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

Old December 4th, 2018 #501
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at the ceremony to award the Order of Friendship to German-Russian Forum Chairman Matthias Platzeck, Berlin, September 14, 2018



14 September 2018 - 17:58







Friends,

We can now begin our short but very important ceremony.

Mr Platzeck,

My dear Matthias,

It is my honour and a pleasure to fulfill President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s instruction and present you with the Russian Order of Friendship.

You are a partner and a friend of ours who sincerely believes in the future of Russian-German relations, who was there at the beginning of many civil society initiatives and who never deviated from this strategic path, not even in difficult times like nowadays.

Just now, thanks to your kind invitation, I spoke before the participants of the German-Russian Forum and saw for myself how popular this forum is and how many prominent and influential politicians it draws.

I wish you success, which I am sure you will have as the chairman of the German-Russian Forum. Your work does not end here. You are also a board member of the Petersburg Dialogue and recently have been promoting promising projects, by which I mean the Potsdam Meetings partnered by the Foreign Ministry’s Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund.







There are many Russian and German citizens who not only work in government, parliament and civil society organisations, but have ties of personal friendship and affection in addition to business ties. Of course, you are a prominent example of such people.

Almost everyone who has been awarded the Order of Friendship (among our German colleagues) wears it everywhere and not just at official, public and intergovernmental functions.

With your permission I will begin the ceremony.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3344276






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and replies to media questions during a joint news conference following talks with German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, Berlin, September 14, 2018



14 September 2018 - 19:27







Mr Minister, Heiko,

First of all, I’d like to thank you for the invitation to visit Berlin.

By tradition our dialogue is regular and intensive. I would like to emphasise the trust between us. This visit is timed to coincide with the closing ceremony for the Russia-Germany cross year of regional and municipal partnerships. Foreign Minister Maas and I agree that this initiative was successful and helped to promote mutual understanding and neighbourly relations and to develop practical cooperation at the level of contacts between cities, regions and civil societies.

We are not putting an end to the tradition of holding cross years. As my counterpart said, another initiative – the Year of Scientific and Educational Partnerships – will be launched in the near future. We agreed to do what we can to make this undertaking useful for our citizens and relevant research and educational institutions.

Germany is our important partner in Europe and the world. We share an interest in constructive joint work on all bilateral and international issues, including complicated issues.

We noted the positive dynamics in trade and economic cooperation and have agreed to actively support these processes and strengthen this important trend. We expressed approval of the performance of the Russian-German High-Level Interdepartmental Working Group on Strategic Cooperation in the Economy and Finance.

We discussed the practical aspects of issues linked with our energy cooperation and reaffirmed support for the commercial Nord Stream-2 project, the implementation of which will greatly enhance Europe’s energy security.

The Russian Seasons, which will open in Berlin in January, will be a landmark event in our humanitarian cooperation. We hope our German friends will find them interesting.

We welcomed the development of cooperation between our civil societies. I am referring to not only cross years but also to such structures as Petersburg Dialogue, Potsdam Meetings and the German-Russian Forum, where I addressed the German political and business circles today.

For our part, we stressed our interest in resuming in the near future the activities of another body – the Russian-German Interdepartmental High-Level Working Group on Security Policy, which has not been convened since 2012. Now our experts are preparing to resume its activities. I hope that the next meeting could take place in Berlin before the end of the year. This would be useful because today such joint efforts are gaining special significance against the background of major challenges and threats we both confront, primarily terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

As for our relations with the European Union, they leave much to be desired. The same can be said about our contacts with NATO, which have practically been frozen across the board. We expressed our well-known concern about the Alliance’s tack of exacerbating tensions and building up military infrastructure near the Russian borders.

As my colleague said, we considered the situation in Ukraine in detail. We share the opinion that there is no alternative to the Minsk Agreements. A concrete discussion at the level of aides to the leaders of the Normandy Format countries is going on now to decide how to advance their practical implementation. I hope that progress will be possible in this format and in the Contact Group in the near future. I want to deliver a strong warning to those who are plotting a military scenario. This would be a catastrophe for the Ukrainian people because it could undermine Ukrainian statehood in a very real way. No one is allowed to wage war on their own citizens.

We also focused on the developments in Syria. On the whole the situation there is improving. Almost all of the territory in Syria has been freed from terrorists. The last hot spot remains in the Idlib Governorate. Today we spoke in detail about how we should act in the region with regard to the requirements of the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and agreements on the de-escalation principles in this and other Syrian districts. The goal is, first of all, to continue the uncompromising fight against terrorists, to make the reasonable moderate opposition separate from Jabhat al-Nusra and the like, and to do everything to minimise civilians being put at risk.

We informed our German colleagues about the discussion of these matters at the recent summit held with the leaders of the Astana trio in Tehran and how we are preparing for another meeting of Russian President Vladimir Putin and President of the Republic of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan which will take place next week. The Syrian settlement will be one of the most important subjects for discussion.

We also emphasised that at the moment, it is most important to create conditions for refugees to return back home, to rebuild the destroyed infrastructure and the economy, as well as social institutions. We informed the Germans about the steps the Russian Federation is taking in cooperation with the Syrian government in order to create these conditions and make them understandable for the refugees who want to return. All this, of course, will facilitate the reinstatement of a sustainable political process with regard to the results achieved as part of the Astana trio in support of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the role of the UN in a political settlement, as well as with regard to the results of the Congress of the Syrian National Dialogue that took place in January 2018 in Sochi. Congress participants agreed to establish a constitutional committee with support of UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, with whom Russia, Iran and Turkey – being the Astana guarantors – are constantly in touch (the latest contact took place earlier this week).

We, of course, are monitoring the situation around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the nuclear programme of Iran since the US has left unilaterally left it.

We are jointly concerned that the total failure of this agreement might have serious consequences, including for the stability in the Middle East and for the regime of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, we, our German and European colleagues, and China and Iran will strive to preserve this crucial multilateral agreement.

At the beginning of the UN General Assembly session in New York, a meeting between foreign ministers of the action plan member states will take place, and we will see what measures are being taken to preserve the agreement.

Tonight we will continue to discuss other international matters.

Again I would like to thank German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas for the invitation to visit Berlin today.







Question (for Sergey Lavrov):

What do you see as a solution to film director Oleg Sentsov’s problem, to prevent the worst, his death?



Question (for Heiko Maas):

Germany was very indecisive in the Litvinenko case. In the Skripals’ case, do you and the British government have evidence of Russia’s alleged responsibility?



Sergey Lavrov:

As concerns the case of Oleg Sentsov who was convicted for plotting a terrorist attack and explosions in Crimea which was not denied by the Ukrainian officials, we have repeatedly informed the public about the progress, including information about his health. He is under constant medical supervision. This is a purely humanitarian matter. Russia has legislative procedures applicable in such cases. Everybody who is concerned with his fate is aware of this. Particularly, President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel discussed this at a recent meeting in Meseberg.

Since your question for German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas concerns accusations against Russia, I also have to say a few words. It is not only in the Litvinenko case and in the Skripal case but also the deaths of other Russian nationals in London, including Nikolai Glushkov’s death just recently, that there is no evidence for any reasonable consideration and discussion. The “highly likely” principle does not work here although our British colleagues use it solely to throw mud at Russia and turn all their European partners against us. This is happening during Brexit, therefore, these efforts made by London are increasingly intensive.

I would like to stress once again that both in the cases of Alexander Litvinenko and the Skripals, since the very beginning we requested that certain procedures sould be enforced through the official channels under our bilateral convention with the United Kingdom, the conventions of the Council of Europe and, in the case of the Skripals, also the Chemical Weapons Convention. All our official inquiries received run-around replies, if not only verbal comments, that came down to the claim that we are to blame and the only thing we are requested to do is to explain how we did this − whether we were ordered to do it or it was a result of misunderstanding. It is pointless to have a serious conversation at such a level.

Today we confirmed it to our German partners that we had not seen any evidence and I really doubt that the British provided their NATO and EU allies with anything beyond what they publicly use for unsubstantiated accusations.

We are still ready for a serious conversation based on international law rather than the “highly likely” principle which has already become a household name.



Question:

What do you think about statements made by several European officials who qualified the upcoming operation in Idlib involving the Syrian army and the Russian Aerospace Forces as a war crime?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have not heard about this although I suppose it is possible considering the pressuring rhetoric around the situation in Idlib. We experienced something similar during the liberation of East Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta although much less intense. There was no humanitarian catastrophe although, of course, there were civilian casualties, which is, unfortunately, inevitable. Hundreds of thousands of people who left East Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta during the operation are now coming back. I hope they will settle down with the support of the international community and this support is indeed necessary, including to ensure that refugees start coming back home from Europe.

As concerns war crimes, there are procedures established by international humanitarian law and they must be observed. We always follow international humanitarian law when conducting operations that involve military action. Let me remind you that Russian troops are in Syria, a UN member, at the request of its legitimate government and the UNSC resolutions have repeatedly confirmed respect for Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We are ready to discuss any situations but in a specific and constructive manner rather than using the “highly likely” rhetoric that collects some arguments to further justify unlawful actions as it happened last July when, before OCPW inspectors reached Eastern Ghouta, the area was bombed under a provocative pretext, which everybody saw in the footage − hosing down children and other staged nonsense.

We are ready for a constructive talk. If anybody has serious matters to solve, we need to sit and discuss them instead of making new threatening statements that only build up confrontation and help with nothing.



Question:

Today many Western publications carried the same headline: “Two Russian spies detained in the Netherlands.” It was reported that two Russian citizens were detained. For some reason they were not put under arrest but were immediately deported to Russia. Judging by these publications, this happened in the spring, maybe even in March but it was published only today, right after the interview of Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. Can you comment on the reaction to the interview of our two citizens? Do you know anything about this? Can you comment on Britain’s strong reaction to the same interview yesterday?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is hard for me to assess London’s recent actions. They are beyond logic because the country that boasts of being law abiding and positions itself as a model legal system, acts outside the law and is engaged in adverse activities, that is, loudspeaker diplomacy. Not a single fact has been conveyed to us via official channels in line with international law – just groundless accusations with a demand that we admit our guilt. The threats that the entire civilised world will rise against Russia are not serious.

You mentioned the report that somewhere in the Netherlands two spies were arrested and deported to Russia with the assistance of Swiss and British citizens. I cannot even imagine that such an event in which experts from three Western states took part could be ignored by the media. If we can get the facts we will be able to comment on them in a more meaningful way.

There appeared a report the other day that a diplomat of the Russian Embassy was recruited in April in Rome and nicknamed Apollo by Britain’s MI6, apparently with account for the role assigned to him by this service. The Foreign Ministry’s official spokesperson commented on this yesterday. We did not lose any employees in Rome. None of our staff have disappeared. We won’t consider such stories seriously, nor this striving to make the media a tool of unseemly policy.

As for Boshirov and Petrov, they were identified by Britain in April, as it transpired. Therefore, it is necessary to ask the Brits why this was done so obscurely and why no facts were quoted except the CCTV tapes. Let me emphasise that our proposal to use existing Moscow-London mechanisms on rendering legal aid on criminal cases remains valid. If there is no response to this, we have every reason to believe that there have been no crimes that are being ascribed to our citizens by these ladies and gentlemen.



Question:

The West is concerned that there will be a huge loss of civilian lives before the forthcoming onslaught in Idlib. Does Russia foresee the creation of protective zones for refugees in Idlib? Maybe under Turkey’s supervision?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are actively working with our Turkish partners to resolve the situation in Idlib in full conformity with the agreements that were concluded there during the creation of the de-escalation zone in this area. These agreements provide for the announcement of a truce with one very important exception - there is no truce, no ceasefire as regards terrorists. This is fixed in the agreements on the de-escalation zone and in the UN Security Council resolutions and should be carried out.

In parallel, as I have already emphasised, together with our Turkish partners that have a constructive approach to this issue, we are facilitating local agreements between units of the moderate opposition and the government troops as was done in other de-escalation zones. We are facilitating the formation of humanitarian corridors and safe zones for civilians. Let me recall that we acted in the same way helping the Syrian army during the liberation of Eastern Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta. I do not want to make comparisons but to paint a complete picture let me recall that there were no local conciliations, and nobody even tried to establish safety or humanitarian corridors when the Air Force of the US coalition bombed Raqqa and Mosul. What happened and is still happening in Raqqa is a humanitarian catastrophe. But this is not talked about for reasons I don’t understand. Maybe this is not politically correct. As for Idlib, let me stress that all of these measures are being taken. There are instructions from President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan. They will meet next week to discuss the situation in detail.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3344321






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks at the closing ceremony of the Cross Year of Regional and Municipal Partnerships, Berlin, September 14, 2018



14 September 2018 - 20:32







Mr Minister, dear Heiko,

Mr Platzeck, dear Matthias,

We have gathered here for a momentous event. To begin with, I would like to express heartfelt gratitude to the organisers of this outstanding Cross Year and to those who contributed to achieving remarkable results at the level of civil society, municipalities and regions.

I would like to fully support what my friend German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said about Mr Platzeck and his efforts to preserve everything useful that had been achieved in the Russia-Germany relations, and to multiply those achievements. We are sincerely appreciative of these efforts. We know that Germany has many advocates of promoting relations between our countries. This is why we want to thank all our Russian friends and compatriots, represented by you, who make an equally invaluable contribution to all this work.

I would like to thank German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas for the invitation to visit Berlin today to attend this event – the closing of the Cross Year of Regional and Municipal Partnerships and summing up its results. It started in Krasnodar back in June 2017 at the 14th Conference of Partner Cities, which was also attended by Foreign Ministers of Russia and Germany.

It is safe to say that the Year has been a success and has enriched inter-regional cooperation, which is certainly an important component of our bilateral dialogue. The Year has made a considerable contribution to advancing people’s diplomacy and maintaining the atmosphere of trust and neighbourliness between our nations. A new very bright and humane page has been added to the centuries-old chronicle of Russian-German relations.

Our most sincere gratitude goes to the Year’s operators – the Union of Russian Cities and the German-Russian Forum. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the German-Russian Forum on its 25th anniversary and to again underscore the efforts of Chairman of the Board Matthias Platzeck and his colleagues to step up interaction between our societies and promote rapport between our people.

A number of interesting, landmark initiatives have been launched within the vast and eventful programme of the Year. I would like to note a contest of the best regional cooperation projects between Russia’s and Germany’s municipalities. The highly demanding jury considered numerous initiatives, each of which deserved high praise. It was agreed to distinguish only 30 pairs of cities and municipalities in Russia and Germany. We will congratulate them on this result today.

It is crucial that an extra boost was given to municipal cooperation, twin-city movement. Moscow and Düsseldorf, St Petersburg and Hamburg, Rostov-on-Don and Dortmund, Veliky Novgorod and Bielefeld have marked anniversaries of establishing partnership relations. In just a few minutes we will witness a signing of partnership agreements between new pairs of Russian and German cities: Vyborg – Greifswald, Tuapse – Schwedt and Zvenigorod – Lahr. I wish them great success in all their undertakings.







I am confident that nobody wants to stop at what has been achieved. I am sure that we will learn about new practical agreements already at the 15th conference of Russian and German partner cities scheduled to be held in North Rhine-Westphalia in 2019.

Dialogue between young people has become stronger. In two weeks Hamburg will host the second Twin Cities Youth Forum, which will be a logical sequence of the completed Cross Year of youth exchanges that ended in 2017.

Consecutive thematic cross years, which have become a brand of bilateral interaction, greatly encourage cooperation in various fields. I hope that the new Cross Year of Research and Educational Partnerships to be launched shortly will be held under my and Mr Heiko Maas’s patronage just like the outgoing Cross Year of Regional and Municipal Partnerships.

Efforts to support trust and mutual understanding between our nations are especially needed in the current situation in Europe. We can only rejoice that both Russia and Germany have obvious interest in overcoming the current complicated period in bilateral relations. Our leaders during their talks in Sochi in May and Meseberg in August spoke about the importance of maintaining a mutually respectful dialogue and fruitful joint efforts to find effective solutions to the most important current problems.

I hope that the rich history of multifaceted Russian-German cooperation, intense business and humanitarian exchanges and contacts between people will help to settle existing disagreements and will not let divergences in Moscow’s and Berlin’s positions regarding a particular issue rule over the whole set of bilateral relations.

I am sure that historical reconciliation between Russia and Germany as well as our country’s role in the unification of Germany is an outstanding achievement made not only by our countries and peoples but, without exaggeration, by all of Europe. We must cherish this invaluable achievement.

Strategically, there is simply no alternative to relations of broad productive partnership. We will keep up the efforts to improve the quality of bilateral interaction for the benefit of the peoples of Russia and Germany and in the name of peace, stability and prosperity on our continent and in the whole world.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3344365






The following events are not displayed in the English version.

10 September 2018

Telephone conversation of S. Lavrov with the Executive Vice-President of Venezuela D. Rodriguez Gomez - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3338795

Telephone conversation of S. Lavrov with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrant Affairs of Jordan A. Sáfadi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3338805


13 September 2018

Telephone conversation of S. Lavrov with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina I. Crnadak - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3343175
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 4th, 2018 #502
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Opening remarks by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey A.Ryabkov at the First United Nations Conference on Space Law and Policy, Moscow, 11 September 2018



11 September 2018 - 13:27




Dear Madame Director,

Dear Mr. Deputy Director General,

I would like to welcome the organizers, participants and guests of the First United Nations Conference on Space Law and Policy. I am sure that this event will become a good venue for an extensive discussion and exchange of experience in this field.

The Conference is expected to assist in generating competencies in space law and policy issues, including in developing countries, considering the goals of the existing programme on capacity-building, training and education implemented by the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs. The Conference participants will certainly demonstrate high level of analysis of attitudes States could adopt to ensure success of the United Nations, in particular, its Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), in advancing international regulation of space activities.

Allow me to make some observations that seem to be pertinent considering the agenda of the Conference.

General references to the need to develop international space law are occasionally being made at different international fora. Nevertheless, there are no generally shared perspectives, either academic or political, regarding leveraging potential new legal regulation.

It is well known that after the consensus approval by the General Assembly in its resolution 34/68 of 5 December 1979 of the Moon Agreement COPUOS Member States increasingly subscribed to the idea of providing for further international regulatory frameworks by means of developing and adopting specific non-legally binding instruments.

Such an approach seemed to be acceptable and reasonable because it afforded an opportunity to provide for a regulatory framework in specific areas of space activities (like the use of nuclear power sources in outer space) based on political commitments. Such concept essentially meant an adequate regulation with added flexibility that fully corresponded to the needs of a responsible behaviour in space.

Similar approach, had it been fully and effectively applied to the set of guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities, the drafting of which, unfortunately, has been terminated last June, could have served the goal of compensating for the apparent deficiencies in the international legal regulation of safety and security in outer space. Regretfully, it did not happen due to political reasons. Had all States been more constructive and farsighted in addressing serious issues of safety of space operations, COPUOS could have made a major step forward in establishing a wider system of general safety and security in outer space.

International regulation seems to have lost value for some States which claim exclusive validity to their own standards, procedures and practices.

The situation surrounding negotiations on drafting the set of guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities causes our special concern.

It goes without saying that States should be encouraged to establish, at national levels, policies governing their space activities in line with international law. However there should be no geopolitical connotation attached and no intent to set out rules for the entire international community.

We would also like to notice, that, with all due importance of developing the so called best practices, States can not afford to switch to devising future international instruments containing exclusively references to, or the most general description of, such practices because such instruments will not produce regulation.

The significance of non-legally binding normative regulation could be enhanced still further if States support it through appropriate national policy directives. I think I will be right in saying that Russia is the only country that has stated in its Military doctrine a positive commitment towards establishing under the auspices of the United Nations of a regime of safety of space operations. We would like to propose that other States follow suit thus creating prerequisites for the success of future negotiations.

Problems will surely proliferate if States neglect international regulation of space activities and embark on the road of self-granting of regulatory authorities with regard to outer space expanding beyond of what is permi tted by international law. Unilateralism is already in evidence and manifests itself, first and foremost, in the attempts to derive an entirely new and politically motivated understanding of how space resources should be explored. The indulgence with unilateralism may be detrimental to safety and security in outer space.

Having adequate international regulatory framework in place to deal with safety of space operations, for which Russia stands for, would mean that States are successful in advancing the goals of confidence-building in outer space activities. The regulation itself would be an important factor in shaping, in particular, the model of the so-called space traffic management (STM) visualized as a possible new concept of conducting space activities.

It would be in the interests of all States to arrive at realistic judgements regarding all aspects of potential STM. So far, all of us are at the very start of the process of visualizing and devising the potential new international regulation. For example, the sharing and joint upgrading of information on space objects and events is critical to the success of the endeavour. Nevertheless, as part of drafting the set of guidelines on the long-term sustainability of outer space activities States have agreed only to a general provision on the need to share information on space objects and events failing, though, to define instrumentalities to achieve effective information interaction.

Considering that in its recently adopted policy statements on STM the United States proposed that other States accommodate their interests under the U.S. national STM regulation setting, we might as well expect that the United States will, nevertheless, share its vision of a truly international STM regulation.

Russia is actively developing ideas of potential regulation related to excluding the inception of conflicts in outer space. We stand for in-depth addressing factors that could compromise safety and security in outer space. It really is important that States have international regulations assisting in making contingency situations in outer space manageable and subject to resolution.

In conclusion, I would like to stress that it is not too late yet to jointly conceive new effective international regulation of space activities. Russia is ready for such substantive work.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3339537






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova's answer to a media question about the so-called Syrian chemical dossier



11 September 2018 - 19:17




Question:

Please comment on the latest developments concerning the Syrian chemical dossier.



Maria Zakharova:

On September 6, an open meeting of the UN Security Council on the Syrian chemical dossier was convened at the initiative of the US. Although the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW has repeatedly confirmed the complete destruction of Syria's military chemical potential, under international control, Damascus is once again being hit by a flurry of accusations and threats over its alleged intention to use chemical agents in Idlib province.

In this regard, Russia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya made very specific proposals to his American colleagues, who declare their adherence to the rules-based international system. First, he called for the disclosure of the list of targets that the Pentagon has reportedly identified for possible missile strikes, suspecting them of being used for the storage or production of these chemicals. Second, he proposed that this data, if any exists, be passed to the OPCW, so that its experts can inspect the sites that cause Washington concern. The Russian side advanced these proposals assuming that Western countries have no doubts about the authority and professionalism of the OPCW experts, and that the only way to resolve such disagreements is in accordance with the CWC.

It has been almost a week, however, and as far as we know, the OPCW has received no information or inquiries, which again proves the true intentions of the Western trio, apparently in this case based on less than legitimate considerations.

We caution the US and its allies against new dangerous steps.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3339634






The following events are not displayed in the English version.

10 September 2018

Interview of O. Syromolotov to the Russia Today international news agency, September 10, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3338917

Consultation of S. Ryabkov with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran on political issues A. Arakchi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3339127


12 September 2018

Speech by G. Lukyantsev at the opening of the OSCE Meeting on the Review of the Implementation of Commitments in the Human Dimension, Warsaw, September 10, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3342599

Speech by M. Ulyanov during the session of the IAEA Board of Governors under the agenda item “Inspection and Monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Light of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)”, Vienna, September 12, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3342622


13 September 2018

Interview of I. Soltanovsky with the newspaper “Izvestia”, published on September 13, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3342658

M. Zakharova's answer to the media question regarding the reports about the “Russian defector” - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3343253


14 September 2018

Meeting of A. Grushko with the appointed Ambassador of Slovenia in Moscow B. Rakovec - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3343666

M. Zakharova's answer to the question “News. Economy" (VGTRK) in connection with the discussion by US officials of the issue of admission of international inspectors to Russian chemical facilities - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3344355
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 4th, 2018 #503
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on the funeral of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan



11 September 2018 - 13:24



On September 11-13, the funeral of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and mourning ceremonies will take place in Accra (Ghana).

We share the sorrow of the Government and people of Ghana over the passing of one of Africa’s most prominent politicians and best diplomats who devoted his life to defending peace and helping to settle conflicts. Earlier, condolences over Kofi Annan’s death were sent to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of Russia Dmitry Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The Russian delegation at the funeral will be headed by Ambassador of Russia to Ethiopia and Plenipotentiary Representative at the African Union Vsevolod Tkachenko.






The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3339527






The following events are not displayed in the English version.

10 September 2018

On holding a by-election of deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation in the foreign institutions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3338873


11 September 2018

Speech on behalf of the States Parties to the Treaty Establishing the Union State of Russia and Belarus during the session of the IAEA Board of Governors on the agenda item “Nuclear Safety”, Vienna, September 10, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3339556

Speech on behalf of the States Parties to the Treaty Establishing the Union State of Russia and Belarus during the session of the IAEA Board of Governors on the agenda item “Physical Nuclear Safety”, Vienna, September 10, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3339566

The signing of the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on cooperation in the field of international information security - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3339607


12 September 2018

Geneva Consultation on Syria - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3341253


14 September 2018

Russian-EU consultations - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3344180
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 4th, 2018 #504
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, September 13, 2018



13 September 2018 - 19:18







Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with India’s Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj

On September 13-14, Indian Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj will visit Moscow to attend the 23rd meeting of the Intergovernmental Russian-Indian Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technological and Cultural Cooperation.

Today in the evening, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will have a meeting with India’s Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj, with the officials exchanging opinions on the bilateral agenda, as well as topical international matters.

We expect the visit to Russia by India’s Minister of External Affairs to expedite joint work to further expand the potential of traditionally friendly ties between Moscow and New Delhi.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Berlin

On September 14, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay a working visit to Berlin.

Sergey Lavrov and his German counterpart Heiko Maas will attend the official closing ceremony of the Russian-German “overlapping” year of regional and municipal partnerships 2017-2018, the key event in the programme of Sergey Lavrov’s visit. This unique all-encompassing initiative that continues the time-tested practice of holding thematic exchanges at interstate and public levels in Russian-German relations has helped further expand bilateral inter-regional ties, confirming their significance as an important and self-sufficient channel of communications and cooperation between our countries and nations.

Winners of a competition of municipal cooperation projects will receive honourary certificates signed by the Russian and German foreign ministers. In all, 30 pairs of recipients have been selected from among representatives of Russian and German regions and municipalities. During the closing ceremony, new partnership agreements will be signed between Vyborg and Greifswald, Tuapse and Schwedt, Zvenigorod and Lahr.

The ministers will hold talks where they will review the state and prospects of bilateral cooperation, expanded trade, economic and investment interaction, as well as furthering cultural and humanitarian ties and stronger contact between the public of the two countries, based on the results of the top-level Russian-German political meetings in Sochi on May 18 and in Meseberg on August 18.

Other subjects to be brought up will include efforts to resolve the conflict in Syria and the crisis in Ukraine, ways of normalising Russia-EU relations and improving cooperation between Russia and NATO, the situation in the Balkans , in the Middle East, the preservation of the JCPOA from which the United States has withdrawn, strategic and regional stability, the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, arms control and disarmament, including OPCW aspects, combating new security challenges and threats, as well as the UN Security Council agenda, with due consideration for Germany’s non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council in 2019-2020.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will also speak at a meeting of the German-Russian Forum, discussing integration processes in Greater Eurasia and prospects for building a common economic and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok.



Foreign Ministry to host exhibition of archive documents on 190th anniversary of establishing Russian-Greek diplomatic relations

On September 19, the Foreign Ministry will host an official ceremony of opening a historical and documentary exhibition marking the 190th anniversary of establishing diplomatic relations between Russia and Greece.

The exhibition will include over 60 documents and photos from the Russian empire and Russian Federation’s foreign policy archives, including such crucial documents for both countries’ history as a letter from Greek military leaders to Emperor Nicholas I asking him to support the Greek nation’s struggle and to help it gain independence (1826), a decree by the National Assembly of Greece on electing Ioannis Kapodistrias as the head of the Greek government for a period of seven years (1827), a marriage contract between King of Greece George I and Grand Duchess Olga Konstantinovna Romanova (1867) and the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Greek Republic (1993).

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Hellenic Republic to the Russian Federation Andreas Fryganas, officials of the Greek diplomatic mission in Moscow, representatives of Russian federal executive agencies, the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, media outlets, clerical and public circles will attend the event.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to attend official opening ceremony of historical and documentary exhibition Munich-38: On the Threshold of Disaster

On September 19 at 11 am, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend the official opening ceremony of the historical and documentary exhibition Munich-38: On the Threshold of Disaster at the Exhibition Hall of the Federal Archives at 17 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya Street.

The exhibition is sponsored by the Federal Archival Agency, the State Archives of the Russian Federation and the Russian State Military Archives.

It will include genuine documents from the archives dealing with the history of international relations on the eve of World War II, including foreign documents.

Members from the Foreign Ministry’s Archives were actively involved in preparing the exhibition and provided numerous material.



Developments in Syria

Tension in and around Syria is escalating once again.

On the ground the most challenging situation is in the Idlib province as tension escalates due to a high concentration of terrorists. These fighters are proactively centralising their command and are preparing to defend their positions for a long period of time, while getting rid of opposition group leaders inclined to accept reconciliation. They are also looking at the possibility of staging offensive operations directed against Aleppo and Hama. According to the available information, several hundred ISIS fighters arrived in Jisr ash-Shugur the other day to join the Hurras al-Din group that is already operating in the area.

Russian military observers from the Russian Centre for the Reconciliation of Opposing Sides have noted a substantial increase in the intensity of shelling targeting nearby communities on the territory controlled by the Syrian Government by fighters in the Idlib de-escalation zone. For example, on September 7 terrorists used multiple rocket launcher systems to shell Mahardah with its mostly Christian population, killing nine civilians, including five women and three children, and wounding 30. Between September 1 and 10, as many as 289 ceasefire violations by illegal armed groups were reported in the Idlib de-escalation zone, an almost three-times increase compared to similar periods in previous months.

In addition, terrorist attacks against Russian military sites using drones continue to originate in this area with 55 UAVs destroyed over the past two months.

Fighters and White Helmets continue preparations for a chemical weapons attack within the Idlib zone, even though their plans to stage a chemical weapons attack and blame the government troops for it have been exposed.

Against the backdrop of threats coming from US officials to carry out a massive strike against Syria, the terrorists are doing everything they can to prepare this provocation. Last Friday, they held what was portrayed as peaceful protest rallies across Idlib against an upcoming large-scale offensive by the Syrian army. Judging by the posters carried by the demonstrators, those behind these protests would very much like this offensive to begin as quickly as possible. This is the only way to explain the obscene insults on these posters targeting not only and not so much the President of Syria, but also his family members. All this proves that these actions are nothing more than provocations.

At the same time, the so-called international coalition led by the US has started military exercises in eastern Syria using the Al Tanf military base, and let me remind you that it has no right to be present in Syria. The purpose of these exercises is to practice moving and deploying rapid response forces, as well as attacking terrorists from the air as well as from the ground. It is reported that 100 marines have been dispatched to Al Tanf.

Moreover, the remaining ISIS fighters have found refuge in the 55-kilometre safe zone created by the US, and these fighters continue to stage wicked attacks toward Palmyra, Al-Sukhnah and As-Suwayda.

In terms of international politics, Washington is using a broad range of tools, from official statements to comments appearing in biased media outlets in what seems to be a bid to prepare the international public opinion to a new aggression against Syria. This is a matter of serious concern. The true purpose of these actions can be hardly concealed, consisting of diverting Syria from the path toward settlement and stabilisation that has prevailed over the past twelve or eighteen months. We view these actions by Washington as an attempt to artificially prolong hostilities and the fratricidal bloodshed in Syria by saving terrorists affiliated to Al-Qaeda from a definitive defeat. What they want is to justify their illegal military presence in Syria. It does not matter to them that there will be more bloodshed and suffering from millions of Syrians. Those guided by this vision have no misgivings when it comes to paying such a high price for aligning the outcome of the conflict that has been going on in Syria for eight years with their geopolitical goals, so that they could claim their victory in the protracted and epic Syrian conflict which has brought suffering to civilians.

We have other global reasons to voice our concerns. We view the developments around Syria as an attempt by the US to test a new mechanism for ensuring its global dominance. The essence of this approach consists in building a Western coalition with the view to showing force and the resolve to solve any problem by military means in any part of the world. This policy undermines the existing world order based on the UN Charter. It is clearly aggressive. Russia strongly believes that an approach of this kind can put the world on the verge of a precipice and presents a dangerous challenge that is not limited to Syria. We need to show our resolve and firmness in countering this vision by combining the efforts of all right-minded members of the international community.



Developments in Tripoli

Despite the efforts of the UN Support Mission in Libya aimed at the reinstitution of law and order in the Libyan capital, new clashes between armed groups are taking place in some parts of the city.

A terrorist attack carried out by ISIS on September 10 at the office of the Libyan National Oil Corporation dealt a serious blow to the security system in Tripoli. Two attackers were killed, and about ten injured. On September 11, unknown militants launched rockets at Mitiga International Airport which had to close after reopening only a few days earlier. Luckily, nobody was killed.

These extremist actions once again confirm the vital need to consolidate all responsible forces in Libya in order to create a strong opposition to the terrorists who are striving to hamper the process of the intra-Libyan political settlement, being carried out in accordance with the Action Plan of Head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya Ghassan Salame.

I would like to say that it is an illustrative and very tragic example of the total failure of the western countries’ experiment in geopolitical modelling, which, of course, affects the entire region and was the cause of the destruction of the Libyan statehood.

I would also like to remind you that democracy was supposed to come to Libya, so the western states claimed. It seems that it did come, because there are still no single government bodies in the country.

The Libyan scenario would have been repeated in Syria if the Russian Federation had not provided support to the legitimate government of the country, when Damascus requested it.



Developments in Afghanistan

Tensions remain high in Afghanistan. The Taliban now control the Khamyab District in the Jowzjan Province on the border with Turkmenistan. They also might capture the Day Mirdad District in the central province of Wardak. A series of explosions has recently hit Kabul and the Nangarhar Province in eastern Afghanistan, killing dozens of people.

In our opinion, such a course of events once again confirms the failure to put strong pressure on the Taliban to engage in talks and the need to find a peaceful solution to the Afghan problem, including with the assistance of international partners within the Moscow format.



Developments in Cameroon

In the past few months, there has been a serious deterioration in the situation regarding crime in the Republic of Cameroon. Due to an inflow of refugees from various regions of the country, the security situation has been aggravated in the capital, Yaounde. There have been documented cases of racketeering and armed assault in previously safe districts of the city, including near government agencies and the diplomatic missions of foreign countries.

Due to the increased crime rate, the Russian Embassy in the Republic of Cameroon has taken additional measures to improve the security of the building.

The Foreign Ministry advises Russian citizens in Cameroon to be vigilant and exercise caution.



Update on the arrest of Maria Butina in the United States

We continue to monitor the situation with Maria Butina, who was detained in the US on July 15 on charges of acting as an unregistered “foreign government agent.”

On September 10, Russian diplomats in Washington attended the hearings of the case against her. Following the hearings, the federal court of Columbia DC refused to release the Russian citizen from jail and place her under house arrest and ruled to continue the trial behind closed doors. The Russian Embassy in the United States published a detailed commentary on this in social networks.

We are indignant over the US Department of Justice’s attempts to regard consular visits to Maria Butina and our notes with demands to respect her legitimate rights as proof of some special circumstances connecting the situation around our compatriot and the Russian government.

We will continue to regularly visit our compatriot and focus on ensuring that she will be provided with all the necessary aid. We will protest again to the US Department of State on US official agencies’ allegations against us regarding Maria Butina’s case.

We demand that the unfounded prosecution of the Russian citizen who is detained as a political prisoner should be dropped. All sober-minded forces should unite their efforts to liberate her and return her back to Russia as soon as possible.

We will not abandon what is going on with Maria Butina. The entire situation is on the edge of the legal space. The US does everything to prove its actions are legitimate, but each time, even each day I think, the legal grounds are becoming smaller, and in some cases there are no legal grounds at all. This is a case of politics’ total dominance over law and common sense.



Igor Giorgadze’s news conference on bio-laboratory in Georgia

We noted the news conference held by Georgian public figure, head of the Georgia Abroad movement Igor Giorgadze on September 11 in Moscow. During this news conference, new documents on the undisclosed activities of the so-called Lugar Centre for Public Health Research, which is a highly-protected microbiology lab built by the Pentagon in the village of Alekseyevka near Tbilisi.

This seemingly civil institution that is formally part of the Georgian Healthcare Ministry is hiding the US Army Medical Research Directorate-Georgia. US military personnel researches especially dangerous diseases typical not only in Georgia but in neighbouring countries as well, including in Russia. This is why this topic raises our concern. The Pentagon’s interest in Georgia cannot be explained by humanitarian reasons alone. We all know how Washington cares about the countries not located close to the US borders and what happens because of this humanitarian part of the equation: unfortunately, it ends in nothing constructive but in very dangerous games with a highly unpredictable outcome.

New facts listed by Igor Giorgadze once again raise the question about the true purpose and tasks the US military have in Georgia as well as their compliance with medical ethic norms while carrying out experiments on Georgian citizens and with other norms of international law.

Russian statesmen and public activists, deputies of the State Duma and non-government experts have many times voiced their concern over the military agencies of the US and other NATO countries stepping up medical and biological activities along the Russian border.

This is a matter of concern for many government agencies and Russian citizens, which is understandable. I have a question: is anyone in Georgia concerned about this? These labs are located on the territory of their sovereign state. What are they doing there? What possible outcome will there perhaps be?

The Foreign Ministry will ask the US Department of State for an official explanation regarding the new facts listed by Igor Giorgadze that prove the shady role the US military play in the microbiology lab on Georgian territory.

I think that countries have fought to preserve and confirm their sovereignty and independence, sometimes so desperately, not for other countries’ military to carry out biological experiments on their citizens. And this is what is happening there.

Let me repeat that we are greatly concerned with this due to the close proximity to Russia.

In addition, we will continue to work with our friends and allies, with the neighbouring states, explaining to them the risks of the US stepping up their military medical and biological activities in the post-Soviet space.

I would like to stress once again that sovereign states must not become labs and these states’ citizens and residents should not become test subjects in experiments that may threaten their lives.

I would also like to say once again that to all our previous requests we received answers saying that this is all conspiracy theories, allegations and speculations; that we are making this up to make a senseless fuss. Several officials and media representatives told us that this is all misinformation, fake news and Russian propaganda. We were told that an international inspection of the Lugar Centre registered no violations and all the documents sent to the UN are all in order.

What will happen next after the new data has been presented? The documents say otherwise. Either the Georgian authorities or the US have been willfully misinforming the international community. All the information and material of the news conference I have mentioned can be accessed freely on the internet. Everything can be studied. Unfortunately, we would like not to have heard everything we have heard, because our lives would be much calmer then. Perhaps we would have also continued to live with the illusion that there were some mistakes in our analysis and this data is not accurate. I do not know if it is for the better or worse, but this data has been not only confirmed, but also substantiated, and this substantiation is difficult to imagine. Look through the website and the documents. They are about very dangerous manipulations.

We believe that not only journalists and citizens of the countries neighbouring the country where this lab is located must study them but also the competent authorities and services of the Russian Federation. Of course, the specialised international organisations must investigate this.

I think there will be many questions after these documents are studied. They can and should be addressed not only to the Foreign Ministry, but also to the countries that are directly involved in this experiment.



Statement by former US Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman

Yesterday's speech by former US Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman for Beyond 100 Days on BBC World News warranted our attention. She said Russia's “stronger economic position” is not in the US “national security interests.” At the same time, the former diplomat added that she does not want “to harm Russian people” and believes “they have the right to live decent lives.” The level of cynicism is just off scale here, especially considering what followed: The West needs to “think strategically about what they need to do to weaken Vladimir Putin's control in this country.” And these people tell us about Russia, the Kremlin, or Moscow interfering in their affairs! This is the former top manager of the entire US foreign policy talking. These people stood behind the adoption of the country’s foreign policy decisions, in particular those concerning Russia; the people who worked in a team with a candidate for the highest state office in the United States. I say it again, I am perfectly aware that this person does not hold an official position at the moment, but she did for many years.

Apparently, these are the “real” Western values: to introduce illegal economic sanctions and to manipulate the oil price and the dollar exchange rate to weaken the positions of sovereign countries and democratically elected heads of state.

It seems to me that we need to think again and then reread the very first sentence. It turns out that any improvement in Russia’s economy is in conflict with US national security interests. National security is the most important thing in every state. It is the primary source of a country’s statehood. Do you see what the person who has been in the leadership of the US Department of State for many years is saying?

I think this revelation has made it clear how our American partners see the development of bilateral relations and Russia’s future. This has nothing to do with the American people, democracy, or human rights. This is the policy of a certain political group in the United States, which has failed to take power but has now launched this terrible Russophobic campaign to justify its own political blunders.

I think this is a quote that needs to be learned by heart. This is a reason for our European partners to think if their economic growth, political well-being, economic and political stability suit the US national security interests. Their energy cooperation and promising bilateral economic ties might at some point get in the way of the US national security, as Ms Sherman just said. I will remember this forever.



Statements by US President’s National Security Adviser John Bolton with regard to International Criminal Court

The US President’s National Security Adviser John Bolton's statement with regard to the International Criminal Court can hardly be called a new word in US diplomacy which mostly stakes on force and unilateral sanctions. This time, the International Criminal Court’s judges were threatened with visa bans, the freezing of assets and legal prosecution, unless they make the right decisions or work in line with US wishes. Otherwise they will face visa bans, their accounts will be frozen, and criminal cases will also be opened against them. And the United States will think twice before allocating aid to countries daring to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in investigating the crimes of American citizens.

We don’t quite understand why similar US statements and actions with regard to independent states are perceived calmly. We would suggest being consistent, while objecting to the use of illegal unilateral sanctions and other pressure tactics, and this should not be done only when this court is being threatened.

As Mr. Bolton himself admits, his statement is a logical continuation of the current US policy. In 2002, the US Congress passed an act to protect American civil service employees. This document allows the President of the United States to take necessary action against the International Criminal Court and its employees if they dare act against the United States in any way. The United States has signed a number of bilateral agreements with other countries, ruling out the extradition of American citizens to the International Criminal Court. Therefore the United States has been recognising the international justice system for a long time only if it deals with other states and their citizens.

Mr Bolton also pointed out such problems concerning the International Criminal Court such as corruption, susceptibility to manipulations, inefficiency plus exorbitant costs. To be honest, one finds it hard to disagree with this, and we have been discussing this aspect for a long time.

However, the United States has never voiced any claims with regard to ad hoc international crime tribunals that have the same organisation and virtually the same shortcomings, including the notorious International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. How can this be explained? The answer is contained in the statements by Mr Bolton who has clearly indicated that the international criminal justice system must deal with other states, except the United States and its allies. Everything fits into a standard concept.

This story has a new twist: from now on, international criminal justice is being openly manipulated, and one can say that the manipulators have now been unmasked.

I would also like to recall that Russia has been consistently drawing attention to the politically motivated behavior of international courts, including the International Criminal Court, that are often used to pressure “disgraced” states and governments.

We are once again urging everyone to think whether this state of things meets the interests of the international community.

We are shocked by this selective targeted approach when some decisions are welcomed, and when the judges themselves will be punished for other undesirable decisions that might be made.



The US administration’s decision to shut the PLO office in Washington

We have taken note of the US administration’s decision to shut the Washington office of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). The US Department of State explained that since as far back as November 2017 the prospect of the Palestinian mission being able to continue its work in the US was conditioned on moves on the part of the PLO to promote a direct and substantive dialogue with Israel, which, according to the American side, did not follow.

Despite this unfriendly demarche towards the Palestinian side and the fact that it damaged the efforts aimed at creating conditions for the re-launch of the peace process, the US administration said that it had no intention of dropping its “peacekeeping” initiatives and wants to push them onwards.

Judging from the previous steps that include the transfer of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (in breach of the well-known UN Security Council resolutions), slashing financial support to the Palestinian National Authority’s budget and cutting off financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), it is through building up pressure on one of the parties to the Palestinian conflict – this is precisely how our American colleagues view the road towards a “just” peace in the Middle East. Certainly, this is a dubious standpoint.

So far, however, Washington has not revealed its vision of the parameters for restoring the peace process. All that is circulated in the public space is bogus stories about a certain “deal of the century” designed to put an end to the long-standing conflict and satisfy all the parties concerned. Unfortunately, nothing is specified. As for our calls for collective efforts on the Middle East settlement either at the UN Security Council or within the framework of the Middle East Quartet, it looks like the United States prefers turning a deaf ear to them. The experience of the previous US administrations that attempted to tackle the Palestinian-Israeli dossier single-handedly clearly shows that the logic of unilateral moves that are not based on corresponding consensus decisions by the international community does not work here. Such efforts risk going to waste.



Statements by Minister of the Armed Forces of France Florence Parly

It is with bewilderment and disappointment that we regard the September 7 statement by Minister of the Armed Forces of France Florence Parly at the National Centre of Space Research, in which she accused Russia, without proof, of “hostile behaviour” in space.

Let me remind you that earlier this year the Russian Ministry of Defence provided all necessary explanations, following concerns expressed by Paris about the Russian telecom satellite Luch-Olymp “dangerously approaching” the French satellite Athena-Fidus, which allegedly happened in 2017 and was described by Florence Parly as “aggressive.” For one, it was stated that our satellite’s movement posed no threat to the French spacecraft, and, most importantly, it did not violate any international norms. We consider this incident exhausted, all the more so that Paris has never brought it up during bilateral contacts, including during French President Emmanuel Macron’s visits to St Petersburg and Moscow in May and July this year.

It is particularly sad that the French side is trying to use this invented pretext to substantiate the need for a build-up of defence potential in outer space and for due allocations for these purposes. We presume that the people of France should be aware of the fact that, despite this statement, no questions were raised during bilateral contacts in Moscow. Such anti-Russia moves have an extremely counterproductive effect on the development of bilateral relations, particularly in light of President Emmanuel Macron’s calls to “reconsider” the European security architecture and step up a “strategic” dialogue with Russia in this connection.

We, for our part, firmly advocate the use and exploration of outer space exclusively for peaceful purposes. Our approaches are confirmed in the Declaration of the 10th BRICS Summit, published on July 26, which underscores the paramount significance of strict compliance with, consolidation and strengthening of the existing laws and regulations stipulating the peaceful use of outer space. It also voices the common concern of the BIRCS countries over a possible arms race in outer space and the fact that it might turn into an arena of military confrontation.

In the past several years, we came up with a whole set of initiatives aimed at preventing an arms race in outer space. The key one is a Russian-Chinese-proposed draft treaty on the prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space, the use of or threat of using force against outer space objects, the renewed version of which was submitted to the Conference on Disarmament in June 2014. Sensible forces in many countries support us. We intend to pursue active and result-oriented work in this direction.

We invite our French partners to join our initiatives, including on not being the first to deploy weapons in space for the sake of preventing an arms race in outer space.

We would like to hear a response to our proposal, which was made publicly, from our French colleagues, publicly as well.



The Munich Agreement

This year, the world marks the 80th anniversary since the signing of the Munich Agreement, which took place on September 29, 1938, and became one of the most tragic events that took place in the wake of World War II. On that day, leaders of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Great Britain and France authorised the annexation of Czechoslovakia, which led to the country’s losing its independence.

The USSR was the only state ready to confront the Nazi regime and stand by Czechoslovakia in accordance with its obligations (as stipulated in Treaties of Mutual Assistance signed with France and Czechoslovakia in 1935). However, as known, London and Paris placed immense pressure on Prague so that it would refuse resisting and choose not to ask for Soviet assistance.

Poland played a particularly harmful role in the crisis by participating in the division of Czechoslovakia together with Germany. Hungary acted in the same way.

Today, in the era of globalisation, when humanity is facing new challenges threatening its very existence, the matter of the Munich deal has become extremely relevant. It has now become the subject of careful examination by not only historians and political scientists, but by the broad international community as well. This is evidenced by scientific and practical conferences, historical and documentary exhibitions and other events dedicated to this topic.

Unfortunately, we must admit that even today not all of us understand that sooner or later, immoral political decisions and overt violations of international law and universally accepted ethical norms lead to the results that are the opposite of what was intended, and backfire against their initiators.

The Munich experience teaches us about the necessity of forming a modern system of international security that excludes the possibility of domination and dictatorship by separate states; it teaches us that such security is indivisible and cannot be ensured at someone else’s expense, and that we can only achieve this goal through common efforts.



We Remember. We Hope. We Live! rally in Berlin

Since 1962, every second Sunday of September, International Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Fascism is marked. Lately, the subject of preserving the memory of these victims has become especially relevant due to increasing glorification of Nazism and attempts to falsify history taking place in a whole range of countries. We have repeatedly stated that we believe this practice to be unacceptable and simply dangerous.

In this regard, we would like to report that on September 9, a rally called We Remember. We hope. We Live! was held in Berlin. It was organised by a number of Russian public organizations. Our country’s delegation was represented by two Heroes of the Russian Federation and 33 former young prisoners from fascist concentration camps. They flew to Berlin to honor the memory of the victims of fascism and to draw the international community’s attention to the increasing number of attempts to falsify history and justify fascism. During their visit, the participants laid flowers to the Soviet War memorial in Treptower Park, visited the site of the former Sachsenhausen Nazi concentration camp, and held meetings with veterans of anti-fascist movements, victims of fascism and representatives from German public organizations. They also had a meeting with Sergei Nechayev, Russian Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Germany.



Desecration of a monument to the Soviet Army in Sofia

On the night of September 8-9, another monument to the Soviet Army in Sofia was vandalised.

We insist that the Bulgarian government take comprehensive measures to protect the monuments in accordance with the Russian-Bulgarian agreements related to preserving monuments of common history and culture in both countries. Please note that the Bulgarian party has still not taken any measures to prevent the desecration of the memory of Soviet soldiers who gave their lives to save the European continent from the Nazis.

We are confident that such acts of vandalism will never meet with understanding from the people of Bulgaria.



