Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia

[Alex Him]

Press release on the situation in Syria



8 April 2018 - 14:01



The Syrian government army is conducting an operation to free civilians in Eastern Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus, from the control of militants and terrorists. The greater part of this suburb has been liberated. Irreconcilable radicals have mounted fierce resistance in the town of Douma, where they use the remaining civilians as a human shield.

In this situation, the Russian Centre for Reconciliation in Syria and the Syrian government forces have created humanitarian corridors for the evacuation of civilians. They will continue with this effort. However, those who are not interested in the early elimination of one of the last seats of terrorism in Syria and in a genuine political settlement are doing their best to hinder the evacuation of civilians.

False information is being planted about the alleged use of chlorine and other toxic agents by the Syrian government forces. The latest fake news about a chemical attack on Douma was reported yesterday. These reports are again referenced to the notorious White Helmets, which have been proved more than once to be working hand in glove with the terrorists, as well as to other pseudo-humanitarian organisations headquartered in the UK and the US.

We recently warned of the possibility of such dangerous provocations. The goal of these absolutely unsubstantiated lies is to protect the terrorists and the irreconcilable radical opposition that has rejected a political settlement, as well as to justify the possible use of force by external actors.

We have to say once again that military interference in Syria, where Russian forces have been deployed at the request of the legitimate government, under contrived and false pretexts is absolutely unacceptable and can lead to very grave consequences.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3155552






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the developments around the Gaza Strip



9 April 2018 - 15:31



Since March 30, Palestinians have been holding a large public demonstration, the “Great Return March” – daily protests on the border with Israel.

According to available information, as a result of actions by the Israeli army that is trying to suppress these protests with gunfire and other means, 10 Palestinians have been killed, including one journalist and two teenagers on April 6-7, and over a thousand were poisoned with tear gas or wounded. In all, 30 Palestinians have been killed in two weeks of massive protests.

In addition, on the morning of April 9, the Israeli planes attacked facilities in Gaza with several rockets.

Considering the absolutely unacceptable use of indiscriminate force against civilians, we again call on the Palestinians and the Israelis to abstain from steps that will provoke the further escalation of dangerous tensions. Moscow supports the demands for an independent and transparent investigation into these incidents, as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has urged.

In doing so we proceed from the premise that the root cause for the periodical outbursts of confrontation and violence has been and remains the absence of any progress towards a long-term and fair Palestinian-Israeli settlement. We are convinced that under the current conditions there is an unprecedented demand not only for urgent measures to stabilise the situation and deescalate tensions but also for specific political efforts aimed at achieving a sustainable peace between Palestinians and Israelis based on a relevant international legal foundation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3160863






Press release on Northern Dimension Business Forum and Steering Group meetings



9 April 2018 - 20:55



On April 5, St Petersburg hosted the 9th Northern Dimension (ND) Business Forum, an annual event that this year brought together about 300 members of the business community, government agencies and non-governmental and educational organisations from Northern Europe. The meeting was organised by co-chairs of the ND Business Council Alexey Mordashov, Board Chairperson of Severstal, and Rolf Jansson, President of the VP Group, in partnership with the Association of European Businesses.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sent a message of greetings to participants in the meeting and Director of the Department for European Cooperation at the Foreign Ministry Andrei Kelin spoke on the opening day of the forum. The outcome of the meeting reaffirmed that business circles in Northern Europe are clearly interested in working with Russia despite Washington and its allies’ damaging policy of sanctions.

On April 6, St Petersburg also served as the venue for the regular 27th meeting of the ND Steering Group, a unique format for equitable cooperation between Russia, the European Union, Norway and Iceland. In attendance were also representatives of Finland, Germany, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, France and a number of international institutions cooperating with the ND.

Participants in the meeting discussed in detail prospects for advancing Northern Dimension policies, including through its specialised partnerships which address environmental, transport, healthcare and cultural issues, as well as through the Business Council and the Northern Dimension Institute, which brings together 33 universities across Northern Europe. They also scheduled meetings to be held by the ND later in the year.

All participants emphasised that the development of diverse practical cooperation in Northern Europe is important, despite the complicated political circumstances. They also reaffirmed the need to focus on achieving concrete results, to continue proactive dialogue with business and academic circles, parliament members and the public, and to make full use of the Northern Dimension’s potential and other formats of regional cooperation in order to build confidence between members of the public and official representatives of the countries across the region.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3161566






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the investigation into the alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic



11 April 2018 - 22:00



The Syrian Government has appealed to the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) requesting that the alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma on April 7 be investigated as soon as possible, including an obligatory visit by the OPCW experts to the site of this apparent provocation. Damascus said it would guarantee the OPCW’s Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) safe access to Douma and its suburbs. The command of the Russian group of forces in Syria also expressed readiness to provide all the necessary assistance to the OPCW experts, including security.

We welcome the decision taken by Director General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat Ahmet Uzumcu to deploy an FFM team to Douma to establish facts surrounding these allegations without delay. We believe that any delay with the deployment of an FFM team would be unacceptable in light of the rampant Western anti-Syria campaign. Any such delay could result in another opportunistic missile raid similar to the one the US delivered in April 2017 at the Syrian Shayrat Airbase in violation of the UN Charter and universally recognised norms of international law.

We expect the Syrian authorities to provide the necessary assistance to the FFM team and the OPCW Technical Secretariat to inform all states parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention about the progress of its investigation.

In this context, we express our resentment of the position of the three Western members of the UN Security Council which blocked the adoption of two UNSC resolutions initiated by Russia on April 10. One of them only expressed support for the decision of the OPCW Technical Secretariat’s Director General. This again makes one wonder if the US and its confederates need an investigation at all. It appears that they do not. These countries have already appointed the culprit and will not back down.

The consequences of this opportunistic policy for international peace and security will be undeniably destructive.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3164388






Press release on the first meeting of the Russian-Chinese Commission on the joint verification of two sections of the state border between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China



13 April 2018 - 12:10



On April 9-11, the Russian-Chinese Commission on the joint verification of two sections of the state border between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China held its first session in Moscow. Completed in 2008, the demarcation of the state border in the area of Bolshoi Island on the Argun River and Bolshoi Ussuriysky Island on the Amur River is now subject to an official assessment.

The session was held in a friendly and business-like atmosphere. The parties signed core legal and technical documents, which are required for a joint survey of the border, and approved a schedule for the verification. When conducting border surveys, the parties will be guided by the principles of mutual respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity, the invariability of the border line established during demarcation.

The regular inspection of the Russia-China border is executed under the November 9, 2006 agreement signed by the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Russia-China state border regime in order to record any changes in the relief which may have occurred under the influence of natural or manmade factors.

On the sidelines of the session, a meeting of the Joint Russian-Chinese Topographical Group was held to discuss the technical aspects of conducting an assessment of the border on the ground.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3168103






Press release on delivery of a note to Swiss Charge d'Affaires ad interim



13 April 2018 - 15:19



In response to Georgia’s unfounded decision to expel an employee from the Russian Interest Section at the Swiss Embassy in Tbilisi due to Great Britain’s unfounded accusation of our country in connection with the so-called Skripal case, Russia declared persona non grata an employee from the Georgian Interest Section at the Swiss Embassy in Moscow. The official must leave Russia within seven days.

The corresponding note was presented to Patric Franzen, Swiss Charge d'Affaires ad interim in Russia, on April 13.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3169108






Press release on the creation of the National Association of International Information Security



13 April 2018 - 16:42



Faced with mounting threats in the information space, civil society continues to look for the most effective ways to counter these challenges, using various forms of consolidated efforts by professionals. The non-governmental sector is ready to contribute to international information security and make the information space a secure environment.

In line with this trend, the National Association of International Information Security was set up in Russia on April 10, 2018.

Its constituent founders are Lomonosov Moscow State University, the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Diplomatic Academy of the Foreign Ministry, the Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, the Institute for Modern Security Challenges (a subsidiary of the Norilsk Nickel mining and metallurgical company) and the editorial board of Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn (International Life) magazine.

Vladislav Sherstyuk, Director of the Information Security Institute at Lomonosov University, was elected association president, while Anatoly Smirnov, president of the National Institute for Global Security Research, became the General Director.

The association’s presidium comprises leading researchers and specialists, and well-known experts in international information security.

The main goal of the association is to assist in the implementation of state policy in promoting international information security and advance Russian initiatives in this area.

In addition, the association intends to participate in keeping civil society institutions in Russia and abroad informed and explaining to them the basic provisions of the Government’s policy in this field.

The association is planning to focus on making analytical work in this area more effective and working out corresponding recommendations for all bodies and organisations concerned.

The association will coordinate research at scientific centres and universities by dividing it into the scientific, humanitarian and technical aspects of ensuring international information security.

It views cooperation with similar associations of researchers and experts abroad, both in a bilateral format and within the framework of various international platforms and forums, as one of its key areas of activity.

As envisioned by its founders, the association will help bolster national security in the information space.

The results of this effort will be used by the authorities and organisations involved in the implementation of state policy in the area of international information security.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3169316






Comment by the Information and Press Department on a shipment of Russian building equipment and materials for recovery needs in Syria



13 April 2018 - 19:28



On April 13, in the course of Russia’s consistent efforts to provide comprehensive humanitarian aid to the Syrian Arab Republic, representatives of the Russian Centre for the Reconciliation of Opposing Sides transferred a large shipment of construction and repair equipment and materials needed to rebuild the country.

Among the equipment provided to Syrians were lorries, mobile cranes, refuelling lorries, cisterns, power shovels, bulldozers and garbage trucks.

There were also pipes, cables, timber and particle boards.

At a time when life is returning to normal in communities in Eastern Ghouta after being liberated from terrorists, and civilians are ready to return to their homes without fear, it is especially important to make concerted efforts to rebuild the residential sector, infrastructure and facilities.

Russia backs up its words with deeds in these efforts, unlike others. We are convinced that the role of international organisations in assisting this work is especially important today. At the same time we cannot fail to see forces at work preventing UN bodies from joining consistent reconstruction efforts in areas liberated from terrorists. Among the tactics employed are red tape, unfair distribution of donations, and US and EU sanctions that considerably restrict potential UN humanitarian partners’ areas of work in this respect.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3169398






Statement by the Foreign Ministry



14 April 2018 - 15:08



On April 14, the United States, together with Great Britain and France, committed an act of aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic by launching a massive missile attack on its territory in gross violation of the UN Charter.

Over one hundred air- and sea-launched cruise missiles were fired on a number of targets in Syria. The facilities attacked include a research centre in the Syrian capital, the headquarters of the Republican Guard, an air defence base, several military airfields and army storage facilities. Considerable damage has been done to civilian infrastructure. Media reports indicate there are victims; their number is being verified.

According to the Russian Embassy in Damascus, there are no Russian nationals among the victims.

The Russian Defence Ministry said none of the launched cruise missiles entered the area of responsibility of the Russian air-defence units deployed in Syria.

This step was designed to intimidate and was taken under an absolutely contrived pretext of the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government in the city of Douma on April 7. The facts presented by the Syrian government and the Russian side showing that the incident had been deliberately and cynically staged have been ignored. The missile strikes were made just as inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were about to head to Douma with a mission to find out the truth. There is every reason to believe that the objective behind the attack on Syria was to obstruct the work of the OPCW inspectors.

We resolutely condemn the armed aggression against Syria. This is a gross violation of fundamental principles of international law, an absolutely groundless assault on the sovereignty of a country which is a full member of the United Nations Organisation and which has been resolutely fighting terrorism on its territory for many years.

Russia demands an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council and calls on its members and all responsible countries of the international community to give an adequate assessment of the event and to exclude the possibility of a repetition of rash aggressive acts that put peace and security at stake in the region, which has already been heavily destabilised due to criminal reckless acts perpetrated in Iraq and Libya by the United States and its allies.

There is no escaping the fact that the aggression has taken place at a time when the Syrian troops are pressing on with their successful assault on ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist groups. To all appearances, the United States and its allies want to give radicals and extremists a chance to catch their breath and restore their ranks in order to prolong bloodshed on the Syrian territory and thus hinder political settlement.

It is becoming absolutely clear that those in the West who hide behind humanitarian rhetoric and try to justify their military presence in Syria by the need to finish off jihadists, in reality share their goals and are working towards breaking up the country. This conclusion is proved out by the categorical refusal of the USA and its allies to assist in the restoration of the Syrian regions liberated by the government army.

Last of all, this act of aggression dealt a powerful blow to the efforts to invigorate the Geneva political process on the basis of the UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which unanimously reaffirmed the commitment to respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.

We urge to immediately put an end to this highly dangerous line of the Western leaders to break down all the agreements on ways to reach Syria settlement.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3169476






Statement by the Permanent Council of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation regarding missile attacks on Syria, Moscow, April 14, 2018



14 April 2018 - 20:33



The Permanent Council of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), reaffirming its support for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR), condemns the missile attacks that were delivered by the United States with support from the UK and France on Syria on April 14, 2018, in violation of the fundamental principles and norms of international law and the UN Charter without a UN Security Council sanction.

The CSTO Permanent Council believes that these actions have created a situation that runs counter to the efforts taken to eradicate the terrorist threat in Syria as soon as possible and to settle the internal Syrian conflict through political and diplomatic means and leads to the worsening of the humanitarian situation in the country. There is also a risk of the further escalation of tension in the region as well as the rest of the world.

The Permanent Council of the CSTO is urging the UN Security Council to do everything within its power to restore and maintain international peace and security as the international community entrusted it to do. We are convinced that strict adherence to the principles and instruments of international law offers an opportunity to prevent the escalation of the crisis in Syria, the continued suffering of the Syrian people and any damage to the system of international relations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3169589

[Alex Him]

Excerpts from Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 12, 2018



12 April 2018 - 21:38








Developments in Syria

The situation in Syria remained quite tense over the past week. Against the backdrop of successful efforts to promote a settlement in Eastern Ghouta through negotiations, which helped spare the lives of thousands of Syrian civilians, extremists who are apparently not interested in a resolution of this kind scaled up their operations to a maximum extent. Backed by their sponsors, they seem ready to undertake the most radical actions in order to push their agenda in Syria, which has nothing to do with what the Syrian people are actually looking for.

On April 6, the centre of Damascus suddenly came under artillery fire once again, leaving 8 civilians dead and about 40 wounded. The Syrian army had no choice other than to launch an attack on Douma, the last community in Eastern Ghouta that was still controlled by the rebel fighters. Airstrikes targeted the headquarters and strongpoints of the illegal armed groups. The Syrian government forces succeeded in dislodging these fighters from the city’s southern and eastern suburbs.

The next day, on April 7, activists affiliated with the infamous (as we now know) White Helmets started reporting on the internet that the government forces conducted a chemical attack against Douma. Initial reports claimed that “thousands” of civilians were killed. The numbers declined however with later reports. There were many inconsistencies in terms of the time and the location of the would-be chemical attack in the material coming from the opposition sources, let alone the identification of the toxic agent that was allegedly used.

All this however did not confuse the political elites or biased media outlets in the West who were preparing for this provocation for a long time (and maybe even plotted it). Since late February or early March they made numerous statements to issue some kind of warnings (we mentioned them in previous briefings). There were no requests to immediately investigate this incident coming from these circles, and no attempts to question the absurd video sequence shot by the same White Helmets in which children and adults are seen spraying water on each other. They presented it as evidence that chemical weapons were used. News agencies that pretend to be respectable also took on face value another astoundingly fake report showing a half-tonne bomb lying on a neatly made-up bed against the background of a shattered window with intact glass. All the opponents of Syria’s legitimate government called on the international community and primarily the US to interfere and punish the Damascus “regime.” What a classical scenario.

There were threats of a harsh response and use of force against Syria made at the highest level, including by the presidents of the United States and France. I would like to note that the threat to use force against a UN member state is in itself a blatant violation of the UN Charter. I would like to point out that it is within the UN that the Permanent Representative of the United States to the UN Nikki Haley is so active making her statements, thereby enhancing the UN’s legitimacy. Against the backdrop of her statements, we would like to know whether threats to use force against a sovereign state are legitimate. We are not even speaking about how far Syria has come in fighting international terrorism and for its sovereignty.

The West persists in its refusal to heed Russia’s appeals to study the fake news with a critical mind, or to hear reports that Russian military personnel, including doctors and experts in protection against chemical weapons visited Douma where the chemical weapons attack allegedly happened, but did not find neither any signs that chemical weapons were used, nor any victims of the mythical attack.

No one so far has been able to explain to us or the international community why the Syrian government would use chemical weapons when the remaining fighters were completely blocked in Douma and negotiations on their evacuation were even underway?

At the same time, major international media outlets and official representatives of foreign capitals remain silent on the discovery of large stockpiles of chemical weapons in warehouses of the terrorists in liberated parts of Eastern Ghouta. They have been trying to sweep under the carpet the fact that there were four incidents since the beginning of 2018 involving the use of toxic chemicals by rebel fighters against the government forces near Sroudj and al Mshairfa. More than 100 Syrian army personnel suffered in these attacks and were admitted to hospitals for treatment.

Russia calls for having the OPCW investigate without delay the groundless accusations professed by the anti-Syrian forces. Russia vigorously supports this position in the UN Security Council. The Russian military in coordination with the Syrian government are ready to ensure that experts can safely operate on the ground.

The airstrike conducted by Israel on the night of April 8 against Syria’s T4 airbase 70 kilometres to the west of Palmyra did nothing to improve the situation in Syria. It is worth noting that Syria’s frontline aviation involved in combat operations against ISIS in the east of the country is based at the T4 airbase, and the attack against it coincided with the terrorists in these territories stepping up their operations.

Warmongering statements are still coming in from Washington, threatening an escalation that would be extremely dangerous. These accusations are made not only against Damascus. They also target the Russian Federation who allegedly “protects the Assad regime” and “ultimately shares responsibility” for its crimes. Moreover, these statements are coming from no other than President Donald Trump himself, while one of his very first steps was to declare a crusade against fake news and disinformation. It is not clear how an understanding of what fake reports are worth can coexist with fateful decisions to use force against a sovereign state, while also threatening to use force on the international stage without having a true image of what had happened.

Russia calls on all the responsible members of the international community to ponder over the possible consequences of these accusations, threats and even more over the planned actions. Western leaders have no authority to assume the role of global policemen, while also acting as investigators, prosecutors, judges and executioners.

Our position is extremely straightforward and specific. We are not seeking an escalation, but at the same time we will not back any false accusations. We hope that our partners have enough common sense to come back to legal mechanisms and work together on resolving the challenges that may arise, as stipulated in the UN Charter.



Tony Blair’s remarks on Britain’s actions in Syria

We took note of remarks by the former British prime minister and now a “consultant” with ambitions to get back into big-time politics, Tony Blair, who urged the British Government to show solidarity with the US and start a new military campaign in the Middle East. According to him, the prime minister does not need parliamentary approval to attack Syria.

We are well aware of the “success and effectiveness” of a similar Blair scheme in the region. Representatives of the international political circles, economists, heads of humanitarian organisations and ordinary citizens have repeatedly exposed the consequences brought about by opening this Pandora’s box. The British themselves had to admit this as well: in July 2016, following a seven-year inquiry into the British involvement in the Iraq War, an independent committee chaired by Sir John Chilcot published a report which described the invasion of Iraq as a “terrible mistake” and the Blair government’s decision to become involved as “hasty” and “based on inadequate evidence.” Even Blair himself admitted that the invasion of Iraq had been carried out on the basis of false intelligence and that the actions by the Western coalition, in effect, facilitated the rise of ISIS.

We are reaping the fruits of the Iraq War, one of the bloodiest and debilitating conflicts both for the region itself and the invading countries that decided to “put things in order” over there, to this day. I say “we” deliberately. Russia was not involved in the intervention and was openly calling on the world to oppose the invasion with facts in hand. Regrettably, the situation progressed the way it did. I would like to reiterate that the word “we” in the context that we, including we in Russia, are reaping the fruits of the Iraq War, was not used by chance. The selfsame ISIS, which the Western world has been fighting so valiantly, is what they created with their own hands as well as a consequence of incompetent, foolish and illegal power politics practiced with regard to Iraq and neighbouring countries.

It is in Iraq that hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed, it is from there that people had to flee en masse in search of a better life, it is in Iraq that terrorists of every stripe honed their barbaric intimidation and extermination techniques, it is in Iraq that they looked for – and never found – chemical weapons while destroying the country’s entire infrastructure and great monuments of world cultural heritage. Since 2003, the situation in Iraq has been so disastrous that any comments are just superfluous.

To be honest, any other politician in Blair’s place would be too ashamed to show his face after what was perpetrated. But no, he is offering his judgements on new reckless schemes and the need to support the use of force against yet another country in the same region. Does he want to push his rivals into a scheme doomed to suffer a fiasco and thus make a political comeback? A strong case for a political future!



The World Health Organisation’s statement on a “chemical attack” in Douma

On April 11, the World Health Organisation (WHO) circulated a statement concerning the “suspected use of toxic chemicals in Douma.” As it transpired later, most of its evidence came from the notorious White Helmets and the Syrian American Medical Society.

Who among you hasn’t asked yourself in the course of the past 24 hours: Is this war? Everything was being done for precisely this decision to be taken. But after less than 24 hours details have emerged on how all of this was engineered.

By a strange coincidence, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom and his deputy Peter Salama, who was quoted in the statement, were not available for comment and allegedly were even absent from Geneva when we attempted to contact the WHO leadership.

All we have managed to obtain from WHO staff were references to certain “information sources” that underpinned the statement. But they were unable to name the notorious “health sector partners” in Douma with a direct access to the specific territories and buildings where the chemical attacks had allegedly occurred. Nor could they indicate the medical establishments to which the said 500 victims had applied, or say who counted the alleged dead, determined the diagnoses and identified the causes of death.

Although the WHO representatives assured us that their “information sources are highly trustworthy” (we know the worth of these information sources), we regard the WHO statement as an act of irresponsible dissemination of unfounded and unsupported information inciting those willing to add fuel to the Syrian conflict to new aggressive actions.

We call on the WHO to display greater impartiality in its reports and statements and rely on the opinions of experts who can only draw their conclusions after a detailed and serious probe, rather than on biased and discredited sources.



Attack on a bus carrying Russian journalists in Syria

A bus carrying Russian journalists in Syria was attacked at 6 pm on April 11. Three journalists were wounded, including an NTV journalist as well as cameramen from Rossiya 1 and Zvezda.

The journalists were returning to Damascus from Eastern Ghouta, where they filmed a report about the Syrian government forces regaining control over Douma and the operations of the Russian military police.

According to the Russian Defence Ministry, medical assistance was promptly provided to the wounded journalists. There is no immediate threat to their lives. They reportedly feel well.

We wish them a speedy recovery so that they can resume their work in Syria to provide us with first-hand information.



The so-called Skripal case

Everyone knows about the information campaign, or rather warfare of the UK authorities against Russia over the so-called Skripal case. They are using all the propaganda means and methods they can get their hands on. It is a long time since we last saw an ill-disguised and unscrupulous anti-Russia campaign of this dimension. The UK authorities are disregarding the standards of international law, diplomatic rules and principles, and elementary human ethics.

New versions and more discrepancies are coming to light amid the silence kept by the concerned UK agencies and the numerous political statements, which were anti-Russia from the very beginning. We do not see any intention on the part of the UK authorities to disprove false information planted in the media and blatant lies. On the contrary, this massive propaganda campaign involving all types of media is fully in keeping with London’s anti-Russia strategy. The UK authorities are actually encouraging the deliberate distortion of facts. It is clear why they are doing this. If government agencies and media outlets, for example, in the UK, really decided to get to the bottom of this case, if they started questioning some of the reported “facts” and analysing the increasing number of discrepancies, this would have rocked the European public’s belief in Russia’s alleged involvement. And the people would have asked the question that should have been addressed to London earlier on in the case: What has really happened at Salisbury?

Judge for yourself: On March 4, a former GRU officer and an agent of the British secret services, who was brought to the UK in a spy swap in 2010 after serving part of his prison term in Russia, and his daughter Yulia, a Russian citizen living permanently in Russia, were poisoned, as we have been told, with one of the most potent nerve gases known as Novichok according to the Western classification. Moreover, this happened in broad daylight in a quiet UK town that is not a tourist or pilgrimage site but a place where neighbours know each other and notice the smallest details. More than that, judging from London’s claims, Moscow apparently did not find a better time to poison Sergey Skripal than a week before the presidential election and three months before the FIFA World Cup, although it could have had lots of opportunities to do this since 2004, first while Skripal was serving a prison term for treason in Russia and later after he moved to the UK in a spy swap.

Nobody wanted to take any notice of these facts. The crime was immediately blamed on Russia. The very first official statements started appearing even before the more or less serious investigation began. Of course, Moscow was kept away from the investigation, probably because London has drawn its lessons from the Litvinenko case, when Russia’s initial involvement complicated the investigation. BBC brought up the Litvinenko case as soon as March 6.

On that day, BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera drew parallels with the poisoning of ex-FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko in the UK in 2006. However, there is one very important difference between the two cases: back in 2006, the public was at least shown the photographs of Litvinenko. As for the Skripals, during the whole month since the tragedy nobody has seen them. The media and Russian officials have been unable to contact the Skripals, although we have sent numerous notes to the UK side asking for such an opportunity.

But Russia has not kept away from these developments either. London has turned a blind eye to Russia’s appeals over the Skripal case and has refused to involve our officials in the investigation. In this situation, we simply must draw public attention to inconsistencies in the official UK statements and assessments, and to the numerous absurd leaks. A simple comparison of facts and conclusions clearly shows that this case is a poorly prepared and implemented (in terms of logic and logistics) provocation against Russia.

Full use has been made in this case of a new information warfare strategy, with the planting of fake news and suspicious leaks. Take note of the extremely sparse comments made by the official investigative authorities. The most frequent explanation was that the investigation was highly confidential and involved the interests of national security. What is the explanation then for the new versions of the incident, citing “sources close to the investigation”, that were provided almost daily to the media? Does this mean that the investigation was not so extremely confidential after all? Or do the UK investigative authorities employ people who don’t understand that state secrets must be kept secret? I believe that they know how to keep secrets. Previous cases have shown that when information is made confidential in the UK it is kept confidential tightly and for a long time. This brings us to the initial presumption according to which these leaks, which continue to reach the public, are made deliberately. Furthermore, no official comments have been made regarding these numerous leaks to the media. One more feature concerning this case is that many leaks allegedly originated from official agencies, yet none of these agencies have published a refutation.

Why do we say that this is a novel feature? Because the British media acted as the press service of government agencies in this case. One possible explanation is that these agencies are incompetent, but they are nothing but. We know how well the British can work, including in an information environment. We have seen the clear-cut and emotional statements made by Prime Minister Theresa May in parliament and the extravagant statements made by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, including in the media. But why didn’t members of the investigative authorities hold any briefings or news conferences to clarify the discrepancies as well as the leaks to the media? They have not been held because the authorities didn’t need them. London did not want to follow grammar rules to the letter in this compound sentence.

The number of versions, according to the UK media, was really impressive.

March 5: Salisbury Journal writes that emergency services suspect the powerful drug fentanyl, a synthetic opiate, may have been involved. The Zizzi restaurant where the Skripals ate that day has been cordoned off.

The Telegraph offered a similar version. That item was later deleted but it is still to be found in Google's cache. Why was it deleted? What information did it carry that had to be done away with so urgently?

March 6: Nothing was clear yet, but Boris Johnson says pre-emptively in Parliament that the UK will “respond appropriately and robustly” if the Russian state is found to have been involved in the Salisbury incident. The decision was clearly made and the political accusations were formulated.

March 7: Scotland Yard’s counterterrorism chief Mark Rowley says that the former Russian spy Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia were deliberately poisoned with a nerve agent. He refused to reveal the substance used.

The Daily Star carries an item saying that the victims may have been targeted with poison spray by an assassin.

March 8: The newspaper Metro writes that the nerve agent may have been administered into the pair’s food.

March 10: The Skripals could have been poisoned in the Mill pub or at the Zizzi restaurant. Those who visited the pub and the restaurant are advised to “wash their clothes and possessions,” says the advice posted on the UK government’s website. Note that the investigators suspect poisoning by one of the most toxic agents, yet six days after the event the authorities only recommend that the people “wash their clothes”!

The same day, Daily Mail writes, citing a high-ranking source, that the bouquet of fresh flowers Sergey Skripal laid at his wife’s grave may have been contaminated.

March 11: The newspaper Express writes about a sophisticated plot to kill Sergey and Yulia Skripal with a poisoned parcel delivered by a courier service.

March 12: Theresa May says in Parliament that Sergey Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent developed by Russia and known as Novichok. The UK Prime Minister said precisely the following: “It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia.

This is part of a group of nerve agents known as ‘Novichok’. Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down; our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so; Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations; and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations; the Government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergey and Yulia Skripal... There are therefore only two plausible explanations for what happened in Salisbury on the 4th of March. Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country. Or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.”

March 13: Mail Online offers a new version of the incident: a nerve agent was smeared on the door handle of Sergey Skripal’s car.

March 14: Theresa May blames Russia for the attempted assassination of the Skripals.

UK Deputy Permanent Representative Jonathan Allen said there was “no alternative conclusion than that the Russian state was responsible for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter.”

March 15: The Guardian cites Boris Johnson as saying that the UK government had “overwhelming evidence” of Russia’s involvement. He did not say what kind of evidence the UK government had.

On the same day, The Telegraph published an article citing its own sources in the intelligence agencies, alleging that the nerve agent that poisoned Sergey Skripal was planted in his daughter’s suitcase. According to the newspaper, the toxic agent that poisoned Sergey Skripal landed in Salisbury via Yulia Skripal’s luggage. It was alleged that the toxin was impregnated in an item of clothing or cosmetics or in gifts brought by Yulia.

On March 17, Boris Johnson told the BBC that President of Russia Vladimir Putin was behind the Salisbury incident.

On March 18, The Daily Star posited, in keeping with the best traditions of science fiction, that a drone was used to poison the Skripal family. On the same day, The Guardian assumed that the toxic agent was introduced in the ventilation system of Skripal’s car. Let me remind you that British government agencies together with the investigative authorities have not yet refuted these claims.

On March 22, EU leaders issued a statement following a summit reaffirming the European Union’s solidarity in that there was no plausible alternative explanation to Russia’s involvement in the incident.

On March 28, the British police reported that the investigation believed that the Skripals contacted Novichok at home, since the highest concentration of the toxic agent was detected on the door handle of the building where Sergey Skripal lived.

On March 29, the Foreign Office posted a message on its official Twitter account, accusing Russia of spreading misleading information by exploring multiple versions and theories regarding the Salisbury incident (it turns out that we are the ones with multiple versions).

On April 1, The Sun tabloid published material alleging that the toxic agent could have been brought in a bag of buckwheat or in a packet of bay leaves or spices that Yulia forgot to pick up before her departure to Great Britain. Instead, she asked a female acquaintance who was to fly to London with her husband a little later to bring the things. As it later turned out, it was an April Fools' Day joke. Do you think it is normal to make jokes in situations like this? This is not funny.

There was another version whereby Novichok was applied to an advertising leaflet that was intended for the Skripals.

On April 2, The New York Times cited “British officials” when it alleged that smearing a nerve agent on the door handle (after all, they preferred this explanation) was “so risky and sensitive,” that it was likely to have been undertaken by super professionals, meaning Russians… The newspaper went on to explain the lack of evidence on whether President of Russia Vladimir Putin himself ordered Sergey Skripal’s killing by the fact that the Russian President “is skilled at hiding his communications.”

On April 8, Boris Johnson published an article in The Sunday Times, claiming that Russia invented 29 theories about the poisoning of the Skripals. A few days before, on April 4, he released the long-awaited “facts” showing Russia’s alleged guilt in addition to the infamously overwhelming evidence contained in the six slides:

1. Porton Down identified the nerve agent as military grade Novichok;

2. Russia has investigated delivering nerve agents and as part of this programme has produced and stockpiled small quantities of Novichok;

3. Russia has a motive for targeting Sergey Skripal.

All in all, watching the events unfold as they were reported on the Twitter account of the UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is quite intriguing. Harsh, rude statements about Russia and its guilt in the Skripal case are mixed with cute photos of Boris surrounded by smiling people, followed by monsters wearing masks and chemical protection outfits. It can be easily spotted that people are being manipulated to believe that the “terrible Russia” has intruded into the peaceful and happy life Britain enjoyed.

It seems that this media campaign to discredit Russia has not been easy for British politicians. Either they have run out of arguments, or their nerves are on edge. Take the war of words between Boris Johnson and the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who accused the Foreign Secretary of misleading the public by his frivolous interpretation of conclusions by Porton Down experts. In response, Boris Johnson accused the head of Labour party of playing the Kremlin’s game and “lending false credibility to its propaganda onslaught.” He went even further by describing Corbyn as “the Kremlin's useful idiot.” And all this was done so that not a single political force within the country, let alone the media, has any appetite for appealing to reason and taking up a normal investigation after all. If statements of this kind can be thrown at politicians, what manners can be expected in communications with the country’s media?

The main message coming out from this multitude of voices is that the official position adopted by Britain does not require any evidence. It should be taken for granted. This is what British diplomats tell their colleagues when asked when evidence would be produced. They just look straight in your eyes and ask whether they are not being trusted.

Insinuations concerning the origin of the so-called Novichok merit special attention, of course. Theresa May first declared on March 12 that this particular substance had been used. Since then, this has never been questioned in spite of the repeated calls by Russia to look into what had happened and discuss the information about the alleged Russian provenance of the substance.

On April 4, Gary Aitkenhead, chief executive of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down, told Sky News that experts had been able to identify the substance as belonging to the series of agents classified by the West as Novichok. They were unable to identify the precise source, but they provided the scientific information to the Government, which had then used a number of other sources to piece together the conclusions.

From what other sources could information have been obtained if it requires special chemical laboratory research? Does Britain have any other lab than the one at Porton Down? If so, this is something new. Neither the British Foreign Office nor the Home Office have the facilities to analyse the substance, or at least this is what we were previously told.

At the same time, the head of Porton Down neither confirmed not denied the claims that the lab had samples of the agent, saying merely that “there is no way anything like that could have come from us or left the four walls of our facility.” Interesting wording. So, did they produce and develop it or was it the case that the substance “could not have left the four walls?” These are different things. The wording is so evasive as to leave it unclear whether or not the facility produced the substance. But it could have left the four walls only if it had in fact been produced.

The Foreign Office reacted instantly to the Sky News interview making it clear from the start that Porton Down experts had identified the substance used in Salisbury as a nerve agent called Novichok. But this was only one part of the intelligence picture. As Theresa May repeatedly made clear at the House of Commons beginning from March 12, the conclusions were based on the knowledge that over the past ten years Russia had been studying routes of delivering nerve agents, possibly for political assassinations, and produced and stockpiled small quantities of Novichok as part of that programme. She repeated that considering Russia’s record there is no credible explanation of what had happened in Salisbury other than Moscow’s responsibility for the “reckless attack.”

How do you like the legal grounding? But as they don’t know who did it and they have no proof if it was done by anyone at all, they conclude that Russia did it. Show me the provision in international law about accusations based not even on suspicions, but simply on the grounds that there are no other logical explanations?

Why the Foreign Office hastened to announce its official position immediately after the interview by the Porton Down lab head Gary Aitkenhead will be clear from the article by the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray of March 16 (i.e. before it was announced that the OPCW experts had been brought in). Citing sources at the Foreign Office, Craig Murray speaks about frictions between the Foreign Office and the lab at Porton Down. We do not know if this information is true, just as we don’t know if anything the British media wrote is true. But since we have been citing the British media, we might as well cite Mr Craig Murray. According to him, the British Foreign Office demanded that the lab confirm the Russian source of the agent used. In the end they settled for the formula “the type of agent developed in Russia.”

On April 6, the British publish yet another fake in the media and declare with reference to “special services officials” and “government sources” that the agent used was manufactured at a secret laboratory in Yasenevo (amazing geographical precision!). Needless to say, no facts are offered again.

However, on April 9, the Financial Times publishes an interview with the Soviet chemist Vladimit Uglev, who, although overwhelmed with anti-Russian sentiments, admits that it is impossible to get an irrefutable confirmation of Russia’s responsibility for the manufacturing and use of the agent: unlike radioactive materials, it does not leave traces behind and cannot be identified by usual means. The British officials yet again offer zero comments and no statements about that.

Here is another remarkable fact. In December 2005 and later in January 2006, the American Chemical Society’s Journal of Medicinal Chemistry published in its Volume 49 an article by a group of UK chemists including Porton Down laboratory employees Christopher M. Timperley and Gareth R. Williams. The article features a formula of an organophosphorus agent similar to the one published in Vil Mirzayanov’s book. It means that specialists at this British laboratory were capable of synthesising Novichok as early as 2005. These are the thoughts prompted by the UK media publications.

Numerous inconsistencies in media stories with reference to “reliable sources” are absolutely apparent. Here are just a few examples. The issue of the antidote – did it exist or not? Was it used or not? If we look at the news agencies’ reports – now it was, now it wasn’t, now it does not exist at all. Not a single person from the British side can make a responsible statement and clarify the issue. Meanwhile, there is a big reason to do that. Apart from the case itself, which, as we are told, should be classified since it is a national security matter, there are media publications that offer new versions every day. Could at least those have been commented on?

Regarding the doctors – this is a special topic. There were great many reports concerning the doctors who were rendering assistance and we do not doubt the competence of British medicine. But look, what sort of miracle doctors are they who work with a weapon-grade nerve agent, either using an antidote or even without it? This is an absolute miracle!

After leaks from a certain “closed briefing” for special services on April 6, it became known that at the hospital where the Skripals were taken by a pure coincidence (!) there were doctors trained to treat victims of chemical attacks. This is yet another miracle! And again we see manipulations on the antidote issue – which antidote was used and in what way.

The next topic mooted in the British media, though we do not know the answer to the question, is what exactly they were poisoned with? Was it one substance or a group of substances? Was it one type of substance or several different sorts of substances?

I would also like to draw attention to the statements made from the local hospital in Salisbury where the Skripals were taken to. It never said in so many words that the victims showed symptoms of chemical poisoning and that this is what they were treated for. In a March 16 letter to The Times one of the hospital’s doctors, Steven Davis, wrote that “... no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients (apparently the Skripals and the police officer) with significant poisoning.” If this is classified data, why a letter to The Times? If it is a question of the hospital having no right to disclose information for humanitarian or ethical reasons why does a doctor write a letter to the media about the situation inside the hospital?

There is not a hint at what they had been poisoned with. Some other members of the hospital staff mentioned that the Skripals and Nick Bailey “were exposed to a nerve agent.” This could mean anything. For a specialist, the formula means nothing. It’s a fudge. For instance, they could have been near the poison without touching it, or they could have been attacked with this agent. In a statement made on April 10 the hospital’s Medical Director Christine Blanshard again used the word “exposed,” referred to standard chemical poisoning symptoms and then, referring to the Skripals, studiously avoided the words “chemical” or “nerve agent.” This raises a crucial question about the symptoms with which the Skripals entered the hospital, the methods of treatment as well as the methods of diagnosis that justified the treatment administered. Information swirls, but there is no official confirmation or denial.

What is one to make of the recent episode when plans were announced to destroy all the evidence, including the Skripals’ house? One can place accents whichever which way and provide any reading, but the fact still remains that the Skripals are in isolation. We have not seen them and we do not know what is happening to them.

According to security sources, Sergey Skripal’s house, as well as Zizzi restaurant and Mill pub that he and his daughter visited on the day of the poisoning will be demolished. Why not investigate every square inch of the buildings instead? The bench on which the Skripals were found has also been destroyed. No sooner did we publicly raise the question of the fate of the domestic animals in Sergey Skripal’s house (unconnected with any animal rights issues, and probably linked with the use of chemical agents) than the media carried official and unofficial claims which further muddied the picture. Apparently the animals were in a sealed home. How could they not have been noticed if the house was scoured by “men in pressure suits?” That is, they discovered a poisonous agent on the door handles, but did not notice the animals? Can you believe it? All the more so since the Skripals had posted information on their pets, including numerous pictures, in social networks and everybody knew that they had them.

As a result two guinea pigs died from dehydration (not from poisoning with a toxic agent) and the cat was “under such stress” that it had to be put down. How could it have happened that the information fed raised more questions which no one seems to care to answer? Allegedly there was one more animal, but it was never found. Could it be that the animals were, after all, found during the search? What has become of them and where have they been taken? Probably not to the Foreign Office, much as they like cats there. More likely, to Porton Down. And what happened to them there? No one in Britain asks these questions. People have fun, draw pictures and chatter. But no answers have been given to questions that would occur to any person who can think straight. It is worth noting that, according to the media, the vet who had been attending to Skripal’s animals for many years, said that from his information the animals had been taken to Porton Down immediately after the house was searched. As of today, there are no animals and the house is likely to follow the way of the bench in the very near future.

I would like to highlight again the delay with releasing information about the pets, the confirmation that they died of dehydration or were just exterminated – this is another indirect proof that all evidence is being concealed and everything is being done to complicate the story from beginning to end.

Regarding the relatives. As you know, on April 6, the UK denied a visa to Skripal’s closest relative Viktoria, a niece and a cousin to the victims. These developments were very odd. There was not a single statement made concerning the reasons for denying the visa, the form of the denial, whether she could apply again or was denied a visa for good. Each UK agency gave its own version. Some of them via leaks, some through chats with journalists, and some readdressed the question to another body. What is so odd about this? If you do not want to issue a visa, if you are reluctant to do that, if it cannot be done for national security reasons, just tell us about it. Yet nothing like that happens, and we see a million versions again.

We are perfectly aware that very real political considerations are behind the formal explanation of the reasons for denying the visa. Let me underscore again that the Skripals have not yet had any contacts with the outside world.

In violation of international law, we were not granted consular access to a Russian citizen. According to the Sunday Times and a number of other newspapers, the Skripals will be offered (or ordered?) to change their names and move permanently to one of the Five Eyes countries. And on April 11, it was revealed that Yulia Skripal had been transferred to a hospital at a military base. This is just a terrible mix of what is being published and chewed over. Why is this being done? The answer is very simple – to keep the topic afloat yet not to give any answers on the essence of the case.

On the same day Scotland Yard published a statement on behalf of Yulia Skripal saying that she allegedly does not want to meet with the media, asks her cousin Viktoria not to come to London and also does not want to communicate with the Russian Embassy. Why then wasn’t Yulia’s reluctance to see her cousin given as a reason for denying Viktoria a UK visa?

We certainly would like to make sure that the statement really comes from Yulia Skripal. Because we do have doubts in view of all that hell that is raging in the UK media and in statements made by British politicians. As has already been noted in an official comment by the Russian Embassy in the UK, the text was evidently written in such a way as to prop up official statements by British officials and at the same time to make it impossible for Yulia to have any contacts with the outside world. The phrase about “access to friends and family” is also surprising since none of the Skripal’s friends or relatives referred to by the Russian and UK media have had any contacts with them. As far as we know, Viktoria Skripal and Sergei Skripal’s mother, who resides with her, are the only close relatives of the victims. What family does Yulia have contacts with in that case? And it is even more bewildering that nobody speaks on her behalf. If it started out as a detective story, it is now turning into a thriller right before our eyes.

We understand perfectly well that Scotland Yard has real professionals who proved their professionalism to the UK and the whole world on a number of occasions. But we cannot but question why Yulia’s letter was published by Scotland Yard. To be honest, the latest development reinforces our concerns that it is about isolating Russian citizens. We have every reason to believe that it is either premeditated forcible containment of Russian citizens, or a forcible or factual coercion to participate in some sort of a frame-up show.

Questions keep multiplying but there are no answers.

The position of many countries that decided to “express solidarity” with Britain merits a separate mention. Their comments and speculations on this subject appear not only biased but also simply unprofessional and even awkward.

For example, on April 8, the Daily Express published a notable selection of remarks by East European politicians, which supposedly illustrated London’s presentation of convincing evidence of Russia’s involvement in the poisoning of the Skripals. But the paper did not even bother to analyse the essence of those statements, which testifies to the fact that nothing of substance was really presented.

Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Bartosz Cichocki, for example, said that “in our case, the profoundness of information provided by the British was not of critical importance because we had observed Russia’s behaviour model even earlier…” Is this evidence that some facts have been provided? On the contrary, this proves that facts are of no importance. Poland has a long-standing position.

Paul Teesalu, Political Director at the Estonian Foreign Ministry, declared: “We didn’t have to think long before we came out in support of Britain.” Generally, thinking tends to be a good thing, particularly when you represent a foreign ministry and a country in a situation where one country is accusing another. “We didn’t have to think long” is how all these decisions are taken.

“As far as Britain’s position is concerned, we have full confidence in our British partner; you don’t doubt your friends, particularly when they say words like ‘highly likely,’” said Deputy Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic Jakub Dürr.

Saying that this is not serious is to say nothing. We are not saying that you can’t have friends, but the case in point is a crime and an investigation. In this instance, we are not playing the believe-it-or-not game; people’s fate is at stake and, I repeat, neither we, nor you have seen these people. The use of the word “solidarity” is indicative, as we said earlier.

Today we have every reason to accuse London of purposeful disinformation, propaganda and manipulating public opinion.

I would like to reiterate that we have no information about the Skripals’ whereabouts and the circumstances of what has happened to them. We are doing our best to obtain this information via the British Foreign Office by sending diplomatic notes. We have publicly called on the UK to provide information, to let us make sure that the Russian citizens are not in danger, to let the world see that these people have not been held hostage, that they are not involved in a hideous manipulation or game, that these people are alive so that they can speak for themselves and there is finally something in this story that could be used as reliable information.

We have sent dozens of diplomatic notes to the Foreign Office, which in one way or another boil down to demands to provide information about the incident, to offers of cooperation and requests for information on the condition of the Skripals and for access to them. Regrettably, we have to do the journalists’ job as we write these diplomatic notes. We ask them to confirm or refute each new plant that appears. As of today, we have, regrettably, received no reply to our requests to confirm or refute a new version or some new information published in the media.

Last week, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office sent to the relevant UK authorities a request for legal assistance in a criminal case related to the assassination attempt on the life of Yulia Skripal. The British side has not replied. We continue to insist on being provided with detailed information on the course of the investigative actions as well as explanations concerning the reliability of versions surfacing in the media. Specifically, the Russian Embassy in London asked the Foreign Office about the British media allegations that the nerve agent had been brought to the country in the form of a “clear and odourless gel” that was smeared over the handle of Sergei Skripal’s front door by some agents “in broad daylight.”

We have officially asked the Foreign Office to comment on the media information that the British have intentionally destroyed material evidence I have listed. These actions are certainly creating obstacles to an independent and unbiased investigation. We feel that they are trying to conceal and destroy all incriminating evidence related to this case.

The Russian Ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, has written to the Salisbury hospital medical director, Dr Christine Blanchard, asking her to clarify a number of concrete issues related to the Skripals’ confinement at this hospital and the treatment they had received. We tried to obtain the same information via the Foreign Office, but when this proved impossible, the Russian Ambassador had to apply directly to the hospital. Mr Yakovenko also sent a personal letter to Yulia Skripal. We still don’t know whether it has been passed on to her. Yulia Skripal’s statement, at least the statement that has been ascribed to her and published by the Scotland Yard, says nothing about receiving the ambassador’s letter.

We have asked the British side for explanations in connection with publications about the “interception” of two messages, which were allegedly sent from Syria to Russia and which the UK immediately linked to the “Skripals case.” They are clearly unwilling to provide any information at all.



OPCW Technical Secretariat’s report on the findings of the designated laboratories in the so-called “Skripal case”

On April 12, the OPCW Technical Secretariat shared the report with all States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) on the findings by the designated laboratories of the samples collected from the Skripal father and daughter at a medical facility in Salisbury.

The document confirms conclusions regarding the identity of the toxic chemical that was used that severely injured three people, including by all appearances, a British police officer.

According to the report, the toxic substance was of high purity with an almost complete absence of impurities.

The statement raises questions for Russian experts and definitely requires additional work on it, including by the British party. Any specialist understands that final conclusions can be made only having available the results of the chemical and spectral analysis of the above samples.

Let me reiterate, Russia is ready and open for joint work.

We confirm our official stand that Russia would not accept for granted any conclusions about the “Skripal case” until Russian experts are allowed access to the affected persons as well to the material of the above OPCW findings and all the real information on the incident available in London. This is not a matter of trust but an issue of working with concrete material. It is impossible any longer to believe those who refer to partial results and make statements on somebody’s behalf.

We all are sinking in a stream of disinformation which is one way or another supported by official London.

There are no reasons to believe that this is not a continuation of a crude provocation against the Russian Federation on the part of the UK special services.



Canceling Russian-US consultations on cultural-humanitarian matters

We are once again forced to draw attention to the US Administration’s highly unpunctual behaviour, as regards the organisation of events in line with our bilateral dialogue. A decision to cancel Russian-US consultations on cultural and humanitarian matters, scheduled for April 11−12, is another example.

I would like to note that the US Department of State itself had called for holding these consultations some time ago. We were ready to receive a US delegation in Moscow, and we were preparing for a detailed conversation. The meeting was to have involved representatives from the Foreign Ministry, as well as other specialised agencies, including the Ministry of Culture, the Federal Archives Agency and the Federal Agency for the CIS Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation. Last week, however, when all preparatory work was mostly complete, officials in Washington declined to come.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the US side torpedoes bilateral meetings and talks at the last moment without any clear explanations. An attempt to link this refusal with the expulsion of US diplomats from Russia, in response to the US Administration’s absolutely unmotivated actions with regard to Russian diplomatic missions and their officials, looked particularly strange.

Yet we are still ready to discuss cultural and humanitarian cooperation with the United States. We believe that this discussion is called on to play a positive role in improving the atmosphere of our relations and facilitating mutual understanding between the citizens of our countries. We hope that Washington will eventually resume a pragmatic and constructive approach towards conducting this dialogue.



The Pentagon finances the construction of biological laboratories in former Soviet republics

We are closely following reports about the US Defence Department’s medical-biological activities in former Soviet republics. Although provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons, including its Article 10, make it possible to expand international bioengineering cooperation, we cannot turn a blind eye to some alarming aspects.

We are concerned with the scale of US activities in former Soviet republics. The United States is establishing a chain of microbiological laboratories in the South Caucasus and Central Asia under programmes financed by the Pentagon. In 2013, a laboratory featuring third-level biological protection was established in the town of Alexeyevka near Tbilisi. It is possible to conduct experiments with pathogens of the most dangerous diseases at this facility, now called the Lugar Centre.

Understandably, it is possible to conduct research not only in the interests of sanitary-epidemiological well-being of the population in neighbouring states at such centres. Therefore we are particularly worried about the Pentagon’s large-scale medical-biological activities near Russian borders.

One has every right to ask a question about the real goals of this US military-biological activity.

Speaking of international cooperation in the biological sphere once again, we would like to note that, of course, any state has the right to expand such cooperation as well as to freely choose their partners. At the same time, interstate cooperation must completely meet the provisions of the Biological Weapons Convention. And states launching joint work on any specific project must clearly comprehend all the risks and the consequences of its implementation, including those for its neighbours.



The MICT sentence to Vojislav Seselj

On April 11, the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT) gave a 10-year prison sentence for crimes against humanity to Serbian Radical Party head Vojislav Seselj, who was acquitted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on March 31, 2016.

By the time he was acquitted, Vojislav Seselj had spent 12 years in pre-trial detention. Therefore, he should be released even despite the MICT’s sentence. However, this does not mean that there are no questions regarding the MICT’s decision.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has more than once drawn international attention to the situation regarding the trial of Vojislav Seselj.

Although the full text of the MICT’s reasoned decision has not been so far fully revealed, the information available to the public points to considerable discrepancies.

We regret to say that the MICT is moving in the ICTY’s footsteps. The MICT sentence given to Vojislav Seselj is yet another politicised anti-Serbian decision that has nothing in common with justice. This negative consistency is undermining the idea of objective international criminal justice.

We expect the MICT as a temporary structure to be completely transparent and effective and to comply with the standards of justice, in particular the terms of the trials.



Seizure of the Russian bulk carrier Sea Breeze in Ukraine

On April 10, the investigating judge granted the Ukrainian prosecutors’ request for the arrest of the Russian bulk carrier Sea Breeze owned by the Russian Trans-Service Maritime Agency.

According to the Russian Consulate General in Odessa, most of the ship’s crew members (about 20 people) are Ukrainian citizens, and only two sailors are Russian citizens. Officially, the Belize-flagged ship is registered in Tuapse.

The crew has been accused of violating Article 240 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of rules related to the protection of mineral resources) by illegally mining sand off Crimea. The Kiev authorities have arrested the ship to force the ship owner to pay for the illegal mining of sand in the Karkinitsky Bay of the Black Sea by the dredger Pechora, also owned by the Trans-Service Maritime Agency, between 2014 and 2018.

According to a representative from the ship owner’s agent, ATIS, the law firm Interlegal is providing legal counselling in this case. The ATIS representative has refused to provide any other details regarding the ship owner or the law firm’s attorneys. He has been provided with the contacts of the Russian Consulate General in Odessa for transfer to the ship owner. As of April 11, nobody has contacted any Russian diplomats. Neither have we received any official Ukrainian notification regarding the ship’s arrest.

We are monitoring this situation and are ready to provide assistance if the company involved or its representatives request it.



Situation regarding the Russian fishing vessel Nord

The Ukrainian provocation against the crew of the Russian fishing vessel Nord began over two weeks ago. The Russian crew is being kept hostage under far-fetched pretexts in Ukraine. Every time the Russian sailors try to cross the border, Kiev presents more new reasons to stop them from reuniting with their families. The extreme cynicism of the Ukrainian authorities is fresh evidence of the duplicity of the current Ukrainian government, which is bullying common people while paying lip service to its adherence to democracy and rule of law.

We demand that Ukraine stop this outrage and allow our sailors to return to their homes in Crimea. We hope that the international human rights community will give a proper assessment to Kiev’s inhumane actions. Russia also reserves the right to reply actions until our citizens are allowed to leave Ukraine.



Creation of the Medical Centre of Russian-Japanese Friendship in Moscow

On April 17, a conference dedicated to the creation of the Medical Centre of Russian-Japanese Friendship in Moscow will be held at the Russian Embassy in Japan.

This project was developed by the Main Administration for Service to the Diplomatic Corps under the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (GlavUpDK) together with their Japanese partners.

The event will be attended by the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to Japan Mikhail Galuzin, representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, and Healthcare Ministry, as well as other Japanese ministries and agencies, plus the potential project participants from Japan’s side – heads of over 60 companies manufacturing and distributing medical equipment together with heads of various clinics.

The aim of this project is to develop humanitarian cooperation between Russia and Japan in the sphere of healthcare. The new medical centre, which will be operating using state-of-the-art technology and equipment, will be created on the basis of the Medincentre – an affiliate of GlavUpDK.

The centre will offer a broad range of high-quality medical services to Russian citizens and representatives of diplomatic missions, international organisations as well as press offices that have been accredited in Russia.

The joint implementation of this kind of humanitarian project is another positive signal that confirms that the relations between Russia and Japan have reached a new qualitative level.



Article concerning the Foreign Ministry’s alleged covering up the budgetary spending data

We have taken note of the article, “Ministries do not inform citizens about budgetary spending” published on April 5 in Vedomosti, where the Foreign Ministry was featured in some sort of improvised ranking of state agencies that “cover up the most”. This means, the Foreign Ministry allegedly does not publish data on the implementation of state programmes. This information was published based on NGO data.

I have already commented on Vedomosti’s approach to this situation, when they submitted their request for a comment at 7.15 pm on April 4, one hour after the office had officially closed for the day. We simply did not see this. The article was published without our statement. We asked for our commentary to be published, but for some reason it was printed in the Letters to the Editor section. The most curious thing is that we have sent an official commentary on this matter, but for some reason the newspaper has not published it yet.

Another media started spreading this information, even citing Russian political scientist Mikhail Delyagin. We contacted him; he never said anything of the kind. The media apologised to us.

The reality is, in fact, that the Foreign Ministry, being an agency responsible for implementing the Russian Federation’s Foreign Policy Activities state programme, regularly and timely reports to the Russian Government, the Ministry of Economic Development and Ministry of Finance on the progress made in its implementation on a yearly and quarterly basis.

Since the state programme contains information constituting state secrets, as well as confidential information, the records mentioned on the State Programmes of the Russian Federation Portal are not made public in accordance with the regulatory documents in force, namely, the ones concerning protection of state secrets and confidential information.

At the same time, despite the specifics of the Foreign Ministry’s activities, the criteria for information openness are fulfilled by the Ministry, including via internet resources, to a high degree. When it comes to these matters, the Foreign Ministry operates according to the Presidential Executive Order No. 1062 dated August 10, 2011, , On the Approval of the List of Information on the Activities of the Russian Foreign Ministry to be Published in the Internet.

We have a big request. Please, verify the information before publishing data like this next time.



Resumption of flights to Egypt

On April 11, the direct flights between Moscow and Cairo were resumed.

After the terrorist attack that took place on board a Russian plane on October 31, 2015, above the Sinai Peninsula, experts in aviation safety from Russia and Egypt carried out an effective job on strengthening security in Egypt’s airports in order to prevent incidents like this from happening again. The joint effort of the Russian and Egyptian sides will continue in the context of resuming direct flights to Hurghada and Sharm el-Sheikh.

We believe that this landmark event will ensure further strengthening and development of the entire complex of friendly relations between Russia and Egypt.



Celebrations to mark the 73rd anniversary of the liberation of Bratislava from Nazi invaders

On April 4, a traditional ceremony, organised by the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Slovakia, took place at the Slavin war memorial in Bratislava to mark a regular anniversary of the Slovak capital’s liberation from Nazi invaders.

Wreaths at the monument were laid by Slovakia’s National Council Speaker Andrej Danko, Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini, ex-President Ivan Gasparovic, heads of Slovak ministries and departments, as well as representatives of local authorities, veterans’ and public organisations, Russian compatriots, and the youth. The ceremony was attended by Deputy Chair of the Committee on Economic Policy of the Russian Federal Assembly’s Federation Council Vyacheslav Timchenko, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Slovakia Alexey Fedotov, and members of the Russian Veterans’ Union.

At this difficult period, when international relations are facing serious trials and the established traditions of friendship and cooperation between countries of Europe are going through a test of strength, we are thankful to the people of Slovakia for preserving the blessed memories of the role of the Red Army in liberating Slovakia from fascism and for the attentive and careful attitude to the tombs of fallen Red Army soldiers.




Excerpts from answers to questions:



Question:

Yesterday, a presidential election was held in Azerbaijan. According to preliminary reports, it was won by Ilham Aliyev. Today, our Western partners, observers from the PACE and OSCE missions and others, gave a briefing. They said that numerous violations were found. This sharply contrasts with a statement released by the CIS observers. What do you think is behind this? Would you like to comment on it?



Maria Zakharova:

I think that there will be comments from the President’s Executive Office. I would like to say that a large number of international observers monitored the election in Azerbaijan – that is true. Moreover, those were observers from countries and international structures. Without doubt, they must have their say. We were fully aware of and pointed to the fact that the negative perception of the Azerbaijani election by a whole number of political forces was obvious even before the election. We see a similar attitude from some Western NGOs and Western officials not just towards Azerbaijan, but to a whole number of other countries, when there is a biased, pre-formulated approach to elections.

We proceed from the fact that there were many observers, who recorded everything. They must present their opinion, which can be relied upon.



Question:

Today, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has stated that “soft US policy” towards Russia is now over. Is this a follow-up to yesterday’s Twitter statements by US President Donald Trump, who was threatening Russia with new “smart” missiles?



Maria Zakharova:

Yesterday’s statements by Donald Trump have been followed by today’s. We should proceed from today’s Twitter statements by Donald Trump. You have quoted Mike Pompeo’s statement. We proceed from concrete work. When he is charged with heading this agency in a practical manner and to start working, then it will be possible and necessary to give assessments on bilateral relations and their prospects.

Political bias or a predisposition towards constant assaults on Russia are disturbing, that is true. Problems must be solved at the negotiating table. If there are differences, then, as has been customary, this has to be discussed in a constructive way, keeping in mind the things we must solve. We want to solve a problem, some issue, and to improve relations. Speaking of statements like this, I do not think they are aimed at improving bilateral relations. We are open to constructive dialogue, we have not closed the doors. The potential and, most importantly, the demand for the normalisation of bilateral relations is what people in Russia and the United States are waiting for. I would very much like the US politicians to keep this in mind, too, because there are their political stances, platforms, arguments and differences, and then there are people who want to live on both sides of the ocean, communicate, receive visas on time, to visit their relatives, take part in humanitarian and sports events, hold exhibitions, and engage in cultural life of the two countries.

This is what people want. People in Russia and the United States do not want war, escalation or other political collisions. Obviously, people want relations to normalise. I have a great many friends in America and Moscow, who have sent a huge number of messages in the past 24 hours questioning the reasons for the statements made, that we heard, saw and read on social media in the United States. Why is the situation being aggravated instead of being solved? I have no answer to this question. We proceed from the fact that normalisation is long overdue, not only regarding bilateral relations but international relations as a whole. I read many articles, appeals and letters from citizens all over the world who all say one thing: it is so easy to initiate a conflict but so difficult to overcome it. It is solely the normalisation of relations and not their aggravation that helps the tasks and meets the interests of the two nations.



Question:

I would like to ask you more about the statements made on Twitter yesterday; one way or another, we are focusing on them. Yesterday you almost had a dialogue with US President Donald Trump. He made a statement on his account and you on yours.



Maria Zakharova:

Please be more careful with words. Or he will be alleged to have some connections with Russia.



Question:

I hope not. The social networks were different: Facebook on the one hand, and Twitter on the other. Is this network diplomacy and policy a usual thing? Would you make an assessment of how appropriate it is?



Maria Zakharova:

The way US President Donald Trump communicates with his people is an issue for the US community, not the Russian Federation. They have chosen their president, and he has found a method of communication which he believes is appropriate for the media and American citizens. This is not our affair.

We understand that the growth in social networks and their increasing popularity means information will be spread via these channels. The strange thing is, as social networks grow larger and more popular, and play a greater role in digital diplomacy, leading western powers make a U-turn in their attitude towards these networks. Just five years ago, we were told that social networks were new media and had the same rights as the press and journalists, and the blogger was a journalist and there was no doubt about this. We said that if this was the case, we needed to raise the question of responsibility. We are not against it, but it is a question of responsibility. The media has its rules, the main one being to confirm and distribute the information it is responsible for. We were told that our position would restrict freedom of speech.

The situation today is exactly the opposite. London, Paris and Berlin are rushing to adopt very strict regulations on social networks and attempting to bring them under some kind of legal control.

Another curious trend is that social networks are getting more attention from government agencies and special services, in particular, in the United States. You have all heard about the meetings, resembling interrogations, with Mark Zuckerberg and how his company was pressurised to take appropriate measures. We have read about this in the media and we have seen the efforts the company made. It is obvious these steps were taken to save themselves from further pressure from special services, which are really embedded in the activities of social networks in the United States.

We are well aware that social networks are mass communication media with enormous reach, where, of course, security issues and antiterrorism efforts must be taken into consideration. Spreading such information via social networks must be prevented. However, we understand that we must differentiate between these two areas: preventing the use of social media by terrorists and militants, on the one hand, and preserving a possibility for people to spread information and communicate freely, because they do not yet feel these boundaries on the internet, on the other.



Question:

Does Russia have any idea why London or Washington should need this provocation with the Skripals? Could the reasons be the Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly and some of the US Senators’ statements to the effect that an agreement with Russia is now possible?



Maria Zakharova:

This case is directly connected to the situation in Syria, as we said. It also dovetails with the general agenda of the campaign that has been launched against Russia. Furthermore, it is also a matter of the domestic consumer market in terms of information and public opinion in the UK, a matter of the extremely complicated Brexit talks, which are painful for London, as well as other problems on the agenda from which the Skripal case could divert public attention. It is a crosscutting matter, a provocation that was designed to deal with a host of problems. In our opinion, this situation is also directly connected to the developments in Syria. It is an attempt to deprive Russia of any arguments regarding the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria. A provocation with the use of chemical weapons in Syria took place almost simultaneously with the campaign against Russia in connection with the Salisbury incident. Highly aggressive statements on the possible use of force have been addressed to Damascus, but they also concern Russia somehow or other. In other words, the incident in Salisbury was definitely a multidirectional provocation. I don’t think we should talk much about this. Establishing the truth is your task more than ours. We can only use a limited range of resources when it comes to coming up with answers. You cannot imagine how many notes, letters and requests we have sent to the UK via our Embassy in London. We have not received any replies. Why don’t you direct all these questions to the UK?



Question:

Several hours before this briefing, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons published a report and the Executive Summary of its report [regarding the Skripal case]. The full version of the report discloses the formula of the toxic agent that was used in the Salisbury incident. It has been shared with all States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). This means that Russia has received this report as well. Did you have an opportunity to read it? If so, do you accept the data and conclusions in it?



Maria Zakharova:

We could only read the Executive Summary of the report. Before this briefing began, I had no information about access to the full text of the report. If the report is made available to us, which we want more than any other country, our experts will analyse it and draw their own conclusions. In principle, we previously published the list of basic questions we would like to ask the OPCW regarding this matter and the report that has just been made public, and I have repeated them today. Once again, I had no access to the full text of the report before this briefing.



Question:

We recently observed the conflict between the DPRK and the USA with threats of mutual destruction. But the episode died down and the North and South Korea drew much closer together. We see a similar situation being repeated in Syria between Russia and the United States. In this context, how would you describe the mood between the foreign ministries of Russia and Ukraine?



Maria Zakharova:

I see no logic in the structure of your question. I can only answer the question about the mood between the Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministries. Unfortunately, the outlook is not optimistic. One sign of it is the way the Ukrainian Embassy is represented in the Russian Federation and the Russian Embassy is represented in Ukraine. As you know, we recently had tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats. This and many other things suggest that the atmosphere between our ministries leaves much to be desired.



Question:

What are the implications of the US Administration’s threats to Syria? Will they attack a sovereign state? Speculation is rife. One version has it that the US military-industrial complex needs to spend its budget and Trump needs to report to the “hawks” in Congress. I have my own version. Just days before these threats were made a tripartite meeting of Russian, Turkish and Iranian presidents took place in Ankara. Perhaps the United States is trying to wreck the Astana format by forcing Turkey to take sides.



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot deny your version, but I would treat it only as a version. I think it is still the same “global” concept that was formulated by the previous US Administration in a single phrase, “Assad must go.” Times change, presidents and administrations change, but it is a very convenient concept. It is still there. It is connected with the “red line” we are constantly reminded of. “Red line” refers to the use of chemical weapons by Damascus.

We have been down that dangerous road before. You will remember that similar statements were made by President Obama who linked military strikes with the use of chemical weapons by Damascus. But at that time it was possible to deprive the countries and political forces that considered the chemical weapons to be the “red line” of their argument, because there were indeed chemical weapons on Syrian territory. Russia proposed to the USA and the whole international community the idea of chemical demilitarisation of Syria, an idea that Washington supported and that was put into practice.

Several years have passed. Damascus has no chemical weapons, but the concept is still there. Accordingly, the main idea, the “red line” which, according to Washington ideologists, must trigger the mechanism of implementing the “Assad must go” plan, is still in place. And again, it is the chemical weapons. Nothing has changed. Be that as it may, in pursuing this concept, the spin doctors who stand behind its development and implementation put the stake on two elements which have long been linked in the public mind, Bashar Assad and chemical weapons. The concept may be implemented some day, one way or another.

This is what the situation looks like. There is no flat answer to the question about the motivation of the current statements, whether it is internal or whether it has to do with international relations as well. It may be both and it may be many other things. I don’t think the question should be directed to us. It is more a question for political scientists, journalists and official representatives in Washington.



Question:

To what extent is it Trump’s own choice? Is he perhaps under pressure? If we look back at the record, Trump has avoided direct accusations against Russia and its leadership...



Maria Zakharova:

I am not sure we can talk about attempted arm-twisting but it’s obvious that political pressure is being applied. This is the pressure of the losers who actively oppose the present administration and not just criticise it, but question the legitimacy of the elections and constantly link the President’s current actions with the past elections. The Russia factor is invariably present in this clash.

There are certainly grounds for speaking about political pressure, but I would not hazard to say whether it is in this context or in some other contexts. I can merely confirm that we are aware that there is political pressure.



Question:

Would you say that, judging by Donald Trump’s statements on Twitter, he is not on top of the situation?



Maria Zakharova:

I have asked myself this. To what extent do leaders of various countries or foreign ministers, for example, in various North Atlantic Treaty countries, have genuine information on hand?

It’s a question to them, of course, not us. How much real information gets to the top? Is it not distorted? How much of it comes from actual data “on the ground,” rather than reports? You remember when Theresa May made a statement. We asked many times on what information it was based. We were told that is was some report prepared by special services. Later, it turned out that this report was not completely true, because Porton Down did not confirm this theory. One way or another, this is an example of how the British prime minister used information that was only a couple of weeks later refuted by British agencies, in particular, the Porton Down laboratory. Boris Johnson acted in the same way.

This is a very good question, not to me, but for discussion. There is something to think about.



Question:

April 10, 2018 marks the eighth anniversary of the crash of the Polish presidential plane in Smolensk. My colleagues traditionally ask a question about ending the investigation of the crash and returning the plane’s fragments. We know the answers, and I would therefore like to ask another question. We have been conducting high-quality investigations of the causes of various disasters, including your plane crashes, in Russia and in other states. The investigations are always very efficient and good. All results are summed up quickly. Why are officials of the Russian Investigative Committee unable to complete this investigation regarding the Polish plane? All other investigations proceed quickly.



Maria Zakharova:

Don’t you know the answer to this question? You realise quite well that this incident has become extremely politicised in Poland. The Russian side has done its best to disclose all information to Polish investigators, experts and other people conducting the investigation. We have been and remain committed to full cooperation with Warsaw. It is impossible to reproach Russia for hiding something from the Polish side or for failing to provide access to the Polish side to something.



Question:

You often talk about honest things. That Tupolev Tu-154 plane belongs to the Polish state. Maybe it is time to return this property to its owner?



Maria Zakharova:

You understand that your second question regarding the return of property to its owner is linked with the first one. You are asking why Russia doesn’t want to close this issue. Maybe this does not sound very ethical, but I would also like to ask the Polish side as to what prevents Poland from closing this case?



Question:

You also know the answer very well. The Polish side is suggesting that the plane’s fragments be returned, so that it would be possible to conduct a normal investigation under the established procedure.



Maria Zakharova:

And what hampers a normal investigation stipulating complete access to fragments in the Russian Federation? We have failed to receive a clear answer to this question.



Question:

If the Russian President’s plane crashed in Poland, would you agree to have our state retain its fragments for several years?



Maria Zakharova:

I believe that experts and specialists will always reach consensus (and this was done), if there is a real desire to conduct a real investigation, rather than politicise it. Unfortunately, we later found out that following unprecedented openness on Russia’s part and cooperation between Russian and Polish experts, a number of political forces in Poland began to politicise this issue very actively. This is what we see. Unfortunately, it appears that this is the key and answer to all your questions. You are asking us a question. The same question can be addressed to you.

The recordings of conversations inside the plane’s cockpit were deciphered and submitted to the Polish side and the entire international public. They are posted online.

Although we displayed maximum openness, the Polish side continues to level endless accusations against Russia. I am talking about statements by Polish politicians and Polish publications that traffick in accusations against Russia, in one way or another, and you cannot deny this.



Question:

Don’t you think that all these doubts are caused by the fact that the plane belongs to Poland, and that it has remained in Smolensk for eight years?



Maria Zakharova:

What doubts are you talking about when the Polish side can access the plane? What does this have to do with Warsaw’s distrust? You are talking about distrust. But what distrust can one talk about when the leaders of both countries controlled the investigation and everything linked with this disaster. Given the unprecedented nature of the disaster and the force of the blow dealt to Poland, a narrow investigation became much broader, and everything was done to ensure a maximally open process. Later, former President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev repeatedly said and confirmed that it would be possible to access all materials of this case in line with all inquiries of the Polish side. Our experts and representatives of government agencies also reiterated this. If you need to work with the plane’s fragments and other materials or to cooperate with our experts, then you are free to do so. We are ready for this. As of today, none of the Polish side’s inquiries has gone unanswered. I know nothing about this.

I am not a speaker on this issue. I would like to note that we have the concerned experts who are responsible for commenting on this issue. But after reading Polish media stories, I have to prepare for discussions of this issue. Each time, after yet another discussion of this issue by the Polish media, I try to find out whether the Polish side was denied access to materials of this case or the plane’s fragments. So far, this has never happened.



Question:

Except one thing: returning the plane.



Maria Zakharova:

We are once again going back to the first question. The investigation is underway, and it has not been completed in the Russian Federation. A question about the causes I have to address to you, as well. Why are you also conducting an investigation?

I want to say once again that the Polish side will be able to access any materials or the plane’s fragments each time it requests such access. We realise that, unfortunately, this issue has become a significant issue in Polish political life. This is the gist of the matter. Instead of searching for the truth and working with evidence or any other data, this shows a desire to keep this issue going forever and to exploit it, which is what various politicians are doing.



Question:

You want to shield us from this by impounding the plane?



Maria Zakharova:

No. Do you really believe that this issue will be closed if Poland gets the plane’s fragments back?



Question:

I think it would happen faster than it is now.



Maria Zakharova:

The scale of this issue’s discussion in Polish politics over the past few years shows that, unfortunately, this issue will not be closed for a long time. This has nothing to do with the investigation or the work of experts. On the contrary, this shows a desire to just keep talking about it. I read articles published in Poland, I hear statements by Polish politicians, and I see a desire to continue discussing this issue, rather than recheck data (for this purpose, they will have to come here and request various documents and factual information).



Question:

Do you believe that the Geneva process will continue to move forward amid debates about possible strikes on Syria?



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian point of view is that we consider any force-based solution to the Syrian conflict unacceptable. All resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council say that the Syrian crisis can be resolved through exclusively peaceful means. It is not just a matter of Russia’s position, but also of the coordinated stance of the UN Security Council.

Proceeding from that, we believe that both the Geneva and Astana processes, as well as all other formats for seeking to consolidate the Syrian political forces, both opposition and pro-government, are extremely important in terms of indicating practical progress towards peace.

Certainly, statements about a possible force-based solution are hampering the peace process, are encouraging extremists on the ground to pursue extremist and terrorist activities and are lifting the spirits of militants.

I have already said today, and our experts on the ground confirm it, that as soon as the first Israeli air strikes were carried out, followed by statements by the American side about possible air attacks, bandit formations have immediately intensified their activities. That does not help, but rather aggravates the problem. All this is despite the fact that the United States, Russia and other countries pledged to settle the Syrian crisis through peaceful means.



Question:

Yesterday, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu had a telephone conversation. What is your opinion of Russian-Israeli relations following the events in Syria earlier this week?



Maria Zakharova:

We have a rule – we do not comment on events involving the President of Russia. This is a prerogative of his Executive Office and press office. You should ask them about his telephone conversation.

As for relations between our countries, they develop along various tracks. We disagree on certain issues. For example, I explained our position on the Israeli air strikes. Yet, we proceed from the fact that these issues are being addressed, including through a trustful dialogue. We discuss, we spell out our approaches and listen to the Israeli side, trying to find common ground. As regards the air strikes, we expressed our position clearly today, and before, too.



Question:

Our diplomats have repeatedly pointed out that it is unacceptable for forward-based force groupings to be present near our border, as are the frequent violations of international treaties, specifically the Vienna document. Our concerns are, as a rule, disregarded. How can this be explained? Can this situation be changed somehow?



Maria Zakharova:

Of course, the situation in Europe has become much more complicated and we have repeatedly said as much. The North Atlantic alliance is building up its military capacity on the eastern flank. More specifically, four multinational battalion-size tactical task forces have been deployed on a rotating basis and brought to full readiness status in the Baltic states and Poland as part of the Enhanced Forward Presence concept. As of February 1, 2018, their total strength was about 5,000, or the equivalent of a motorized infantry brigade with heavy equipment: these are a 1,000-strong battalion in Poland, about the same number in Estonia and Latvia, and 1,400 in Lithuania.

Active air patrol missions in East European NATO countries continue without interruption.

NATO’s permanent naval task forces and ships make regular visits to the Baltic, Black and Mediterranean seas and enter ports of non-NATO countries, including Georgia, Ukraine and Finland.

The 5,500-strong US contingent equal to two land brigades is deployed on a rotating basis as reinforcements on the NATO’s eastern flank, including as part of the US operation Atlantic Resolve. Given the continuing increase in funding under the European Containment Initiative, we cannot rule out the further growth of America’s presence and scale of its military activities in the region.

Efforts are being made to modernise military and civilian infrastructure in East European countries. High activity is observed among the allies, which are holding various military exercises.

Thus, there are today a total of 10-12 thousand troops with hundreds of units of military equipment and aircraft, which are deployed on so-called “continuous rotation” basis where they were never present, nor should be present on so large a scale or for such long time periods under the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act.

It is clear that all these NATO efforts are focused on creating a bridgehead to exert military pressure to bear on our country under the pretext of a “threat from the East.” At the same time, Russia is not interested in a further escalation of tensions near its borders. We call on the alliance to think long and hard about the fact that these provocative actions inevitably lead to the growth of tensions and a deteriorating military-political situation in Europe, which jeopardises the security of all countries on the continent without exception, and that includes NATO states.



Question:

What kind of a reply, in your view, can we make to the latest US sanctions package? Symmetrical?



Maria Zakharova:

We usually don’t discuss such things before decision-making. Neither will we this time. If decisions are adopted, there will be a consolidated process first, and then they will be announced.



Question:

In a recent interview with TASS, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev said that special relations with Russia were a priority of his country’s foreign policy. How do you see the further development of Russian-Azerbaijani relations after his re-election yesterday? What do you think the priorities are?



Maria Zakharova:

Without repeating what I have already said today about the election in general, I would like to add that, of course, we will continue to promote relations with Azerbaijan, aimed at implementing the interests of our countries’ peoples in various areas and economic sectors, on the basis of mutual benefit and mutual respect. These relations have great prospects. For the next briefing, I will prepare detailed material on bilateral relations, with facts, figures and details of the prospects for cooperation. I think it will be quite useful.



Question:

Today, the Estonian Internal Security Service (KAPO) celebrates its anniversary. Every year, on April 12, this agency publishes its annual report on “the enemies of Estonia.” Those featured in it receive something of a black mark: for example, media are refused accreditation and cooperation from officials. Last year, Rossiya Segodnya and Sputnik received this mark. For many years, KAPO has been calling Russia Estonia’s main enemy. Is there any way for Russia to fix this? Are symmetrical response measures possible?



