching joint substantive efforts towards this end at relevant international organisations, first of all the UN, the Council of Europe and the OSCE.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4543778






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s message of greetings to organisers, participants and guests of a memorial party held on International Holocaust Remembrance Day Moscow, January 27, 2021



28 January 2021 - 12:02



I would like to extend my heartfelt greetings to organisers, participants and guests of the memorial party held to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day and the 76th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau (Oswiecim) Nazi death camp by the Red Army.

In 2020, Russia and all forward looking people celebrated the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941 ̵ 1945. Our country and the nations of the former Soviet Union, fighting selflessly and investing all their efforts and available resources, made a decisive contribution to destroying the Nazi war machine and liberating the peoples of Europe and the rest of the world from the Nazi plague. However, attempts are being made now in some countries to rewrite history and to force the current generations to forget about the heroism of Soviet soldiers who liberated the world from Nazism. Their efforts to present traitors and occupiers’ accomplices as national heroes are often brought to the level of state ideology and policy.

We paid dearly for our Great Victory, and so we will not allow anyone to question it. Precluding this is our common responsibility. An invaluable contribution to these efforts is being made by the Russian Jewish Congress, with which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is collaborating constructively.

I would like to wish you all the best and every success in you noble endeavours.

Sergey Lavrov




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4544126






Press release on a visit by a Taliban delegation



28 January 2021 - 14:58



On January 28, Special Presidential Representative for Afghanistan and Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Second Asia Department Zamir Kabulov held consultations with a delegation of the Taliban Movement.

The Russian side spoke out in favour of launching substantive and constructive intra-Afghan talks as soon as possible so as to put an end to the bloody civil war and create an effective national government in Afghanistan.

The Taliban representatives expressed appreciation of Moscow’s active efforts towards national reconciliation and Russia’s role and potential in helping the Afghan people build a peaceful, independent and economically self-sufficient state.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4544382






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Algeria Sabri Boukadoum



28 January 2021 - 15:00







On January 28, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria Sabri Boukadoum.

The two diplomats discussed the most pressing issues of the development of multifaceted bilateral interaction with a focus on cooperation in combatting the spread of the coronavirus infection, including delivering the Russian Sputnik V vaccine to Algeria.

When exchanging opinions on the developments in Western Sahara, the officials confirmed their principled stance on the settlement of this long-term conflict using the internationally accepted legal base.

The two ministers spoke out in favour of the coordinated efforts of global community in the interests of facilitating the intra-Libyan dialogue with the participation of all influential political forces in the country in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2510.

The two diplomats also exchanged opinions on cooperation in the implementation of the decisions of the Russia-Africa Summit that took place in October 2019 in Sochi.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4544392
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 29th, 2021 #253
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, January 28, 2021



28 January 2021 - 19:50






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Ahmed Maiteeq, Deputy Prime Minister of the Libyan Government of National Accord

On January 29, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with Ahmed Maiteeq, Deputy Prime Minister of the Libyan Government of National Accord.

Mr Lavrov and Mr Maiteeq will discuss the prospects for Libyan settlement and the development of bilateral cooperation.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Foreign Minister of Sweden Ann Linde

On February 2, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks in Moscow with Foreign Minister of Sweden Ann Linde who will arrive in Russia as the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office.

They will discuss a broad range of issues pertaining to OSCE activities, security in the Baltic Sea and in the north of Europe, cooperation in the Arctic and key issues of bilateral relations.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ayman Safadi

On February 3, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Ayman Safadi.

The ministers will have an in-depth exchange of views on current issues on the international and regional agendas and will discuss further promotion of bilateral cooperation in various areas.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell

On February 5, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell. During the meeting, a range of issues and outlook on Russia-EU relations will be discussed.

An extensive exchange of views on important items on the international agenda, including the Western Balkans region, the Middle East and North Africa, and the CIS space will take place. Prospects for implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme, further stabilisation of the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, security issues in Europe and other matters of mutual interest will be discussed.



The UN assessment mission to Nagorno-Karabakh

With the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh becoming more stable, comprehensive humanitarian aid has become a priority.

In addition to the efforts undertaken by Baku and Yerevan and assistance coming from other countries, primarily Russia, we believe the involvement of specialised international agencies will be beneficial as well. Currently, the International Committee of the Red Cross is working in Nagorno-Karabakh and contiguous areas. With regard to specialised UN agencies, the UN senior officials remain in contact with Azerbaijan and Armenia and continue to discuss the modalities of sending an integrated assessment mission to Nagorno-Karabakh. We also took note of the efforts by the UN country teams undertaken directly in Azerbaijan and Armenia. We support UN cooperation with Baku and Yerevan on all aspects of humanitarian aid.

In turn, Russia is making a significant contribution to improving the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. With assistance from Russian specialists and peacekeepers, over 51,400 refugees have returned to their homes since November 14, 2020; Armenia and Azerbaijan have transferred 1,532 bodies to each other; about 750 hectares of terrain and more than 230 km of roads have been cleared of mines, almost 24,000 explosive hazards have been defused; the power supply system has been completely restored, and about 1,300 people have received medical help.



Statements by Western politicians on protests in Russia

We have noted the well-orchestrated, almost synchronous and very similar statements by Western politicians on the unlawful actions in this country and other domestic Russian issues.

Many politicians, primarily Western officials, practiced their beautiful literary writing skills, but their phrases were all very similar. Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde wrote: “A healthy and vibrant opposition should be welcomed.” It must have an opportunity to freely criticise the authorities, she added. Foreign Minister of New Zealand Nanaia Mahuta said: “Civil society and political opposition must be able to operate freely – these are essential elements of democratic societies.” Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis said that what happened merely confirms the feeling of the last few years that Russia is moving away from the community of democratic states. There were many others. I will repeat that all of this was well orchestrated. I didn’t even mention statements by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas who really outdid himself.

In a recent statement, the Group of Seven foreign ministers demanded that Russia free those who were detained for implementing their right to free assembly on January 23, 2021. We have already published our answer to this on the Foreign Ministry’s website.

It is strange to hear these statements from countries where the police do not hesitate to use riot control weapons (batons, teargas, water jets and rubber bullets) against civilians that turn out for democratic protests, whether a demonstration by the yellow vests or a storm on the Capitol, not to mention the numerous clashes where local task forces scatter representatives of civil society that protest against coronavirus restrictions in most of the Old World countries.

In their own countries our Western partners explain forced restrictions of civil rights and freedoms by the need to ensure “national security interests” whereas in Russia they call the same actions “suppression of peaceful protests.”

Based on various estimates, about 14,000 rubber bullets were fired at protesters and about 2,500 people were injured during the yellow vest actions in France in 2018-2019. Over 12,000 people were detained, the majority of which were put behind bars. And this was in France alone.

Berlin should be reminded of their sharp, almost aggressive reaction to protests in Germany, including the breach of police lines at the Bundestag building by coronavirus sceptics in Berlin in August 2020. These protest actions were unanimously and resolutely denounced by the German political establishment, including the top national leaders. President Frank-Walter Steinmeier called them “repulsive.” Spokesman for the German Government Steffen Seibert pointed to “an abuse of the right to demonstrate.” Many German politicians made statements like this.

German law enforcement bodies cracked down (as in subsequent similar cases) on demonstrators by using teargas and detaining about 300 people. All these videos are accessible and can be watched if you so wish.

Or take the Netherlands. They devote more attention to Russia than to any other county. Speaking about riots in the Netherlands on Sunday, Acting Prime Minister Mark Rutte said: “This has nothing to do with protest, this is criminal violence and we will treat it as such.” So, what happened? Thousands of people came out into the streets demanding that the government alleviate its tough measures on countering the COVID-19 pandemic (almost a total lockdown) and cancel the night curfew. What was the outcome? Robbed shops, burned cars and bike barricades. The police took tough riot control measures by resorting to batons, teargas and water jets to scatter the protesters. As a result, over 250 people were detained and a major investigation was launched to identify those involved in the protests.

Why don’t the Western bloc (NATO and the EU) countries condemn each other? Why hasn’t the Group of Seven issued a single statement in response to the events in the Netherlands, Germany and France? Have you heard anything? I haven’t. I haven’t heard or read anything. Why? Because there are no such statements. They never criticize each other, they never even comment. However, there are comments by the Dutch authorities. Thus, Minister of Justice and Security of the Netherlands Ferdinand Grapperhaus said: “Shocking images of riots, looting and arson are circulating. This has nothing to do with demonstrating against the coronavirus measures. This is simply criminal behaviour.” He was not alone in crudely denouncing the right of his compatriots to rallies and protests. Eindhoven was the hardest hit by the riots. “My city is crying, and so am I,” Eindhoven Mayor John Jorritsma told reporters on Sunday night. He described the rioters as “the scum of the earth,” adding: “I am afraid that if we continue down this path, we’re on our way to civil war.”

The scattering of peaceful demonstrations counts only to the east of the EU. This is stunning hypocrisy!

I suggest that our Western partners, who are so concerned about democracy in Russia, might want to focus on their own problems. We have said this many times – behind closed doors in the past and now for the record. Resolve your own problems – you have amassed a lot of them. Take care of your own citizens and the preservation of democracy at home. It is better to cooperate than to criticise. There are a great many areas for potential cooperation, and lots of problems.

If you are so concerned about freedom of expression, show due attention and respect for this tenet by observing the rights of Russian journalists abroad.



Situation with Russian media outlets abroad

Here are just a few examples of what Russian journalists came across in their relations with Western authorities in 2020:

1. In January 2020, an employee of the TASS press centre was detained in Milan Airport by border guards. The Financial Guard militarised police force interrogated him and reviewed the contents of his mobile.

2. In February 2020, a media crimes investigation board of the Ankara Prosecutor’s Office detained Sputnik Turkey employees.

The board officials said, citing the laws regulating media activities that prohibit the publication of information that could damage the country’s territorial integrity, interrogated the journalists and searched Sputnik Turkey offices, confiscating computers, communication devices and USB memory sticks. The journalists were released several hours later.

3. In October 2020, FBI officers interrogated the spouse of former head of the Rossiya Segodnya representative office in Washington.

They inquired about the reasons for her husband’s trips and activities during his term at the office. In the end, she was offered the opportunity to become a permanent resident of the United States. She rejected the offer.

4. In October 2020, a journalist at the Rossiya Segodnya representative office in Washington had a telephone conversation with a member of a US security service who identified himself as an FBI agent from Baltimore.

The officer inquired about the journalist’s personal ties with Russians living in the United States and their relations with Russian authorities and the Russkiy Mir Foundation, and asked other impertinent questions.

5. In October 2020, US security services detained a RT special correspondent twice, at his entry into and exit from the United States. They asked about the reasons for his visit and confiscated the journalist’s personal belongings and electronic devices for inspection.

6. In December 2020, US security services organised a provocation against TASS employees in New York. Two FBI agents visited the company flats of the bureau head and photojournalist, asking them about the events attended by the chair of the Russian Community Council of the USA. The US security services are giving a lot of negative attention to the council, which exceeds the framework of interaction with civil society.

7. In December 2020, the Latvian State Security Service (VDD) detained several freelance correspondents of Sputnik Latvia, who are Latvian citizens, within the framework of criminal cases opened against them for violation of the EU sanctions. We have commented on this subject in detail and have proved convincingly that these accusations are unsubstantiated.

VDD officers interrogated the journalists and searched their flats, confiscating their computers, communication devices and USB memory sticks. The journalists were released after signing a recognisance not to leave and a pledge not to disclose the essence of the interrogations. This is democracy at its best.

There are many more such examples of what Russian media workers come across while performing their professional duties outside Russia. We would like to remind our colleagues that they should act more consistently when upholding the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech is an indivisible notion to which double standards cannot be applied. The cases I have mentioned are more than just evidence of double standards; they are proof of direct pressure and persecution of Russian journalists. Moreover, nobody as much as pretends that the reason for the complaints is the journalists’ professional activities.



Violation of Russian citizens’ rights abroad

I would like to touch upon the protection of Russian citizens’ rights abroad, not only that of journalists, but also Russians citizens in general, which is one of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s priorities. Dealing with incidents involving the detention of Russian citizens or politically motivated harassment is becoming routine in our work.

The Baltic states’ authorities and special services use various methods to put pressure on civil society activists, human rights champions and journalists expressing different points of view on those countries’ domestic and foreign policies and history. Their pressure toolkit includes summoning people for ‘preventive conversations,’ using socioeconomic pressure with the involvement of banking institutions (freezing accounts, denial of banking services, and much more), smear campaigns in the media, as well as criminal prosecution. Lithuania has built an entire system of measures and methods to put pressure on dissenters. Former members of the Lithuanian SSR military and security services are also being persecuted there along with civil society activists, human rights champions and journalists opposing Russophobia and the glorification of Nazi accomplices.

There have been indicative cases involving Russian citizens – Colonel Yury Mel who was convicted on politicised charges in connection with the January 13, 1991 events at Vilnius television centre, and Konstantin Nikulin, former member of Riga OMON police unit of the Soviet Interior Ministry, unreasonably accused of premeditated murder of seven and attempted murder of one person at the Medininkai customs post unilaterally established by Lithuania on July 31, 1991.

We cannot help noting the unacceptable practice of arresting Russian citizens in third countries at the request of US law enforcement agencies. There have been over 50 such cases since 2008. We are in fact dealing with an illegal extraterritorial application of American law against Russian citizens here. Once in the hands of US law enforcement, Russian citizens usually suffer biased attitude from the investigating authorities and courts. They use a whole arsenal of measures and methods of pressure, including psychological pressure applied to Russian citizens. They use various methods, including direct threats, to persuade them to plead guilty and make a deal with the investigators, despite the far-fetched charges, and if they refuse, they are sentenced to long prison terms. American penitentiaries often deny Russian prisoners appropriate medical care, including those suffering from chronic conditions. We are actually aware of this like no one else because we have to resolve a lot of medical issues hands on every day at the request of Russian citizens in prison, in particular, in the United States. We respond to their direct requests, as well as requests that come through their relatives and lawyers.

The cases against Konstantin Yaroshenko, Roman Seleznev, Viktor Bout, and also Maria Butina (who has returned to Russia and shared what she experienced during that period) are eloquent examples. By the way, Butina released a book, and I advise everyone to read it. Everything is described there the way it was.

Another case worth mentioning involves Russian citizen Alexander Vinnik who was detained in 2017 in Greece at the request of the US authorities on money laundering charges.

On January 23, 2020, Vinnik was extradited to France by the Greek Justice Minister’s decision. The French courts rejected the petitions by Vinnik's lawyers to put their client under house arrest, and on December 7, 2020, the French court incarcerated the Russian for five years.

The Canadian authorities and courts often regard all our citizens and compatriots as second-rate people and often show a biased attitude towards the defendants of Russian origins. One example is the story of Lyudmila Ilyina, a geographer from Moscow who was falsely convicted of murdering her Canadian husband in 1995 (she spent ten years in a maximum security prison). She presented her memories of that time in a book, Russian means guilty. It tells a lot about democracy Canadian-style.

For its part, the the Russian Foreign Ministry is taking all possible diplomatic steps to protect the rights of Russian citizens imprisoned abroad. Such cases are under close review by our diplomatic missions and, if necessary, are brought up for discussion at the highest level. Our diplomats are providing consular support to arrested Russians within their scope of competence, insisting on unconditional observance of their legal rights and interests, and exploring possibilities for changing their restraining orders within the existing legal framework and for transferring them to their homeland.

The Russian Foreign Ministry reports on the global human rights situation regularly reflect the issue of observing Russian citizens’ rights. The country sections of this document, published on the Ministry website, list specific cases of violation of the rights of Russian citizens and compatriots, including high-profile cases of politically motivated persecution by the authorities of the respective states.



Return of underage Russian national to Russia

I would like to tell you about a case that illustrates the Foreign Ministry’s efforts to defend the interests of Russian nationals and to protect their rights.

The incident happened in the United States, in Texas. A court ruled to restrict a Russian national’s parental rights and her daughter, born in 2019, was temporarily placed in foster care of a local family. The mother was given one year to meet parental fitness criteria. Restoration of the woman’s parental rights was unlikely for a number of reasons and there was a risk that this minor would be transferred to a children’s home in Texas where there would be no guarantee that she would be adopted in the future. Officers of the Russian Consulate General in Houston managed to locate the child’s relatives in Russia. The girl’s great-grandmother in Moscow was willing to become her legal guardian.

The diplomats promptly contacted the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and the Moscow Department of Social Protection. They also helped with obtaining necessary approvals and also drawing up the required documents as well as finding and establishing contacts with a local attorney specialising in family law.

On November 10, 2020, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services officially notified the Consulate General that it does not object to recognising the Russian national’s great-grandmother as her legal guardian and the girl’s subsequent move to Russia; however, according to the department’s internal policy, the child had to be brought to her new place of residence personally – that is, Texas social workers had to fly with this minor to Moscow. Since foreign nationals are restricted from crossing the Russian border due to the pandemic, the consular officers found a faster solution and suggested considering the child’s great-grandmother’s travel to the United States. This was approved.

Officers of the Consulate General and their colleagues from the Russian Foreign Ministry helped with the necessary travel documents. Moreover, on December 23, 2020, following a petition by our ministry, the US diplomatic mission issued a visa for the woman and we are very grateful for this.

On January 14, 2021, the court of Texas issued its final verdict in the case of the young Russian national and recognised the great-grandmother as her legal guardian. On the same day, the social workers officially transferred the girl into the Russian woman’s custody. On January 20, 2021, the reunited family visited the Russian Consulate General in Houston to meet the diplomats who fought for their reunification and thanked the staff and senior officers of the Russian Foreign Ministry for their help and assistance. On January 21, 2021, they safely returned home.



The 77th anniversary of the complete lifting of the siege of Leningrad

January 27 marked Military Glory Day, Day of Complete Liberation of Leningrad from Nazi Siege. On this day in 1944, the soldiers of the Leningrad Front, the Volkhov Front and the 2nd Baltic Front drove Nazi troops out of the city and liberated almost the entire Leningrad Region. The siege of Leningrad, which lasted almost 900 days, was lifted.

In the evening of January 27, 1944, a 324-gun salute thundered through the sky over Leningrad. The people of Leningrad gathered in the streets, squares and the Neva River embankments, which had recently been targets of artillery fire, and greeted their liberators. One after another, 24 historic salvos were fired from the guns placed on the Field of Mars and the banks of the Neva River, as well as the guns on the ships of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet. Each time, thousands of “hurrays” blended in with the roar of guns into a single solemn salute. The majestic spectacle could be seen far from Leningrad. The Leningrad Front soldiers also saw its glow.

January 27, 1944 was one of the happiest days in the lives of hundreds of thousands of the city residents and one of the most mournful as well, since almost every Leningrad resident had lost family or friends.

The Battle of Leningrad was the longest and bloodiest of the Great Patriotic War and WWII. Anything from 1.5 to 2 million soldiers and civilians lost their lives during the battle and the siege, of which at least 800,000 civilians starved to death during the first winter of 1941-1942.

The enemy documents show that the cutting off of food supplies to Leningrad was part of the siege plan. The famine was part of the Nazi military operation. Only 3 percent of the Leningrad residents died from bombing and shelling. Most of them died of hunger.

The role of the defenders and the people of Leningrad in achieving victory over Nazism was truly enormous. The city interdicted the nearly 300,000-strong Nazi force of the Army Group North which was especially important in the late summer and autumn of 1941, when the enemy focused on taking Moscow and was in dire need of additional resources. The heroic defence of Leningrad also helped maintain control over the most important railway connecting Murmansk and the mainland, which was used to deliver cargo under Lend-Lease.

The feat of the Leningrad residents was depicted in a vast number of books and material, including collections of documents and memoirs. The works of fiction show emotions and experiences of that time. Almost 400 books were published in the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1991, and over 200 editions were released in the post-Soviet period. In 1965, the city was among the first to be awarded the title of Hero City for heroism and courage shown by the people of Leningrad during the siege.

On the 77th anniversary of the complete liberation of Leningrad, President Vladimir Putin laid a wreath at the Hero City Leningrad memorial in the Alexander Garden. The head of state also visited the Victory Museum on Poklonnaya Gora and took part in launching an online project “Feat of the People: Unconquered Leningrad” which is available at victorymuseum.ru. It is an amazing online project. I encourage you to visit it.

The unique display preserves the memory of the entire generation of the Soviet people who contributed to the Great Victory and gives everyone an opportunity to immortalise the memory of their ancestors. This is one of the key projects of Memory and Glory Year.



International Holocaust Remembrance Day

The Second World War brought infinite sufferings to hundreds of millions of people all over the world. The Holocaust was one of its most tragic pages.

Seventy-six years ago, on January 27, 1945, Soviet troops liberated the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau (Oswiecim) where millions of people had been brutally tortured and killed. At the decision of the UN in 2005, this day was proclaimed International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Russia was the co-author of the relevant UN General Assembly resolution.

Today, certain states are trying to rewrite history and force the current generation to forget about the heroic deeds of Soviet soldiers who liberated the world from Nazism. Often they even try to elevate this to the level of a state ideology and present those on the side of evil as heroes.

Russia firmly rejects the attempts to rewrite history and the creeping rehabilitation of Nazism. In this regard, every year Russia submits a draft resolution to the General Assembly on combatting the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Once again, the resolution was adopted on December 16, 2020, at a plenary meeting of the 75th Session of the UN General Assembly. This document was approved by an impressive majority of votes: 130 countries voted for it, two countries (the US and Ukraine) traditionally voted against it and 51 countries, including members of the European Union, abstained.

At the same time, for the past several years and at the initiative of Russia as the main author and with the support of other co-authors, clauses on the unacceptability of any attempts to deny the Holocaust have been included in the document. Our common duty is to remember the heroism of Soviet soldiers and honour the memory of all victims of Nazism.

Yesterday, on January 27, 2021, the Russian Permanent Mission to the UN sent UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres a message notifying him of the widespread glorification of Nazi accomplices in Ukraine with a request that it be distributed as an official document of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly.



Munich court ruling on case of Erfurt sports physician Mark Schmidt

We have noted a decision made by a German court convicting Mark Schmidt, head of a sports medicine clinic in Erfurt, and sentencing him to four years and 10 months in prison for distributing illegal drugs and performing illegal blood transfusions, a procedure known as blood doping. Mark Schmidt masterminded an international doping ring for athletes from a number of countries. The German law enforcement authorities have established that such violations took place at numerous international sporting events. The scale of the doping scandal involving Schmidt’s activities has shown that Germany is home to an organised criminal business catering to elite sports. It is an alarming signal exposing an unfavourable state of affairs in one of the leading sports countries in Europe.

Moscow strongly condemns the application and use of prohibited drugs and methods by athletes. Consistently upholding the principles of honest and fair sports without any political agenda or discrimination, we call for broad international cooperation and unification of efforts to fight doping in sports.



E-visas

Pursuant to the Federal Law No. 305-FZ of July 31, 2020, starting as of January 1, 2021, the interested federal executive bodies have ensured the technical set-up for the launch of a system for issuing unified electronic visas, which have replaced electronic visas for entry into certain regions of the Russian Federation, a practice introduced earlier as a pilot project.

At the same time, we note that the issuance of digital visas (including unified electronic visas) was suspended on March 18, 2020, as a temporary measure under clause 5 of the Russian Government directive No. 635-r of March 16, 2020.

The response centre to prevent the importation and spread of the novel coronavirus infection in the Russian Federation will decide when to resume the practice based on the epidemiological situation in the world and the lifting of restrictions on entry into the Russian Federation.

I would like to highlight this topic because we have had a lot of questions in this regard.



Sri Lanka Independence Day

On February 4, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka marks Independence Day.

The friendly people of Sri Lanka have come a long way in the fight first against Portugal, then Dutch and British colonisers. The island nation gained freedom in 1948 after more than a century of British colonial rule.

Modern Sri Lanka enjoys well-deserved respect in the world as a sovereign, democratic, and socially oriented state. Its citizens are rightfully proud not only of their ancient history, but also of their great achievements in the field of economic development.

Russian-Sri Lankan bilateral ties have invariably remained constructive since they were established. We maintain political contacts, including at the highest and high levels, and cooperate productively on the international arena, at the UN and other multilateral platforms. Russia has traditionally been an important trading partner of Sri Lanka and one of the largest importers of Ceylon tea. The island’s sights and resorts traditionally attract a large number of Russian tourists. Naturally, the coronavirus pandemic has changed the situation.