Opening of a Russian school in South Ossetia

On September 5, a ceremony was held in the village of Leningor, South Ossetia to open a Russian secondary school built as part of the Russian Federation’s investment programme to improve the republic’s social and economic development.

In addition, a boarding school in Dzau, a secondary school and a kindergarten in the village of Orchosan, and a kindergarten in the village of Leningor opened recently after an overhaul.

The development of socially important infrastructure in South Ossetia is an important part of large-scale support from the Russian Federation aimed at developing the republic as an independent state.



Discrimination against Crimean journalists at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting

During a plenary session on the freedom of the media of an OSCE OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting held on September 11 in Warsaw, the delegations of the US, EU and Ukraine with the support of other Western delegations, in particular, Canada, tried to prevent officially registered Crimean activists and journalists from making speeches. I would like to emphasise that those who tried to deliver a speech had official accreditation for the event. They were not impersonators, and they had all the necessary documents.

In violation of the procedure, after another attack by the Ukrainians, the moderator of the session refused to give the floor to head of the Crimean Tatar television channel Millet Ervin Musayev and representative of the Crimean Civic Chamber Anzhelika Luchinkina. The immediate demarche by the Russian party in protest of this egregious case of discrimination against a journalist brought results: both Musayev and the others were able to speak freely. In this regard, we give credit to the event organisers and the Italian presidency of the OSCE.

Thus, right in front of the eyes of the entire global community, at the platform of the OSCE, an organisation which aims to provide the freedom of speech, including the rights and freedoms of the media, the freedom of speech was suppressed. We are astonished by the level of hypocrisy of some Western countries, first of all, the US, Canada and Austria, which for so many years lamented the human rights violations in “occupied Ukrainian Crimea,” and then when they got a chance to receive information firsthand from the Crimean representatives, these countries did their best to deny their right to speak. The true goal of this is obvious. With all these so-called concerns about human rights and the rights of Crimean residents, Western countries are using the humanitarian subject as an excuse for self-promotion and Russophobia.

I would like to say that the truth will triumph. This plenary session on the freedom of the media at the OSCE platform was, in my opinion, a true dark day for Kiev propaganda: numerous Crimean, and also Ukrainian journalists who have been at the SSU prisons for their professional activity, during the day spoke about the real situation with the freedom of speech in Ukraine, about illegal arrests, physical measures, riots, threats and so on. Everything that was covered up with huge financial inflows will come out more and more. It is scary to imagine what it will be. Everything is being done under the pretext of the fight against the so-called information aggression of Russia.

Apparently, seeing that it was not possible to deny the Crimeans the right to speak, the Ukrainian delegation after some time left the meeting hall in protest. It was uninteresting for them to listen to what was happening in Crimea from its residents. They want to listen to themselves.

I will repeat that the foundation was laid. Crimeans will speak out more. I would like to emphasise that I am not speaking of some new residents or people who are registered in Crimea and have lived for the past 40 years in Russia, but of Crimeans who have lived in Crimea for decades. I hope that you will also listen to them and not ignore what they say.

Our journalists – from Moscow, Crimea and other Russian regions – will continue to actively participate in the OSCE meetings. I want to hope that they will work more actively. It is unbearable to listen to more paid-up Ukrainian propaganda. It was not just an attempt to turn off the microphone for the Crimeans, everything began earlier. I want to share some new information with you.

Journalists, representatives of the Crimean Tatar population of Crimea, on their way from Moscow to Warsaw through Riga, were not allowed aboard an Air Baltic plane by the airline’s staff who said that their Polish visa did not allow transfers. This was something new in the visa regulations. We are now trying to find out if there was a political bias in the actions of the staff. The journalists exchanged their tickets and came to the conference. Someone always tries to put a spoke in our wheels, by not turning on the microphone, or trying to hush up the journalists or not allowing them aboard a plane, denying a visa or cancelling the accreditation.



Legal grounds for the entry of Russian investigators to the Donetsk People’s Republic for investigating the assassination of Alexander Zakharchenko

Russian forensic experts will assist local authorities in their efforts to investigate the terrorist attack at the latter’s request.



Briefing with Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the sidelines of the 2nd Eurasian Women’s Forum

The next briefing is scheduled to be held at 3 pm on September 20 at Tavrichesky Palace in St. Petersburg, on the sidelines of the 2nd Eurasian Women’s Forum.

We are inviting Russian and foreign media outlets to take part in the event.

Accreditation begins today on the Foreign Ministry’s official website (http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3343160).








Answers to media questions:



Question:

The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I has recently sent two representatives to Ukraine. Does another religious war lie in store for us?



Maria Zakharova:

Thank God, we are not facing this prospect. But, unfortunately, the Ukrainian state is manipulating the matter of religion, religious convictions, faith and the right of people to freedom of religion and to choose their religion. This is an established fact. I don’t even want to refer you to the opinion of experts or journalists, just analyse the speeches of President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko. I have never seen any ruder or straight-forward statements in the area of influencing and tampering with church affairs. I know how people defend the interests of believers. But it is another thing when the head of state reshapes religious views and convictions at state level, when his policy aims to pit believers against each other and to play political games inside the church, and to conduct a divide-and-rule policy in an area outside his remit, rather than simply use all this for political purposes (this level is now history). As we all thought, President Poroshenko was the head of a secular state, and I did not hear that he had placed himself in charge of the church, although even more unusual scenarios are possible in the run-up to elections. But, frankly speaking, the statements that have been made give the impression that he probably has some ambitions in this area, as well.



Question:

The matter of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has become rather acute in the past few days. OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger has visited Azerbaijan and Armenia, and President of Russia Vladimir Putin has discussed this matter with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and later with Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan. Do they influence the process in any way? What can you say about the process, considering the developments of the past few weeks in Armenia? What do you think of it?



Maria Zakharova:

Of course, we analyse all the statements concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh peace settlement, and we follow statements being made in the relevant countries. I would like to recall that Russia’s position regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh peace settlement remains unchanged. We believe that the final status of the Nagorno-Karabakh region should be determined by political-diplomatic methods in line with the agreements between the warring parties. For its part, Russia as co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group will continue to provide mediatory services, needed to attain compromise, to the warring parties. It goes without saying that the relevant sides should create the appropriate climate for moving ahead.



Question:

Not so long ago, the Georgian authorities denied entry to four Russian citizens who were going to participate in the South Caucasus international media forum, “The role of the media in building confidence in the region.” I would like to ask you to comment on these actions on Georgia’s part.



Maria Zakharova:

We saw these reports, and we were already asked to comment.

On September 4-7, Tbilisi hosted an international media forum of the South Caucasus, organised by the North-South Political Centre, the Sodruzhestvo Press Club and the Georgia and the World newspaper. The purpose of the media forum was to develop intercultural professional dialogue as well as to strengthen contacts between representatives of the media, the expert community of the South Caucasus and Russia aimed at unbiased coverage of regional problems. More than 80 journalists and political analysts from Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Russia together with other countries attended the event.

I would like to note that the event was planned as a platform to discuss positive Russian-Georgian affairs. Unfortunately, the opponents of getting our bilateral relations back to normal dubbed the event “a forum of pro-Kremlin propagandists” even before it began.

Maybe it is not worth talking about, and maybe I should not even mention it, from my professional experience, but I cannot help reacting to this phrase. I am ashamed to say that I found out about this event from the media reports. I do not know the pro-Kremlin propagandists who organised this forum. Unfortunately, Imedi TV and radio, Rustavi 2 TV, the Ekho Kavkaza (Echo of the Caucasus) radio station and others spared no effort to stir up the negative publicity.

I saw that the four Russian participants who were supposed to speak at the forum were denied entry to Georgia. There were provocative actions during the days of the forum, in particular, from the youth wing of the United National Movement. Later there were reports that the forum had taken place and was not compromised.

In our opinion, there are no pro-Kremlin propagandists involved. On the contrary, any attempts to establish a multilateral dialogue, any opportunity to exchange views should be welcomed. The opinions may differ, someone might not like some of them, but anything can be discussed at a table with the microphones on, especially when it comes to an expert journalistic community. What can be wrong with this is completely incomprehensible. It is a bad thing when they start grabbing the microphone from each other or turning it off; it is not right to demand the expulsion of accredited journalists, or not letting them participate. I have cited several examples today.

The harmonisation of contacts between the countries and peoples of the region should be promoted, not hampered. I very much hope that any attempts to disrupt these efforts will be doomed to failure.



Question (retranslated from English):

John Glen, MP for Salisbury, qualified statements made by Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov in an interview with Margarita Simonyan on the RT Channel as untrustworthy and not the same as the intelligence information. Have you seen this video?



Maria Zakharova:

What video are you talking about? The British MP was in it? I haven’t seen this. If you mean the Petrov and Boshirov interview, I’ve seen it, of course. Who hasn’t seen it?

You asked me about my attitude to the opinion of the British MP who called this interview false, misinforming and untrustworthy. He is not alone in this. Literally within 40 minutes of publication –– I looked at my watch – similar statements were made by the British Foreign Office. They also said this was untrue and disinformation. What are these statements based on? Or are they simply a political declaration? What specifically was false? Regrettably, after today’s publication Britain’s statement that these people do not exist proved to be a lie.

Let us recall how this story developed. At first strange photos were shown and Russia was asked to admit that it had poisoned the Skripals. Russian officials said instantly that they did not know these names. Sometime later they said they requested that Britain send the case materials on these people but our request was denied. Then we said that if Britain officially refused to give us any substantive information on this case, we would have to analyse the media reports. I said this standing at this rostrum in this hall. I said that the law enforcement officials would deal with this, considering a criminal case had been opened. This is exactly what was done and President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about this yesterday.

It appears that British officials lied when they said that these people do not exist and that their names are false. It transpired that they do exist as we have all seen today and their names are not false. They described what had happened to them. I don’t understand on what grounds the Brits officially called them liars in a matter of an hour. Has their psychological condition and conduct been tested? In one hour? In the same way as Novichok was identified and traced to Russia? They said in one hour that these statements were false. Based on what? Did they call the “flight control center” at Downing Street and asked what they should say about everyone’s lies? And received confirmation that the Russians always lie and this idea must be promoted? On what grounds was the official statement made? Moreover, they are the same. The cannonade has been launched. What for? To prevent the British public from thinking and hearing what they said?

I am asking British diplomats again: on what grounds were statements about specific people made rather than simply mythical suspects and photos. Why were their statements qualified as lies and disinformation?

I saw this video today and heard their version of what happened. I immediately contacted Editor-in-Chief of RT TV Margarita Simonyan whom I have known well for several years. I asked her about their psychological condition and what she thought about this interview. Ms Simonyan replied that they were extremely depressed. She said she felt this and they told her about it. She also said that the people sitting in front of her were on the brink of a psychological collapse, a breakdown. I was told this by Ms Simonyan who talked with them personally.

I believe all the questions about false statements or actions should be answered by law enforcement and investigative bodies. It is absolutely unacceptable to accuse people of lying within 30-49 minutes after they gave this account. In addition, they asked the media to protect them against the slandering of their names on a global scale. Saying that they are not comfortable will be a huge understatement. I’m again asking British officials: what legal grounds and what legal framework motivated those who accused these Russian citizens of lying, in only 40 minutes? What prompted this — their psychological profiles, visual impressions or a picture? What lies did British officials discover? When people are accused of lying, this is an official statement. Should the official authorities bear no responsibility for this?

Moreover, we were also asked by many media outlets whether we were perplexed by the photos shown by British officials as screenshots from CCTV cameras. We said honestly that we had questions about them. Let me recall that these were the screenshots of Petrov and Boshirov (they appeared to exist) walking in the corridor. The time on these screenshots was identical to the second. We said we had questions about these corridors and the coincidence in time. I was eager to know whether Ms Simonyan would ask this question and she did! I was interested because after we said we were perplexed, we were attacked by many journalists who said there were many corridors and the two men walked in parallel. The only former official who had questions was the former British ambassador who even wrote about this in social media. Petrov and Boshirov said they were surprised by these shots themselves because they had never walked liked that. This is what they said in the interview.

There are two moments: the lie of British officials that such people do not exist and that in accordance with their information their names are false. It has been proved that this is a lie. These people exist and all of us have seen them. The second moment is about the screenshots. I cannot accuse anyone of lying but after the interview many more questions have arisen as regards the photos, screenshots and the materials presented. Who published them? Who produced them? Who prepared them? What explains these incoherencies and what are these corridors about? Here’s a question that was asked by Petrov and Boshirov themselves, as well as Ms Simonyan, a question that the entire world has asked: apart from the photos of the corridors, are there any other photos that would connect Petrov and Boshirov in any way with Britain’s accusations? We are looking forward to seeing these materials. We are all very interested. If the British officials can personally accuse two civilians of lying within 40 minutes, in five months they should have been able to acquire photos that would link the history of these two people with the accusations against the Russian Federation.

As for any other questions, they should be addressed to the investigative and other law enforcement bodies and all those who must professionally get to the bottom of this horrible story. It is horrible because everything is involved in it: the British propaganda machine, politicians and people who defend their specific interests and pursue their aims.

Today, after this interview, I can understand why Boris Johnson retired. After the statement made by the Foreign Office 40 minutes after this interview, I no longer have any questions about the reasons for his retirement. The experienced politician did not want to be on the team of not simply a “sinking ship” but a “holey boat” under the command of Theresa May. Today it is becoming obvious how these decisions are forged by the British Foreign Office. We saw this mechanism at work today — it took 40 minutes to make yet another accusation, this time, against specific people.



Question:

What does the Foreign Ministry think of the statement made by the Prime Minister of Armenia that in the future Nagorno-Karabakh could become part of Armenia?



Maria Zakharova:

I spoke about Russia’s position on Nagorno-Karabakh in my previous answer.



Question:

Yesterday President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that we found those people, and today they gave an interview to the RT television channel. Did the Foreign Ministry take part in searching for those people?



Maria Zakharova:

You are overestimating our capabilities. We do not deal with such issues but with political assessments. We do not search for people but specialised agencies do; it is strange that you do not know this.



Question:

But the Foreign Ministry is also a specialised agency in a sense.



Maria Zakharova:

We specialise in politics, political assessments and bilateral relations. When we provide concrete data on the fate of and search for people as well as on the aid we provide them, we rely on the information received from specialised agencies. Sometimes we name them: this might be the Russian Emergencies Ministry, Defence Ministry, Healthcare Ministry and so on. Sometimes we just say that these are specialised or law enforcement agencies. I think this is obvious; this is how most foreign services act, or at least many of them, although everyone has different structures. This is how our service works.



Question:

Today Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov spoke about themselves; they are “ordinary” entrepreneurs. When the first information about these two citizens emerged, Fontanka magazine carried out an investigation and published copies of their Russian international passports. According to these data, their passport numbers only differ in the last number: they follow each other. Do you know how they managed to get such passports?



Maria Zakharova:

Now the big question is whether they are “ordinary” or not. I have no idea. First of all, I have never met them in person. The first time I saw them speaking was when I watched their interview at about 1.20–1.25 pm today. I have never seen them before. I do not know what passports or visas they have got. This is not our issue. I think if you have questions about their passports you should turn to the law enforcement agencies that perform searches, issue passports and deal with all the related issues. Numbers, differences in numbers, seals on these passports and signatures are not an issue of ours.



Question:

It is simply curious how this could be because these are passports for travel abroad. Haven’t you asked why it is so?



Maria Zakharova:

Who issued these passports?



Question:

I don’t know who issued them. Russia has, its governmental agencies.



Maria Zakharova:

You are a Russian citizen. Do you understand who issues passports here?



Question:

The Federal Migration Service and the Foreign Ministry.



Maria Zakharova:

Look this up and contact the agency that will answer an official request. I have not seen the passports or the numbers. I have only seen the interview, in Russian, without translation, Margarita Simonyan’s questions and Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov’s answers. I have not seen any other versions of the video except the one in Russian that was published at about 1.15 pm.



Question:

Do you plan to contact them to help them communicate with the British services, which, as I understand, have questions for them?



Maria Zakharova:

Maybe unilaterally. For example if they see me now, we can say that we contacted them, but unilaterally. Personally, I do not plan to contact them. If they, or any other citizens, are in need of the ministry’s assistance on any issue, they can, as you know, turn to us publicly, as the fashion is now, as well as via the section for public requests or our email. What assistance can be provided? Any assistance a Russian, and sometimes a foreign, citizen may have; we have various requests and they will all be examined. I do not want to speak now about the ways that we can provide help; this is a question for these people. If they need anything, like all other Russian citizens, they can use the corresponding mechanisms to send their request to the state agencies. The Foreign Ministry is a state agency; we will examine all public requests.



Question:

The European Union’s Institute for Security Studies has published a report on various scenarios for the Balkan region. The report mostly implies that the Balkan countries need to make a geopolitical choice between Russia and the EU. Do any Balkan countries face this choice today? What does the Foreign Ministry think about this?



Maria Zakharova:

Regarding this approach that, unfortunately, we have experience with, this implies not just these regional countries but other countries, including Ukraine, as well. Ukraine was told to make this choice and to renounce one thing in favour of another before taking its development to a new level. So, we really need to talk about those who force this choice on others, rather than specific regions.

Unfortunately, I agree with you completely: This is an entire direction of political thought that aims to persuade various countries to remain inside their respective associations, organisations, etc., rather than harmonise and coordinate various integration processes and work with countries in certain integration processes without hurting their national interests, or regional ties or goals or their desire to join other integration processes in the future.

This is not Russia’s approach. We advocate working together, where countries, nations and states are not forced into an “either-or” choice. We do not understand why they suggest dividing lines in the 21st century after decades of multi-level international integration and globalisation; they urge countries to make a choice, to cross a threshold and close the door behind them. This runs counter to Russia’s approach.



Question:

In addition to what you are saying, we noted a statement by US Senator Ron Johnson who has met with President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic, the country’s Prime Minister Ana Brnabic and Minister of Foreign Affairs Ivica Dacic. After that, in his interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, he touched on Russian influence in the Balkan region. In his opinion, Russia cannot offer anything to Eastern Europe that would promote the region’s economic recovery; on the contrary, it only destabilises the situation. He also added that the United States would like Russia to be a friendly rival, but that it is, most likely, a rival. Do you agree with this?



Maria Zakharova:

No, we disagree with this completely. Although these statements are, in our opinion, basically incorrect, they call for certain examples and facts. We constantly hear clear accusations with regard to Russia whose authors, especially US Senators, fail to provide examples or facts. We would like to hear at least a couple of reasons for the Senator’s statements, so as to provide some counter-argument. In a broader, theoretical, sense, we disagree.



Question:

Regarding the region’s economic development, what about the South Stream project? How did this infringe upon someone’s interests?



Maria Zakharova:

Maybe you should address these questions to the European Commission or those countries that used their political tools to meddle in the pragmatic decision-making process.



Question:

You promised to prepare an answer to the question on whether Russia has abandoned its citizens in Ukrainian prisons.



Maria Zakharova:

Yes, we are working on it. We are working on it, there will be an answer. Today I have already answered a question from you. I will give an answer to the other question as soon as possible. We have most certainly not abandoned them. You also promised me to be more specific. What exactly would you like to know?



Question:

Are you aware that Russian nationals who fought in Donbass were convicted in Ukraine and are now asking President Vladimir Putin to exchange them for Ukrainian nationals in Russian prisons?



Maria Zakharova:

Please provide specific names and facts so that I can give you a specific answer. Overall, we are aware of a great number of stories that you mentioned about Russian nationals who are arbitrarily detained by the Kiev regime, including in prisons, and their rights are violated. We are dealing with these matters and offering regular comments. If you have questions regarding specific names or lists of names, we will be glad to provide all the information. Please give me names and I will answer.



Question:

Yesterday Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin announced that the water supplies to the “occupied territory” (meaning Crimea) will never be provided under a contract that says “Crimea, Russia.” Due to this difficult situation, the man-made disaster, is Russia ready to agree that the contract will somehow state that the territory is occupied by the Russian Federation and thus resolve the humanitarian problems of the local people?



Maria Zakharova:

Do you know that any threat to civil infrastructure is qualified as an act of terrorism by international law – specifically, European law?



Question:

I do not quite understand how this is related.



Maria Zakharova:

Very simply. A lot of what is being done by the Kiev regime – either directly or by ‘inspiring’ so-called public activists to impose energy and other types of blockades on Crimea, to act in a harmful manner, as well as to promote blocking campaigns to prevent Crimea’s civil infrastructure from operating – all this is one way or another subject to legal assessment and is qualified by the European Union as acts of terror. When people are blackmailed and threatened with having water shut off, electricity cuts, arson, explosions and everything else that goes along with blockade threats, it is all the same, unfortunately. As concerns vital supplies to Crimea such as water and electricity, I can assure you that the Russian Federation will do everything that is necessary. I really wish Kiev did not stoop as low as starting another cycle of terrorist activity as qualified by European law and did not inspire anybody to engage in explosions, arson, cutting off water and electricity and what not. There are plenty of examples. I think that if someone promotes democratic values it is time they stopped literally blowing things up.



Question:

Did I understand you correctly that, in your opinion, Crimea does not need water from Ukraine because Russia is already handling this matter?



Maria Zakharova:

I said that Moscow will take all necessary measures for Crimea to have water, electricity and other vital supplies, including through inter-agency cooperation. As you understand, the Foreign Ministry is not responsible for water supplies. I can get more information from my colleagues and send you a detailed answer. I understand that you, as a citizen of Ukraine, feel for Crimea and, as a Ukrainian journalist, you will do everything to prevent Crimea from having no water. Do I understand you correctly? On our part, we will do what we can.



Question:

Yesterday the European Parliament launched a mechanism that can be used to suspend Hungary’s right to vote in the Council of the European Union. It is clear that the problem concerns the fact that Hungary does not want to accept refugees and closes NGOs, such as the Open Society Foundations. Considering the fact that Prime Minister Viktor Orban is one of the few politicians who are in favour of raising sanctions from Russia, would you regard this as Strasbourg challenging Moscow?



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot agree that Viktor Orban is one of the few. The number of such politicians is growing. He is one of the few who does this publicly. A vast number of various politicians speak about this unofficially or off the record, including heads of state and government, representatives of parties and movements. I think almost everyone writes about this today, showing numbers together with analyses.

Speaking about matters related to migration and quote introduction and distribution, the European Union must deal with this on its own. Of course, we see and understand what is happening there. We cannot help worrying about these processes, because they have nothing to do with human rights and analysis of what can happen in the future. This makes us question the solidarity we so often hear about from our European and Western colleagues. It can manifest in totally made-up stories, but the situation remains far from solidarity when it comes to the actual situation “on soil” in EU countries.



Question:

Do you think sanctions are aimed at Hungary only because of immigrants and NGOs? Or also because of Viktor Orban’s friendship with Moscow?



Maria Zakharova:

It is hard to tell. It is difficult to answer this question. It would be better to ask those behind these sanctions. But it is obvious that in some countries people who openly proclaim their disagreement or alternative opinion (I am not only speaking about heads of state and politicians, but also about usual people who cannot tolerate anti-Russian sentiments and this endless “with us or against us” anymore) are being regarded as enemies or “Kremlin agents.” We have spoken about this today; there are many examples. I am not speaking only about politicians and heads of state but about the general shadow of Russophobia all over the world. You can see that people have become desperate trying to say how much these sentiments are hindering the development, of European states in particular.



Question:

An employee of Rudaw television channel, a Syrian citizen, had to live abroad in Iraqi Kurdistan like many millions of Syrians. After the alleviation of the situation, he decided to return back home, but was detained by Syrian forces during his trip to Aleppo. His wife and children were let go, but nothing has been heard from him so far. The channel and his family fear for his life.

I am saying this because Russia does a lot to help the refugees return (both internally displaced persons and those living abroad). It is widely discussed in Syria; President of Russia Vladimir Putin talked about this during his foreign visit. Could we hope that the Russian Foreign Ministry would help get any information about our employee?



Maria Zakharova:

You can send us your requests and the material. We will see what we can do in this case. I cannot say anything about this case. I do not know the situation, but I am ready to transfer the information to those who work with this “on the ground.”



Question:

The process to establish the Syrian Constitutional Committee should have been launched after the Tehran summit. Would you say that everything is being done to derail this process?



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot tell if everything is being done. I am not the one to judge the scale. But I can confirm that there are attempts to torpedo the settlement process in Syria, including related to movement towards a constitutional reform. Unfortunately, the facts are clear; we have the corresponding information. I do not believe any special knowledge is necessary to see the clear trend to try to torpedo the process.



Question:

Washington has voiced its position on Donbass and the election in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. The US Department of State’s spokesperson Heather Nauert said that the US condemns the plan to hold elections there and noted that these territories allegedly remain under Russia’s control, which makes the elections impossible and contradictory to Russia’s obligations under the Minsk agreements. Does the US have the right to comment on the Minsk agreements without being party to them? Can this statement be viewed as the US’s attempt to destabilise the situation?



Maria Zakharova:

To answer your question directly, it believes it does. We ask this question (regardless of whether it has the right or not) considering how constructive these statements are and whether they are made to improve the situation on the ground.

If we are speaking about elections in Donbass, first of all we believe that the decision to hold an election is the decision of the people of Donbass. As you know (I will repeat what you know well), the announcement on holding elections on November 11 for the heads of people’s councils of the Donbass republics followed the death of DPR head Alexander Zakharchenko in a terrorist attack. I would like to note once again that he signed the Minsk agreements. It is completely obvious that this murder was aimed to torpedo the settlement process in Donbass. Unfortunately, considering the analysis of the political statements that have been made, all of this fits Kiev’s logic of a military solution to the intra-Ukrainian crisis. Based on all the above-mentioned factors and these conditions, any power vacuum can be quite dangerous. Those who ordered and executed the attack must yet be found. Probably those who supported this murder and this attack morally, emotionally and politically hope to destabilise the situation.

Speaking in global terms, of course we understand who pushes Kiev into this “muscle-flexing” and endless return to the combat scenario: Western curators. These are people who regularly provide lethal weapons and send military inspectors there. These are not people who try to appeal to Kiev’s conscience to rebuild normal and civilised life, for example, to return pension and social payments in Donbass or make payment systems function again. No, these are people who provide everything related to the combat scenario there. For example, the US Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker said that the Donbass republics must disappear. In what context? The Minsk agreements? The concept that the entire world agrees there is no alternative to the Minsk agreements? Or the logic of what has really happened in Donbass: the murder of Alexander Zakharchenko? The big question is why such statements were made.

Despite these provocations, we stand on the fact that the Minsk agreements – and we reaffirm this – remain the only way to settle the crisis peacefully and should be strictly observed. We call on our partners to influence Kiev so that it would shift from military rhetoric and actions to implementing its obligations as soon as possible.



Question:

State Duma Deputy Sergey Mironov said that accusations against Russian leaders are intolerable and could be a reason to break diplomatic relations. Where is the red line?



Maria Zakharova:

Public representatives, analysts and journalists can make such statements only as a personal opinion. Only the Russian leadership has the right to make statements like this.

Regarding the red line, this is a metaphor. I think the red line has already been crossed in many areas. With respect to London, it is honour, dignity and respect for freedom of speech and an independent media. This is only about Salisbury and the Skripal case. Respect and care for the UN system and the related agencies as well as respect for international law in general – these are all points where a red line was crossed long ago.

Take several examples of what is happening in and around the OPCW; how it is forced to make political decisions in the interests of a certain group of countries.

Look at how the media work: in the last five months all the updates on Salisbury, Amesbury and the Skripal case were not made by official representatives of the British government but by the media. The media were used as a speaker, a tool and a mechanism.

It took 30–40 minutes today to officially call two men liars. For five months we only saw how London spreads the information it needs through media leaks in order to create an impression that an investigation is being carried out without providing facts it will have to answer for later.

All of this proves that the red line has already been crossed in many respects.



Question:

Poland has dismissed MGIMO graduates from its Foreign Ministry. We know that you, too, are a MGIMO graduate. Is it such a terrible university that its graduates have to be dismissed?



Maria Zakharova:

Why do you think that, if someone is afraid of something, he or she fears just one thing? Perhaps, this highlights a phobia and the poor stress-resistance levels of people who are afraid of MGIMO, as well as of the dark and mice.

This decision was not made yesterday; this story has been dragging on for a long time and is being regularly revived by Polish politicians and representatives of official agencies. This often happens during bilateral relations: A story is chosen and is updated and revived over and over for no apparent reason.

We have heard these statements before. We want to clearly reaffirm the fact that human resource policies, especially those of foreign ministries, are the sovereign prerogative of an independent state.

This whole story seems strange. Instead of commenting on the Polish side’s statement, I would like to say that MGIMO graduates and those of other Russian universities, including those in the humanities, science, mathematics, physics, art, culture and regional studies, work successfully in many areas and achieve fantastic results for the benefit of their countries at international organisations and in many areas. These people are the pride and glory of their countries. In this respect, you should focus on pragmatism and people’s contribution to their country’s overall potential, rather than ideological considerations. It is important to look at professional qualities and see if they are patriots and a valuable asset of their country or unprofessional specialists.

Many graduates of Russian universities are a valuable asset to their home states and nations. People are proud of them.

Despite regular political changes in Poland and the world, these people are treated with respect. This attitude hinges on the contribution of specific persons to the development of the nation, people and the state, rather than on time-serving and ideological approaches.

The story you mentioned in your questions is reminiscent of a prehistoric and archaic approach.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/s...ent/id/3343212
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 5th, 2018 #505
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the opening ceremony of the historical and documentary exhibition “Munich-38: On the Threshold of Disaster,” Moscow, September 19, 2018



19 September 2018 - 12:06







Mr Artizov,

Your Excellency,

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues,

Today we are opening the historical and documentary exhibition, “Munich-38: On the Threshold of Disaster,” a joint project of Russia’s Federal Archival Agency, the State Archives of the Russian Federation and the State Military Archive, supported by the Foreign Ministry.

As Head of the Federal Archival Agency Andrei Artizov said, this exhibition presents to the public authentic documents on the pre-WWII history of international relations. A significant part of the materials, including foreign documents, are displayed for the first time. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the archivists, historians, and everyone involved in the implementation of this project.

This display is a vivid confirmation that the events of that period should be viewed in the general historical context. The Munich Agreement, which became the prelude to World War II, crowned the shameful and essentially criminal policy of appeasement of the Third Reich. The countries that agreed to that collusion - Great Britain, France, and Italy - had an illusory hope of avoiding the threat of Hitler's aggression and tried to direct it at the East. Among the concessions to the Nazi regime was the connivance of the remilitarisation of Hitler’s Germany, non-interference in the civil war in Spain in 1936-1939 amid flagrant Italian-German support for the Franco insurgency, the silent acceptance of the Anschluss of Austria, and the refusal to cooperate with our country, the Soviet Union, on building a collective security system in Europe. They turned a blind eye to the persecution of Jews in Germany. As a reminder – this year, we will mark another sad anniversary – the 80th anniversary of the so-called Crystal Night, which became a prologue to the Holocaust.







Today, when we are witnessing the creeping rehabilitation of Nazism, it is important not only to honour the memory of millions of innocent victims, but also to do our utmost to prevent the recurrence of such tragedies in the future.

The Munich Agreement is a classic example of disastrous consequences caused by disregard for international law, belief in one's own exceptionalism and infallibility, and reliance on national egotism. These lessons of the past should serve as a warning to all of us, given the current realities. It is obvious that real security can only be equal and indivisible and should be based on the fundamental principles of international relations stipulated in the UN Charter: respect for the sovereignty of states, non-interference in their internal affairs, and peaceful settlement of disputes.

Russia will continue to contribute in every possible way to the strengthening of global and regional stability, and to working out common responses to the numerous challenges and threats of the present. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stressed, we are open to interaction with everyone who is ready to collaborate on the basis of equality, respect for each other, and a balance of interests.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3347125






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening of a history exhibition dedicated to the 190th anniversary of diplomatic ties between Russia and Greece, Moscow, September 19, 2018



19 September 2018 - 17:15







Your Excellency Mr Ambassador,

Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are here today to inaugurate an exhibition marking the 190th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and Greece. Recognising Greece in 1828 despite strong opposition from external forces was an extremely important and wise step for our country.

This opened an entirely new page in the chronicle written over many centuries by the two peoples. In fact, we are united by our spiritual values and culture. It was from Byzantium that Christianity came to Ancient Rus, playing a critical role in the development of the Russian state. The Orthodox faith has remained a powerful unifying factor for Russians and Greeks for more than a thousand years.

At the exhibition that we are inaugurating today there are more than 60 documents and photographs from the foreign policy archives of the Russian Empire and the Russian Federation. Many of them are truly unique. Among the exhibit items is a letter from Greek military commanders to Emperor Nicholas I asking him to support the struggle of the Greek people and help them gain independence. In response, Russia not only supported the principle of establishing a sovereign and independent Hellenic state, but made a substantial contribution toward achieving this goal.

The Greek struggle for liberation has special importance for our peoples, whose friendship is sealed by the blood of Russian and Greek soldiers who fought side by side and faced extreme hardships in the name of the timeless values of truth and justice.

Russia has become a second home to many Greeks, including those who decided to dedicate their lives to diplomacy and military service. Quite a few officers of Greek descent served in Russia’s foreign ministry, including some 150 officers who reached the rank of envoy or even ambassador. Ioannis Kapodistrias is a case in point. His role and place in the history of our countries can hardly be understated. The exhibits here include the directive on his appointment as head of the Hellenic Republic’s government.

A section of this exhibition is devoted to Olga Konstantinovna Romanova, who was the granddaughter of Emperor Nicholas I and spouse of King George I of Greece. Queen Olga was praised in both countries for her charitable undertakings. She was the one who pioneered the foundation of the Hellenic Red Cross, and thanks to her proactive efforts and generous donations a Russian Navy hospital was opened in Piraeus. Olga Konstantinovna made a substantial contribution to preserving Hellenic cultural heritage, and helped open and expand the collections of the Byzantine and Christian Museum in Athens.

In the harsh years of the Second World War, our countries fought against Nazis as allies. Our country has always praised the role played by fighters of the Greek resistance movement in achieving victory. We have always remembered and will never forget the act by Manolis Glezos and Apostolos Santas, who tore down Hitler’s flag from the Acropolis. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to our Greek friends for treasuring the memory of Russian and Soviet soldiers buried in Greece.







Ladies and Gentlemen,

The spiritual unity of our peoples and the bonds of sympathy and mutual assistance that unite them, as well as our shared historical past and cultural heritage form an impregnable and solid foundation of Russian-Greek cooperation. Times may change, but we always value the fact that our relations are essentially beyond the reach of outside forces, remaining an important factor of stability and peace in Europe. Resilient in the face of changing political tides, we stand ready to continue strengthening the already-strong partnership between Russia and Greece across the board. The Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation signed by our countries a quarter century ago is another essential factor facilitating these efforts.

I strongly believe that today’s exhibition will make a positive contribution to strengthening cultural ties between our countries and peoples.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3347535






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina Igor Crnadak, Sarajevo, September 21, 2018



21 September 2018 - 14:53








Mr Minister, Igor, colleagues,

I had a meaningful meeting today with three members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as detailed talks with the Foreign Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As my colleague have said, Russia firmly believes in the non-alternative nature of the Dayton agreements. We support sovereignty, territorial integrity and the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and, of course, the constitutional authority of its two entities and the principle of equality of the three constitutional peoples. We want the results of the elections that are to be held in Bosnia and Herzegovina next month to be based on these principles as well. This will contribute to consolidating all Bosnians around the Dayton principles, which, I believe, is a key to the successful development of the Bosnian state. We very much appreciate the willingness to expand cooperation with Russia, as reiterated by all the members of the Presidency today, as well as during the talks. In turn, we are also interested in cooperating with Bosnia and Herzegovina and both its entities.

Bilateral turnover is growing steadily. This trend is accompanied, in particular, by a significant increase in the export of Bosnian fruits and vegetables to Russia. Major investment projects are being implemented by our companies, specifically, Zarubezhneft, Sberbank and others.

This year, Russia and Bosnia and Herzegovina mark 40 years of cooperation in the gas sector. We continue uninterrupted gas supplies to Bosnia and Herzegovina, with Gazprom successfully cooperating under two separate contracts with both the Republic of Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We note the stepped up activities of the Intergovernmental Russian-Bosnian-Herzegovinian Commission for Trade and Economic Cooperation, which creates better conditions for increasing the volume of cooperation.

We have traditionally close ties in culture and education. We continue to provide scholarships for students from Bosnia and Herzegovina who want to study at Russian universities. The number of these students is on the rise, which we are pleased with. We have a promising future in military memorial affairs which is due to our historical and spiritual closeness. Some cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina are participating in the Immortal Regiment drive for the second year, something that is held in Russia on May 9.

We have a very good contractual and legal framework. This year, it was supplemented by labour migration agreements, as well as agreements in labour and employment. Work is nearing completion on new agreements, including in the areas of avoidance of double taxation, cooperation in culture, science and education, social security, and tourism.

We have just signed a plan for working consultations between our Foreign Ministry and the Foreign Ministry of Bosnia and Herzegovina for 2019-2020. It provides for further harmonisation of our approaches, exchange of views on key international issues, including processes in Europe, the Euro-Atlantic area, interaction in the UN, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe. There will also be consultations on matters of southeastern Europe, primarily the Balkans. Our positions are very close. My colleague and friend just mentioned the need to comply with the principles outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 1244 with regard to the Kosovo settlement. We welcome the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. Most importantly, things that are agreed upon as part of this dialogue must be fulfilled. We also agree that all external players should not create confrontational situations in the Balkans and none of these external players should claim control of the Balkans and tell everyone else to stay away. Our country closely and productively cooperated with the EU, the United States, including during the coordination of the Dayton agreements. I see no reason why this cooperation should now be questioned.

In closing, I would like to thank our hosts and Mr Minister personally, for the hospitality and the invitation to visit Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Thank you.



Question:

During the ongoing election campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina several politicians are trying to brag about their alleged support by the Russian Federation. Does Russia have favoured candidates in these elections, above all Milorad Dodik?



Sergey Lavrov:

We favour the favourites of the Bosnian people who will cast votes for their chosen candidates. We never try to promote certain candidates during the elections in other countries. We will always respect the choice of the Bosnians and will work with whomever they vote for.



Question:

Yesterday, the Pravda za Davida public group sent you an open letter. The same letter was received by Foreign Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina Igor Crnadak. Do you know the content of this letter? What can you tell us about this issue?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yesterday, we arrived at 2 am. I have had no time to read this letter. Mr Crnadak just told me that it was sent to him and to me. I have to read it first.


***


Sergey Lavrov (adds after Mr Crnadak’s words that it was difficult to plan a meeting with the authors of the letter with Mr Lavrov’s busy schedule in Bosnia and Herzegovina):

It would have been easier to do this if the letter had arrived some days earlier rather that last night.



Question:

The Syrian opposition believes that the agreement signed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan on establishing a demilitarised zone in Idlib has put an end to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s dream of regaining full control of his territory. Does it really have no time frame, as Damascus keeps claiming?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for the opinions of the Syrian opposition, we cannot see them as a demonstration of respect for Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is fixed in the relevant UN Security Council resolution. The main threat to Syria’s territorial integrity is emanating from the country’s eastern areas, the eastern bank of the Euphrates, where independent autonomous entities are actually being established under direct US control.

We will insist on discontinuing these illegal activities. We continue to express this, both directly to the Americans and in the UN Security Council.

As for the Russia-Turkey agreement on Idlib, it is primarily aimed at eradicating the terrorist threat. Of course, this is an intermediate step because it is basically the creation of a demilitarised zone. But this step is necessary because this zone will make it possible to prevent the continued shelling from the Idlib de-escalation zone at Syrian military positions and at the Russian military base in Khmeimim.

By the middle of October, all Jabhat-al-Nusra fighters must leave this demilitarised zone. All heavy weapons must also be withdrawn. Just yesterday and the day before, the Russian and Turkish militaries coordinated on the ground the borders of the demilitarised zone, so the process of implementing the Sochi agreements is making steady headway.



Question:

Can you please comment on the latest US sanctions against Russia. What measures will be taken in response to the pressure on foreign customers over ordering the S-400 system?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for the announced US sanctions against Russian legal entities and individuals, we are no longer surprised by anything. As for the Sukhoi Company and the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Plant, these sanctions are certainly yet another manifestation of dishonest competition. I think we are seeing, for the umpteenth time, that the dollar system has fully discredited itself and trust in it is sharply falling.

This is not the first time that serious international issues that concern many members of the world community are being held hostage to US electoral cycles. But this is a very short-sighted approach because as I’ve already said, confidence in the IMF’s current principles has been hugely undermined. More and more countries are thinking of ways to avoid any dependence on this international monetary and financial system.

We are considering this situation and taking the necessary measures to avoid dependence on countries that behave in this way towards their international partners. An increasing number of our partners in Asia and Latin America are coming to adopt the same approach. I think this trend will only grow stronger.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3348383






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the ceremony to unveil a memorial plaque on the construction site of a Russian-Serbian church in Banja Luka, September 21, 2018



21 September 2018 - 18:39







Friends,

Mr President,

Mr First Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia,

We came here today for a momentous event – laying the foundation stone of a church in memory of the holy royal passion-bearers, which will be the important first piece of the future Russian-Serbian Centre of Cultural and Spiritual Education in Banja Luka.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who initiated this unique project and who are seeing it through, the leadership of Republika Srpska and President Milorad Dodik personally, representatives of the Russian and Serbian Orthodox Churches, the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, the Nizhny Novgorod Region Administration, the Moscow Architectural Institute and other non-governmental institutions.

We know that the Serbian people reserve a special place of honour for the memory of the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II, who sided with Serbia after it had been left to face a treacherous and superior enemy alone.

We fought shoulder to shoulder during the difficult years of World War I. Many Serbians who lived on the territory of occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina were forcibly conscripted into the Austro-Hungarian Army. However, later they voluntarily defected to the Russian side, joined the liberating Slavic corps and heroically fought against the common enemy. There is a reason it was Serbian World War I veterans who initiated the construction of a church in memory of Nicholas II and his family 100 years ago.







Our nations faced many trials in the last 100 years. However, this did not shake respect of Russians or Serbians for our shared history and did not erase the memory of the sacrifice, courage and selfless patriotism of our ancestors who gave their lives for the sake of the high ideals of truth and justice.

Today’s ceremony is an important contribution to further strengthening Russian-Serbian friendship, and confirmation of our spiritual and cultural unity and the sincere feelings of affinity that bind us.

I would like to say a special thank you and express my affection for all the people of Banja Luka and Republika Srpska who came to attend this event today.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3348506






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at the joint news conference following talks with President of Republika Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina) Milorad Dodik, Banja Luka, September 21, 2018



21 September 2018 - 20:50







Esteemed Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues,

It is very pleasant to be in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This morning we worked in Sarajevo, and just now have had very good talks in Banja Luka.

When discussing Russia’s relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina, President of Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik and I concentrated on relations with Republika Srpska.

We wish to develop our ties in every area, including the economic, trade, investment, humanitarian, cultural and education areas. The growth in trade between Russia and Bosnia and Herzegovina is largely determined by our trade with Republika Srpska, including the increased exports of its fruits and vegetables to Russia. Today, we discussed in detail ways to help settle the issues that will make it possible to export meat and dairy products from Republika Srpska to Russia.

We are grateful to the leaders of Republika Srpska for their invariable support of Russian companies operating in that country. These are primarily subsidiaries of Zarubezhneft – the Srpski Brod Oil Refinery, the Modrica Oil Refinery and the network of Nestro Petrol stations.

Gazprom has been directly supplying Republika Srpska with Russian gas for several years. Last December, Gazprom LNG signed an agreement with GAS-RES to establish a joint venture to build an LNG plant near the city of Zvornik. We hope that this liquefied natural gas will be in demand not only in Republika Srpska but also in neighbouring Serbia.

Republika Srpska is actively developing ties with various Russian regions. St Petersburg Governor Georgy Poltavchenko visited recently to discuss promising economic and humanitarian projects.

We appreciate the attention paid by the leaders of Republika Srpska to the consolidation of contacts between our peoples that are linked by the bonds of friendship and historical roots.

I am very grateful to our friends here for their support of the initiative to build a Russian Orthodox Church in memory of the family of Tsar Nicholas II in the centre of Banja Luka. It will be a key element of the future Russian-Serbian cultural centre.

This caring attitude towards our common glorious history is also manifest in the fact that the Immortal Regiment march has been held on May 9 in Republika Srpska as in the Russian Federation for a second year.

We also discussed regional affairs. As for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Russia is firmly committed to the Dayton agreements and objects to any attempts to revise them. Any reforms are only possible by the agreement of two equitable entities and all three constitutional nations. We invariably note the commitment of Republika Srpska and personally President Milorad Dodik to the Dayton agreements. We discussed this with members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo earlier today.

We consider absolutely timely, if not overdue, the task of liberating Bosnia and Herzegovina from the manifestations of external control and finally turning it into an independent and sovereign state that decides its own destiny.

Our positions coincide fully on other persisting problems in the Balkans: in Kosovo, Macedonia and Montenegro. We are confident that these issues should be settled on the basis of mutual agreement of the parties involved fully in keeping with the opinions of the population in these countries. The policy of some external actors who are attempting to make the Balkan region’s people face the choice – either they are with the West or with Russia – is absolutely unacceptable. I already spoke about this in Sarajevo but let me reiterate that Russia co-authored the Dayton Agreement and UNSC Resolution 1244 on Kosovo settlement, alongside with Europe and the United States. We see no reasons to stop this interaction and turn the Balkans again into a point of contention between Russia and our Western colleagues.

I would like to once again thank President of Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik and all his colleagues for hospitality, for their very warm welcome and constructive talks.







Question:

How would you comment on the West’s statement regarding Russia’s influence in the Balkans, especially in Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that the President of Republika Srpska is a Russian man, even though we are perfectly aware that throughout all those years Russia has been very clear about the need to comply with the Dayton Agreement?



Sergey Lavrov (answering after Milorad Dodik):

As to my response to your question, I agree with what President Dodik has just said. We have always been honest in our foreign policy. If we agree to something, we always observe our obligations. It fully applies to our stance on the Dayton Agreement. We are not trying to change it; we are not trying to preserve elements of protectorate over Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the contrary, at all forums, including the UN Security Council and the Peace Implementation Council, we stand up for Dayton Agreement’s basic principles, namely the constitutional equality of the two entities and the three peoples under the constitution. According to the Dayton Agreement, Bosnia and Herzegovina was recognised to be an independent sovereign state. Bosnia and Herzegovina has been a UN Security Council member for more than 15 years. I think it is unacceptable at the current historical stage that the Office of the High Representative still exists here appointed by the West, which can annul any agreements between the three constitutional peoples.

As to the other Balkan countries (and you asked about what I think in general of the West’s position regarding Russia’s influence in the Balkans), I can say the following. A very ambiguous situation emerged in Macedonia after signing the Prespa Agreement, whose legality is questioned by many political forces in Macedonia. A referendum is pending, as you know. I invite you to look at the media and social networks, the internet to see what Russian thinks about it. We do not say anything that could be interpreted as campaigning for a particular voting. At the same time, look at the number of Western visitors that have been to Macedonia in the past month: heads of many leading European countries, US administration representatives. They are not shy in their public speeches in Skopje to campaign for voting in favour of the Prespa Agreement at the referendum. If that is not interference in internal affairs, then I do not know what could be called such interference.

You probably noted the early September statement by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, who said that the Balkans are a EU territory and nobody else should try to meddle there. We do not object in any way to the striving of the Balkan countries, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, to join the EU. But such arrogant great-power chauvinist statements do no credit to the EU. Such a position contradicts the natural right of all the Balkan states not only to strive to join the EU but also to develop relations with other countries that meet the interests of those respective states.



Question:

Can Russia really leave the Council of Europe?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia wants to remain in the Council of Europe as it was at the time when we joined it. I mean the Council of Europe which had it written in its founding document, the Charter, that each country has equal rights in all its structures. No member of the Council of Europe can be discriminated against in any of the Council’s bodies. We are ready to keep on working in that Council of Europe. All the rest depends on the members of that organisation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3348662






The following events are not displayed in the English version.

18 September 2018

Telephone conversation of S. Lavrov with Kyrgyz Foreign Minister E. Abdyldaev - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3346518

Congratulations of S. Lavrov to the Rector of the Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University V. Nifadev on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the university - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3346562


21 September 2018

Conversation of S. Lavrov with First Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia I. Dacic - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3348694
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; December 5th, 2018 at 02:18 AM.
 
Old December 5th, 2018 #506
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

No events in which persons of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia participated or its non-personal statements were not translated at all.