Maria Zakharova:

It is true, the difficulties faced by the Russian media in Estonia are well-known. This also refers to undeclared discrimination: the refusal of accreditation for official events, and state officials are prohibited from communicating with Russian journalists. Now there is a novelty: some “label”, designating an “enemy”. Of course, all of this is depressing. It does not correspond with Tallinn’s declared goals of protecting freedom of speech and providing everybody with equal access to information. Unfortunately, we have concerns that this policy is aimed at limiting alternative sources of information, which publish news, data and articles that do not correspond with Tallinn’s official policy.

This issue should be addressed through cooperation with responsible international organisations such as the OSCE, partly the UN and, of course, the Council of Europe. These are the organisations that are responsible for protecting freedom of speech. We regularly draw the attention of our OSCE colleagues to this when we obtain relevant facts. It will be the same in this case.



Question:

You mentioned the version which says Yulia Skripal is being kept in isolation. Similar information was published by the Russian Embassy in the UK. Do you see any further action by Russia? It looks like our compatriot is being forcibly kept, and we do not know where. Should we not respond to this?



Maria Zakharova:

There is one thing. We do not have information about whether she is being forcibly kept or she is staying voluntarily in some medical institution, and now possibly in other institutions affiliated with the British special services. This is not about trust. Trust has been completely undermined by London after we were denied access to the case materials. We can assume that, since the UK refuses to supply any information regarding Yulia Skripal’s location or condition, and since we do not have any data from her relatives, or possibly from some trusted media, who could have seen her or talked to her – then we have every reason to believe she might really be held against her will.

The letter published on the Scotland Yard website on her behalf is very strange. With all understanding of the situation she found herself in, this letter raises more questions than it gives answers. And the first question is, whether she has any access to the media at all. That is the question. The style of the letter is also suspicious. Considering the passions that rage in the world, does this young woman have access to the internet or television? Does she understand what is happening outside the building where she is being kept? If yes, one can only be surprised at the restraint shown in the letter. But it looks more like the opposite – like a person really kept in isolation, both physical isolation and isolation from the media, from access to information sources.

Our response will continue as before – we will be requesting access to facts, will be asking the British side to provide factual information, or have us involved in the investigative actions that we hope have been carried out in the United Kingdom, and to evidence that has not yet been destroyed.



Question:

If the UK does not cooperate on the Skripal case, could the family relatives request an international search or file a complaint with the International Court of Human Rights citing violation of freedom or the right of access to information?



Maria Zakharova:

I think this is up to the family. Surely there are legal procedures, but this issue is still up to the relatives and lawyers. They have taken the initial steps they had to take (not because they were forced to do so, but because they are the closest relatives); and they were rejected. This is the whole story. Unfortunately, the legal mechanisms that should work in this situation are not working.



Question:

Following numerous reports on Khalifa Haftar’s health, western experts have voiced various assessments on the grave political situation in eastern Libya threatening to further deteriorate to a power vacuum. In this regard, can we hear any assessments of the situation in eastern Libya from Russian experts?



Maria Zakharova:

The situation is very difficult. Sadly, we cannot see tendencies towards improvement. At the same time, we are making efforts to maintain contacts with all sides representing this former state, which is now making attempts to return back into the folds of nationhood. This is the least I can say. I can ask experts to make a more detailed commentary on this matter.



Question:

Do you have any information on what will be with the border between Russia and Belarus during the FIFA World Cup? Foreign citizens currently cannot cross the border as there is no control. Is there any information on this?



Maria Zakharova:

I will request relevant details from our experts and we will present them to you. As you know, this issue has been discussed. I will definitely get updated information and pass it on to you.



Question:

Russia has been fighting international terrorism in Syria for seven years now. There were attempts to separate the opposition from militants. Why is there an escalation again? After all, there have been efforts towards a peaceful settlement at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.



Maria Zakharova:

One of the variants is that it was the prospect of a real settlement on the ground and, consequently, futility of any further promotion of a force-based scenario that led, among other things, to such desperate attempts to play power politics by using provocative statements about a chemical attack.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3166721

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and responses to questions following talks with Foreign Minister of the DPRK Ri Yong-ho, Moscow, April 10, 2018



10 April 2018 - 15:01








Ladies and gentlemen,

We held talks with Foreign Minister of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Ri Yong-ho.

We discussed at great length the state of bilateral relations. In 2018 it will be 70 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries. We coordinated the approval of a very impressive list of events devoted to this anniversary, which will take place in Russia and North Korea.

We reviewed the state of our trade and economic ties. The participants in the eighth meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade-Economic and Scientific-Technical Cooperation held last month discussed specific issues that allow us to expand our trade and economic cooperation as a whole with consideration for UN Security Council resolutions. Both sides understand the need to work in these conditions and there are opportunities to do so.

We discussed our cultural and humanitarian ties. In general, we agreed that we maintain our cooperation at a fairly good level.

We discussed in considerable detail the nuclear problem on the Korean Peninsula. On behalf of Russia we reaffirmed that we welcome the gradual normalisation of the situation, the cessation of reciprocal threats and a willingness to maintain contact both between North Korea and South Korea and between North Korea and the United States.

We noted that the real course of events “on the ground” is following the roadmap that Russia and China suggested last year to de-escalate tensions and create conditions for talks. Understandably, this process is designed to produce a multilateral agreement between the countries of Northeast Asia on ensuring peace and security on the Korean Peninsula, including the denuclearisation of this important area of the world, as the leaders of North Korea and South Korea have said.

We also reviewed other aspects of cooperation, primarily in international organisations – the UN and other venues.

We are very pleased with the talks. Foreign Minister of the DPRK Ri Yong-ho invited me to pay a reciprocal visit to Pyongyang. We accepted his invitation.



Question:

Russia and North Korea are celebrating the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations. You mentioned active contact at different levels. Did you discuss a summit meeting at the talks? Could Kim Jong-un visit Russia or could President Putin pay a reciprocal visit to North Korea?



Sergey Lavrov:

We did not discuss these issues today. Both leaders regularly exchange messages. I am sure they will discuss personal contact when they deem it expedient.



Question:

Did you discuss a potential deal on North Korea’s denuclearisation? Did representatives from Pyongyang express doubts over the reliability of the United States as a negotiator? After all, President Donald Trump is threatening to unilaterally cancel a similar deal with Iran.

Did you discuss specific steps on settling the Korean crisis, including the resumption of the six-party talks and the joint Russian-Chinese initiative?



Sergey Lavrov:

I just said that events are following the Russian-Chinese roadmap. This includes step-by-step, albeit a steady, advance to a concluding phase, that is, a multilateral agreement on ensuring peace and security in Northeast Asia, including the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. The North Korean leaders, including Kim Jong-un personally reaffirmed this principle, in particular, at the talks in Beijing. Naturally, we welcome steps in this vein. It is a different matter that this is a complicated issue. Ensuring the lawful interests and security of the DPRK in the context of denuclearisation is bound to require very strong coordination and guarantees.

We did not discuss the Iranian nuclear programme today or what is happening around it. There is no doubt that, considering what is happening around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran, the guarantees to be discussed at the talks on the Korean Peninsula, must be ironclad. Let me repeat that an exercise in guesswork on this issue would probably be futile. Obviously, six-party talks are the right format for discussing the problems of security and the denuclearisation of Northeast Asia because they concern all countries of the region.



Question:

Recently the media reported that China made an offer to the United States to continue the talks on DPRK in a four-lateral format, that is, without Russia and Japan. What do you think about the prospect of resuming the talks and will Russia take part in them?



Sergey Lavrov:

This appeared as a rumour two weeks ago. When Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited Moscow on April 5, we asked him about this as a comrade and partner. We asked our Chinese friends whether this was true. He categorically rejected the rumour and called it a yet another attempt “to fish in troubled waters.” So nothing like this took place. Our Chinese colleagues reassured us that they do not have any such plans.



Question:

Did Russia receive a response from the OPCW on the proposal to send its experts to Douma where a chemical attack presumably took place?



Sergey Lavrov:

No, we have received no response so far. We hear statements from The Hague that they have already started investigating this incident or, to be more precise, that this incident took place because there has been no proof so far that a chemical agent was used. A spokesman for the Syrian Arab Red Crescent and representatives of relevant Russian services that deal with radiological security visited the suspected incident site in Douma and did not find any traces of chemical substances there. This has been stated in public more than once. Nevertheless, we are interested in using independent experts so they can become convinced of this conclusion. We invited OPCW experts to visit Douma and will work for this visit to take place.

We can no longer blindly believe results produced by a remote investigation as was the case in Khan Shaykhun a year ago when such an investigation produced a vague report that was filled with phrases “highly possible” and “highly likely” from top to bottom. We know the value of such statements and will never take them for granted. In fact, this was the case a year ago when we bluntly refused to adopt a resolution in the UN Security Council based on vague and muddled assessments and conclusions.

But to compel the OPCW to abide by its commitments on the Chemical Weapons Convention – to conduct an investigation with a mandatory trip to the site and guarantee the preservation of the samples on the entire journey of its lab, to make sure that all this is done in a transparent and honest manner, we will submit a draft resolution to the UN Security Council today. This draft will demand such an investigation in response to the direct invitation of the Syrian Government that is ready, as you know, to receive experts “on the ground” as early as today. Any references to security concerns will not be taken seriously because Douma has been completely liberated from the commandos and is controlled by Syrian Government troops. Russian military observers and military police are on the site. If there is a need for security guarantees for OPCW inspectors, they will be granted.

If experts are not given access to the site under the pretext of security concerns by those who would like to exploit the chemical issue to continue their anti-Syria and Russophobic lines, then such conduct will be regarded as a verdict. In this way they will acknowledge their true plans and reaffirm that they are not interested in establishing the truth either in Khan Shaykhun or in the Skripal case or any other incident where they try to accuse Russia without any ground.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3162263






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Stef Blok, Moscow, April 13, 2018



13 April 2018 - 13:53








Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held constructive talks. This is the first visit to Moscow by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands since 2015. So, many issues had to be discussed.

First, we conducted a rather detailed review of our bilateral relations whose current status is not cause for complete satisfaction. Over the past few decades, we have created a substantial potential for cooperation, which is not used in full measure today.

We expressed our mutual willingness to look for ways out of the current situation. Obviously, the resumption of sustained development in all areas of our relations meets the interests of our countries and peoples.

We reaffirmed Russia’s interest in expanding exchanges between ministries and agencies, civil societies, in the legal, cultural and humanitarian areas. Today, we also noted that it was necessary to resume a full-fledged inter-parliamentary dialogue. These communication channels are becoming particularly topical today when relations between countries are being tested.

We discussed our trade and economic relations. In 2017, bilateral trade grew by over 20 percent to reach $40 billion. Understandably, these statistics are a far cry from pre-crisis indicators. We would like to continue the 2017 trend. The Russian side believes that a regular session of the Mixed Commission on Economic Cooperation that has not been convened since 2013 could help facilitate this process. As a first step, we suggested studying the opportunity of organising meetings between its co-chairs, which have not been held since 2014. We realise that the new government of the Netherlands is now in the process of selecting the commission’s Dutch co-chairs. We hope that this will help resume the work of this important body as soon as that process ends.

As always, we praise the effective work of Dutch companies on the Russian market. They are successfully implementing their development strategies in Russia, while cooperating with their Russian partners. We will be happy to welcome a large Dutch delegation, as always, at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

We also talked about cultural and humanitarian cooperation. We touched on a situation linked with Russian involvement in a project to renovate a museum at a former Nazi concentration camp in Sobibor, Poland. We confirmed our interest in obtaining support from the Netherlands, as a member of the museum’s International Steering Committee, for our application to join this organisation as a full member under an invitation we received several years ago.

We talked a lot about the international agenda, especially in light of the fact that the Netherlands is a non-permanent UN Security Council member this year.

We also talked about Syria, of course, and the immediate goals in the Middle East. We would like this dialogue to be regular, so that we can discuss all the crises in our common region and beyond in a business-like spirit to find a peaceful solution that prioritises the interests of those nations in difficult situations, without foreign influences trying to force formulas on them that run counter their interests.

It is with this goal in mind that Russia wants to carry on its dialogue with the EU. We have common interests in the fight against terrorism, illegal migration and drug trafficking. We told our European colleagues, again, that we are ready for this work inasmuch as they are ready for it.

We have agreed to discuss these crises with our Dutch colleagues in greater detail at the regular and quite intensive consultations held between our ministries. We have decided to streamline them and to hold them according to a plan, so the preparations for such events are more efficient.

We talked at length about the ongoing investigation into the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, which was shot down over Donbass in the summer of 2014. We enumerated the steps taken by the Russian Government and the Almaz-Antey Concern to share all the information at our disposal to ensure an objective and nonpartisan investigation. We also pointed out the need to implement UN Security Council Resolution 2166, which requests that the Security Council be regularly updated on relevant developments. We have agreed to carry on this dialogue with due respect for what our Dutch colleagues told us regarding the independence of the agency that is conducting the investigation. We respect independence, provided that it does not amount to disregard for the facts at the investigators’ disposal or any facts the investigation has not taken into account so far.

Overall, I believe these talks have been very instructive. We have not discussed everything, but I hope we will have an opportunity to carry on this dialogue.



Question:

The probe into the Malaysian Boeing crash is a stumbling block in Russian-Dutch relations. Russia criticizes the Netherlands for the way the investigation is being conducted. The Netherlands is sensitive to criticism and, in turn, accuses Russia of trying to muddle the investigation and of inadequate cooperation. On the other hand, this is a subject for dialogue. It has probably been discussed in all bilateral contacts. Was the investigation discussed today? Has it improved mutual understanding?



Sergey Lavrov (responds after the Netherlands Foreign Minister Stef Blok):

In my opening remarks, I already said that we discussed this matter and outlined the general parameters of how it was discussed. Given the keen interest of Dutch and Russian journalists and the mention of UN Security Council Resolution 2166, I would like to recall that we were one of the initiators of drafting and adopting that resolution, which required a thorough objective international investigation of the MN-17 tragedy and regular reports to the UN Security Council on the investigation progress. However, all we received from the Dutch Government was one letter of most general contents, without any specific facts. That was in the summer of 2015; the Security Council has received no information since. Contrary to the resolution, the UN Secretary-General has never reported on the progress, although required to do so. We have repeatedly expressed concern about the way the investigation was organised. Even while setting up the local investigation group, we had questions about the reasons for not inviting Malaysia. There was no answer. Malaysia was not invited to the group until six months after its creation. Well, it's good they finally did it. As we say, it's better late than never.

We have indeed provided assistance during technical investigation and continue doing so during the criminal investigation. We have responded to all inquiries of the Dutch prosecutor’s office without exception as part of legal assistance. We shared a considerable amount of information, including primary raw radar surveillance data at the time of the accident. These data clearly indicate from which side the missile could have flown and from which it could not. Still, our evidence and comments have not fully been taken into account by the Joint Investigation Team, and the materials we supplied have been studied superficially or selectively, or simply ignored.

I mentioned the radar surveillance data. Those could not have been faked or modified. They clearly showed no trace of a missile in the direction it was allegedly launched from, according to the investigation team. In response, which came after a very long period, we were told it was a different missile, and that two independent experts (who were not named), after reviewing our radar data, claimed the missile was not detected by the radar and could not be because it was moving too fast. The absurdity of this statement is obvious to any professional. Naturally, when we send scientifically verified objective monitoring data and the independent prosecutor conducting the investigation sends back this kind of anonymous refutations, we say we have questions – especially amid the never-ending accusations that we are trying to throw the investigation off track. At the same time, the Joint Investigation Team does not seem to have any questions, for example, to Ukraine and its contribution to the investigation. Although so far none of the Ukrainian air traffic controllers, who were on duty that day, have been interrogated. The investigators have not received Ukrainian radar data. And the fact that the Dutch authorities have formally stated that Ukraine’s reasons for not closing its airspace to flights – a question many people asked – were not the subject of the JIT investigation, is also puzzling.

I’m not saying this to call for any diplomatic moves in regard to Ukraine, which does not cooperate with the investigation, in response to the very first question at the news conference – I just mentioned it as a fact. Therefore, once again I would like to urge the investigators not to rule out any versions, and not to try to fit all available data into the version already proliferated by the media even before the investigation is completed. As my colleague said, we need to find the truth. This holds true not only for the Malaysian Boeing tragedy, but for all the issues we discussed today, primarily involving the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria or Salisbury.



Question:

The Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, said yesterday that there will be “understanding” in his country if the USA launches a strike on Syria. How do you assess the Dutch Government’s position?



Sergey Lavrov:

It depends on what you mean by understanding. If it is about the need to do it simply to replace the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, that is one thing. If it is an understanding that chemical weapons had after all been used, I would recommend waiting for the findings of the OPCW mission, which has left for Syria – not very promptly, without much enthusiasm under our pressure and that of the Syrian Government – and is due to arrive in Damascus tomorrow morning. We expect that it will go without delay to the city of Douma, where our experts, who have examined the place, found no evidence of the use of chemical weapons, chlorine or any other agents. Moreover, we have irrefutable evidence that this was another put-up job and that the special services of the state which is eager to be in the front ranks of the anti-Russia campaign have had a hand in it.



Question:

How do you assess the level of Moscow-Washington contacts through the existing channels on defusing tensions in Syria in the light of the current developments? Is the full potential of these channels being used? How would you comment on the words of Mike Pompeo picked to be the next US Secretary of State to the effect that US soft policy towards Russia “is now over?”



Sergey Lavrov:

As for channels, those that have remained (occasional conversations between the presidents and fairly regular contacts between defence agencies) they are being used in this format, in this framework. President Putin and President Trump recently spoke by telephone. We are always open to such contacts. They enable us to understand each other better. The militaries are also in contact. What has remained, what has not been frozen, is being used. Other channels, even those agreed upon, are sometimes not used because the Americans refuse to meet at the last moment without giving any reason. This was the case in February, when they refused, at the very last moment, to hold an agreed meeting on cybersecurity. This was the case most recently, when they refused to hold a meeting on cultural and humanitarian cooperation. No explanations are given us, so it is hard for me to say whether these channels will match the need. And the need is undoubtedly there considering the extremely alarming situation, which is building up above all over Syria and the region as a whole, and the threats coming from the three capitals of Western countries that are permanent UN Security Council members. God forbid that another adventure similar to what happened in Libya and Iraq should be launched. I hope no one will dare launch such an adventure now. And yet even minor upheavals may trigger new waves of migrants to Europe and lead to many other unwelcome consequences for us and our European neighbours. They may be welcomed only by those who are protected by the ocean and hope to sit it out in the process of continuing efforts to stir up the whole region in order to further their geopolitical projects there.

These are matters that need to be discussed, including between foreign ministries. I very much hope that when the US State Department puts itself in working order such contacts at the level of the top officials, their deputies and experts will continue. These, of course, should be contacts between diplomats, which means that diplomatic methods should be used, and not ultimatums and threats.



Question:

You said that the “Skripal case” was discussed. The OPCW yesterday published a summary of the report on the incident. It says that the OPCW confirms London’s findings, but that the full information on the substance, including its name, is in the classified version, which has been sent to countries. Have you read it? And what is your comment?



Sergey Lavrov:

It says that OPCW experts confirm London’s conclusions regarding the chemical composition of the substance. Such politicians as Boris Johnson again tried to distort the truth and claim that the OPCW statement supports all the British conclusions, including the “highly likely” expression. That is another of this politician’s antics, which everybody has got used to.

Let me stress that the OPCW has confirmed only the composition of the chemical substance. The classified part of the report gives a detailed, long chemical formula. It gives no literary names. It says merely that the substance is not on the list approved by the Chemical Weapons Convention and on which the member countries have to report. We are currently studying the report closely. There are some interesting points that suggest themselves after reading it. We will try to make them public as soon as possible when our experts and those from specialised agencies get through this fairly voluminous document.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3168722






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s address at the 26th Assembly of the Council for Foreign and Defence Policy, Moscow, April 14, 2018



14 April 2018 - 19:25








Mr Lukyanov,

Mr Karaganov,

Friends,

Colleagues,

Thank you for another invitation to the traditional annual Assembly of the Council for Foreign and Defence Policy (CFDP). This is a platform for an unbiased discussion, where the participants take part in a private capacity as they discuss the most pressing issues of our country’s foreign policy and security. The fact that those who gather here are like-minded individuals, many of whom are friends, does not exclude but rather presupposes sincere and at times contentious debates. Of course, I prepared a speech but as you understand it was prepared before the events mentioned just now by Mr Karaganov. So I would like to say a few words in an official capacity regarding this burning issue.

The point at issue is the explanations our Western partners are providing to justify their absolutely illegitimate and unacceptable actions. As you may have heard, US President Donald Trump, UK Prime Minister Theresa May and President of France Emmanuel Macron have been saying over the past few days that they have irrefutable evidence that, first, chemical weapons were used in the city of Douma in Eastern Ghouta, and second, that it was unquestionably done by Bashar al-Assad who issued the order. In this connection I would like to remind you that we heard exactly the same words a year ago and even earlier, when those same White Helmets reported that sarin gas was used in Khan Sheikhoun, Idlib Province, and that this was absolutely beyond any doubt. Our Western partners grasped at that and began presenting very questionable videos, as they did in the case of Douma, as irrefutable evidence. We were insisting that OPCW inspectors should go to the incident site. We were told that security conditions did not allow for that. Then miraculously it appeared that the OPCW gained information from the British and the French that they had obtained samples from Khan Sheikhoun which were analysed in laboratories in France and Great Britain, and there was no doubt that they contained sarin. As sensible people, we contacted the French and the English and asked them how the samples had been obtained. If they had reached as far as Paris and London, it means that it was done by people who were able to function in the security conditions in Khan Sheikhoun at that moment. We asked why in that case we couldn’t use the services of those same people to ensure the safety of the OPCW inspectors who would go there and collect the samples in full compliance with the procedures under the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and analyse those samples according to their routine. Our partners evaded our questions and said there was no need to do that since the facts were irrefutable in any case. Then we asked them if they could share those facts with us so that we could be sure that everything was as it should be. We were told it was a secret. And you know the rest.

It is the same regarding Douma. There are irrefutable facts that we are being told about now to justify the strikes. Apart from citing the media and social networks, as well as the video that is quite amusing for specialists, no other evidence has been presented. However, French President Macron, who publicly announced that he had irrefutable evidence confirming the use of chemical weapons in Douma by the Assad regime, as they call it, had a telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday, during which Mr Putin mentioned the public statement by the French leader concerning the availability of those facts and asked him to share them. Because if this were true, we would be the first to want to curb this illegal activity – the use of chemical weapons. The reply was the same: it’s a secret. They cannot present the evidence because it is not their secret. However, it was still used by those same people who do not want to share the source in order to launch strikes. Everybody realises, of course, that it happened a day before the OPCW inspectors, who had already arrived in Beirut, were to travel to the incident site to either confirm or refute the presence or absence of evidence proving the use of chemical weapons there. By the way, they have again confirmed their readiness to travel to that area in Douma to carry out their mission. We will come back to that later. I hope they will be allowed to do it this time.

Last year’s and this year’s episodes have another common feature, which is the following. When the White Helmets spread their news on April 4, 2017, Rex Tillerson called me and said that they know that the chemical weapons had been delivered by an air bomb, and that the aircraft took off from the Shayrat airfield. He asked us to secure the Syrian government’s agreement to allow inspectors, including US experts, to come to that airfield to verify the facts. We obtained such consent but before we were able to relate it to Washington, the US had already launched strikes. This time, three days ago, a US Embassy official visited our Ministry and among other things he set out the US position and spoke about their confidence that they were right. We replied to him that our military experts in chemical radiation defence studied very carefully the site in question shown in the video, the hospital and everything around it, and did not find anything there. Then he asked if US experts could go there, too. We said that it was a good idea and that we will make arrangements with Damascus. One day later, during the conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Emmanuel Macron, Mr Putin, as he replied to his French colleague’s claim that there was no doubt that the act had been committed by the Syrian government, suggested that French inspectors should be sent there so that they could study the situation on the ground together with Russian and US experts. It was agreed that the defence ministries would keep in contact so as to put this idea into practice. None of our French colleagues ever contacted either our Defence Ministry or Foreign Ministry. And again, as you see, the air strikes were launched a short while after that.

This is why we are so meticulous about establishing facts. We have been told far too often that there was evidence: regarding the US election meddling, former US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated publicly that they have irrefutable facts, and when we asked him to produce them he replied that they would not do that. Allegedly, our special services are perfectly aware how we interfered in their election. We want to focus on the facts in this and a number of other cases, including with regard to the so-called Skripal case.

As you are aware, our British colleagues are refusing to answer dozens of questions on that case, which were asked on different dates and even updated by us. They answer that we did not respond to any of the questions they posed to the Russian side. Let me remind you that London asked only a single question of us, and it was meant for Russia to confess how Novichok was delivered to London – either on the order from Russian President Putin or due to Russia’s negligence in losing control over its chemical stocks. This is all the question came down to. Whereas the questions we asked were utterly specific and based on the Convention’s provisions.

I have just been given a report that the Pentagon justified the US strike on Syria before the release of the OPCW report by the fact that Damascus had blocked access for experts trying to reach Eastern Ghouta. This is not true. We have been monitoring the situation virtually by the minute. The Syrian government was to immediately issue visas at the border without any additional formalities. The experts would have gone from Beirut, and upon reaching the Syrian border they would have received their visas. This has been officially confirmed. The OPCW knows about this, and if they know, the Americans cannot say that they do not.

Coming back to the Skripal case. As you know, in the Skripal case the British specially invited a group of OCSW experts. It was done exclusively in a bilateral manner, it was announced that the others would be informed about the conclusions reached by the group. The report of this group of experts was initially distributed as a summary for public consumption and following that, a detailed and fairly substantial confidential version was distributed to the OPCW members only. In that report, in accordance with the OPCW way of conduct, the chemical composition of the agent presented by the British was confirmed, and the analysis of samples, as the report states, was taken by the OPCW experts themselves. It contains no names, Novichok or any other. The report only gives the chemical formula, which, according to our experts, points to an agent that had been developed in many countries and does not present any particular secret.

Our colleagues tell us (I have already given examples as I described previous situations) that they have secret data that they cannot share. As you understand, we also have the capacity to obtain confidential information. Since this information concerns issues that are literally connected to death and life, we are not going to keep anything secret. We became aware of this from the Swiss Federal Institute for Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection in Spiez. The information was obtained on conditions of confidentiality. On March 27, experts of the Institute completed their study of the samples collected on the site of the incident in Salisbery, in line with OPCW, and sent to them by the OPCW. This laboratory in Spiez, where, I am sure, professional scientists who value their reputation are employed, came to the following conclusions. I will now be quoting what they sent to the OPCW in their report. You understand that this is a translation from a foreign language but I will read it in Russian, quote: “Following our analysis, the samples indicate traces of the toxic chemical BZ and its precursor which are second category chemical weapons. BZ is a nerve toxic agent, which temporarily disables a person. The psycho toxic effect is achieved within 30 to 60 minutes after its use and lasts for up to four days. This composition was in operational service in the armies of the US, the UK and other NATO countries. The Soviet Union and Russia neither designed nor stored such chemical agents. Also, the samples indicate the presence of type A-234 nerve agent in its virgin state and also products of its degradation.” End of quote. According to the specialists’ estimates, the significant concentration of A-234 discovered would have inevitably been lethal, and taking into account its high volatility, the fact that the specialists in the city of Spiez found it in its virgin state and also with high purity and in high concentration, appears to be utterly suspicious, because the period which elapsed between the poisoning and sampling was fairly long – I think, over two weeks.

Taking into account that Yulia Skripal and the policeman have already been released from hospital, whereas Sergei Skripal, as the British claim without letting us see either Yulia or Sergei, is still recovering, the clinical pattern corresponds more to the use of a BZ agent. Nothing is said whatsoever about a BZ agent in the final report that the OPCW experts presented to its Executive Council. In this connection we address the OPCW a question about why the information, that I have just read out loud and which reflects the findings of the specialists from the city of Spiez, was withheld altogether in the final document. If the OPCW would reject and deny the very fact that the Spiez laboratory was engaged, it will be very interesting to listen to their explanations.

I have finished speaking on this topic. Let me reiterate that I was preparing a totally different report. I hope we will be able to discuss more “eternal” matters rather than such grim episodes as today’s or last year’s. I would like to thank our colleagues – journalists for carrying these facts into the media space.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3169545






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening of an exhibition, "Ilya Glazunov: Chile Through the Eyes of an Artist,” Moscow, April 16, 2018



16 April 2018 - 17:08








Ms Orlova,

Mr Ambassador,

It is good to be in this beautiful Moscow State Art Gallery of our outstanding artist and coeval Ilya Glazunov.

The last time we met here was in December 2017 at an exhibition dedicated to paintings from Nicaragua. Today, we are here at an exhibition entitled "Ilya Glazunov: Chile Through the Eyes of an Artist."

I would like to sincerely thank Ms Orlova for the opportunity to hold another important event in conjunction with Russia’s Foreign Ministry and the Embassy of Chile to the Russian Federation. I hope such events will become a good tradition.

Ilya Glazunov visited Chile in July 1973. He met with President Salvador Allende and travelled with him around the country on several occasions. There must be a portrait here painted during President Allende’s visit with the workers in an El Salvadorian miners’ village. Unfortunately, the front portrait, which had been painted from life, was burned by guerillas when they captured the La Moneda Palace.

In any case, the legacy that we see here speaks volumes, and tells us how Glazunov saw life and what was happening around the world. The artist was in Chile during the bloody events associated with a major domestic political struggle. Of course, Glazunov lived through it along with the Chilean people. However, his work focused on unique features of the national character of the Chilean people rather than politics, which can be seen in these paintings. I believe, he managed to portray Chileans as a nation devoted to their history, and strong-willed people who value their freedom and the right to choose an independent path of development.

We enjoy good and warm relations with Chile, which include regular high-level dialogue and contacts through international organisations, primarily in the UN, where we uphold the supremacy of international law. Like the Chileans, we firmly believe in the need to strengthen the central role of the UN and the UNSC in resolving conflicts and crises. This is a very important part of our cooperation.

It is gratifying to know that in recent years, following related summits, trade and economic cooperation in various fields, such as the electric power industry, aviation, shipbuilding and the automotive industry, as well as nuclear power engineering and pharmaceutics, is actively developing.

The Intergovernmental Russian-Chilean Commission for Trade and Economic Cooperation is doing well. The dialogue between the Eurasian Economic Union and Chile is developing intensively.

I think we will enjoy today’s event. The exhibition features portraits not only of Salvador Allende and the people of Chile, whom Ilya Glazunov met during his tours of the country, but also a famous political and public figure and General Secretary of the Communist Party of Chile Volodia Teitelboim. As far as I know, his daughter Marina Teitelboim is working successfully at the Embassy of Chile to Russia as an adviser, helping Mr Ambassador further promote our friendly relations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3172067






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with BBC HardTalk



16 April 2018 - 22:30








Question:

The world was deeply alarmed last week by the prospect of a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia. How close do you believe we came to that?



Sergey Lavrov:

Well, I don't think that was very close. I believe it was a situation created by very reckless behavior of our Western colleagues who accused the Syrian Government and us as allies of the Syrian Government in applying chemical weapons against civilians without waiting for OPCW to inspect the place. Actually, at the moment when OPCW was physically ready to move from Lebanon to Syria, they executed these strikes. As the representatives of our military explained, the deconflicting channel has been engaged all the time.



Question:

So, to be clear about that, without using jargon, the US and ally forces gave you indications of how strikes would be carried out and you gave them some indication that you would not retaliate?



Sergey Lavrov:

I prefer not to get into the nitty-gritty of these military communitory channels. There is a channel existing between the Russian and the United States military, both between the capitals and on the ground in Syria, and I believe the military discussed and continue to discuss this and other things very professionally. They understand each other and they understand, maybe better than anyone else, the danger of this kind of adventure.



Question:

But Mr. Lavrov, this crisis is not over, is it?



Sergey Lavrov:

It depends on those who invented the crisis.



Question:

Well, it is quite clear from words used by your own diplomats. Your Ambassador to United States said there would be consequences for the strikes that we saw. Vladimir Putin called it an illegal act of aggression. So the world wants to know what Russia is going to do now.



Sergey Lavrov:

That is a statement of fact. Certainly there would be consequences. We lose basically the last remnants of trust to our Western friends who prefer to operate on the basis of very weird logic. Proof is in the punishment – they've punished first – like they did in Salisbury – then they wait for Scotland Yard to finalize the investigation. They punished first in Douma in Syria and then they wait for the inspectors of OPCW to visit the place and to inspect. Proof by the punishment is what is being applied by the Troika of Western countries.



Question:

I want to talk to you about the detail of the cases that you've mentioned – about the Douma and the Skripal cases. But before we get there I just want to continue the idea of diplomatic relationship today. Now, the US Ambassador to United Nations Nikki Haley said US forces remain "locked and loaded". When you hear that kind of language, how do you respond?



Sergey Lavrov:

Well, I think they have to put their own house together in Washington because we understand that this kind of statements could be made either by the Commander-in-Chief or by the military and, as I said, the military of the United States and of the Russian Federation maintain the deconflicting channel on Syria and this is some kind of confidential information.



Question:

You say there is no trust. You mean zero trust now between Russia and the United States?



Sergey Lavrov:

I said they are losing the last remnants of trust – which is not yet zero.



Question:

Not yet zero. I just wonder: as Foreign Minister of Russia when you wake up in the morning and you read on Twitter the words of the United States President and the Commander-in-Chief saying in essence: Get ready Russia; our nice, new, smart missiles are coming – what do you make of that?



Sergey Lavrov:

Well, I make of that that the President of the United States writes his tweet.



Question:

And your response to those tweets is?



Sergey Lavrov:

Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as you know. So, we waited for these smart new – what else was there? – nice missiles to be used at the attack and we calculated that two thirds of them did not reach their target because they were intercepted.



Question:

There is absolutely no evidence of that, isn't it?



Sergey Lavrov:

Well, the military of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, presented its assessment and it is available for the professional discussion.



Question:

We'll get back to the credibility of the information provided by all the sides of this crisis later, but for now, continuing with the diplomatic thread: Theresa May, British Prime Minister, and Emmanuel Macron, President of France, both made it very clear that the intervention we saw was all about degrading and deterring the Syrian Government's chemical weapons threat. It was not about an intervention into the Syrian war and it was certainly not about regime change in Damascus.



Sergey Lavrov:

So they said.



Question:

Do you accept it?



Sergey Lavrov:

We don't accept this. I mean you have hard talk, you know, we want hard facts. And "highly likely" is really ridiculous. And the policies of our Western friends…



Question:

Sorry, when you say "highly likely", you mean the assessment that chemical weapons were used in Douma by the Assad government forces?



Sergey Lavrov:

No, I said "highly likely" as a new invention of the British diplomacy to describe why they punish people – because these people are highly likely guilty, like in Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll - when he described a trial. And when they discovered that the jury could be engaged, then the King said "Let's ask the jury" and the Queen shouted "No jury! Sentence first – verdict afterwards." That's the logic of "highly likely".



Question:

Well, that's what you say. But let's get into the detail of what happened in Douma. But let us do it by first asking a very basic question. Russia opposes the use of chemical weapons and it believes people who use those weapons should be punished. Yes?



Sergey Lavrov:

Is it a question?



Question:

Do you agree with that?



Sergey Lavrov:

I thought you were much better informed about the Russian position to ask the obvious.



Question:

It's obvious? You agree? Because you've signed the relevant treaties, you are part of the international commitment to ban and eliminate the use of chemical weapons.



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, more than that – we did eliminate our chemical weapons in 2017 which was verified by the OPCW, which was welcomed by the entire OPCW Executive Committee and unfortunately the United States is still to deliver on its own obligations which they have been postponing again and again.



Question:

But if I have just stated the obvious and it is quite clear what the Russian commitment is, then surely you must want the perpetrators of that chemical weapons attack in Douma for which there is overwhelming evidence to be punished…



Sergey Lavrov:

Wait. You are jumping the facts again. There is no proof that on 7 th of April chemical weapons were used in Douma…



Question:

Emmanuel Macron and the French have made it quite clear that they have intercepts which show helicopter movements, Syrian Government helicopter movements over Douma. They have pictures of gas canisters found at the site of the attack. They also have the record of the Syrian Government over the last several years using the chemical weapons. If you put all of that together…



Sergey Lavrov:

I cannot be impolite with the heads of other states – and of course I cannot be impolite to the head of my state – but you quoted the leaders of France and UK and the United States and, frankly speaking, all the evidence which they quoted was based on the media reports and on social networks. The canisters – I saw this picture – a canister lying on a bed, and the bed is intact and the window glass is not broken… Look, you need to be a bit more serious. Can you explain to me why strike the day before OPCW is going to move there and to verify the fact which, they assert, was a fact?



Question:

The American representative of the OPCW, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, says there is a deep concern that Russia has tampered with the evidence sites in Douma. Can you guarantee Russia has not tampered with it?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, I can guarantee. It's absolutely the same as was the logic of Theresa May on Salisbury. When we asked dozens of questions, when we requested joint investigation, when we requested our presence at this samples-taking ceremony if you wish, she said no, we are not going to answer any question until Russia answers all our questions. The only question which was addressed to Russia – tell us how you did it. Was it ordered by Putin, the poisoning of this poor couple, or this was the result of you losing your control over chemical arsenals? I believe, for any intelligent person it's a situation which is absolutely odd…



Question:

But listen…Back to Douma and back to credibility. You have claimed that the event in Douma, first of all, did not happen. Then the message seemed to change and you said there was some sort of event but it was stage-managed and fabricated by what you called a Russophobic country…



Sergey Lavrov:

The event did not take place. What did take place was the staged thing. It did not involve any chemical weapons.



Question:

And you believe Britain was behind the staging of a mock chemical weapons attack in Douma?



Sergey Lavrov:

Well, the history knows some experience during previous decades… What we do believe and the special services, of course, can present information to their British colleagues…



Question:

You say there is irrefutable proof that it was faked, it was staged. You claim the White Helmet humanitarian first-responders were involved. Where is this irrefutable proof?



Sergey Lavrov:

Well, the irrefutable proof is in the visiting of the place…



Question:

No, no, where is you irrefutable proof that the White Helmets backed by the British Government have faked the whole thing? It's about credibility. Where is your credibility?



Sergey Lavrov:

What I did say was that the White Helmets are known to work only on the territories controlled by the opposition, including Jabhat an-Nusra, and that White Helmets are known to be ringing the bell one year ago in Khan Shaykhun which was a fake from the beginning to the end and the White Helmets are known to be financed, among other countries, by the United Kingdom.



Question:

But Foreign Minister, that doesn't represent an irrefutable proof…



Sergey Lavrov:

Wait a second, irrefutable proof of what?



Question:

You said you have irrefutable proof that a Russophobic country by which you meant Britain had worked with these White Helmets…



Sergey Lavrov:

Why did you say that I meant Britain? Don't put your words into my mouth. I did say "a country which is trying to lead the Russophobic campaign". Please, quote me correctly. Otherwise it would be not very journalistic, I would say. So, speaking of irrefutable facts. The Douma event was agreed to be investigated by OPCW inspectors. They moved to Lebanon, they were told by the Syrian Government that they would be immediately issued visas as they come to the border. Seven hours later the Douma and the Syrian territory was struck. What is the reason for going that way one day before the inspectors were about to arrive there?



Question:

If the French, British and the American governments are right and you are wrong, and President Assad continues to use chemical weapons just as he did in Ghouta where he killed up to a thousand people in 2013, just as he did in Khan Shaykhun last year, just as the US-led forces say he did in Douma – if they are right and you are wrong, will you agree that President Assad must be punished?



Sergey Lavrov:

Look, you don't hear me. You don't even listen to me. What I said that the aggressive action was taken less than 24 hours before the international inspectors, including, by the way, American citizens, as far as I understand, were to visit the place where the alleged chemical attack happened. The last year event in Khan Shaykhun happened on 4 th of April, next morning Rex Tillerson called me and said why don't you tell the Syrian Government they must allow inspectors to the airbase from which the plane allegedly carrying chemical bomb took off, and we told them next morning that the permission was granted. They said no, thank you, and they struck the next day. When we asked the OPCW to go there, they said it is not safe and that they don't need this in any case because the Brits and the French did have the samples. We asked the French and the Brits: Can you explain how you got the samples from the place which seems not to be very safe? Then you have contacts with the White Helmets who control the territory? And they said this is the secret information. We have much more facts to be clarified, and we have much more legitimate questions in response to the only one question which we hear from the Western leaders, from the Western media, the question being "why did you do this? Why did you use chemical weapons in Britain? Why do you cover Assad?" And so on and so forth. And then, on the basis of these assertions, you say: if you are not right, will you punish Assad? It is a very interesting…



Question:

If – you are Russia's chief diplomat – if Assad is deemed by the United States, Britain, France and other countries to be using chemical weapons again, if it's quite clear there will be a military response and it will be a bigger one than we have just seen, what will that lead to?



Sergey Lavrov:

Before you say "again" you have to prove that he did use the chemical weapons. Can I give you a brief history…



Question:

The world wants to know. If the US, to quote Nikki Haley again, "is locked and loaded" and if they deem – never mind what you think – if they deem Assad to again be using chemical weapons, it is clear they will come up with a military response bigger than the one we've just seen, what would the Russian response to that be?



Sergey Lavrov:

I'm not in the guessing business. What I know is that when some time ago the three Western countries, who are leading this crazy campaign, said: if Assad uses chemical weapons then we would use force. You know, I believe that was a signal to the bad guys, including "White helmets" to stage a provocation. Now after the strike on the 14th of April they say again: if you do this again we would use force again. This is another invitation to the opposition, to the extremists to resume fighting which they did already – they tried to attack Damascus immediately after the strike. But my point is that when people say Russia is responsible for the obligations of Assad under the Chemical weapons convention, it's a very outrageous statement. Everybody knows that we did it together with the United States.



Question:

My final question that on the diplomacy before we move on to other matters: The US is pushing for a new UN security resolution today which they believe is needed to send the international signal that Assad cannot be allowed to do this again. Will you work with the United States at the UN, will you end vetoing any single resolution the US and its allies are putting forward?



Sergey Lavrov:

Not every single resolution. If you mean that they want to resume an investigating mechanism which is not transparent, which is not independent and which takes you the decisions on a sentence itself without a verdict form the Security Council, then no – we cannot accept this.



Question:

You won't?



Sergey Lavrov:

The entire reason for this resolution is to make it look that if Russia and Syria agree to cooperate, which is impossible because of the substance, but what they want to do is to make it look that we and Syria were bombed into negotiations. That's why in that resolution they insist that Syrian government must start negotiating. They forget that the main opposition group which they all support, the so-called Riyadh group, Naser Hariri recently, the leader of this group stated that the United States must continue to use force not just in case of some chemical episodes, but against the Syrian government wherever and whenever the Syrian government opposes the opposition.



Question:

Quick fire questions for you. First of them, do you believe that President Assad has won in this endless Syrian conflict?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is not about winning. It is not about Assad or his opponents. It's about the Syrian people getting a break from this disastrous eight years.



Question:

And what is Russia's endgame? I see you're sending more military material and men into the Syria conflict. Is it your commitment now to back Assad all the way till he controls every single inch of Syrian territory?



Sergey Lavrov:

It's to protect the Syrian Arab Republic from aggression which was launched on the 14th of April and which the three countries say that they would continue.



Question:

Are you going to send this latest sophisticated S-300 anti-aircraft missile to President Assad in Syria? And if you are, the Israelis are going to be gravely concerned.



Sergey Lavrov:

President Putin addressed this issue. And he clearly reminded that few years ago at the request of our partners we decided not supply S-300 to Syria. Now that this outrageous act of aggression was undertaken by the US, France and UK, we might think how to make sure that the Syrian state is protected.



Question:

To be clear, you're saying that what has happened in the last few days makes you reconsider and feel positive about sending those very sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles to Syria.



Sergey Lavrov:

It makes us convinced that whatever is required to help the Syrian army to deter aggression, we will be ready to consider.



Question:

Five hundred thousand people at least killed in the seven years of Syria war. Twelve million people at least displaced. Five million of them at least now living outside Syria. Do you seriously think that President Assad can ever unify his country – heal the wounds, be the ruler of Syria in any meaningful sense?



Sergey Lavrov:

We never said this. What we did say – Resolution 2254: it is for the Syrians to decide the future of Syria, new constitution, elections, let the Syrians decide. And mind you that the ongoing effort to split Syria is very much against what people say formally and publicly. And when we speak about disastrous effect of some civil wars, don't forget what will shape Iraq is in, what shape Libya is in, and those who did it they now want to have Syria joining the club.



Question:

I want to briefly turn to the case of Sergei and Yulia Skripal who were poisoned in Salisbury in the South of England. In this interview you've told me that credibility is important, that trust is important. You are the Russian foreign minister. You claimed that the Skripal attack was mounted by British intelligence services who you, perhaps jokingly, I don't know, said are known for their "license to kill". Do you expect that claim to be taken seriously?



Sergey Lavrov:

When we were told that there is no other credible explanation, but to assume that it was Russia which "highly likely" poisoned Skripals – we said that there are other credible explanations.



Question:

But yours isn't credible.



Sergey Lavrov:

Why? Why do you think so?



Question:

Have you got one shred, shred of evidence to suggest British intelligence tried to kill Sergei Skripal?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is an old Roman criteria "who is to benefit". The UK is grossly benefiting from the provocations both in Syria and in the United Kingdom itself.



Question:

Hang on a minute.



Sergey Lavrov:

And Britain is back on the stage of world politics, though in a very negative and a very aggressive, and a very weird way.



Question:

There can be inconsistency in your position, if I may say so, foreign minister, in this interview you've been at pain to tell me that Russia is utterly committed to all the international commitments and conventions on chemical weapons, including supporting the work of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.



Sergey Lavrov:

Absolutely!



Question:

You know better than I that the OPCW has run tests in four different labs on the nerve agent used in Salisbury. All of them have concluded that that was a Novichok agent in a highly pure form as described by the British government.



Sergey Lavrov:

That's a problem. First, the A-234 agent in highly pure form in high concentration is already raising suspicions.



Question:

It came from Russia. In the former Soviet Union, you invented that.



Sergey Lavrov:

Stephen, you are not factual. You may be hard talking, but you are not listening. This chemical substance indeed was invented in the Soviet Union, then one the inventors fled to the United States and made the formula public. And if you want to check before raising the issue, please do so, the United States patented this formula; and it was formally taken by United States special services or the army, I don't remember. But A-234 is a very light, I mean, it seriously damages a person, kills him of her, but it evaporates very fast; and the sample taken two weeks after the event cannot, according to our scientists, contain very high concentration.



Question:

I guess it's all the question of credibility, and what you're telling me, it may be credible for Russia; it's certainly not credible around the world. See, you've had over a hundred diplomats expelled from over the twenty countries. It's clear where the consensus lies. Russia is seen as culpable.



Sergey Lavrov:

If you want to finish the issue of the substance, on Saturday we presented a paper which contains, literally, the conclusion of the Swiss laboratory in the city of Spiez, which was one of the four laboratories, which did say that there were traces of A-234 of very high concentration, but they also said that there was…



Question:

I will use: you trust the OPCW or you don't? It's quite simple. You seem as you're not saying you trust the OPCW.



Sergey Lavrov:

For a Brit, you have very bad manners. The Swiss laboratory report also said that, and in the first place, they found BZ, which was I think invented in the United States in 1955 and was among the equipment of the US and UK army. And we asked OPCW, whom we trust, whether this is true or not that in addition to A-234 there was also BZ discovered. And we are waiting a reply of OPCW, whom, of course, we trust, but we want to trust and verify.



Question:

We're almost out of time. I have to ask you about sanctions before we finish. The US Treasury Secretary is due to announce another raft of sanctions against Russian companies and individuals who are deemed to have contacts with the Syrian military. There are already over the past few weeks new sanctions from the United States on a whole bunch of different companies and individuals which have hit the Russian stock market very badly. Russia's being squeezed.



Sergey Lavrov:

Thank you for your sympathy, but don't worry, we will survive.



Question:

Stock market down ten percent. Rouble down against the dollar.



Sergey Lavrov:

You've seen the times which were very troubling in the past when George Soros undermined your stock market and dropped the pound sterling very lowly. It's not just these threats do punish those who keep contacts with the Syrian government; it's a threat which, as we see, to punish the entire Russian people for making the wrong choice during the elections. When they say that "we would never target the Russian men and women, we only target the oligarchs, the politicians, the military who disturb the world", they are lying because the desire, as I see, is to make thousands and dozens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Russians disturbed, those who have been employed…



Question:

But that is Russia's vulnerability.



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes.



Question:

You may have lots of nuclear weapons that President Putin boasts about. In fact, he says that those weapons are the most potent and powerful in the world today, but you have an economy which is weak and vulnerable.



Sergey Lavrov:

True, and we know this. But this economy has sustained quite a lot beginning from World War II. And I can assure you that the Government and the President are very much keen, you know, to make sure that the necessary reforms are taken through. And this was the essence of the first half of the Presidential message to the Parliament. And his second part when he informed his audience about the new weapons delivered in Russia. He ended by saying we always are ready to talk, provided the talk is respectful and based on the looking for balance of interests.



Question:

And my final thought. The Secretary General of the UN Antonio Guterres said the other day: the Cold War is back with a vengeance, but also with a difference, because now the safeguards that managed the risk of escalation are no longer present. That is a truly frightening thought. You've been foreign minister 13 years. Is this the most scary time that you have been through?



Sergey Lavrov:

One of the safeguards is having normal channels. The channels between us and UK have been closed by the British, with all agencies fighting against terrorism between the military dropped long ago by the initiative of London. NATO-Russia Council which was a very useful mechanism to promote confidence and transparency was closed for all practical purposes by NATO, who only wants to discuss Ukraine in that body. And the European Union closed all the avenues of cooperation with Russia except talking to us of Syria or some other things.



Question:

Do you feel you are in a new Cold War?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think it's worse.



Question:

Worse?



Sergey Lavrov:

Because during the Cold War there were channels of communication; and there was no obsession with Russophobia which looks like, you know, genocide by sanctions.



Question:

You think the situation today is worse than the Cold War?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, because of the lack of channels of communication except very few.



Question:

That makes it very dangerous.



Sergey Lavrov:

I hope not only you but other compatriots of yours including the Government recognize this.



Question:

And that's hard to imagine or remember time when Russia looked more like a pariah, looked more isolated. You have the World Cup coming in the summer which Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson in a rhetorical flourish said could be compared by some to Hitler's staging of the 1936 Olympics in Berlin.



Sergey Lavrov:

In 1938, the UK team was playing against Germany (in 1938 when 1936 was already past us). And if you go to Internet you will see a photo picture before the beginning of the game when both the German soccer players and the UK football players salute by the Hitler Nazi welcome.



Question:

What's your point?



Sergey Lavrov:

I'm not going to discuss Boris Johnson. We had a chat recently when he was in Moscow. Let him get fun.



Question:

Sergey Lavrov, we are out time, but thank you very much for having hard talk.



Sergey Lavrov:

Thank you, Stephen.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3172318

[Alex Him]

Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with President of Yemen Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi



15 April 2018 - 12:27



On April 14, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov had a meeting with President of the Republic of Yemen Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, prior to the opening of the 29th summit of the League of Arab States.

The main topic of the meeting, which was also attended by Yemeni Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Minister Abdulmalik Al-Mekhlafi, was the development of the military-political and humanitarian situation in Yemen with an emphasis on the need to urgently stop the military conflict there and adopt measures to ease the critical condition of the civilians.

The Russian side confirmed that the way to the reinstatement of peace and stability in Yemen is through a wide national dialogue with the participation of all leading political forces of Yemen.

When discussing the matters concerning Russia-Yemen affairs, participants at the meeting pointed out the importance of resuming in full traditionally mutually beneficial cooperation in various fields in the course of overcoming the four-year-long Yemeni crisis, including with the assistance of the UN.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3169614






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with President of Lebanon Michel Aoun



15 April 2018 - 12:32



On April 14, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov met with President of the Lebanese Republic Michel Aoun in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, prior to the opening of the 29th summit of the League of Arab States.

During the exchange of opinions on developments in Lebanon and in the Middle East in general, the Russian party emphasised its support for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the Lebanese Republic. It also expressed hope that the results of the upcoming parliamentary elections on May 6, 2018 would facilitate the further strengthening of stability in this multi-confessional country, in full accordance with the true interests of all its citizens.

Participants also discussed current issues relating to the further strengthening of the traditionally friendly ties between Russia and Lebanon, including the maintenance of active political dialogue.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3169624






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas



15 April 2018 - 12:37



On April 14, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov had a meeting with President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, prior to the opening of the 29th summit of the League of Arab States.

During a trust-based conversation, those taking part at the meeting focused on the prospects for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. Considering the dangerous escalation of tension in Palestinian territories, especially in the Gaza Strip, and against the backdrop of the unilateral US measures regarding Jerusalem and the continuation of Israeli settlement policy, the two parties expressed their common position in favour of the urgent arrangement of a sustainable political negotiation process based on the known international legal foundation.

Also discussed was an objective to recreate the Palestinian national unity on the political platform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which stipulates the creation of an independent Palestinian state in the borders of 1967 with the capital in East Jerusalem, which would live in peace and safety with their neighbours, including Israel.

Those at the meeting also touched upon some practical matters concerning the further development of traditionally friendly Russia-Palestine relations, including the maintenance of an active political dialogue and the improvement of economic and cultural ties.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3169634






Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s interview with TASS News Agency, April 15, 2018



15 April 2018 - 19:00




Question:

State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert claimed that Russia failed to live up to its 2013 commitments to assist in the elimination of chemical stockpiles in Syria. What is your comment?



Sergey Ryabkov:

The elimination process included close cooperation between the countries concerned, including the US, and went on under strict international control. At certain stages, Moscow and Washington were coordinating their moves in real time in the course of telephone conferences and continuous contact at various levels.

The US made a definite contribution to eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons by destroying the poisonous agent and the DF precursor on the Cape Ray, a specialised ship.

All of this was basically efficient and transparent, although we did have certain questions with regard to the DF formula, etc. Russia asked the US about the subsequent moves after the elimination of the precursor.

This is why I am unable to understand these endless, primitive and unfounded information plants concerning Russia’s alleged underperformance that come, among others, from quite high-ranking US officials. This is yet another example of planting false information, known today as “hashtag.” The second step is that everyone, all the US allies, start repeating it. This moves from one newspaper to another, from one blog to another and eventually turns into something that is taken for granted.

The United States is the only state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention that has failed to destroy its arsenals, while its stockpiles of chemical warfare agents are estimated to be in the thousands of tonnes. Instead of accusing Russia of what simply does not exist, nor is able to exist, or repeating shameless and insolent lies, the US should focus on destroying its own chemical arsenals.



Question:

US representatives have not ruled out repeated strikes in Syria. How will Russia respond to this? Is there information on new chemical provocations being prepared?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We have been spending some time on this, with our people in Washington and New York busy monitoring official US statements. For example, we listened to what the Pentagon was saying after the attacks and what other representatives said. They claimed to have delivered a crushing blow at Syria’s chemical weapons via this unlawful, illegal and aggressive missile attack, which runs counter to international law. They claimed to have caused “irreparable” or even “hyperphysical” damage.

First, how did they find those arsenals? Let me repeat, everything was destroyed under international control with the participation of the US. Second, if the arsenals had been preserved, where is the vaunted effectiveness of the US military and their strikes? Third, if, despite the lack of answers to the first, second and any other question, the US will go on saying that Russia has failed to complete its work there and that they will use force and deliver strikes again, where are the grounds for these strikes?

They tell us they used force on April 14 to deprive the Damascus Government of an opportunity to use poisonous agents in a combat environment. Now they say that the strikes can be continued. Now we will see what other explanations they will invent, if they do anything at all to justify new strikes.

There is a continuing and very alarming trend in US foreign policy where people in control of considerable military capability just don’t bother not only to come to terms with another party on something, but even to think on what grounds or for what reason they are taking their far-reaching decisions. Let me stress again, this is one of the most alarming and disquieting new developments in current international relations.



Question:

The US ambassador claimed that Washington had contacted Moscow before the Syria strikes to minimise the number of victims. Does Russia retain a measure of coordination with Western countries on Syria?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I don’t know what our US colleagues mean by “coordination.” Neither have I understood for years, where the thin line separating the interpretations of the word “cooperation” as proposed by different representatives in Washington is. For me, this is as incomprehensible as it was unclear how they differentiated between terrorist groups and the armed opposition, etc.

But I don’t want to start analysing these crafty and roguish semantics instead of the Americans. They are very good at it, although on serious issues they talk in increasingly primitive slogans.

There are functioning channels for communications and information exchanges that help us keep abreast of the developments, and, I hope, better understand each other’s intentions.

Yesterday we noted with what incredible speed our British colleagues refuted Moscow’s reports that Russia had been in contact with all members of the US-led coalition. Let me emphasise especially for our British colleagues that the Moscow reports did not specify the themes, the stories, the aspects and particularly the geographical location of these contacts. Therefore, I would like to call on those “lovers of precision,” who are so numerous in London, not to overdo their own interpretations of what Moscow says and does.



Question:

The Russian draft resolution denouncing the Syria attacks has been turned down in the UN Security Council. Has Russia received the draft resolution that the US, France and Britain intend to introduce?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We are studying these proposals. Of course, the Western trio’s course is clear: they want full and unquestioning political obedience from everyone else.

When a reasonable alternative is offered, they reject it; without batting an eyelash, these people start repeating all kinds of wild guesses or political insinuations or plunge into empty and senseless rhetoric. When they promote their own ideas, knowing in advance that they run counter to international law, disenable real progress towards settlement of the protracted bloody conflict in Syria, make it impossible to fully free that country from the terrorist threat and prevent the normalisation of the humanitarian situation, they start labeling everyone who does real, practical work in this area both within the Astana process format and in Sochi, who provides humanitarian aid and who is trying to establish the truth as to whether or not chemical weapons were used and if they were, who did it. All of this is rejected. They seek to impose another completely bankrupt political scheme aimed at a regime change in Damascus.

I think this has nothing to do with how the UN Security Council should operate. I mean the spirit of imperial domination, attempts to impose on the world their own models and solutions, while demagogically speculating about some civilisational issues, some right or wrong sides of history, as if they were talking on behalf of history itself.



Question:

If so, is Russia ready to work with the draft resolution proposed by these countries?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We will look at the Western trio’s proposals with a critical eye. We can’t rule out anything in advance, as far as we are concerned. If there are sensible elements, we will work on them. But regrettably, what was earlier called the culture of compromise and common denominator has been totally lost by the disdainful and arrogant approach that permeates virtually the entire behaviour of the US, British and French representatives at the UN Security Council and other venues.

It will be extremely difficult to reach a reasonable compromise or solution on this draft. I wouldn’t like to anticipate anything from the point of view of how this work will progress, but it should be understood that we have certain red lines of our own. The Western group must have some irrevocable red lines too.

In the past, it was possible, if episodically, to work out a path between these lines, a middle path of sorts, although it should be noted that this happened rather infrequently.

Today the political situation is extremely tense, the atmosphere is extremely charged, and so I will not venture any predictions. We will work calmly, methodically and professionally, using every chance to lead the situation from its current, extremely dangerous political nosedive.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3171400






Statement by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council regarding discrimination of national minorities in Latvia Vienna, April 12, 2018



16 April 2018 - 12:22




Mr Chairperson,

We again have to speak about the policy of the Latvian authorities to restrict tuition at the national minority schools in the country to the official language. Back in January 2018, the Latvian Government adopted amendments to legislation on the gradual transition to Latvian-only secondary education by the year 2021. The Latvian Parliament approved these amendments on March 22.

According to some observers, the Latvian authorities’ “blitzkrieg” in a socially and politically sensitive sphere such as education could foster ethnic tension in that multi-ethnic state. The move has been described in Latvia as “linguistic genocide,” and it is far from the strongest description. The Federal Union of European Nationalities, which unites over 90 member organisations in 33 European countries, has strongly protested against “such hard restriction of the right of Russian-speaking Latvians to use their native language and to have school education in their native language” and has appealed to the President of Latvia “not to proclaim the [latest] amendments to the Education Law and to the General Education Law.”

In effect, these amendments will destroy the entire system of education at national minority schools. The shortage of Latvian language teachers and textbooks, the absence of any expert analysis of the Latvian system of education and many other problems were discussed at the Latvian Parents’ Meeting held in Riga on March 31. The event was attended by parents, schoolchildren, teachers together with representatives of public organisations. The resolution that was adopted following the meeting has been forwarded to the European Parliament, the European Commission, the UN and the OSCE as well as to President of Latvia Raimonds Vejonis. That resolution has also been circulated at the OSCE and is available to those who would like to read it. The document points out that “these amendments, the only goal of which is the forceful assimilation of the Russian speaking residents of Latvia or the encouragement of emigration, run contrary to Articles 91 and 114 of the Latvian Constitution, decisions of the Constitutional Court and Latvia’s international commitments under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Discrimination in Education.”

The Latvian authorities are violating not only their international commitments but also their own national laws. For example, Article 91 of the Latvian Constitution says that “[A]ll human beings in Latvia shall be equal before the law and the courts. Human rights shall be realised without discrimination of any kind.” Article 114 says that “[P]ersons belonging to ethnic minorities have the right to preserve and develop their language and their ethnic and cultural identity.” Meanwhile, a forceful assimilation of Russian speakers has been underway in Latvia for over 25 years. As we see, this process has been accelerated now.

Regrettably, President Raimonds Vejonis has disregarded the opinion of a considerable part of the Latvian population. On April 2, one day after Western Easter day, he signed the amendments to the laws on education into law. This provoked mass protests, including a demonstration that rallied some 2,000 people in Riga on April 4. Riga Mayor Nils Usakovs said the Latvian President’s decision was “yet another big mistake” and confirmed the intention of the Social Democratic Party Harmony (Saskana) to file a complaint at the Constitutional Court.

Furthermore, the Latvian authorities continued their offensive against Russian language education. The Latvian State Language Centre has notified the schools in Riga about the upcoming Latvian language test for all teachers, which can lead to more persecution.

In other words, the legitimate interests and internationally accepted rights of over one third of the Latvian population have been trampled underfoot under the pretext of “integration” and “the strengthening of the state language.” We drew the attention of our EU colleagues to these discriminatory measures at the December 21, 2017 meeting of the Permanent Council. We still hope for a response from Brussels.

We also hope that the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights will provide an objective assessment of these actions by the Latvian authorities.

By the way, Russia is not alone in expressing serious concern over this. We have mentioned the open letter from Federal Union of European Nationalities, which has proposed formalising the EU commitment to respect the rights of national minorities, including in the sphere of culture and language. The other day, FUEN completed the collection of signatures in the EU countries for its Minority SafePack Initiative, which stipulates a package of practical measures. Over 1.2 million people have signed the petition. It is interesting that Latvia is one of the countries where the number of people that signed the petition exceeded the quota. This is proof that national minorities want the EU to protect their rights if the domestic authorities are unable to do this.

One more relevant example is a recent joint petition from German public figures and organisations to their deputies in the European Parliament. In it, they express concern over the amendments to the education laws approved by the Latvian Parliament and say that these amendments violate not just the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but also the main democratic principles that Latvia pledged to respect upon joining the EU. These public figures and organisations from Germany point out that native-born Russians in Latvia are being persecuted and express serious concern over the future of the European Union, because people in a member state are being deprived of their democratic rights and freedoms on ethnic grounds.

I hope that these words will get people not just in Riga but also in Brussels thinking about how to improve the situation.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3171573






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Libyan Government of National Accord Mohamed Taha Siala



16 April 2018 - 13:33



On April 15, Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov had a meeting with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Libyan Government of National Accord Mohamed Taha Siala in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, on the sidelines of the 29th Arab League Summit.

The officials exchanged opinions on the developments in Libya and prospects for the intra-Libyan settlement. The Russian party emphasised its commitment to Libya’s independence and territorial integrity, as well as the need to arrange a wide national dialogue with the participation of the main political forces and regions of the country. The sides reaffirmed their readiness to assist the successful promotion of the political process in Libya under the auspices of the UN as part of the implementation of the Action Plan developed by Ghassan Salame, the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative and Head of the UN Support Mission in Libya.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3171715






Press release on Director of the Foreign Ministry Department for Security Affairs and Disarmament Vitaly Yermakov’s meeting with the ASEAN countries’ ambassadors



16 April 2018 - 20:11



On April 16, Director of the Department for Security Affairs and Disarmament Vitaly Yermakov held a briefing for the ambassadors of the ASEAN countries to clarify Russia's position with regard Great Britain’s unfounded accusations of poisoning double agent Sergey Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury on March 4 , as well as in the context of the missile strike on Syria on April 14 in violation of the UN Charter, rules and principles of international law.

He provided a critical assessment of the provocative statements spread by London and Washington with the support of their allies at various international venues and in the media. It was confirmed that Russia was not and could not have been involved in the Salisbury incident in any way. The nerve agent codenamed Novichok under the Western nomenclature had never been produced in Russia.

Serious concern was expressed that six weeks after the incident we still don’t have any clarity about what really happened to the Russian citizen Yulia Skripal, her whereabouts, whether or not she is well, whether she needs any help, be it medical, consular, etc. Britain either ignores the Russian Embassy’s inquiries, or provides perfunctory answers. Russia obtains almost all information about Yulia Skripal from the media.

It was noted that such a situation is at odds with not only the norms of international law, but also the ethics of state-to-state relations.

It was noted that any military action against sovereign states under far-fetched pretexts without the sanction of the UN Security Council would be unacceptable.

Russia’s position was met with interest by the ASEAN ambassadors. The participants decided to continue contacts both on the "Skripal case" (including through the OPCW) and other important matters of arms control, non-proliferation and strategic stability in general.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3172290

[Alex Him]

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the election of Aslan Abashidze to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights



17 April 2018 - 15:04



On April 16, an election for members of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) was held during a Coordination and Management Meeting of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in New York. Russian Professor and Doctor of Law Aslan Abashidze has been re-elected to the CESCR, a UN expert body monitoring the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by the member states, for another four-year term.

The Russian Federation attaches much importance to CESCR activities and its efforts to encourage and protect economic, social and cultural rights, which receive undeservedly little attention from the international community.

The re-election of Aslan Abashidze is evidence of the international expert community’s recognition of his extensive skills and professionalism. We are convinced that Mr Abashidze will continue to make a great contribution to CESCR operations and that the Committee will largely benefit from his professionalism, experience in working at UN human rights agencies and extensive practice in international law and in human rights law.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3174388






Press release on a visit by ambassadors from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC) to the Republic of Tatarstan



17 April 2018 - 16:02



On April 13-14, a large group of ambassadors from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), accredited in Moscow, visited the Republic of Tatarstan at the invitation of the republic’s authorities and with active support from the Foreign Ministry of Russia, the Foreign Ministry’s Council of War and Labour Veterans, the Association of Russian Diplomats, and the National Committee for Promoting Economic Cooperation with Latin American Countries (NCPECLA, or CN CEPLA in Spanish).

Heads of Latin American diplomatic missions met with Head of the Republic of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov, members of the republic’s government, heads of the leading companies and universities and local business leaders, during which they discussed promising areas and projects for developing trade, economic and investment, and innovation cooperation. The diplomats had the opportunity to learn about the industrial, scientific and technical potential of the republic and its achievements in science and research, education, and culture. The delegation visited the Tatarstan Investment Development Agency (TIDA), the Regional Engineering Centre, Kazan Helicopter Plant, the Himgrad Technopolis, the new priority development city Innopolis, as well as Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University.

A visit to the Republic of Tatarstan has become one of the traditional visits to Russian regions organised by the Foreign Ministry for GRULAC ambassadors. They have visited the Kaluga, Kursk, Tula and Yaroslavl regions. This practice will continue.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3174553






Press release on the Russian interdepartmental delegation’s consultations in Ankara



17 April 2018 - 20:25



On April 17, Ankara hosted consultations of the Russian high-level interdepartmental delegation involving Russia's special presidential envoy on the Syrian settlement Alexander Lavrentyev and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin with adviser to Turkish President and presidential spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin, Turkish Foreign Ministry Deputy Undersecretary Sedat Onal, and representatives of several other Turkish departments.

The participants thoroughly examined the current situation in Syria, including Eastern Ghouta, Idlib Province and northern Syria, as well as tasks related to promoting the political settlement of the Syrian crisis based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3174916






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the UN Secretary-General’s report on conflict-related sexual violence



18 April 2018 - 21:01



On April 16, the UN Security Council, under Peru’s chairmanship, held an open meeting on preventing sexual violence in conflict through empowerment, gender equality and access to justice for women, which coincided with the annual report by the UN Secretary-General on conflict-related sexual violence. The Russian delegation was actively engaged in the discussion.

Russia traditionally supports the activity of the Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, strictly in lines with her duties, including strengthening national potential and the development of dialogue with religious and other traditional leaders to resolve the problems of stigmatisation of victims of sexual crimes and issues of rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the analysis of the report in question shows that there is a constant tendency towards a broader interpretation of the Special Representative’s mandate. Once again, we can see attempts to artificially connect the problem of sexual violence, involving an emphasis on human rights, with issues of maintaining international peace and security, including for the purpose of solving very specific political tasks.

We would like to point out that the UNSC must focus on situations of armed conflict and, specifically, those where sexual violence becomes a mass phenomenon. Other cases, which are not directly related to armed conflicts, constitute crimes regulated by national criminal law. They are within the jurisdiction of national governments rather than the UN.

With this in mind, attention is drawn to the double standards arising with respect to the fight against this crime. Russia approves of the fact that the report welcomes the UN Secretary-General’s zero tolerance policy towards sexual crime but believes it must not be applied differently to “us” and “them.” There is no room for double standards in this sensitive area. It is unacceptable to try to remove responsibility for acts of violence from national peacemaking forces operating under the UNSC mandate or NGO representatives working in countries. We all remember how Paris avoided hearing the incidents of sexual violence, including against children, by French troops during Operation Sangaris in the Central African Republic.

There are other instances of the use of double standards. For example, regarding the April 10 resolution on extending the UN Mission for Justice Support in Haiti, where there was an outright refusal by the US delegation to include the responsibility to report allegations of sexual violence against UN-accredited NGO representatives.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3185852






Press release on a regular round of Russia-Japan strategic dialogue at the level of first deputy foreign ministers



19 April 2018 - 18:28



On April 19, first deputy foreign ministers of Russia and Japan, Vladimir Titov and Takeo Akiba, held the 14th round of bilateral strategic dialogue. Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov also met with Takeo Akiba.

During the consultations, the first deputy foreign ministers discussed the prospects for developing Russian-Japanese relations in all areas in order to make effective preparations for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Russia scheduled for May this year.

On the international agenda, they placed emphasis on enhancing cooperation in resolving global and regional problems, including combating international terrorism, drug trafficking and other contemporary challenges and threats. The sides exchanged views on the situation around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for ensuring the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as on the prospects for a settlement in Ukraine. They reviewed the situation in the Asia-Pacific region, emphasising the importance of creating regional security architecture and addressing the nuclear problem of the Korean peninsula, as well as in the Middle East, including the developments in Syria.

The first deputy foreign ministers agreed to hold the next round of strategic dialogue in Japan before the end of 2018.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3178336






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the issuance of US entry visas



19 April 2018 - 20:33



We are bewildered by the ongoing attempts to justify the sharp decrease in the number of US visas issued to Russian citizens by citing “shortage of personnel” at consular missions, and to blame it on the Russian authorities at that. This is how the situation was presented once again by Laurence E. Tobey, Minister-Counselor for Consular Affairs at the US Embassy in Moscow, in his interview with the Nezavisimaya Gazeta on April 19.

The situation with US visas in Russia is extremely frustrating. The official wait time before a visa interview, which was extended by Washington in August 2017 to 85 days, has been recently stretched to 250 days, that is, eight months now. In other words, there is almost no point in applying for a visa.

Russia is not to blame here. When last year Russia demanded that the diplomatic presence be made equal, it was Washington that took a decision to cut the number of personnel in the visa department. In March, no consular workers were declared persona non grata when US diplomats were expelled in response to the mass expulsion of our colleagues. All the staff of the US Consulate General in St Petersburg, which ceased operation in response to the forced closure of the Russian Consulate General in Seattle, was transferred to Moscow. So there is nothing impeding visa services, provided there is the will, which the USA evidently lacks.

Washington’s visa blockade is absolutely deliberate, and intended as one more source of leverage. Russian citizens are being purposely targeted for Russia’s independent course of action on the global stage, disrupting visits en mass for business, cultural, academic purposes, or just to see family and friends. It looks as if the US authorities fear that Russian arrivals will open Americans’ eyes on the absurdity of the anti-Russia propaganda being imposed on them, and for that reason they deliberately limit contacts between people.

Air travel between our countries may even be stopped. Aeroflot, the only airline with regular flights between Russia and the United States, might be forced to cancel them since the crews are experiencing growing problems with getting US visas. And this happens, as the Nezavisimaya Gazeta rightly comments, despite the obligation to provide visas for aircraft crews well in advance under the 1994 Russian-US Air Transport Agreement.

As such, it is odd to hear US diplomats complain when the Russian Foreign Ministry reminds them of their obligations, including the requirement to issue visas to Aeroflot pilots. Or of the fact that the US authorities have to ensure access for all athletes, including Russian ones, to international competitions on US territory. The story of the national freestyle wrestling team invited for the world championships in Iowa on April 5-9 but was denied visas showed clear discrimination against our athletes. We hope it will make international athletic federations consider whether the USA can be trusted to host such tournaments.

Of course, it is regrettable that Washington prefers to cut ties between our people including by creating visa obstacles. No awkward attempts can veil or justify that vicious course of action. For our part, we are happy to welcome Americans coming to Russia. We expect that there will be more US citizens who will want to see our country with their own eyes since direct communication is the best way to ensure mutual understanding and trust.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3178399






Press release on the situation with the crew of the Nord vessel



19 April 2018 - 20:56



The Ukrainian authorities continue to harass the Russian crew of the Nord fishing vessel, which was detained illegally in the Sea of Azov over a month ago.

On April 19, passport control officers at Zhuliany Airport in Kiev once again stopped the fishermen, who are Russian citizens, while presenting their Russian passports for a flight to Minsk. Their documents were confiscated under a far-fetched pretext, and protocols on an administrative offence were compiled, even though two Nord crew members with Russian passports had flown to Russia via Minsk on the same day.

We are outraged by Kiev’s cynical and lawless actions towards common fishermen. Enforcement to accept Ukrainian citizenship and the inability to leave the country are gross infringements on human rights and run counter to the norms of civilised international relations.

We demand that the Ukrainian authorities stop harassing these Russian citizens and give them an opportunity to finally return home to their families. Our patience is not unlimited. We reserve the right to take strict response measures.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3178409






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the denial of US visas to Bolshoi Theatre artists



21 April 2018 - 11:28



Two days ago, we pointed out that the problem with US visas created by the US authorities is hindering the maintenance of business, cultural, sports and even family ties. The latest example is the denial of visas to Bolshoi Theatre artists, which has prevented Bolshoi prima ballerina Olga Smirnova and soloist ballet dancer Jacopo Tissi from performing in New York.

Nothing like this happened even during the Cold War. On the contrary, the arts, including ballet, always helped people to learn more about one another, promoted mutual understanding, melted the ice of mistrust and eased interstate tension. Guest performances by Russian artists, including from the Bolshoi Theatre, which is considered a Russian trademark, have always evoked a warm welcome from the US public.

But today influential US forces do not stop at anything to put more pressure on Russia. Exhibition exchanges have been curtailed over the past few years because of US actions, and now they seek to disrupt one more connection between our nations. Moreover, they want to erect a visa wall between Americans and Russians, as we have said, making Russians’ visits to the United States virtually impossible.

We deeply regret such a policy coming from Washington. The Americans will hardly be grateful to Washington for depriving them of the possibility to enjoy Russian cultural masterpieces as well as to get together with their friends.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3185200






Comment by the Information and Press Department on North Korea’s decision to suspend nuclear and missile tests



21 April 2018 - 14:28



We welcome the statement made by Chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea Kim Jong-un, which has been reinforced in the resolution of the Central Committee of the WPK issued on April 20, to suspend nuclear and missile tests as of April 21, 2018 and to close the nuclear test range. We see this decision as a big step towards easing tension on the Korean Peninsula and promoting the normalisation of the situation in Northeast Asia.

We urge the United States and South Korea to take appropriate reciprocal steps to scale down their military activities in the region as well as to reach mutually acceptable agreements with North Korea at the upcoming inter-Korean and US-North Korean summit meetings.

We note with satisfaction that the developments on the peninsula have taken a positive turn in the spirit of the roadmap on a Korean settlement that has been proposed by Russia and China. According to this roadmap, the initial stage of normalisation provides for a mutual freeze on military activities and the development of direct contacts between North Korea, the United States and South Korea, with subsequent multilateral talks held to find a comprehensive solution to all problems concerning the Korean Peninsula, including nuclear matters.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3185221

[Alex Him]

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 19, 2018 - PART I



19 April 2018 - 18:03








Crimea’s accession to Russia 235 years ago

Today it is 235 years since the accession of the Crimean Peninsula to Russia. On April 19, 1783 Empress Catherine the Great issued a Manifesto on Crimea’s accession to the Russian Empire and the formation of the Taurida region to be governed by Prince Grigory Potemkin who received the title of Potemkin of Taurida for his services.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Syria Staffan de Mistura

On April 20 2018, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Syria Staffan de Mistura.

The officials will discuss in detail the status of the Syrian settlement process and its prospects, in particular, in the context of the consequences of the aggressive action by the United States and the countries that supported its illegal measure against Damascus on April 14.



Meeting of the SCO Council of Foreign Ministers

On April 24, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the member-countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in Beijing.

In the context of the preparations for a regular meeting of the SCO Heads of State in Qingdao, China on June 9-10, the ministers will discuss the further development of SCO activities. They will also exchange views on urgent global and regional issues.

Mr Lavrov will hold a number of bilateral working meetings on the sidelines of the event.



German citizen’s letter to the Russian Foreign Ministry

I have just read a letter we received from Germany not via e-mail, but via traditional postal mail. I cannot help citing it, because this is not the only letter: we receive hundreds of similar ones from all over the world.

The header reads “Apologies.” Quote: “Mr Lavrov, I would like to apologise for the hostile behaviour of my German government as well as other European countries that have official relations with you and Russia. I consider this behaviour dishonest, false and cowardly. Please continue with your clear policy. I wish you success. I am 54 years old, and I am a real German, man and Catholic. Best regards.” The letter also contains personal regards.

This speaks volumes.



Developments in Syria

The act of open aggression on April 14, when the US together with Great Britain and France carried out a massive missile strike on Syria, was the central event in the country over the past week. I do not wish to repeat my assessment of this gross violation of the UN Charter and fundamental principles of international law in general, committed under an absolutely falsified pretext of alleged chemical weapons use by the Syrian government in Douma, as it has been given in statements by President of Russia Vladimir Putin as well as the Foreign Ministry many times.

In the early hours of April 17, Tuesday, media began reporting another attack on Syria: a missile strike at the Shayrat base, but soon Syria announced that it was a false alarm and there was no new attack.