All the very best to our Sri Lankan friends on their most important public holiday. Wishing you happiness, peace and prosperity.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

Sergey Lavrov said the following about Nagorno-Karabakh during a recent big news conference: “During our contacts with our colleagues, President Putin and I promoted the need to continue to consider this matter [the return of Armenian POWs – Ed.] in order to bring it to a closure based on the “all for all” principle.” How far has this issue progressed?



Maria Zakharova:

Efforts to ensure the exchange of POWs and other detainees are ongoing in accordance with the trilateral statement issued by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia on November 9, 2020 and the agreements reached between them at their summit meeting in Moscow on January 11, 2021. The Russian side is providing assistance with this matter, including with the help of its peacekeeping force deployed along the contact line in Nagorno-Karabakh.

As President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pointed out, the best solution would be an exchange based on the “all for all” principle.



Question:

Russia proposed making the Karabakh Humanitarian Response Centre an international agency with the participation of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke about this during his talks with his Armenian colleague. How far has this issue progressed?

Can you tell us when the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs plan to visit the region and what the visit’s agenda will be?



Maria Zakharova:

All matters related to the provision of humanitarian assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions residents are a competence of the Russian Emergencies Ministry. Our experts have been working in the region within the framework of the humanitarian mission since November 2020. The priorities of the combined group include medical care to the locals, mine clearing and patrolling the area to prevent and clear up emergencies in unfavourable weather conditions. The Emergencies Ministry and other Russian bodies are working in close contact with the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides, including when it comes to the activities of the international humanitarian response centre. You can request more information from the Emergencies Ministry.

As for a visit by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs and its agenda, such a visit is indeed being planned. The timeframe for the trip has not been decided yet. Its details should be coordinated with all sides.



Question:

The Foreign Ministry has issued a protest to the United States over the encouragement of young people to participate in rallies in support of Alexey Navalny. Despite the absurdity and unsubstantiated nature of the allegation that the blogger was “highly likely” poisoned with a Novichok chemical warfare agent, Germany is also interfering in Russia’s internal affairs and is circulating ungrounded accusations. The thinking public has found an explanation for the campaign about the “poisoning” of the blogger, they believe it is targeting the Nord Stream 2 project. Do you agree? Is Germany shooting itself in the foot? Will a protest to Germany be issued for interfering in the internal affairs of Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

It is Germany that should speak about its own strategic interests. I would not like to act as its foreign ministry’s press secretary on this or any other matter. I believe that German representatives can themselves formulate their national interests, including in the sphere of energy. Russia has been expressing its interest in developing comprehensive, equal and mutually beneficial energy cooperation for a long time and openly, including cooperation with its European colleagues and, more precisely, with Germany, and has been doing its best towards this end. Therefore, with regard to how the German side’s statements resonate with its national interests and the interests of the people I suggest that you ask them.

As for the statements which Russia regards as interference in its internal affairs, I have already responded comprehensively today to all those who proclaimed certain slogans regarding our country. I would like to repeat once again what we have said openly during bilateral contact and publicly. First, our Western partners have more than enough problems of their own and plenty to do in their own countries. Second, nobody has invalidated the documents that all countries have signed, including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. As for the activities of foreign diplomats in Russia, they must act within the framework of the proclaimed priority objectives of their mission in Russia. No state has announced its refusal to adhere to the UN Charter, in particular the provisions on respect for the sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. These principles are still effective.

Regarding the statements made by the German side, in particular Mr Heiko Maas and other German officials, many of them are puzzling. We will notify the German Foreign Ministry soon about the unacceptability of such statements.



Question:

On January 20, 2021, the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry issued a statement posted on its official website in connection with the 31st anniversary of the events of January 19-20, 1990. In that statement, they described the Soviet government’s actions as a crime against humanity, and insisted the initiators and executors should be called to account. It appears that the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry blames the Soviet Union (and Russia as its legal successor) for Black January and the deaths of almost 150 people and even insists on Russia being held accountable. What is Russia’s assessment of that statement?



Maria Zakharova:

I do not consider this statement in this way. Russia and other countries can have different interpretations of historical events. At the same time, you are well aware of our relations with Azerbaijan at this stage as well as the official positions of the sides. This does not mean that we cannot have different views on historical events.



Question:

On December 14, 2020, Turkey and Ukraine signed an agreement on technology transfer and the production of corvettes and drones. The Ukrainian side believes the cooperation agreement will help increase the combat power of the Ukrainian Navy in the Black Sea-Azov Sea region. How does Russia feel about such rapprochement and military cooperation between Turkey and Ukraine? Does this rapprochement pose a threat to the region, given that the Ukrainian armed forces continue to shell Donbass?



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian side has always insisted that each state has the right to develop bilateral cooperation unless it runs contrary to any legislation, and this position has not changed.

As for Ukraine, we know this very well. We cannot avoid reading new reports every day on the situation in Donbass in connection with the internal conflict in Ukraine. Each state has the right to develop bilateral relations in any area, but one must bear in mind that unfortunately, this conflict has not been resolved and it would be a good idea to first take into consideration how military-technical cooperation projects could affect this situation. We certainly cannot allow this. Not after so many lives have been lost in this bloody conflict, after so much effort, including international effort, has been put into helping Ukraine resolve this terrible problem. Those efforts cannot just be wiped away.



Question:

I would like to ask you about the Foreign Ministry’s note of protest to the US Embassy in Moscow over a statement posted on its official website regarding the January 23 rallies. The note was in English and addressed to US citizens residing in Russia. I analysed the traffic of the US Embassy’s website and saw that it has around 8,000 visitors a day, 30 percent of them in the United States and 70 percent in the rest of the world. Russia is not even in the top traffic group.

At the same time, that statement was posted on your Facebook account and the Foreign Ministry’s official account. You personally received 3,100 likes.

Why does the Foreign Ministry believe that Russian citizens would rather read news on the US Embassy’s website than on your Facebook account? Would anyone have noticed the statement had you not mentioned it?



Maria Zakharova:

This is an assessment of my post and my comment, not of the item on the US Embassy’s website.

Speaking about the traffic, you are unlikely to have the technology necessary to assess it. You probably looked at public information. To make a more thorough analysis, you would need to analyse more than just public information and to get the help of IT experts in order to find out in which countries the visits were made. Modern technology can allow websites to be visited without the country where the visit was made being identified.

When you cite statistics, you should add that you are referring to public information. But, knowing about the existence of the technology that I have mentioned, you should have looked for additional information to make a thorough analysis.

You looked at the traffic of the US Embassy’s website. Incidentally, many media outlets reported on the item, that is where I saw it. I do not regularly monitor the website of the US Embassy in Russia, and I am not a subscriber. I only monitor newsfeeds. Information from the US Embassy’s website was reported by the media, bloggers and social networks. Have you seen these statistics? If not, please take a look now; you will find it interesting.

You inferred that we promoted that story. This is not so. As I have already said, we found it in the news. Moreover, journalists asked us for comment. Saying that attracting attention to the problem is aggravating it is like saying that fire engines must not approach a fire because they have fuel tanks.

This could be our American colleagues’ idea of camouflaging information so as to be able to later accuse us of circulating it.

When we see a problem, we speak about it openly, trying to draw public attention to it. We have a right to do so.

We appreciate their concern for American citizens. We also try to raise our citizens’ safety awareness by warning them about emergencies, terrorist attacks and other incidents. Many things that take place in the world should be given special attention. We have a Foreign Assistant mobile app for publishing useful information, including about protest rallies around the world, but this is not what the US Embassy did.

There is a bigger problem which we pointed out to American diplomats in our note of protest. It concerns the activities of American internet monopolies that circulate fake news. They moderate the online information space at their own discretion, but they do not delete fake news, even those reports that have been officially debunked.

I would like to remind everyone that it is the American side that keeps saying that social media is full of fake news, bots and hackers. We can also see that American online platforms (social media and video hosting services) are actively involved in these activities. They have appointed themselves as moderators, blocking accounts at will, whether it be the accounts of the US President or of public figures and journalists, without court rulings or any reliance on laws, not even US laws, let alone international commitments, and without decisions being made by the professional organisations.

In the past, the blame was laid at the door of administrators, but we know now that even the managers of American IT giants are engaged in censoring their own cyberspace. On the one hand, they have usurped the right to moderate content for political reasons, allegedly because of fake news and security threats, even though there is no threat at all in the information posted by many platforms, for example, Tsargrad. On the other hand, they do not delete obviously fake news and encouragement to take part in illegal protest rallies, even though they have a global reach and operate in the Russian area of jurisdiction or the areas of other sovereign countries. The issue has grown into a full-blown problem.

I would like to draw your attention to the Federation Council Statement in connection with violations of the principle of freedom of speech by global American Internet companies and the Foreign Ministry statement in support of our senators, which were published yesterday. We will use diplomatic channels to bring these statements, first of all the Federation Council Statement, to the attention of parliaments and the law-making authorities of all countries. We will also circulate it as an official document of the UN General Assembly.

I would like to repeat that a note of protest has been presented to American diplomats accredited in Moscow.

It is an old problem. It has loomed large only recently, although IT experts and those who specialise in the boundary issues of information and new technology, international information security and the freedom of speech have been speaking and writing about this problem for a long time. How will American social media giants operate in the future, considering, first, that they have monopolised the market and, second, their close ties with security services in the United States and EU countries (all of us remember the hearings to which their managers were summoned and the sanctions applied to them)? Actually, Western countries themselves have been “moderating” these managers and their corporations for years. On the other hand, they completely disregard the internal legislation of the other sovereign states. This is a problem that must be resolved one way or another.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4544778
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 29th, 2021 #254
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,173
Default

Quote:
I still don't know where I can find out what Peskov was talking about.

I can only learn about this from the media.
I wasn't referring to anything specific, I was just making a joke about a Peskov vs. Psaki thread.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old January 29th, 2021 #255
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Allan View Post
I wasn't referring to anything specific, I was just making a joke about a Peskov vs. Psaki thread.
I understood that.

My comment was in "by the way"-style.
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old February 5th, 2021 #256
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bairamov



29 January 2021 - 14:48







On January 29, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bairamov.

The foreign ministers discussed the implementation of the November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021 agreements between the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as topical matters concerning bilateral and foreign policy cooperation, including at the UN and the OSCE.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4545313






Press release on Russian-German contacts on the “Alexey Navalny case”



1 February 2021 - 16:46



Since Alexey Navalny’s emergency hospitalisation in Omsk on August 20, 2020, the Western media space has been promoting a version of his deliberate poisoning with the aim of neutralising him as a leader of the Russian non-systemic opposition. Even before the Omsk doctors made public their conclusions about the reasons for his hospitalisation, his team and Western sources planted the idea that the alleged crime against him could have been ordered by official Russian government agencies. The conclusions of Russian doctors, who had not found any traces of toxic agents in the samples collected from Navalny, were immediately denounced, without any substantiation, as false and biased. At the same time, the statements made by Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov to the effect that all the necessary aid would be provided to Navalny, including abroad, if necessary, were disregarded.

The German authorities and the Cinema for Peace Foundation registered in Germany immediately became actively involved. The Cinema for Peace NGO organised a charter flight for the transportation of Alexey Navalny from Omsk to the Charité hospital in Berlin on August 22, 2020.

At the same time, the Foreign Ministry did not receive any official requests from Germany necessary in such cases for the plane’s flight to Russia and for the entry of its crew and passengers into Russia. Nevertheless, the necessary permits were issued. The German doctors were given hotel accommodation and were allowed to visit Navalny in the Omsk hospital. They met with the Russian doctors, who at that time objected to transporting the patient to Germany due to his serious condition. However, an agreement for his transportation was issued in the evening on August 21, 2020. It took some time for medical formalities (the family’s refusal to receive medical aid in Russia) and legal matters (Alexey Navalny had agreed to travel restrictions in connection with his involvement in a number of criminal, administrative and civil proceedings) (*) and to prepare and deliver the patient to the airport in a specialised vehicle. Time was also needed for aircraft maintenance and the crew’s rest. As a result, the plane took off from Omsk at 8 am local time on August 22, 2020.

Meanwhile, Western media outlets claimed that the Russian authorities were uncooperative, did not allow the German doctors to approach Navalny and deliberately delayed his transportation to Germany so as to gain time for the traces of poison to disappear from the patient’s body.

In Germany the patient was granted the status of “guest of Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel.” It was used as grounds for providing round-the-clock state protection to him and to the persons accompanying him. However, an explanation was later provided according to which Alexey Navalny was not a guest of the Federal Government because it had not officially invited him to the country.

On October 22, 2020, President Vladimir Putin said in his statement at the Valdai Discussion Club that he had personally instructed the Prosecutor General’s Office to see if it was possible to allow Navalny to travel abroad for medical treatment considering that he was under travel restrictions due to an investigation and a criminal case.

Based on the results of the patient’s examination at the Charité hospital on August 24, 2020, German doctors confirmed that there was clinical evidence pointing to the fact that Alexey Navalny was poisoned with a cholinesterase inhibitor. On the same day, Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Angela Merkel and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany Heiko Maas made statements urging the Russian authorities “to investigate this crime to the last detail and with full transparency,” to identify those responsible for it and to punish them. In turn, Chief Toxicologist of the Siberian Federal District and Omsk Region Alexander Sabayev issued a statement that said there were no signs of poisoning with cholinesterase inhibitors in Navalny.

From that moment on, speculations based on “insider information from anonymous sources” or on some similar cases in the past (the so-called Skripal case and the incident concerning Bulgarian businessman Emilian Gebrev) have been in and out of the Western media, claiming Navalny was attacked with a substance from the Novichok group of nerve agents.

On August 27, 2020, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation sent its first official request for international legal assistance to the Federal Office of Justice of the Federal Republic of Germany, asking, among other things, for the provision of the evidence that German doctors were referring to when asserting that the case involved a poisoning of the patient. However, the request was not even forwarded to the Berlin Justice Department in charge of his case until September 4, 2020. And it was only on September 6, 2020 that Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said in an interview with the German media that the German Foreign Ministry had agreed to grant the request. State Secretary at the Federal Foreign Office of Germany Miguel Berger twice confirmed to the Russian ambassador in Berlin that the Russian side’s request would certainly be satisfied. As of February 1, 2021, there was no substantive response from the German side.

There were calls in the media and from certain representatives of the German parliament deputy corps opposing the transfer of Navalny’s biological samples and test results to Russia, as this would enable the Russian special services to figure out German specialists’ secret methods of detecting the so-called Novichok group poisons in the human body. Thereby they actually admitted that the German military had advanced expertise in relation to this kind of warfare. According to the legend now being widely disseminated in the West, that warfare can only be produced in Russia.

On September 2, 2020, Berlin decided to “raise the stakes.” The planted information about Novichok was “confirmed” by German government spokesperson Steffen Seibert who said experts from the Bundeswehr Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology had found traces of the corresponding poison in Navalny’s body. Federal Chancellor Merkel and members of her cabinet publicly demanded explanations from Moscow. Berlin officially initiated consultations with the EU and NATO on new sanctions against our country. At the same time, the Germans turned to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in order to investigate and hold Russia accountable for violating the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The Russian ambassador in Berlin was summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs where he was given a presentation.

After that, intense promotion of the idea that the German government needed to discontinue the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project began.

On September 3, 2020, Foreign Minister of Germany Heiko Maas announced that the results of toxicology tests conducted by German experts would be provided to the OPCW Technical Secretariat. The OPCW Technical Secretariat said it was waiting for a request from Germany and had already “adopted specific preparatory measures.” The EU published a statement condemning “the assassination attempt on Alexey Navalny” and threatening to take “restrictive measures” against Russia unless it conducted “an impartial international investigation” of the incident.

On September 4, 2020, Germany transported Alexey Navalny’s biological samples for analysis at specialised laboratories in Sweden and France. The foreign ministers of Germany and France issued a joint communique in which they claimed that a “new violation of international law took place” on the territory of Russia, alleging that “a military-grade nerve agent” had been used to poison Navalny. Following an emergency meeting of the NATO Council, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg demanded that Russia “provide complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the OPCW.” The German magazine Der Spiegel reported that the Bundeswehr Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology had found traces of the agent in blood and urine samples taken from Navalny as well as on a bottle that the persons accompanying him had allegedly brought to Berlin.

On September 5, 2020, the National Medical Chamber of Russia invited German colleagues to create a joint expert group to establish the reasons for the deterioration in Navalny’s health (On September 8, 2020, the state-owned media holding Deutsche Welle announced that the Federal Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer) had rejected the proposal saying that only the patient’s relatives could initiate further medical examinations) (**).

On September 6, 2020, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said in the interview with German media mentioned above that “there are many indications” that the Russian state is behind the poisoning of Alexey Navalny and that the German Foreign Ministry was coordinating a response to the first request submitted by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office on August 27, 2020.

On September 8, 2020, the G7 foreign ministers issued a statement in which they claimed that international law had been violated in Russia because Navalny had been allegedly poisoned with a chemical nerve agent.

On September 9, 2020, German Ambassador to Russia Géza Andreas von Geyr was summoned to the Foreign Ministry where he was handed a tough note regarding the confrontational stand of the German Government in the context of the situation around Alexey Navalny.

On September 11, 2020, chairs of Parliamentary Friendship Groups Pavel Zavalny (Russian parliament) and Robby Schlund (Bundestag) published a joint statement in which they called for a constructive and unbiased investigation into the incident without a priori linking it to Russian-German cooperation in civil society, the economy and culture.

On September 14, 2020, the Federal Government issued a statement saying that specialist laboratories in France and Sweden had confirmed the conclusions by a specialist Bundeswehr laboratory that Navalny was poisoned with a chemical nerve agent from the Novichok group. According to the statement, the OPCW had taken test samples from Navalny, although the OPCW Technical Secretariat had denied on several occasions that it had any official contacts with Germany in the Navalny case (representatives of the OPCW Technical Secretariat later admitted in a conversation with the Russian representative that they had to say this because of the confidentiality agreements they had with Germany).

The same day, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said at a joint news conference with the Iraqi Foreign Minister held in Berlin that Russia should contact the OPCW, thereby indicating that Berlin did not intend to provide the test samples and the results of their analysis, which the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office requested on August 27, 2020.

On September 14, 2020, the Prosecutor General's Office sent a second letter of inquiry to the Federal Office of Justice of the Federal Republic of Germany with a request for the provision of information about the methods used by the Charité hospital doctors to treat Navalny, as well as for Russian Interior Ministry officials to have access to him in order to ask him questions as part of a pre-investigation probe into his alleged criminal poisoning. The German authorities said they would comply with the request if Navalny gave his consent. On September 15, 2020, citing a source in the German special services, The New York Times reported that Navalny was against contacts with the Russian police and against the Russian-German joint probe into the incident. According to the Federal Office of Justice of Germany, the second letter of inquiry was sent to the Office of Justice of Berlin only on September 25, 2020. No substantive response to the inquiry has been received as of February 1, 2021.

On September 15, 2020, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, on behalf of President Vladimir Putin, had a telephone conversation with Germany’s Federal Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, who was informed that Moscow was still waiting for Berlin to respond to the above inquiries by the Russian Prosecutor General's Office. It was emphasised that Germany was obligated to do so under the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959. Heiko Maas reiterated the position expressed earlier whereby Russia, in the context of the situation involving Navalny, should contact the OPCW, not Berlin.

On September 16, 2020, the Russian Embassy in Germany sent a note to Germany’s Foreign Ministry asking for assistance in ensuring consular access to Navalny in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. A response from the German Foreign Ministry was received on September 25, 2020. In it, the German authorities stated that they would not prevent Russian diplomats from establishing contacts with Navalny, but would not assist them in doing so, either. Navalny was notified of the above request by the Russian Embassy, and it was up to him to decide whether he wanted to see Russian diplomats.

Following the above statement by the German government on September 14, 2020 to the effect that Stockholm and Paris had confirmed traces of the Novichok class agent in biological samples taken from Navalny, on September 18, 2020, the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia sent requests for legal assistance to the competent authorities of Sweden and France asking for information about the toxicity tests on the biomaterials in question and for interviews with the experts involved. On November 4, 2020, the Swedish Foreign Ministry informed the Russian Embassy in Sweden that the Swedish authorities would not respond to Russia’s request, as it “runs counter to Sweden’s basic interests.”

On September 23, 2020, the Berlin Charité hospital issued a press release saying that Navalny had been discharged from hospital because his condition had improved. It was noted that German doctors believed he could make a “full recovery.”

On the same day, Russia’s Permanent Mission to the OPCW sent a note to Germany’s Permanent Mission to the OPCW demanding that Berlin comply with its commitments arising from the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (CWC), in part related to providing Russia with Navalny-related materials held by Germany. At the same time, a letter was sent to OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias notifying him of the above note and requesting him to provide information about the nature of the technical assistance provided by Germany.

On September 25, 2020, members of the State Duma Commission on Investigating Foreign States’ Interference in Russia’s Domestic Affairs headed by Deputy Vasily Piskaryov sent a letter to German Bundestag President Wolfgang Schaeuble with a proposal to establish joint Russian-German parliamentary control over the course of the investigation into the case of Alexey Navalny (***).

On September 27, 2020, citing its own sources, Spiegel reported that Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel secretly visited Navalny at the Charité hospital in Berlin. The information was presented as a sign of the chancellor’s solidarity with the “Russian opposition politician” and a signal that Berlin would not sweep the alleged poisoning under the rug. Later, the information about the visit was confirmed by German government spokesperson Steffen Seibert and Navalny himself on social media.

On September 26, 2020, the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia sent Germany’s Federal Office of Justice a third letter of inquiry, dated September 24, 2020, regarding the situation related to Navalny, with a request that Russian investigators be allowed to conduct interviews with Navalny’s spouse Yuliya and with Maria Pevchikh who was on his team during the trip to Tomsk. The German authorities were asked whether the German experts ran a toxicity test on any items from the hotel where Navalny stayed. No substantial answer has been received as of February 1, 2021.

On September 28, 2020, the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia sent the fourth request for legal assistance to the Federal Office of Justice asking for help in establishing the identity of a person behind an email address located on a German server, from which, on the day Navalny was hospitalised, an email was sent about bombs planted in Omsk, as well as to confirm or refute information posted on open sources that Novichok class agent traces were discovered on a bottle brought to Germany from Tomsk by the above Maria Pevchikh. No substantial response has been received as of Feb 1, 2021.

On October 1, 2020, the German magazine Der Spiegel published an interview with Alexey Navalny, in which he said the most likely version of what happened to him was an attempt on his life with a chemical warfare agent by the Russian special services on behalf of the country's top officials.

On October 2, 2020, the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the OPCW sent a note to Russia’s Permanent Mission to the OPCW that alleged that, according to Berlin, the bilateral Russian-German interaction on the Navalny situation, which the Russian side insisted on, had taken place during the Russian Ambassador's meeting with the State Secretary of the German Foreign Office on September 2, 2020, the German Ambassador’s meeting with the First Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia on September 9, 2020, and the telephone conversation between the Russian and German Foreign Ministers on September 15, 2020. This is not true. During all those contacts, two of which took place at Moscow’s insistence, the German side was asked to provide Navalny’s biological samples and the results of the tests on them, as requested by the Russian Prosecutor General's Office. The German side, on the other hand, deliberately avoided a substantive dialogue, using the above contacts solely to reiterate the same accusations, threats and ultimatums against Russia.

On October 3, 2020, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said in an interview with the German news website t-online.de that if the OPCW experts confirmed the conclusions of the special laboratories in Germany, France and Sweden about Navalny being poisoned with the so-called Novichok group of military-grade nerve agents, new EU sanctions against Russia would become “inevitable.”

On October 7, 2020, the foreign ministers of Germany and France published a joint statement in which they announced a German-French initiative in the EU to impose sanctions against certain Russian officials responsible for the poisoning of Alexey Navalny, as well as against institutions associated with the “Novichok programme.”

On October 8, 2020, Chairman of the State Duma Commission on Foreign Interference in Russia's Internal Affairs Vasily Piskarev discussed the so-called Navalny case during a videoconference with Chair of the German-Russian Parliamentary Friendship Group of the German Bundestag Robby Schlund. The German MP announced his intention to call on President of the Bundestag Wolfgang Schauble to give an official response to the request from the Commission led by Piskarev of September 25, 2020.

On October 15, 2020, in regard to the Navalny case, the EU imposed sanctions against six Russian officials (Director of the FSB, First Deputy Head of the Presidential Executive Office, Head of the Presidential Domestic Policy Directorate, Presidential Envoy to the Siberian Federal District and two Deputy Defence Ministers of Russia) as well as against the State Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology.

