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

Old April 10th, 2017 #21
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the latest provocations by Ukrainian nationalists in Kiev



8 April 2017 - 13:10



Inspired by the Kiev government’s policy of total Ukrainisation, radical Ukrainian nationalists staged yet another anti-Russia provocation on April 8, when they prevented the Total Dictation initiative in Kiev by blocking entry to the office of the Federal Agency for CIS Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo). The Total Dictation is a humanitarian initiative held in Russia and around the world for those who want to test their Russian language skills.

As per the recent tradition, the Ukrainian police stayed away from the developments around the Rossotrudnichestvo building and did nothing to restore public order.

It appears that Kiev has so little confidence in its own policy that it is attacking even the most harmless events in the field of education and learning.

Primitive nationalism, which has grown out of proportion in Ukraine, and the authorities’ vanity over their alleged achievements on the path towards so-called European values make one feel sorry for the unenviable fate of the fraternal Ukrainian people.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2721390
 
Old April 10th, 2017 #22
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on a misinformation campaign by some Afghan media outlets



8 April 2017 - 13:23



Some Afghan media outlets have published insinuations about a Russian military delegation’s alleged visit to Taliban training camps in the North Waziristan Agency in the tribal region bordering Afghanistan, we consider it necessary to clarify the situation.

A Russian delegation headed by Colonel General Sergey Istrakov, Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, held another round of bilateral headquarters consultations in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. The parties mostly discussed prospects for regional cooperation aiming to neutralise threats posed by international terrorist groups. The Pakistani side organised a presentation on the security situation in Pakistan. Pakistani representatives presented the results of Operation Zarb-e-Azb (Sharp Strike) that has been conducted in North Waziristan since 2014. Members of the Russian delegation were able to visit the city of Miramshah, the capital of the North Waziristan Agency, and were shown city districts from where terrorists had been expelled.

Russia will continue to assist Pakistan for the purpose of strengthening its counter-terrorism potential.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2721338
 
Old April 10th, 2017 #23
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the cancellation of UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s visit to Russia



9 April 2017 - 11:21



The UK Foreign Office said that Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had decided not to visit Moscow as planned on April 10, 2017 under the pretext that “developments in Syria have changed the situation fundamentally.”

Judging by the statement issued by Boris Johnson, he currently has other priorities, specifically, to discuss with G7 partners the situation in Syria and “Russia’s support to Bashar al-Assad’s regime.”

This stance is indicative of a fundamental failure to grasp what is actually happening in Syria, Russia’s efforts to settle the crisis, and the very essence of diplomacy in general.

Boris Johnson’s visit to Moscow was expected to serve as an opportunity for meaningful and frank talks on a whole range of international matters, as well as the state of Russia-UK bilateral relations, stalemated by the UK. The decision to call off Boris Johnson’s visit to Moscow proves yet again the questionable added value of talking to the UK who lacks an independent position on most present-day issues or actual leverage on international affairs, remaining in the shadow of its strategic partners. Russia does not feel that it needs dialogue with London any more than London does.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2721420
 
Old April 12th, 2017 #24
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the visit by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson



11 April 2017 - 12:40



In light of a visit by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, which begins today, we would like to express hope for productive talks. This is important not just for the future of Russian-US interaction but also for the international environment overall.

The current situation in Russian-US relations is more complicated than it has been at any point since the end of the Cold War. The previous US administration’s actions have seriously complicated them by trying to restrain the growth of Russia’s influence in international affairs and undermine its economic development through sanctions. Although these efforts have failed, they have also demonstrated Washington’s striving for global domination complemented with deliberations about “America’s exceptionalism”, which has sinister historical associations.

The Ukrainian crisis and the Syrian problem, although tragic and confusing, are the direct results of the irresponsible policies of the Obama administration, which wanted to hinder the natural evolution of a multipolar world. The US establishment tried and continues to try hypocritically to lay the blame at Russia’s door. But it was not Russia who provoked the unconstitutional coup in Ukraine or fanned the flames of the so-called Arab Spring.

Russia will not abandon its legitimate interests and will only cooperate on an equal basis, which does not please certain forces in Washington. We have always been open to candid dialogue with the United States on all issues on the bilateral and international agenda and for cooperation in the areas where we have similar goals. These include the fight against terrorism, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the settlement of regional conflicts, economic growth and many other areas where the conjunction of Russian and American efforts would benefit not just their people but humankind as a whole.

Therefore, we would like to use the upcoming talks to understand whether the United States is aware of the need to stabilise and normalise bilateral relations. We believe that idling is impermissible in bilateral relations, considering our countries’ responsibility for international security and strategic stability.

In this context, we would like to understand whether Washington intends to resume practical cooperation with Russia in the fight against terrorism, including in Syria. The recent US air strike at the Syrian Shayrat air base is an act of aggression against a sovereign state committed in violation of international law, and will most likely strengthen the terrorists.

We strongly hope that Washington will agree on an objective investigation with the OPCW involvement into the chemical poisoning of Syrians at Khan Sheikhoun on April 4. The West has accused the Syrian Government without good reason, although it is a fact that the Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists, who are operating in this area, manufactured chemical bombs.

In this situation, we are surprised by Washington’s disregard for reports about the use of chemical weapons by terrorists in the Middle East. There have been numerous chemical attacks not just in Syria but also in Iraq. Chemical weapons stockpiles have been found in eastern Aleppo after its liberation from the terrorists. However, the United States has not shown any interest in this information.

We also wonder when the West will dissociate itself from the notorious White Helmets and other pseudo-NGOs whose barefaced lies about the situation in Syria are eagerly taken up by the media. We wonder how much longer our American colleagues will rely on fake photo reports when taking decisions that can affect the lives of people in Syria.

We hope to learn what the United States will do in Libya, which has been split by NATO’s military intervention, just as Iraq. What plans do our American colleagues have for Yemen, where US weapons are used to bomb cities, killing civilians and aggravating the humanitarian catastrophe?

We hope that the United States will not refuse to attend international consultations on Afghanistan, the next round of which will be held in Moscow on April 14. These consultations aim to help launch the process of national reconciliation in that long-suffering country, as we told our American partners more than once.

We are gravely concerned about Washington’s plans regarding North Korea, considering hints about the unilateral use of a military scenario. We need to understand how this relates to the collective commitments to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula, which have been sealed in UN Security Council resolutions.

But above all we hope that the United States will use its influence on Kiev to neutralise the revenge-seeking sentiments of the Ukrainian party of war. Washington can also encourage the Kiev government to faithfully comply with its obligations under the Minsk Agreements. These agreements are the only way to settle a conflict that was provoked by radical nationalists’ intention to forcibly Ukrainianise all spheres of life in this multi-ethnic country.

We expect to hear US views on the entire range of issues pertaining to strategic security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region.

As for bilateral agenda, the long list of irritants crated by Washington has not become shorter yet. Since nothing is being done to settle the problems in bilateral relations, we will have to take reciprocal measures.

Overall, we hope that the US Secretary of State will share with us Washington’s views on all issues of mutual concern. We are ready for any turn of events. However, we would prefer our interaction to help reduce rather than aggravate international tensions. We are not set for confrontation but for constructive cooperation and hope that this is what our American partners want, too.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2724848
 
Old April 12th, 2017 #25
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Moscow, April 12, 2017



12 April 2017 - 12:24





Mr Secretary of State,

Colleagues,

We met in Bonn on February 16, where I told you about Moscow’s basic views on Russian-US relations and international affairs.

In the few months since then, many statements have been made in Washington regarding bilateral relations and their prospects, as well as key international issues. Frankly, they have provoked many questions, considering Washington’s confusing and sometimes openly contradictory ideas on the entire range of bilateral and international issues. Moreover, these statements have been issued alongside some alarming actions, notably the illegal attack against Syria. Mr Tillerson, we discussed this in a telephone conversation. President Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders have expressed their principled position on this issue. We consider it crucially important to prevent a repetition of such actions in the future.

I believe that you have come at the right time. Your visit provides an indispensable opportunity to frankly and honestly discuss the outlook for cooperation on these issues, primarily the creation of a broad counterterrorism coalition, as President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump have agreed to do. This is especially important at a time when, as far as we know, not all key positions in the US Department of State have been filled and hence it is not easy to quickly receive clarification on current and future issues. More than once, we have reaffirmed our readiness for a constructive and equal dialogue and cooperation based on respect for the legitimate interests of the other. This has been our consistent policy that is fully in keeping with international law and does not depend on current trends or a false choice, such as “you are either with us or against us.”

We have always stood for collective action. We consider it counterproductive to stand behind the closed doors of alliances and “misalliances”. Of course, we have put forth this position to our American colleagues before, and this is well known in Washington and to you, Mr Tillerson. For our part, we need to understand the position of the United States and the practical intentions of the US administration. We hope to move forward on these issues today.

Welcome.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2725202
 
Old April 14th, 2017 #26
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 12, 2017



12 April 2017 - 19:36





Russia’s position on space cooperation

As you know, today is Cosmonautics Day, and I would like to wish you a happy one. Traditionally it is observed on a wide scale as an important event. Cosmonautics Day (International Day of Human Space Flight declared by the UN) is a good opportunity for focusing on some of the most important aspects of Russia’s space activity, in particular its international dimension.

Developing the country’s space capabilities is one of Russia’s national priorities, as President Putin has repeatedly stated. Designed through 2025, the Federal Space Programme provides for the development of all fundamental areas, including the study of planets of the solar system and the moon with the help of automated spacecraft and a manned space flight programme. I would like to draw your attention once again, considering that members of international media outlets are present here, and it is very important for us to make our assessments and our vision of this area of international cooperation clear to our foreign partners.

Russia is ensuring guaranteed access to outer space from its territory. Foreign policy priorities have been defined and are being consistently followed. Russia advocates the peaceful use of outer space and the prevention of an arms race in space.

Back in 2008, a Russian-Chinese draft international treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space and the threat or use of force against outer space objects was submitted for consideration to the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. In 2014 an amended version of that document was submitted.

Essentially the only state that is opposed to the international community’s efforts in this area is the US. Under these circumstances, to enhance mutual confidence and transparency, back in 2004, Russia assumed a unilateral political commitment not to be the first to place weapons in outer space, and urged all responsible countries to follow suit. Many of them, including those that have significant space potential, have already become full participants to this initiative. Even more countries have co-sponsored a corresponding resolution of the UN General Assembly, which has been approved by an overwhelming majority of votes for three years in a row. Today, the international initiative regarding no first placement of weapons in outer space is the most effective, viable, cost-free, and transparent confidence-building measure in this sphere and it is gaining momentum. Of course, the main goal is to prevent an arms race in outer space.

It is noteworthy that back in 2005, at the Russia-EU summit in Moscow, an agreement was reached on combined efforts to prevent an arms race in space. We believe that these agreements still stand. We therefore have quite a few questions about the EU’s collective position, which was formed under pressure from Washington and obligates all EU countries to refrain from endorsing this simple and understandable resolution of the UN General Assembly for the third time in a row, which calls for dialogue in this area without even requiring any new obligations from EU countries, which cannot boast independence in their actions.

Furthermore, at the UN Outer Space Committee in Vienna, Russia put forward a host of important proposals designed to ensure the safety of space operations and the preservation of outer space as a secure, stable and conflict-free environment. Substantive talks are under way.

We are ready to work constructively on all these issues with all states in the interest of preserving the peaceful skies over our planet.

This is the first time we are observing this day and this holiday without our outstanding cosmonaut Georgy Grechko. He will forever remain in our hearts. His shining memory will live on. We regard everything that he has done for the development of the space industry and international cooperation in the peaceful use of outer space as an invaluable contribution. His name has been inscribed in gold letters not only in national history but also in the world history of cosmonautics.



The situation in Venezuela

We’re receiving a lot of requests to explain Moscow’s position on this issue.

We’re watching with concern the situation in Venezuela, a country with which we maintain friendly relations, where opposition activists continue to clash with law-enforcers, even with the Easter holidays approaching. We feel sorry for the people who were killed or injured in street violence that is spiralling out of control. We cannot help mentioning a growing risk that the destructive scenarios which we have spoken about time and again and have warned against and which call to mind the grievous events in Chile in the 1970s might be implemented.

We believe that non-violence offers a way to end political confrontation – this is exactly our vision of how to resolve the political crisis and resume nationwide dialogue for the sake of searching jointly for answers and solutions to the socioeconomic challenges facing the country.

In this context, we’re concerned about the statements by the US Southern Command to the effect that further aggravation of the crisis in Venezuela might require a prompt response at a regional level. It should be understood that statements like these are adding to the instability, escalating the situation in that country. They cannot be treated otherwise than words to encourage Venezuelan radicals to create an atmosphere of uncertainty and instability and incite violent confrontation. We consider the fact that tensions are running high in Venezuela to be a very dangerous trend. Honestly, in our view, this would hardly be in the interests of the United States and the entire international community, including the countries in the region.

We would like to say again that all political processes unfolding in Venezuela should be strictly in line with the constitution, keep to both its letter and spirit in full, and comply with the governing laws. There is no alternative to a peaceful settlement of Venezuela’s internal problems reached at the negotiating table and in compliance with the constitution – and there cannot be any.



Results of Russian MPs’ work at the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s 136th Assembly in Dacca and the 137th Assembly in St Petersburg this October

Last week, the capital of Bangladesh, Dacca, hosted the 136th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I would like to note the positive results of the Russian delegation’s work.

At the Assembly’s plenary session the Inter-Parliamentary Union adopted a resolution initiated by our country on the role of parliaments in observing the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states.

We repeatedly observed such actions in the past, including in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya, and now we can see attempts to do the same in Syria. The resolution was supported by an overwhelming majority of the delegations, despite the expected resistance from representatives of several western countries.

Also important was the support for the Russian initiative to establish a working group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s Executive Committee on Syria. This group’s mandate is to include developing measures, to be accepted by the global parliamentary community, to promote an open and universal political settlement in Syria and also to support effective global efforts in fighting international terrorism in the region.

The group will have an opportunity to visit where events are happening, in particular, Syria. It will consist of representatives of the Executive Committee (besides Russia, the wish to participate was expressed by France, the Netherlands, Iran and Namibia) and of all six geopolitical groups in the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The IPU Executive Committee has invited both the Syrian Parliament and representatives of the opposition to cooperate within the framework of the group. Russia’s representative (Konstantin Kosachev, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Federation Council) will be the coordinator of this working group.

This can be considered a continuation of efforts toward an intra-Syrian settlement made by Russian MPs. This settlement is developing in addition to TV link-ups with colleagues from Syria, Iran and European countries and trips to Syria together with European MPs. In our opinion, all this is having a perceptible effect and European MPs’ attitude to the events in that country is gradually changing. Our aim is not to steer it in an advantageous direction for us but to make it non-biased, impartial and independent, instead of going with the flow.

Participants in the Assembly in Dacca offered their condolences for the tragedy in St Petersburg and expressed solidarity with the people of St Petersburg and all Russia.

I would like to remind you that the next IPU Assembly will take place in Russia. We can say that in Dacca, Bangladesh passed the baton as host to St Petersburg. There was a presentation on this city on the Neva River and a discussion of key issues on the agenda of the autumn session of 2017.

In particular, there are plans to adopt another resolution in St Petersburg, initiated by Russia and dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Democracy. The resolution will acknowledge the absence of a universal model of democracy and the fact that democracy is not the exclusive privilege of a certain country or region.

It should be emphasised that, for its part, Russia will spare no effort to make the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s 137th Assembly a success.



The situation in Syria

The military-political situation in Syria sharply deteriorated following the massive US strike on April 7 against the al-Shayrat airfield where Syrian Air Force planes are based. In this room, as well as for many other audiences, we have given an extended evaluation of that, issuing corresponding statements and explanations and making comments. As is known, Russia responded to that outright act of aggression against a sovereign UN member state by suspending the Russian-US memorandum on the prevention of air incidents in the course of operations in Syria. A corresponding explanation was provided via both the Defence Ministry and the Foreign Ministry. Washington’s use of force is a serious challenge not only to regional but also to international security.