Personal events:

17 September 2018

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the Ambassador of Bolivia in Russia, U. Villarroel - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3344913


18 September 2018

Meeting of V. Titov with FAO Deputy Director General V. Rakhmanin - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3346708

Meeting of V. Titov with the Ambassador of Denmark in Moscow K. Söndergord - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3346718

Meeting of S. Vershinin with Israeli charge d'affaires in Moscow K. Cohen-Gat - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3346943


19 September 2018

M. Zakharova's answer to the question of the Izvestia newspaper regarding the opening of new Russian foreign institutions - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3347105

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of China to Russia, Li Huei - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3347115

Meeting of V. Titov with the Ambassador of Norway in Moscow R. Resaland - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3347135

M. Zakharova's comment in connection with the disruption of the meeting within the framework of the incident prevention and response mechanism on the Georgian-South Ossetian border - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3347155

Meeting of V.Titov with the Ambassador of Estonia in Moscow M. Laidre - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3347273


20 September 2018

Meeting of I. Morgulov with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan N. Andisha - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3348070


21 September 2018

S. Ryabkov's comment in connection with the next anti-Russian sanctions of the USA - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3348147

Meeting of S. Vershinin with Norwegian Foreign Ministry Special Representative for Syria and Iraq K. Lein - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3348199

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the appointed Ambassador of India to Russia V. Varma - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3348249

Speech by G. Lukyantsev at the closing of the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting on the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Warsaw, September 21, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3348302

The meeting of I. Morgulov with the chairman of the Central Committee of the Fatherland Front of Vietnam, Chan Thanh Man - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3348466

Telephone conversation of I. Morgulov with the special representative of the US State Department for North Korean policy S. Bigan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3348496






Non-personal events:

17 September 2018

Speech by the delegation of the Russian Federation during the session of the IAEA Board of Governors on the agenda item “Application of IAEA safeguards in the Middle East”, Vienna, 10-14 September 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3344548

Speech by the delegation of the Russian Federation during the session of the IAEA Board of Governors on the agenda item “Application of IAEA Safeguards in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”, Vienna, September 10-14, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3344558

Speech by the delegation of the Russian Federation during the session of the IAEA Board of Governors under the agenda item "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Syrian Arab Republic", Vienna, 10-14 September 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3344568

Speech by the Delegation of the Russian Federation during the session of the IAEA Board of Governors on the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Vienna, September 10-14, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3344578

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia on the steps of Ukraine for the termination of the Russian-Ukrainian Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3345045

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry on anti-Russian insinuations in the Swiss media - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3345095


18 September 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the desecration of a monument to Soviet soldiers in Mikolin (Poland) - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3346953

The Russian foreign Ministry summoning Ambassador of Switzerland I. Rosier - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3346963

The Russian foreign Ministry summoning Ambassador of the Netherlands R. Jones-Bos - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3346973


19 September 2018

Meeting of the Collegium of the MFA of Russia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3347322

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the issue of the consideration by the UN Security Council of the problems of the sanctions regime in relation to the DPRK - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3347585

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the inter-Korean summit talks in Pyongyang - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3347623

Laying a wreath at the burial place of L. I. Mendelevich - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3347633


20 September 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the regular report of the UN Observer Mission on Human Rights in Ukraine - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3347768

Session of the Interdepartmental Commission on ensuring Russia's participation in the activities of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3347788

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the publication of the US State Department Report Counter-Terrorism in the world - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3348088


21 September 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in connection with the completion of the 22nd Meeting of the OSCE on review of implementation of commitments in the human dimension - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3348452

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the adoption by the UN Human Rights Council of the results of the Universal Periodic Review of the human rights situation in the Russian Federation - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3348588
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 5th, 2018 #507
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the sidelines of the Second Eurasian Women’s Forum, St Petersburg, September 20, 2018



20 September 2018 - 17:36







Esteemed colleagues,

Today, we are meeting not in Moscow but at an on-site briefing in St Petersburg, on the sidelines of a major forum that has drawn women from all over the world – over 110 countries are represented here by professionals, women who specialise in different areas.

Today, everyone heard debates, interesting subjects for discussion on specific issues.

I must also say that this is our second on-site briefing on the sidelines of this forum and we can compare them. Needless to say, the forum has grown into a completely different scale. The first one was an idea that we succeeded in carrying out. It was a test, a kind of improvisation. Today, the scale of it speaks for itself. This is a phenomenal event, very important and topical. There are no formalities in this. The forum is not being held for the sake of a forum. It is a very serious discussion on many topical issues that interest people.

Considering that I am in St Petersburg, I’d like to start our current briefing with the foreign ties of the Northwestern Federal District.



Foreign ties of the Northwestern Federal District

St Petersburg is one of Europe’s internationally recognised business and cultural centres along with the Leningrad Region that leads in attracting foreign tourists and investment in this area. In 2017, the city was visited by 7.5 million foreign guests and this year the number of tourists will exceed 8 million. The region’s large industrial and scientific potential attracts leading world manufacturers. The St Petersburg special economic zone is making good headway, as well as the region’s technology parks and industrial enterprises. St Petersburg’s automobile centre (which includes global carmakers like Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai) has shown the highest production rates in the past five years. There are plans to further expand production localisation, including engine production.

In August, St Petersburg Governor Georgy Poltavchenko visited Japan. The roadmap for developing Hokkaido-St Petersburg cooperation in 2018-2022 was signed as a result.

In the past few months alone, Shanghai Days were held in St Petersburg (this year the two cities celebrate the 30th anniversary of their twin ties) and the Business Cooperation Forum was held during Minsk Days. The city was visited by delegations from Vietnam, Ireland and Scotland.

Regions in the Northwestern Federal District are the main participants in Russia-EU international border cooperation programmes for 2014-2020. They cooperate on joint infrastructure projects with Finland and the Baltic countries.

Apart from organising interstate meetings and major global economic and public forums involving foreign leaders, major politicians, entrepreneurs and cultural figures, St Petersburg is implementing an important international agenda by expanding Russia’s humanitarian influence abroad, promoting the Russian language and culture, preserving the historical truth about Russia’s role in routing Nazism, training foreign students and carrying out “people’s diplomacy” programmes involving the stars of world culture, opera and ballet. Recognising Russia’s exceptional contribution to the development of jazz, UNESCO announced St Petersburg the capital of this music genre in 2018.

We are grateful to the leaders and residents of St Petersburg for their contribution to consolidating our country’s positive image in the international arena, including the event’s excellent organisation and the northern capital’s famous hospitality.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming working visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina

On September 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay a working visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The plan includes meetings with members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Minister of Foreign Affairs Igor Crnadak in Sarajevo. The schedule for consultations between both countries' foreign ministries in 2019-2020 is being prepared for signing.

In Banja Luka, Sergey Lavrov will have talks with President of the Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik and will take part in the unveiling ceremony of a plaque for the dedication and laying of the cornerstone of the Orthodox church commemorating the family of Russian Emperor Nicholas II.

The general plan for the forthcoming meetings is to reaffirm Russia's commitment to the 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, also known as the Dayton Agreement, to support the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, the constitutional powers of its two entities, Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and equality of the three state-forming peoples.

The state of and development prospects for bilateral relations, and opportunities for deepening political, trade, economic, cultural and humanitarian cooperation will also be considered. The officials will exchange views on developments in the Balkans and other current issues on the international agenda.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to attend 73rd UN General Assembly session

On September 18, the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly opened in New York – the central international forum for a comprehensive discussion of pressing world problems. This year, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov heads the Russian delegation to the high-level meetings of the session, which will begin on September 25.

The Foreign Minister’s programme in New York will be as rich as usual and will include a series of meetings with heads of state and government and foreign ministers. He will also meet with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and President of the 73rd session of the General Assembly Maria Fernanda Espinosa. Sergey Lavrov will also participate in the foreign ministers’ meetings of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, BRICS and CSTO, and other high-level thematic meetings. On September 28, he is to speak before the member states at the UN General Assembly.

The Russian participants in the session will focus on promoting the UN’s central role and increasing its authority. We will continue to promote a unifying agenda in the interests of reducing the level of confrontation in the world and effectively resolving pressing problems based on international law. Among our specific priorities is reiterating the unacceptability of distorting history, supporting the creation of a broad anti-terrorist front, and promoting the balanced implementation of “Agenda-2030.”

For more details on Russia's position and approaches at the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly, please visit our website.

We receive many requests for the details of Sergey Lavrov’s programme in New York, and details on the planned meetings. The programme is being finalised. I can list some of the meetings planned. I have already mentioned several multilateral events; as for bilateral meetings, Mr Lavrov will meet with the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, the President of Croatia, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Zambia, the President of Cyprus, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, the NATO Secretary General, the State Council Member, Minister of Foreign Affairs of China, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, the President of Somalia, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, Belize, Suriname, Panama, with colleagues from Switzerland, the OSCE Secretary General, the President of Equatorial Guinea, the Foreign Ministers of Armenia, Sudan, and Jordan. He will hold a separate meeting with the UN Secretary General, alongside the meetings in a multilateral format. Meetings with the Foreign Ministers of Jamaica, France, Saint Vincent and Egypt are being discussed.

Meetings between Russia and the states of the South Pacific are traditionally held on the sidelines of the General Assembly. More meetings are in the works. Sergey Lavrov will later talk to the media on the results of his New York visit; we will keep you informed.



The Russian military aircraft shot down off the Syrian coast

As you know, an Ilyushin Il-20 aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces was shot down off the Syrian coast late in the evening on September 17 while it was on duty patrolling that part of the Mediterranean Sea. Russian military personnel were killed. On behalf of the Foreign Ministry – its leadership and the entire staff – I would like to express my condolences over these tragic deaths.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has given an exhaustive assessment of this tragic accident. The Russian Defence Ministry commented on the events that occurred that night many times and at different levels. Soon more information is expected to be provided – it will be made public – that will give answers to the questions that are arising in connection with this tragedy, in particular regarding the involvement of Israeli military pilots in the accident.

We maintain strong historical ties with Israel. At all stages of the establishment of Israel as a state our country invariably spoke in favour of developing and expanding mutually beneficial and friendly relations between our two countries and expected this Middle East country to fit in with the regional environment, turning into a factor of stability and prosperity in the Middle East.

It is clear that the September 17 tragedy will require that Israel conduct an additional investigation and provide an explanation. I believe the explanation will be given soon. In my view, the Israeli pilots, whose actions created a threat to the Russian aircraft, leading to it being shot down – information from our military experts testifies to this – lacked professionalism, to say the least. It is a shame to hide behind the backs of those who ensure safety, including yours, and, while performing their duty, cannot turn aside from a bullet intended for you.



Syria update

The situation in Syria is a mix of positive and negative factors.

For the first time during the years of crisis, elections to local governments were held in Syria on September 16 with 5,300 polling stations opened across the country. This is a major and long-awaited event for that country, and a good sign of Syria transitioning back to peaceful life and the rebuilding phase.

We have a positive view of the numbers of Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons returning to their homes in Syria. A special international forum could give additional impetus to this process. In the final statement of the trilateral summit of the guarantor countries of the Astana process held in Tehran on September 7, the participants noted the willingness of Russia, Iran and Turkey to consider the possibility of participating in preparations for such a conference.

With the assistance of the Russian Centre for Receiving, Distributing and Accommodating Refugees, the flow of returnees from Lebanon and Jordan continues. More than 13,000 people have returned to their homes in Syria since July 18, 2018 (that is, only in a matter of two months), and more than 242,000 people since September 30, 2015.

Internally displaced persons are returning to their homes as well, since the situation in the area liberated from terrorists has stabilised. Since January 1, 2018, 148,000 IDPs have returned to their homes, and 1,321,000 people in total since September 30, 2015 (the figures are tentative, but based on factual data).

We note with satisfaction the stabilisation of the situation in southwestern Syria after the military operation was successfully completed there in August. Life there is gradually returning to normal. The Syrian government is organising work to restore key infrastructure facilities and various humanitarian projects are still underway.

In all, about 30,000 residential buildings, over 5,000 educational and 150 medical institutions have been repaired in Syria since September 2015. We are talking about a period of several years. Importantly, all of that is happening amid the brutal fight against international terrorism being waged by the Syrians and the Syrian government with Russia’s support. These are not data during peacetime, developing or restoring these buildings during a time not marred by fighting terrorism, but rather at the high point of this fight.

During the same period, Russia carried out about 2,000 humanitarian aid projects, as part of which over 3,000 tonnes of food and basic necessities were distributed. Russian military doctors provided qualified help to 93,000 Syrians.

We are making contacts with stakeholders in order to resolve the acute problem of the Rubkan camp of refugees and internally displaced persons in an area that the United States illegally and unilaterally took under its control. According to our estimates, it can be resolved by providing residents with all forms of humanitarian aid, arranging safe corridors for the people who want to leave, creating status resolution points, and continuing the practice of concluding ceasefire agreements.

During the talks between President Putin and President Erdogan in Sochi on September 17, progress was achieved on the de-escalation zone of Idlib. A memorandum on stabilising the situation in this province was signed, whereby a demilitarised zone with a depth of 15-20 km will be created along the line of contact between the opposition and the Syrian army by October 15. This buffer zone will be jointly controlled by the Russian military police and Turkish patrols.

The agreements reached between Russia and Turkey will save civilian lives. We hope that they will contribute to not only separating moderate opposition groups from terrorists in Idlib, but will also have a sobering effect on the provocateurs who are planning to use a staged chemical attack to justify another aggressive missile and bomb attack on Syria by the US-led coalition.

Unfortunately, it is too early to say this Western-backed scenario is dead. There’s information about ongoing “chemical” preparations. Nusra engages in chemical weapon deliveries to allied illegal armed groups, and the chemical warfare agent sarin was delivered to the national hospital of Idlib.

The notorious White Helmets may play the lead in the planned false flag operation. According to incoming information, hundreds of members of this organisation have recently arrived in Syria and started preparations led by foreign instructors. There’s evidence that women and children abducted by terrorists may become victims of staged attacks.

With their public threats to carry out a large-scale military operation against Syria, our US partners impede the process of reconciliation in this state. Instead of nudging the sensible armed opposition to a dialogue, they instill in the opposition groups an absolutely illusory feeling that they can intervene in the conflict on their side.

Encouraged by this support, the Idlib militants continue their attacks on the territories controlled by the Syrian government. For example, in August, the Russian military recorded 554 ceasefire violations by illegal armed formations, including with the use of anti-aircraft guns and mortars, which killed 29 people. There were about 350 violations since the beginning of September, which indicates that the terrorists are stepping up their efforts.

We noted the mounting scandal in connection with the evidence of assistance provided by the government of the Netherlands to Syrian anti-government groups. We are convinced that this episode must be thoroughly and objectively investigated.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the settlement process in Syria is gradually being taken over by political and diplomatic efforts. After more than seven years of war, the country lies in ruins, and the people badly need all-round support from the international community. In this regard, we again urge the West to abandon its disingenuous show of humanism and join in the efforts to provide genuine assistance to the Syrians in all matters related to rebuilding the state, including support for the returning refugees. The provision of humanitarian aid cannot be subject to political demands, as it is supposed to be an act of humanity and true solidarity.



The Dutch government finances terrorist groups in Syria

We have taken note of a scandal unfolding in the Netherlands, which was provoked by a journalist investigation that revealed facts that indicate that the Dutch government provided aid to terrorist groups in Syria. Let me remind you that this includes Jabhat al-Shamiya, recognised as a terrorist group by the Dutch Prosecutor’s Office, as well as other groups that, in one way or another, are linked to Al Qaeda, one of which became notorious for using civilians as live shields and dragging teenagers into military actions. These organisations received aid through official channels in the Netherlands.

This so-called “non-lethal” aid consisted of various types of ammunition, pickup trucks and satellite phones worth a total of 25 million euros.

The most fantastic thing about it all is that when we appeal to our Western colleagues and propose, at forums and conferences, as well as in our bilateral contacts, to take part in restoring the civilian infrastructure in that country – there is no money, nor is there any enthusiasm for finding it. Twenty-five million euros! Can you imagine how many schools, hospitals, infrastructure facilities, bakeries, humanitarian aid distribution centres, the humanitarian aid itself – clothes, medicines, textbooks for school children – could be provided with this money?

The Dutch government was aware of the fact that the means it provided could be used for purposes that were far from peaceful: for example, pickup trucks can have machineguns mounted to them.

This is being investigated in the Netherlands, but the case materials that have been disclosed make it obvious that support for Syrian anti-government forces was provided in complete violation of international law and was a direct interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.

The Netherlands were guided in Syria by a perverse rationale under which international law can be ignored if human rights, as decided by the Dutch themselves, are grossly violated somewhere (the so-called “rejection of legal fetishism” introduced by the country’s former Foreign Minister Bert Koenders). As a result, Dutch aid found its way into the hands of those for whom human rights, including the right to life, means nothing.

The Dutch authorities are evidently repeating their own mistakes. In 2010, after the conclusions of the “Davids Commission” that probed political support for military campaign in Iraq in 2003 and declared it illegal, Prime Minister Jan Balkenende was forced to resign.

We are convinced that the international community, specifically the UN Security Council and the UN Council for Human Rights, must react to these newly-revealed facts of double standards. The facts that we are witnessing now are absolutely outrageous. This is, in essence, criminal aid to terrorists by the official authorities of the Netherlands.



Russian proposals on Afghanistan voiced by Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya at the September 17 UN Security Council meeting

In view of the growing expansion of ISIS in Afghanistan and, as a result, emergence of trouble spots across the whole country, including near the borders of our Central Asian partners, we intend to make more active use of the counter-terrorism sanctions of the UN Security Council to combat ISIS in Afghanistan. In practical terms, we are collecting the evidence for applications to the UN Security Council ISIL and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee to impose counter-terrorism sanctions against certain individuals and organisations of the Afghan branch of ISIS or those who are directly related to it. These are the Russian proposals voiced by Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya at the September 17 UN Security Council meeting.

We call on all the member-states to actively join the process and direct respective requests on imposing sanctions to the above committee.

Extending sanctions to ISIS-related entities will allow the member-states to put respective sanctions on them – a ban on international travel and weapons sales, freezing financial assets, etc.



Update on Maria Butina, arrested in the United States

We continue efforts to free Russian citizen Maria Butina, who was detained in the United States on blatantly unsubstantiated accusations.

Employees of the Russian Embassy in Washington visited our compatriot in prison on September 13. We found out that Butina is still being segregated, which is usually something applied to dangerous criminals. US authorities agreed to improve Butina’s confinement conditions, in particular, her food ration, only as a result of our efforts.

We cannot disregard certain absolutely outrageous publications in the US media which present the efforts of the Russian Foreign Ministry and our Embassy in Washington, D.C. – our diplomatic actions, official notes, consular visits, which are absolutely common in international diplomatic practice on defending the interests of citizens in such circumstances – as alleged evidence of her “connection” with the Russian authorities. We are often criticised by civic society representatives for untimely and insufficient assistance rendered by Russian diplomats. This time, we are being accused of having special relations with distressed persons who were detained or arrested. How come? Every day we receive requests and appeals for help from those who got into trouble, were detained in airports, who are facing a prison term or sanctions in the host country, asking for a lawyer, help in contacting their relatives, legal advice on legalising their documents, or, for instance, improving confinement conditions. People get into different situations related to their health and emergencies, and we are trying to help everyone.

There are, among others, outrageous cases when people get into trouble through no fault of their own or due to exceptional circumstances, but when the law and certain legal and international norms are violated with respect to them, or a situation lies completely outside the legal framework as was the case of businessman Viktor Bout, pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko, or the case unfolding with Maria Butina. You know how closely we are following the fate of these people. It is simply disgraceful to write and publish in the media allegedly factual data on the diplomatic actions by the Russian side conditioned by a special relationship with that Russian national. It classic fake news as it were.

We are deeply concerned about the obvious and cynical use of the case involving a Russian citizen in the political infighting in Washington. We demand that political prisoner Maria Butina is released.

I have one more question: when the same US media outlets publish information about prisoners in the Russian Federation, those with foreign passports, nationality or citizenship, charged and even convicted by the court in grave crimes, when the media pay special attention to them, should we also conclude that those prisoners have a special relationship with the governments of the countries whose media focuses on them? Does it also imply special relations? It’s very odd logic. Especially regarding Maria Butina. Apart from, in our view, the absolutely ungrounded detention, what bewilders and outrages us – not just the Ministry but also the public – is the conditions she is being kept in. Even from the point of view of US lawyers, she did not do anything deserving confinement in those absolutely inhumane conditions. She is woken up every night to be checked nearly every 15 minutes, etc. What should a person do in this life to be mistreated like that? That’s a big question.



Update on the chemical incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury

Russia has demonstrated openness and a willingness to cooperate with British investigators in establishing the real reasons behind the incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury, something that has made the UK authorities not only nervous but also toxically sarcastic. Instead of conducting a professional, businesslike and calm discussion of the essence of the matter, British officials have recently been making increasingly strange statements with an obviously aggressive tinge. That said, let me emphasise again, Russia has not been given any official information on the Skripal case, which should make at least something clear.

We have repeatedly noted numerous inconsistencies and overt divergences in the so-called “evidence” that London presents to the public. We have never received responses to our questions. These are attempts to conceal the truth and compel Moscow to make excuses and, on top of all of that, to pressure their allies into introducing new anti-Russia sanctions.

I’d like to repeat again that the Russian Federation has had nothing to do with the incident in Salisbury and is not involved in it in any way. We resolutely reject any British insinuation on the Skripal case. From the very start, Russia has been open to cooperation with London on investigating the Salisbury incident and not because Britain started accusing Russia in abusive terms but because Russian citizens are involved in it.

As before, Russian law enforcement agencies are ready for practical and responsible cooperation with their British colleagues, in part, in the criminal case launched by the Russian Investigative Committee on March 16 of this year in connection with the attempted premeditated murder of Russian citizen Yulia Skripal and the inquiries into legal aid, which were sent to the British authorities.

In addition, the issue of the location and condition of our compatriots must be cleared up. For over six months they have been detained by force by the British authorities.

Our consular representatives in the UK have been denied meetings and contact with the Skripals up to this day. I’d like to emphasise, once again, that their relatives have not been allowed to meet with them even though they are in the UK (as we have been told in London). Moreover, Viktoria Skripal was even denied a British visa that she required to at least indirectly communicate with the people who, as we understand it, deal with the Skripals. These include representatives of British secret services. We will continue to insist on meetings with these Russian citizens and on obtaining case materials.



Navigation in the Sea of Azov

Recently, our Western partners have become concerned about the situation in the Sea of Azov. Items in many publications, including statements by US experts and officials, have appeared on the issues of the Sea of Azov.

We consider it necessary to express our view on the situation since the lawful actions of the Russian border guards are presented as Russia ignoring international norms and its ostensibly continued attempts to destabilise the situation in Ukraine.

The international legal status of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait is determined by bilateral international treaties, in part, the Treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Russia-Ukraine State Border of January 28, 2003 and the Treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on Cooperation in Using the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait of December 24, 2003. These documents confirm that “the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait are historically the internal waters of the Russian Federation and Ukraine.”

Russia’s actions on inspecting ships are exclusively aimed to ensure security in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. They do not conflict with any standards of international law that are applicable to this sea. Russia’s right to take these actions is explicitly reaffirmed by the practice of other states that are implementing their sovereign rights with respect to their internal water bodies.

No doubt, everyone knows of statements by representatives of the so-called Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, which is considered an extremist organisation in the Russian Federation, about the need to block navigation in the Kerch Strait. Moreover, I think all of you have seen in practice what the current Kiev authorities and Ukrainian radicals are capable of. You may recall the suspension of water distribution from the Dnieper through the North-Crimean Channel, suspension of railway traffic with Crimea via Ukraine, and the food blockade of the peninsula. The world and international law will not forget the detonation of power transmission lines connecting Ukraine’s Kherson Region with the Republic of Crimea. Now that the automobile section of the Kerch Bridge has opened, Ukrainian radicals are calling to blow it up. Nobody is even making an effort to conceal this. These facts are taken not from intelligence data but from media publications and statements. It is the actions of Kiev and the radicals whom it inspires but does not control, that are compelling Russia to toughen security measures in the sea.

Importantly, the freedom of navigation in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait is being upheld. So far, neither ship owners nor ship captains have complained about the actions of the Russian border guards. The Ukrainian authorities also recognise the right to inspect ships.

And one more point. In conditions where Ukraine allows itself to take absolutely illegal and provocative measures as regards Russian ships and crews (we are referring to the capture of the Nord fishing vessel and the unlawful detention of the tanker Mechanic Pogodin in the port of Kherson, etc), Russia will continue to take the necessary steps to ensure security in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait.



Lvov authorities ban public use of “Russian-language cultural products”

On September 18, in yet another Russophobic fit, the Lvov Regional Council declared a “moratorium on the public use of Russian-language cultural products in any form on the territory of the Lvov Region.” How will their politicians communicate with one another? They don’t speak Ukrainian or any other language. They have spoken Russian and thought in this language all their lives. How will they be able to visit Lvov now? What will they do there? All this was unambiguously timed to coincide with Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko’s working trip to Lvov (it appears that they had no other gifts in store.) It seems today this region’s authorities intend to promote this absolutely unconstitutional initiative in the Verkhovna Rada. As we understand, they want to spread this initiative all over Ukraine.

I believe that there is no need for any additional assessments in this case. All we have to do is call on international organisations concerned to duly respond to these actions of Ukrainian authorities. We believe that they have violated universally accepted principles of democracy and human rights, the Ukrainian constitution and international treaties. We regret the fact that on top of everything else, officials in Ukraine are waging a war on the Russian language. This is a war against their own people, and no one cares about the law, conscience and common sense. And I am not even talking about international conventions.



Statements by Organisation of American States Secretary General regarding a possible armed invasion of Venezuela

The media are publishing reports about a possible foreign invasion of Venezuela, citing US and Organisation of American States representatives. These media reports are not the only sources of information.

First, US Ambassador to the Organisation of American States Carlos Trujillo started openly initiating a discussion of this issue in the media. It appears that he aimed to inspire the Latin Americans to intervene in Venezuela. Later, The New York Times wrote about contacts between the Trump administration and Venezuela’s military, who are reportedly discontent with the current situation in the country. After that, Organisation of American States Secretary General Luis Almagro said openly that he did not rule out any scenario, and not only political, for resolving the situation in Venezuela.

We would like to note that a number of Latin American and Caribbean states resolutely reject such relations and are trying to distance themselves from them in every way. This is absolutely understandable because the Big Stick policy was conceived precisely in relations between the United States and its southern neighbours, and Latin America knows this well. In response, Latin American countries formulated foreign policy approaches that were reflected in the January 2014 declaration on proclaiming the continent a peace zone, passed at the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) summit in Havana. For example, the document calls on signatory states not to interfere, directly or indirectly, in the domestic affairs of other countries and to respect the inalienable right of every state to choose its own political, economic, social and cultural system.

We can see that Washington is now trying to lift a political taboo in Latin America as regards the very possibility of a new regional military operation. For this purpose, the United States actively exploits the immigration and temporarily displaced persons issue, which is sensitive for Latin American and Caribbean countries. But I would like to note that only part of them come from Venezuela.

We are convinced that the controlled chaos policy, now being imposed on Latin America by the United States, is absolutely deleterious. As practice shows, the consequences of such an approach are fraught with dangerous developments. All this has nothing to do with addressing socioeconomic issues facing Venezuelan leaders and, of course, the people of that state.



Toughening censorship on Facebook

Facebook continues to toughen censorship. We have already addressed this issue several times. Judging from reports, under the pretext of fighting ‘fake news’ and in addition to the existing rules for checking text messages and political advertising for credibility, Facebook now plans to verify users’ personal data, audio and video content. Essentially, any information, not only on Facebook but on its affiliated mobile apps, Instagram and WhatsApp, can be blocked or deleted by the security staff who, as we understand, will double this year and reach 20,000 people.

Therefore, we are witnessing how Mark Zuckerberg’s brainchild that was presented and declared to be a tool for free communication and content exchange (moreover, it initially proved to be one) is morphing into a manipulation tool of the US security services used to clean up the information space from the content the official Washington disapproves of and the reports about contacts and pressure that Facebook has been recently subjected to by the US authorities.

We can see all these steps that are seriously undermining the democratic values and the freedom of speech, the freedom in general; the steps that the United States asserts to be a necessary measure, allegedly against interference in the US election. Mark Zuckerberg himself claims that he is acting out of the best of motives.

In this context, I would like to share a curious fact that, I think, will be a big revelation for the digital media and the social media environment. There is a research organisation started by the Atlantic Council called Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) that analyses social media perception of presidential election campaigns in real time and exposes any signs of targeted influence on internet users such as ‘fake news,’ bots and ‘viral campaigns’ by candidates’ campaign offices and external actors. Ahead of the general elections in Brazil on October 7, this organisation has intensified its activity. The information obtained by DFRLab is released in small doses via the Atlantic Council media resources (its website, another popular website and various partner media), the respective decision being made upon agreement with the US Department of State. It is also a fact that earlier the organisation participated in projects to monitor and expose influence on the protest activity in Russia.

Now, I have a question for you. Who do you think is providing technical assistance to DFRLab and is the main sponsor of this organisation? As we understand, it is Facebook that signed a partnership agreement with the Atlantic Council last May, allegedly “to make a positive impact on the election around the world.” Guys, what are you talking about? This is just manipulation and deception of the public, which believes in the so-called new media and the freedom of distributing information and in the idea that, by publishing this information on their pages, by embedding their personal data into the structure and system of social media they remain free citizens. And through globalisation, the world is becoming a common space for disseminating information. People believed in it without question. And now that millions of people have become members of this social environment, when they have shown their trust in it, they are being used in this way.

Therefore, the so-called fighters for free democratic elections and clean information space are in fact interfering with the affairs of other states and disseminating unreliable information. Their unsubstantiated accusations against other countries, including Russia, of the above said activity serve only as a disguise for their own actions of a similar kind.

We would really like to hear from Facebook and relevant international bodies and NGOs involved in human rights protection. We are ready to give answers as well but since we have this information and since we are constantly hearing accusations against Russia, specifically, let’s be honest and begin with investigating the ‘judges’ themselves.



Threats against US broadcaster Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty journalists

The Foreign Ministry took note of reports that emerged in the public space alleging that journalists from US radio broadcaster Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty based in Russia were threatened in some way. The press release following the recent meeting between Agency for Global Media CEO John Lansing and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo mentions, among other things, the continuing targeting of journalists from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other free media by Russia, as well as threats against its journalists. This was an official statement that is currently available online as a formal press release.

In this regard, we would like to note that according to the available information, none of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty journalists accredited with the Russian Foreign Ministry have reported any threats of persecution to the law enforcement agencies. Being the people in charge of issuing accreditation and assisting foreign reporters in Russia, the Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department has not received any complaints from these journalists, while remaining in touch with Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty Moscow Bureau at all times.

Moreover, we asked the agency to clarify what they were referring to specifically. We always seek to maintain partner-like relations, and for this reason we never issue any public statements without additional checks. We asked the agency directly but there was no response. They were unable to tell us what their headquarters meant when they voiced their misgivings over the situation with Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty journalists in Moscow. One can only guess where these groundless accusations by the agency came from. It may well be that this is just another example of fake news, who knows.

Allow me to remind you that the Agency for Global Media, formerly known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors, is de facto one of the core propaganda institutions of the US. The agency is fully funded from the US budget. Its mission consists of coordinating a number of broadcasters, including Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, who target Russian audiences.

It seems that statements on these alleged threats and persecution is just another attempt to justify generous allocations to the agency. When you have no evidence, just make it up. We stand ready to review any information related to this case. We requested clarification, but they did not respond.

Curiously, these anti-Russia fakes by the Agency for Global Media coincided with the European Court of Human Rights standing up for a journalist from the Ukrainian service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. According to a recent ruling, ECHR ordered that Ukrainian authorities refrain from accessing data from the smartphone of Natalya Sedletska, editor-in-chief of the programme Schemes. It seems that this move was intended to protect her sources in an anti-corruption investigation by the reporter and herself from possible persecution. It turns out that the Agency is quite selective when it comes to the security of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty employees, and speaks out only when it sees a benefit. That said, it is still unclear why they did not mention the situation in Ukraine.

The Foreign Ministry reiterates that the safety of both Russian and foreign journalists has always been a matter of special concern for us. We do our outmost to enable them to fulfil their professional duties freely and unhindered. We maintain contacts with reports accredited with the Foreign Ministry on an ongoing basis, and are ready to provide any assistance they may need in any situation.



Third Radio without Borders international festival

On September 26-28, the Russian Academy of Radio will hold the third International Festival, Radio without Borders, in Nizhny Novgorod. The event will be supported by the Federal Agency for Press and Mass Media, Rossotrudnichestvo and the Foreign Ministry Information and Press Department. The Government of the Nizhny Novgorod Region will provide assistance in organising the festival.

The idea of ​​the festival was proposed by professionals who work out the content of radio stations. This creative event is aimed at sharing experience and discussing important current professional issues by representatives of leading radio companies in Russia, the CIS and other countries.

The festival will feature presentations of the most successful radio projects, roundtables and workshops.

The event will be held at the Sheraton Nizhny Novgorod Kremlin Hotel. For accreditation and information partnership, please contact Yana Melnikova at +7-915-087-94-62, +7-495-953-40-86 or by email: [email protected].



Aftermath of hurricane Florence in the United States

The Russian Embassy in Washington posted a warning for Russian citizens about the impending emergency on its website and on social networks.

According to the Russian missions in the United States, there are no Russian nationals among the victims, although the scale of the disaster is huge, and there are many victims. Our diplomats and consular representatives are in constant contact with the US authorities on this issue and are ready to provide any possible assistance to our compatriots if necessary.



Russian citizens allegedly abandoned in Ukraine

At the previous briefing, I was asked a question as to whether Russia allegedly abandoned Russian citizens detained and convicted in Ukraine. They wrote a letter addressed to the President of Russia requesting their exchange for citizens of Ukraine who are being held in Russian penitentiary institutions. In a word, it sounded like the Ukrainian journalist was very concerned about the fate of Russian citizens.

We realise that this letter was most likely written at the initiative of Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights Lyudmila Denisova. The Foreign Ministry received it with a note from the Ukrainian Embassy in Moscow on September 12, 2018 (in all, 21 appeals were enclosed). They were recently forwarded to the Presidential Executive Office and Russian Human Rights Commissioner Tatyana Moskalkova, who, as agreed between the presidents of Russia and Ukraine, was instructed, together with her Ukrainian counterpart, to deal with the issue of Russian citizens detained in Ukraine and Ukrainian citizens detained in Russia.

As for the problem per se, I would like to remind you that the Ukrainian side is holding more than the 21 people who wrote the appeals, many more. All of them are known to the Russian side, and our diplomats from the Embassy and consulates general in Ukraine maintain regular contacts with the detained persons and with their lawyers and relatives, continue to make every possible effort to release them, and to protect their rights and interests.

Russian Human Rights Commissioner Tatyana Moskalkova is certainly working on the problem, trying to establish a constructive dialogue with her Ukrainian counterpart.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

Will Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov attend the CIS summit in Dushanbe? Specifically, will he take part in the ministerial segment?



Maria Zakharova:

I spoke about the Minister’s schedule during the briefing. This event is not on the list. Let me check this information, but as far as I know the Foreign Ministry will be represented at the level of Deputy Minister.



Question:

You have mentioned Afghanistan. It has been reported that representatives of the Taliban movement agreed to attend the Moscow meeting on Afghanistan. What do you expect from them? What will be different about interacting with them in this format compared to the previous attempts to bring the Taliban to the negotiation table, including by the US?



Maria Zakharova:

I don’t think that trying to figure out how one format differs from another is what we need to be doing. What we need is to focus on ensuring that all these efforts are effective. Everything taking place at the so-called Moscow platform and everything that is planned for the future is designed to bring about concrete results instead of “getting ahead” or “outperforming” our partners.

This is not a political game for Russia. We are seeking to make a real contribution to resolving a very complex situation in Afghanistan, and in doing so we are guided by our own understanding of the situation in the region, among other things. This is an outmost priority for us, and we view Afghanistan as not just another spot on the world map that requires us to become involved. Unfortunately, the developments in Afghanistan, Russia’s close neighbour, create additional tensions in the region. As a country, we are dealing with this problem in multilateral formats, for example within the SCO. For Russia, this is a matter of being pragmatic and implementing our national security strategy.



Question:

You have mentioned that Sergey Lavrov will have numerous meetings on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Has the meeting with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo been confirmed?



Maria Zakharova:

There are many meetings that are under consideration, and the schedule has yet to be finalised. I know that there will be a series of bilateral talks. However there is still some time left before the visit, and many meetings are organised when the delegation is already there. The General Assembly and especially its political segment are like a living organism where meetings can be confirmed, rescheduled, delayed and reformatted on the go.



Question:

There was much talk at the Eurasian Women’s Forum about the women’s agenda on entrepreneurship and economics, including in the digital economy. How does this agenda look in international terms?



Maria Zakharova:

You will have a chance to learn about this tomorrow at a special session on today’s reality, which will focus on the theme of women and diplomacy, highlighting how women view international matters. There will be a number of interesting speakers, both Russian and foreign, who have first-hand experience of what it means to be a woman in the foreign policy sphere. The participants will discuss theory and practice, as well as personal stories of achievement and success. I invite you to attend this session.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3347997
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 11th, 2018 #508
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to media question on US initiatives on Palestinian-Israeli settlement, Moscow, September 24, 2018



24 September 2018 - 12:03




Question:

The media reported that in 2016, you personally explained to the US Secretary of State that the US Middle East initiative was counterproductive. Can you confirm this?



Sergey Lavrov:

At the end of 2016, the outgoing administration of Barack Obama began promoting in the UN Security Council decisions on the Palestinian-Israeli settlement that actually imposed artificial parameters and prodded the sides involved in negotiations towards a certain outcome, and Russia did not support that initiative, believing that it would inevitably lead to a significant aggravation of the situation on the ground without any real benefit. That would have been counterproductive. Therefore, during a long telephone conversation with the US Secretary of State at the end of December, we spelled out Russia’s position, explaining that it also took into account Benjamin Netanyahu’s request. We noted that we did not want the outgoing administration to slam the door and create more problems, hampering further efforts in that area.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3349214






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in a ministerial meeting of countries parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to resolve the situation around the Iranian nuclear programme



25 September 2018 - 08:39



On September 24, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took part in a ministerial meeting of countries parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to resolve the situation around the Iranian nuclear programme, on the sidelines of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in New York. High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini coordinated the meeting.

The ministers reviewed the situation with the JCPOA in the context of accomplishing tasks set forth in the Joint Statement, which was approved after the July 6 ministerial meeting of members of the JCPOA Joint Commission in Vienna. In this context, it was noted that JCPOA participants had exerted intensive efforts to create favourable conditions allowing Iran to become involved in international trade, economic and financial cooperation contrary to the United States’ illegitimate exterritorial sanctions against Iran. The meeting participants reaffirmed their determination to continue working to protect cooperation with Iran in the interests of preserving the JCPOA, which was approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), and ensuring its full-fledged implementation. They underscored the importance of the fact that Iran has unfailingly fulfilled its obligations, as invariably confirmed by the IAEA. The Russian side reaffirmed its support for the JCPOA and underscored its determination to take all the necessary steps to effectively fulfil the conditions of the agreement, which remains an inalienable element of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and overall international security. During the meeting, the ministers coordinated a Joint Statement reflecting the meeting’s main results.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3349728






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs Bruno Eduardo Rodríguez Parrilla




25 September 2018 - 20:24



On September 25, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs Bruno Eduardo Rodríguez Parrilla on the sidelines of the 73rd General Assembly session in New York.

The sides conducted a detailed exchange of opinions on topical issues pertaining to the Russian-Cuban strategic partnership, including international and regional matters. They also focused on the development of bilateral trade, economic and humanitarian ties and efforts to streamline the contractual legal framework.

The foreign ministers were satisfied to note intensive political dialogue between Russia and Cuba and reaffirmed their resolve to expand cooperation at the UN and other multilateral venues.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352217






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions on the sidelines of the 73rd UN General Assembly, New York, September 25, 2018



25 September 2018 - 20:58








Question:

Could you comment on the results of your meeting with Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have very close, warm, friendly relations both at the level of the heads of state and government and foreign ministers.

Today, we discussed future contacts that are planned at the political level. During these contacts we intend to review current issues of our economic cooperation as well. Preparations for the session of the intergovernmental commission are underway. Naturally, we also discussed our joint work and coordination of actions at the UN and other international agencies.



Question:

Will there be a meeting between President of the Council of State and Council of Ministers of Cuba Miguel Diaz-Canel and President of Russia Vladimir Putin?



Sergey Lavrov:

He has an invitation to visit Russia.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352229






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s reply to a media question on the sidelines of the 73rd UN General Assembly session in New York, September 25, 2018



25 September 2018 - 22:13




Question:

Will you meet with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo?



Sergey Lavrov:

If he wishes. We never impose ourselves on anyone. In principle, we have agreed to maintain contacts. We shall see.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352249






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a Norwegian media question on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly in New York, September 25, 2018



25 September 2018 - 22:40



Question:

Why do you send out your spies in Norway?



Sergey Lavrov:

You have been brainwashed with propaganda. We want to understand what happened to our citizen. Do you realize he was invited by the Norwegian parliament? Norwegian hospitality breaks all records.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352259






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg



25 September 2018 - 23:14



On September 25, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on the sidelines of the 73rd UN General Assembly session in New York.

During their conversation, the sides focused on the current state of Russia-NATO political dialogue and the prospects of their relations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352297






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with PRC State Councilor and Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi



25 September 2018 - 23:19



On September 25, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with State Councilor and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China Wang Yi on the sidelines of the 73rd UN General Assembly session in New York.
The sides discussed topical issues on the bilateral and international agendas and noted the high level of Russian-Chinese cooperation at the UN Security Council and General Assembly. The ministers exchanged opinions on the situation in the Korean Peninsula in great detail and underscored the importance of further maintaining close bilateral coordination with a view to resolving global issues on the basis of their common commitment to the principles of international law.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352307






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s conversation with Head of Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs Ignazio Cassis



25 September 2018 - 23:24



On September 25, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a conversation with Head of Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs Ignazio Cassis on the sidelines of the 73rd UN General Assembly session in New York.

The sides noted the constructive nature of the rapidly expanding Russian-Swiss cooperation and discussed certain topical issues on the bilateral agenda.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352317






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at UN high-level meeting on peacekeeping, New York, September 25, 2018



25 September 2018 - 23:29








Mr Secretary-General,

Colleagues,

Peacekeeping activities rank among unconditional priorities of the UN. For several decades, UN blue helmets have embodied the international community’s hopes for ending war and healing the wounds caused by armed conflicts. The peacekeepers’ service has never been easy. Fifty-nine of them gave their lives last year alone. We must do our best to prevent such tragedies in the future.

Russia supports the resolve of the Secretary-General to enhance the Organisation’s peacekeeping activities. Some changes are long overdue. At the same time, the fundamental principles of peacekeeping operations must remain unshakeable. A fascination with mandates authorising the use of force is not a cure-all. This is vividly confirmed by UN experience in Mali and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is the governments hosting peacekeeping operations that are mostly responsible for the population’s safety, including safety from terrorist attacks, for launching the political process, eliminating the causes of conflict and ensuring post-conflict recovery. For its part, the international community must provide all possible assistance to the national governments in achieving these goals.

The mandates of peacekeeping operations must be clear and realistic. It is important to heed the opinions of the receiving states as well as the countries providing troop contingents and to maintain respectful dialogue with them.

Although UN Secretariat expert checks remain highly relevant, the Security Council and the General Assembly play a decisive role in charting the strategic aspects of peacekeeping activities. Their prerogatives must be unfailingly respected.

We support the drive to expand close UN cooperation with regional and sub-regional organisations during peacekeeping operations. The UN’s cooperation with the African Union is a successful example. We are ready to expand peacekeeping contacts between the UN and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation.

We are closely following the Secretariat’s efforts to launch the practical implementation of the concept dealing with intelligence activities during UN peacekeeping operations. So far, they are giving rise to questions, and this mostly concerns the definition of intelligence. The UN Secretariat’s interpretation of this concept far transcends the boundaries of the definition that was clearly coordinated by the decisions of the UN General Assembly’s Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (C-34). The attempts to conceal materials setting forth the Secretariat’s understanding of this concept from the member states also cause concern. Notably, the C-34 report expressly states that intelligence activities during UN peacekeeping operations can only be used to guarantee the safety of the peacekeepers and to protect civilians. Intelligence gathering must be conducted in strict compliance with the UN Charter, with the consent of the receiving side and by purely legal methods. Reliable storage and safe processing of sensitive data have special importance. The Special Committee did not consent to this data being used for the purposes of special political missions and humanitarian operations, and especially not for establishing an independent secret service at the UN Headquarters.

Regarding the declaration on joint obligations in the area of peacekeeping operations that was officially submitted today, we are grateful to the Secretary-General for his initiative. On the whole, the document’s principles set the right direction for the development of peacekeeping activities.

However, we cannot agree with some provisions.

First, this concerns high-priority cooperation with civil society and NGOs, to the detriment of cooperation with the receiving governments.

Second, the desire to turn secondary tasks and those alien to peacekeeping operations, including human rights issues, into the main aspect of mandates. Specialised UN agencies address these matters, and it would be inappropriate to meddle in their work.

Third, and especially in light of the first two points, we are concerned that the draft Declaration’s authors perceive the use of force as a magic remedy for accomplishing peacekeeping tasks.

Fourth, the absence of a provision confirming the coordinating role of the UN General Assembly’s Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations in the draft Declaration is unacceptable.

We would also recommend not to exaggerate the importance of certain regional organisations with controversial peacekeeping experience in this document that aspires to be consensus-based.

It is our view that the declaration lacks the status of a precedent, and that specific forms of applying its provisions in practice must become the subject of further inter-governmental coordination.

In this context, we have decided not to object to the principle of consensus.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352327






The following events are not displayed in the English version.

25 September 2018

Meeting of S. Lavrov with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Vice-President of the European Commission F. Mogherini - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352183

The meeting of S. Lavrov with the President of Croatia K. Grabar-Kitarovic - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352193

Meeting of S. Lavrov with the President of the Republic of Cyprus N. Anastasiadis - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352203
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 11th, 2018 #509
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Somalia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Ahmed Isse Awad



26 September 2018 - 09:02



On September 25, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Federal Republic of Somalia Ahmed Isse Awad on the sidelines of the 73rd UN General Assembly session in New York.

The sides exchanged opinions on the prospects for expanding bilateral relations and reaffirmed their mutual striving to further political, trade and economic cooperation and ties in other areas.

They reviewed issues linked with the Somalian peace process and underscored the need for continued persistent efforts of Somalia’s federal government to establish peace in this country, with the comprehensive assistance of the international community. The Russian side expressed support for the counterterrorism efforts of the federal authorities and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352337






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Guatemala Sandra Erica Jovel Polanco, New York, September 25, 2018



26 September 2018 - 09:03



I would like to congratulate you on the recently marked Guatemala’s Independence Day. I recall my visits to your country in 2010 and 2015. I learned with regret in April about the death of former President and Mayor of Guatemala Alvaro Arzu. We had very warm personal relations. He presented me with the key of an honourary citizen.

On the whole, we are satisfied with our relations. The signing of an important additional document today confirms both countries’ resolve to continue steadily developing our relations.

Today, we will discuss the main issues of our cooperation but we won’t have too much time for this for obvious reasons, so please come to Moscow, where we can discuss everything in detail without any rush.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353040






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Belizean Minister of Foreign Affairs Wilfred Peter Elrington on the sidelines of the 73rd UN General Assembly session



26 September 2018 - 09:04



On September 25, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Belizean Minister of Foreign Affairs Wilfred Peter Elrington on the sidelines of the 73rd UN General Assembly session in New York.

The foreign ministers discussed the current state of Russian-Belizean relations and opportunities for invigorating bilateral ties in various areas. They also touched upon the Russian-Belizean cooperation at the UN venue.

Mr Lavrov and Mr Elrington signed an Agreement on the Basic Principles of Relations between Russia and Belize.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352357






Remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the UN Security Council meeting chaired by US President Donald Trump, New York, September 26, 2018



26 September 2018 - 19:54







Mr President,

Colleagues,

In the modern world, an efficient fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is becoming increasingly important for global and regional stability and the reliable security of all states without exception. Constructive cooperation in this area is an important component of the efforts to shape a positive international agenda.

I think everybody agrees that the UN Security Council resolutions that outline specific measures against violations of non-proliferation regimes must be strictly observed. Resolution 1540 remains the cornerstone for this and contains obligations for the member states to take specific measures to prevent non-government agents from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and their components. The UNSC decisions taken in pursuance of this resolution are particularly important as they include sanctions for handing over any types of weapons to terrorists. There have been incidents of such handovers and they must be thoroughly investigated.

Like fifty years ago, when the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was opened for signature, our country remains committed to the goal of eliminating the nuclear threat. This requires careful consideration of all factors that affect strategic stability and all countries with military nuclear capability must take part in the negotiations. The ambitions of certain countries to ban nuclear weapons regardless of the fundamental principles of the NPT will not be successful and will only create ambiguity in further approaches to non-proliferation of weapons of mass-destruction.

Speaking about the NPT, I cannot omit to mention Resolution 2231, with which the UNSC approved the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme. Unilateral withdrawal from this plan by the United States poses a serious threat to the non-proliferation regime. That is especially true because, as many before me have already stressed, Teheran is strictly complying with its obligations under the JCPOA, which is regularly confirmed by the IAEA.

Russia is convinced that it is essential to preserve the JCPOA and we are currently working on this together with Iran, China and the European Union. Otherwise we may have to face growing tensions across the Middle East, which poses risks to regional stability and the non-proliferation regime.

The collapse of the JCPOA would also be counterproductive for the current denuclearisation efforts on the Korean Peninsula, which we welcome and strongly support.

Other serious obstacles remain on the way to nuclear non-proliferation, by which I mean the US decision to postpone the CTBT's ratification indefinitely – perhaps forever – and the lack of progress in implementing the decisions of the NPT states parties to establish a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone (WMDFZ) in the Middle East.

There are alarming trends in chemical disarmament, primarily due to the actions of a number of Western countries that are making new unproven accusations against the Syrian authorities concerning the use of prohibited poison toxic substances. We caution against new attacks on the territory of Syria under another fake pretext. That would be a blatant violation of the UN Charter and would undermine the efforts to promote a political settlement in that long-suffering country.

The Syrian Government has destroyed its entire arsenal of chemical weapons in accordance with the Russia-US agreement of 2013, which is enshrined in the UN Security Council resolution and the OPCW decisions. But terrorist groups still have chemical warfare agents. Terrorists have learned how to synthesize them and are setting up production labs. Intelligence agencies, including US intelligence have long been warning about this.

Russia has repeatedly proposed elaborating a comprehensive strategy to combat chemical terrorism. In 2017, the UN Security Council introduced a Russian-Chinese draft of a relevant resolution. It was not our fault that it was not even considered. On a broader scale, we submitted a draft Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Chemical and Biological Terrorism at the Conference on Disarmanent in Geneva as early as March 2016. Unfortunately, the work on these documents is being artificially blocked – you all surely know by which countries. Nevertheless, our proposals still remain in force.