On October 16, 2020, the OPCW Technical Secretariat circulated among the OPCW country delegations a classified report of the OPCW's mission to provide technical assistance to the German side with regard to the poisoning. Any significant information about the substance that the OPCW experts, as well as the German military experts, had allegedly found in the Russian blogger's biomaterials was removed from the report at Berlin's insistence. That decision was explained by “proliferation risks” – lest the poison formula should leak into the hands of malefactors. On October 19, 2020, the Russian Embassy in Germany sent a note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany asking the German side to publish the full content of the OPCW's report. There was no reply to that note. On November 16, 2020, the Embassy sent a follow-up note on that matter. Only on December 7, 2020 did the German Foreign Office react with another note saying it denied Russia’s request due to the aforementioned “proliferation risks.” It also said that, according to the German side, the requested information about the specific substance was irrelevant to the investigation into Navalny’s poisoning.

On October 16, 2020, the Foreign Ministers of Germany, France and Poland issued a joint statement with yet another demand for Russia to investigate the “poisoning” of Alexey Navalny.

On October 30, 2020, the Prosecutor General's Office received a letter, dated October 28, 2020, from Germany’s Federal Office of Justice referring to Russia’s above-mentioned four inquiries concerning the Navalny case, dated August 27, September 14, 24 and 28, 2020. In its letter, without answering any of the questions posed by our law enforcement agencies with regard to the blogger-related situation, the German authorities posed a number of counter questions and reiterated that they would not make Navalny’s biological samples or test results available to Russia without his consent and without Russia opening a criminal case in connection with his poisoning as alleged by the Germans. In fact, the letter received by the Russian Prosecutor General's Office is a purely perfunctory reply. The corresponding public comments were made by the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia, the Interior Ministry and the Foreign Ministry. On November 3, 2020, the Prosecutor General's Office replied to the Federal Office of Justice covering in detail the above questions posed by the German authorities.

The Alexey Navalny situation was discussed in detail in Moscow on November 2, 2020, during an in-person meeting between Head of the State Duma Commission on Investigating Foreign States’ Interference in Russia’s Internal Affairs Vasily Piskaryov and Chair of the Bundestag German-Russian Parliamentary Friendship Group Robby Schlund.

A telephone conversation initiated by Germany took place between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Federal Foreign Minister Heiko Maas on November 5, 2020. The Russian minister once again let the German Foreign Minister know about Russia’s concerns regarding the German authorities’ conduct in the context of the “Navalny case.”

On November 6, 2020, during a government press briefing in Berlin, German Federal Foreign Office Deputy Spokesperson Maria Adebahr said that Russia opening a criminal case in connection with Navalny’s poisoning as alleged by the Germans was a prerequisite for Germany considering the transfer of Alexey Navalny’s personal data (apparently, including his biomaterials) to Russia. However, this did not guarantee a favourable decision on transferring the data in question.

On November 12, 2020, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with the Russian media that Moscow would provide a mirror response to the sanctions imposed on the country by the EU in the context of the situation related to Navalny. During a weekly news conference on November 13, 2020, German government spokesperson Steffen Seibert said that Berlin had taken note of the Russian foreign minister’s remarks. According to him, the counter-sanctions announced by Moscow were “unjustified and inappropriate,” disregarded the international community’s interest in investigating the incident and made “Russia’s problem” part of ​​bilateral relations with Germany and France.

On November 18, 2020, the OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias sent a letter to Russia’s Permanent Mission to the OPCW in which, among other things, he confirmed the fact that the German government had not authorised the OPCW Technical Secretariat to provide Russia with the full version of its report on giving technical assistance to Berlin. Allegedly, the Germans suggested that, in its contacts with Russia, the OPCW Technical Secretariat refer to a truncated version of the document released on October 16, 2020.

On November 27, 2020, during the German government’s weekly news conference, Federal Ministry of Justice Spokesperson Maximillian Kall said that “a decision on (Russia’s) four requests for legal assistance has not yet been made and is still in the works.”

On November 30, 2020, in her video address to the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC) on the occasion of the expiration of Germany’s European Council chairmanship, Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel thanked the MPs for the EU’s unanimous response to Navalny’s “poisoning by Novichok” (literally, “it turned out very well”).

On January 13, 2021, the Federal Office of Justice sent a letter to the General Prosecutor's Office, which the German authorities pass off as an official response to Russia’s requests for legal assistance in the “Navalny case” dated August 27 and September 14, 24 and 28, 2020. The minutes, in the German language, of interviews with the blogger and his spouse Yuliya conducted by German law enforcement officers in accordance with the above requests of the General Prosecutor's Office were attached to the letter. The letters repeat the messages previously voiced by the Germans and reiterate the German authorities’ unwillingness to provide the Russian investigative authorities with any material evidence of the blogger’s poisoning by “Novichok” (including three mineral water bottles with alleged traces of poison on two of them), and including copies of the toxicology test findings, Navalny’s biological tests and test results. As before, the Germans were basing their decision on Navalny being unwilling to share his personal data and on references to the German law and the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959.

On January 17, 2021, Navalny was detained by law enforcement officers at Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow.

On January 18, 2021, during a government news conference, Spokesperson Steffen Seibert said that the German government condemned Navalny’s arrest and called for his immediate release. Similar statements were made by Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel, Vice-Chancellor and Federal Finance Minister Olaf Scholz, Federal Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, and Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer.

On January 21, 2021, the Prosecutor General's Office, in response to a letter from the Federal Office of Justice dated January 13, 2021, sent another letter with a request that the German authorities act in full upon the 17 requested procedural actions and respond in substance to the questions posed by the Russian investigation in the context of the “Navalny case.”




Key facts and dates on situation around Alexey Navalny


2020 г.

August 20

- Alexey Navalny's condition sharply deteriorates after departure from Tomsk to Moscow.

- Emergency landing at Omsk airport and transfer to the toxicology department of Omsk City Hospital No. 1.

- Comprehensive medical care provided to the patient.

- Navalny's “team” makes a list of, describes and packs items found at the hotel in Tomsk, including mineral water bottles.

August 21

- The patient is stabilised.

- He promptly receives permission to fly to Germany on a private jet.

August 22

- Navalny is flown to Germany and admitted to the Charité hospital in Berlin (accompanied, among others, by Maria Pevchikh who had the mineral water bottles from Navalny's hotel room, which were later transferred to the German authorities).

August 24

- The Charité clinic news release on Navalny's poisoning with a substance from the cholinesterase inhibitors group.

- A joint statement by Angela Merkel and Heiko Maas calling on the Russian authorities to “to investigate this crime to the last detail and with full transparency,” to identify those responsible for it and to punish them.

- Statement by the chief toxicologist of the Omsk Region about the absence of signs of poisoning with cholinesterase inhibitors in Navalny’s body.

August 26

- The US Department of Commerce imposes sanctions against GosNIIOKhT State Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology, 33 central research and testing institutes of the Russian Defence Ministry and 48 central research institutes of the Russian Defence Ministry “for development of chemical and biological weapons.”

August 27

- The Russian Prosecutor General's Office asks the Federal Republic of Germany for legal assistance under the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. (The request was not forwarded to the Berlin Office of Justice responsible for Navalny’s case until September 4, 2020).

September 2

- The German government makes a statement that experts from the Bundeswehr had found traces of a substance from the Novichok group of nerve agents in Navalny’s body and declares its intention to contact the OPCW.

- Angela Merkel makes a statement calling Navalny a victim of an assassination attempt with a nerve agent from the Novichok group, and a “victim of a crime.”

- Berlin officially initiates consultations with the EU and NATO on new sanctions against Russia. At the same time, the Germans turned to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in order to investigate and hold Russia accountable for violating the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

- The Russian ambassador to Germany is summoned to the Foreign Office.

September 3

- Foreign Minister Heiko Maas issues a statement calling for a “transparent” investigation into the poisoning describing the incident as a “nerve gas attack” and announces that the results of toxicological tests will be transferred to the OPCW.

- OPCW says in a news release that it will continue to monitor the situation and is ready to get involved and provide assistance to any state that may request it. The Technical Secretariat has been expecting a request from Germany since its first reports about the alleged poisoning of Navalny and has taken some preparatory action.

- The European Union makes a statement condemning the “attempt on Navalny’s life,” threatens sanctions, and calls for an unbiased international investigation, in which Moscow should cooperate with the OPCW.

September 4

- Germany transfers Navalny’s samples for analysis at specialised Swedish and French laboratories. (According to Dr Asa Scott, Head of the CBRN Protection and Security Division at the Swedish Defence Research Agency FOI, the results were ready on September 6, 2020)

- Germany requests the assistance of the OPCW Technical Secretariat in accordance with Clause 38 (е) of Article VIII of the CWC.

- The foreign ministers of Germany and France issue a joint communique in which they claim that a “new violation of international law took place” on the territory of Russia, alleging that “a military-grade nerve agent” had been used to poison Navalny.

- Following an emergency meeting of the North Atlantic Council, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg demands that Russia fully cooperate with the OPCW on “an impartial, international investigation” and “provide complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the OPCW.”

- The NATO Council issues a statement condemning “in the strongest possible terms the attack on the Russian opposition figure with the use of a nerve agent from the banned Novichok group,” supporting “the important role of the OPCW” and urging Russia “to immediately disclose any information relevant for its work.”

- The German Government transfers the request it received from the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to the Prosecutor’s Office of Berlin.

- The German magazine Der Spiegel reports that the Bundeswehr Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology found traces of the Novichok agent in the blood, urine and skin samples taken from Navalny as well as on the bottle Navalny allegedly had with him on the flight.

September 5

- The National Medical Chamber of Russia invites German colleagues to create a joint expert group to establish the reasons for the deterioration in Navalny’s health.

On September 8, 2020, the state-owned media holding Deutsche Welle announces that the Federal Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer) has rejected the proposal saying that only the patient’s relatives can initiate further medical examinations.

- OPCW experts arrive in Germany and are briefed by the German side.

September 6

- The OPCW experts visit the Charité hospital in Berlin to collect Navalny’s biological samples.

- German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas says in an interview with German media that the German Foreign Ministry has coordinated a response to the first request submitted by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office.

September 7

- Leonid Roshal sends an open letter to the president of the Federal Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer) inviting German colleagues to create a joint multidisciplinary commission to analyse the situation and coordinate unbiased final conclusions regarding the alleged poisoning of Alexey Navalny.

- A Bundeswehr representative says in an interview with Novaya Gazeta that the transfer of any additional information about the results of the tests is impossible for reasons of security and the interests of Germany.

September 8

- Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights runs a news release with a statement by Michelle Bachelet that “the number of cases of poisoning, or other forms of targeted assassination, of current or former Russian citizens, either within Russia itself or on foreign soil, over the past two decades is profoundly disturbing,” and also that “Navalny was clearly someone who needed state protection.”

September 9

- German Ambassador to Russia Geza Andreas von Geyr is summoned to the Foreign Ministry, which conveys its strong objections to him over Berlin’s unfounded accusations and ultimatums against Russia.

- A representative of the German Defence Ministry says in a briefing that Germany has handed over Navalny’s test results to OPCW experts.

- German government spokesperson Martina Fitz says Berlin sees no reason to transfer Navalny’s results directly to Moscow because Russia is a member of the OPCW, and urges Russia to provide information on the “Navalny case.”

- G7 releases a statement calling on Russia to investigate the case and identify and punish those responsible.

September 11

- The OPCW sends the biomedical samples taken from Navalny in Berlin to two designated laboratories.

- The Public Prosecutor's Office in Berlin announces it has received the request from the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia.

- Heads of the parliamentary friendship groups in the Russian State Duma and the German Bundestag, Pavel Zavalny and Robby Schlund, issue a joint statement calling for a constructive and unbiased investigation of the incident without a priori linking of it to Russian-German cooperation in public affairs, the economy and culture.

September 14

- The Prosecutor General's Office of Russia makes a second request to the Federal Office of Justice of the Federal Republic of Germany asking it to provide information about the methods used by the doctors at the Charité hospital to treat Navalny, as well as to allow Russian Interior Ministry employees to visit and question him as part of the pre-investigation verification of assumptions about him being a victim of poisoning (that request did not reach the Berlin Office of Justice until September 25) .

- German government spokesperson Steffen Seibert issues a statement about evidence of the presence of Novichok in the samples. Because this constitutes a serious violation of the CWC, the German government invites the OPCW to analyse the evidence on the Navalny incident under Clause 38 (e) of Article VIII of the Convention. Following the procedure, the OPCW takes biomaterial from Navalny and performs the necessary steps for its examination at two certified laboratories. As is noted, that means three laboratories have independently confirmed the presence of Novichok. They urge Russia to comment on the incident.

- Heiko Maas makes a statement at a joint news conference with the Iraqi Foreign Minister in Berlin that Russia should contact the OPCW in order to obtain documentary and medical materials on the Navalny case.

- The German government releases an official statement on the confirmation of the German military doctors’ conclusions about Navalny’s so-called Novichok nerve agent poisoning by OPCW-accredited laboratories in France and Sweden. The statement alleges OPCW specialists have taken new samples from the patient, although until that moment, the OPCW Technical Secretariat had repeatedly denied any official contacts with the Germans on the case.

- Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron speak on the phone.

September 15

- Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Heiko Maas.

September 16

- The Russian Embassy in Berlin sends a note to the German Foreign Ministry requesting assistance in providing consular access to Alexey Navalny in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 (on September 25, a response was received from the German Foreign Office, in which the German authorities announced that they had no plans to prevent Russian diplomats from establishing contact with Navalny, but would not help them do so, either).

September 17

- OPCW press release on medical samples collected by the Technical Secretariat for further analysis by the OPCW-certified laboratories.

- Resolution of the European Parliament in connection with the situation related to Alexey Navalny.

- A video emerges showing Navalny's hotel room, where his team identifies, describes and packs items found there, including bottles of mineral water that were handed over by the blogger’s curator Maria Pevchikh to German authorities, one of which was found to have traces of Novichok.

September 18

- The Prosecutor General's Office sends requests to the competent authorities of Sweden and France seeking legal assistance regarding the provision of information on the toxicology tests of Navalny's biomaterials, as well as interviewing their experts.

September 23

- Charité hospital press release saying that Navalny was discharged on September 22.

- Russia’s Permanent Mission to the OPCW sends a note to Germany’s Permanent Mission with a demand for information on the Navalny situation.

September 25

- The Prosecutor General's Office’s third request for legal assistance.

- Members of the State Duma Commission on Investigating Foreign States’ Interference in Russia’s Domestic Affairs headed by Deputy Vasily Piskaryov send a letter to German Bundestag President Wolfgang Schaeuble with a proposal to introduce joint Russian-German parliamentary control over the course of the investigation into the Navalny incident.

September 26

- Russia’s Interior Ministry sends a third inquiry on the Navalny situation (the document itself is dated September 24, 2020) to the Federal Office of Justice with a request that Russian investigators be allowed to conduct interviews with the blogger's spouse Yuliya and Maria Pevchikh who was on his team during the trip to Tomsk.

September 28

- The Prosecutor General's Office sends a fourth request for legal assistance to the Federal Office of Justice.

- Emmanuel Macron demands explanations from Russia regarding the Navalny case (during a news conference in Vilnius).

September 29

- Heiko Maas says at the UN General Assembly that Berlin sees a violation of the ban on the use of chemical weapons in the Navalny situation, and that the EU reserves the right to impose sanctions.
October 1

- Der Spiegel publishes an interview with Alexey Navalny.

- Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin delivers a letter to Director-General of the Technical Secretariat Fernando Arias with a request to consider dispatching experts to Russia to collaborate with Russian experts in reviewing Navalny’s test results to determine any signs of a possible crime committed against him on the territory of the Russian Federation.

October 2

- In a response note to our request under Clause 2 of Article IX of the CWC, Berlin confirms that it has sent a request to the OPCW Technical Secretariat under Clause 38 (e) of Article VIII of the CWC on September 4, and on September 5 ̵ 6, the OPCW experts ‘independently’ took biomaterials from Navalny (the Technical Secretariat itself confirmed this only on September 17).

- Fernando Arias sends a response assuring Russia that the Technical Secretariat is ready to provide the requested expertise and asking to clarify which clause of the CWC Russia is invoking to request assistance. The letter also said the Technical Secretariat was still waiting for Navalny’s test results with regard to Germany’s request.

October 3

- German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas says in an interview with the German news website T-Online that if the OPCW experts confirm the conclusions of the specialised laboratories in Germany, France and Sweden about Navalny being poisoned with the so-called Novichok group of military-grade nerve agent, new EU sanctions against Russia will become “inevitable.”

October 5

- The director-general of the OPCW Technical Secretariat, without waiting for our formal consent to making public our contacts with regard to the possible dispatching of OPCW experts to Russia, posts a news release on this matter on the OPCW website.

October 6

- Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin states in a new letter to Director-General of the Technical Secretariat Fernando Arias that Russia considers it possible to hold a meeting of experts on the basis of Clause 38 (e) of Article VIII of the CWC and confirms Russia’s consent to publish the relevant correspondence in order to properly inform the states parties to the CWC.

- The OPCW Technical Secretariat publishes Note S/1906/2020, which is a summary of the report on activities carried out in support of a request for technical assistance by Germany stating that Navalny “was exposed to a toxic chemical acting as a cholinesterase inhibitor.” At the same time, the report says that the biomarkers of the cholinesterase inhibitor found in Navalny’s samples have similar structural characteristics to the toxic chemicals belonging to schedules 1.A.14 and 1.A.15 (the so-called Novichok) listed in the Annex on Chemicals to the CWC. However, the inhibitor itself is not included in these lists.

- In a joint statement made on the sidelines of the 95th Session of the OPCW Executive Council (The Hague, October 6 ̵ 9), 44 countries from the Western camp (including NATO, the EU, Australia, Georgia, Colombia, Peru, Ukraine, South Korea, Switzerland, Ecuador and Japan) urge Russia to conduct an investigation, as soon as possible, into the use of chemical warfare from the Novichok group against Navalny and present its results to the 25th Session of the Conference of the States Parties (The Hague, November 30 ̵ December 4).

October 7

- A joint statement by the Foreign Ministers of France and Germany refers to the situation around Navalny as an attempted murder using “a military-grade nerve agent from the Novichok group developed by Russia”. Jean-Yves Le Drian and Heiko Maas emphasise that, in light of these circumstances, France and Germany consider that there is no other plausible explanation for Navalny’s poisoning than a Russian involvement and responsibility.

October 9

- A joint statement by the CSTO member states during the 95th session of the OPCW Executive Council (The Hague, October 6 ̵ 9) underscores the importance of strict observance of Clause 2 of Article VII of the CWC (legal assistance), and calls upon the states parties to abandon lofty politicised statements and to move towards real cooperation and consultations.

October 15

- The media reports that Alexey Navalny is staying in a German resort town of Ibach in the Southern Black Forest Nature Park.

October 26

- Director-General of the Technical Secretariat Fernando Arias sends a letter to Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin containing considerations regarding the modalities of the technical assistance requested by Russia. In particular, the letter states that Russia must guarantee the absence of the media coverage of the mission, must transfer the blogger's biomaterials to the OPCW for analysis at certified laboratories, provide all medical records regarding Navalny’s treatment in Russia as well as an opportunity of speaking with the Russian doctors who treated him, and obtain the consent from Navalny himself.

October 28

- The Federal Office of Justice of Germany sends a letter to the Russian Prosecutor General's Office regarding Russia’s requests for legal assistance dated August 27, September 14, September 24 and September 28, which is essentially a reply without any substance and does not answer any of the questions posed to the German authorities.

November 3

- The Russian Prosecutor General's Office sends the fifth request for legal assistance to the Federal Office of Justice.

November 11

- Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin delivers a letter to OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias, in which he expresses his astonishment with liberal interpretation of Russia’s proposals on modalities of technical assistance and notes that the technical assistance parameters are determined by the requesting party.

November 18

- OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias sends a letter to Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin, in which he states that the OPCW Technical Secretariat expects a reaction from Russia to the considerations listed in the Director-General’s letter dated October 26, 2020.

November 25

- Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin delivers a letter to OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias, in which he states that the OPCW TS is seeking to politicise the prerequisites for providing technical assistance to Russia on the basis of Clause 38 (e) of Article VIII of the CWC, and that the Technical Secretariat’s position betrays its plans to disrupt this mission. Also, Russia’s permanent representative pointed out that, in accordance with Article 144 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the investigative body has the authority to carry out the necessary procedural actions, including in the absence of Alexey Navalny’s consent.

November27

- OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias sends a letter to Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin, in which he once again states that the OPCW TS expects a response from Russia to the considerations listed in the Director-General’s letters dated October 26 and November 18.

December 4

- Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin delivers a letter to OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias, in which he states that the OPCW top officials had not provided an intelligible answer on the modalities of the visit by the organisation's experts to Russia.

December 9

- OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias sends a letter to Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin, in which he once again states that for the visit of the organisation's experts to take place it is necessary to conclude a memorandum of understanding and obtain Navalny's consent to work with his medical records and biological samples. He also states that it was impossible to conduct a joint analysis of biological samples at an FMBA-operated lab.

December 16

- Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin delivers a letter to OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias, in which he comments on the OPCW Technical Secretariat’s demands.

December 21

- OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias sends a letter to Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin, in which he states that in preparation for a visit to Russia, the OPCW TS adheres to the same requirements and procedures that were used when organising similar visits at the request of other CWC member states, including Germany.

December 28

- The Federal Penitentiary Service accuses Navalny of evading the criminal executive inspection’s control, and issues a warning to the effect that failure to comply with the court rulings may lead to replacing his suspended sentence with a prison term.

December29

- Russia’s Investigative Committee opens a criminal case on large-scale fraud against Alexey Navalny and “other individuals.” According to the Investigative Committee, Navalny embezzled 356 million roubles from the Anti-Corruption Foundation.



2021 г.

January 11

- The Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia files a motion at the Simonovsky District Court of Moscow requesting that Alexey Navalny’s suspended sentence in the case of fraud against Yves Rocher is replaced with a prison term.



____________________________________________

* On October 22, 2020, President Vladimir Putin said in his statement at the Valdai Discussion Club that he had personally instructed the Prosecutor General’s Office to see if it was possible to allow Navalny to travel abroad for medical treatment considering that he was under travel restrictions due to an investigation and a criminal case.

** At that time Navalny was presumably lying unconscious in hospital.

*** The Russian Embassy in Germany promptly passed the inquiry to the addressee. Bundestag deputy Hansjorg Mueller (Alternative for Germany/AfD) said in an interview with the Russian TV channel Zvezda on September 30, 2020 that he was not aware of the fact that the letter had arrived. It thus transpired that the Bundestag deputies knew nothing about it. AfD accused Wolfgang Schaeuble of deliberately hiding the letter and widely circulated its contents which they obtained from the Russian State Duma’s website. Only on October 9, 2020, in a note to the embassy, did the Bundestag protocol “retroactively" confirm receipt of the letter and its transmission to Schaeuble. On October 13, 2020, Chairman of the German-Russian Parliamentary Group in the Bundestag Robby Schlund (AfD) circulated the text of the open letter addressed to Wolfgang Schaeuble and urged the Bundestag to give an official response to that letter, to undertake efforts through the Bundestag in order to reduce tensions related to the Navalny case, to facilitate the consideration in substance of the Prosecutor General's Office’s requests for legal assistance and to keep the dialogue going. Saying that the letter is still being reviewed, Mr Schaeuble and the Presidium of the Bundestag refrain from making any statements. Official SPD and FDP spokespersons for foreign affairs Nils Schmid and Bijan Djir-Sarai, respectively, rejected the State Duma’s initiative citing the official position of Berlin.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4546417
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old February 5th, 2021 #257
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Ann Linde, Moscow, February 2, 2021



2 February 2021 - 14:16





Madam Minister,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Colleagues,

Welcome to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

This is not your first visit to Moscow, Madam Minister, but today, you are arriving in your new capacity as the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office. We appreciate the opportunity, at the beginning of your tenure, to exchange views on the persisting and accumulating problems in this organisation. We have to tackle them jointly within the framework of the pan-European process, taking into account the key underlying principle of the OSCE, that principle being consensus. This implies taking into consideration all the opinions and achieving a balance of interests. And the role of the OSCE Chairperson in it can hardly be overestimated. We do hope that, in performing that role, you will be helped by the legacy of the legendary Prime Minister Olof Palme, who always supported a unifying agenda on our continent and tried to find ways to strengthen security for all and on an equal basis.

The OSCE has adopted many high-level statements that define the key principles for ensuring equal and indivisible security for all. We really do hope that you will not permit any deviation from those documents.