However, the negative consequences on the ground were felt immediately. Our suggestion that the actions of the three western countries were aimed at giving radicals and extremists some time to recover and prolong the bloodshed in Syria, thus complicating the political settlement process, were confirmed.

The irreconcilable fighters remaining in Douma began to act and on April 18 attacked the UN Department of Safety and Security officials who were assessing the situation and developing plans to provide the OPCW experts with access to the place of the alleged chemical attack. It is no accident. The fighters and extremists are probably concerned about the OPCW experts and members gaining access to the spot.

The resisting fighters shelled the Syrian troops as well as the closest airfield from Grad multiple rocket launchers in Eastern Qalamun, where Dumayr city council announced the local illegal armed groups’ decision to give up their weapons and return “to the state.”

Hostilities between the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces and ISIS were recorded in Hasakah Province for the first time in several months.

Tensions remain on the western bank of the Euphrates, in Deir ez-Zor Province. Diversionary attacks by ISIS terrorists against Syrian troops located between the cities of Mayadin and Abu Kamal have been increasing in frequency.

However, there also are some positive trends. The situation in Eastern Ghouta remains stable in general, and peaceful life is being restored. For example, over 400 civilians returned to their homes in this area on Tuesday, April 17, alone.

The Jaysh al-Islam group has almost left Douma. Over 12,000 people – fighters and their families – have been relocated to the north of Syria since the beginning of April. Another illegal laboratory to produce toxic agents such as sulfur and nitrogen mustard gases as well as a weapons manufacturing factory were discovered in the Douma districts vacated by the terrorists. In total, 1.5 tonnes of explosive substances, 250 landmines and 25 kilogrammes of TNT were withdrawn from their storage facilities.

On April 17, the Jaysh al-Islam fighters began to surrender their weapons in Dumayr located northeast from Damascus. As expected, about 1,000 militants will leave the city for the north of Aleppo Province.



Russian Defence Ministry spokesperson’s remarks at the 58th Special Meeting of the OPCW Executive Council

On April 16, the Russian Defence Ministry spokesperson gave a speech at the 58th Special Meeting of the OPCW Executive Council.

Several days ago the notorious White Helmets organisation issued an official statement on the alleged chemical attack in Douma. A large number of fake materials were spread in social networks – photos and videos allegedly from the incident site. Indeed, the site can be identified. In many cases, the situation and circumstances of the developments in the distributed materials are all made-up. In his presentation, the Defence Ministry official gave a detailed account of the so-called “exclusive” report and clearly revealed not only obvious photo and video edits but also what seems to be laughable carelessness when those stories were cooked up, with children forced to pretend to be wounded, dead, poisoned with a deadly gas. Among other things, this is a concoction of hastily made materials, ignorance and incomprehension of what they are speaking about.

Video footage which appeared after reports of chemical attacks feature whole families that were allegedly killed. Footage was taken in flats on different floors of the same residential building. In one of the videos a boy in a striped sweater with a mark on his temple is lying in the corridor whereas in another clip the same boy is lying on a carpet in another room.

In the video, a girl in a red sweater lies under a striped blanket whereas in posted photos the same girl lies in the center of another room among numerous dead bodies of adults. This is a pure fake.

An appropriate question arises as to how the allegedly dead children could move around different rooms. Why such manipulations when the main goal of those videos was to confirm the fact of a chemical attack? Apparently, they were needed so as to promptly spread a huge amount of video evidence. What mattered was not reasonable but rather prompt actions so as to convince the viewers by playing on emotions, to distract attention from the large number of inconsistencies, it was the emotional colouring that was needed.

Similar manipulations using children were used by the White Helmets in staging an alleged chemical attack in Khan-Shaykhun. I remember an image of a small girl in different places and conditions which was used in a number of video clips – in one video the girl was depicted as dead, in others she was suddenly alive.

The alarming fact about this whole story is that the fake materials are immediately picked up and spun by prominent western media resources and media outlets such as The Guardian and Euronews which posted the videos where medical help is rendered to the victims of a chemical attack with bare hands while the people in the background keep on eating shawarma.

How do such staging decisions and ideas come to mind at all? This terrifying disinformation was followed by bombs falling on Damascus launched by those who are avidly looking for any, even most crude and ludicrous, signals for action.

What could be more awful than that? There is something, if you can believe it. Syrian government forces in the liberated territories of Eastern Ghouta found chlorine containers from Germany and smoke grenades from Salisbury, UK. I am sure everybody is now aware where Salisbury is. This fact is hard to comment on, it is so scary and it undermines your belief in the humanity of some states. Of course, we are not referring to states as a whole but to those politicians and leaders who give such orders and make such decisions.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that back in January 2013 the British newspaper the Daily Mail published an article disclosing information on the White House’s consent to stage a chemical attack in Syria by the United States and its allies to be subsequently blamed on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in order to step up international military activities in that country.

Russia and Syria stated a number of times that they have information on militants plotting provocations using chemical weapons, the discovery of underground workshops to manufacture chemical weapons of all kinds in the liberated areas of Eastern Ghouta. All this information was sent, is being sent and will be sent to the OPCW. Unfortunately, it remains unnoticed both by countries and western mainstream that are doing everything possible for it to be ignored.



Evidence that the “chemical attack” in Douma was faked

Next, about the so-called evidential base of the chemical attacks allegedly committed by the Government of Syria in the city of Douma and the fictitiousness of most of the evidence.

As you know, the West accused the Syrian authorities of using chemical weapons against civilians in Douma on April 7. As far as the evidence is concerned, it cited, above all, the media and social networks, where there is quite a lot of materials that cannot be interpreted other than as crimes by the Syrian leadership. It was precisely that “fake production” video, filmed by the White Helmets organisation, that prompted the decision to carry out missile strikes on the territory of a sovereign country and a UN member state – Syria.

But, as we always say and as it actually always happens, the truth gradually comes out. There emerges more and more proof that the chemical attack committed, as we were all told, by the Syrian Government, in the city of Douma never took place. While experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are only just beginning to work in that city, facts are coming to light, confirming that the so-called “chemical attack” in Douma was nothing more than a performance and a dangerous media provocation. Let me repeat that earlier the Russian Defence Ministry published video testimony by two Syrian medics. According to those Syrians, none of the patients admitted into their hospital had any symptoms of poisoning by toxic agents. Yesterday, Russian military correspondents Yevgeny Poddubny and Alexander Kots, visited the city of Douma, where they managed to find a Syrian boy, who was used in those fake videos.

“We were in the cellar,” Khasan Diab recalls. “My Mom told me that we have nothing to eat today, that we will only eat tomorrow. We heard shouts in the street. They were shouting to us to go to the hospital. We ran to the hospital. As soon as I entered, they grabbed me and began pouring water on me. And after that, they put us on beds next to other people.” That is a quote from that very report by Yevgeny Poddubny that he sent yesterday from Syria. Those were the boy’s words.

Khasan’s father was not at home at that time, he was out, working. “When I learnt that my child was in hospital, I got permission to leave work for a while and immediately ran there. There was no chemical weapon. I was smoking in the street and I felt nothing. I entered the hospital and saw my family. The militants gave them dates, biscuits and rice for taking part in that video and let them all go home. My child was fine,” Khasan’s father said.

Our journalists also managed to talk to medical staff of the hospital in the city of Douma. “Not a single patient with any symptoms of poisoning by any toxic agent was admitted to our hospital on April 7. True, people came, who began dousing themselves with water from this hose. But there were no corresponding symptoms. On that day, several buildings were destroyed and fires erupted. Many had breathing problems due to construction dust and smoke. They were brought here and we were helping them, when somebody ran in and shouted: “Chemical attack! Chemical attack!” And people started dousing themselves with water. Actually, there were no reasons for that,” a hospital employee said.

We believe that, with time, the whole truth behind that grim spectacle, that dangerous provocation, will become known to us. Much, of course, depends on the results of the OPCW mission and on you, journalists. Unfortunately, the decision to punish the Syrian authorities for the supposed use of chemical weapons has already been made and, moreover, it has already been carried out.

I would like to recall a 2016 situation when, in an interview with Minister Lavrov, CNN’s leading political commentator Christiane Amanpour produced a photo of a Syrian boy named Omran Daqneesh as she accused Syrian troops and the Russian Aerospace Forces of torturing Syrian children. Several months later Russian journalists found this boy again. You remember the picture of his almost lifeless body in a chair that perhaps the entire planet has seen. This child was tracked down by Russian journalists. His father said that what happened then was a horrible fake and appalling manipulation of the public. The boy was not caught up in attacks of the Russian Aerospace Forces or some Syrian government forces, but extremists and terrorists that were active in the district during that time.

But the situation repeats itself, the fakes continue. The very same Christiane Amanpour appears on CNN each week. You cannot imagine how many letters we have sent to that US television channel demanding an explanation or at least an apology from Ms Amanpour for using the interview with Minister Lavrov to manipulate the public by broadcasting this photo for the entire world to see. We never received a response.

The most cynical fact is that several days ago I received an invitation from Christiane Amanpour to appear on her show. No, Ms Amanpour, I don’t do shows. I am waiting for you to officially apologise and, being a journalist, a political commentator and therefore a person politicians cite, to find the courage to apologise for manipulating the public, as I said. It is strange that you have not received word of our letters, because we wrote a lot of them. In addition, the CNN news office in Moscow replied to us regularly. We would like to specify whether it was due to them or Ms Amanpour’s aides.

In order to be fair and honest, using the photo of Omran Daqneesh back in 2016, it would have been right to show the previous photo of another Syrian boy, Khasan Diab, that you have seen, for example, to former British Prime Minister David Cameron whom Christiane Amanpour interviewed yesterday (maybe even earlier, but it was on air yesterday) and ask him: “Mr Cameron, what do you have to say about the White Helmets’ manipulations, who use a Syrian child to stage a video that later motivates our countries, the US and Great Britain, to attack a sovereign state?” I would like to see the former prime minister’s reaction. I am sure he would have found something to say. These people always do.

And another thing. If anyone must be the main speaker at the UN Security Council, I believe it should by the Syrian boy Khasan Diab as well as his parents, who should tell the Security Council what the White Helmets are and how they cook up their fakes. I believe Khasan Diab’s family will know what to say and what questions to ask of the Security Council. By the way, I noticed that today his family stated they were ready to testify at any international organisations about what happened to them in Douma. What do you think, if the family were to decide to go to the US, especially to New York City, would they be able to obtain visas? Let us hope that this question will not be rhetorical in all senses.



Response of French experts to “evidence” provided by French authorities that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in Douma

Following up on the story of fabricated photographs and videos from the Syrian city of Douma, I would like to tell you about an interesting and, in our view, very relevant response to a report released by French intelligence services. I will quote the French media. In addition to us, French experts and journalists had reason to receive the report with skepticism.

Even some of the most influential media that normally remain loyal and toe the official line had to admit in their reports that the document was not based on samples taken for analysis at the sight of the alleged incident in Douma. Now and again, the so-called “evidence” is circumstantial or is based on material from social networks – we have just examined these materials – which cannot be verified. However, the truth that all of them are fabricated keeps coming out.

Speaking during a parliamentary debate on April 16, opposition members said that there was no conclusive evidence that the authorities had really used chemical weapons in Douma. Many of them directly said that the incident had the appearance of having been “staged” and wondered why the strikes on Syria had been carried out before the OPCW Mission completed its investigation, to say nothing about France’s participation in the operation. A legitimate question was asked about why the bombing of the Syrian stock of chemical weapons, say, chlorine, had had no impact whatsoever on the environment.

We have also asked these questions. Many are asking themselves the same kinds of questions. Now, members of the French political elite, among others, have started to ask these questions.

Why was no one poisoned? Could it have been just production facilities rather than chemical stockpiles that Syria did not have, after all?

This emotional debate was provoked by Frederic Pichon, a political scientist and expert on Syria, who is known for his reputation for being independent.

Comparing the French report and the OPCW report of March 23, he points out the following – I would like to repeat that these are not Russian or pro-Russian experts but a French expert. The OPCW report said that the analysis of the samples taken during inspections on November 22, 2017 at the research centres in Barzeh and Jamrai did not reveal any prohibited chemical substances. The inspections did not detect any activities violating the Chemical Weapons Convention. Frederic Pichon is confident that it is impossible to resume chemical weapons production within such a short space of time. Consequently, the bombing of Barzeh was a “real farce” staged by “three members of the UN Security Council who decided to carry out a strike no matter what, in order to save face.”

Also, the French report says that it was only in 2018 that Syria announced that it had divisions of the Syrian Research and Development Centre in Barzeh and Jamrai. This begs the question as to how OPCW experts were given access to them in November 2017.

This is only the beginning. There is every reason to believe that eventually, not only will the number of skeptics among experts and journalists increase but that we will be provided with facts that will refute the arguments that were allegedly adduced as evidence.



Developments in Libya

During the previous briefing, I was asked about the health of Commander of the Libyan National Army Khalifa Haftar as well as for an assessment of the possible impact on the political situation in the country.

We have monitored the situation carefully. During the past week, since the first reports about Khalifa Haftar’s “hospitalisation,” we have received mixed information about the commander’s health. However, the concerns about his “critical condition” voiced by some media were not confirmed. According to our contacts at official Libyan agencies in eastern Libya, including senior officers in the Libyan National Army, the rumours were exaggerated and the related “prognoses” did not come true.

Speaking about the general situation in Libya, it remains complicated, to put it mildly. Despite the efforts to launch a serious intra-Libyan dialogue with UN mediation, the political process has stalled. Resolving key issues on the current intra-Libyan agenda is still impossible. This complicates the implementation of the Libyan settlement action plan developed by Ghassan Salame, the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative and Head of the UN Support Mission in Libya, which envisages a nationwide conference to draft constitutional, legislative and institutional reforms as well as to prepare and organise presidential and parliamentary elections.

However, Moscow firmly believes that there is no alternative to the negotiation process. We reaffirm this position. The Libyan people must continue the dialogue in the spirit of openness and be ready to compromise. This approach is the only way to resolve the main task, which is to restore Libya’s unity, taking into account the interests of all political forces as well as tribal and regional groups, and create conditions for the further sustainable development of the country.

We hope that the Libyan people will be wise and find the strength to overcome the differences and come up with mutually acceptable solutions to all disputes in the framework of the Skhirat Political Agreement. In the end, it is Libyans who are most interested in turning the current “black” page of their history.

As for Russia, during the entire crisis in Libya we proactively supported the efforts to launch a broad intra-Libyan dialogue under the auspices of the UN to end the civil war in that country. We plan to continue helping Ghassan Salame, the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative and Head of the UN Support Mission in Libya, in his work to achieve the desired result together with our regional and international partners as well as all Libyan parties.



BZ nerve agent found in Skripals’ biomedical samples

An emergency meeting of the OPCW Executive Council was held at Britain’s request in the Hague on April 18. I would like to remind you that it was a closed meeting to discuss the classified report of OPCW experts who visited Britain to provide technical assistance in investigating the Salisbury incident. Nevertheless we would like to share our assessments to the extent that a classified report can be discussed. But the situation is so complex, the accusations are so serious and the claims made by some countries are so absurd that we deem it necessary to share with you all available information.

The Director-General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat said that the presence of BZ agent in the victims’ biomedical tests has nothing to do with the Skripal case. The chief of the head lab (Rejswijk, Netherlands) also said that a precursor of BZ was found in the samples, but that it had been deliberately added to the samples by OPCW experts to ascertain the competence of the lab, that is to say the materials pertaining to a case of world significance are sent to the lab whose competence needs to be confirmed by adding some other substances out of interest. This was said to be standard OPCW practice.

The Russian delegation challenged this approach. The Salisbury incident is exceptional and has a huge international profile. Questions on this case are asked upfront.

As you know, a month and a half ago a crime was perpetrated in Britain against two Russian citizens. Britain still denies Russia access to any materials or information concerning this case and the investigation. For reasons known only to the Brits they are putting forward an absurd claim that Russia has “used chemical weapons” on British territory. London continues to belabour what appears to be the only argument it has at its disposal, “highly likely,” which has already become legendary in Russia.

Be that as it may, the process has been launched and is under way. Samples have been tested and continue to be tested. This was done at certified OPCW labs which have a proven record. That is why any tests-related measures in the Skripals’ case, considering the odious character of the situation, look strange and continue to mislead everyone. The OPCW Technical Secretariat has also failed to explain on the basis of which OPCW documents it has chosen this approach.

In this connection, the list of Russian questions continues to grow.

Thus, the reports says that the labs were set only one task, and that was to check whether a nerve gas found by Britain was present in the biomedical tests. It called for a yes or no answer. The labs were not tasked with looking for other poisons.

Furthermore, the report says that Yulia Skripal’s blood tests revealed a toxic chemical in an unchanged form, strange as it may seem. And this two weeks after the poisoning. I would like to repeat so that there is no speculation: we proceed from the data available in the public domain. If we speak about Yulia Skripal’s blood test we have no confirmation that it is her blood test, that it is Yulia Skripal. I repeat, we only use the data that are in the public domain.

Let me note that even a lay person knows that any substances that get into the human body become immediately exposed to biochemical processes that lead to their decomposition (this is part of school curriculum). Why this did not happen in this particular case is a mystery.

In any case our experts will need time to study the report thoroughly to draw their own verified conclusions. Even so, it is already clear that considering the controversial nature of the whole range of questions, we need to have at our disposal all the available information without any omissions, and not just excerpts from the report, much less tweets that support them. We try to bring this message home to the OPCW Technical Secretariat and to the British side. We count on getting comprehensive answers to our questions and the actual materials.

I would like to stress once more that the Russian side is ready to cooperate actively with Great Britain in order to clarify this case which was confusing from the start and has now become still more confusing. We urge London not to be in a hurry to destroy evidence.



Political crimes committed by the UK

And now I am asking everyone to fasten their belts. During a briefing on the OPCW report held for the international diplomatic community on April 13, UK Ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow said that “the Russian state has a record in state-sponsored assassinations including in the UK.” It is not the first Russophobic statement made by a UK official, or, for that matter, not the first UK statement that is an offense to law, standards of decency or any morals. But it’s not the main point. Let’s put aside morals and the law and talk about something different. Maybe the UK Ambassador does not know his own country’s history, role and involvement in processes that took place in other countries over the past centuries. I don’t think Mr Bristow is to blame for absence of law in the UK. He probably just doesn’t know his country’s history. British Indian novelist Salman Rushdie wrote that the “trouble with the new Englishness is that their history happened overseas, so they don’t know what it means.” And so the island status that motivated Britain’s imperial story in the first place has helped them distance themselves from all aspects of that story. I think now is the time to fill this cognitive vacuum and tell the world something about Britain’s history and its international activities and their consequences. Let us talk about state contracts, assassinations and Britain’s reputation.

Let’s start with modern history. It is not a common subject, but Britain was one of the most ruthless metropolises in terms of the repressive actions it took in its colonies and dependent territories. On November 22, 2017, British journalist and writer Afua Hirsch wrote in The Guardian that “from the Norman conquest of Ireland in the 12th century, the English began imagining themselves as the new Romans, persuading themselves they were as duty-bound to civilise ‘backward’ tribes as they were destined to exploit their resources, land and labour.” The British see “Britain’s empire as a great moral achievement and its collapse as an act of casual generosity.”

This accepted view of Britain’s history completely overshadows some inconvenient facts. If the motive is what matters most of all, nobody wants to know the details. But today we will be speaking about details. The establishment of concentration camps in the Boer War that later inspired the Nazis’ death camps, the cultural annihilation of kingdoms and palaces from Ashanti to Beijing, British army massacres in Ireland and the devastation of Bengal, the industrial-scale exploitation of natural resources and the slave trade. These are only the most glaring facts.

The impact of colonial rule in India was extremely devastating. In 1930, American historian Will Durant published a book about the history and life in India, The Case for India. His study of India brought him to the following conclusion: “The more I read the more I was filled with astonishment and indignation at the apparently conscious and deliberate bleeding of India by England throughout a hundred and fifty years. I began to feel that I had come upon the greatest crime in all history.”

Britain has left fault lines across the globe, which is most acutely felt in the South Asian subcontinent, where a single nation was forcibly split into two in 1947. Today each of these parts is overcoming the consequences of the British colonial “legacy” on its own. Member of Parliament, former UN Under-Secretary General Shashi Tharoor, an astute statesman who once ran for UN Secretary-General and deservedly enjoys respect the world over has repeatedly stated that the British authorities suffer from “historical amnesia” as regards their imperial atrocities. One has to agree. Speaking at Oxford on July 22, 2015, he said: “India’s share of the world economy when Britain arrived on its shores was 23 per cent. By the time the British left it was down to below four per cent. Why? Simply because India had been governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain’s rise for 200 years was financed by its depredations in India.” According to Dr Tharoor, in fact, Britain’s industrial revolution was actually premised upon the de-industrialisation of India. Britain repeatedly provoked famine in India, which killed between 15 million and 29 million people. The best known famine was that in Bengal in 1943, when four million Indians died. You could think this to be just journalistic speculations. But no. Addressing Speaker’s Research Initiative on July 24, 2015, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stressed that the discourse by Dr Shashi Tharoor met the aspirations of his country’s citizens. I am saying this to you, Mr Bristow.

In his book Inglorious Empire released in 2017, Dr Tharoor cited the atrocities of the British Empire, stating that the former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, should be regarded as one of the cruellest dictators of the 20th century. This is what Churchill said in a conversation with Secretary of State for India and Burma Leopold Amery: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” This is not what we are saying, nor are these our inventions. It’s a fact.

The Russian artist Vasily Vereshchagin has a famous picture, “The Devil’s Wind.” This is not a symbolic comparison. The canvas shows a type of execution invented by the British to crush the 19th-century Sepoy Mutiny in India. A victim was tied to a gun with his back to the muzzle and blown to pieces by a gunshot. This was one of the most barbaric punishments in the history of civilisations aimed not so much at physical extermination or intimidation. Even without it, the British had so many infernal instruments of torture and execution that this option doesn’t seem so original and, honestly, was rather costly for the Brits. But from the religious and caste point of view this method of putting to death is absolutely unacceptable for Indians. Their bodies were blown to pieces and the dead were buried together regardless of caste, which is radically at variance with the Indian tradition.

Yet another episode of the same kind occurred in Amritsar, Punjab, on April 13, 1919, when 50 British troops under Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer fired their rifles without warning at pilgrims celebrating Baishakhi, the Punjabi harvest and New Year festival, at the centrally located Jallianwala Bagh public garden. The gathering was mostly made up of women and children. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that these British subjects were acting on direct orders of the British authorities. According to the British government, 379 people were killed and over 1,000 wounded. The Indian National Congress said 1,000 people were killed and 1,500 wounded. Regrettably, millions of Indians were to fall victim to the acts committed by the British authorities, including mass executions by a firing squad, during at least several decades after these sad events.

Africa has also suffered its share of British abuses. Some 13 million Africans have been removed from the continent as slaves. This has to do with Britain’s reputation and the UK Ambassador’s allegations regarding Russia. The number of Africans who died in that period is three or four times larger than the number of those who were removed from the continent. In other words, the overall number of victims runs into tens of millions of people. It is notable that English philosopher John Locke, who advanced the theory of civil society and whose works influenced those who wrote the US Constitution, was a major investor in Britain’s slave trade. It is a fact.

The British were among the first to invent concentration camps for civilians in the Boer War of 1899-1902. These camps were created for the civilians who were suspected of sympathising with the rebels or who could help them. The British torched their farms and fields and slaughtered their cattle. Women and children were separated from men. All this happened long before WWII. The men were taken to outlying regions or Britain’s other colonies, such as India or Ceylon.

When the world learned about this horrible invention of British military commander, Lord Kitchener, the British government published an official statement saying that the camps had been created to keep the peaceful population of the Boer Republics safe from harm’s way, and the camps were renamed “refugee camps.” This is remindful of the story of the White Helmets: take militants, extremists and terrorists, put white helmets on them with “Peace” written on these helmets, and then use them to stage provocations and present mobile phone footage of their crimes as evidence of the plight of the civilians who must be saved. Centuries have passed, yet nothing has changed. Prisoners are now called “guests of the Crown.” Overall, 200,000 people or half of the white Boer population was herded into the British camps, where about 30,000 of them died from disease and hunger.

There were British camps in Cyprus and in Palestine between the late 1930s and 1948, where Jewish refugees were sent and many of them were executed.

Another dark page from Britain’s history concerns the notorious Special Air Service (SAS) of the British Army, which have been used in over 30 local conflicts, mostly former British colonies, including Kenya and several South African countries.

In particular, about 50 former SAS servicemen were included in the Rhodesian regiment that was to play a key role in the coup staged during the transfer of power to the indigenous population of Rhodesia (renamed Zimbabwe).

Historians believe that Britain is the world’s leader when it comes to genocide, given the millions of innocent civilians that have been killed in British colonies.

According to different estimates, between 90 and 95 per cent of aborigines were exterminated during the colonisation of Australia. Indigenous Australians were not only killed but also used for experiments. The British deliberately infected them with various diseases, primarily pox.

The armed conflict between the British colonisers and the indigenous people of Tasmania known as the Black War all but exterminated Tasmanians in the early 19th century. Some British historians consider the war to have been a genocide. The British colonisers had official license to kill Tasmanians, with a bounty put on every person killed. That’s talking about an international reputation. They were poisoned, driven out into the dessert, where they died from hunger and thirst, they were hunted like wild animals. By 1835 about 200 of them survived. They were simply moved to neighbouring islands.

In the 1870s, on the orders of the British authorities, a genocide of Zulus was perpetrated in the Cape Colony and in 1954-1961 of the Kikuyu people in Kenya. In retaliation for the killing of 32 white settlers by the local rebels, the British authorities massacred 300,000 Kikuyus and sent 1.5 million to work camps. An account of these events is given in the book by Caroline Elkins titled The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya. The Western media are reluctant and embarrassed to talk about it, but the personal story of the former US President Barack Obama speaks volumes. We have read that his father was tortured by the British during the Kenya rebellion. Or is that story untrue?

Remembering the notorious Opium Wars would not come amiss. London was poisoning Chinese people with drugs for decades. Britain organised a supply of opium to China making fabulous profits. The operation also pursued the military-strategic aim of demoralising the Chinese army and people and depriving them of the will to resist. In a bid to save his country, the Chinese Emperor in 1839 launched a massive operation to confiscate and destroy opium stocks in Canton. London retaliated by unleashing the Opium Wars. China was defeated and had to sign a crippling peace with Britain.

“As long as China remains a nation of opium-smokers there is not the least reason to fear that she will become a military power of any importance, as the habit saps the energies and vitality of the nation.” This was how Richard Hurst, the British Consul in China, ended his speech to the Royal Opium Commission in 1895. It was not until 1905 that the Chinese authorities managed to adopt and start implementing a programme to gradually ban opium.

And now for instances from recent history, when London was already vocal in upholding human rights calling itself a bastion of democracy and freedom.

We have already described the suffering inflicted on India. This is not our question, this is common sense. Think of the suffering inflicted by the British authorities in the Middle East. One needs hardly go to any length to argue that Britain seeking to retain as much influence as possible in the region as it saw the colonial system crumble, made some moves which created a deep rift between the Arabs and the Jews. One need not go into historical details, it is enough to open the world map and look at the borders in the region as they were redrawn by the British after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Nobody thought about borders as something more than lines drawn with a ruler. But it concerned lives of whole nations. As a result, tribes, ethnic and religious communities and peoples were divided. The world is still reaping the fruit of that policy in the Middle East today. Yet Britain is still very active on this issue.

One more interesting fact. According to the British national archives declassified in 2014, the British authorities made wide use of chemical weapons to put down the Arab rebellion in Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) in the spring of 1920. Winston Churchill as Britain’s Secretary of State for War supported “the use of gas against uncivilised tribes.” According to archives, Churchill ordered the use of thousands of mustard gas shells against the rebels. The anti-British rebellion in Iraq claimed between 6,000 and 10,000 lives, according to various sources, a negligible number from London’s point of view compared to other regions.

The Greeks, too, got their share of British brutality. In the spring of 1944, Britain crushed a revolt in the Greek army in Egypt. Many historians believe that the suppression of that revolt paved the way to and was a prelude to the British invasion of Greece in December 1944 and the Civil War of 1946-1949. Of the 30,000 Greek officers and men in the Middle East between 20,000 and 22,000 were imprisoned in British camps in Eritrea, Egypt, Sudan and Libya.

In the late 1960s and 1970s the British authorities evicted 1,500 indigenous people from the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean. At the United Nations, the British diplomats passed off the indigenous Ilua people as “contract workers.” The reason was the US wish to set up a military base on one of the islands. It was that simple.

Moreover, the whole archipelago was declared to be a marine reserve. In 2009, Wikileaks reported that the British government had backed the project to make sure that the continued attempts of deported islanders to return to their home island would fail. Ironically, the American military base on Diego Garcia Island was called Camp Justice. Sounds great.

Here is another example from recent history. The secret service of the British Armed Forces intentionally falsified reports on military crimes committed between 2010 and 2013 so as to conceal information on killings of civilians in Afghanistan. Unarmed Afghan civilians, who were regarded as potential Taliban militants, were killed, not detained as per the reports, during raids on their homes.

Launched in 2014, the investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan committed in 2010-2013 was codenamed Operation Northmoor, with investigators establishing that the secret service in question had forged documents to shift the blame for killing unarmed civilians to the Afghan army. This is apropos international reputation, Mr British Ambassador. The investigators got hold of drone footage, the so-called Kill TV, which clearly shows that it was the British rather than their Afghan colleagues, who were firing at unarmed Afghans. According to The Times (July2, 2017), the UK Defence Ministry intended to conceal these war crimes from the media, because it believed that the publication of the investigation’s details could cause damage to national security, public confidence and collaboration with the allies. At the same time, the UK top army brass described the evidence of mass killings that had been discovered during the investigation as reliable, very serious and disastrous for the government. But no disaster ensued. The British authorities always have something to distract the attention of esteemed journalists.

On November 19, 2017, The Sunday Times published another story on SAS killings, specifically an admission by Major Chris Green, who testified to a SAS unit killing in cold blood three peaceful Afghans in the courtyard of their house at the village of Rahim, Nahr-e-Saraj, Helmand Province. The civilians had no connections with the Taliban.

Now to Iraq. According to information from open sources, 326 criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with British military abuses during the Iraq war in 2003-2011, with charges brought against 1,500 persons and the compensations paid to the injured parties adding up to ₤20 million. It could be said that these are just isolated occurrences unrelated to the official state strategy. After all, there is always an investigation following any wrongdoing. Well, there are investigations, of course, and people get punished. But the British government, which sanctions all these things, never suffers any punishment and, what is most important, all of this keeps happening again and again, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.

The media focused on an episode that happened in Basra in 2003, when the British military detained two Iraqis for an alleged killing of two British snipers. They were kept in prison without charge or trial for several years. They were charged with murder only in 2006. But Iraq’s Supreme Tribunal dropped the charges as unsubstantiated.

To minimise the number of lawsuits against the British military for crimes committed during military campaigns, the Tory annual conference in Birmingham held in October 2016 was presented with a government plan to grant British servicemen involved in conflicts abroad immunity from prosecution by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Now let’s move on to espionage operations and pinpoint sabotage and subversive acts. From time immemorial, representatives of Great Britain have been avid fans of various kinds of covert operations and targeted subversive acts against specific individuals as a way to secure political benefits for Great Britain. This predisposition is richly represented in their art, things like the James Bond gold collection. This may sound ridiculous unless you know that the author of the series, Ian Fleming, had searched through the archives, so Agent 007 in fact has real prototypes. This anthology of crime, artfully described by writer and part-time naval intelligence officer Fleming is a light version for those who are not interested in historiography, who see archive work as boring or believe that materials there may have various interpretations and require additional checks.

Indeed, the Bondiana is a very symptomatic example of the British government’s love of such things. Fleming died in 1964, but what he described lives and thrives. New James Bond episodes are regularly released, as everyone is used to the superhero. Times change, the actors and sets change, but the idea remains unchanged – a British agent, in the service of the Kingdom, gets nothing less than ‘license to kill.’ Once again I repeat, this is not a fictional invention, but a result of work with archival materials. What we see in the Bondiana is actually taking place under the cover of MI5 and MI6.

Thanks to the films, people have a basic understanding of the license to kill concept – a term denoting the permission granted by the official government or a state agency to a secret agent who serves this authority to independently make a decision on the necessity and expediency of murder to achieve a certain goal. Once the mission is completed, the agent always returns to the base. We have seen that as well.

It is a pity that in normal life, to which we will now return, things are not so beautiful and dignified. Fleming did something brilliant: he took facts and packaged them beautifully. What we see is a very beautiful picture.

And now getting back to reality. The following historical episodes are not fiction, they are facts. Some of them are proven whereas others are highly likely hypotheses put forward by historians. But the key is that while as far back as a month and a half ago we did not use materials which are just hypotheses in official statements, with a helping hand from Theresa May who introduced the “highly likely” phrase to level an accusation of a most grave crime, why should we deny it to ourselves?

Scotland Yard historians also maintained the British authorities’ complicity in the murder of Grigory Rasputin. Michael Smith, a historian of the British intelligence, writes in his book SIX: A History of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service that at the height of World War I in 1916, the resident agent of the British intelligence in Petrograd heard rumours that Grigory Rasputin was trying to conclude a separate peace treaty with Germany through the Tsarina. This fact worried the British a great deal. Captain Oswald Raymer of MI6 was dispatched to Petrograd to get information about the talks from Rasputin and eliminate him, if necessary. According to Michael Smith, the third, security shot in Rasputin’s head (the “official” murderers’ testimony does not say anything about that) came from a 455 Webley, a British revolver, whereas the plotters’ memoirs indicate that Yusupov fired a pocket-size Browning and Purishkevich – a Savage pistol. The following is a striking admission from the declassified correspondence of British intelligence agents. A friend of Oswald Rayner’s wrote a letter to a British intelligence officer, John Scale, on December 24, 1916: “Although matters have not proceeded entirely to plan, our objective has been achieved … Rayner is attending to loose ends and will certainly contact you.” A number of historians are convinced that the message refers to Rasputin’s murder. In 2004, the BBC aired its documentary “Who Killed Rasputin?” According to British journalists, the “glory” and the plot of the murder belong to Great Britain, whereas the Russian conspirators were just the actors or the instruments.

By the way, there are similar versions regarding the murder of Russian Emperor Paul I, but I think this is a question to be addressed to historians.

Historians also write about the so-called Lockhart Conspiracy organised in 1918 by the heads of the diplomatic missions of Britain, France and the USA to Soviet Russia in order to overthrow the Bolsheviks. The conspiracy involved the chief of the British special mission, Robert Lockhart, French Ambassador Joseph Noulens, and US Ambassador David Francis.

Robert Lockhart tried to bribe the Latvian Riflemen who were guarding the Kremlin. You know the rest of the story. The Latvians were supposed to be sent to Vologda to join the British troops who would be landed in Arkhangelsk, so as to assist them in their advance. This is just a brief summary. You can read more on that.

In 2013, information was made public indicating that the MI6 intelligence service was the mastermind of the assassination (now we are moving to another continent) of Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected prime minister the Congo.

A Labour member of the House of Lords said that Baroness Daphne Park of Monmouth had confessed to him a few months prior to her death in March 2010 that she had been behind the 1961 assassination of Patrice Lumumba, because she feared that the new democracy would forge an alliance with the Soviet Union.

In a letter to the London Review of Books, Lord Lea reported that Daphne Park made her confession as they were having a cup of tea. From 1959 to 1961, she was the consul and first secretary in Leopoldville, the capital of the Belgian Congo, which was renamed Kinshasa after the country gained independence. Lord Lea writes, “I mentioned the uproar surrounding Lumumba’s abduction and murder, and recalled the theory that MI6 might have had something to do with it. ‘We did,’ she replied, ‘I organised it.’”

As time went by, official London and its diplomatic missions continued to actively meddle in the domestic affairs of other states and to influence their political regimes. Suffice it to recall 20th century events when British secret services “took part” in staging a coup d’état in Iran in 1953. Since the early 20th century, British capital controlled the Iranian oil industry via a concession agreement that appropriated most of the country’s oil revenues. This situation provoked social and political tensions in Iran, which became more pronounced by the late 1940s and early 1950s. In 1951, Mohammad Mossadegh was appointed Prime Minister of Iran and started implementing an independent foreign and domestic policy. His policies were mostly aimed at eliminating foreign monopolies operating in the country on highly unprofitable terms to the detriment of Iranian interests. A movement for the nationalisation of Iranian oilfields became the main symbol of Mossadegh’s independent policy. At that time, oil export revenues were allotted disproportionately in favour of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now called British Petroleum, with British government acting as its main shareholder. With the support of the Majlis (Parliament), Mossadegh passed a law on the nationalisation of the Iranian oil industry. This hit British interests hard. After that, official London launched subversive operations against the Iranian government, imposed an international embargo on Iranian petroleum products and thus caused a major economic crisis in Iran.

British diplomats working in Moscow are probably listening and recording all this. They will have to send their report to London today. I have done my best, and this statement is 17 pages long. I have one question: Are you proud of your history? Then you need to make a choice: either you advocate human rights, international law and democracy, or you are proud of what you did in the past and continue to do today.

In August 1953, the CIA and the British Secret Intelligence Service staged their joint Operation Ajax to overthrow the government of Mossadegh. A new Iranian government signed another agreement on establishing a consortium of US and British companies that obtained part of Iranian oil revenues and the right to develop oilfields in that country.

Although we were members of the Anti-Hitler Coalition, the UK’s behaviour during World War II can also hardly be called equivocal, due to a number of factors. Some historical episodes give rise to major questions about the essence of the UK’s policies on the international scene. This includes, for example, Rudolf Hess’ mysterious flight to the UK on the eve of the German invasion of the Soviet Union. The history of every country has some unpleasant facts, for which future generations will have to pay the price and assume moral responsibility. But the British secret services have classified all the documents on this case for 100 years, and this deadline is being extended. During the Nuremberg Tribunal, Hess tried to lift the veil of secrecy surrounding his visit, but the British prosecutor, presiding over the court, promptly stopped the hearings. During the break, representatives of British secret services visited Hess, and he later started feigning amnesia. Under the court ruling, Hess was transferred to Spandau Prison to serve a life sentence but he died there under mysterious circumstances in August 1987, pending his possible release three months later. All relevant documents were classified. The situation remains unclear. Certain facts exist but the full circumstances remain classified.

Volume Five of Essays on the History of Russian Foreign Intelligence mentions another extremely curious episode of World War II. A joint British-US plan for a military attack against the Soviet Union was declassified in October 1998 and the relevant files of the UK’s National Archives were published. In all, ten German divisions, as well as 47 US and British divisions, were to have attacked the unsuspecting forces of the Soviet Union, then an ally of Washington and London. Intelligence officers received information about Allied military preparations, launched after the surrender of Germany. The plan’s codename, Operation Unthinkable, truly reflected its ambitious concept, which involved forcing Soviet Russia to submit to the will of the United States and the British Empire. But, after analysing the balance of forces and equipment, the new Allies decided that it would prove impossible to achieve a rapid limited success, and that they would be dragged into a protracted war against superior forces.

Another example of subversive operations can be found in Kim Philby’s book “My Silent War”, which contains some interesting evidence. In April 1951, London hosted a meeting of representatives of the British and US intelligence services regarding both countries’ use of Ukrainian nationalist organisations. Again, everything ties up. By that time, the secret services had supported Stepan Bandera’s Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) for many years and used them to recruit agents and obtain intelligence on the USSR. Cooperation between OUN and the Intelligence Service grew steadily. In 1949 and 1950, several OUN saboteur squads were para-dropped to Ukraine. In the early hours of May 15, 1951, British secret services para-dropped three reconnaissance-saboteur squads. Everyone knows about the atrocities committed by Bandera’s supporters, including mass executions of civilians, hundreds of thousands of men and women, old people and children, Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Jews, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and Yugoslavs, the Volhynia massacre, the murder of Polish professors, the Khatyn tragedy, punitive operations in Slovakia, Warsaw and Prague.

The British authorities actively recruited professional criminals during their subversive operations. Remember, they told us that Russia is a criminal state with which there should be no cooperation? But the British authorities cooperate nicely with criminals. We are not even talking about White Helmets and people recruited into this organisation who are supported all the same. Let’s talk about “mundane” things. In 1973, Her Majesty’s Government officially admitted that Kenneth Littlejohn and his brother Keith had robbed banks in the Republic of Ireland for over 12 months in order to discredit the Official Irish Republican Army (IRA). This amounts to classic tactics. Kenneth Littlejohn claims that he was instructed to kill Sean Mac Stíofáin, the former chief of staff of the IRA.

And here is another example: Howard Marx, an Oxford graduate who became a drug dealer, was recruited for the purpose of obtaining information about the IRA’s weapons supply chain. In return, the authorities promised not to prosecute him for drug-related crimes. These are isolated examples.

By the way, the British government is known to have created comfortable conditions in the UK for criminals from other countries. According to the UK Home Office’s information for a period between 2005 and 2012, there were over 700 war crime perpetrators living in Britain.

The British authorities also like to use prohibited methods for treating prisoners, especially when they need to get information from them. And, of course, nobody has called off the licence to kill.

A recent case in point is the story of Libyan field commander Abdelhakim Belhaj, who was arrested by US special services, after a tip-off from the British, in 2004. After his release in 2009, Belhaj accused London of organising his abduction and of taking part in his interrogation and torture. He has been fighting for a formal apology from the British government since 2011. He has brought the case against former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and several MI6 officers, including former Director of Counter-Terrorism Mark Allen, whose correspondence with members of Libya’s special services was made public after Muammar Gaddafi’s overthrow. We also remember how Gaddafi was removed and that London applauded the execution of the head of a sovereign state.

In December 2013, the High Court of England and Wales concluded that Belhaj’s claims cannot be settled in the UK. In July 2016, the Attorney General’s Office confirmed its decision to release the MI6 officers involved in the case.

On January 17, 2016, the UK Supreme Court ruled that “claims that the rendition and torture of Abdelhakim Belhaj breached rights enshrined in the Magna Carta should be put before an English court.”

It was reported in February 2018 that the next hearing of this case would not be held sooner than 2019. While history is history, claims have been lodged and are being investigated. And the latest news: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office insists that the hearings be held behind closed doors for national security interests, which is another classical pretext.

In 2015, a non-fiction book titled The Third Bullet: The Political Background of the Assassination of Zoran Dindic (Djindjic) was published in Serbia. The authors blame the murder of the Serbian prime minister in 2003 on the British intelligence. They claim that the MI6 agent in Serbia, Anthony Monckton, who was connected with the alleged killers, the Zemun criminal clan, was also involved in this crime.

God knows in how many other such cases the UK government is involved. On March 21, 1985, a Soviet engineer working at the Indian nuclear power plant, Valentin Khitrichenko, was assassinated in New Delhi by members of an Afghan terrorist group. What makes us think that the UK special services were involved if Khitrichenko was killed by Afghan terrorists? Those who maintained contact with that group knew about the planned terrorist attack but did nothing to prevent it.

In conclusion, I will provide the “deadly list” of the prominent and talented people who died a strange death in the UK in the early 21st century.

November 2001: Vladimir Pasechnik, a Soviet microbiologist and former head of the Institute of Highly Pure Biochemical Preparations in Leningrad, dies in Salisbury, allegedly of a stroke. Pasechnik worked at a secret military chemical laboratory at Porton Down. You know about that laboratory at Porton Down. Well, he worked there. While on a trip to France in 1989, he asked for political asylum in the UK and subsequently told the British intelligence service about the alleged biological weapons programme in the Soviet Union.

July 2003: a UK authority on biological warfare David Kelly was found dead in Oxfordshire. The inquiry concluded that he had committed suicide. I would like to remind you that David Kelly criticised the Tony Blair government and claimed that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was based on falsified data. A decade later, the UK government admitted that the data was indeed falsified.

2003: Lawyer Stephen Moss died of a sudden heart attack. He was hired by Boris Berezovsky and his partner Badri Patarkatsishvili to sell the assets of their Devonia investment company.

2004: Dr Paul Norman, who succeeded David Kelly at the Porton Down laboratory, died in an air crash in Devon. He was a leading chemical and biological weapons expert in the UK.

March 2004: Lawyer Stephen Curtis died in a helicopter crash near Bournemouth Airport. The UK media allege that he feared for his life. Several weeks before his death, he allegedly told his friend, “If anything happens to me in the next few weeks, it will not be an accident.” According to the media, Curtis was the managing director of Menatep Group and a lawyer of Boris Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov. He was also an independent witness at the hearing of their lawsuit against Forbes in the UK Supreme Court.

Some deaths I will not even mention. Let’s just list the major cases. In November 2006, former officer of the Russian Federal Security Service, Alexander Litvinenko, died in London. I will not go into details, everything is top secret. In January 2007, one of Yukos founders, Yury Golubev, died in London. In February 2008, Badri Patarkatsishvili died of a heart attack in his mansion in Leatherhead, Surrey. In August 2010, former employee of the Government Communications Headquarters (electronic intelligence) Gareth Williams died under suspicious circumstances. He was found dead in a sports bag zipped from the outside. Investigators concluded that his death was an accident (allegedly, he got into the bag himself, zipped it and could not get out). Why are you laughing? This is not funny. This is the official data from the British investigation report.

In April 2012, Richard Holmes, who had worked at a secret military chemical lab in Porton Down, died in Salisbury. The investigation determined that one month before his death, Holmes quit his job for unknown reasons. Forensics found that he died of a stroke. However, his colleagues claimed the scientist had been in great physical shape and had no health problems. Perhaps it has something to do with Porton Down. Maybe it is the toxic environment.

In November 2012, Russian financier Alexander Perepilichny died in Weybridge, Surrey. This case is also very mysterious. In December 2012, millionaire and real estate tycoon Robert Curtis died in London. According to the investigation, he jumped in front of a train. In March 2013, Boris Berezovsky died in Ascot. There is nothing to comment on here. Nobody has established what exactly happened there to this day. In December 2014, a close friend of Berezovsky, businessman Scot Young, died in London after he fell out of the fourth floor window. It does happen that people sometimes fall out of the fourth floor windows but it was not the only such death at the time.

In 2016, prominent British scientist and radioactive substance expert Matthew Puncher died in Oxfordshire. He had been a key expert on the Alexander Litvinenko death probe. His death was ruled suicide. Law enforcement agencies promptly closed the case.

I want to say that this smear campaign that the British government is waging against Russia is Britain’s stock in trade. This is talking about the reputation at the international scene. And boy, they are constantly talking about our reputation! I gave you a short list. There are volumes written about what the British government and those who report to it have been doing around the world over centuries, including the 20th and the 21st century. This is nothing new for the people who are aware of this. But the point is that many people are not aware.

Spanish historian Julian Juderias described the British establishment’s habit of badmouthing its competitors since the 16th century very well. He gave a definition to this act by the British government (“Black Legend” is a special term used to mean smear campaign by Britain): “The environment created by the fantastic stories about our homeland that have seen the light of publicity in all countries, the grotesque descriptions that have always been made of the character of Spaniards as individuals and collectively, the denial or at least the systematic ignorance of all that is favourable and beautiful in the various manifestations of culture and art, the accusations that in every era have been flung against Spain” “which are based on depictions of events that are exaggerated, misinterpreted or indeed entirely false, and finally the claim found in books that at first sight seem respectable and truthful, which is repeatedly reproduced, commentated upon and magnified in the foreign press, that our fatherland should be seen as a lamentable exception among the group of European nations.” Once again, this was written by a Spanish historian about the purpose of Black Legend.

But enough of poetry, let’s move on to facts. Speaking about the motives suggested by London in the Skripal case and considering the long-standing policy conducted against us by British Ambassador in Russia Laurie Bristow, it is highly likely that the provocation against the Russian nationals in Salisbury was to the advantage of and perhaps even organised by the British secret services to compromise Russia and its political leadership. Historically, Britain has practiced this on a regular basis. This measure fits in with the general anti-Russian course of the conservative government seeking to demonise our country.

The UK’s national security strategy and Prime Minister Theresa May’s banquet speech late last year indicate the same.

The outright refusal to cooperate with Russia in the Salisbury poisoning investigation, London’s violation of its obligations under the Consular Convention, avoidance of cooperation with the OPCW and concealing source documents essential for an objective investigation are quite illustrative of this.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3178301

[Alex Him]

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 19, 2018 - PART II



19 April 2018 - 18:03




A statement by UK Ambassador to the UN Karen Pierce

British officials are constantly quoting from literary classics when they talk to us. During the UN Security Council meeting on April 19, UK Ambassador to the UN Karen Pierce mentioned the literary knowledge of Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzya, noting that she had already decided on a Christmas gift for him saying that she would buy the Russian ambassador a subscription to the English Literature Club when Christmas comes.

Of course, we are thankful to Ms Pierce for this interesting idea and, I think, Mr Nebenzya, too, will find the right words when he speaks at the UN Security Council next time. As you may be aware, we never leave a favour unanswered. Why wait another eight months for the New Year or Christmas to arrive? We can see what difficulties the British government is running into when it comes to history based on a statement made by British Ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow.

Recently we signed an agreement on cooperation with the Russian Military History Society. In this regard, we can put in a word for Ms Pierce and the entire British government to have them accepted as honourary members of the Russian Military History Society. This status will not only provide them access to the society’s vast archives, but also allow them to take part in developing key areas of scientific research in the field of history. That’ll give us a chance to at least work together.



Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung publishes articles by former prominent German politicians in its April 12 edition

Amid the bullying campaign started by London in connection with the Skripal case in Salisbury, which was supported by the West, and continued in the context of the US-led coalition strikes on Syria, one would assume that isolated common sense voices will drown in the choir excoriating Russia, but, fortunately, this is not the case. A publication carried in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on April 12 of a collective appeal by former German politicians is a case in point. Ex-Minister President of Bavaria Edmund Stoiber, former Chairman of the Munich Security Conference and foreign policy adviser to German Chancellor Horst Teltschik, as well as other prominent political figures of the country rightly note the purposeful erasure in the mass consciousness in the West of the historical memory of the two world wars and the confrontation incited against this background. Notably, the representatives of this clear-headed part of the German political establishment hold the German authorities largely accountable for inculcating fear of an imaginary Russian threat in Europe. The authors note the strategic dimension of Russian-German relations and propose resuming the discussion on building a “common pan-European home” and returning to the Russian President’s proposals on long-term and comprehensive cooperation which he mentioned in his speech in the Bundestag in 2001.

We would like to hope that the official circles are receptive of this article.



US Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman’s answers to social media users

We learnt with interest of US Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman’s answers to questions from social media users. We are happy that Mr Ambassador calls for the normalisation of bilateral dialogue. However, we were surprised at his premise that to have a better relationship between our two countries Russia must “become a more responsible partner” in solving problems standing in the way of their improvement.

In fact, Russia has always been extremely responsible towards its relationship with the US. Unfortunately, this does not apply to our US partners. Attempts to pressure us with sanctions and military potential, constant media publications propagating the official narrative, obvious slander, calling our country the biggest threat in the US National Security Strategy and even fixing the status of “adversary” in last year’s sanction bill – all that does not look like a commitment to constructive dialogue and a responsible approach to global stability. It rather shows Washington’s desire to hamper Russia’s development in every possible way and to assert US dominance in the global arena.

The Ambassador’s statement invites obvious questions. For example, what do the US missile strikes on Syria and the actual severance of its eastern regions have to do with international law? And where was the “responsible attitude” Mr Huntsman spoke about when the US actively supported a coup d’état in Kiev with subsequent violence from the radicals that took power there and plunged Ukraine into civil confrontation?

We are also unable to understand why Washington is insistently refusing to restore the activities of the Russia-US working group on fighting terrorism. Could it be related to the fact that the US has long been trying to exploit terrorist groups in Syria – to forcibly bring down the legitimate government in Damascus, which amounts to another coup?

Many US politicians and the media have been spreading tales for two years of some “Russian hackers”, who nearly broke the overall election system in the US. At the same time, Washington refuses to set up a bilateral working group on cyber security which could discuss the complaints in essence and in a professional way. As we have told you, in February the Americans even derailed holding a one-time consultation on the issue.

The US officials’ refusal to engage in direct dialogue on cyber matters once again showed that despite loud public accusations, they do not have any evidence of our alleged guilt that they would not be embarrassed to present to experts. In other words, all that is just bashing and propaganda.

“Responsible behaviour” is also missing in the clandestine arrests of Russian nationals by the US special services in third countries: Viktor Bout, Konstantin Yaroshenko and many others. Rather than cooperate in a normal way with the Russian law enforcement agencies, and we are ready for that, the Americans started a real hunt for Russians around the world. They are simply kidnapping people. There are over 40 cases like that.

Yet another irresponsible step was the US decision on March 26 to expel 60 Russian diplomats and to shut down the Russian Consulate General in Seattle. Let me remind you that one of its premises – the Consul General’s residence – is Russian property (the office was rented). We were ordered to leave the building by April 24, after which it will be added to five other diplomatic premises that have been illegally taken over by the US authorities since late 2016 in contradiction with immunity and property rights. All that is also irresponsible.

We recall no such precedents of lawlessness in the history of our bilateral relations. We are expelled from the buildings that are not only housing diplomatic missions but are also property of the Russian Federation. This is the same as evicting a person from their own home. Naturally, the US has to give all our property back to us. We assume that, and they know it.

Unfortunately, these are not the only instances of significant US debt to Russia. Let me stress again our openness and a constructive approach, the will to work jointly on all the issues I mentioned before. But Washington should display the same commitment. Otherwise we will not be able to overcome the stormy atmosphere in our relations.

We hope the esteemed US Ambassador will be able to play a part in stopping Washington from continued efforts to destroy the foundations of the Russia-US collaboration so that Washington will finally show a responsible approach. A question to Mr Ambassador: If he advocates a responsible approach, how can he read what the US Department of State publishes as a statement on Russia?



US Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker’s public activity

We noted US Ambassador Kurt Volker’s intensive public activity. If we understand it correctly, the US leadership assigned him specifically to deal with resolving the crisis in southeastern Ukraine. Perhaps, bored of his job – which has not given him many plus points by the way – the respectable US representative decided to instead engage in a wider “educational activity” beyond the scope of his Ukrainian brief. Travelling all over the place and making appearances on talk shows as well as at conferences, he is making rather confrontational public statements, giving advice to countries on how to behave in their relations with Russia and demanding that the sanctions be tightened and bilateral cooperation with Moscow, advocated by the US Ambassador to Russia, be curtailed.

In our opinion, this kind of “diplomacy” runs counter to his official duties as a mediator in Ukrainian crisis settlement. This also cannot but affect the effectiveness of the ongoing Russia-US consultations in the Volker-Surkov format.

We call on US Special Representative Kurt Volker to take a more serious and responsible approach to his job (even more so because it is our common cause) and focus his efforts not on statements like the ones I already mentioned but on a calm and constructive search for mutually acceptable solutions to various aspects of the settlement, including the parameters of a possible UN peacemaking mission in Donbass.

As far as it concerns the latter, we believe that the draft UNSC resolution on modalities of the UN mission to protect OSCE Special Monitoring Mission observers submitted by Russia in September 2017 is the most optimal and realistic option for launching a UN operation in southeastern Ukraine. We call on the United States and its partners to approach this document in the most pragmatic manner and present their written arguments and amendments, which we requested a long time ago. A positive solution to this matter would enable a a major advance in implementing the Minsk Agreements, certainly with mandatory regard for the views and with the consent of the parties to the internal Ukrainian conflict - Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk.



Statement by former FBI Director James Comey

We noted that on April 15, former director of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation James Comey, in his interview with the ABC network marking the release of his book A Higher Loyalty, allowed himself to mention certain issues related to the US-Russia bilateral agenda, which are not true to fact.

It is not surprising that, in response to the question about Russia allegedly having information that would cast a slur on Donald Trump, James Comey, who clearly resents the President for firing him, eagerly assumed this as possible. Let it be between the former American counter-intelligence agent and his conscience, because the first impression of his book is that his only activity was to diligently collect damaging information on his former boss. So, if there is any damaging material on Donald Trump, perhaps it should be looked for at James Comey’s? It is more puzzling that Comey is clearly lying about the format of the official meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US President Donald Trump on May 10, 2017. Comey is surprised that the Russian delegation was even allowed in the White House (“What are the Russians doing in the Oval Office?”). What exactly is wrong with that? Many people go there. He is even using some exclamations, which I don’t know how to better convey in Russian. For example, he is using expressions like “Wow!” and “That’s crazy!” So, receiving the Taliban is okay but receiving Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is “wow.” James Comey acted indignation with the fact that, allegedly, nobody besides the President represented the US at the meeting. You are the former FBI director, so let me tell you.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was accompanied by four other Russian representatives, including Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak. Donald Trump was accompanied by five US officials, including three high-ranking representatives of his administration and two members of the US National Security Council.

By the way, according to the White House protocol, the meetings between Minister Lavrov and George W. Bush and, later, Barack Obama followed the same format.

So, these claims raise a lot of questions. Moreover, it is very hard to say that the meeting was private or confidential for American secret services. Therefore, we have to refute Mr Comey’s statement. We believe it is unacceptable to plant knowingly false information in the media, with a clear purpose of instigating more animosity, in the current situation between Russia and the United States which is already extremely tense.

This is based on the information published by ABC News. If it is a mistake, fine, they should release a denial.



Status of Russian citizens and their children at Iraqi penitentiaries

The BBC has asked us to comment on the status of female Russian citizens and their children at Iraqi penitentiaries.

According to the Russian Embassy in Baghdad, an Iraqi court found two Russian citizens guilty of assisting terrorists April 17 and sentenced them to life. Under Iraqi legislation, they will have to serve 20-year prison terms and will subsequently be deported from the country. We are talking about Alisa Ismailova (Magomedrasulova), born March 19, 1992 in Makhachkala, with four children, and Elvira Magometkhanova, born July 13, 1997 in Derbent, with two children. This verdict is not final, pending its examination by a court of appeals, all the more so as both women have pleaded not guilty. Three female citizens of Azerbaijan and one citizen of Kyrgyzstan were sentenced to death during the same court hearing, and a French citizen was sentenced to life.

Officials of the Russian Embassy in Baghdad attended the court hearings and were later able to meet with the defendants.

The sentence is the first result of investigating circumstances as regards the status of Russian citizens from among the wives and widows of ISIS militants in Iraq. Local investigative agencies launched this process in 2017 after the defeat of this terrorist organisation’s main forces in Iraq.

Participants in the next court hearing, scheduled for April 29, are to review the cases of 11 other female Russian citizens.

The Russian Embassy in Baghdad and the Russian Consulate General in Erbil, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, closely followed the situation of Russian citizens together with their children in Iraq after the first reports of their arrest by local law enforcement agencies were received in the summer of 2017. They established working contacts with all Iraqi agencies dealing with this matter, and these contacts made it possible to understand the essence and scale of this issue in general.

According to the available reports, between 50-70 women, presumably Russian citizens, and over 100 children are currently in the Central Criminal Court prison in Baghdad. The parents of many of these children, born in Iraq and Syria, are not known. Foreign diplomats were denied access to the arrested women during the investigation. Therefore it will be possible to start identifying persons who have stated their Russian citizenship in late April and early May, that is, after the investigation comes to a close, and after the first verdicts are passed.

The detained and arrested persons are charged with illegally crossing the Iraqi border, with terrorism or with facilitating terrorist attacks by ISIS militants. If they are found guilty, the women would face the death penalty, be sentenced to life or they will have to serve lengthy prison terms. This is proved by previous trials with regard to 50 women, reportedly citizens of Azerbaijan and Turkey. Out of this number, 32 were eventually sentenced to death, with 15 more getting life. The Iraqi counter-terrorism law contains some tough-worded provisions, and persons, accomplices to ISIS crimes in Iraq, can hardly expect any clemency.

In a broader context, we would like to confirm that, if the Russian citizenship of these women is established, the Russian Embassy in Iraq will guarantee their rights to defence by involving local lawyers and by appealing their verdicts. This was done during the April 17 trial. But it is very difficult to identify these women. Some of them have deliberately destroyed their documents, and they misinform the Iraqi authorities on their citizenship. Still others have, indeed, lost their passports during the hostilities. It is even more difficult to determine the ethnicity of children under the age of three because they don’t speak any language yet.

As our experience of cooperation with the Iraqi authorities shows, they don’t object to returning the children back home, provided that the relevant documents are duly formalised in Russia, and that the Russian Embassy in Baghdad transfers these to the concerned courts making the final decision. The Iraqi side is voicing its readiness to meet Russia halfway, provided that the Russian citizens whose activities are being investigated or those who have already been sentenced will independently initiate the transfer of their children to relatives in Russia.

The Foreign Ministry’s work in this field hinges on close cooperation with Deputy Chair of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs Ziyad Sabsabi. Since the summer of 2017, Mr Sabsabi has helped repatriate 73 children and 24 women from Iraq and Syria to Russia. We will continue active diplomatic efforts to return Russian citizens, not involved in the crimes of ISIS militants, home.



Russia-Azerbaijan relations

During the previous briefing, the Trend news agency asked about the development of Russia-Azerbaijan relations and the priority areas of interaction. This is what I have to say in this regard:

Russia and Azerbaijan enjoy relations of strategic partnership based on equality and neighbourliness, as well as centuries-long friendship, common history and culture and intertwined lives of millions of people. Very intensive, mutually beneficial, warm and trust-based contacts are maintained at the level of heads of state and government, relevant ministries and agencies, as well as representatives of scientific, cultural and civil societies. In 2017 alone, our presidents met four times. The relations between our parliaments are also very close.

Interregional cooperation is also very active: 17 Russian regions have agreements on trade, economic, scientific, technical and cultural cooperation with Azerbaijan; companies from 70 Russian regions are engaged in export and import operations with that country.

The situation in the trade and economic field is improving. In 2017, bilateral trade grew by 28.58 percent as compared with 2016 and amounted to $2.63 billion ($2.04 billion in 2016).

Investment cooperation is on the rise as well. Over 600 joint Russian-Azerbaijani companies operate on the Azerbaijani market; some 200 of them have 100 percent Russian capital. Russia’s direct investments in Azerbaijan amount to some $1.5 billion. The two countries share a mutual interest in the implementation of large-scale bilateral projects in energy, transport, innovative technology and agriculture.

Cultural and humanitarian cooperation is traditionally a priority. We are satisfied with the development of cooperation in education. Russia accommodates between 11,000-15,000 students from Azerbaijan (both using government grants and studying on a paid basis). Branches of Lomonosov Moscow State University and the Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University are operating in Baku. The opening of more branches of Russia’s leading universities is being discussed. The two countries agreed to resume the time-tested tradition of holding bilateral Years of Culture.

I cannot omit an event of special importance that will take place in Baku on May 10. I am talking about the opening of the joint Russian-Azerbaijani historical and documentary exhibition, Heydar Aliyev: Personality, Role, Mission, dedicated to the 95th anniversary of the birth of the prominent statesman who played a key role in the establishment of Azerbaijan as an independent state and who laid the foundation of strategic partnership with Russia. Such a return to the beginning of our relations is quite symbolic. It is a reminder of all the joint work to strengthen and promote friendship between our countries and our peoples that has been conducted by our presidents, which Russia considers to be one of its foreign policy priorities.

We are confident that Ilham Aliyev’s recent confident victory in the early presidential election in Azerbaijan guarantees that this course will continue.



Developments in Armenia

Prior to the briefing, we received a request to comment on the situation in Armenia in light of the ongoing protests.

We are convinced that the situation in the friendly nation of Armenia will be settled democratically and within the legal framework.



Investigation into the crash of the Polish president’s plane near Smolensk on April 10, 2010

At our most recent briefing, Polish colleagues asked us about progress in investigating the plane crash that killed the president of Poland near Smolensk on April 10, 2010 and also when Russia could return the wreckage of the Polish presidential airliner to Poland.

We receive these questions on a regular basis, and we regularly answer them. The situation hasn’t changed much recently. The Russian law enforcement agencies continue to thoroughly investigate the Smolensk tragedy causes, and to work through the Polish side’s inquiries regarding provision of legal assistance. The Polish National Prosecutor's Office has not yet completed its investigation and keeps moving the deadline, because our Polish colleagues still have doubts about what really happened.

We operate on the premise that no stone should be left unturned in investigating this complex matter.

As for returning the wreckage to Poland, the debris collected at the site of the crash constitute material evidence. In accordance with our procedural rules, they must remain in Russia until all the necessary investigative measures are completed.



Question:

Commenting on your latest briefing, the Polish Foreign Ministry said that the issue of assistance remains unrealised. What can you say to this?



Maria Zakharova:

This is not a matter of public debate. Why would the Polish government respond to my comments when there’s a Polish Embassy in Russia, and its qualified employees can come to the Russian Foreign Ministry and ask for all the help they need?



Question:

We received a statement from a representative of the Polish Foreign Ministry saying that there are four inquiries that remain unanswered. How can you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

If the inquiry includes a request to release wreckage, then I already covered this. As far as I know, everything we were able to provide at the request of the Polish side was effectively provided. I will look into that. This is the law enforcement agencies’ area rather than the Foreign Ministry’s. We will issue a request to that effect.



Foreign citizens crossing the Russia-Belarus border during the FIFA World Cup

During the previous briefing, I was asked about the arrangements involved in foreign citizens crossing the Russia-Belarus border during the FIFA World Cup. Here’s what I have to say about that.

The success of the 2018 FIFA World Cup is very important to us, as is the problem-free entry and stay of guests of this event in our country. Currently, the arrangements for crossing the state border between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus by foreign citizens and stateless persons who are holders of photo Fan IDs is still being worked on by competent Russian agencies in collaboration with Belarus.

In particular, this matter was on the agenda of the meeting of the Interstate Interdepartmental Working Group on Developing Recommendations for Conducting a Harmonised Migration Policy, which was held today. We are waiting for its decisions to be released.

Soon, the fans will be broadly informed about all matters related to the procedure of crossing the Russia-Belarus border.




From answers to media questions:



Question:

Recently, Azerbaijani parliament members supported Russia in the Skripal case by calling it a provocation, a course continuing the sanctions policy and an attempt to isolate Russia. They stressed that they are against such actions. Could you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

I have not seen the document but if it contains words like ‘provocation’ it completely reflects Russia’s stance. We are glad that there is still objectivity in the modern world and in Azerbaijan, in particular.



Question:

Please comment on the inter-Korean summit planned for April 27.



Maria Zakharova:

We have repeatedly said that we always support the two Korean states’ efforts to establish a dialogue and develop contacts. We hope that the upcoming inter-Korean top-level meeting will help to improve the situation on the Korean Peninsula and to resolve the entire scope of problems in the region, including the nuclear one.

As for the potential agenda of the summit, specifically, the prospects for resuming inter-Korean cooperation in practical fields, we would welcome such agreements and would be ready to facilitate their implementation should our Korean partners turn to us for assistance. We confirm that our initiatives with respect to the trilateral cooperation between Russia, South Korea and North Korea in the railway industry, electricity and gas remain in effect.

The UN Security Council’s sanctions against North Korea are, of course, a subject to be considered by this international body in due course.



Question:

The West has repeatedly accused Russia of preventing OPCW experts’ access to the site of the alleged chemical attack in the Syrian town of Douma. Are these statements true? What is your response to these accusations by Western politicians?



Maria Zakharova:

We’ve provided an extensive commentary which is available on the Foreign Ministry’s official website. I have also given my verbal comments on this topic. This is complete nonsense, a lie, falsehood and any other synonyms possible. Where on Earth is all this coming from? Are they presenting any specific facts or arguments? We have no knowledge of them. We were immediately and sincerely interested in sending OPCW experts there and made respective public statements. Moreover, we urged the Syrian side to issue any necessary documents, including visas, to the inspectors as promptly as possible. We used our bilateral channels to ask Syria to be as prompt and constructive as it can be regarding this matter. On top of everything else, we are not organisers of the trip. It was organised by the UN, the OPCW and Syria. However, we offered to give a helping hand every time, even when it came to providing security.

There is one nuance. We are used to being accused of every little thing. So even when we offered our assistance in providing security, honestly, there was no guarantee that we would not be accused of trying to get involved in the arrangements for this mission and, God forbid, somehow affect its findings. Only because the UN expressed concerns, for obvious reasons, because terrorists attacked the area once again, Russia did everything it could in terms of security. Why the French Foreign Ministry claims that Russia allegedly prevented access, we don’t know. Considering that they published the chemical attack report with such glaring errors, perhaps the place was not shown to them properly. It is hard to say.



Question:

Dozens of Russian media outlets and public organisations are enthusiastic about the Highly Likely Welcome Back initiative by the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo) and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University). The initiative is aimed at encouraging the return of Russian students studying at British universities and helping them continue their studies at Russian universities. We would like to ask about the Foreign Ministry’s official position in this regard. Will the ministry support this initiative?



Maria Zakharova:

This is indeed a Rossotrudnichestvo programme, so I think this agency can comment on it. I can say that Rossotrudnichestvo has had business and cultural ties with compatriots living abroad for many years. Now they have added dialogue with experienced and skilled experts, in particular, in digital economy, to their traditional agenda. Last year, Russia adopted a large-stale digital economy development programme, which is aimed at changing the majority of areas of our everyday life, starting from education and healthcare to transport and payment systems. Personnel training and placement is an important part of this work, which is carried out jointly by the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Education and Science. The agency sees its role in serving as a communication venue for students, graduates, young specialists, education centres, secondary schools and universities, and, of course, potential employers. Its partners abroad include associations of Russian-speaking students and compatriots as well as proactive Russian citizens.

According to Rossotrudnichestvo, this project will become the first step in creating a digital economy ecosystem in Russia. I believe it is also noteworthy that, unfortunately, representatives of Russian diasporas in various countries, especially in Great Britain, are closely watched by state authorities. Sometimes this means special attention during various formal procedures, including visa issues.

MGIMO’s Faculty of Management and Policy, the Information Society Development Foundation, Aktum Platform and Rossotrudnichestvo are working to prepare a foundation for compatriots from Great Britain and other countries who want to continue studying and find employment in leading Russian companies or those who face an unfriendly attitude where they live. As we understand it, the programme covers much more than quotas, a list of professional areas, some regions or a list or educational institutions or employers. Every highly qualified specialist in the Russian regions or in the countries where compatriots live will be approached individually to find a deserving career route.

I think you could ask Rossotrudnichestvo about this. I have summarised their position. Russian students at foreign universities can ask their questions if they join a specially created group on Facebook. You have mentioned its name. The moderators are ready to answer all the questions. Ask Rossotrudnichestvo for more detailed comments.



Question:

A week ago, DPRK Minister of Foreign Affairs Ri Yong-ho had a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Did North Korea express any intention to resume six-party talks? Is there any new information provided by diplomats about the preparations of top-level talks between Russia and North Korea?



Maria Zakharova:

Everything related to top-level talks are in the competence of the Russian Presidential Executive Office.

As for six-party talks, we state (and you can see it) more active bilateral contacts with the six countries you are talking about.



Question:

The Interfax news agency reported that the Russian Embassy in Washington, DC has received a letter from the White House saying that there will be no more new sanctions in the nearest future. Can you confirm this?



Maria Zakharova:

This is not today’s news but that of the beginning of the week. We confirmed it on that same day.



Question:

Today Interfax published information with a reference to a Russian military and diplomatic source saying that the Syrian opposition and Jabhat al-Nusra are expanding their operations in southern Syria with a view to establishing an autonomy there with US support. Can you go into this in more details or provide some official information?



Maria Zakharova:

I saw these comments. We have this information. It is true and we are monitoring the trend.

In the past few weeks, the situation in southern Syria has aggravated. Despite the statements made by the United States, not only the Free Syrian Army, but also Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS militant groups are playing the main roles in the Yarmouk River valley. At the same time, convoys with alleged humanitarian aid are arriving there regularly through the Jordanian border. But in fact, the goods delivered by these lorries are far from being humanitarian cargo. It has yet to be discovered what kind of cargo it is. All deliveries of so-called humanitarian aid are controlled directly by the Americans.

As part of the operation of a monitoring centre in Amman, Jordanian and American representatives receive information on a regular basis about militants’ attacks on the government troops in these districts. However, nobody has taken any measures to stabilise the situation or destroy the terrorists. So the militants are actively expanding areas under their control.

In early April, the joint operative headquarters of Jabhat al-Nusra in Daraa urged the command of other militant groups in the provinces of As-Suwayda, Daraa and Quneitra to coordinate efforts to start a joint offensive against the Syrian government troops.

I would like to note that Jabhat al-Nusra and the units of the Free Syrian Army have over 12,000 militants, as well as hundreds of military vehicles, dozens of field guns and multiple rocket launchers received via corridors controlled by illegal militant groups on the border with Israel and Jordan.

As usual, militants’ statements about the alleged violation of the de-escalation regime by the government troops serve as casus belli. To amplify the effect, they can stage provocations against civilians. Then the militants will be able to begin a joint offensive against the government troops.

The ultimate goal of the operation is the seizure of some territory and the creation of a territorial entity there with the capital in Daraa, under the auspices of the United States, which will be independent from Damascus, similar to the areas controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces in the northeast of the country.



Question:

How will political changes in Cuba and the announced resignation of Raul Castro affect relations between Moscow and Havana? What is Russia’s position?



Maria Zakharova:

I will ask our experts for materials on this issue and offer you a more detailed report.

By the way, we have been approached a number of times by US journalists who asked if we know anything about some “acoustic attacks” on US diplomats, and, I think, on Canadian ones, too. Just recently I learnt that the Canadian government cannot confirm that “acoustic attacks” took place against their diplomats. They see that something happened, but they are unable to understand the nature of the processes. They have shrugged off the issue of “acoustic attacks.” However, recall how long this had been the number one issue in relation to Cuba. Is anybody going to make a denial? I understand that the materials were put together in a cunning manner – the “highly likely” scenario again, but one way or another, Cuba and its leaders suffered great damage. Moreover, I think they were trying to involve Russia in the controversy. Whereas now the government of Canada quietly and calmly declared that it had nothing to do with acoustics. Well, this is just a side note.



Question:

Since the Russian Investigative Committee is reported to have also started an investigation into the so-called Skripal case, will response measures follow if Russia manages to prove the UK’s guilt in this?



Maria Zakharova:

This question should be addressed to law enforcement agencies whereas we give a political assessment and speak about the facts that are available to us. Regarding the investigation, charges and statements of the nature you are referring to, it is the responsibility of the investigative and law enforcement agencies. You have rightly said that a case was opened. The Prosecutor General’s Office and the Investigative Committee of Russia regularly comment on the data they have.



Question:

Will the findings of the Swiss laboratory in Spiez that also conducted the tests be made public?



Maria Zakharova:

We have already spoken about that today. Taking into account that we see one lie bumping into another (all right, call it withholding information in this case, which is a very odd explanation nevertheless), we would like all the data to be provided, not published, probably, but at least be made available. You understand there is such a tremendous amount of lies in this story that we are unable to figure out what there is in those samples that cannot be revealed, among others, to the Russian Federation.



Question:

President Trump said that a month ago there was a fierce fight in Syria between US and Russian soldiers whereby many of them were killed.



Maria Zakharova:

As far as we understand, this is not related to regular troops of the Russian Army. The Defence Ministry promptly comments on anything regarding the regular forces of the Russian Army at your requests and on their own initiative. What was Donald Trump talking about? Probably, about something which is not related to the Russian Aerospace Forces? Again, this is not within our competence.



Question:

Chief of the General Staff of Russia’s Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov has met today in Baku with NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Scaparrotti to discuss various cooperation issues, including regional security and the Syrian crisis. We would like to know how you see Azerbaijan’s role in these discussions in view of the fact that it was Baku that was selected to host the meeting?



Maria Zakharova:

All the comments have been given by the participants in the meeting. This question does not concern the Foreign Ministry. I think you should address a respective body.



Question:

Who will represent Russia at the exhibition Heydar Aliyev: Personality, Role, Mission to be unveiled in Baku in May? Has Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov a slot for a visit in his schedule?



Maria Zakharova:

At present, Sergey Lavrov does not have a visit scheduled. I will find out who is going to represent Russia.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3178301

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a gala reception on the occasion of the Orthodox Easter, Moscow, April 17, 2018



17 April 2018 - 13:58








Your Holiness,

Your Excellencies,

Colleagues,

Friends,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Allow me to cordially welcome the clergymen of the Russian Orthodox Church, representatives of other religions, government authorities, civil society, and heads of diplomatic missions accredited in Moscow to the annual Easter meeting at the Foreign Ministry. The great holiday of Easter symbolising the triumph of life and the good reinforces the belief in the truth and justice in our hearts and encourages us to do good deeds.

The Russian Orthodox Church has been with its flock at all times and shared the fate of Russia, inspired the people to perform heroic acts in the name of defending the Fatherland, and helped them stand tall during years of severe trials. Today, the Church is making a significant contribution to identifying the best solutions to important matters on the national agenda, maintaining civil peace and consent, and consolidating society around enduring spiritual and moral values; it is building up useful social and educational work, and is doing much to strengthen the institution of the family, and to educate younger generations in the spirit of Christian ideals.

Diplomats particularly value the efforts of the Russian Orthodox Church aimed at deepening ties with our compatriots living abroad, consolidating the Orthodox world, upholding the historical truth, and advancing the positions of the Russian language and our culture. Your Holiness’ foreign missions contribute to promoting these areas of focus. Your recent trip to Bulgaria to participate in the celebrations of the 140th anniversary of that country’s liberation from the Ottoman yoke is one such mission.

Such selfless work is all the more important today, as the international situation is becoming increasingly chaotic and less predictable. A dangerous and at the same time shameful trend to move away from their own spiritual and civilisational roots is on the rise in a number of Western countries. As you, Your Holiness, noted in your Easter Message, comfort and success are declared the main criteria of human existence. Fundamental principles of morality are being questioned. Such a policy is not only vicious, but also anti-democratic, as it is being imposed by an aggressive minority against the will of the overwhelming majority of citizens.

The forcible “export” of pseudo-liberal values in conjunction with ​​flirting with radicals and dividing terrorists into “good” and “bad” has led to chaos and anarchy in the vast expanses of the Middle East which is the cradle of Christianity. Clearly, it is impossible to reliably protect Christians, or representatives of other religions, for that matter, without defeating terrorist groups and achieving a lasting political settlement of numerous conflicts and crises.

Of particular concern, of course, is the situation around Syria. Thanks to the efforts of a number of countries, including Russia, Syrian statehood has been preserved, and the necessary prerequisites for a national dialogue were created. The fact of US-led coalition’s missile strikes at Syria, delivered under an absolutely falsified pretext, is a gross violation of international law and the UN Charter. Such aggressive actions exacerbate the humanitarian situation, play into the hands of extremists, and put off the prospects for peace on the long-suffering Syrian land. The escalation of the situation around Syria negatively affects the entire system of international relations. Russia will continue to work to instil respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria and all countries of that and other regions.