Meanwhile, the situation in the OPCW is deteriorating, with our Western colleagues attempting to impose on its Technical Secretariat so called attributive functions, grossly violating the CWC and infringing on the competency of the UN Security Council.

At the same time, the groundless highly-likely-style Salisbury affair rhetoric is gaining traction. The United Kingdom is stubbornly evading our repeated proposals to conduct a joint investigation, although this is part of its commitments under the CWC, the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the 1965 Bilateral Consular Convention and the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. So we wonder: if they do not want to cooperate, does it mean there is something to hide? Once again we urge London to establish a constructive dialogue with a view to establishing the truth.

The way events are unfolding suggests that nothing can be ruled out now – including provocations using biological weapons. Amid the attempts to manipulate the CWC status, I would like to caution against the temptation to use the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention for the same purposes. As a reminder, according to the Convention, the right to initiate and conduct investigations belongs exclusively to the UN Security Council. No surrogates are provided for and therefore cannot be.

I would like to remind you, incidentally, that we have repeatedly suggested to agree on a mechanism for verifying compliance with the BTWC by all the parties. However, the United States rigidly blocked this proposal and eventually buried it.

Such desire to keep hands free is manifested while the BTWC regime is subjected to additional tests in connection with the increase of military medical and biological activities, including in the post-Soviet space. We call for the renunciation of healthcare militarisation.

Russia has consistently advocated the strengthening of the BTWC. We are implementing initiatives for this purpose, including mobile anti-epidemic teams for rapid response to biological emergencies.







Ladies and gentlemen,

Mr. President,

Dialogue between Russia and the United States, the two largest nuclear powers, is of special importance for strengthening the WMD nonproliferation regime. It was our two states that were at the cradle of the common framework for multilateral cooperation to prevent WMD from falling into the hands of non-state actors and to combat acts of nuclear terrorism.

We still consider this interaction to be of fundamental importance not only for Moscow and Washington, but for the entire international community. We call not to sacrifice this cooperation to short-term projects and opportunistic considerations.

On a solid foundation of the UN Charter, Russia is always open to honest work in the P-5 format and with all other countries in the interests of strengthening global strategic stability. We hope that today's meeting of the UN Security Council, the key body for maintaining international peace and security, will help to take a step in this direction. In this connection, we consider US President Donald Trump’s initiative to convene this meeting very timely.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353176






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger



26 September 2018 - 20:40



On September 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger (Switzerland) on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly.

The two officials discussed the main issues on the OSCE agenda, in particular, the organisation’s role in the settlement of regional conflicts, the work of its specialised institutions and field missions, as well as the preparations for the OSCE Ministerial Council in Milan on December 6-7. Particular attention was paid to the developments in Ukraine in the context of the need to fulfil obligations under the Minsk Package of Measures.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353254






Opening remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during talks with North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho, New York, September 26, 2018



26 September 2018 - 20:49







Dear colleague, Mr Minister, dear friends,

It is important that we have this meeting during the General Assembly. It is a good opportunity to touch base and see how we implement the basic principles of our cooperation.

Congratulations on the successful inter-Korean summit in Pyongyang. We are ready to offer our full support to the Korean Peninsula reunification and the development of the economic and transport infrastructure. We will certainly be initiating a proposal at the Security Council to support this process between Pyongyang and Seoul.

Thank you for your hospitality in Pyongyang in June. I look forward to seeing you in Moscow.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353272






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a media question on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly, New York, September 26, 2018



26 September 2018 - 20:55







Question:

British Prime Minister Theresa May voiced direct accusations against Russia during the UNSC meeting on weapons of mass destruction. Could you comment on that, please?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is not the first time that Theresa May has made such accusations and every time she claims, quite arrogantly, that they have irrefutable evidence, although it has never been made public. The United Kingdom has breached at least three or four conventions, both bilateral and multilateral within the Council of Europe, which require direct dialogue and discussion in such cases. When we are told that they know everything and therefore we must confess to our wrongdoings and promise not to do it again, it sounds simply ridiculous.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353294






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with President of Equatorial Guinea Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo



27 September 2018 - 08:42



On September 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with the President of Equatorial Guinea Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly.

The foreign minister and the president discussed topical issues concerning further development of the traditionally friendly Russian-Equatoguinean relations, including intensifying political dialogue and broadening the mutually beneficial partnership in trade, the economy and military technology. The discussion on the international agenda covered joint cooperation in the United Nations, including the UN Security Council, where Equatorial Guinea is a non-permanent member.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353347






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Foreign Minister of the Dominican Republic Miguel Vargas Maldonado



27 September 2018 - 08:50



On September 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Foreign Minister of the Dominican Republic Miguel Vargas Maldonado on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly in New York.

The foreign ministers had a constructive exchange of views on the key aspects of bilateral cooperation in politics, trade, the economy and humanitarian affairs, as well as on cooperation within the UN and other multilateral platforms, including in the context of the Dominican Republic’s election as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in 2019−2020.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353357






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Mohamed El-Amine Souef, Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and the Francophonie, in charge of Comorians abroad of the Union of Comoros



27 September 2018 - 08:51



On September 26, on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly in New York, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a meeting with Mohamed El-Amine Souef, Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and the Francophonie, in charge of Comorians abroad of the Union of Comoros.

The ministers had an engaged exchange of views on a wide range of issues concerning the traditionally friendly Russian-Comorian relations, including further development of the political dialogue, strengthening cooperation within the UN and other international platforms.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353367






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s conversation with Armenian Foreign Minister Zohrab Mnatsakanyan



27 September 2018 - 08:56



On September 26, on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly in New York, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a conversation with Armenian Foreign Minister Zohrab Mnatsakanyan.

The two diplomats discussed a series of current matters concerning bilateral and regional affairs. Special attention was paid to Russian-Armenian interaction within international forums.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353377






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, New York, September 26, 2018



27 September 2018 - 08:58







Mr Secretary-General,

I would like to present you with ten volumes of the works of Yevgeny Primakov, who was Foreign Minister, who was Prime Minister in Russia, who was Director of Intelligence in Russia, and a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. One of our teachers, actually, at the Foreign Ministry. And I hope this will find a place in the library of the United Nations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353503






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's opening remarks at a meeting with President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro, New York, September 26, 2018



27 September 2018 - 09:05







We are always open to cooperation with our friends. Russian President Vladimir Putin sends his best wishes.

We are ready to assist your initiatives within the mechanisms created between Venezuela and the Russian Federation. Preparations are in progress for a meeting next month within the bilateral High-Level Intergovernmental Commission. We express our solidarity with the people and the leaders of Venezuela in upholding their right to choose their own path of development.

US President Donald Trump said yesterday that he is adamantly opposed to the interference in domestic affairs and that he stands for respect of sovereignty. We agree with him.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353660






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's meeting with Grenadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter David



27 September 2018 - 09:09



On September 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Grenada Peter David had a brief conversation on the sidelines of the 73rd UN General Assembly in New York.

The ministers spoke in favour of strengthening the political dialogue, as well as facilitating further friendly links between the two countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353407






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's meeting with Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ayman Safadi



27 September 2018 - 09:15







On September 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a meeting with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Ayman Safadi on the sidelines of the 73rd UN General Assembly in New York.

During the conversation, the ministers exchanged views on the key aspects of the Middle East agenda, focusing on the developments in Syria and Iraq, and the Middle East settlement. They emphasised their commitment to seeking a political and diplomatic solution to the persisting crisis problems in the region through a comprehensive national dialogue, on the basis of recognised international laws and in strict compliance with the UN Charter.

Particular attention was paid to the tasks of progressive development of comprehensive Russia-Jordan cooperation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353417






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's participation in a trilateral ministerial meeting in the Astana format between Russia, Iran and Turkey



27 September 2018 - 09:20







On September 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took part in the trilateral ministerial meeting in the Astana format on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly in New York.

The meeting participants held a detailed discussion of the developments on the ground, particularly, in the Idlib de-escalation zone, as well as the prospects for the launch of a stable political settlement process in Syria. The participants spoke highly of the agreement on stabilising the situation in Idlib reached in Sochi on September 17, which allows safeguarding civilians amid the ongoing uncompromising fight against terrorism. They reaffirmed their commitment to facilitating efforts to establish and launch of a Constitutional Committee in Geneva on the basis of the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress and UNSC Resolution 2254, which will allow Syrians to determine their future independently.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353427






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Foreign Minister of Suriname Yldiz Deborah Pollack-Beighle



27 September 2018 - 09:24



On September 26, on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly in New York, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a meeting with Foreign Minister of Suriname Yldiz Deborah Pollack-Beighle.

The foreign ministers signed an agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Suriname on visa-free travel for nationals of the two countries and the Memorandum of Cooperation between the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Surinamese Foreign Ministry.

The ministers exchanged views on topical matters concerning the bilateral political dialogue, development of trade and economic links, cooperation between Russia and Suriname within the UN, and the main aspects of Russia’s cooperation with Latin American and Caribbean countries and their integration associations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353437






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the UN Security Council ministerial meeting on North Korea settlement efforts, New York, September 27, 2018



27 September 2018 - 18:47







Mr Secretary-General,

Mr Secretary of State,

colleagues,

Significant progress has been made in recent months in resolving the problems plaguing the Korean Peninsula. Tensions in the region decreased significantly as a result of the moratorium on missile launches and nuclear tests announced by Pyongyang in April, shutting down the Punggye-ri nuclear test site and the decision by the United States and the Republic of Korea to postpone indefinitely the summer military exercises. We noted the successful implementation of the inter-Korean agreements enshrined in the Panmunjom Declaration of April 27, the September visit of the President of the Republic of Korea, Mr Moon Jae-in, to the DPRK and the signing of the Pyongyang Declaration. It reflects the intention of the Korean parties to step up multifaceted cooperation, as well as Pyongyang's commitment to dismantle the Tongchang-ri missile test site and to shut down Yongbyon nuclear facilities, which gives hope for stabilisation in this part of the world.

Russia actively supports the rapprochement between South and North Korea and the efforts to solve the problems of the Korean Peninsula in general. We have been calling on our partners to join in these efforts for a long time now, including as part of implementation of a corresponding roadmap adopted by Russia and China last summer, which is now being de facto implemented. We are convinced that building trust is the key to resolving the Korean Peninsula issues politically and diplomatically. The Pyongyang agreement between the North and the South on restoring rail and road links is a major step toward this end. We call on the Council to support the Pyongyang and Seoul initiatives, which are fully in keeping with the spirit of our decisions. We can’t afford sanctions against the DPRK becoming an instrument of collective punishment.

The lack of trust between Washington and Pyongyang hinders the development of joint measures that the parties could undertake concurrently and in stages to advance the overall settlement process. We propose to sit down and develop a system of international security guarantees, which would serve as a decisive prerequisite for denuclearising the Korean Peninsula.

With Pyongyang demonstrating its willingness to cooperate, and good progress in stabilising the situation in the region, the policy imposed by our Western partners to further tighten the sanctions on the DPRK looks increasingly ill-timed. Given that Pyongyang has undertaken a number of important steps toward denuclearisation, it would appear logical to support these efforts and offer something in return in order to maintain the current positive momentum.

In this regard, I would like to hear clarifications as to why some of our UNSC colleagues keep stubbornly rejecting the possibility of any positive signal coming from the Council regarding Pyongyang's steps toward denuclearising the Korean Peninsula.

As you are aware, talks are a two-way street. The DPRK’s steps on the track of stage-by-stage disarmament should be matched with the easing of sanctions. Action must be matched by action. This is necessary in order to avoid a situation like the JCPOA where our US colleagues, using far-fetched pretexts, unilaterally withdrew from the Iranian nuclear deal, thereby violating their obligations under UN Security Council resolutions.







The institutions and mechanisms of the UN and its Security Council must be used to support the settlement processes and the inter-Korean dialogue, rather than be an obstacle. Only then it will be possible to talk about an effective solution to the problems that have piled up in the region, including nuclear ones, based on mutually acceptable agreements. Sanctions and pressure are unlikely to get the job done. Excessive use of the UN Security Council's sanctions toolkit has already led to a situation where member states and international organisations are often unable to maintain normal cultural, sports and diplomatic relations with the DPRK, which have nothing to do with nuclear missile programmes.

The continuous escalation of sanctions has already gone beyond measures to block the channels of financing Pyongyang's banned nuclear-missile programmes and is now threatening North Korean citizens with unnecessary social, economic and humanitarian hardships.

It is appropriate, by the way, to remind everyone that all the UN Security Council resolutions on the DPRK contain not only sanctions, but also provisions on measures to achieve a political and diplomatic settlement on the Korean Peninsula. Ignoring them is tantamount to failure to comply with the consensus agreements reached by the Council on the DPRK.

The so-called autonomous, secondary sanctions against the DPRK and other states imposed by the United States and some of its allies in circumvention and on top of the UN Security Council sanctions are even more objectionable. Such unilateral restrictions not only violate the sovereignty and legitimate interests of member countries and run counter to international trade rules, they also undermine the integrity of the restrictions agreed upon by the Security Council. Again, we urge the countries that impose such sanctions to abandon such practices. We note that these restrictions have become an instrument of unfair competition and scare away business interests from third countries. The case of the DPRK is very telling in this regard. Even things that are not prohibited by the sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council are hard to implement because of such illegal practices and businesspeople fearing to end up on sanctions lists. The attempts to “sanctify” such restrictions with the authority of the UN Security Council or its 1718 Sanctions Committee on the DPRK are unacceptable. Questioning the commitment of certain countries to strict compliance with the UNSC resolutions on the DPRK through the Committee cannot be accepted, either.

We advocate that the UN Security Council and its 1718 Committee do their best to find political and diplomatic solutions to the problems of the Korean Peninsula and help create a multilateral security mechanism in Northeast Asia. We also believe that it is time for the Security Council to send a clear message to support the positive dynamics around the Korean Peninsula. This could be done, for example, by adopting an appropriate resolution, which we plan to draft and submit to the Security Council for discussion.

We also consider it important to regularly assess whether particular sanctions on the DPRK should be revised as Pyongyang moves toward abandoning nuclear weapons. For example, we could think of at least some small steps. The UNSC resolutions allow for revising sanctions in case of progress on the political track. In the Panmunjom and Pyongyang declarations, the parties, as I mentioned earlier, confirmed their interest in implementing joint economic projects. Since we all welcomed these agreements, let’s think about creating special conditions at the 1718 Committee for considering applications to withdraw from the sanctions regime in order to pursue inter-Korean cooperation projects agreed upon by Pyongyang and Seoul.

Russia is willing to establish close cooperation with all the stakeholders in order to ensure peace, stability and a comprehensive settlement of the Korean Peninsula’s problems based on equal and non-discriminatory talks with the participation of all interested parties.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354592






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in a working breakfast for foreign ministers of permanent UN Security Council members



27 September 2018 - 23:18







On September 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov attended a traditional meeting of foreign ministers of the five permanent UN Security Council members with UN Secretary-General António Guterres in New York.

The officials discussed topical issues of the UN Security Council’s agenda and the current state of international relations, including the causes of their deterioration. Mr Lavrov urged his partners to renounce double standards and to work on collective approaches to tackling modern challenges and threats.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354658






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Moroccan Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Nasser Bourita



27 September 2018 - 23:25







On September 27, on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly in New York, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a meeting with Nasser Bourita, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Kingdom of Morocco.

The ministers discussed a number of topical issues on the bilateral agenda, specifically, preparations for the 7th meeting of the Russian-Moroccan Mixed Intergovernmental Commission on Economic and Scientific-Technical Cooperation in Rabat.

Minister Lavrov and Minister Bourita confirmed their mutual intention to support an intensive political dialogue on the global and regional issues of mutual interest, including Libya, Syria and Western Sahara settlement.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354668






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the BRICS Foreign Ministers’ meeting



27 September 2018 - 23:40



On September 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov participated in a meeting of the BRICS Foreign Ministers traditionally held on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

The participants held a thorough exchange of views concerning a wide range of international issues, including the key matters on the UN General Assembly’s 73rd session agenda. They also discussed the issues of peace and security, economic and financial stability, as well as sustainable development. The ministers reaffirmed their intention to increase coordination on the international arena, guided by the states’ commitment to the principles of multilateralism and the goal of creating a more just and equitable world order with the UN and international law playing the central role.

The ministers also discussed further steps to implement the decisions taken at the 10th BRICS Summit held on July 25-27, 2018, in Johannesburg, South Africa. The Brazilian side informed the meeting participants about its plans for the 2019 BRICS chairmanship. Following the meeting, a joint communique was adopted.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354678
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 11th, 2018 #510
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,171
Default

Mr. Lavrov would make a good President after Putin leaves office.

And promote Maria Zakharova to Foreign Minister.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old December 11th, 2018 #511
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Allan View Post
Mr. Lavrov would make a good President after Putin leaves office.

And promote Maria Zakharova to Foreign Minister.
Ray, does it just seem to me or are you trying to meddle in our future presidential elections?
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; December 11th, 2018 at 07:41 PM.
 
Old December 11th, 2018 #512
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas, New York, September 27, 2018



28 September 2018 - 00:11







Mr President,







It is very nice to see you. We need to keep in touch on what is going on internationally, but mostly around Palestine. And it is of crucial importance for us to have the privilege of your assessments of the situation. We would like to see how the international community and Russia in particular can promote the settlement on the basis of UN decisions and the Arab Peace Initiative.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354708






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Secretary General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation Yousef Al-Othaimeen, New York, September 27, 2018



28 September 2018 - 00:14











We are glad to have this opportunity, Mr Secretary-General, to briefly – for obvious reasons – discuss what we can do to promote our cooperation further. I am sure that it is a useful relationship and we want to keep it and develop it and to promote it. Soon there will be another meeting of the Russia-Islamic World Strategic Vision Group. The Republic of Dagestan will be hosting it and they are really hoping that you will enjoy your visit.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354718






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s conversation with Colombian Minister of Foreign Affairs Carlos Holmes Trujillo



28 September 2018 - 00:55







On September 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a conversation with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia Carlos Holmes Trujillo.

Sergey Lavrov noted the progress achieved in the context of the Colombian peace process and stressed the key importance of implementing the Final Agreement provisions. He also reaffirmed Russia’s readiness to see to it that Bogota continues receiving international support for its peace talks.

The ministers discussed current bilateral matters and spoke in favour of the promotion of a political dialogue and stepping up trade, economic and investment cooperation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354742






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs of France Jean-Yves Le Drian



28 September 2018 - 01:01







On September 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a conversation with Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs of the French Republic Jean-Yves Le Drian on the sidelines of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in New York.

The ministers discussed the situation in Syria and around Libya and Yemen. They also reviewed the implementation of the JCPOA. Certain bilateral matters were also addressed.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354752






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Ralph Gonsalves



28 September 2018 - 01:08







On September 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Ralph Gonsalves on the sidelines of the 73rd UN General Assembly Session in New York.

The discussion focused on the prospects for expanding bilateral relations, as well as topical issues of the regional and international agenda.

Mr Lavrov and Mr Gonsalves signed an intergovernmental agreement on the terms of introducing visa-free travel for both countries’ citizens.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354762






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Plurinational State of Bolivia Diego Pary Rodriguez, New York, September 27, 2018



28 September 2018 - 01:17







I would like to once again congratulate you on your appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs.







Bolivia is one of our key partners in Latin America. The recent June 13 meeting of our presidents in Moscow confirmed the mutual resolve to further expand partnership in all areas. Today, we will discuss what is to be done to implement all the agreements reached by our presidents.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354772






Statement by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the Presentation of the Bid by Ekaterinburg to Host Expo 2025, New York, 27 September 2018



28 September 2018 - 08:45







Dear colleagues and friends,

Russia is an active member of the Bureau International des Expositions (BIE). We uphold the principles and values of the World Expo movement. Our country has participated in Expo exhibitions for over 160 years. Russian expositions regularly receive medals, certificates, and awards in various categories. Unfortunately, this high-profile event has never been held in Russia.

In May 2017, Russia submitted to the BIE the candidature of Ekaterinburg for World Expo 2025. I am convinced that our bid has all the chances to succeed.

The Russian candidate enjoys an optimum combination of public and state support. Ekaterinburg is Russia's fourth largest city, an important and dynamic economic, scientific, educational and cultural centre. Due to its unique location – on the borderline between the European and Asian parts of the country – the city has become an important transport hub.

Ekaterinburg has all the necessary infrastructural and organizational resources to successfully host Expo 2025. I would like to remind you that the city has on numerous occasions hosted large-scale international events, including Russia-EU, BRICS, SCO summits, and this summer – the FIFA World Cup matches. It goes without saying that our ongoing priority is providing comfortable stay and security to our foreign guests.







The theme of the Russian bid – Changing the World: Innovations and Better Life for Future Generations – is highly relevant. We invite the global community to participate in a broad discussion on the impact of innovations on all aspects of human activities, including economy, education, health care, and culture.

Expo 2025 will provide foreign participants with the opportunity to demonstrate their latest scientific and technical achievements, share their plans on economic, technological, and scientific development. I am confident that their active participation in the Expo will open up additional possibilities to enhance bilateral and multilateral cooperation in trade, industry, and agriculture, contribute to promoting humanitarian ties and strengthening the global climate of trust and mutual understanding.

We look forward to receiving support for Ekaterinburg during the upcoming elections at the General Assembly of the Bureau International des Expositions in Paris next November.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354850






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Foreign Minister of Algeria Abdelkader Messahel



28 September 2018 - 17:37







Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a meeting with Foreign Minister of the Algerian People's Democratic Republic Abdelkader Messahel on the sidelines of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in New York on September 28.

The officials discussed further strengthening of the multifaceted Russia-Algeria relations as part of the efforts to implement the bilateral Declaration on Strategic Partnership of October 4, 2001. When exchanging views on important issues of the international and regional agenda, they reiterated the importance of merging the efforts of the international community to resolutely counter the terrorist threat in the Middle East and North Africa. The parties see eye to eye on the need to promote the peaceful settlement of crises, especially in Syria, Libya and Yemen, through a broad-based national dialogue, without outside interference and with unwavering respect for the right of the nations of the region to determine their own future.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3358826






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Foreign Minister of Angola Manuel Domingos Augusto



28 September 2018 - 17:48







On September 28, Sergey Lavrov met with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Angola Manuel Domingos Augusto on the sidelines of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in New York.

The foreign ministers discussed current issues related to the political, trade, economic, scientific, technical and humanitarian partnership between Russia and Angola.

When discussing international matters, the attention was primarily on cooperation on key global and regional issues at the UN and other multilateral organisations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3358836






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with high representatives of small island states of the South Pacific



28 September 2018 - 19:10







On September 28, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a meeting with the heads of delegations from the small island states of the South Pacific, on the sidelines of the 73rd UN General Assembly.

The officials had a productive exchange of views on promising areas of practical cooperation between Russia and its partners from the South Pacific sub-region. They also considered ways of expanding cooperation on major international issues.

At the end of the meeting, an agreement was signed between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Palau on mutual abolition of visa requirements for citizens of both countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3358883






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s conversation with Walid Muallem, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic



28 September 2018 - 19:32







On September 28, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a conversation with Walid Muallem, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR) on the sidelines of the 73rd UN General Assembly in New York.

The officials conducted a detailed exchange of views on events in Syria and related developments, including the political settlement process in that country with due account of the results of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi and on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

Mr Lavrov reaffirmed Russia’s commitment to the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the SAR and firm resolve to eliminate once and for all the hotbed of international terrorism in that country.

The ministers expressed support for stepping up collective efforts to help rebuild socio-economic infrastructure destroyed by military action and the removal of illegal unilateral sanctions on Syria that hit the civilian population hardest.

They also discussed further bolstering bilateral economic ties through the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3358893






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Dominican Minister of Foreign and CARICOM Affairs Francine Baron



28 September 2018 - 20:21







Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Dominican Minister of Foreign and CARICOM Affairs Francine Baron on the sidelines of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in New York on September 28.

The foreign ministers discussed bilateral cooperation, including the expansion of trade, economic and cultural ties, and exchanged views on important regional and international matters.

The Treaty on the Fundamentals of Relations between the Russian Federation and the Commonwealth of Dominica and an intergovernmental agreement on terms and conditions for waiving visa requirements for citizens of the Russian Federation and the Commonwealth of Dominica were signed during the meeting.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3359192






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Foreign Minister of Egypt Sameh Shoukry



28 September 2018 - 20:50







Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Foreign Minister of the Arab Republic of Egypt Sameh Shoukry on the sidelines of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in New York on September 28.

During the conversation, the officials focused on the future of the comprehensive partnership between Russia and Egypt, with an emphasis on expanding and strengthening the diverse forms of cooperation between the countries.

They also discussed the state of affairs in the Middle East and North Africa, including in the context of expanding interaction between the two countries in order to promote the political and diplomatic settlement of crises in the region.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3359224






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with President of the Central African Republic Faustin-Archange Touadera



28 September 2018 - 21:03







Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with President of the Central African Republic Faustin-Archange Touadera on the sidelines of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in New York on September 28.

During the meeting, the officials focused on the political, trade, economic and cultural partnership between the countries. The prospects for a national settlement in the CAR were reviewed, and the importance of harmonising international efforts to help stabilise the situation in that country in accordance with the African Peace Initiative was noted.

President Touadera assured Minister Lavrov that the investigation into the death of Russian journalists is under the control of the CAR authorities and promised to ensure cooperation of his country's law enforcement agencies with Russia’s Investigative Committee with a view to promptly clarifying the circumstances of this crime.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3359256






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly, New York, September 28, 2018



28 September 2018 - 21:39







Madam President, ladies and gentlemen,

The speeches delivered during the general discussion at this session of the UN General Assembly confirm the fact that international relations are going through a very complex and contradictory historical stage.

Today, we are witnesses to a collision of two opposing trends. On the one hand, the polycentric principles of the world order are growing stronger and new economic growth centres are taking shape. We can see nations striving to preserve their sovereignty and to choose the development models that are consistent with their ethnic, cultural and religious identity. On the other hand, we see the desire of a number of Western states to retain their self-proclaimed status as “world leaders” and to slow down the irreversible move toward multipolarity that is objectively taking place. To this end, anything goes, up to and including political blackmail, economic pressure and brute force.

Such illegal actions devalue international law, which lies at the foundation of the postwar world order. We hear loud statements not only calling into question the legal force of international treaties, but asserting the priority of self-serving unilateral approaches over resolutions adopted by the UN.

We are witnessing the rise of militant revisionism with regard to the modern international legal system. The basic principles of the Middle East settlement process, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme, commitments under the World Trade Organisation, the multilateral climate agreement, and much more are under attack.

Our Western colleagues seek to replace the rule of law in international affairs with some “rules-based order.” These rules, which are made up as political expediency dictates, are a clear case of double standards. Unjustified accusations of interference in the domestic affairs of particular countries are made while simultaneously engaging in an open campaign to undermine and topple democratically elected governments. They seek to draw certain countries into military alliances built to suit their own needs, against the will of the people of those countries, while threatening other states with punishment for exercising freedom of choice in their partners and allies.

The aggressive attacks on international institutions are accompanied by attempts to “privatise” their secretarial structures and grant them the rights of intergovernmental bodies so that they can be manipulated.

The shrinking space for constructive international cooperation, the escalation of confrontation, the rise in general unpredictability, and the significant increase in the risk of spontaneous conflicts – all have an impact on the activities of this world organisation.

The international community has to pay a high price for the selfish ambitions of a narrow group of countries. Collective mechanisms of responding to common security challenges are faltering. Diplomacy, negotiation and compromise are being replaced with dictates and unilateral exterritorial sanctions enacted without the consent of the UN Security Council. Such measures that already affect dozens of countries are not only illegal but also ineffective, as demonstrated by the more than half-century US embargo of Cuba that is denounced by the entire international community.

But history does not teach the same lesson twice. Attempts to pass verdicts without trial or investigation continue unabated. Some of our Western colleagues who want to assign blame are content to rely on assertions in the vein of the notorious “highly likely.” We have already been through this. We remember well how many times false pretexts were used to justify interventions and wars, like in Yugoslavia in 1999, Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011.

Now the same methods are being used against Syria. On April 14, it was subjected to missile strikes carried out under an absolutely falsified pretext, several hours before international inspectors were supposed to arrive at the site of the staged incident. Let the terrorists and their patrons be warned that any further provocations involving the use of chemical weapons would be unacceptable.

The conflict in Syria has already lasted for seven years. The failed attempt to use extremists to change the regime from the outside nearly led to the country’s collapse and the emergence of a terrorist caliphate in its place.

Russia’s bold action in response to the request of the Syrian Government, backed diplomatically by the Astana process, helped prevent this destructive scenario. The Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, initiated by Russia, Iran and Turkey last January, created the conditions for a political settlement in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. The intra-Syrian Constitutional Committee is being established in Geneva on precisely this basis. Rebuilding ruined infrastructure to enable millions of refugees to return home as soon as possible is on the agenda. Assistance in resolving these challenges for the benefit of all Syrians, without any double standards, should become a priority for international efforts and the activities of UN agencies.

For all the challenges posed by Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya, it would be unacceptable to ignore the protracted Palestinian problem. Its fair resolution is critical to improving the situation in the entire Middle East. I would like to warn politicians against unilateral approaches and attempts to monopolise the peace process. Today, the consolidation of international efforts in the interests of resuming talks on the basis of UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative is more in demand than ever before. We are doing everything to facilitate this, including in the format of the Middle East Quartet and in cooperation with the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Mutually acceptable agreements should ensure the peaceful and safe co-existence of the two states – Israel and Palestine.

Here in the UN that was built on the lessons of World War II we are all obliged to think about the future and not repeating the mistakes of the past. This year is the 80th anniversary of the Munich conspiracy that crowned the criminal appeasement of the Third Reich and serves as a sad example of the disastrous consequences that can result from national egotism, disregard for international law and seeking solutions at the expense of others.

Regrettably, today in many countries the anti-Nazi vaccine has not only weakened, there is a growing campaign to rewrite history and whitewash war criminals and their accomplices. We consider sacrilegious the struggle against monuments to the liberators of Europe, which is going on in some countries. We are calling on UN members to support a draft resolution of the UN General Assembly denouncing the glorification of Nazis.

The growth of radical nationalism and neo-Nazism in Ukraine, where criminals who fought under SS banners are glorified as heroes, is one of the main factors of the protracted domestic conflict in Ukraine. The only way to end it is consistent and faithful implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures that was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. We support the activities of the OSCE mission in Ukraine and are ready to provide UN protection for its members. However, instead of fulfilling the Minsk agreements and engaging in dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk, Kiev still entertains the illusion of introducing an occupying force in Donbass, with the support from the West, and increasingly threatens its opponents with scenarios based on force. The patrons of the current Ukrainian authorities should compel them to think straight and end the blockade of Donbass and discrimination against national minorities throughout Ukraine.

In Kosovo, the international military presence under UN Security Council mandate is morphing into a US base. Kosovo armed forces are being created, while agreements reached by Belgrade and Pristina with EU mediation are being disregarded. Russia calls on the sides to engage in dialogue in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1244 and will support any solution which is acceptable to Serbia.

In general, we are against turning the Balkans once again into an arena of confrontation or anyone claiming it as a foothold, against forcing the people of the Balkan nations to make a false choice or creating new dividing lines in the region.

An equal and undivided security architecture also needs to be created in other parts of the world, including the Asia Pacific Region. We welcome the positive developments around the Korean Peninsula, which are following the logic of the Russian-Chinese roadmap. It is important to encourage the process with further steps by both sides toward a middle ground and incentivise the practical realisation of important agreements between Pyongyang and Seoul through the Security Council. We will keep working to put in place a multilateral process as soon as possible, so that we can build a durable mechanism of peace and security in Northeast Asia.

Denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula is among the challenges facing the world community in the key area of international security – the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, serious obstacles continue to pile up on that road. Lack of progress in ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and in establishing a WMD-free zone in the Middle East has been compounded by the unilateral US withdrawal from the JCPOA in violation of Resolution 2231, despite the fact that Iran is fully in compliance. We will do everything to preserve the UNSC-approved deal.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is being pushed in an increasingly negative direction as the West attempts to turn its Technical Secretariat into a tool for punishing undesirable governments. This threatens to undermine the independent professional status of that organisation and the universal nature of the CWC, as well as the exclusive prerogative of the UN Security Council.

These and other issues related to non-proliferation were discussed in detail at the September 26 Security Council meeting, convened by the US chair not a moment too soon.

We are convinced that any problems and concerns in international affairs should be addressed through substantive dialogue. If there are questions or criticisms, what is needed is to sit down and talk, produce facts, listen to opposing arguments, and seek to find a balance of interests.







The debate on abuses in cyberspace has sharply escalated in recent years. I would like to remind you that as far back as twenty years ago Russia initiated the discussion on international information security at the UN. In view of recent developments it is becoming increasingly relevant to work out under the UN auspices global rules of responsible behaviour of states in information space, including the principles of non-use of force, non-interference in domestic affairs and respect for state sovereignty. We intend to submit a draft of such resolution to the First Committee of the UN General Assembly.

We also think it important to start developing a convention of fighting cybercrime, making provisions for respective discussions in the Third Committee.

Searching for commonly acceptable agreements and respect for each other’s interests are needed more than ever in the area of world trade and economic relations, which today tend to be the subjects of unprecedented politicisation. The values of free trade have become hostages to trade wars and other forms of unfair competition.

Russia has been consistently advocating the philosophy of indivisible economic development, which is enshrined in the Greater Eurasian Partnership concept put forward by President of Russia Vladimir Putin. This large-scale project is open to all nations in Europe and Asia, regardless of their membership in various integration associations. Its steady implementation could contribute to the establishment of a space for broad economic cooperation in Eurasia and in the long term it could become the foundation for a reformed architecture of the continent’s security corresponding to the realities of the 21st century.

Russia continues to do its utmost to build a world based on the principles of law, truth and justice. We are not alone in this aspiration. Our allies and partners in the CSTO, EAEU, CIS, BRICS and SCO, and the overwhelming majority of countries in the world stand for democratisation of international life in all of its manifestations and in the interests of all nations without exception. The West is also compelled to heed their voice, which is increasingly reflected in the G20 activities.

Under the current turbulent conditions the role of the UN, an indispensable venue for overcoming disagreements and coordinating the international community’s actions, is objectively increasing. The priority of collective work in the interest of coordinating solutions acceptable for everyone was enshrined in the foundations of the UN. This potential was left unrealised due to the bipolar confrontation of the Cold War era. At the current stage, we must not fail to reach the high goals and principles of the UN Charter and the commitments of the founding fathers to the future generations.

To be worthy of their legacy, we should recall the art of negotiating. Numerous modern challenges can only be resolved on the basis of equality and mutual respect. Dictate and coercion typical of the colonial era should be relegated to the archives once and for all, or better yet to the ash heap of history.

Statesmen of the past left plenty of enlightening messages for us that have become maxims. Let me quote one by President Harry Truman: “Great nations lead by the force of example rather than domination.”

I hope the culture of mutually respectful dialogue will ultimately prevail. Russia will do its best to promote it.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3359296






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Shah Mahmood Qureshi



28 September 2018 - 22:21







On September 28, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Shah Mahmood Qureshi on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly in New York.

The discussion focused on current bilateral and international issues, including the situation in Afghanistan.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3359327






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter Szijjarto



28 September 2018 - 22:40







On September 28, on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly in New York, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a meeting with Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter Szijjarto.

Pursuant to the agreements reached during talks between President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban on September 18, 2018 in Moscow, the foreign ministers discussed practical steps in further developing Russia-Hungary relations with a focus on priority economic projects and energy.

The ministers exchanged opinions on several UN matters and topical international problems, including the situation in Ukraine.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3359372






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly, New York, September 28, 2018



29 September 2018 - 04:24







Question:

Is Russia disappointed by the new administration of Cyril Ramaphosa declining to move ahead on the nuclear deal with ROSATOM? That was something President Putin raised at the BRICS Summit earlier this year in Johannesburg. Can you give us Russia’s position on this deal?

And also there have been some reports that Russia is trying to lure hundreds, if not thousands of disgruntled farmers over the land question. The land question is a very big topic in South Africa. Are you trying to lure some of those farmers to Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

I didn’t understand what you said about the farmers. What was that?



Question:

There is a policy of land expropriation in South Africa that they are implementing. This is a parliamentary process. People could lose their farms without compensation. There is talk that Russia is trying to take the gap, if you will, and lure some of those disgruntled farmers to Russia.



Sergey Lavrov:

No. Now we are busy with meddling into the elections in Catalonia. No time for this, you know, and too far.

As for the nuclear power station, any deal depends on the readiness of both sides to agree on the format of the deal, on the availability of resources, and so on. This rethinking started before the current president became president. If the government of South Africa found out, as it was looking into the project, that it needed some time, and some more analysis of the situation, it is their sovereign right, and we always respect the rights of our partners.



Question:

Can I ask you a question about Syria and about the important deal Russia did with Turkey? There is a question in this deal, which is what happens with the fighters from the group that used to call themselves al-Nusra? Can you explain to us, how they are going to leave, and if they don’t leave, who is going to force them to leave and where they are going to go?



Sergey Lavrov:

The agreement on the Idlib de-escalation zone that provides for the creation of a demilitarised belt 15 to 20 kilometres deep was reached by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The Syrian government endorsed it, and so did Iran as the third party in the Astana format. Two days ago we had a meeting here with the Foreign Minister of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif and the Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu, during which we stated that the agreement has taken hold: the withdrawal of fighters and heavy weapons from the demilitarised belt is underway. The question is what is going to happen next.

As you probably know, if you have read the memorandum that was signed in Sochi, Turkey undertook to separate opposition forces that are ready to take part in the political process from Jabhat al-Nusra. This is not an easy job. The United States had promised us to do this back under the Obama administration on numerous occasions, and later under the current administration but was never able to do it. We truly hope that Turkey succeeds in separating normal, adequate and patriotic opposition from Jabhat al-Nusra, since this is a terrorist organisation that was designated as such by the UN Security Council. It has no place there. There is much speculation about how the problem with these fighters will be resolved, there was even talk that they may be transferred to some other hotspots, for example to Afghanistan. This is all unacceptable. Terrorists must be destroyed, or suffer the punishment they deserve and put on trial. The way this will be done will have to be decided as the ongoing developments unfold. No one pretends that the agreement that was reached in Sochi dotted all the i's and crossed all the t’s, and that it will now serve as a roadmap to a definitive solution. However, it is a fact that we have won time for the civilians and for removing a direct threat to the Syrian army and the Russian base, since it is from this demilitarised belt that government troops and our military base were shelled.

We will proceed in an extremely pointed and cautious manner so as to minimise all possible risks for the civilians. I guarantee you that we will not allow what happened in Raqqa or Mosul, Iraq, when they were liberated by the US-led counter-terrorist coalition, to happen again. We prevented this in Aleppo and in Eastern Ghouta, and hundreds of thousands of people displaced by hostilities are returning back there. Only recently, a journalist from a certain media outlet travelled to Raqqa, and reported that people are trying to return back there, but are unable to do so with unburied bodies still out there on the streets and due to the fact that the area is infested with mines. This is also a problem that needs to be resolved.

Let us not forget that there are other territories in Syria that require the attention of the international community. I am referring to a 55 kilometre area unilaterally created by the US around Al Tanf. The Rukban refugee camp is located within this area. The living conditions there are terrifying. This 55-kilometre radius around Al-Tanf has become a refuge for terrorists, and this is well known. We are currently talking to the US in order to put an end to this illegal situation. The United Nations joined the efforts to move people out of the camp where they face inhumane conditions. I hope that we will pay attention to all the problems that exist in Syria. Regarding Idlib, we will definitely share with our colleagues from the media information about our next steps.



Question:

September 13 marks three years since the Russian military launched their operation in Syria. This might be a good date for summing up what has been achieved both on the ground and in the political sense. We would like to ask you to do this.

But now back to what US President Donald Trump said at his news conference… He took time thanking Russia, Syria and Iran for suspending the Idlib operation but then said, “That doesn’t mean they can’t be selective … you know, go in, and they’ve got to do what they’ve got to do, with terrorists.” Do you perceive this as a signal of sorts? Do you think his own diplomats will accept this as a signal?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t know how some or other things are perceived in the government circles of other countries and therefore I would rather refrain from commenting on this here. As I said in my reply to the previous question, terrorists should be destroyed or, as an alternative, put on trial. If they resist, they must be destroyed. There are methods that the military have mastered. There are special operations forces that have mastered urban antiterrorist warfare tactics. I suppose professionals should consider these matters but there is no doubt that their position of principle on the unacceptability of leaving a terrorist hotbed in Syria is the same as ours.

As for the political results and prospects of the three years, during which Russia’s Aerospace Forces and military police are present in Syria at the request of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, I would identify as the main achievements, first of all the elimination of the terrorist hotbeds in the south, in Homs, and in Eastern Ghouta. Second, the problems of rendering humanitarian aid to the civilian population are addressed more actively. Third, the establishment of the Astana Three at the political front, a group that assumed the initiative to promote the political process during the period of inaction of our UN colleagues. At the previous stage, this work was crowned with the holding of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in January of this year. The Congress approved a declaration, which for the first time stressed on behalf of the Government of Syria and the opposition agreed to work on the basis of the 12 principles formulated by UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura. Before the Sochi Congress, Staffan de Mistura failed to win support for these 12 principles from both the opposition and the Government of Syria. In the same declaration, a decision was made to create a Constitutional Committee, where Syrians themselves would decide what constitutional system they wanted to see in their country. Today, this Constitutional Committee is being formed, with President Bashar Assad of Syria being the first to send his representatives to this body. It took the opposition several months to make their lists.

The job for now is to add civil society representatives to the Constitutional Committee list. An important consideration in this regard is that we should not rush things and adopt a most careful approach to that part of the Committee, which will represent the civil society: It should be acceptable to both the Government of Syria and the opposition. Regrettably, the so-called Small Group on Syria, primarily the four Western and three Arab countries, which met not so long ago, issued a statement urging the Constitutional Committee to start its work immediately. We know that pressure to this effect is being brought to bear on Staffan de Mistura, whom they are trying to make declare that he is establishing the Committee on his own with such and such a composition. This will be a great mistake. This pressure is aimed at crossing out everything that has been achieved within the framework of the Astana Process and trying again to prevent the Syrians themselves from deciding what country they will live in and how they will organise their life. Once again they want to impose on this long-suffering country a scheme coordinated with the outside forces. These approaches are being observed all too often. I will not name the countries, but almost any conflict that exists now in the Near and Middle East can be a good example of how outside players commit to the paper their own vision of how people ought to live in this or that country. There is no single instance of these attempts bringing stability and normalisation to a state in question. This is why we will insist on not rushing things. Of course, we cannot procrastinate ad infinitum, but the quality of the Constitutional Committee’s composition is more important than some artificially devised deadline. We don’t see any artificial timeframes in any other conflict, no one is demanding them, and so in this case too we must be guided primarily by the need to help the Syrians rather than dictate to them what they should do.



Question (translated from English):

Russia said it will do everything within its power to protect JCPOA. Does this include creating a system for purchasing Iranian oil? Do Russia and China have plans for Iranian oil bypassing US sanctions?

The US Permanent Representative to the UN Nikki Haley accuses Russia of trying to ease sanctions against North Korea to extend the Trans-Siberian railway to South and North Korea. Would you like to comment on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

My answer is very simple – this is something both Koreas want. If our American colleagues’ words about wanting prosperity for the North and, naturally, South Korea, are sincere, they should not have any problem here with the proposal that we made, which was discussed for a long time between us, Seoul and Pyongyang. It is to benefit the development of infrastructure in Northeast Asia, to serve the interests of all those who trade between Asia and Europe. This will be one of the shortest and most effective trade transit routes.

Answering the question on Iran, I must remind you that on July 6, the foreign ministers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, China and Russia – as well as Iran – held a Joint Commission meeting chaired by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, where the European parties to the deal took the initiative to form ad hoc consultative mechanisms, which would consider how to continue to provide the economic benefits that are due to Iran in accordance with the 2015 agreement, and prevent any outside parties from influencing the arrangements to be developed in financial, banking and other sectors.

We met in the same format on September 24 and the Europeans confirmed that the work is underway, and our experts are also involved in it. I can see good opportunities here, unless our European colleagues resort to the excuse that their companies do not want to work in Iran. This would be a big mistake. I hope neither of us will step aside and shrug, well, businesses do not want to, we cannot force them. Such words are already being said, and some companies, including European ones, are leaving Iran. But others are filling their places. Europeans are aware how easy it is to lose the market, and how difficult it would be to return. This is not politics. It is a commitment to what was agreed. In our country, a bargain is a bargain, especially when that bargain is put on paper and sealed by the UN Security Council decisions.

As for the use of national currencies in payments, so as not to depend too much on the US dollar, this idea has long been implemented and put into practice in our relations with China and several other countries, as well as between countries that are partners but are third parties in relation to Russia. This is only natural. Our Western friends are reluctant to mention international law, but prefer talking about a rules based order. One of the rules, one of the pillars of that order was the dollar system, which was guaranteed by the United States. As soon as the United States began to abuse the position of the dollar in the global monetary and financial system, all countries that are at least a little concerned about their future began to look for ways to avoid such dependence. So this process will go on and will ultimately weaken the United States and its impact on the global economy.

Speaking about the barter system in the Iranian oil trade, as our European colleagues have proposed, we are discussing all the ways and possibilities of ensuring that Iran received what it was promised by the UN Security Council.



Question:

This morning your counterpart US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with GCC Foreign Ministers plus the foreign ministers of Jordan and Egypt. They agreed on a strategic coalition for the Middle East to stabilise Yemen, Syria and Iraq, and to stop the malign activities from Iran. Where do you stand regarding this strategic coalition? How do you evaluate Russia’s relations with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have very good relations with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Russia maintains an advanced dialogue with each of the GCC countries, and good relations in trade and the economy. We have established and are about to expand military technical cooperation with a number of these countries. Russia highly values these relations.

Apart from maintaining bilateral ties with each of these countries, Russia also takes part in ministerial meetings in the Russia plus Gulf Countries format with regular meetings either in Russia or one of the countries of the region. This mechanism is also very useful in terms of promoting dialogue and exchanging views on regional matters.

As for the Middle East Strategic Alliance, we have heard that this alliance is about to take shape. I am aware of the ministerial level meeting that took place this morning. That said, there was no announcement of the final decision or the establishment of the alliance. At the outset the decision was to be announced at an October summit in Washington, but the event was postponed until early 2019. Let’s refrain from drawing any hasty conclusions.

You mentioned plans to promote stabilisation in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, while constraining Iran. This seems to suggest that in order to promote stability in these three countries: Syria, Iraq and Yemen, Iran’s positions have to be weakened, if not suppressed altogether so as to be able to do away with any Iranian influence. I am not the one to judge whether these plans are realistic, but there is no way a country like Iran, with its history, population and civilizational values, can be locked within its borders, as if in a cage.

Saudi Arabia has legitimate interests of its own, and it promotes these interests beyond its borders. A small country like Qatar also influences processes in various parts of the region, drawing criticism from its neighbours. For this reason, it would be extremely naïve and unrealistic to attempt to lock the Iranians within their own borders. This is not a way forward. Instead, a discussion on long-standing and increasingly apparent differences has to be launched so as to find ways to overcome them. We know about the relations, or the lack of relations and the tension that exists between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Iran, or between Egypt and Iran. At a certain stage, all interested parties must sit down at the negotiating table.

If this is a gathering of like-minded countries, united by their negative perspective on Iran, this will do nothing to promote stability in the region. Russia has long called for convening a conference that would include Iran among its participants. We have a concept for promoting security in the Persian Gulf involving the Gulf countries, as well as Iran, the Arab League, and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the UN, the EU, the US, Russia and China. The Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe got off the ground in a similar manner. The first steps must consist of trust building measures, promoting transparency on military matters and exchanging visits. Make no mistake, this is how it will unfold. I do not think that there are those who want to resolve problems the region faces through another war the consequences of which would be absolutely unpredictable.



Question:

You have said something quite controversial: You want Iran to be an expansionist country in the region, because you say that you cannot be realistic and expect them to stay within their own borders. Why would you support such expansionism?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is how fake news is born.



Question:

This is what you just said.



Sergey Lavrov:

No, I said you cannot limit, I mean put Iran within its own borders, and prevent Iran from exerting influence outside its borders, while Saudi Arabia exerts influence outside its borders, and so does Qatar. This is what I said.



Question:

You have used the word cage. This was an interesting choice of word. Your explanation is of course more important than my point.



Sergey Lavrov:

I thought that eloquence was one of the journalistic methods, so I tried to be eloquent. I am sorry. But, please, do not misinterpret me.



Question:

What are the differences between your and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's stances on Iran's role in Syria? The US has made it clear they do not want Iran's military presence in Syria. What do you think about this?

What do you think of Benjamin Netanyahu's statements regarding threats towards Lebanon when he listed the three Hezbollah missile sites? Are you concerned about future strikes?



Sergey Lavrov:

Asking about Russia or the US's stance on Iran's presence in Syria, you should not address me but the legitimate Syrian government which invited Iran to help preserve Syria's nationhood and fight terrorism. I can confirm that Iran is efficiently helping to solve counter-terrorism tasks.

We have never considered Iran as a terrorist threat, including during the periods that were hard for my country, when international terrorists were operating in the North Caucasus. We have never seen any links between terrorists in our country and Iranians. By the way, as regards the United States and its stance on this, several months ago FBI veterans, US military intelligence, sent an open letter urging not to create a fake terrorist threat from Iran. They cited the official statistics, which stated that there is only one Shia organisation among one and a half dozen organisations identified as terrorist by the United States. The rest of them included Iran on the list of their enemies.