We are also going to discuss our bilateral agenda. There are good examples of advancement in our relations, but, in general, the current bilateral situation leaves much to be desired.





We continue to hear mentions of the so-called Russian military threat, as well as other anti-Russia rhetoric, but unfortunately, all our proposals to establish a dialogue on any specific concerns remain unanswered. Neither have we received any response to a Russian inquiry about the conclusion reached by a Swedish military laboratory that Alexey Navalny had been poisoned by some new substance from the so-called Novichok group – about how those results were obtained and why that conclusion was drawn. This does not in the least fit into the transparency requirements given by our German and other colleagues in relation to this or any other issue, yet, they themselves do not want to be transparent about the conclusions they use to promote an anti-Russia agenda.

We would like to discuss all these matters honestly, openly, without bias, because as neighbours, we should be interested in normal, good relations – something that the people in our countries, especially residents of borderline regions, are vitally interested in.

We also propose exchanging views on our good bilateral cooperation in the North of Europe, including in the Arctic Council, as Russia will take over the chairmanship of the council in a few months.

We have a lot to talk about. Delighted to see you. Welcome again.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4550314






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at a joint news conference following talks with OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Ann Linde, Moscow, February 2, 2021



2 February 2021 - 18:02






Ladies and gentlemen,

Our talks with Foreign Minister of Sweden Ann Linde were interesting. On this visit, Ms Linde was in Russia as the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office. As you may recall, Sweden was most active in drafting the Helsinki Final Act that created the conditions for a pan-European process in Europe and that became the foundation of our common organisation. We hope that in the difficult situation that has now taken shape in Europe, the Swedish chairpersonship will be guided by a balanced and objective approach and will promote an atmosphere of trust in our common space. We will do everything we can to facilitate this approach.

We have the common view that, considering its broad geographical area, and its comprehensive approach to all dimensions of security, and the rules of consensus, the OSCE fully retains its importance and can play a greater role in European and Euro-Atlantic affairs. During the Foreign Minister Council session in Tirana, held via video conference last month, we suggested discussing ways of making the OSCE more effective. Today, we have given our Swedish colleagues an informal document that proposes a discussion on how and in what forms to consider this vital subject. We hope the Swedish side will pay due attention to this issue.

We hope the current chairpersonship will facilitate the resolution of many specific problems by looking for points of contact and drafting a unifying agenda. We discussed in detail our current tasks in three areas of the OSCE, as well as the work of its institutions and field missions. We also touched on budget and personnel issues. Russia is ready for close cooperation in countering terrorism and drug trafficking, ICT security threats, human trafficking and all other forms of organised crime.

We are convinced the OSCE can also contribute to overcoming the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, in part, by ensuring the socioeconomic rights of the people and promoting collaboration between various integration processes in Eurasia.

Our priorities also include the need to protect the rights of national minorities and eliminate manifestations of neo-Nazism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia.

Against the backdrop of censorship of objectionable opinions by global IT companies, it is necessary to pay special attention to ensuring the right of access to information.

We reviewed the situation in Ukraine and again emphasised that there is no alternative to the full and consistent implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures. We believe (and expressed this today) that any attempt to whitewash Kiev, which is stubbornly refusing to comply with its international commitments, will be counterproductive. We hope the current chairpersonship will facilitate a direct dialogue between Kiev and Donbass in the Contact Group and ensure the unbiased performance of the OSCE Social Monitoring Mission in Ukraine.

We discussed the role of the Minsk Group in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement and the prospects for resuming the positive dynamic of the 5+2 format in Transnistria. We assessed the course of the Geneva discussions on security and stability in the South Caucasus.

We had some things to discuss in our bilateral relations. We are committed to implementing the agreements of principle that were reached during the talks between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Sweden Stefan Lofven in St Petersburg in April 2019. We support overcoming the negative trend in bilateral trade that saw a serious decline in the 11 months of the past year. We allot an important role in this respect to the Russian-Swedish Steering Committee on Trade and Economic Cooperation. As we understand it, the co-chairs of this important committee are interested in holding a regular session in Stockholm this year.

We hope that we will be able to find a mutually acceptable solution to the problem of supplying Swedish products to Russian automobile manufacturer GAZ Group. Last year, the Swedish authorities, for some reason, banned the export of spare parts for presses used in GAZ automotive facilities. We hope our Swedish colleagues will review this situation in the interest of economic cooperation. We are also interested in the Swedish government helping to improve the economic conditions for the operation of the Kubal aluminium smelter in Sweden co-owned by Russia’s Rusal.

We appreciate the development of our humanitarian ties. Next year, Russian Seasons will be held in Sweden, as well as in other Scandinavian countries. Joint work continues on the project to raise the Russian Imperial Navy submarine Som, which sank in Swedish waters during the First World War in 1916. There are specific plans in place for implementing the project. We look forward to expediting the process.

We have exchanged views on the situation in the Baltic Sea region, and in northern Europe as a whole. We consider Sweden's policy of non-participation in military alliances an important factor in regional stability. We see, with some concern, the consistent attempts to draw Stockholm into interaction with the North Atlantic Alliance. Sweden is increasingly participating in joint exercises with NATO and providing its territory for NATO maneuvers. It is our conviction that neither the Arctic nor entire northern Europe has any problems that require the involvement of military-political blocs. Any problem there can be resolved through the efforts of the countries in that region.

We hope that our numerous proposals for establishing a security dialogue in that part of Europe will be reviewed and that we will receive a clear response. In particular, I am referring to our initiative, long proposed to our colleagues – something we call the 5+3+1 format (the five northern European countries, the three Baltic countries and the Russian Federation) where these countries can frankly exchange security concerns they might have​​ in relation to each other, and in general, about security in the region.

We are grateful to our Swedish colleagues for expressing their willingness to contribute to the success of Russia’s chairmanship of the Arctic Council, which will begin in May 2021. We agreed to continue to maintain contact.







Question (addressed to Ann Linde):

My question concerns the foundation principles of the OSCE, which you are currently chairing, according to which individual rights and freedoms form the core of this organisation. The right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression is one of the top principles.

On December 3, 2020, seven Latvian journalists were charged and prosecuted for collaboration with the Russian media. They were subjected to rough searches. To date, many of their personal belongings have not been returned. The journalists are accused of allegedly violating sanctions by cooperating with MIA Rossiya Segodnya, even though it is not on Latvia’s sanctions list.

My colleagues and I asked the OSCE for help. We would like you to clarify this situation. What are you planning to do to stop the persecution of seven Latvian journalists?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Ann Linde):

During preparations for the OSCE Ministerial Council, the Russian delegation introduced draft decisions that did not contain anything revolutionary or unexpected, but simply suggested confirming the basic principles approved by the OSCE back in 1990s-early 2000s. First of all, this was about the principle of free access to information for citizens of a corresponding country, who should be able to use the news and assessment sources within their respective countries and abroad, and journalists. We only cited what the OSCE adopted in the early 1990s at our Western colleagues’ initiative.

At this time, the historical situation has changed for reasons unknown, and the Western countries (at least, most of them) oppose a consensus that would corroborate the need to ensure free access to information. We are preparing a similar proposal for the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting to be held in Stockholm.

Overall, the issue of transparency in global developments has become particularly important. The need for openness applies to the situation with Mr Navalny, which is being so heavily played up by our Western colleagues.

Our German colleagues said they found a chemical warfare agent in his biomaterials, which does not appear in any roster. Then, they double-checked this information with French and Swedish biological labs and the OPCW Technical Secretariat. No information that would actually prove the validity of the accusations against the Russian leadership has been provided so far.

If charges are brought forward, guilt must be substantiated. The refusal to provide information because it is “classified,” or the “patient” himself has not provided his consent to do so, leads us to believe that this is a staged operation.

Today, I reminded our Swedish counterparts about what we expect to receive from them, since one such analysis had been carried out in a laboratory run by the Swedish Defence Research Agency in Umea, following which it was loudly announced that the German experts’ findings were confirmed and that they did their work in a transparent and honest manner.



Question:

If the United States offers concessions with regard to preserving the Open Skies Treaty (OST), would Russia be willing to reverse its withdrawal from the Treaty, which began several weeks ago?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have discussed this issue. We noted the fact that some countries participating in the Open Skies Treaty are trying to blame the situation on Russia. Allegedly, the Americans have been putting up with our “violations” for a long time now. Finally, they ran out of patience and withdrew from the treaty. So, it’s up to Russia to do something in order to overcome the current crisis.

We have noted numerous violations by the United States over the past years. Compared to the accusations against us, these violations appear to be much more widespread and striking. Almost all of Alaska, except 3 to 5 percent of its territory was closed to our observation flights. Hawaii was off-limits completely as a result of the tricks that the Americans resorted to in violation of the procedures established by the treaty. There are a number of violations committed by the European members of the OST. So, claiming that Russia should be held accountable for the current situation is not really fair.

When the United States withdrew from the treaty, we told our European colleagues that we were willing to keep it, but that we would like to see them comply with the provision that prohibits the transfer of data obtained during observation flights to a country that is not part of the OST. They started telling us that this provision was already included in the treaty. We cited the information that we have that the United States, having decided to withdraw, was trying to talk its NATO allies into committing themselves, in violation of the treaty, to “share” with Washington the information gathered during flights over Russia. Since we had reliable information that the previous administration engaged in “arm twisting,” we invited our OST colleagues to reiterate their commitment that information obtained during observation flights would not be transferred to a third party.

We received a vague response from which Russia concluded that the US pressure had its effect, and that the Europeans were unwilling to confirm what, as they do not rule out, would be violated. This is just to refresh our memory.

In response to your question, if the United States fully returns to complying with the OST, Russia will be willing to constructively consider the new situation. The concerns that the parties to the treaty may have with regard to each other can and should be discussed in the Open Skies Consultative Commission, which was created to serve the OST.

You mentioned that we have already begun to withdraw from the treaty. This is not entirely true. We announced that we had made this decision, but the withdrawal will only begin after we send formal notification to the depositories of the treaty.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4550431






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ayman Safadi, Moscow, February 3, 2021



3 February 2021 - 13:38






Mr Minister, my dear friend,

Colleagues,

We are very pleased to have another opportunity to exchange views on implementing the agreements reached by Russian President Vladimir Putin and His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Let us start by discussing current bilateral issues concerning Russian-Jordanian relations in all areas. Then we could exchange views on current issues on the international agenda, including developments in the Middle East and North Africa, the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, and the situations in Syria, Iraq and the Persian Gulf zone.





We always appreciate our Jordanian friends’ assessments and opinions of these matters. These talks are always important to us.

Welcome to Russia.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4550773






Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation on the extension of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms



3 February 2021 - 16:30



On February 3, 2021 the MFA of Russia and the U.S. Embassy in Moscow exchanged diplomatic notes regarding the completion of internal procedures required for the entry into force of the Agreement to extend the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of April 8, 2010 (New START). Accordingly, this Agreement entered into force on the same day. Thus the Treaty will remain in effect exactly as it had been signed, without any amendments or additions, until February 5, 2026. The telephone conversation between the President of Russia Vladimir Putin and the U.S. President Joseph Biden on January 26, 2021 became key for this development to proceed.

In effect, this core mechanism for maintaining strategic stability is preserved and its further functioning assured on a strictly reciprocal basis, limiting the two countries’ nuclear arsenals. Considering the special responsibilities that Russia and the U.S. carry as the world’s largest nuclear nations, the decision taken is important as it guarantees a necessary level of predictability and transparency in this area, while strictly maintaining a balance of interests.

We expect that the understanding, reached with Washington regarding the future of the New START Treaty as a cornerstone of international security, would allow to leave behind the trend towards dismantling of arms control and nonproliferation mechanisms, so prevalent in recent years due to U.S. destructive policies. Significant steps would be required to return our bilateral dialogue in this area back to a more stable trajectory, reach new substantial results which would strengthen our national security and global strategic stability.

Russia is ready to do its part. We urge the U.S. to apply a similarly responsible approach and to respond to our initiatives in a constructive manner.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4551078






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ayman Safadi, Moscow, February 3, 2021



3 February 2021 - 18:36






Good afternoon.

We have discussed in detail the status of our bilateral relations. We reaffirmed our mutual interest in further developing cooperation in all areas in accordance with the agreements reached at the top level by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan.

We noted our support for the holding of a regular meeting of the Russia-Jordan Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic and Scientific-Technical Cooperation as soon as the epidemiological situation permits.

We noted the positive prospects for our continuing cooperation in energy (including nuclear energy), as well as in the humanitarian, education and military-technical areas.

We discussed in detail the settlement in Syria and reaffirmed the need to approach the existing problems through direct dialogue with the Syrians themselves, including under the auspices of the Constitutional Committee, in full conformity with the principles approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

We expressed satisfaction with our cooperation in the Astana format, in which Jordan takes part as an observer. We discussed preparations for the regular meeting in this format, which is scheduled to take place in Sochi in the middle of February.

We have very close positions on the need to eradicate the surviving small hotbeds of terrorism in the Syrian Arab Republic, create conditions for the return of refugees and start international assistance for the reconstruction of the country.

We spoke about the role that the Arab League can play in creating the most favourable conditions for resolving these tasks that are facing the Syrian people.

We share the opinion on the Palestinian problem about the need to promote the two-state solution. We welcome normalisation of Israel’s relations with many Arab countries, but this must not be used in an effort to sidestep the need to create a Palestinian state.

We reaffirmed the role of the Quartet of international mediators. In cooperation with the Arab League, it can play a very important role in resuming direct talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative.

We exchanged views on the developments in Iraq, Libya and Yemen. We are interested in the efforts of the international community to create conditions for an effective and inclusive national dialogue.

Russia and Jordan are striving to overcome the crisis phenomena in the Persian Gulf and ensure stability in this part of the Middle East. We discussed relevant initiatives, including the Russian proposal to create a collective security system in the Persian Gulf with the involvement of external participants. We drew attention to the Russian concept on the main parameters of this proposal.

We and our Jordanian friends plan to hold meetings with our other partners, during which all these issues will be discussed in detail. We agreed to coordinate these steps given that we have practically overlapping goals on the crises in the region.







Question:

You touched on the issue of direct talks between Palestine and Israel. Do you think the two countries are prepared for the likely resumption of talks? How might the change of US administration influence the course of the peace settlement process?

Do you see the intra-Palestine split as an obstacle to the resumption of peace negotiations? Given that recently many Palestine politicians have visited Moscow, can elections help remove this obstacle?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for Palestine and Israel's readiness to resume direct talks, we believe this has to be strongly encouraged, primarily by the Quartet of international mediators and the Arab countries. We must keep in mind that some upcoming events are likely to play a role in setting the stage for a direct dialogue.

Early parliamentary elections in Israel, scheduled for March, will show if the Israelis are ready to consider proposals for direct talks.

If we want the Quartet of international mediators to perform their functions in full, it is important to wait until the US administration completes filling the relevant positions and outlines the approach of the new masters of the White House to the Palestine-Israeli problem. After that it will be clear what position the renewed Quartet might take. It is obvious for us that their position cannot be other than pursuing the two-state solution.

As for the situation in Palestine, the split, as you said, is gradually but consistently being resolved, including through the efforts of external players like the Arab countries and, primarily, Egypt. The Russian Federation is also contributing to the reconciliation process in Palestine. Our Jordanian friends are also working towards this goal. Thanks to all these efforts, it was announced that parliamentary, presidential elections and elections to the Palestine National Council there would take place this summer. I believe this will be an important and decisive step on the way to rebuilding national unity in Palestine.



Question (translated from Arabic):

Moscow’s rhetoric on protests in the West, in part, on Capitol Hill, and the Western response to unauthorized actions in Moscow are very different. Don’t you think that the Russian position is too diplomatic, thereby giving the West more opportunity to interfere in Russia’s domestic affairs? Shouldn’t Moscow start referring to those that were arrested for the riots on the Capitol as political prisoners?



Sergey Lavrov:

I’d say that the West presents very specific, one-sided coverage of not only the events linked with Alexei Navalny but also everything that is taking place in Russia. The hysteria caused by his trial is out of proportion. The public is not told that the regulations for holding demonstrations, rallies and protests are much tougher in the West than in Russia. The police in the West have the right to curb any assembly that is not authorised or notified of in advance, or, if a notification was submitted, violate the procedures for holding it as agreed with the authorities. If demonstrators in Germany, France, the US or other Western countries take to the streets and prevent the normal functioning of transport, they can face several years in prison, huge fines and other penalties. The police are much tougher with them than our law-enforcement bodies as regards participating in illegal actions.

Coverage of these actions in Russia and actions by opposition leaders in the West is also based on double standards. When they show events in Russia, the focus is on the police response to the behaviour of the demonstrators. The latter’s actions are not shown at all, although looking at the footage on the internet, it is easy to see how aggressive those who took part in illegal actions were in Moscow and other Russian cities in the past few days. When the Western media cover similar events at home, they usually show outrageous behaviour by demonstrators like broken shop windows and cars on fire, but not the cruelty of the police. This applies to the footage of a police car driving over the bodies of demonstrators lying on the asphalt. As a rule, such footage is kept behind the scenes and can only be found on social media.

To have this discussion (if the West is interested) along the lines of common sense and facts (the West is reluctant to discuss facts), we have prepared a video on how illegal actions are held and suppressed in the West and how our police reacted to the excesses of demonstrators during the recent events. Yesterday, we handed over this video to Foreign Minister of Sweden Ann Linde who is also the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office. Today, I sent the same video to Josep Borrell, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. We want him to see the objective picture based on specific facts from both sides rather than groundless accusations as he prepares for his visit to Moscow on Friday. Unfortunately, our Western colleagues have become used to such accusations, whether it’s the Skripal case or the so-called Navalny “poisoning” or the events related to his arrest and yesterday’s court verdict.

I understand those who think that Russia could be more aggressive in reacting to the openly high-handed, unseemly rhetoric from Western leaders. In our diplomatic and political culture, we are not used to resorting to thuggish rhetoric. We are polite people and are used to achieving our goals in a civil and civilised manner. As we say: “God is not in power but in truth.” We also have a good proverb that should be remembered: “Honey is sweet, but the bee stings.” Those who take our polite manners for a sign of weakness are making a big mistake.



Question:

The White Helmets activists were evacuated to Jordan when the south of Syria was cleared from terrorists and commandos in 2018. Later they were taken to other countries that agreed to give them shelter. However, there was a recent report that Germany supposedly returned one of their leaders to Jordan because of his extremist views, notably Khalid al-Saleh. What can you tell us about this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I remember how the German press wrote about his evacuation from Jordan to Germany. I think the German government even provided a government plane for this operation (which is rare). I don’t know whether he returned to Jordan or whether the Germans deported him for his extremist views. My colleague can probably give you a better answer.

Since you mentioned the White Helmets, I would like to say a few words about this special project of our Western colleagues. This so-called “humanitarian” organisation was created with the active participation of Western secret services and was funded by them. It never provided its so-called “humanitarian” services on the territories controlled by the Syrian government. They worked exclusively in the parts of Syria that were ruled by the terrorists, primarily from Jabhat al-Nusra with which the White Helmets cooperated very closely. With Western money, they staged overt provocations and orchestrated scenes and videos on the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government in the country. These so-called “facts” that any even remotely unbiased expert would consider far-fetched, were used by the West to deal air strikes at a sovereign state without grounds, like a UN Security Council resolution.

When things were getting hot for the White Helmets – instigators, swindlers and their terrorist accomplices – as a result of the liberation of Syrian territory, the West decided to save its clients by deflecting the hit from them. Despite singing praises to the White Helmets as all but the ideal of a humanitarian organisation, the West was well aware of whom it was dealing and whom it had nurtured. This is exactly when the West asked our Jordanian colleagues to temporarily provide shelter to the White Helmets. This was two and a half years ago. As I understand it, dozens of these characters still remain in Jordan. We believe it is necessary to fulfil the promise to remove them in a couple of months, but we know how true the West is to its words.

I hope my friend will show understanding for my comments because this matter deals not so much with Jordan as with an element of the common Western strategy to replace the regime in Syria contrary to UN Security Council resolutions. This is a very important issue that we cannot forget.

As for whether al-Saleh returned to Jordan, I don’t know.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4551164






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken



4 February 2021 - 21:06







On February 4, Sergey Lavrov spoke by telephone with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Having congratulated his colleague on his appointment, the minister expressed willingness to conduct a constructive dialogue on a wide range of issues.

Following the telephone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Joseph Biden, the officials welcomed the extension of the New START Treaty on limiting strategic nuclear arms until 2026, which will improve the general situation in international security and strategic stability. They touched on the problem of making arms control predictable, considering the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty and the prospects for the Open Skies Treaty.

The officials also discussed international issues, in part, promoting a peaceful settlement in Syria and Libya and the situation in Ukraine.

Mr Lavrov reminded the Secretary of State about Moscow’s earlier proposals to adopt joint Russian-US statements on the unacceptability of nuclear war and on non-interference in each other’s domestic affairs.

In connection with the developments around Alexey Navalny, which were mentioned by Mr Blinken, Mr Lavrov gave detailed explanations about the need to respect the laws and the judicial system of the Russian Federation. He drew Mr Blinken’s attention to the persecution of the protesters against the results of the presidential election and urged the US to ensure transparency in the relevant legal procedures.

Mr Lavrov confirmed Russia’s willingness to work jointly for normalising the entire range of bilateral relations while observing mutual respect and a balance of interests. The officials emphasised their interest in mutually eliminating the accumulated difficulties in the operations of the Russian and US diplomatic missions in both countries. Anthony Blinken displayed a willingness to organise an expert dialogue on these issues.

The officials supported the promotion of cooperation in countering the coronavirus infection, including the development and upgrading of vaccines.

They agreed to maintain continuous working contacts.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4552574
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old February 6th, 2021 #258
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, February 4, 2021



4 February 2021 - 21:26






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with Finish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto

On February 15, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be in St Petersburg for talks with Foreign Minister of Finland Pekka Haavisto, who will be in Russia on a working visit.

The two officials plan to discuss bilateral cooperation issues, including the schedule for upcoming political meetings, cooperation in trade, the economy, culture, education and healthcare, and the agenda for the regional cooperation formats in the Baltics and northern Europe, including the agenda for Russia’s two-year chairmanship of the Arctic Council, which will begin in May. They will also discuss important international issues.



Diplomats’ Day

On February 10, Russia observes Diplomats’ Day, a day of professional recognition instituted by executive order of the President of the Russian Federation on October 31, 2002.

The date commemorates February 10, 1549, the earliest mention in official chronicles of Russia’s first state agency for foreign affairs – the Ambassadorial Department (or Posolsky Prikaz in Russian).

Today, the Foreign Ministry of Russia is guided by the Concept of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation as endorsed by the President of Russia on November 30, 2016. In accordance with this programme, doctrinal document, Russian foreign policy is aimed at ensuring the country’s national security, sovereignty and territorial integrity, creating favourable conditions for sustainable economic growth, strengthening international peace and stability, enhancing the role of the UN, and developing bilateral and multilateral relations of mutually advantageous and equitable partnership with foreign states. The key principles of Russian foreign policy have remained unchanged: independence, openness, predictability, pragmatism, a multi-directional approach, and the upholding of national interests.

By tradition, we are planning a series of events for this date. Unfortunately, this year they will be reduced in scope and some of them will be held online due to the coronavirus restrictions.

On February 10, wreaths will be laid at the memorial plaques in the Foreign Ministry building for the names of our colleagues who perished on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War and while performing their professional duties during peacetime, as well as at the monuments of prominent Soviet and Russian diplomats at the Novodevichy Convent cemetery. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and other diplomats will lay flowers at the monument to Yevgeny Primakov.

An exhibit devoted to the activities of deputy foreign ministers who left an important mark in the history of domestic foreign policy and diplomacy will be displayed in the lobby of the ministry’s central building. The birth anniversaries of these diplomats are being marked this year: Vasily Kuznetsov, Yakov Malik, Vladimir Semyonov, Vladimir Vinogradov, Igor Zemskov, Mikhail Kapitsa and Yuly Kvitsinsky.

We publish materials on the history of the Russian diplomatic service on our online resources. On the eve of Diplomats’ Day we are paying our respects to our late colleagues, and we remember them. We are also planning to publish a series of articles on outstanding Russian diplomats as part of our project #InMemoryofDiplomats.

Themed events will be held at Russian embassies and consulates abroad. Some of our foreign offices have adopted a creative approach to this commemorative date and are working on full multimedia projects in cooperation with their media partners. Thus, the Russian Embassy in Uzbekistan and the Russian language edition of Novosti Uzbekistana (Uzbekistan News) have launched a number of publications entitled “Russian Diplomacy: Personalities, Stories, and Facts.” You can read about this on the ministry’s website and on our social media pages.