In these difficult circumstances, Your Holiness’s peacekeeping activities, including your recent contacts with Pope Francis, as well as the heads of the Constantinople, Antiochian, Alexandrian and Jerusalem Orthodox Churches, are widely recognised.

Of course, it is important to continue to help stabilise the situation in other parts of the region, including Iraq, Yemen and Libya. It is imperative to focus more on an old hotbed of tension, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. A fair solution to this problem will have a beneficial effect on the situation across the Middle East.

The situation in neighbouring Ukraine cannot help but concern us. The ultranationalists, who came to power there in February 2014, are striving to destroy the centuries-old comprehensive ties between our two truly brotherly peoples at any cost. The opposition to the Russian language which is used by a significant portion of the population of that country is intensifying. The Ukrainian law On Education directly violates Kiev’s international obligations. With the connivance, and occasionally the open support of the Kiev authorities, temples of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church continue to be seized alongside aggressive actions against priests and parishioners.

We are confident that full and consistent implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures, which was the result of the talks between the presidents of Russia, France, Germany and Ukraine, is the only way to overcome internal strife and prevent further division of Ukrainian society. We expect that the people of Ukraine will show wisdom and that national consent will be restored. I would like to take this opportunity to note once again the role of Your Holiness in resolving serious humanitarian issues related to the troubles that have affected this country that is close to us.

Russian diplomacy continues to do its utmost to uphold the rights of Christians and other traditional religions. In December 2017, we organised an event dedicated to the situation of Christians in the OSCE countries and neighbouring regions on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council in conjunction with our Hungarian partners. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church are taking an active part in these events. The agenda includes compliance with the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting’s directive, which was adopted in Basel in December 2014, on drafting (along with the already approved OSCE documents on the unacceptability of anti-Semitism) individual declarations to combat intolerance and discrimination against Christians and Muslims. We will focus on this. We expect the matter to get off the ground this year. So far, we have not seen much enthusiasm for such declarations on the part of some of our Western partners.

We are willing to continue to build up a multi-faceted partnership with the Russian Orthodox Church, and closely interact with other traditional religions in Russia to promote an honest, harmonious and future-oriented international agenda.

In closing, I would like to congratulate you, Your Holiness, and all the distinguished guests on this bright Easter holiday. I wish you well, good health, peace and prosperity.

Christ Is Risen!




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3174307






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Rossiya Segodnya, Moscow, April 20, 2018



20 April 2018 - 09:54








Question:

Mr Lavrov, you said that Russia has uncontestable evidence – not “highly likely” as the British like to say, but uncontestable – of the fact that the so-called chemical attack in Douma near Damascus was staged by a country that wants to be in the first ranks of Russophobic nations. This country was later named by Igor Konashenkov, Russian Defence Ministry’s Head of the Department of Information and Mass Communications, who said that it was Great Britain. I believe we are not going to be like the British and will not accuse anyone without having proof. When and what evidence are we ready to present against the UK?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is plenty of evidence. Let’s start with the fact that the video that triggered off everything and that was the main pretext for the hectic attack engineered by the Americans, the British and the French, who dropped bombs on the chemical weapons production and storage facilities as they said (I think anyone understands that if you know the location of a chemical weapons depot, bombing it would mean the creation of a humanitarian catastrophe for everybody living nearby), this video clearly shows that people without any protection (except for some people wearing gauze masks) are pouring water on boys and some adults.

Our troops that liberated that part of Eastern Ghouta found two doctors who worked at that hospital. They identified themselves in that video and said that some people broke in and started yelling that it was a chemical attack and everybody must start pouring water on each other. This was an honest claim by doctors who did not hide their faces and who stated their names.

I watched Euronews the other day where I saw a woman whose face and body were covered except for a small slit for her eyes. She would not say her name but she was holding two boys by their hands claiming they were her children who also found themselves in a situation. They suddenly got headaches and smelled something really bad. She started sniffing and did not like the smell either. She finished her statement by saying that her husband took the children to a doctor later. My first question was, can’t you find this doctor and talk to him, find out this woman’s name, about her children and so on? The information we see must be thoroughly analysed, especially now, so that we are not being taken for ‘novichoks’ (‘rookies’)

Also, just recently, our Defence Ministry’s troops liberating Douma found a stockpile of chemicals produced in Germany, Porton Down and Salisbury, among others. Experts are now analysing the substances found there. Moreover, it is not a secret that the scene in the video I mentioned was staged by the White Helmets. And the White Helmets operate only in the areas controlled by militants, including terrorists from Jabhat al-Nusra. They already pulled off a similar provocative scene last year in Khan Shaykhun. It is also no secret that they are funded by the UK, the US and several other Western countries.

We presented all these points very specifically and in great detail at a meeting of the OPCW Executive Council and to the UNSC. In response we have only been hearing that we are trying to blame Britain for some wrongdoings, we are crossing the line; it is impossible to even discuss it because it is not true.

I hope all reasonable people can see the difference between these arguments and the difference between the facts that are put on the table and the facts that are not there at all.



Question:

An OPCW expert mission is working in Syria now. What degree of honesty do you expect from their report?



Sergey Lavrov:

Sturgeon cannot be half-fresh. If the report is simply honest, that will be enough for us. Of course, it is alarming that a number of players are trying to hinder the OPCW’s activities. We have no doubt that the OPCW experts working in The Hague and on its field missions are top professionals. On the other hand, as previous evidence shows, we cannot rule out the possibility that attempts will be made to use these experts, who are honest scientists, for political purposes. The mission left for Syria and reached Beirut, preparing to cross the Syrian border the next morning. Consular officials from the Syrian Foreign Ministry were waiting to issue them visas. But the mission could not proceed because of the air strikes. Somebody did not want them to reach the area of the alleged chemical attack in due time. They are in Damascus now, and a reconnaissance group has been allowed to enter the site of the alleged attack to see if it is safe for the OPCW experts to travel there. This group was accompanied by UN personnel and protected by the Russian military police. When they were in the relevant area, shooting started from the part of the city where there are still several dozen extremists, who were obviously notified about who was visiting the area and for what purpose.

We are working now to ensure that the OPCW mission does its job properly. In the meantime, our military have found more interesting things at the alleged attack site. In particular, they have found a canister with a chemical substance – I believe it was chlorine – in a flat in a terrorist-controlled district. The canister lay on a very tidy bed. There was no evidence of it entering through the ceiling or the wall. It was most probably brought into the room via the door and laid on the bed. We want to show this and other evidence to the OPCW experts, so that they not only visit the place where the alleged victims were doused with water, but also look at the laboratory where we found toxic agents made in Europe and go to the flat where there is that canister with chlorine. There are many interesting things for them to see there. I hope that they will act as true professionals. We have always been ready to talk professionally with the OPCW and all our Western colleagues.

I have mentioned that our French and American partners asked at an early stage in the ongoing chemical confrontation whether they could send their experts along with ours and the OPCW mission to find out what really happened there. When we agreed to this and said that the Syrian Government would support it, they launched the air strikes instead of using the opportunity offered. So we will see what happens. Of course, we expect honesty from experts, both in Syria and in Salisbury, where the investigation is still underway.



Question:

We will discuss the Salisbury incident later on. I have two more questions on Syria. Can experts get hold of any planted evidence, and can someone ask them to take this evidence with them and test it? Is this possible?



Sergey Lavrov:

I hope that experts cherish their reputation, and that they will be on their guard. We cannot rule out anything, all the more so as our Western partners are now using below-the-belt methods. I don’t want to rule out anything, but I also don’t want to groundlessly accuse anyone.



Question:

And what kind of feeling did you experience when you saw this 11-year-old boy Khasan Diab suddenly surrounded by adults who came down on him and started dousing him with cold water, spraying something into his mouth and intimidating him? This is what his father said. How did you respond to this, on an emotional level, like a human being?



Sergey Lavrov:

I felt like Konstantin Stanislavsky, and I wanted to shout: “I don’t believe you!” but, speaking of more subtle human emotions, it is, of course, disgusting that children are used for such dirty purposes.



Question:

You have a substantial work record, including at the permanent Russian Mission to the UN. Can you imagine that this boy, Khasan Diab, and his father might show up at the UN Security Council and provide eyewitness accounts of this incident? Or should they obtain Syrian diplomatic passports for this purpose? Will the world hear these people who are key eyewitnesses and participants in these events?



Sergey Lavrov:

This would be useful, and, of course, we would support such actions. First of all, the Government of Syria should do this. Our Western colleagues often involve onsite eyewitnesses and civil society members in the UN Security Council’s meetings when there are people who have witnessed any particular situation being examined.



Question:

Does such practice exist?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes. They bring in representatives of various NGOs. Over the years, they brought in people from Syria and Iraq (I don’t remember what organisation they represented), and they also organise videoconferences. Technology makes it possible to inform UN Security Council and UN members about the viewpoint of various persons who have witnessed any specific event during open meetings of this top UN body. By the way, we made such efforts in the past and we will continue to insist that onsite eyewitnesses be allowed to address members of the UN Security Council. I am talking not just about Syria , but about other situations as well. But, in this particular case, this is within the Syrian Government’s remit. We would actively support this proposal.



Question:

In any case, the boy’s father said they were ready to go anywhere and to testify before anyone.



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, so I have heard.



Question:

One way or another, this staged provocation ended with all-out missile strikes that were rebuffed rather effectively. It appears that this is the first such episode in the history of humankind. Did Russia receive a detailed, accurate and timely warning of the impending missile attack? Was Russia able to draw its own “red lines” on the map around certain areas? Was it prepared to respond resolutely if the missiles hit these areas mentioned by us? Was Russia ready to sink enemy ships and to shoot down enemy planes?



Sergey Lavrov:

Before the three Western powers’ plans to launch the strikes began to materialise, Chief of the Russian Armed Forces’ General Staff Valery Gerasimov said openly that, if the operations of the so-called “coalition” dealt any damage to Russian service personnel, Russia would retaliate toughly and clearly, and that it would perceive the missiles and their carriers as legitimate targets. This was a clear and unequivocal statement.

By the way, I was surprised to see how our Western colleagues, and mine, too, as well as some of our media came down on our ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin, who repeated exactly what our Chief of the General Staff said, whereas they attempted to put words into his mouth to the effect that if at least one missile fired by the coalition flew over Syria, we would start sinking ships, submarines and so on. What was said was a repetition of Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov’s warning about any damage done to Russian military personnel.

After that, there were contacts between military authorities, generals, between our representatives and US coalition commanders. Information was given on where our “red lines” are, including “red lines” on the ground, geographically. The outcome shows that they did not cross those “red lines.”

As for the effectiveness of those strikes, it is also open to question. Our American colleagues claim that all missiles, including the French ones, hit their targets. Our General Staff has a very clear picture: we were following everything in real time, live. We are ready to defend the statistics provided by our military. If anyone insists that all 105 missiles hit their targets, let them come up with their own statistics. At least, our military will, I believe, pretty soon present proof that our statements, our calculations and our arithmetic are not unfounded.



Question:

Pretty soon?



Sergey Lavrov:

I hope so.



Question:

Our military announced that 103 missiles were launched and that 71 of them were shot down. US President Donald Trump said that he phoned someone and asked whether all missiles reached their targets, and the reply at the other end of the line was “every one of them, Mr President”. Who could he have phoned?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have no idea who the President of the United States phones in such cases. Our President has no need to phone anyone – they report to him whenever such things happen. I would prefer not to elaborate on mutual relationships inside the American administration and the attitude of certain officials in Washington to the position and instructions of their President.



Question:

Will we supply S-300s to Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has spoken about this. We are now free from moral obligations. We had them, we promised not to do that around ten years ago – at the request of our well-known partners. We accepted their argument that it might destabilise the situation, although this is a purely defensive weapon, but anyway, we heeded their requests. Today, we have no such moral obligation.



Question:

You say you do not want to discuss mutual relationships inside the US Administration, but nevertheless, given the current configuration, when James Mattis “Mad Dog” is the most sensitive “dove” there, the situation looks close to a direct military confrontation between Russia and the United States. How great is the risk?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe US Secretary of Defence James Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford understand that any actions that can lead to a direct military confrontation between Russia and the US are inadmissible and unacceptable. This is so evident that the military cannot but be aware of this. In fact, they understand this much better than many others.

When politicians try to goad their country’s leaders to more confrontation, including material, it is reckless. They try to achieve their domestic political goals, continue a very harsh fight between the parties (which can be seen in Congress) and actively speculate on the Russian factor, because they see anti-Russian prejudices as the unifying ground. But this campaign is losing steam. It was artificially fed with unprecedented sanctions, because they thought such actions would make us accept their conditions for any further development of relations. This is at the least naïve and short-sighted. What are they saying? They say they want good relations with Russia, but for that to happen Russia must acknowledge all its sins and mistakes. This means they assume they are impeccable and Russia is the only one responsible for everything that is happening now, because it is a rebel and revisionist power trying to break and revise the existing world order. That said, they do not regard the UN Charter as the world order, but what they see necessary to maintain their domination.

I understand that for several centuries the historical West, as we call it, managed all the affairs in the world as it thought fit. And now, when new centres of power arise in Asia, Latin America and, in fact, when the Russian Federation is emerging as one of the most important players on the global stage, they do not like that someone tries to protect their interests. We are not categorical in protecting our interests: we propose searching for a balance of interests in order to come to agreement. Instead they insist that they will negotiate only after we say that we agree with the world order they protect. Actually, this is the gist of the matter.

Speaking about the risks of military confrontation, I am one hundred per cent confident that the military will not allow that. And, of course, neither President of Russia Vladimir Putin nor US President Donald Trump will. They are leaders elected by their people, and they are responsible before their nations for peace and tranquility.



Question:

Frankly, I admire the kind of composure and restraint Russia has been showing. I saw the Cold War and I get the impression that if there were a different person in the Kremlin, things could turn out differently, because it looks like there is one provocation after another. Russia is being provoked, but it always refuses to accept this Cold War, this kind of sport. You say this campaign is on the wane, but personally I have the feeling that, on the contrary, it is intensifying. Tension is increasing, blatant lies are becoming an instrument of foreign policy – it is enough to mention British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. Our partners do not want to listen or even hear. In my office, I have screens that show Rossiya-24, BBC, and CNN news. Rossiya-24 shows an eleven-year-old boy who involuntarily became an actor in a video, saying he had been given dates, cookies and rice. It would seem this provocation has been exposed, but no – BBC shows the same story to justify the missile strike, matter-of-factly, as if nothing had happened. What needs to happen to ease tensions?



Sergey Lavrov:

I did not say this campaign was on the wane. I said it was running out of steam. You know, when a man runs a hundred metres or 10,000 metres, or better 42 kilometres, and with every step he breathes harder, but he goes on running. In the end, his strength just oozes away. It seems to me that we are witnessing a similar process, although they certainly want (I mean those who orchestrate this anti-Russia campaign) to increase their tempo. But this way they might (and most likely will) overtax themselves.

You are absolutely right. I am confident that we need to respond with dignity. We cannot afford to sit back when our property is being confiscated and our diplomats expelled – that would mean we do not respect ourselves. But we are not going to slide into name calling, into squabbling, into rudeness, and we will not do it – it is not the style of our President at all. He always looks to the future and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to throw him off balance. This is what they are trying to do – to unsettle us, shock us out of tranquility, out of confidence, upset our plans at home – we have so much to do here. But I repeat again, when someone yells at you, remember the famous quote: “Jupiter, you are angry, therefore you are wrong.”



Question:

Still, as we learned recently, US President Donald Trump has invited Russian President Vladimir Putin to the White House. Are there any details about the timeframe, venue, or agenda?



Sergey Lavrov:

We proceed from the fact that US President Donald Trump issued an invitation in a telephone conversation (this is already known, there is no secret). He said that he would be happy to see Vladimir Putin at the White House and meet as part of a reciprocal visit. He returned to the topic a couple of times, so we let our American colleagues know that we do not want to be obtrusive, but we do not want to be impolite either and, given that President Trump was the one to suggest it, we expect him to supply the details.



Question:

So is the plan still pending?



Sergey Lavrov:

Well, not exactly. The word slipped…



Question:

And?



Sergey Lavrov:

President Vladimir Putin is ready for such a meeting.



Question:

Is it being prepared or not?



Sergey Lavrov:

Not yet. When there is any progress, we will let you know. But I must draw your attention to the fact that after this telephone conversation, Donald Trump made several statements in tweets and in words, saying that it was necessary to resolve problems with Russia, that they want to have good relations with us. It is better than not having any, and only fools think otherwise. We hear all this too.



Question:

However, Vice President Mike Pence also mentioned that the United States will seek military domination in outer space, including over Russia. Will that lead to an arms race in outer space? How is Russia going to respond?



Sergey Lavrov:

The United States has for many years now been the only country blocking the start of the talks initiated by Russia and China at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva about drafting a treaty on banning the deployment of weapons in outer space. This is not about preventing the militarisation of outer space, because satellites are being launched for military purposes by us and by the Americans, as well as by many other countries. This is a separate discussion. However, deploying weapons in outer space would be very risky and create new and completely unpredictable threats. In conjunction with China, we proposed concluding such a treaty. Everybody is ready to start negotiations. Clearly, it will take a lot of work, but we have a blueprint. It has been thoroughly worked through, and we are open to discussing it article by article and looking for the wording which will make it possible to agree upon it and have it signed. The Americans are the only ones blocking this work. Meanwhile, being fully aware of the danger of such developments, we are waiting for proper conditions to take shape so that we can start talking on a legally binding document. We advance a political concept and call on everyone to declare that each country will not be the first one to take weapons into outer space. There is a UN General Assembly resolution, which we submit. It is approved by a substantial majority of votes. The Americans are against it, and many US allies are abstaining from voting.

However the problem exists. If these threats materialise, we will need to prepare in advance for the actions which will make it possible to avoid the worst-case scenarios, when objects on Earth will simply be destroyed from space. This is a big problem. It includes anti-satellite weapons as well. The sooner such a professional conversation begins with the participation of diplomats and the military at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, the better it will be for the entire humanity without exception.

With regard to Vice President Pence’s statement made about the need for the US to assume military domination in outer space, it is not surprising given that the United States refuses to participate in the talks, which I just mentioned. In general, it is customary for the US to strive to dominate everywhere, not just in outer space, but also on land and in the air. They have it written down in their doctrinal documents. So, there’s nothing surprising here. But, I repeat, applying this logic to outer space will, of course, pose a major risk for all humankind.



Question:

Well, the Americans haven’t felt the pinch of any restrictions.



Sergey Lavrov:

There are no legal restrictions in place.



Question:

So, they are simply working on dominating the world. Clearly, Russia should also do so, because there are no restrictions?



Sergey Lavrov:

We see what our American colleagues are doing and, of course, we cannot sit on our hands.



Question:

Let's return to chemistry, but this time on British soil. How do you like the intriguing BZ agent story? According to the latest reports, we know that the BZ was intentionally added to the samples delivered to a Swiss laboratory in order to allegedly check the level of professionalism and competence of the lab specialists. What is it all about?



Sergey Lavrov:

This was done on purpose to test the professionalism of those who were supposed to do the analysis. I’m not going to go into details, since the bulk of the report is confidential, but it is well known that by contacting the OPCW for technical assistance, the British did not just give them a sample of the agent taken at the scene of incident, but told them it was a sample and asked them to find a particular chemical agent in it. In other words, it was an order placed with that lab. Once they were done with this technical function, the OPCW experts confirmed that it was exactly the agent that the British had mentioned to them. However, it was an unadulterated and highly concentrated agent, which means that it was injected into the vial just before the test took place, because otherwise it would have undergone certain metabolic processes over a couple of weeks since the incident and would have a completely different chemical composition.

In parallel, at least in the Swiss laboratory in the town of Spiez, the lab tests of the sample found a certain amount of BZ along with the substance that was ordered, which is listed among Category II agents. According to the Chemical Weapons Convention, it is a less dangerous compound than those included in Category I.

There are many questions involved, and we want to get answers to them. If what we are being told about BZ is true, then we would like to hear clarifications. Now that we have such questions, we would like to see primary test results obtained not only by the laboratory based in Spiez, but also three other laboratories where these samples were sent for testing.

It also transpired that the OPCW experts took samples not at their discretion, but in places indicated by the British.



Question:

From the Brits’ hands, actually.



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, from their hands or in their presence. There was no independent medical examination by OPCW experts of the people whose blood samples were given to them. In other words, they relied on the British doctors. It would be a different matter had the British openly showed the results of their investigation after that. But they are keeping everything secret, just as in the case of Alexander Litvinenko in the past. The materials pertaining to it remain confidential to this day.

The number of questions is growing. We have formulated nearly 50 strictly professional questions. In reply, they demand that we respond to their questions first. They only have one, or rather two questions: Was it done on Putin’s orders or has the Russian government lost control of its chemical weapons? Which chemical weapons? The ones we have destroyed and the destruction of which the OPCW has verified to the general approval of the international community?

The Brits have advanced accusations. In particular, one of Theresa May’s officials has sent an open letter to the NATO Secretary General. Why? In this letter, he provides information which, they believe, will convince everyone of the reliability of the British arguments regarding Russia’s guilt. The letter also claims that Russia secretly continued with its chemical weapons programme in the 2000s, and that we destroyed only what we had declared to the OPCW but carried on a secret programme. Somebody later alleged that President Vladimir Putin personally oversaw that programme. If this is so and they had always known about it, why had they not reported their findings to the OPCW? Why had they not raised the alarm and demanded that Russia be called to account? But they remained silent. The letter also says that the method of delivering nerve agents by application to door handles is known to be a Russian idea that has been used for a long time. If they knew about our propensity to put poison on door handles when they accused us of poisoning the Skripals, why did they only think about the door handle three weeks later, after inspecting the taxi, the bench and the restaurant? There is some inconsistency in that. They claim that the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) of the Russian General Staff read Yulia Skripal’s emails for years. But you must be able to read her emails as well to say so. The more explanations they offer, the more questions we have.



Question:

If they added the incapacitating agent BZ to the samples, which would be taking liberties, the reliability of these samples cannot be verified and the OPCW will be made a fool of?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not claim that they injected [BZ into the samples], that they tried to deceive everyone.



Question:

They said themselves that BZ was contained in the control sample.



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, but we need to check if this is in keeping with the existing quality control procedures. What we do know about the OPCW mission’s trip to the UK at London’s invitation and the way it worked there is not consistent with the very strict procedures that are stipulated in the Chemical Weapons Convention. But we are not accusing anyone. We have asked dozens of questions, and we would like to receive answers to them from grown-up and professional people. We want professional communication. Maybe it will have to wait until there are professionals in the UK government. As of now, communication appears impossible.



Question:

It transpires that Sergey Skripal himself chose a slippery way of life but Yulia certainly did not expect this. She came to visit her father to ask for his blessing on her marriage but life took a quite different turn. Now someone writes letters on her behalf in Cambridge English but the person has disappeared. This is a real drama. She is a Russian citizen and she did not plan to stay there. She had just renovated her apartment; she has a fiancé, a dog and her whole life. How can one understand this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I consider this simply outrageous. We sent several official notes with the demand to let us make contact with the Russian citizen so that we could make sure that everything that the British say on her behalf is true. For the time being, we have no confidence in this at all. You know, this is transgressing not only ethical but also legal borders. “She does not want to talk to you, this is what she said.” But Yulia Skripal did not say this, we haven’t heard it. She spoke by phone with her cousin Viktoria for a minute and a half. Viktoria mentioned this in her several interviews. She was worried over how Yulia sounded. If Yulia does not want to deal with us, we would like her to tell us this herself. In many cases when our citizens decide to go to another country or get in trouble, and we want to render them consular aid that they reject, we need to be convinced of this during a personal appointment. Let it be just 10 seconds. She will tell us “Thank you very much but I don’t need your services.”

As for Sergey Skripal, you said he chose his road himself. He was convicted and served a prison term for about four years. He was exchanged for what we call the Chapman group – several people who spied for the United States and Britain. The exchange took place and he was released from prison. He moved to his new homeland and led a nice life. If someone in the Russian Federation wanted to get rid of him (we are the only ones that are accused of having a motive), why would we have exchanged him for our intelligence officers?

I have many friends who are intelligence officers and I value my relationships with them and think highly of their profession. Some of our political scientists – let’s call them that – say that it is a noble cause to eliminate defectors. But in reality this is insulting to the intelligence community of any country because they will tell you that if a person was exchanged, he shouldn’t be touched. The question is closed whether he paid for it or not, and all intelligence people know this well.



Question:

I am not talking about the need to remove him. He chose his road himself and he chose his partners. Now they are doing with him whatever they want. This is a particular path. Do promises become invalid here?



Sergey Lavrov:

Here?



Question:

You said that the Douma story is running out of steam to a large extent. What about this case?



Sergey Lavrov:

If we analyse how they answer our very concrete questions, dismissing everything as storytelling, and repeating like a mantra that no one else possesses the combination of capabilities needed to produce this substance, that no one else has experience using this substance for illegal purposes, and that no one else has the motives (as Boris Johnson said), then this is complete ignorance of the subject. Over more than a month, they could have asked someone to give them professional background information. The so-called “Novichok”, this classification was not invented by us. It got its name in the West.

True, we did have some research and one of the researchers is Vil Mirzayanov. He emigrated to the United States and published the formula there. The substance was patented, weaponised and used at various US biological and chemical warfare institutions. It is very simple to produce. During a meeting of the OPCW Executive Council, we asked how the laboratory in the town of Spiez was able to determine that it is exactly the substance in question. That means that it had a prototype or a so-called marker. They were reportedly given the formula. For several days, or perhaps hours, that laboratory was synthesising that substance. In other words, it can be easily produced if one has the formula, which was published at the end of the past century. So, it is absolutely unclear why no one can provide this information to the esteemed members of the British Cabinet, including the Prime Minister.



Question:

Another widely covered international topic is the upcoming summit of the two Koreas. US President Donald Trump says that he will meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in the coming weeks. A venue is currently being chosen. Russia has proposed holding the summit on its territory.



Sergey Lavrov:

I have heard nothing about that. Perhaps, those are someone’s fantasies or suppositions. Some European countries have been mentioned and also Mongolia and a village on the border of the demilitarised zone.



Question:

Are we ready to offer our territory?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not think that we should be particularly active in this matter or show any initiative. This is a summit that everyone is looking forward to, because it is a step back from the prospect of a military crisis or a military solution to the Korean Peninsula problem. We hope very much that it will launch the process of de-escalation of tension.

As a matter of fact, less than a year ago, last July, Russia and China put forward the idea of a roadmap. The point was first to stop and begin a dialogue between the two Koreas and between North Korea and the United States and work out some framework that will make it possible to discuss mutual claims and mutual concerns.

We all favour the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula, but it can be carried out in different ways. The things we read about current discussions inside the US Administration suggest that quite a lot of people over there wish to do it quickly. I do not think that it can be done quickly, considering what has happened or is happening around the Iranian nuclear programme, when there is a big question mark over the existing agreement. In May, US President Donald Trump will have to confirm that the sanctions remain suspended. If not, then this will mean a withdrawal from the agreement. And so Pyongyang probably looks at this situation and imagines itself in it. It is necessary to press for denuclearisation, yet we must be realists as this is going to be a very hard negotiating process, because in exchange, especially given Iran’s experience, North Korea will demand unbreakable security guarantees. In what form – this remains to be seen. But even that would undoubtedly be a fine solution. I will say again that it would be good, first, to begin dialogue, break the ice during a meeting of the two leaders, and after that very hard work will lie ahead, part of which should include discussions of a broader plan for peace and security mechanisms in Northeast Asia, involving Russia, China and Japan, as was once agreed upon during the six-party talks.

We welcome the upcoming inter-Korean summit, which is due in April, and the upcoming US-North Korean summit scheduled for May-June, as US President Donald Trump said.



Question:

You talk about dialogue. Do you not feel old-fashioned in emerging realities? Donald Trump is not coming to this meeting for a dialogue – he is coming with an ultimatum. He already said that if it does not work, he'll get up from the table and leave. What dialogue are you talking about? You seem to have a romantic view of this. I understand this is the noble approach, but how close is it to reality if he talks in ultimatums?



Sergey Lavrov:

We cannot start by assuming failure at this meeting. What I think before the beginning of serious talks, you know how boxers take the ring – they weigh themselves and get psyched up, they brag to each other; then they begin the actual fight; and after the fight they embrace and congratulate each other.

I do not want to draw a direct analogy, but raising the stakes before a serious meeting is not news in world diplomacy. We will see.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3178517






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and responses to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Austrian Federal Minister for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs Karin Kneissl, Moscow, April 20, 2018



20 April 2018 - 14:14








Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to note that it was very pleasant to welcome my Austrian colleague, Federal Minister for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Austria Karin Kneissl, who is visiting Russia in this capacity for the first time.

Our detailed talks encompassed a wide range of issues, primarily on the bilateral agenda.

We discussed the status of and prospects for bilateral ties, with due consideration for the results of the February 28 meeting between President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and Federal Chancellor of the Republic of Austria Sebastian Kurz in Moscow. We noted that, despite the uneasy situation in Europe, sustained dialogue between our states continues to develop constructively.

We praised the current level of cooperation between our various national ministries, agencies and parliaments, as well as between Russian and Austrian regions. We praised stronger ties between civil societies. Russia and Austria advocate expanded cooperation relying on various mechanisms that have won a reputation for themselves, including the Mixed Intergovernmental Commission for Trade and Economic Cooperation, as well as the Russian-Austrian Business Council. We hope that these entities will meet in May and June.

We discussed the upcoming 50th anniversary of initial gas supplies from the Soviet Union to Austria and expressed satisfaction with the current level of energy cooperation, primarily under the joint projects of Gazprom and Austria’s oil and gas concern OMV.

We reviewed the implementation of the Declaration on Partnership for Modernisation that was signed in 2011. In this context we expressed our mutual interest in advancing large-scale infrastructure projects, including the construction of the wide-gauge Kosice-Vienna railway.

We are traditionally interested in expanding cultural and humanitarian exchanges. We praised the successful overlapping Year of Tourism in 2017. We are confident that the Year of Music and Cultural Routes, being held in 2018, will contribute to mutual understanding and contacts between people.

We also discussed relations between Russia and the European Union in connection with Austria’s upcoming presidency of the EU from July 1 and until the end of 2018.

We spoke in detail about various conflicts, primarily those in the Middle East, above all Syria, the status of the Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement and the situation in other conflict zones, including Iraq, Libya and Yemen.

We also discussed the Ukrainian issue. We believe there is no alternative to following through on the Minsk Package of Measures. We reviewed the OSCE’s role in implementing the Minsk Agreements and the possibility of bolstering this role by approving a UN Security Council resolution on protecting the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission. As you know, the Russian Federation submitted the relevant draft resolution to the UN Security Council in September 2017.

We also informed our Austrian colleagues in great detail about our assessments of the difficulties still hampering the fulfilment of the Minsk Agreements.

Russia and Austria are both interested in stepping up joint efforts in the area of counter-terrorism operations and illegal immigration. We hope that this dialogue will continue via bilateral channels and as part of Russia-UN relations.



Question:

I am sure you will say that the issues of Syria and Ukraine are not connected but the EU sanctions against Russia are a huge load and they do great damage to the Russian economy. Are you willing to make some concessions if these sanctions are lifted?



Sergey Lavrov:

Everything is connected in this world. When there is a striving to engage in geopolitical engineering, whether in Ukraine or Syria, we keep an eye on these attempts. And when we see that this engineering is aimed at deterring Russia in Europe or the Middle East, and calling into doubt our right to have and uphold our lawful interests in neighbouring regions, we are dealing with an integral, coordinated line that is often called a policy of solidarity. I spoke with Ms Minister about this “solidarity” as well.

I recently read a report about the interview given by Special Representative of the US State Department for Ukraine Kurt Volker to the newspaper La Stampa during his visit to Italy. When asked about his attitude towards the post-election discussion in the Italian Parliament about the prospects for anti-Russia sanctions, he said that if Italy starts decreasing these sanctions, it will have problems in the European Union (EU). The American representative made this statement on the territory of an EU country without being in the least embarrassed about talking on behalf of the EU. This is indicative. This is what is called “solidarity.”

You mentioned that the sanctions are damaging the Russian economy. Sanctions are always a double-edged sword. I will not mention the name of the respected institute in Vienna, but it recently published statistics on the damage sustained by Austria and the EU in general. It’s over tens of millions of dollars. Probably, this should be taken into account as well.

As for concessions, I would like to understand what concessions you have in mind. In general, normal people carry out agreements when they make them. Regarding Ukraine, we have the Minsk Agreements signed by the presidents of France, Ukraine, Russia and the German Chancellor and unanimously approved by a resolution of the UN Security Council. We showed Ms Minister in detail and with specific examples what obstacles we see in the way of this process.

Regarding Syria, UN Security Council Resolution 2254 says that Syria should be united and indivisible, and that it is necessary to respect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any political process should allow the Syrians to decide their future and the destiny of their country themselves, without any outside interference. All our activities are aimed at reaching this goal. We will not tolerate attempts at geopolitical engineering that are aimed at ruining Syria and creating a permanent presence of extra-regional forces there. All this contradicts the agreements we have been talking about. We shouldn’t depart from the principles approved by the UN Security Council. Concessions do not seem appropriate in this context.

In general, we have said more than once that the sanctions imposed on Russia unilaterally were illegal and damage all parties involved. But when we are asked to make some gesture or move so that our well-wishers in the EU can start a process to gradually weaken these sanctions we reply that we did not introduce them and do not see any reason to justify them. The main wave of sanctions were imposed when our European partners failed to abide by their promise and protect their guarantee under the agreement reached between the legitimate president of Ukraine and the opposition in February 2014.

When the coup took place on the following day, and the first act of the perpetrators was to adopt a law on discrimination against the Russian language, and when Ukraine’s eastern regions and Crimea refused to support the illegal leaders that came to power through absolutely illegal means, all of our Western colleagues came to terms with it and started supporting the rebels.

We were not listened to because of revenge against us for supporting the lawful rights of Ukraine’s Russian language speakers and demanding that these rights be respected in line with the high criteria of universal human rights conventions, including the European Convention on Human Rights. Regrettably, our Western colleagues unanimously sided with the illegal Ukrainian leadership created after the coup. Sanctions were imposed on us for our support of those who were turned into second-rate citizens.

We are not going to discuss any criteria for the lifting of sanctions. We do not intend to make any concessions in re-writing the Minsk Agreements. US representative Kurt Volker, whom I mentioned, suggests ideas that include cancelling the Minsk Agreements. He says that the Russian initiative on the protection of the OSCE mission by the UN does not meet the requirements for a settlement. It is necessary to introduce a couple of dozen armed soldiers, including those armed with heavy weapons, under the UN flag and establish a UN administration there. Relying on 20,000 bayonets this administration will draft a law on the election and conduct it, etc. Anyone who is even remotely interested in the issue will understand that these proposals have nothing to do with the Minsk Agreements. If this is an appeal to Russia to make a concession, it will not work, all the more so since any ideas regarding the Minsk Agreements should be settled directly between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. This is what these agreements envisage.

I am sure that the period we are now going thorough is not considered positive either by the EU or Russia. I do not think that there are some far-sighted and sensible politicians that consider it useful for our countries. I am convinced that common sense will eventually prevail. Relations between the EU and Russia, between the members of the EU and Russia should be built taking into consideration the national priorities of each partner rather than the interests of geopolitical games so often played by influential outsiders.



Question:

Austria wants to be a mediator between Russia and the West in the Syrian and other issues. Has Russia accepted this proposal? If so, with whom would it like to conduct talks?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have not heard Austria’s proposal to be a mediator between Russia and the West on the Syrian issue. Syria needs only one thing – mediation between all Syrian sides in order to bring them to the negotiating table based on the agreed-upon principles and help to start a direct dialogue, as is envisaged by UN Security Council Resolution 2254. This resolution says that the negotiating process should be inclusive, that the delegations of the Syrian Government and opposition groups from across the spectrum should take part in it, and that the Syrian parties should resolve the issues of a political settlement based on a consensus. I don’t see room for mediation between Russia and the West. That said, we highly value Austria’s efforts to create the appropriate atmosphere for implementing UN Security Council resolutions.

We recalled today how in better times Russia and the United States conducted negotiations. At their initiative the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) was established. It was co-chaired by John Kerry and myself, as well as Staffan de Mistura. Important and useful documents were drafted, which later formed the foundation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254. The ISSG met in both Vienna and Geneva. The Russian Federation favoured meeting in the Austrian capital that simultaneously remains one of the UN capitals in Europe. Vienna still offers these opportunities. As we emphasised today, this is not only owing to the geographical location that is acceptable to everyone but the political context, considering that Vienna is home to a number of major UN agencies. This is also an atmosphere that is largely being created by the traditions of neutrality that the Republic of Austria is promoting and that have earned it a very high reputation. Austria is always seen as an honest broker. I am sure that now that there is a shortage of honest brokers in the Syrian settlement, Austria could well facilitate the efforts that we are all making under UN aegis and with the participation of Staffan de Mistura whom we will meet later today.



Question:

The United States said yesterday that it plans to simplify the rules for arms exports to reduce the dependence of its partners on Russia and China in this area. Earlier this week, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Wess Mitchell warned Ankara that it may fall under US sanctions if it implements the S-400 deal with Russia. What can you tell us about Washington’s statements? Is this an attempt to push Russia out of all markets? How will Russia respond?

What do you think about yesterday’s statement by the US Department of State that it has evidence of Russia and Syria’s attempt to prevent OPCW inspectors from entering the Syrian city of Douma?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for arms exports, there has always been and always will be competition. It is important to observe certain principles in arms trade, primarily, renunciation of destabilising weapons supplies and sales to non-state actors. Competition must be honest and fair rather than based on the illegal advantages obtained by unlawful means, such as unilateral sanctions and the like.

As for Mitchell’s warning to Ankara that it may fall under sanctions if it buys S-400 systems from Russia, this is an example of blackmail to ensure unfair competition for US companies.

If I am correct, Mitchell made a direct threat. I just mentioned how one more US representative – Kurt Volker – threatened the Italians in Italy. Mitchell threatened Turkey from Washington. Both cases are linked to relations with the Russian Federation.

Replying to a similar question, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the decision to buy S-400s is the national decision of the Republic of Turkey. As a NATO member, the United States should also listen to the collective opinion that is expressed by the NATO Secretary-General.

As for yesterday’s statement on US evidence of Russian and Syrian attempts to prevent OPCW inspectors from entering Douma, let’s see it. We have presented evidence many times on the basis of fact, accompanied by pictures and interviews with specific people. As for our partners, we only hear from them that they have evidence, evidence in the incident that supposedly took place in Douma or the Salisbury case, to name two.

When chemical weapons were used in Khan Shaykhun a year ago we asked how the samples that ended up in labs in London and Paris were collected. We were told that this was classified. So, put the facts on the table and we will be able to talk clearly as professionals. If all this is groundless, these assertions will eventually be included in the book called “highly likely” and that will be it.

In the context of this statement I would like to recall that we addressed The Hague with a demand to send OPCW inspectors to Douma as soon as there appeared reports of the alleged use of chemical arms in April of this year. Our OPCW colleagues did not assemble a team immediately. They had to be pushed to do this. By April 13 the team arrived in Lebanon and was supposed to move to the border with the Syrian Arab Republic within hours, where Syrian officials were to issue Syrian visas to its members on the spot. At the same time, the Americans asked us to help their experts get into Douma and we agreed. Speaking to our French colleagues, we invited them to send their representatives as well. They also said this was a good idea but neither Washington nor Paris did anything about it. Strikes were carried out instead of trying to accompany the OPCW mission and find out first-hand whether anything had taken place or not. Therefore, it is clear who is preventing OPCW inspectors from entering Douma. Reality should not be distorted.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3181592






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks during a joint news conference following talks with UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, Moscow, April 20, 2018



20 April 2018 - 19:10








Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are glad to have an opportunity to hold another round of talks with Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Syria Staffan de Mistura and his team. We met here in Moscow not so long ago (in late March). Since then some quite serious events have taken place, so today we were meeting at a very complicated and tense moment in the development of the situation in and around Syria. I am referring, of course, to the aftermath of what happened on April 14, when the USA, Britain and France delivered missile and bomb strikes on many facilities in Syria. As we have said more than once, this was done under a totally fabricated pretext in violation of the bedrock principles of international law. This aggressive act brought many complications, including to the mandate of the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura. After the Sochi Congress, the summit of presidents of Russia, Turkey and Iran in Ankara on April 4, 2018, we were very close to resuming a real intra-Syrian dialogue in Geneva, especially on the constitutional reform. So, on April 14, the three countries I mentioned hit not only some imagined chemical facilities, but the Geneva negotiations as well.

Today we stressed that there was no alternative to political and diplomatic ways of overcoming the current crisis on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the decisions of the Sochi Syrian National Dialogue Congress which sealed the commitment to the twelve key settlement principles. I should remind you that they were initially put forward by Mr de Mistura. They are based on respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.

We have spoken in detail about our joint efforts with Iran and Turkey as guarantors of the Astana format. Obviously, in spite of the April 14 aggression, all of us still insist on an early meeting of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva with the assistance of Mr de Mistura and in coordination with other guarantor countries. We believe that the process should be guided by and implemented by the Syrians themselves. It should be based on free expression of the will of the Syrian people and aimed at adopting a constitution, to be followed by a free UN-supervised election involving all eligible Syrians.

We are one with our UN friends in believing that there is no military solution to the Syrian problem. Obviously, any attempts to implement this scenario are fraught with the direst consequences both for Syria itself and for regional and international stability. In this connection, we have indicated our serious concern over the fact that the opposition represented by the “national coalition of Syrian revolutionary and opposition forces” have called on the USA, Britain and France to continue their aggressive actions and extend the military operation to the entire territory of Syria. This statement is absolutely unacceptable. We hope that those who have influence on and control this opposition group will draw the right conclusions and rein them in.

We paid particular attention to humanitarian affairs. The parts of Syria liberated from the terrorists are in the process of returning under the control of the central authorities and they need assistance. It is very important to launch large-scale restoration projects. The main problem is that some donors lose interest in rendering assistance as soon as they lose the opportunity to derive political or even military dividends from it. We said we hoped that the UN and its specialised agencies would not stand aside from the problems and difficulties faced by the Syrian people and would act in strict accordance with their mandate.

We would like the UN to have a more active presence wherever there is a need for restoring housing, infrastructure and economic facilities. As I have said, we are talking about the districts in Aleppo, Eastern Ghouta, Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor that have been liberated from the terrorists and where refugees and internally displaced people are returning. In general, the issue of building up a UN presence in Syria merits attention, partly in terms of gathering authentic information. We cannot be happy with the situation where UN structures in their reports and public statements proceed from data drawn from other, non-UN sources in Syria. And these sources are very often the so-called “activists” and representatives of dubious NGOs financed by the states that are hostile to Damascus. As a result, a distorted and biased picture emerges.

We discussed all this frankly today. Like our UN colleagues, we want to see our common efforts to be freed from everything extraneous, from what we call geopolitical games, and concentrate on the core interests of the Syrian people in full accordance with Resolution 2254, which is the main mandate of the UN Secretary General’s Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura.

I think we had a very useful conversation today. We have an understanding of how to overcome this complicated situation and we will stay in touch.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3181850

[Alex Him]

Foreign Deputy Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s comment regarding the G7 statement on the Skripal case



17 April 2018 - 18:36




Moscow took note of the statement made by foreign ministers of the G7 countries in connection with the Skripal case.

The G7 again leveled fictional, absolutely unsubstantiated accusations against Russia in connection with the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the UK. Under a far-fetched pretext, it is demanded that we disclose to the OPCW all the data on the programme for creating the nerve agent Novichok that allegedly exists in our country. In short, nothing new. As is customary, our Western colleagues play loose with the facts and speak in phrases which are apparently learned by rote in some capital cities and then passed around like carbon copies. The arguments remain unchanged and boil down to the same notorious "highly likely" assessment and nothing more.

For those who are still unaware, I would like to remind you that in accordance with the presidential executive order, former Soviet developments in the sphere of chemical weapons in new Russia were shut down in 1992 and never resumed. Russia became one of the most active participants of the CWC, which came into force in 1997. In 2017, Russia’s chemical arsenal inherited from the Soviet Union was destroyed in strict accordance with CWC rules and under OPCW’s careful oversight.

Meanwhile, even in the mid-1990s, Western special services smuggled a number of former Soviet specialists, including GosNIIOKhT employees Mirzayanov, Dubov and Kazhdan, to name a few, and some former Soviet chemical programme documentation into their respective countries. Earlier Soviet studies were then continued in the countries of the "collective West." The results achieved there associated with creating new poisonous agents, which, for some reason, were classified under the general name of Novichok in the West, were published in over 200 open sources of NATO countries.

We also have to stress again what the G7 members are studiously avoiding. Currently, the United States, not Russia or Syria, remains the only CWC member which, for some reason, maintains a significant arsenal of chemical weapons.

Moreover, as we also known from open sources, various inventions associated with the use of full-fledged chemical warfare agents, including nerve agents, are being patented in the US.

We urge the G7 countries to refrain from spreading dubious inferences which are below the level of serious experts. We have become accustomed to very liberal interpretation of the facts by this group of countries, and we hope that the international community will not get its news from this "contaminated source."

We call on the G7 members to find the strength to move past their own opportunistic political ambitions and to put an end to actions which directly undermine the spirit and letter of the CWC.

We hope that our colleagues will keep all this in mind ahead of the special session of the OPCW Executive Board to be held on April 18, keep in mind the discussions of the Skripal case at the UN Security Council to be held on the same day, and draw appropriate conclusions for the future.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3174862






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s response to a media question regarding the OPCW experts’ access to Douma



17 April 2018 - 20:16




Question:

What can you say about some Western media outlets’ claims that Russia is blocking the OPCW Fact Finding Mission experts’ access to the town of Douma?



Maria Zakharova:

First, I would like to note that we support Director General of the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW Ahild Uzumlu’s decision to send the FFM inspectors to Douma to study the situation on site, namely, to collect evidence, such as soil samples, to run some tests on the people possibly affected by the attack, and so on. Under the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, all of that should be done only by authorised OPCW inspectors. Then, the evidence is sealed and delivered to certified OPCW laboratories (certified means that their findings are trusted by the OPCW and the entire international community).

I am confident that the entire world wants the OPCW inspectors to have unfettered access to the site of the alleged chemical incident in Douma and do their job. The issue is about providing a firm answer as to whether any poisonous agent was used in Douma on April 7 or not. The stakes are high. After all, the alleged use of chlorine in this town served as a pretext for the western "troika" to launch airstrikes on Syria on April 14 without the sanction of the UN Security Council and in a flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.

What is particularly cynical is that as soon as a team of international experts went to Syria to conduct the investigation, the "defenders of democracy" in the person of the United States and Britain went ahead with a missile attack on Syria. It was after this "air intervention" that representatives of the UN Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS), the OPCW experts, the Syrian authorities and representatives of the Russian military contingent in Syria had to urgently revise the plans regarding visiting the site of the alleged chemical attack, work out access routes, and re-negotiate the arrangements with the local forces. All the more so, since the irreconcilable militants have once again stepped up their activities in that region in the wake of such "constructive actions" by the United States and Great Britain.

Against this background, the disinformation campaign launched in the Western media claiming that Russia and Syria allegedly hamper the international inspectors’ access to Douma looks at least unseemly. Notably, Russia cannot block the FFM work by definition. After all, it was Russia that supported the Syrian government’s request to the Director General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat to send the OPCW experts to Douma. It is the Syrians and us who are accountable to the entire international community, the Director General of the OPCW, and finally the families, relatives and friends of the courageous FFM inspectors who, despite the difficulties involved, are determined to fulfill their duty.

It’s a shame that some people still want to accuse the Syrian and Russian authorities of neglecting and failing to fulfill their obligations to ensure free access to the site of the alleged chemical incident in Douma. Apparently, they are only too willing to risk the lives of OPCW experts in order to promote the disinformation they spread in the media.

We are not going to fall for these provocations. Russia is doing its part of the work in an exceptionally responsible, highly professional and reliable manner.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3174906






Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko’s interview with Interfax news agency, April 17, 2018



18 April 2018 - 11:04




Question:

Mr Grushko, Brussels prefers not to notice other Eurasian security organisations, including the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). So far, Brussels has failed to meet with understanding the idea of inter-institutional dialogue between NATO and the CSTO, being insistently advocated by Moscow and its CSTO allies. What changes in global politics are needed to change this situation and to compel NATO to become more responsive to dialogue with its Eastern partners?



Alexander Grushko:

Obviously, the problem of launching direct dialogue between the CSTO and NATO can be explained by the entirely different nature of these organisations.

NATO, the result of the Cold War-era military confrontation, has proved unable to renounce its ideology which is almost 70 years old and which is based on the external-enemy myth. If there is no such enemy, then it must be invented, otherwise any motives for the bloc’s existence would disappear. The alliance’s “old” new line to contain Russia merely confirms its failure to get rid of the bygone paradigm.

The CSTO was established in the absence of confrontation between blocs, but for jointly countering security challenges. The Organisation contains no one and does not claim the right to act as “the global police.” On the contrary, it is open for cooperation and consistently expands its relations with the UN, the OSCE, the CIS, the SCO and other concerned parties to international relations for joining efforts to address topical matters. It is simply impossible to try and build secure areas in a modern globalised world because neither separate states, nor even interstate associations can independently cope with trans-border threats. Unfortunately, far from everyone has so far understood it.



Question:

What does Moscow think about possible CSTO-NATO cooperation to resolve the situation in Afghanistan?



Alexander Grushko:

Longtime and large-scale foreign military presence in Afghanistan under the auspices of NATO does not improve the military-political situation in this country. Instead of diminishing, the threats of terrorism and illegal drug trafficking have increased many times over. All this once again shows the need for entirely new approaches and actions hinging on comprehensive efforts of all states and international organisations.

Operation Channel was launched virtually after the CSTO’s establishment, with the UN recognising it as the largest and most effective operation to thwart illegal drug trafficking from Afghanistan. Although a number of NATO countries became involved in the operation in various formats, the bloc failed to overcome ideologised approaches and to establish relations of cooperation between organisations serving as key security factors in the Euro-Atlantic region.

Indicatively, no one in NATO has openly contested potential benefits from joint efforts to stabilise Afghanistan and neutralise threats emanating from it. But, in the long run, the political arrogance of Brussels has become an obstacle to launching effective cooperation between the CSTO and NATO.



Question:

The Trump administration has requested $6.5 billion for the next fiscal year (starts in October 2018) to “contain the Russian aggression” in Europe, or $1.7 billion more than this year. More funds will be allocated for weapons, ammunition and upgrades of tanks and combat vehicles. How will this affect security on the CSTO’s European flank? How should the CSTO respond to the US and allied military preparations – by displaying restraint, intensifying military exercises, or deploying in the region the latest weapons systems that President Putin mentioned on March 1?



Alexander Grushko:

The North Atlantic Alliance and its individual member-countries, primarily the United States, are implementing a package of measures to build up its military potential near the CSTO borders. The direct consequence of NATO’s military preparations that are unprecedented in the history of the last 30 years is the swelling of conflict potential, growing distrust, as well as the disruption of the existing balance of forces in Europe.

The constantly growing costs of “containing” Russia and strengthening the “eastern flank” are meant to create a firm basis for these deployments. When NATO representatives tell us that these steps are “defensive and proportionate,” a question arises: Why launch a years-long programme envisaging a surge in defence spending, hustle those who fall behind, and aggressively spur on arms purchases and modernisation? Clearly, the statements coming out of NATO leaders that they are “interested in improving relations with Russia” are at odds with reality, with the alliance opting for a long-term and irreversible militarisation of Europe.

The CSTO’s approaches to ensuring security, sovereignty and territorial integrity are reflected in the Collective Security Strategy for the period up to 2025. Let me remind you that NATO is not mentioned in its list of external challenges and threats, because neither the alliance as a whole, nor its individual member-countries are regarded as adversaries. But an increase in military activities in territories contiguous on the CSTO’s area of responsibility is certainly affecting the interests of all its member-countries. The allies are unanimous in their assessment of negative processes on the continent. At the end of last year, the CSTO circulated a joint statement by its member-countries in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, which said that any attempts to provide for their own security at the expense of other states’ security were unacceptable and expressed concern over the build-up of the existing military groupings and deployment of new ones, the creation of military infrastructure near the CSTO borders, and the policy of containment.



Question:

NATO’s expansion strategy has not changed and will likely be continued. The bloc has shifted its focus to the Western Balkans and has increased its efforts to involve Ukraine and Georgia in its operations. What can be the effect of these processes on the CSTO’s collective security? What measures can the CSTO take to counter them?



Alexander Grushko:

NATO is moving its military infrastructure towards the CSTO’s borders by expanding its membership, which is disrupting the European security space and creating new dividing lines on the continent. Moreover, the example of Georgia has shown that the promises of NATO membership are interpreted by some governments as a licence to use military methods to deal with their problems and are fostering the feeling of permissiveness and impunity. This also applies to Ukraine, which is using NATO support to neglect its international commitments, including under the Minsk Package of Measures.

Back in the past, Russia contributed to eliminating the remnants of the bloc confrontation period by withdrawing its troops from Germany and other Central and Eastern European countries, and subsequently from the Baltics, as well as by honouring its pledge to reduce conventional forces and nuclear weapons. In response, NATO has carried out three waves of enlargement in violation of the promises to the contrary made to the Soviet Union. The opportunity to create a truly collective security system was missed.

As of now, the NATO military are not only becoming established on the territory of the new members but are also spreading its operations to Russia’s neighbours. They regularly call at the ports of Georgia, Finland, Sweden and Ukraine and hold joint military exercises with them within the framework of enhanced opportunities partnership. This amounts to an accelerated militarisation of the once most militarily tranquil Baltic and Northern European countries. Military and political tensions are growing in the South Caucasus and the Black Sea area, and the settlement of the internal Ukrainian crisis is being dragged out.

Possible steps to de-escalate the situation and reduce the risk of unpremeditated incidents could include the reduction of military activities near the CSTO’s zone of responsibility, the withdrawal of permanently deployed or rotational forces to their home stations, as well as the termination of the military superiority policy. The CSTO member states pointed this out in the joint statement mentioned above.



Question:

The NATO countries have sided with the UK, which accused Russia of involvement in the so-called Skripal case. What does Moscow think about this NATO solidarity, which has been offered before the causes of the Salisbury incident were reliably established? Can this become yet another factor complicating Russia-NATO relations?



Alexander Grushko:

These actions by the UK and its NATO allies did not come as a surprise to us. It is obvious that they needed new arguments in favour of enhancing their military activity on the eastern flank ahead of the Brussels summit scheduled for July. This is why they have launched this absurd campaign to reinforce the enemy image of Russia. NATO’s deterrence plans regarding Russia will always need political and ideological backing. We must be ready for more campaigns such as the Skripal case.



Question:

How does NATO respond to Russia’s calls to resume a military dialogue? Are there any plans to prepare for a meeting between Chief of the General Staff of Russia’s Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov and Supreme Allied Commander Europe Curtis M. Scaparrotti in the near future or to maintain any other military contacts?



Alexander Grushko:

Indeed, Russia and NATO made certain headway in the establishment of contacts between their respective military leaders last year. In March 2017, Chief of the General Staff of Russia’s Armed Forces and First Deputy Defence Minister Valery Gerasimov spoke by telephone with Chairman of the NATO Military Committee Petr Pavel. This conversation became the first high-level contact between Russian and NATO military leaders after the bloc’s decision to “freeze” relations with Russia. They met in Baku in September 2017. After their meeting, Valery Gerasimov had a telephone conversation with Supreme Allied Commander Europe Curtis M. Scaparrotti. Their face-to-face meeting was discussed via their March 2018 telephone conversation.

NATO leaders regularly note the need for meaningful dialogue and efforts to achieve de-escalation as well as to prevent unintentional incidents. But their practical steps, including efforts to scale down our diplomatic and military presence in Brussels, merely annul prospects for the normalisation of relations.



Question:

Have the sides set forth deadlines for holding a new meeting of the Russia-NATO Council? What are the most topical matters on the current agenda?



Alexander Grushko:

The latest events, including the expulsion of Russian diplomats from NATO member-countries and the reduction of the personnel of the Russian Permanent Mission to NATO in Brussels by one-third, hardly correlate with the alliance’s statements voicing its interest in convening a regular meeting of the Russia-NATO Council.



Question:

The Ambassador of Poland has recently expressed his concern with the allegedly unjustified militarisation of the Kaliningrad Region. He also said that Warsaw was interested in deploying a permanent NATO military contingent in Poland, in connection with threats emanating from Russia. What is your reply to this?



Alexander Grushko:

First of all, I would like to repeat that such statements made by NATO representatives about the existence of some “Russian threat” mostly aim to brainwash public opinion. A professional evaluation of our military potentials shows that it is precisely Russia which should boost its defence capability. This is exactly what we are doing in the region in the context of heightened NATO activities.

In short, it is precisely NATO’s large-scale military buildup which is the main factor of destabilising the military-political situation in Europe. I would like to point out that the increasingly more active militarisation of Poland which initiates common European initiatives against Russia is one of the main elements of this destabilisation. Predictably, Russia is forced to implement military-technical measures in response to inciting tension in direct proximity to its borders. These measures are purely defensive and are more cost-efficient.

Regarding Warsaw’s desire to ensure the permanent deployment of NATO’s forces and resources in Poland, this runs counter to a key provision of the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act, namely, an obligation to refrain from the additional permanent deployment of substantial military forces in the new NATO member-countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3176788






Remarks by Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at a OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the situation in Ukraine and implementation of the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, April 19, 2018



20 April 2018 - 12:15




Mr Chairperson,

It has been four years since Kiev started its punitive operation against the people of Donbass which is hypocritically called a counter-terrorist operation. Renaming it an ‘allied forces’ operation’ which, according to Petro Poroshenko, will begin on April 30 does not change its nature. In violation of the Ukrainian constitution, civilians are being attacked by the troops, paramilitary forces, foreign recruits and volunteer raiders.

The random attacks on residential areas that caused a huge number of casualties and massive destruction in the summer of 2014 still continue. Ukrainian security forces sabotaged the Eastern ceasefire despite the fact that on March 29, Normandy format leaders, including Petro Poroshenko, stressed the importance of strict compliance with the truce and confirmed their commitment to the Minsk Agreements.

On April 11, there were attacks on Donetsk and Staromikhailovka. Reportedly, 120-mm mortar guns firing from the northwest injured three civilians and damaged 23 buildings in Donetsk. Two civilians were injured and ten buildings were damaged in Staromikhailovka. On April 14, Yasinovataya was under attack, with two buildings damaged. Over the two weeks between April 4-18 alone, 14 civilians were injured, 70 residential buildings and five infrastructure facilities were damaged.

On April 17, the Ukrainian Armed Forces used the Special Monitoring Mission’s aerial footage to target equipment prepared in Lugansk for the Great Patriotic War Victory Parade. This is unacceptable.

On the same day, April 17, Donetsk Filtering Station service vehicles were attacked by precision fire from the western side of the road leading to the station (where the Ukrainian Armed Forces are positioned; their trench shelter is only 70 metres from the station). Five people sustained injuries of various degrees. The station has been halted and its staff evacuated. This is threatening water supply to over 600,000 people.

We expect that the station will resume operation as soon as possible provided the safety of its employees is guaranteed. We see the Special Monitoring Mission playing the key role in this measure. As long as the observers escorted the Donetsk Filtering Station staff, the Ukrainian personnel refrained from shelling.

The concentration of arms and military equipment on the contact line continues. Since the Easter ceasefire, in violation of the Package of Measures, the Special Monitoring Mission discovered more than 100 units of Ukraine’s equipment. The military equipment is located within the boundaries of residential areas. On April 13, the SMM spotted five howitzers 100 metres away from a residential area in the town of Vozrozhdeniye. Next day, they spotted a howitzer at the eastern border of Bogdanovka.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces’ creeping offensive continues. On April 15, observers spotted a combat reconnaissance patrol vehicle with four Ukrainian troops within the separation area near Zolotoy. Clearly, there is a risk of another Shirokino case which was occupied by the Ukrainians after demilitarisation. Before implementing the right ideas of creating safe areas around infrastructure facilities at the contact line, it is necessary to guarantee that they will not be taken over by the Ukrainian army.

There is a persistent landmine threat to observers and civilians in Donbass. It has been a year since the tragic explosion of an SMM vehicle near Prishib in the LPR that killed American paramedic Joseph Stone. The International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission concluded that, as British diplomats would put it, it is “highly likely” that it was the Ukrainian Armed Forces that planted the landmine and watched it detonate remotely.

Last week, the SMM found new minefields near Avdeyevka, Maryinka, Mayorsk and Lebedinsky. Kiev continues to strategically keep the SMM in the dark under the guise of landmine danger. The areas near Stanitsa Luganskaya, Zolotoy, Schastye and some others, controlled by the Ukrainian security forces, have long been closed to the observers. In the areas where the Ukrainian army conducted mine clearing operations, the SMM soon discovered more landmine barriers.

Kiev’s militaristic rhetoric is expanding. Before his US visit, Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov took to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry’s official Facebook page to announce the return of Donbass by force “involving peacekeeping groups.” In case anyone here has forgotten, let me remind you that Section 9 of the Package of Measures lays out the process by which the government regains control over the border. It is conditioned on the overarching political settlement, the parameters of which are also specified in the Package of Measures.

Kiev is pretending that the Minsk Agreements have nothing to do with Ukraine. Once again, we urge the OSCE to analyse the so-called law on re-integration of Donbass and other pseudo-legal actions by Kiev for conformity with the Package of Measures.

It appears to us that Kiev benefits from dragging out the conflict. Officials are doing everything they can to bring the crisis settlement process to a deadlock. They are refusing to engage in a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. Yesterday, at a meeting of the Contact Group in Minsk, Ukraine once again sabotaged the discussion of political aspects of the settlement as the parties were outlining the agenda for a political subgroup meeting.

Kiev is bringing back the very causes that triggered the conflict in the first place. Persecution of the Russian language and culture, the Orthodox Church and journalists is increasing. It has been three years since the murder of Oles Buzina in Kiev. The crime has not been solved yet although the perpetrators were arrested shortly after. An Orthodox church in Herzen Street in Kiev was set on fire. It was the fifth arson at the church since 2013.

Nationalists continue to commit outrages as well. Last week, radicals tried to sabotage the flower-laying ceremony at the memorial to WWII heroes, General Nikolai Vatutin in Kiev and the Monument to the Unknown Sailor in Odessa.

The hypocrisy and double standards of the Western countries when it comes to the Ukrainian crisis is astounding. It was reported that ‘Ukrainian hero’ Nadezhda Savchenko went on a strict hunger strike in Ukrainian detention. This is, of course, Ukraine’s domestic issue but it is interesting for us to follow the fate of a person who was an ongoing topic of questions here. Now there is only silence.

We are closely watching developments around the Nord crew, Russian nationals still held captive by Ukraine.

Mr Chairman,

In conclusion I would like to stress once again that there is no alternative to a comprehensive political settlement based on the Minsk Package of Measures and a direct dialogue between the parties to the internal Ukrainian conflict – Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk.

Donbass residents deserve a peaceful sky, a life without fear of nighttime shelling, access to water, electricity, a normal peaceful life without threat to their values, without fear of being subjected to torture, violence and looting by so-called Ukrainian patriots and special services.

The situation cannot be helped by hypocritical speechmaking about violations of international law, aggression and occupation coming from long-standing violators of international law who severed a part of Serbia, destroyed peace in Iraq and Libya and recently conducted another act of aggression against Syria, all under the pretext of another ‘Powell vial.’

If Western countries do want peace in Ukraine, it is in their power to use their significant political and financial influence on Kiev to enforce the Minsk Agreements.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3180042






Comment by Foreign Ministry Official Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on threats by British media to launch a “cyber offensive” against Russia



20 April 2018 - 12:32




We have paid attention to the accusations, which were made by British Home Secretary Amber Rudd at a cyber security conference in Manchester on April 11 which were caught up by the British media, that Russia was to blame for “systematic cyber attacks”. Calls were immediately heard from London for a tough response from Britain and the international community.

This is yet another provocative and proofless hit against Russia without any attempt to clarify the situation in contact with the Russian side. We regard the overhyped speculation as nothing more, nor less, than the intention of the British side to avoid any dialogue with us on this topic.

Let me remind you that we have repeatedly, at various levels, invited our British partners to hold bilateral interdepartmental consultations on international information security. Thus, a corresponding proposal was spelled out by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during his meeting with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson in Moscow in December 2017.

We demand that the British side provide concrete evidence in support of the above-mentioned accusations. By the way, our embassy in London filed a formal request with the British Foreign Office through a diplomatic note. So far, there has been no reply.

The impression is that by pedalling the theme of the alleged “cyber threat from Russia”, the British Government is preparing its own population to the approval of a massive anti-Russian cyber attack by London, which, if it does take place, will be a really aggressive and absolutely unprovoked move.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3181314






Remarks by the head of the Russian delegation, Permanent Representative of Russia to the OPCW, Ambassador Alexander Shulgin at the 59th session of the OPCW Executive Council, the Hague, April 18, 2018



20 April 2018 - 13:50



Mr Chairman,

Let me begin by quoting the great thinker, Martin Luther: “A lie is like a snowball: the further you roll it the bigger it becomes.”

This wise dictum fully applies to politics. He who has embarked on the path of deceit has to lie again and again, think up explanations for discrepancies and engage in disinformation and deception. Every trick in the book is used to cover the tracks of a lie and conceal the truth.

Britain now finds itself on this slippery slope. This is made very clear by the so-called Skripal case, fabricated by the British authorities – an undisguised anti-Russian provocation backed up by an unprecedented propaganda campaign, which has been taken up by a group of countries, and culminating in an unprecedented expulsion of diplomats under a specious pretext. However, don’t pass this group off for the entire international community, it is far from that.

A month has passed since the British Prime Minister Theresa May leveled at Russia extremely serious accusations of alleged use of a chemical weapon. We had patiently waited for explanations hoping that our British colleagues would support their high-profile statements with facts that are at all coherent. We repeatedly offered to work together to investigate the events in Salisbury and requested information. In return, we heard arrogant demands that Russia should confess to having committed a crime.

Britain continues to pile on absolutely unsubstantiated charges, trotting out ever new and often incongruous theories of what had happened. British politicians and officials are unable to stop and continue to pour on more torrents of lies. London sabotages any attempts to conduct a truly objective investigation into the Salisbury incident together with Russian experts. They have imposed total secrecy, claiming that they are conducting their own investigation. And yet the “culprits” have already been named.

The reason why this is being done is clear. The British seek at all costs to conceal the true picture of what happened, to hide all evidence that could show their true colours. In short, they are playing for time. As time goes on it will become more difficult to sort out what really happened (or did not happen) in Salisbury.

A lie is always afraid of the truth because the truth is the most dreaded weapon against lies. Let us then turn to bare facts demonstrating how brazenly and crudely the British government is spreading insinuations concerning the Skripal case.

Lie № 1

Russia will not answer legitimate British questions conveyed on March 12 this year through the Russian Ambassador to the UK Alexander Yakovenko (repeated like a mantra by some of Britain’s allies).

I have to remind you that the British side asked us to admit to one of the two theories it has concocted: either the poisoning of Sergey and Yulia Skripals was a deliberate Russian act, or Russia has lost control of its alleged arsenal of toxic agents. In spite of the brazen character of this ultimatum, we did not ignore it and instead gave an immediate and clear answer: Russia has nothing to do with the Salisbury chemical incident. These were the only questions Britain asked us.

Lie № 2

Britain is proceeding in strict accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Facts attest to the opposite. The Convention’s Article IX prescribes that its member states hold bilateral consultations on any disputed issues, but we see that in reality Britain has evaded this provision and still refuses to work with us. As for the British ultimatum I have mentioned, conveyed through the Russian Ambassador, there is no way it can be seen as “an offer of cooperation” in the CWC sense or as “an inquiry for legal assistance.”

We, for our part, on April 13, conveyed to the British side through the Technical Secretariat, under Clause 2 of Article IX, a list of legitimate questions we have on the Skripal case. We acted strictly in accordance with the Convention and expected our partners in London to act likewise. No answer has been forthcoming. Britain does not seem to notice the Convention and does not want to act in accordance with its provisions.

We saw London invent a new form of procedure – “independent verification by the OPCW Technical Secretariat of the findings of the British side.” Let me stress: this is not in the Convention. It is a British invention. Instead of precisely following the Convention’s provision, Britain is playing mind games with everyone.

Lie № 3

Russia refuses to cooperate to establish the truth.

In fact, the opposite is true. Russia is extremely interested – perhaps even more than any other country – in an honest, open and unbiased investigation of the Salisbury incident. We have repeatedly offered, asked for and demanded British cooperation in the investigation. We submitted to the 57th emergency session of the Executive Committee a draft resolution calling on Russia and Britain to establish such cooperation bringing in the Technical Secretariat. We said then and we confirm now that we are ready to cooperate with the OPCW and within the OPCW. Unfortunately, all our efforts run into the brick wall of London’s total refusal to cooperate.

Lie № 4

Britain claims that Russia keeps endlessly proliferating new explanations of the Salisbury chemical incident in order to deflect the barrage of criticism for the alleged use of chemical weapons on British territory.

In reality, this is exactly what the British side is doing by having its “independent” media come up with ever new theories: poison in a suitcase, on a door handle, in a package of buckwheat, in a restaurant, in a bunch of flowers, in a car ventilation system, in perfume, etc.

Lie № 5

The Russian leadership allegedly declared that eliminating traitors abroad is the official policy of the Russian Federation.

This is slander and utter nonsense. Let them quote chapter and verse. Obviously, Britain will be unable to cite a single such statement because Russia’s leaders have never said anything remotely like it.

Lie № 6

The conclusions of the Technical Secretariat experts after testing the samples recovered from the Skripal father and daughter, have confirmed that they were poisoned with an agent belonging to the Novichok family.

Our military experts are ready to share their assessments of what the Technical Secretariat report says concerning the results of the work of its group of experts in Britain.

For now I can say just one thing: the claim that the Technical Secretariat has confirmed that the chemical points to its Russian origin is a brazen lie. The report never once mentions Novichok and the CPCW does not contain such a notion. Nor is there any confirmation in the Technical Secretariat’s report of a “Russian trail” in the chemical substance found in Salisbury.

In spite of this the British authorities immediately leaked “fake news” to the world media to the effect that the OPCW allegedly had confirmed that the Skripals had been poisoned by Novichok, apparently only developed in the USSR and Russia, hence Moscow is the culprit. This shows how the conclusions have been tampered with in the report made by the Technical Secretariat.

Lie № 7

Novichok is a Soviet invention and it could only have been produced in Russia.

It is worth recalling that Novichok is a Western name of a group of toxic agents that were developed in many countries, including in Great Britain. The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson confirmed in a recent interview that there were samples of the substance at the Porton Down lab in Great Britain. Generally, we have quite a few questions we’d like to ask this lab. It would be interesting to know how it determined that the Skripals had been poisoned by the Novichok-type nerve gas. Any reasonable person knows that this can only be established if you have the precursor with which the chemical found can be compared. This suggests that the lab has stocks of Novichok and perhaps antidotes that were used to treat the Skripals.

Russia has never done any research and development under a programme called Novichok. I repeat: there has never been such a programme with that name. During the Soviet times, as of the 1970s not only Soviet but also British and American scientists were developing new types of nerve agents. One instance is the notorious VX nerve gas. During the 1990s, after the collapse of the USSR, Western intelligence services took out of Russia a group of chemical scientists together with their research papers. Western specialists set about studying the research material thoroughly and used it as a starting point for work in this sphere. They achieved some success which became known to the public.

We are well aware that Novichok-type nerve gas was produced in a number of countries. Unlike our Western partners who roll their eyes and say that they know something others don’t, and add that this is classified information they cannot share, we work differently. We use open sources. On December 1, 2015, the US Patent and Trademark Office asked the Russian patent agency to verify the patentability of a product invented by American researcher T.Rubin. Here is the document (shown on screen).

The invention is a bullet with a special cavity for storing various types of toxic agents. A lethal effect is achieved due to the impact of the toxic substance on a human body. To put it simply, the ammunition is in the jurisdiction area of the CPCW. The bullet is provided with binary components which interact with each other on impact. And this is what we read on page 11 of the official US document: “At least one of the active substances may be selected from nerve agents including... tabun (GA), sarin (GB), soman (GD), cyclosarin (GF), and VG, …VM, VR, VX, and [attention!] Novichok agents."

In other words, the document confirms that Novichok-type nerve agents were not only produced but were also patented in the USA as chemical weapons. This didn’t happen such a very long time ago. It was a patent dated December 1, 2015.

Moreover, if the word "Novichok" is put in the search engine of the digital source google.patents.com you can find over 140 patents issued by the United States, related to the use as well as the protection from exposure to the toxic agent Novichok.

These are the real facts and not just idle talk, and this is our answer to those who shamelessly declare that the USSR and Russia possessed and produced Novichok-type nerve agents.

Lie № 8

One of the victims, Yulia Skripal, a Russian citizen, allegedly avoids contact with her relatives and has turned down Russian consular help.

The British authorities are hiding Yulia Skripal from the media as well as from the public. Her whereabouts are unknown. Russian representatives as well as her relatives are denied access to her (the British authorities have refused to issue her cousin Viktoria an entry visa). She is unable to return back to Russia for medical purposes and treatment.

The above-mentioned circumstances attest that the Russian citizen Yulia Skripal is effectively a hostage
of the British authorities and is being forcibly detained on British soil and is being exposed to psychological pressure.

I have cited only a few examples of how the British authorities engage in misinformation and open lying. I could go on citing other instances, but I think I should stop. Characteristically, Britain does not bother to retract any of its claims in spite of the fact that they absolutely don’t hold any water.

I have no doubt that we are going to see more fake news planted, pseudo leaks to the media as well as insults from British officials aimed at us. But no real proof will be offered.

Great Britain is demonstrating its refusal to cooperate earnestly in investigating this murky affair. This convinces us that the British do not want the truth. They cannot afford to let it come out into the open.

The Technical Secretariat report on the findings of British experts prompts a number of questions and calls for a further detailed study, including with the British side. Any specialist understands that any final conclusions can only be made when the chemical material and spectral analysis of the above-mentioned samples are before their very eyes. But the Technical Secretariat made this material available only to London.

We stress: Russia will not take at face value any conclusions concerning the “Skripal case” until a simple condition is met: Russian experts are given access to the victims and the above-mentioned OPCW test results and all the real information on the incident at London’s disposal.

We have weighty reasons to believe that all this is a crude provocation against the Russian Federation on the part of the British secret services. If the British side continues to refuse to cooperate with us, this would merely confirm what we are already confident about that this is really the case.

Mr Chairman,

One cannot help but recall the following saying: lies are not a method of justification, but a method of protection. On April 16, we heard another strange statement: G7 calls on Russia to answer Britain’s legitimate questions concerning the “Skripal case.” We consider this as our response.

By the same token we would like to hear from the British side the answers to numerous and specific questions from the Russian Federation that deal with the Salisbury case. We would also appreciate if G7 representatives explained to us why their countries, based on fake information, unleashed a diplomatic war against Russia.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

We request that this statement be distributed as an official document of the emergency session of the OPCW Executive Council.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3181475






Statement by Ambassador Vassily Nebenzya, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the UN Security Council meeting convened at the March 13, 2018 request of Great Britain, New York, April 18, 2018



20 April 2018 - 13:51




Mr President,

We are grateful to Ms Izumi Nakamitsu for her briefing.

We are also grateful to our UK partners for today’s briefing. We looked forward to it, but, regrettably, we have not heard anything new today.

As I listen to some of our colleagues, it no longer sounds like something from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland but rather its sequel, Through the Looking-Glass. Truth is not what our Western partners seek, and not only in this particular case. They refuse to hear or even listen. As the saying goes, we talk about Thomas and they talk about Jonas.

Today we have again heard the same lies the UK has been using to deceive the international community. The UK claims that it has not received any answers to the questions it asked us. I would like to say again that the UK has only issued a 24-hour ultimatum to us that contained one question: Why did we do it? And yet some of the UK’s allies continue to stubbornly urge us to answer Britain’s questions and to cooperate with it. If you have any questions we do not have, maybe you will forward them to us? We would be grateful for this, because the UK has not asked any additional questions.

We see the same old set of ungrounded accusations, only this time allegedly backed up by the OPCW’s report. I have to tell you that there is nothing in the OPCW report that would substantiate the UK’s allegations about Russia’s involvement in the Salisbury incident. The main element that is missing in the OPCW report, which the UK wanted to see so much, is that it cannot be said definitively that the nerve agent used in Salisbury was manufactured in Russia. Moreover, the speed with which the OPCW has made its analysis only shows that this agent could be produced in any laboratory that is equipped for this. To be able to conduct a comparative analysis, one must have access to a standard sample of a given toxic agent. There are such laboratories in the UK, including at Porton Down, as well as in the US and several other countries. The formula of this agent was made public in 1998, when the US Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Centre added it to the database of the American National Standards Institute. Moreover, searching for the word “Novichok” on Google Patents shows that over 140 patents on the use of and protection from this toxic agent have been issued in the United States alone.

One month and two weeks have passed since the incident in Salisbury occurred on March 4; however, the number of question marks surrounding this story has not decreased but, on the contrary, is dramatically increasing. This kind of conduct from London is nothing new to us. At today's session of the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the British representative, whose speech was as usual based on lies and misinformation about Russia's motives, methods and means, yet again said, "Russia has a proven record of conducting state-sponsored assassination." My question is, proven by whom? Of course, this was followed by plenty of references to the Litvinenko case, with arguments based on a fashionable formulation in British jurisprudence: "President Putin probably approved it," "The Russian state may have been involved," "The Russian state may have sponsored," "There have been numerous suspected Russian state-sponsored attacks."

Ladies and gentlemen, what we are seeing and hearing today is like deja vu. We saw it in the case of Alexander Litvinenko's poisoning - a total lack of transparency regarding the actions of the British who are still concealing all documentary information that would make it possible to piece together the whole picture of what happened to Litvinenko. For those who don’t know, Great Britain simply classified this information.

The OPCW's report on technical assistance on April 12 was no exception to London's modus operandi. In the document's open part, which took up one and a half pages, the British prohibited organisation experts not only from mentioning what type of technical assistance was requested but event from naming the toxic agent identified by Porton Down. London chose to conceal all this information in the report's closed part whose discussion in the open format of the Council meeting would be a violation of OPCW confidentiality. For us, it is obvious why this was done.

Well, if the British side does not give Council members the right to discuss what was allowed to be included in the report's substantive part then let us discuss what is lacking. And what is lacking is, first, any mention of the Russian Federation, which corresponds to the conclusions by Porton Down we heard earlier. There is not the slightest mention of factors of poisoning for Sergey Skripal and Yulia Skripal as well as for Nick Bailey. Lacking also is information on the course of their illness and treatment methods used.