Unfortunately, there is no stopping anti-Russian forces in the West, which are bent on wiping out the positive achievements on the path toward a peace settlement. They were put in place mainly through the efforts of Russia and its partners in the Astana process, as well as the efforts of UN envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and his team in Geneva.

Some western media outlets are not above peddling these fake news stories and outright slander. Consider, for example, the AP report of April 11 citing a high-ranking US official as saying that Russia knew about Syria’s coming chemical weapons attack in advance!

How can we comment on this? These news stories can only be commented on in the same spirit. Let’s try to do the same today. Maybe those across the ocean knew about the terrorists’ coming provocation and so targeted their cruise missiles at Syria’s al-Shayrat airport in advance. Are these the kinds of polemics we will engage in or will we talk in a constructive manner? Will we destroy the media with these fake reports or will we come to understand the need for a responsible approach toward dealing with long-running international problems? Would it not be better first to understand what really happened at Khan Sheikhoun on April 4 and ensure, as Russia immediately proposed, an impartial, objective and professional international investigation on the ground with the participation of OPCW experts? Unfortunately, our colleagues chose to act differently.

Our partners’ actions consists of constantly repeating the “vial of white powder” show at the UN Security Council that the US used to justify the need to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in the early 2000s. The comparisons are not simply appropriate, they are self-evident. There is only one “but” here: the situation today is far more dangerous, because a new bloody and insidious player has emerged – international terrorism, as represented by ISIS, al-Nusra and other Al Qaeda affiliates. How they evolved, as a result of what countries’ mistakes and in what region – I believe we have talked enough about that to repeat it today.

Independent experts from the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR), a Swedish NGO, have questioned the videos of the “victims of the chemical attack” that were accompanied by comments in Arabic as to how best to position a child in front of a camera.

As before, we urge our partners for equal cooperation based on mutual respect in the interest of achieving the most important goals on the international agenda today: eliminating the seat of international terrorism in Syria and reaching a political settlement in that country.



Hacking activity on the Foreign Ministry’s website

We would like to revisit the issue of hacking. However, today we will add a new twist to this traditional topic and tell you about hacker activity on the Foreign Ministry’s website.

I would like to remind you that for months Russia has been accused of using hackers to interfere in the internal affairs of the US and other western countries, but not a scrap of conclusive evidence has been presented either to us or to anybody else. All of these allegations follow the form of UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s remark that they have no evidence but are sure the Russians have the capability to meddle. Unlike our western colleagues, we do have something to show.

I would like to say that this is quite a sensational story. Today I will tell you about what our agency and just one website regularly run up against, although there are a lot of sites that regularly come under attack. I believe we will be regularly updating you on these statistics. This example will give you an idea of the scale of resources directed against Russian government agencies.

Specialists say the ministry’s website regularly comes under attack from IP addresses registered in the US. In February 2017 alone, three attacks were registered. In March 2017, we recorded a significantly heightened level of activity by so-called bots, automatic programmes that can adversely affect the Foreign Ministry’s website from the US. Their share of the total number of visitors to the pages was 88 percent (1.51 million bot users of 1.77 million came from US territory). This refers to visits not by ordinary users who are interested in specific materials but those who use the entire array of actions that are usually called hacking attacks, computer systems, everything that does not qualify as legal or legitimate use of cyber technology. Bot visits to our website account for 50 percent of the total (1.47 million page viewings of 2.97 million). Analysis showed that all of them have similar characteristics (they are used by the same programme or organisation). According to our technical services, they come mainly from the US, from California (64 percent of all queries from Mountain View (47 percent) and San Jose (17 percent)), as well as from Ohio (8 percent) and the District of Columbia (8 percent).

I would like to remind you once again that cyber security is traditionally a priority on Russia’s agenda not only at home: it is a focus of our international efforts. Russia has put forward an initiative that is known at the UN as International Information Security. We have posted a lot of materials on this issue on the Foreign Ministry’s website and the social media and Russian representatives have given interviews on it. We have repeatedly urged our western partners to engage in genuine multilateral cooperation to put an end to hacker attacks, which have become a serious destabilising factor today. We would advise our US partners, instead of trying to bring down the website of Russia’s foreign policy agency, to steer their efforts to a peaceful channel and do their best to fight cyber threats together.

To reiterate, we will keep monitoring these statistics. I would like to repeat that these are specific figures for representatives of the relevant US services to work on. If they are so responsive to everything related to cyber attacks, at this briefing we are giving them an opportunity to look into the modus operandi of hackers and people registered in the US who unscrupulously use internet technology based in the US or operate from its territory.



The Library of Ukrainian Literature in Moscow

At the OSCE Permanent Council meeting in Vienna on April 6, our Ukrainian and American colleagues raised the issue of the Library of Ukrainian Literature in Moscow. We would like to say the following in this connection.

Contrary to what was said at the meeting, it is not true that the doors of the library have been closed permanently and its books have been seized. The books from the Library of Ukrainian Literature are being turned over to the Centre of Slavic Cultures, which has opened at the Margarita Rudomino State Library for Foreign Literature in Moscow. The book transfer, which is underway, will be completed in 2017. Anyone can go there to read the wonderful Ukrainian books kept in storage in Moscow.

On April 3, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry filed a note of protest with the Russian Foreign Ministry, demanding that the books from the Library of Ukrainian Literature in Moscow are turned over to Ukraine. We are surprised at these claims, to put it mildly. The Library of Ukrainian Literature in Moscow never belonged to Ukraine but was an independent state cultural facility located in Moscow and financed by the city.

Ukraine’s claims appear especially strange in light of the Ukrainian authorities’ policy regarding Russian language publications. Kiev has recently approved a procedure for confiscating the so-called anti-Ukrainian literature and published a list of books that are prohibited from entering Ukraine. On December 8, 2016, Verkhovna Rada amended laws to limit, and in fact ban, the entry of Russian print matter into Ukraine. Moreover, Russian films are listed for total suppression, Russian television networks have been banned in Ukraine and a quota has been introduced for the broadcasting in Russian of television and radio programmes to curtail the use of the Russian language. Many Ukrainian place names have been changed.

The Kiev City Council is taking an active part in the de-Russification campaign. This is contrary to what is happening in Moscow with regard to Ukrainian literature and all other elements of cultural cooperation, Ukraine and Ukrainian culture. One example: in March, the Kiev City Council decided to rename the Kiev Museum of Russian Art as the Kiev Art Gallery. And after this they dare take issue with our actions and make demands.

These and many other moves by the Kiev authorities lay bare the hypocritical rhetoric regarding the alleged infringements of the rights of the Ukrainian minority in Russia, where no obstacles are erected to the development of cultural identity. It’s just the other way round. Everything that is now happening in Ukraine points to the ongoing discrimination, including the adoption of new methods of suppression aimed at the forceful Ukrainisation of Russian speakers.

Also, Ukraine is not living on an island. It is a geographical, cultural and historical part of Europe. Ukraine has also decided to join the EU countries politically, saying that European values, in particular the declared EU values, are among its priorities and key goals. Why don’t these values include the protection of ethnic minorities? Frankly, the Russian speaking population of Ukraine cannot even be described as an ethnic minority, considering the country’s history and the fact that Russian has always been a language that did not push people apart but united them. Regrettably, it is also obvious that by pursuing this policy, Kiev is only further inciting Russia haters and actually seeks to lead the campaign to liquidate everything that could remind the Ukrainian people about the cultural and spiritual heritage they share with the Russian people.

We believe that this policy has no future historically and is very harmful.



Shipment of Crimean wines arrested in Italy

This topic was all over the media yesterday. There were many requests for comments on this issue.

The Foreign Ministry views the incident with the arrest of a shipment of Russian wines made in Crimea at the VinItaly annual international wine exhibition in Verona as a provocation inspired by the representatives of the Kiev government in Italy, aimed at casting a shadow over the successful visit to the Russian Federation by the President of the Italian Republic Sergio Mattarella, which was underway at that time. The rationale behind these actions is hard to understand.

It is perplexing that the Italian authorities were unable to counter this anti-Russia ploy and provocation despite their proactive commitment to stepping up bilateral trade and economic ties. As the organisers of VinItaly, a major international event, they failed to deliver on their obligation to provide the best conditions for all participants in the exhibition. The reference to the relevant regulations of the EU Council is totally groundless. We have checked everything. Despite its anti-Crimean slant, this document does not provide for banning non-commercial exhibition items made in Crimea. This was clearly wishful thinking, an attempt to juggle with facts and switch the discussion to other issues.

The Russian Embassy in Rome has taken the necessary steps to protect the interests of the Russian participants in the Verona exhibition. We have to say that what happened is detrimental to the organisers’ reputation, since it raises many questions and leaves a nasty aftertaste, which is a critical point as far as wine is concerned.





Answers to media questions:



Question:

Can you comment on a statement by the Turkish Ministry of Health, based on a medical inspection, about the use of sarin in Idlib, in Syria?



Maria Zakharova:

I believe that the Turkish Ministry of Health should collect seawater samples for tourist season and check them for bacteria. The Ministry should also check food quality, including at resorts. That’s what they should do today.

The issue of chemical weapons is the responsibility of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which was created many years ago, and specifically the OPCW’s special division established for investigating incidents that involve the use of chemical weapons in Syria. They employ skilled experts focusing solely on the investigation of such incidents. It is them, rather than the Turkish Ministry of Health or some sort of cultural ministry, who should take part in resolving these issues. This is why Russia came up with the idea to send inspectors there as soon as possible.



Question:

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has urged Russia to stop supporting President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. How will these statements influence relations between Russia and Turkey and the role of Turkey in the coalition?



Maria Zakharova:

We have repeatedly said that the Russian position remains unchanged. From our standpoint the issue of a regime in Turkey or, for that matter, in any other country is their own domestic affair. We did not invent this provision which is stated in the UN Charter.

Second, we have always focused global public attention on the fact that members of the International Syria Support Group, which includes Turkey, approved documents which were eventually legitimised in the UN Security Council and which note that there is no alternative to resolving the Syrian issue through diplomatic means, and that the people of Syria themselves should decide their country’s future. The participating countries assumed certain obligations after signing this document and agreeing with its provisions. I believe we should proceed from this assumption.



Question:

You mentioned the crisis in Venezuela today. Is it possible to initiate any cooperation between Russia and the Latin American countries that could help resolve this issue?



Maria Zakharova:

We maintain bilateral relations with the region’s countries, as well as with the concerned associations of various countries. We address and discuss various issues, conduct dialogues and assist the legitimate authorities in Venezuela. Today, this dialogue and our cooperation hinge on a desire to help resolve a political crisis whose origins I have already discussed.

I think we would be ready to review any proposals on expanded cooperation that might be submitted by these countries or their regional organisations.



Question:

What would Russia do if the United States repeated its missile strike on Syria?



Maria Zakharova:

I did not expect this question. Do you have some information and that’s why you are asking? Are you planning something?



Question:

I am not planning anything. It is unclear what Washington would do next.



Maria Zakharova:

That’s funny. I was trying to imagine what would happen if a RT journalist asked a question like this at a US State Department briefing. I bet American news agencies would have published reports with headlines like, “RT has information about planned strikes.”

Our position is that the strike was an act of aggression from the standpoint of international law and documents on a Syrian settlement. We have stated our point of view publicly and at talks with the foreign ministers of the leading actors in the Syrian settlement. As you know, Sergey Lavrov has had numerous telephone conversations with his western and other colleagues. We will carry this on at the talks with Rex Tillerson.

You probably know that a conference will be held between Russia, Syria and Iraq in Moscow on Friday. The main issue on its agenda is how to return the situation back to the path of collective struggle against international terrorism in Syria and stimulate both the Geneva peace process and the Astana one.

I have a question to your question. Based on what you have asked, it can be assumed that strikes can be delivered spontaneously, without any cause, as I see it. I refuse to believe that a great nation like the United States can do what it did decades ago. After all, this is 2017 and not the 1970s, 1980s or even 1990s, when strikes were delivered against countries simply because someone in Washington decided to do this. There are such things as international law and the international community. These strikes on Syria are a blow to the collective foundations of global decision-making. This is what matters. At some stage, we looked back at US history, the history of the US foreign policy, and saw that this behaviour is characteristic of all US administrations. If I’m wrong, say so, name the administration that didn’t do this, that renounced the use of force in favour of peaceful and diplomatic means. The public aspects of these actions varied from open bombing raids to material assistance to the opposition and militants, from mistakes with tragic consequences to violations of international law. A case in point is Libya and the way the resolution concerning it was distorted.

The world has approached a dangerous line, and the new challenges and threats have grown to a scale where such actions [as the US air strike on Syria] can catalyse not just dangerous but absolutely tragic events. I wish the world’s largest country – largest on all counts – would see this as the main argument.

Well, if you have any information, don’t feel shy to share it with us.



Question:

Will Russia raise the issue of the Korean Peninsula where the situation has reached a critical point, and the possibility of resuming six-party negotiations on North Korea, during the Lavrov-Tillerson negotiations?



Maria Zakharova:

Let’s keep the intrigue, not to tease you but so we can appreciate the results once the visit and talks are over. To avoid making an exception for you and then other journalists, I’d like to ask you to readdress all the relevant questions to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during his news conference this evening.



Question:

A question about the previously mentioned meeting of the Russian, Iranian and Syrian foreign ministers. As the terrorist activity is gathering steam to include the recent terrorist attacks in St. Petersburg and Stockholm, is there any possibility for a new anti-terrorist coalition? How would this affect cooperation between Russia and the West in the fight against this global threat?



Maria Zakharova:

This is a very general question, which is not so much connected to the upcoming meeting but rather takes us to the history of the problem. You probably remember that President Vladimir Putin voiced a proposal in the UN to set up a real global front for the fight against terrorism a few years ago. This proposal included such steps as adopting a relevant resolution, the collective fight against international terrorism, and cooperative efforts between both the regional countries and all the countries that could join the coalition. Of course, the main point would be to adopt an international legal document, in particular, a UN Security Council resolution, that would outline the framework of the coalition, formulate its mandate and require a report on implementation. This way, there would not have been members who join and then quit the coalition at their own discretion, based on their own considerations and pushing their own agenda. With this approach, there would have been a smooth collective effort firmly based on the principles of international law.

You remember how the international community reacted to this initiative, don’t you? Unfortunately, events unfolded according to the scenario Russia warned against, when it talked about the world and the international situation without a wide global front based on a UN Security Council resolution.

As you said, there have been an increasing number of terrorist attacks on peaceful civilians, which seem to be perpetrated in totally different ways. The most alarming sign is that the scattered terrorist groups are coming together. Largely speaking, international terrorism is now quickly gaining momentum. Day by day, Mr. Putin’s proposal is becoming increasingly relevant. Sadly, the players’ ambitions could be too large to take this step. Such a policy and approach could lead to the world becoming a hostage to one or several terrorist organisations. Let’s hope it’s not too late.



Question:

How will the increased tensions between Russia, the US and other countries in the Western coalition affect Russia’s participation in the national reconciliation process in Afghanistan?



Maria Zakharova:

Our position is that we should work with the US and other countries to do everything we can to reach a settlement in Afghanistan. We are always ready to do this. You know that we act openly and invite the US to take part in various efforts related to Afghanistan, its security, and the situation in the region in general. We always hope for constructive dialogue with our partners.



Question:

How would Russia assess the possibility of a US military strike against North Korea? Is Moscow taking any steps to attempt to settle this conflict through peaceful means?



Maria Zakharova:

Yesterday, we published a document just before Rex Tillerson’s visit. The document is available on the Foreign Ministry website and it outlines our position and concerns regarding statements on the possible use of force that have come indirectly from US officials and directly from sources and political analysts. I suggest that you to read this document. From our point of view, this is an important part of regional stability and security, and, as I said, this document lays out our position in detail.



Question:

How can we reconcile Turkey’s support for the US action in Syria and its call to settle the crisis through the Astana format?