As in previous years, on the eve of this day, many Russian ambassadors will give interviews to the media and describe the fine points of present-day diplomacy. This is linked with the current situation – international relations are going through a fairly difficult period. Many new processes have been introduced due to the pandemic. It is understandable that the profession of diplomat is more in demand in these uneasy circumstances than ever before.



Comments by the ‘collective West’ on socio-political situation in Russia

We have noted the recent comments made by the so-called collective West, with the United States playing the role of the lead singer and conductor of the ‘choir.’ The heads of state and foreign ministers of NATO and EU countries have also made statements on the socio-political situation in Russia.

This is a coordinated information campaign. Its goal is a global attempt to contain Russia and interfere in its internal affairs. This is nothing new though. Russia is far from being the only country targeted by its Western partners. They are just worried about anyone who might be able to compete with them, in one way or another. They are unable to accept rivalry normally, in a healthy legal context. For our Western partners, it is a pain in the neck because it runs contrary to their doctrinal principle of their exclusiveness – they alone can tell everyone what to do and how democracy should work. We are well aware of this; we have been there many times already. They are just having another bout.

As I have mentioned, the United States plays a leading role. We will have a separate talk with them. The UK, Germany, and France have also picked up the tune, replicating the string of groundless accusations against us, and distorting facts when describing events happening in Russia. Let me underscore that we are talking about interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state here. This is how we interpret these statements. One gets the impression that the Western officialdom is refusing to see what has been happening in recent days and months in the EU or the US. They are deliberately diverting the international community’s attention from the situation in their own countries, focusing on their version of developments in Russia instead.

Allow me to remind you of some recent events in those countries – riots, violent clashes between protesters and the police, the use of all possible methods and means of suppressing protests, including firearms as in the United States some time ago. There is the never ending escalation in the level of violence, as we note. This is what our partners need to pay attention to – the situation in their own countries, and not try to rock Russia’s boat.

This pseudo-concern over the situation in Russia will not help resolve any EU or NATO countries citizens’ problems, in particular France. Statements made by Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian are beyond any diplomatic propriety. I could give you a piece of good advice: try putting the energy that goes into criticising our country into achieving some peaceful purposes, such as addressing problems more relevant for citizens of your countries. We will raise the entire scope of issues (the unacceptable statements, pseudo-assessments, and distortion of facts) at Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell who will be arriving in Russia tomorrow. As a reminder – it is a planned visit.



Persecution of participants in January mass protests in the United States

We are deeply concerned about the ongoing persecution campaign against participants in the so-called storming of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and against anybody at all who does not agree with the results of the latest presidential election. US officials and an obedient media have labelled them “domestic terrorists.” By the way, did the ambassadors of EU countries or EU representatives in the US react in any way? Did they express concern about Washington’s rhetoric regarding its own citizens? No? Too bad.

The FBI has reportedly opened more than 400 criminal cases and applied for more than 500 search warrants and subpoenas for suspects; it has also brought charges against and detained around 200 people. Only several dozen defendants have been released on bail or placed under house arrest. The others are being subjected to harsh pressure, with members of their family and social circle being coerced into giving a “convenient” testimony. Moreover, people who have not even been officially charged are losing their jobs; they are being banned from social media and publicly ostracised.

Among other things, there is a question about the objectivity of the law enforcement agencies because they are essentially acting under orders and in line with the narrative of the current administration who declared the events of January 6, 2021 a riot and everybody who was near the US Congress on that day all but plunderers. Whereas in fact, the majority of those people were ordinary citizens concerned about the situation in their own country. These were 74 million voters who voted for their president and defended their views. I am using the same words that Washington has used with respect to our country.

Their protest will not just go away. You cannot just sweep discontent under the rug. Even the rhetoric that the United States allows itself to use with respect to Russia will not help distract public attention from the country’s own problems. They will have to be dealt with. US citizens deserve to be treated according to the law and in line with Washington’s international obligations. In this context, we have every reason to express concern and demand that basic human rights be observed. US officials are constantly and hypocritically taking care of these rights when it comes to other countries; and yet, they have no scruples in ignoring them at home. Why don’t you deal with your own problems? There are plenty of them and they need to be solved.

We intend to continue monitoring this issue and have a serious talk with Washington.



Update on US citizens Paul Whelan and Trevor Reed

We noticed the coordinated propaganda campaign which was, again, ordered by Washington, in the US and other Western media concerning Paul Whelan and Trevor Reed who are said to have been “wrongfully convicted” in Russia. Complaints by the men’s relatives about the ill treatment of Mr Whelan and Mr Reed are being circulated in the media. There have been unsubstantiated claims that Mr Whelan (who was caught red-handed and charged with espionage) is being denied due medical care. He is alleged to have fallen ill in the penal colony and to have a high fever but no help has been provided.

I should remind you that we heard these kind of rants before and, like before, there is no evidence to support such allegations. Every time Mr Whelan visits a doctor’s surgery with symptoms of an ailment he receives help and is offered several optional treatments. I can assure you that his condition is satisfactory.

Since the United States is so concerned about the state of human rights and their citizens, it would be helpful if they practiced the same approach with respect to the citizens of other countries imprisoned in the United States, primarily Russia. These individuals include Konstantin Yaroshenko, Viktor Bout and many others. They do need help and usually receive it only after multiple requests by Russian embassies and consular services.

Overall, the insinuations concerning Paul Whelan and Trevor Reed seem to be rooted in an ingenious plan to serve them up as political victims but that is not going to work. If this is the actual purpose of this information campaign, it is a failed plan. Both are convicted for a reason, on serious criminal charges, and will serve their sentences. It would be nice to see more objectivity on behalf of the US media. Perhaps it is time they gave their audiences the real picture.

We advise our American counterparts against even trying to exert any pressure on Russia in order to get unilateral concessions. As we have repeatedly stated previously, communicating with us in this manner is futile.



Syria update

On January 25-29, 2021, Geneva was the venue of the fifth meeting of the Syrian Constitutional Committee’s Drafting Commission. Under earlier agreements, the pro-government and opposition delegations started discussing the Fundamental Law’s subject matter. The latter delegation actively involved civil society’s “independent” representatives.

In the run-up and during the latest round, jointly with our Astana format partners we urged the Syrian parties to conduct a constructive dialogue in the interests of merging the positions and charting a common perception of their country’s future constitution. We hope that the intra-Syrian consultations in Geneva, with the effective assistance of Geir Pedersen, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria, will continue in the near future. At the same time, we believe that the attainment of substantial progress on the constitutional track will facilitate the fastest possible comprehensive and sustainable stabilisation of the situation in Syria in full compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

The ceasefire is being observed in most of the Syrian regions. A tense situation persists in the Idlib zone where terrorist groups still rule supreme. ISIS militants continue to stage attacks in the Syrian Desert in eastern Syria. Syrian government forces and the Russian Aerospace Forces launch retaliatory strikes against ISIS caches and strongholds. Undercover ISIS fighters have also become more active on the opposite bank of the Euphrates River, controlled by the self-proclaimed Kurdish administration, with US military support.



Update on Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to resolve the situation around the Iranian nuclear programme

So far, there have been no substantial changes making it possible to resume the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to resolve the situation around the Iranian nuclear programme under the initially coordinated framework.

In this connection, numerous hopes are being placed on the administration of US President Joe Biden. Washington has sent out certain messages highlighting its principled readiness to rejoin the “nuclear deal.” However, we are now merely watching the United States and Iran exchanging mutual claims on who should be the first to meet the other party halfway.

Tehran has repeatedly voiced its readiness to once again fulfill all JCPOA provisions in full measure, following the complete restoration of the lost balance of interests. So far, the Iranian party continues to expand its nuclear activities, including the expansion of uranium enrichment capacities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, as proved by the latest reports by the IAEA Director General. However, we should heed the fact that the IAEA closely oversees all the projects, being implemented by Iran at the already-mentioned facilities; nor do these projects transcend Tehran’s obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

We believe that the consistent and complete fulfilment of the agreements by all countries that drafted and signed them, including the United States and Iran, are an essential condition for saving the “nuclear deal.” We are ready to closely cooperate with all parties to the JCPOA for the sake of achieving this goal, and we are also ready to cooperate constructively with the new US administration in this field.



Results of Iran-Eurasia Economic Diplomacy conference

On January 27, Iran hosted the Iran-Eurasia Economic Diplomacy forum sponsored by the Tehran Chamber of Commerce, Industries, Mines and Agriculture. The event was attended by high-ranking representatives of relevant agencies, businesses and the local expert community, as well as ambassadors of the EAEU member states.

We appreciate the results of the meeting organised by our Iranian friends. We believe it showed Iran's interest in further strengthening its partnership with the EAEU, including in potentially moving from the interim agreement on a free trade area between Iran and the EAEU to a permanent one.

Our countries have significant trade, economic, investment, and science and technology potential for mutually beneficial cooperation. We hope that a full liberalisation of trade will help to build up mutual turnover.



The role of the US military in the Kosovo conflict

We were impressed by US Ambassador to Kosovo Philip S. Kosnett’s revelations, in an interview with the Kosovar online newspaper Gazetablic.com on January 26, on the true role of the US in military action in Yugoslavia during the active phase of the conflict in the late 1990s. His comment that US soldiers did not fight and die to create Greater Serbia or Greater Albania in the Balkans cannot be interpreted otherwise.

Such utterances lead to the logical conclusion that the bloodshed in Kosovo was not the result of some turn of events or Belgrade’s policies after all, as the West is still trying to present it, but were provoked externally with the purpose of an illegal seizure of part of Serbia’s territory. The operation had been planned by Western special services and implemented with their direct combat, material and expert support. Essentially, this is an important piece of evidence that leaves no room for the myth of Washington and its allies’ good intentions in the Balkans.

It is impossible to miss the obvious contradiction between the US ambassador’s confessions and the official Western version that the US and its NATO accomplices limited themselves to an air operation against Yugoslavia, cynically nicknamed Merciful Angel, and that the Alliance allegedly suffered no human losses at that time. It now appears that the situation was quite different. We are waiting for an explanation.



Long-term consequences of NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia

In Serbia, the first individual lawsuit against NATO has been filed seeking compensation for health damage caused by the Alliance’s use of depleted uranium during its 1999 bomb attacks. Lawyers are now compiling more than 2,000 lawsuits for Serbs and Albanians seeking compensation on similar grounds. More than 20 years after the Alliance's aggression in Yugoslavia, the incidence of major health problems including cancer in the affected areas in southern Serbia are still well above the national average.

NATO has left more such ‘traces’ from its other ‘humanitarian’ missions. After the bombing in northern Libya, the background radiation was several times higher than the permitted level – the distinctive signature of NATO ‘humanitarian workers.’ Causing serious and lasting damage to the natural environment and human health, in direct violation of international humanitarian law, has become a well-established practice in NATO member states.

NATO members talk a lot about threats to European security, although in reality, the main threat is their irresponsible actions that lead to an escalation of tensions and have on one occasion caused an environmental disaster in the centre of Europe. They not only used radioactive ammunition in Yugoslavia. They targeted specific enterprises, and their hits led to the spill of tonnes of toxic and carcinogenic chemical agents in surrounding lands and rivers, including the Danube.

Unfortunately, no one has been punished for these crimes so far. This, again, fits perfectly with the norm of the Western mainstream – never admit or recognise mistakes. Is Yugoslavia the only example? Take Iraq, Libya and many other places on the planet. They come, destroy and go, without apologising or being punished. And then they lecture others on what they should do and what freedom is. This looks like a kind of erosion of responsibility within the Alliance, which is dominated by permissiveness because no one ever gets punished.

The NATO member countries are apparently wary of setting a precedent for paying compensations to victims. That is why NATO has consistently denied any connection between the spread of malignant tumours and leukaemia and the massive use of depleted uranium in southern Serbia, claiming any such connection between those facts is unfounded. Even several hundred NATO troops from the Kosovo Force (KFOR) have suffered from the long-term consequences of the aggression against Yugoslavia. This is confirmed, for example, by a number of verdicts from Italian courts on cases filed by representatives of the Italian Armed Forces who were in KFOR in 1999 and later came down with cancer.

Young Serbs have not seen NATO’s aggression. But they continue to be affected, in one way or another, by its long-term consequences. That is why it is so important for that country to continue to carefully document and systematise the evidence of NATO’s crimes in Yugoslavia, based on a scientific study of all the details. Perhaps the aforementioned lawsuits against NATO and the interdepartmental commission established in 2018 by the Serbian parliament will help establish the truth and lead to punishment of those guilty, so that this can never happen again.



British media publications on London’s weapons deliveries to countries covered by UK sanctions or embargo regime

We have noted a recent publication in The Guardian citing the results of a survey carried out by the British NGO Action on Armed Violence. It points out that from January 2015 to June 2020, Her Majesty’s Government approved contracts for the delivery of weapons and military equipment to 58 out of the 73 countries “blacklisted” by the United Kingdom’s Department for International Trade. According to the publication, the UK Foreign Office lists some recipient countries among human rights violators.

Likewise, another British NGO called Campaign against Arms Trade has posted information noting that, in 2018-2020, representatives from 130 states completed military training courses in the UK. London regularly accuses at least 15 of these states of human rights violations, and eight of them are covered by an arms embargo.

In our opinion, all this once again confirms the fact that Her Majesty’s Government uses a policy of double standards in interstate relations. On the one hand, London loudly talks about its leading role in the international human rights movement and demands that the culprits either be brought to account or face sanctions. On the other hand, London is ready to overlook the misdeeds of its “partners” whenever it finds this profitable, and whenever money is paid for this. Consequently, human rights sell well for a good price.

We believe that it is possible to interpret the mentioned examples as an openly cynical use of the human rights file by the UK. This undermines the UK’s reputation as a champion of justice and human rights. By reading a list of recipient countries, it becomes possible to confirm the UK’s unseemly role in inciting intra-state conflicts in various parts of the world; these conflicts cause numerous civilian casualties. This hypocritical policy of Her Majesty’s Government deserves to be discussed, and it also deserves all-out censure on the part of London’s foreign partners and the international human rights community.

In this connection, we once again urge the UK to renounce the use of the human rights file for political and propaganda purposes. We advise London to, at long last, decide what is more important: human rights that have been encroached upon or the interests of the UK’s military-industrial lobby. What is the price of the UK’s honour and dignity?



Acquittal of Ukrainian citizen Vitaly Markiv, charged with killing a Russian journalist and an Italian press photographer in the Donetsk Region in 2014

We have noted the publication by the Italian press of a resolutive part of a verdict by the Milan Court of Appeals. On November 3, 2020, the Milan Court of Appeals overturned a verdict by the Pavia Court of the First Instance with regard to Ukrainian/Italian citizen Vitaly Markiv, a member of the Ukrainian National Guard. On July 12, 2019, the Pavia Court found Vitaly Markiv guilty of killing a Russian citizen, journalist and interpreter Andrey Mironov and press photographer Andrea Rocchelli in 2014 in the Donetsk Region of Ukraine and sentenced him to 24 years in prison.

This situation evokes dismay. A year ago, an Italian court found Vitaly Markiv guilty of committing a horrendous crime, namely, killing two unarmed and absolutely innocent people, in Ukraine. The Appeals Court in Milan, another Italian city, located 90 kilometres from Pavia whose court passed the initial verdict, ruled that the Ukrainian citizen was not guilty and acquitted him, citing insufficient evidence.

Media outlets have written a lot about court proceedings and amazing events in the courtroom and the courtroom antics of Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov. This man’s hands are smeared with the blood of thousands of Donbass residents and Ukrainian service personnel who fired at civilians on his orders. Ukrainian nationalists walked around the court building and shouted extremist slogans, as if they were standing in Kiev’s Maidan Square, rather than in one of Europe’s most civilised cities.

We don’t want to make any groundless claims, but it appears that the Milan Court of Appeals that was probably prompted by certain representatives of Italian authorities sacrificed its position of principle and completely revised the decision of the Pavia Court of the First Instance. It ignored quite a bit of irrefutable evidence based on a six-year investigation and eyewitness affidavits. If so, the not very irreproachable reputation of the Italian justice system has received another blow. The feelings of Andrea Rocchelli’s relatives, as well as those of most reasonable Italians, have also been insulted. They expected the court to make an equitable decision in the interests of Italian citizens and punish the killer.

This trial has great significance for Russia because it implies punishment for a person guilty of killing Russian citizen Andrey Mironov. Unfortunately, the court devoted practically no attention to all the circumstances.

The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation is investigating a criminal case, as regards events in southeastern Ukraine. Under this case, Vitaly Markiv has been charged with committing a crime listed in Article 105.2 of the Russian Federation’s Criminal Code (Killing Two or More Persons with Aggravating Circumstances). An international arrest warrant in absentia has been issued for the Ukrainian citizen. We are confident that justice will prevail.



Ukrainian sanctions against Nicaragua for opening an Honorary Consulate in Crimea

The Ukrainian authorities have imposed sanctions on Nicaragua for appointing an honorary consul in the Republic of Crimea. This is really ridiculous, considering that Ukraine and Nicaragua ceased to be official trade partners in 2017 and so there is no reason for the sanctions. This was obviously an act of desperation.

I would like to say once again that the Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol are the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The opening of foreign countries’ consular offices on the territory of Russia is a matter of Russia’s bilateral relations with these countries that has no connection to any third parties, including Ukraine. We urge the Ukrainian authorities to stop interfering in and not to attempt to influence bilateral ties between states that have no relation to Ukraine.

Kiev has expressed solidarity with Western decisions on so many issues that there is something in common in this instance as well, namely, our recommendation to get on with solving their own problems and leave Nicaragua alone.



Ban on three opposition channels in Ukraine

Unprecedented events have taken place in Ukraine in the past few days. There are reasons for describing them as unprecedented. On the one hand, there were many similar events, but on the other hand, the Kiev authorities’ latest moves stand out in terms of their destructive effect on the democratic processes, which, although they are limited to written and oral statements, have at least been proclaimed. They concern democracy, the freedom of expression and journalists’ rights.

The Kiev authorities have once again demonstrated their total disregard for Ukraine’s obligation to protect fundamental human rights.

Why have I described these moves as unprecedented? The previous Kiev regime never declared its commitment to democratic values as desperately and convincingly as the current one. During the past years, many people came to believe President Zelensky’s sincerity when he said that people must not be prohibited from speaking their native language and that television channels must not be banned. It turned out that he was not so much sincere as artistic.

On February 2, 2021, three local TV channels, 112 Ukraine, NewsOne and Zik, which represent the opinion of opposition-minded people, were taken off the air by a presidential executive order. The order put into effect the decision of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine “On the application of personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions)” against Deputy Taras Kozak (Opposition Platform – For Life party), who officially owns the above media resources. The three channels have been stopped from broadcasting and their telecommunications and radio frequency licences have been cancelled. The right of millions of Ukrainian citizens to freedom of information has been restricted. Moreover, the authorities plan to ensure that their streaming on the YouTube platform is banned as well. This is a flagrant infringement on the freedom of speech. Putting it bluntly, the Kiev authorities are doing their best to hoodwink the people.

More than once, we have raised the issue of Kiev’s unacceptable treatment of Russian media outlets, internet resources, printed materials and even children’s books, which have been prohibited under the guise of resisting an imaginary Russian threat and alleged propaganda. This time Kiev’s repressive actions have gone too far and can no longer be stopped. They have banned Ukrainian information resources because of their stand, which does not suit the ruling elite.

We believe that the banning of three Ukrainian media resources with a large audience by a presidential executive order is a glaring example of political censorship and unfair competition, which runs counter to Ukrainian laws and Kiev’s international commitment to protect the freedom of speech.

We remember that during his election campaign Vladimir Zelensky spoke about respect for the principles of language diversity and freedom of speech. Despite these promises, Ukraine continues sliding down towards a totalitarian system of government and enforced Ukrainisation. I would like to remind you about what Vladimir Zelensky said barely 18 months ago, during his visit to the Rovno Region in September 2019: “I really respect each channel, including NewsOne. I’ve never closed a single channel in my life. I don’t have the right to do so, I don’t have the powers. I personally value freedom of speech.”

We have repeatedly drawn the attention of relevant international organisations to the continuing degradation of the situation with freedom of speech and pluralism of opinions in Ukraine. We felt like they didn’t believe what we were saying then. But now what is stopping international specialised agencies from making appropriate comments on the matter?

Members of the foreign media are expelled from Ukraine for no reason at all or under far-fetched pretexts. Illegal arrests and the detention of journalists continue unabated. The most striking examples (not the only ones) include the detention of the head of the RIA Novosti-Ukraine portal Kirill Vyshinsky, which lasted more than a year, on charges of high treason as part of a fabricated criminal case. The 2014 murders of Russian journalists Andrey Stenin, Anton Voloshin, Igor Kornelyuk and Anatoly Klyan remain uninvestigated.

The Kiev authorities have long been pursuing a policy of systematic repression with regard to media members and pressure on unwanted information sources. Ukraine’s national legislation is being reformed to this end. The draft laws On the Media and On Combating Disinformation are under review. They envisage a number of major restrictions on the media, which will, in fact, establish state censorship. The draft laws explicitly instruct the media to put a negative slant on the Russian state’s activities. Plans are in place to legislate a ban on “popularising and promoting the authorities of an aggressor state,” as well as on justifying or denying armed aggression and annexation of Ukraine’s territory and violation of its territorial integrity and sovereignty. Thus, the long process of eradicating alternative thoughts is coming to an end and total censorship is about to be introduced.

The functioning of the extremist website Myrotvorets in Ukraine is unacceptable. The media (by the way, no one in Ukraine has denied that the above channels are media) are being closed. This is being done in a purposefully rude and harsh manner, and yet Myrotvorets, which promotes utterly extremist ideology, continues to operate. As you may recall, this online resource openly publishes the personal data of the journalists who cover events from the “wrong side” of history (as Kiev regards it).

The fact that the “Ukrainian democracy” proponents remain silent on this subject is surprising, since they are usually very much present in the information field. It remains unclear whether this is a sign of approval of the Kiev regime’s anti-democratic actions or just bewilderment.

The US Embassy to Ukraine came up with an unusually extravagant statement saying that “The United States supports Ukraine’s efforts yesterday to counter Russia’s malign influence, in line with Ukrainian law, in defense of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. We must all work together to prevent disinformation from being deployed as a weapon in an information war against sovereign states.” We would like to remind Washington and other fact-recognition-challenged figures in the United States that these are Ukrainian, not Russian channels. Those with impaired memory should be reminded of a comment by State Department Spokesperson Ned Price on February 3, 2021: “The United States condemns media censorship anywhere in the world… [which] is the hallmark of dictatorships. … We condemn blocking, harassment, and other tactics to stifle independent media voices, including the recent shuttering of VPItv”. There is Ned Price and the US State Department, and then there is the US Embassy to Ukraine – are they two different entities now, or do they still have something in common? The statements by US diplomats can’t be that contradictory in the first days of February. Or did something go wrong?

The statement by the Kiev-based US Embassy was made on behalf of the very country that positions itself as an epitome of democracy, and has, by the way, signed key international legal documents in the sphere of freedom of speech such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Copenhagen (1990) and Moscow (1991) documents of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE (now the OSCE).

We would like to note once again that the United States and Ukraine are the only countries in the world that vote every year at the UN General Assembly against the resolution “Combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”. Why Ukraine is doing so is clear. Washington explains its vote against this resolution by its unwillingness to “put limits on freedom of speech.”

The US Embassy to Ukraine is speaking of the need “to prevent disinformation from being deployed as a weapon in an information war against sovereign states,” despite the fact that Washington has subjugated the leading global social media and video hosting platforms’ activities to its political interests, just because they are American. The US-based digital platforms account for most of disinformation spread around the globe. How has Washington fought or how does it plan to fight its own internet monopolies? By no means. Disinformation is being disseminated on social media located on US-based digital platforms, and their servers are located in the United States as well. Recently, their senior executives, with the acquiescence of the US elites, have come to the point where they coordinate the blocking, under far-fetched pretexts, of sources of information that their curators find objectionable, all the way to the official accounts of the US President. And these people talk to us about disinformation and ways to fight it? First, start doing it yourself. The United States is all about full-blown censorship, the total absence of legal frameworks for internet platforms, and endless violations by the US internet giants of the laws and jurisdictions of sovereign states.