Nor will you find there any explanations of how a toxic agent, which, according to its alleged creator Vil Mirzayanov, is “extremely unstable in humid conditions”, could have been detected “in high concentrations” almost two weeks after the incident. Also, there is not a single word about how the aforementioned substance, which is allegedly ten times more lethal than VX, was able to affect some of the victims exposed to it only seven hours afterwards, while others were affected immediately. Perhaps, Vil Mirzayanov and Porton Down are talking about different toxic agents?

Moreover, you will not find in it any more or less reasonable explanation of how a blood sample, which was taken from the female victim 18 days after the exposure, could have contained the non-decomposed toxic agent identified by Porton Down, whereas, nothing of the sort was found in another victim, who suffered more severe poisoning. This would not only be uncharacteristic of toxic nerve agents, but it could indirectly indicate “with a high degree of likelihood” that the toxic agent identified by Porton Down was injected into the blood of the victim, who was in a medically induced coma, prior to collecting blood samples, and therefore could not enter into a biochemical reaction.

This gives rise to a question. On April 5, the UK Permanent Representative reacted to a quotation from Boris Johnson, cited by me, concerning the availability at Porton Down of samples of A-234, by saying that Britain is allowed to conduct research for defence purposes. Perhaps, the esteemed experts from Porton Down have studied and possess this and other toxic agents that are not on the corresponding lists of the Chemical Weapons Convention. I believe that, within the framework of preparations for a report by the Scientific Advisory Board of the OPCW Technical Secretariat Director-General for the 4th Chemical Weapons Convention Review Conference, it is high time for Porton Down experts to tell the world about their research into the A-234 agent for defence purposes and, possibly, about other toxic agents that pose a threat to the Convention’s goals. But let us not harboгr illusions – the line of conduct taken by Britain on the Salisbury incident makes it clear that this will not be done. Britain and its allies are simply not interested in a professional discussion. Meanwhile, the further it unfolds, the more professional chemists and experts challenge the official British version.

Mr Chairman,

Regrettably, London’s loose interpretation of the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention is bound to raise questions. For example, Britain keeps saying that its domestic investigation conforms to Clause 1 of Article VII of the Convention. This assumption would have been justified if not for one “but” – that would apply only to investigations of physical and legal entities under Britain’s jurisdiction. I hope I do not have to explain that Russia is not under Britain’s jurisdiction. In this context, we would like to ask London to explain: are statements by Downing Street on Russia’s alleged involvement in the Salisbury incident an attempt to bring political pressure on the investigating team, or are they the final conclusions of Scotland Yard’s investigation? Or is it normal for the British legal system to wait for the government to assign guilt and then tailor the investigation to this conclusion?

Let me emphasise once again – any doubts about the faithful fulfilment of obligations under the Convention should be settled in accordance with Article IX. We do not know any other meanings of “shall” or “should.” We would be grateful to native speakers if they could tell us when these verbs may not be obligatory. This would be very useful for our further work in the Security Council.

Since our repeated proposals to London to start cooperation under Article IX have been ignored and inquiries of Russia’s Prosecutor General’s Office on legal aid in line with Clause 2 of Article VII remained unanswered, we have no other choice but to initiate a query of our own under Clause 2 of Article IX with a list of questions for Britain on the Salisbury incident of March 4. On April 13, the Permanent Mission of Russia in The Hague sent a corresponding note to Britain via the OPCW Technical Secretariat.

In the light of the above, we are convinced that to bolster up the Convention, the Secretariat’s Director General should submit a draft providing for the elaboration of amendments to the Annex on lists of chemicals to the next session of the OPCW Executive Council in accordance with Clause 5 of Article XV of the Convention. This decision will make it possible not only to officially classify the substance identified by Porton Down as a chemical warfare agent but also to put it and its precursors under systematic control by the OPCW. This is what should have been done by the countries that, as it transpires, had all the information required for this, including samples of this toxic chemical, instead of using the rostrums of the OPCW and the Security Council to spread their groundless accusation that Russia violated its obligations under the Convention.

Mr Chairman,

It is no secret that the British authorities have unleashed an information campaign, or rather warfare against Russia over the so-called Skripal case. Norms of international law and law in general, the principles and laws of diplomacy, common sense and elementary courtesy are flouted. Against the background of a pointed silence of the competent British agencies over the substance of the case and the flurry of political declarations and pronouncements directed against Russia from the start, ever new versions of what is happening appear, significant discrepancies surface, information and blatant disinformation are being thrown in, which London has no intention of refuting. The hoax has been planted. Then they expect that amid the cacophony of unsubstantiated charges and references to reputable organisations such as the OPCW, which allegedly “has fully confirmed the British conclusion of Russia’s complicity,” which, I repeat, is a brazen lie, the states and the public will not bother to look closely at the niceties of chemical analyses and the numerous discrepancies in the charges brought. As Winston Churchill said, “There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion.” And of course the British and their allies have no problem spreading their false claims through the media.

The British side has asked us two questions. We asked the British authorities 47 questions. Here they are. We received partial answers to two of them. No answers have been given to the questions we put during the previous Council session on this issue on April 5. We have more questions in the pipeline. We promised that we won’t get off your back.

To give you an idea of the scientific and factual aspects of the case we will make available to you the speeches of Russian representatives at the 59th OPCW session and for good measure the chronology of the events prepared by our embassy in London. We will also distribute these remarks of mine.

Meanwhile the British authorities are quietly destroying physical and all other evidence: the animals from the Skripal home have been put down. No samples have probably been taken from them. The places the Skripals had visited have been closed off: the bar, the restaurant, the bench, the soil in the park, etc. Meanwhile the ordinary people in Salisbury go about their daily life as usual. Yulia Skripal’s whereabouts are unknown. There is no consular access to the Russian citizen. Let me remind you that neither Yulia nor Sergey have been seen since March 4. And yet these Russian citizens are victims of a crime, an attempted murder that bears the signs of terrorism.

I would like to reaffirm our principled stand: we will not accept the results of any national or international investigations unless we have access to the whole body of information (be it data of the criminal prosecution or complete technical reports from laboratories), unless we are able to exercise our right to consular access to Russian citizens and, most importantly, without direct participation of Russian experts in all the actions aimed at clarifying the picture of what happened in Salisbury on March 4.

The only indisputable fact for us today is that London continues to hide critical information and reject any transparency in this matter.

The British embassy in Moscow again caught the limelight by releasing the following “sensational” information, pretty much the same information as that presented by the British Permanent Representative to the OPCW and the Permanent Representative to the UN in today’s letter to the UN Secretary General:

1. During the past ten years Russia has been producing and stockpiling Novichok gas.

2. Russia has been doing research into the use of toxic agents as weapons in assassinations.

3. Beginning from 2013, Russian intelligence has been interested in Sergey Skripal.

Bravo, my applause.

Going back to the letter of the British Permanent Representative to the UN which she distributed today among the permanent members of the Security Council. As usual, the document bristles with false, unproven and slanderous claims. As usual, it is full of expressions such as “highly likely,” “may have been,” “suspected.” Britain has the nerve to speak unequivocally about our chemical statement and to discuss the methods used by our special services. However, this time around our British colleagues went a step further. They directly accused President Putin of being involved in the chemical warfare programme, without inverted commas or expressions like “highly likely.” I have always been surprised and amused by the fantastic ideas our British and not only British colleagues have of the way the Russian government system works. London apparently thinks that the Russian President has a hobby of supervising the chemical weapons programme in his leisure hours. I wonder if London or the permanent mission here realise that they have crossed all conceivable limits of what is acceptable and those of decency. I think you should thank our President for his self-control.

What is all this for?

The answers are as obvious as they are banal.

It is an attempt to besmirch Russia and put into question its legitimacy and role in the world. It is not for nothing that I said there is a connection between Salisbury and Douma. First, both are provocations. And, second, both are put at Russia’s door.

This dirty provocation against Russia aims to deepen the rift between Russia and the European Union, which apparently is very important for Britain ahead of Brexit.

That is all there is to it.

In conclusion, Mr Chairman, it is time to bring in the classics. William Shakespeare said in King Henry VI: “Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind.” Well, at least try to put your “suspicions” in an attractive wrapping. Otherwise, you sound unconvincing. One is even sorry for you.

We look forward to this thrilling saga to unfold. If the British side delays fresh information or does not come up with some “sensation” similar to the one I cited today, we reserve the right to request such a session ourselves.

If you think you can hide behind the toxic cloud of lies and speculations, you are mistaken. The story does not end with technical assistance to the OPCW. We will continue to demand facts from you.

The case certainly has a lot to do with “chemistry.” “Chemistry” is the Russian slang for skullduggery. You have really made a chemical mess of things. We agree with you only on one point. There should be no impunity. Those responsible for this provocation must be punished.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3181485






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s comment on the OPCW inspectors’ visit to Douma, Syria



21 April 2018 - 15:23




According to the information available, on the morning of April 21, the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission departed to the alleged site of the April 7 chemical attack in Douma in Eastern Ghouta. It should be said that this took place 11 days after the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat received an official request from Damascus to send OPCW inspectors. We consider such a delay in this high-profile case, whatever the reasons for it, unacceptable. The safety of the OPCW inspectors was guaranteed, not only by the Syrian authorities, but also by the command of the Russian military group in Syria.

We hope that the OPCW inspectors will act as objectively as possible to investigate all the circumstances of the supposed attack in Douma and will soon submit an unbiased report. It is all the more important because this is the first official visit to the site of a chemical attack, as alleged by the Syrian opposition and the affiliated NGOs, in the history of chemical weapons in Syria. Until now, the OPCW and the UN conducted only remote investigations, based on the data provided by the opponents of the Syrian authorities.

At the same time, it is a matter of serious concern that the OPCW experts have tried to limit the number of places they will visit and individuals they will question in the area of the alleged chemical incident. This is evidence of their reluctance to cast light on yet another prearranged provocation involving toxic chemicals, which has already led to three Western countries that are permanent UN Security Council members delivering a missile strike on a cache of toxic agents and components for the manufacture of chemical weapons, belonging to militants in Douma.

In this context, we express our indignation at the continued manipulation of facts and deliberate distortion of reality, which abound in statements made by some Western officials, for example an interview granted by Foreign Minister of France Jean-Yves Le Drian to the BFMTV television network. It is regrettable that such statements are made by the officials of a state whose leadership President of Russia Vladimir Putin invited on April 13 to join the investigation of the latest alleged attack and to send its military experts to Douma without delay. However, Paris has decided instead to blindly follow Washington’s scenario of a demonstration missile attack on Syria in violation of the UN Charter.

We urge our Western colleagues to come to their senses and to avoid any action that could hinder the establishment of truth regarding the April 7 provocation in Eastern Ghouta and hold back efforts towards a political settlement in Syria, based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254, the decisions taken in Astana and the recommendations issued by the Syria National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3185241






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s reply to a media question regarding the US Democratic Party’s lawsuit



21 April 2018 - 17:35




Question:

Will you comment please on the lawsuit filed by the US Democratic Party, including against Russia, over the results of the 2016 presidential election in the US?



Maria Zakharova:

We have read media reports according to which the Democratic National Committee has filed a lawsuit at a New York court over the results of the 2016 presidential election, and we know that the Russian Federation and individual Russian citizens have been named defendants in this action. The Russian Foreign Ministry has not received any official notification of this suit so we cannot yet speak about any action we could potentially take. However, if it turns out that these media reports are true to fact, they would suggest a peculiar attempt by the Democrats to explain their election defeat.

For the past 18 months since the presidential election, the Democrats have been trying to blame their defeat on some kind of collusion and foreign interference instead of trying to determine what they themselves did wrong. The US public is already scared of imaginary Russian hackers, yet some quarters continue to hype up this alleged threat. The latest events can be interpreted as an attempt to shift this game of fantasy from the media and television to the courts, so as to give new impetus to domestic political contention and fan anti-Russia sentiments.

We are above all concerned about the negative effect this may have on Russian-US relations. Those who are trying to hinder the healthy development of bilateral relations have almost drowned out the voice of reason. These forces are recklessly destroying the foundation of our relations, using any means available and not stopping short of the most absurd allegations. They forget that the global weather largely depends on the atmosphere in relations between Russia and the United States, and they still cannot see the futility of their attempts to put pressure on Russia.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3185260

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answer to a media question at a joint news conference following talks with State Councillor and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi, Beijing, April 23, 2018



23 April 2018 - 12:47








Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held very meaningful and useful talks, which were a logical succession of a meeting we had during a recent visit by State Councillor and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi to Moscow.

Today we focused on the preparations for the visit of President of Russia Vladimir Putin to China scheduled for June, when a meeting of the SCO Council of Heads of State will be held in Qingdao.

We pointed out the unprecedented level of Russian-Chinese relations, which can be described, with good reason, as a comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction. We held a detailed discussion of the current state of bilateral relations, including a host of practical questions, and their further development.

You attended the signing of the annual plan of consultations between our foreign ministries, which stipulates numerous meetings between our deputy foreign ministers and directors of the concerned departments to discuss a wide range of current global and regional matters.

We also talked about a meeting of the SCO Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, which will be held tomorrow. We spoke at length about the SCO’s activities in general and agreed that its role in international affairs had increased following the organisation’s expansion through the admission of India and Pakistan in the capacity of full members. We praised the high standards of Russian-Chinese interaction within the SCO.

We also brought up the subject of the further development of BRICS and RIC.

We held in-depth discussions on the situation concerning the Korean Peninsula, where positive changes have been reported in the past few months. Russia and China believe that this advancement is largely in keeping with the provisions of the Russian-Chinese roadmap for a Korean settlement. We believe it is necessary for all the parties involved to take simultaneous steps towards one another and to refrain from any provocative action. We have agreed to do our best to facilitate these developments.

We exchanged opinions on the situation in Syria. Both parties agree that the missile strike on Syria delivered by the United States and its allies was a flagrant violation of international law. We called for the OPCW to conduct a thorough and objective investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma without any foreign pressure. We pointed out that there is no alternative to a political and diplomatic settlement of the Syrian crisis. We agreed to more closely coordinate our positions on this matter, including at the UN Security Council.

We exchanged views on the situation with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action concerning Iran’s nuclear programme. We agree on the vital significance of preserving the agreements that have been sealed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231. We are against their revision. We consider the attempts to cancel the results of the years-long efforts of the P5+1 countries and Iran counterproductive. We will do our best to preclude any attempt to undermine these agreements.

Overall, the results of our talks have confirmed our mutual resolve to strengthen Russian-Chinese foreign policy cooperation. I would like to express our gratitude to State Councillor and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi and all our Chinese friends for their hospitality.



Question:

How are the participants in Beijing affected by the current developments in the world? Things are heating up in Syria, and the United States will probably pull out of the Iranian nuclear deal unilaterally. What effect does this have on the SCO and some of its members?



Sergey Lavrov:

Your question is too broad. The overall situation in the world is unsettling. As my colleague has said and we have repeatedly mentioned, there are attempts to undermine the stability of the international order which is based on the UN Charter, as well as attempts to hold court, investigations and pronounce sentence ignoring the UN Charter. This is unacceptable. We clearly stated this together with China at the Security Council where we voted on corresponding drafts of the resolution. Our representatives also made such statements in a national capacity as well.

We are very much concerned about the developments in Syria. Right at the moment when not only ISIS but the remaining terrorists were at a breaking point, when the large Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta was liberated from extremists and, critically, when real opportunities were appearing to soon start the work of the constitutional commission in accordance with the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, a provocation was carried out under false pretext of chemical weapons use.

Before OPCW inspectors arrived at the site, amidst plentiful evidence that it was staged, air strikes were made. It must be obvious for all unbiased observers that it was done to scuttle the investigation by OPCW inspectors and undermine positive trends in the Syrian settlement process that were growing stronger largely due to the initiative of the guarantor countries of the Astana process (Russia, Iran and Turkey). I am confident that the truth will out. Even the countries that voiced support for the absolutely unlawful action taken by the United States, Great Britain and France, were forced to do so.

The majority of them are well aware that this is an unacceptable way of solving serious international crises. The most immediate task is to create conditions for OPCW inspectors to finish their work without any external pressure, or rather, not giving way to this pressure exerted on them. We will insist that the inspectors visit all sites connected to the so called ‘news’ on the alleged chemical attack, including the place where an infamous video was filmed in which water was poured on boys who were later shown to the global public to be healthy and in fine spirits. OPCW inspectors have not yet visited this place, as well as the hospital and laboratories, liberated by the Syrian troops with our assistance, where militants were preparing to launch chemical attacks right until the moment they left Eastern Ghouta. All this must be under the radar of OPCW inspectors. We will work to make this happen.

As regards the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme, as I said, we have the same position as China on this. This document was approved by the supreme body responsible for supporting peace and security – the UN Security Council. It is unacceptable to revise such agreements, which would mean revising one of the greatest recent achievements of world diplomacy. Russia and China will make every effort to prevent such a highly dangerous turn of events.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3186258






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a media question on the sidelines of his official visit to China, Beijing, April 23, 2018



23 April 2018 - 13:34




Question:

Would it be correct to say that the question of supplying the S-300s to Syria is almost settled?



Sergey Lavrov:

I cannot say that it is settled. We all know what President of Russia Vladimir Putin said. He raised this matter with a representative of the Defence Ministry in the context of efforts to prevent the Syrian Arab Republic from finding itself in a situation where it is not sufficiently prepared to counter acts of aggression like the one that took place on April 14, 2018. We have yet to see what decisions will be made by Russia, together with representatives of Syria. There is no secret with this and it will probably be made public.

Of course, there is a need to anticipate further provocations, although we warned our US and European colleagues who took part in this risky venture, in the strongest possible terms, against engaging in undertakings of this kind. The plans our Western colleagues are nurturing with regard to Syria are a matter of concern for us. I heard that President of France Emmanuel Macron has recently called on the US not to withdraw its troops from Syria even after the last terrorist is destroyed or forced to leave the country. The French leader went so far as to suggest a permanent deployment in order to build a new Syria. This is reminiscent of colonialism. We will seek clarification from our French partners in order to understand what they meant, since until now we were assured at all levels that the sole purpose of the US-led coalition in Syria was to eliminate the terrorist threat caused by ISIS and other structures listed by the UN Security Council as terrorist groups. This is a very serious issue. We will be working on it.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3186446






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following a meeting of the SCO Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Beijing, April 24, 2018



24 April 2018 - 10:25








The meeting of the SCO Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs has come to a close. We focused our attention on preparations for the upcoming SCO summit meeting, which will be held in Qingdao, China, on June 9 and 10. It will be the first SCO summit meeting that will be attended by the leaders of eight member states following the accession of Pakistan and India. They received the status of full members at last year’s summit in Astana, and the summit in Qingdao will be the first SCO summit they will attend as full members.

We pointed out that the SCO expansion and the involvement of our Indian and Pakistani colleagues in our joint efforts are proceeding very well. Much is yet to be done, but we see that our new colleagues are adjusting to new rules quite well.

The agenda for the Qingdao summit was another issue we discussed. We have approved in principle the key documents of the upcoming summit, primarily the SCO declaration, which will cover the main spheres of our practical cooperation and key international issues. The draft declaration highlights the SCO’s international efforts to promote respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference in the internal affairs of others and a peaceful settlement of crises and conflicts. All of this is especially important in light of the attempts by the US and its allies to hinder the development of a polycentric democratic world order. The latest example of this is the aggressive action taken against the Syrian Arab Republic. The communique we have adopted at today’s meeting of the SCO foreign ministers offers our assessment of that action.

We also discussed new measures the SCO could take against new challenges and threats. We have prepared an action programme against terrorism, separatism and extremism for 2019-2021, to be approved by the heads of state in Qingdao. The drafting of the SCO anti-drug strategy has reached the final stage. Today we have spoken out in support of revitalising the SCO’s Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure, which is working very well as it is.

Our discussions on combatting extremism and drug trafficking focused on the situation in Afghanistan and around it. All of us are concerned about the strengthening of extremists, primarily from the so-called Islamic State, who enter Afghanistan via Iraq and Syria and are becoming entrenched in Afghanistan’s northern provinces, which border on our allies in the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). This certainly means that we must redouble our efforts to preclude the proliferation of conflicts from Afghanistan and to promote a political settlement of the Afghan crisis.

We expressed our support for the results of the Tashkent conference on Afghanistan, which was held in the capital of Uzbekistan in late March. All those who participated in that conference supported the launch of direct talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban movement while preventing ISIS from recruiting Taliban members.

We reaffirmed our resolve to promote an active involvement of all Afghanistan’s neighbours in these efforts. We advocated this policy during the Moscow format meetings. The SCO is a convenient natural platform for promoting a settlement in Afghanistan, because Afghanistan and all its neighbours have either full membership or observer status in this organisation. In light of this, the participants in our discussions today welcomed the resumption of the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group. Its previous meeting was held in Moscow last autumn, and its next meeting is scheduled to be held in Beijing in mid-May.

At this stage, we are paying special attention to our economic cooperation. We plan to sign a cooperation agreement of the EAEU and its member states with the People’s Republic of China soon as part of the concept for promoting the alignment of Eurasian economic integration with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Broadly speaking, we are considering a Greater Eurasia project, about which President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke at the ASEAN-Russia summit in 2016.

The SCO is expanding and strengthening its international ties. The SCO Secretariat has signed documents on the development of a working relationship with the UN, ASEAN, the CSTO and the CIS. We are planning to sign a memorandum on cooperation with UNESCO soon and a roadmap on strengthening the SCO-ASEAN partnership.

The main results of our meeting today have been formulated as an information statement, which is being circulated, as far as I know.



Question:

Does the SCO play a role in containing the West economically and politically? Is it possible that cooperation between the SCO member states will expand or transit to the military level?



Sergey Lavrov:

We do not contain anyone; our role is to uphold the principles of international law in the political, military-political and economic areas. As I have said, these principles include unconditional respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, non-interference in their affairs and the focus on the exclusively peaceful settlement of any disputes and conflicts.

The SCO countries also maintain military cooperation. As you know, the meeting of the SCO Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, which I attended, was accompanied by a meeting of the SCO Council of Defence Ministers, in which Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu participated. Our military colleagues, working in close coordination with us and under the guidance of their national leaders, highlighted the need to enhance the SCO’s and its member states’ readiness to repel terrorist, extremist and other threats to the territorial integrity, sovereignty and legitimate interests of their countries. Everything necessary is being done to make these preparations as effective as possible. I am sure that additional efforts will be taken towards this end.



Question:

Did you discuss the coordination of the SCO countries’ efforts for the post-war restoration of Syria? It has been proposed to co-finance Syria’s reconstruction through the BRICS New Development Bank.



Sergey Lavrov:

I have no information about the BRICS New Development Bank considering such projects. We do know, though, that the Syrian delegation at the recent Yalta International Economic Forum presented the country’s restoration requirements in terms of foreign assistance and possible involvement. However, as far as I know, conditions are not available yet for a practical discussion of these tasks. First we need to complete our anti-terrorist efforts in support of the Syrian government on Syrian territory, first of all addressing humanitarian problems and rebuilding the key infrastructure facilities.

As for the economic reconstruction, it will take time. I am sure that all of us must act in the interests of the Syrian people and with full respect for Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. I am saying this now because several countries have openly adopted a policy of Syria’s disintegration. The United States assured us, as I said more than once, that its only goal in Syria was to drive terrorists out and defeat ISIS. Contrary to such statements, including those made by US President Donald Trump, the US is becoming established on the eastern bank of the Euphrates and is not planning to leave the area, where it is creating local governments. By the way, the French president is encouraging the US to do so. He has said recently that the US must keep troops in Syria and that the US-led coalition must remain there as long as necessary to create an order that will suit Western countries. This clearly amounts to interference in internal affairs in violation of all the norms of international law and propriety. I hope very much that talks with our French colleagues will help us find a form of interaction on the Syrian settlement that will be in keeping with all the rules and norms of international law and the UN Charter.

As you know, the presidents of Russia and France had a telephone conversation yesterday, during which President Putin put forth our positions and reaffirmed our readiness to coordinate our positions with our French partners. We are open to cooperation.

As for the restoration of Syria, we are alarmed by the Western statements on denying assistance to government-controlled regions. The litmus test will be the conference on support and assistance to Syria, which will be held in Brussels this week. We want to see what position the conference organisers and participants, primarily the EU and other Western countries, will assume on the restoration of Syria and its economy.



Question:

Toronto hosted a G7 foreign ministers’ summit, which again announced that new anti-Russia sanctions were possible and established a special group to investigate Russia’s behaviour. What is your comment?



Sergey Lavrov:

In all evidence, they have no serious problems left on the agenda, which they could address among themselves. The main issues that affect and are of importance for international economic life and the international community as a whole are discussed in other formats. Political issues and military-political issues are discussed at the UN Security Council and the UN at large. Economic issues, of course, cannot be decided outside the G20, which involves, along with the G7, all the BRICS countries and many of our friends.

As far as the results of the foreign ministers’ meeting in Toronto are concerned, its anti-Russian underpinnings are clear. Regrettably, this anti-Russian and very slippery line has been followed even by those G7 countries which assure us that they do not share the attempts to isolate Russia.

We will uphold our positions and wait patiently for our partners to realise that these actions are an absolute dead end and lack any prospects.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3190325






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulides, Moscow, April 27, 2018



27 April 2018 - 13:27








Ladies and gentlemen,

We held constructive and trust-based talks with my colleague, Foreign Minister of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulides.

Cyprus is an important partner for Russia in the Eastern Mediterranean and in Europe as a whole. We have very kind and friendly relations based on our historical connections and spiritual affinity.

We welcomed dynamic development in our relations in the political, trade, economic, cultural, humanitarian and law enforcement areas.

We analysed in detail the implementation of the agreements reached during the visit of President of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiades to the Russian Federation last October.

In particular, we noted the continued growth of trade owing to the efforts of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation. We observed that the Joint Action Programme between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Cyprus for 2018-2020, signed during the visit of the Cypriot President, is also conducive to enhancing the practical results of interdepartmental contacts.

Our contractual foundation continues to grow. Many signed treaties and agreements have entered into force, while others are still a work in process.

We discussed in detail the prospects for resuming the talks on a Cypriot settlement. Russia is committed to the implementation of all UN Security Council resolutions that were adopted with a view to finding a way out of this protracted conflict.

We noted during the talks that we consider the existing system of external security guarantees for Cyprus obsolete. It does not meet today’s realities and the current international-legal status of the Republic of Cyprus. We believe that the guarantees of the UN Security Council would be the most effective measures of ensuring the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of a united Cyprus.

Both sides reaffirmed their commitment to the preservation of the mandate and parameters of action of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus, in particular in connection with yet another extension of the mandate of this peacekeeping operation next summer.

We also discussed many other issues, including the current state of relations between Russia and the European Union, which is not satisfactory to us or to the Cypriots. We appreciate Nicosia’s position in favour of normalising these relations.

As for the Ukrainian crisis, there is no alternative to careful and consistent implementation of the Minsk agreements that were reaffirmed by UN Security Council resolution. We have again confirmed our interest in the EU leaders, primarily Germany and France, exerting their influence on Kiev as participants in the Normandy format.

We have a common position on Syria – it is necessary to implement UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We spoke about the efforts that Russia is making along with Iran and Turkey as part of the Astana process in the context of the recent Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi with a view to creating the best possible conditions for starting to carry out this resolution. These efforts are aimed at starting to implement UN Security Council decisions, which were seriously complicated by the missile strikes that violate international law. These illegal strikes were dealt against Syria by the United States, Britain and France on April 14 under the pretext of responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government.

We believe that any accusations of the use of chemical weapons anywhere should be reviewed on a firm international legal and judicially binding foundation, for example, by the OPCW. In this context, as you know, the accusations made by some of our Western colleagues against the Syrian Government that was charged with the alleged use of chemical weapons in Eastern Ghouta, in the city of Douma on April 7, were the subject of a briefing yesterday in The Hague. It was organised by Russia and Syria with live witnesses that confirmed that these events were staged. We are grateful to the EU countries, among them the Republic of Cyprus, that sent their representatives to this briefing.

We have a common interest with Cyprus also in the settlement of other conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa with a view to normalising and stabilising the situation in the entire region and creating conditions for active trade and economic cooperation, in particular in the Eastern Mediterranean.

I am very pleased with the talks. I am sure they will help us steadily implement all the agreements reached at the top level.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3193654






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Minister of Sport Pavel Kolobkov, Moscow, April 27, 2018



27 April 2018 - 17:28








Mr Kolobkov, friends,

We are pleased to have another meeting dedicated to cooperation in the international arena on sports movements and matters, which, unfortunately, overflow from the sphere of sport into the sphere of politics, which, in theory, should not be the case, but, unfortunately, we have what we have.

Along with the Ministry of Sport and other related departments, as well as the International Olympic Committee and our Olympic Committee, we are doing our best to identify the main areas for depoliticising sport. Athletes should have every opportunity to fulfill their potential. As an athlete, you, like no one else, know how important this is for the athletes who dedicate their entire lives to high-performance sports. However, when unscrupulous politicians interfere with this life-defining idea, it undermines the Olympic principles.

I very much hope that today we will go over the state of our interaction and outline additional steps to help our clean athletes to stand up for what’s right. We already have a lot of facts, which prove in many respects the artificial nature of the campaign staged around the “doping scandal.” We will defend the truth and the legitimate rights of our clean athletes.

Thank you again for your cooperation.


***


We take the right approaches, and we do not deny issues that may arise. President Vladimir Putin mentioned it, too. However, these issues cannot be overemphasised or used as a barrier to undermine the prestige of Russian sport.


***


I absolutely agree with your idea that athletes are of paramount importance when it comes to our efforts to promote the noble Olympic ideals. The international sports movement in all its manifestations should be guided precisely by the interests of athletes, not bureaucratic games, considerations of political competition, geopolitical ploys, or attempts to isolate or punish.

Another, perhaps not so significant, but still important aspect of the matter appeared more recently, when properly licensed athletes are unable to get visas due to time constraints in order to participate in international competitions. This also happened a couple of times with our colleagues from the United States. I think that the international federations that organise the corresponding competitions must make it a requirement that the host country must ensure entry for all participants of a competition and make it a criteria when choosing a host country for international or European championships.


***


We closely cooperate with the Ministry of Sport of Russia to ensure entry for athletes and fans. Our consular missions abroad have been properly instructed.

The problem of sports officials failing to follow court rulings in the event of disputes between legal entities also requires our attention. If someone is trying to force us to declare all our athletes “asthma patients,” then it is a dirty game and will not happen.

Our goal and responsibility is to make sure that everything is fair and that the best win, rather than those who are good at driving unfair bargains.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3195350

[Alex Him]

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answers to Dozhd television channel’s questions on the state of Russian-Georgian relations



22 April 2018 - 14:17




Question:

A new Georgian government has been in power for several years. During this period, it looked as if relations between Russia and Georgia might improve. But the “Archil Tatunashvili case” has caused a serious setback in relations between the two countries. Why has this happened?



Maria Zakharova:

In 2012, the Georgian Dream government said it was interested in ending a profound crisis in Georgian-Russian relations into which they had been plunged by Mikheil Saakashvili. We responded immediately. The normalisation process began and yielded well-known positive results over these years. Bilateral trade was restored and expanded many times over. Both countries resumed air and surface-transport traffic, and restrictions on issuing entry visas to Georgian citizens, introduced in 2006, were lifted. In addition, public, cultural, scientific and sport contacts have continued to expand rapidly. Therefore, the hopes for improved relations that you mentioned did not merely appear but were successfully implemented.

It has to be said though that not everyone in Georgia and especially outside it was happy about this. It is hardly surprising that opponents of the improvement in Russian-Georgian relations have grasped at the “Archil Tatunashvili case.” Despite the openly propagandistic speculations around this regrettable incident, it proved impossible to bring about a setback in relations. All of the above-mentioned “fruits of normalisation,” remain intact.



Question:

The Prime Minister of Georgia has requested Russian assistance in investigating the “Archil Tatunashvili case.” Why did this request go virtually unanswered?



Maria Zakharova:

In its March 12 comment, the Foreign Ministry responded to Georgian Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili’s March 9 statement. We tried to explain once again that we cannot discuss with Tbilisi issues that are outside the bilateral Russian-Georgian agenda. Such is the case with the incident involving Georgian citizen Archil Tatunashvili, who died in South Ossetia. We advised our Georgian partners to discuss this matter with the South Ossetian side.

So far, Tbilisi emphatically refuses to accept this line of reasoning and continues to shift the blame to Russia for its own inability and reluctance to launch respectful dialogue with Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

This reluctance is deeply rooted in the Georgian political establishment, with hostility always breaking to the surface during beautiful declarations on fraternal love and reconciliation. Georgia continues to call the democratically elected government authorities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia “occupation regimes.” Tbilisi incites its foreign partners to toughen the visa blockade around both republics. It goes into hysterics over any Abkhazian or South Ossetian cultural-humanitarian project in European countries, even if it is just, let’s say, an exhibition of landscape photography. Tbilisi thwarts sports competitions if they inadvertently involve even one athlete from Abkhazia. Quite recently, the Ambassador of Georgia in London visited Scotland, found a stone in memory of Sukhum residents killed in the conflict and started sending notes demanding that the monument be removed.

Against this backdrop, Tbilisi has announced another “peace initiative” called A Step towards a Better Future. To give a clearer picture of this, suffice it to say that this document’s pages are filled with the toponym “Tskhinvali region,” which is seen as unacceptable and insulting by the people of South Ossetia. It is hardly surprising that Abkhazia and South Ossetia have already turned down this initiative.

Significantly, the document’s text states expressly that involvement in the much-advertised easy-term Georgian programmes will not necessarily mean that the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia will either obtain Georgian citizenship or have it confirmed. Therefore, official Tbilisi has at long last recognised obvious facts: the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia do not consider themselves Georgian citizens and don’t want to acquire this status, even despite lavish promises of various benefits. The recognition of this highly important aspect gives hope that Tbilisi will eventually completely comprehend and accept the following political reality: two independent states, the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia, are Georgia’s neighbours. The sooner Tbilisi realises this, the better it will be for Georgia and all regional countries.



Question:

Do you know about Georgia’s rather critical attitude towards Russia now? At the same time, Georgian media are making more and more accusations with regard to Russian citizens, rather than the Russian state, and that cultural figures performing in Russia are being severely criticised?



Maria Zakharova:

It is common knowledge that relations with Russia are traditionally a highly important issue of domestic political discussion in Georgia. Unfortunately, instead of helping society effectively resolve the historically conflict-ridden relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, most Georgian media are blaming Russia for all troubles.

It is also no secret that many biased media outlets are trying hard to sow animosity towards Russia’s policies and towards Russian citizens in general. These efforts are not bringing any substantial results. Hundreds of thousands of Russian tourists can see that the people of Georgia are well-disposed towards them. On the other hand, the repressive law dealing with “occupied territories” has not yet been abolished, and the Foreign Ministry has to notify Russian citizens that no one is immune from provocations.



Question:

Can the Foreign Ministry comment on the constantly shifting border line between Georgia and South Ossetia, a move which is causing violent mass protests in Georgia?



Maria Zakharova:

This false information is being planted regularly in order to stage another televised show with extras and to call it “violent mass protests.” Reports of a “shifting border” have never actually been confirmed, with EU observers officially denying their existence on two occasions during discussions at international venues. But, of course, the media say nothing about this.

The truth is that the South Ossetian side has been unsuccessfully suggesting for a long time that both countries coordinate available road maps and jointly decide where exactly the border is between Georgia and South Ossetia. The local population wants to see this border, and it would help prevent unintentional violations during agricultural work, cattle grazing, etc. People who found themselves on both sides of the state border after the August 2008 audacious undertaking by the Georgian leadership have the right to demand that their new living conditions be understandable and predictable.

If the Tbilisi authorities really cared about the people in the border-line zone, these issues could be quickly resolved. In that event, it would no longer be possible to speculate on the issue of an alleged “shifting border.” So the South Ossetian side has to unilaterally demarcate the border. At the same time, everything is done to install warning signs or fences at a sufficient distance from the border, so that anyone approaching would a priori be sure that it is South Ossetia.



Question:

Why does Russia need such a tough visa regime with Georgia? This regime has been in place for ten years, and in Georgia, there is an entire generation of people who have never been to Russia. Considering the traditionally high level of personal ties, is it possible to say that Russia is deliberately refusing to exert its cultural influence on Georgia?



Maria Zakharova:

If you are talking about visa restrictions for Georgian citizens, imposed in 2006, they were abolished more than two years ago. Today, any citizen of Georgia can visit Russia in line with a private invitation being routinely drawn up by Russian citizens via the migration service. Student, business and humanitarian visas are issued without any problems. A visa-free regime for Georgian citizens might be introduced, but this would require joint discussions on security and counter-terrorism issues and so far, the Georgian authorities are reluctant to do this.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3185270






Director of the Foreign Ministry Department for Relations with Compatriots Abroad Oleg Malginov’s reply to a media question regarding the arrest of human rights activist Alexander Gaponenko in Latvia



24 April 2018 - 16:06




Question:

Will you comment on the arrest of human rights activist Alexander Gaponenko in Latvia, please?



Oleg Malginov:

We are deeply concerned about the arrest of Alexander (Aleksandrs) Gaponenko, a prominent human rights activist, blogger, public figure, Co-chair of the Congress of Russian Communities, leader of the Latvian Non-Citizens’ Congress and Head of the Centre for the Protection of Russian Schools in Latvia, in Riga on April 20, 2018. The Latvian Security Police applied unreasonable, brute force during Gaponenko’s arrest.

The Riga Vidzeme District Court ruled that Alexander Gaponenko would be held for two months over his allegedly anti-Latvian activities on Facebook.

These actions by the Latvian authorities violate the basic principles of the European Union and the provisions of universal and European laws on human and minority rights. They are also evidence of a deep gap between the authorities’ stated commitment to democratic values and political practice in Latvia. We interpret this as an attempt to clamp down on the freedom of speech, opinion and information, which is unacceptable in a democratic society.

Moreover, the arrest of Alexander Gaponenko is an act designed to intimidate all Russian speakers in Latvia, in particular those who use peaceful methods to protect the right of people in Latvia to receive an education in the Russian language.

We demand the immediate release of Alexander Gaponenko and will monitor the reaction of the enlightened public in Europe to his illegal detention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3191063






Statement by Director General Vladimir Yermakov Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation at the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Geneva, April 24, 2018



24 April 2018 - 21:42




Mr. Chairman,

Dear colleagues,

In a couple of months the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will mark the 50th anniversary since its opening for signature. For five decades the NPT has played a crucial role in establishing and cementing the international legal architecture of disarmament and non-proliferation, which has allowed to effectively prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons for many years.

We fully align ourselves with the key assessments made by the delegation of China.

Let us have a look where we are in the lead-up to this anniversary. To be honest, the current international situation is challenging. The threat of armed conflicts in different regions of the world even with the involvement of nuclear weapons is growing. We observe that collective cooperation mechanisms are renounced and the authority of international organizations is undermined. Traditional dialogue, respect for positions and interests of each other and understanding the need for compromise are being replaced by some sort of aggressive radicalism and maximalism not based on common sense at all. We are unpleasantly surprised that suddenly many states easily abandon their traditional deep analysis of the situation and scrupulous assessment of short-term and long-term consequences. Some of our Western colleagues have gone so far as to even claim in their statements that Russia, allegedly, does not meet some of its obligations on international agreements. One cannot but understand that such absolutely groundless and, to be blunt, false statements increase international tensions, fuel distrust among states and destabilize existing legal mechanisms.

In such conditions, there is a critical demand for sustained collective efforts aimed at ensuring security and stability in the world, restoration of trust and convergence of positions of different groups of countries. The healthier international environment is possible only on the basis of traditional approved mechanisms that have confirmed their effectiveness and reliability for many years of existence. The establishment of any new politicized formats just provokes a growth in distrust and suspicions between states.

The NPT has been tested by time. It rests on the balance of interests of different States. The Treaty in its advanced sound age remains fully relevant. The NPT is absolutely in line with the objectives set at its conclusion. The NPT basic principles provide a solid foundation for settlement of the most complicated problems in the area of nuclear non-proliferation.

And the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iran’s nuclear program concluded in 2015 is a bright confirmation of that. The agreement reached between E3/EU+3 and Iran through the EU mediation is a unique combination of measures developed within the existing framework of the time-tested UN Security Council and the IAEA mechanisms, and additional voluntary steps of the states-parties to the deal. As a result the JCPOA gives full confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iran’s nuclear program while ensuring its inherent right to the development of a civil nuclear program. The Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and the Additional Protocol implemented by Iran provide the Agency with a timeless possibility to monitor, verify and confirm the absence in Iran of any undeclared nuclear material or activity. The IAEA on a regular basis confirms Iran’s full compliance with its relevant obligations.

The JCPOA is quite a fragile compromise. Any deviation from its general philosophy or breach or non-compliance with its provisions as well as any attempts to amend its text for someone’s benefit will inevitably affect the global non-proliferation regime and have a powerful negative consequences for regional and global stability and security.

We strongly insist that continuing faithful and comprehensive implementation of the JCPOA and the UN Security Council resolution 2231 by all states - parties to the nuclear deal without exception meet the interests of the entire global community. For our part, we will continue to comply with our JCPOA commitments as long as the others do so. We are confident that our analysis and assessments are shared by most of the states. And today we call on our colleagues in this hall not to keep silence in a hope that the situation will somehow blow over but make specific serious efforts to preserve the JCPOA.

We, together with the delegation of China, have prepared a draft Joint Statement aimed at voicing our support for the JCPOA that we propose to adopt at this session. The delegations have already had a chance to go through the document. We believe that there is a demand for such a collective message by the Preparatory Committee and hope that the document will find broad support.

The developments around the JCPOA will directly influence any outcome of the efforts to settle the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula through diplomatic means. The breach of the JCPOA without any reasons and against the will of the international community would hardly add to the confidence of the DPRK that any potential future agreements would be observed. We follow with cautious optimism the recent positive developments on the Korean Peninsula, including a number of highest-level contacts with the participation of Pyongyang and recent declarations by the DPRK on suspension of nuclear tests and test-launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles. We welcome such steps.

Russia never recognized the DPRK ambitions to acquire a nuclear status. We consider unacceptable any DPRK incompliance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. However, we should not turn a blind eye to the obvious: the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is possible only with reaching a complex solution to all security issues in North-East Asia, including the growing problem of building-up the U.S. missile defence system capabilities. Some time ago Russia and China put forward a joint initiative with a step-by-step moving plan towards this goal. We believe that in the current circumstances the elements of this initiative are relevant and worth considering. We will continue to provide comprehensive support to any political and diplomatic efforts to find a negotiated diplomatic solution to the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Mr. Chairman,

We are convinced that international community efforts in the area of nuclear disarmament should be focused at this stage on creation of prerequisites for further steps in this sphere. We draw your attention once again to the need to engage all the states possessing military nuclear capabilities in the work to reduce and limit nuclear weapons.

Russia calls on all the members of the international community to be pro-active in solving the relevant problems of international security and stability. Among them are an unrestricted deployment of global missile defence systems, development of non-nuclear high-precision strategic offensive weapons, a prospect of placing strike weapons in outer space and growing quality and quantity imbalances in the sphere of conventional arms. As these issues are not being settled it destroys trust between states, destabilizes disarmament architecture and is becoming a more and more serious obstacle on the way of promoting disarmament efforts.

We would like to draw special attention to the decision taken by Washington to renounce the policy of supporting the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and create conditions to resume nuclear tests. These actions by the U.S. represent a serious blow to the CTBT and create an extremely worrying situation in the area of nuclear non-proliferation. It should be understood that if the example of Washington could be followed by other states which ratification is required for the CTBT entry into force, that will pave the way for an unrestricted nuclear arms race.

We reaffirm our commitment to the INF Treaty. We share the concerns voiced by a number of states regarding the future of the Treaty. However, it seems that only few of them know the real state of play. The U.S. continues to reproduce its unsubstantiated allegations. While the fact that the US has been severely violating for many years the INF Treaty and trying to justify its intention to destroy it by shifting responsibility on Russia is being silenced. We would like to believe that chances to save the INF Treaty are still there and the U.S. will be strong enough to show political will needed.

In this context we consider attempts to focus the disarmament process on unconditional abolition of nuclear arsenals as soon as possible to be premature and disorienting. There is no way to reach the goal of building a world free of nuclear weapons by the methods that formed the basis of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which now is open for signature. This initiative makes no contribution to the advancement towards the noble goal declared. Quite on the contrary it threatens the very existence and efficiency of our fundamental Non-Proliferation Treaty.

We stand for inviolability of the provisions of Article VI of the NPT in correlation with the respective parts of the Treaty’s preamble. Let us recall what they provide for in essence: the cessation of the production of nuclear weapons, the elimination of all their existing stockpiles, and the removal of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery from national arsenals cannot be ensured separately from efforts to conclude a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Mr. Chairman,

The system of the IAEA safeguards is the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. The confidence of the member states in the IAEA safeguards system is the key factor that ensures sustainability of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Russia supports gradual improvement of the IAEA verification mechanism. Any modifications are justified only if the safeguards system remains objective, depoliticized, technically credible, clear to the member states and based on rights and obligations of the parties in accordance with the safeguards agreements signed by them. We stress that introduction of any subjective and politicized elements in the IAEA verification mechanism would inevitably undermine its sustainability and lead to erosion of the fundamental principle of non-interference into domestic affairs of states, which could ultimately have unpredictable consequences both for the safeguards system and the nuclear non-proliferation regime as a whole.

Introduction of the State-Level Concept to safeguards still requires close political control by the IAEA member states through the Agency's policy-making bodies in order to avoid introduction of any subjective elements in its verification activities.

Mr. Chairman,

We have to state that we are reaching the middle of the NPT review cycle with zero result as regards such an important track as establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems (WMDFZ). Further inaction in that area threatens to undermine the confidence of states in the NPT. We still believe that convening a WMDFZ Conference remains a highly relevant and achievable goal in the context of implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East. We cannot further procrastinate with preparation of this event. Proposals presented by Russia at the first session of the Preparatory Committee in 2017 on structuring the work on this track could serve as a good basis for adoption of a decision at the 2020 Review Conference to convene a Conference.

We consider that the unpreparedness of South-East Asia states to finalize the work in 2012 on signing the Protocol to the Bangkok Treaty that would provide security assurances to members of the zone was a lost opportunity. Russia is open for consultations with countries of the region on the matter.

We attribute great importance to final formalization of the status of NWFZs in Central Asia and in Africa and call on the U.S. to expeditiously ratify the Protocols to the Semipalatinsk Treaty and the Treaty of Pelindaba.

Mr. Chairman,

We are confident that strengthening the global nuclear non-proliferation regime is only possible if three key elements of the Treaty are implemented in a balanced manner – nuclear non-proliferation, peaceful use of nuclear energy and nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, while focusing far too often on the complex and controversial issues of non-proliferation and disarmament, we tend to forget about the peaceful use of nuclear energy – the most consolidating and prospective pillar of the NPT that is relevant to achievement of the development tasks for all member countries.

According to the IAEA estimates, the use of nuclear energy will increase globally, which demonstrates a demand for it and important role in the energy mix of many states. Approximately 450 nuclear power plant units operate in the world while 55 more are at the stage of construction. There is a growing interest in the development of technical cooperation projects and non-energy application of nuclear technologies.

Russia is one of the most active participants in international cooperation in the field of peaceful use of nuclear energy. The State Corporation «Rosatom» is currently implementing abroad 33 nuclear projects on power plant units construction. At the same time, as already stressed by the President of the Russian Federation, our country not only sells equipment for nuclear power plants – we develop a whole new industry for our partners including training of national specialists.

Russia has always fulfilled and will fulfill its obligations under bilateral and multilateral treaties and projects regardless of political developments. We stand ready to continue cooperation with the NPT member states and are determined to develop a genuinely modern and mutually beneficial interaction system in the field of peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Mr. Chairman,

Careful treatment of the NPT, as well as responsible approach to the balance of interests enshrined in it and obligations taken by all are key to successful implementation of the Treaty. We believe that reaffirming these principles as well as the enduring importance of the Treaty and its crucial historical value is the minimum of what we all should absolutely do during this NPT review cycle. This would be particularly important given the fact that the year 2020 will mark the 50th anniversary of the NPT coming into force.

We stand ready to cooperate with all states in the interests of effective work of current session.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3192934






Remarks by Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council, Vienna, April 26, 2018



26 April 2018 - 17:52



Responding to the reports by the head of the OSCE SMM to Ukraine Ertugrul Apakan and Special Representative of OSCE Chairperson-in-Office in Ukraine and the Trilateral Contact Group, Martin Sajdik




We welcome the distinguished Martin Sajdik and Ertugrul Apakan to the Permanent Council Meeting. We share many of your views; first, we support the call to put an end, at long last, to the attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure. The spring ceasefire has only led to a temporary lull.

The Easter ceasefire was, on the whole, ignored by Kiev. This April we have seen a progressive increase in Kiev’s military presence on the line of contact with intensified shelling, especially against civilian targets. We have mentioned the non-selective character of the use of artillery by Kiev. It now looks as though civil infrastructure and civilians have become the common targets of the military. The past month has seen five civilian causalities and more than 30 buildings damaged in Donetsk and Staromikhailovka. A woman was killed and a building damaged in Gorlovka. Five workers at the Donetsk filtration station, a woman in Yelenovka and three civilians in Kremenets have been wounded. Sixteen buildings in Sakhanka, two in Yasinovataya and one in Dokuchayevsk have been damaged, and Kominternovo has come under fire.

Kiev’s responsibility for breaking the ceasefire is obvious.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces have not published orders banning ceasefire violations, and a significant amount of Kiev’s military hardware has been brought close to the line of contact. Only 17 per cent of the declared hardware is at the storage sites.

A detailed investigation is needed into the outrageous shelling of the workers at the Donetsk Filtration Station (DFS). It is important to determine clearly where the shots were fired from. We welcome the SMM action to remain stationed with the DFS workers, which basically ensures their safety. This support will apparently be needed on a permanent basis. This is a tangible way for the observers to be useful. This practice should be extended to all the civil infrastructure facilities on the line of contact. In the important effort to help the repair work we call on the SMM observers to establish still closer cooperation with the authorities in the districts in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

The renaming of the punitive operation to “joint forces operation” and the forthcoming May holidays increase the risk of provocation. The observers need to be more vigilant, strengthen patrols on the line of contact, and look closely into all the circumstances of the shelling and its consequences. Once again, we call on the SMM not to give in to the pressure of the host state when reporting the shelling of civilian infrastructure, the injury or killing of civilians, and to promptly record and report these incidents. The more tragic cases involving civilian casualties should be the subject of a special report. Human lives matter more than military hardware. The targeted buildings and infrastructure should be clearly identified. The practice of identifying the source of the shelling should be restored.

It is Kiev, not Lugansk that is systematically and stubbornly disrupting all attempts to complete the disengagement of forces in Stanitsa Luganskaya. Kiev’s representatives in the Contact Group do not even bother to hide this fact. We ask Ambassador Apakan to report on how many seven-day periods of total silence took place whereupon the disengagement of forces should have taken place.

The Ukrainian security forces have also secured a footing inside the disengagement section in Zolotoye. This is fraught with a new escalation similar to following the Ukrainian forces’ occupation of the Avdeevka industrial zone, and Shirokino, Travnevoye, Gladosovo, Novoaleksandrovka, and the advance toward Yelenovka.

We take note of the persisting mine threat in Donbass. A year after the tragic death of American paramedic Joseph Stone, the promised investigation has not yielded any results.

Observers are now recording new mines, mainly on the territory controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. More than 600 anti-tank mines have been discovered close to the military positions to the north of Shirokino. Under the pretext of the mine threat, access has been blocked for observers to the Ukrainian-controlled districts of Stanitsa Luganskaya, Schastye, Popasnaya, Zolotoye, etc. The attempts to ignore these obstacles to SMM observation activities skew statistics in favour of one side. Another instance of “blinding” the SMM was the forced suspension of the operation of the patrol base at Popasnaya because of Ukrainian Forces shooting in the immediate proximity.

Esteemed Ambassadors Martin Sajdik and Ertugrul Apakan,

Tensions in Donbass are growing against the background of internal political turbulence in Ukraine. The so-called law on the reintegration of Donbass justifies the use of military force against civilians and persecution of people who took part in the events in Donbass after 2014. This runs counter to the spirit and letter of the Minsk Package of Measures. The statements made by President Poroshenko, Interior Minister Avakov and Commander of the “joint forces operation” General Nayev foment militaristic sentiments in furtherance of this law. We again call on esteemed Ambassador Martin Sajdik and the leaders of the SMM to analyse the compliance of the law on the reintegration of Donbass with the provisions of the Minsk Package of Measures.

We would like to remind you that the SMM mandate envisages monitoring respect for human rights and freedoms, including the rights of persons belonging to ethnic minorities, and providing related support. There are many cases that merit reporting. They include not only the actions of nationalists, but also of the government.

The discriminatory law on education has grossly violated the rights of the Russian-speaking population and ethnic minorities living in Ukraine who are denied the opportunity to be taught in their native language. This is a flagrant violation of OSCE obligations and of the Ukrainian constitution.

In 2018, the office of Rossotrudnichestvo (Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Cultural Cooperation) in Kiev was attacked when classes for children were being held there; the Hungarian cultural centre in Uzhgorod has been burnt and an attempt has been made to set fire to the Polish Note centre. Radical nationalists do not hide their crimes. The leaders of OUN (Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists), the Right Sector and S14 openly threaten Russian representative offices in Ukraine. Radicals in the city of Lvov have marched under the slogan “Lvov is not for Polish pans.” Nationalists in Uzhgorod beat up demonstrators against a neo-Nazi march. In Beregovo nine vehicles with Hungarian number plates were burnt in a single night.

A special report of the SMM on manifestations of nationalism, neo-Nazism and racial intolerance in Ukraine is long overdue. It is necessary to step up observation in ethnic minority enclaves. The situation with the Russian language and the languages of ethnic minorities needs to be monitored.

The SMM should pay attention to attacks on the Orthodox Church, persecution of journalists, restrictions on free speech and obstruction of independent justice. We see that the Mission is keeping track of the cases of Mr Muravitsky, Ms Schepa and Ms Savchenko. We recommend that as part of this work the observers visit them in prison. The state of many other political prisoners in Ukraine deserves attention.

We call on Ambassador Sajdik to continue attempts to establish a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk to agree measures to settle the crisis as provided for in the Minsk Package of Measures.

New momentum is needed in the Contact Group talks on political issues. At the very least, the “Steinmeier formula”, which links local elections in some districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions with passage of the law on the special status of Donbass, should be put on paper.

“All for all” prisoner swaps and the accompanying amnesty would mark an important step down the road of achieving an internal settlement in Ukraine. Evidently, after the adoption of the law on the reintegration of Donbass, these efforts are on the brink of collapse.

It is necessary to intensify efforts to repair the bridge in Stanitsa Luganskaya, to relax the regime of crossing the contact line by civilians, and to ensure uninterrupted supply of water to Donbass and the operation of mobile service providers. Kiev’s policy of suppressing the population of Donetsk and Lugansk merely exacerbates internal divisions and drives Donbass further away. What is needed is a depoliticised dialogue between Kiev, Lugansk and Donetsk on humanitarian and economic issues.

In conclusion, I would like once again to thank Ambassadors Martin Sajdik and Ertugrul Apakan for the complex but extremely important work that they do, and to extend thanks to all the SMM observers.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3194408

[Alex Him]

Comment by the Information and Press Department on a terrorist attack in Afghanistan



23 April 2018 - 16:20



On April 22, a terrorist act took place in western Kabul at a voting registration centre. The suicide bombing killed 57 people and injured over 110. The Afghan branch of the ISIS terrorist organisation claimed responsibility for this criminal action.

We resolutely condemn this inhuman act aimed against the election process and the development of a peaceful and democratic Afghanistan.

We express our deep condolences to the victims’ families and wish a speedy recovery to the injured. We call on the Afghan authorities to take all necessary measures to guarantee the security of this year’s parliamentary election and elections to district councils.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3186784






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the annual report of the US Department of State on human rights practices in the world



23 April 2018 - 20:25



Like its previous reports, the annual report of the US Department of State on human rights practices in the world released on April 20 abounds in politicised assessments and crude ideological clichés.

Depending on its categorical assessments of the “level of democracy” the report presents some countries as the main violators of human rights and some as countries that have embarked on a road of improvement. The report cynically assesses human rights practices, up to and including direct verbal attacks against the national authorities of sovereign states. Russia was not surprised at this approach because it is in line with the US policy of double standards on human rights when Washington judges other states by their loyalty to Washington’s foreign policy course and its methods of defending democracy and human rights.

As for Russia, we must state with regret that Washington has yet to shed its Russophobic stereotypes. Thus, the section on Russia was written in a negative light a priori and without considering Russia’s repeated well-grounded explanations of its positions on specific issues of human rights in the domestic arena.

As before, the authors of the report do not stop at using tricks that form a persevering negative attitude towards Russia as “the main human rights violator.” To add weight to this precept Washington uses a routine package of accusations that is largely lifted from previous reports and the “facts” tailored to them.

There is one more indicative element: responsibility for degrading human rights practices in Ukraine is being shifted to Russia. Moreover, and we believe this is unacceptable for a report that claims to be objective, it continues to be silent on the large-scale and crude violations of human rights in Ukraine. Nor does it call on Kiev to improve these practices, including the investigations into the arson attack on the House of Trade Unions in Odessa, which led to many victims, and the sniper attacks on Kiev’s Maidan Square. They were frozen with US tacit approval (this is further confirmed by the contents of the report).

In the meantime, the poor record of the United States on human rights, democracy and the rule of law is not covered in the report. It ignores mounting system-wide problems, including deep-rooted racial discrimination, the unprecedented scope of xenophobia and activities by extremist organisations. There is impunity for the inhuman treatment and torture under the CIA’s special programmes or for the mass-scale tapping of personal communications in the US and beyond. The report does not mention many other large challenges in this area.

It is time for the US to seriously deal with these urgent problems at home and finally heed the numerous persistent recommendations of relevant inter-governmental agencies and human rights champions rather than try to lecture those who do not need to be lectured.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3187004






Russia’s assessment of the US Department of State’s Report on Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments



24 April 2018 - 20:43



The United States advocates on paper for strict observance of international legal standards, including international agreements and other multilateral legally binding accords aimed at enhancing international security. The key role in this area is played by treaties and conventions on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, and relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council.

The United States loudly proclaims itself a model of commitment to international law. However, in the process it establishes its own criteria on fulfilling this or other agreement and assumes the right to judge other states’ fulfillment of their international obligations. In a rather peremptory manner, the US often ignores established practices of resolving emergent issues, or flexibly interprets them to suit US needs, taking it upon itself to accuse others of “violations” or “failure to observe” without even bothering to provide proof.

The annual report of the US Department of States, published on April 18, follows the same vicious logic and has the same failings as its predecessors. While groundlessly accusing individual countries, the authors of the report again sought to present the US as a state with an impeccable “record of service” on implementing commitments under treaties and conventions on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation.

This pedantic manner of presenting facts and making allegations has become in the US a deeply-rooted tradition of justifying its claims to its “exclusive right” to sit in judgment of “culprits” and demand that they mend their ways or face punishment.

Being committed to full and unconditional implementation of its international agreements, the Russian Federation categorically rejects the methods and means used by Washington to point its finger at those it considers guilty of violating legal agreements.

In recent years it has become increasingly plausible that the real reason the US does this is not out of a simple reluctance to engage in complicated expert dialogue to address various concerns. It is much more serious than that. Washington is afraid to be caught red handed hurling groundless accusations at other states, which are largely prompted by a desire to conceal from the international public its own numerous violations of international treaties and conventions on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation.

The Foreign Ministry deems it necessary to again draw attention to these unacceptable US actions and to the indisputable facts that should facilitate an objective assessment of the real situation with said treaties and conventions and with the implementation of the relevant contractual commitments both by Russia and the United States.



1. Missile defence issues

In 2001, the United States announced its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty of 1972 and adopted a policy of unilateral and unrestrained development of its global missile defence system, thereby destroying one of the pillars of the global strategic stability system.

Since that time, headlong efforts by the US to create a missile defence system have been having a very deleterious impact on the international security system, considerably complicating relations in the Euro-Atlantic and Asia-Pacific regions, and have become one of the most serious obstacles in the way of the continued gradual process of nuclear disarmament, contributing as they are to the emergence of dangerous conditions that could spark a new nuclear arms race.

We have repeatedly brought this issue to the attention of the United States, but there was no interest in cooperating or heeding Russia’s concerns, despite Americans’ formal acknowledgement – including in the Treaty on the Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of 2010 – that there is direct connection between strategic offensive and defensive arms.

So far, we have not received a convincing answer to the question of who is the target of the missile defence system being deployed, given that it is costly and entirely disproportionate to any challenges that might arise. It is symbolic that the United States has shown itself unwilling to review its missile defence plans, despite the successful implementation of the agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme that was reached in 2015. However, everyone remembers that at one time this was the core and essentially sole argument Washington made at the top level in favour of the deployment of a US missile defence system in Europe.

New evidence of who the American missile defence system really targets came in the form of Pentagon’s efforts to add to this system the capability of countering hypersonic weapons, given that only a limited number of countries may possess such systems in the near future.

It is necessary to understand that the missile defence systems deployed around the world are part of a dangerous global project aimed at establishing omnipresent and overwhelming US military superiority to the detriment of other countries’ security interests. Taken in its entirety, the missile defence system architecture that is being actively developed by the United States is shifting the strategic balance on offensive arms, giving rise to more and more critical risks to global stability.

The danger is that the deployment of a missile defence “umbrella” might lead to a pernicious illusion of invulnerability and impunity, thereby encouraging Washington to take further dangerous unilateral steps to achieve its global and regional goals, bypassing the UN Security Council and flying in the face of common sense, similar to what has already been done twice with respect to Syria when missile strikes were launched against this sovereign state under invented pretexts.

There is only one solution to this problem: while carrying out its missile defence plans, the United States must in deed, rather than in word, be guided by the generally accepted principle that it is unacceptable to enhance one’s own security at the expense of the security of other countries.



2. The Treaty between the US and the USSR on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty)

Washington provides deliberately false information on its “fulfillment” of the commitments under the INF Treaty. For many years the United States has been simply ignoring Russia’s serious concerns over implementation of this treaty by the US.

For example, the US has deployed systems at its missile defence base in Romania and plans to deploy them at a similar base in Poland. They include vertical launching systems that are similar to Mk-41 shipborne universal vertical launching systems, which are capable of using attack weapons, including Tomahawk medium-range cruise missiles. There is no doubt that this is a crude violation of INF commitments. Moreover, we consider the deployment of such systems next to our borders as a direct threat to our security.

Considering the 2017 decision of the Japanese government to purchase two Aegis Ashore systems for deployment on its territory, conditions are being created for Washington’s next violation of INF obligations – this time in the Asia-Pacific Region.

To develop its missile defence system, for over two decades the US has maintained a large-scale testing programme , involving the use of target missiles that are similar in characteristics to land-based medium and short range ballistic missiles, thereby upgrading missile systems banned by the INF.

For many years the US has been expanding the production and use of combat drones, which quite plainly fall under the INF definition of land-based cruise missiles. It should be noted that we have been drawing the attention of our American colleagues to these two violations for over 15 years but there has been no constructive response.

As for our concern over the deployment of US missile launch systems on the ground, after we first voiced it in 2014, without trying to resolve the problem, the US unleashed a public campaign of absolutely groundless accusations against Russia of violating the INF Treaty – alleging that we were producing and testing INF-banned land-based cruise missiles. Grievances against Russia were not supported by sound arguments. It took the US about four years to tell us which missile caused their alarm. At the same time the US refuses to explain how a missile that was not developed as an intermediate or short range weapon and was not tested in prohibited range could violate the INF Treaty. Yet the Americans peremptorily insist that this invented “violation” has occurred and demand that we “repent.”

We are seriously concerned that the US Congress and a number of US departments are actively using their own “facts” as an excuse not only to impose more sanctions on Russia but also to justify plans to build up US nuclear capabilities. The updated US Nuclear Posture Review, published on February 2, makes it plain that the Pentagon’s request for new low-yield nuclear weapons (first of all, sub-launched nuclear cruise missiles) was dictated by Russia’s violations of the Treaty.

Washington is also stepping up its anti-Russia campaign in the INF context to legitimise its own arms buildup in the eyes of the public at large. It is groundlessly accusing Russia of “aggressive behaviour” to justify the growing need to take response measures. In parallel the Americans are casting Russia as an enemy to allies to make them increase their military spending and speed up militarisation. This policy is directly undermining security in Europe and the rest of the world.



3. US obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

The United States continues to claim that it honours its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. However, an alarming situation linked with Washington’s failure to honour key provisions of this Treaty has not changed so far. The United States continues to involve non-nuclear European NATO member countries in the so-called joint nuclear missions. These “missions” include nuclear planning elements and efforts to streamline the practical use of nuclear weapons involving carrier aircraft of the alliance’s non-nuclear member-countries, their crews, the infrastructure of airfields and ground-based logistics support services. All this directly violates the Treaty’s Articles I and II. Instead of curtailing this practice, Washington’s latest doctrines, including the Nuclear Posture Review, call for expanding it.

Moreover, in the past few years, the United States has launched a programme that is unprecedented in its scale to upgrade all components of its nuclear arsenal, including non-strategic nuclear weapons in other countries. Apart from announcing plans to develop new low-yield nuclear warheads, including nuclear warheads for Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles and the above-mentioned nuclear-tipped submarine-launched cruise missiles, primarily for the purpose of Russia’s regional deterrence, the United States is set to deploy in Europe new variable yield and highly accurate nuclear gravity bombs. These specifications considerably reduce the nuclear threshold.

Other provisions of the updated US nuclear doctrine increase apprehensions that Washington has decided to dust off 40-year-old concepts and once again believes in the possibility of a winnable nuclear conflict. The doctrine features numerous additional US nuclear strike options, including a preventive strike. Some of the doctrine’s nuclear escalation scenarios (on the part of the United States) a priori have no military aspects. Indicatively, the Nuclear Posture Review does not openly confirm Washington’s commitment to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Against this backdrop, the document’s references to the absolutely groundless claims about a growing “Russian nuclear threat” being painstakingly voiced by the Americans seem particularly cynical. They have deliberately distorted the provisions of the Russian military doctrine regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons. They are insistently trying to convince the Western public that Russia is revising its concepts regarding the place and role of nuclear weapons and laying an increasing emphasis on them. These claims are a far cry from reality.

Regarding the issue of NATO’s joint nuclear missions, we would like to note once again that there is only one way to resolve this issue: all non-strategic nuclear weapons should be redeployed to the United States, and their overseas deployment should be banned. The entire infrastructure making it possible to quickly deploy these weapons should be eliminated. Naturally, any drills and exercises aiming to streamline the use of nuclear weapons by the armed forces of non-nuclear states must be renounced completely.



4. US obligations under the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START Treaty or NST)

Russia and the United States continue to implement the New START treaty they signed in 2010, to which Russia is fully committed. At the same time, we have to point out problems with its implementation by the United States. The United States, which declared on February 5, 2018 that it had reached the limits on its strategic nuclear arsenal stipulated in the treaty, did so not only by actually eliminating the armaments but also by taking actions that are unacceptable under the treaty. In particular, it has converted part of the launchers of the Trident-II SLBMs and the В-52Н heavy bombers in a way that precluded the verification of these launchers’ conversion to a state unsuited for launching SLBMs and nuclear missiles carried by heavy bombers, as stipulated in the treaty. Also, the United States has unilaterally reclassified “silo training launchers” to “training silos,” a class of weapons that is not covered by the treaty. By doing so, the United States has removed from verification under the treaty a number of strategic offensive arms comparable to the nuclear stockpiles of the UK and France taken together.

We continue to maintain dialogue with the United States based on the formats stipulated under the treaty to search for mutually acceptable solutions to the issues related to the implementation of the treaty and will continue to demand strict compliance with the treaty by the United States.



5. Compliance with the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA)

The US Department of State is deliberately misrepresenting the reasons for Russia’s decision to suspend the implementation of the PMDA despite the numerous notifications and the publication of Federal Law No. 381-FZ of October 31, 2016. There are two reasons for the suspension.

The first and most important reason is that the unilateral unfriendly actions of the United States have led to a fundamental change in circumstances compared to those existing at the time when the treaty was concluded and created a threat to strategic stability. This is the reason for the suspension of the PMDA in keeping with Article 62 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The United States alone can remove this reason by implementing the requirements of Article 2 of the above federal law, namely:

- reduce the military infrastructure and the number of US military personnel in the countries that joined NATO after September 1, 2000 to the level that existed on the day when the PMDA came into effect;

- terminate the so-called Magnitsky Act of 2012 and the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014;

- lift all sanctions introduced by the United States against individual Russian regions, companies and individuals;

- pay a compensation for the damages Russia sustained as the result of the US sanctions, including losses from the countersanctions it had to introduce against the United States.

In addition to the above reason, which the US Department of State is so obviously ignoring, there is one more reason for the suspension of the PMDA, the plutonium disposition method, which is mentioned in the US State Department’s report. The US Department of State actually admits that the US administration tried to change the disposition method from irradiating weapons-grade plutonium in light water reactors to the dilution-burial method. The United States argues that this method is permissible under the PMDA and would allow it to begin fulfilling the goals of the PMDA more quickly.

This is not so. The plutonium disposition methods were coordinated during the preparation of the agreement, when the Russian side pointed out that the dilution-burial method would not guarantee the irreversibility of plutonium disposition, although it is cheaper and allows to start implementing the agreement earlier. However, an opportunity was stipulated for the United States to bury a certain strictly specified amount of disposition plutonium. In a protocol amending the PMDA signed in 2010, the United States pledged to utilise the disposition plutonium by irradiating it as fuel in nuclear reactors. According to that Protocol, the disposition in the referenced reactors was to begin in 2018.

Therefore, there are no provisions allowing any party to the agreement to unilaterally change the disposition method. The claim by the US Department of State that changing the disposition method would allow the United States to begin fulfilling the goals of the PMDA more quickly is devoid of meaning as well and can only indicate the inability of the United States to honour its obligations under the PMDA within the agreed timeframe.

Our US partners probed for the possibility of changing the disposition method during bilateral consultations and were duly notified of our negative attitude to this. However, we later learned from public sources that construction of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility for the disposal of US weapons-grade plutonium cannot be completed sooner than in the 2030s and that the US administration has been trying to adopt bills changing the plutonium disposition method even though it had been notified of Russia’s disapproval of this step. Moreover, this happened when Russia practically completed the construction of its disposition facilities.

In other words, this is yet another example of US lack of responsibility in the implementation of agreements. Our American partners wait until the other side fulfils a considerable part of its obligations and then insist on changing the conditions to their benefit. This is unacceptable for us.

The Russian Federation has decided to suspend the PMDA in full compliance with the norms of international law. The US administration should realise that it is no longer possible to cooperate with other countries only in the spheres that would benefit the United States and to take measures to inflict massive damage to its partners in the other spheres.

We reaffirm our readiness to resume the PMDA but only after the US eliminates the damage done to Russian-US relations by the ill-considered US administration’s actions and after the United States resumes compliance with the agreed plutonium disposition methods.



6. US obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)

The US abandonment of intent to ratify the CTBT, something that was officially confirmed in the Nuclear Posture Review, has dealt a serious blow to the Treaty that has been signed and ratified by the overwhelming number of states, including Russia. The consistent creation by the United States of conditions for a possible resumption of nuclear tests makes us doubt that the United States will continue observing the moratorium on nuclear tests. Washington’s policy is at variance with its declared commitment to the goals of strengthening the non-proliferation regime. Moreover, the US position in this matter may serve as a guideline for other key CTBT signatories that theoretically could follow Washington’s example. This will inevitably open the way for a nuclear arms race, which the CTBT is intended to prevent.



7. US obligations under the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE)

Given that the Department of State report again mentioned Russia’s suspension of its status as party to the CFE Treaty presenting this as a “violation” of its obligations under this Treaty, we would like to remind them the following.

The United States and its allies have repeatedly circumvented the CFE’s restrictive clauses via NATO expansion. In so doing, they in every way evaded the Russia-proposed upgrading of the conventional arms control regime in Europe (CACRE) in line with the new military and political realities. The clearest confirmation of this is their refusal to ratify the Agreement on Adaptation of the CFE Treaty.

It was only after Russia suspended the CFE that the United States and its allies started talking about the need to solve the problem related to the future fate of CACRE. But their attempts to use the dialogue on this issue as a lever of pressure have eventually led to it being frozen.

Paying lip service to their commitment to maintain, strengthen and upgrade conventional arms control, the United States and other NATO countries are in fact directing their efforts towards “containment” of Russia and further tipping the balance of forces in the European region in their favour, including in the direct vicinity of Russia’s borders. The US attempts to “flexibly” interpret the Russia-NATO Founding Act clauses on “substantial combat forces”, accompanied by a build-up of heavy weapons and military equipment in line units and at European forward-based storage facilities are in fact a case of dangerous balancing on the verge of violating this important document.

Considering all these circumstances, it is impracticable to go back to the subject of implementing the hopelessly outdated CFE Treaty.

As for the prospects for developing a new CACRE based on the principles of equal and indivisible security and parties’ balanced rights and obligations, they should be regarded in the context of NATO renouncing military “containment” of Russia in Europe and normalising relations with the Russian Federation, including in the military cooperation area.



8. US obligations under the 2011 Vienna Document on Confidence- And Security-Building Measures (VD11)

It is with regret that we must note that the US assessments of the parties’ compliance with their obligations under VD11 repeat accusations of Russia’s allegedly “selective implementation of certain provisions of VD11 and the resultant loss of transparency.”

The US complaints regarding VD11 are limited to statements of US concerns regarding “Russia’s implementation of VD11, including with respect to Ukraine” since 2014.

While accusing Russia without any grounds of “arming, training, and fighting alongside anti-government forces in eastern Ukraine,” the US and other NATO countries have seriously discredited the role of VD11 as an instrument of objective monitoring of the OSCE member states’ military activities. In this context, we must inform our American colleagues again that the Russian Federation is not a party to the internal conflict in Ukraine.

As for the continued accusations of “occupying” and “annexing” Crimea and deploying troops there without the permission of the receiving state in the context of compliance with VD11 and the CFE Treaty, the reunification of the Crimean Peninsula with Russia is the result of Crimeans’ free expression of will. The current status of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol as constituent entities of the Russian Federation is not subject to revision. Consequently, Russia is free to deploy troops and military equipment on its national territory, and any attempt to enter Crimea as part of inspection teams sent to Ukraine will fail and will be regarded as a provocation. Of course, Russia is ready to allow inspectors, observers and evaluation groups to enter Crimea if requests for such visits are filed as stipulated in VD11.

Incidentally, Kiev has not fulfilled its obligations under VD11 with regard to its military activities in Donbass, but the US State Department report does not mention this.

As for concerns about our failure to provide information on the Russian military bases in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, these sovereign states are not party to the OSCE and hence are not included in the zone of application for CSBMs as defined in VD11. The US experts who prepared this part of the State Department’s report clearly have exhaustive information about it. They surely know that Russia provides this information under a different OSCE document, namely, the Global Exchange of Military Information.

In 2017, just as before, Russia voluntarily sent numerous notifications to the OSCE member states, including the US, with detailed information about the parameters of snap inspections and also major military exercises whose numbers were below VD11 thresholds, such as the Joint Russian-Belarusian Strategic Exercise Zapad 2017 and the Command Staff Exercise involving units of the 49th Joint Forces Army.

As for the basic Russian weapons and military equipment mentioned in the report, we would like to say that the BRM-1K armoured combat vehicle is not included in any class of equipment that must be reported under VD11 due to its specifications, and the Su-30SM multirole fighter and the Ka-52 attack helicopter have not yet entered service.

Regrettably, this US report again fails to mention numerous problems with VD11 implementation by the United States and its allies.

In particular, some participating states (Denmark and Spain) continue to neglect to notify the other VD11 countries 42 days in advance of the start of notifiable military activities (exercises).

Furthermore, some countries’ notifications do not contain information that is required for comprehensive planning of inspections during such exercises.

For example, a group of Russian inspectors working in a designated area in the UK between April 3 and 6, 2017 were unable to monitor Exercise Joint Warrior 17-1, which the UK hosted, because the notification did not provide any geographical description or coordinates of the area where the exercise was to be held. Instead, the notification included all the testing ranges and individual populated areas in the UK. The same happened during an inspection in Belgium between October 23 and 26, 2017.

During an inspection of the designated area in Latvia between November 7 and 10, 2017, the inspectors’ access to the range where an Estonian battalion was conducting live fire training was restricted “for safety reasons.” As a result, the inspectors could not properly assess the scale of military activities in that area.

Some countries, such as Poland, Slovakia, Romania, the UK and Belgium, prevented Russian inspectors who entered their territory on evaluation visits from counting the main weapons and military equipment at their military facilities.



9. US obligations under the Treaty on Open Skies (OST)

It is not the first time that the US side reproduces a set of trite accusations to the effect that Russia allegedly fails to comply with the OST. We have repeatedly provided exhaustive replies to these grievances both at the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC) and in our comments on earlier State Department reports.

Thus, we have to reiterate that a sublimit of 500 kilometres over the Kaliningrad Region has been imposed and enforced in keeping with OST clauses and the OSCC’s decisions. This arrangement provides for the same efficiency of observation as in the case of flights over the rest of the Russian Federation and the territories of contiguous states (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia).

Incidentally, given the existing observation flight distances, the United States can photograph 77 per cent of the Kaliningrad Region and other OST party states can photograph 96 per cent. To compare, a Russian aircraft can photograph only 3 per cent of Alaska during one observation flight over this exclave. Thus, observation efficiency in the Kaliningrad Region is 30 times higher than in Alaska.

Restrictions on OST flights in a 10-kilometre corridor along Russia’s border with the independent states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been imposed under the Treaty that prohibits flights within ten kilometres of a border with a non-party state.

Regrettably, the State Department report fails to mention the problems the United States itself has observing the OST.

First, in 2017, it cancelled overnight accommodation for observation aircraft crews at Robins and Ellsworth AFB refuelling airfields, which is a breach of the observation party’s right to perform best-range observation flights with regard for the maximum crew load. And this has much to do with flight safety.

Second, Russia has displayed a serious attitude to working in a Small Group format and insisted on a “package solution” meeting the interests of both the United States and other party states, including Russia. After we offered our principled assessment of the lopsided US proposal, the US representatives chose to cease cooperation in this format.

Third, contrary to the OST provisions, the Americans put forward a demand on observation flight planning at the Travis point of entry, which is at variance with Article VI of the Treaty, under which the observing party submits to the observed party a mission plan after arrival at the Open Skies airfield, whereas Travis is not such an airfield.

Fourth, in violation of the Treaty, the United States has imposed the maximum distance for flights over the Hawaii Islands from the Hickam refuelling airfield. At the same time, the maximum distance for flights is established only for Open Skies airfields and calculated in accordance with certain rules. For this reason, the 900-kilometre distance over this part of US territory is clearly inadequate and should be at least 1,160 kilometres.