Our aims do not entirely coincide; maybe they coincide even less with both Iran and Turkey in Syria. Currently, we are allies in our fight against terrorism, preserving Syria’'s nationhood, providing aid to the Syrians, and creating conditions to begin their political dialogue that will allow them to choose their future on their own. I have no doubts that this cooperation is fruitful under the Astana format which was welcomed by everyone.

As regards Israel, as we publicly stated, it has assured us many times it would maintain a deconflicting channel similar to the one we have with the United States. This is what we are now demanding from Israel.

When Israel voiced concern over Iranian or pro-Iranian units actually located in the disengagement line on the Golan Heights, we managed to come to an understanding − all the more so as the southern de-escalation zone had been liberated from terrorists and the Iranian units had withdrawn over 100 kilometres, as we were asked by Israelis and Americans. The positions in the disengagement line on the Golan Heights were taken up by Syrian army units. Then, members of the UN Disengagement Observer Force returned there. Our military police are helping them. We have taken efforts to deliver on the promises we made to Israel following its concerns about their security in the area of the Golan Heights. Sadly, our American colleagues (I have already mentioned Al-Tanf) have repeatedly claimed they would eliminate this totally illegitimate zone created for unclear purposes. But they are not performing their obligations.



Question (via interpreter):

What do you think about state-sponsored terrorism? What do you think about US sanctions against Venezuela? What are the risks of an invasion?



Sergey Lavrov:

State terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism – there is no such concept in international law or the UN vocabulary. Yes, the United States and some other countries have put this concept into use. But it should be clearly understood that either you have evidence or you don’t. We have no proof that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. I have already mentioned this. Neighbours have suspicions with regard to a number of countries, including in the Middle East. But let me say it once again: If a state intentionally trains terrorists and sends them to other countries to carry out terrorist attacks, then this is unacceptable. There is absolutely no need to use the term “state terrorism.” Any type of terrorism should be eradicated and curtailed so that no one is ever tempted to engage in these bloody acts.

As for Venezuela, I said today in my remarks that any unilateral sanctions were not only illegal but also counterproductive, including for their introducers. It is hardly possible to achieve a result using these methods, if the case in point is countries possessing self-respect as well as respect for the traditions and their people. I have cited one example: more than 50 years of US unilateral sanctions against Cuba have brought no result in terms of changing the Cuban leaders’ behaviour. I am confident that the sanctions against Venezuela will be ineffective as well. The parties should come to terms. It is difficult to do this because the Government seems ready for this, while the opposition constantly gets signals from abroad, primarily from the US, that they are supporting them. This is why, the Venezuelan opposition (or at least part of it) has no incentive to come to terms with or even talk to the Government. The outside players should call on the Government and the opposition to sit down and come to an agreement instead of taking the side of this or that party. I said as much today, I see no other option for any crisis-torn region. The course of action should be precisely as has been outlined, with no one putting a stake on either side.







Question (via interpreter):

Addressing a high-level meeting on North Korea, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi suggested revising the sanctions, given the positive shifts. What would you like to say about this?

US President Donald Trump condemned both Russia and China for meddling in the US elections. What comment would you make concerning this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think positively about my colleague Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s words about the need to encourage progress at the talks on the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula and relax the sanction pressure. I said exactly the same as my Chinese colleague at the UN Security Council session.

I heard US President Donald Trump’s speech. But this time, I think, he has accused only China of meddling in the elections. He has not mentioned Russia, although earlier he did name us. You need facts to present this sort of things. We are the last to want someone to interfere in someone else’s internal affairs. If some criminals in our or Chinese territory or in some other countries do this sort of things, they should be tracked and caught via Interpol or other mechanisms for cooperation between the special services and the police. If there is just a suspicion, it should be discussed. We and the US had a working group on cybersecurity. The US itself froze it under Barack Obama. We proposed to the Americans, when they began worrying about interference in their elections, to resume this group’s work to enable professionals and specialists to look at the real state of affairs and the concerns that the parties may have with regard to each other.

Generally, if we speak about meddling (not the hacking of various websites, and the figures that are named, the number of such hacking attacks and the posting of ads, are just ridiculous – less than 0.01 per cent of all social media content), we have a million examples of the US openly, without having scruples urging this or that government to take this or that position. When Ukraine events were on everyone’s lips, US Congress passed an Ukraine democracy support act making it mandatory for the Department of State to spend $20 million per year on promoting democracy in Russia, including by supporting NGOs that champion pluralism in Russia and oppose the government. This is a fact, not some abstract deliberations. There is such an act. There are a lot of NGOs in Russia that get funding from the United States. On our side, as soon as someone wants just to talk to like-minded firearms enthusiasts, you know what happens: Maria Butina is in jail. She came [to the US] and promoted ideas shared by the National Rifle Association.

Let me give you yet another fresh example on the meddling. The United States has appointed Kurt Volker as its Special Representative for Ukraine. He had several meetings with our representative Vladislav Surkov. He is promoting ideas that are foiling the Minsk Agreements reached by the leaders of Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine. While the 2015 agreements contained the requirement and the consent of Kiev and the territories in Donbass to have direct talks and come to terms on a constitutional reform, a special status for this region, amnesty, resumption of economic ties and the holding of elections on terms to be coordinated between the Kiev government and this region, then Kurt Volker has suggested a different course of action. He believes the first thing to do is to send to that territory 20,000 or 30,000 armed UN military with heavy equipment to be followed by 500 or 600 civilians, who would form an administration, disband all existing municipalities and other life support bodies, and determine when and how to hold the elections. This is how the US sees the implementation of the agreements. It would be fine if Volker just talked about reconciliation in Ukraine, but he constantly says that, first, Russia is to blame for everything, and next he takes the liberty of saying things like, I quote (I have even written this out so as not to forget it): “Russian people deserve freedom” – that’s the US special representative for Ukraine speaking – “And the Ukrainian experience should inspire Russian people.” Draw your own conclusions as to who calls for interference, and who doesn’t. I don’t even mention the fact that US ambassadors are telling all East European, Asian, African and Latin American countries not to have contacts with Russia, or trade with it, or buy Russian gas, oil, or military equipment. We are also accused of interfering in the internal affairs of the Balkans. Look at what is taking place ahead of the referendum in Macedonia. Heads of government, of EU countries come there in person and say that they should make a choice in favour of NATO and EU membership and change the name of their country. The same appeals are made by US leaders. US Defence Secretary James Mattis just paid a visit to that country and said the same. Even if we said 10 per cent of that, we would have been nailed to the pillory. EU High Representative Federica Mogherini declared in a speech in early September that the Balkans were EU territory and that there should be no place for others where they were. Perhaps we ought to conduct some educational work with our colleagues so that they behave a little bit more decently when dealing with the outside world.



Question:

In August the Foreign Ministry said that Russia appealed to the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres back in May regarding the situation with Russian diplomatic property in the US with a view to mentioning this in a report for the 73rd Session of the UNGA.

You had a meeting with Secretary-General Antonio Guterres this week. Did you bring this topic up, and was there any response to this letter? Are there any possible ways left to settle the situation with the Russian diplomatic property as far as international law is concerned?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have not touched upon this subject, since this matter has already been decided. Information to this effect has been included in the report to be reviewed during this session. This question has been discussed during meetings of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, which confirmed that Russia’s position is justified.

As for further legal action, we are about to take this case to US courts. We have hired lawyers, and our intention is to begin with US courts. We do understand that this journey will not be a simple one. At the same time, we remain open to settling this case out of court on a reciprocal basis, if the US finally decides to abide by its international commitments after all.



Question:

The Israelis who visited Moscow regarding this incident over Syria, the downing of the Russian plane, have they changed any minds there? Do you think that the Israeli-Russian agreements or understandings that existed before the incidents can come back, and when will Russia deliver those S-300s and start jamming the skies near Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

The delivery has started already, as President Putin said after this incident. Our military presented the picture at a press conference held by the Ministry of Defence. As the President said, the measures that we will take will be devoted to ensuring 100 percent safety and security of our men in Syria. And we will do this.



Question:

And the understandings that were in place until now?



Sergey Lavrov:

As I have said, the full answer was provided at a briefing at the Ministry of Defence, and the President provided an exhaustive comment on this situation.



Question:

With your President coming to India in just a few days, I have two short questions about that. The latest information we are getting is that there could be a possibility that the signing of defence deals to the tune of $8.5 billion maybe put on hold, may not be done, when he comes.

And the second question: in light of the allegations that have come about with France and India’s defence deal – it’s the biggest controversy in India, is Russia doing anything to be more thorough in the signing of the deal with India, checks and balances, etc.?



Sergey Lavrov:

I did not understand what you said about France. Did you mention France?



Question:

The Rafal jet deal for 36 jets. There is a controversy about that in India that it is a corrupt deal. So I am asking, in your deal with India, are you going to be more thorough? Are there any changes in the processes?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have not heard that there was some corruption case around this deal, around Rafal. We participated in the bid for this delivery, and we did not get it. I have not heard about this since.

As for the other deals, which are being negotiated, I have not heard anything about the timing, about postponement, about putting anything on hold. I understand that India will be taking a sovereign decision on how to proceed, and what kind of weapons India needs.



Question:

President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko has been talking at the UN about an upcoming joint resolution by Ukraine, the US, Germany and France, pretending that they form a single front. At the same time, he refrains from sharing any details on this resolution, arguing that Russia may learn something and take counter action.

Yesterday, you had a bilateral meeting with the French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves le Drian. A month ago he said that this step would be premature. Has he changed his position, or do Europe and the US have different perspectives on these matters, considering what you have said on the Special Representative of the US Department of State for Ukraine Kurt Volker?



Sergey Lavrov:

The French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves le Drian has not mentioned Ukraine at all.

As for the statements made by President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko, I would like to refrain from commenting on them. After all, there are the Minsk Agreements, and Russia has proposed adopting a UN Security Council draft resolution on sending a UN mission there to protect OSCE monitors, since it is not uncommon for these monitors to operate in quite challenging conditions or situations. No one has seen any other draft resolutions. There are no limits when talking to like-minded people. I would like to refrain from making any comments until I see the text. If it turns out to comply with what the Special Representative of the US Department of State for Ukraine Kurt Volker says all the time, this just makes me smile. I am surprised how grown up and serious people who have read the Minsk Agreements can suggest anything of this kind.



Question:

Are you satisfied with the situation in Libya? You expected to see a different situation?

And the second question. There were two speeches on Tuesday, one by President Trump and before by Secretary-General Guterres. Which one does Russia prefer? Is Russia’s vision for the world closer to President Trump or the Secretary-General?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding Libya, it is quite strange to hear a question whether Russia is satisfied with the situation in Libya.



Question:

I do not think Russia is satisfied. Did you expect the situation in Libya to be different?



Sergey Lavrov:

I thought that you were thinking more about whether Italy was satisfied with the situation in Libya, or France for that matter.

We are trying to help create conditions for the political process. Frankly speaking we do not believe that in this case as well, like in the case with Syria, there should be any artificial deadline. We welcomed the meeting which took place between the four leaders of various Libyan parties in Paris in May, I think. We support the efforts by the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General, Mr Ghassan Salame. But to say that we must die, but to make sure that elections take place in December, I do not think that this would send the right signal. Elections must be held when all key political forces have an understanding that this would be something the result of which they accept. We still do not see that level of agreement between them.



Question:

What did you like better – Donald Trump’s speech or Guterres’?



Sergey Lavrov:

US President Donald Trump said he strongly supports the sovereignty of every country in the world. I very much agree with this. The United States says that sovereignty is the main thing, and all multilateral affairs are secondary. The US Constitution and the laws on joining the UN say priority is given to national legislation. But the previous administration has never pursued this policy so openly and harshly. On the other hand, if the United States is committed to sovereignty as a fundamental principle, they probably do not need to interfere in the affairs of other countries. I have already given examples. But multilateralism is still a necessity of our time, when all problems become transboundary, technologies unite the whole world and help organise life in a completely new way, providing opportunities for those who want economic and social development for the benefit of the people. Technology also provides opportunities to those who want to use them with corrupt goals, including terrorists, extremists and other criminals.



Question (via interpreter):

You and other members of your Government criticise Eastern Europe, where allegedly Nazism is being revived. But you are seeing the same thing in Western Europe, where neo-Nazism manifests itself in the governments of Austria or Italy. Do you follow these trends?

Does Russia supply weapons to Myanmar? If so, maybe this is also about pressuring the generals to stop ethnic cleansing?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for Nazi trends, yes, this certainly happens in the European Union as well. In Latvia and Estonia, former SS marches are regularly held, and they receive honours. In my remarks at the UN General Assembly, I mentioned the demolition of monuments to those who liberated Europe. It is most common in Poland, but there are neo-Nazi trends in a number of other countries as well. That is why we annually introduce the draft UNGA resolution on the unacceptability of glorifying Nazism. Unfortunately, the entire European Union abstains unanimously seeing this as a threat to the freedom of speech. If the EU considers fulfilling the Nuremberg Tribunal verdict as an infringement on the freedom of speech, well, then EU lawyers have to rethink what they are required to do.



Question (via interpreter):

Regarding neo-Nazis in Austria and Italy, with whom your Government is friends.



Sergey Lavrov:

We are not necessarily friends, but we maintain relations. They are system-forming political parties who do not profess misanthropic ideologies, or display Nazi symbols, as they do in Estonia, Latvia, and Ukraine. Here I see no reason to draw any parallels.

As for our arms trade, naturally, I cannot keep all statistics in my head. We sell weapons exclusively in accordance with existing international legal norms that regulate the arms trade.



Question:

We’ve been hearing increasingly strong rhetoric from Israel and the United States against Iran. Russia’s a friend of Iran and is heavily involved in the Syrian conflict. Is there a way Russia can act as a mediator to promote reconciliation between the two sides?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already touched upon this subject. We have been promoting the concept of creating a security system in the Gulf for many years now. We certainly support this cooperation. All it takes is to start talking. If both sides view Russia as a convenient platform where they could meet, we will be happy to give a helping hand.



Question:

Given the political trends dominating the world today and new developments, what do you think about the future of the United Nations?



Sergey Lavrov:

The UN does have a future. It will not be an easy future considering what you have just mentioned and the developments we are witnessing today. On the one side, the US has gone on a crusade against multilateralism and wants sovereignty to prevail. However, by this the US means above all and maybe exclusively that its sovereignty must prevail in all international affairs. I strongly believe that a new world order is taking shape with the emergence of the Asia-Pacific Region, China and India as new centres of gravity, and considering that Africa begins to make use of its immense resources, and given the potential of the Latin American continent. It would be impossible to control all these processes from a single centre and impose a specific line of conduct. All these sanctions, threats and attempts to impose trade partners instead of letting countries trade with whom they desire, all this comes and goes. In any case, we will have to sit down at the negotiating table and come to an agreement. If there is a place for reaching agreements and finding a balance of interests among the key players, without forgetting other countries, this is the United Nations.



Question:

Is there a possibility that relations between the US and Russia might improve in the near future?

When does President of Russia Vladimir Putin intend to visit Washington to meet with US President Donald Trump?



Sergey Lavrov:

Everyone understands that the current relations are bad. They are perhaps even at their all-time low. By the same token, everyone noticed and paid attention to the fact that the two presidents have already met in Hamburg and this year in Helsinki, and their talks were quite constructive. My takeaway as someone who was present during both meetings is that the agreements that were reached catered to the interests of both countries and are viewed positively by our presidents. It is also obvious that those who are expected to deliver on those agreements are in no particular hurry to do so for one reason or another. I am referring to the joint efforts on counterterrorism (we had a working group that has been suspended once again) and cybersecurity, as I have already mentioned. There was also a dialogue on strategic stability, including matters that need to be addressed in order for the relevant treaties to be operational (New Start and INF treaties). In addition to these documents, there is a number of factors that affect strategic stability. A conversation on these matters is overdue. The fact that this dialogue is currently in limbo cannot be viewed as a positive development by any of the parties.

We used to have meetings with the US in the 2+2 format between foreign and defence ministers, as well as chiefs of the general staff, and Russia-US meetings at the level of deputy foreign ministers together with senior military, intelligence and security officials. All this is currently suspended. However, Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev and the National Security Advisor to the US President John Bolton have started a dialogue. They had a meeting in June in Moscow, followed by an August meeting in Geneva, and preparations for another meeting are underway. This is something that may keep our relations alive and prevent them from any further deterioration.

Military-to-military dialogue is essential for preventing unpleasant situations. As you know, the US Congress passed legislation preventing the Pentagon from cooperating with the Russian military. ‘Deconfliction’ efforts that we undertake in Syria are the only exception.

You have also asked about the visit by the President of Russia Vladimir Putin to the US. It is true that he received an invitation from US President Donald Trump, who was also invited to visit Russia. The decision will be made when everyone is ready and the sides determine their desired timeframes.



Question:

I want to ask you about the peace in the Middle East. You have the speeches by Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Peace in the Middle East now looks very unattainable, very far. The Trump administration is trying to dismantle the basic tenants of what is called a ‘just peace,’ which includes Jerusalem, the right to return for refugees, the illegality of settlements. Mahmoud Abbas is suggesting a new mechanism, which is to expand the number of peace brokers or peace mediators to include Russia, China, France, maybe other countries. What do you think? How can the Palestinians believe that the international community has not abandoned them? What can Russia do to make peace possible in the Middle East?



Sergey Lavrov:

We never abandoned the mechanism that was universally endorsed for mediation, namely the Middle East Quartet. The Quarter envoys met during the week here in New York, on the margins of the UN General Assembly. There was no practical result, but at least they met and conveyed to each other what they think about the state of the game now.

We are committed to the decisions of the UN Security Council, General Assembly and the Arab Peace Initiative. Of course, we see what is going on. As you have said, these are persistent attempts to dismantle all the cornerstones of the potential deal on the two-state solution, and this causes concern. I met yesterday with Mahmoud Abbas. He is very much frustrated. Whatever the Palestinians believe they should do in these circumstances, we will certainly understand and support. Another worrisome development is the situation in Gaza and the situation between Gaza and Ramallah. We highly appreciate, value and support Egyptian efforts to bring them together, but the latest round of efforts did not bring results. This is also worrying, because it does not add to the ability of the Palestinian people to present their case more forcefully.



Question:

The Israeli government is running a warning for travellers not to go to Beirut via Rafic Hariri airport because sites near the airport related to Hezbollah missiles will be attacked. Do you think that the Israelis will act on this threat?



Sergey Lavrov:

This would certainly be a gross violation of international law. We would be very much against such an action. What actually will happen, I cannot predict. But we warn against the violation of the Security Council resolution. Even the use of the Lebanese airspace is a violation of the UN Security Council resolution.



Question:

You made a comment at the Security Council on the weaponisation of medical care. Can you comment on the fact that humanitarian exemptions to the resolutions against North Korea have been a notorious failure? The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has cut off funding to North Korea. This is a form of biological warfare.



Sergey Lavrov:

I fully agree with you. Using bacteriological weapons is a violation of UN Security Council resolutions which provide for humanitarian exemptions from the sanctions regime. I said yesterday at the Security Council that we want this to be reviewed especially in line with the progress that is being made, albeit slowly, on the political front.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3362656
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; December 11th, 2018 at 08:37 PM.
 
Old December 12th, 2018 #513
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Almost no events in which persons of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia participated or its non-personal statements which were translated.





Personal events:



24 September 2018

Meeting of G. Karasin with the Chief Adviser to the Prime Minister of Armenia A. Gasparyan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3349650

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the representative of the leadership of the Syrian opposition Front for Change and Liberation, the head of the "Moscow Platform" of the Syrian opposition K. Jamil - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3349660

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with Libyan public figure Aref Ali Nayed - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3349678

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of France in Moscow S. Berman - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3349688

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Syria in Moscow R. Haddad - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3349708

On the appointment of V. A. Peshkova as Goodwill Ambassador of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3349718


25 September 2018

Interview of V. Nebenzja to TASS news agency, September 22, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3350412

Participation of S. Vershinin in the meeting of the "five" of the permanent members of the Security Council and Turkey - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3350511

On the participation of S. Vershinin in the high-level meeting on Libya in New York - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3350578

On the participation of S. Vershinin in the opening of the photo exhibition at the UN headquarters in New York, timed to coincide with the 90th anniversary of Chingiz Aitmatov - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3350603

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the appointed Ambassador of Denmark in Moscow K. Søndergord - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352159

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the spiritual leader of the Druze community of Israel M. Tarif - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352169

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Egypt in Moscow I. Nasr - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352239


26 September 2018

Meeting of S. Vershinin with UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Syria S. de Mistura - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352367

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Morocco in Moscow A. Lesheheb - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353005

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Palestine in Moscow A. Nofal - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353077

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the head of the Lebanese Murabitun party M. Hamdan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353098

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Minister of Economy and Industry of the Government of National Accord of Libya N. Shaglan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353108

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the personal representative of the Acting Prime Minister of Lebanon Z. Shaaban - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353153


27 September 2018

On consultations of G. Karasin with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan Kh. Khalafov - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353694

On the participation of S. Vershinin in the high-level event on Syria in New York - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353714

Press conference of V. Yermakov in the International Information Agency Russia today, September 25, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353904

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Sudan in Moscow N. Babiker - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354305

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Tunisia in Moscow M. Shihi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354315

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Special Adviser of the President of the Republic of Congo F. Joly - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354474

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Director General of the Union of News Agencies of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) I. Roble - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354484

The meeting of M. Bogdanov with the personal representative of the spiritual leader of Nizari Ismaili prince Karim Aga Khan IV Sh. Sashedina - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354548

Speech by A. Lukashevich at the meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council in response to the reports of the Head of the OSCE SMM in Ukraine E.Apakan and the Special Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office for Ukraine and in the Contact Group M.Saydik, Vienna, September 27, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354582


28 September 2018

On the participation of S. Vershinin in the ministerial meeting of the Provisional Coordinating Committee for Assisting Palestinians - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3356775

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of the Republic of Singapore in the Russian Federation Lim Kheng Hua - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3357205

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Nigeria in Moscow, Steve Davis Ugba - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3358846

Meeting of S. Vershinin with UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs M. Loukok - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3359386


29 September 2018

Speech by S. Vershinin at a high-level event in Syria, New York, September 27, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3361058

On the telephone conversation of M. Bogdanov with the head of the so-called "Interim government" of Libya A. Tini - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3362771






Non-personal events:





Comment by the Information and Press Department on civilian casualties following NATO air strikes in Afghanistan



27 September 2018 - 12:00



We are deeply concerned about the increasing cases of civilian casualties as a result of coalition air strikes in Afghanistan. Three such incidents have been recorded in the past week.

On September 20, in the Chamkani District of the Paktia Province, local authorities say that three people were killed and 10 wounded, including women and children, in the air strikes by the foreign contingent. On September 22, an air strike on a residential building in the Tagab District of the Kapisa Province took the lives of nine civilians, including four women and three children. Several more people were wounded. On September 23, a US Air Force strike killed nine civilians and wounded four in the Shirzad District in the Nangarhar Province.

The NATO command in Afghanistan refrains from commenting on the incidents or denies that civilians were killed. In the meantime, the UN Mission in Afghanistan has expressed concern about the inaccurate air strikes.

We are indignant that these allegedly inaccurate aerial operations by the NATO forces in this country have become a routine and that nobody takes responsibility for them. We consider this situation a result of high-profile mistakes made by the US leadership in Afghanistan and the White House’s wrong decision to solve the problems of this country by force. We urge Washington to review its short-sighted policy in favour of diplomatic efforts to launch an intra-Afghan dialogue. We demand that those responsible for criminal actions against civilians be brought to justice.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3354090






24 September 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry on the decision of the Swiss authorities to refuse to issue a visa in Moscow to the official representative of the Republic of Crimea - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3349578

About the demarche to the Ambassador of Norway in Russia R. Resaland - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3349698


25 September 2018

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on regular anti-Russian statements in Kiev - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3350379

About Russian-Singapore Inter-Agency Consultations on International Information Security - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3352149


26 September 2018

About the 70th session of the Standing Committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353312


27 September 2018

On the meeting of the special representatives of the Middle East Quartet of international mediators - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3353704


28 September 2018

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry on another attack by Ukrainian nationalists on Russian diplomatic institutions in Kiev - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3357215

On the 45th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and Ireland - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3358698

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the statements of Georgian Prime Minister M. Bakhtadze at the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3358780

On the final meeting of the Russian-Norwegian commission on joint verification of the state border between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Norway - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3358798


30 September 2018

On the exchange of congratulatory messages on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the establishment of full-fledged relations at the ambassadorial level between the Russian Federation and the Republic of San Marino - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3362785






That week there was no briefing by Maria Zakharova.
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; December 12th, 2018 at 07:31 AM.
 
Old December 13th, 2018 #514
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the signing ceremony for the Code of Conduct for the Achievement of a Terrorism-Free World



1 October 2018 - 20:24



On September 28, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took part in the signing ceremony for the Code of Conduct for the Achievement of a Terrorism-Free World that was submitted by Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Kairat Abdrakhmanov on the sidelines of the 73rd UN General Assembly in New York.

Speaking in the UN General Assembly in 2015, Vladimir Putin and Nursultan Nazarbayev voiced the idea of establishing a united front to combat terrorism, with all participants acting in line with international legal standards. Exactly three years later, over 70 states responded to this appeal by agreeing to establish a coalition striving to put an end to the threat of international terrorism.

We note that the Code brings together all the fundamental principles of counterterrorism and the full range of priority tasks which, if achieved, would truly afford reliable protection against terrorist threats, whether action is taken by the international community collectively or each country individually.

It is of utmost importance that the Code strictly conforms to the letter and spirit of relevant UN documents and all of its fundamental decisions on combatting terrorism, its ideology, and political, financial and military support. The document sets unique guidelines for further practical counter-terrorism actions of the international community, and in particular:

- affirms the primary responsibility and leading role of states in fighting terrorism and in any related international cooperation;

- declares the need for effective interstate cooperation to ensure criminal prosecution of terrorists on the basis of the fundamental principle “extradite or put on trial”;

- underscores that it is unacceptable to provide direct or indirect support to terrorist groups to achieve political or geopolitical ends;

- rejects any attempts to justify or glorify terrorism;

- proclaims the commitment to cooperation in preventing terrorism, in part by countering the dissemination of terrorist ideology and propaganda.

Russia is grateful to its Kazakh partners who authored the document and to all states that took part in drafting it.

We call on all countries without exception to sign the Code and be guided by its provisions on cooperation to combat terrorism in all its forms, on the basis of the UN Charter, including the principles of respect for sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of states. We reaffirm our full readiness to take part in joint efforts on the basis of the Code and without double standards or hidden agendas, in the spirit of unity and accord in the face of the common deadly threat of terrorism.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3363423






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's opening remarks at a meeting with Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter Szijjarto, Moscow, October 3, 2018



3 October 2018 - 17:53






Mr Szijjarto,

Colleagues, friends,







We are glad to welcome you at the Russian Foreign Ministry. Last month, our leaders – Russian President Vladimir Putin and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban – met at the Kremlin. They discussed our current relations and international affairs. You and I followed up on that discussion in New York. Today, we have an opportunity to take advantage of your visit to Russian Energy Week to see how we are implementing the agreements reached by our leaders.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3366285






Remarks and answer to media question by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during a joint press conference following talks with State Secretary for External Economic Relations and Foreign Affairs of Hungary Peter Szijjarto Moscow, October 3, 2018



3 October 2018 - 19:23








Ladies and gentlemen,

We have discussed in detail our bilateral relations, regional, European and international problems with due account and in line with the agreements reached at the meeting between the Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban at the Kremlin on September 18. We identified concrete measures towards effective and expeditious fulfilment of these agreements.

We noted the positive trends in trade which has already increased by 30 per cent during the early months of this year to $4 billion.

We reviewed the progress made in the implementation of major projects, including the building by the Rosatom State Corporation of two new units at the Paks nuclear power plant which is, without exaggeration, a strategic facility, in part due to its high-tech character. We are convinced that the project will strengthen Hungary’s energy security, give a push to the creation of jobs and in general to the development of the national economy.

We note the successful progress of other joint initiatives, including the modernisation by Russian specialists of the Budapest metro carriages, and our joint work in the markets of other countries. Most recently a contract was signed on the joint delivery by our companies of 1,300 passenger railway carriages to Egypt.

All these matters, as well as other plans for the future will be thoroughly discussed at the next meeting of the Russian-Hungarian Intergovernmental Economic Cooperation Commission co-chaired by the Hungarian Minister for External Economic Relations and Foreign Affairs Peter Szijjarto and the Russian Healthcare Minister Veronika Skvortsova. The meeting will take place in Budapest on October 22.

We have also agreed to put forward the inauguration meeting of the new bilateral Intergovernmental Commission on Regional Cooperation between Russian and Hungarian regions.

Our humanitarian links are expanding. Budapest Days were held last week in Moscow and St Petersburg. A Cooperation Programme has been adopted and is being implemented between the Culture Ministry of the Russian Federation and the Hungarian Ministry of Social Resources for 2018-2020.

Hungarian higher education institutions have enrolled 200 Russian students for temporary study periods. Hungarian students in turn study at Russian universities. We are pleased to note Hungarians’ interest in the study of the Russian language.

On international topics we paid attention to the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, including in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen. In addition to the tasks facing the international community in the settlement of these crises, we spoke about how the Russian Federation is trying to help overcome the Syrian conflict, among others.

Russia and Hungry are concerned about the position of Christians who have been seriously affected by the developments in this troubled region. We have agreed to continue holding special events in the framework of the OSCE, the UN Human Rights Council as well as other international bodies, devoted to the protection of Christians in the Middle East.

We discussed Ukraine. Hungary and Russia, like all the other countries, are for full compliance with the Minsk Agreements. At the same time we expressed our shared concern about Kiev’s policy of “Ukrainianisation” of education, infringement on the rights of ethnic minorities, especially the language rights, contrary to the commitments Ukraine has undertaken under the corresponding international conventions.

On the whole we are satisfied with the results of our talks which we will continue during our working lunch.



Question:

How do you see the outlook for cooperation between the EU and Russia considering that not everyone wants to see Russian pipelines being built in Europe?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have very intensive energy cooperation and energy dialogue with the EU. At one period of time energy dialogue was one of the 20 sectoral dialogues, which highlights the scope of relations that existed between Russia and the EU in the strategic partnership framework. Unfortunately, today such full-fledged dialogues have been frozen, including the energy dialogue which covers oil, gas, electricity, nuclear power and renewable energy. However, talks, above all on hydrocarbons and especially gas, have never stopped, including Nord Stream 2, Turkish Stream, and South Stream from which, unfortunately, the European Commission has barred Bulgaria and other interested countries. We discussed, of course, Russian gas transit via Ukraine.

Now that Ukraine has proved to be an unreliable transiter and when the Ukrainian gas transport system is in an alarming state our gas company Gazprom together with partners from the European countries, has built the first strip of Nord Stream and the building of Nord Stream-2 is starting. All the approvals for that have been obtained. There is a possibility that Turkish Stream may become not just a Russia-Turkey project, but a project involving interested EU countries, provided guarantees are offered that there will be no repetition of what happened to South Stream.

You are absolutely right, the projects involving the building of Russian pipelines to deliver Russian gas to European consumers have their opponents. The main opponent is not in Europe but across the ocean. We all know this, as the US says publicly that Nord Stream-2 should not be built because it would “aggravate” an alleged European dependence on the Russian Federation. Dependence is always mutual. How can we risk our supplies to the consumers who account for a huge part of our hydrocarbon export? Russia, by all its experience and its history of interaction with the EU in this sphere, has never given grounds for accusations of being an unreliable supplier. The crises that have occurred have been caused first and foremost by the behaviour of transit countries.

To end my answer to your question, I would like to say that we expect the European countries to make their decisions on whether or not to take part in this or that project by comparing the competitive advantages of the suppliers. Russia’s competitive advantages exist and they are well known. In any case, our Hungarian partners would like our mutually beneficial, reliable and steady cooperation to continue. I am sure that, if all the other EU countries proceed from economic considerations and the interests of their own countries and not from politicised and ideological approaches being imposed on them from the outside, this would benefit all the European countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3366384
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 13th, 2018 #515
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Almost no events in which persons of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia participated or its non-personal statements which were translated.





Personal events:




Comment by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov on new anti-Russia accusations in the US



4 October 2018 - 22:38



We are watching with regret how the US authorities continue to poison the atmosphere of Russian-American relations by bringing ever new groundless accusations against Russia, which certain other NATO countries would hurry to repeat at the command from Washington. Again, the Western public is being scared with “Russian hackers,” ascribing to them the “hacking” of computer networks all over the world.

Washington is doing its best to prevent the old invention about “Russian meddling in the US presidential election in 2016” from finally falling into pieces. So they are trying to bolster it up with new fakes and continue to deceive their own and the world public so as to create an additional pretext for sanctions and other measures to pressurise Russia.

Russia is used to these US methods but the purposeful fomenting of tensions in relations between nuclear powers and internationally is a dangerous path. Canada and those European countries that are devotedly catering to the US claims to world hegemony should also give thought to this.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3367443






1 October 2018

Meeting of A. Grushko with the Deputy Secretary General of the European Foreign Policy Service for Political Affairs J.-K. Belyar and the Political Director of the Federal Ministry of European, Integration and Foreign Affairs of Austria A. Marshik - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3363235

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Egypt in Moscow I. Nasr - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3363269

M. Zakharova's comment on the provocation of the Kosovo-Albanian authorities - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3363358

Telephone conversation M. Bogdanov with the chairman of the Syrian opposition negotiating committee N. Al-Hariri - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3363413

Meeting of G. Karasin with the special representative of the Prime Minister of Georgia Z. Abashidze - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3363433


2 October 2018

Meeting of A. Grushko with the Ambassador of Malta to the Russian Federation P. Ajus - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3365376

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the US Ambassador to Russia J. Huntsman - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3365390

M. Zakharova's comment on the refusal of the United Kingdom to provide legal assistance in the case of Skripale poisoning - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3365408

Interview of M. Ulyanov to newspaper "Izvestia", published on October 2, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3365452

M. Zakharova's answer to the question from the TASS news agency about the increase of the NATO military presence in northern Norway - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3365510

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the delegation of the “Council of Democratic Syria” headed by the chairman of the executive committee Ilham Ahmad - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3365528

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the head of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Frente POLISARIO M. Haddad - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3365570


3 October 2018

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, the Director of the Center for Political Studies at the Israeli Foreign Ministry D. Akov - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3366138

Meeting of S. Vershinin with the Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, the Director of the Center for Political Studies at the Israeli Foreign Ministry D. Akov - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3366271

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, the Director of the Center for Political Studies at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs D. Akov - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3366342

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Chairman of the High Committee of the Arabs of Israel M. Baraka - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3366352


4 October 2018

Meeting of A. Grushko with the Ambassador of Bulgaria in Moscow A. Krystin - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3366863

Meeting of G. Karasin with Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Portuguese Republic to the Russian Federation P. Vizeu Pinheiro - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3366877

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Kuwait in Moscow A. Al-Advani - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3366887

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Yemen in Moscow A. Al-Vaheishi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3366936

On the participation of G. Karasin in the mourning ceremony in connection with the death of S. Aznavour - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3367028


5 October 2018

Meeting of A. Pankin with the participants of the International School of Eurasian Integration “Eurasian Economic Union: shaping the contours of the future” - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3367682

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with Prime Minister of the Republic of Guinea I. Fofana - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3367932

Speech by M. Bogdanov at the plenary session of the opening of the 16th annual session of the Rhodes Forum "Dialogue of Civilizations", Rhodes Island, October 5, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3367996

On political consultations of V. Titov and Cuba's First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs M. Medina Gonzalez - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3368015

Speech by A. Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk agreements, Vienna, 4 October 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3368180


6 October 2018

Speech by M. Bogdanov at the plenary session on Africa in the framework of the Rhodes Forum "Dialogue of Civilizations", Rhodes Island, October 6, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3368225


7 October 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with a prominent social and political figure of the Republic of Ghana Samia Nkruma - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3368253






Non-personal events:




Comment by the Information and Press Department on the results of Macedonia’s referendum



1 October 2018 - 17:36



On September 30, the Republic of Macedonia held a referendum on the Prespa Agreement, which stipulates changing the country’s name to North Macedonia. The 36.8 percent turnout means that the referendum cannot be recognised as valid (the turnout must be at least 50 percent). It clearly indicates that Macedonian voters chose to boycott the solutions imposed on Skopje and Athens externally – as the leading politicians from NATO and EU member states participated in this large-scale propaganda campaign directly, freely interfering in the internal affairs of this Balkan state.

Despite the fact that two thirds of Macedonia’s population did not vote in favour of the Prespa Agreement, the results of the vote were instantly hailed by the EU and NATO leaders, and in Washington as well. The desire to ensure and speed up Skopje’s accession to NATO despite the will of the people of Macedonia is evident.

Our principaled position remains the same: a long-term solution can only be agreed upon by the two parties on their own, without any external interference, and only within the framework of the law and with broad public support. The Prespa Agreement clearly fails to meet these criteria. It is inconsistent with the international law and the Constitution of Macedonia, which was repeatedly emphasised by the Macedonian President Gjorge Ivanov, including from the rostrum of the UN General Assembly.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia is closely monitoring the development of this situation. We proceed from the fact that according to paragraph 3 of the UN Security Council Resolution 845, the results of the talks between Skopje and Athens will be considered at the UN Security Council.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3363368






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the accusations against Russia by the Dutch defence ministry



4 October 2018 - 20:23



We have repeatedly warned the Dutch side, including through diplomatic channels, that the anti-Russian spy mania campaign accompanied by deliberate leaks in the media about the alleged cyberattacks is causing serious harm to bilateral relations.

The Netherlands waited for almost six months to report the deportation of four Russian nationals from the country. This may look strange only to those who are not in the know. On October 9, a session of the OPCW opens to discuss the funding of the Attribution Mechanism in the OPCW Technical Secretariat. A number of Western states are persistently seeking the creation of this mechanism for appointing the “guilty” of using chemical weapons, despite the fact that such a mechanism would violate the norms of international law and the prerogatives of the UN Security Council. Obviously, the current bogus story is yet another step towards forming the “required” political background for pushing through this illegal initiative.

It is unclear who is supposed to believe these statements in which Russian citizens are accused of attempted cyber-attacks on the OPCW and a striving to obtain information of the investigation into the crash of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, as if it is necessary to be near the target of an attack to get it.

Indicatively, against the backdrop of strong paranoia as regards “all-powerful Russian spies” that has been fanned up in the West in the past few years, any Russian citizen with a mobile device is perceived to be a spy although in the logic of Western politicians, they all live in the “backward Russia.”

As for the mention of MH17 crash, it is not at all incidental in this context. The Dutch party seems to have no response to the facts that were presented by the Russian Defence Ministry regarding the origin of the missile that downed the Malaysian airliner and other issues involved in this tragic incident.

We noted that the news conference of the Dutch Defence Ministry was attended by a representative of Great Britain, which is firmly in the lead in the number of absurd anti-Russian attacks.

By a strange concurrence of circumstances, all this again coincided with London’s accusations against Russia of perpetrating cyber-attacks against a number of organisations, including the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

Given all of these factors, we can conclude that another staged propaganda campaign against our country is underway.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3367418






1 October 2018

Summoning the Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to Russia U Yun Geun at the Russian Foreign Ministry - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3363259


2 October 2018

On the exchange of telegrams of congratulations of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3365556


3 October 2018

Joint Statement by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the CSTO Member States on the situation in Afghanistan, strengthening the positions of ISIS in the country's northern provinces and the growth of the threat of drugs from the territory of Afghanistan, New York, September 26, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3365963

Joint Statement by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the CSTO Member States on Stabilization in the Middle East and North Africa, New York, September 26, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3365977

Joint Statement by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the CSTO Member States on Intensifying Cooperation of the CSTO with Regional Organizations and Structures, New York, September 26, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3365987


4 October 2018

On the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and Iceland - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3366752

On the exchange of congratulatory telegrams of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Russia and Brazil on the occasion of the 190th anniversary of diplomatic relations - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3367100


5 October 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry on the development of the situation in Iraq - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3367606

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the question of the Sputnik news agency regarding the "R. Lugar Research Center of Public Health." in Georgia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3367981

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the 69th session of the Executive Committee of the Program of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3368109

Russian-Chinese Consultations on European Issues - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3368190
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; December 13th, 2018 at 01:40 PM.
 
Old December 13th, 2018 #516
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 4, 2018



4 October 2018 - 15:37







Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Enzo Moavero Milanesi, Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation

On October 8, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Enzo Moavero Milanesi, Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

During the talks, the foreign ministers are expected to discuss the current state of Russian-Italian cooperation and prospects for its future across the political, economic, financial, cultural and humanitarian spheres.

The ministers will also review key international issues, including the developments in Syria and Libya, Ukraine’s domestic conflict and cooperation in the OSCE, taking into consideration Italy’s OSCE Chairmanship this year.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Miroslav Lajcak, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic

On October 9, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Miroslav Lajcak, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic who will be on a working visit to Moscow.

The ministers plan to discuss a broad range of Russian-Slovakian relations and major international issues with an emphasis on the OSCE priorities, within the context of Slovakia’s OSCE Chairmanship in 2019.

Mr Lajcak will also deliver a lecture at the Foreign Ministry’s MGIMO University.



Andorran Foreign Minister Maria Ubach’s working visit to Russia

On October 9-10, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Principality of Andorra Maria Ubach will pay a working visit to the Russian Federation and hold a meeting with Mr Lavrov on October 10. This is Ms Ubach’s first visit to Russia. The last time the Andorran foreign minister paid a visit to Russia was in 2007, by Foreign Minister Juli Minoves-Triquell.

Russia and Andorra established diplomatic relations in 1995. The Andorran leaders are striving to develop equal, mutually respectful and trust-based relations with all world players, including Russia. In 2014, Andorra did not join other countries in imposing anti-Russian sanctions. The foreign ministries of the two countries stay in contact. Mutual support of nominees during elections to international organisations has become common practice.

Russia-Andorra relations show that it is possible to build mutually beneficial relations in modern Europe despite political turbulence and different approaches to major and minor issues and also regardless of the level of their economic development and forms of government.

The upcoming talks between the foreign ministers are designed to promote bilateral ties, and facilitate our countries’ interaction in the international arena and the expansion of cooperation in the economy, culture and tourism.

During the visit, the ministers will present the Russian-Andorran publication, “Andorra and the Poet,” devoted to outstanding Russian artist, poet and literary critic Maximilian Voloshin’s brief stay in Andorra in 1901. This is a joint cultural project carried out with financial support from the Russian Federal Agency for Press and Mass Media and the Government of Andorra.



Update on Maria Butina

We are closely monitoring the situation around Russian citizen Maria Butina arrested in the United States on fabricated charges. She has been groundlessly deprived of her freedom for two and a half months now and is in fact a political prisoner.

The consular officers of the Russian Embassy in Washington regularly visit Maria Butina in the prison of the city of Alexandria, Virginia, where she is currently being held. Thanks to the efforts of our diplomats, Maria’s conditions of detention have significantly improved. In late September, after a long isolation, she was finally transferred to ordinary confinement. She can now leave the cell, communicate with other inmates and make phone calls. With the assistance of the Embassy, an Orthodox priest visited her in prison.

In conjunction with the lawyers, Maria Butina is working on her defence for the next court session. She intends to strongly assert her innocence.

For our part, we will continue to fight for Maria Butina’s legal rights to be upheld, and demand that the US authorities end this arbitrariness and immediately release her from prison.



Update on Konstantin Vyshinsky

On October 2, it was learned that consideration of the defence complaint about extending the arrest of head of the RIA Novosti - Ukraine website Konstantin Vyshinsky in the appellate court of the Kherson region was postponed indefinitely because of the closure of all the appellate courts of Ukraine. To date, there has been no information about the date of a new court session, which will consider appeals. This state of affairs may lead to a situation where the appeal of the journalist’s arrest may be reviewed after the expiration of Vyshinsky's custody, that is, after November 4. It looks really chaotic in Ukraine in this regard. So, we will follow the developments. We would like to emphasise that if everything unfolds exactly in line with this scenario, the rights to appeal will be violated accordingly.

Once again, we emphasise that the arrest of a journalist on a fabricated charge of high treason is a flagrant violation of Ukraine’s international obligations in the sphere of media freedom. We demand the immediate release of Konstantin Vyshinsky without preconditions. We believe the response to this situation on behalf of relevant international entities and non-governmental organisations has been inadequate. We urge them to increase pressure on the Ukrainian authorities on this matter. This is a truly egregious case in the history of the intersection of journalism and government.



Update on Mikhail Bochkaryov

We continue to closely follow the situation around Mikhail Bochkaryov, an employee of the Executive Office of the Russian Federal Assembly’s Federation Council, who was detained in Norway on September 21. He remains in an Oslo prison. The term of preliminary detention expires on October 6.

Speaker of the Federation Council Valentina Matviyenko sent a message to the President of the Storting Tone Wilhelmsen Troen demanding the immediate release of Mikhail Bochkaryov.

Russian diplomats in Oslo are in constant contact with Mikhail Bochkaryov and, in conjunction with his lawyer, assist him in the defence of his rights and interests. On October 1, representatives of the consular section of the Embassy had another meeting with him.

We are pushing for the Norwegian authorities to drop all the made-up charges against Bochkaryov and release him as soon as possible.

Everything points to the fact that the show made of Mikhail Bochkaryov’s arrest and the espionage charges brought against him were organised by the Norwegian authorities as an act of blackmail to rescue the Norwegian citizen Frode Berg, who was caught in Russia red-handed. The detainee is under investigation.



Possibility of a detainee swap

A number of media outlets alleged that Oleg Sentsov, convicted in Russia for preparing a terrorist attack, was to be swapped for our Russian compatriots who remain in custody in the United States.

Let me emphasise that we were perplexed by these articles. There is no agreement of this kind. This information is misleading.

At the same time, as we have said on numerous occasions, Russia insists that Washington grant the immediate and unconditional release of Maria Butina, who was arrested on fabricated charges. Make no mistake, we view her detention and the situation surrounding here as bullying and an act of political pressure and blackmail. There is no doubt that she is a political prisoner.

We have long sought and remain committed to securing Viktor But’s and Konstantin Yaroshenko’s return. They were captured by US secret services while abroad, forcibly transferred to the United States and slapped with lengthy prison terms of 25 and 20 years, respectively. These verdicts were based on fabricated charges against them. We will never stop our efforts to secure the release of Russian nationals who are victims of arbitrary actions by the US.



Syria update

Steps towards implementing the Memorandum of Understanding on Stabilising the Situation in Idlib's De-escalation Zone, signed by Russia and Turkey on September 17 in Sochi, have a special bearing on the situation in Syria.

According to incoming reports, a number of armed Syrian opposition groups located in Idlib supported the agreement to setup a demilitarised zone there. The Russian and Syrian military worked together to open the Abu-al-Duhur humanitarian corridor to the east of Idlib in order to enable civilians to reach territories controlled by the Syrian government. People leaving the enclave controlled by terrorists get all the assistance they need.

At the same time, radical fighters, primarily from Nusra and other international terrorist groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda, are carrying out various provocations, fearing that the implementation of the Russian-Turkish agreements could isolate them. These include escalating tension along the perimeter of the Idlib de-escalation zone and making calls to continue the “resistance” to government troops. Consequently, the terrorists are trying to prevent oppositions groups who expressed their desire to lay down arms and join the political process, from doing so.

We continue to receive reports on preparations to stage large-scale chemical attacks in Idlib by terrorists and present them as an act of the government forces. To this end, toxic agents and professional video equipment were brought into the region, and “rehearsals” have already taken place, and some footage even filtered into the media. Another matter of serious concern is that civilians kidnapped by extremists, including women and children, could be used as the victims of these staged attacks.

Russia is committed to keeping up its uncompromising fight against terrorism until its full elimination from the Syrian land.

The Syrian government is restoring social and economic infrastructure within the liberated territories, and provides comprehensive humanitarian assistance to the people.

Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons continue to return to the places of their permanent residence in Syria. According to Syria, about 50,000 people returned to the country since the beginning of the year.

We have also taken note of reports of a missile strike carried out by Iran against the Syria-based masterminds of the terrorist attack that took place in late September in Ahvaz, Iran. In this connection, the Foreign Ministry notes that the Iranian military have the right to assist Syria in combatting international terrorism since they have an invitation to this effect from the Syrian government.



Afghanistan update

The situation in Afghanistan remains very tense. The Taliban movement is stepping up its military operations in almost all parts of the country. This year, casualties among the Afghan national security forces have reached an all-time high. In particular, in September, the ANSF suffered 513 deaths, 718 wounded and 43 personnel taken prisoner.

There is no slowdown in the terrorist activities of the Afghan branch of ISIS. On October 2, a suicide bomber blew himself up at a local deputy’s meeting with voters in the Kama district of Nangarhar province, killing at least 13 people, and injuring several dozen. According to incoming information, the attacker most likely belonged to ISIS.

For their part, the United States and other members of the coalition of forces in Afghanistan continue to rely on a military solution to the Afghan problem. A direct consequence of this is the continued increase in civilian casualties. In particular, there is evidence that in the past month alone, 262 civilians were killed and 524 injured, half of them during air attacks by the Western coalition. Another example of the indiscriminate use of the United States Air Force is an erroneous bombing of the Afghan police in the Nad Ali District of Helmand Province on October 1, where one police officer was killed and 29 people injured.

The recent developments in Afghanistan once again prove that the conflict in this country has no military solution. The only possible way to resolve it is to reach a general Afghan accord by political and diplomatic means.



IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano’s statement on verification activities in Iran

We have received requests to comment on the recent statements by the IAEA Director General, Yukiya Amano, regarding the agency’s verification activities in Iran. I would like to say the following:

The Director General of the IAEA has every right to make statements on matters relating to the statutory activities of the Agency. We fully share Mr Amano’s approach to verification work in Iran reflected in his official statement on October 2. We believe it is in line with the Agency’s mandate under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme, the UN Security Council resolution 2231 (2015), the relevant resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors of December 15, 2015, as well as the practice of applying the Additional Protocol to the safeguards agreement.