Back to Ukraine, we hope that the relevant international entities, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Director-General of UNESCO, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OSCE ODIHR, will not turn a blind eye to this blatant violation of freedom of speech, will give it a proper assessment and take the necessary measures to force the Ukrainian authorities to comply with their own laws and international obligations.

I’m not sure that a bevy of diplomats from EU countries will line up in front of these organisations demanding that justice be restored and calling on Ukraine to comply with its own laws and international commitments in the sphere of freedom of speech. They are busy dealing with other states and problems. However, we, for our part, will definitely send relevant documents to these organisations.



US officials’ statements on New START

We have noted the statements made by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on February 3 that “the United States has assessed the Russian Federation to be in compliance with its New START Treaty obligations every year since the treaty entered into force in 2011.”

Just a few months ago now, on December 8, 2020, the US President's Special Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea said: “Russia is a serial arms control violator. <...> They cannot be trusted when it comes to arms control.<...> We find this deeply troubling. In keeping with this dangerous way of thinking, Russia is building up and modernizing an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads that are completely unconstrained by the New START treaty.”

There are more and more contradictions. The crisis is evident.



Termination of retransmission of Russian television channels in Latvia

Ukraine is not the only country that has problems with the media and freedom of speech. Now, Tet, the largest cable operator in Latvia, has announced that as of February 1 it stopped broadcasting a number of Russian television channels. These are Channel One, NTV Mir, Ren TV Baltija, Kinokomedija and Kinomiks. In fact, the Latvian government that controls Tet with 51 percent of the shares continues the destructive policy line to oust Russian content from the local media landscape. This is an exact attack on freedom of speech.

The operator explained its move citing “uncertainty about the copyright representation of those television channels and concerns about non-compliance with the EU sanctions regime.” Amazing reasons. And totally unclear, for that matter.

This is far from the first example of unfriendly steps taken by the Latvian government, including, among other things, a discriminatory approach to the Russian and Russian-language media. The previous victims of information repression in Riga were seven television channels of the RT media holding, as well as freelance correspondents writing for Sputnik and Baltnews now struggling with criminal prosecution. Next in line is the RTR-Planeta television channel. After repeated temporary blockages, the Latvian authorities intend to finally ban it.

We are reporting open suppression of freedom of speech in Latvia under the guise of the illegitimate EU sanctions. If the Latvian Ambassador to Moscow has sent a diplomat to “defend” the rights of one particular person, maybe other Latvian diplomats will also bother to take care of the rights of millions of people in their own country, defend the freedom of speech, and prevent another violation of Riga's international obligations?

We call on the European Commission, as well as the relevant bodies of UNESCO, OSCE and the Council of Europe, which are monitoring the situation regarding freedom of the media around the world, to properly respond to the events in Latvia.

In this regard, we note with gratitude the efforts made by OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Teresa Ribeiro who publicly commented on Russian concerns about the infringement of the rights of Russian and Russian-speaking journalists in the Baltics. According to her press release, she promptly met with the Permanent Representatives of Latvia and Estonia to the OSCE and urged them to respect the rights of all journalists to freely report on any matters of public interest, and also pointed out the need to comply with their countries’ international obligations in this area.

We hope that those countries, including Latvia, will heed such calls.



The launch of Sputnik Meedia

There is also good news. In the Baltics, where the authorities, while declaring support for the high standards of democratic rights and freedoms in other countries, continue efforts to eradicate any dissent, journalists are holding their own in their battle against information dictate.

We are delighted to welcome the launch of a new independent information resource, Sputnik Meedia. The backbone of its team consists of the former journalists of Sputnik Estonia, which was forced to cease operating on January 1, 2020, under the authorities’ pressure and intimidation involving threats of criminal persecution. Sputnik Meedia is not connected to the media holding Rossiya Segodnya and is funded by independent sources. This new information resource will provide alternative news content while carrying on the tradition of promoting good-neighbourly relations, according to its own information.

We admire the courage and fortitude of the journalists who, when faced with an orchestrated provocation, have demonstrated their resolve to continue protecting the freedom of speech and to speak the truth in the Baltic countries despite unprecedented pressure put on them, doing this where it really counts. We would like to wish them every success and, of course, open-mindedness in this difficult undertaking.



Events commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz

On January 27, 2021, the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum held online events to commemorate the 76th anniversary of the liberation of that Nazi death camp. We have taken note of the fact that only the Russian Ambassador to Poland and the Israeli Charge d’Affaires mentioned in their video addresses that the camp had been liberated by the Red Army. This is why.

The Polish President avoided speaking about this, and the new items on that event published in the Polish media, if they mentioned it at all, said that on January 27, 1945 the Red Army “occupied” the camp. It did not liberate the inmates, did not bring peace or save lives, but “occupied” the camp.

The fact that Poland continues to demonstrate a selective attitude to historical memory, and sometimes historical amnesia, preferring instead to keep silent about or distort disagreeable WWII events, cannot change the truth that it was the Red Army that made the decisive contribution to routing Nazi Germany and to liberating Europe from the Nazi yoke. However hard Warsaw would like to forget this, we will not allow this to happen.



Joint article by the Lithuanian and Japanese foreign ministers

On January 27, 2021, The Jerusalem Post in Israel published an article by the foreign ministers of Lithuania and Japan about Chiune Sugihara, a Japanese consul in Kaunas. He provided thousands of Jewish refugees with visas, and received Israel’s honorary title Righteous Among the Nations. The Japanese Orthodox Church also reveres Chiune Sugihara as a locally venerated saint and righteous man.

We regret to note that the foreign ministers of Lithuania and Japan used this worthy occasion, namely, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, marked every January 27, to promote a distorted perception of World War II events and to accuse the Soviet Union of “occupying” Poland and the three Baltic countries in 1939-1940. The Embassy of Russia in Tokyo has already provided a detailed comment in Japanese and Russian. We expect The Jerusalem Post to publish the English version of the comment.

I would like to add on my behalf that Japanese diplomacy has allowed itself to be dragged into Lithuania’s political games, which have the ultimate aim of revising the outcomes of World War II and the decisions of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. By voicing groundless accusations, today’s Vilnius and some other European capitals want to blame the Soviet Union for unleashing World War II.

The situation with Lithuania is clear: Its current policy aims to divert the international community’s attention from the ongoing glorification of Lithuanian collaborators and Nazi accomplices, guilty of exterminating Lithuania’s Jewish community (over 200,000 people). At the same time, Tokyo’s historical “myopia” is astonishing. During the events in Europe, Japan was openly attacking China and brutally suppressing any form of resistance. Suffice it to recall the Nanjing massacre. Japan also tried to test the strength of Soviet and Mongolian borders.

This selective attitude to giving the background of Chiune Sugihara’s story is rather disturbing. We would like to warn our colleagues from the Japanese Foreign Ministry that further solidarity with Lithuanian historical revisionism may become an irritant in our bilateral relations.

We will certainly discuss Jewish refugees’ transit via the Soviet Union and the role of the Soviet People’s Commissariat (Ministry) of Foreign Affairs in this episode once again. We are confident that you will be interested.



New cases of vandalising and dismantling Soviet monuments in Poland

Contrary to the civilised world’s customary principles of honouring the memory of fallen soldiers and in violation of the 1994 Russian-Polish inter-governmental agreement on burial sites and memorials honouring the victims of war and repressions, Poland continues its assault on the Soviet memorial heritage, as part of a strategy to rewrite history.

This time, monuments honouring Soviet soldiers-liberators have been desecrated in Ogrodzieniec and Rzeczyn. The monument in Ogrodzieniec was covered with black paint and writing, the memorial plaques were removed, and its five-pointed star knocked off. In Rzeczyn, a monument honouring Soviet and Polish paratroopers who landed and perished there in September 1944 was drastically “reconstructed”. In effect, this Soviet-era memorial ceases to exist: a Catholic cross has replaced its previous elements, and an entirely different memorial plaque has been installed in place of the dedication to the paratroopers.

These acts of vandalism came to light during our inventory of Soviet-era memorials in Poland. The country’s authorities do not even consider it necessary to inform us about such incidents, although they are required to do so by the inter-governmental agreement. In turn, Polish media outlets deliberately hush up this subject. Consequently, a campaign to falsify history is picking up momentum in Poland.



Yalta (Crimea) Conference anniversary

On February 4, 1945, or 76 years ago, the Yalta Conference (also known as the Crimea Conference) opened as the second of the three meetings between the leaders of the countries in the anti-Hitler coalition. For a week, USSR Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars Joseph Stalin, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill discussed the major issues of the future world order at Livadia Palace.

Crucial issues pertaining to military strategies and politics were agreed upon during the conference, thanks in no small part to the efforts of Soviet diplomacy. These issues included the terms of Germany’s unconditional surrender, war reparations, a speedy termination of the war in the Far East, developing a permanent mechanism for consultations between the foreign ministers of the three powers in the form of regular meetings, etc.

The leaders gave special priority to the issue of establishing a universal international organisation (the future United Nations) in charge of maintaining peace and security after the war. It was decided to convene a United Nations conference in San Francisco to draft the organisation’s charter. The rule of unanimity was established for the permanent members of the UN Security Council – the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain, France and China – on all the vital decisions concerning the preservation of peace, including all military and economic enforcement measures.

The Yalta Conference in 1945 became one of the milestones in World War II and a prime example of successful cooperation between the Allied powers. The decisions produced by the conference were a valuable contribution to the triumphant end of the war and the post-war settlement. For a long time, they served as the basis of the security system in Europe and the world. The Crimea Conference participants managed to rise above their differences and put aside secondary issues for the sake of one main goal, defeating their common enemy and achieving a common victory. They were united by the understanding that evil has to be resisted tooth and nail, in the spirit of genuine solidarity, mutual respect and trust. So many things have changed since then and are lost today.

Unfortunately, there are currently plenty of people who support revising history and would rather associate the Yalta agreements with the split of Europe and bloc-based confrontation during the post-war period. They prefer to distort the true meaning and significance of those decisions while ignoring their specific historical context.

Elements of the post-war settlement defined in Yalta and Potsdam play a pivotal role to this day, when the world has entered a complicated and, in many ways, game-changing phase of its development. A new polycentric international system is emerging in world politics. Life is insistently calling on us to draw a line under the policy of confrontation and to restore trust in the military and political area in order to concentrate on a positive agenda in European and global politics according to the imperatives and challenges of our time.



Marking Grenada’s Independence Day

Grenada, one of the youngest Latin American states, established in 1974, is marking Independence Day on February 7.

This country is an outstanding example of consistent constructive work in keeping with genuine independence. Its history is full of dramatic events, including political upheavals, social crises and even foreign invasions. Today, it is an example of domestic stability and balanced foreign policy. The country is committed to the principles of multilateral relations and international law, including such norms as equality, mutual respect and consideration for the interests of other states.

We appreciate the Grenadians’ well-thought-out approaches towards many fundamental problems of our time. We are united by a common perception of global processes, the practice of constructive cooperation at multilateral venues and prospects for partnership in the Caribbean region, including bilateral partnership and that in the format of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). It is of symbolic significance that Grenada became the first country in the Caribbean to open its embassy in Moscow. In 2017-2019, it was the venue for two international forums called Russia/Eurasia–Caribbean: A New Dawn, organised in cooperation with the Bering-Bellingshausen Institute and the Roscongress Foundation.

Our countries build their relations on the traditions of friendship, solidarity and mutually beneficial cooperation. We are developing trade and economic, investment, educational and science and technological projects that we expect to expand still further following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has sent greetings to his counterpart, Foreign Minister of Grenada Peter David. I would also like to congratulate the people of this wonderful country on behalf of the Ministry and to wish them peace, well-being and prosperity.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

In an interview with the France Inter radio station, Clement Beaune, French Minister of State for European Affairs, said that Germany should abandon the Nord Stream 2 project, due to the situation with blogger Alexey Navalny. He explained that this measure was necessary because the EU’s sanctions policy had proved powerless against Russia. We have always said that we have great doubts about the project in this context, he noted.

What does the Russian Foreign Ministry think about this statement? Could this call be regarded as an example of unfair competition? And will Russia respond to this?



Maria Zakharova:

We saw this France Inter interview with Clement Beaune on February 1, 2021 when he mentioned the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project as another hypothetical restrictive measure with regard to Russia.

Construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline is a purely commercial project and is intended to facilitate sustainable deliveries of Russian natural gas to European countries at competitive prices and via the shortest route in compliance with environmental standards. We believe that this approach meets, above all, the interests of European partners, including France, in view of the objective of making European Union member countries’ economies “greener”.

We were interested to note discourses by Clement Beaune, French Minister of State for European Affairs, that new anti-Russia sanctions could be introduced, but this would not be enough to force Russia to modify its position on matters of principle. We agree completely with this. Attempts to wrest any concessions from Russia through pressure, sanctions, illegal stop lists, etc. have no future and are counter-productive. We believe that sanctions-based confrontation results in major losses above all for European economic operators.



Question:

Churches and historical landmarks on the Azerbaijan-controlled territory of Nagorno-Karabakh are under threat. What can you tell us about Baku’s refusal to let UNESCO representatives visit the place to personally assess legacy issues?



Maria Zakharova:

To my knowledge, talks are now underway to organise a preliminary UNESCO mission to Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions in Azerbaijan. We hope that this visit will take place soon. It would promote mutual trust in the region and help resolve the issues you mentioned.



Question:

What can you tell us about the current developments in the CAR in the context of the election and Western interference (including the traditional interests of France)?

What do you know about the current situation in Libya, including the progress and prospects for peace talks, and the situation on the ground, and the conflict between Fayez al-Sarraj and Khalifa Haftar? Do you think it is right for Turkey to play an increasing role in these events?



Maria Zakharova:

The Foreign Ministry described the situation in Libya in detail on January 29, following the meeting between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ahmed Maiteeq, Vice Chairman of the Presidential Council and Deputy Prime Minister of the Libyan Government of National Accord. We published a press release on it.

During meetings with our Libyan colleagues we stated that the ceasefire, which has lasted a half-year, has created favourable conditions for progress in the Libyan political process. We confirmed the need for further work on forming integral government bodies for a transitional period as part of a forum for a consensus-based Libyan political dialogue. We emphasised the importance of intensifying international efforts to take Libya out of this protracted political crisis through a leading UN role and in accordance with the decision of the Berlin International Conference and UN Security Council Resolution 2510.

We urge all participants that are involved in this situation or around it in different ways to cooperate along these lines.

As for the Central African Republic (CAR), we are concerned about the precarious situation in the area of security, which has been substantially aggravated on the eve of the general election that took place on December 27, 2020.

Owing to the assistance of the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) and Bangui’s international partners, including Russia, CAR authorities did managed to ensure proper conditions for the election and prevent a worst case scenario by intervening in attempts by illegal armed groups to seize the capital of the CAR Bangui, the groups that had withdrawn from the Political Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation in the CAR of February 6, 2019.

Unfortunately, the violence did not abate after the general election results were announced. In January, commandos from the Coalition of Patriots for Change attacked a number of areas near Bangui, but these attacks were successfully repelled. Armed groups still periodically attack residential areas, army posts, the UN Mission staff, humanitarian convoys and civilians (for the most part, in the northwest and southeast districts of the country). Seven peacekeepers have lost their lives since the aggravation of the situation in the CAR in December.

The hostilities launched by the illegal armed units are negatively affecting the state’s normal economic activities. They continue controlling a substantial part of the country, levying illegal exaction on the local population and small businesses. The road to Cameroon remains paralysed. Many lorries delivering goods and food to Bangui and other CAR areas are stranded at the border with Cameroon.

We note a sharp degradation in the already complicated socioeconomic and humanitarian situation. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, over 200,000 Central Africans have become internally displaced persons or have had to leave the country after the burst of violence since the end of 2020. In the estimate of UN agencies, over half of the CAR population (2.8 million people) will need humanitarian aid and protection in 2021.

As you know, in response to a request by the Central African authorities, Russia has sent an additional 300 instructors to the CAR to train military personnel in the National Army that were in charge of security on the eve of and during the general election, as well as four Mi-8 helicopters with maintenance engineers and technicians. Considering the wishes of Bangui, and the continuing clashes between the CAR regular troops and commandos, Russia has decided to keep this group in the country for the time being. Meanwhile, these helicopters have been withdrawn from the CAR.



Question:

What were foreign diplomats, including diplomats from Bulgaria, doing at the Navalny hearing? We sent an inquiry directly to the Bulgarian Embassy but received no reply. Perhaps you know something about why the Bulgarian diplomats wasted petrol?



Maria Zakharova:

It would be helpful to wait for an explanation from the embassies that sent their diplomats to the hearing. It seems logical. If they sent their representatives it would be good to know why. Since we did not hear any comments or get any explanations from them, we perceived it as a political move. It was not a one-off event but part of a global attempt to interfere in Russia’s sovereign affairs.

As far as the presence of foreign diplomats at the court hearing is concerned, the manner in which it was done and the fact that all of them were scared by the attention they had attracted to themselves and the fact that they refused to answer media questions (about why they had come and what their stance was on the matter), Russia considered that a political act. As a matter of fact, it resembled a diplomatic flash mob.



Question:

Will the Foreign Ministry formally summon the ambassadors, specifically, the Bulgarian ambassador, or will it make do with a statement on Facebook?



Maria Zakharova:

Tomorrow we will raise this issue with Mr Josep Borrell, absolutely.



Question:

Eleonora Mitrofanova was appointed the Russian Ambassador to Bulgaria. Would it be right to assume that Ambassador Anatoly Makarov’s policy was marked by alleged multiple exposures of Russian spies working in the Russian Embassy? Would it be right to assume that Anatoly Makarov failed?



Maria Zakharova:

If certain countries have an acute case of spy mania, it has nothing to do with Russian ambassadors. There are traditional methods of resolving complicated situations, including by expelling diplomats. I will not give anything away if I say that the countries of the “collective West” also expel each other’s diplomats – but they do it in a civilised manner as it was practiced in the past. When it is done with fanfare and publicly, with media leaks and scandals, it is a political act. Therefore, all this has nothing to do with the productive and responsible work of Russian ambassador Anatoly Makarov. He worked honestly and selflessly to develop Russia-Bulgaria relations.

As far as Eleonora Mitrofanova is concerned, she is a brilliant diplomat and an experienced negotiator with a versatile personality. I hope you will be lucky enough to interview her one day. It is a great honour to have a conversation with such a person.



Question:

Will you please comment on the decision to hold elections in Palestine and the outlook for a Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement?

Is it true that the Israeli ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Ministry of Serbia? Can you comment on the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and Kosovo?



Maria Zakharova:

Russia welcomed the decision of President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas to hold several elections in the spring and summer, including elections for the Legislative Council in May, the president in July, and the Palestinian National Council in August. We believe that this will help mend the split in Palestinian society and, in the longer term, launch a sustainable Palestinian-Israeli negotiating process.

We support the ongoing efforts of our Egyptian partners to restore Palestinian unity. We hope for success at the next round of the intra-Palestinian consultations in Cairo scheduled for February 8. For our part, we would like to reaffirm Russia’s fundamental readiness to help strengthen the unification trend, including by organising another round of intra-Palestinian meetings in Moscow as soon as the epidemiological situation allows. The leaders of Fatah, Hamas and other Palestinian parties and movements have expressed an interest in attending this event.

In our opinion, a lasting and comprehensive settlement in the Middle East can only be achieved and the package of final status issues can only be resolved within the framework of direct Palestinian-Israeli talks. A major role in this belongs to the Middle East Quartet of international mediators, a unique legitimate mechanism supporting the peace process, which has been approved in UN Security Council resolutions.

As for the establishment of diplomatic ties between Israel and Kosovo, we would like to say the following without commenting on the events and circumstances that have led to this result.

This decision of the Israeli authorities and Pristina runs contrary to the goal of finding a balanced compromise solution to the Kosovo problem based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244, a unique element of international law. The unscrupulous disregard of the Kosovo Albanian authorities for the potential consequences of their actions, and not only for the Balkans, is strengthening the nationalist forces in Kosovo. These forces believe that they do not have to comply with the commitments regarding a settlement and are disdainfully ignoring the interests of the other parties involved.

This destructive policy of the Pristina authorities, which have been trying to legalise their quasi-state in any way possible, is raising serious concerns over the future of the negotiating process, which Pristina has attempted to reduce to ultimatums, making unrealistic demands of Belgrade and invoking agreements with the Western sponsors of Kosovo’s “independence.”

As for whether the Israeli ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Ministry of Serbia, you should ask the Serbian ministry about this and about Serbia’s dialogue with Israel. The matter concerns two sovereign states and their diplomatic relations and practices.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4552598
__________________
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 4th, 2021 #259
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Vice President of the European Commission Josep Borrell, Moscow, February 5, 2021



5 February 2021 - 12:30






Mr High Representative, dear Josep,

Colleagues,

Welcome to Moscow. We have talked regularly over the last year, remotely. This is our first face-to-face meeting in a long period, and it is an appropriate time.

We have noticed the excitement that accompanied the preparations for these talks, including the variety of strong recommendations concerning what you should do here, or what requirements you should put forward. We are ready to answer any questions that you intend to raise during today's meeting and will try not to disappoint you.

I would like to reiterate that we are ready to discuss any topics of interest to you, including regional conflicts and other matters. The main problem we all face is the lack of normalcy in relations between Russia and the European Union – the two largest players in the Eurasian space. It is an unhealthy situation, which does not benefit anyone.





Sporadic discussions on hot international topics or mutual concerns and complaints cannot replace a systematic, comprehensive approach to our relations – an approach we used to practice before. It was implemented through the appropriate mechanisms, but was later dismantled by the European Union unilaterally. Therefore, the time is ripe and even overripe for a detailed, honest review of the state of affairs in relations between Russia and the EU. I hope that, alongside other matters you plan to focus on, we will be able to consider this fundamental topic.

Welcome again.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4552801






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission Josep Borrell, Moscow, February 5, 2021



5 February 2021 - 17:57






Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I had a substantive discussion with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission Josep Borrell.

We reviewed in detail the state of relations between Russia and the EU. Clearly, they are going through a rough period, partly related to the unilateral illegitimate restrictions imposed by the EU under far-fetched pretexts. We expressed this openly today.

Importantly, both sides confirmed their interest in maintaining and expanding our dialogue, including on matters where our positions differ, which are numerous. We noted a mutual willingness to maintain pragmatic cooperation in areas of common interest that may be beneficial for both parties.

We share the opinion that further degradation of our ties may lead to negative and unpredictable consequences. We hope that during the strategic review of relations with Russia at the next EU summit scheduled for March 2021, its participants will opt for constructive, professional and pragmatic interaction. Our differences may not go away, but it is better to have as few as possible. We are neighbours and we are responsible for maintaining stability on our common European, or rather Eurasian continent, for ensuring most comfortable lives for our citizens in this vast geopolitical space. Russia and the European countries share common centuries-old history, culture and people-to-people contacts. We have a lot in common in the economy, although trade is almost half of what it was in record-high 2012 and 2013. We are witnessing a positive trend now where the EU remains our largest trade and economic partner. EU businesses are the biggest, or at least among the biggest, foreign investors in the Russian economy. Despite the pandemic, the bilateral trade numbers continue up. Our relationship, especially energy interdependence, must be used for the benefit of both sides. We have an understanding that we will look for other areas to apply our joint efforts as part of building renewed relationships.

Today, we covered healthcare, climate change, science and education as areas in which the experts and ministers from both sides can come up with significant agreements. We will do our best not to delay this effort if our European colleagues are ready for it. At least, we heard them say they were, during the talks.

We want to continue the political dialogue. Today’s talks are proof that it is useful regardless of everything else. There are preliminary agreements to expand cooperation in a number of promising areas, including combating terrorism and the drug threat that continues to come from Afghanistan, and other areas.

We paid special attention to the situation in the Middle East and North Africa. We also discussed the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We see eye to eye on the need to resume the activities of the Quartet of international mediators, given that the new administration in Washington is disposed favourably to this idea. We both realise the need to use the Quartet's capabilities to create conditions for resuming direct dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis in order to help the parties find a solution that will fit into the two-state formula approved by the UN and as part of the Arab Peace Initiative.

We discussed other crisis-ridden regions, including Syria and Libya. We understand that continuing instability continues to weigh down the situation in Europe, including in the context of the inflow of migrants and refugees to the EU. We believe it is necessary to overcome the existing problems, but not to forget about the events that preceded everything that we are now witnessing. Clearly, there would be much fewer of the problems had many Western states refrained from reckless geopolitical gambles in the Middle East and North Africa.