Fifth, the United States has imposed restrictions for observation flights over the Aleutian Islands, under which the aircraft of the observing party should always remain within the external boundary of the adjacent zone extending for 24 nautical miles from the coast. This restriction, which the Treaty does not stipulate, considerably reduces observation flight efficiency.



10. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (BWC)

The United States is again basing its claims against Russia on conjecture about alleged connections between Soviet military biological programmes and Russia's peaceful research in the field of microbiology. Russia once again notes the groundless nature of such conjecture and that all issues related to biological research in the Soviet Union relating to the BWC have long since been completely resolved. We view such US speculation as an attempt to divert the attention of the international community from their own unseemly activities in a sensitive sphere like biology.

We must again point out the incident in which anthrax spores were mailed from Salomon laboratory in the US state of Utah, which almost led to a disaster in the countries where this deadly cargo was shipped.

We are increasingly concerned about the activities of the Pentagon as it continues to deploy its biomedical laboratories in various parts of the world, including in the immediate vicinity of Russia’s borders. The Richard Lugar Centre for Public Health Research which is a high-level laboratory of biological isolation located in the suburbs of Tbilisi is the most indicative example in this regard. It is home to a medical research division of the US Army, which is a branch of the US Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. As is known, this military unit of the US Army engages in studying particularly dangerous infectious diseases. The US and Georgian authorities are making efforts to conceal the true content and focus of the projects being implemented in the suburbs of Tbilisi. The Pentagon is trying to introduce the same camouflaged military medical and biological facilities in other CIS states.

Given that the United States has not yet withdrawn its reservation to the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which prohibits the use of bacteriological weapons, the question of the true goals of such military biological activity of the United States in the post-Soviet space is quite justifiable.

Our concerns are further exacerbated by the interpretation of the BWC provisions presented in the current US report whereby the Convention, while prohibiting the development of biological weapons, allegedly does not cover research in this area. It appears that while developing large-scale biomedical activities, the United States is using such an interpretation of the provisions of the Convention for its purposes which clearly contradict the BWC.

We urge the United States to be as responsible as Russia in fulfilling its obligations under the BWC, to take steps to address the above concerns, and to strengthen this disarmament instrument, which is important for international security.



11. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)

For the past years, the US Department of State invariably put in question Russia’s declarations under Article III of the CWC and consequently the competence and well-deserved respect for the OPCW as the most efficient and successful international organisation concerned with disarmament and WMD non-proliferation. Unlike Washington, the OPCW has no complaints about Russia.

This year again, the United States has openly accused Russia of violating Article I of the CWC based on the unsubstantiated and completely groundless allegations of Russia’s involvement in the poisoning with a nerve agent of Russian citizens Sergey and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, UK. We repeatedly made known our position on this issue.

It should be said, however, that it is the United States and not Russia that is the only CWC country to own a substantial chemical weapons arsenal. Moreover, inventions involving the use of chemical weapons, including nerve agents, have been patented in the United States, as we know from public sources. Overall, some 140 patents for the use of such agents have been issued in the United States.

The missile strike delivered by the United States with support from Britain and France on civilian and government facilities in Syria on April 14, in response to the alleged Syrian government chemical attack on Douma, a suburb of Damascus, on April 7, was a flagrant violation of international law and hence the CWC. The strike was delivered at the time when OPCW inspectors were about to depart for Douma to investigate the alleged chemical attack. There are grounds to believe that the missile strike was designed to prevent the OPCW inspectors from conducting an objective investigation.

Washington has not yet provided any evidence to confirm its last year’s claim that chemical weapons were stored at the Shayrat Airbase in Syria, from which the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun, Syria, was allegedly delivered. In other words, Washington acted in violation of international law, as well as the CWC, when it did not invoke its right to request an OPCW challenge inspection under Article IX of the CWC. Moreover, the Americans and their allies blocked the adoption of the OPCW Executive Council decision on immediate steps to conduct a thorough and objective inspection at the site of the alleged chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun and an obligatory OPCW inspection of the Shayrat Airbase.

The United States is not honouring its own obligations under the CWC to declare whether it has abandoned chemical weapons on the territory of other states. In particular, Washington has not admitted its ownership of phosgene bombs in Panama despite the fact that experts from the OPCW Technical Secretariat confirmed beyond any doubt the US origin of these weapons back in 2002. The United States simply shifted the responsibility for the destruction of these weapons onto the Panamanian authorities.

The US origin of a considerable amount of chemical weapons discovered in Cambodia in 2012 was confirmed by a special OPCW commission. In essence, the United States refused to do anything to resolve that problem. The Cambodian authorities provided detailed documented information regarding these US weapons to the OPCW Technical Secretariat for assisting in their destruction.

The United States should assume a more responsible attitude to the use of chemical weapons by non-state agents in the Middle East. For this purpose, the United States should act within the framework of its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions 2118, 2209 and 2235, and should forward to the UN Security Council the information US military personnel collected in 2015 and 2016 at the scenes of the crime involving chemical weapons, which ISIS and other terrorist groups committed in Iraqi Kurdistan.

According to information published by The New York Times in 2014 and later confirmed officially, the US Department of Defence found or bought from the local population some 5,000 chemical weapons, which had been manufactured in the Saddam Hussein years, during the occupation of Iraq by the coalition forces in 2003−2009. Acting in violation of the CWC provisions, the United States did not notify the OPCW about its actions regarding these weapons but destroyed them in Iraq without proper verification and using a method that was unsafe for people and the environment, that is, by detonating them in open air. Some US servicemen and Iraqi civilians have been exposed to these chemical warfare agents.

The numerous Russian requests under paragraph 1 of Article IX of the CWC for access to the related archive materials held by the OPCW Technical Secretariat were left unanswered.

It should also be said that the ratification documents on the US accession to the CWC approved by US Congress included several conditions that added a contradictory element to the implementation of Washington’s obligations under the CWC. In particular, the US president and administration are obliged to act contrary to the Convention in case of need, for example, prohibit the transfer of any sample collected in the United States pursuant to the Convention for analysis to any laboratory outside the territory of the United States; restrict the possibility of OPCW experts conducting challenge inspections in the United States at the request of other states; take no measure, and prescribe no rule or regulation, which would alter or eliminate Executive Order 11850 of April 8, 1975, according to which the US president may permit the use by the US Armed Forces of any riot control agents and chemical herbicides in war, which is prohibited by Article I of the CWC.

The United States’ reservation to the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare allows it to maintain a lethal and incapacitating chemical weapons capability for deterrence and possible retaliatory purposes, contrary to Article I of the CWC.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3192916






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the agreement on the participation of Transnistrian vehicles in international traffic



25 April 2018 - 16:29



We welcome the agreement on a mechanism to allow non-commercial Transnistria-registered vehicles to participate in international traffic, which the political representatives of Chisinau and Tiraspol signed on April 24.

This document is a result of hard work by Transnistrian and Moldovan working groups. Just as similar agreements that were signed in November 2017, it is evidence of the parties’ readiness to reach agreements and to address the delicate issues that were set out in the Vienna Protocol of the 5+2 talks on the Transnistrian Settlement Process held in December 2017. This is exactly what Russia has been advocating.

We hope that Moldova and Transnistria will be able to map out further steps towards a settlement at the next official round of the 5+2 talks, which Italy’s OCSE Chairmanship will hold in May.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3193409






Press release on signing the Agreement between the Government of the Russia Federation and the Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar on Counter-Terrorism Cooperation



25 April 2018 - 16:34



On April 25, on the sidelines of the 9th International Meeting of High Representatives for Security Issues in Sochi, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov and Deputy Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar Aung Soe signed the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar on Counter-Terrorism Cooperation.

The Agreement creates the legal framework for developing Russia-Myanmar cooperation on one of the key issues on the global agenda. It envisions training of personnel for counter-terrorism units, as well as the sharing of information, experience and technology needed for effective measures to prevent, identify and investigate acts of terror, and to counter the financing of individuals and organisations involved in terrorist activities.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3193450






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the situation in Armenia



25 April 2018 - 16:37



We continue to pay close attention to the developments in Armenia with which we are connected by historical traditions of friendship, extensive multilateral cooperation and allied relations.

We hope that the situation will develop exclusively within the legal framework of the constitution and that all political forces will demonstrate responsibility and readiness for a constructive dialogue. We are convinced that getting life in the country back to normal as soon as possible and restoring public accord meet the vital interests of our brotherly nation Armenia.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3193492






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the developments in Madagascar



25 April 2018 - 16:43



Moscow is concerned about reports from Antananarivo on the escalation of the internal political situation in Madagascar following the April 21 clash between opposition activists and police, which claimed human lives.

We proceed from the fact that developments in Madagascar are the domestic affair of this country. It is crucial for the public and political processes to unfold strictly within constitutional provisions and to correspond to the standards of the national legislation.

Moscow expresses hope that in the interests of the future of the Malagasy state and the stability of its democratic institutions, all political forces will show restraint and responsibility so as to avoid destabilisation of the internal situation and the growth of social tensions. We view this as the only way to ensure steady progress for Madagascar.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3193502






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the situation in Nicaragua



25 April 2018 - 17:36



Moscow expresses condolences to the friends and families of the victims of the street riots which have occurred in the past few days in some cities and villages in the friendly nation of Nicaragua.

We presume that the developments in this Central American country are entirely its internal affair. We caution against destructive attempts to interfere from abroad.

We are confident that under the current situation, the government and the people of Nicaragua are capable of finding a peaceful solution to emerging problems in the interest of ensuring the sustainable socioeconomic development of society with due respect for constitutional provisions and principles which fully guarantee the observance of human rights and civil liberties.

Russia expresses its full support for the government of this fraternal nation. Domestic political stability in Nicaragua, further movement along the path of social progress and prosperity are a guarantee of a successful solution to current problems.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3193522






Press release on the Russia-initiated letter of 22 states to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in support of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the current international system of drug control



25 April 2018 - 21:43



On behalf of its supporters (Algeria, Armenia, Belarus, Vietnam, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China, Cuba, Laos, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Singapore, Tajikistan, the Philippines and South Africa), the Russian Federation sent a collective letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in support of the current international system of drug control and the key role of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs on issues of global anti-drug policy.

This initiative is aimed at neutralising the attempts of a number of states to shift decision-making on drugs into more comfortable formats designed to advance liberal attitudes to drugs. The letter notes that the commission is successfully coping with its tasks and takes into account the contribution of relevant UN bodies and agencies in its work. The formation of any new drug control organisations that would duplicate its activities is deemed counterproductive and unjustified given that UN financial resources are limited. The letter goes on to note that the commission is supposed to continue coordinating the efforts of the international community to prepare and conduct in Vienna in 2019 a full-scale review of signatories’ observance of the 2009 Anti-Drug Political Declaration and the Action Plan at the ministerial level.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3193562






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the anniversary of an OSCE Special Monitoring Mission member’s death in Ukraine



27 April 2018 - 11:32



A few days ago was the first anniversary of the tragic death of Joseph Stone, a US citizen who was serving as a medic with the OSCE SMM, in the Lugansk region of Ukraine. He was killed in a landmine blast that hit his mission patrol car. In this regard, the US State Department expressed its condolences and released a statement, but instead of pointing out to Kiev the expediency of implementing the Minsk agreements for the sake of restoring peace in Donbass, the DoS statement for some reason contains a number of appeals to Russia.

This crime is being investigated by Ukrainian and Lugansk law enforcement agencies. The International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission presented its report in September 2017 after it got involved in the probe at the OSCE’s request. There is much evidence, including a well-known video posted on the internet, confirming that the self-defence forces were not involved in planting the mine, but revealing a Ukrainian trace in this crime.

The Russian side hopes that the investigation will be brought to an end on the basis of the principles of impartiality and objectivity, and that the perpetrators will be punished as they deserve.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3194648






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the inter-Korean summit



27 April 2018 - 14:01



We welcome the successful holding of the meeting between the leaders of the two Korean states in Panmunjom on April 27. We regard it as a significant step by Seoul and Pyongyang to national reconciliation and the establishment of strong relationships of independent value.

We have a positive view of the agreements enshrined in the Panmunjom Declaration on the results of the inter-Korean summit. We are ready to facilitate the establishment of practical cooperation between the DPRK and the Republic of Korea, including through the development of tripartite cooperation in the railway, electricity, gas and other industries.

The meeting confirmed the commitment of the parties to the intensification of the political and diplomatic process seeking to resolve the entire complex of the Korean Peninsula issues, including the nuclear issue. In coordination with the countries involved, we will continue to make efforts towards this end along the lines of the Russia-China roadmap for the Korean settlement. We believe that this work must lead to resuming multilateral negotiations in the interest of shaping a system of peace and security in Northeast Asia.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3194904






Statement by the Delegation of the Russian Federation on nuclear disarmament at the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Geneva, April 26, 2018



27 April 2018 - 17:34



The issues of nuclear disarmament are high on the agenda of the NPT review process.

Our country is committed to building a world free of nuclear weapons. Russia has already made an unprecedented contribution to nuclear disarmament by having decreased its nuclear arsenal by more than 85%.

Russia has fully complied with its commitment to reduce strategic offensive weapons in accordance with the New START Treaty between Russia and the US. Russia's aggregate potential of strategic arms is even below the limits for warheads and delivery means established by the Treaty.

Unfortunately, we cannot confirm that the other Party to the Treaty has also reached the set limits. The figures declared by the US have been reached not only by actually reducing the arms, but also through manipulations that are incorrect from the point of view of the Treaty. Specifically Washington has unilaterally removed from the accountability under the Treaty 56 Trident II SLBM launchers and 41 B-52H heavy bombers by declaring them as converted. However, the so-called conversion has been conducted in such a way that Russia cannot confirm its results as it is specified in the New START Treaty. Moreover, the US has not included into the accountability under the Treaty several ICBM 'silo training launchers' by renaming them in 'training silos'. Such deviation is also not allowed by the Treaty.

Thus, there is a serious anomaly that needs to be eliminated. Otherwise, a threat to the viability of the Treaty will persist. The work on that issue will continue within the Bilateral Consultative Commission under the New START Treaty. We will seek to ensure strict implementation of the New START Treaty by the US side.

The Treaty itself continues to operate and contributes to predictability and stability of our strategic relations with the US. Russia remains strongly committed to the New START Treaty.

We reaffirm our commitment to the INF Treaty. We share the concerns voiced by a number of states regarding the future of the Treaty. However, it seems that only few of them know the real state of play. The U.S. continues to reproduce its unsubstantiated allegations. While the fact that the US has been severely violating for many years the INF Treaty and trying to justify its intention to destroy it by shifting responsibility on Russia is being silenced. We would like to believe that chances to save the INF Treaty are still there and the U.S. will be strong enough to show political will needed.

The Russian Federation has unilaterally implemented a whole number of other significant measures. In particular, we have decreased fourfold the number of our non-strategic nuclear weapons. All such remaining arms were converted into non-deployed and were concentrated exclusively within the national territory at centralized storage bases, where the strictest regime of control and security is ensured. Another step in that area has been our national decision to de-target Russian nuclear weapons that now have a so-called zero flight assignment.

The role of nuclear weapons in Russia's Military Doctrine has been seriously reduced. Their possible use is limited only to following extraordinary circumstances: the use of WMD against Russia or its allies and a hypothetical situation when aggression against our country threatens the very existence of the State. In other words, these are provisions of a purely defensive nature. A concept of "non-nuclear deterrence" was also included in Russia's Military Doctrine.

We believe that further progress in nuclear disarmament is possible only if necessary efforts are made by all the interested states. Steps in that area should strengthen and not undermine international security and stability. The realistic approach to nuclear disarmament, based on the NPT, entails phase-by-phase approach' and mandatory engagement of all states with military nuclear capabilities. That's why it is impossible for Russia to support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This document controversial by nature has not been agreed with us. We respect the views of those who have put forward this initiative. At the same time, it is obvious that the Treaty which has been developed without participation of nuclear states or without taking into account their views cannot make any positive contribution to the reduction or limitation of nuclear weapons. It is based on the false premise that nuclear disarmament can be carried out without taking into account strategic realities. The text of the Treaty has been prepared in a hasty manner, on a non-consensus basis and without taking into account the fundamental principles of the NPT.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has not yet entered into force but the work on it has already provoked a sense of hostility and discord within the global community. These tendencies continue to deepen. Further advancement of the Treaty threatens to undermine long-term efforts aimed at real nuclear disarmament. The Treaty can cause irreparable damage to the integrity and sustainability of the established nuclear non-proliferation system based on the NPT. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons can undermine efforts to ensure the entering into force of the CTBT.

Raising the issue of complete prohibition of nuclear weapons in a short timeframe would be appropriate at the final stage of the nuclear disarmament process to assure the irreversibility of the results achieved. Today it only distracts attention from the utterly unacceptable global security situation with accumulation of serious and much more relevant problems. Let us mention just some of them. They include unrestricted deployment of global missile defence systems, development of non-nuclear high-precision strategic offensive weapons, prospects of placement of strike weapons in outer space, growing quality and quantity imbalances in the field of conventional arms, worsening prospects for the CTBT.

Particular attention needs to be paid to destabilizing efforts of certain countries who seem to believe that ensuring their own security does not require taking into account considerations of other states on that matter. Active steps need to be taken to counter attempts to destabilize the disarmament architecture and undermine the authority of international organizations and regimes established with the approval of almost entire global community.

In this context there are serious concerns about development in some countries of doctrinal documents envisaging significant increase of the role of nuclear weapons in military planning and lowering the threshold for its use. Another source of concern is the continuing NATO practice of nuclear sharing when non-nuclear states practice handling nuclear weapons in direct violation of the NPT provisions. All of that increases the risk of a nuclear conflict with all the catastrophic consequences.

In order to avoid the most dangerous scenarios in a situation of serious escalation of global military and political tensions and preserve strategic balance, we had to take military and technical measures announced by the President of the Russian Federation on March 1st, 2018 in his Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. We emphasize that all steps to strengthen the defence capabilities of our country are strictly in line with the existing arms control treaties. We do not threaten anyone and do not intend to use our potential for any aggressive purposes.

To stress once again, this is a matter of ensuring our security and preserve the balance. At the same time Russia's President called to sit at the negotiations table and think on the renewed and perspective international security system.

History teaches us that attempts to strengthen one's own security at the expense of the security of others are doomed to fail A conversation is needed in which the notions of equality, mutual respect and consensus are of instrumental rather than declarative nature. This is the only approach that helps find a balance of interests satisfactory for everyone and ensure due consideration of key issues of global security, as well as create conditions for advancement towards nuclear disarmament. We are ready for such conversation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3195373

[Alex Him]

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 26, 2018



26 April 2018 - 19:42








Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Foreign Minister of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulides

On April 27, Republic of Cyprus Foreign Minister Nikos Christodoulides will pay his first visit to Russia in this capacity. While in Moscow, he is to hold talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The officials are to discuss the current status of bilateral cooperation and its prospects, to exchange opinions on the Cypriot peace settlement and on a wide range of global and regional matters of mutual interest, including Russia-EU relations, the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean region as well as some other topics.



Trilateral ministerial meeting on Syria in the Iran-Russia-Turkey format

On April 28, Moscow will host an extraordinary meeting between Foreign Ministers of Russia, Iran and Turkey as countries, guarantors of the Astana process to facilitate the Syrian peace settlement. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is to hold bilateral meetings with Foreign Minister of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif and Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu on the sidelines of the event.

The diplomats will review Syrian developments and will discuss possible joint steps that might help promote intra-Syrian contacts based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and with due consideration for the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

They will focus on the humanitarian situation in Syria, including in the context of implementing provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2401. We are confident that a more active role of humanitarian agencies could help normalise the situation more quickly. At the same time, efforts to assist the people of Syria should not be linked with achieving any political goals.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif

On April 28, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is to have a meeting with Foreign Minister of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif on the sidelines of the trilateral ministerial meeting.

There are plans to discuss a wide range of subjects concerning the traditionally friendly and rapidly developing bilateral relations, including in the field of political cooperation, trade, economic, cultural and humanitarian ties in the context of implementing agreements between President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of Iran Hassan Rouhani.

They will exchange opinions on topical regional and international affairs, including the deteriorating situation as regards the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme.



Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi’s upcoming visit to Russia

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Ayman Safadi’s working visit to the Russian Federation is scheduled for May 3.

During their talks in Sochi, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi will exchange views on a broad range of current international and regional issues and discuss the state of and prospects for bilateral Russian-Jordanian cooperation.

The situation in Syria is expected to be at the focus of discussions, particularly the developments in the south, where a de-escalation zone coordinated by Russia, the United States and Jordan is located. They will also focus on prospects for the advancement of Middle East settlement, including with regard to a dangerous exacerbation of the situation in the Palestinian territories, primarily in Gaza.

We note the intense nature of dialogue between the Russian and Jordanian foreign ministers. It is characterised by a high degree of trust and the two countries’ similar or identical approaches to many key international and regional problems.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandyan

Today, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a short meeting with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia Eduard Nalbandyan. Among other things, the officials discussed the situation on the line of contact between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan.



The developments in Syria

During the past week, the situation in Syria continued to be affected by the aftermath of the April 14 US-British-French massive missile and bomb strikes. Regrettably, the radicals and extremists have intensified their operations in the wake of the Western Troika’s actions, which gave them an opportunity to catch their breath and get reinforcements.

Jabhat al-Nusra militants resumed their shelling of populated localities in the Homs province. ISIS attacks on the Syrian government army’s strong points in the area of Mayadin and Abu Kamal, Deir ez-Zor province, have become more frequent. On April 19, the Syrian armed forces launched a large-scale counter-terrorist operation against ISIS forces entrenched in the Palestinian Yarmouk Camp and the adjacent territories after they turned down a “pacification” proposal.

But some positive trends persist as well. Militants continue to be evacuated from Eastern Qalamoun, with 10,000 of them with families leaving for northern Syria. This area is expected to be entirely liberated from illegal armed groups after another 5,000 or 6,000 irreconcilables leave Eastern Qalamoun. The militants have surrendered their heavy weapons, including several dozen tanks, Grad multiple rocket launchers, US antitank missile systems, over 60,000 units of small arms, and huge stores of ammunition.

The Syrian authorities are working hard to deliver aid to residents in areas liberated from illegal armed groups and to restore infrastructure. According to the Healthcare Directorate of the Damascus area, over 86,000 refugees from Eastern Ghouta have been given medical aid since early March. The Syrian Health Ministry is planning to inoculate 2.9 million children as part of the national inoculation campaign. According to a statement by the Syrian Electricity Minister, electricity supply will be restored in Deir ez-Zor province by mid-May.

The OPCW team, which arrived in Douma on April 21 and visited the site of the so-called chemical attack on two occasions, is continuing its work. For its part, Russia is giving the mission maximum support, primarily in providing security. Russia expects the OPCW inspectors to carry out an impartial investigation into the circumstances of the incident and present a report at their earliest opportunity.



French Foreign Ministry’s allegations of Russia’s “information manipulation” regarding the alleged chemical incident in Douma

We have noted French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian’s statements accusing Russia of “permanent manipulation” regarding the alleged chemical incident in the Syrian city of Douma. The French side claims that Russia is spreading videos with children while “45 people lost their lives.” However, the facts are completely different.

The materials presented by the Russia side (unlike those you, Mr Le Drian, relied on in Paris as you were taking the decision to join the US punitive action) feature real witnesses of the events in Douma. As we all know, witnesses have already arrived at the OPCW in The Hague so as to give first-hand testimony to the representatives of the Convention states parties. These are not some video clips and materials from social networks and blogs, some of them anonymous, that you, Mr Le Drian, distribute as evidence of the need to launch strikes at the capital of a sovereign nation. People in person came to The Hague and will speak, they will tell what they experienced, how fake videos are shot and how the roles are distributed. It’s going to be interesting.

It has proved impossible so far to find the victims or injured people that French Foreign Minster Le Drian spoke about, or even traces of the alleged use of chemical weapons. You will agree that the difference in the evidence base is obvious.

It is not improbable that French Foreign Minister Le Drian’s emotional interview was triggered by the weakened positions of the advocates of the illegal aggression against Syria. Could that be the case? Representatives of the French political parties doubt the credibility of the video and photo materials that were used to fabricate accusations against the Syrian authorities. During the parliamentary debates on April 16, they said there was no solid proof of the fact that the Bashar al-Assad regime had used chemical weapons in Douma, whereas some MPs directly pointed to the staged nature of the incident.

I would like to say to our French colleagues that 15 years ago France managed to evade the trap set by Washington as it spoke of Iraq’s chemical weapons. What has happened to France over the period of the last 15 years?



Criticism of US and its allies’ strikes against Syria

I would like to draw your attention to the April 14 statement by the Bundestag Research Services (a research unit of the German Parliament) containing an assessment, from the point of view of international law, of the air strikes against Syria by the USA, Great Britain and France in retaliation for an alleged chemical attack in Eastern Douma.

The findings, based on analysis of the strikes’ compliance with international law, are highly revealing. “The retaliatory strikes” against any state are declared by the experts to be inadmissible and in contradiction of the principles of the non-use or threat of force, in accordance with Clause 4, Article 2 of the UN Charter.

Moreover, according to the experts, the CPCW has legal mechanisms for bringing the culprits to justice. Therefore actions outside the framework of CPCW decisions look very dubious in terms of international law.

The doctrinal explanation of the operation by its authors comes in for separate analysis. For example, London openly explains the reason for its participation in the action as based on “humanitarian intervention.” Analysts are asking why this so-called chemical attack in Douma triggered such an operation when it was not the most cruel and certainly not the most massive in terms of the number of casualties. The operation comes after the loss of hundreds of thousands of civilian lives, in seven years of war, during which the West stoically endorsed the actions of many criminal bands and militants, with the explanation that it was part of the struggle against the regime.

Bearing in mind that the concept of the duty to protect, underlying the idea of “humanitarian intervention,” refers to the protection of the population and not the punishment of a state for violating international law, the Bundestag experts qualify the attack by the USA and its allies as an overt return to military counter-measures under “humanitarian guise.”

Berlin’s official reaction to the report is symptomatic. Deputy government spokesperson Ulrike Demmer told a press conference on April 23 that although “note had been taken” of the report, the government’s official position remained unchanged: the reaction to the chemical attack was “necessary and proportionate.” This is paradoxical. Although the analysis cannot be called a document, nevertheless, the material prepared by the German Government experts has not been disavowed and no counter-arguments have been given. At the same time, solidarity is expressed with the USA, which delivered the strikes together with Britain and France.

On the eve of the press conference by the deputy government spokesperson Ulrike Demmer, the German government channel ZDF described the Douma chemical attack as a fake. At least this was said in a live broadcast by correspondent Uli Gak, who visited the scene of the alleged carnage and spoke extensively with the local residents. “People are sure that the whole thing was staged, and there have been several such provocations. People were exposed to chlorine during “exercises” and this was filmed on video. The footage was later published as “evidence.”

Earlier, we asked who would answer for these endless provocations involving alleged humanitarian organisations, civil society and ordinary people? The question should now be put differently: when will the organisers of these provocations be brought to account? As for who masterminded these provocations, there is no longer any question. We have all seen how these fakes were concocted, how quickly they were taken up by the Western establishment, what was done immediately after the release of information on these provocative actions and what this led to. It resulted in increased activity by illegal armed groups. That is all there is to this production of fakes.



The use of US “smart” missiles against Syria

I would also like to remind French Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian and our American colleagues, the main addressee, that, on April 26, the Defence Ministry held a briefing (I think that many of you were there) for Russian and foreign media. Briefing participants analysed the results of illegal US air strikes against sovereign Syria and showed numerous slides of air-strike targets, serial numbers of cruise missiles as well as the attack’s consequences. These are not some obscure metal fragments. All of them are numbered. Now that US President Donald Trump says that he had called someone, and that he was told that all the missiles had hit their targets, nothing apparently prevents everyone, including journalists, from sending an inquiry to the Pentagon and the White House and asking what happened to the missiles with certain serial numbers. Also, these numbers help establish the date of manufacture, subsequent deliveries and use.

They showed images of fragments of cruise missiles with tell-tale holes from guided surface-to-air missile warheads. And we were told that all the missiles had hit their targets.

The Russian side is being groundlessly accused of permanent falsifications. Each time, we provide convincing evidence, including diagrams, facts, arguments, statistics, etc.

And now, we would like to hear what our US colleagues will tell us in response to all these facts. This is material evidence, rather than mere words. This implies a military aggression against a sovereign state, and one will have to answer for this.

I would like to recall a statement made by British Minister of Defence who said that Russia “should go away and shut up.” In response, we are saying: “Come here and explain yourselves.”



Briefing on the April 7 chemical incident in Douma, Syria, at the OPCW Technical Secretariat headquarters in The Hague

Today, the Russian delegation is holding a briefing on the April 7 chemical incident in Douma, Syria, at the OPCW Technical Secretariat headquarters in The Hague. It involves Syrian eyewitnesses and people whom the Western mainstream media tried to pass off as victims of chemical attacks. They will say how the situation really developed.

The briefing aims to shed light on what really happened in that city. And the best way to clarify the circumstances is to give the OPCW floor to those whom our Western colleagues tried to “defend” so hard.

I believe that they will say many interesting things there because, apart from the briefing at the OPCW, another briefing for media is scheduled.



Results of the conference “Supporting the future of Syria and the region”

On April 24−25, Brussels hosted the EU-organised conference “Supporting the future of Syria and the region”. Vladimir Chizhov, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the EU, attended the conference. The objective of the event was announced to be the assessment of fulfilling political and financial commitments taken on at the Brussels conference a year earlier, and ensuring that potential sponsors take on new commitments of this kind.

First of all, we would like to stress that we believe it to be the wrong decision on the part of the conference organisers not to invite the Syrian government. It is not clear whom are they going to assist if the official Damascus is not engaged. We proceed from the assumption that it is essential to interact directly with representatives of the state and the people when a decision is made to assist a country and its population. In this regard, inviting various NGOs, with most of them acting outside Syria, as its representatives seem illogical, to say the least.

The position of some countries that provide assistance to Syria contingent on regime change is generally counterproductive. Even now these countries are focused on helping individuals and structures in the areas outside the Syrian government control. Such selective support of some of the country’s regions to the detriment of the rest of Syria does not help overcoming the split in Syrian society, and restoring Syria’s unity and territorial integrity. All of us know that a number of western countries have set a course for solidifying the division of Syria rather than restoring the country’s integrity.

In this connection we call on all potential donors to establish a close interaction with the legitimate authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic as well as with international humanitarian agencies cooperating with them. Only this approach will help improve the humanitarian situation in Syria and normalise the situation in the country as soon as possible.



The situation in Yemen

The negative scenario continues to develop in the Republic of Yemen, which for four years has been engulfed in hostilities involving the “Arab coalition.”

According to information that has been confirmed by the leadership of the Houthi Ansar Allah movement, Saleh Ali al-Sammad, president of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council (SPC), which was self-proclaimed in August 2016, died in a missile and bomb strike on April 19.

It has been reported that his successor is another leading Ansar Allah member, Mahdi al-Mashat. The Houthi authorities in Sana promised to avenge the death of their leader, which is fraught with intensified armed clashes along the entire front, including Yemeni areas bordering on Saudi Arabia, and stepped-up rocket attacks on the Kingdom’s cities and districts.

Meanwhile, there are reports that civilians have fallen victim to indiscriminate attacks by the so-called “coalition,” with 56 people killed and dozens injured during the past few days alone. The most recent example is the tragedy in Yemen’s Al-Hajjah province, where over 20 people, including women and children, were killed during shelling of a wedding procession in the early hours of April 23.

Against this alarming background, we think it necessary to reaffirm our principled position that it is counter-productive to attempt to solve the existing problems in Yemen by military force. The reliance on force can only exacerbate the situation, lead to even greater suffering among ordinary Yemenis, and delay the prospects for a political settlement of the crisis which, we are deeply convinced, is the only possible solution.

We again call on the participants in the intra-Yemeni conflict to strictly adhere to international humanitarian law, refrain from further escalation of hostilities and to finally listen to the opinion of the Yemeni people, who are tired of war and numerous hardships. As before, we proceed from the assumption that the Yemeni protagonists should break this vicious circle of violence as soon as possible and sit down at the negotiating table to reach agreement on their country’s future political system, based on reciprocal regard for each other’s interests and concerns. It is only in this way that durable peace and national accord can return to Yemen.



Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme

Recent statements by US and French presidents regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme raise serious concerns.

Russia has said on numerous occasions that there is no possibility of renegotiating, amending or supplementing the JCPOA. The deal establishes a balanced mechanism that takes into consideration the interests of all parties. Destroying this fragile balance of interests as set forth in the JCPOA would have serious ramifications in terms of international security and non-proliferation.

We believe that it is important to remind everyone that this document emerged from agreements reached by official national delegations. The deal required hard work over long periods of time. This document was a compromise and a political agreement.

Russia will not be bound by any separate agreements between the US and the EU Three. We will look at the outcomes of these talks in terms of compliance with the JCPOA and, most importantly, with UN Security Council Resolution 2231. If the US and the EU Three agree to interpret specific provisions of the JCPOA in a particular way, Russia reserves the right to do likewise.

Russia will continue to honour its commitments under the JCPOA as long as other parties to the deal do the same.



US Department of State Report on Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Non-Proliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments

The Foreign Ministry took note of the annual report made by the US Department of State on Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Non-Proliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments, released recently.

Inspired by the self-instilled idea of its exceptionalism, including in terms of adherence to international law, year after year the US takes on the role of a “global gendarme” and pronounce categorical verdicts on who complies or fails to comply with multilateral agreements and in what ways. At the same time, the US completely ignores monitoring, verification and settlement mechanisms set forth in these agreements, which shows to what extent Washington respects international rules of behaviour and interaction among states. To put it in simple terms, it is absurd for the US Department of State to release material on the way other countries adhere to their international commitments, while the US simply ignores verification and compliance mechanisms stipulated by these instruments. This is absurd, but this is the way things are right now.

This year’s report was no exception, joining a string of documents that present content in a formalised, uniform way. Just as before, it dogmatically blames Russia for a series of “violations.” In doing so, the US still does not see any need in providing any evidence. It may be that Washington believes that the lack of arguments can be compensated by assuming a mentoring attitude and making categorical statements.

At the same time, releasing reports of this kind is particularly cynical taking into consideration the numerous violations made by the US of its international commitments, including in arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament, let alone what has become of an all too common practice of using military force at its sole discretion against sovereign states without a UN Security Council mandate, while not acting in self-defence, which is a blatant violation of the UN Charter. This is today’s reality.

Today it is not my intention to provide a detailed list of all the violations committed by the US. You can find all the relevant material on the Foreign Ministry website. On April 24, Russia’s assessment of the US Department of State’s Report on Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Non-Proliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments was published on the Foreign Ministry’s official website. I recommend that you all take a look at it.

I call on Washington to renounce making groundless accusations against other countries, especially taking into consideration the way the US acts in this area. All this activity can be viewed as clumsy attempts to mislead the international public opinion. We hope that Washington finally realises that it would be preferable for the US to opt for a more civilised way of settling differences through professional, mutually respectful dialogue instead of relying on public rhetoric and power play.



US officials seize the residence of the Russian Consul General in Seattle

Yesterday you could follow the events unfolding at the former Russian Consulate General in Seattle on the social media accounts of the Russian Foreign Ministry. We describe the Consulate General as former because the US authorities have withdrawn their permission to its operation. However, this has not cancelled our ownership of that building.

We have said before that the US authorities were planning to seize yet another Russian property in the United States. We were referring to the residence of the Russian Consul General in Seattle. You could watch this online in real time yesterday. This video is still freely available.

You remember that the US authorities announced their decision to expel 60 Russian diplomats and to close the Russian Consulate General in Seattle on March 26. That decision was part of a policy launched by US President Barak Obama to undermine bilateral relations.

The Russian Consulate General vacated the leased premises on April 1. The consulate’s employees left Seattle on April 24, as stipulated in the US decision. After that, US secret service agents seized the residence of the Russian Consul General. “Seized” is the only word that correctly describes what they did.

Our American colleagues claimed that it was not seizure. However, the building is Russian property that has been paid for and for which we also made the requisite maintenance payments. Therefore, it was seizure.

The fact that the US authorities have officially withdrawn their permission for the operation of the Russian Consulate General in Seattle has not terminated and cannot under any circumstances terminate Russia’s right to the ownership of this building, as it does not terminate the ownership rights of any other country to which this may happen in the future.

US agents entered the building in the absence of its owners. They broke into the building without asking for permission and thoroughly searched it. A special agency has been used for this. It should be said that the building has been mothballed by the Russian party. The Americans have now changed everything to their own liking and have made themselves at home in the building.

They acted likewise in late 2017 with regard to other Russian properties, including the buildings at the disposal of the Russian Embassy in Washington and the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations in New York, as well as the two buildings of the Russian Consulate General in San Francisco and the head office of the Russian trade mission in Washington last autumn. As of now, the US authorities have seized six Russian diplomatic facilities. I repeat that we are talking about Russian diplomatic property.

This is an absolutely outrageous, ugly and unprecedented situation. Nothing like this had ever happened in Russian-US relations before. This is yet another flagrant violation of the fundamental norms of international law by the United States, including the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the 1964 Bilateral Consular Convention. We have not commented on this issue, but there is not a single US law that could be used to justify these US actions as legitimate. There are no such laws. It was a decision taken exclusively by the political part of the US administration or its military departments. We have a question for the American party: What decisions and decision-making mechanisms are applied in cases of illegal state seizure of others’ property? We don’t want words or emotions. Just show us this document or give us its name. What is the basis for the seizure of property that does not belong to the United States but is property of a foreign state?

As you know, we had to reciprocate to Washington’s hostile actions. On March 29, we declared the same number of American diplomats persona non grata and withdrew our permission for the opening of the US Consulate General in St Petersburg. The consulate’s personnel are packing up and should leave the city by April 30.

I want to stress that the United States does not own the building of the US Consulate General and the residence of the US Consul General. The Americans leased these municipally-owned buildings from the city of St Petersburg. In other words, we have not seized any property the Americans own in Russia. Moreover, we have not conducted any searches in the buildings that are not our property. These were exclusively reciprocal actions.

At the same time, we demand the return of the six Russian properties that have been seized in the United States. We are not allowed to enter them even for maintenance purposes. Moreover, we know, and I show this to you today, that the US authorities are making use of these utility systems. On top of that, US officials urged us more than once to sell these properties. In addition to advising us to sell these buildings, they have offered assistance in the sale of our own property. They have told us that they are ready to provide practical assistance to us. It is a highly conspicuous concern.

We hope that the international community will take note of the fact that US standards have plunged to the reprehensible level of state-sponsored robbery.

I would like to draw your attention to some fact-based materials. Have a look at these slides, please.

Seattle, April 25. Please note that this is not staged photography but a video recording. Look at the blue sheet on this photograph. What could it be? I can tell you that this “blanket” was used to cover an American agent who broke open the door of the Russian Consulate General. You may wonder why he did this, and why they needed the blue sheets, and why they shielded the man who broke down the door. We wonder too. He could be a US secret agent or a hired man. It’s difficult to say which. But we have never seen women holding up a sheet while someone behind it could be heard sawing something. Judging by the sound, he was sawing something made of metal. And here you can see them installing a new lock. For some strange reason, nobody is holding up the blue sheet now. This is absurd. Why did we think that absurd things only happened on the international scale? Look at this local-scale absurdity: a new lock is being installed, possibly by someone from the US Department of State.

And these are US officials on the premises of the Russian Consulate General. They approach the building, breaking down doors, and go to the central entrance. I would like to say that all these people, who have entered the territory of the Russian Federation, have made history. The man who was fiddling with the lock probably knew this, which is why he asked for the blue sheet protection. I think that many years later these people will recall their illegal actions that violated their own fundamental laws. I cannot imagine what could inspire them to take part in this action, because these videos will also be available many years later, too. They will probably tell their children how they walked around someone else’s property. And this is breaking and entering through the other door. Yes, they did enter the building through that door as well. And here they are working on the infrastructure I have mentioned before. The building was mothballed and water was shut off. This was done by Russian officials to leave the building in such a way that you can reopen it again in the future. But these people barged in, turned on the water and did something with the sewage system. Why are they doing this? I cannot understand it. Once again, the rightful owner of this building is not the United States but Russia. If I had to name this photograph, it would be entitled, Lawfulness Incarnate. (The photographs and video material of this presentation are available in the Video section of the briefing.)



Heather Nauert comment on Russian Consulate General in Seattle

I would like to say a few words about the comment made by our colleagues from the US Department of State in their internet resources. “Today, @StateDept officials walked through the property [Consulate General] in Seattle to confirm it had been vacated.”

Let’s face it, it had been seized, not vacated.

“We will secure and maintain it in keeping with our responsibilities.” It is unclear which responsibilities and to whom. The US has a responsibility to Russia as a party that hosts its foreign missions. You have violated and defied all your responsibilities. So what sort of responsibility are you talking about?

“No ‘invasion,’ just a firm, lawful response to Russia’s continuing outrageous behaviour.” It means that everything you have seen now is an illusion. I have several questions in this connection. If this is about lawful actions, as we have been told, show us the law that authorises the seizure of someone’s property. If you say Russia has been behaving outrageously, we would like to see facts and evidence. As of today we are facing yet another manipulation of information by the US side regarding its unlawful strikes on a sovereign state.

If our colleagues from the State Department publish these materials and claim that it is normal and lawful, should we do the same? Then we will see their reaction as to whether such acts are lawful or not.



Prospects for Russia-Cuba relations in view of the April 19 changes in the top leadership of Cuba

On April 20, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and the new President of the State Council and Council of Ministers of Cuba Miguel Diaz-Canel Bermudez had a telephone conversation, during which they reaffirmed their commitment to the policy of deepening multifaceted ties between Russia and Cuba in all areas.

Russian-Cuban ties passed the test of time, and are consistently advancing as a strategic partnership. Moscow and Havana share deep-routed friendship, sympathy and understanding. Our countries have always maintained a trust-based and open political dialogue. We act as allies in international affairs.

Cuba is undergoing a momentous change. The country is reviewing its socioeconomic development model, with the proactive involvement of Russian economic operators. A number of major long-term projects in the key industries of the Cuban economy are underway – in power generation, metallurgy, agriculture and infrastructure. Among them are advanced projects, such as the construction of four power-generating units at the Cuban thermal power stations, upgrading of the Jose Marti (Antillana de Acero) steelworks, railway network, and so on. Cooperation is stepped up in innovative areas including medicine and biopharmaceuticals, as well as in information and communication technologies. All this is a clear sign of a solid foundation for practical cooperation. Clearly, there is great potential for the future, which allows us to positively assess the prospects for developing our relations.



French President Emmanuel Macron’s comments on Euro-integration of West Balkans

We have taken note of the French President’s remarks about the Balkans during the session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg on April 17. The French head of state believes that the European Union should continue to draw in the Balkan countries in order to prevent them from drifting towards Russia or other partners. The French President described such a drift as a geopolitical risk for the EU. I have a question: Emmanuel Macron said that the Balkans’ drift towards Russia and other countries worries France, but is France worried about Britain’s drift? Has it asked itself in what direction Britain is drifting? What geopolitical risks does it create for the EU? The Balkans are, after all, a geographical part of a common continent while Britain is an island.

Alas, these statements demonstrate that even members of the leadership of the founding states of the European project are not ready to see the Western Balkans as equal partners with their own legitimate interests and well-established, pragmatic and mutually-beneficial international ties. We consider it to be grossly illogical and mistaken to confront the countries in the region with an artificial choice between Russia and the European Union. Have they not learned anything from the negative experience of applying this formula to another EU initiative, the Eastern Partnership? We believe that by using this “zero-sum game” rhetoric, the European Union is at risk of stirring up the festering wounds of the armed conflicts of the 1990s.

Make no mistake, Russia does not view the Balkans as some kind of a geopolitical test range. We have no intention of engaging in rope pulling with the European Union. However, Brussels and other EU capitals ought to be interested in finding a way of enabling the region’s countries to combine the process of Euro-integration with the preservation of ties with Russia and other traditional partners.



Politicisation of sports

I feel obliged to revisit the situation in world sports where the fundamental principle of “sports is outside politics” is being increasingly eroded. I have to say that the massive campaign against Russia unleashed by a number of Western countries has not spared that aspect of our life. The most salient of the recent examples of politicisation of sports, as far as our country is concerned, are the doping scandal unleashed against Russian athletes and the ban of absolutely “clean” Russian athletes from the PyeongChang Olympics. Voices have been heard calling for a boycott of the 2018 World Football Cup which our country is to host. It’s the same old story: Russia is a country to stay away from. The arguments are purely political and have nothing to do with sports.

There was an outrageous episode with our freestyle wrestling team recently. The USA, the host country of the World Cup held in early April, simply refused visas to all the members of the Russian team, preventing them from taking part in the tournament. Incidentally, the Iranian team was similarly “honoured.” In effect, a country hosting international events has come to decide, based on its political preferences, which states can and which states cannot be allowed to take part. This is an egregious precedent and a gross violation by the host state of the rules for conducting a sports tournament. To prevent such things happening again, it is probably high time for a tightening of the relevant rules of the international sports federations. Resolutions on sports, passed by international organisations, should guarantee foreign athletes unhindered access to competitions.

On the whole, we call for an end to the untenable practice of bringing sports into politics. Sports is meant to bring countries and peoples closer together. This is very important. And politics should tear down the obstacles which people, unfortunately, have created, including in sports.



Dutch writer Alexander Munninghoff’s words about Russia

I cannot but comment on the statements made by popular Dutch writer (his book Heir and Successor about the life of his family during WWII is an international bestseller), former correspondent with Dutch media in the USSR and Russia Alexander Munninghoff in the Dutch television programme Buitenhof. He spoke about the groundless Western criticism against Russia.

Alexander Munninghoff believes that the negative development of relations between Russia and the North Atlantic Alliance is the latter’s fault. From the very beginning, Russia made efforts to reach a compromise with the West in international relations, but the NATO countries responded with an expansion to the east, violating their promises given to the Soviet and Russian leaders.

He also noted that the West has carried out a policy towards the post-Soviet republics that contradicts its public statements. It is obvious that after the collapse of the USSR, certain forces tried to drive a wedge between Russia and these countries, which resulted in conflicts in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

Munninghoff also mentioned the events in Crimea. He said you can talk all you want about the so-called annexation of Crimea and the violation of international law, but you cannot deny that it was a pure formality that Crimea became part of Ukraine as was decided by the Soviet leadership when Ukraine was part of the USSR. Crimea has always belonged to Russia.

Munninghoff said that the accusations in cyber-attacks and interference in the domestic affairs of other countries were nonsense. He cited several examples on how the United States attempted to influence elections in Russia, including the one held in 1996. He said that Russia is under constant cyber-attacks itself.

This is the opinion of a man who worked in Russia for many years and knows it as an insider and not from fake video clips.



Situation around Yury Mel

We are seriously concerned over the unacceptable situation with Russian national Yury imprisoned in Lithuania on charges of taking part in the “events of January 13, 1991.”, who remains in a Lithuanian prison for his alleged involvement in the events of “January 13, 1991.”

We are particularly worried about his health since he suffers from a serious chronic condition and also because he has been illegally detained on trumped-up charges for over four years now. We urge the Lithuanian side to display a humane attitude and to mitigate his measure of restriction before it is too late.

On the whole, we view the trial on “the January 13, 1991 case” initiated by Vilnius as a disgrace and a continuation of vicious attempts of revanchism as well as the falsification of history. Considering this absolutely politically motivated trial, the unacceptable arbitrary interpretation of international law by the Lithuanian Prosecutor-General’s Office and efforts to manipulate the trial in favour of the Lithuanian leadership’s ambitions, we believe that these developments seriously impact the judicial system of Lithuania as a member of the European Union and a party to the European Convention on Human Rights.

We will continue to press the Lithuanian authorities to ensure strict observance of Yury Mel’s legitimate rights and interests. We hope that Vilnius renounces politicised judicial manoeuvring and finally honours its international commitments in the sphere of human rights and the rule of law.



Head of Volunteers of Victory movement’s regional chapter Yelena Odnovol arrested in Ukraine

On April 23, head of the Volunteers of Victory charity movement’s regional chapter Yelena Odnovol was arrested at Chongar checkpoint in the Crimean sector of the Russian-Ukrainian border and charged with “high treason and subversive activity against Ukraine.” She faces between 12 and 15 years in prison. For example, Ms Odnovol is charged with being an authorised representative of the President of Russia during the March 18, 2018 presidential election. This is a false allegation. Any person understands what kind of Ukrainian claims we are talking about.

It is impossible to access this case’s material because crimes against the Ukrainian national security are classified and are not listed (or are concealed) in the joint register of pre-trial investigations.

Understandably, Kiev is not interested in justice. All it needs is another scandal linked with Crimea and its residents. It appears that Kiev authorities hate and, maybe, even fear the people of Crimea for their 2014 choice so much that they are obviously ready to do anything to punish people either collectively or individually. It is probably no coincidence that President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko suggested the other day that all Crimea residents be deprived of Ukrainian citizenship.

This incident happened on the eve of the Day of Great Victory, and, of course, this circumstance causes special indignation. This may not be a coincidence, and people glorifying Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevich also hate those who see May 9 as a sacred day.

Doubtless, Ms Odnovol was arrested precisely for her interest in heroic pages of the Great Patriotic War’s history, for disagreeing with attempts to rewrite its history, for her striving to help war veterans and to give them their dues for their battlefield and labour feats and to involve young people in this work.

Russia resolutely denounces the actions of the Ukrainian side, demands an end to arbitrary treatment of Ms Odnovol and her immediate release. The Russian Embassy in Ukraine is focusing on the situation around the arrest of the head of the Volunteers of Victory movement’s regional chapter Yelena Odnovol.



Plans to establish so-called united local Orthodox church in Ukraine

We could not pass over the recent appeal by President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko to the Patriarch of Constantinople asking to support the initiative to establish some kind of a local autocephalous Orthodox church in Ukraine. In effect, the incumbent Ukrainian authorities want to establish a “pocket” church, which would be completely controlled by them and which would mostly comprise dissenting organisations that are not recognised by anyone. Obviously, attempts to act along these lines have caused a lot of controversy among the clergy as well as the believers, and obviously run counter to the interests of the people of Ukraine, and could further complicate an already tense situation in the country as well as provoke a deeper social split.

Hiding behind slogans of a “struggle for independence,” the Kiev regime with its all-out Ukrainisation strategy clearly seeks to sacrifice interfaith peace in the country for the sake of its rampant Russophobia, commit a direct violation of the constitution and abuse the rules accepted by the global Orthodox community. They would stop at nothing. As they say, the appetite comes with eating.



The Foreign Ministry’s report “Neo-Nazism: a Dangerous Challenge to Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law”

The Ministry will shortly publish on its website a report “Neo-Nazism: a Dangerous Challenge to Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law”, prepared by our Ministry. Its aim is to alert the international public opinion to the growing manifestations of Nazism, Neo-Nazism, xenophobia and the accompanying intolerance in a number of countries. The report refers to modern and extremely dangerous manifestations of racism that need to be opposed at the national and international levels.

The report notes the glorification in some countries of the Nazi movement and the former members of the Waffen-SS, including by erecting monuments and memorials and holding public rallies aimed at glorifying the Nazi past, the Nazi movement and Neo-Nazism.

We stress that such actions represent not an exercise, but a clear and overt abuse of the right of peaceful assembly and association as well as freedom of conviction and freedom of expressing convictions, and may be covered by Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, which makes it incumbent upon the signatory states of the Convention to prosecute them as criminal offences. Therefore the arguments of some states to the effect that the above actions of Waffen-SS veterans and honouring of various kinds of Nazis and collaborationists, the erection of monuments to Nazis and other such manifestations are no more than the exercise of these rights hold no water. Special mention should be made of the cynical and blasphemous war on monuments to those who liberated the world from Nazism unleashed in some countries.

In our opinion, mature democracies should combat such disgraceful phenomena rather than try to justify them by citing the allegedly unlimited freedom of expression.

We encourage everyone to read the text of the report and the countries mentioned in it to draw conclusions and perhaps to adjust their policies.



Events to mark the 73rd Victory Anniversary

In accordance with tradition, this year, as part of the celebration of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War, a series of events will be held outside Russia. On the initiative of Russian compatriots and with the support of Russian institutions abroad, the Immortal Regiment marches will take place in more than 80 countries and St George Ribbon campaigns will be held in more than 90 countries. The Candle of Memory campaign will also be organised. In China, the Republic of Korea and Mongolia “Thank you for the Victory” flash mobs timed for the Immortal Regiment marches will take place, symbolising the unity of generations, countries and peoples. Wreaths are to be laid at the graves of those who died fighting against Nazism, veterans will be honoured, and requiem meetings, concerts and festivals of wartime songs will be held. It is heartening that the organisers of the celebrations put their imagination and their hearts into these events inventing each year some new events that are important for the citizens of various countries. Thus, in some countries compatriots plan to hold thematic photo exhibitions, organise motor rallies, events for children and roll out soup kitchens.

We expect that this year, like last year, Victory Day events in a number of countries will be joined, along with our compatriots, by local citizens, veterans and members of anti-Nazism groups. I would like to note that in many countries these events are organised by our young compatriots.

On the occasion of Victory Day, the Military History Society and the Ministry of Culture will organise a screening of the film Sobibor in the United States, the Netherlands, France, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Austria, Germany, Serbia and other countries.

I would like to tell you about the Victory Songs events initiated by the Russian music group Turetsky Choir. A news conference this morning was devoted to this event. Last year the concert had colossal resonance in the media and among the people to whom it was dedicated. A year ago it was held in Berlin, where it drew a 20,000-strong audience. The geography will be broadened this year; it will be like a marathon. Shows are scheduled in Paris (May 3), Ljubljana (May 4), Vienna (May 5), Berlin (May 6), Minsk (May 8), Moscow (May 9), Tel Aviv (May 10) and New York (UN headquarters building on May 11 and Battery Park on May 12).

Residing abroad veterans of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, survivors of the Leningrad Siege and child inmates of Nazi death camps will get personal greetings from President Vladimir Putin.

On May 3, a delegation of veteran diplomats and current staff of the Ministry will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier by the Kremlin Wall. On May 8, during a ceremony at the Ministry’s central building, the Minister will lay flower baskets at the memorial plaques immortalising the names of the workers of the USSR People’ Commissariat of Foreign Affairs and the USSR People’s Commissariat for Foreign Trade who died during the war as well as members of the Ministry staff who died while performing their duties and victims of political reprisals. By tradition, the Minister and the Chairperson of the Council of the Foreign Ministry’s War and Labour Veterans will make brief speeches. In the afternoon a gala meeting devoted to Victory Day will take place for the veterans of the diplomatic service, members of the central apparatus and invited guests, with the top Ministry officials present.

On May 9, the traditional military parade in Red Square will be watched by the heads of foreign diplomatic missions and the offices of international organisations accredited in Moscow. It is notable that it has become a good tradition in a number of countries, including the former Soviet Union countries, as well as in friendly Syria, for the main channels to broadcast the Red Square military parade live. Our compatriots have a chance to be immersed in the atmosphere of the great holiday.

We are confident that all the celebrations will be marked by a special feeling of joy and lack of formality, attracting all the people who cherish historical memories and seek to prevent the resurgence and glorification of Nazism.

We hope that the authorities of the countries where these gala and commemorative ceremonies will be held will provide assistance and will themselves pay tribute to those who defeated Nazism.

On the eve of Victory Day we would like to reiterate Russia’s position that the results of WWII, which underpin the present world order, are not subject to revision. We believe that distortion of the historical truth about the most destructive war in human history and the events preceding it, attempts at creeping rehabilitation of Nazism and absolution of the Nazis and their accomplices for the crimes they perpetrated, belittling of the decisive role of the Soviet liberator soldiers in defeating Nazism, and the campaign to demolish monuments to heroes may have dire consequences for the situation in the world. All this is extremely dangerous because of the negative consequences this may lead to. We come out against new dividing lines in Europe and for building a common European home without dividing its residents into friends and foes. This year, which marks the 80th anniversary of the ignominious Munich Pact of 1938, which became a prelude to World War II, is an occasion to ponder that the tragic events that happened in Europe in 1938-1945 must not happen again.




Answers to media questions:



Question:

You said that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandyan discussed the situation on the line of contact. Did they discuss future interaction and cooperation between the two foreign ministries, given the events in Armenia?



Maria Zakharova:

This question is both weird and scary. We maintain contact with Yerevan, communication has not been interrupted. Embassies continue to operate, both in Moscow and in Armenia’s capital. I cannot really understand what made you ask this question.



Question:

Probably the changes in the Armenian leadership.



Maria Zakharova:

We proceed from the fact that diplomats serve the people of Russia and the people of Armenia, for their benefit and well-being. It is not the people who have to adjust, but we, diplomats of all kinds, must think about how our countries and peoples live and develop, build a common future, given the historically friendly ties that we have.

Russia has done everything that it can to develop such ties for the benefit of the future. I think that we have nothing to be reproached of. We have fulfilled our obligations and continue to proceed on the basis of these obligations, in connection with the development of bilateral relations and also the regional problem, which is an open wound, for both Armenia and Azerbaijan.



Question:

We would like to hear your detailed comment on the French-German-British proposal to introduce some amendments to the nuclear agreement with Iran against the background of Iran’s missile programme, as well as on certain Middle East issues.



Maria Zakharova:

I have commented on this subject in sufficient detail. Regrettably, over the last few years and even decades, we have repeatedly seen our Western partners’ fluctuations. The fluctuation of their position with regard to Iran is of a global nature. This is not just about the Iranian nuclear programme, as you know, but also, in principle, the attitude towards this state. We heard different assessments coming from Washington, and from certain European capitals. Their amplitude was huge, starting from the need to deliver a strike by smart missiles (perhaps they were less smart at that time), moreover, our Western colleagues tried to justify this, providing a necessary background, to evolving a concept for talks.

Thank God, common sense prevailed at a certain point. Possibly, the memories of events in Iraq, Libya and other hot spots were still very much alive at that time as an illustration of what this Western “surgery” can lead to. The negotiating mechanisms were used at that moment and the agreement, or “deal,” to use the Western term, was signed. Following the deal (I would like to remind you that the United States explained the reason for building its European missile defence system by an alleged threat emanating from Iran), Moscow asked whether all these issues could be considered closed if the nuclear programme was under control? We were told “No”, because even though the European missile defence system was indeed motivated by the Iranian threat, the deal did not cover this, that it was a different matter.

There is a saying: When a magician does a trick, watch his hands. This is like that. You should keep your eyes open and follow closely what our Western partners say, because, speaking of the deal, the position, the attitude to Iran, we constantly face cheating, changes in position, changes in motivation and the reasons named as motives for actions.

Imagine what would have happened if missiles had been fired at Iran. The very same people, who, incidentally, are returning to the political and even the official circles in the White House, told us about the need to deliver such a strike. They also insisted that Iran was threatening international stability. Meanwhile, regrettably, it was being threatened by countries other than Iran and now we can see the outcome of this policy – from Syria to Libya, it is clear. These are the examples of attacks launched by the United States, Britain and France.

It must be understood that, regrettably, this is reality: the United States and a number of other countries have repeatedly changed their positions over time.

Less than a year ago, when the UN General Assembly opened its session in the autumn, there was a meeting of countries that were behind the concept and the negotiating process on this deal. The US proposals to revise or change this document were categorically rejected and harshly criticised by France, Germany and EU representatives. What has happened during these six months? As you know, nothing negative has happened in Iran in terms of implementing this programme. The experts who monitor its implementation would invariably say that Iran is implementing the terms of the deal in good faith. Things that give rise to questions are clarified and jointly settled. So, what has happened if the deal and Iran that is implementing it have not changed? What has happened to those countries, specifically the European countries, to make them change their position? What arguments has Washington found to make them change their mind? Clearly, these are not arguments arising from analysis and expert assessment. There are different arguments. Analytical arguments would have been presented to everyone. They would consist of claims that Iran is breaching the deal and does not reply to questions. Iran is doing nothing of the sort. Accordingly, they have found new arguments, but what arguments – I think you should address this question to other parties.



Question:

UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, believes that the Astana process has run out of steam and fails to make any progress, making it impossible to squeeze anything out of it. What would be your comment?



Maria Zakharova:

Regarding the statement by UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura that the Astana process has reached its limits, let me remind you that Staffan de Mistura was in Moscow just a few days ago, on April 20, and spoke about the Astana process in very different terms. This is quite perplexing for us. This situation begs a question: could it be that the same oscillations in approaches happen in Geneva, when government representatives are told one thing through the mediator, while opposition representatives get a different message? Maybe this could explain the lack of progress at the talks for so long? That said, this is only a hypothesis. We were really surprised to learn that the perspective on the process could vary to such an extent. We discussed the process in great detail with Staffan de Mistura, whose opinion was quite the opposite.



Question:

Frode Berg, a Norwegian national, has been held in Lefortovo prison for almost five months now. He has now admitted to his lawyers that he visited Russia several times at the instructions of Norwegian intelligence. Could you provide an update on Frode Berg’s case? How will Norway and Russia deal with this situation?

A few weeks ago former Foreign Minister of Norway, Borge Brende, met with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. During the meeting, Sergey Lavrov promised to look into Berg’s case. Has he been able to do so?



Maria Zakharova:

We cannot access the file because of the ongoing investigation. This case is being dealt with by law enforcement agencies. All we can do is examine requests from Norway and pass them on to the relevant bodies.

You referred to a statement by the lawyers. I followed the statements that were made and got some clarifications. According to the information we have, Norwegian consular staff can access Mr Frode Berg. Russia has not received any complaints from Norway and there are no outstanding issues. The consul and consular staff are able to visit him.

The investigation is underway, so there is no politics here. If you have specific questions on the conditions of detention, we can put you in touch with the press service of the relevant law enforcement agency.



Question:

Could you specify whether the Foreign Ministry sees any prospects for settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the near future?



Maria Zakharova:

We have released a comment to this effect, and it remains relevant. Just like many countries in the region and across the world in general, we continue to follow closely the developments in Armenia. As I have already said, our two countries share a long-standing tradition of friendship, have large-scale cooperation in many areas as well as an allied relationship.

It is our sincere hope that the situation remains entirely within the limits of the law and the constitution, and all the political forces act responsibly and show readiness to engage in a constructive dialogue. Russia strongly believes that it would be in the vital interests of brotherly Armenia and its people to ensure that the situation in the country returns back to normal and social accord is restored as quickly as possible.

Taking into consideration that in today’s information space people can learn and see how the world lives, what happened over the past few years in various countries, we must act on this knowledge. We must draw conclusions from what is happening around the world and where it is leading.



Question:

Does Russia believe that the situation will stabilise and the two sides in the conflict will resume negotiations?



Maria Zakharova:

We sincerely hope so, and believe that this would be the right way to go.



Question:

This May is the 100th anniversary of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, the basis of the modern Azerbaijani state. Alimardan Topchubashov, one of the republic’s former leaders, is still considered the leading figure in Azerbaijan’s diplomacy. What can you say about your southern colleagues with regard to the anniversary? What is distinctive about Azerbaijan’s diplomacy?



Maria Zakharova:

I gave a detailed description of Russia-Azerbaijan bilateral relations in a briefing on April 19. To avoid me repeating myself, please visit our website where you can find the video recording and the text of the briefing. If there are any additional questions, we, of course, will answer them, but I spoke about our full-scale cooperation with Azerbaijan in detail.



Question:

The inter-Korean summit will take place tomorrow. We would like to ask you to comment on the initiative by President of South Korea Moon Jae-in, aimed at signing a peace treaty with North Korea. If the parties are successful and the treaty is signed, this will mean the end of war between the two Koreas? Will it have a positive influence on the situation in the region? What expectations does Russia have from this summit?



Maria Zakharova:

We have already given our assessment and it is still relevant. It is based on the fact that the two Koreas have waited for a long time for this political process to begin. We fully support the diplomatic efforts in this area.

Taking into account the history of international mediation in connection with this matter, we sincerely hope that the true goals of all the international players involved are aimed at a solution, not aggravation. We wish this summit every success. We will give our assessment after the Korean states share the outcome of the meeting.



Question:

Could you comment on the statement made by the newly elected President of Montenegro Milo Djukanovic on his intention to improve the ruined relations with the Russian Federation? Will the fact that he denied Russia’s participation in the coup d’etat help Milo Djukanovic?



Maria Zakharova:

Relations need not have been ruined.



Question:

Can you elaborate on relations between Russia and Cyprus?



Maria Zakharova:

Yes, we plan to publish relevant material on the Foreign Ministry’s website today.



Question:

The Cypriot public opinion shows that people are worried about the rapprochement of Russia and Turkey, in particular regarding two projects: the sales of S-400 and the construction of the Akkuyu nuclear power station. Would you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

We never improve relations with a country in order to worsen our ties with another nation. I understand that the matter worries the Cypriot public. Let me reiterate an absolutely clear and distinct position regarding bilateral relations: we value relations with Cyprus as they are. They are progressing in many fields. That said, we are also developing ties with other countries, especially those that are close to us geographically and that share a fairly long although complicated common history with us.

Let me reaffirm that our economic, financial and international cooperation with Turkey will not affect our relations with Cyprus in any way.



Question:

You mentioned that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is seeking autocephalous status. According to the Greek media, US diplomats are displaying a special interest in Orthodoxy related topics. Thus, the US Ambassador to Greece (former Ambassador to Ukraine) recently visited Mt Athos. Do you see some part being played by US diplomacy in the stance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the emergence of the autocephaly matter?



Maria Zakharova:

First of all, these things should be addressed by the Church itself. Our comment today is not an attempt to interfere in church affairs but rather an attempt to caution against it. The aim of the comment is to draw international public attention to the active interference by the Ukrainian government in church affairs, which have their own postulates and canons. By so doing, the Ukrainian leaders are not even concealing their political aims.

Secondly, concerning Washington’s possible influence, among other things, on Orthodox affairs, I think we are witnessing US attempts to affect domestic affairs in a number of countries and among them, of course, countries with an active Orthodox congregation. This isn’t a secret either.

Regarding the Kiev government, much has already been said about the fact that there are political forces and figures behind it, in particular, from the United States. I believe they impact not only financial, economic and political matters but are also aggravating issues connected with societal life. Everything is geared up towards one goal (unfortunately, we register that) – forcible Ukrainisation, an attempt to tear off all the relations (not only their ties but those of their population) with the outside world, and do it crudely, disregarding all that is at odds and in total contradiction with their own constitution.



Question:

Recently a Bulgarian delegation visited Crimea. The members of the delegation raised voices against the sanctions and suggested that a ferry service be launched. What do you think of this idea?



Maria Zakharova:

This is an infrastructure issue which should be addressed by the local authorities in cooperation with the respective departments. You know that politically we stand for enhancing the cooperation of that region of the Russian Federation, its international ties. In this respect we wholeheartedly support any activities in Crimea targeting the development of its economy and infrastructure. As to any specific details, they must be addressed by respective agencies.



Question:

We have been to Crimea a number of times and we see that the infrastructure facilities are developing. However, Sberbank and Russian Post are not there – not a single government agency.



Maria Zakharova:

There are many more government agencies there than you can imagine. Progress is evident. There are some problems though, and you are aware of them. Actually, this is the reason we keep inviting you there. These issues are also gradually being resolved.



Question:

North and South Korea are meeting tomorrow. What does Russia expect to come from the meeting?



Maria Zakharova:

I just commented on that in my answer to your colleague’s question.



Question:

You said you’d rather comment following the meeting. Are there any expectations?



Maria Zakharova:

I also spoke about expectations.



Question:

Do you think it is possible to resume the six-party talks on the DPRK this year?



Maria Zakharova:

I think we should wait for the political agreements (if there are any), at least, the results of the meetings, and then we should look at what was achieved and, in view of the outcome, to figure out how to proceed.

Russia has been active in this area (meetings and consultations are being held), and is willing and able to do everything possible to contribute to the peaceful political settlement of this very old problem. But plans should be commented on after the meeting takes place.



Question:

Nikol Pashinyan, the leader of the “velvet revolution” in Armenia, recently met with Russian Ambassador to Armenia Ivan Volynkin. Mr Pashinyan said after the meeting that the protests in the country are not directed against any other nation, including Russia. At the same time US Ambassador Richard Mills met with Acting Prime Minister Karen Karapetyan where the US diplomat in fact repeated Mr Karapetyan’s words that the Armenian prime minister may not be elected in the streets, as constitutional mechanisms must be used. Can we say that at present the great powers’ preferences are taking shape with regard to Armenia? In particular, does Richard Mills’ statement suggest that they are placing their bets not on the opposition and the demonstrators, but on the current authorities?



Maria Zakharova:

Asking who the great powers are betting on is insulting to Yerevan, Armenia and its people.

This is a people with a very ancient history, with a culture and state dating back many centuries. I think we have stated unambiguously that the people of Armenia should overcome this political and social crisis themselves. Such situations regularly occur in different countries. The question is whether the people, and also those they have empowered to represent them, show wisdom and peacefully resolve the crisis without bloodshed, or turn it into a lengthy process with an unpredictable result.

We believe this is an internal matter for Armenia, and in accordance with all laws – international law, the laws of life and logic – Armenia should reach a consensus and public accord as to who is going to govern the country and how, which course to choose. We reiterate that it should be based on the laws of the country.

Contacts are ongoing. This is absolutely normal, it is international practice. We do not see anything improper in it. As I said today, contacts are being held at the level of embassies and ministers. It is, of course, the responsibility of the people of Armenia, those who created the country, its culture and history, to find the strength to achieve a wise political settlement of this situation on the basis of the law and the constitution.



Question:

Several important meetings have been held recently, including between Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service Sergey Naryshkin and President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev [in Baku] and between Ilham Aliyev and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey. Is this situation precarious? Could it spin out of control? I am referring to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.



Maria Zakharova:

We don’t think the situation will deteriorate.

We have put forth our position on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict many times. It must be settled through peaceful political talks and agreements. No complications, including those you mentioned, should be allowed, because this would only worsen the situation. Peaceful negotiations are the only solution to this problem.



Question:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at the SCO summit that the SCO countries were concerned about the growing number of ISIS terrorists in Afghanistan and would do their best to put an end to terrorism and the war there. Could the United States cooperate with the SCO to end the war in Afghanistan?



Maria Zakharova:

The SCO comprises states that are Afghanistan’s neighbours or are otherwise involved in a settlement. The organisation was created in part for dealing with this and other similar problems.

Counterterrorism is a strong part of the SCO’s efforts. It has a counterterrorism centre, which not only holds theoretical discussions or looks for analytical answers to problems, but is also involved in practical and pragmatic cooperation conducted with the member states on a daily basis. This involves a package of measures.

Cooperation within the SCO can be directly connected to normalising the situation in Afghanistan and cutting short the current trend that involves the transfer of terrorist groups from the Middle East and North Africa to Afghanistan. The SCO is highlighting this issue. As I said, this is being worked on.



Question:

In Afrin, the Free Syrian Army is giving the buildings, that have been vacated by the Kurds because of the war, to Arabs, which is changing the demography of that district. Does Russia have any information on this?



Maria Zakharova:

I do not have this information. I can request an update and will then comment on it.



Question:

It is possible that the Syrian conflict is ending?



Maria Zakharova:

I would approach this question from a different angle. We explained our position. Our Western partners’ chaotic and seemingly illogical actions, such as the missile strikes on Syria and the endless hue and cry over the alleged chemical attacks, are evidence that Syria has entered a solid path towards settling the crisis. They are grabbing at straws to prolong the Syrian crisis, creating chaos and doing other strange things, even though they know that there are no facts to prove their claims and the material they use to justify the missile strikes is falsified. I believe this answers your question.



Question:

Has Moscow formulated its position on the developments in Armenia, which resulted in the resignation of Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan? The Foreign Ministry and the Kremlin only express the hope that the situation will be settled under the law. But what does Moscow think about the resignation of the prime minister because of large-scale opposition protests?



Maria Zakharova:

I believe we have said absolutely clearly that all this is Armenia’s internal affair. You may have overlooked this statement.



Question:

Does this mean that the actions [that resulted in the prime minister’s resignation] were legitimate?



Maria Zakharova:

This issue concerns the social development of a sovereign state. This issue should not be discussed officially, but by political analysts and historians who follow these issues and who can assess the trends and the reasons behind them. This is the internal affair of Armenia. I said this today, and I can say it again. Of course, we are urging all sides to show wisdom and to take a responsible attitude to settle this problem based on the constitution.



Question:

You say this is the internal affair of Armenia? They just held elections as a result of which…



Maria Zakharova:

It would be fair and logical to ask the Armenian government about its views on the issue. As for us, we witnessed a situation where Yerevan announced the resignation of its prime minister. This problem must be settled in accordance with the constitution. This is an extremely clear position that does not leave room for misinterpretation. It is an absolutely clear-cut position.



Question:

As reported by Interfax today, in addition to Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandian, Acting First Deputy Prime Minister Armen Gevorgyan came to Moscow as well. You said that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a meeting with the Foreign Minister of Armenia. Was Armen Gevorgyan present during the meeting? If not, whom did he meet with?



Maria Zakharova:

I have no detailed information about this meeting. I only have the information that I already shared with you. Surprisingly, this meeting led to conclusions which are nothing short of a conspiracy theory. It’s very strange. We never hide anything in terms of contacts. But I do not have any details. I can make inquiries and answer you later.



Question:

It’s just that a source in Interfax said that the internal political situation in Armenia will also be discussed at the meeting in addition to bilateral relations.



Maria Zakharova:

Again, I commented on this in the first part. I don’t believe we have ever let you down in this sense. I can clarify who was present at the meeting.



Question:

Is there any limit to the number of diplomatic personnel in each particular country? For example, today you demonstrated the raider attack by the United States with regard to Russian property. The diplomatic mission in Armenia is one of the largest with over 1,500 diplomats. Are there any limits to that number?



Maria Zakharova:

This is a matter of bilateral agreements. Each country agrees with another country about the number of diplomats to be sent to that country. It’s a matter of mutual agreement. If there are complications in relations similar to the ones we now have with the United States, there is a form of parity, where one country, seeing unfriendly steps and lack of respect and in order to somehow let the other country know that such an approach is inappropriate, offers parity, so that no one has any advantages. This was the case with us and the United States. They had a clear prevalence in the number of diplomats. They had several times more employees than other embassies. No other country has as many embassy employees as they do. In particular, in the wake of these expulsions and rude behaviour with regard to Russian property, diplomatic sites and diplomats, parity was proposed and the numbers are now even. This is also a conventional arrangement, because we have a Permanent Mission to the United Nations which, by virtue of history, functions on the territory of the United States. It has its own symbolism. Traditionally, the countries agree on the number of diplomats on a bilateral basis. Actually, opening consulates general and the format of an embassy are also the subject of mutual agreements based on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and on the 1963 one on consular relations. This is the legal basis, while the details are agreed by the parties.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3194459

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu, Moscow, April 28, 2018



28 April 2018 - 15:29








Ministers,

Mr Cavusoglu,

Mr Zarif,

Colleagues, friends,

We have agreed to hold this emergency meeting at the foreign minister level as part of the Astana Process and to discuss the extremely complicated situation now shaping up in and around Syria.

We consider it necessary to quickly coordinate the collective measures under the “Astana format,” that we established over a year ago, to continue moving towards peace and normalisation in Syria. All of us are guided by a desire to assist this process. Today, I hope we will discuss what is taking place on the ground in Syria, as well as new additional steps that will help consolidate positive trends, including those in the context of the decisions of the second summit of the Presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey, held April 4 in Ankara.

The Astana Process is an example of efforts to resolve seemingly impossible problems through political will. In the past 12-plus months, Astana has hosted eight high-level international meetings on Syria involving the three guarantor countries (Russia, Iran and Turkey), representatives of the Syrian Government, the armed opposition, observers from Jordan, the US, and the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and his deputy. The agreements reached during these events formed the foundation of measures that scaled down the level of tensions in the country, helped normalise the national humanitarian situation which still needs extra attention, to create conditions for returning refugees and internally displaced persons to their homes and to launch economic recovery.

Real prospects for invigorating the process of the intra-Syrian peace settlement have appeared. The outcomes of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, held January 30 in Sochi on the initiative of Presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey, were instrumental in creating these conditions.

As can be seen from the events of the past weeks, it is possible that not everyone may be seeking peace in Syria. Every time a prospect of hope for the Syrian settlement process arises, it is delivered a blow. We have to state that efforts continue to be made to impede the establishment of dialogue between the Syrians, as well as the creation of a constitutional committee, a decision on which was taken by participants in the Syrian National Dialogue Congress and which received explicit support from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and his Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, who attended the congress.

However, it turns out that while we are engaged in the creation and construction work, some of our colleagues are trying to render the outcome of our joint and constructive efforts void and, in so doing, do not stop short of violating international law like in the case of the US-British-French operation against Syria on April 14. Not only have the missile strikes against the sovereign nation of Syria seriously escalated the situation in this country and in the international arena but they have significantly dented prospects for making quick progress in securing a peaceful settlement. As things stand, the initiators of this strike have reaffirmed by their actions that their statements in support of Syria’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are nothing more than mere words, which, to all appearances, must cover up the plans to reshape the Middle East and to divide Syria.

I believe that Russia, Iran and Turkey, while reaffirming their support for these fundamental principles of the UN Charter, are genuinely interested in that Syria remains a united country, in which all ethnic groups and faiths are given equal rights and can live in peace together and with all their neighbours, so that no threat is being posed to the international borders in the region that is very important to the fate of the world.

Today, we need to help Syrians to rid their country of terrorists, build bridges for national reconciliation and reconstruct what has been destroyed. All of us are helping the Syrian Government make this happen as soon as possible.

Attempts to again destabilise the situation in the country and encourage extremists to continue the armed struggle and put forward pre-conditions for dialogue, which altogether do not meet the requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, like those we hear from some opposition members who are supported by our Western partners, are entirely unacceptable. This will amount to an invitation to draw dividing lines in Syria, something we oppose.

Hopefully, today, we will be able to frankly discuss all these issues and, upon the conclusion of our talks, agree on a common position as a follow-up to the documents which were signed by our countries’ leaders, as well as at our level during our previous meetings.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3202454






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Moscow, April 28, 2018



28 April 2018 - 16:00








Ladies and gentlemen,

This meeting took place amidst less than positive developments in the Syrian conflict settlement. We have already mentioned the April 14 unlawful attack on Syria by the United States, France and Great Britain under a completely unsubstantiated pretext and before OPCW experts could even start working. This attack, of course, set the clock back on our efforts to drive forward the political process.

However, today we firmly agreed to continue these efforts. We agreed on the specific steps that our countries will take, jointly and separately, to get back on the trajectory of steady progress towards the goals under UNSC Resolution 2254.

We also noted that we will stand against any attempts to undermine our cooperation. We stressed that the Astana format is firmly on its feet. We will continue to solve principled tasks related to de-escalation, relieving tension and conflict potential. There have been ceasefire violations. We have a mechanism to monitor these violations. We will continue to overcome this situation and do our best to strengthen trust between the parties on the ground.