Maria Zakharova:

The question on how Ankara can reconcile these two approaches is one for the Turkish authorities. I think Turkey’s official representatives should explain to journalists and political analysts how Turkey conceptually resolves this. Turkey is facilitating the peace process on the one hand, but on the other, it has welcomed these airstrikes that effectively bury all attempts to bring the opposition and the official government authorities together, and any attempts at specific efforts to transform fighters and terrorists into an opposition organisation and encourage them to renounce armed action. The whole world has just received a bloody lesson in how to “sort things out.” For several years now, we have been calling on everyone to come to the negotiating table, and have persuaded the opposition fighters, terrorists and extremists to lay down their arms, including by offering them specific guarantees. These opposition fighters, terrorists and extremists are now asking a logical question: why is one person allowed to act through force, attacking a sovereign state’s territory without any approval or clear justification, and they are not allowed, and are constantly pushed to sit down at the negotiating table. No one denies that this is a very complicated process. We have always said that motivating extremists and opposition fighters who have spent years fighting for their “truth” and vision with gun in hand (albeit by taking a mistaken path, perhaps) to sit down at the negotiating table is an extremely complicated process. Let me say again that the opposition fighters, seeing this action, are only encouraged to continue using force.

Many of these people never went to university or even to school. Many of them are young people and the only view they know is the one the terrorist organisations have given them. How can we explain to unsophisticated people how this US action is justified? How can we convince them that force is not the way to resolve the Syrian conflict? Why do prosperous and educated people from a prosperous country use force as the main means to resolve the Syrian conflict? You should put this question to the Turkish officials and get an answer as to how they reconcile these two concepts within a single foreign policy.



Question:

Will Russian President Vladimir Putin meet with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson? One minute we hear that he will, the next minute we hear that he won’t. If this meeting does take place, what does it mean?



Maria Zakharova:

You know very well that the Presidential Executive Office and the Presidential Press Service are the ones who can comment on the President’s meetings. You should ask them.



Question:

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that the only countries that do not support the US position on Syria are Syria itself, North Korea, Iran and Russia. He also said that all of these countries, with the exception of Russia, are failed states. Can you please clarify if this is the complete list he mentioned?



Maria Zakharova:

Iran is a “failed state”? Just look at Iran’s history. Are you in a position to buy a history book or any book on Iran? Can your media outlet do this?



Question:

Yes.



Maria Zakharova:

Then I strongly advise you to buy one and send it to the American official you quoted. So in future he knows what he is talking about.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2725573
 
Old April 14th, 2017 #27
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 joint news conference following talks with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Moscow, April 12, 2017



12 April 2017 - 22:48





Good evening,

This has been a long day. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and I held talks, followed by a lengthy meeting with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, which lasted for more than two hours.

The talks were detailed and frank, covering the whole range of issues that are key to our bilateral relations and interaction on international matters.

It was stated that the current stage in our bilateral relations and in the international situation is quite unstable. There are many issues, including those left by Barack Obama’s administration as delayed action mines. We are realists and understand that serious efforts are needed to overcome these barriers. We are clearly committed to undertaking these efforts, while expecting our US colleagues to do the same. Today, President of Russia Vladimir Putin once again reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to moving in this direction.

We are seeing attempts to impede our cooperation and even exacerbate the confrontation. We view this approach as short-sighted, especially since it has been proven time and again over the course of history that when Moscow and Washington work together, not only our nations, but the whole world stands to win.

We confirmed our shared commitment to an uncompromising struggle against international terrorism, the topic our presidents discussed during the course of several telephone conversations, including a telephone conversation on the night of April 3-4, when Donald Trump called Vladimir Putin to express condolences in connection with the terrorist attack in the St Petersburg metro.

Of course, in the context of the fight against terrorism we discussed the situation in Syria. We touched upon the incident that occurred after April 4 in Idlib in Syria when chemical weapons were used, followed by a US missile strike on a military airfield on April 7. As you know, we have repeatedly stated our assessments on this issue. Today we said that it is vitally important to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident, which has already become the subject of numerous speculations.

The Russian Federation urged the need to draw the attention of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) at The Hague to the fact that it has all the powers needed to initiate such an investigation. We drew attention to the official letter of the Syrian government to the UN and OPCW asking for an immediate dispatch of a group of inspectors to carry out an impartial and objective investigation at the sites of the incidents in Idlib Province and at the airfield which has been struck. We saw that our American colleagues are ready to support such an investigation. We expect that the powers of the UN and the OPCW will be exercised without delay. In this connection we believe it is counter-productive to try to get the UN SC to pass a resolution which would be devoted not so much to investigating the incident as to legitimising the accusations which a priori blame official Damascus for what happened. We have other facts. I repeat, we are not trying to impose them on anyone. We want to see an objective, unbiased and honest investigation.

We also discussed the actions of the Russian Aerospace Forces and the US-led coalition in the context of the existing Memorandum on the Prevention of Incidents and Ensuring Flight Safety in Syria. As you know, Russia has suspended the Memorandum. Today Russian President Putin reaffirmed our readiness to resume compliance with the Memorandum provided there is a clear understanding of the main aims pursued by the US-led coalition air forces and the Russian Aerospace Forces, namely, the fight against ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other associated terrorist groups.

We also assume that the publicly declared line of Russia and the US ruling out the intention to interfere in the internal affairs of Syria or other states remains in force. We hope that the examples of Iraq, Libya and some other countries will serve as a potent warning against a repeat of such attempts somewhere else, including in the Middle East and North Africa. I would like to reiterate that our shared determination to destroy and defeat ISIS and other terrorists remains in force, which was fully confirmed today.

In addition to fighting terrorism in Syria and in the region as a whole we have a common interest in achieving a political settlement of the extremely complicated Syrian crisis. Russia and the US have over the past years led international efforts to find compromises, to bring all the participants of the internal Syrian conflict and external players to the negotiating table under the UN auspices. Today we agreed to continue bilateral interaction in order to move forward the multilateral process. We appreciate the fact that in addition to the Geneva process, in which we are fully involved together with the American colleagues, we also have the Astana venue, at which the American partners are present as observers.

Russia and the United States can do a great deal to help the international community settle conflicts in Yemen and Libya and also find a way to break the impasse in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement. I am confident that continued contacts on these issues can be useful.

There is also the issue of Afghanistan. As you know, over the past few years we have used different formats to rally international support for the intra-Afghan settlement. The next such attempt will be undertaken in Moscow on April 14, at the so-called Moscow format meeting of Afghanistan and neighbouring countries, including from Central Asia, to which American representatives have been invited. We hope that they will take part in this meeting in some capacity.

We also talked about the Ukrainian crisis. We have agreed that the 2015 Minsk Agreements must be implemented. We also recalled that under the previous US administration we put in place a system of bilateral consultations between Moscow and Washington, in addition to the four-party Normandy format. We sensed that the new US administration wishes to continue these bilateral contacts to help find practical ways towards the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements. We will welcome such efforts. We are ready for this.

We also discussed the situation in the Korean Peninsula, which is a common concern. Russia and the United States stand for strict compliance with UN Security Council resolutions on this issue. Today we also talked about finding a way to break out of spiralling confrontation and creating conditions for negotiations and for finding political and diplomatic methods to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula.

We also pointed out that Russia and the United States are responsible for military and political security at the global and regional levels. We touched base on the implementation of strategic stability and arms reduction treaties between our countries. We have agreed to end the pause in these processes, which occurred due to objective reasons connected with the change of the US administration. We hope to resume our contacts on bilateral strategic stability and arms control and that they will take place in a business-like and pragmatic manner with a view to ensuring strict compliance with our agreements.

We also talked about our economic cooperation. We see that both sides are interested in strengthening interaction and overcoming the current negative trend in the volume of our trade and investment, which has both objective and subjective causes. For our part, we proposed supporting the initiatives of our countries business communities, which would like the Russian authorities and the US administration to support direct contacts between them.

There is yet another agreement. We have arranged to appoint special representatives from our ministries – the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the US Department of State – to analyse in detail the irritants that have piled up in our relations over recent years, primarily during the Obama administration’s term, and do it without emotion or any artificial exacerbations. I think this could certainly yield results and afford an opportunity to make our relations healthier, if both parties use a pragmatic approach.

Generally, I think that we all understand what a difficult situation has taken shape in our relations and in the world: there are too many people willing to try their hand at using the specifics of advanced communication technologies, cybersphere and the virtual world as a whole; some people abuse the capabilities provided by modern technology in a bid to further their unscrupulous political agenda. I think both the United States and Russia have enough sensible people who are able to “separate the wheat from the chaff” and be guided by the cardinal, rather than time-serving, interests of our peoples, countries, and the world community.

This is my feeling after the talks we held. Despite the number of existing problems, both real and artificially created, there are quite a few prospects for cooperation. Russia is open not only to a dialogue with the United States in the most different areas but also to joint actions directed at achieving results in spheres that meet the interests of both countries. Of course, we will expect reciprocity from the United States. I am confident that today’s meeting and the many hours we spent with Rex Tillerson and with the President of Russia, were not in vain. We better understand each other after what we have done together today. I hope that these contacts will continue both directly between us and our staffs and between other US and Russian government agencies.





Question (addressed to Rex Tillerson):

We have heard not just contradictory but also aggressive statements from Washington in the past few days. I am referring to President Donald Trump calling Syrian president Bashar al-Assad an animal, and statements by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who compared al-Assad to Hitler and said that Hitler didn’t sink to using chemical weapons. How can statements like these help promote our diplomatic goals? When can we expect this rhetoric to change?



Sergey Lavrov (adding after Rex Tillerson):

I would like to say a few words. This (investigation into chemical attacks in Syria) is indeed a subject on which we diverge, because Russia is insisting on an objective investigation. In 2013, Russia and the United States jointly initiated the liquidation of chemical weapons in Syria. Agreements to this effect were drafted in a record short time at the OPCW in The Hague and at the UN Security Council. The OPCW prepared reports that recorded the progress in eliminating all chemical stockpiles. But they also recorded a problem, pointing out that several places where chemical weapons were stockpiled were controlled by extremists. The process is underway between Damascus and The Hague, although not without difficulties. We are using our relations with the Syrian government to encourage full cooperation on this issue. We are committed to completing this work, and we will complete it.

As for investigations into the use of chemical weapons, the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) is in Syria as is the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM). We have questions for these bodies, because all of the accusations regarding the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government are based on the so-called remote testimony of some NGOs. I will not talk again about the notorious White Helmets, which have fully discredited themselves with reports that have been exposed as fake many times.

As for testimony regarding the use of chemical weapons in the opposition controlled territory, the Syrian government and the Russian military in Syria have, several times, sent material evidence, including samples, for analysts at the OPCW. This was not remote testimony but material evidence. But the analysis of the evidence we sent to The Hague is taking too long.

As I said, I am not trying to accuse or protect anyone. We just insist on an objective investigation into the April 4 tragedy. As has happened before, the attack “chanced” to coincide with the Syria conference convened at the EU initiative in Brussels. When the alleged use of chemical weapons in Idlib was reported shortly before the conference, many participants demanded loudly and actively that the conference, which was called to discuss the entire range of settlement issues in Syria, be devoted to the chemical attack. Considering the ballyhoo and tensions in the media, on the political stage and in the international community as a whole, we believe that there should be a sober, objective and independent international investigation into the tragedy. An international group of unbiased and professional experts must be sent to the site where the chemical weapons were allegedly used and also to the airfield from which, to believe our American colleagues, aircraft with chemical bombs took off. We have not seen any evidence that this was so. At the same time, the TV footage and testimony by people who were at the airfield immediately after the planes took off and after the air strike was delivered at the airfield did not reveal any evidence of the presence of chemical weapons there.

I apologise for this long comment, but I just wanted to express our complete conviction that if our colleagues at the UN and in The Hague avoid launching an investigation, this will mean that they don’t want to establish the truth. We will continue to insist on this investigation.



Question (addressed to both ministers):

How would you compel Assad to participate in a political transition? Your government and the United States government seem to be miles apart on the Syria issue and Ukraine. Did you feel that you have cleared up any of those issues during today’s discussions?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Rex Tillerson):

For my part, I would like to say that I do not believe there is an insuperable distance between us and the US on many issues on the international agenda. This applies to Syria and Ukraine. In our opening remarks Secretary Tillerson and I mentioned the agreements that would not merely preserve, but intensify our communications channels on Syria and Ukraine.

As for the issue of Syria, including Bashar Assad, today we looked back at the history of the matter, and Rex Tillerson said that he is a new man and prefers not to delve into history, but to deal with today’s problems. However, the world is such a place that unless we draw lessons from the past we are unlikely to succeed in the present. I recalled the situations when a group of states, above all the Western countries, NATO members were absolutely fixated on liquidating this or that dictator, an authoritarian or totalitarian leader. In order to remove the President of the former Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, NATO unleashed a war in the centre of Europe in 1999 in flagrant violation of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act of the OSCE. They bombed, by the way, the TV centre, which is a war crime according to all the interpretations of the Geneva Conventions, and residential neighbourhoods. The Chinese Embassy was attacked, and bridges and passenger trains were bombed for almost three months. In the end, when they ran out of ammunition and targets that could, if only by a stretch, be described as dual-purpose targets, they went to the UN Security Council.

Another example, another dictator, Saddam Hussein, who was hanged after the invasion (of Iraq). We all know how the invasion was justified. Since then only Tony Blair, I think, has repented publicly admitting that all the pretexts for invading Iraq were fakes. You know as well as we do where Iraq is today.

Then there was Muammar Gaddafi. It was declared that the dictator had no place in his country and that democracy had to triumph. We also know what is happening in Libya today. Libya’s statehood is under a big question mark and the US and we and other partners (Russian President Putin and Italian President Mattarella discussed this yesterday) are trying to restore the Libyan state through national reconciliation, trying to put an end to the situation when the country has turned into a channel for illegal migration and slave trade, as your fellow media people reported today.

Turning to more recent examples, it is worth recalling Sudan whose President, Omar al-Bashir, was put on the wanted list by the International Criminal Court, and several years later the Obama administration decided that in order to settle the Sudan problem the country had to be divided into two parts. They created South Sudan and they begged us to help secure the consent of President al-Bashir, whom the US wants to see at the Criminal Court, not to object to the division of Sudan into two states. President al-Bashir kept his word and started cooperating with the international community. Sudan was divided into two parts according to the Obama administration’s plan only for Washington last year to start calling for sanctions against South Sudan, which it itself had created.

So, this kind of experiments based on the obsession with replacing a dictator, totalitarian or authoritarian leader – we’ve been there before. We know only too well what the outcome is. I cannot think of any positive examples of a dictator being toppled and things going smoothly afterwards. If there are such instances I would appreciate it if you tell me about them.

So in Syria, as President Putin has stressed repeatedly, we are not backing any particular person, be it President Assad or somebody else, like they are backing al-Sarraj or Haftar in Libya. We want to see them sit down and talk. The same is true of Syria. All the Syrians, as the UN Security Council resolution says, must sit down and come to an agreement. It should be an inclusive intra-Syrian dialogue. The fate of Syria, as the UNSC resolution says, should be determined by the Syrians themselves without any exceptions. The most important thing is not to remove this or that individual from the political scene, but to agree on the organisation of the Syrian state so that it is democratic and secular (which is opposed by the so-called High Negotiations Committee), so that all the ethnic and religious groups feel protected and fairly represented in the governing bodies. I assure you, as soon as such a consensus is reached, and this should be done by drafting a new constitution, the questions about the fate of individual personalities will be solved far more effectively and without any tragic consequences for the state, the country and the people.



Question:

Did you discuss the alleged Russian interference in the US presidential elections? How do Russia’s actions in cyberspace differ from those of the United States? We know from US media reports that the Iranian nuclear programme was derailed with the help of US-created Stuxnet virus. Right now, the United States is using the same methods and its cyberweapons in order to stop the North Korean missile programme.