We trust the Agency, which for years has been performing verification activities on Tehran’s fulfilment of its obligations under the JCPOA and the Additional Protocol, professionally and objectively. Iran is the most vigorously IAEA-verified country today. The entire range of the Agency’s tools, as well as the high level of cooperation that Iran displays, gives the IAEA all the necessary scope to handle any emerging issues, including the alleged “secret nuclear storage facilities”.

We also share Mr Amano’s position that information on countries’ compliance with their obligations to the IAEA, including information received from third parties, should not be taken at face value, but should undergo a thorough, critical examination. We expect that the Agency will stick to this approach in the future.



Developments in Macedonia

We have already given our assessments that have been published on the Foreign Ministry's official website. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has also addressed this issue. There are still many questions in connection with the response to the referendum that took place in Macedonia.

In this connection, I would like to say once again that on September 30, the Republic of Macedonia held a referendum on the Prespa agreement that would change the republic's name to North Macedonia. The referendum results were rendered invalid due to insufficient voter turnout (36.9 per cent against the required 50 per cent plus one vote). Despite this, leading politicians in EU countries and NATO openly campaigned for an affirmative vote. In our opinion, this practice is unacceptable, given these countries' concern about interference in all election and internal processes. What could be more important and representative than a national referendum? But despite this campaigning, the totally unscrupulous interference in internal affairs of the state and the attempt to influence citizens' expression of will, their efforts failed. Yet they unabashedly welcomed the results of the national referendum, describing them as “massive support” for the Prespa agreement. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg even promised to accept Skopje into the alliance in early 2019, leaving no room for doubt that Macedonia’s and Greece's parliaments would take the required decisions. I would like to say once more that everything got mixed up in the heads of Western politicians, and not only political figures who act for their own ratings but those politicians who are directly involved in forming the pan-European or North Atlantic agendas.

If we are talking about non-interference in internal affairs, one cannot campaign for or against when it comes to referendums. If we are talking about non-interference in internal affairs and respect for law, including international law, then no one – let alone the chief of a military alliance – can speak for countries' parliaments about decisions to be taken. This cannot be done. Or one just has to admit that this can be done, and then there will probably be some new world order. Then one has to speak on this issue in an honest and open way.

Direct outside interference in internal Macedonian affairs is obviously ongoing, aiming to pull Skopje into the alliance at any cost. Following the logic of those who are pursuing this policy, one can neglect the opinion of 63.1 per cent of the local population, including President Gjorge Ivanov, who refused to support the agreement. Western approaches to democracy are in fact cynical and hypocritical, and this is especially obvious in the Balkans.

We are surprised by the biased conclusion of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights following the observance of the referendum, with the West's aggressive propaganda campaign viewed in a positive way. But if Moscow urged Macedonians to vote in a certain way, this would definitely have been labelled as interference in internal affairs. This is not simply double standards but the abuse of generally accepted rules and norms.

Russia's stance is principled and unchanged: a long-term solution can be found only by the sides themselves, without any pressure and formulas imposed from the outside that do not work. I think that Western politicians have realised this. The solution must be found solely within the law and based on wide public support.



The Indonesia earthquake

On September 28, a 7.4-magnitude earthquake hit Indonesia’s Central Sulawesi province, causing a three metre tsunami. The greatest devastation occurred in the areas around Donggala and Palu.

As of October 3, the calamity left 1,300 dead and 17,000 homeless.

Following the tragedy, President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev sent messages of condolences to President Joko Widodo of the Republic of Indonesia.

There are no Russian nationals among the dead or wounded. The Russian Embassy in Jakarta has posted contact details for round-the-clock inquiries on its online resources.

Currently, opportunities are being considered for delivering Russian humanitarian aid (mobile electric power stations, tents, blankets and food) to the quake-hit areas of Indonesia.



Developments around the Skripal case

Recently we commented on the UK Interior Ministry’s decision to turn down a legal assistance request by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office in investigating a criminal case opened by Russia’s Investigative Committee in connection with an attempt on the life of Russian citizen Yulia Skripal. Let me remind you that the pretext for the refusal was that complying with the Russian request could prejudice the sovereignty, security, public order and other significant interests of the United Kingdom. What else can we say, if the British authorities themselves admit that an objective joint investigation into the Skripal case is threatening their interests? But what are these interests?

Generally, we continue to be haunted by the sensation that we are witnessing an elaborate theatrical production.

To keep the story simple and captivating, London relies on its favorite tactic of planting stories, only to debunk them later, which happens often. A case in point is a tweet by the UK Defence Secretary, which vanished virtually a few minutes after it was posted without any explanation (such as a technical error, the “hand of Moscow” writing for the British Defence Secretary, etc.) whatsoever. The tweet just vanished. It said, “The true identity of one of the Salisbury suspects has been revealed to be a Russian Colonel. I want to thank all the people who are working so tirelessly on this case.” The most interesting thing is that this was in sync with a planted Bellingcat story echoed, regrettably, by many established media. It is amazing to behold how closely the UK authorities work with pseudo media and real respectable media. This is what we are observing.

Given how quickly headlines with statements by British politicians and anti-Russian plants by pseudo media outlets follow on one another in the media, and furthermore given the systematic effort to downplay or distort Russia’s reasoning and to emphasise London’s groundless accusations, we have to state that in its infatuation with geopolitical games and domestic political squabbling the UK has forgotten about freedom of speech and the unacceptability of censorship.

Incidentally, speaking of squabbles at home in the UK, what happened yesterday leaves no doubt of this. The Salisbury, Amesbury and Skripal cases are being used in the domestic political contest to advance various interests – to boost approval ratings, or in an attempt to damage political opponents. It seems like the accusers (British officials) are fanatically assured of their righteousness and believe they don’t need to present any proof. For them, “highly likely”, that notorious phrase, is quite enough – a phrase that, I am sure, British historians and certainly lawyers will later recall with shame.

You can use such methods to foment tensions as long as you like, but you cannot evade the truth. It will surface sooner or later. With this day approaching, the British officials would do well just to answer the basic questions related to this case instead of relying on their usual tricks. These questions are as follows. Where and in what condition are the victims, the Russian citizens Sergey and Yulia Skripal? Why has there been no access to them for more than six months?

There are many other serious questions related to the Skripal case, which we have repeatedly articulated and passed along to the British. We have also raised them with our foreign partners. But the main question still remains open: What happened in Salisbury? If there are alleged suspects, the British must have a detailed, minute-by-minute description of what happened there. We would like to see it.

We again urge the British authorities to start an open and honest dialogue instead of the unproductive, boorish and peremptory manner they continue to exhibit.



Doping row in the US athlete community

As is known, the United States is one of the masterminds behind the constant attacks on our country, which is accused of allegedly maintaining “a state-sponsored doping system”. Moreover, American sports officials are, in fact, refusing to accept the WADA Executive Committee’s decision on reinstating the Russian Anti-Doping Agency’s status.

Head of the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) Travis Tygart is among those who spearhead the campaign. However, recently he has found himself involved in a high-profile scandal after Tygart’s agency was accused of relaxing restrictions for US mixed martial arts athlete Jonathan Jones, who was repeatedly caught doping in 2017. However, his four-year disqualification was first reduced to 30 months as a result of his cooperation with the USADA and provision of information on the use of banned drugs by other athletes. Later, after a certain “expert conclusion” made by the author of the reports on “the use of doping in Russia”, Canadian Richard McLaren, the disqualification was further reduced to 15 months. What the US, Canadian and other sports officials are engaged in here is pure cardsharping. The reason given for the decision was that Jones had allegedly used anabolic steroids unintentionally and they had not affected his results. So, it begs the question: should athletes only be punished for taking drugs if the doping affects their results? And if, say, an athlete has used doping but failed to win a medal, this should be seen as the normal course of things and there might even be no need to punish him or her. This is precisely what follows from the decisions taken in the United States jointly with other international sports officials.

Despite the attempts to hush up the scandal, the decision regarding the above athlete has reverberated throughout the US sports community, while other mixed martial arts athletes said, neither more nor less, that they refused to cooperate with the USADA.

We can cite another example of similar double standards – the refusal to bring charges against athlete Will Claye, who tested positive for clenbuterol last August. Interestingly, according to the USADA, the substance had most likely got into the athlete’s system as a result of him eating meat from Mexico.

The impression is that the United States’ claims to leadership in the struggle for pure sport amounts to nothing more than unfair competition and the above examples only serve as a graphic illustration of this.



Great Britain’s response to Russia being reinstated to WADA

Not only our American partners “welcomed” Russia back at the WADA. We are witnessing the beginning of another anti-Russia campaign in the wake of this decision. As soon as Russia was reinstated to this international sporting organisation, Great Britain, a loyal companion-in-arms of the United States, a country that spared no effort to curb Russia’s success, has rushed to support its ally with a flurry of fabricated news, accusations and statements at all levels.

For example, the other day the British Foreign Office, which now turns out to be also specialising in information and communications security issues, released a whole bunch of mind-boggling “highly likely” statements about the alleged GRU’s complicity in cyber-attacks around the world, including attacks on the WADA’s servers. For several weeks, there was a huge hullabaloo over the GRU in connection with the Skripals, Salisbury and Amesbury and now this hyped-up story can be easily linked to the situation at the WADA.

Everything has been mixed up in one Nina Ricci bottle without any attempt at analysis whatsoever: the GRU, cyber spies, Kremlin hackers and the WADA. It is some kind of infernal blend of fragrances.

Indeed, the rich imagination of our British colleagues is without boundaries. I would like to see the people who are concocting all this. Probably, they are simply basing everything on themselves, and describing what they themselves are engaged in. It is unworthy of a state that claims one of the leading roles in the world.



6th CyberCrimeCon international cybersecurity conference

It has almost become propriety for several Western countries to systematically accuse Russia of every imaginable sin, especially in cybersecurity.

However, the reality is – and it is drastically different from the ideas of Western spin doctors – that our country is one of the most proactive members of international cooperation, specifically, in the information and communication technology field, and it is Russia that is trying to bring back a bilateral working group on cybersecurity, for example, with the United States. Unfortunately, for reasons only known to themselves, the Americans are constantly avoiding these mutually beneficial contacts. We have said this many times.

An example of Russia’s ambition to develop cooperation in cybersecurity is the 2018 CyberCrimeCon annual international conference taking place in Moscow on October 9-10. It is expected to bring together over 1,000 experts from Europe, the Middle East and Asia to discuss trends in international cybercrime, analyse the new tools and tactics of the most dangerous hacking groups, and to share strategic data on cyber intelligence.

As if our Western partners do not see or notice this. Come to Moscow, participate and speak to your Russian colleagues. If you don’t want to discuss this at the official level you can always do it with an expert community.

One of the main topics to be addressed by the upcoming conference is fighting cyberterrorism and protecting critical infrastructure. The conference will also present the results of investigations into the most notorious cybercrimes of the year. Among expected participants are representatives of Interpol, Europol, cyberpolice of different countries, telecommunication companies, banks and organisations specialising in cybersecurity technology.

You can find the programme, the list of participants and the media accreditation procedure on the 2018 CyberCrimeCon website at https://2018.group-ib.ru/



UK creates cyber troops and a new internet regulator

We have noted that the UK Ministry of Defence and the Government Communications Headquarters are creating offensive cyber troops which, in addition to fighting terrorist content and criminal groups, will be combatting threats coming from “hostile countries” online. “Hostile countries,” as you can guess, means Russia, China (which also got clobbered by the United States today. Apparently, China interfered with the US election incomparably more than Russia. This is something new), Iran and North Korea, which, according to the British secret service, have allegedly conducted the largest number of attacks on Britain’s infrastructure. Nobody has provided actual evidence.

Moreover, along with this initiative, the British Government plans to establish an internet regulator similar to the Ofcom media watchdog, to monitor social media and demand prompt removal of prohibited content from online platforms. Prohibited content includes not only extremist statements and calls for violence but also misinformation.

Therefore, the London authorities are mobilising all forces to toughen up control over the online segment of their information space, which will also involve the military. Obviously, the declared objective of the action against unlawful content and threats of alleged interference serves only as a pretext for creating additional leverage for removing alternative opinions from the internet, which will most likely and without question be classified as misinformation. Evidently, the internet audience, which in itself does not tolerate censorship and, unlike the British liberal press, refuses to take on faith the “highly likely” official versions from Downing Street, is becoming a problem for the British authorities in their attempt to establish a monopoly on truth.

The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill is very indicative in this regard. OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir said he believes it may potentially undermine the freedom of the media and criminalise various activities related to using and disseminating information as part of media operations and investigative journalism.

We would like to hear from the expert community with evaluation of all these initiatives by official London. Since we are giving a political assessment after all, we are interested in an opinion and response from journalists because we regard these comprehensive measures as an intensification of censorship in the information space.



US double standards on personal data protection

Once again, we would like to draw attention to the facts that vividly illustrate the double standards of the United States with regard to personal data protection.

A few days ago, the home addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail coordinates of US senators Lindsey Graham, Michael Lee and Orrin Hatch were published on their pages in the Wikipedia online encyclopaedia by unknown users. When the scandal broke out, Wikipedia promptly deleted the data. A White House official called the leak of personal data “outrageous”. The Washington establishment actively demonstrated how “shocked” it was by the incident because the families of politicians were exposed to danger.

At the same time, the US Administration continues to ignore and declines any comment on the criminal activity of the US-hosted Ukrainian Myrotvotets (Peacemaker) extremist web portal, which publishes the personal data of those who, from the point of view of the Kiev regime, are undesirable. These include both citizens of Ukraine and foreign nationals. Let me repeat that this web portal publishes personal data. So who made it onto the Myrotvorets website? For example, Oles Buzina and Oleg Kalashnikov – both were killed by radicals. The publication of the personal data of journalists, among them Western reporters who visited the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, entailed no consequences for the website’s owners.

Recent additions to the Myrotvorets database include information about Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine, Patriarch Irinej of Serbia, composer Alexandra Pakhumotova, the Oscar-nominated film Sobibor’s director Konstantin Khabensky, ex-leader of the Pink Floyd rock band Roger Waters, a number of Ukrainian anti-fascists, residents of the Trans-Carpathian region, who obtained Hungarian passports, and even Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto. The US Cloudflare service willingly provides technical support to Myrotvorets. Washington is turning a blind eye to all that. We would like to know whether these are double standards and how Washington can justify such actions, considering that the posting of personal data of American politicians triggered such an outcry and widespread indignation in the US.

Moreover, in the case of the banking data of Russian diplomats in the US leaked to the Buzzfeed web resource, and we have repeatedly spoken about that, the US secret services deliberately resorted to provocation. Up to now, we have not received any comprehensible explanations from the US Department of State as to how it could have happened and whether anyone has been brought to account.

Such things clearly demonstrate that when Washington talks about personal data protection for users, it has only Americans in mind, and what’s more, only those who are part of the “political elite”. While trying to protect these people’s personal data, Washington is ready to put others at risk and even does it deliberately.



Statements by UK Prime Minister Theresa May

I cannot fail to mention the statement made yesterday by Prime Minister of Great Britain Theresa May, who said that military action can be justified without the approval of the UN Security Council, where Russia has veto power. She made these remarks at the Conservative Party conference. I think that all of us saw footage from this “party.”

Let me tell you that there was nothing new in these statements by Theresa May. Official London believes that military action without approval of the UN Security Council may be justified. This is not where the actual problem lies. In the past, there were quite a few instances when May’s predecessors felt ashamed, had to justify themselves and ask the international community to forgive them for undertaking military action without a UN Security Council mandate, which they had thought to be possible and justified.

Let me remind you how former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had to apologise and find excuses for Britain’s involvement in the illegal campaign against Iraq. I would also like to remind Ms May and the entire British political establishment who share this perspective that their former EU colleagues (with Brexit looming), the Italians, struggle with the consequences of the illegal operation carried out in Libya. There was a UN Security Council mandate, but it was violated. This is what President of Russia Vladimir Putin said yesterday when he mentioned that the Libyan state was destroyed, while Europe suffered direct damage from this. With this in mind, it did not come as a surprise that many in the West find this action to be justified. The question is that afterwards they apologise, try to justify themselves, while the entire world is seeking to counter their destructive actions. There are many examples of this kind.



Statements by US Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke

US Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke made statements this past weekend that generated some interest. This official is in charge of managing the US natural resources, but all of a sudden he decided to get into international affairs. Speaking at an energy conference, he argued that the US Navy can blockade Russia’s tankers delivering oil to foreign markets, and for some reason he mentioned deliveries to the Middle East, where there is no shortage of oil to begin with. He said that the same applies to Iranian oil exports.

Just imagine someone from the Russian political establishment, say a politician, a member of parliament or a senator, not even a government official, making a statement of this kind. It would be inscribed in the annals of Russian meddling, and presented as an act of pressure and blackmail in the energy sector. This is my first point.

Second, US Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke may have forgotten that he is no longer a US Navy SEAL, a role in which he served for more than 20 years. He holds a prominent political office and must mind his words. The fact that he came to work on his first day as Interior Secretary dressed as a cowboy and riding a horse, just to show how much he cares about nature, explains quite a bit.

The statements by Ryan Zinke are symptomatic. They clearly reflect the thinking of a part of the US political establishment, resulting from a superficial knowledge of global developments, as well as excessive self-regard. This is always a very dangerous mix, including for the US itself. When officials are so confident that they and their country are exceptional, and go as far as to threaten a naval blockade against Russia, not only does it make them look absurd, but can also cause a lot of real damage to their country.



Statements by Hillary Clinton likening Russia’s “interference” in US elections to September 11 attacks

Speaking at a conference in Washington, Hillary Clinton compared Russia’s alleged interference in the American elections in 2016 with the series of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States on September 11, 2001.

It was especially ridiculous to hear this, given that it was President Vladimir Putin who was the first head of state to call US President Bush after the September 11 attacks to express solidarity with the American people. Furthermore, Russia supported the operations of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan by allowing the US and NATO land and combined (rail, road and air) transit of their weapons, military equipment and hardware through Russia’s territory. Russia provided all political and logistical support to the United States in its opposition to terrorism, which engaged in aggression against that country. In a Joint Statement of June 24, 2010, the Presidents of Russia and the United States underlined the successful implementation of these agreements.

What makes Hillary Clinton say what she says? Is it really so difficult to accept one’s own failures and blunders that one has to make such bizarre, absurd and wild statements? This is just sad.



Statements by representative of the US Embassy in Moscow

Senior Counselor of the US Embassy in Moscow Michael Yoder proposed holding a “friendly competition” in the number of visas issued in both countries and projected twice as many visas issued by the American side.

We accept this challenge. A respective statement was made yesterday. We propose starting with a competition of waiting time for visa interviews and promptness of consideration of the applications. Competitions should be fair. As we have repeatedly said, since April this year, the waiting time for the interviews, which most Russians are required to undergo, has been extended to 300 days. Signing up for an interview is almost impossible; therefore it becomes pointless to apply for visas.

As a reminder, the Russian side increased the period for processing visa applications to 15 days for short-term and 30 days for long-term visas this May, only in response to this action by the US.

We believe that the United States is intentionally building this kind of visa blockade. We have already noted cases where Russian athletes invited to competitions in the United States and cultural figures could not obtain American visas on time. This situation, artificially created by the US authorities, leads to difficulties in maintaining business, cultural, sports and even family ties. Anyway, the challenge is accepted. Now it's up to the unification of the rules. We are ready. We are open to proposals.



Plans to immortalise the memory of Forest Brothers leader Adolfas Ramanauskas-Vanagas

Official Vilnius continues its policy of revising recent history. Attempts have been made to portray members of the Forest Brothers armed groups operating in Lithuania during post-war years, who are steeped in blood, as national heroic martyrs.

In this regard, we cannot but feel indignant at the decision by the Lithuanian authorities to declare the current year as the year of Adolfas Ramanauskas-Vanagas, one of the Forest Brothers leaders. On October 6, the country's leadership will attend a ceremony as his remains are reburied at Antakalnis Cemetery in Vilnius. Particularly cynical is the fact that the grave of Ramanauskas, who is to blame for the deaths of many civilians, will be located close to the gravesite of over 5,000 Soviet soldiers who died while liberating Vilnius from the Nazis.

I would like to recall that no one has overturned the court verdict over the war crimes he committed towards unarmed civilians. And this verdict has no period of limitation.



Events in southern Italy with participation of St Andrew the Apostle Foundation in connection with 110 years since Messina earthquake

On September 24-25, a delegation of St Andrew the Apostle Foundation led by the chairman of its guardian council, Vladimir Yakunin, staged a number of events in southern Italy to commemorates the deeds of Russian mariners who provided assistance to the victims of the Messina earthquake in Sicily in 1908.

A reception, attended by local dignitaries, was held on board the frigate Admiral Essen of Russia's Black Sea Fleet that arrived in Sicily for this occasion. Memorial ceremonies were organised in Messina, Reggio Calabria and Taormina. The roundtable discussion, Russia and Italy in Dialogue of Cultures: Marking 110 Years since the Messina Tragedy, became the central event, with the programme also including a themed photo exhibition and a news conference, as well as performances by Russian music groups.

The visit by the delegation of St Andrew the Apostle Foundation to Italy demonstrated the important role of public organisations in expanding Russia's bilateral contacts with foreign countries.



Statement by Assistant Secretary of State Christopher A. Ford on Russia’s supposedly destructive role as regards the IAEA Incident and Trafficking Database (ITDB)

Speaking at a seminar in the Wye River Conference Center, Queenstown, MD, on September 29, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher A. Ford said that the IAEA’s Incident and Trafficking Database (ITDB) programme is “even today at risk of being undermined by Russia as a result of embarrassment over the ITDB’s inclusion of information about the Kremlin’s use of radioactive polonium to assassinate Alexander Litvinenko in 2006…”

We would like to express regret that Mr Ford made public information from the ITDB that, strictly speaking, is confidential and accessible only for internal use by the IAEA members.

The Russian Federation is cooperating with this database. At the same time, we fully understand the limited potential of this instrument. The problem is that the IAEA Secretariat does not bear any responsibility for the information published in it at the initiative of the IAEA member states. In this context, the ITDB is regrettably a convenient tool for planting fake information for political point-scoring. This is graphically illustrated by the case when the Brits introduced disinformation on the Litvinenko case to the ITDB.

We believe that the IAEA member states can transfer information to the ITDB on a strictly voluntary basis (neither the agency’s charter documents, nor international legal standards provide for a commitment to submit such information). This information cannot be used for making any analytical conclusions because the database is not complete and is not protected against political bias in any way. Its information cannot be transferred to third parties.

As we have already established, rules are not for everyone. Indicative is the US’ behaviour towards this database. The Americans very rarely submit information on their accidents and do so only to their advantage. Yet they insist that all other member states should present such domestic information. This is one more case of “being exceptional.”








Answers to media questions:



Question:

There has been some recent progress in the talks on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement: Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov met with Foreign Minister of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan while President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev had a short talk with Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan. Many experts express cautious optimism in this regard. They believe that it was Moscow that prepared fertile soil for such talks. Could you comment on this? Do you think progress has been made and it is possible to move on to a new negotiating track?



Maria Zakharova:

We welcome all positive trends that have taken shape. Now it is important to develop them and not to traumatise them with careless rhetoric that regrettably is also manifest in recent time. For our part, we will do everything for these positive trends to prevail.



Question:

Will the Nagorno-Karabakh issue be raised at Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Enzo Moavero Milanesi, Italian Foreign Minister and OSCE Chairperson-in-Office?



Maria Zakharova:

I will check. It is not ruled out that this issue may be raised. I will find out. I invite you to attend the news conference on the results of the talks.



Question:

Could you comment in more detail on what will be discussed on the Libyan issue during the Moscow visit of Enzo Moavero Milanesi, Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation? As you know, Libya is a very sensitive issue for us.



Maria Zakharova:

Russia and Italy regularly exchange views on the Libyan issue at different levels. As you rightly noted, this delicate issue is certainly discussed at every meeting. This is an important issue in the opinion of our Italian colleagues. It is crucial for Italy. We have repeatedly made far-reaching proposals to our Italian colleagues, representatives of other states and international organisations that deal with it.

Yesterday, President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about it, in particular about the work with the flows of migrants and refugees. There is a unique opportunity for their return now, in part, to Syria. We have always said that normalisation in that region should play an exceptional, albeit not the only, role in this very complicated issue.

Stabilisation is required to enable the return of refugees and their active integration in normal life in their countries in order to prevent this situation in the future and promote its global settlement. It is practically impossible to try and resolve this issue without normalisation in the region. The number of refugees is growing and their problems are becoming bigger. People do not just come to Europe but are naturally followed by more and more flows, which creates additional difficulties. Therefore, it is impossible to settle this problem locally. It is necessary to return to the region and put things in order there. At any rate, it is essential to do everything to prevent the situation from deteriorating.

I think that the international community sees that this is possible on the example of Syria. A couple of years ago it would have been hard to believe that Syrian refugees, displaced persons and migrants would wish to come home. Today this is reality. Active actions on suppressing militants and terrorists, political efforts to unite rather than separate opponents, assistance to the launching of their dialogue and the start of the discussion of the constitutional reform and the political future of Syria, humanitarian relief and regular multilateral dialogue of key players have created the conditions for normalisation in Syria. As a result, these people want and are able to return there. This is the key to normalisation in Syria, the region and Europe.

Similar but not identical approaches should be also used in other countries, in particular, Libya. The countries that have been involved in the settlement of the Libyan issue should not tear down the country or separate opposition forces and place their bets on one group or another. They should facilitate unification, national consensus and the formation of a new Libyan statehood, naturally, with due respect for international law. It is essential to help Libyans because the international community has plunged their country into the abyss of misfortunes and suffering in which it is now.

The same basic approaches and principles (multilateral dialogue of players, a striving for political consensus, and an ability of great powers and regional players to see the main goals behind their private interests that nobody has cancelled) that were used in Syria may be applied to other countries in the region where regrettably problems are not subsiding. All these issues are regularly discussed and will be discussed. It will be possible to find out what specific issues will be reviewed only after the talks but I assure you that our foreign ministers will certainly share them with you.



Question:

Will the matter of the conference in Palermo in mid-November be raised? Will Russia participate?



Maria Zakharova:

Russia is expected to participate in the November high-level conference on the Libyan settlement. The level, the degree of participation and other parameters will be agreed upon. We will definitely inform you. This is an important event, not only for Italy but for Europe, so it is being developed.



Question:

Deputy Foreign Minister of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai said that differences between Russia and the US in global politics could affect the situation in Afghanistan. Would you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

We believe we are taking effective steps to normalise the situation in Afghanistan. It is true that we cannot agree with the full range of US actions regarding Afghanistan, because, unfortunately, they are not improving the situation on the ground but making it worse, and there is evidence from over the years. But we are open to dialogue with the US in this sphere, although we do not see that Washington has any real appetite for it.

We believe that if there are differences (and they definitely exist, as I have said today) they must be solved at the negotiating table; we are open to this and have called on the US to do this many times. At certain stages, even recently, it showed readiness, but when it comes to the practical side, such as exchanges of representatives and the beginning of talks, they withdraw into the shadow for no apparent reason. Dialogue and discussion are simply impeded.

We agree that it would serve Afghanistan well if the countries that have something to say about the situation in Afghanistan were to join forces. We are ready to work on this.



Question:

Today President of Russia Vladimir Putin began his visit to India. How do you assess the importance of this trip in the broader international context? What are the prospects for Russian-Indian bilateral relations?



Maria Zakharova:

We have a rule: We do not comment on the President’s agenda. You have the presidential press service for this.

Speaking about bilateral relations, a lot of official information has been released on this. We enjoy comprehensive cooperation with India in all areas. I believe that many things will be said about this during the visit.



Question:

Today Ukraine declared the Hungarian consul in the city of Beregovo persona non grata. What is Russia’s comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Hungary Peter Szijjarto made himself very clear on this following his talks with his Russian counterpart.

If we are taking about violations of the rights of minorities, human rights in Ukraine more broadly, then we do this regularly, today included. What is happening in Ukraine is unprecedented for modern Europe.

As for persecuting people for thinking differently, for their wish to advance or just to preserve (as advancement might be difficult at the moment) their cultural identity: All of this is met with persecution in Ukraine. Unfortunately, they are not isolated outbursts of destructive forces but the agenda of the state. On the other hand, it would take a lot of time to analyse whether it is deliberate or due to the fact that they are unable to take on the aggressive young nationalists who in fact control the country. This is a question for experts.

Of course, the voice of European and international organisations in general should be clearer or perhaps even hysterical, because the situation is seriously deteriorating.



Question:

Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe was recently reelected. Will Russia continue to try to sign a peace treaty with no preconditions?



Maria Zakharova:

Our position on the issue remains the same, as the Russian leadership affirmed just recently.



Question:

Yesterday, National Security Adviser John Bolton said that the United States has withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ). Does it mean that the UN decisions and resolutions will only be of an advisory nature for Washington? How will this, in the opinion of the Russian Foreign Ministry, affect the UN mandate and authority? I would like to remind everyone about the International Criminal Court (ICC). The United States is consistently withdrawing from the jurisdiction of international judicial organisations. What can you say about this?



Maria Zakharova:

I will need to clarify the information regarding Mr Bolton’s statements.

With regard to the ICC, the situation is much more complicated. The US did not just withdraw from its jurisdiction, but launched a campaign to prosecute the judges. This represents a “new step” in their interpretation of international law and their own exceptionality.

Here, we are talking about (it was discussed at length during the political discussion at the 73rd UNGA session) a paradigm we are living in, the paradigm of international law as a shared environment that was developed at the end of World War II and launched with the creation of the UN after the world had witnessed the horrors of what the concept of someone’s exceptionality can lead to, or the paradigm of the “rule-based order” that a number of Western states are pushing for, which those exceptional countries are creating at their discretion depending on the situation meaning that everyone should follow their rules. These two paradigms are competing. Which one will prevail? I would like the first one to have the upper hand, because with all its flaws it worked well and produced results. The other one also worked in the historical perspective, but produced negative results. The US approach fits into the second, very dangerous, paradigm.



Question:

The Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday referred to Sergei Skripal as a traitor and a scumbag. I’d like to know if Sergei Skripal has already been stripped of his Russian citizenship? Do such statements hinder the Russian consul from gaining access to the Skripals?



Maria Zakharova:

First, I see no connection between such statements and the work of our consuls because the statement you have quoted was made yesterday while our consuls have been trying to get access to the Skripals for six months already. What’s the connection? There is no connection.

Second, it was the court that qualified Skripal as a traitor. President Putin merely quoted it, going back to the court’s decision. Moreover, the court decision was carried out: Sergei Skripal was duly sentenced and served his sentence in jail.

What is the news here? He was a traitor, his activities had been exposed, an investigation and a trial took place, he was put in prison and spent several years there before being exchanged. Nobody has requalified him into any other capacity than a traitor. This was how the court referred to him and this is how he will go down (already has gone down) in history. Nothing doing, bad luck.

We are all entitled to make personal judgements. The concept of “traitor” has been fixed by the court. How to interpret this and in what emotional tone is up to anyone.

As for the citizenship status of Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal, we proceed on the basis that they are Russian citizens. It is in this capacity that we request access to them. I would like to remind you that our request has been turned down. As a matter of fact, they have not been presented to anybody.

How cleverly you put it: President Putin’s statement of October 3 is preventing the Russian consuls from gaining access to the Skripals. You are past masters at such tricks.

For half a year now our Embassy has been offering the British side various options based on bilateral agreements, and in the end our President’s statement may make access to the Skripals more difficult. Do you really believe that such statements, be it by the President or by experts, can influence Britain’s decision concerning access? This is their principled political stance. It is not based on law. If it were based on law, the Brits would have been obliged to grant access. In this case, they chose to ignore the law. Political charges were rolled out at once. Access was blocked precisely for political reasons.

No statements, emotional or backed by quotations, will change London’s attitude because they have totally cast aside any legal procedures. Proof of this is the fact that they have been denying access to Russian citizens for six months and have refused to interact with the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation as well as other law-enforcement bodies, they have rejected the offer of a joint investigation. So, it is a weird suggestion that anything could influence them. Their fundamental position is total renunciation of the use of legal mechanisms in favour of political statements and political provocations. They have been at it for the last six months.

If we saw some judicial procedures or the course of investigation, a transparent and open one, then it could be said that any statements made by the Russian side could be seen as attempts at pressure and interference and could be harmful.

But it all commenced with a strictly political statement made by the British Prime Minister Theresa May, with an aggression against Russia. It all started as a political show, as we pointed out from the beginning. Incidentally, these words triggered off a lot of flak against Russia for calling it a political show. Six months have passed. Do you have any other definition of the process that is taking place? One thing is clear: It has definitely nothing to do with law. It is a real political show that is being played out. Accordingly, no statements, no political or legal arguments will influence London because it proceeds in a strange, politically crude biased manner which tarnishes London’s own image.

Let me give you an example. When the Russian delegation led by Foreign Minister Lavrov was recently working at the UN, Britain raised the Salisbury topic during the political debate (you remember the statements made from the rostrum, in conference rooms and at meetings with the press). This was the dominant topic for the British side during the work in New York. On Friday, at the end of nearly five-daysat the UN, Foreign Minister Lavrov gave a press conference. It was attended by representatives of all the media: television, agencies, newspapers and web sites from all the countries of the world. The conference lasted more than an hour with at least sixteen questions being asked. We did not moderate or structure it, allowing any journalists to ask any questions. Do you think anyone asked about the situation connected with the Skripals, Salisbury and Amesbury? Not a single journalist asked about it. And yet it would have seemed to be an excellent chance: The British delegation mentioned Salisbury all the time during official events.

Here sits the head of the Russian delegation to whom you can put any question you like, but for some reason the journalistic body – and the UN has very experienced journalists many of whom have spent 20-30 years there – has not asked a single question. The reason is that they understand that it is a political show and that there is no substance to it. There is, of course, substance, but it has not yet been presented. From London’s side we see only leaks and fake stories, and so international journalists, who know the worth of international tragedies and crimes, are very well aware of it. Not a single question!

I would like to stress that we gave the floor to all the journalists who wanted to speak. Many shouted their questions from their seats, passed their questions on, made signs. Not a single question about the Skripals!



Question:

The Foreign Ministry declared through you recently that it would request information from the United States as to Richard Lugar Centre for Public Health Research where experiments on human beings with a possible lethal outcome may have been carried out. After a recent meeting in Prague between Special Representative of the Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Abashidze and State Secretary, Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Grigory Karasin, Georgia invited Russian experts to visit this laboratory and take part in an international conference. Will the Russian experts accept the invitation and how soon will they visit the lab?



Maria Zakharova:

As regards the visit and information concerning the answer from the Americans, we will check out the details.



Question:

The process of drafting a new Syrian constitution has been discussed at the UN. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov referred to it more than once. The Americans have warned that unless Syrian President Bashar Assad starts the process soon he would be punished. I would like to hear from you at what stage the constitutional process is at the moment. There were negotiations between Damascus and the Kurds. But it was recently announced that they have been suspended. What is Russia doing to stimulate Damascus and the Kurds to negotiate?

Reports are coming in that Jabhat al-Nusra has announced its self-dissolution in Idlib, but in the past this organisation changed its name many times and has continued to operate. Is there any concrete information available on this matter? If the establishment of a demilitarised zone in Idlib is not announced by October 15, how will the situation develop? Will a military operation remain on the agenda?



Maria Zakharova:

The question of a military operation should be directed to the Russian Ministry of Defence. I think they will comment on this shortly. As for the Constitutional Committee, it is heavy going. Unfortunately, not all members are in a constructive mood, but we are trying to change the situation and steer the work in a constructive direction.

Regarding the talks between Damascus and the Kurds. You know that Russia has always welcomed them and, moreover, has done everything possible to lend them many formats because consolidation, which is needed for Syria to survive and be reborn as a new, renovated state, is impossible without the Kurds participating. We put it not only to the Syrians, but also to our foreign partners as well.



Question:

I would like to revisit the topic of China. US Vice President Michael Pence said that alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential election pales by comparison with China’s actions. He claims that the PRC is actively interfering in the mid-term Congress elections. Why does a country which calls itself “the cradle of democracy” constantly look for someone to accuse of interfering in its elections?



Maria Zakharova:

This is precisely the point. You have answered your own question. They constantly need someone to blame. While previously they were content with their internal space and found culprits inside the country (we have witnessed all sorts of twists and turns in election races and all sorts of accusations being hurled), but now apparently, for greater scope or simply feeling that the internal market has been exhausted or does not live up to the requirements, they decided to turn to the international community. There is a constant need for culprits to be blamed for their own failures or who could be used as bogeys. Supporters can be consolidated by bringing in some foreign foes. This is a very convenient instrument which requires no proof because I am sure that the US, as you put it, “the cradle of democracy” (I for one feel that the “cradle“ is in another place), but still it is a country which has accomplished a lot in this sphere and such statements for internal consumption always need proof. If somebody in the United States presents such claims to Americans – an American company, American politicians, high-profile Americans – a lawsuit would be filed the very next day and that would be followed by a serious as well as costly court battle. On the other hand, when a country is accused, this is a totally impersonal charge and it is difficult, practically impossible, to build a case. But the effect is grandiose. That is all there is to it. What is happening in the relations, or rather what Washington is doing with respect to China, is depressing. Honestly, such behaviour does not befit a great power the United States claims to be. This applies to the trade war which the United States decided to start against China, and the latest statements about cyber-attacks, etc. Not a worthy way to behave.



Question:

Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development of Poland Jan Krzysztof Ardanowski said that Warsaw will send a diplomat who is in charge of agricultural exports to Moscow, adding that specialist advisers will be looking for foreign markets to sell agricultural produce.



Maria Zakharova:

Perhaps, they will be selling our produce?



Question:

Do you know anything about this? Perhaps, Warsaw is readying itself for the sanctions and, accordingly, the food embargo to be lifted. Maybe the Poles are already thinking about ways to promote Polish apples?



Maria Zakharova:

I don’t know much about this. I believe such a statement is lacking logic for one simple reason: the sanctions are being renewed, including with the participation of Poland. If Poland does not agree with the sanctions and considers them harmful, we welcome any and all diplomats who come to us in peace, and even more so with plans for cooperation and interaction. They are always welcome.



Question:

Maybe it’s about the lifting of the sanctions?



Maria Zakharova:

To do so, Poland needs to stay away from supporting them just once – that's all it needs to do. You see, when experts, diplomats and, by the way, journalists from the EU countries come here and ask what they should do with the sanctions, this question should go to them. Your countries, your politicians, your heads of state support the sanctions every time they are asked to do so. The solution lies in the position of just one state, as even one state can make a difference.



Question:

If Russian gas supplies to Europe remain relevant, is there any hope for resuming energy cooperation between Bulgaria and Russia, keeping in mind the European Parliament’s resolution of April 17, 2014?



Maria Zakharova:

This sounds like the question that I took before. It's not about Russia. We are open to interaction. The matter is about the EU member states which need to understand what they really want – to interact with us (we are always open to this), to participate, alas, in political intrigues or to allow these intrigues to affect the national interests of countries. This question is for them to answer.

With regard to interaction in this area, President Vladimir Putin described everything exhaustively yesterday.


***


I want to end this briefing with an announcement. Our next briefing will be held in the town of Koktebel at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, October 10.

Today, we mentioned Maximilian Voloshin, and I always wanted to visit that town. Now, the opportunity presented itself. The briefing will be held in the house of journalist Dmitry Kiselyov at 19A Aivazovskogo Street. As you may be aware, the media focused a lot on his house at some point, and it was named a secret facility. Investigations were open, although it turned out that the house was mentioned in many magazines, and there are video reports available dating seven or eight years back. The accreditation for journalists will open soon.

I would like to ask the journalists who wrote the most on this topic whether they would like to take this opportunity to combine pleasure with even greater pleasure and see for themselves what they wrote about in their materials and attend our briefing? I would be particularly pleased to see the representatives of certain foreign media who wrote particularly extensively on the house of the Russian journalist, namely, US media correspondents, such as head of the Moscow bureau of Radio Liberty Yevgeniya Nazarets, chief correspondent of National Public Radio Lucian Kim as well as Latvia-based Meduza, which also published corresponding material. I think it’s a great opportunity for them to see with their very own eyes what they wrote about so colourfully. We will be expecting everyone, but especially foreign media members, who spent so much effort and energy discussing this vital topic.

Koktebel is an amazing place. I only read about it and never went there. It was depicted and made a special place by our Silver Age poets, artists and writers. We are thankful to Dmitry Kiselyov for the venue.

See you in Koktebel.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/s...ent/id/3367062
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 20th, 2018 #517
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Enzo Moavero Milanesi, Moscow, October 8, 2018



8 October 2018 - 12:54







Mr Minister,

Colleagues,

We are glad to welcome you to Moscow. First of all, I would like to personally congratulate you, Mr Minister, on your recent appointment.

Our relations boast a very long history, strong traditions and successful cooperation experience. I hope that we will continue to cooperate in the same spirit we did with your predecessors.

Despite the unfavourable circumstances, we have maintained close contacts in recent years, including at the top and high levels, interparliamentary cooperation, and between the ministries and agencies of Russia and the Italian Republic. I think that your visit will give a good impetus to our relations in all fields.

You also co-chair the Russian-Italian Council for Economic, Industrial, Monetary and Financial Cooperation, which is to handle many important tasks. Last month, you met with the Russian co-chairman of the council, Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov, and, as far as I understand, agreed to hold a meeting in Italy before the end of this year.







Russia and Italy have always had rich cultural ties. Russian Seasons, now underway in Italy, offer more than three hundred successful events in various cities. Next month, Italy will take part in the next St Petersburg International Cultural Forum as a guest country. We are happy about that and look forward to seeing your representatives there.

We actively cooperate on international platforms, including the UN and the OSCE, where Italy is now presiding. So we have a very full agenda, and I look forward to fruitful talks.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3368839






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and replies to media questions during a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy Enzo Moavero Milanesi, Moscow, October 8, 2018



8 October 2018 - 15:42







Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to welcome once again my colleague Mr Melanesi who is visiting Moscow for the first time as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Italian Republic.

Our talks took place in a traditionally friendly atmosphere. We discussed a broad range of bilateral, regional and international issues. We consider it important that our positions are similar or consonant on many points.

We discussed the schedule of forthcoming Russia-Italy contacts, including those at the top level. We are interested in developing our political dialogue in different formats, including consultations between our foreign ministries and inter-parliamentary exchanges. There is a plan to hold meetings between heads of chambers of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the Parliament of Italy. We reaffirmed our mutual interest in further enhancing the effectiveness of our joint struggle against international terrorism, drug trafficking, cross-border crime and other new challenges and threats. We emphasised the need for further cooperation between our countries’ relevant competent authorities, including within the bilateral working group on countering new challenges and threats. We noted that trade grew by about $15 billion in the first seven months of this year. This means that we are overcoming a decline in trade and want to consolidate the new positive trend. We are convinced that this task will be facilitated by the active work of the Russian-Italian Council for Economic, Industrial, Monetary and Financial Cooperation that is co-chaired by Italian Foreign Minister Mr Melanesi and Russian Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov.

Energy cooperation remains a key area. We discussed the developments around Nord Stream 2, which has already got underway, and a potential second stage of the Turkish Stream. These projects are commercial, meet the interests of European countries and diversify the routes of Russian natural gas supplies to Europe, reducing transit risks and enhancing European security.

We gave a positive assessment of our cultural and humanitarian exchanges. The large-scale Russian Seasons project is being successfully implemented this year. More than a dozen interesting events have already been held as part of the initiative. Now preparations are underway for its closing ceremony on December 19 of this year.

Our ties in education and science are expanding. This is graphically illustrated by the agreement on research cooperation signed last June by the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Italian National Research Council, as well as by increased cooperation between universities under the dual diploma programmes.

We expressed mutual willingness to promote contacts between civil societies and are pegging great hopes on the activities of the Russian-Italian Dialogue Forum that is a useful mechanism. It facilitates the expansion of human contacts and an improvement in mutual understanding between our nations.

As for international issues, we spoke about the status of Russia-EU relations. Moscow is interested in a strong European Union that would act as a predictable and pragmatic partner and would pursue foreign policy in the interests of Europe and EU members. We believe – and our Italian colleagues share this opinion – that dialogue between Moscow and Brussels should be improved and invigorated. In this context, we see and appreciate the constructive determination of our Italian partners to facilitate these processes.

We also discussed our interaction within the OSCE with regard to Italy’s presidency of the organisation. We noted our joint work in such key areas as counteracting terrorism, drug trafficking and cyber threats; the coordination of integration processes in various areas of the OSCE’s responsibility; protecting traditional values, including the rights of national minorities; and counteracting christianophobia, islamophobia and antisemitism.

As for regional issues, we focused on developments in Libya. We are convinced of the need to search for universally acceptable approaches that would allow Libyans to determine the future of their country through a national dialogue. We expressed readiness to facilitate the solution of the crisis in the region using political and diplomatic means in accordance with the common principles of international law. We welcome the active role of Italy in this direction.

For our part, we spoke about our assessments of the Syrian settlement process. They are based on the need to focus all the efforts of the international community on fulfilling the goals outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Let me remind you that this is precisely what the Astana Format is directed towards. I mean the process that was begun by Russia, Turkey and Iran, and the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

We also spoke in detail about the situation in Ukraine. We informed our Italian colleagues about our efforts to attain the unconditional implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures. There is no alternative to this. And it should be implemented in the form in which it was approved by the UN Security Council.

I want to thank my colleague for the excellent negotiations. I hope they will be followed by regular contacts. Thank you for the invitation to make a return visit to Italy.







Question:

Speaking about sanctions, what does Russia expect from Italy and what can Italy do for Russia to ease tensions? Did you discuss that?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, we discussed that, as we said in our opening remarks. When the European Union introduced sanctions against Russia, after the events primarily in Crimea where local residents exercised their right to self-determination in a completely logical and legitimate manner, in circumstances when their mere existence and their fundamental values and interests were attacked and threatened by those who unlawfully took power in Kiev in a coup, we saw that as a decision that helps neither to advance our relations nor to resolve the crisis in Ukraine. The putchists who seized power in Kiev essentially felt they had impunity.

The subsequent waves of sanctions – tied to the refusal of residents of the larger part of Donbass to accept the illegitimate regime that took over Kiev in a coup – also demonstrated that the EU was acting out of inertia.

Everybody breathed a sigh of relief when the Minsk Agreements on settling the Ukrainian crisis, the agreements unanimously approved by the UNSC, were signed. Unfortunately, very soon it became clear that Kiev has no intention of honouring these agreements, but rather intends and continues to consistently evade the key principle of the resolution, which is direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. When that became obvious (and I am certain that our European colleagues, mainly France and Germany as co-authors of the Minsk Agreements, are well aware of the reasons why the agreements were not fulfilled) it was not very convenient for our European colleagues to take it out on the Kiev officials and accuse them of sabotaging the agreement. So they invented a very convenient formula: the EU wants to lift the sanctions from Russia, cooperate with our country but first the Minsk Agreements must be fulfilled. Since the current Kiev officials are not honouring the Minsk Agreements, this stance taken by the EU basically implied that the Kiev officials were encouraged to keep sabotaging the Minsk document proceeding from the premise that the Russian Federation will pay for it. And Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko continues to use this situation gladly. This is our analysis of the events.

As concerns the sanctions and how we can further develop our relations, there are now, without doubt, many governments in the EU that understand how unhealthy the current circumstances are. They support in-depth examination of the matters and following not ideological arguments, not the logic of Euro-Atlantic solidarity but the fundamental interests of European countries and, of course, the Russian Federation.

These governments include the government of President of the Council of Ministers of Italy Giuseppe Conte. Today we highly praised the constructive attitude promoted by the incumbent Italian government, including at various EU-related forums. I believe the core interests of the European nations will prevail. Businesses have conducted many assessments that show the damage from the current situation, the losses that have already been sustained. I think nobody wants this to continue. We expect that we will return to the previous terms of our relations and restore all the cooperation mechanisms between Russia and the EU, including summits and regular meetings of the Russia−European Union Permanent Partnership Council as well as activity as part of over 20 sectoral dialogues.

The fact that Brussels is approaching the current state of affairs with greater common sense confirms that some dialogues are starting to recover – for example, on migration issues. There are also good prospects in counteracting terrorism and drug trafficking, and in energy. Although the energy dialogue has not been resumed to its full extent, our Minister of Energy maintains regular contacts with the European Commissioner for Energy. We have a full understanding of where we are at. We are acting pragmatically. I think reality will reassert itself. This is also evidenced by the fact that in the past 18 months to two years, trade between Russia and the EU started to return to an upward trend and continues to grow rather steadily. We welcome this trend and will always be open to constructive proposals aimed at resuming our relations in the interests of Russia and our partners.



Question:

A conference on Libya will take place in Palermo. Who will represent Russia at it? Can we expect President of Russia Vladimir Putin to participate?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is logical that a question about Libya followed the migration question (addressed to the Italian minister) because, I hope, everyone remembers that this migration explosion, the wave that swept Europe came in the wake of the NATO countries’ aggression against Libya, which violated the relevant UN Security Council resolution. We expressed our view on this issue at that time and warned that it would end badly. We are still dealing with the consequences. Our colleagues and friends in the European Union are the hardest hit.

Russia and Italy have a well-established and well-structured dialogue on Libya and other issues of the region. Libya is regularly discussed by our Security Council staffs, foreign policy presidential aides and foreign ministries. Since the very start of the Libyan crisis, the Russian Federation has worked with all key political forces without exception. We met with and invited to Moscow the head of the government of national accord, representatives of the chamber of deputies in Tobruk, the commander of the Libyan national army and other key participants of the political process and parties to the domestic Libyan conflict. We believe it is absolutely essential to work with all Libyan forces and note that many of our Western colleagues that had somewhat different approaches to the Libyan settlement process now share our position and are working with all key players.