Our trilateral cooperation is to a certain extent unique. A while ago, this cooperation managed to turn the tide in the fight against ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists and to help hundreds of thousand Syrians avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.

Today we adopted a joint statement that will be circulated later. It reflects the main outcome of this meeting. At any rate, we are strongly committed to the understanding that there is no alternative to the political and diplomatic resolution of the Syrian crisis based on UNSC Resolution 2254 and the recommendations of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. Let me remind you that the Sochi Congress formalised 12 key principles of settling the Syrian crisis earlier proposed by the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, officially and on behalf of the participating ethnic, religious and political groups from Syria. This alone was a breakthrough in the efforts to overcome the Syrian crisis because before Sochi, the attempts to have these 12 principles approved within the framework of the Geneva process, which we tried to revive, were in vain. Once again, in addition to this achievement in Sochi, we all helped the Syrian participants approve the objective of establishing the Constitutional Committee, agree on its fundamental principles and rules of operation, with assistance from UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura.

Today we confirmed these goals and noted that it is absolutely unacceptable to allow a division in Syria based on ethnicity or religion.

We exchanged views on the meetings that the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura held in Tehran, Ankara and Moscow last week. We discussed preparations for the 9th round of the international talks on Syria in Astana, which will be held in mid-May. We have also agreed that the talks will coincide with a meeting of the working group on the release of detainees/hostages, the transfer of the bodies of those who lost their lives and the search for missing persons.

In the context of the efforts to give the Geneva process a new lease on life, we believe that certain statements made by some members of the external opposition are extremely detrimental to the process as they insist on Syrian conflict resolution that is dependent on political talks with preconditions, which include a regime change and bringing Syria’s leaders to trial as war criminals. Not only does this approach fly in the face of the letter and spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 but it is being blatantly used to hamper efforts to resume the negotiation process, given the breakthrough achieved at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

Today, we also reaffirmed that we need to continue increasing humanitarian aid. We will work to see that it is distributed as effectively as possible. We will work with the Syrian Government, the opposition and, of course, with our colleagues at the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Syrian Red Crescent Society and other international organisations. It is important that international aid, including assistance in mine clearing, is provided, without politicising it and without political preconditions, for the areas which are returning to a peaceful life as a result of our joint efforts.

I am sincerely grateful to my colleagues and friends for the opportunity to continue working together. I am confident that today’s talks, the outcome of which is incorporated in the Joint Statement, will help us consolidate our efforts to honestly and in full deliver on UN Security Council Resolution 2254.



Question:

Turkish citizens still face visa issues. Did you discuss this matter with Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu during today’s meeting? When will we see concrete steps in this area?



Sergey Lavrov:

We did discuss further efforts to streamline visa procedures during today’s meeting. Russia has put forward a number of specific proposals to this effect some time ago. Our first proposal was to restore a visa-free regime for holders of service passports, and the second one was to enable truck drivers working in the international road transport segment to cross the border without visas. Our Turkish friends promised to respond to these proposals. Implementing these proposals would benefit our citizens in meaningful ways. Moving forward, we intend to expand the categories of those who can travel under visa-free arrangements. All in all, we are interested in moving towards achieving this aim, as President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said a number of times at meetings with President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Of course, now we are all under serious pressure from the terrorist threat, especially our Turkish friends who are suffering from the spill-over effect from what is happening in their region. In this situation, it is up to the relevant services of our respective countries to establish effective cooperation on concrete areas and work together in real time in order to track down international terrorist fighters.

Today we agreed to undertake these efforts and committed ourselves to exchange information regularly and in real time on persons that our countries have banned from our national territory in order to prevent their entry into either Turkey or Russia. It is also essential that we get information on the people who are being extradited from Turkey well in advance. We will do the same in keeping with the Consular Convention between our countries.



Question:

There have been some critical statements regarding the Astana Process, its achievements and purpose. What do you think about them?

The UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, has recently visited the guarantor countries of the Astana Process: Iran, Russia and Turkey. Do you have a plan for cooperation with the UN on Syria?



Sergey Lavrov (speaks after the foreign ministers of Iran and Turkey):

I would like to support what my colleagues have said. Let me add that the UN was invited to join the process from the outset. Either Staffan de Mistura or his deputy was present at all meetings in Astana. The UN can now do a great deal in order for the Astana Process to be effective. It has four main development vectors.

The first one was to set up de-escalation zones where the ceasefire was put in place, without including the terrorists, of course, who seek to find refuge in these areas and benefit from their status. It was a signature achievement of the Astana Process. There will be absolutely no compromise in these counterterrorism efforts, and those armed opposition groups that are patriots and want peace for their country must separate themselves from the terrorists without delay and expel them from these de-escalation areas. The UN is in contact with all the main armed groups and political forces of the Syrian opposition, and those who support and guide the opposition. Consequently, the UN could send them a clear message that they should refrain from getting embroiled with the terrorists or create any alliances with them, even if it is only an alliance of convenience. This is a very important area of our cooperation with the UN.

Humanitarian cooperation is the second priority for the Astana Process. We are proactive in our efforts to enable Syrians to return to a peaceful life. Russia has done a great deal to this effect, and so did Iran and Turkey. Of course, the UN must assume responsibility for carrying out a large-scale campaign in order to resolve issues for people returning to their homes, who want to live in peace once again, and satisfy their basic needs. In this area we are also working with UN humanitarian agencies, and help them reach agreements with the government of the Syrian Arab Republic in keeping with the international humanitarian law when it comes to deciding on specific modalities of humanitarian projects in Syria. We compel our Syrian colleagues in Damascus to be more flexible and constructive, although it is not always easy, taking into consideration the discrimination they face from some of our Western partners. Still, we are committed to these efforts. At the same time, Russia calls on the UN not to yield to any pressure designed to make humanitarian access a political issue. Of course, the UN has no right to play along with those who want humanitarian aid to be provided only in opposition-held areas. The UN has no right to act this way, and in fact has the responsibility to speak out against approaches of this kind.

The third priority for the Astana Process, and the Syrian settlement in general, is the political dialogue and talks. Just as my colleagues, I have already mentioned that in this area the Astana Process achieved far more than any other attempts to establish steady political contacts, culminating with the Sochi Congress. The participants in the Sochi Congress agreed on the principles for a settlement in Syria that were proposed, among others, by the UN (as far as cooperation with the UN is concerned), and agreed on the need to convene a constitutional committee under UN auspices in order to draft a new constitution for Syria as part of the UN Secretary-General Special Envoy’s mandate. This is a major asset for Staffan de Mistura. For this reason, it is quite strange when he is pressured to criticise the Astana Process and the outcomes of the Sochi Congress. Let me reiterate that the Sochi Declaration is currently the main asset Staffan de Mistura has in terms of delivering on the mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

To conclude, let me say that in all our undertakings, and no matter the nuances in the approaches we follow, which we do not hide, Iran, Turkey and Russia are committed to helping find concrete solutions in order to help Syrians achieve national reconciliation and agree on ways of restoring peace in their country in keeping with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter.

It seems that those who criticise the Astana Process and the outcomes of the Sochi Congress have a different agenda. To put it in simple terms, what they want is to prove that they are the ones who decide in our world. Unfortunately, or maybe luckily, this time is long gone. For them this is clearly unfortunate.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3202565






Joint Statement by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey on Syria, Moscow, 28 April 2018



28 April 2018 - 16:51



The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey, as guarantors of the observance of the ceasefire regime in Syria, held the second meeting in Moscow on 28 April 2018. They discussed the development of the situation in and around Syria and its impact on the regional peace and security.

The Ministers:

1. Reaffirmed their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and highlighted that these principles should be respected by all.

2. Emphasized their determination to strengthen trilateral coordination on the basis of the joint statements by the Presidents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey of 22 November 2017 and 4 April 2018.

3. Agreed to increase joint efforts aimed at facilitating the achievement of a lasting political settlement in Syria envisaged by the UN Security Council resolution 2254 and through full use of multi-level mechanisms of the Astana format.

4. Underscored the efficiency of the Astana format as the only international initiative that had helped practically improve the situation in Syria through joint efforts to combat terrorism, reduce the level of violence and create favourable conditions for the political settlement, including via facilitating broad intra-Syrian dialogue. Decided to hold the next International Meeting on Syria in Astana in May 2018 in conjunction with the second meeting of the Working Group on the release of detainees/abductees and handover of the bodies as well as the identification of missing persons.

5. Emphasized the importance of the contribution of Astana format to ensure real progress in achieving a political solution in Syria through an inclusive, free, fair and transparent Syrian-led and Syrian-owned process based on the free will of the Syrian people and leading to a constitution enjoying the support of the Syrian people, and free and fair elections with the participation of all eligible Syrians under appropriate UN supervision. In this regard agreed to increase the frequency of regular joint consultations of high-level representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey with the United Nations Secretary-General and his Special Envoy for Syria in order to facilitate the beginning of the Constitutional Committee`s work in Geneva as soon as possible on the basis of the recommendations of the Congress of the Syrian National Dialogue in Sochi and in coordination with the three guarantor-states.

6. Reaffirmed their determination to continue their cooperation in order to ultimately eliminate DAESH/ISIL, Nusra Front and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaeda or DAESH/ISIL as designated by the UN Security Council in Syria and underscored the success of their collective efforts in the fight against terrorism. They called upon all armed opposition groups in Syria to completely and immediately dissociate from above‑mentioned terrorist groups.

7. Highlighted the importance of de-escalation efforts and reiterated their commitment to preserve the ceasefire regime that had become instrumental in helping to reduce violence on the ground and alleviate the humanitarian suffering.

8. Rejected all attempts to create new realities on the ground under the pretext of combating terrorism and expressed their determination to stand against separatist agendas aimed at undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as well as the national security of neighboring countries.

9. Strongly condemned any use of chemical weapons in Syria and demanded that any reports in this regard be investigated promptly and professionally in full compliance with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction and by the OPCW as the main international competent authority to establish use of chemical weapons.

10. Reaffirmed their commitment to continue joint efforts aimed at protecting the civilians, improving the humanitarian situation via facilitating rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to all those in need, launching and maintaining work of confidence building mechanisms between the parties as well as helping normalize the situation all across Syria, including by creating conditions for safe return of refugees and internally displaced persons.

11. Called upon the international community, first and foremost the UN and its humanitarian agencies, to increase their assistance to Syria in the interest of all Syrians, including by facilitating humanitarian mine action, restoring basic infrastructure together with social and economic facilities, and preserving historical heritage.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3202625






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Italy’s Panorama magazine, published on May 3, 2018



3 May 2018 - 09:00




Question:

Can an armed confrontation flare up between Russia and Western countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

Unfortunately, the global situation is becoming more tense and less predictable. We have repeatedly noted that this situation is, first of all, the result of never-ending unilateral US actions and those Western countries that have been subjugated by the United States. This is a small group of countries, which account for an insignificant share of the world’s population but which are trying to preserve medieval-style domination in global affairs. They are hampering the objective process of establishing a polycentric system of international relations.

They are inciting a confrontation, creating an atmosphere of mistrust and strategic uncertainty, and freezing the channels for dialogue. They are creating situations when the price of a bluff or a mistake can assume global proportions.

Russia would like to hope that common sense will prevail on the other side. Despite our different positions, we are jointly responsible for the future wellbeing of the entire human race and for the effective resolution of key issues facing the world today.

But common sense implies the ability of the Western leaders to act responsibly and predictably, to unfailingly honour international law while relying on the UN Charter. We have been increasingly forced to question this ability recently.



Question:

What Western leaders does Russia perceive as its worst partners?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russian diplomacy does not view global developments in such terms. Our entire foreign policy philosophy rejects the perception of bilateral relations through the prism of denial.

We are ready to work diligently with everyone in the interests of strengthening international and regional security and stability and advancing a positive bilateral agenda.

Clearly, it is not easy to deal with some of our partners. It is particularly hard to deal with those denying the primacy of international law and opting to use blackmail, threats and provocations instead. This serves to create additional problems in international relations, and opportunities for constructive cooperation are reduced.

International life is a two-way street. It is pointless to play a zero sum game with Russia. We hope that the West, particularly the United States, will realise this sooner or later.



Question:

Can you comment on the incidents involving poison chemical agents in Douma, Syria, and Salisbury?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for Douma, there was no chemical attack there on April 7. This was yet another underhanded provocation masterminded by those who are not interested in establishing peace in Syria.

We are not asking anyone to take our words for granted. For this reason, right from the start, we have been openly in favour of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons investigating what happened. The investigation could be joined by national experts from the United States and France.

Instead of that, when an OPCW team was already in Beirut and ready to leave for Damascus and then to Douma, an act of aggression was committed against Syria, a sovereign state and a UN member.

We cannot accept the logic that arbitrary punishment is the best proof of guilt. This is nonsense. Subsequent accusations to the effect that the Russian military allegedly delayed the experts’ departure on purpose in order to be able to “clean up the location” are absurd as well. Any expert will confirm that it is impossible to clear the residue of a chemical attack in a destroyed neighbourhood because substances penetrate deep into the soil and the walls of buildings.

OPCW experts at last visited Douma on April 21. They took the necessary samples. On April 25, they revisited Douma. We expect an objective and independent investigation following their trip, including visits to all the facilities related to the alleged chemical attack and to the production of poisonous agents by extremists. For our part, we helped the experts in their work as best we could.

We have found eyewitnesses of the provocation and some unwitting participants in the show staged by the White Helmets, including a boy, Hassan Diab, and other Douma residents. During their visit to the OPCW Headquarters on April 26, they described how this fabricated video on the chemical attack had been recorded.

The tragic incident involving Sergey and Yulia Skripal occurred in Great Britain on March 4. London claims that a combat nerve agent was used. Since the moment of this incident, the British side – let me stress, in contravention of its international obligations – has refused to inform us about the aid administered to the victims or the progress of the investigation; they are not allowing consular access, which is required in cases involving Russian citizens.

More than that, London has neglected not only the norms of international law but also elementary ethics and plain common sense. Without providing any evidence or even waiting for Scotland Yard to finish its own investigation and clarify the whole picture, the British government accused Russia and launched a large-scale anti-Russia political and information campaign. Our proposals on a joint investigation and legitimate demands to provide facts, including samples of the substance used, were ignored.

The British authorities’ behaviour in this instance raises many questions. Specifically, they are concealing information about the activities of the secret laboratory at Porton Down not far from Salisbury. The victims themselves have been hidden by the British secret services.

Russia is primarily concerned about the state of health and status of the Skripals who were dragged by the British into this provocation. The British authorities’ refusal to grant us consular access are grounds to regard the circumstances as an abduction or premeditated isolation. This is absolutely unacceptable.

London has substituted empty claims and “megaphone” diplomacy for a professional expert investigation within the framework of the related international mechanisms.

Once again, we are ready for substantive cooperation with the British side. We call on London to honestly cooperate in criminal proceedings concerning an attempted premeditated murder, which were initiated by Russia’s Investigative Committee on March 16, as well as within the framework of the relevant requests sent to the British side by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia.



Question:

Is it possible to say that the war with Ukraine is the “original sin” of sorts that caused all the problems that ensued?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, I would like to draw your attention to a crucial point for understanding what is going on – Russia is not waging war with Ukraine. The war against their own people was unleashed by the nationalists, who came to power in February 2014 as a result of a coup, who reject dissent and want to forcibly impose their rules. The war is going on between Kiev and Ukrainian regions.

The internal political crisis in Ukraine was inspired from the outside by a group of Western states led by the US, which regards the whole world as its sphere of influence, touts its exceptionalism and divides the world into “us” and “them.”

In a telling moment, the EU member states - Germany, Poland and France - that endorsed the February 2014 agreement on the settlement of the crisis between the government and the opposition renounced their guarantees under that document as soon as the radicals trampled on it. NATO, which, before the coup, had been calling on the then president of Ukraine not to use the army against the protesters, abruptly changed its tone after the coup and began calling on the putschists, who seized power illegally, to use force “proportionately” against opposing regions.

There is nothing pro-Ukrainian about the West’s part in this story, it is entirely anti-Russian. We see that for the United States and a number of its satellites, talk of creating a common space of peace, security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic was a smokescreen, a cover for pursuing their archaic practice of seizing geopolitical space and shifting the dividing lines eastwards – both through NATO’s expansion and within the framework of the EU Eastern Partnership programme. For years, Kiev was under pressure to make the false choice “with us or against us,” between developing cooperation in the East or in the West, which eventually led to the collapse of Ukrainian statehood that has never been too strong. The result for today is the de facto loss of independence, human suffering and the economic breakdown of a country that had every chance to become one of the most stable and economically robust in Europe.

Obviously, a durable settlement in Ukraine is only possible with the full and consistent implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures. There is no alternative. The laws must be adopted on special status, local elections in Donbass and amnesty, and constitutional reforms must be carried out. These aspects are of crucial significance for achieving peace inside Ukraine. Finally, Kiev must engage in direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk in order to jointly search for compromises and coordinated solutions to existing problems.

Unfortunately, Washington, London and a number of other Western capitals have failed to draw proper conclusions from the Ukrainian tragedy. Dubious zero-sum geopolitical games continue in various parts of the world. Efforts are being stepped up to create a global missile defence system, to the detriment of strategic stability. NATO is bolstering its capacity and increasing its military activity in Europe, which is out of touch with realities and is leading to the fragmentation of the European security space. What is most alarming is the open disregard of the US and its allies for international law and the UN Charter, and their interference in the internal affairs of states, up to and including attempts to topple local governments.

The April 14 missile strikes on the Syrian Arab Republic, carried out on absolutely false grounds, was a glaring example of this destructive policy. This act of aggression against a sovereign state has had a negative impact on international and regional stability and played into the hands of terrorists. The ringleaders of such actions must eventually realise that such irresponsible conduct is fraught with the most serious consequences for global security. Those who are playing with fire in various regions, trying to tame the terrorists to use them in geopolitical games, will have to pay for it in their own countries. There is no hiding from threats like terrorism in isles of safety reserved for the chosen ones.



Question:

The last general election in Italy showed that the “wind of populism is blowing through Europe.” Don’t you think that this wind benefits Russia? Or maybe by framing faraway Russia as an enemy Europe is seeking to overcome its internal challenges related to populism and the economic crisis?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding the current political trends in Europe, this is a question for the Europeans, I believe.

All I can say is that Russia does not interfere in the ongoing domestic policy debates and refrains from expressing preferences when it comes to assessing election results in various countries of the European Union. We wholeheartedly wish that European countries overcome the challenges they face. Russia is ready to work with all politicians who are interested in as well as committed to the promotion of a pragmatic dialogue with our country.

Unfortunately, we have to admit that a small but extremely aggressive group of Russophobic countries operates within the European Union. It is ready to do anything to prevent Russia-EU relations from getting back on track and plays the anti-Russia card in order to achieve its selfish aims. This does nothing to improve the situation on the European continent and prevents us from coordinating our efforts with the view to finding effective solutions to the matters that are relevant for both Russia and the EU.

We hope that our EU partners will be able to overcome this “inertia mentality” and identify their priorities without the help of extra-regional players, and will not take their cues from the anti-Russia minority that I have already mentioned. We strongly believe that people in Europe in their vast majority want a peaceful as well as prosperous Europe and do not want to return back to Cold War-era confrontation that some are pushing for.



Question:

Why are more and more major powers (China, Turkey, Russia, Egypt and even the US) becoming isolated? Don’t you think that states are becoming increasingly authoritarian?



Sergey Lavrov:

As I have already pointed out, we are currently witnessing the emergence of a multipolar world order. New economic and political centres of power emerge and become stronger, but this multipolar setting has yet to evolve into a stable system.

It is in our common interest that all international actors opt for constructive instead of destructive actions being guided by international law, not force. The multiple problems the world is facing today can be effectively resolved only by combining our capabilities based on the UN’s central role. In other words, the emergence of a multipolar world order is expected to facilitate mutually beneficial cooperation and fruitful partnerships taking into consideration each other’s interests.

As for Russia, our foreign policy is designed to promote a positive, unifying agenda for preventing international affairs from sliding into chaos and confrontation and settling the multiple crises and conflicts through political as well as diplomatic means. We have never relied on Russia’s natural advantages to the detriment of others, and will never do so. As a responsible country and permanent member of the UN Security Council Russia acts as the guarantor of global stability, opposing UN Security Council resolutions that seek to justify unilateral use of force against unwanted “regimes” in violation of the UN Charter.

It is highly satisfying that Russia is not alone in its efforts. Specifically, I would like to highlight the importance of Russian-Chinese comprehensive cooperation that can be viewed as a positive model of interstate relations in the 21st century. Russia works closely with its allies and like-minded countries, both bilaterally and within various multilateral formats such as the EAEU, the CSTO, BRICS and the SCO.

The Group of Twenty is another important platform where G7 members that are no longer able to resolve many matters on their own can reach agreements with the BRICS, supported by like-minded countries, in a spirit of consensus. All in all, G20 is a prototype of a fair global governance system that prioritises the balance of interests instead of dictating solutions.



Question:

In several cases, there has been discrepancy between Donald Trump’s actions and his rhetoric about Russia. How does Russia see it?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course, it is not a good thing when words do not correspond to actions. Unfortunately, it often happens, not only in the Russia-US relations but in other international matters as well, that Washington’s statements do not correlate with the subsequent actions. Take Syria, for example. Although the US Department of State and the White House vowed and protested that their only goal is to banish terrorists from the country, in reality the United States is putting down roots on the eastern bank of the Euphrates and is essentially pursuing the course towards destroying Syria. Some US allies are also encouraging this policy.

We have repeatedly said that we take a favourable view of President Trump’s words about his wish to establish a normal dialogue between our countries. Even more so, we fully share this attitude and we are ready to do our share to lead our bilateral ties from the artificial deadlock created by the Obama administration. However, we will make conclusions about our partners’ real commitment to a constructive and mutually respectful cooperation only based on their actual actions.

For now, our relations are still on the downward path. Positive signals from the US President, if any, get completely levelled out by the off the scale Russophobia in the US establishment, which presents our country as a threat and supports “system-wide restraint” of Russia using sanctions and other leverage. All this, clearly, is a result of political infighting in Washington and has nothing to do with reality.

The March 26 decision of the US authorities to expel 60 employees of our diplomatic missions and to close down the Consulate General in Seattle was yet another provocation. The formal grounds for this deportation and deprivation of Russia of its consular office, which is Russia’s alleged involvement in the poisoning of Sergey and Yulia Skripal, do not stand up to any criticism. Obviously, we could not leave that hostile act without a response. Notably, Washington carried out this measure soon after a telephone conversation between the presidents, which was constructive. Donald Trump called Vladimir Putin on March 20 to congratulate him on winning the presidential election and once again confirmed his intention to find areas of common interest with respect to a wide range of issues. He suggested having a top-level meeting as soon as possible; he invited President Putin to the White House and spoke about his wish to improve the coordination of efforts at the international scene and work together on containing the arms race.

While many in Washington continue to plummet into a self-replicating Russophobia, cooperation on important global issues is stalling. This has a negative effect on the situation in the world, with so many problems accumulated that are just impossible to resolve without cooperation between Russia and the United States.

I hope that common sense will eventually prevail in Washington. We want normal, predictable and, if you like, friendly relations with the United States. But not at the cost of trading principles and Russia’s national interests.



Question:

How much do sanctions cost Russia and what does it cost Europe? How it is that whatever we do in Europe is wrong but whatever you do is right?



Sergey Lavrov:

There are different assessments of the damage. Different numbers are given. Meanwhile, in our view, the main loss is the loss of trust, that will be hard to re-establish.

Any unilateral measures of economic pressure are not only illegitimate under international law, as experience shows, they are also fruitless. Initiated by the US administration and embraced by Brussels as a tool of long-term pressure on Russia, the sanctions did not lead to any changes in our foreign policy. They did not force us to give up on what we consider to be right and fair. However, we never – unlike the leaders of some Western countries – pretend to be the sole possessor of ultimate truth. We hear assurances from Brussels, from NATO and the EU, that they are open to dialogue with Russia but only if Russia repents and pleads guilty to everything it is blamed for. We never act like this. We always stress that we are ready to compromise, to respect the legitimate interests of all of our partners, who in turn recognise Russia’s interests and want to talk on the basis of pragmatism, rather than follow the logic of zero-sum games.

The Russian economy has adapted to the sanctions pressure. Moreover, we managed to turn it to our advantage. The banking sector is getting healthier. Inflation has gone down considerably. The budget’s dependency on oil prices is decreasing. At the same time, we used the situation to look for new points of economic growth, boosting domestic production, and also expanding commercial and economic ties with those states that are ready for honest, mutually beneficial cooperation. And these countries are a majority of the world.

It is no secret that a significant part of anti-Russia policies is generated from across the ocean and is subsequently imposed on Europe, accompanied by invocations of the need to strengthen “trans-Atlantic solidarity.” How much does that correspond to European interests? Meanwhile, the US itself does not suffer any harm. Will Europe win if the sanctions spiral goes on spinning, especially considering that producers from other regions are replacing European producers in the Russian market? Only EU residents will able to answer this question.

Russia is not separating itself from Europe or closing itself off. I think that time undeniably works toward the restoration of Russia-EU relations for the benefit of our people and for the stability and wellbeing of the European continent.



Question:

Allow me to ask a question on the war in Syria that may seem cynical: everyone seeks to use the Kurds only to give up on them afterwards. Why is that?



Sergey Lavrov:

I wouldn’t agree with this kind of a sweeping statement. Not everyone acts this way. For example, over the course of the conflict in Syria Russia has never used anyone to advance its own selfish interests. The Russian military personnel deployed in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government made an enormous contribution to eliminating ISIS, a military and political hotbed of terrorism.

By protecting their homes and Syria as their homeland, Kurdish militia also contributed to the common efforts to defeat terrorism. They acted as an integral part of Syrian society, as citizens of their country.

Russia has been consistent in calling for the Kurds to be able to take part in shaping Syria’s future after the conflict on equal terms with other ethnic and religious groups. President of Russia Vladimir Putin reaffirmed this position at a news conference in Ankara on April 3, 2018.

The question of using the Kurds only to give up on them should go to those who incite separatist sentiments by giving false promises of protection, to those who prevent the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic from restoring control over large swathes of national territory, to those who encouraged the Kurds to unilaterally proclaim a federation and who helped establish forces intended to take over functions that are the exclusive domain of the Syrian state.



Question:

My daughter asks me: why is it so difficult to achieve peace throughout the world? What would be your answer?



Sergey Lavrov:

Maybe the world is just more complicated than it seems. International relations are becoming increasingly complex and multi-faceted, resulting from interactions of a plethora of actors, including states, supra-national institutions and non-governmental structures. They are different, and not always consistent or rational in their actions.

However, peaceful coexistence and sustainable development are possible. All it takes is to renounce the philosophy of hegemony, lawlessness and exceptionalism, renounce the illegitimate use of force or obediently following block discipline in situations when others are trying to impose approaches that run counter to your national interests. Finally, it is important to recall the fundamental principles of international relations set out in the UN Charter, including the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in domestic affairs and resolving conflicts through peaceful means. To put it in simple terms, we have to respect each other. Taking any other path would only lead to an impasse.

Russia will be proactive in its efforts to preserve and develop sound undertakings in global affairs and contribute to finding solutions to the challenges the humanity is facing.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3206154






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint press conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Ayman Safadi, Sochi, May 3, 2018



3 May 2018 - 13:08








Ladies and gentlemen,

Today, we discussed the state and prospects of bilateral relations between our countries with a focus on further developing them in keeping with the agreements between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and King Abdullah II of Jordan.

We highlighted the need to step up trade and economic cooperation. In this regard, we attach great importance to the fourth meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission for Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, scheduled to take place in the third quarter of 2018.

We also discussed the prospects of expanding our cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy, as well as in education and humanitarian affairs. We expect the plans that are taking shape to materialise.

On the international agenda, we focused on the Syria settlement, for understandable reasons. We share the view that efforts to launch a political process must go hand in hand with a crackdown on the remaining terrorist groups. Russia and Jordan believe that all efforts to promote intra-Syrian dialogue must be aimed at achieving the objectives set out in UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We work together as part of the Astana process, where Jordan participates as an observer state. We also cooperate in upholding the ceasefire in the de-escalation area in Syria’s southwest near its border with Jordan. Today, we agreed to continue to cooperate on this important matter both bilaterally and in a trilateral format together with the United States and the monitoring centre.

The Israeli-Palestinian settlement is a matter of grave concern for us. We believe that the resolutions adopted by the UN must be respected. We call for resuming direct dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis without delay. Let me remind you that it was Russia that issued an invitation to the leaders of Palestine and Israel for arranging a direct dialogue between them without preconditions. This proposal still stands.

We also reviewed other Middle East matters, including developments in Iraq, noting that there was no alternative to settling crises though inclusive dialogue bringing together all ethnic and religious groups.

We reaffirmed our positive view of Jordan’s role in regional affairs, including with regard to Jerusalem, which should remain the capital for three world religions.

All in all, I believe that we had fruitful talks. I would like to thank my colleague and friend Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Ayman Safadi for our close cooperation. We will keep up these regular contacts.



Question:

Will the settlement process in the two de-escalation zones in Eastern Ghouta and near Homs impact the third de-escalation zone in southern Syria? How can it impact the political settlement in Syria in general?



Sergey Lavrov:

The de-escalation zones were created on a temporary basis, proceeding from the assumption that they would cease to exist after the tasks they were designed to address were accomplished and people could return to peaceful life. But the de-escalation regime certainly does not apply to terrorists, who should be exterminated in keeping with the UN Security Council’s decisions. In Eastern Ghouta, this problem has been mostly solved, because the groups that were either consolidated with Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist units, or breached the ceasefire themselves, have been largely eliminated or withdrawn from there. Accordingly, the Syrian Government has restored its control over Eastern Ghouta and accomplished its mission in the de-escalation zone in this part of Syria. We hope that the tasks of eliminating threats and resuming peaceful life will be fulfilled in the southern de-escalation zone as well. We have come to terms with our Jordanian friends on continuing the dialogue both on a bilateral basis and with the participation of the Americans in Amman, where a specialised monitoring mechanism has been established to monitor the implementation of the agreements in the southern zone.

It is clear that the matters related to settlement in this part of Syria should be considered comprehensively, including with regard for the developments at Al-Tanf, where the Americans have unilaterally declared a large territory with a radius of 55 kilometres as their “domain,” as well as with regard for the situation, as mentioned by my colleague here, at the Rukban refugee camp. Some very odd things are happening in this area, where the Americans have unilaterally declared the territory around Al-Tanf as their zone, and at the Rukban refugee camp, including the training of militants in progress there in order for them to continue combat operations in violation of ceasefire agreements.

As for the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Rukban refugee camp, the Americans for quite long refused to open access there to humanitarian convoys under the pretext that the Syrian Government allegedly withheld its permission. This is not the case. All problems have been solved between the Syrian Government and the humanitarian institutions. Now, the United States is, in effect, refusing to provide sufficient security guarantees for the delivery of humanitarian cargoes to the camp. The Americans suggest that the humanitarian convoys reach the confines of the Rukban camp and let the residents distribute aid inside at their own discretion. We repeatedly watched, including in Eastern Aleppo and in Eastern Ghouta, how humanitarian aid delivered in this way was either “privatised” by the militants or resold at triple price. So, this is neither a way out, nor a solution to the problem. To reiterate: the entire set of issues related to normalising the situation in southern Syria near the Jordanian border must be considered holistically.



Question:

Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went on record as saying that Israeli intelligence had managed to obtain data on Tehran’s plans to advance in the sphere of nuclear weapons. What is Russia’s take on such statements by the Israeli Prime Minister? What will be Moscow’s reaction if President Trump declares on May 12 that the US withdraws from the JCPOA?



Sergey Lavrov:

If Israel or anyone else has obtained documents that, as claimed, confirm Iran’s continued plans to develop nuclear weapons, these should be immediately handed over to the IAEA responsible for the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Judging by what I hear from experts, who participated in talks on drafting this plan of action, it is highly likely that these documents are related to past activities that were taken into account by the IAEA inspections. Let me remind you that Iran is currently undergoing the most intrusive IAEA inspections ever.

As for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action itself, this agreement, as President Putin repeatedly emphasised, including during his recent telephone conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu, should be strictly implemented by all the signatories, the more so that it was later approved by the UN Security Council without any changes. If the US withdraws from this agreements, as President Trump repeatedly has promised, all of us, the international community, will lose one of the most important instruments supporting the WMD non-proliferation regime.



Question:

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres discussed reforming the UN yesterday. Why do you think reforms are increasingly being discussed? Do you agree with the Secretary-General’s view that the UN Security Council no longer reflects the balance of power in the world?



Sergey Lavrov:

The UN Security Council certainly needs an upgrade. I agree that the current composition of this most important body no longer reflects the real power relationships that exist in the world. New centres of economic growth, financial power and political influence have come into being with the emergence of a multipolar world.

One-third of seats on the 15-member UN Security Council (five permanent and ten non-permanent members) belong to the Western group of countries, which has three permanent and two non-permanent seats. Of course, this is an inadequate reflection of the realities existing in the world.

The main problem is how to deal with a situation where the developing regions of the world are substantially under-represented at this UN body. We have consistently worked for this injustice to be redressed and for the UN Security Council to be replenished with representatives of developing Asian, African and Latin American countries. We have repeatedly stated that such countries as, for example, India and Brazil are strong candidates for permanent membership on the UN Security Council, when it is decided to expand it. Simultaneously it certainly should include representatives of Africa. This is also a mandatory condition of a fair reform.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3207360

[Alex Him]

Remarks by Russia's Permanent Representative to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Alexander Shulgin at a briefing at the OPCW attended by residents of Douma (SAR), The Hague, April 26, 2018



28 April 2018 - 11:45








Colleagues,

First, I would like to thank the representatives of Chemical Weapons Convention member states, both acting members of the OPCW Executive Council and observer states, for accepting the invitation to this briefing.

We have arranged it together with our Syrian colleagues to revisit the April 7 events in the city of Douma that became a harbinger for a missile strike by the United States, Great Britain and France at the Syrian Arab Republic.

Syrian citizens from Douma are here with us today. They came to The Hague on purpose – to tell you what really happened in Douma on April 7.

The provocation disguised as a chemical weapons attack did not come as a surprise for us or for the Syrian government. Syria's Deputy Permanent Representative to the OPCW Dr. Ghassan Obeid, who is present here, can tell you how many notes the Syrian side sent to the OPCW Technical Secretariat in this regard. Dr Obeid warned of this stove-piping when he spoke at the 87th session of the OPCW Executive Council back in the middle of March. The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin also made a corresponding statement during a news conference on April 4, following the trilateral Russia-Iran-Turkey summit in Ankara.

Unfortunately, our concerns came true – literally one day before the government troops took full control of Douma, an incident occurred there. The Western countries rushed to present it as yet another atrocity by the Syrian authorities: the use of chemical weapons against their own people. For us and for many sober-minded people this became another confirmation of the sinister plots by the enemies of the legitimate government of the SAR.

As you know, any instance of chemical weapons use must be considered by the experts of the specialised organisation – the OPCW. Director-General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat Dr Ahmet Uzumcu – and we give him credit for that – promptly responded to our joint request with Syria by deciding to send a group of experienced experts to the Syrian Arab Republic.

Common sense suggested that OPCW professionals should have a chance to give an authoritative voice, to check reports on the incident in Douma. However, the United States, Great Britain and France, without waiting even for the start of the OPCW inspectors’ work, claimed offhand that everything was clear to them – Bashar al-Assad government’s guilt was beyond doubt. And along the way allegations were laid against Russia in conniving to the most base instincts of the Syrian president who allegedly poisons his own people with toxic gas.

The United States, Great Britain and France pretend to be guardians of the holy principles of international law whereas in fact they ignore international standards and show disrespect for the OPCW. There is no other explanation for their stubborn desire to get even with Bashar al-Assad despite reports on the arrival of the OPCW inspectors in Damascus on the morning of April 14. Before long, the OPCW Technical Secretariat personnel could have been hit by the missile strikes.

A widely spun video shot by the notorious White Helmets with heartbreaking scenes of dying children, the suffocating victims of the poisoning, became practically the key argument in favour of “punishing” the Syrian authorities.

After this fake report was posted, the big propaganda machine of the three Western countries was set in motion. They proceeded in the same way they did following last year’s similar incident in Khan Shaykhun. Back then, the US Permanent Representative to the UN Nikki Haley showed photos of “little martyrs,” the alleged sarin victims, to the UN Security Council members. They say those photos terrified US President Donald Trump who immediately ordered the launch of 59 cruise missiles at the Shayrat Airbase. And now Ambassador Nikki Haley, judging by her remarks at the UNSC meeting on April 9, was again about to show photos, but then, according to her, changed her mind – she said it was hard to count on an awakening conscience among the Russians since they are complicit in this crime, they have not complied with their commitments on the chemical disarmament of Syria and have allowed Bashar al-Assad to keep his secret chemical arsenal.

That said, US representatives made reference to information from social media and a video made by the notorious White Helmets.

Today, we can prove that the White Helmets video was a crude staging. Consequently, our Western partners’ reference to that material as evidence of a chemical attack is totally groundless.

We will show this on the big screen and review what our US, British and French colleagues presented to us as a reason for their barbaric act – aggression against a sovereign state, a member of the UN and the OPCW.


* * *


So, today Chemical Weapons Convention member states have been shown convincing evidence of a crude provocation staged in Douma on April 7 by the White Helmets, a pseudo humanitarian non-governmental organisation which is fed by Western tax payers, mostly from the UK, the US and also from the Netherlands.

Our Western partners are accusing us, Russia, of waging information wars, of spreading fake news. But we have seen today that the United States and their allies are guilty of this.

This fabricated video (the pseudo humanitarian group, the White Helmets, is unlikely to have created this independently, without informing their Western sponsors) has far-reaching consequences. Probably, for the first time since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the world has approached the red line beyond which is the threat of direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia. I’d like to say: Turn away from that road, don’t commit provocations fraught with unpredictable consequences. We cannot allow the Cold War, the new version of which we are witnessing today, to turn into a “hot” war.

The proper conclusions must be sought. We must give up confrontation and find solutions to emerging problems, given mutual respect and account of each other’s lawful interests, and based on international law. Our future, the future of our children and grandchildren depend on this.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3197284






Opening remarks by Russia's Permanent Representative to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Alexander Shulgin at a news conference following a briefing at the OPCW with residents of Douma (SAR), The Hague, April 26, 2018



28 April 2018 - 11:46




Good evening, we begin today’s news conference.

The Hague has a well-deserved reputation as the legal capital of the world. In the past week, The Hague has also become the chemical capital of the world. This is due to the fact that it hosts the headquarters of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). This week, successive special sessions of the Executive Councils are being held, with heated discussions on various issues, including the April 7 chemical incident in Douma which had extensive media coverage. And in connection with this, we and our Syrian colleagues arranged a briefing at the OPCW headquarters so as to go back again to the event of April 7.

I would like to introduce the people sitting next to me at the table. On my right is Major General Igor Kirillov, Commander of the Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defence Troops of the Russian Federation. On my left is Dr. Ghassan Obeid, Syria's Deputy Representative to the OPCW. Next to him is our hero Hassan Diab, and also his father Omar. Also at the table are Syrian nationals who arrived here in The Hague straight from Douma to attend the briefing and the news conference.

Let me start with a statement that our today’s events are being held without any detrimental effect on the work of the OPCW experts in Douma. They have already been there twice, they work according to their own schedule and they know which places to visit and arrange necessary meetings. We also call on the Technical Secretariat and experts, while they are in Syria, to inspect the militants’ chemical laboratories which have been identified and which were used, according to our assumptions, to manufacture chemical munitions, including for various provocations. Any delays here are impermissible.

We never doubted from the onset that a provocation was committed in Douma, a suburb of Damascus, on April 7. It was no surprise for us. My good friend Dr Obeid will tell you himself. Syrians sent countless notes to the OPCW Technical Secretariat, they also sent letters to the UN Security Council. They said that a provocation was being prepared. Actually, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin also made a statement to this effect during a news conference on April 4, following the trilateral Russia-Iran-Turkey summit in Ankara.

Why did we and the Syrians talk about this? It is clear that we tried to deter those who control the opposition and should influence it, from reckless steps, provocations. Unfortunately, we have failed to deter them.

What happened on April 7 was immediately seized by the press in Western countries. The media alleged that the Syrian authorities had used chemical weapons against their own people. But for us it was clear from the beginning that it was a confirmation of yet another sinister plan masterminded by the enemies of the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic. As is known, every case where poisonous agents are used must be considered by specialists from the relevant organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons. Dr Hassan Obeid and I visited the Technical Secretariat and urged the Director-General to send OPCW experts to Syria without delay to investigate what had happened in Douma. Director-General of the Technical Secretariat Ahmet Uzumcu – we should give him credit for being an honest and decent man – immediately reacted to our joint demarche and made the decision to send a group of experts to Syria.

Common sense says that OPCW professionals should be given an opportunity to study the situation on the ground. But without waiting for the OPCW inspectors even to start their work, the United States, Britain and France hastily declared that everything was clear to them: there could be no doubt that the Assad government was to blame. Simultaneously they made accusations against Russia, claiming that it encouraged the basest instincts of the Syrian president, who allegedly was gassing his own people.

The United States, Britain and France fancy themselves to be guardians of the sacred principles of international law but in fact scorn international norms and demonstrate disrespect for the OPCW. How else can we estimate their inexorable desire to settle scores with Bashar al-Assad despite reports on the upcoming arrival of the OPCW inspectors in Damascus in the morning on April 14? The OPCW experts were this close to getting under a missile attack. This is a clear case of disregard for the elementary norms of international law, disrespect for the OPCW Secretary-General, and an act of aggression against a sovereign state and a UN and OPCW member. In the meantime, the OPCW won the Nobel Peace Prize owing to Mr Ahmet Uzumcu’s leadership.

The main argument in favour of “punishing” the Syrian authorities was a video shot by the sham humanists from the White Helmets and widely publicised by the Western media, a video showing heart-rending scenes of dying children and gasping victims of the poisoning.

Right after April 7, the huge propaganda machine operated by the Western troika – the United States, France and Britain – was kick-started. They followed the same scheme as in the Khan Sheikhoun case a year ago. The US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, showed the photographs of “small martyrs”, allegedly poisoned with sarin, at the UN Security Council. The photographs were said to appal President Donald Trump, who immediately ordered to fire 59 cruise missiles at the Shayrat air base in Syria. Now, too, Nikki Haley, judging by her address at the UN Security Council meeting on April 9, intended to show photographs but later thought better of it. Perhaps an inner voice told her: “Don’t trouble trouble until trouble troubles you.”

Today we can prove that the White Helmets video is a crude put-up job. Consequently, our Western partners’ references to this stuff as testifying to a chemical attack are completely untenable. Our briefing today was aimed precisely at proving this. It has produced broad repercussions and received a massive positive response. Dozens of delegations from the Executive Council member states, observer states and states parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) attended the event. They asked many questions.

Regrettably, US, French, British, EU and NATO representatives, as well as those of certain Asian allies of the United States were absent. They didn’t have the heart to come to this briefing. Perhaps the truth is hard to swallow, and they are afraid to look the truth in the face, afraid to look into little Hassan’s eyes. A Russian proverb springs to mind: “They’re well aware whose hand has been in the biscuit-tin.” They’ve done a lot of nasty things, skipped out of the way, and are now keeping a low profile in their corner as if this were none of their business. But people see everything. Truth will surface one way or another. And this is highly important to do to avoid provocations in the future, which are possible, because our US partners are again threatening to use weapons against sovereign Syria. But we will not allow this. With your permission, I will give the floor for brief remarks to my friend Dr Hassan Obeid, after which we will start the presentation.


* * *


Thus, the CWC states parties and the world community were presented earlier today with some convincing evidence of a crude provocation staged by the White Helmets, these false humanists who feed at the British and US taxpayers’ expense, in Douma on April 7.

Please note that unlike our Western partners, who are accustomed to using words lightly, putting forward unfounded accusations based on absurd speculations and referring to social media and non-existent persons, we have brought you real people, real eyewitnesses, such as little Hassan and the medics, who are now with us. They’ve told you what really happened in Douma.

Yes, we have caught the liars red-handed, we have exposed those who were trying to mislead the world public. But there is no cause to rejoice, because the situation is too grave. We are all concerned about what is going on in the world.

My country, Russia, is constantly accused of spreading fake news and conducting so-called information wars. But I think that after today’s briefing and news conference, no one will be in any doubt as to who really spreads fake news and who conducts information wars.

The fake video spun by the US henchmen, White Helmets, has had far-reaching consequences. It is perhaps for the first time since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis that the world approached a dangerous line beyond which the threat of a direct US-Russian military clash was clearly visible. Today, the crisis seems to have blown over, but, regrettably, there are no reasons for being at ease. Threats are still uttered to use weapons and force against a sovereign state, the Syrian Arab Republic. This means that the threat of a conflict, a powerful conflict, still persists. Some nasty associations come to mind. By its monstrous nature, this fake, this provocation in Douma, cannot but call to mind the so-called Gleiwitz provocation. In 1939, the Nazis imitated a Polish attack on a radio station in a territory bordering on Poland. You know how this provocation ended: Germany unleashed World War II.

I want to say: step down from this dangerous path and abandon the course for confrontation. The Cold War, a new version of which we are witnessing today, must not be allowed to turn hot.

Everyone should draw the right conclusions and renounce the course for a military stand-off. We should seek solutions to problems as they arise, given mutual respect and regard for each other’s interests. We sincerely hope that peace will return to Syria’s ancient soil and that the long-suffering Syrian people will be able to reap the fruit of peaceful coexistence.

Russia is doing all it can to facilitate political settlement in Syria. A case in point is the successful Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. We will continue to do everything in our power to enable a comprehensive, inclusive political dialogue in Syria to lead to reconciliation and return to normality.

I would like to hope that years from now the little Hassan, whom we see here today, will become a grown-up man and a worthy Syrian citizen. He will choose a profession and become a doctor, an engineer, a teacher, or maybe even a prominent Syrian diplomat, who will honourably represent his country on the international arena.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3197294






Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov’s interview with Interfax, April 28, 2018



28 April 2018 - 12:36




Question:

Mr Morgulov, what do you think about the outcome of the inter-Korean summit? How will this event influence the broader context of normalising the situation in Northeast Asia and, in particular, the prospects for the US-North Korea summit?



Igor Morgulov:

We welcome the meeting between the leaders of the DPRK and the Republic of Korea, which has important symbolic significance, and concrete agreements that were reached during it. The Panmunjom Declaration signed by Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in is an important and substantive document opening a new chapter, or even, as it says, “a new era of peace” in inter-Korean relations. The Declaration not only proclaims the principles of relations between North Korea and South Korea, such as national reconciliation, peace, striving for the unification of the Korean people, but also outlines practical spheres of cooperation across the entire spectrum, including political, economic and military ties, and exchanges in the sphere of research, education, healthcare and culture. In a broader regional context, no less significant are the agreements included in the document which are designed to reduce military tensions on the Korean Peninsula, for example, the parties' mutual commitment to “completely stop all hostile actions” toward each other. Of particular importance is the confirmation by Pyongyang and Seoul of their commitment to phased disarmament and denuclearisation of the peninsula, as well as asking the international community for assistance to achieve this goal. Of course, all of this deserves high praise and support from our side.

Regarding prospects for normalising relations between the DPRK and the United States, this is one of the key, but by far not the only aspect of the Korean settlement process. I believe that the outcome of the summit in Panmunjom can have a beneficial effect on the atmosphere of preparations for the meeting between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump. If the leaders of the DPRK and the United States manage to consolidate the success of the inter-Korean summit and work out a mutually acceptable formula for the phased removal of mutual concerns, it would represent a significant advance in resolving the problems existing on the peninsula. However, it appears that the process of US-North Korea, as well as inter-Korean, rapprochement will take a lot of time and patience.



Question:

How do you see Russia's role in consolidating positive trends on the Korean Peninsula? Is the six-party format of the Korean settlement still relevant?



Igor Morgulov:

Frankly, we are pleased with the fact that the settlement process is following the road map proposed by Russia and supported by China over a year ago. Successful progress towards normalising the situation was possible due, in no small part, to the efforts of the Russian-Chinese tandem, which invariably advocates a peaceful, comprehensive and phased solution to the problems on the Korean Peninsula. In many respects, thanks to the consistent policies of our countries, we managed to establish direct contact between the opposing sides. We have no doubt that it is advisable to continue to follow the markers set in that road map. Namely, to resume the multilateral negotiating format in the interest of doing a comprehensive review of all problems in the region, including the nuclear one, and ultimately forming a reliable security system which would take into account the legitimate interests of all the countries in that sub-region. We believe that the six-sided process remains not only the best, but essentially the only institutional framework for such talks. Therefore, Russia’s assistance in the Korean settlement process will come not only in the form of working with its partners in bilateral formats, but also the most active possible participation in collective efforts.

In addition, we intend to revive the work on establishing trilateral cooperation between Russia, the DPRK and the Republic of Korea as we continue to implement inter-Korean economic, including infrastructure, projects, also mentioned in the Panmunjom Declaration. Judging by the signals coming from both Koreas, Pyongyang and Seoul are positive on the prospects for such cooperation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3200473






Address by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Union Vladimir Chizhov at the Second International Conference ”Supporting the future of Syria and the Region”, Brussels, 25 April 2018



28 April 2018 - 17:29




Distinguished co-chairs,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like first of all to thank the organisers of the Second Brussels Conference on "Supporting the Future of Syria and the Region" for focusing on humanitarian problems of Syria, a country Russia traditionally enjoys friendly relations with. These problems are caused by an internal crisis that has continued for seven and a half years now, a crisis fuelled, among other factors, by various forms of foreign interference. The development of the crisis has led the Syrians to suffer an onslaught by international terrorism against their country, unprecedented in atrocities and scale. We were among those who strongly supported Syria at that moment, including by military means. This support determined the defeat of the main military and political stronghold of terrorists, ISIS (Daesh). The efforts by Russia, Turkey and Iran who jointly established the Astana format in support of the Syrian settlement genuinely enabled progress towards a political solution to be attained via a broad intra-Syrian dialogue and talks under UN auspices as envisaged by UNSC Resolution 2254. The Sochi Congress of Syrian National Dialogue was another contributing element to the whole picture. We are convinced that the key to success on this track lies with ensuring compliance of all influential international and regional actors with their obligations regarding the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Therefore, I should say I am perplexed by the format of today’s meeting that does not include official representatives of the Syrian government. It looks strange, to say the least, that the distinguished delegates are planning to help Syria in a situation when official contacts with the legitimate government of the country have for many years remained a taboo for European politicians, and some states have even been promising “not to give a cent” until political change takes place in Syria. These European capitals seem to forget that today the Syrian government controls more than three quarters of the country’s territory where some 90 per cent of the population live. It took the Syrian people much effort and means to win these territories back from international terrorist groups, for the country to be liberated from ISIS yoke.

We agree that aid must come to everyone in need wherever they are – in Eastern Ghouta, Aleppo, in the villages of al-Fu'ah and Kefraya still besieged by terrorists, in the city of Raqqa totally destroyed by US-led coalition bombings and half-forgotten by the international community, or in the Rukban camp for IDPs with no access available due to a fifty-kilometre “security zone” around al-Tanf unilaterally established by the US.

We are surprised by the following fact. When the Syrian armed forces were liberating Aleppo, or Eastern Ghouta from terrorists, the international community virtually went crying loud that a humanitarian catastrophe was allegedly unfolding there. This was as long as militants were there. But once the issue was resolved nobody cared about the future of Syrians who had been living and continue to live there. Today conditions in Aleppo are gradually, albeit slowly, improving, with electricity and water supply being restored, schools and hospitals reopening. The image is quite different in Raqqa, where virtually no building was left intact after the air and artillery attacks by the US-led coalition. Life conditions there are indeed unbearable: whole city areas are still mined causing death every day, there is no water, no electricity. But until recently this appalling situation seemed not to deserve attention. UNSC Resolution 2401 which Russia supported and significantly contributed to its implementation clearly stipulates that humanitarian issues should be addressed on the whole territory of Syria. Therefore, we reiterate that these issues must not be politicised and used as instruments of pressure. Providing such assistance should not be linked to attaining certain political goals, as some Western capitals presume.

On 14 April the international community witnessed an unlawful act against Syria which was targeted by an intimidating missile and bomb attack. It is becoming increasingly evident that this act of outright aggression was carried out by the US, Great Britain and France on an invented pretext, at a moment when OPCW experts were on their way to Douma. Evidently those countries and those expressing support for their action are not interested in investigation of the allegations of a “chemical attack”. There is particular cynicism in efforts to base it on “humanitarian” concerns and justify by referring to the controversial notion of “humanitarian interventions”. The experience of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan convincingly demonstrates that living standards cannot be improved in such a way – whole countries, including relatively wealthy ones, are plunged into lengthy chaos, doom to victims and suffering.

We believe the stance of those countries that maintain financial and economic sanctions suffocating the Syrian people, refuse to participate in restoring social and economic infrastructure is not only inhuman but also counterproductive. Devastation, extreme poverty and despair form a fertile soil for new extremism to emerge and preserve conflict potential for many years ahead.

We are seriously concerned by the forms and mechanisms of providing humanitarian aid. It is one thing to accumulate the allocated funds on the accounts of specialised humanitarian agencies, and quite another to transfer them directly to recipients in the form of cash. The latter scheme is fraught with having them diverted to purposes quite different from those the donors are willing to achieve. Cases are known when aid received was then sold at exorbitant prices, the proceeds from such trade used to buy weapons for terrorists, recruit new militants.

We strongly believe that establishing close cooperation between potential donors and legitimate authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic would facilitate a better humanitarian situation in Syria and prompt normalisation of the situation.

Russia is one of the key humanitarian donors of Syria providing humanitarian assistance both via specialised UN agencies, as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross and bilaterally.

Besides, it was Russia that facilitated efficient contacts between UN bodies in charge of humanitarian aid issues and the Syrian government. The Russian military repeatedly secured access of UN convoys to those in need in different regions of the country.

A major aspect of Russian humanitarian aid granted bilaterally is its targeted character reflecting the real needs of the Syrian population. It includes food and necessities, construction equipment and materials, pharmaceuticals and medical equipment.

Part of humanitarian aid is delivered to Syrians via the Russian Ministry of Defence. The Russian military ensure its direct distribution among those in need. For instance, food sets are handed directly to the people so that any abuse is avoided. Russian military doctors treat the locals free of charge.

Humanitarian demining involving Russian field engineers as well as training Syrian experts form an important element of our assistance to Syria.

We are ready and willing to cooperate with all those, including countries, other entities and international institutions, who are genuinely committed to helping the Syrian people to start a new peaceful life, turning the tragic page of the bloody civil war. Believe me, Syrians of all nationalities and religions deserve no less.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3202825






Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov’s answer to a question from TASS news agency about Russia’s role in the settlement process on the Korean Peninsula



28 April 2018 - 21:42




Question:

Some observers have noted that the declaration signed in Panmunjom by the leaders of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea on April 27 stipulates the possibility of holding trilateral meetings that would involve North and South Korea and the United States or four-sided meetings (plus China) in the context of the Korean peace settlement. However, the document does not mention Russia. Does this mean that Russia may drop out of the settlement process on the Korean Peninsula?



Igor Morgulov:

I am confident that such apprehensions are groundless. Russia will not drop out of the process; on the contrary, it is determined to continue searching for solutions to all the problems of the Korean Peninsula in the most proactive manner.

Your question is probably motivated by the fact that inexperienced observers may have, indeed, failed to grasp the essence of the Panmunjom Declaration. You see, the Declaration mentions possible dialogue formats on the results of the Korean War of 1950-1953, specifically, the replacement of the Armistice Agreement with a peace treaty. In this connection, I would like to point out that the Soviet Union was not involved in the Korean War, which ended with the signing of the Armistice Agreement, or in the talks on signing this document.

By the way, the Russian-Chinese roadmap for the Korean peace settlement, drafted in 2017, clearly sets out Russia’s position on this matter. This position implies that the process of signing a peace treaty that would replace the Armistice Agreement is solely the subject of bilateral relations between North and South Korea and should be conducted by Pyongyang and Seoul. In fact, the Panmunjom Declaration reflects this approach. Russia has no legal grounds or motives to become a party to this treaty. I repeat, this is the prerogative of the countries that were directly involved in the Korean War.

Instead of becoming immersed in the conflicts of the past, Russia believes its role is to conduct energetic and painstaking work for the future. This boils down to joint efforts to create a solid and lasting mechanism of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and across Northeast Asia that would heed the interests of all the concerned parties. As has repeatedly been stated, we perceive a comprehensive discussion of the sub-region’s issues in a six-party format involving Russia to be a tool for achieving this goal. In fact, there is simply no alternative to this format.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3204522

[Alex Him]

Comment by the Information and Press Department on developments in the Palestinian territories



28 April 2018 - 11:47



On April 27, Palestinians organised more protests in Gaza against Israel’s occupation and blockade of the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian marches were again violently suppressed by the Israeli army, which killed four Palestinians and injured several hundred, including with tear gas. The Israeli Air Force launched several strikes on Hamas facilities in the region.

In total, 44 people have been killed since the Palestinian protest campaign started on March 30.

Moscow is gravely concerned by these tragic events and possible further escalation of the situation in the Palestinian territories, including with regard to the US administration’s intention to hold a ceremony in Jerusalem in the middle of May to mark the beginning of relocating the US Embassy there from Tel Aviv.

We call on all parties concerned to show restraint and refrain from steps provoking additional tension, which could grow into a full-scale confrontation between Gaza and Israel. Such extremely undesirable developments would not only endanger Palestinian and Israeli lives but would also set further back efforts to organise a Palestinian-Israeli negotiation process on the established international legal basis.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3197274






Press release on threats from Ukrainian authorities to Russian shipping



28 April 2018 - 13:18



The number of Russian vessels illegally detained by the Ukrainian authorities has recently increased. Just two weeks after the Ukrainian coast guard unlawfully seized the Russian fishing ship The Nord and illegally detained the crew on March 25, an arrest warrant was issued for a Trans Services Maritime vessel.

On April 25, 2018, the Ukrainian cabinet supported an initiative of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine and issued an executive order on banning transit and shipping cargoes through the Ukrainian territory by vessels under the Russian flag or owned by persons registered in the Russian Federation, as well as any other vessels regardless of the flag they sail under, which had in the past entered seaports of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.

With regard to these provocative actions by the Ukrainian authorities against Russian vessels and citizens of the Russian Federation, the Foreign Ministry draws attention of shipping companies to the real risks of pirate seizure of Russian vessels by the Ukrainian security agencies.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3200843






Press release on Lithuania’s adoption of the Magnitsky List



28 April 2018 - 17:37



As is known, Russia has a principle of paying its partners back for their provocations.

In response to Vilnius’ adoption of a similar version of the US Magnitsky Act, we had to ban the most hostile Lithuanian citizens, including politicians, deputies and political experts, from entering Russia.

We warn that the Russian stop-list remains open, and if Vilnius continues its provocative policy, new persons can be added to it at any moment.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3202839






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the terrorist attack in the Libyan capital



3 May 2018 - 09:33



On May 2, suicide bombers detonated bombs at the High National Election Commission of Libya in Tripoli. According to the latest reports, 16 people were killed and 19 injured.

We strongly condemn this criminal act. We expect that the plotters and organisers of the attack will be exposed and brought to justice.

We are confident that such terrorist raids will not stop the political process in Libya, including preparations for the general election.

We extend our sincere condolences to the families of those killed and wish early recovery to the injured.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3206178






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the double terrorist attack in Kabul



3 May 2018 - 12:17



On April 30, a double explosion killed and wounded several dozen people, including representatives of national and foreign media outlets, in Kabul. The Afghan wing of terrorist organisation ISIS claimed responsibility.

This terrorist attack ranks among the most serious crimes perpetrated against journalists in Afghanistan over the past few years. We resolutely condemn this barbaric act. We offer our condolences to the families of the deceased and wish a speedy recovery to those wounded. We are urging the Afghan authorities to do everything necessary to guarantee the safety and security of media personnel.

The terrorist attack once again confirms the importance of an uncompromising struggle against ISIS, which has stepped up its criminal activities in Afghanistan over the past few years.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3207213






Statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry



3 May 2018 - 12:50



We continue to closely monitor domestic political developments in the friendly country of Armenia. We hope that all disputes will be resolved within the legal and constitutional framework, through constructive dialogue between the political forces in the republic, enabling the restoration of the stable functioning of state agencies and the return of society to normal life as soon as possible.

We are determined to continue the joint work to strengthen and develop multifaceted and mutually beneficial Russian-Armenian cooperation and allied relationship in the interests of the peoples of the two countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3207341

[Alex Him]

At last the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia translated some lost paragraphs after my harassment to it.






Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, May 4, 2018



4 May 2018 - 16:24








Two-plus-two format talks between foreign and defence ministers of Russia and Egypt

On May 14, Moscow is expected to host a regular meeting between the foreign and defence ministers of Russia and Egypt. The respective ministers are scheduled to meet separately, as well as together in a two-plus-two format.

This consultation mechanism was put in place in November 2013 as a sign of relations between Russia and Egypt reaching a high level of trust and strategic partnership.

The upcoming contacts will feature a detailed exchange of opinions on the regional and international agendas with a focus on the Middle East and North Africa. The participants will pay special attention to stepping up cooperation between Moscow and Cairo with a view to settling crises in keeping with the principles of international law, respect for the sovereignty of the regional states and non-interference in their domestic affairs. The ministers are also expected to discuss further coordinated steps to counter the global threats of terrorism and extremism.

The ministers will review the key areas of Russian-Egyptian cooperation with a focus on practical measures to enhance bilateral ties in all areas.

Egypt is one of Russia’s leading partners in the Middle East, the Arab world and the African continent. Our countries are bound by historical ties of friendship, mutual respect, and a multi-faceted mutually beneficial partnership. Moscow is committed to maintaining proactive ties with Egypt on international and regional affairs, developing bilateral relations across the board and implementing large-scale joint projects in various areas.



Developments in Syria

The negative consequences of the massive missile strike carried out by the United States, Britain and France against Syria on April 14 have continued to negatively affect developments in that country, though, as Russian military experts have said, this aggressive action was not of major importance militarily. Importantly, as we have already emphasised, there were no real reasons for this action – the Syrian Government forces did not use any chemicals. This was an imperious and crude provocation staged by the opponents of a peaceful political settlement in Syria.

To eliminate any doubts in this regard, Russia organised a briefing in the OPCW headquarters in The Hague on April 26. Russia did everything to enable residents of Douma – unintentional participants and witnesses of this frame-up – to attend this briefing. Some of them had testified to OPCW experts earlier from the scene. Incidentally, there were allegations that these people were taken out of Douma to prevent them from meeting the experts. There were many opponents of the briefing in the OPCW headquarters. They claimed that the briefing may disrupt the work of the experts. This is not true. Syrians themselves gave explanations to the experts, so their work on the scene was not disrupted in any way. The countries that do not represent international organisations or some coalitions on the ground, simply received an opportunity to have direct contact with the residents of this city.

Russia wanted to make this situation absolutely transparent, to tell the public the truth about what happened, to speak directly rather than indirectly. Regrettably, Western countries boycotted the event. Obviously, it is painful to hear the truth.

We continue facilitating the investigation conducted in Douma by the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission, primarily for security purposes. As we understand, they are working in line with the plan. They have already taken samples from two facilities (depot and lab) that were mentioned in connection with the alleged chemical attack. We hope that the OPCW will complete its technical work and produce an unbiased professional report.

In the evening of April 29, several Syrian military facilities in the provinces of Hama and Aleppo were hit by missile strikes. The attack targeted the permanent deployment site of the 47th Syrian Army brigade to the south of Hama, a depot near Al-Nayrab Airport and Aleppo International Airport. The Syrian authorities blamed Israel for the attack.

The evacuation of the so-called “irreconcilable” militants from Eastern Qalamoun has been completed. On April 26, the last group of 1,500 militants and members of their families left for the north of Syria. In parallel, the Syrian authorities are conducting legal rehabilitation for the “repentant” so to speak and restoring socio-economic infrastructure in residential areas where there has been reconciliation.

Government forces continue the counter-terrorist operation in the south of Damascus. They ousted ISIS from several districts in the capital suburb of al-Ḥajar al-Aswad, forcing the terrorists to retreat as far as the Palestinian refugee camp Yarmouk.

In parallel, an agreement was reached with Jabhat al-Nusra militants in Yarmouk with the mediation of the Russian centre for the reconciliation of opposing sides in Syria. They are supposed to be sent to the Idlib province, and in exchange about 5,000 civilians will be able to leave the cities of Al-Fu'ah and Kafriya in Idlib, which are besieged by Jabhat al-Nusra.



Provocative questions by some Western media outlets during a briefing at the OPCW headquarters

On April 26, Russia and Syria’s offices at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) organised a briefing for the OPCW member countries at its headquarters in The Hague, and a press conference for the media. The participants discussed the staged video of the “chemical attack” in the Syrian town of Douma made by the notorious White Helmets. To reiterate, the briefing was attended by Syrians who have involuntarily become the protagonists of this show and didn’t quite realise what was going on. There were children among them as well. As you may recall, this included Hassan Diab accompanied by his father and medical workers of the hospital where the White Helmets shot their video.

I would think that the sincerity and plainness with which the witnesses of this staged event shared their experience should leave no doubt about what really happened. However, unfortunately, as it often happens in the modern world, things look different in crooked mirrors, at least, many are doing their best to achieve this effect.

I would like to share with you some takeaways from this press conference, so as to dispel all doubts about the fake nature of these videos and the entire information campaign involving non-governmental organisations, journalists financed by Western governments and, unfortunately, foreign diplomats.

I would like to share with you several questions that the Western media asked the Syrians who arrived in The Hague in order to honestly tell about what happened to them.

Rupert Evelyn from the British ITV asked how much the participants of the briefing from Syria were paid for allegedly changing their testimony to support Russia, and how they were being intimidated. This is not a question. The journalists had the opportunity to ask these people any question, such as where were they at the time of the attack, did they feel a sting in their eyes (since it’s all about chemical agents), where did they run to, who did they talk to, how were they found, how they packed for The Hague, and whether this is their first trip abroad. However, this question sounded like an accusation – how much were you paid and how did they manage to intimidate you.

It was not the only question that, frankly, shook me. Anna Holligan from the BBC asked whether we thought about how a young boy would cope with international media and whether he would manage to overcome this trauma. The child was taken out of a country that has for many years been bleeding and torn apart by internal strife with the active participation of so-called outside powers. His coming to The Hague and the opportunity to tell everyone what he saw and heard is referred to by the Western media as “psychological trauma.”

I heard the advice offered following this press conference that the Syrians should have been “properly prepared.” No one prepared them. They suffered and experienced so much that they were ready for an absolutely honest and sincere conversation. The questions that they were asked leave no doubt that this is part of a campaign of intimidation – since British journalists brought it up – and accusations against people who sincerely wanted to share what happened to them.

Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of journalists acting like tools of propaganda. If you want to see propaganda, look no further. Once again, they were not representatives of government bodies defending their position, but journalists who are supposed to be independent and who had a unique opportunity to talk with eyewitnesses.

To reiterate, no one worked with the Syrians to prepare them for the interview, and they were available for interviews and questions.

A full video of the briefing has been posted on the websites of the Foreign Ministry and our foreign missions.

There is no doubt that in this particular case journalists and Western diplomats were in cahoots. As arrangements were being made for the briefing and the press conference, Western diplomats did their best to disrupt them. They exerted pressure on the OPCW Secretariat, made phone calls and intimidated the member countries telling them not to go. However, representatives of 50 countries showed up. A group of 17 Western states did not attend this briefing, and followed up with a statement about the reasons for not coming. It was actually a team effort, which later became obvious. We have evidence that Western diplomats worked closely with the media of their countries.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that afterwards our Western colleagues thought they could call this briefing a dirty charade and a crude propaganda exercise. Of course, the eyewitnesses from Syria pale in comparison with the eyewitnesses our Western colleagues bring to the UN, show in their Twitter accounts against the background of the UN flag, and present to the UN Security Council where a western television channel happens to have a camera installed at the moment. Of course, this is something completely different. Suffice it to think back to Samantha Power who used to bring all kinds of people to the UN. It would be naive to assume that our Western partners had nothing to do with the visit to the UN headquarters by a well-known girl named Bana Al-Abed in October 2017, who was the subject of a powerful PR campaign in international media.



Regarding reports of ending the White Helmets’ funding

Unfortunately, most of the media that joined the anti-Russian campaign encouraged by Western governments have found “heroes” in the so-called White Helmets. So what kind of an organisation is it?

Emerging in 2013 from the ranks of exclusively local Syrian volunteers, according to the White Helmets’ official website, for some reason it was created in the Turkish city of Gaziantep by a former British secret service officer and private security specialist, James Le Mesourier, who has vast experience of service in “humanitarian interventions” by NATO, including in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq and Lebanon, not to mention his ties with Blackwater, a notorious American security company. Interesting people are behind the story about how the White Helmets humanitarian organisation came into being, don’t you think?

According to Senator Ron Paul’s Institute for Peace and Prosperity, the organisation known as Syria Civil Defence (the name under which the White Helmets operate) really exists, but it was set up 63 years ago and is a member of the International Civil Defence Organisation recognised by the United Nations. That is how it all was until the White Helmets began using their name and history as a cover absolutely illegally.

So who are the White Helmets? It is a kind of humanitarian organisation that, as we understand, proclaimed itself the Syria Civil Defence, for which it had no legal grounds, and pledged to “save people” in Syria. In reality, however, they appear, armed with cameras, in the right place at the right time and allegedly give first aid to people affected, particularly by chemical attacks, without having proper training for that. Let me repeat that all that is done with almost professional equipment: videos of how footage was edited have repeatedly made their way onto the internet. We have said many times that this is staged footage. Or else, the people involved in those video shoots have no idea what is happening to them, because all those operations are quick and fast.

Attempts were made to nominate this organisation for the Nobel Peace Prize. It managed to receive the Right Livelihood Award. The film White Helmets took the Oscar for Best Documentary Short at the 89th Academy Awards Ceremony in 2017. On the whole, we knew that no one, particularly in the US and Canada, was going to reject the “tail wagging dog” premise of this work of fiction. We did not know, to be frank, the scale it would reach.

In France, a White Helmets delegation led by Raed Saleh (we will talk about him later) was given a welcome that any head of state would envy (see photos).

Unlike our Western colleagues, who level absolutely false accusations, we would like to cite a number of facts about this organisation, confirmed by independent international specialists and journalists. Doubts about the humanitarian nature of the White Helmets were expressed by journalist Cory Morningstar, Sydney University professor Tim Anderson, Asia Times columnist Christina Lin and other experts and journalists. The Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War launched a signature campaign in support of a petition to bar the White Helmets from a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. Vanessa Beeley, an independent British journalist, went the farthest in her investigation. For several months, including in Syria, unlike most other Western reporters, she was studying, in direct contact with local residents, the secret to success of those heroes, whose organisation is truly recognised in the West. The evidence that she found is so indisputable that she petitioned to strip the organisation of its Right Livelihood Award.

Her main conclusion is that the White Helmets is just a platform for supporting Jabhat al-Nusra and affiliated extremist groups such as Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki, notorious for its public execution of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy.

The White Helmets are operating only in opposition-controlled areas. It is strange that “humanitarian” workers are seen in the video with weapons in hand, celebrating with fighters. But this is a documentary.

The White Helmets claim they are not under the influence of any country. Sure, nobody is under any influence – they are simply taking their money. The media report on the substantial donations they receive from many states that are deeply involved in the Syrian crisis – the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

The Qatar Foundation announced the granting of aid to them for the purchase of heavy-duty equipment and gear. The allocated sum and the type of equipment are not specified. The arrangements for funding the White Helmets are very sophisticated. The funding also can be traced back to British origins, for instance the Mayday Rescue foundation that is operating in Syria. There are also a number of dubious EU NGOs that are contributing to the White Helmets’ financial support.

Apart from everything else, as many journalists have reported, the White Helmets are resorting to receiving serious media promotion from organisations sponsored by George Soros. Much has been written about his role in the Syrian crisis. Numerous British, US and Middle Eastern organisations with far from sterling reputations are also giving the White Helmets media support for PR purposes.

In April 2016, Raed Al Saleh, the head of the White Helmets (who was cordially received by the French President) was denied entrance to the United States, tentatively because of his connections to terrorists as former Deputy Spokesperson for the US Department of State Mark Toner acknowledged to journalists once. We spoke about this but it would make sense to sum up this information, especially now that the White Helmets have been caught red handed so many times. Moreover, several weeks ago they did so on a really big scale for the first time. Is there a terrorist connection or not – this is also a big question. But facts remain facts.

According to the latest information, the Syrian suspected of planning to attack Berlin Airport worked for the White Helmets in Idlib. Honestly, it is scary to imagine how many such fighters generously funded by the West are hiding under the title of the White Helmets.

Today the world got some fantastic news: the US Department of State discontinued funding of the White Helmets, an NGO operating in Syria. Why? Was the latest video bad? Or maybe there is some other reason? To be honest, it would be important to know how much money the White Helmets received directly from the US Government and from the governments of other states, including those that attacked Syria recently. I believe this is vital to understanding how this finely tuned producer of fakes operates.

I have one more point for the journalists who were so interested to know how much the Syrians who came to The Hague were paid. Why don’t they ask how much the White Helmets have been paid? This is the gist of the problem.

To be honest, we do not know precisely. It is a matter for future investigations by journalists. Why was the funding stopped? Is this the final decision or was it just suspended and will be resumed later on? It is hard to predict but I think this is a very urgent issue today.

I think that after the recent exposure, the criminal media activities of the White Helmets will have long-term repercussions. Much will depend on what they will do and, most important, have already done. I am absolutely sure there will be many more exposures.

I would like to say that the White Helmets project created during the Syrian crisis stands apart from others in scale. Not everyone received an Oscar or was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for such activities. Of course, this is not the only case in the history of international relations when fake staged videos were used in the adoption of major decisions by the international community.



Accusations against Russia in connection with the alleged chemical attack in Douma

We continue to be accused of participating in the chemical attack that allegedly took place in Douma, Syria, on April 7. For all its absurdity, and despite clearly being staged, the campaign does not abate. We have repeated many times that we are not saying anyone should be taken at their word, but rather that there should be a thorough investigation of what happened in Douma, including by the OPCW. Unfortunately, all the so-called “experts” do not have any factual information from the ground, even that which we are ready to provide, preferring instead to rely on the White Helmets’ fake materials.

I would like to recall an example from recent history.

On August 6, 2007, Georgian leadership accused Russia of launching a missile strike at a radar station near the town of Gori. Local television channels showed President Mikheil Saakashvili and other leaders inspecting fragments of an unexploded missile found near the Tsitelubani village. Based on this broadcast, a group of “independent experts” issued a statement that contained accusations against Russia, based on one-sided and unverified information provided by Saakashvili’s team. This group refused to contact Russian experts. At the time, this staged incident aggravated relations. Today, the White Helmets and other groups in Syria are doing something similar, but on a much larger scale.

In 2007, a group of Russian experts was sent to Georgia to join the investigation. The data they collected refuted the version of Saakashvili’s team. Saakashvili refused to cooperate further and promptly destroyed the missile’s central section, which was the main piece of evidence.

The conclusions drawn by the international community leave no doubt about who committed aggression and how. Unfortunately, the aggression was launched by Saakashvili against South Ossetia. Let us hope that these tragic pages of history we all witnessed will not repeat, although we are seeing just the opposite.



Latest on the Skripal case

As we said earlier, there is a piece of sensational news regarding the Skripal case. We took notice of information that appeared on social media about British Government’s use of the so-called D-notice – an official ban on covering certain facts in the media due to the high sensitivity of the information – in order to obstruct journalists’ investigation into the Sergey and Julia Skripal poisoning incident in Salisbury on March 4. In particular, the British Government has reportedly banned any mention in the media in connection with the Skripal case of Pablo Miller, a MI6 agent who is believed to be Skripal’s handler, and is also preventing the release of information about Miller’s connections with Orbis Business Intelligence, one of whose officers was the author of the so-called Trump dossier – ex-MI6 officer Christopher Steele. How perfectly everything fits together.

I think that honest and independent international journalists could take part in the efforts to establish the true picture of this crime, which official London is now so painstakingly trying to hide.

We continue to pay close attention to developments related to the Skripals. We are involved in a real way, not just formally, in the fate of the Russian citizens, and are practically attacking Britain to get access to or factual information about the Skripals’ whereabouts and their current condition.

We noted that the campaign launched by Britain in the media about this incident and used by London to make groundless accusations against Russia, has subsided noticeably. Apparently, when it came to the need for official London to provide clear answers to specific questions, all interest immediately vanished. We also see that the British media, which traditionally “dig deep” in such cases in order to find every bit of information, are not even trying to interview the Skripals. For some reason, there has been no leaked photo or video of these Russian citizens. There is no information about their actual condition, whereabouts, plans for the future, etc. This kind of behaviour leads us to reflect on the ​​harsh state censorship in the UK and the obvious attempts by London to prevent leaks this time, despite the fact that the entire previous stage was built around leaks. This time they are blocking everything. The leaks that are now being blocked, could confirm the involvement of the British authorities in this anti-Russian provocation, and that is precisely why they get blocked.

The UK population is kept in the dark regarding the key points of this case. The issue is about the use, according to Theresa May, of chemical weapons in the UK. I would like to know more. The information about the secret laboratory located near Salisbury in Porton Down is hushed up. The victims themselves, as we understand, were taken by the British special services to a safe place. To reiterate, we have no information about what is going on with the Skripals.

Today, a sensational statement was made by head of the OPCW Secretariat Ahmet Uzumcu to the effect that the amount of the agent used to allegedly poison the Skripals amounted to anywhere between 50 and 100 grams. According to experts, 50 to 100 grams of the chemical agent mentioned by the UK and inside the OPCW is enough to poison the residents of all neighbouring communities, not just two individuals. Meanwhile, the residents not only survived but function normally, at least, that’s what is claimed in a statement made on behalf of Yulia Skripal. Is this even possible? The questions are growing as to whether the statements officially released by the British Government contain at least a few of words of truth, or are just one big pack of lies.

The UK Government hasn’t provided any intelligible official answers to our reasonable and clear inquiries and refuses to maintain a dialogue with us in order to clarify the circumstances and the causes of the incident, and to identify the perpetrators. Our legitimate demands concerning consular access to these Russian citizens are being ignored. As we have been told, they fell victim to a chemical attack, but this remains to be verified. However, the fact that they have become the victims of a provocation does not need any proof. This situation is absolutely unacceptable.