We will continue implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on settling Iran’s nuclear programme. A critical moment is coming. We hope that in this area, too, the US administration that held the talks and signed the JCPOA, will decide to what extent it will be ready to return to this major international document that is acknowledged as an achievement of multilateral diplomacy and shows what efforts must be made to ease tensions in various hot spots and to consolidate the nuclear arms non-proliferation regime.

We are willing to cooperate on other conflicts as well and regional issues in general. We will continue to inform each other on the approaches that are taking shape in the European Union and the Russian Federation.

I would like to express our regret that during the coronavirus pandemic when it would seem that all countries in the world should unite and act as one, some forces in the EU have used this issue to accuse Russia of disinformation. Russia has proved by deeds its willingness to help all of its interested colleagues, including in the EU, to counter this dangerous virus. If we really want to stop these information wars and false rumours, we must agree with the European Union to create one more channel and to buttress our talk about disinformation with facts that will allow us to consider mutual grievances at the professional level. Our proposal remains valid.

We are willing to discuss issues linked to the EU’s plans on the post-Soviet space (the South Caucasus and Central Asia) in which the EU displays substantial interest. We hope that in drafting its policy, the European Union will consider Russia’s lawful interests near its borders and in its relations with its next door neighbours and allies. It would be right to agree on principles that would include commitments not to interfere in the affairs of sovereign states, be it in the post-Soviet space, West Balkans or anywhere else.

This was an honest discussion. We did not conceal our differences but were motivated to discuss them in the open rather than harbour a grudge against each other. At the same time, we tried to promote our contacts wherever it was beneficial to both sides. We are ready for this. Today, we heard assurances that the same opinion is forming in the EU.

I would like to thank Josep Borrell and his team for the good talks.







Question (addressed to Josep Borrell):

A third meeting of the Joint Cuba-EU Council, which you co-chaired, took place recently. What can you tell us about EU-Cuba relations today? Can this format help reduce the differences between Cuba and the US?

Question (to Sergey Lavrov):

What can you tell us about current EU policy towards Cuba?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Josep Borrell):

Josep, I see no surprise in that you were asked about Cuba. When I travel to various countries, I am always asked about Ukraine. You were asked about Cuba because you have fairly obvious and important relations with this state. I think this is a positive example of being guided by common sense, avoiding unilateral unlawful pressure, not to mention any form of blockade or embargo.

We have the same approach with the European Union: international partners must resolve their problems exclusively through dialogue. Power pressure, ultimatums, sanctions and penalties through exterritorial restrictions on those who want to develop normal relations are methods and instruments from a colonial past.

Unfortunately, the European Union increasingly resorts to these instruments, which are a US invention. This is sad. I hope upcoming international events, including the UN Security Council Permanent Members’ summit, which was proposed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and supported by others (President of France Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed his willingness to take part in it yesterday), and other conferences will be used to figure out what king of world we are building. Will it be a multipolar world that ensures equality for all major actors, including the EU, or will it be a so-called multilateral world which is a cover to justify the methods of a unipolar world arrangement?

Today, we have started talking about the nature of genuine multilateralism and I hope we will continue this discussion. We are convinced that this is a format in which all states are represented. In other words, the United Nations. When initiatives on effective multilateralism are proposed, for example, by France and Germany, we begin to look into this slogan. It appears that the European Union is assumed to be an ideal of multilateralism, while others must follow in its wake.

These are philosophical issues, but they are related in practice to real politics. I am happy that today we talked honestly about them as well as about the questions that our European colleagues have for the Russian Federation. I believe this is the only constructive approach.

The example of Cuba graphically reveals the malignity of unilateral approaches and the need to revise them.



Question (retranslated from English):

Regarding shared interests that can bring together the European Union and Russia rather than divide them, I want to ask you if you see the Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine as a tool for rapprochement or as the opposite influence that will sow even more seeds for discord between the two blocs?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are not talking about whether the Sputnik V vaccine might play a positive role but about establishing cooperation between all vaccine producers on an equal footing.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that the Sputnik V vaccine had been created, this news received a negative response – opinions varied from the skeptical “it is too early and nobody knows anything as yet” to “the Russians have rushed it for geopolitical advantages.” However, as the vaccine started to be given, the perception of it has changed, largely because at the very beginning Russian President Vladimir Putin, while announcing this achievement by Russian scientists, called for the broadest possible cooperation in this field with our foreign partners.

Yesterday, during the conversation with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken we talked about the Sputnik V vaccine. Mr Blinken congratulated us on the vaccine being effective. We agreed to promote contacts between our laboratories, scientists and producers and see if there is the potential for cooperation in this area.

We are maintaining contact with our European colleagues on a wide scale regarding this issue. A number of countries are interested in buying and producing the vaccine domestically. In her recent telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel supported the idea to see if there is a possibility for cooperation between Russia and Germany.

The Gamaleya National Research Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology has established contact with AstraZeneca to see if a mixed version of the vaccine that combines the positive effects of both vaccines might be produced.

I believe that not only can cooperation in this area play a positive role but it is already doing so. We welcome this in every way.



Question:

You said a revision in the European Union’s attitude towards Russia is in the offing but for now, as I see it, the EU is proceeding from the five principles of Federica Mogherini. Does Russia have principles we are guided by in building our relations with the EU? I must also ask you about the videos that were given to High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell and your Swedish colleague Ann Linde earlier. Doesn’t this move remind you of the old Soviet joke: “And you are lynching Negroes”?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have expressed my view on “the five principles of Federica Mogherini” more than once. I’ll just mention one principle, the one that says relations with us will be normalised as soon as Russia fulfils the Minsk Agreements. In parallel, President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky says he doesn’t like the Minsk Agreements but will have to keep them because this will allow him to maintain the sanctions against Russia. This trap into which the EU has put itself is indicative. We have asked Berlin and Paris, as the co-authors of the Minsk Agreements in the Normandy format, what they think about such statements by President Zelensky but our questions remain unanswered. Any more or less sensible person will understand that this condition is absolutely artificial.

Therefore, I would rather not invent counter principles but suggest relying on international law, the norms and principles of the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents adopted at top level. These documents provide for respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs and free access to information (something we do not see being ensured by our Western colleagues). They also envisage many other principles, such as equitable dialogue, mutual respect and the search for a balance of interests. These principles underlie any dialogue that is aimed at achieving results rather than deriving some geopolitical advantage. Of course, reciprocity is a must. You recalled the Soviet saying “And you are lynching Negroes.” But this is not the point. This is just a witty interpretation of the principle of reciprocity.

If you are so concerned about human rights and the treatment of protesters, it is necessary to also look at the images we gave our Swedish colleagues as well as to Brussels on the eve of the current visit. Look at them. They show how a policeman drives his jeep over the demonstrators lying on the ground and many other things. The entire world saw footage how a young woman was squeezed against the wall by a stream of water from a fire hose in the Netherlands, after which she left the place covered in blood.

We had nothing like this. The police were repeatedly attacked during the recent demonstrations in Russia but did not use any special force. Demonstrators used teargas against the police.

Yesterday I talked with US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. He mentioned the situation around Alexey Navalny and the demonstrators. I asked him if he had any information that would clear up the location of those who were detained during the events at the US Capitol. In some estimates, there are about 400 people. Several dozens of them are charged with attacking the police. Under US law, this is punishable by a term in prison from one to 20 years. There were numerous attacks against the police during the recent demonstrations in Russia and all of them are documented. These facts are being processed now.

There are many cases in Europe where the courts are suspected of passing politicized verdicts. I would like to draw your attention to what has never been mentioned in our public statements, notably, the case of three prisoners in Spain who were sentenced to 10 and more years in prison for organising referendums in Catalonia, something we were accused of provoking without any evidence. I recall this because our court was accused of passing a politicised verdict. The judicial authorities in Germany and Belgium urged the Spanish leaders to revoke the sentences for these three Catalonians. This is what Spanish government authorities replied: “You know, we have our own judicial system. Don’t even think of calling into doubt the decisions that we adopt in our courts under our laws.” This is exactly what we want from the West as regards reciprocity.

As for transparency in our relations, we have simply become stuck on an issue that the West is trying to push into the background for some reason, drawing all attention to the protests and demonstrations in the Russian Federation. I am referring to the issue of finding the truth of what happened with Navalny, when and where. I have spoken about this many times. Neither Russian nor civilian German doctors have found what supposedly went into his body. This was discovered only by German military doctors. This is a tell-tale fact. Our numerous requests to receive the results of these tests from Germany, France, Sweden or the OPCW Technical Secretariat, which has become so tame and obedient, have remained unanswered. They simply do not answer our questions. All they say is “You know everything yourselves.” But this is simply disrespectful, to put it mildly.

I think this arrogance on behalf of a supposedly cultured Europe is absolutely unacceptable and inadmissible. But if our partners believe that we do not deserve to have information that would confirm their accusations against Russian leaders, let this be on their conscience. We favour honesty and transparency. No need to count these principles again. A mathematical approach is unnecessary. I think we all understand what we are talking about.



Question (for Josep Borrell):

Which messages did you convey to Mr Lavrov regarding the sentence against Alexey Navalny and the repression of the peaceful demonstrations? Do you think it is possible that the European Union will adopt in the near future sanctions against the eight people named in the list of oligarchs elaborated by [Alexey] Navalny?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Josep Borrell):

I have already spoken about this issue. I will not speak at length about Navalny, the demonstrations and protest rallies or, most importantly, about the double standards when it comes to the media coverage of these events. Western media outlets mostly report on police response without showing what they were responding to, whereas their coverage of demonstrations in the West is focused on the riotous behaviour of protesters.

We believe that there must be double standards here. It seems they are beginning to hear us. However, the EU countries’ allied collective stand is that no facts are provided to us. We understand that this stand is formulated in Berlin. It has decided that this should be so from the very beginning and has announced this decision to the others. It was followed by France and Sweden. I am not surprised by this, considering the EU’s principle of solidarity. I am sure that the majority of European politicians are aware of the absurdity of this stand. This is obvious, provided there is respect for international law. Roman law, which has survived in a large degree and is applied in Europe, says that “the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.” This is exactly what we want.

As for sanctions, we regard them as an internal affair of the European Union. We have grown used to Brussels applying unilateral sanctions without any legal substantiation more and more often. We are proceeding from the assumption that the EU is not a reliable partner, at least at the current stage. I hope that in future strategic attention will be given to the EU’s fundamental interest in its closest neighbours and that the talks we have held today will promote movement to a more constructive trajectory. We are ready for this.

In conclusion I would like to say a few words to journalists. This concerns the problem, or the deadlock created by the results of the tests made in Germany, France and Sweden. I am surprised that journalists, who often show interest in less significant events, making them part of their reports and the questions they put to politicians, have been incredibly passive this time. I cannot understand the reason for this. I hope that the intrinsic features of journalists – inquisitiveness and a desire to get to the truth – will prevail, after all.

Maybe you will conduct a journalistic inquiry (not an investigation). Has it ever happened anywhere in the past that a politician, or someone claiming to be one, called on foreign states to adopt sanctions against his homeland? If any journalist looks into this matter, this will produce an interesting brief, which all of us will accept with interest.

As it is said in media circles, good news don’t sell; everyone needs a scandal. However, we can offer you positive results in the spheres we have mentioned, that is, healthcare, science, education and climate change. These issues are of fundamental interest for large neighbouring players on the Eurasian continent. There is no doubt that we will try to translate these interests into practical agreements, which will help address global problems in a way that is comfortable for all participants.

I would like to thank Josep Borrell and his team once again.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4553286






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov answers questions on the open letter from Swiss neurologist Vitaly Kozak



8 February 2021 - 18:13



Question:

At the end of January, Russian neurologist Vitaly Kozak, who works in Switzerland, published an open letter where he asks a number of difficult questions about an article in in The Lancet journal about Alexey Navalny’s alleged poisoning with a chemical warfare agent. Have you read it? Do you have any comment on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I appreciated Doctor Kozak’s very detailed open letter addressed to me on January 22, 2021, in which he expressed his expert opinion on the available publications on Alexey Navalny’s treatment at the Charite clinic in Berlin.

As I am not an expert in chemistry, biology or medicine, I cannot give you a professional comment on the analysis he has carried out, but having carefully read his considerations, which point to contradictions that have emerged, I agree that any questions and reasonable doubts regarding this case necessarily require clarification.

In a situation where Western countries are trying to make the topic of Navalny almost the main one in the dialogue with our country, I would like to reciprocally share my assessments of the moves made by this story’s actors in the sphere of politics and propaganda, which are in the focus of our official interests.

Their first point was that the Russian special services had tried to poison Navalny who only survived because the unsuspecting pilot of the scheduled flight he took made an emergency landing where an ambulance was already waiting, and the doctors in Omsk made every effort to save him (this, however, did not prevent those same doctors from being accused of “complicity in poisoning” by concealing the real results of his tests).

At the same time, the doctors at the Charite clinic, where the patient was immediately taken at his wife’s insistence, did not find any chemical warfare agents either – just like in Omsk – (so, according to the above logic, the Charite doctors could also be suspected of complicity). Those combat agents were not found until later at the Bundeswehr Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, as “announced” by the German government. And that gave rise to peremptory accusations against the Russian state along with demands that it admit its “guilt” and investigate the “crime.”



Question:

Vitaly Kozak also cites a peculiar attitude to the delicate principle of medical ethics, patient confidentiality. Were your foreign colleagues as outspoken with the Russian side when it came to legal assistance as with The Lancet?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Russian Prosecutor General’s Office immediately sent a request to the German Federal Office of Justice for complete information about the results of the tests made by Bundeswehr doctors and for the transfer of all relevant evidence. Although our requests were fully in keeping with a number of conventions on legal assistance, including the Chemical Weapons Convention, we have not received any factual information. Using various pretexts, the German side refused to provide copies of medical documents, medical history, or the results of forensic examinations, toxicological and other laboratory tests. While refusing to provide any answer in good faith to the official requests from the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office dated August 27 and September 14, 24 and 28, 2020, the German authorities initially said that all the relevant information was classified because, if made public, it would allow Russia to understand the scope of Bundeswehr’s knowledge in the field of chemical weapons. Later they changed their reasoning, focusing on Navalny’s refusal to allow the provision of any information, including his personal data, to Russia.



Question:

What about the formula of the substance with which Navalny was allegedly poisoned?



Sergey Lavrov:

According to the German authorities, France and Sweden have allegedly confirmed the Bundeswehr’s conclusions. The OPCW Technical Secretariat openly played along, acting in a non-transparent way to provide assistance to Germany and subsequently confirming the conclusions made in Berlin, Paris and Stockholm without revealing the formula of the substance allegedly found in the patient’s biological materials, saying that we must contact Germany at whose request the analysis was made. Germany, as well as France and Sweden, refused to provide any information.

That is to say, they expect us to take their word at face value and at the same time they have demanded in the unacceptable form of an ultimatum that the Russian law enforcement authorities initiate criminal proceedings on the “proven fact” of Navalny’s poisoning with a chemical warfare agent. Our logical argument that these Western countries are concealing a crucial piece of evidence of an alleged crime, which we need in accordance with the Russian law to open a criminal case, is being disregarded without any reasonable explanation. In short, we have come full circle.

A detailed account of this ignominious story, including information about the numerous efforts we have made to establish the truth, is available on the Foreign Ministry’s official website.



Question:

What you think about the Gelendzhik Palace video?



Sergey Lavrov:

Leaving aside the question of the credibility of the assertions made in that film and the computer graphics used in it, as well as the question of who is behind this video, and who paid for it (many facts have already been provided on this account, even though officials and most of the media in the West shyly ignore them), I will note one specific aspect. In this film, Mr Navalny visits the building of the former Soviet intelligence station in Dresden and, in conjunction with some of his German colleagues, shows viewers materials from a folder, which he says is “Putin's personal file.” Clearly, it’s impossible to get into that building, let alone to gain access to the archives, without the assistance of the official German authorities, most likely, the special services. This alone speaks volumes about the underpinnings of this story and the role that the West has played and continues to play in promoting it in the international media. However, we have a question to which we would like an answer: if Germany is so concerned about Mr Navalny’s right to dispose of his personal data, then how could the file from the German archives which, according to the people behind the film, concerns Vladimir Putin, have been made public without his consent? We asked the German Foreign Ministry for clarification, and it informed us several days later that Navalny's access to the above archives had been approved by the corresponding German authorities, and there was “nothing secret” in the materials that were made available to him. It speaks for itself.



Question:

Are there plans to redirect Vitaly Kozak's open letter to the specialised international organisations that deal with the “Novichok case?”



Sergey Lavrov:

Since the questions that Mr Kozak raised in his open letter from a purely scientific standpoint, as a specialist in medicine and biology, directly touch upon the issues that the West carefully avoids in its foreign policy dialogue with us, we plan, if he doesn’t mind, to draw the attention of the top officials from the OPCW Technical Secretariat, as well as Germany, France and Sweden, to his analysis, and ask them to comment.

I also consider it important to support the doctor's idea that other independent specialists in biomedicine also comment on the above facts. I hope they will hear Mr Kozak and, as honest professionals, provide their comments on the questions he has formulated.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4561997






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a wreath laying ceremony at the memorial plaques in the Foreign Ministry on the occasion of Diplomats’ Day Moscow, February 10, 2021



10 February 2021 - 13:12






Friends, veterans and colleagues,

Today, on the occasion of Diplomats’ Day, we traditionally pay tribute to our great predecessors and colleagues, first of all the staff of the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs who, together with their colleagues from the Commissariat of Foreign Trade of the Soviet Union, lost their lives during the Great Patriotic War, making a huge contribution to our common Victory, the victory of the entire humankind over the fascist threat. We also remember those who fell victim to political persecution in the 1930s and 1940s, as well as those who died in the line of duty. All of them, our predecessors and colleagues provided a shining example of selfless service to the Fatherland in different circumstances.

This year, the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, we will continue the commemoration activities we began in the year of the 75th anniversary of the Great Victory we celebrated in 2020. We will hold special events to commemorate those I have mentioned today and their contribution to the Great Victory and to the achievement of our goals on the international stage.

This year we will also celebrate the birth anniversaries of our great predecessors, namely Vasily Kuznetsov, Mikhail Kapitsa, Yakov Malik and Yuly Kvitsinsky. The Department of History and Records, territorial department, the Council of Veterans, the Association of Russian Diplomats and the Council of Young Diplomats will be holding celebratory events so as to perpetuate the memory of these people’s contribution to our common efforts and to ensure that their experience, which is handed down from one generation to another, is actively applied. Today we need this more than ever before, primarily because of the international situation.





Russia’s attempts to become an independent state, to uphold its right to an independent foreign policy and to protect international law are coming against increasingly harsh resistance of our Western colleagues, who would like to teach “obedience” to us. They would like us to accept the highly questionable interpretation of common human values, an interpretation that contradicts Russia’s cultural and civilisational traditions. They would like Russia to become a “convenient” territory for promoting their own security, economic, social and political interests. We can see that these are becoming ever more aggressive with every passing day. We must actively apply our efforts, knowledge and experience, based on the wisdom of our predecessors, to consistently promote the foreign policy course formulated by President Vladimir Putin.

Celebrations are being held today not only in Moscow, but also beyond Russia where our colleagues have organised special activities, wreath laying ceremonies and other commemorative events. I am sure that these celebrations will help us further mobilise our knowledge and skills so as to continue upholding the interests of our country and justice on the international stage.

On this special day, I would like to once again wholeheartedly wish all of you, but especially our veterans, all the best and every success. Congratulations!




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4565241
__________________
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 4th, 2021 #260
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, February 11, 2021



11 February 2021 - 20:40






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s forthcoming talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs, Cooperation and African Integration of Togo Robert Dussey

..........................................................................................................



Violation of diplomatic and consular law by the expelled foreign diplomats and consular officials

Several diplomatic scandals erupted in the past few weeks, including in connection with the unsavoury role played by a number of foreign diplomats, who directly interfered in the internal affairs of Russia in contravention of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This is why they have been expelled. I would like to remind everyone about the historical and legal background of this.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations signed in 1961 (Clause 1 of Article 41) and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations signed in 1963 (Clause 1 of Article 55), just as the majority of bilateral consular conventions, including the Consular Convention between the Soviet Union and Sweden signed in 1967 (Article 27) and the Consular Convention between Russia and Poland signed in 1992 (Article 29), include provisions according to which all persons enjoying relevant privileges and immunities have a duty to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state and also not to interfere in the internal affairs of that state. I have mentioned Sweden and Poland not because we only have such conventions with these two states, but because the matter concerns diplomats from these two countries plus Germany.

The commentary of the UN International Law Commission on the draft articles of the 1961 Vienna Convention cites participation in political campaigns as a conspicuous example of interference in the internal affairs of the receiving state in violation of the norms of diplomatic law.

The rallies that were held in Moscow and St Petersburg on January 23 and 31, 2021, had not been coordinated with the executive authorities of these constituent members of the Russian Federation, as stipulated in the Federal Law on Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets dated June 19, 2004. Moreover, the organisers of these rallies stated publicly and deliberately that they had no intention to coordinate these events with the authorities. They said that this was their new tactic, and that they were doing this knowingly and deliberately. Consequently, anyone taking part in these events, including foreign diplomats and consular officials, were aware of violating the laws of the receiving state.

They also violated the temporary ban on public events introduced in connection with the coronavirus pandemic. Presidential Executive Order No. 316 of May 11, 2020, On Procedure for Extending the Measures to Ensure Sanitary and Epidemiological Wellbeing of the Population in the Regions of the Russian Federation due to the Spread of the Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19), allows the senior officials in the Russian regions to introduce special restrictions. Executive Order of the Moscow Mayor No. 12-UM dated March 5, 2020, prohibits public and other mass events in Moscow. Foreign diplomats were perfectly aware of this.

Therefore, the participation of staff members of consulates general of Sweden and Poland and the Embassy of Germany in the January 23 and 31 rallies not only amounts to interference in the internal affairs of Russia but was also a deliberate and knowing disregard for the laws and rules of the receiving state. We hope that the Western media, which have been following and commenting on these developments, will inform the general public about the reasons I have mentioned here for our decision to expel these officials.

The Polish and Swedish representatives argued that their consular officials allegedly acted in accordance with their duties. Participation in political developments in the receiving state is not among the duties of consular officials (or diplomats) set out in the applicable international agreements. Implementation of any other actions is only possible if they do not contradict these agreements and the legislation of the receiving state. In this particular instance, both have been violated clearly and openly.

Berlin, Stockholm and Warsaw have been notified about our position.



Statements made by official representatives of the United States and international human rights organisations on violation of freedom of speech and assembly in the Russian Federation

The international information landscape has been swept by a wave of unacceptable statements, in tone and content, made by US and other Western officials, as well as by some representatives of international organisations that present themselves as human rights champions, on Russia allegedly violating people’s right to freedom of assembly and peaceful protest.

I just spoke about the rules, norms, and laws of permanent and temporary nature our country is guided by with regard to mass events.

Now back to how it was presented in the Western mainstream. As you might have guessed, I am referring to the uncoordinated rallies and their organisers the West is trying to present as leaders of the so-called non-systemic Russian opposition. In reality, we are perfectly aware, just as our western partners, of the qualifications awarded to such representatives. They are agents of influence. They have been defended by a host of high-profile figures. Suffice it to mention US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, State Department spokesman Ned Price, and Human Rights Watch speaker Hugh Williamson, and dozens of other NGOs and mass media from the collective West, many of them supported by the money either directly allocated by the State Department or indirectly through other affiliated agencies.

There is a large and obvious anti-Russia provocation underway with the elusive goal of shaking up the internal political situation in our country. These attempts are doomed to failure. I think our Western partners are aware of this only too well, which makes them even angrier.

It is quite shocking and outrageous that the initiators and performers of this information campaign targeting our country are increasingly turning to illegal means. Not just stretched thin or allowing different interpretations, but downright illegal. I have already mentioned some of them expounding on the previous topic. But there are other aspects. They are trying to involve teenagers in their dirty games, use them as a human shield or as a target audience for their information attacks, during illegal demonstrations in Russian cities. This is unacceptable. Nobody can get away with such interference in our internal affairs.



Double standards in Western approaches to media freedom

We have repeatedly said that Russia is not the only country targeted with interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. We have cited examples. Here is one more. Even if it is not the most vivid or eloquent case, it is no less indicative.

I read the news: “We are deeply concerned about declining media pluralism in Hungary… the loss of the broadcasting license by an opposition Hungarian radio station, US Department of State Spokesperson Ned Price said in a written statement yesterday.”