The second principle that we were guided by like Italy was to avoid ultimatums or any artificial deadlines on stages to the settlement. The priority should be allowing Libyans to reach an understanding of what principles they want to lay at the foundation of the political system of their state.

I would like to emphasise in this context that the role of the international community is not in imposing solutions but primarily in creating conditions in which the sides in Libya will find it easier to come to terms. And both we and Italy support the role of the United Nations and Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Libya Ghassan Salame.

It is also important to emphasise at this point the need to respect the role of Libya’s next door neighbours in all these efforts.

All these issues are expected to be submitted for discussion at the Palermo conference with the participation of all key Libyan and international actors. I believe this may be a fairly useful event. As for a more detailed response to this initiative and the level of our participation, we will be able to speak about this a bit later when we study the materials that we received together with the invitation. The invitation came the day before yesterday, so we cannot yet give you a final answer as to the level of Russia’s participation in the conference in Palermo but we will certainly take part in it.



Question:

Could you comment on the accusations of cyber spying that were recently made by the Dutch Defence Ministry? Do you think this is connected with the forthcoming OPCW session?

It was reported that the Dutch ambassador will be summoned to the Foreign Ministry today. Is he likely to receive a note of some kind?



Sergey Lavrov:

Preliminary comments on this episode have already been made. As a brief reminder, there was nothing secret about the trip of Russian specialists to the Hague last April. This was a routine trip and they did not try to hide anything either when registering at the hotel, arriving at the airport or visiting our Embassy. They were detained, not allowed to contact representatives of our Embassy in the Netherlands and asked to leave. Honestly, it all looked like a misunderstanding, all the more so since there were no protests or demarches on behalf of Moscow or the Hague in connection with this incident.

But half a year later, I believe some three weeks ago in September, it was leaked to the Dutch press that these people were involved in cyber spying. As we were interested in these developments, we invited the Dutch ambassador to the Foreign Ministry and asked him to share with us the details and facts about this leak in the media. We did not receive a sensible answer.

On October 3, our ambassador was summoned by the Dutch Foreign Ministry and given a note of protest as regards this episode with the accusations that came to your attention through the media. When the ambassador asked where he can find concrete facts and relevant materials, he was told that we will learn about everything at a news conference that will be held by the Defence Ministry. This is the whole story.

I think this is yet another example of megaphone diplomacy and neglect of legal mechanisms that were established and exist for discussing problems that arise in relations between any countries, including Russia and the Netherlands.

We are inviting the Dutch ambassador to consider this point of view I’ve just expressed. We will provide additional detailed information.

Now a few words about the session of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) that opens literally tomorrow. Probably, it will be used by those countries that want to distort the contents of the Chemical Weapons Convention and turn its Technical Secretariat into a kind of punitive body, thereby undermining international law, specifically the prerogatives of the UN Security Council.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that I think a meeting of the North Atlantic Council (NAC) at the level of defence ministers was held on the same day as the news conference. So if we are talking about direct or indirect coincidences, we must also bear this in mind. The session of the European Council where heads of state and the EU government will also deal with different issues will take place in the near future. Some politicians may have believed that the April episode in the media exactly at this time would help divert attention from complicated issues now being discussed by the EU and, to a certain extent, NATO, such as aligning the defence capabilities of these two structures.

I will stop there. As we analyse this situation we will share additional information with you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3369071






Opening remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during a meeting with Slovakian Minister of Foreign and European Affairs Miroslav Lajcak, Moscow, October 9, 2018



9 October 2018 - 11:40







Minister Lajcak, Miroslav,

Colleagues, friends,

We are glad to welcome you to the Russian Federation, to these regular consultations at the level of foreign ministers. We value this opportunity to review how our relations are progressing, and they are progressing steadily in all areas. We maintain close political contacts and inter-parliamentary links. The trade and economic ties are also encouraging. During the first six months of this year, trade between our countries grew at a fast pace. Certainly, our humanitarian links, contacts between people and between civil societies are traditionally a big part of our relations.







Today’s meeting at the level of foreign ministers confirms our close cooperation in foreign policy, which allows us to compare our views, exchange opinions and better understand how we should proceed towards more extensive cooperation, not only on the bilateral basis but also between Russia and Europe. So I hope we will have a very productive discussion today.

Finally, please accept my congratulations on completing the presidency at the UN General Assembly, which was very highly assessed by all the participants.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3369571






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and replies to media questions at the joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic Miroslav Lajcak, Moscow, October 8, 2018



9 October 2018 - 14:26







My Slovak colleague Miroslav Lajcak and I had meaningful talks. We focused on prospects for cooperation between our states, which, despite the notable events in Europe, continues to advance steadily in all areas. I am referring to political dialogue, inter-parliamentary ties and regular contacts between our foreign ministries.

We noted there had been a recovery from a decline in bilateral trade and this was followed by a positive trend last year. The first months of this year showed steady growth of 12 per cent.

We continue our successful cooperation in energy, including the nuclear industry. In the future, Slovakia can continue to count on Russia as a reliable supplier of hydrocarbons. Other priority areas of practical cooperation include industry, transport infrastructure and agriculture.

We greatly appreciated the performance of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation that will hold its next session in a few days, on October 15-16.

We noted that interregional ties are well developed. There are over 50 bilateral agreements on regional partnership and cooperation. Last June, the second meeting of twin cities and partnership regions of Russia and Slovakia was held in the city of Vidnoye in the Moscow Region.

We welcome the intensification of cooperation in the humanitarian sphere. We spoke about the implementation of the programme of cultural cooperation for 2018-2022. Russia appreciates Slovak leaders’ support for those who want to study the Russian language. Their number is growing and the geography of teaching Russian is expanding. We agreed to support different projects and undertakings in this area and facilitate the deepening of student and academic exchanges.

We emphasised the importance of further developing human contacts via civil societies. The next session of the discussion forum that was set up by our countries’ public organisations for this purpose will take place on October 12.

During the discussion of international issues, we focused on the Middle East, primarily Syria. We stand for an early political settlement of this crisis on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We keep our Slovak colleagues informed about the steps made by Russia in the Astana format and in line with the principles determined by the UN Security Council.

We spoke a lot about the OSCE, in view of the fact that Slovakia will hold the Chairmanship of the organisation next year. We talked about the specific areas of its work in each of the three baskets: political and security, economic and humanitarian.

We also discussed the OSCE’s role in settling various regional conflicts. We emphasised our mutual interest in a more active use of the OSCE’s substantial potential for enhancing security and trust in the Euro-Atlantic Region. Our colleagues informed us about the priorities that the Slovak Chairmanship is preparing for next year’s discussions. We are ready for constructive work on this basis.

We spoke about the OSCE’s role in settling the Ukrainian crisis, notably as regards the political process (I am referring to the work of the Contact Group) and the Special Monitoring Mission that was deployed in Ukraine, including its eastern part, at the decision of the OSCE Permanent Council.

We have a shared view on the need to consistently implement the Minsk Package of Measures in the form that it was approved by the UN Security Council. Russian officials explained to their Slovak partners their view of the reasons for Kiev’s efforts to subvert this major document.

We discussed Russia-EU contacts. As for the Russia-NATO Council, we appreciate the position of those West European and European countries, including Slovakia, that recognise the need to transcend the current state of relations between Russia and these entities, which is not quite normal for the time being.

We will continue these contacts, in part in the context of Slovakia’s forthcoming chairmanship of the OSCE, and we will develop our interaction at the UN (we spoke about this today as well).

Mr Lajcak has just completed his role as the President of the UN General Assembly. His work in this position was highly praised at the 72nd UN General Assembly session and largely facilitated the achievement of many positive results.

Miroslav Lajcak invited me to pay a return visit to Slovakia. I will be pleased to go and we will continue our contacts.







Question:

What is obstructing the creation of the Constitutional Committee on Syria today? Now the sides are concerned that the opinion of some parts of civil society may prevail during its formation.

President of Syria Bashar al-Assad signed an executive order in the morning today pardoning all deserters. Do you think this executive order will speed up the return of refugees home?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for the Constitutional Committee, it is not a matter of what Russia wants or what it prefers. The goal is to make this body representative on a large scale. The work on this issue is being conducted in the Astana format. Naturally, representatives of both the Syrian Government and the opposition are taking part in it. It is necessary for the broadest possible spectrum of the opposition to be represented, as it is written in UN Security Council Resolution 2254. All this is being done in the context of this resolution with the assistance of the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and his team.

An agreement on equal representation of delegates from the Government, the opposition and civil society in the Constitutional Committee has been reached in principle. This is probably the best composition in qualitative terms.

As for the quantitative representation of different civil society groups, there is still work to be done to come to an agreement. It is important to make sure that everyone who is on the Constitutional Committee, who is supposed to be on it, approves of its makeup. We are facilitating this process but see no reasons to speed it up or set artificial deadlines for this work to begin. Quality is the main goal here. Just as during most other conflicts, the UN does not try to artificially accelerate events because attempts to do so result in setbacks and merely create unnecessary frenzy.

So we continue working on this. Our representatives together with our Turkish and Iranian partners are in contact with all interested parties, including our Syrian colleagues and UN representatives with whom they meet on a regular basis.

As for the pardon for deserters, it is likely an effort to promote national reconciliation and create conditions that would suit those refugees as well as internally displaced persons who want to return to Syria.

We are actively encouraging the Syrian leadership in this stance. As you know, when the need to help refugees return home came to the fore, some politicians expressed apprehensions that their safety will not be guaranteed, that they will be discriminated again or immediately conscripted in the army. They quoted Law No 10 that is allegedly aimed at seizing the property of those who do not return home. We are trying to help the Syrian Government and its opponents find mutually acceptable solutions on all of these issues, which will help people to opt to return home.

As for Law No 10, we advised those who expressed apprehensions about it, in particular, UN representatives, to get in contact with the Syrian Government. They did, and as far as I know, practically all misunderstandings related to this document have been addressed. So we will continue striving to better help create the conditions for the return of refugees.

Our military are doing a lot in practical terms to help the Syrian authorities restore basic infrastructure, the system of critical supports for the population. We are informing the countries that host Syrian refugees about places where conditions for the return of refugees have already been created.



Question (for Miroslav Lajcak):

Earlier, the Slovak company LOTN that belongs to the country’s Defence Ministry, began repairing Russian Mi helicopters that were supplied to Afghanistan. The company Russian Helicopters insists that LOTN does not have the right to do this. Does it plan to buy a certificate for repairs? Do you think this situation may affect bilateral relations, considering that initially Russia sought to secure this large contract?



Sergey Lavrov (adds after Miroslav Lajcak):

I would also like to express support for this idea. Various economic situations may arise. This is understandable.

When there is a clash of economic interests, both in relations with our Slovak colleagues and many other partners, we always find mutually acceptable solutions. Such situations do not affect the general character of our good, close and friendly relations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3369807






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during a meeting with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Andorra Maria Ubach, Moscow, October 10, 2018



10 October 2018 - 12:48







Ms Minister,

It is a pleasure to welcome you to Moscow.

Russia and Andorra enjoy a good relationship, although it is not often that we exchange visits. According to my notes, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Andorra visited Russia only once, in 2007, when I met with your predecessor, Juli Minoves. It has been a long break and we are glad that you decided to accept our invitation and visit our capital.

Our relations are developing progressively. At the same time, we would prefer more frequent contacts. Our countries’ foreign ministries must take initiative in organising more frequent contacts. Overall, there is room for improvement in trade and the economy as we have rather modest results in those areas. We hope to see Andorran representatives next week at the Open Innovations international forum. It is good to see that tourism is developing in both directions and citizens of our countries support humanitarian and cultural links between Russia and Andorra.







Today we will talk about our contacts and cooperation within the framework of various international bodies, including the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the UN. We value Andorra’s balanced and pragmatic position in all these organisations.

Welcome!




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3370684






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Andorra Maria Ubach, Moscow, October 10, 2018




10 October 2018 - 14:41







Ms Minister,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Russia and Andorra established diplomatic relations more than twenty years ago. Since that time we have achieved a high level of mutual trust and made significant progress towards mutually beneficial cooperation in various areas – and the talks today confirmed it.

Our friendly links continue to develop progressively. Russia and Andorra follow the practice of agreeing approaches on a number of issues within the framework of the UN, including during elections to UN bodies, which is illustrative of our efficient cooperation.

As concerns other areas of bilateral cooperation, I would like to note the agreement between the Russian Federal Service for Financial Monitoring and the Andorran Financial Intelligence Unit, which has been successfully implemented for several years and helps us to cooperate in countering gains obtained through illegal means.

We developed a draft agreement on international motor service that will facilitate operations of our respective companies involved. In 2018, we exchanged cargo permits, which was the first step towards the new agreement.

Our cultural links are progressing and tourism is their important component. The number of Russians who travel to the Principality, primarily in winter, is growing steadily. Last year, Andorra had 40,000 Russian visitors. In response, we will be happy to welcome Andorran citizens who wish to visit Russia and enjoy our hospitality.

I also would like to note that the agreement signed last year between the Krasnaya Polyana resort and the Ski Andorra agency will also contribute to tourism exchanges. This was also one of the specific steps that are to create more comfortable conditions for contacts between our peoples.

We have held Days of Russian Culture in Andorra. Special concerts devoted to the 20th anniversary of establishing diplomatic relations were organised. Today we have agreed to prepare an intensive programme of events for the 25th anniversary of our relations, which we will celebrate in a few years.

Regarding humanitarian ties, I would like to mention the project that was completed in 2016 with the financial support of the Federal Agency for Press and Mass Media and the Government of Andorra. I am referring to the joint cultural project, notably the publication of the book “Andorra and the Poet.” You can see copies of this book here. You can take them after the news conference.

This publication in Russian and Catalan is devoted to the memory of Maximilian Voloshin, a great Russian poet from the Silver Age, a literary critic, a painter, a man of great talents, with big life energy and a surprising destiny.

He described his journey to Andorra in 1901, opening this Pyrenean principality to Russian readers. His impressions and the drawings that you see in the book are very interesting.

Today we are honoured to present this book that has replenished a series of books issued in the Principality that could be tentatively called “Andorra through the eyes of foreigners.” Using this opportunity, I would like to thank all those who put their hearts into this important project.

In her preface to this book, Yekaterina Geniyeva, former director of the Russian Library of Foreign Literature, who regrettably is not with us anymore, noted that Voloshin “did everything to avoid imposing unilateral opinions on others” and that his favourite hobby was to “discuss rather than instruct.” I think this approach is what is wanted in general and in part, in the process of international communications. At any rate, we try to develop our policy and contacts with our foreign partners based on this.

I was pleased to hear from Ms Prime Minister that a small but fairly active Russian community in Andorra (about 600 people) is very interested in relations between our countries and is ready to do anything to improve and promote them. I am sure that the Government of Andorra and the Government of the Russian Federation will support this approach.







Question (to Maria Ubach):

Many Russian tourists visit Andorra. Do you plan to build your own airport, because then you could consider visa-free travel for Russian citizens?



Sergey Lavrov (replies after Maria Ubach):

Speaking about large numbers of Russian tourists, I would like to add that 40,000 Russian tourists are far from the biggest part of those who visit Andorra. There are millions of tourists from all countries who come to visit Andorra. What Ms Minister explained indicates what they think about it in their principality.

You also suggested that an airport could make it possible to cancel visa requirements for Russian citizens. But Russians do not need visas to travel to Andorra. They need visas to enter France or Spain and then they come to Andorra without a visa. However, Andorran citizens need visas to travel to Russia. Today we agreed to remove this injustice and start consultations on drafting an agreement on a reciprocal suspension of visa requirements. I hope we will be able to do this soon.



Question:

The deadline for the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the demilitarised zone in Idlib Province expires today according to the recent agreements between the Russian and Turkish presidents. What does Moscow think about the implementation of these agreements and the commitment of the sides to them, especially the separate groups concentrated in this zone?



Sergey Lavrov:

The agreements on the creation of a demilitarised zone in Idlib reached by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan on September 17 in Sochi are being carried out. The main role in this respect is played by our Turkish partners that are working hard to compel the local groups to cooperate in resolving this objective. According to our information, this process is steadily underway.

The deadline by which these demilitarised zones must be fully functional expires on October 15. Two or three days do not matter. The quality of this work is more important. The main point is that this process in ongoing. We are actively supporting the efforts of our Turkish partners.



Question:

Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu announced about a planned meeting with President of Russia Vladimir Putin. Do you know when this meeting will take place?

In the context of talk about this meeting, can you comment on Netanyahu’s statement on international recognition of Israeli control over the Golan Heights and Tel Aviv’s resolve to continue fighting against the Iranian threat in Syria and groups associated by the Israelis with Iran on that territory?



Sergey Lavrov:

This proposal has been received. Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov commented on it. Dates are discussed by the Presidential Executive Office and the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel.

As for a comment on the Golan Heights, their status is determined by UN Security Council resolutions. Changing it in circumvention of the UN Security Council would be a direct violation of these resolutions.

We would prefer if all external players involved in the Syrian conflict in this or any other way would be guided by the main goal – providing support to the Syrian Government in uncompromising eradication of the terrorist threat on Syrian soil as required by UN Security Council Resolution 2254. I think we should judge these and other actions based on this criterion.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3370969






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the presentation of the multi-volume work “World History”, Moscow, October 10, 2018



10 October 2018 - 19:05







Mr Shvydkoy,

Mr Chubaryan,

Colleagues and friends,

We have gathered today on a wonderful occasion – a ceremony to mark the publication of a fundamental academic work “World History in Six Volumes” edited by Russian Academy of Sciences member Alexander Chubaryan.

First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the authors that put their hard work and creativity into its preparation. It is especially important for us that researchers from educational institutions subordinate to the Foreign Ministry – MGIMO and the Diplomatic Academy – took part in this large-scale project.

This project is one of the biggest publishing initiatives in the humanities undertaken in this country in the past few decades. We consider this a testament to the high level of Russian scholarship that drew on domestic and foreign historiography to comprehend the road traversed by humankind from the vantage point of the present.

The volumes of the work are devoted to key historical eras: the Ancient World, medieval civilisations of the East and the West, the Common Era and the world in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.

I would like to note that the team of authors gave prominence to Russia’s role and place in the world historical process.







Naturally, to create such an integral picture of the world the authors took an interdisciplinary approach and drew on advances in fields beyond history, such as economics, sociology, demography, anthropology and philosophy.

The work’s practical significance is apparent. As outstanding Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky once remarked, history “punishes ignorance of its lessons.” Bad-faith distortions of historical truth, including facts of World War II, the outcome of which formed the basis of the international security architecture of the modern world, attempts to whitewash the Nazis and their accomplices are fraught with extremely serious risks, especially considering the current difficult international realities.

Russia is a consistent opponent of politicising historical research and using it in unseemly geopolitical games. We believe that the release of “World History” today by this team of authors will make a tangible contribution to promoting a strictly scholarly assessment of past events that will be unbiased and free of ideological platitudes.

There is no doubt that this work will be much in demand among specialists and a wide circle of readers both in this country and abroad. I would like to thank once again all those who put their hearts into this genuinely unprecedented project.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3371209






Article by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russia and Egypt: Friendship and Cooperation Tested by Time, published in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram on October 13, 2018



13 October 2018 - 07:00



This year we mark the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Egypt. This anniversary has ushered in a new, very important stage in our peoples’ relations, deeply rooted in the past.

Way back in the 15th-17th centuries, Russian travelers who went to the Middle East on business or made a pilgrimage to holy places visited Egypt in order to see the monuments of world culture and learn more about the everyday life of the Egyptians.

The 19th century was a time of rapidly developing trade and economic exchanges. Russia exported to Egypt timber and agricultural produce mainly in exchange for cotton. Regular steamship navigation between Odessa and Alexandria made commerce even brisker. By the end of the century, Russian consular agencies operated in Cairo, Alexandria, Port-Said and Suez and consular agents worked in Luxor, Asyut, El Minya and other cities.

The “land of pyramids” drew great interest among the Russian public, writers and scholars, including such masters of world literature as Alexander Pushkin, Mikhail Lermontov, Leo Tolstoy and Anton Chekhov. The second half of the 19th century saw the inception of Russian Egyptology with Vladimir Golenishchev being one of its pillars. The Egyptian Hall of the Pushkin Fine Arts Museum in Moscow displays the near complete personal collection of that outstanding scholar. Egypt became home to many Russian emigrants who by some turn of fate had to leave their homeland in the 1920s.

Cairo’s declaration of independence in 1923 opened a new page in the many-century chronicle of Russian-Egyptian relations. On August 26, 1943 – at the height of WWII – diplomatic relations were established. And the first agreement on economic cooperation was concluded as soon as in 1948.

Our peoples joined efforts for the sake of the lofty ideals of peace, freedom, truth and justice on many occasions. We stood shoulder to shoulder during the Suez crisis in 1956. We were together during the Six-Day War in 1967 when the Soviet Union took exhaustive measures to reinforce Egypt’s defence potential.

It was at that time when new long-term forms of economic cooperation were developed. Their symbols are the construction of the high-altitude Aswan Dam, the Helwan steelworks and the Nag Hammadi aluminum smelter. Thousands of specialists were trained in a multitude of vocational centres and medical establishments opened in Egypt. Cultural and scientific ties gained ground. We are rightly proud of those common achievements.

The experience of fruitful joint work and the reliance on friendship, trust, mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests form the solid basis of our relations, which have reached the level of all-round partnership and strategic cooperation.

Our political dialogue is making great strides. Trade – which has exceeded the $6.5 billion mark – keeps on growing. The implementation of such major projects as the construction of the Russian-model nuclear power station in El Dabaa and the building of an industrial area in the vicinity of Suez has begun.

Our cooperation in the military and military-technical areas enables the Egyptian armed forces and law enforcement authorities to counter the terrorist threat more effectively. New forms of cooperation in this sphere are successfully mastered: joint antiterrorist exercises of the two countries’ airborne troops, Defenders of Friendship 2016 and Defenders of Friendship 2017, were conducted in Egypt in October 2016 and in Russia in September 2017.

Our parliaments, ministries and departments are working hand in glove. The legal framework is being improved. The activity of the intergovernmental commissions on trade, economic and military-technical cooperation deserves praise.

We are interested in expanding cultural ties and contacts between people. Implementation of this task will only benefit from the decision of Russian President Vladimir Putin – adopted during his visit to Cairo in December 2017 – to resume direct flights between our capitals that were suspended in October 2015 after the terrorist attack on board a Russian plane flying over the Sinai Peninsula. It is important today to continue joint efforts aimed at increasing security for the citizens of our countries, including on air transport. I am sure that it will lead tourism progress to a new stage.

The Russian-Egyptian dialogue in the international arena is based on our commitment to the development of a more just and democratic polycentric world order relying on the fundamental rules of international communication enshrined in the UN Charter. Moscow and Cairo are consistent in advocating for the settlement of numerous crises and conflicts solely by political and diplomatic methods, uniting the international community in combatting terrorism and extremism, and strengthening the nonproliferation regime for weapons of mass destruction. On our part, we are prepared for greater coordination on a variety of multilateral platforms, primarily for the sake of maintaining peace and security in the Middle East and ensuring the right of the peoples in the region to independently decide their own destiny.

Thus, all of the above make it possible to break new ground in the comprehensive partnership of Russia and Egypt for the prosperity of our citizens and maintaining global and regional stability. We will continue to work on this noble task together with our Egyptian friends.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3373332






The following events are not displayed in the English version.


8 October 2018

Telephone conversation of S. Lavrov with Iranian Foreign Minister M.Zarif - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3368662


12 October 2018

S. Lavrov meeting with V. Vladimirov, Governor of the Stavropol Territory - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3372686

On S. Lavrov's congratulations to the elected members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3372713
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 21st, 2018 #518
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Almost no events in which persons of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia participated or its non-personal statements which were translated.





Personal events:





Statement by Vladimir I. Yermakov, Head of delegation of the Russian Federation to the First Committee of the 73th UNGA session, Director of the Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, within the General Debate, New York, October 9, 2018



10 October 2018 - 10:59




Distinguished Mr. Chairperson,

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your election to this high position, to wish you success in your work and to assure you that you can count on full-fledged assistance of the Russian delegation in conducting substantive discussions on the proposed agenda.

Modern international relations are characterized by the growth of political turbulence, tensions and unpredictability, by the exacerbation of the old and emergence of the new threats to international and regional security and by the multiplication of military and political factors undermining international peace.

In such conditions, the issues of ensuring strategic stability, which is now being subjected to the most serious tests, come to the fore. The creation of the necessary conditions for strengthening international security, establishing equal and mutually beneficial multilateral cooperation in order to further advance along the path of general and complete disarmament, the key dimension of which is achieving a nuclear-free world, depends on the solution of these issues.

As a responsible and consistent proponent of nuclear disarmament, the Russian Federation for over 50 years has been making its exceptionally large-scale contribution to the reduction of strategic offensive arms. On the 5th of February this year Russia reached the limits for delivery vehicles and warheads envisaged by the New START Treaty. As a result, Russian nuclear arsenal has been reduced by more than 85% compared to the peak of the Cold War.

We intend to continue moving down this path. We are ready to explore the option of extending the New START for another five years. The Treaty provides for this. However, it is first necessary to settle all remaining questions regarding its implementation by the US (in particular, with respect to the unilateral exclusion from the accountability of a significant number of strategic offensive arms bypassing the norms stipulated in the Treaty). We need an interested and responsible partner.

Further progress along the path of nuclear disarmament is impossible without all States with military nuclear capability joining the relevant efforts. First of all, it concerns the corresponding countries of the NATO military alliance. However, to our deep regret, so far none of them has expressed such intent.

Supporting the idea of liberating the planet from nuclear weapons, we stand for a measured incremental approach based on taking into account all the factors affecting strategic stability. The principle of the mandatory simultaneous strengthening of the security of all the participants to the process of eliminating nuclear weapons remains crucial as nuclear arsenals are reduced.

It is impossible to ignore the phenomena and factors of the modern military and political situation that have a destructive impact on strategic stability and international security. Among them, first of all, we should highlight the provisions of the updated US nuclear doctrine which result in lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, as well as unrestricted expansion of a global US missile defense system.

Of equal concern is the prospect of placement of weapons in outer space. Recently, more and more signals have been received about active preparation by some countries for conducting combat operations in the near-Earth space. There are also serious questions with regard to actions by our US colleagues contrary to the INF Treaty, including on-ground deployment of Mk-41 universal launchers on the territory of Romania and Poland. Relevant administrative decisions are being taken and budget documents adopted, military-political and economic groundwork is being laid, and a massive indoctrination of national and international public opinion is being conducted.

Nuclear disarmament is also hampered by the remaining non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe accompanied by the destabilizing practices of the so-called NATO "nuclear sharing", which provides for involvement of non-nuclear States of the Alliance in the planning of nuclear weapons employment and in relevant training, which is a direct violation of the NPT.

Political games around the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) are also a serious factor that has a negative impact on strategic stability. The new nuclear doctrine of the United States, in essence, dooms the prospects for the entry into force of the CTBT, in other words, it negates the very further existence of the Treaty as a full-fledged international legal instrument. In such situation, there can be no question of accelerated completion of the establishment of the CTBT verification mechanism and of its provisional operation before the Treaty’s entry into force.

We are against such hasty opportunistic decisions in the field of nuclear disarmament as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). A ban on nuclear weapons would only make sense after the complete elimination of military nuclear arsenals in order to ensure the irreversibility of nuclear disarmament in the framework of general and complete disarmament.

We have to admit that in its current form a TPNW does not reach its intended purpose and in no way contributes to further reduction of nuclear arsenals. On the contrary, it feeds inflated expectations and creates an illusion that the issue of nuclear weapons could be settled while factors influencing strategic stability and basic principles of disarmament are being ignored.

Such a new prohibitive instrument contradicts the NPT and undermines the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. The TPNW provokes a sense of discord within the international community, distracting it from the real task of establishing the necessary conditions for continuing the process of nuclear disarmament.

Mr. Chairperson,

We are in the middle of another NPT review cycle. We approached the 50th anniversary of the NPT's opening for signature in very complex environment. The contradictions between nuclear and non-nuclear States are deepening, and the differences inside these groups are intensifying. The universally recognized norms and mechanisms in the field of nuclear non-proliferation are being undermined and subjected to revision. Recently, this was complemented by the attempts to use the NPT review process as a tribune to exert political pressure on certain States and efforts to raise the topics unrelated to the Treaty.

We still have a “zero” result with the implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the establishment of a zone free from nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Further inaction in this area is fraught with serious consequences for the NPT.

The UN GA draft decision presented by the League of Arab States on the convening a Conference on WMDFZ not later than June 2019 in current deadlock situation becomes particularly relevant. With its adoption the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East will be brought to practical implementation. The draft decision doesn’t contradict the interests of the regional States and deserves the fullest support.

We have repeatedly demonstrated our readiness to interact with all the interested countries to convene a Conference on the WMD-free zone and proposed practical steps in this regard. Russia is ready to support LAS initiative and to participate in the Conference. We urge other co-sponsors of this Resolution to take the same constructive position.

The adoption of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for the Iranian nuclear programme (JCPOA) was a major success in the field of nuclear non-proliferation. Teheran fully honors its obligations, which was repeatedly confirmed by the IAEA. Currently Iran is State-Party to the NPT the most inspected by the Agency.

We consider the US withdrawal from the JCPOA as a serious miscalculation undermining the NPT and politically a quite short-sighted step.

Russia intends to live up to its obligations under the JCPOA. Jointly with other participants of the JCPOA we are looking for effective mechanisms to protect trade and economic cooperation with Iran from the extraterritorial US sanctions. We are convinced that truly protective measures against these sanctions could be really effective only if they become collective and create the basis for their joining by all interested States.

We note the role of the IAEA as a unique organization that contributes to the development of international cooperation in the field of peaceful use of atomic energy, as a reliable pillar for the WMD nonproliferation regime based on the NPT, as an important mechanism of international cooperation in the field of strengthening nuclear and physical nuclear security, as well as a significant instrument contributing to international development. We stand for the provision of broad access to the benefits of peaceful atom to all States meeting their obligations in the field of non-proliferation. At the same time, it is fundamentally important for us to preserve impartial, depoliticized, technically justified nature of the IAEA system of safeguards that is based on the agreements concluded between States and the Agency.

We believe that the IAEA must continue to distance itself from any initiatives aimed at its meddling into the issues related to the verification of nuclear disarmament or prohibition of nuclear weapons. We consider such initiatives as an attempt to provoke the IAEA’s departure from the scope of its purposes and functions determined by the Charter.

Dear Mr. Chairperson,

The Russian Federation fully supports the current international regimes of banning chemical, biological and toxin weapons and consistently stands for their strengthening.

We consider extremely destructive for the CWC regime the attempts to give the right to the Director-General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat to practically individually attribute responsibility for the use of toxic agents bypassing the UN Security Council. We hope that States conducting independent policy in the international arena will seriously assess the ongoing situation within the OPCW and at the forthcoming CWC Review Conference will oppose implementation of such odious decisions, destructive for the entire UN system.

Russia repeatedly proposed to establish under the auspices of the UN Security Council an impartial and highly professional international mechanism to investigate all incidents of “chemical terrorism” without exception (first of all, in the Middle East) and in accordance with high standards of the CWC. However, our initiatives fell victim to the reckless and adventurist policy of the irresponsible opponents of the legal Syrian government.

As for the proposal to create “a transitional capability” embedded in the UN Secretariat to investigate the alleged use of biological weapons, we consider it in the context of attempts to build manageable and cooperative structures which are ready to sacrifice their own reputation for the sake of implementation of a political order. Measures in circumvention of the BTWC may lead to the replication of the negative experience of various “alternative investigations”. Any multilateral mechanisms can be created only as a result of full-scale negotiations held between the BTWC State-Parties. Nobody has the right to impose such mechanisms on sovereign States.

We consider the strengthening of the BTWC regime as one of the priority tasks for the international community. The list of existing problems was outlined at the August Meeting of Experts that we were able to hold as a result of consolidated efforts to overcome the crisis that took place after the 8th Review Conference in November 2016.

We believe that now we jointly need to concentrate on the elaboration of measures capable of strengthening the BTWC. We count on the assistance from the Secretary-General and the UN Secretariat.

Dear Mr. Chairperson,

We follow with concern how some States gradually start carrying out their plans on the production and placement in the near-Earth orbit of strike space systems. Their implementation threatens to unleash an arms race in outer space with the view of making it yet another arena for armed confrontation. Such a development threatens to undermine international security and global stability and, therefore, is absolutely unacceptable for us. We do not want to see humanity living once again in the expectation of another Armageddon, now in outer space, as it was the case within several decades after the US bombardment of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the threat of nuclear war sometimes seemed to be highly likely.

This is why Russia remains in the vanguard of multilateral efforts to keep outer space free of weapons of any kind, proposing and promoting concrete practical measures on PAROS. We are still convinced that the only way to protect humankind from the devastating pretentions in outer space is to elaborate a legally binding agreement with all space-faring nations involved that would provide for the prohibition of placement of weapons in outer space, and the use of force or threat of force against outer space objects. While such agreement is not signed, Russia will promote and support any initiatives, contributing to the use and exploration of outer space for peaceful purposes and putting a solid barrier to its weaponization. The only such proposal so far is our No-First Placement Initiative that is increasingly getting global.

We assign a central role in the issues of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation to the UN multilateral disarmament machinery. We are convinced that drafting new disarmament agreements outside the UN mechanisms decreases their efficiency and even reduces it to zero.

We continue to give priority to revitalization of the work of the UN disarmament fora, above all, of the Conference on Disarmament (CD). In this regard, we would like to remind you once again about our constructive and, hopefully, palatable to all initiative that was presented in March 2016 with the aim of overcoming a two-decade-long stagnation in the work of the CD. It is about the elaboration of an international convention on the suppression of acts of chemical and biological terrorism. This way we could launch negotiations at the CD in accordance with the existing mandate.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3370468






Statement by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Oleg Syromolotov at the High-Level International Conference "Preventing and Countering Terrorism in the Digital Age", Minsk, 9 October 2018



12 October 2018 - 14:26



Unofficial translation




Mr. Minister,

Participants,

We thank our Belarusian friends and our colleagues in the OSCE for organizing such a representative international conference to discuss relevant issues of countering international terrorism.

Today, the level of terrorist threats remains unprecedentedly high. The situation is compounded by the fact that in international counter-terrorism cooperation double standards still persist in dealing with terrorists and extremists. States use increasingly diverging approaches to the tasks of combating terrorism, and terrorists take advantage of this situation, getting away with their heinous crimes.

Russia has unique and successful experience in countering international terrorism, including on its own soil – in the North Caucasus. To reinforce our success, we have adopted a broad range of legislative, political, law-enforcement, and socio-economic measures and have taken steps to foster stronger social and inter-ethnic harmony. We have established a nation-wide system for countering terrorism and continue to update relevant laws and practices.

We are willing to share this experience with all interested international partners, including within the OSCE.

We once again demonstrated our expertise in ensuring anti-terrorism protection at major international events by maintaining the highest level of security during the FIFA World Cup in the summer of 2018. Our competent agencies deserve much of the credit. We also thank our foreign colleagues who contributed to that work.

Drawing on its vast, proven experience in countering terrorism, Russia believes that certain fundamental principles should be upheld in the fight against terrorism both at the domestic level and in the framework of international cooperation. We are convinced that it is up to states and their competent agencies to play a leading role in this work. We emphasize that there can be no effective international counter-terrorism cooperation without complying with the UN Charter and principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of states.

We welcome the development of private-public partnership with civil society in the field of combatting terrorism; however, such partnership should necessarily take into account traditional historical, social and cultural particularities of each state and society and never go over the head of sovereign state structures.

It is the current level of terrorist threats that calls for such allocation of counter-terrorism tasks. Only states and their military structures were able to defeat international terrorism, which had grown into a pseudo-state. In Syria, the Syrian army, largely with the support of the Russian military, has brought most of its territory back under the control of its official authorities, killing more than 86 thousand international terrorists, including 4.5 thousand who came from Russia and CIS countries, and deprived terrorists of their strongholds. This made it possible for millions of Syrian citizens to return to peaceful life.

It is yet too early to speak about the surrender of international terrorism. Terrorist groups continue active resistance, changing their tactics, going underground, stepping up their propaganda and recruitment activities, creating sleeper cells, etc. The exodus of foreign terrorist fighters from hotbeds to the countries of their nationality or third countries continues. The terrorist ideology being skillfully spread throughout the global digital space remains the major factor behind the survival of terrorists and formation of new terrorist hotspots.

We have pointed out on multiple occasions that the Western states' practice of absolutizing the right to freedom of expression leads to harmful consequences which basically play into the hands of terrorists, their accomplices, ideologists, and propagandists. An example of such double-dealing in the policy of certain countries is their support for the pseudo humanitarian organization, the White Helmets, which, maintaining close ties with terrorists, is involved in generating fake news on the developments in Syria.

The Russian Federation suggests that a substantial discussion, inter alia within the OSCE, be taken on the Russia-proposed concept of "voluntary counter-terrorist self-restrictions for media outlets and officials." We believe that it is important for the mass media, within their specific functions, as well as for other authoritative sources of public information, namely politicians, representatives of states, scientific and cultural communities, religious leaders to elaborate a special "code of conduct," which would include refraining from giving rise to, or encouraging, the negative information background, which could cause the radicalization of public, political and individual attitudes and further lead to terrorism.

There is no good fighting terrorism without working to cut off its financial and logistical support, including the supplies of military products. An international conference "Countering Illicit Arms Trafficking in the Context of Fighting International Terrorism" was successfully held in Moscow on September 3-4. We thank our international partners, including the OSCE, for their participation in the event. We expect to present the outcomes of this discussion within the relevant international forums, first of all the UN and FATF.

Russia has prepared specific initiatives in support of efforts to prevent the gravest crimes in the information space. This year, we will submit to the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly two draft resolutions: one in support of adopting an initial list of universal rules of responsible behavior of states in the information sphere, and the other, on countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes. We call on OSCE participating states to back up the said Russian ICT-related draft resolutions and to become their co-sponsors.

Finally, a few remarks about our cooperation within the OSCE on counter-terrorism issues. We do not always fully understand the reasoning behind OSCE efforts in this area, namely why the Organization, being the largest regional interstate forum on collective security matters, often wastes its time, energy and resources promoting low-priority issues. This is the case with the apparent blurring of the key counter-terrorism goals by introducing a vague and non-consensus concept of "countering violent extremism" (CVE). I would like to remind you that this concept has not yet obtained consolidated approval within the UN. We have repeatedly pointed out the fact that under the guise of "best practice" in the CVE sphere, certain international "standards" for the re-education of civil society are being imposed on states, over the head of legitimate authorities and with the participation of "independent international experts". This is exactly the way that dangerous scenarios of illegal interference in internal political affairs of states eventually emerge, leading to an increased terrorist and extremist threat.

Nonetheless, with many other regional cooperation formats losing their momentum, the OSCE preserves its role as a forum for dialogue and coordination on key security matters. In this regard, we consider annual OSCE Counter-Terrorism Conferences to be highly productive. Moreover, we believe that there are other possibilities for raising the Organization’s counter-terrorism profile, primarily through strengthening interstate dialogue and establishing additional mechanisms to this end. We intend to prepare relevant proposals for the upcoming OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Milan. We hope that all OSCE Participating States will support these proposals.

The Russian side is well-prepared to participate in all three thematic sessions of the Conference. Our highly qualified experts from different agencies will present in detail Russia's experience of countering and preventing terrorism both online and in real life.

I wish fruitful work to all the participants in the Conference.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3372672






8 October 2018

Interview of G. Karasin to the newspaper “Izvestia”, published on October 8, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3368404

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Choi Son-Hee - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3368871

Meeting of G. Karasin with the Ambassador of Uzbekistan to Russia B. Asadov - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3369037

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Egypt in Moscow I. Nasr - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3369305

Meeting of A. Grushko with Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Kingdom of Spain to the Russian Federation F. Valderrama Pareha - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3369383

Interview of S. Vershinin with Russia Today International News Agency, October 8, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3369410

Meeting of I. Morgulov with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China Kun Xuan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3369464


9 October 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the appointed Ambassador of the Kingdom of Lesotho to Russia Retselisitso Masenets - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3369854

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of India in Moscow V.Varma - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3369864

Meeting of A. Grushko with the appointed Ambassador of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana in Russia F. Case - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3370303


10 October 2018

Meeting of I. Morgulov with Francis Mariur Matsutaro, appointed Ambassador of the Republic of Palau to the Russian Federation - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3370458

Interview of O. Syromolotov to Tass News Agency, October 9, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3370999

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with Deputy Director General - Head of the Department of Safeguards of the IAEA Secretariat M. Aparo - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3371162


11 October 2018

Meeting of A. Grushko with the Ambassador of Luxembourg to the Russian Federation Jean-Claude Knebeler - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3371759

On the working visit of M. Bogdanov to the Republic of Liberia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3371962

Speech by A. Kuznetsov at the 205th session of the UNESCO Executive Board, Paris, October 8, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3371972

Speech by G. Kalamanov at the 89th session of the Executive Council of the OPCW, The Hague, October 10, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3371990


12 October 2018

Meeting of A. Grushko with the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, Head of the UN Mission for the Interim Administration in Kosovo Z. Tanin - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3372513

Meeting of S. Vershinin with the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, Head of the UN Mission for the Interim Administration in Kosovo Z. Tanin - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3372523

Speech by A. Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk agreements, Vienna, October 11, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3372737

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the Ambassador of India to Russia V. Varma - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3373297


13 October 2018

On the participation of M. Bogdanov in the celebrations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3373346






Non-personal events:


8 October 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the publication by the US State Department of data on the total quantities of US strategic offensive arms - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3369429

About the VI meeting of the Group of Experts on International Anti-Extremist Cooperation - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3369444

On summoning to the Russian Foreign Ministry Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands R. Jones-Bos - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3369474


9 October 2018

On the transfer of humanitarian aid to Indonesia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3370289


10 October 2018

Joint Information Communiqué on Tripartite Consultations of Deputy Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation, People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3370331

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the adoption by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of a draft law extending the Law on the Special Status of Donbass for one year - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3370422

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the statements of the Japanese side regarding the actions of the Russian Federation in the southern Kuril Islands - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3370989

On the signing by the Russian Federation of the Protocol on Amendments to the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Individuals with the Automated Processing of Personal Data - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3371152

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the desecration of a Soviet military burial in the town of Jelenia Góra (Poland) - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3371261

About Security and Stability Consulting in Transcaucasia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3371271


11 October 2018

About the International Arctic Media Congress - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3371316

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the statement of the elected member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3372005


12 October 2018

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with unfounded accusations against the Russian side in a cyber attack on the headquarters of the OPCW - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3372633

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding statements by the US Special Representative for Ukraine - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3373307


13 October 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the statements of the Chief Special Prosecutor of Montenegro, M.Katnic - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3373398
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 21st, 2018 #519
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Koktebel, October 10, 2018



10 October 2018 - 18:29







Good afternoon, colleagues,

We are holding today's regular offsite briefing in wonderful Koktebel.

We have visited exciting, beautiful, evolving and rapidly growing Crimea on a number of occasions and found interesting and unconventional locations for our briefings. Recently, we visited Kerch and drove across the bridge. We visited Artek, where it all began. We visited the area outside Yalta and the amazing hotel Mriya; we toured various sites, including the embankment in Sevastopol, and took part in various media forums; we visited Simferopol and Alushta, where we were received by Alexander Lebedev. But this time is really a dream come true, because, honestly, I have been dreaming of visiting Koktebel since my school days and I have always been into Russian poetry of the Silver Age, I have to admit. After reading biographies and poems of that era, I imagined this would happen someday. And at last there is an occasion, and not just one.



Donating the book Andorra and the Poet to the Voloshin House Museum in Koktebel

Just several hours ago, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Andorran counterpart presented a book called Andorra and the Poet at the Reception House of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow. We had announced its publication. It is dedicated to the works and some chapters of the biography of Maximilian Voloshin, a great Russian poet, who was one of the first to help the Russian public discover Andorra in the early 20th century.

The book has been published in two languages, Russian and Catalan. It is symbolic that immediately after its presentation by the two countries’ foreign ministers, we are in Koktebel today. We can say that Koktebel was a special place for Voloshin and Silver Age poets. They all visited this place.

Following the briefing, we will donate copies of the book to the museum, where we can speak on the topic in more detail.

I would like to thank Dmitry Kiselev, who learned about our desire to visit Koktebel and about our request, responded to it and offered his house as a venue for our briefing today. And here we are, at this amazing site near the sea.

Thank you very much. Mr Kiselev!

I think we can start now.



Crimea’s international and interregional ties

Given that we are on Crimean soil, I would like to follow tradition and talk about Crimea’s international and interregional ties.

We are pleased to note increasing demand for an unbiased view of Crimea, an interest in interaction with it from foreign business, public and political circles. We see this interest growing. An increasing number of foreign delegations is a reflection of this trend. For instance, there were over 100 of them in 2017. We expect as impressive a number this year. High-profile international events hosted by the peninsula have become further proof of the trend towards cooperation. I am not the one to tell you about them given that there are many local journalists here.

As an example, I would like to remind our colleagues and the audience “on the mainland” that the fourth Yalta International Economic Forum last April was a key venue for discussing interaction with Crimea and promoting investment opportunities here. We expect meaningful results from the representative conference, Crimea in a Modern International Context, to be held October 25-27.

We see a big potential in expanding Crimea’s international ties via non-government organisations. For example, recent visits by unbiased NGOs from Norway, Germany and the United States contributed to drawing a true picture of life in Crimean regions of the Russian Federation. Regional and municipal deputies from some countries in Europe and Asia have shown real interest in establishing contacts with their colleagues on the peninsula.

We invite everyone to visit Crimea and see for themselves the real state of affairs on the peninsula. We have talked about this a number of times at different levels starting with the foreign minister, our ambassadors, and the experts. We invite foreign diplomats, officials from international organisations to come and see with their own eyes the positive trends and the lingering problems there rather than reach political conclusions based on ungrounded media-spun reports that often have no bearing on reality.

We are ready for dialogue, including with relevant inter-state entities, within the procedures applied by the Russian Federation on its territory, and also to receive their missions in Crimea if they are sent within the mandate of a specific organisation in accordance with the procedures applicable to visiting our country.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in a Valdai Club meeting

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the 15th annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi on October 18.

During the years of its existence, the Valdai forum has earned a reputation as one of the most authoritative venues of expert dialogue in Russia. The Foreign Ministry highly regards its contribution to the public discussion of major issues regarding national security and foreign policy. The participation of the President of the Russian Federation, heads of federal executive bodies and many foreign guests and experts impart special significance to the club’s meetings.

Per tradition, during the forthcoming meeting Mr Lavrov will share his assessments of international affairs in real-life communication with the audience and will reply to questions, which are usually numerous.



Maria Butina update

We are watching the situation involving Russian citizen Maria Butina (as you know, she was arrested in the United States on absolutely far-fetched charges). On October 4, Russian diplomats visited her in prison again. Maria did not complain about any health problems. Owing to the efforts of the Russian Embassy in the US, her confinement conditions were improved.

In the meantime, we are indignant over the campaign to smear Butina in the US media. This is not even propaganda but deliberate distortion of reality and information. We are particularly concerned about the fact that this is done openly, with the prompting of US government bodies, notably, the US Department of Justice that is trying to portray Butina as some kind of “spy.” Our consular visits to Butina are presented as evidence of her “connection” with the Russian Government. As you know from our accounts (many journalists can confirm this) we visit all Russian citizens who get into trouble, who are in prison.

The US Department of State replies to our demarches with clichés about the need to address any arising problems with the judicial bodies. However, this is an obvious arbitrary action because Maria has been in prison since July. She has not committed any crimes. In other words, she is a political prisoner. This is exactly how we qualify it.

We demand that the US authorities stop this outrage against a Russian citizen. We will continue working for Butina’s release from prison and the dismissal of all charges against her.



150 days since Kirill Vyshinsky’s arrest

This Friday it will be 150 days since Director of the RIA Novosti-Ukraine website Kirill Vyshinsky was arrested on the absurd charges of high treason.

One more professional who was only doing his job as a journalist in full conformity with Ukrainian law and under condition of absolutely open editorial policy (I have talked to many of his colleagues and friends – he sincerely loved Ukraine, and the people with whom he socialised and lived, and did not separate himself from, sincerely believed in his profession, and it is possible to say that he sincerely trusted Ukraine that in turn mistreated him like this) has fallen victim to a campaign of reprisals against the mass media that is unprecedented in modern Europe and that is gaining momentum in Ukraine (I will talk about this separately). Channels are being shut down; journalists are subjected to physical abuse, including murder; foreign journalists are deported from the country. Human destinies are broken under the excuse of “fighting information aggression.” History has seen all of this and it has always ended tragically. The Kiev regime is actually following in the wake of these historical mistakes.

We demand that Kirill be freed immediately.

We again urge the relevant UN agencies, the OSCE, UNESCO, the International Federation of Journalists, Reporters without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Ukraine’s National Union of Journalists, the European Union, Western governments and simply Kirill’s colleagues, journalists from all countries to denounce the actions of the Kiev government, to demand his release and come to certain conclusions about the character of the Kiev’s media policy. In this case, silence equals complicity in the creation of a totalitarian information space in the very heart of Europe.



Syria update

The overall situation in Syria remains tense. Meanwhile, the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Stabilisation of the Situation in the Idlib De-escalation Zone is ongoing (as you may recall, this was signed following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s talks with Turkish President Recep Erdogan in Sochi on September 17).

In compliance with the document, all tanks, multiple rocket launchers, artillery systems and mortars of the conflicting sides were to be withdrawn as of today, while the withdrawal of all radical terrorist groups was to be completed by October 15.

A few hours ago Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave a detailed comment on the situation after his talks with his Andorra counterpart. You can see the video and text on the Foreign Ministry site.