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Rex Tillerson):

We have a stake in close cooperation in fighting cybercrime. You may have heard us speaking about that on numerous occasions. In October 2015, one and a half year ago, given the Obama administration’s concern over the actions of so-called Russian hackers, whom they began to chase all over the world and illegally, without activating the legal procedures existing between Moscow and Washington, brought them to the United States, where they faced court prosecution, we proposed that [the Russian Government] and the Obama administration start cooperation, encourage competent authorities to hold special contacts, and create a bilateral mechanism that would exchange online information on who, how and when is trying to breach the existing international and national laws applicable in Russia or the United States. We said as early as then that we were not interested in our citizens committing cybercrimes. The Obama administration turned down our proposal by giving no response at all. But last November, before the very end of their cadence, they said a meeting could be held after all. As is natural, our colleagues in the relevant sphere agreed right away but at the eleventh hour the Obama administration changed its mind. In all evidence, they were busy doing as much damage to Russian-US relations as possible before the new administration took office.

Today we said that, in fact, our interest is not only alive but actually is as urgent as ever. We offered to resume contacts between special representatives of the Russian President and the US administration and between the relevant agencies. We could only welcome these contacts. We felt that this time these efforts would result in the creation of a certain channel.



Question (addressed to both ministers):

You said a working group would be established or a special representative would be appointed to normalise relations. Will the bilateral Presidential Commission be revived?



Sergey Lavrov:

We haven’t touched upon this subject. The Presidential Commission was buried by President Barack Obama. I hope it can still be resuscitated in one form or another. But we are planning to create channels to review problems in bilateral relations regardless of any umbrella structure. We will just assign people who will calmly sit down and analyse where we still have problems, where we have grievances against each other, and whether we are right to have them. They will see how we can overcome problems, primarily those that have been created artificially.



Question (addressed to Rex Tillerson):

Secretary Tillerson, did you discuss today with President Putin or Foreign Minister Lavrov sanctions or other concessions that the United States might make in exchange for a change in behaviour from the Russian Government? And also, speaking about what you just answered previously, did you present to President Putin or the Foreign Minister specific evidence the Russian Government interfered in the US election?

And to Foreign Minister Lavrov, if an independent investigation finds the Assad government attacked his own people with chemical weapons, what will Russia do? President Putin says there’s an effort to blame Assad and plant evidence. Did you present that evidence to Secretary Tillerson today, and would Russia refuse to consider to agree to any circumstance that results in the ousting of Bashar al-Assad?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Rex Tillerson):

Secretary Tillerson did not threaten us with sanctions today. In fact, he did not threaten us with anything. We had a frank discussion on the issues on our agenda, including those on which we diverge, which is the majority of issues.

As for what would happen if an investigation found that the Syrian government was involved in the chemical attacks, I consider this to be a hypothetical question. We don’t want to read tea leaves, as did those who went into hysterics on the need to bomb Syria to smithereens. The US Senate and House of Representatives have made such calls after the US air strike on the Syrian airfield. We don’t want to speculate on serious matters such as the use of chemical weapons, or the attempts to protect someone or to stage chemical attacks. We want to establish the truth in strict compliance with the US and Russian laws and the laws of any normal country. We must respect the principle of the presumption of innocence. As I said, if attempts are made to put the brakes on our official proposal for an objective and unbiased investigation, which we have forwarded to The Hague today, we will make proper conclusions with regard to those who use the brakes.

As for the allegation made here that the US administration has irrefutable proof of Russia’s interference in the US election, I have to say yet again that we have not yet seen a single fact or even a semblance of fact. I don’t know who has seen them. Nobody has shown us anything and nobody has told us anything, although we asked more than once to see the facts that allegedly prove these unsubstantiated accusations.

As I said today, we know that there are many people who would like to derail our relations in order to promote their domestic and possibly foreign policy ambitions. This is a game with defective goals and damnable results. Give us concrete evidence, and we will be ready to respond.



Question (addressed to both ministers):

The United States has dispatched the Carl Vinson Strike Group to the Korean Peninsula. Did you discuss this at the talks? What risks could this pose for the region?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Rex Tillerson):

I can only repeat that our discussions included the situation in the Korean Peninsula and around it. I have concluded that despite numerous nuances, which may be very important, there is a common desire to settle this problem by exclusively peaceful political methods and to denuclearise the peninsula through talks. The parties to what we used to describe as the six-party talks are taking certain efforts towards this. Our Chinese colleagues and we have formulated certain initiatives. We need to come together if we wish to settle this issue exclusively by peaceful means.



Question:

President Trump has called Bashar al-Assad an animal. This is the leader your government continues to back. Can you tell us how long Russia will be willing to risk the lives of its soldiers and spend its money to protect him?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Rex Tillerson):

I can only repeat that, just as in the case of the so-called Russian hackers, so in the case of the chemical attacks in Syria, we would like to see not just numerous claims but also some material evidence. We haven’t seen such evidence as yet. Once again, Russia is in Syria at the request of the legitimate government of a UN member state, against which the UN Security Council has not adopted any sanctions. We are there to fight terrorism. It is in our interest to prevent ISIS and al-Nusra from seizing power in Damascus. If you look at the facts, you will see that in the past 18 months the international coalition created by President Obama did nothing to attain its stated goal. It did not fight ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra actively, effectively, persistently and consistently until Russia’s Aerospace Forces were deployed in Syria. And even after that but still during President Obama’s term, the US-led coalition only delivered strikes on selected ISIS positions. Jabhat al-Nusra has always been spared. We strongly suspect, and nobody has dispelled this suspicion so far, that al-Nusra is being spared so as to enact Plan B to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime. I have mentioned the potential consequences of such an action. We have seen this in Iraq and Libya. I hope that those who can draw lessons from history will prevail.

Of course, we need to know who committed crimes in Syria and what crimes these were. As one of my American colleagues has recently said, there is a time for everything. We need to determine our priorities. It was recently said in Washington that fighting ISIS is a number one priority. As White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer has said, you can defeat ISIS with al-Assad still in power. Former Secretary of State John Kerry told me the same. He said the Obama administration was sure that ISIS and terrorists in Syria are a much more serious threat and a more important task than Bashar al-Assad’s regime. We agree on that. We must recognise the obvious and common threats. If we can fight ISIS and defeat it without government change, we may fail to defeat ISIS if we change the government. Let’s use common sense and rely on pragmatism rather than emotions.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2725629
 
Old April 14th, 2017 #28
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on US President Donald Trump signing the US instrument of ratification of the protocol on Montenegro’s accession to NATO



13 April 2017 - 10:42



On April 11, US President Donald Trump signed the US instrument of ratification of the protocol on Montenegro’s accession to NATO, which had been earlier approved by the US Senate.

We view this step as a sign of inertia in Washington’s policies and a reflection of the logic of confrontation in Europe, where new dividing lines are being drawn.

We state that the effort to involve Montenegro in NATO disregards the real opinion of this Balkan country’s people. Millions of dollars are allocated to support pro-NATO puppet NGO’s in order to create an illusion that the Montenegrin leaders’ lop-sided course enjoys broad popular support.

We note that there is growing criticism of the efforts to sneak Montenegro into NATO even in the United States, where people justly doubt that this step will benefit the alliance itself and strengthen European security.

We regard the policy of including Montenegro in NATO as profoundly erroneous; it runs counter to the core interests of the people of that country and is damaging for the stability of the Balkans and Europe as a whole.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2725761
 
Old April 14th, 2017 #29
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting with Foreign Ministry representatives in the Russian regions, Moscow, April 13, 2017



13 April 2017 - 11:29





Good afternoon, colleagues,

We are glad to welcome you to this meeting. The last time we met in this format was three years ago. Clearly, many questions that constitute the authority of the heads of the Foreign Ministry regional offices have accumulated over this period. I hope we will be able to discuss them today in order to enhance the effectiveness of our cooperation.

It is obvious that concerted efforts by all Foreign Ministry departments without exception are especially important in the current situation. I will not talk at length about all the issues, but it is a fact that old conflicts have not abated while new ones have emerged. These include the Ukrainian crisis and the situation in Syria, which we discussed in detail with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at our meeting yesterday.

Overall, confrontation has been growing in the world not just as part of the natural political and economic competition, but also rivalry that is affecting the system of values due to our Western partners’ attempts to force their views on everyone. This reflects the Western countries’ striving to maintain their leading positions at any cost, positions to which they have become accustomed in the past centuries. Today they are forced to admit that the world around them is changing within the framework of the objective development of a polycentric world order. As I said, this process is very painful for those who are accustomed to deciding all issues for everyone. They apply repressions against those who refuse to toe the line, including sanctions, information pressure and information wars, as well as direct interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, as we see happening in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as Ukraine. All of us know how the coup in Ukraine was staged in February 2014 and who supported and prepared it.

As I said, yesterday we had a detailed discussion on the need to revitalise the Russian-US efforts to mobilise the international community against terrorism. We reminded the United States that such actions as its strike on Syria on April 7 run counter to this goal. We insist on a thorough, independent and objective investigation into this strike. We cannot and will not support the attempts to use this situation to press for the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution condemning the Syrian government without good reason.

Acting in keeping with the updated Foreign Policy Concept, which President of Russia Vladimir Putin approved in November 2016, we pursue a positive, constructive and multi-directional foreign policy, which has been proved effective and is supported in society. Russia’s position is focused on advocating collective action without unilateral moves, and cooperation based on equality, the indivisibility of security and respect for all countries. In this context, we are at one with the majority of countries that also stand for justice and greater democracy in international relations.

Russia has never looked for enemies. We are cooperating with our partners to attain common goals and not in opposition to anyone. It is on these principles that we are promoting cooperation within the EAEU, the CSTO, the SCO, BRICS, G20, RIC and other formats. The list of our undeniable priorities includes efforts to promote Eurasian integration and develop the EAEU’s foreign relations in keeping with President Putin’s initiative on a Greater Eurasian Partnership that would incorporate the SCO and ASEAN economies and other interested countries.

We see that Russia’s regions are becoming more active internationally and in foreign trade. Clearly, these efforts should be in line with Russia’s overall foreign policy course and facilitate a fuller use of potential in our relations with other countries, contribute to sustainable socioeconomic growth of the regions and prosperity of the people. The Foreign Ministry’s regional offices have a big role to play in this.

I am pleased to say that our regional offices are dealing with their tasks successfully overall and maintain close working contacts with the offices of the Presidential plenipotentiary envoys to the federal districts, regional governments and regional offices of federal executive bodies.

Regional delegations travelling abroad receive the requisite amount of consultations and information assistance. Work is underway together with the regional governments to review interregional agreements in order to increase the practical results of their implementation. I believe that we should do this regularly, so as to terminate obsolete agreements and fill the gaps that can emerge in the context of new tasks facing the regions.

I would like to thank you for your assistance to the international presentations of the regions, for conducting regular work to select and arrange investment projects for their submission to the interested Russian missions in other countries.

This important work helps our ambassadors and consular staff get their bearings when working to attract investment from their host country to Russia’s regions, rather than just to Moscow, St Petersburg or other entities that have long become leaders in attracting foreign investment.

We have taken note of your contribution to the implementation of the State Programme to Assist Voluntary Resettlement of Compatriots Living Abroad to the Russian Federation. It is gratifying that cooperation with the Foreign Ministry’s regional offices has been positively assessed by the President’s plenipotentiaries, governors and inspection groups from the Central Office.

Of course, we are not going to rest on our laurels. We must continue to monitor compliance with laws concerned with the coordination of the Russian regions’ international ties and foreign economic relations and also contribute to awareness-raising campaigns, including with the use of modern communication technology.

I urge you to keep working to help Crimea, including by attracting foreign investments to this region and providing objective information about the situation in Crimea. The foreign partners working in your regions will benefit from learning the truth.

I am convinced that we will continue working creatively. Be assured of our support. We try to analyse your problems as thoroughly as possible and settle them quickly and effectively.

Today we want to hear your comments regarding our tasks. I am sure that following this meeting we will prepare a detailed roadmap for further work in this area.

I would like to express gratitude to Alexander Zhdankov, an auditor with Russia’s Accounts Chamber, for his contribution, which was very useful.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2725834
 
Old April 14th, 2017 #30
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from a joint news conference of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov following talks with Foreign Minister of Bangladesh Abul Hassan Mahmood Ali, Moscow, April 13, 2017



13 April 2017 - 13:01





Question (to Sergey Lavrov):

After yesterday's statement by US President Donald Trump that NATO is not an obsolete organisation, it is clear that American politicians often not only contradict one another or themselves, but also that the US leader sometimes makes deeply contradictory statements. Does Russia fully understand the American position on many important issues? Is it difficult to conduct diplomatic work given these circumstances?



Sergey Lavrov:

Diplomacy is not a simple occupation at all. In a situation where the new US Administration is still trying to formulate its approaches to international affairs, there are pauses in dealing with issues that could be resolved more effectively if there were Russia-US interaction. This is an objective process, and we are not trying to rush anyone. The goal of the US Administration is to formulate its positions and form a team, because this process is far from being accomplished at the State Department.

Unfortunately, in addition to natural objective factors, there are subjective circumstances connected with those who want to hamper the work of the Trump Administration, including issues concerning relations with the Russian Federation. They want to prevent the healing of the wounds that have been inflicted on these relations by the Obama Administration, and use the Russian card in the internal political strife. This is regrettable, but we can do nothing about it, except that we ask for facts to be produced when we are accused of something. There’s not a single fact, although under pressure from President Trump’s opponents, the White House is forced to periodically make some statements containing allegations against us. I believe yesterday we were accused at a White House briefing of interfering with elections in Montenegro last year. They brought this up for some reason. They also said that Russia is involved in a disinformation campaign to help President al-Assad avoid being held accountable for the recent chemical attack.

I discussed this yesterday with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The situation in Syria was one of the main topics. It seemed to me we had convincingly enough clarified our reasons for organising a dedicated independent study on the basis of the entities created at the UN and the OPCW. Given the colossal and fairly confrontational response to what happened in Syria, we proposed complementing these entities with professional inspectors in this field who would be invited from Western countries, Russia and the countries of the region. It seemed to me that Secretary Tillerson was receptive to the idea and promised to work it out. We even suggested that Russia, in conjunction with the United States, should put forward such an initiative. He was not ready for this, so we made this proposal in a national capacity, as Russia’s proposal. In parallel with this process (in my opinion, a very logical, objective and necessary one) without any clear consultations, the United States, France and Great Britain yesterday put to vote a draft resolution that formally focused on the need to investigate what happened. However, it was formulated unilaterally and crammed with demands exclusively to the Government of Syria to open access to all its military facilities. There was no indication that it was necessary to investigate the site of the incident in the Idlib province. When asked why they are not giving any attention to the need to visit not only the airfield, which they suspect was the place where chemical weapons were loaded into the planes, but also the site itself, which came under the attack, our American, French and British colleagues said they aren’t sure who controls this area, and sending inspectors there is not safe. These are just excuses. Everyone is perfectly aware that the area that came under Syrian air strikes has been controlled by ISIS for six years now (since 2011), and that this area, according to available information, was used to produce chemical weapons that were later used in Iraq and Syria. If our Western partners refuse to include in the relevant resolution the demand for the supporters of extremists in this area to grant access to inspectors, this means they are afraid of ascertaining the truth.

We want the inspectors to take a transparent, independent and professional look at the airfield, from which, as our Western colleagues claim, the aircraft with chemical weapons took off, and also to go to the site that came under attack. Only an inspection like this can be objective. If they want to take only one-sided steps, that means they know something. By the way, UK online resources, the Financial Times, offer much evidence from British and other foreign experts who are very seriously questioning the scenario offered by our American colleagues which they use to justify their attacks on the Syrian airfield.

We are very concerned by our foreign partners in the UN Security Council trying to escape an honest investigation into this episode. Today, the OPCW Executive Council is meeting in the Hague for an extraordinary session. We submitted our proposal on forming such a delegation on the basis of this organisation with the involvement of additional inspectors, which is necessary, given the colossal and not very constructive public reaction to this story.

Returning to your question, we take a philosophical approach to what is happening. We do not feel any joy about it. I'll reiterate what I said yesterday. The talks with Secretary Tillerson were useful. I believe they helped the US Administration to better understand our position. It is important that they formulate their approaches to the issues on which Russia and the United States can productively cooperate.