Again, this is a small but very striking example. I think that Hungary is fully capable of figuring out what to do, in line with its own legislation, including in the information sphere.

The most interesting thing is that EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, who recently visited the Russian Federation, actually said as much during a news conference, where he was asked about the grounds for closing media outlets in a number of EU countries, in particular, Russian-language media. He said he hoped and believed that all these problems would be resolved on the basis of those countries’ legislation as well as with respect for the international norms binding on these states. I would say this should also apply to Hungary.

There is one more aspect. I would like to remind you that it was the US State Department and its agencies such as American embassies that welcomed the closure of three television channels in Ukraine. Now, I would like to understand the difference. Why is the closure of a media outlet in one country condemned, while the closure of another outlet in another country is encouraged, on the contrary? We know the answer only too well.



Social media censorship in France

We have said many times that global US internet companies grossly violate freedom of speech. I would like to once again draw your attention to the Federation Council’s statement about double standards, blatant bias, the absence of civilised legal regulation and the abuse of existing regulations.

In addition to outstanding cases, such as blocking the accounts of former US President Donald Trump, there are less conspicuous, but no less prominent cases. Here’s a case of suppressing freedom of speech on social media in Europe, in particular, France (we are talking about US online platforms). In late December 2020, French senator Sebastien Meurant’s Twitter account was blocked on a far-fetched pretext, in fact, for expressing an opinion. This is not the only such case. The online magazine Boulevard Voltaire suffered the same fate for using a portion of the famous painting by Eugene Delacroix Liberty Leading the People as a logo. This is nothing short of a travesty. This painting is the symbol of France known beyond France and is seen as that country’s symbol by many countries and peoples. Twitter referred to it as “violation of rules governing graphic violence and adult content.”

We are baffled by the fact that the official Paris and the mainstream French media are taking these absurd and outlandish developments in their stride, despite being zealous defenders of freedom of speech when it comes to the countries that are not members of the elite club titled “the free world.” For some reason, the Americans have remained silent on this account, and the US State Department has not come up with any written statement. We are looking forward to it. Perhaps, they will come up with something sooner or later. It may well be that when it comes to censorship on the part of US online platforms, principles don’t matter as much.

To reiterate, digital dictate, censorship and even more so the use of social media as a tool for interfering in sovereign states’ affairs is unacceptable in principle, regardless of the country of origin of a platform in question. Notably, ensuring freedom of speech is the duty of any legal democratic state. The decisions must be based on law and not be hostages to the political views of any group of people. By the way, this is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which our Western partners, including in the EU countries, Paris included, like to cite.

In this regard, we would like to note that the Russian media have long been accustomed to the fact that their activities abroad are subjected to censorship, and have successfully adapted to this challenging working environment. However, this doesn’t mean that we have accepted this as a norm.



The German Foreign Ministry’s contacts with the Belarusian opposition’s Coordination Council

The reports about contacts between the German authorities and leaders of the Belarusian opposition’s Coordination Council which took place in Berlin on January 28-29 have come to our attention. In particular, according to its social media publications, as well as materials posted by the German state media holding Deutsche Welle, State Secretary of the German Foreign Federal Office Miguel Berger held a meeting with former Belarusian diplomat Pavel Latushko, during which the German side announced an initiative to create an international mechanism for criminal prosecution of the persons guilty of violations and crimes against human rights in Belarus. In this regard, the parties have allegedly discussed the internal political situation in the Republic of Belarus “in the context of its relations with Russia.” Notably, the comments provided by the Federal Foreign Office about the above meeting say nothing about the fact that this issue had been discussed.

The anti-Russia sentiments of some of the leaders of the Belarusian protest movement, including those who associate themselves with the Coordination Council, have not yet been openly stated, but are clearly manifested in this particular instance.

Moscow has no illusions about the official Berlin’s position with regard to the social and political processes unfolding in a country that is Russia’s ally and Russian-Belarusian relations in this context. We are well aware of the German diplomacy’s practices in the post-Soviet space. So, we were not surprised by the Federal Foreign Minister Heiko Maas’ statement of February 6 about the German government’s plans to allocate 21 million euros to support the “democratic” protest movement in Belarus.

Considering the above, we would like to warn the German party against attempts to meddle in the allied Russian-Belarusian relations or pitting our two nations against each other, either themselves or by proxy.



Anti-Russia publications in the Dutch media

Dutch editions Trouw and De Groene Amsterdammer released materials accusing Russia and China of allegedly sending spies to the Netherlands under the guise of technical experts. A scheme was published under which Moscow and Beijing invited specialists, provided them with visa support and resolved their migration issues. Reportedly, this so-called “work” was carried out through Dutch businesses and branches of Russian and Chinese organisations in the Netherlands.

Thus, the experts allegedly gather the necessary information, and Russia and China are building up their strength in industrial and other types of espionage in the process.

As usual, no evidence has been provided. This is most likely a put-up job and the materials in question are designed to throw in another piece of disinformation about our two sovereign states. This may well have been done following the “guidelines” provided by the local security services. This is exactly a case of fake news that the EU claims to be fighting. If so, you should pay attention to Trouw and De Groene Amsterdammer. They are spreading fake news and lies. Please provide the materials that can be used as evidence, if any.



Deployment of US bombers to Norway

We have noted reports on preparations to deploy a squadron of the US Air Force Rockwell B-1B Lancer strategic bombers to Orland Main Air Station near Trondheim. The purpose of this deployment is to conduct joint exercises with the Royal Norwegian Air Force.

We perceive Oslo’s decision as another step in a series of similar actions to expand military activity in the Extreme North and in direct proximity to Russian borders. As you may know, the construction of a port for servicing US nuclear submarines near Tromso in northern Norway is nearing completion. Permanent Marine contingents from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the United States have been deployed to northern Norway, allegedly for organising training exercises. In October 2020, US Marine units began to be deployed on a periodic, rather than rotational, basis. This makes it possible to boost their strength many times over under the pretext of conducting exercises. These are just a few examples.

We were perplexed by the comments of Norwegian Defence Minister Frank Bakke-Jensen, who said that Norway’s actions have a “stabilising effect,” and that there are no reasons for Moscow’s negative response. One can hardly talk about “tranquility” when tensions are increasing near Russian borders, and when an extremely powerful bridgehead for conducting hostilities against Russia is being established.

We believe that such activities on the part of Oslo threaten regional security and put an end to Norway’s traditional policy not to deploy permanent foreign military bases on its territory in peacetime.

We hope that Oslo will implement a responsible policy in the North, and that it will refrain from actions that undermine overall regional stability and damage bilateral relations.



Latvian ban on retransmission of 16 television channels

On February 8, 2021, we commented on Latvia’s ban on the retransmission of the Rossiya-RTR television channel, and now there are reports on introducing additional restrictions in the Latvian media space.

The National Electronic Mass Media Council (NEPLP) of Latvia has decided to ban the retransmission of 16 television channels, including NTV Mir Baltic, Ren TV Baltic and others, from February 10. They claim that this is a temporary measure that was motivated by the regulator’s need to clarify the legal ownership of these channels and to determine whether the EU sanctions apply to them. However, they could have clarified all the legal intricacies without terminating broadcasting. We are not naïve and understand what is going on. What surprises us is the undisguised lies. If you make decisions that you believe are justified, then you should explain your behaviour to your EU partners. But you sit around a table with them discussing the need to introduce more sanctions against Russia for “violating democratic principles”. Don’t forget about yourselves and your own gross violations.

This is a well-known formula of the Baltic reality. They are awkwardly trying to cover up informational opposition to dissent and persecution of everything linked with the Russian language, including such channels as Kinomiks, Nashe Novoye Kino (Our New Cinema) and NTV Serial, which have purely cultural and educational content.

All this can be characterised as a continuation of the anti-Russia hysteria campaign that has engulfed Latvia at a time when specialised international institutions do not have the required influence on Riga. We would like to once again remind them of their obligation to monitor the freedom of speech and media in countries that are members of these organisations.



Israel’s reaction to glorification of Nazi criminals in Lithuania

We noted the reaction of Israeli officials and the public that condemned a speech made by Deputy of the Lithuanian Seimas Valdas Rakutis. On International Holocaust Remembrance Day, he tried to whitewash Nazi accomplices and put part of the blame for the atrocities of the butchers on their victims. Needless to say, the entire international community must pool efforts in denouncing such public attempts to rewrite history. It is gratifying that this time the discourse of this so-called professor about “cooperation” of Jews with the Nazis was duly rebuffed by other members of the international community and the Lithuanian politicians who have preserved some remnants of common sense.

Russia will continue its policy of principle, the aim of which is to preserve the historical memory, cooperating with those who believe in the same thing. During their telephone conversation on February 8, 2021, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Foreign Minister of Israel Gabi Ashkenazi discussed the need to counter the attempts to revise history and the results of WWII, glorify the Nazis and their accomplices, and forget the crimes of the Holocaust, the memory of the victims and the feat of the liberators of Europe. They confirmed mutual resolve to consistently uphold these principles at international venues.



Uzbekistan’s government policy on consolidating the position of the Uzbek language in the context of the adoption of the draft law on the national language of the Republic of Uzbekistan by the Oliy Majlis

On January 27, 2021, the draft law on the introduction of amendments and additions to the law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the national language was approved in the first reading in Uzbekistan.

We note that it reflects provisions on the status of other languages (there are about 100 ethnic groups in the republic), and unacceptability of linguistic discrimination.

We are carrying out a number of joint educational projects in Uzbekistan the goal of which is to promote the knowledge of the Russian language. After the national language it comes second when it comes to its usage and social importance and it is mandatory for pupils to learn in Uzbek secondary schools.

We consider the decision made by Uzbekistan leaders to open a branch of the Herzen Russian State Pedagogical University (St Petersburg) in Tashkent of utmost importance. In addition to educating bachelors and masters, there will be refresher courses for teachers. Our partners have been noting the shortage of teachers in the republic. There are about one thousand teachers in Uzbek universities.

In October 2020, the Ministry of Education of Russia and the Ministry of Public Education of Uzbekistan launched a project to upgrade the teaching standards of the Russian language and general subjects taught in Russian in Uzbekistan. The project will continue up to 2030 and was started with the assistance of the Alisher Usmanov Art, Science and Sport Charity Foundation based at the Herzen University. Up to a thousand Russian specialists are expected to go to Uzbekistan between 2020 and 2030. They will gradually start working in 14 regional centres to improve the skills and to retrain teachers employed by the public education system of Uzbekistan and teaching in around 10,000 Uzbek schools.



Diplomatic Service and Practice Journal

The Diplomatic Academy of the Foreign Ministry is pleased to present to you the quarterly Diplomatic Service and Practice Journal that comes out online. The first edition of the publication was released on February 8 of this year.

This journal has a unique format that is unmatched in the world. It is designed to make a tangible contribution to the theoretical comprehension of current world politics and the diplomatic service, and to provide working diplomats with direct informational support.

The goal of the journal is to disseminate topical articles on the modern diplomatic service and problems of international relations and global politics. Articles are contributed by Russian and foreign journalists, government officials of the Russian Federation and other countries, and Russian and foreign experts on international affairs.

The unique format of the journal can be attributed to the high professionalism and broad practical and theoretical knowledge of its contributors as well as the topicality of the published articles consistent with the modern trends of world politics and international relations.

The journal is published on the website - https://www.dipacademy.ru/documents/2225/ДСП_1.pdf - of the Foreign Ministry Diplomatic Academy.



Serbia marks Statehood Day

On February 15, the Republic of Serbia marks its national holiday, Statehood Day.

The date is very symbolic. The First Serbian Uprising, the first, historically important step of freeing the country after many centuries of Ottoman rule began on February 15, 1804, the Orthodox holiday of Candlemas. On February 15, 1835, Serbia adopted its first Constitution. These 19th century events were crucial for the history of the Serbian people and state.

Serbia is a traditionally friendly and reliable partner of Russia. Multifaceted bilateral relations are developing dynamically and have become strategic. We closely cooperate with Belgrade on the global stage and assist it in its striving to preserve independence and territorial integrity as related to the developments around Kosovo. Joint coronavirus response has become a new area of cooperation.

We heartily congratulate our Serbian friends on Statehood Day and wish them peace, wellbeing and prosperity.



The Gambia marks Independence Day

On February 18, the Republic of the Gambia marks its national holiday, Independence Day.

The Gambian people have come a long way in building their statehood and true sovereignty after colonial rule. In the 15th century, the Portuguese were the first Europeans to settle on the territory of contemporary Gambia. In the 17th century, it came under the control of the British Empire, which continued the cruel exploitation of the captured lands and slave trade.

Gambians received self-government only in 1963. The Constitution of the independent Gambia came into force on February 18, 1965. The country is currently moving towards democratic changes and is gradually working towards challenging socioeconomic development objectives.

Russia-Gambia relations, whose 55th anniversary was marked last year, are traditionally friendly and are always built on the principles of equality and mutual respect. At the current stage, proactive steps are being made to fulfil the potential of bilateral relations in political cooperation, trade, economic and cultural ties and in other areas.

We would like to congratulate the people of the Gambia on their national holiday and wish them new achievements, peace, prosperity and wellbeing.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

People in Iceland are asking how they can get the Sputnik V vaccine and how to start the process.



Maria Zakharova:

The first thing to do is to verify the sources of information. If Western governments rely on the statements by those they support politically, whom they describe as the Russian non-systemic opposition, that is, those who claimed six months ago that there is no Russian vaccine, this will only create confusion and complicate the development of cooperation in this important sphere. Second, direct contacts must be established with Russia. This is usually done through our embassies, and it is the best method. Your embassy can address a request to the Foreign Ministry, but such matters are usually addressed through the government agencies in foreign states. They will contact Russian embassies or send relevant letters or notes with their cooperation proposals, questions, or requests for organising an online meeting on the coronavirus vaccine. A number of such meetings have already been held, and quite successfully. During them, we provide detailed information about organising cooperation in this sphere.

I would like to say once again that the supply and use of the Sputnik V vaccine in a foreign country must be preceded by its registration. So far, the Sputnik V vaccine has been registered in 24 countries (Russia, Belarus, Argentina, Bolivia, Serbia, Algeria, Palestine, Venezuela, Paraguay, Turkmenistan, Hungary, the UAE, Iran, the Republic of Guinea, Tunisia, Armenia, Mexico, Nicaragua, the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lebanon, Myanmar, Pakistan, Mongolia and Bahrain). The list is increasing every day; three more countries have joined it during the past week.

The launch of the production of Sputnik V abroad and its delivery to foreign countries is being supervised by the Russian Direct Investment Fund. To receive the relevant information, you as journalists can apply to the RDIF press service; its contacts are available on the RDIF website. Your government agencies can send the request to our embassies, which will help organise meetings, including online.



Question:

The trilateral statement by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia on November 9, 2020, provides for opening transport communications, but Armenians are still unable to travel from Martakert to Vardenis. Local residents have appealed to the peacekeepers for help. Can the resumption of transportation by the Vardenis-Martakert and Martakert-Stepanakert road via Askeran be put on the agenda of the trilateral working group on Nagorno-Karabakh?



Maria Zakharova:

As far as I know, the issue concerns several routes in Nagorno-Karabakh. Of course, those who are working on the ground there have more information about the routes people in Nagorno-Karabakh need most of all. If the routes you have mentioned are within the zone of responsibility of the Russian peacekeepers, this question can be addressed to the Russian Defence Ministry. I would like to remind you that in accordance with Clause 6 of the Statement by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia issued on November 9, 2020, the Lachin Corridor is the route connecting Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia.



Question:

Could you tell us about progress in the repatriation of Armenian prisoners of war?



Maria Zakharova:

We are working with our Azerbaijani and Armenian colleagues, including through the Russian peacekeeping force deployed in Nagorno-Karabakh. An exchange of prisoners has been held recently with the assistance of the commander of the Russian peacekeeping force; one Azerbaijani citizen and five Armenians have returned to their home countries.

In general, we are proceeding from the premise that the best solution is an exchange of prisoners based on the “all for all” principle. You know about our approach to this matter. President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have spoken about it.



Question:

The People’s Republic of China is known to enforce a tough pandemic-related quarantine that also affects Russian sailors who are unable to obtain timely medical treatment. Would you care to comment on this situation?



Maria Zakharova:

According to our sources, a complicated situation has developed in some of the ports in China’s Liaoning Province. This concerns the provision of medical treatment for the crews of Russian sea-going vessels that have arrived there.

In this connection, the Foreign Ministry has sent an appeal to Russia’s Ministry of Transport and the Federal Agency for Fishery, suggesting that the relevant Russian economic operators be notified about this circumstance. The document also suggests that adequate health protection standards be introduced aboard Russian vessels.

At the same time, we are working with the Chinese party in order to resolve current problems. Consequently, we are working with Chinese colleagues and in the inter-departmental format.



Question:

What do you think of reports that the Azerbaijanis have desecrated a monument to the fallen heroes of the Great Patriotic War in the occupied Armenian village of Avetaranots in the Askeran District of Nagorno Karabakh? The monument is located at the Saint Gayane Monastery.



Maria Zakharova:

We presume that everyone knows our principled position concerning the desecration of monuments. Any desecration of monuments is unacceptable. Regarding monuments to heroes of the Great Patriotic War, there can be no other position in this respect. We have repeatedly drawn attention to the desecration or demolition of World War II memorials in various countries, including in the European Union, as well as to attempts to manipulate these sensitive matters in the media space.

We have contacted our Azerbaijani colleagues, and they have assured us that the Azerbaijani party has promptly recorded various acts of vandalism and the destruction of cemeteries and monuments to soldiers killed during the Great Patriotic War and dedicated to the Great Patriotic War. They are conducting an investigation to expose such actions. Those who commit acts of vandalism are brought to account. The authorities resolutely thwart such actions, and they do not encourage them in any way.

On the whole, people in Moscow, Baku and Yerevan should remember that the Great Patriotic War and the subsequent victory were made possible by our peoples. We should jointly respond to acts of vandalism or the desecration of monuments to heroes of those events on every occasion, rather than only in certain cases. Just see how often I raise this subject at our briefings; I am doing this virtually every week. Poland and other countries, mostly EU members, behave badly in this context.

I would very much like, and it is my sincere desire as the Foreign Ministry’s Spokeswoman and simply as a member of the public that we should not be alone in our attempts to counter the falsification of history and to fight the desecration and vandalising of monuments, and that we should unite. I believe that all states whose peoples gave their lives for the sake of our future should censure any similar hideous acts in the 21st century. So, let’s all work together in this direction.



Question:

Refugees and internally displaced persons are returning to Nagorno-Karabakh. Over the past three months, about 52,000 people have arrived from Armenia to the Russian peacekeepers’ zone of responsibility. Is there any work being done now to ensure the return the Azerbaijani population to Karabakh, given that these people also number tens of thousands and have the right to return to their homes?



Maria Zakharova:

Under Clause 7 of the Statement signed by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia on November 9, 2020, “Internally displaced persons and refugees shall return to the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent areas under the supervision of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.”

At present, we are indeed witnessing a rather intensive inflow of returning Armenians who left home following last autumn's events, which are well-known.

Our position is that the corresponding clause of the trilateral Statement applies to everyone who was forced to leave their place of residence.



Question:

Russia’s decision to declare three diplomats from Poland, Germany and Sweden personae non grata for participating in unauthorised protests to support blogger Alexey Navalny caused a very harsh reaction in the West. Russia's actions were immediately condemned. Germany and the United States reacted most sharply. There is some concurrence in the statements made, as well as threats of possible expansion of the sanctions against Russia.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said it was an arbitrary and unjustified act and Russia's departure from its international obligations, adding that the expelled diplomats were just observing the January protests. The German Chancellor’s strong reaction was also a surprise. She said she considered these expulsions to be unjustified and “yet another aspect that can be observed right now of Russia being quite far from the rule of law” and that Berlin reserved the right to expand sanctions against Moscow, in the first place, personal restrictions. Earlier, the Russian Foreign Ministry noted that talking with Russia through pressure and sanctions was not a good idea, but the collective West intended to increase the degree of confrontation and was trying to use every far-fetched reason to introduce new sanctions against Russia.



Maria Zakharova:

The calls made in recent days to introduce new illegitimate restrictive measures against our country have not surprised us. Our experience of relations with the European Union since 2014 convincingly shows that Brussels almost instinctively grabs the sanctions lever whenever it is faced with the firm determination of Russia and other sovereign states to defend their own legitimate interests, to refuse to allow undisguised interference in their internal affairs or to do the bidding of Western architects of the rules-based international order. Even before 2014, illegal sanctions had also been on the Western agenda.

It is symptomatic that this new relapse of obsession with sanctions against Russia under the pretext of human rights violations followed immediately after EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell’s visit to Moscow on February 4-6, even though before his visit, many in Brussels, including Josep Borrell himself, were very sceptical about introducing new anti-Russia restrictions, apparently well aware of the futility of this venture. This obviously looks like a shot at revenge for the awkward attempt to encumber the European diplomacy head’s first visit to Moscow since 2017 by imposing a confrontational agenda on him that had nothing to do with Russian or other European strategic interests. Mr Borrell has given his assessments of the visit and the outlook for bilateral relations between Russia and the EU at the news conference.

The obvious trouble that some went to in order to attach a political agenda to this topic after his visit leaves no doubt that this whole talk about Western sanctions as a means of fighting violations of human rights or non-proliferation regimes is nothing more than demagogy covering Western countries’ opportunistic political interests we are well aware of. As a reminder, in 2018-2019, the West invented some “horizontal” sanctions mechanism to curb the proliferation and use of chemical weapons, as well as in response to some cyberattacks. That was presented in the European Union as having no direct relation to any particular country. On paper, it looked as if those measures were taken for the benefit of “international cooperation and rules-based order” in those areas. But in fact, the first targets for the illegitimate restrictions under the aforementioned regimes were precisely Russian citizens and organisations. In reality, this arsenal used to further derail the architecture of EU-Russia relations, which has been painstakingly built over the years, is being expanded through the efforts of the anti-Russia minority in the EU.

We would like to caution our EU partners against taking another reckless step. This would lead to a prompt and commensurate response. It is absolutely unacceptable to use human rights as a geopolitical instrument. This would look especially cynically against the backdrop of Brussels’ continued complete disregard for the flagrant violations of media freedoms and the rights of Russian speakers in the Baltic states and Ukraine, as well as for other problems in their own countries. I am referring to the brutal repression of protests and dissent. On the global scale, this is fraught with growing arbitrariness in international relations and erosion of international law.

We would like to once again reaffirm our position of principle that unilateral restrictions in circumvention of the UN Security Council are unacceptable. We urge the EU to resume an equal and constructive dialogue and to make use of diplomatic channels, which are kept open, to look for workable compromise that will ensure a balance of interests. This will benefit all Europeans, who are not willing to pay for a geopolitically structured confrontation orchestrated by some EU countries on our common continent. We and other members of the international community will see this as visible proof of the EU’s independence. Failure to do this will be interpreted as one more proof of certain curators standing behind EU decisions.

As for US comments on the expulsion of foreign diplomats, who were allegedly only watching the rallies, I would like to remind our American colleagues that Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak never watched, attended or inspired domestic political processes, let alone took part in any rallies in the United States. However, the US media and politicians nearly went as far as to accuse him of espionage. Sergey Kislyak is a highly skilled professional in the field of international relations, a career diplomat who has worked for many years to the benefit of Russian-US relations in the interests of our nations. Despite this, a veritable persecution campaign was launched against him four years ago without any substantiating facts. This time, however, we could see from the relevant footage that foreign diplomats did indeed participate in the unauthorised rallies. This is more than a mere violation of the principle according to which diplomats must act in strict compliance with their status and must not take part in any events or activities that are incompatible with it. They openly violated the laws of the Russian Federation. Washington does not see this as objectionable. This is strange logic, but we have grown used to it.



Question:

It has been reported that the Ukrainian Defence Minister and NATO Assistant Secretary General Patrick Turner allegedly discussed the idea of allowing NATO aircraft to use the airspace in the Simferopol flight information region. What is Russia’s attitude to this provocative idea?



Maria Zakharova:

I believe that you should address this question to the Russian Defence Ministry.



Question:

How did the Russian authorities establish that the expelled German, Swedish and Polish diplomats participated in the protest rally in support of Navalny?



Maria Zakharova:

Easily. I was not directly involved, but I would be delighted to find out. Why are you only referring to the information published on the Foreign Ministry’s website? The videos are in open access, and I believe you could have cited them as well. It is notable that none of the three embassies have refuted them.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4570209
__________________
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 06:07 AM.
Page generated in 7.19840 seconds.