As you may be aware, the Russian Embassy in London has been sending corresponding official inquiries to the Foreign Office on an almost daily basis. About 40 notes have already been sent, which contain about 60 questions. Two-thirds of them have not been answered at all, and the rest have been given formal answers, in which the British continue to distort the facts and use tough confrontational rhetoric, which only testifies to London's desire to intentionally further damage our bilateral relations.

No political statements, even at the highest level, all the more so, the rhetoric we hear in the public space, basically everything that official London is now using cannot replace professional discourse under the related international legal mechanisms.

In this regard, we pay special attention to the fact that, in response to our official inquiry regarding Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the CWC, Britain pointedly ignored a group of key questions. Specifically:

- Has the United Kingdom ever developed samples of a combat poisoning agent such as Novichok or the like?

Why is this such a difficult question? Everyone around the world who is following the Skripal case is interested in knowing this, isn’t it? If you do not want to provide the answer to Russia, provide it to others. The answer to this question is long overdue. Has Novichok ever been developed in the UK or not?

- What signs (markers) led to the conclusion that the agent used in Salisbury was of “Russian origin”?

- Does Britain have any control samples of the agent that the British refer to as Novichok?

These are simple questions that do not need lab tests or publication of classified information to be answered.

These questions remain unanswered. One thing is clear: London is not at all interested in finding the truth in this incident, but only seeks to inspire unsubstantiated public accusations against Russia and hide all the factual information on this issue.

I would like to believe that the UK, despite all the fundamental differences and problems that we have, will remain a civilised and responsible state capable of mustering enough strength to engage in a dialogue and cooperation on this issue, and not finally fall into an escalation and complete curtailment of bilateral relations.

We urge the UK to abandon its reckless policy with regard to Russia and move on to substantive and responsible interaction within the framework of international legal formats and mechanisms and on a bilateral basis. In particular, we expect London to maintain honest cooperation under the criminal proceedings initiated by Russia’s Investigative Committee on March 16 in connection with the Salisbury incident into the attempted murder and the corresponding requests of Russia’s Prosecutor General's Office for legal assistance sent to the British side.



Accusations by British Prime Minister Theresa May

I would like to remind you that the accusations the Prime Minister of Great Britain Theresa May took the liberty of making against Russia were based on three supposed pieces of evidence.

First. Theresa May’s government claimed that that they had identified the country that produced the agent allegedly used to poison the Skripals. This charge was dismissed by British experts by no less than the head of the Porton Down laboratory.

Second. London claimed (Prime Minister Theresa May and her Cabinet members said it a number of times) that only Russia could have a motive for poisoning the Skripals due to the history of our country’s “bad behavior” and because Russia sees some defectors as “justified targets for murder.”

This accusation was refuted by Russia with facts in hand by presenting real evidence of the UK’s regular violations of international law, ethics and morals in the name of achieving “national interests” as well as by listing some apparent motives for that provocation that London might harbor. One such motive is obvious – to discredit the Russian Federation on so-called chemical issues in Syria. Immediately after the Skripal provocation moved into its active phase, a fake video was released by White Helmets, who are also funded by the British authorities, including indirectly. And following that, missile strikes were launched on Syria with the UK’s participation. For that reason, one can endlessly speak about motives and the need to spin this case, and about official London’s involvement. This is just one example of a huge number of them.

Third. Prime Minister May’s government claimed that Novichok was allegedly produced only in Russia.



Results of an investigation in the Czech Republic regarding the possible production of Novichok chemical warfare agent in that country

As you may be aware, in his interview yesterday with the television channel Barrandov, Czech President Milos Zeman cited a report by Czech military intelligence and admitted that the military research institute in Brno produced and tested a small amount of the Novichok-class chemical agent.

As you may recall, following the absolutely groundless and unfounded accusations by Britain of Russia's involvement in the Skripal incident, we immediately insisted on the need to conduct a thorough verification by recognised international and Russian experts in order to investigate this crime. Back then, we noted that chemical warfare agents of this type (to reiterate, this is the Western classification) could be produced in many countries, including NATO members with specialised military chemical laboratories. When we mentioned the Czech Republic as a country with such capabilities (I'd like to point out that nobody was accusing anyone – we do not engage in things that London engages in), we were immediately attacked with accusations of spreading supposedly “fake news.” I will by all means prepare a selection of articles in the Western, namely, European press, which referred to our statements as “fake news.” We were also accused of wanting to completely confuse everyone. As you may recall, almost all Czech leaders, the political establishment, without even conducting a more or less thoughtful analysis of the issue, categorically denied this possibility and designated the statement of the Russian side as the main reason for the decision to expel three Russian diplomats from the country.

A couple of weeks later, President of the Czech Republic Zeman announced that a military research institute in Brno used to manufacture Novichok. These statements must be followed by some other statements, in particular, by the Czech Republic.

To reiterate, only a few politicians had the courage not to yield to the general hysteria that has been deliberately whipped up and to call for a thorough investigation.

The outcome? As soon as an independent and unbiased analysis of the arguments provided by Russia is carried out, there immediately appears the truth, which is very uncomfortable for those who initiated this anti-Russian campaign. British experts admitted that they do not have evidence of the Russian origin of Novichok. Now, the Czech Republic confirms the validity of the concerns expressed by Russia. Once again, I will remind you of the epithets directed at us for the information that we openly shared. It is no coincidence that from the very outset London did its best to keep Russian experts from participating in the investigation and to deny them access to the samples of the agent which was used to commit the crime. As we understand, the only reason for that was the fear that this entire clever ploy would collapse and the truth would be discovered. And they were right to fear it. As they say in the Czech Republic, “pravda vitezi,” which means “the truth wins out.”

As you can see, the Czech Republic acted honestly and courageously by officially acknowledging and releasing this information. I want to remind everyone, including the citizens of this country, that it was London that involved the Czech Republic in this confrontation with Russia, and it was the pressure of the British authorities, which led to the expulsion of Russian diplomats. Now, it turns out that there were no grounds for this campaign. All charges, the so-called three basic pieces of evidence, did not hold up even three weeks.

Now, we are expecting an answer from other countries, which we mentioned and which had and still have the capability to produce Novichok.

There’s one more question that I would like to ask: what about NATO? It wasn’t aware that Novichok was synthesised in the Czech Republic literally a year ago? Do you believe that? Moreover, we mentioned that there are NATO laboratory specialists in the Czech Republic who deal with such matters. Does anyone believe that the North Atlantic Alliance was not aware of Novichok being synthesised in the Czech Republic? Of course, NATO was more than just aware of it. Now here is a good question: Who participated in supervising these programmes on behalf of NATO, how were they supervised and at what level? This is my first question. The second question is what other NATO member countries (I would like to get an official NATO statement) were engaged in similar research?

We noted the fact that a group of 60 European MPs sent an open letter to the governments of the EU member states urging them to follow the lead of the governments of Great Britain and Iceland and to refuse to attend official matches of the FIFA World Cup in Russia. I could have let it go unnoticed, but this letter once again stated that the “Salisbury attack” is one of the most recent “mockeries” of European values by our country’s leadership. I would like to advise the European MPs to read the news, or to play football. It helps.



Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s statements on Iran’s nuclear programme

The issues of Iran’s nuclear programme are being discussed. We would like to see another term used – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as agreed. However, we hear in the media, and from officials, the term Iran’s nuclear programme, unfortunately.

We have received a large number of questions asking for comments on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement on the alleged ongoing military component of Iran’s nuclear programme.

We draw your attention to the IAEA Secretariat’s statement of May 1, which said that as early as 2015 the agency’s Director General Yukiya Amano laid out his evaluation of the data available at the Secretariat on Tehran’s “presumed research” in the military nuclear field. The IAEA Council of Governors pursuant to this evaluation finally closed that dossier in its resolution of December 15, 2015.

Clarifying the above issues was a key condition for the launch of the practical implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as per UNSC Resolution 2231. Consequently, the international community recognised this issue as settled.

I would like to stress that the IAEA monitors Iran more than it does any other country today. Within the “nuclear deal,” Tehran agreed on the application of an Additional Protocol to the agreement on comprehensive guarantees, which is the IAEA’s key tool to confirm that nuclear material in Iran is used exclusively for peaceful purposes. This is exactly the main goal of the JCPOA. The IAEA Director General has noted several times the unprecedentedly high level of cooperation between the agency and Iran, reconfirming that Iran is fully living up to its obligations. The IAEA has no problems regarding the application of the Additional Protocol in the Islamic Republic of Iran or regarding access to any facilities the IAEA is interested in.

We consider it unacceptable to replace the agency’s instruments in the field of guarantees and well-established monitoring practices that have proven their effectiveness with innuendoes, speculation and other unverified information, which is abundant in the media now.

We proceed from the fact that all the issues related to IAEA inspections in Iran should be resolved exclusively within the agency’s purview. Any problems regarding the implementation of the JCPOA proper should be discussed solely by the joint commission of the six world powers and Iran. The plan envisages the mechanisms that are required for that.

Russia will continue fulfilling its commitments under the document and will follow this principled line as long as the other participants act in accordance with the provisions of the agreement and UN Security Council Resolution 2231.



Situation in Venezuela

On May 20, a presidential election will take place in Venezuela. The current president and several opposition candidates are set to run. The voting preparations are fully underway. We have received firsthand information from President of the National Electoral Council of Venezuela Tibisay Lucena, who visited Moscow on April 24-25 and met with the management of the Russian Central Election Commission as well as senior officials of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Federation Council. The Central Election Commission accepted Venezuela’s invitation and will send its delegation to take part in the international observation of the upcoming election.

According to Russia’s data and the available opinion polls, the people of Venezuela are going to take part in the voting. This explicitly shows that people are tired of violence and radical manifestations and want all disputes and problems to be solved in a civilised manner.

At the same time, we have to state with regret that calls from outside the country to boycott the election do not abate. As the date draws nearer, Washington is building up pressure on Caracas using unilateral restrictive measures in an attempt to “isolate” Venezuela and bring about a violent coup in that country. The ultimate goal of stricter sanctions, including oil and financial sanctions, is obvious: to provoke a debt crisis followed by the aggravation of the social and economic situation. We regularly see similar scenarios used in other countries. They create grounds for people’s unrest and thus prod them to riot with predicted negative and possibly catastrophic consequences.

We are confident that, whatever the reasons and forms of political struggle used by various forces in Venezuela, and whatever the opposing views they stick to, this confrontation must by no means result in the destruction of Venezuelan statehood.

We believe that the international community’s role is not in setting Venezuelans against each other. It is necessary to help them find internal accord regarding the need to strengthen their state. We are glad that Venezuela’s neighbours in Latin America, despite strong pressure, seek the resolution of the existing problems exclusively within the framework of the law, through a broad national dialogue.

Every state has the right to choose the form of democracy in accordance with constitutional and legal procedures without being pressured from the outside. We unfailingly call for agreement and domestic stability, which will allow to determine the future economic and political development of Venezuela on the basis of healthy competition among the constructive political forces. The upcoming election is an important opportunity to reach civil reconciliation. It would be shortsighted and counterproductive to lose or intentionally ignore it.

We sincerely wish a well-organised, peaceful and successful voting on May 20 to the friendly people of Venezuela.



Developments in Armenia

On May 8, the Armenian National Assembly will elect a new prime minister in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia. The election on May 1 failed to produce results.

At present, the situation in Yerevan and the rest of the country has stabilised somewhat.

As we have said repeatedly, we believe that fraternal Armenia should resolve its domestic problems under the country’s Constitution and law and through a constructive dialogue between the country’s various political forces. Yesterday the Foreign Ministry reaffirmed this position of principle in a statement.

As for our bilateral relations, we are committed as ever to continue working with our Armenian colleagues towards developing and strengthening our cooperation as two allies and participants in the integration process.



The anniversary of the May 2, 2014 events in Odessa

May 2 was the fourth anniversary of the bloody events in 2014 when dozens of people were burned alive and hundreds were injured in the Odessa Trade Unions House following an attack by Ukrainian radicals.

Those who are responsible for this terrifying tragedy that shook the world have not been brought to justice yet. Despite the calls of international and non-governmental human rights organisations to conduct a thorough investigation into this heinous crime, Kiev continues to cover the instigators and executors. Moreover, those who managed to escape the pursuit by these animals are currently under investigation or in prison.

The Ukrainian authorities are demonstrating cynicism that is beyond comprehension. This is not the first time. On the day of the anniversary of this terrible tragedy they authorised a march by extremists from radical right-wing groups through the central part of Odessa, which demeaned the memory of the victims of the May 2 massacre. Clearly, the march was aimed at bullying the victims’ families and other city residents and showing them the genuine master of Ukraine today.

Obviously, in these circumstances it makes no sense to demand that this country’s incumbent leadership find and punish those guilty of the Odessa tragedy, especially since the leadership’s Western patrons, who demonstrate so much concern about human rights in other countries, are reluctant to notice anything amiss in this case. We can only remind the time-servers in Kiev that crimes against humanity are not subject to a statute of limitation. Sooner or later, history will reward all according to their merits.



Anniversary of Dmitry Ganin’s murder in Estonia

I would like to focus your attention on the press release by the Russian Embassy in Estonia on what happened 11 years after the Bronze Night took place in Tallinn. The mass unrest that followed the Estonian police’s actions to disperse those who opposed the monument to the Soldier Liberator’s transfer from the city centre resulted in the death a 20-year-old Russian citizen, Dmitry Ganin.

On April 27, a ceremony to commemorate Dmitry Ganin took place at his grave in Mustvee. The ceremony was attended by Dmitry’s mother Vera Ganina, Russian diplomats, Dmitry’s friends and representatives of compatriots’ organisations.

The murder investigation has not made any headway, despite promises made by Estonian officials to get to the bottom of this crime. The only thing we know is that those who beat Dmitry were fined. The police have not identified the one who inflicted the fatal blow. Last year, the criminal case was closed under the pretext that the statute of limitations had expired.

In 2015, the office of the Russian Investigative Committee in the Leningrad Region opened its own criminal investigation into Dmitry Ganin’s murder. Russia has repeatedly asked Tallinn for materials in the framework of the bilateral agreement on legal assistance, but Estonia once again refused to cooperate due to “personal data protection” (we have discussed this a lot.) This reaffirms that Estonian law enforcement agencies were not interested in a real investigation from the very beginning and took every chance possible to drop it.

The decision of the Estonian prosecutor’s office to dismiss the case led to other needless tensions in relations between Russia and Estonia, which are not at their best right now.

The events of the Bronze Night will be painful to remember for our compatriots for a long time. We express our sincere support for Dmitry Ganin’s mother and we shall continue to provide her with all necessary assistance.

Let me repeat, this was a statement issued by our Embassy, but the Foreign Ministry completely agrees with it.



US and Turkish assistance to establishing armed forces in Kosovo

Reports have emerged the US and Turkish contingents as part of the Kosovo Force (KFOR) with the involvement of the Camp Bondsteel military base are providing assistance to the authorities of Pristina in establishing a full-fledged army, in violation of the KFOR mandate envisaged by the UN Security Council Resolution 1244. This is being done through special training of the Kosovo Security Force servicemen, whose main task is responding to emergencies.

As before, we operate on the premise that creating a Kosovo army violates international law as it contradicts UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which implies military presence in the region solely on the basis of the UN Security Council mandate – namely, the Kosovo Force, which now includes primarily the contingents of NATO member states.

Also, this step would be extremely irresponsible as regards security in the region and the European continent as a whole. A new force emerging in the Balkans in the form of the Kosovo armed forces would run counter to the Florence agreement –Article IV of Annex 1-B of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Agreement), approved by UNSC Resolution 1031 – which is meant to support regional stability with assistance from the OSCE. It would mean that an army structure that is not controlled by the country’s authorities has emerged on the territory of Serbia, a party to the Florence agreement.



Removal of a Russian flag by US authorities

Just like last October, we again have to protest the unlawful removal of a Russian flag from a property belonging to Russia. Six months ago, this happened in Washington and San Francisco, where the buildings of the Russian Trade Representation and the Consulate General were seized, respectively. The same has occurred again recently at the residence of Russia's Consul General in Seattle.

The very fact that these facilities, which have been in use for diplomatic and consular services for many decades, have been arbitrarily denied immunity raises serious questions. But even so, they remain Russia’s property. As the owner, Russia in no way consented to the intrusion into its buildings or the removal of flags from them. This was done by the people who entered our premises without invitation, broke open the gate and the entrance door, and conducted a total search without any right, and have held sway since then, like raiders.

Russia’s officials are not allowed to enter six properties it owns in the United States. These are two buildings in San Francisco, one in Washington and one is Seattle, and the suburban compounds of our Embassy and the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations. Such a violation of its own laws by Washington had never occurred in the history of the Russian-US relations.

We were not even allowed to hold traditional holiday events to mark Victory Day at the country retreats near Washington and New York, which were seized in late 2016. Such events had been organised on May 9 annually together with diplomats from CIS countries, and our American friends attended them as well.

What is happening is essentially a rejection of the inviolability of property rights, something the United States has long prided itself on, and the erasure of our brotherhood in arms during World War II. For decades, we held commemorative events at our properties and invited our American colleagues and colleagues from other permanent and diplomatic missions, in particular, in NYC. This is also about the abuse of Russia's national symbols, which comes amid mass Russophobic propaganda, not to mention acts of aggression against sovereign states. Something is broken in American democracy.



Answer to a Greek journalist’s question regarding the Cyprus settlement

I would like to answer a question from a journalist at a Greek publication that concerns the settlement of the Cyprus dispute, particularly the agenda of the permanent dialogue between the foreign ministries of Russia and Turkey on the matter. The foreign ministries of Russia and Turkey discuss a wide array of issues. During their April 28 meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu spoke about the settlement, among other issues.

Russia reaffirmed its principled support for a comprehensive, fair, enduring and viable solution to the dispute. It is exclusively within the ambit of the parties to the problem to decide on domestic Cyprus aspects of its settlement. Russia will lend its support to the agreement reached by Cyprus communities. We consider unacceptable any foreign imposition of artificial settlement plans and deadlines. It is our belief that the existing system of external guarantees is outdated and does not reflect the current realities and the legal and international status of the Republic of Cyprus. We are confident that guarantees accorded by the UN Security Council would be the most effective measure to ensure the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of a reunified Cyprus.

Attempts to reconsider the UN-approved basis for negotiations are a matter of concern. Numerous resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council determine the principles of the settlement process and must remain the mainstay of the relevant negotiations. We believe that the possibilities for the UN facilitation of the final resolution have not been completely exhausted. We see no alternative to the UN in this respect.



A tweet by Latvian Justice Ministry Parliamentary Secretary Janis Iesalnieks

We received a question regarding a statement by Parliamentary Secretary of Latvia’s Justice Ministry Janis Iesalnieks’ statement on the Twitter social network, in which he threatened opponents of education reform with deportation to Russia. We were asked to comment on this.

We saw this message by the Latvian official, which was timed to coincide with the May 1 march in Riga against the total conversion of school education to the Latvian language. This is an undeniable Russophobic statement.

Such outbursts by a representative of the Latvian government are a graphic illustration of the dual and hypocritical policy towards our compatriots. What integration of society can be mentioned, when a considerable part of the population is deprived of basic rights, and dissenters are shown the door. While a blind eye is turned, as usual, to nationalist sorties, criminal cases are opened against Russian-speaking human rights activists for far less serious faults on the alleged charges of “instigating ethnic and racial hatred.”

Finally, where is the reaction to this absolute lawlessness from Latvia’s European Union partners and relevant international organisations, so scrupulous about human rights? We would like to hear from them.




Answers to media questions:



Question:

What does Russia think of US policy towards Venezuela becoming more aggressive?



Maria Zakharova:

I have replied to this question at some length. One can say with confidence that Venezuela is not the only target for the United States. The same policy is directed at other countries.

We believe that it is absolutely unacceptable. The people of Venezuela can see for themselves the destructive consequences that such interference by, among others, the United States, can have.



Question:

We have been talking here about the unfairness of the situation in Syria and the policy of the West towards Russia, which has been revealing the truth to the world. However, in the West they don’t hear this truth, relying instead on the disinformation that is being fed to them. What can Russia do to counter this? What can be done in response to the information about ongoing efforts to stage another demonstrative “chemical attack” in Syria?



Maria Zakharova:

First of all, as soon as we have information on this we will make it public. Because it is important, should we get hold of such information, to share it and to be able to prevent another round of provocations and use of force under a made-up pretext.

Turning to the question of greater spread of information in the West, we need to understand that Western societies are not uniform. Ordinary people are only very remotely concerned with what is happening. The political establishment is more a maker of news rather than its recipient. It makes little sense to try to convince people of the facts when their livelihood depends on lobbying a certain policy. I repeat, they receive money for promoting a particular policy. But we try. We use official channels as well, as we did with the OPCW event. The West did all it could to make sure that Russia could not physically hold that briefing. We weren’t going to show prohibited materials or use restricted data. It was simply an opportunity to talk to the people who were directly involved in what the OPCW says happened, in an attempt to uncover the truth. Why try to prevent it from taking place?

I repeat that if we learn about a provocation in the works we will go public. We will analyse it as we have been, offer our assessment, try to find opportunities to work with primary sources and do all we can to make sure that our partners have access as well.



Question:

You talked about the opinions of the Czech Republic regarding Novichok. Do you think this move by Czech President Milos Zeman, which actually discredits the British version, will lead to a British response against him? Are any provocations likely?



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot say that Czech President Milos Zeman reported any information that we did not have. We talked about this; we had the relevant information and we openly shared it with the public. Regrettably, at that point, part of that country’s political leadership dismissed it as false. President Zeman asked his subordinates to give him precise information based on the reports of the agencies involved and made this statement yesterday. He said himself it made no sense to conceal anything. We talked about this several weeks ago.

It was strange for us to hear such a multitude of personal insults hurled at us by the people who were supposed to use their authority not so much for verification (there is nothing to verify) but for giving out information. Instead they insulted us, saying that Russian diplomats should be expelled from the Czech Republic for what they said. The worst thing is that Russian diplomats were expelled from the Czech Republic on the grounds that they made a statement regarding the Czech Republic’s ability to produce Novichok. Will there be any investigation or sanctions following the statement of the president of a sovereign state? We would like to hope that London will accept at least this factual information. It is possible to exert strong pressure at this point, but the truth will eventually surface like it did in Iraq. Everyone learned the truth despite pressure for many years and the mysterious deaths of people who protested the official Western position with facts in hand. At any rate, now everyone knows the truth about Iraq and it is impossible to turn away from it. It will be the same in this case.

We asked NATO if it would share with us official information on which of its other members are producing, have produced or are developing the substance classified in the West as Novichok. This information will become public knowledge anyway. Do it now, do not suppress this information until it appears from unofficial sources. Repeat the courageous move of President Zeman and do what you should do – answer the questions as to what other NATO members or NATO agencies took part in developing this substance, what countries cooperated with other NATO members, how they exchanged technology, how and where the toxic agent was distributed in NATO, what conclusions have been made and what results were achieved. It was stated that this substance was destroyed on Czech territory. Who recorded this? There are experts after all. How was this documented? We asked NATO all these questions today and they should be answered.

It is impossible to imagine that the NATO Secretary General will say that NATO did not know about the developments in the Czech Republic (I hope he will be asked these questions in the near future). This would be untrue. A major structure legally present on the territory of a member country is bound to know about such developments. Moreover, as soon as this information appeared, NATO should have contacted Prague and asked the relevant questions. Why did NATO conceal this information from the public and its member countries? When we talk about NATO we have the United States in mind. This is clear. Of course, the Secretary General represents a different country but all NATO leadership and funding is in US hands. On the one hand, the United States has information from NATO that one member country developed the toxic agent, on the other, it is saying that it received an exhaustive report from Britain that it was developed only in Russia. How could this be? This is an obvious discrepancy that is called a lie by most people. Now the NATO Secretary General and our other partners will have to come up with explanations.



Question:

Taking into account the information from the Czech Republic and the fact that the US Department of State cut off funding to the White Helmets, and recalling that last week Deutsche Welle practically discredited the Western version that the chemical attack had been carried out by Bashar al-Assad’s troops, stating that it was a provocation – would you say that this is a turning point in the information war against Russia, which has been accused of chemical attacks?



Maria Zakharova:

I think I have given a comprehensive answer to this question. I don’t know about a turning point, but I know it will be a story similar to Colin Powell’s vial. The question is, what everybody is trying to achieve. We are operating according to the latest statements about needing to work with London through specialised agencies to find out the truth in this matter, provided that Great Britain has not made a deliberate political decision to conceal everything from everyone because it is involved somehow. We say the same for the United States. Despite what we can see it is necessary to cooperate in various areas. Our position is clear. The big question is what results the West is trying to achieve.



Question:

Does the Foreign Ministry have any information on heads of state and foreign ministers that will be attending Vladimir Putin’s inauguration in Moscow on May 7?



Maria Zakharova:

The Presidential Executive Office comments on all things related to the President’s schedule, based on how responsibilities are currently delegated.

I will look into visits by foreign ministers and get back to you.



Question:

Yesterday, The Guardian ran an article about the UK’s push to strengthen the anti-Russia alliance with the EU and the United States which was achieved by London by diplomatic expulsions. The UK will use all large international events, including the G7 and G20 summits, to condemn Russia’s position on Ukraine, Syria and the Skripal case. At the same time the article claims that a trend is emerging where diplomats begin to view Russia as a pathological liar. What is your comment?



Maria Zakharova:

As to the first issue, judging by the content of the article they just confessed what they have been doing (if the newspaper had really got hold of such key information). I think it is evident why they are doing this – there is a multitude of motives: the international agenda, the domestic problems that are impossible to account for without an external factor. One of the motives is Brexit, with negotiations facing a lot of difficulties. We have also seen the situation unfold around the UK’s Home Office, the migration scandal. They need to constantly divert public attention. We have talked about that, perhaps, not so much in a conceptual way but rather by offering concrete examples to show what Great Britain has been up to. This is no news. We acknowledge it almost at every briefing.

When we are told that a certain agency, the British media regulator Ofcom, which is watching over RT, receives some feedback from disgruntled viewers unhappy about the way the Russian TV channel covers the situation in Syria, we understand what is going on perfectly well. This article proves that Ofcom is not an independent body and that it is not its users or viewers in the UK who are unhappy about RT content. It is another state-designed campaign.

We see the media being manipulated by independent structures who keep scaring Russian media outlets operating on the UK territory that they will have to terminate their activities.

As to lying, we have talked about it today. I gave an example of how we produced information that Novichok or its analogue were manufactured on the territory of the Czech Republic, and we were promptly accused of lying. Who was lying in the end? They were. Whereas we uncover and disclose information (not immediately, since evidence needs to be collected), for example, in the White Helmets case, the whole story of how fakes appear, how they are funded and produced. If they have similar examples to show that we were wrong or that we had planned some acts, we are ready to answer all the questions as we always do.

Take the example of the “smart” and “nice” US missiles. No one in the United States has commented on that story so far. They were shown missiles with holes that had been clearly downed by air defence systems. Meanwhile, they claimed to the whole world that all the missiles (the word ‘all’ was heard a number of times, including from US President Donald Trump’s lips) hit their targets. This is about who is lying. Let us rest on facts, shall we?

Today, after the statement by Czech President Milos Zeman, an important stage began which shows who lies and who is trying to find the truth.



Question:

A week ago or so the Russian Embassy in the UK said that London will no longer recognise Russian academic degrees. Three days ago the UK Embassy in Russia refuted this. Can you clarify?



Maria Zakharova:

I have no information on the subject at this time. I will make enquiries and get back to you.



Question:

Late last year the heads of state of Azerbaijan and Armenia agreed to step up talks over the Nagorno-Karabakh issue after the elections. Given the recent events in Armenia and the fact that the new prime minister in that country will surely not be a member of the Republican Party, will it be possible in your opinion to step up talks?



Maria Zakharova:

Armenia is going through difficult times politically. I think we need to wait for the political situation to stabilise, and for the people, political forces and movements to decide on who will lead the country, which we hope will be achieved legally and constitutionally. After that a foreign policy course will become possible, which involves the Karabakh settlement that you have mentioned.

From my part, and apart from what I have already said I want to state that we have been consistent in our policy regarding this issue and are not abandoning it. We will continue to provide our assistance to the parties. But, I repeat, we need to wait for the political situation in Armenia to stabilise.



Question:

Two weeks ago you announced a major joint Russian-Azerbaijani event, a documentary exhibition marking the 95th birth anniversary of Heydar Aliyev, which is to take place on May 10 in Baku. Will there be representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry present?



Maria Zakharova:

Our Embassy officials will attend. As for other officials, I will make enquiries and get back to you.


***


I want to inform you that our next briefing will be off-site. It’s been a long time since we had our last off-site briefing. Traditionally, we long to visit Crimea as soon as spring comes. So our next briefing will take place on May 16 in Kerch. The time, the exact location and the accreditation information will be posted on the Foreign Ministry website early next week. We invite you all to attend. As usual, I will have a surprise waiting for you. You won’t be disappointed, I promise. See you in Crimea.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3208876

[Alex Him]

Acting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the flower laying ceremony at memorial plaques to mark Victory Day, Moscow, May 8, 2018



8 May 2018 - 12:28








Friends,

We come together annually at this time of the year to mark the greatest date in the history of our country, Victory Day, the day when we celebrate the great achievements of our fathers and grandfathers, and a day of sorrow for those who did not return from the battlefield. Those included employees of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs and the People's Commissariat for Foreign Trade, whose memory has been eternised in this room. As we render homage to their feats, let us remember the efforts of those who operated on the foreign policy front to provide a diplomatic backing to the fight of the peoples of the Soviet Union against Hitler’s Germany.

This year, we are marking a number of important anniversaries. Primarily, we are marking 75 years since the Battle of Stalingrad, which turned the tide not only in the Great Patriotic War, but also in the Second World War. This year, we will also mark 75 years since the Moscow Conference of the Foreign Ministers of the USSR, the United States and the United Kingdom and the top-level Tehran Conference among the leaders of the Anti-Hitler Coalition.

Let me echo what has been said on a number of occasions already: common threats and a common enemy enabled countries with opposing social and economic systems to unite their efforts for the sake of a shared Victory, and to prevent a catastrophe for humanity. I strongly believe that this experience must teach us all a lesson, which is especially relevant in today’s international environment.

We must also be mindful of other lessons of this era, when nationalist selfishness and the unwillingness to respect the principles of equal and indivisible security prevailed, when attempts were made to ensure one’s security to the detriment of others. I am obviously referring to the Munich Agreement, which was concluded 80 years ago in 1938, becoming the pinnacle of the appeasement policy by Western powers with regard to the Third Reich. It was the Munich Agreement that paved the way to the Second World War. We must also be mindful of this sad experience in today’s environment.

Russia will never act to the detriment of security of any other country. We are always open to an honest and sincere dialogue, respecting the interests of all our partners and committed to balancing all the interests. This remains the case today, as President of Russia Vladimir Putin said yesterday during his inauguration. We will be consistent in our efforts to promote these principles and will do everything to prevent the horrors that humanity faced during the Second World War from ever happening again.

I would like to once again congratulate our dear veterans on this great occasion, and wish them good health and keep working for the benefit of our Ministry.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3210621






Acting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Heiko Maas Moscow, May 10, 2018



10 May 2018 - 12:12








Mr Minister,

Ladies and gentlemen,

A very warm welcome to Moscow. I am really happy to be meeting with you personally. In addition to a message of greetings we have sent to you, I would like to personally congratulate you on your appointment as Minister for Foreign Affairs in the coalition government.

We pin great hopes on attaining mutual understanding on the entire range of matters concerning our bilateral ties, as well as international affairs, inasmuch as the Federal Republic of Germany is ready for this.

Russian-German relations are relations between two leading European countries. The situation in Europe has always depended on the tenor of our ties. Critical periods in our relations affected the whole of the European continent, but when Russia and Germany came to an agreement, this benefitted all European nations. Of course, the historical reconciliation between our nations that was largely promoted by our support for the reunification of Germany has had a major effect on the future of Europe. We hoped that the reunification of Germany would be followed by a real unification of Europe and the creation of a common European home based on equal and indivisible security. Regrettably, this did not come to pass, but we have not abandoned this strategic goal.

We are ready to look for solutions that would be acceptable to our German and other Western partners even in this situation, which we consider absolutely unacceptable and which has developed through no fault of ours. As you know, this situation continued to darken cooperation prospects in Europe as well as on the international stage in general.

I hope that we will speak frankly with one another. I appreciate that you have decided to come to Moscow for such an open discussion so soon after your appointment. This is much more useful than microphone diplomacy.

Once again welcome to Moscow.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3213131






Acting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Heiko Maas, Moscow, May 10, 2018



10 May 2018 - 15:39








Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to once again welcome to Moscow my colleague, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany, Heiko Maas, who is on his first visit to our country as foreign minister. We are pleased to be able to renew our contacts at this level at this early stage of the new German government’s activity. The talks, which have already begun, will continue during the working breakfast, and have been quite productive so far.

We have substantively discussed the entire range of bilateral and international matters. As far as I understand, we share an interest in maintaining regular dialogue between Russia and Germany. We believe this is important, especially given the current situation in Europe and the world in general. For its part, Russia is willing to work together with Berlin on a wide range of issues of mutual interest relying on the solid foundation build over the years, which we would like to preserve.

We noted with satisfaction that there has been steady growth in trade since the beginning of 2017, and the dynamics of investment are improving. We see in this, among other things, the results of the Russian-German Working Group on Strategic Cooperation in the Economy and Finance. There are other mechanisms for bilateral practical cooperation, including the Russian-Bavarian Working Group on Promoting Economic Cooperation.

Energy is one of the most important components of our interaction. We note that the new German government continues to support the construction of the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline as a commercial project that meets the interests of the European countries, contributing to the diversification of natural gas supply routes to Europe, mitigating transit risks and improving common European energy security.

We expressed mutual satisfaction with the way events are being held as part of the Year of Regional and Municipal Partnerships, which will end in Germany in September. We agreed on how to best celebrate this event. We welcomed the interest shown by municipalities of our respective countries during the current Year in establishing partnership relations. Overall, we consider it important to keep up the momentum to further expand interregional exchanges, which is especially important in order to maintain mutual trust, to develop people-to-people contacts, and to strengthen the historically close ties between our peoples.

After the Year of Regional and Municipal Partnerships, we agreed to discuss another initiative and think about holding a cross-year of scientific and educational partnerships. I think this will be useful for promoting bilateral relations.

We are also interested in developing contacts between civil society organisations. In this regard, we believe the Petersburg Dialogue forum and the Potsdam Meetings dialogue platform are particularly important.

We agreed to promote cultural ties. Next year, we plan to hold the Russian Seasons festival in Germany, which took place in Japan in 2017, and is being held in Italy this year. I’m confident that German public will enjoy it.

With regard to foreign policy, we noted that the working mechanisms of the Interdepartmental High-Level Working Group on Security Policy became more active in late 2017. The meetings of the working subgroups held last year made it possible to prepare a plenary meeting of this Working Group, which will take place this year.

We touched upon the state of relations between Russia and the European Union. Russia has an interest in seeing a strong European Union that can act as a constructive and predictable partner and pursue a foreign policy based on European interests. We also touched upon the state of affairs in Russia-NATO relations. You are aware of our position and our assessment of NATO actions, which violate the previously agreed principle of equal and indivisible security whereby none of the Euro-Atlantic countries should improve their security at the expense of the security of others.

As for specific regional topics, we focused particularly on the situation following US announcing its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme. We believe it’s important for all the other participants of this plan to be able to quickly assess the situation, hold the necessary consultations and develop steps that would preserve this crucial document for regional stability and maintain the non-proliferation regime for weapons of mass destruction. We agreed to hold corresponding meetings with our German colleagues.

Just like Germany, we stand for full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures. Even if we have certain differences with regard to the implementation of this package, we focused on the need to at least fulfill the agreement reached by the leaders of Russia, Germany, Ukraine and France in Berlin in October 2016 regarding the Steinmeier Formula, which needs to be set down on paper. This concerns the special status of Donbass, the holding of elections and disengaging forces and materiel at specific sectors of the contact line, in particular, in Stanitsa Luganskaya.

We drew attention to the fact that the so-called law on the reintegration of Donbass, which was adopted by the Verkhovna Rada and signed by Ukrainian President Poroshenko without any mention of or any connection to the Minsk Agreements, is fraught with very dangerous consequences.

We also took a look at the situation with the Syrian settlement process. Here our positions align on the inviolability of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which says that it is up to the Syrians themselves, all ethnic and religious groups, to agree upon their country’s future with the assistance of the international community under the aegis of the UN. We drew attention to the fact that the missile strikes, carried out by the United States, Britain and France against Syria under an invented pretext and prior to an inspection by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) of the scene of the alleged chemical attack, are absolutely illegitimate. Without doubt, those strikes dealt a heavy blow to efforts to revitalise the political process. Nevertheless, the Russian side will push for the soonest possible resumption of the Geneva talks on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. On top of everything else, this stipulates unconditional respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. We agreed to conduct closer consultations on the issue within the work of the Interdepartmental High-Level Working Group on Security Policy.

This is the agenda that we have managed to cover today. I think that this is a useful start in our personal contacts. We will try to make them regular. I hope that our teams will also closely interact with each other on all these and other matters of mutual concern.



Question:

After the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme, Tehran announced that the deal will remain in force if its goals can be achieved through cooperation with other participants. Did you talk about that? Is such cooperation already being worked on? What steps can be taken to protect Iran from US sanctions and prevent Tehran’s withdrawal from this agreement?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are seriously concerned about the decision by the US President’s Administration to pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in what is a major violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 which approved that plan and made it part of international law.

We appreciate the Iranian government’s balanced reaction to this decision because it is necessary to assess all the consequences of Washington’s move. Haste would have certainly been counterproductive here. Russia, Germany, France, Britain, China and Iran are yet to conduct such an assessment. We are already working on it. Quite soon, we will compare opinions.

I would single out several points worth noting. You asked what steps can be taken to protect Iran from American sanctions. This is perhaps a slightly oversimplified approach because the point at issue here is more than just not resuming the anti-Iranian sanctions (as regards unilateral US sanctions, we can do nothing about that). The point is that this may not concern the lifting of the sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council. The lifting of the sanctions is not subject to revision. Unilateral American sanctions against Iran, if Washington tries again to apply this portion of restrictions extraterritorially, will, of course, undermine in the most serious manner the general situation in the region and in relations between the US and Europe, the US and Russia. We will assess this, including from the point of view of WTO norms and principles. Let me repeat, however, that this deal, as they call it, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, is not just about lifting the sanctions, but also about the need to stabilise the region and, most importantly, to strengthen the WMD non-proliferation regime. The harm that is being caused to these achievements is yet to be fully assessed, but it is very substantial.



Question:

What does Russia think about the escalation between Iran and Israel? Can this be linked with the withdrawal of the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action?



Sergey Lavrov:

We believe that this trend is rather alarming. It is our opinion that all issues need to be resolved through dialogue. In our contacts with Iranian and Israeli leaders, including at the May 9 meeting between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, we have repeatedly noted the need for both sides to avoid any actions that would provoke the other.

Iran and Israel assure us that they have no such intentions, but, as you know, incidents, nevertheless, happen. It is particularly alarming that they occur despite the fact that all of us have underscored our commitment to respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. Russian military experts are now analysing the incident on Syria’s Golan Heights that took place in the early hours of May 10 in great detail. They observed the incident. I believe that the relevant conclusions will be made public.



Question (retranslated from German, addressed to Heiko Maas):

Today, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, President of France Emmanuel Macron and President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko will meet in Germany to discuss the conflict in Ukraine without Russia’s involvement. Is this Berlin admitting that Russia does not have such significant sway with the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Heiko Maas):

Our colleague has mentioned a proposal to meet at the level of foreign ministers in the Normandy format. We are ready to examine this proposal. Today, we have even discussed specific matters to be addressed in this hypothetical meeting. Our German colleagues have their own ideas. We have said that, if they meet, the ministers must at the very least fulfill the instructions issued by the three presidents and the chancellor in Berlin 18 months ago. They must secure an agreement to disengage forces and materiel in Stanitsa Luganskaya. Today, the Ukrainian side is hampering this process, contrary to the OSCE’s repeated confirmations that it is possible to accomplish this task and to formalise the so-called Steinmeier Formula on vesting Donbass with a special status and on enacting the law on the “special status” in the context of holding elections. It appears that the ministers will be unable to report to their leaders that they are conscientiously performing their functions, unless they achieve this minimal goal.



Question:

Could you comment on the allegation voiced by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas that Russian foreign policy is increasingly hostile? Did you feel during today’s talks that German foreign policy has become tougher towards Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

I did not feel any hostility during today’s meeting and did not hear any accusations of Russia’s hostile actions in the international arena. We did not discuss it today. What we discussed was practical issues and we tried to focus on facts, not on emotional generalisations based on personal perceptions of what’s going on. We agreed, and this has been said a number of times, to rely on facts in our further contacts. I will give some examples because I did not talk about them in the introductory remarks whereas my colleague was referring to them now.

We explained down to the minutest detail that we consider the absence of any consistent response from the UK on the so-called Skripal affair as unproductive, at least regarding access to Russian citizen Yulia Skripal. This is an objective fact, and we are not out of bounds demanding that British leaders allow us to exercise our right. Mr Maas said that the British had briefed the German side in detail on the events in Salisbury, and it all looked convincing. We asked him to share this information since the British will not give us anything, since we want to operate on the basis of facts and not comments about how we should trust those who claim it is “highly likely” that Russia is to blame. I hope that now London will show more leeway on this issue and be more fact-based.

Talking about facts, I completely agree with what has been said about how the OPCW must not be compromised. We were worried when we found out that London had invited OPCW experts with the only purpose of confirming that the substance sampled for tests was exactly the one identified by the British. This does not correspond to the Chemical Weapons Convention. It is also a fact that the British were not entirely appropriate in their treatment of the OPCW.

We spoke today about the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria on April 7. We are confident that German experts, even though Germany did not attend the briefing by our delegation at the OPCW headquarters with witnesses of the April 7 incident in Douma, have access to the briefing materials (they were widely distributed). They contain facts. We will be ready to speak in detail on the basis of these facts and those that our partners can offer us.

My colleague just referred to a hacking attack, including on the German Foreign Ministry. In our talks it was noted that there are grounds, or a high probability that a group of hackers called Snake may be implicated in those attacks, a group whose roots allegedly trace back to Russian soil. This is the first time I have heard of it. But we confirmed that we are ready to discuss any concerns that emerge in this or other areas. However, we have not been contacted by the German side regarding that particular case in the framework of a legal assistance request.

We also expressed our regret that special bilateral consultations on cyber security scheduled for last March were cancelled by the German side without explanation, as I understand, due precisely to that hacking attack. But under those conditions there was even more reason to meet.

We would like to have frank discussions regardless of any problems or differences, in the same spirit as German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas and I spoke today.



Question:

Are there any specific plans to protect foreign firms, including German and Russian ones, against US sanctions on Iran?



Sergey Lavrov:

There’s a UN Security Council decision with regard to unlawful unilateral sanctions, which the United States had lifted. We cannot do anything to reverse this process. Once Washington decides on something, it sees it to completion. That’s clear now. President Trump said so. However, we will, first, ensure that this does not destroy the JCPOA. This is our common goal, and we confirmed it today. Second, we must preclude an extraterritorial impact on other partners of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this regard, there are WTO rules, and out-of-court reconciliation measures may also apply. As I understand it, this is precisely why our European partners want to join the Americans in this out-of-court arrangement. They think they may drive some kind of a bargain. I’m not sure if this will work out. I just want to note that this applies not only to Germany, France and Britain, but all other parties to the agreement as well. Probably, it would be incorrect if one, two or three members of this group push for an exemption for themselves and ignore the fact that other countries participated in the deal as well. Moreover, not only the P5+1, but most other countries in the world trade with Iran. It would be nice to think about them, too.



Question:

When will the Normandy format meeting take place?



Sergey Lavrov:

We supported this initiative and spoke in favour of doing our best in preparing this meeting. We need to negotiate the time of the meeting. I hope that it will not be put off for too long, but we need to come up with dates that everyone is comfortable with. This proposal was submitted just a couple of days ago. We must agree on a date and time that is convenient for the four ministers.



Question:

You have held the post of foreign minister for 14 years now and have seen many German foreign ministers. After today's talks, did you get the impression that there is continuity in Germany's policy towards Russia? Will you be able to continue to maintain with Mr Maas the same level of good cooperation you had with Mr Gabriel?



Sergey Lavrov:

We both spoke in favour of continuity. We have never seen eye to eye on everything. There’s an entire range of major issues of international politics on which our responses are divergent. We did not hide this today, either. Just like with Mr Gabriel and Mr Steinmeier, we are focused (as I understand, this is a shared approach) on candidly discussing all these issues and taking every opportunity to bridge the gaps in our positions wherever possible.



Question:

There are doubts in Ukraine about the Nord Stream-2 project. Is Russia prepared to provide guarantees that Ukraine will remain an important transit state?



Sergey Lavrov:

President Putin, senior officials of the Ministry of Energy of Russia and Gazprom have already stated that we do not mind keeping a certain amount of transit through Ukraine. Most importantly, it should be economically justified rather than politically imposed. We are ready for such consultations with Ukraine. We shared this with our German colleagues today.

There’s no doubt that Nord Stream-2 is a necessity. The project makes perfect economic sense and is lucrative for Europe. Suffice it to say that the length of the pipeline will be half the length of the pipeline that goes to Germany via Ukraine now, and transit costs will be about 33 percent lower than the current ones. So, the benefits for the European consumers are absolutely clear.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3213546






Acting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Nickolay Mladenov, Moscow, May 11, 2018



11 May 2018 - 13:30








Mr Mladenov,

Dear Nickolay,

We appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Middle East peace process with you, since you are in charge of this dossier at the UN as it enters a very important and critical stage. The developments around the Israeli-Palestinian settlement are a matter of grave concern for Russia. The situation there has hit an impasse that is becoming increasingly apparent, especially in light of the decision by the United States on Jerusalem. All countries have expressed grave concern as the situation is becoming increasingly explosive and can detonate any minute. There are casualties already.

At the same we are witnessing alarming attempts to reshape the entire geopolitical map of the Middle East and North Africa so as to relegate the Palestinian issue to the background. We strongly believe that this would be dangerous. No matter how important and urgent the crisis in Syria is, the developments in Yemen and around Iraq and Libya, and no matter the additional efforts we need to undertake in order to overcome conflict situations, we have no right to leave the Palestinian issue until later, since its settlement is essential for improving the overall environment in the region. In this connection, Russia calls for the Quartet on the Middle East consisting of the UN, Russia, the EU and the United States to be as proactive as possible. Unfortunately, this has not been the case so far.

Today, I am looking forward to discussing with you ways to ensure that the Quartet as the generally recognised intermediary in the Middle East issues and UN resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian settlement are not forgotten.

Once again, welcome to Moscow.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3218213






Excerpts from Acting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions following a Spartak-Dynamo football match Moscow, May 13, 2018



13 May 2018 - 20:08




Question:

Mr Lavrov, can you say a few words, please?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is sad, but there’s nothing we can do. A friend of mine asked me today if I really wanted to attend the match. I only have negative statistics regarding my attendance of such games. When I go, they mostly lose. I did not see a desire to win today, which is regrettable.

But this is what Spartak is so famous for and we love them for this.



Question:

[First Vice-President of the Football Union of Russia and a former Spartak player] Nikita Simonyan has said that we should take it up with the Spartak coach and the chief culprit, Massimo Carrera.



Sergey Lavrov:

You cannot determine everything. Spartak captures the Russian soul. You can be on top of the world today and fail tomorrow. I am sure that we must continue to look on the bright side.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3218992

[Alex Him]

Statement by Permanent Representative of Russia to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on developments in Ukraine and the need to fulfil the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, May 3, 2018



4 May 2018 - 12:22




Mr Chairperson,

We are seeing an escalation of tensions in Donbass. Kiev’s security forces are increasing the shelling of residential neighbourhoods and civilian infrastructure. They open fire not only at night but also during the day, using tanks, mortars and grenade launchers.

The punitive operation that is now called “operation of united forces” is taking an increasing toll. According to the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM), as a result of shelling from the deployment site of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), one civilian was wounded on April 22; two civilians were killed and one wounded on April 28 in Dokuchayevsk; a woman was wounded in the Petrovsky District in Donetsk on April 29. On the same day, civilians came under fire near the DPR’s checkpoint in Yelenovka, and one was injured. Two civilians were wounded in Verkhnetoretskoye on May 1. In all, five civilians were killed and 24 wounded in April by strikes committed by Ukrainian security forces. Residential buildings were damaged in Yasinovataya, Mikhailovka, Dokuchayevsk and Kominternovo.

Civilian victims should be listed in separate SMM reports. Security forces are deliberately targeting civilian facilities. This is unacceptable.

Despite security guarantees, the shelling of the Donetsk Filtration Station (DFS) continued. On April 28, SMM observers recorded five MLRS explosions in the area of Yasinovataya. As a result, SMM patrolling and the rotation of DFS workers were delayed for a day. This crude provocation by Ukrainian Armed Forces threatened the lives of observers and station workers and the failsafe operation of the station that supplies water to over half a million people on both sides of the contact line. This is a significant example of obstructing SMM operations. Other incidents pale in comparison.

Obstacles to SMM drones were created exclusively on the territory under Ukrainian Armed Forces control. On April 27, one mini drone was hit in the area of the AFU-controlled Novolugansky and another two drones were jammed near Talakovka and Bogdanovka.

We welcome the courage and self-sacrifice of the observers who continued to patrol the Donetsk Filtration Station and helped workers carry out repairs on other sections of the contact line. The SMM is thereby rendering real assistance to the people of Donbass. The local residents do appreciate it.

Apart from ensuring the operation of the DFS, the SMM restored the Vodafone mobile signal in a number of areas controlled by the self-defence fighters in the Donetsk Region.

Last year the Ukrainian authorities created unacceptable conditions for the work of Russian officers in the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination in Ukraine (JCCC). Their functions went to local authorities. The SMM also had to take on additional responsibilities. We urge the SMM leaders to spare no effort and time to coordinate security guarantees, and, if necessary, send more personnel to the communication cell with the JCCC.

Kiev is provoking tensions in Donbass and building up strength. The SMM confirms that the Ukrainian security forces have occupied the Zolotoye disengagement area where Ukrainian military positions, bunkers, trenches, mine fields, armed soldiers and combat hardware have been identified. The ceasefire is not being observed in a single area of the disengagement of forces. The Ukrainian Armed Forces are ignoring the willingness of the militia fighters to withdraw forces in Stanitsa Luganskaya.

During the week of April 23-29, the SMM recorded 201 pieces of military equipment belonging to the Ukrainian Armed Forces in violation of the disengagement line. For comparison, the self-defence fighters only have 16 pieces. Immediately beyond the disengagement line, observers recorded military hardware exclusively on Ukrainian territory – 68 pieces, including a concentration of tanks at the railway station in Rubeshnoye.

Kiev continues laying mines in Donbass. Observers discovered new mine fields in the Vodyanoye and Novotoshkovskoye areas.

Mr Chairman,

On April 30, the Kiev authorities announced the end of the so-called “antiterrorist operation.” Of course, no terrorists were found. From the beginning, this was a punitive action against those who did not accept the coming to power of a nationalist regime in Kiev. Just recall the video footage from Donbass in April 2014, when people were stopping Ukrainian Armed Forces (VSU) armoured vehicles with their bare hands. But four years ago, on May 2, 2014, Kiev launched an active phase in the military operation in Slavyansk and Kramatorsk, which involved the use of artillery, tanks and aircraft. Actually since that day, a count of mass-scale loss of life has been kept. In just four years, no less than 10,000 people have been killed, nearly 30,000 have been wounded, many buildings have been destroyed, and there are hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons. Responsibility for this rests entirely with the instigators of this bloody scheme, the Kiev leadership and their overseas sponsors.

The turning point in the conflict was the tragedy in Odessa on May 2, 2014. No fewer than 50 people were burned alive in the House of Trade Unions by a gang of nationalists. The authorities continue to cover up the masterminds and perpetrators of this crime. “The authorities have largely failed to investigate the deaths, focusing on alleged crimes committed by individuals seeking more autonomy.” This is a quote from a US Department of State report on Ukraine. Usually, the Department of State seeks to cover up for any crimes committed by Kiev. Similar conclusions have been drawn by international organisations and NGOs.

Here is another quote from the State Department report: “The government generally failed to take adequate steps to prosecute or punish most officials who committed abuses, resulting in a climate of impunity. Human rights groups and the United Nations noted significant deficiencies in investigations into human rights abuses committed by government security forces, in particular into allegations of torture, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, and other abuses reportedly perpetrated by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).”

The “antiterrorist operation” was essentially a nationalist action, inhuman in its goals, and criminal in its execution. It should have been stopped. A change in the operation’s format alone will hardly lead to peace. This is evident in the build-up of bellicose rhetoric, the inflow of imported arms to the VSU, and the arrival of Western instructors in Donbass. We caution Kiev against attempts to resume its reckless military gamble like we saw in the summer of 2014 and the winter of 2015.

We call on all OSCE member states to avoid becoming accomplices in Kiev’s military crimes, to avoid provoking a disastrous military clash in the centre of Europe.

Is Kiev’s indulgent attitude towards neo-Nazism worthy of support? In late April, various Ukrainian cities hosted marches in memory of SS Galicia Division. The glorification of the criminal Stepan Bandera has been raised to nearly the level of state cult status. The Right Sector, S14, and Azov are neo-Nazi organisations that operate in Ukraine freely and with impunity. We call on the SMM to promptly draft a thematic report on nationalist activities in Ukraine.

The crackdown on the rights of Russian speakers and ethnic minorities in Ukraine has reached an unprecedented scale in language policy, education and the media.

Kiev has demonstrated a contemptuous attitude towards its citizens living in Donbass in the social sphere as well. In January 2017, it imposed a trade blockade that broke off economic ties between businesses on both sides of the line of contact. Earlier, the region was cut off from Ukraine’s monetary and financial space. The distribution of pensions and social benefits has been made difficult at best. Kiev has created problems for those wishing to obtain IDs, diplomas or car registration plates.

The Kiev regime is attempting to exploit the population’s religious feelings and make them serve the political goals; it is provoking a split in society by encouraging attacks on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Much has been said about media freedom in Ukraine. The latest instances, to which we draw the attention of the Italian OSCE Chairmanship and the Representative on Freedom of the Media, are the following: On May 1, an Italian journalist, Giorgio Bianchi, who wanted to attend mourning events in Odessa, was detained at Kiev’s Borispol Airport. On the same day, Ukrainian border guards barred another journalist, Jan Rychetsky of the Prague-based Parliamentni Listy online resource from entering the country. His access has been banned until 2020.

In conclusion one has to reiterate the need for the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements, including all political aspects. The Ukrainian authorities continue to ignore them. Kiev does not want to accept solutions under the “Steinmeier formula.” They indulge in the fantasy that local elections in Donbass will take place only after the VSU “puts things in order” there. Otherwise, an election would allegedly not be honest and fair. “Fairness Kiev-style” was demonstrated by the elections in Ukraine’s 40 united territorial communities on April 29. Chairman of the Ukraine

Voters Committee Alexey Koshel commented on these as follows: “The political parties and candidates set a record both in the number and scale of bribes offered to the electorate. The impunity (given the results of previous elections) made it possible for politicians to turn the elections into a vote supermarket.”

Donbass should hardly take this for a model.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3208188






Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov’s interview with the newspaper Izvestia, published May 4, 2018



4 May 2018 - 14:49




Question:

You and many of your colleagues often say that Russia aims to establish a system of Asian collective security in the foreseeable future. What problems exist in this area? For example, how can this common system involve China and India that don’t trust each other very much? And how serious is the threat posed to Russia by the Japan-United States-Australia-India alliance that so far lacks any clear structure but which prioritises military-political issues?



Igor Morgulov:

Indeed, over the past few years, Russia and other like-minded partner countries, including China and India, have been working actively to advance multilateral dialogue on the issue of improving the Asia Pacific region’s security architecture.

We are confident that this dialogue comes at the right time. The Asia Pacific region, which is marked by relative economic stability, still has a serious potential for conflicts that could undermine the region’s sustained and dynamic development. No less dangerous is the reduction of mutual trust, the degradation of a culture in which compromises are sought and the opinions and interests of partners are heeded. It is common knowledge that the Asia Pacific region lacks any reliable mechanisms for maintaining security.

Considering these circumstances, consultations on the regional security system were launched in 2013, as part of East Asia summits, on the initiative of Russia and with the support of China and Brunei. We see this format as a useful tool allowing numerous Asia Pacific countries to take part in formulating a common vision for the configuration of the regional system of interstate relations.

To be honest, not everyone agrees with this assessment. Some partners believe that the Asia Pacific region now has an optimal security system. At the same time, they are talking about a system based solely on narrow military political alliances. But what should be done by countries which are not affiliated with these alliances and which are not planning to join them? It’s a good question.

More active attempts are currently being made to advance “improved” concepts for such narrow blocs under the pretext of new cooperation plans. Such concepts are only designed with a select few countries in mind. It is unclear who determines the specific criteria and grounds for choosing bloc members, as well as the goals of such blocs. Take the concept of the Indo-Pacific region. Although the United States and Japan, the concept’s authors, have only started filling it with real content, it is already clear that there are plans to impose, rather than discuss, this concept. These countries are highly unlikely to establish an equitable regional mechanism that would heed the legitimate interests of all players. The concept’s advocates see the “rectangle” you mentioned in your question as its pillar, and it appears that the “great democracies” are to approve the list of prospective members. Obviously, this understanding of the Asia Pacific region threatens to cause further fragmentation of this shared space and might serve to entrench existing dividing lines.

Instead of tailoring regional alliances to its own needs, Russia invariably seeks to establish an indivisible and interlinked security system. It is impossible to improve one’s positions in this sphere at the expense of other partners. On the contrary, it is precisely such a system that would guarantee stability and universal prosperity, while also helping to effectively respond to all common challenges and threats. It is telling that our approaches meet with growing understanding and support on the part of regional states, especially the countries of ASEAN, the central element of regional integration and cooperation processes.

As to your question on how we can involve India and China in our collective efforts, I can say that, in addition to specialised bilateral contacts, we continue to cooperate in the trilateral Russia-India-China format. In 2017, India became a full-fledged SCO member, and it is determined to join the entire range of SCO activities. And so we are quite confident about the prospects of our joint efforts to establish a new regional security system along with Beijing and New Delhi.



Question:

Since late 2016, Moscow and Tokyo have been discussing joint activities in the South Kuril Islands with optimism, albeit somewhat restrained. However, everyone realises that they are putting a brave face on a sorry business. The Japanese will always prioritise the return of the so-called Northern Territories. Naturally, Russia will never give them back. There is also the serious security issue to consider because Japan is backed by the US Armed Forces. How many generations of politicians will we see before we manage to finalise a peace treaty with Japan? And does Russia really need it?



Igor Morgulov:

The two sides are discussing ways of launching joint economic activities in the South Kuril Islands under an agreement set out in the joint statement by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe of December 16, 2016.

Several rounds of talks have been held to date. Two Japanese business missions consisting of state officials and business leaders have visited the South Kuril Islands. As a result of this work, the leaders of our countries have approved five high-priority areas of joint economic activities. Two working groups held their meetings in April to review various consular and logistics issues, as well as and practical aspects of implementing the projects.

Russian approaches during talks on joint economic activities hinge on the following three principles:

– the legality of Russia’s ownership of the South Kuril Islands as a result of World War II must not be disputed;

– the projects must be commercially viable;

– these activities should promote the socioeconomic development of the Sakhalin Region.

The President of the Russian Federation has repeatedly made detailed statements on security issues, including in the context of the strengthened Japanese-US military and political alliance. We openly inform Tokyo about our concerns, including via national security councils, and state candidly that it will be impossible to avoid a discussion of this issue.

I can say only one thing about the prospects for concluding a peace treaty: real progress in resolving this issue is only possible in conditions of a comprehensive development of Russian-Japanese ties and the creation of an atmosphere of genuine mutual trust and partnership in our relations. We are just starting out on this path.



Question:

China is Russia’s main ally and partner in the world. Today, the PRC is one of the leading economic powers and is actively implementing infrastructure, transport, logistical industrial and other projects all over the world. Are there regions or economic spheres, where our interests do not coincide or even clash with Chinese interests?



Igor Morgulov:

Primarily, let me note that we and China are not creating, nor plan to create, any alliances because this is at variance with our common vision of the nature of bilateral interaction on a broad range of issues, which is based on similarity or closeness of views. The PRC, incidentally, strictly follows a policy of not joining any blocs. At the same time, you are right that in practice we often take a similar approach as like-minded people in global and regional affairs.

It is only natural that each of the sides has economic interests of its own that are not always identical in every way. In some cases, competition can develop, direct competition between both countries’ economic operators. Probably the question is not how to avoid this but how to work with these situations. I think we have found the right answer to this question.

Over the last two and a half decades, a unique multi-level mechanism for coordinating interaction has been created, which includes five intergovernmental commissions, dozens of sub-commissions and working groups, and dialogue formats on the entire range of practical cooperation. Owing to its effective operation, we manage to determine in a constructive manner the points of possible conjunction of joint efforts in various areas, find compromise solutions in cases of intersection of interests, and reach agreements with consideration for the mutual complementarity of the national economies and the strong points of Russian and Chinese companies.

But your question, as far as I understand, is wider in scope. In recent years, China has actively promoted its infrastructure project known as One Belt, One Road. Here we have also found an opportunity to avoid rivalry with this initiative and, based on the available points of contact, channel it towards an alignment with our own Eurasian Economic Union project. This is already bearing fruit. Specifically, the parties have coordinated a trade and economic agreement between the EAEU and the PRC, which is due to be signed shortly.

The Eurasian Economic Commission is forming a list of EAEU-PRC integratory project proposals for subsequent implementation, which includes what Russia regards as priority infrastructure projects that have already been coordinated with China, such as a highway corridor from West China to Europe.

Another important direction in our interaction is the start of cooperation between Russia’s Ministry of Economic Development and China’s Ministry of Commerce on a feasibility study for a bilateral agreement on a Eurasian economic partnership, which would provide an additional impetus to integration processes in the region and the emergence of new opportunities for creating an open, equitable and mutually beneficial pattern of partnership in Greater Eurasia in the spirit of the relevant initiative put forward by President Vladimir Putin in December 2015. In a word, much is being done in this area but even more will be done in the future.



Question:

Are there any economic opportunities for Russia in the Chinese market in light of a developing trade war between China and the US? Russian business circles, for example, already speak about openings for Russian pork, soy beans and wine.



Igor Morgulov:

Trade and economic cooperation with China, our chief partner in this sphere for years, is a value in itself and is not subject to foreign policy fluctuations.

Basically, we are against trade wars and the brandishing of the sanctions club, but naturally we will not ignore opportunities if they present themselves. You mentioned agricultural products. The trend towards the growth of bilateral trade in this area appeared even before the exacerbation of Chinese-American trade differences. Now, conditions are taking shape for this cooperation to reach a higher level.



Question:

Falling within your purview is such a remote country as Australia. It would seem that for reasons of geographical remoteness Moscow and Canberra have nothing particular to share. But as soon as the Skripal case gained notoriety, the Australian authorities immediately sided with London: they expelled Russian diplomats and seem ready to boycott the World Cup. Do you have any logical explanation for Australia’s anti-Russia sentiment?



Igor Morgulov:

We have no bilateral problems in our relations with Australia. Last year, we marked the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries, which were established during the difficult years of our joint fight against Nazism.

I find it hard to answer for my Australian colleagues and analyse what their current attitude towards Russia is – the fear of dropping off Western radar or anxiety about finding themselves on the sidelines of, or, more precisely, far from the events of world politics. But it is still a fact that Australia is the only APR country that decided to take an unfriendly step – to expel two Russian embassy employees – out of a notorious “solidarity” with Britain. In fact, it has declared that it might reconsider sending its officials to the World Cup in Russia.

Luckily, far from everyone on the Green Continent shares the Canberra authorities’ sentiments. Our embassy receives a lot of letters from ordinary Australians, who express support for Russia and even apologise for the anti-Russia rhetoric of their leaders. That the realistically thinking part of the business community is ready to work with Russia is confirmed by the expected arrival of a large group of Australian businessmen at the upcoming St Petersburg International Economic Forum in May. Also, as far as I know, several thousand Australian fans plan to come to Russia for the World Cup. We will be sincerely happy to greet them.

I would like to think that these are positive signs that will help bring Russian-Australian ties back to the trajectory of normal development. But, as the saying goes, the ball is in the Australian court.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3208456

[Alex Him]

The Russian delegation’s remarks on nuclear non-proliferation and IAEA Safeguards at the 2nd session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Geneva, April 27, 2018



4 May 2018 - 14:25



Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the key challenges within the NPT framework which must be resolved if we want a safer and more stable world.

For fifty years, the NPT has successfully coped with this task. The basic principles underlying the NPT are reliable support in solving the most complicated non-proliferation problems.

This is confirmed by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which resolved the situation around the Iranian nuclear programme. The JCPOA is a balanced mechanism that takes into account the interests of all parties. Disrupting the fragile balance of interests reflected in the JCPOA will lead to serious consequences for international security and the non-proliferation regime. We note that during the session, many delegations have unequivocally spoken in support of the JCPOA.

Tearing up the agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme, without any reason whatsoever and contrary to the will of the international community, will inevitably impact the diplomatic efforts to resolve the nuclear problem on the Korean Peninsula and will not make it possible to convince the DPRK that possible future agreements with Pyongyang will be honoured.

We express support for the visible progress and burgeoning dialogue on this track. We welcome the DPRK’s announcement on discontinuing its nuclear and missile tests and the use of a nuclear testing site in that country. We regard this decision as an important step forward towards the further relaxation of tensions on the Korean Peninsula and the consolidation of positive trends towards normalising the situation in Northeast Asia.

We note with satisfaction that the situation on the Korean Peninsula is developing in a positive way within the framework of the Russia- and China-proposed roadmap for a settlement between the two Korean states, which at its initial stages involves a reciprocal freeze on military activities in the region and the establishment of direct contacts between the DPRK and the United States plus the Republic of Korea, with a subsequent stage of multilateral talks on the comprehensive solution of all problems of the Korean Peninsula, including the nuclear problem.

The IAEA Director General’s reports about the implementation of safeguards in Syria confirm that declared nuclear material has not been diverted, which testifies to Damascus performing its direct obligations under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement.

In this context, the IAEA Secretariat has failed to prove convincingly that the facility, which was destroyed in Deir ez-Zor in 2007, was in fact an unfinished nuclear reactor. We are convinced that after the eradication of the terrorist threat and normalisation of the situation in that country, the IAEA, in cooperation with the government of Syria, will manage to duly reappraise its former conclusions. The Syrian side has repeatedly stated its readiness to cooperate with the IAEA on any issues under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. We have no reason to distrust these statements made by the legitimate Syrian authorities.

The IAEA’s system of safeguards remains the basis for verifying states’ performance of their obligations under the NPT. The member-states’ confidence in the IAEA verification mechanism is the key factor in the stability of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The states must be confident that the safeguards system is objective, depoliticised, technically valid, clear to them, and based on parties’ rights and duties under the safeguards agreements they signed. Undermining this confidence may deal a heavy blow not only to the IAEA but also to the nuclear non-proliferation regime as a whole.

Any reforms, changes and improvements in the system of safeguards should not call into question the objective and depoliticised nature of the IAEA oversight mechanism. We are for strict political oversight when introducing the concept of implementing safeguards at the state level into IAEA practice. The IAEA member states should have a clear understanding of all the details of the ongoing reform of the safeguard system and, first of all, the collection, analysis and use of information. Conclusions about the fulfillment of their non-proliferation obligations by states can be made solely on the basis of information, the reliability of which the IAEA Secretariat is ready to defend in an open discussion in the Agency's decision-making bodies. Information, the reliability of which cannot be proved, as well as estimates such as "very likely" or "highly likely" should not be taken as evidence.

We believe that greater transparency in the work of the Secretariat is extremely important to increase the safeguard system’s credibility.

We look forward to the earliest possible release of the report of the IAEA Director General on introducing country approaches to implementing safeguards in the states with an expanded conclusion. We see this document as an important stage in crystallising the ongoing reform of the IAEA safeguard system. We expect it to adequately cover the handling of information and drafting of conclusions on safeguards. Otherwise, there will be every reason to raise the question of compiling another report.

However, based on available IAEA compilations, we can already conclude that the so-called state-level safeguards in the form in which they are currently promoted are applicable only to non-nuclear countries that have concluded Additional Protocols to their Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements. Otherwise, there is no legal basis for applying them.

We believe it is important to ensure consistent strengthening of the IAEA safeguards system through universalising the Additional Protocol, which, together with the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, is intended to become a universally recognised standard for verifying compliance by non-nuclear states with their non-proliferation commitments. Notably, the conclusion of the Additional Protocol with the Agency remains a strictly voluntary matter for each state party to the NPT.

We are extremely worried by the situation surrounding the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Washington is refusing to ratify it and creating conditions for the possible resumption of nuclear tests, dealing a major blow to the Treaty and the activities of the CTBTO Preparatory Commission.

Having ratified the CTBT 18 years ago, Russia has consistently demonstrated adherence to this Treaty. We have repeatedly confirmed our readiness to achieve its early entry into force at the level of the Russian President. We intend to continue to make every effort to ensure that the CTBT joins the category of existing international treaties. In line with this work, in October 2017, the first conference of the CTBT Youth Group was held in Moscow, which helped put young people from different countries in contact in an effort to promote this Treaty. We plan to organise another event to support the CTBT in Vienna in May on the sidelines of the Science Diplomacy Symposium.

Today, the CTBT needs the international community’s support more than ever. We can’t allow this important international treaty to fail. We are calling on all its supporters to join efforts and launch a broad international campaign in support of the CTBT. Importantly, the subject of the Treaty should become a key issue on the agenda of international forums on non-proliferation and disarmament. It is this trajectory for the future work related to the CTBT that the upcoming September Ministerial Meeting of the Friends of the CTBT is supposed to set.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Zangger Committee proved in practice the possibility, on a non-discriminatory basis and without prejudice to international cooperation in peaceful use of nuclear energy, to exchange nuclear materials and equipment for processing and producing nuclear materials for civilian purposes in accordance with the NPT provisions.

As part of its exclusively technical mandate, the NSG continues to productively formulate international rules for controlling transfers of nuclear and dual-use goods and technologies. We see our mission at the NSG as helping to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime without creating unjustified difficulties. We note the importance of preserving the Zangger Committee as an export control mechanism established directly within the framework of the NPT. We emphasise that Russia is building its national export control system based on the guidelines and checklists of the CC and the NSG.

Russia takes an active part in discussions of a possible treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT), including as part the preparatory Expert Group on FMCT.

At the same time, we would like to note that such discussions are long overdue. The FMCT could have become an exceptionally meaningful arrangement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Over time, its "added value" has significantly declined due to the fact that four nuclear powers have declared voluntary moratoriums on the production of fissile materials, and non-nuclear countries have joined the NPT, which in fact already contains a corresponding ban for them.

Discussing the FMCT in a variety of formats, including on the sidelines of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, in the expert groups, revealed a wide range of views on its possible variables. Obviously, drafting a treaty will require a large amount of preliminary work, and there is no reason to artificially force it.

We are ready for such talks while understanding that they will be held exclusively at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva as part of a balanced agenda and strictly on the basis of a mandate outlined in CD/1299 (Shannon's mandate). Refusal to follow this approach will lead to the collapse of all work on a possible treaty.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3208404






The Russian delegation’s remarks on declaring the Middle East a region free from weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, at the 2nd session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Geneva, April 30, 2018



4 May 2018 - 14:27



Declaring the Middle East a region free from weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, in accordance with the 1995 resolution on the Middle East, is one of the issues that is central to the NPT. As a co-sponsor of the resolution, Russia is seriously concerned about the current situation. We have not advanced one bit in this direction since the 2015 Review Conference. We are approaching the mid-point of the period under review with zero results. If this state of affairs remains unchanged, we risk ending up in a time crunch again at the 2020 Review Conference.

Claims that the NPT review process is not the most appropriate forum for discussing these matters are misleading. The resolution on the Middle East adopted at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference was an essential element of the final document at the 1995 Conference, based on which the Treaty was extended indefinitely.

As a co-sponsor of this resolution, Russia has for many years put forth persistent and consistent efforts seeking to implement it. We are willing to continue facilitating this process. We operate on the premise that convening a conference on declaring the Middle East a region free from weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, is still a relevant and feasible task in the context of implementing the above resolution.

We cannot procrastinate convening this conference, coordinating the organisational modalities and substantive aspects. There is very little time left before 2020. It is important to use it wisely in order to lay a sound foundation for adopting an appropriate decision during the Review Conference.

The proposals submitted by Russia during the 1st session of the Preparatory Committee in 2017 regarding the alignment of work on convening the conference on declaring the Middle East a region free from weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, could be a good starting point. As you may recall, Russia’s proposals have found wide support among the parties to the Treaty.

They are based on three key principles:

- all decisions on substantive issues during the preparatory process and the Conference itself should be taken by consensus;

- participation of all the states of the region without exception is preferable;

- thorough preparatory work is needed to reach an agreement on the organisational modalities of the Conference (draft agendas, rules of procedure and the final document outlining further steps).

It would be very useful to hold a meeting with the participation of the Middle Eastern countries who co-wrote the 1995 resolution, a representative of the UN Secretary General, and the future chairman of the Review Conference to discuss the details of the corresponding decision. It should be organised soon, no later than early 2019. Geneva could be the right place to hold such a meeting.

For our part, we are willing to facilitate in every possible way the preparations for this event. We call on the other two co-sponsors of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East – the United States and the United Kingdom – to take a similarly honest position and start a constructive dialogue on this matter under the NPT without delay or preconditions.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3208414






Press release on ensuring the safety of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant in Turkey



4 May 2018 - 16:59



On April 3, 2018, participants in the 7th Russian-Turkish Top-Level Cooperation Council meeting, which included the presidents of the two countries, gave the green light for the construction of the first power generating unit of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant in the Mersin Province, Turkey. The nuclear power plant is scheduled to go into operation in 2023 in time for the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Turkish Republic.

Russia will build a nuclear power plant that will meet the most advanced safety standards accepted throughout the world. The safety systems will remain operational in any adverse scenario that might unfold, including earthquakes, flooding, tsunami, tornado, hurricane, dust storm, air-shock wave or even a large plane crash.

Special engineering resulted in five safety barriers and passive and active plant protection systems. Cutting-edge technologies will be used to build the Akkuyu plant, while the flaws that led to the Fukushima disaster will be analysed. For example, it was calculated that the facility would not be damaged by an earthquake measuring nine on the Richter scale, while a no-fly zone will be established around the facility. Even in the event of the most unexpected scenario, the reactor will remain operational in autonomous safe mode for 72 hours.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3208890






Joint statement by a number of OSCE member states at the May 3 OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the 73rd anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War



4 May 2018 - 20:17



STATEMENT

by permanent representatives to the OSCE of the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan at the meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the 73rd anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War

Vienna, May 3, 2018



This year, we mark the 73rd anniversary of the end of the Second World War, one of the greatest tragedies for humanity which brought untold devastation and suffering.

The failure to combine efforts in repelling Nazism as well as the tactic of appeasement in an attempt to stave off the threat condoned the Third Reich’s aggression and led to the outbreak of the Second World War accompanied by unprecedented crimes against peace and humanity. We bow to the veterans and all those who fought for victory of the humanity over this ultimate evil at the frontlines, in partisan units and at the home front. We honour the memory of millions of people who perished in death camps. The magnitude of their sacrifice will never be forgotten.

We have never sought to draw a distinction between our and their victory, and will always remember allied assistance from the countries of the Anti-Hitler Coalition and European anti-Fascists. Today, we pay homage to the courage of all the heroes who resisted Nazism.

The victory in the Second World War shaped today’s system of human rights protection and promotion, and the Nuremberg Trial verdicts provided a legal framing for the victory of the civilised world over National Socialism.

We resolutely condemn the destruction and desecration in a number of countries of monuments to those who fought against Nazism and the holding of marches by veterans of the Waffen SS, recognised as a criminal organisation. We view as unacceptable the glorification as national heroes of those who collaborated with Nazi Germany and opposed the Anti-Hitler Coalition, committing the most atrocious crimes in the years of the Second World War.

Mindful that the desire to put the racial supremacy theory into practice was one of the driving motives of the Second World War, we are alarmed by the growing tension and confrontation within the OSCE space, the revival of the Nazi ideology, accompanied by the equally alarming spread of aggressive nationalism, racism, discrimination, intolerance and xenophobia. We need to show resolve and be uncompromising in countering these trends.

In this connection, we welcome the UN General Assembly Resolution adopted on December 19, 2017 “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” We believe that it has special relevance in today’s international environment.

We are full of resolve to fight these threats relying, among other things, on the OSCE capabilities with a view to creating a single and indivisible security community in the region based on democracy, the rule of law, economic prosperity, social justice and respect for human rights and freedoms.

Moving forward, our countries will continue to take joint steps strictly in keeping with international law in order to keep neo-Nazism, extremism and xenophobia at bay and strengthen inter-ethnic and inter-cultural harmony.

The lessons of the Second World War remain relevant today, as we are called upon to combine our efforts and resources to respond to threats and challenges to our common security and stability, as well as to protect the aims and principles of the UN Charter.

As we face more and more security challenges and cross-border threats, it is important that countries within the OSCE space work together to promote peaceful resolution of the existing conflicts and prevent new ones. We strongly believe that this is the only way to safeguard the current and future generations from the scourge of new wars.

Delivering on the commitments set out in the OSCE fundamental documents will pay homage to those who fought for peace, liberty, democracy and human dignity, paving the way to a world free from wars and violence.

Peace in the 21st century is worth fighting for with the same dedication and determination as it was fought for in the past century. We must treat the future of our children and grandchildren with the utmost gravity and responsibility.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3208995






Joint Statement on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China at the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Geneva, May 4, 2018)



5 May 2018 - 15:32




The Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China:

- Confirm their unwavering support for the comprehensive and effective implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as endorsed by the UNSC Resolution 2231 (2015);

- Recognize that the sustainable implementation of the JCPOA proved to be a significant contribution in strengthening global nuclear non-proliferation architecture as well as international security as a whole;

- Persuaded that the conclusion of the JCPOA clearly demonstrated that non-proliferation issues can only be addressed through political and diplomatic means in accordance with the NPT;

- Support the essential and independent role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in verification and monitoring in Iran in light of the UNSC resolution 2231 (2015) and welcome the regular confirmations by the IAEA Director General that Iran is in full compliance with it's commitments under the JCPOA;

- Support the role of the Joint Commission established to carry out functions assigned to it in the JCPOA;

- Emphasize the urgent necessity for all parties to the JCPOA to rigorously adhere to and fully implement their commitments under it, and for all NPT State-Parties to support implementation of the JCPOA, including by refraining from actions that undermine implementation of commitments under the JCPOA.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3209161