Question:

Сommenting on the results of Secretary Tillerson’s visit to Moscow, President Trump said that the US Secretary of State had done a tremendous job here, but its results will not be seen in the near future. What do you think and feel about that visit? How long will it take before our relations with Washington are normalised?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is the same topic that I touched upon in my answer to the previous question. I already said that I liked how things went yesterday. First of all, the President had a very important conversation with the Secretary of State, which lasted over two hours. We had talks before the meeting in the Kremlin and following the news conference. By the way, we also talked informally for about an hour about opportunities that are opening up.

Probably, the results will not come soon, but at least in the operational plan we agreed to establish a dialogue on a number of important issues, including taking inventory of the issues that were created by the previous administration in our bilateral relations. We also agreed to establish mechanisms on issues related to implementing existing bilateral treaties in the military-political sphere designed to bring together or better understand our positions on various regional crises, especially with regard to the Syrian settlement. Just three years ago, Russia and the United States sought to form an international support group for the Syrian settlement. We will see.

I repeat, such agreements have, in principle, been achieved. Now, we will take practical steps to form dialogue mechanisms. This is important in and of itself. It is always better to talk with each other than to speak into a microphone and tell each other about what you think about the opposite number without looking into his or her eyes. This is not a quick process, but at least if what has been agreed upon at the methodological level will begin to be implemented, it will already be useful.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2726019
 
Old April 14th, 2017 #31
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Sergey Lavrov’s article "Russia’s Foreign Policy: Historical Background" for "Russia in Global Affairs" magazine, March 3, 2016



3 March 2016 - 09:20



International relations have entered a very difficult period, and Russia once again finds itself at the crossroads of key trends that determine the vector of future global development.

Many different opinions have been expressed in this connection including the fear that we have a distorted view of the international situation and Russia’s international standing. I perceive this as an echo of the eternal dispute between pro-Western liberals and the advocates of Russia’s unique path. There are also those, both in Russia and outside of it, who believe that Russia is doomed to drag behind, trying to catch up with the West and forced to bend to other players’ rules, and hence will be unable to claim its rightful place in international affairs. I’d like to use this opportunity to express some of my views and to back them with examples from history and historical parallels.

It is an established fact that a substantiated policy is impossible without reliance on history. This reference to history is absolutely justified, especially considering recent celebrations. In 2015, we celebrated the 70th anniversary of Victory in WWII, and in 2014, we marked a century since the start of WWI. In 2012, we marked 200 years of the Battle of Borodino and 400 years of Moscow’s liberation from the Polish invaders. If we look at these events carefully, we’ll see that they clearly point to Russia’s special role in European and global history.

History doesn’t confirm the widespread belief that Russia has always camped in Europe’s backyard and has been Europe’s political outsider. I’d like to remind you that the adoption of Christianity in Russia in 988 – we marked 1025 years of that event quite recently – boosted the development of state institutions, social relations and culture and eventually made Kievan Rus a full member of the European community. At that time, dynastic marriages were the best gauge of a country’s role in the system of international relations. In the 11th century, three daughters of Grand Prince Yaroslav the Wise became the queens of Norway and Denmark, Hungary and France. Yaroslav’s sister married the Polish king and granddaughter the German emperor.

Numerous scientific investigations bear witness to the high cultural and spiritual level of Rus of those days, a level that was frequently higher than in western European states. Many prominent Western thinkers recognized that Rus was part of the European context. At the same time, Russian people possessed a cultural matrix of their own and an original type of spirituality and never merged with the West. It is instructive to recall in this connection what was for my people a tragic and in many respects critical epoch of the Mongolian invasion. The great Russian poet and writer Alexander Pushkin wrote: “The barbarians did not dare to leave an enslaved Rus in their rear and returned to their Eastern steppes. Christian enlightenment was saved by a ravaged and dying Russia.” We also know an alternative view offered by prominent historian and ethnologist Lev Gumilyov, who believed that the Mongolian invasion had prompted the emergence of a new Russian ethnos and that the Great Steppe had given us an additional impetus for development.

However that may be, it is clear that the said period was extremely important for the assertion of the Russian State’s independent role in Eurasia. Let us recall in this connection the policy pursued by Grand Prince Alexander Nevsky, who opted to temporarily submit to Golden Horde rulers, who were tolerant of Christianity, in order to uphold the Russians’ right to have a faith of their own and to decide their fate, despite the European West’s attempts to put Russian lands under full control and to deprive Russians of their identity. I am confident that this wise and forward-looking policy is in our genes.

Rus bent under but was not broken by the heavy Mongolian yoke, and managed to emerge from this dire trial as a single state, which was later regarded by both the West and the East as the successor to the Byzantine Empire that ceased to exist in 1453. An imposing country stretching along what was practically the entire eastern perimeter of Europe, Russia began a natural expansion towards the Urals and Siberia, absorbing their huge territories. Already then it was a powerful balancing factor in European political combinations, including the well-known Thirty Years’ War that gave birth to the Westphalian system of international relations, whose principles, primarily respect for state sovereignty, are of importance even today.

At this point we are approaching a dilemma that has been evident for several centuries. While the rapidly developing Moscow state naturally played an increasing role in European affairs, the European countries had apprehensions about the nascent giant in the East and tried to isolate it whenever possible and prevent it from taking part in Europe’s most important affairs.

The seeming contradiction between the traditional social order and a striving for modernisation based on the most advanced experience also dates back centuries. In reality, a rapidly developing state is bound to try and make a leap forward, relying on modern technology, which does not necessarily imply the renunciation of its “cultural code.” There are many examples of Eastern societies modernising without the radical breakdown of their traditions. This is all the more typical of Russia that is essentially a branch of European civilisation.

Incidentally, the need for modernisation based on European achievements was clearly manifest in Russian society under Tsar Alexis, while talented and ambitious Peter the Great gave it a strong boost. Relying on tough domestic measures and resolute, and successful, foreign policy, Peter the Great managed to put Russia into the category of Europe’s leading countries in a little over two decades. Since that time Russia’s position could no longer be ignored. Not a single European issue can be resolved without Russia’s opinion.

It wouldn’t be accurate to assume that everyone was happy about this state of affairs. Repeated attempts to return this country into the pre-Peter times were made over subsequent centuries but failed. In the middle 18th century Russia played a key role in a pan-European conflict – the Seven Years’ War. At that time, Russian troops made a triumphal entry into Berlin, the capital of Prussia under Frederick II who had a reputation for invincibility. Prussia was saved from an inevitable rout only because Empress Elizabeth died a sudden death and was succeeded by Peter III who sympathised with Frederick II. This turn in German history is still referred to as the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg. Russia’s size, power and influence grew substantially under Catherine the Great when, as then Chancellor Alexander Bezborodko put it, “Not a single cannon in Europe could be fired without our consent.”

I’d like to quote the opinion of a reputable researcher of Russian history, Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, the permanent secretary of the French Academy. She said the Russian Empire was the greatest empire of all times in the totality of all parameters – its size, an ability to administer its territories and the longevity of its existence. Following Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyayev, she insists that history has imbued Russia with the mission of being a link between the East and the West.

During at least the past two centuries any attempts to unite Europe without Russia and against it have inevitably led to grim tragedies, the consequences of which were always overcome with the decisive participation of our country. I’m referring, in part, to the Napoleonic wars upon the completion of which Russia rescued the system of international relations that was based on the balance of forces and mutual consideration for national interests and ruled out the total dominance of one state in Europe. We remember that Emperor Alexander I took an active role in the drafting of decisions of the 1815 Vienna Congress that ensured the development of Europe without serious armed clashes during the subsequent 40 years.

Incidentally, to a certain extent the ideas of Alexander I could be described as a prototype of the concept on subordinating national interests to common goals, primarily, the maintenance of peace and order in Europe. As the Russian emperor said, “there can be no more English, French, Russian or Austrian policy. There can be only one policy – a common policy that must be accepted by both peoples and sovereigns for common happiness.”

By the same token, the Vienna system was destroyed in the wake of the desire to marginalise Russia in European affairs. Paris was obsessed with this idea during the reign of Emperor Napoleon III. In his attempt to forge an anti-Russian alliance, the French monarch was willing, as a hapless chess grandmaster, to sacrifice all the other figures. How did it play out? Indeed, Russia was defeated in the Crimean War of 1853-1856, the consequences of which it managed to overcome soon due to a consistent and far-sighted policy pursued by Chancellor Alexander Gorchakov. As for Napoleon III, he ended his rule in German captivity, and the nightmare of the Franco-German confrontation loomed over Western Europe for decades.

Here is another Crimean War-related episode. As we know, the Austrian Emperor refused to help Russia, which, a few years earlier, in 1849, had come to his help during the Hungarian revolt. Then Austrian Foreign Minister Felix Schwarzenberg famously said: “Europe would be astonished by the extent of Austria’s ingratitude.” In general, the imbalance of pan-European mechanisms triggered a chain of events that led to the First World War.

Notably, back then Russian diplomacy also advanced ideas that were ahead of their time. The Hague Peace conferences of 1899 and 1907, convened at the initiative of Emperor Nicholas II, were the first attempts to agree on curbing the arms race and stopping preparations for a devastating war. But not many people know about it.

The First World War claimed lives and caused the suffering of countless millions of people and led to the collapse of four empires. In this connection, it is appropriate to recall yet another anniversary, which will be marked next year – the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Today we are faced with the need to develop a balanced and objective assessment of those events, especially in an environment where, particularly in the West, many are willing to use this date to mount even more information attacks on Russia, and to portray the 1917 Revolution as a barbaric coup that dragged down all of European history. Even worse, they want to equate the Soviet regime to Nazism, and partially blame it for starting WWII.

Without a doubt, the Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Civil War were a terrible tragedy for our nation. However, all other revolutions were tragic as well. This does not prevent our French colleagues from extolling their upheaval, which, in addition to the slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity, also involved the use of the guillotine, and rivers of blood.

Undoubtedly, the Russian Revolution was a major event which impacted world history in many controversial ways. It has become regarded as a kind of experiment in implementing socialist ideas, which were then widely spread across Europe. The people supported them, because wide masses gravitated towards social organisation with reliance on the collective and community principles.

Serious researchers clearly see the impact of reforms in the Soviet Union on the formation of the so-called welfare state in Western Europe in the post-WWII period. European governments decided to introduce unprecedented measures of social protection under the influence of the example of the Soviet Union in an effort to cut the ground from under the feet of the left-wing political forces.

One can say that the 40 years following World War II were a surprisingly good time for Western Europe, which was spared the need to make its own major decisions under the umbrella of the US-Soviet confrontation and enjoyed unique opportunities for steady development.

In these circumstances, Western European countries have implemented several ideas regarding ​​conversion of the capitalist and socialist models, which, as a preferred form of socioeconomic progress, were promoted by Pitirim Sorokin and other outstanding thinkers of the 20th century. Over the past 20 years, we have been witnessing the reverse process in Europe and the United States: the reduction of the middle class, increased social inequality, and the dismantling of controls over big business.

The role which the Soviet Union played in decolonisation, and promoting international relations principles, such as the independent development of nations and their right to self-determination, is undeniable.

I will not dwell on the points related to Europe slipping into WWII. Clearly, the anti-Russian aspirations of the European elites, and their desire to unleash Hitler's war machine on the Soviet Union played their fatal part here. Redressing the situation after this terrible disaster involved the participation of our country as a key partner in determining the parameters of the European and the world order.

In this context, the notion of the “clash of two totalitarianisms,” which is now actively inculcated in European minds, including at schools, is groundless and immoral. The Soviet Union, for all its evils, never aimed to destroy entire nations. Winston Churchill, who all his life was a principled opponent of the Soviet Union and played a major role in going from the WWII alliance to a new confrontation with the Soviet Union, said that graciousness, i.e. life in accordance with conscience, is the Russian way of doing things.

If you take an unbiased look at the smaller European countries, which previously were part of the Warsaw Treaty, and are now members of the EU or NATO, it is clear that the issue was not about going from subjugation to freedom, which Western masterminds like to talk about, but rather a change of leadership. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about it not long ago. The representatives of these countries concede behind closed doors that they can’t take any significant decision without the green light from Washington or Brussels.

It seems that in the context of the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, it is important for us to understand the continuity of Russian history, which should include all of its periods without exception, and the importance of the synthesis of all the positive traditions and historical experience as the basis for making dynamic advances and upholding the rightful role of our country as a leading centre of the modern world, and a provider of the values of sustainable development, security and stability.

The post-war world order relied on confrontation between two world systems and was far from ideal, yet it was sufficient to preserve international peace and to avoid the worst possible temptation – the use of weapons of mass destruction, primarily nuclear weapons. There is no substance behind the popular belief that the Soviet Union’s dissolution signified Western victory in the Cold War. It was the result of our people’s will for change plus an unlucky chain of events.

These developments resulted in a truly tectonic shift in the international landscape. In fact, they changed global politics altogether, considering that the end of the Cold War and related ideological confrontation offered a unique opportunity to change the European architecture on the principles of indivisible and equal security and broad cooperation without dividing lines.

We had a practical chance to mend Europe’s divide and implement the dream of a common European home, which many European thinkers and politicians, including President Charles de Gaulle of France, wholeheartedly embraced. Russia was fully open to this option and advanced many proposals and initiatives in this connection. Logically, we should have created a new foundation for European security by strengthening the military and political components of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Vladimir Putin said in a recent interview with the German newspaper Bild that German politician Egon Bahr proposed similar approaches.

Unfortunately, our Western partners chose differently. They opted to expand NATO eastward and to advance the geopolitical space they controlled closer to the Russian border. This is the essence of the systemic problems that have soured Russia’s relations with the United States and the European Union. It is notable that George Kennan, the architect of the US policy of containment of the Soviet Union, said in his winter years that the ratification of NATO expansion was “a tragic mistake.”

The underlying problem of this Western policy is that it disregarded the global context. The current globalised world is based on an unprecedented interconnection between countries, and so it’s impossible to develop relations between Russia and the EU as if they remained at the core of global politics as during the Cold War. We must take note of the powerful processes that are underway in Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America.

Rapid changes in all areas of international life is the primary sign of the current stage. Indicatively, they often take an unexpected turn. Thus, the concept of “the end of history” developed by well-known US sociologist and political researcher Francis Fukuyama, that was popular in the 1990s, has become clearly inconsistent today. According to this concept, rapid globalisation signals the ultimate victory of the liberal capitalist model, whereas all other models should adapt to it under the guidance of the wise Western teachers.

In reality, the second wave of globalisation (the first occurred before World War I) led to the dispersal of global economic might and, hence, of political influence, and to the emergence of new and large centres of power, primarily in the Asia-Pacific Region. China’s rapid upsurge is the clearest example. Owing to unprecedented economic growth rates, in just three decades it became the second and, calculated as per purchasing power parity, the first economy in the world. This example illustrates an axiomatic fact – there are many development models– which rules out the monotony of existence within the uniform, Western frame of reference.

Consequently, there has been a relative reduction in the influence of the so-called “historical West” that was used to seeing itself as the master of the human race’s destinies for almost five centuries. The competition on the shaping of the world order in the 21st century has toughened. The transition from the Cold War to a new international system proved to be much longer and more painful than it seemed 20-25 years ago.

Against this backdrop, one of the basic issues in international affairs is the form that is being acquired by this generally natural competition between the world’s leading powers. We see how the United States and the US-led Western alliance are trying to preserve their dominant positions by any available method or, to use the American lexicon, ensure their “global leadership”. Many diverse ways of exerting pressure, economic sanctions and even direct armed intervention are being used. Large-scale information wars are being waged. Technology of unconstitutional change of governments by launching “colour” revolutions has been tried and tested. Importantly, democratic revolutions appear to be destructive for the nations targeted by such actions. Our country that went through a historical period of encouraging artificial transformations abroad, firmly proceeds from the preference of evolutionary changes that should be carried out in the forms and at a speed that conform to the traditions of a society and its level of development.

Western propaganda habitually accuses Russia of “revisionism,” and the alleged desire to destroy the established international system, as if it was us who bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 in violation of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, as if it was Russia that ignored international law by invading Iraq in 2003 and distorted UN Security Council resolutions by overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi’s regime by force in Libya in 2011. There are many examples.

This discourse about “revisionism” does not hold water. It is based on the simple and even primitive logic that only Washington can set the tune in world affairs. In line with this logic, the principle once formulated by George Orwell and moved to the international level, sounds like the following: all states are equal but some states are more equal than others. However, today international relations are too sophisticated a mechanism to be controlled from one centre. This is obvious given the results of US interference: There is virtually no state in Libya; Iraq is balancing on the brink of disintegration, and so on and so forth.

A reliable solution to the problems of the modern world can only be achieved through serious and honest cooperation between the leading states and their associations in order to address common challenges. Such an interaction should include all the colours of the modern world, and be based on its cultural and civilisational diversity, as well as reflect the interests of the international community’s key components.

We know from experience that when these principles are applied in practice, it is possible to achieve specific and tangible results, such as the agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme, the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons, the agreement on stopping hostilities in Syria, and the development of the basic parameters of the global climate agreement. This shows the need to restore the culture of compromise, the reliance on the diplomatic work, which can be difficult, even exhausting, but which remains, in essence, the only way to ensure a mutually acceptable solution to problems by peaceful means.

Our approaches are shared by most countries of the world, including our Chinese partners, other BRICS and SCO nations, and our friends in the EAEU, the CSTO, and the CIS. In other words, we can say that Russia is fighting not against someone, but for the resolution of all the issues on an equal and mutually respectful basis, which alone can serve as a reliable foundation for a long-term improvement of international relations.

Our most important task is to join our efforts against not some far-fetched, but very real challenges, among which the terrorist aggression is the most pressing one. The extremists from ISIS, Jabhat an-Nusra and the like managed for the first time to establish control over large territories in Syria and Iraq. They are trying to extend their influence to other countries and regions, and are committing acts of terrorism around the world. Underestimating this risk is nothing short of criminal shortsightedness.

The Russian President called for forming a broad-based front in order to defeat the terrorists militarily. The Russian Aerospace Forces make an important contribution to this effort. At the same time, we are working hard to establish collective actions regarding the political settlement of the conflicts in this crisis-ridden region.

Importantly, the long-term success can only be achieved on the basis of movement to the partnership of civilisations based on respectful interaction of diverse cultures and religions. We believe that human solidarity must have a moral basis formed by traditional values ​​that are largely shared by the world's leading religions. In this connection, I would like to draw your attention to the joint statement by Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis, in which, among other things, they have expressed support for the family as a natural centre of life of individuals and society.

I repeat, we are not seeking confrontation with the United States, or the European Union, or NATO. On the contrary, Russia is open to the widest possible cooperation with its Western partners. We continue to believe that the best way to ensure the interests of the peoples living in Europe is to form a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to the Pacific, so that the newly formed Eurasian Economic Union could be an integrating link between Europe and Asia Pacific. We strive to do our best to overcome obstacles on that way, including the settlement of the Ukraine crisis caused by the coup in Kiev in February 2014, on the basis of the Minsk Agreements.

I’d like to quote wise and politically experienced Henry Kissinger, who, speaking recently in Moscow, said that “Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any new global equilibrium, not primarily as a threat to the United States... I am here to argue for the possibility of a dialogue that seeks to merge our futures rather than elaborate our conflicts. This requires respect by both sides of the vital values and interest of the other.” We share such an approach. And we will continue to defend the principles of law and justice in international affairs.

Speaking about Russia's role in the world as a great power, Russian philosopher Ivan Ilyin said that the greatness of a country is not determined by the size of its territory or the number of its inhabitants, but by the capacity of its people and its government to take on the burden of great world problems and to deal with these problems in a creative manner. A great power is the one which, asserting its existence and its interest ... introduces a creative and meaningful legal idea to ​​the entire assembly of the nations, the entire “concert” of the peoples and states. It is difficult to disagree with these words.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/web/guest/forei...ent/id/2124391
 
Old April 20th, 2017 #32
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,170
Default

__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #33
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from a joint news conference of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov following talks with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic Walid Muallem, Moscow, April 14, 2017



14 April 2017 - 13:41





Question:

What will be the three ministers’ message to the US administration in light of the recent visit of the US Secretary of State to Russia and the US act of military aggression against Syria?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Mohammad Javad Zarif):

I would like to add the following. I believe everyone will agree on the unacceptability of violations of international law. Such aggressive actions are designed to underline the agreed peace process. The UN Security Council resolution, which was adopted unanimously, says that the Syrian people themselves will decide the future of Syria. Such acts are aimed at abandoning this fundamental concept and at finding pretexts for a government change. These attempts will not succeed, absolutely not. We will insist on strict compliance with absolutely all provisions of the UN Security Council resolution, including strong commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.



Question:

Why has the United States refused to support the Russian-Iranian idea of a special commission that would conduct a comprehensive investigation into the use of chemical weapons in Idlib? The initiative includes the use of UN and OPCW experts, if my memory serves me correctly?



Sergey Lavrov:

The attempts to block the proposal made by Russia and Iran for an independent commission to conduct an unbiased and objective investigation show that those who undertake these attempts have a guilty conscience. Evidence is growing that the chemical attack in Idlib was a staged provocation. Recent publications, including in the United States and Britain, provide professional expert opinions and say that there are very many discrepancies and inconsistencies in the reasoning used to justify the April 7 act of aggression and to facilitate the adoption of a relevant UN Security Council resolution which was not adopted two days ago, as you know. We insisted that a special meeting of the OPCW Executive Council be held. The discussion we held yesterday was very animated. The bulk of our Western colleagues tried to prevent any moves that could help establish the actual truth.



Question:

Will you comment, please, on the allegations made by the US Ambassador to the OPCW Executive Council regarding Russia’s continuing efforts to bury the truth about Syria’s mythical chemical weapons?



Sergey Lavrov:

Over the past few days, our American colleagues started saying that Russia had assumed the responsibility as the guarantor of chemical disarmament in Syria. As if the United States has nothing to do with this.. I would like to remind you that in response to Syria’s declaration of willingness to join the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and to eliminate its chemical weapons stockpiles, Russia and the United States proposed organising this under the auspices of the OPCW and with full UN Security Council support. The parameters of this procedure were coordinated exceedingly quickly. Within barely a year, the OPCW said in a report that the declared amount of chemical agents had been destroyed. This is a fact written in black and white in the OPCW report to the UN Security Council. In such cases, one can easily double-check certain aspects of the procedure taken to destroy the chemical weapons.. This isn’t the first time that the OPCW have had questions about the alleged use of chemical weapons. The Syrian government always cooperated with the organisation to answer these questions to mutual satisfaction.

As for the proposal advanced by Russia and Iran to respond to Syria’s readiness to let an independent group of experts come into the country, I have the following to say. We have been accused of mistrusting the OPCW, whose Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) in Syria does not need any additional powers to investigate the April 4 attack and is already doing this. The FFM has two groups, one investigating the possible use of toxic agents by the Syrian government and the other by the armed opposition. So strange and such a coincidence, that both these groups are chaired by UK citizens. I am not implying that our UK colleagues are unprofessional, but we wonder about this lop-sided approach at an international organisation that must rely on a balanced approach, including geographically. Secondly, all information and facts about the use of chemical weapons by the opposition at the disposal of the Syrian government and the group of Russia’s Aerospace Forces in Syria, including the samples recently collected in Aleppo, are forwarded to the OPCW Secretariat in strict compliance with the transportation requirements. We forwarded samples that point to the possible use of chemical weapons in eastern Aleppo three months ago. However, we have not received as yet any response from the Secretariat.

When accusations are advanced against the Syrian government, the OPCW reacts within just a matter of a few days. They express concern but never go to the sites of reported chemical attacks in the territory controlled by the armed opposition, claiming this would endanger their personnel. We consider such remote analysis to be unacceptable. Regarding the April 4 event in Idlib, Riyad Farid Hijab, head of the High Negotiations Committee, issued a statement in support of an independent investigation. This may mean that the leader of a large opposition group, which some regional countries support, is willing to guarantee the safety of the inspectors who would collect samples in Idlib. In the meantime, we have been told that this would not be safe, but we still don’t see any convincing arguments.

Yet another strange element is that at the start of this story the United States demanded free access not just to the military airfield but also to some other military facilities in Syria. They requested access to the airfield at the very beginning, but yesterday the OPCW Secretariat representative said they would only investigate the incident in Idlib and saw no reason to go to the airfield. I cannot understand why, especially since the United States demanded access to the airfield and the Syrian government said it would accept the inspection. However, now the OPCW does not want to do this. These discrepancies breed serious suspicions, or more precisely, convince us that not everything is above-board in this case. When we say that inspectors must go to the site of the incident, we are told that the samples had been collected and would be analysed. Who collected these samples, and when? Nobody told us which laboratories would analyse them. In previous cases, when the issue concerned the investigation into the possible use of chemical weapons in territory controlled by the terrorists, we were told that the samples were analysed at a laboratory that was not designated by the OPCW.

Taking all this into account, these facts speak in favour of supporting the Russian-Iranian proposal which means that these incidents are investigated not only by the OPCW but also together with a group of independent experts from the regional countries, Russia, the United States and Europe. If our colleagues from the United States and European countries are convinced that their version is correct, they have nothing to fear from such an independent expert group.

We have been accused of mistrusting the OPCW, although the establishment of the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) to investigate the reported use of chemical agents in Syria was endorsed by the UN Security Council. It is true that the UN Security Council expressed its support for this mechanism and voiced hope that it would fulfil its obligations. We did sign this document, however we never agreed for this mechanism to work remotely without sending its experts to the actual location and to keep its sample collection methods secret, just as we never agreed that JIM has to be chaired by UK nationals. I hope nobody will take offense at our desire to conduct a transparent investigation of this high-profile incident so as to preclude even the suspicion that somebody may try to conceal something. I am sorry for speaking at such length, but I considered it important to highlight the key points.



Question:

Did you discuss media reports about UK, US, Jordanian and Israeli plans to open a new front against the Syrian Army in southern Syria?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Walid Muallem):

We have seen these reports and asked to know what they mean. The unofficial reply was that allegedly the idea was to cut communication lines between the ISIS positions in Syria and Iraq. We will continue to monitor this issue, because fighting terrorism is the only use of military force that is acceptable in Syria.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2726881
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #34
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Remarks by Russia’s Permanent Representative at the OPCW, Ambassador Alexander Shulgin, at the 54th Meeting of the OPCW Executive Council, The Hague, April 13, 2017



14 April 2017 - 18:50





Madame Chairperson,

Being a responsible party to the CWC, the Russian Federation unconditionally condemns the use of chemical weapons by anyone anywhere. We strongly deny any accusations against Russia that it acted as an enabler in the tragic events in Syria or was even complicit in the perpetration of any crime using chemical weapons. This is a blatant falsehood.

The message echoed at this meeting by a number of delegations that Russia is becoming increasingly isolated on the international stage and stands on its own following the April 12, 2017 vote in the UN Security Council is totally groundless. This is wishful thinking. In real life, Russia has adopted an inclusive and honest position that is clear for anyone acting in good faith. Russia could not accept the draft resolution during yesterday’s vote at the UN Security Council.

In fact, the Western troika submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council that was biased, lacked evidence and also pointed a finger at Syria. It was only formally devoted to investigating the Idlib incident, since it even lacked a provision on the need to work on the ground. Against this backdrop, Russia had no other option but to veto the document. No one should be misled about why Russia used its veto right in the UN Security Council.

I would also like to respond to what US Ambassador Kenneth Ward said about Russia allegedly making false claims about the OPCW, pretending that its executive made statements they had not. That was a very strange thing to hear, to say the least. Let me remind you of a quote from the report of the 76th Session of the OPCW Executive Council, in which the Council noted “the completed elimination by 23 June 2014, i.e. in the first half of 2014 as envisaged in EC-M-33/DEC.1 (dated 27 September 2013), of all declared chemical weapons material and equipment from the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic, despite uniquely challenging conditions.” May I ask you what this means, if not a confirmation by the OPCW that the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria was completed? So my advice for the US Ambassador would be to pay more attention to official OPCW documents. As for the clarification made to the initial declaration by Syria, everyone is aware of the challenging conditions in which it was prepared. It had to be submitted on very short notice and in the midst of a military conflict. It is obvious that the Syrians will have to clarify some points. There is nothing unusual about this, and other states that possess chemical weapons, including the US, have adjusted their initial declarations as well.

Madam President,

We must bitterly note that there are delegations trying to turn today's meeting of the Executive Council into some sort of a rigged trial where the perpetrators are already known, are sitting in the dock and are in the process of being sentenced. Has the investigation been completed already? Where is the evidence incriminating the Syrians? We are told that US intelligence has irrefutable evidence, so there is no need for an investigation. However, we are well aware of the value of the US intelligence. I will get back to that a little later.

Our Turkish colleague has reported on the findings of the doctors of his country, who, he said, conducted an autopsy, took samples and ascertained that those people died from sarin. What is this laboratory where the Turkish experts did their tests? Is it certified by the OPCW? How were the samples taken? What was the sequence of steps, and were they in line with the methodology approved by the OPCW? I am asking all these questions because when our military found traces of chemical weapons in Syria and submitted these materials to The Hague, they made them bend over backwards demanding to provide clarifications regarding compliance with the "chain of custody." We asked lots of questions during videoconferences and during a special meeting on the sidelines of the last session of the Executive Board. What's next? Three months have passed, and the experts of the OPCW Fact Finding Mission are still thinking, being unable to make up their minds with regard to the materials collected by the Russian military. Just think about it: three months and no results. While here, in a matter of three short days, the Turkish doctors came up with their conclusions. What mind-boggling efficiency! Why should we trust them as Holy Gospel? Why is the Technical Secretariat keeping silent? It is regrettable that such, in fact, crude information is willingly replicated and used in bad faith by a number of delegations as we can see from the remarks of the distinguished British ambassador.

We are disappointed by the representatives of a number of Western countries praising the US missile strike on Syria as supposedly fair and timely from the point of view of preventing further chemical attacks by the Syrian government. We think differently. We believe this is an outrageous act of aggression perpetrated by the United States against a sovereign Syria, which represents a gross violation of all conceivable and inconceivable norms of international law. The latter circumstance is important. There are delegations from some countries in this audience, which, as we know, brag about their adherence to international law. I believe they themselves become uncomfortable when they are forced – due to the falsely understood NATO-EU solidarity – to associate themselves with these unseemly acts by Washington. As for the supposedly deterrent effect of the US missile strike in terms of preventing further use of chemical weapons in Syria, we would like to warn our partners against becoming euphoric. ISIS, al-Nusra and their ilk were the first to rejoice over this US military move. Their spirits were raised, realising that they now have more opportunities for success on the "battlefield," with the Syrian army – a recognised effective tool for combating international terrorism in Syria – becoming weaker. There’s one more thing that our Western partners do not want to focus on. After all, it is a well-known fact that terrorists in Syria and Iraq have resources and production facilities for manufacturing not only toxic chemical agents, but also full-blown chemical munitions. Have the US military not experienced artillery or mortar shelling using "chemistry" somewhere on their base in Iraq? I believe such reports were released a few weeks ago.

We are, of course, alarmed by the destructive stance adopted by the US delegation at the Executive Council’s meeting. Today’s statements by esteemed US Permanent Representative to the OPCW Kenneth Ward suggest that the US is trying to manipulate our Organisation for its own self-serving ends. And their associates from the delegations of western nations are assisting in this, whether wittingly or not. The logical explanation for the line adopted by the USA suggests itself: its priority in the OPCW is demonising the legitimate Syrian government over Syrian “chemicals” in order to overthrow President Bashar Al-Assad, whom they oppose. The USA clearly has substantial experience in such matters, resulting in untold disasters in a number of nations. We don’t have to look hard for examples: the former Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq. Now they have chosen Syria as their target. However, this is a short-sighted policy that backfires on the USA itself and all those who mimic their cowboy approach to solving international problems. As they say: sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Could Americans have ever imagined that those Libyans whom they helped to overthrow Gaddafi would subsequently brutally murder their own ambassador and other personnel at the US Consulate General in Benghazi? How about our French friends who were preaching morality to us today? We remember they used to be proud, to the point of boasting, of the fact that they supplied weapons to anti-Gaddafi forces in violation of a UNSC resolution. The then President of France Nicolas Sarkozy, who came to Libya shortly after the summary execution of Gaddafi, was deeply moved by the banners in the Libyan capital reading “Thank You, France, For Our Freedom!” (just like in the Soviet times when young schoolchildren used to say “Thank you, Comrade Stalin, for our happy childhood!”). But our French friends’ joy must have turned to despair when they it came time to pay in their own blood. The weapons they had supplied to Libyan rebels were used to shoot at French troops in Mali. It appears the weapons leaked out of Libya into Mali and other crisis spots in the region, thus fuelling terrorism.

Madam President,

The OPCW should not become hostage to indecent political games. The international community should have learned from the sad experience when former US Secretary of State Colin Powell brandished, from the UN tribune, a test tube filled with a white powder, obtained by American intelligence, which he claimed contained anthrax strains taken from Saddam Hussein’s arsenal. In reality, the test tube contained what was most likely tooth powder. This essentially became the pretext used to launch the American venture in Iraq, which ended with the destruction of the Iraqi statehood and the emergence of ISIS, the backbone of which was made up of former Iraqi armed forces officers.

I would also recommend the esteemed British representative to somewhat moderate his military ardour. It would be worth it for him to recall the recent regrets expressed by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a commission of enquiry established by the British themselves revealed that he deliberately lied, thus leading Britain into taking part in the US-led coalition that invaded Iraq. Mr Blair, it seems, even apologised to the families and friends of British “Tommies” killed in Iraq. Several hundred still very young men. Will Mr Blair and the hawks that now rule the roost on the banks of the Thames apologise to the Iraqi people, who have lost not hundreds, but tens of thousands of lives as a result of the planned Anglo-Saxon invasion carried out under false pretences?

Madam Chair,

Honestly speaking, today we were seeking a technical discussion befitting the OPCW, an essentially technical organisation in its own right. But thanks to our western colleagues’ efforts, emotions are running high. Let us put aside the rhetoric for a while and try to reason more or less rationally. It is clear that Damascus had no need to use chemical weapons in Idlib, even if, purely hypothetically, it had them. But this was clearly a temptation for the radical opposition. And it seems someone was eager to hamper the political process in Geneva and wreck the talks in Astana, where Russia, Turkey and Iran are cooperating as intermediaries to ensure compliance with the ceasefire and creating the preconditions for a durable settlement of the Syrian crisis as a whole. When you think about it, the current developments are suspiciously reminiscent of the events of autumn 2013. As is common knowledge, the then US President Barack Obama declared that there was a “red line” – the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian forces – that would trigger US military intervention. Some US allies were longing to “get engaged.” They were revving bomber engines and weighing anchors of warships. The only thing lacking was the crossing of the notorious “red line,” which would inevitably entail, as per Mr Obama’s promise, an American attack. And soon after, quite opportunely, there was a tragedy in Eastern Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus. Certain US allies were just rapturous: big brother is going to join the fray shortly and show what they are made of, if at a more modest level, but still as a combatant against the Syrian tyranny, while also scoring domestic political points. But instead it was an epic fail. Russia and the United States reached an agreement on Syria’s chemical disarmament, which was quite successful, as certified by our Organisation.

So what could have happened at Khan Shaykhun? You could presume that the Syrian Air Force actually bombed an underground factory producing chemical warfare agents. Another scenario is that this is a provocation by the terrorists themselves. Harrowing footage of dying children does not, however, relieve us of the need to think about why volunteers of the notorious "white helmets" rendering first aid to the victims would do so without wearing individual means of protection. But if, as the Turkish representative told us today, sarin, a deadly volatile toxic agent, was actually used there, then a gauze bandage would not do the job. It is unfortunate that we didn’t have an opportunity to listen to the full technical briefing by the OPCW Technical Secretariat that we requested. So, we will have to rely on the opinion of a Swedish expert who was perplexed when he saw the same images as the entire world. In them, volunteers remain in direct contact with the victims, they press children who are at the point of death to their chests and run off with them someplace. Is anyone aware of the volunteers being affected by sarin? Or, are they all perfectly healthy and continue, like good samaritans, to do their charitable work? If not, then could all this have been staged? The "white helmets" have become really good at that. I myself saw a YouTube video showing a blood-covered Syrian, seemingly unconscious, lying on the ground somewhere in Aleppo. Two volunteers wearing white helmets shift around him providing first aid, or something like it. In any case, they were making passes with their hands. All of a sudden, this supposedly gravely wounded man sits up on the ground – and does so with ease – and says in a disgruntled voice: "Stop messing around, let's start shooting." I’m sure I’m not the only person who saw this footage. So, let's, at least, be mindful of this scenario.

Now, with regard to reproaches, in particular, on behalf of the Canadian ambassador to the effect that we are devaluing the importance of the work done by the Fact-Finding Mission. Let's look into that calmly. We know that our Syrian colleagues have serious complaints about the work of the mission. Under the mandate defined for this mission, its membership should be approved by the Syrian government, and it should be balanced. For some time, these provisions were observed somewhat, but then the mission was split into two groups. One, led by Steven Wallis from Britain, works in contact with the Syrian government, while the other one, headed by his fellow countryman Leonard Phillips, deals with the claims filed by the Syrian armed opposition. This latter group is working completely non-transparently. Its membership is classified, and no one knows where it goes or how it operates. They are allegedly using the same methodology as Steven Wallis’ group, but they are clearly working mostly remotely, relying on the internet and the fabrications provided by Syrian opposition NGOs, and never go to Syria. At least, we are not aware of a single such trip.

What is this, if not a departure from the originally agreed-upon FFM mandate? So let us honestly ask ourselves whether such a mission, in particular, the group led by Leonard Phillips, can present credible findings by an investigation. Don’t get us wrong: we are not in favour of closing the mission as such. For God's sake, let it continue to work. But we must make sure that its membership is based on the principle of equitable geographical representation enshrined in the UN Charter. Is that too much to ask? A whim on our part? Of course not. This is normal UN practice, which must be brought here, in the OPCW. Let's also include authoritative international experts from various countries, in particular from the permanent member states of the UN Security Council, in the mission, as suggested in a letter by First Deputy Foreign Minister of Syria Faisal Mekdad to Director- General Ahmet Uzumcu.

Why do we believe this is relevant? Look at what is happening now. It has been nine days since the alleged use of chemical weapons in Idlib. The Syrians have duly notified the OPCW. How does it respond, what does the Fact Finding Mission (FFM) do? It has been suggested to us that it is busy collecting primary information and waiting for the go-ahead from the field-specific UN security department authorising a trip to Khan-Shaykhun. But even with a discount on security, we still have to say that the FFM is, if not staying idle, then simply going through the motions.

Taking this into consideration, together with our Iranian colleagues, we believed it was necessary to bring for consideration by the Executive Council a draft decision making the Technical Secretariat focus on building an international mission of experts, which, in addition to the FFM staff chosen in accordance with the UN principle of equitable geographical representation, could include national experts from a number of countries, such as Russia, China, the United States, Britain, France, Iran, Sweden, Spain, and Switzerland, to name a few. Speaking about specific individuals, one could mention figures who are well-known at the OPCW and enjoy well-deserved authority such as Stefan Mogl of Switzerland, Ralf Trapp of Germany, Ake Sellstrom of Sweden, and Chen Tan of China. We see the goal of such a mission in investigating - I ask the audience to keep this in mind - how the chemical weapons were brought to Khan-Shaykhun and used there, if this indeed took place. At the same time, it must check the allegations of the Americans (which are also being discussed by their colleagues) about the use of the Syrian air base Shayrat to store chemical weapons and organising combat sorties with toxic bombs. After all, if chemical weapons were stored there, then it certainly is a violation of the CWC. Can the OPCW leave this incident without an investigation? Is it not necessary to send inspectors there urgently, so that they can make sure whether the chemical weapons was used there or not? Next. They say that sarin is a volatile substance, and we will not find any traces of it 10 days later. I'm certainly not a chemist. But considering how the other OPCW mission is working to check the initial Syrian declaration – taking scrapings from the walls of the ventilation shafts, taking surface wipe sampling of equipment parts, and taking soil samples and, many years after the fact, managing to find traces of chemical activities, – I believe that the Technical Secretariat experts, especially with the assistance of the authoritative international experts, will be able to uncover the truth.

In order to successfully conduct an investigation, the international mission of experts - we would like to emphasise this - must go directly to the sites, work strictly according to the methodology approved by the OPCW with an emphasis on collecting material evidence, rather than relying solely on speculation from the internet and stories told by alleged witnesses interviewed in a country that neighbours on Syria.

Now, with regard to mission-related safety issues. Frankly, we see no obstacles to an early start of the investigation in view of the willingness of the Syrian government to provide unfettered and safe access for the OPCW experts to Shayrat Air Base. In turn, the states that have influence over the armed Syrian opposition should help ensure an earliest possible trip to Khan-Shaykhun. As far as we understand, a statement by Coordinator of the High Negotiations Committee of the Syrian Opposition Riyad Hijab about his willingness to assist in carrying out an international investigation, which seems to imply guarantees of a safe visit to the site of the incident, could be helpful.

After what happened in Idlib and the gross violation of international law by the United States, which resulted in aggression against a sovereign Syria, further delay is impossible. With this in mind, we would like to hope for the adoption of the submitted Executive Council resolution, so that the mission of international experts proposed by us and the Iranians can begin its work in Syria no later than April 22.

Madam President,

We ask the Technical Secretariat to disseminate, in due course, the text of the draft decision put forward by us and the Iranians. We would be grateful to the member states for their ideas regarding this project. We are ready to take into account all constructive considerations, to demonstrate the necessary flexibility and to work tirelessly to clarify the circumstances of the Idlib incident. What we cannot agree with is delays in starting a full-fledged investigation. We heard the proposal by distinguished US Ambassador Kenneth Ward to take a three-week break and then see if we can get together, if the FFM report is ready by that time, which actually remains to be seen. Such a suggestion by the distinguished US ambassador leads us to sad thoughts as to whether our partners, primarily the United States, but also those who spoke today in a well-coordinated ensemble with them, passionately condemning Syria and Russia, for that matter, are willing to conduct a comprehensive investigation. It is hard to shake the feeling that they, in fact, are not.

In this regard, I am compelled to share with my colleagues the following alarming observation: over the past three years, the Russian Federation has repeatedly raised the issue in New York of the UN Security Council, in some way (through the adoption of a resolution or at least a statement by its chair), responding to the growing incidence of chemical terrorism in Syria and Iraq. Everyone can see such cases. The threat of using chemical substances by terrorists is great not only in the region, but in other parts of the world as well, including Europe. To our great regret, every time, our American partners and their associates have cut such attempts short. There have been many instances, clearly more than eight, when Russia had no choice but to use the right of veto to turn down the proposals to adopt unjust UN Security Council resolutions on the situation in Syria.

Therefore, I would like to ask the delegations to take the situation seriously. We must act quickly. The reputation of the OPCW is at stake. It deservedly received the Nobel Peace Prize, and now is the time when our organisation must weigh in and rise to the occasion.

Please have this statement circulated as an official document of the 54th extraordinary meeting of the Executive Council.

I apologise for having exceeded the time limit. But we have been sitting here for about seven hours now. There has been a large number of speakers, some of whom have come hard on Syria and our country. So, I had to make numerous additions to my original relatively short remarks as I listened to the previous speakers. Once again, I apologise.

Thank you, Madam President.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2727332
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #35
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from a joint news conference of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov following talks with Foreign Minister of the State of Qatar Mohammed Al-Thani, Moscow, April 15, 2017



15 April 2017 - 12:35





Question (to both ministers):

Russia and Qatar have supported the idea of forming a commission to investigate the chemical weapons incident in Syria. Do you think this commission can be fully independent in areas controlled by the opposition, or by government troops, for that matter?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is true that Russia is insisting on creating an international group of experts. With the OPCW Executive Secretariat forming the core of the group, it should also include other experts representing the permanent members of the UN Security Council, European and regional countries. We believe that the creation of an expanded mission would help provide a more comprehensive analysis of what happened, while also making the process transparent, which is also essential. Until now, OPCW experts have been acting covertly. In fact, they announced post factum that several days ago samples had been obtained from the site and delivered to a laboratory. It is my understanding that the laboratory in question is not an OPCW-certified facility. The rationale behind these dubious actions is unclear.

We believe that the group of experts should enjoy full access to the airbase controlled by the Government, as well as the site of the incident, which is controlled by the opposition. The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic has already sent an official invitation to OPCW headquarters. As for areas controlled by the opposition, the head of the High Negotiations Committee, Riyad Farid Hijab, has publicly stated that he was ready to provide any assistance in the investigation. I assume that this includes guaranteeing safe access to that part of Idlib province that’s in question.

Taking into account all these circumstances, there is no reason to investigate this incident from afar, as the OPCW intends to proceed. Russia corrected the OPCW and insisted that it deliver on its mandate in good faith.

We strongly believe that the outcome of inspections at the airbase and in Idlib province will not be impartial unless the group of experts is independent and professional. As my colleague has said, those who are identified as the perpetrators of this chemical weapons attack should be held accountable.



Question:

Will Russia agree to the creation of an international tribunal on Syria if all the interested countries agree on the creation of an international commission to investigate the chemical weapons attack in Syria and either the regime or the opposition are identified as perpetrators?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am not going to discuss whether a special tribunal should be established. We have already had quite a few of them. Unfortunately, they enjoy a poor reputation in the international community. That said, there should be a way to hold the perpetrators accountable.



Question (to both ministers):

In what terms was the Astana process discussed? Was the participation of armed opposition groups in the talks scheduled for early May discussed? Last time, this part of the opposition did not attend. What role could Qatar and other Persian Gulf states play in strengthening the ceasefire in Syria? What could Qatar’s role be in completing the separation of terrorist groups, primarily Jabhat al-Nusra, and moderate opposition groups in Idlib? Jabhat al-Nusra has rebranded itself, but many groups are still affiliated with it.



Sergey Lavrov (answers first):

The Astana format remains viable. Next week, Tehran will host a meeting of Russian, Turkish and Iranian experts, representing the three guarantor states. They will discuss preparations for the next round of Astana talks to take place on May 3 and 4. The signs from the armed opposition indicate that they are preparing for this round of talks. Attendance has also been confirmed by our Turkish colleagues who have direct contact with these groups.

During today’s talks we touched on this issue, and Mohammed Al-Thani supported the initiatives undertaken in the Astana format, saying that Qatar would back this format in every possible way, including by using its contacts on the ground. We see this approach as quite constructive, and we also believe that it would be ideal to coordinate efforts, including between the Astana format, Qatar and other Persian Gulf states. What seems to be the best option would be for the external players that influence various armed groups in Syria to send clear, coordinated and agreed-upon signals on the need to respect the ceasefire as per the agreements reached as part of the Astana process.

The ceasefire agreement does not cover organisations listed as terrorist groups by the UN Security Council. Essentially, by joining the ceasefire, armed groups that are not affiliated with ISIS or Jabhat al-Nusra, fulfil the separation criteria with respect to the terrorist groups.



Question:

Western newspapers, including the UK’s The Telegraph, recently published reports allegedly obtained from a general, who defected from the Syrian army unit related to chemical weapons. According to the article, the Syrian regime still has several tonnes of chemical weapons that were concealed from the OPCW. Don’t you think that the publication of materials of this kind sets the stage for undermining an independent, fair investigation into this incident, making everything that was discussed today and yesterday, including the discussions with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, irrelevant?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have read about the statements by a fugitive Syrian general. He said that he defected in 2013. The agreement between Russia and the US on ridding Syria of chemical weapons and its accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention was reached the same year. This agreement was supported in The Hague and in New York. Under this agreement, the Syrian government submitted data on its stockpiles of chemical weapons to the OPCW in 2014. The same year, the OPCW verified these data. The toxic agents to be destroyed totalled 1,300 tonnes, while this general was talking about 2,000 tonnes. Since the figure of 1,300 tonnes was disclosed, why did the general remain silent for three years, knowing that there were actually 2,000 tonnes? In fact, 700 tonnes is an important quantity that cannot be concealed in a white-powder tube. I think that any reasonable person understands that this general was motivated to say what he said either by stick or carrot.

By the way, regarding the difference in numbers, it is a fact, not fiction, that the OPCW, sometime back, reported on 200 tonnes of missing toxic agents in Libya. They just vanished, which is a serious thing. Terrorists, arms dealers and other dubious characters can operate freely in Libya. We cannot treat this issue lightly. All of our calls to the OPCW and our Western partners end with the conclusion that these 200 tonnes just literally vanished. This problem is real and we’d better start doing something about it, rather than recalling what happened three years ago and contesting the facts put forward back then.



Question:

Ukraine National Security Council Secretary Alexander Turchinov said that Ukraine’s armed forces have no alternative but to move further east. Some articles went so far as to say that the main thing was to not cross the border (into Russia, that is). What is Moscow’s perspective on these statements? Does this imply that another Normandy format meeting is necessary to assess compliance with the Minsk Agreement, including by Ukraine?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have long suspected Ukrainian politicians of being inadequate. This is hardly the first statement of this kind. Before Alexander Turchinov, the president of Ukraine, Petr Poroshenko, adopted the same menacing and combative position, and so did the Speaker of Verkhovna Rada Andrey Parubiy and other politicians. What this means is that Ukraine’s leaders do not want to abide by the Minsk Agreements even on security issues. Let me remind you that Petr Poroshenko said that security issues were at the core of the Minsk Agreements. He refuses to discuss political processes until the security issues are resolved. Turchinov’s statements mean that Kiev refuses to fulfil the part of the Minsk Agreements regarding security issues that it views as a priority and indispensable for advancing along other tracks. I think that everyone has long understood that Ukraine’s leaders are acting this way intentionally. This also means that Kiev has no respect whatsoever for its European backers.

The Kremlin’s press service has already said that Normandy format meetings are expected to take place in the near future. I think that this will be one of the key issues on the agenda.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2727396
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #36
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from a joint news conference of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov following talks with Minister for Foreign Affairs and Senegalese Abroad of the Republic of Senegal Mankeur Ndiaye, Moscow, April 17, 2017



17 April 2017 - 13:36





Question:

Can you comment on rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula, taking into account US Vice President Mike Pence’s comment that the era of strategic patience is over in relations with North Korea and that all options are on the table to achieve security in the region?



Sergey Lavrov:

I wouldn’t describe relations between North Korea and the Obama administration as an era of strategic patience, because the United States greatly restricted North Korea’s ability to develop the industries that could promote the nuclear or energy sectors. The UN Security Council adopted harsh sanctions against North Korea and condemned its policy.

If the figure of speech used by the US Vice President can be understood as a threat of a unilateral military solution, it is a highly risky path. We condemn Pyongyang’s opportunistic nuclear missile plans, which violate the numerous UN Security Council resolutions. But this does not mean that other countries can violate international law and use military force contrary to the UN Charter. I strongly hope that no unilateral actions will be taken similar to those we have recently seen in Syria, and that the United States will pursue the line President Donald Trump put forth during his election campaign.



Question:

Can you comment on the statement by the US National Security Adviser Army Lieutenant General McMaster that “it's time though, now, to have those tough discussions” with Russia over its support for Syria’s government and its “subversive actions” in Europe?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is a complex question. I have no desire to comment on the unsubstantiated accusations made against Russia. First they concerned Ukraine, and now the focus has shifted to Syria. I have seen media reports that US or British officials are saying that they could cooperate with Russia if it [behaved] in Ukraine and, Syria, and now the Korean Peninsula has been added to the list. It appears that we must do something for somebody on the Korean Peninsula too, although we did not create the chaos that is reigning there. ISIS, and before it, al-Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra, are the offspring of opportunistic projects that involved our Western partners, primarily many US administrations, which began by supporting the mujahedeen in Afghanistan and praising them as freedom fighters, and continued this policy in Iraq and Libya. And now that these countries have been ruined, it appears that we must pay for the consequences. This is not how partners act. This approach is not acceptable to us. We will not listen to what President Trump’s adviser has said, but what President Trump himself has said, that he is optimistic when it comes to improving relations with Russia. We are ready for this.



Question:

What issues are on the agenda of the upcoming Geneva meeting on the intra-Syrian settlement? Will it be political issues only, or will military issues also be discussed, in light of the recent air strike on the Syrian airfield and the coalition landing operation near Deir Ez-Zor?



Sergey Lavrov:

The talks in Geneva will be held after May 3–4, that is, following a regular meeting in Astana. We hope that the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria, Mr Staffan de Mistura, will find a suitable date. It has been suggested that since the holy month of Ramadan begins in late May, it would be expedient to postpone the talks until after it ends. We are convinced that we must not lose momentum, especially in a situation when the political process has been brought into question. I am referring to the strike on the Shayrat airfield and the intention of many players in Syria, among the external opposition and in many countries in and outside the region, to use this situation to place the blame squarely on Bashar al-Assad. They seek to deviate from a political settlement through the expression of the will of the Syrian people themselves to conduct unilateral actions to overthrow the Syrian government. It is an alarming trend. As I have said, in pursuit of this goal, they are using the April 4 chemical weapons incident in Idlib, which was followed by the illegal US air strike on the airfield from which planes allegedly carrying chemical weapons took off. I have said repeatedly that we demand that an objective and unbiased investigation be carried out under the auspices of the OPCW with assistance from independent experts, and that this investigation be fully transparent.

I would like to remind you that we have pointed out a very strange coincidence: that the two groups of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) on the potential use of chemical weapons in Syria are chaired by UK citizens. We have said that this runs contrary to the principles of an international organisation, the structures of which must be maximally balanced. We have not received any response as yet, but we can regard a recent statement by UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson as an indirect response. He said in an interview that Damascus and Russia and Iran, which support it, are to blame for the chemical attack. By way of evidence, he said that British scientists have analysed samples from the site of the attack, and that these have tested positive for sarin or a sarin-like substance. That’s an interesting coincidence: British citizens chairing the OPCW FFM don’t tell anyone anything, while British scientists have already analysed samples taken at the site of the incident. I believe we will be sending a request to the OPCW today demanding an explanation. I expect they will have to answer this time.

The situation is not simple at all. We hope that the majority of countries see what is going on. We will not permit anyone to derail the efforts to attain a political settlement in Syria under the UN Security Council resolution.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2729221
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #37
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the terrorist attack outside Aleppo



17 April 2017 - 19:16



The past weekend in Syria was dominated by a tragic, provocative surge of violence.

On April 15, in a suburb of Aleppo, Rshidin, a suicide bomber attacked a bus convoy with refugees from the Shiite enclaves of Fuah and Kafriya in the province of Idlib. According to the latest information, the terrorist managed to drive a car bomb next to a parked column of buses by pretending to be an aid worker bringing food and gifts for children. As a result of the terrorist attack, over 130 people, including 68 children, were killed.

Recall that last week, the parties started to implement agreements on removing militants from illegal armed formations and members of their families from the cities of Madaya and Zabadani in the Damascus Governorate, and Shiite militiamen with families from the villages of Fuah and Kafriya surrounded by al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham in the Idlib Governorate. This agreement was reached with the mediation of Qatar and Iran. The Syrian government clearly fulfilled its obligations: buses with evacuees from Madaya and Zabadani freely left the territory controlled by the Syrian authorities on April 14. As for al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham, the evacuation from Fuah and Kafriya, which they were responsible for, went very slowly and with disruptions. The convoy was evacuated under mortar fire at the initial stage and then was stopped just a few kilometres from the government checkpoint. That was when the tragic attack took place.

We strongly condemn this barbarous terrorist attack on a convoy of refugees. We believe that this crime should be met with the proper response from all members of the international community. Undoubtedly, this attack was made possible by the unconstructive approaches of the West to issues of combating international terrorism in Syria. An unambiguous example of double standards was the act of US military aggression against sovereign Syria on April 7. This heartened the terrorists and convinced them that they could operate with impunity.

For its part, Russia will continue to resolutely fight terrorism in Syria and assist all those Syrians who, irrespective of their political views, are ready to sincerely seek a peaceful resolution to the military and political conflict in Syria and a consolidated front against terrorists from ISIS, al-Nusra, and other groups in the mould of al-Qaeda.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2729732
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #38
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s speech at a reception for Orthodox Easter, Moscow, April 18, 2017



18 April 2017 - 15:34





Your Holiness,

Ladies and gentlemen, friends,

I am happy to greet all of you at the traditional Easter meeting at the Foreign Ministry, which is being held during Bright Week in 2017. Easter has always been a special holiday in Russia, which brings happiness and strengthens people’s faith in renewal.

Orthodox Christianity has never ceased to be the moral beacon for the people and a cementing basis of the Russian state. The selfless service of the Russian Orthodox Church is aimed at upholding the noble ideals of peace, accord, truth and mercy. It is making an invaluable contribution to Russia’s peaceful and steady development.

These efforts to consolidate society on the basis of enduring spiritual values are taken in close cooperation with the other religions in Russia. It is of particular importance now. We are gravely concerned about the continued efforts taken by a small group of messianically-minded countries to promote pseudo-liberal values such as hedonism and permissiveness. The promotion of tolerance has reached absurd dimensions. In some European countries, which have actually abandoned their Christian roots, official approval is given for the destruction or conversion of Christian churches, from which religious attributes are removed. These actions are doing colossal damage to the moral fabric of society. Those who scorn their religious roots are unlikely to respect the feelings of believers from other confessions.

This year we will mark 100 years of the Russian revolution, following which our nation went through so many trials and tribulations. We have drawn conclusions from our difficult history. President Vladimir Putin said in his Address to the Federal Assembly that we need history’s lessons primarily for reconciliation and for strengthening the civil concord that we have managed to achieve. Your Holiness, as you said at the International Educational Christmas Readings in January 2017, “transformation must be based on a desire for consolidation rather than disunity and strife for social, political or other reasons.”

Russia does not try to lecture or force its views on anyone. We strongly believe that there is no alternative to developing international relations on the basis of international law and respect for the cultural and civilisational diversity of the modern world. Regrettably, not everyone shares this view.

Continued attempts are being taken to hinder the rise of a polycentric world order, deny other nations the right to choose their future, export democracy and force alien development models on others. The results of this policy can be seen in the Middle East and North Africa. The region has been thrown into chaos and anarchy and has turned into the supplier of terror and a source of illegal migration and other elements of organised crime.

The destabilisation in the Middle East and North Africa hit the Christians living there, who are in fact subjected to genocide by extremists. The cynical crimes committed against Christian believers in Tanta and Alexandria in Egypt, especially on a church holiday, were aimed at inciting religious hatred. In this regard, the calls to take immediate steps to stop the mass exodus of Christians from the Middle Eastern countries, contained in the Joint Declaration of Your Holiness and Pope Francis, remain fully relevant. These issues were in the focus of attention of the high-level conference on the issue we organised at Russia’s initiative in cooperation with the Vatican, Lebanon and Armenia on March 7 as a side event of the 34th session of the UN Human Rights Council.

We will continue to make every effort to prevent attacks on Christians and any splits on intercivilisational and interreligious grounds. The joint statement of CIS foreign ministers adopted on April 7 in Tashkent on unacceptable discrimination and intolerance against Christians, Muslims or representatives of other religions is aimed at solving this problem. We hope that this decision will reinvigorate the efforts of the OSCE, which back in 2014 decided to draft separate declarations on combating Christianophobia and Islamophobia. So far, this plan has not been fulfilled.

Russian diplomacy invariably receives the support of the Russian Orthodox Church. We highly appreciate the ROC's contribution to strengthening the country’s moral authority, to creating an unbiased image of our country, to unifying the Russian world, and promoting the Russian language and culture. Of particular importance are the regular pastoral visits of Your Holiness to other states, including your recent visits to Great Britain, France and Switzerland, which have found a lively response among the Russian compatriots and the general public. Your tireless efforts aimed at ending the fratricidal feud in neighbouring Ukraine deserve profound respect. Obviously, the only way to achieve a sustainable settlement is the full and consistent implementation of the Minsk Agreements. Yesterday it was confirmed once again during the telephone conversation of the leaders of the Normandy format countries – Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine. It is important that our Ukrainian neighbours begin to practice what they preach.

We will continue to expand fruitful cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church, to build constructive ties with other traditional religions of Russia. We are glad to welcome their representatives at today's function. This cooperation meets the interests of strengthening interethnic and interreligious peace and harmony in our country, of consolidating healthy principles in international relations and ensuring global and regional stability and security.

In conclusion, once again, I would like to sincerely congratulate all our dear guests on the Bright Resurrection of Christ, to wish everyone good health, peace and prosperity.

Christ is Risen!





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2731580
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #39
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov on the OPCW Executive Council’s special session re-opening in The Hague on April 19



18 April 2017 - 15:59



Russia is concerned and alarmed with regard to the ongoing attempts of a number of countries to deliberately distort the situation surrounding the Khan Shaykhun incident on April 4 and, in effect, to dictate to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons their rash, but far-reaching conclusions. Moreover, this is increasingly being done in an unacceptably pushy and defiant manner. The assessment already made at the level of the OPCW Technical Secretariat that the accusations of the use of chemical weapons at Khan Shaykhun are "credible" is not doing any good for the cause.

The situation urgently requires an early inspection by an international group of experts in the area of ​​this incident and the Shayrat airbase, which, as our opponents claim, was used to deliver that strike.

Demanding an unbiased investigation on a geographically balanced basis, we do not pursue any goal other than establishing the truth. The algorithm of the Fact-Finding Mission in Syria, where evidence and testimony are collected remotely, often without visiting the sites, and conclusions are made to fit pre-defined political goals, which we do not share, does not sit well with Russia.

We propose a reasonable alternative, which, we hope, will bring the situation out of its current impasse and allow us to put an end to meaningless public bickering.

We hope that the OPCW Executive Council members and the OPCW Technical Secretariat will rise to the occasion and act responsibly at this juncture.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2731594
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #40
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from a joint news conference of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov following talks with President of the Republic of Abkhazia Raul Khadjimba, Sukhum, April 19, 2017



19 April 2017 - 11:59



Question:

What do you think about the prospects for cooperation with the US on Syria following the visit to Moscow by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson? Did you actually discuss the US proposals related to settlement stages, which reportedly mention Bashar al-Assad’s resignation? To what extent do these proposals suite you?



Sergey Lavrov:

Kremlin spokespersons have already commented on the reports that US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson came to Russia with some kind of a phased settlement plan for Syria. Of course, we discussed Syria. We believe that UN Security Council Resolution 2254 sets out a plan covering all the aspects of a peaceful settlement based on the principle whereby the Syrian people should be the ones to determine the future of their country. This is the framework we abide by.

We have been seeing lately attempts to stage provocations, like the one that was orchestrated on April 4 in Idlib province with toxic agents. It was followed by a US strike against a Syrian airbase. This prompted calls for overthrowing the regime. There are perhaps those who do not like the UN Security Council Resolution, and the principle of respecting the sovereignty of Syria and the Syrian people, which has the right to decide on its future and that of the country. These forces are trying to create some artificial provocative pretexts for pursuing regime change instead of a settlement.

The US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and I had a detailed discussion on the situation in Syria. I am confident that there is no alternative to implementing the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 in good faith.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2732106
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:17 PM.
Page generated in 0.46603 seconds.