We have already noted that some armed Syrian opposition groups in Idlib have stated their support for the Sochi agreements. As of now over a thousand militants have vacated the demilitarised zone and over a hundred units of military equipment were withdrawn. Yesterday, on October 9, Turkish media reported that the withdrawal of heavy equipment had been completed. We are in the process of checking this information with our experts.

Radicals, primarily those from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, continue to try to break up the implementation of the September 17 memorandum. Shelling of residential areas to the west of Aleppo continues. Ceasefire violations by the terrorists in the north of Latakia and Hama provinces are being recorded.

Concurrently, the infighting continues in the Idlib zone between the various radical groups. At least 12 al-Nusra militants and 8 leaders of other illegal armed groups have been killed there in the past 30 days. Again, that’s about two dozen extremist organisation members!

Unfortunately, developments on the eastern bank of the Euphrates are cause for increasing concern. In reality, the Americans are in charge of this area, relying on their allies from among Kurds. The efforts they are making to set up a sort of special administration that is unrelated to the current Constitution of Syria are yielding results that are far from positive, judging by the developments we see “on the ground.” Such quasi statehood activities cause irritation among the non-Kurdish population – the Arabs, Assyrians and Turkomans. The local people are expressing special concerns about the lawlessness of the Asayish security service managed by the Americans. The media gets an increasing number of reports on armed attacks or terrorist assaults on these territories including the area of Raqqa which had been liberated form ISIS some time ago. According to media reports, the terrorists who survived and are rising again in the absence of legitimate power, and also those who for various reasons came into conflict with the administration established by the US across the Euphrates, are taking part in “guerilla” attacks.

For example, on October 3, three Kurdish security personnel were killed and two civilians were wounded in an explosion outside the Asayish checkpoint in Manbij. On the same day, in the vicinity of Raqqa, Islamists from the Popular Resistance of the Eastern Areas movement attacked a stronghold of the Syrian Democratic Forces killing four Kurdish militiamen. In this connection, we note the deployment of additional Kurdish self-defence units to the above areas.

An “odd war” of Kurdish units supported by the US with ISIS has been going on for several months in the south of the Trans-Euphrates area in Hajin and Sousa in the Euphrates valley. The media release daily reports of this, symbolically speaking, “epic battle,” as it is presented, but an end is nowhere to be seen. The purpose behind this petty propagandistic fiddling, not even a campaign, is apparent − to drive home to the public the theme of a continued ISIS presence on Syrian soil. Consequently, the conclusion is drawn that the US military presence in Syria, which is, I repeat, illegal, needs to continue to keep fighting terrorism, as it is presented.

Russia’s assessment of the armed foreign presence in Syria remains the same. You are aware of this, but let me repeat: those service personnel who were invited and accepted by the Syrian government, including the Astana process, are legally present on the territory of the country, as are the UN peacekeeping force on the Golan Heights, which is acting under UN mandate. All other foreign armed forces are there in violation of Syria’s sovereignty. As the above developments in the Trans-Euphrates area indicate, such actions do not entail long-tern normalisation of the situation, on the contrary – they hinder reaching this key goal.



Syrian President’s decree on amnesty for military deserters

I would like to note that on October 9, the official Syrian news agency SANA published a report that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had issued Legislative Decree No. 18 granting general amnesty for those who hid from military conscription. The document exempts from criminal liability for crimes included in the Military Penalties Law issued by Legislative Decree No. 61 of 1950 and its amendments.

The decree automatically covers the respective category of Syrian residents inside and outside the country. An exception is made for individuals hiding from justice and those who are on the wanted list. In order to be granted amnesty, those remaining inside the country must turn themselves in within four months after the issuance of the decree, and those outside the country – within six months.

Moscow welcomes the decree and views it as another very important step of the Syrian government towards overcoming the aftermath of the armed conflict in the country and the long-term stabilisation of the situation. This measure is to play a special role in creating favourable conditions for the return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their homes.

Russia, on its part, will continue close coordination and interaction with Syrian authorities as well as all other parties concerned within the initiative to ensure a prompt return of Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons.



Violations of UNSC counter-terrorism resolutions by US and British humanitarian agencies shipping humanitarian aid to northern Syria without consent of the Syrian authorities

Last week a number of Western media outlets reported that a ‘toll” is levied on all cargoes from abroad for the terrorists’ treasury in the regions outside government control in the north of the country, including at the Bab al-Hawa border crossing, where the situation is controlled by terrorists, in particular, those of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham terrorist organisation (let me remind you that it is the former Jabhat al-Nusra). In particular, London’s The Telegraph reported that 5,000 to 7,000 lorries a month are levied with such a tax at this checkpoint alone. According to the newspaper, such illegal “taxing” gives terrorists around £3 million every month.

The UK’s Department for International Development and the US Agency for International Development are reported to have stopped humanitarian aid deliveries through the above border checkpoint following the scandalous developments.

Let me reiterate that we use the data published in the media. We would also like to hear official statements in this regard.

Jabhat al-Nusra is on the UNSC terrorist sanctions list, and remittance of any financial funds in any form is a direct violation of the Security Council resolutions, of which Moscow reminded its international partners more than once. Those who fund terrorists should themselves be included on the sanctions list. We expect that these actions will, for a start, be thoroughly investigated by UN experts.

The Americans and the British, who by the way never miss a chance to criticise the Russian side for alleged non-compliance with certain UNSC sanction regimes, made a long overdue decision to stop state-funded humanitarian deliveries to the Idlib area. The dues charged by the terrorists had always been there, and we spoke about it and cited facts, and we continue to do it. In particular, we spread that information in the UN Security Council. Regrettably, some non-governmental organisations keep working in that area, carrying their humanitarian aid directly to the regions out of the government control in the north of Syria, thus continuing to nourish terrorists. Who delivers what via border checkpoints managed by the militants is something yet to be determined since the international community does not have the exact data. However, the developments are becoming clearer. But we need solid facts to come to conclusions. This is exactly what we would like to see.

We have been and continue urging the UN Secretariat and Security Council members to cancel the 2014 mandate on the so-called trans-border deliveries of humanitarian aid through a number of checkpoints including Bab al-Hawa. Let me explain why: the point is that the Syrian government only has to be informed but it is not necessary to wait for any authorisation, which also runs contrary to the UN principles of rendering urgent humanitarian aid. This measure was introduced during the acute stage in the Syrian crisis, when there was no other way to deliver help to those in need. Whereas today, when the situation has largely normalised in the greater part of the country’s territory, there is no need for these trans-border deliveries.

We believe relevant conclusions should be made from the facts of financial backing of the terrorists via trans-border humanitarian aid deliveries, when the issue of extending the trans-border mechanism comes up at the UN Security Council at the end of the year.



Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada adopts bill to make Ukrainian the country’s national language

As you know, on October 4, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine upheld a bill, in its first reading, to ensure the Ukrainian language’s role as the official national language. The approved bill is the most radical of the four optional solutions to the language issue.

This “legal initiative” as it was described, although, of course, it is in essence something completely different, continues Kiev’s policy of total Ukrainisation of society and will affect education, culture, healthcare, the judicial system, the mass media, and even consumer services.

A special Commission on national language standards will monitor implementation of the law. Additionally, a new post will be created, a commissioner for the protection of the Ukrainian language, to whom government bodies and public associations will be obligated to send any required information. In fact, Ukrainian politicians speak more than anybody else about their mentality being close to European values. They could have simply opened a reference book and they would have seen that commissioners for language issues are usually appointed when minorities are deprived of the opportunity to speak their native languages, which is, in fact, what is happening in Ukraine right now. But, it is completely absurd to do everything possible to curb any opportunities for minorities (although this term does not accurately describe such ethnicities as Russians, Hungarians, etc. who are also indigenous to Ukraine and contributed to the shaping of the country’s wellbeing, culture, traditions, history – its wealth in all senses). It is totally absurd to, on the one hand, do everything possible to restrict their rights, which are not being fully honoured anyway, and, on the other hand, to propose appointing a commissioner in order to grant the country’s main language a completely strange status which nobody ever even encroached on. This proposal has already been passed in the first reading. The commissioner will also be able to take legal action against those who break the law. Therefore, this is not a person who will ensure that rights are observed but a person or, perhaps, an entire institution that will monitor and probably even report to authorities how much one language is being used and another language is not being used. Once again, this has nothing to do with observing the rights of ethnic minorities, it is about the Ukrainian language. This is a paradox for the modern world.

The bill introduces a mandatory national Ukrainian language test for all citizens involved in areas specified by law, who must use the national language in their professional activity.

According to the authors of the bill, “public disrespect or humiliation of the Ukrainian language” will be qualified as unlawful and punishable by a large fine, a six-month detention or a prison sentence of up to three years. Attempts to “introduce the official use of multiple languages” will be regarded as “a language division in the country, aimed at changing power by force or undermining the constitutional system.” Who is saying this? People who took power by force in a coup and have been undermining Ukraine’s constitutional system repeatedly for many years. What a peculiar world.

This type of innovation disagrees primarily (we don’t have to look far) with the Ukrainian Constitution that guarantees “the free development, use and protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine” (Article 10).

Provisions of the bill contradict Article 6 of the Law On Ethnic Minorities in Ukraine, according to which the state guarantees all ethnic minorities free communication and use of their native language in culture, media, education and other areas of public life.

It is obvious that there is a grave violation of this by Kiev (and now Europe has started to point this out). Kiev’s contravention of its international legal obligations regarding human rights comes despite the recommendations of international bodies, including the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, which Kiev often refers to.

We see this as an attempt by the governing regime to play the ‘language card’ for the sake of preserving power. It appears that Kiev is not bothered by the growing tension and discord in Ukrainian society as a consequence of the violation of the rights and interests of millions of citizens.



Kiev authorities set to restrict the work of Ukrainian television channels 112 Ukraine and NewsOne

Recently the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine passed a resolution calling to impose severe restrictions on a number of television channels including 112 Ukraine and NewsOne by among other things freezing their assets and banning their licences and use of frequencies. The developments are presented as countering “foreign propaganda and spreading terrorism ideology.” Such cleansing acts have already been applied against their media outlets. In case the proposed restrictions are supported by the Ukrainian Security Council, it would in reality amount to the above television channels discontinuing their work. This is a real war in the domestic information space, a fight against dissident thinking, an assault on the independent media. Kiev politicians keep publicly pointing out their commitment to the principles of Western democracy and freedom of speech whereas in reality they are engaged in information banditry as they proceed to shut down unwanted media outlets under false pretexts, filing criminal cases against journalists on fake charges.

We regard the above initiative – I want to stress – of the pro-President parliamentary coalition as yet another outrageous fact of Kiev’s violations of its obligations to protect human rights as well as freedom of speech. We call on international organisations and human rights activists to properly assess these actions.

A day hardly goes by without us hearing statements from Kiev demanding the release of Oleg Sentsov and rallies are held to this effect. I would like to address the Kiev authorities: have mercy on Oleg Sentsov. When he is released from prison, he will not recognise the country he wants to go back to. What are you doing? You are maiming your civic society!



Afghanistan update

October 7 marked 17 years of the US troops presence in Afghanistan. Throughout these years they failed to cope with the threats of terrorism, extremism and drug trafficking from the Afghan territory. It is painful for us to point this out. On the contrary, the threats became greater and turned into a “headache” practically for the whole world. The death of 35 army and police personnel and at least 19 civilians on this day alone is clear evidence of that. These numbers depict the situation in the country better than any assessments.

A little earlier, on October 4, according to the data which was available, a US drone launched one more wrong missile attack on the Maruf district of the Kandahar province in the south of the country killing four civilians – three women and a child – and wounding eight people. The victims’ families demanded an official investigation from the Afghan authorities. We hope it will be conducted and those found guilty be brought to justice.

We believe that 17 years should suffice to realise the impossibility and futility of solving the Afghan problem militarily. The only way to stop the country’s conflict which has been going on for years is by reaching a general agreement in Afghanistan via political and diplomatic means.

Washington’s current stake on military force only breed more enemies of the Afghan authorities and provokes the growth of extremist sentiments in the country. We categorically reject such an approach and call on the US side to focus their efforts on launching a peace process.



Developments in Nicaragua

We note the continuing instability in the domestic affairs of this friendly country.

The events of the past six months in this not long ago stable and safe country with a successfully developing economy are another case of political application and an attempt to stage a colour revolution, this time in Latin America.

One does not need to be an analyst or clairvoyant to understand why within one day in April 2018 peaceful protesters demanding economic changes received radical political mottoes and weapons. Or how the government was provoked to use force to counteract the instigators, or how this development of events was immediately internationalised to put massive pressure on the government under the pretence of protecting human rights to achieve its quick resignation.

Of course, we mourn the people killed in street clashes, especially the innocent people. It makes the responsibility of those who used them for their selfish political purposes much more serious.

When the legitimate government of Nicaragua showed calm and self-possession and was able to neutralise the radicals, the entire arsenal of open political pressure was used against it, and the urges for dialogue were replaced with sanctions. Instead of promoting national dialogue involving influential Catholic and business associations, Washington began threatening to isolate the Sandinistas (its favourite move), taking steps to create a political opposition, dictating policy and interfering in the affairs of a sovereign state. By the way, nobody even tries to camouflage their intentions and put on a good face.

At the US instructions, Secretary General of the Organisation of American States (OAS) Luis Almagro has joined the campaign, and even the long-term critics of the Nicaraguan government are repelled by his statements about readiness for any kind of aggressive interference. There was an attempt to raise the issue at the UN Security Council, but on September 6 it was rejected by those who prefer to preserve the legal ground of the current world order.

We are confident that the policy of controlled chaos which the US politicians are trying to institute in the US and Latin America is disastrous. Its consequences, as past experience shows, will lead to a dangerous scenario, which does not have anything in common with solving social and economic problems that the Nicaraguan government and people are facing. Nicaragua needs peace and a constructive dialogue based on mutual respect, as well as interaction of various political forces within the current law and in accordance with the Constitution.



Russia's assessment of elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina

We are satisfied that the voting was held in a peaceful environment. We praise the work of the country’s Central Election Commission, which held the elections in accordance with democratic standards. We hope the new representative and executive branches of government will be formed soon in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its cantons in the interests of the positive development of stabilisation processes and social and economic stability in the region.

We confirm the Russian Federation’s principal intention to assist the scrupulous implementation of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina of 1995 (Dayton Agreement), as well as the respect for the powers of the two entities established by the agreement and the equal rights of the three state-forming peoples: Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. We note that the high level of the organisation of the elections again showed the need to revoke the Office of the High Representative (OHR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which Russia has repeatedly spoken about, and to give the responsibility to the people of Bosnia.

We are open to a mutually beneficial dialogue with our Bosnia and Herzegovina partners in the political, investment, economic and cultural areas. We believe that the further development of Russia’s relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina and its entities will facilitate the improvement of the living standards in the two countries and their mutual cultural and religions enrichment, as well as improve peace and security in the Balkans.



140th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Romania

October 15, 2018 will mark the 140th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Romania. The Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry, which is organising the International Diplomatic Forum humanitarian project in public diplomacy, will mark the event in Bucharest with the support of the Russian Centre of Science and Culture in Bucharest and the Russian Embassy in Romania, as well as the Russian Peace Foundation international public fund.

The forum programme features an international symposium which will bring together famous Russian and Romanian researchers, as well as meetings in the Romanian Parliament, the European Institute, the Nicolae Titulescu European Foundation, the Craiova City Hall, and the Craiova University.

There are plans to sign a memorandum on cooperation between the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Craiova University. It implies the establishment of a Russia-Romania Expert Commission on Public Diplomacy and Research and Cultural Dialogue, thus creating a dialogue platform between the Russian and Romanian academic communities to hold discussions on both the issues of our shared history and the current aspects of Russia-Romania relations. This public initiative of Russian and Romanian researchers confirms their intention to lead an open, independent and honest dialogue, free from political bias and external influence. Despite the current active anti-Russia propaganda in some European countries, the academic community has its own opinion and will continue to defend it.



Statements in a number of countries on alleged cyber attacks by Russia

This is a meme of modern times and especially of the last few years. Recently, it no longer surprises anyone, it is just amusing, unfortunately, although the problem is a serious one indeed. Why is this happening? Because we hear groundless accusations stemming entirely from the desire to engage in propaganda, using the commonest pretexts and the simplest messages of explanation (mainly aimed at young people). Specifically, it is a matter of an anti-Russian campaign. This time, they spoke in unison, as though on a signal, on the same day about new cyber attacks that allegedly took place in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and a whole number of European countries. This is not a campaign now but rushed effort.

Without going into detail, the synchronicity was surprising, despite the fact that it was easy to see through it all, but there is a serious reason for concern: not long ago, the foreign minister of the Russian Federation announced that this year our country, together with like-minded states, would submit resolutions to the UN General Assembly on the responsible conduct of countries in cyber space and the fight against the use of information and communication technology (ICT) for criminal purposes. Our country has long been working to combat ICT-related crime (let me remind you that our Foreign Ministry has a separate division that participates in international forums, develops relevant initiatives and promotes them in international organisations). The above-mentioned resolutions are aimed at ensuring the agreement of the international community to rules of responsible conduct by states in the information space. This involves the use of ICT for peaceful purposes only, the non-use of force or threats of force, the non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, and respect for state sovereignty. In addition, the resolutions are designed to protect the digital environment from provocations. But who needs rules, if the trend in the Western community is to drop rules, walk out of them and promote one’s own exclusion from them?

So, a coalition of the above-enumerated countries decided to develop cyber weapons and use them to threaten disagreeable countries with cyber offensives. This was officially announced by a whole number of countries and in some, it was reported in the mass media.

Seeing that our initiatives aimed at preventing cyber space from being turned into a battlefield are winning increasing support in the world (given the fact that a whole number of countries have experienced cyber attacks, interference in their internal affairs and interference in their electoral processes, the need for such rules to be elaborated is really a pressing need both for individual countries and whole regions), attempts are being made via this platform to discredit our country through groundless allegations.

We hope that the international community will be guided by common sense and facts and will not let itself be fooled by a group of countries attempting to seize control of the international information space and dictate its will from a position of strength to the whole world.



Developments around the Richard Lugar Centre for Public Health Research in Georgia

A while ago, we voiced concerns over what we suspected were unusual and dangerous activities by the Richard Lugar Centre for Public Health Research in Georgia. Our assumptions, which were to the large extent political despite being based on the data that we had, were later confirmed directly by representatives of this state, Georgian nationals who lived there and knew what they were talking about. Then, Russian experts gave us the relevant information, providing a detailed line of argument and facts.

After this, we heard a whole range of statements from Washington, claiming that it was lies and slander; that it was impossible and that Russia was engaged in propaganda.

Nevertheless, new facts are now emerging about the dark side of US military biological activities and the Pentagon’s use of the so-called Richard Lugar Centre for Public Health Research in Georgia.

Major General Igor Kirillov, Head of the Russian Defence Ministry’s Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defence Forces, spoke about this at the ministry briefing on October 4. In particular, the international community was shocked by the examples of American research on the use of mosquitoes (I hope the ones flying around here have nothing to do with this!) as means of infecting people with highly dangerous infectious agents. All of this reminds me of the futuristic films from a few decades ago – back then, it seemed impossible, but now, unfortunately, it is becoming a reality, and an extremely dangerous one.

Just recently, new details surfaced about the US military’s sinister interest in using insects – this time, for infecting agricultural plants with various viruses. I understand that it is not the same as infecting people – still, this is our food that we are talking about. An article written by a group of foreign experts, which was published in the respected Science magazine, dwells on the US Defence Department’s Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) programme called Insect Allies (this article is available online, you can read it). This programme’s budget totals at $45 million. Its stated goal is to use the latest genetic engineering and gene therapy techniques to improve the resistance of crops to adverse environmental factors. Such explanations might be sufficient for the average person who does not know much about the biological weapons issue. But the authors of the Science magazine article make a very legitimate point: what does the Pentagon have to do with agriculture? There are plenty of official governmental structures addressing agricultural issues in the United States. Why the Pentagon?

Experts explained that compared to the traditional method of spraying crops with pesticides, this method for delivering viral DNA is economically unviable and ineffective. At the same time, releasing large numbers of insects with virus infections has distinct offensive aspects and can be used to destroy the opponent’s agricultural potential. And it would be hard to prove malice, since one can always attribute such an incident to “natural causes”. It is no coincidence that the authors of the Science magazine article question how such DARPA programmes can be consistent with the US complying with its obligations under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC).

These are not single, isolated examples, nor predictions from movies, they are links in an already-existing policy chain that is currently being implemented.

Back in 1997, Cuba officially accused the US of spreading a crop-eating insect Thrips palmi (with the help of a carrier aircraft) to destroy the country’s crop yields. Unfortunately, the truth was never established, since the BTWC still has no verification mechanism, and to date the US continues to prevent it from creating one.

Russian concerns about the American military medical and biological activities “under the roof” of the laboratory in Georgia are based on facts that cannot be denied. Talk all you like about “Russian propaganda,” but these are facts. As it was mentioned before, we will continue to demand that Washington answer the questions raised and comply with the its obligations on the prohibition of biological weapons.



Statements by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on the possibility of Russia’s joining the alliance

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has stated that Mikhail Gorbachev was given no guarantees that NATO would not expand to the east. Don’t play cunning, Mr Stoltenberg. Naturally, such guarantees were not put on paper and signed but there was a gentlemen's agreement (and that is a proven fact). It’s another matter that it was forgotten and nobody wants to remember it. Yet the fact remains. For instance, it is reflected in the selection of archive materials recently declassified and published in the United States. At his meeting with Stoltenberg this past February Sergey Lavrov quoted some facts from those documents. I think Stoltenberg has had enough time to read them all since February.

It is advantageous for some Western countries to pretend that such promises were never made but this is eroding trust in them even more. It shows the real value of their other promises that have been and are being made to us or anybody else.

As for the options of Russia joining NATO, we are not considering them either theoretically or (least of all) practically. In 1954, the Soviet Government expressed its readiness to contemplate Soviet Union’s participation in NATO with a view to making it a Europe-wide organisation. NATO leaders responded that such an option was unfeasible. I think Mr Stoltenberg also knows it.

NATO’s purpose was well formulated by its first Secretary General Lord Ismay. According to him, NATO’s mission in Europe was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Actually, little has changed since then, although we have repeatedly made relevant proposals. It is possible to interact in a number of areas without joining the alliance. We did it well enough: we have cooperation on Afghanistan that I mentioned today, we have the fight against terrorism and cybercrime – an immense amount of problems which can be addressed either within own bloc or in interaction with many regional powers. In our view, differences should not be an obstacle to a close interaction. Russia has always declared this position.

We have been prepared for a genuinely equal and mutually respectful cooperation with NATO as well as for joint work on the creation of a common space of indivisible security without dividing lines and spheres of influence. Even now we remain open to dialogue and cooperation, and Mr Stoltenberg cannot but be aware of this. However, so far it is NATO that prefers a different way – the way of deterring Russia, which does nothing to enhance and is only weakening our common security.



75th anniversary of the uprising in the Sobibor Nazi extermination camp

In a few days, on October 14, we will mark the 75th anniversary of prisoners’ uprising in the Sobibor Nazi extermination camp in southeastern Poland. The uprising was led by Soviet officer Alexander Pechersky. It was a graphic example of the heroic fight against Nazism. The uprising leader was a citizen of the USSR, the country that made a decisive contribution to the victory over Nazism and here in Crimea there is no need to remind anyone about this.

It is important to remember such dates. We honour them to commemorate the millions of people who gave their lives and fought heroically and rejected that evil, as well as to remind those living now about what danger of man-hating ideologies and neo-Nazi throwbacks either in the form of torchlight processions and parades or in glorifying Nazi accomplices.

As we recall the events that happened 75 years ago and the Nazi death camps, it is hard to believe that neo-Nazis still have a place in today’s world (and it is not a place of shame but a place in the sun) and the European countries and the United States, civilised on the surface, turn their blind eye to the manifestations of neo-Nazism in Ukraine and the Baltic states. Once, guided by selfish geopolitical considerations, the West went as far as the Munich Conspiracy (we talked about it at our previous briefing). Could you really fail to learn anything from those mistakes?

The film Sobibor is being screened in the West throughout 2018 in order to preserve the memory of those tragic events. The film has already come out in New York, Washington, Geneva, Brussels, Berlin, Vienna, Bratislava, Tel Aviv and other cities. It has been submitted by Russia for an international award.

Our embassies and cultural centres are also holding events (photo exhibitions, displays, conferences, workshops and meetings) devoted to Sobibor.



The act of vandalism against the monument to the Soviet Army in Sofia

On the night of October 4, yet another act of vandalism was carried out on the monument to the Soviet Army in Sofia.

We are urging the leadership of Bulgaria to put an end to the incidents of vandalism against the monument that have recently become increasingly more frequent and to ensure the safety of the monument, in keeping with the relevant agreements between Russia and Bulgaria. We have to note that the Bulgarian party has never taken a single effective measure to prevent the mockery of the memory of Soviet soldiers who lost their lives as they fought to save humanity from Nazism.



The expulsion of Russian journalist Andrey Vypolzov from Latvia

In the morning of October 5, Editor-in-Chief of the Newsbalt website Andrey Vypolzov was detained after his plane from Kaliningrad landed at Riga’s International Airport. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of Russian journalists being persecuted in Latvia and the European Union, for that matter.

According to Vypolzov, the Latvian border guards jointly with Latvian security police officers spent two hours checking his documents and identity. In addition, they asked the journalist to provide a written explanation for his visit, giving details not only of his job as a journalist and the purpose of his trip, but also the names of people he planned to meet in Latvia.

The journalist was given a copy of the decision by Latvian Interior Minister Rihards Kozlovskis “On Including a Foreign National on the List of Foreign Nationals Who Are Barred from Entering the Latvian Republic” dated June 12, 2014. Latvian officials explained to the journalist that he was on Latvia’s blacklist as a person “posing a threat to Latvia‘s national security”.

We consider these actions by official Riga as another provocation against a representative of the Russian media, as well as an attempt to restrict freedom of speech and we urge the international community to respond. We are surprised that OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir has not yet stated his position in connection with the expulsion of Andrey Vypolzov from Latvia.



Arctic Media Congress

On December 9-11, 2018, Salekhard will host the International Arctic Media Congress – Arctic Media World – the first ever international event to be held in this format.

Over 200 members of the media community from Russia and abroad, primarily, Arctic nations, are expected to take part in the forum.

The event’s key objectives are to highlight today’s Arctic, including the ambitious projects developed for the Russian Arctic, and to give additional impetus to a broad dialogue on the issues that are at the forefront of the region’s concerns.

The diversified business part of the programme will include a plenary meeting and three section meetings themed around economic cooperation in the Arctic, the environment in the Arctic, and efforts to preserve the traditions of the small indigenous peoples in the North. The programme also provides for cultural events and an exhibition focusing on the Arctic’s media. I believe that the cultural programme will be interesting – we are good at organising this sort of thing.

The event is sponsored by the Government of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Area with support from the Foreign Ministry.

Accreditation for the media congress is open on the forum’s website (https://www.arcticmediaworld.com/congress/about/) until November 1. If you have practical questions, including about accommodation, transport and the financial terms, please, contact representatives of the Government of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Area when getting accreditation.



Sergey Lavrov to attend the book launch of Vladimir Shevchenko’s The Presidential Protocol

On October 15, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend the book launch of The Presidential Protocol by Vladimir Shevchenko, who holds the diplomatic rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation, and was Head of the Russian Presidential Protocol for many years. More details about the event will be posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website within the next few days.

The book launch will be held at the Foreign Ministry’s Reception House. Members of the Russian and foreign media are invited to attend.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

It has become common in the West to search for bizarre facts about Russia: they make films about us, make up fake stories and facts, including stories about some wild football fans before the World Cup. When Russia hosted the World Cup, it proved that it is a civilised and friendly country. In this context, our two football players, not the worst ones, I mean Pavel Mamayev and Alexander Kokorin, were involved in an ugly incident on Moscow streets. Western media have picked up on this (especially the British media have been enjoying it). The Russian Football Union promised to ban the players. They will have no choice but to go to the West and take part in world championships. Do you think it would harm Russia’s image? What is your opinion about this story and the behaviour of our western colleagues who found something good in Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

I think it is not me who should comment on such issues, especially not in my official capacity as the Foreign Ministry spokesperson. On the other hand, you are absolutely right in saying that since we have been talking so much about football recently and informed the public about the achievements of our country honestly and sincerely, it would be more than appropriate and honest to speak about problems in this area. Right now, the law enforcement agencies should investigate what really happened. It is not just good form, but what must be done in a rule-of-law state. This is exactly what is happening now.

Secondly, it is the reaction of the public and its intolerance to violence. The reaction we are witnessing now (I would like to abstain from commenting) is not just a sign of good or bad manners, but it shows the maturity and responsibility of the civil society that understands that such incidents require a public response.

I have allowed myself to comment on it now because we should be honest. We spoke so much about achievements in sports and in football in particular, we were so proud of our players, fans and organisers of large international events, so we need to speak openly about problems as well. I am not sure that this is a problem of sports or of football; it is rather a related problem. The main role should be played by the law enforcement agencies that have launched investigation (I also am monitoring the situation). At least, they have made statements to this effect.

As for the future of these individuals, it is their business and not my competence. Returning to your first question, I would like to say again that the public response and the reaction of the police speak for themselves. Violence is unacceptable for our society both from the point of view of law and civil response. I realise that such incidents cannot but damage the image of the country, but it is not that important in this case. What’s important is an unbiased investigation and the maturity of our society.



Question:

Oleg Sentsov, who was convicted on terrorism charges that were proven in court, is wholly supported by the West, where people are calling for his release. However, neither the West, nor certain circles are showing any interest whatsoever in our colleague Kirill Vyshinsky, who is being kept in terrible conditions in a Ukrainian prison and who is accused of performing his professional duty. Why is that so? Is there any hope that Kirill Vyshinsky will eventually be swapped and return to his homeland?



Maria Zakharova:

We are not dealing with maters of hope. We are doing concrete work to make it happen.

As for your first question, I believe that you asked it, being aware of and knowing a very simple answer – no one in the West is concerned about the destiny of Oleg Sentsov as a person or even as a “filmmaker” as they call him. The overwhelming majority of people do not have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. Oleg Sentsov’s fate interests everyone only as a tool in the anti-Russian campaign that is currently being waged. I have irrefutable and 100-percent reliable evidence – that is Nadezhda Savchenko’s case. When she was detained, charged and stood trial, Nadezhda Savchenko interested everyone – people wore T-shirts with her portraits, wrote posters, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and other public organisations and entities held rallies, pickets and protest marches, news conferences, symposiums and seminars, using every form of soft force in order to attract public attention to her case. As soon as Nadezhda Savchenko found herself behind bars in Ukraine, they lost interest in her. In the case of Oleg Sentsov and all the rest, it is exactly the same thing. This is proof that it is just a small coin for the West, a tool and an opportunity to once again make things painful and unpleasant for Russia, without getting to the bottom of the matter.

It is a tragedy when a person (and this is a proven case) chooses a forcible way of solving the matters that he regards as crucial for himself. It is a real tragedy and it happened to Oleg Sentsov. But the way the so-called “international public” is using him is indicative. Nadezhda Savchenko’s case confirms that no one in the West really cares about Oleg Sentsov’s fate. For them, Sentsov exists not as a person, but as an image, a symbol and a political tool used against Russia. It is frightening to even imagine what so-called “feats” our Western partners might be ready to perform in the future.



Question:

Is there a possibility to swap our colleague Kirill Vyshynsky?



Maria Zakharova:

As a political department, we do not comment on such matters. We do not have the authority, nor do we have the legal base at the current stage.



Question:

We paid attention to the publications in the press, which say that the British secret services are allowed to commit crimes in order to protect national interests. Could you comment on these publications in the context of the Skripal case?

Could you comment on the Bellingcat website's publication on the investigation that allegedly reveals the personal identity of a suspect in that crime who went by the name of Alexander Petrov and proving his involvement with the Russian secret services?



Maria Zakharova:

There is no need to confirm that Bellingcat you just mentioned and its partners are pseudo media. They are not media in the traditional interpretation of the goals and tasks they should be facing and actions expected from them by civil society. This is a method of leaking information by the secret services or representatives of law-enforcement agencies abroad that use this online resource to disseminate the information designed to discredit someone or conduct information subversion or a particular campaign. No traditional media, even the so-called new media can afford to do this because it will instantly lose the trust of its audience. However, there are ways of obviating the methods and laws of traditional honest journalism in disseminating information. Bellingcat is the case in point.

You asked about the admissions made by the British side that they approve of the right of their agents to commit crimes. Yes, we have seen this material. In the context of the global anti-Russian spy mania, the British public would like new questions answered about the activities of their own secret services. The voice of reason cannot be shut down despite all the absurdity that is taking place in London. Thus, the media paid attention to the trial initiated by a number of human rights organisations in the so-called Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), a body in Britain that is authorised to review complaints about actions carried out by the British secret services, notably MI5, MI6 and the Government Communications Headquarters. At this trial, representatives of the plaintiff insisted on having documents published on MI5 policy regarding acceptability of crimes carried out by its agents.

The published documents were in the form of a secret letter dating back to the year 2012, which is quite up-to-date and was signed by the then Prime Minister David Cameron and a service instruction that has been seriously censored. They made it clear that agents are allowed to commit crimes, up to murder and rape, if this is in the interest of the nation. Have you ever heard anything like this? This is not Russian propaganda or the Russian information machine as all of us are called there. These are declassified documents that give British secret agents the right to rape if it serves to protect national interests.

Indicatively, according to this instruction (imagine a whole instruction on rape for promoting national interests!), MI5 informers are not formally guaranteed against persecution for crimes committed in their line of work. A decision to turn a blind eye to their crimes is made by a supervising employee. If this is really so, this is “the empire of evil” pure and simple.

In other words, the British secret services establish themselves what is acceptable and even within the service a decision is made by the interested party. Many experts recall in this context that British legislation allows intelligence operatives to commit crimes abroad as well (with the approval of a supervising minister). Enough to recall the James Bond film “License to Kill.” We saw this and talked about this half a year ago. Our British colleagues told us about some artistic character of the image. Now it appears to be the truth.

The very fact that British secret service agents are allowed to commit crimes for the sake of “national interests” established by some anonym is considered revolting by a considerable part of society in the United Kingdom. Moreover, if British agents are allowed to kill, numerous provocations we have seen recently fully correspond to the style of their work.



Question:

We still hear that Russia is being accused of allegedly receiving labour migrants from North Korea in violation of the relevant UN Security Council resolution. Are these accusations justified?



Maria Zakharova:

As I said during my opening remarks today, they are constantly levelling accusations at us while they themselves are not delivering on their obligations. Indeed, of late official representatives of some countries have accused Russia of its alleged disregard for UN Security Council resolutions 2375 of September 11, 2017 and 2397 of December 22, 2017, which provide for sanctions targeting North Korean nationals earning money abroad.

These accusations are absolutely groundless. All North Koreans, without exception, are working in Russia under employment agreements signed before September 11, 2017, in compliance with paragraph 17 of UN Security Council Resolution 2375, and can continue working until December 22, 2019, in compliance with paragraph 8 of UN Security Council Resolution 2397.

This is credible and legally correct information.



Question:

What is your assessment of Leonid Kuchma’s work as member of the Minsk Contact Group and your vision of future cooperation with his successor to the post?



Maria Zakharova:

We have noted Leonid Kuchma’s decision to step down as a representative of Ukraine in the Minsk Contact Group, which is seeking to achieve a settlement in Donbass.

We would like to officially express our gratitude to Leonid Kuchma for his input. He was directly involved in developing and signing the Minsk Agreements, as well as the follow-up agreements that were approved by the Contact Group. Despite political obstacles and side effects that are well known to everyone, Kuchma has always demonstrated his commitment to the Minsk Agreements, firmly stood up for their implementation in full and as soon as possible and took part in negotiations that were attended by Donetsk and Lugansk officials, taking a responsible approach to what he was doing, something that Ukraine’s political regime demonstrates only too rarely today.

His resignation from the Contact Group gives rise to questions, primarily, regarding prospects for the negotiating process and Kiev’s position. Unfortunately, as can be seen from recent events – you know what I am referring to – today the Minsk Agreements are not seen as an end – rather they are serving as a tool in the hands of the politicians in Kiev in the context of the election campaign that has, in fact, got underway there, manifesting itself in the most outrageous ways. Some are saying that Ukraine must withdraw from the Minsk process, including even high-level statements that “there is no such thing as the Minsk process.” This largely explains why the negotiations with representatives of Donbass in Minsk are being derailed hitting a deadlock. Deadlocks can only be broken if there is political will and a real desire to put an end to the conflict in Donbass.

Russian officials are prepared for constructive businesslike cooperation with the representative of Ukraine who will succeed Kuchma in this post. We hope that this new official will strictly abide by the letter and spirit of the Minsk Agreements in his work based on the understanding that they have no alternative – this is what many Western politicians who are, let’s be honest, supervising Kiev, talked about – as a basis for a peaceful political and diplomatic settlement of the crisis in Ukraine.



Question:

Earlier you mentioned a Ukrainian draft law that is essentially aimed against the Russian language.



Maria Zakharova:

Let me correct you. We are not saying that it is aimed against the Russian language, although Russian and the languages of other ethnic groups are obviously suppressed. However, we must take a broader look at this. No matter how much I would like to support your idea in defence of the Russian language (as a person who represents our people and is fond of the Russian language, culture and traditions, I would like to talk about this alone), but the law that is being adopted is primarily doing enormous harm to Ukraine as such.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Ukraine probably found itself in one of the most favourable, privileged positions. The generation that witnessed perestroika and the collapse of the USSR can confirm this. It was a great multi-ethnic country where each ethnic and social group worked for the benefit of a single state. For all the difficulties, Ukraine was one of the few that emerged from the collapse with minimal problems. Just remember what difficulties confronted the other former republics that became sovereign states – wars, ethnic conflicts, slaughter. They had to spend many years overcoming all this and learning lessons.

Regrettably, Ukraine followed a different path. It prospered the most from the disintegration of the USSR and was practically problem-free due to support from Russia and other fraternal nations. However, due to the shortsighted and stupid course of the people, who call themselves politicians but are in fact traitors of Ukraine, the country contrived its way into confrontation and breakdown. So, this law is not a problem of Russian or any other language but a problem of Ukraine’s future.



Question:

Don’t foreign diplomats want to come to Crimea and see how Ukrainian has remained the third official language there?



Maria Zakharova:

What are you talking about? You are undermining the foundations of this state’s security. It’s not that they don’t want to or cannot come here themselves. First, they are doing everything they can to not let any of their foreign partners come here and, second, not to allow Crimeans to visit EU countries, international venues where Crimeans could tell others what you are telling me now.

I assure you that after this briefing the Ukrainian media will write that you are “the Kremlin’s stool pigeon,” that all you are saying now was apparently written by Dmitry Kiselev who is sitting next to you, that there is a girl holding a pistol to your back, and that later you will be thrown behind bars. Such mythmaking is normal for them. Of course, they don’t want to go and cannot go.

Many bloggers, journalists, public figures and ordinary people who have families here and still continue living in Ukraine, urge everyone to open their eyes and see what has been done for the residents of Crimea as regards infrastructure and intercultural communication, what rights have been given to people (nobody even dreamt about them, to say nothing of upholding them) just because the situation in Crimea changed in 2014, because the Russian Federation did this once and for all.

However, these people are deprived of the opportunities to express and spread this opinion. In part, I described what happens with the channels against which yet another portion of restrictions is in the pipeline.



Question:

Another question related to the Crimean and Ukrainian agenda. September 25 marked six months since the capture of Crimea’s Nord fishing vessel in the Sea of Azov. Just a very short time ago, the case of Captain Vladimir Gorbenko was transferred to the Ukrainian court. What is the current situation with the sailors who still cannot return home?



Maria Zakharova:

Unfortunately, they are not the only ones who cannot return. We spoke today about Kirill Vyshinsky and other people jailed by Ukrainian law-enforcers. We are doing our best to resolve this situation as well.



Question:

It is known that US National Security Advisor John Bolton will visit Moscow in the second half of October. Are there contacts planned?



Maria Zakharova:

It will be his Russian counterpart – the Secretary of the Russian Security Council who will meet with him, so I think that it would be better if representatives of the Security Council comment on your question. If such a visit takes place, the Foreign Ministry is open to contacts, too. The possibility of holding a meeting with John Bolton is being discussed, and it will be announced officially.



Question:

It became known today that Ukraine is preparing another resolution of the UN General Assembly regarding the alleged militarisation of Crimea. Obviously, our neighbour got very scared after our recent military exercise in the Southern Military District. Could you comment on the preparation of another such resolution?



Maria Zakharova:

Another presidential campaign and electoral cycle has begun, so they will do everything to tell us about the “aggressor,” “the hand of the Kremlin,” and so on. Did they write that Crimea is going to attack Ukraine yet? Well, they can take this idea.



Question:

Do you plan to visit places in Crimea other than the Voloshin House Museum?



Maria Zakharova:

I have a full schedule in Sevastopol tomorrow. I will speak with students from the journalism and other departments, meet with representatives of the Administration and the Black Sea Fleet, visit various facilities and give an interview.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3371172
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 24th, 2018 #520
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the book launch of Vladimir Shevchenko’s The Presidential Protocol, Moscow, October 15, 2018



15 October 2018 - 15:55







Friends,

This is a remarkable day. We have gathered here for the book launch of Vladimir Shevchenko’s The Presidential Protocol. You can see it here. I hope everybody will get a copy after this event.

Vladimir Shevchenko is a true legend. He worked with Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin in an area that required the utmost responsibility. He spoke to the media about the difficult fate of the protocol service. Yesterday, I had the great pleasure watching the programme based on his interview. There have been serious incidents and small mishaps that inevitably happen to diplomats and during the work of protocol services. The experience of these people is invaluable for those who are involved in foreign policy and diplomacy.

Although performing a seemingly auxiliary function, protocol has great significance and plays a very important role.

First, protocol is an area directly related not only to relations between states in the area of protocol itself but also to the principles of inter-state communication, because protocol embodies respect of the states towards each other and equality of countries, a principle formalised in the UN Charter. In order to maintain high respect and for a state receiving foreign guests to demonstrate its ability to be hospitable and respectful towards its partners, it is important to know the cultural, religious, historical and civilisational traditions of the visiting countries down to the subtle nuances.

Second, there are no insignificant details in protocol. It must be flexible, especially considering the turbulent development of forms of inter-state communication, which, along with official receptions and conversations at negotiation tables, under banners and national coats of arms, have expanded to include such forms as casual and one-on-one meetings. These formats appear to allow more freedom; however, it is always important to understand the rules, the outcome and further impact of such meetings on subsequent official procedures between the states.







I had the pleasure of seeing Mr Shevchenko in action when Boris Yeltsin visited New York. I was Russia’s Permanent Representative in the UN at the time. I watched Vladimir Shevchenko in various official and informal situations, and I can say that this person never performed substandard work that could damage political negotiations. Mr Shevchenko’s accuracy in performing his duties has already gone down in history. Many guests here have seen him at work and can confirm this. I think his experience described in this book is priceless – and it is only a small part of this experience, for obvious reasons. It would be impossible to write down everything; the rest needs to be passed on by word of mouth. I am certain that this book is an excellent teaching material for the modern protocol service that continues to develop and enrich our traditions and practices.

I want to sincerely thank my friend Vladimir Shevchenko for being with us, for assisting the current staff of the Presidential Protocol Service and the Foreign Ministry Protocol Service in building on the legacy of their predecessors.

Congratulations on this event. I wish everybody a pleasant evening.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3373733






Opening Remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during a meeting with Executive Secretary of the CTBTO Preparatory Commission Lassina Zerbo, Moscow, October 16, 2018



16 October 2018 - 12:45







Mr Executive Secretary,

We are glad to see you in Moscow again. We have recently met during your visit to the World Cup, and I know that you liked how everything was organised. I hope that your yesterday’s speech at the Valdai Forum in Sochi also contributed to advancing the international debate on the importance of disarmament and non-proliferation.

We highly appreciate your personal commitment and the efforts you are making to support the CTBTO and to promote its ratification and enforcement. This is also one of Russia’s foreign policy priorities, once again confirmed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin in 2016, when he spoke on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the Treaty.







We will be very interested to hear your assessment of where we are in terms of ensuring other countries’ accession to the Treaty through relevant ratification procedures. We will continue to support your efforts politically, technologically and through personnel decisions.

Welcome!




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3374309






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Euronews, Moscow, October 16, 2018



16 October 2018 - 18:30



[I could not find this interview on YouTube channel of Euronews.]





Question:

The issue of Russia’s financial contribution to the Council of Europe has long been on the agenda after Russia’s voting right was suspended. How important is the Council of Europe to Russia? What, in your view, is the likely solution to this impasse?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Council of Europe is going through a serious crisis and not because Russia suspended its contribution more than a year ago but due to the reasons you mentioned: because Russia was denied the right to vote. This happened in 2014 as punishment for the free expression of will by Crimea residents, who voted in favour of reintegration with Russia at a referendum. This punishment was imposed on the members of parliament that were elected by the population of Russia and sent as a delegation to the Council of Europe.

The sanctions imposed in 2014 became tougher in 2015. As a result, the Russian members of parliament were stripped of all rights whatsoever and were only allowed to be present at the meetings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and listen to anti-Russia statements without having an opportunity to answer, which is, strictly speaking, regular practice in any normal parliament where, even if tensions are running high, it is always possible to answer and compare different positions. Our members of parliament were denied this right for three years even though from 2014 until 2017 we made the required contributions. In so doing, we warned that this could not go on forever because without due representation at the assembly and without the opportunity to state its position it would be unwise for Russia to pay for Russophobic activities; the same goes for any other country that might end up in a similar situation for that matter. So we warned everyone that we would be forced to suspend our contributions at some point. We did this in the summer of 2017, making it clear that as soon as the rights of our members of parliament at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe were unconditionally and fully reinstated, we would immediately pay our debts.

I want to stress that our decision on this point has worked. Many sensible MPs and functionaries in the Council of Europe have become aware of the seriousness of the situation. Michele Nicoletti, the then President of the Parliamentary Assembly, and Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland were struggling to find a way out of this absolutely abnormal situation.

As a result of that work, the attention of all members of the Parliamentary Assembly was drawn to the fact that there is a basic document that all bodies of the Council of Europe, including the Parliamentary Assembly, must be guided by in their work. This is the Statute of the Council of Europe – a fundamental document, an imperative, so to say. It says that all Council of Europe member states enjoy equal rights in any Council of Europe format, whether the Parliamentary Assembly, or the Committee of Ministers, or any other organ.

We pointed this out and asked our colleagues in the Parliamentary Assembly to comply with the document they signed when they endorsed the decision to establish the Council of Europe and to honour the terms on which Russia joined the organisation. Once again, I will point out that the term written in the Statute is the complete equality of the delegations of all Council of Europe member states, including in the Parliamentary Assembly.

Instead, a small, but very loud and aggressive group of delegations from countries that are well known to everyone (I won’t bother mentioning the names; they have been pushing an anti-Russia stance in the European Union, as well as NATO, the United Nations and the OSCE) set forth the premise that besides the Statute of the Council of Europe there are also the Rules of Procedure for the Parliamentary Assembly. These Rules of Procedure stipulate that decisions be adopted through a vote and by a very narrow majority. The most they were willing to do was to consider whether these rules should be changed to make it harder to restrict the rights of one delegation or another.

Our response was simple and tough. No regulations, rules or procedures can compare in significance with the fundamental document – the Statute of the Council of Europe, which, let me point out once again, proclaims the mandatory equality of all delegations in all structures of the Council of Europe.

Therefore, we will propose that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe pass a resolution confirming the indisputability of this statutory provision – this is its function. If that decision is blocked, it will be a deliberate step by those, who, in their anti-Russia fervour, simply want to “bury” Europe.

Please note that since our MPs were stripped of the right to vote, the Parliamentary Assembly has already elected, if I am not mistaken, 24 judges to the European Court of Human Rights. And the total number is 47. So, the majority of judges in the European Court are judges elected in the absence of the Russian votes.

Similarly, a new High Commissioner for Human Rights was elected without the Russian MPs. Next June, a new secretary general of the Council of Europe will be elected. So, due to the suspension of our right, which is granted to us by the Statute of the Council of Europe, to participate in these votes, the above functionaries of the Council of Europe (the judges, the commissioner for human rights and soon, if this issue persists, the secretary general) will, in fact, not be legitimate for us. Therefore, I do hope that all our partners, including and in the first place those who made this mess, who decided to punish the deputies chosen freely by the will of the people who are residents of Crimea – that they have become aware of the seriousness of the situation and the responsibility that they are taking upon themselves.



Question:

Thorbjorn Jagland said they would make the budget without Russia’s funds. Our Russian MPs say that one of the options is leaving the Council of Europe. Is Russia considering this possibility?



Sergey Lavrov:

Thorbjorn Jagland has no other option than to create the budget using the current funding under circumstances where we are not paying our share. We, again, recently stated that as soon as our rights are restored we will pay our dues to the Council of Europe in full. The European Court of Human Rights has been largely formed without our participation, so its legitimacy for Russia is rather dubious, just like the legitimacy of the Commissioner for Human Rights. I have heard the Russian parliamentarians' statements to the effect that if this outrage continues, the Council of Europe will be signing its own death warrant. I do not think that Russia's participation in Council of Europe is more important for Russia than for the European countries. This is my firm conviction. We joined the Council of Europe on the principle that it provides for a pan-European, universal legal and humanitarian space. I am sure that those who have dealt a blow to this space through illegitimate actions that violate the Statute and seek to deprive the Russian delegation of their equal rights, they know what they are signing up for. If they want to push Russia out of the Council of Europe, we won’t give them the pleasure; we will leave the organisation ourselves. Let those in the majority, who are aware of the provocative nature of this plan initiated by a small but loud group of countries, work within this group. It is unacceptable to ruin a pan-European organisation to satisfy the ambitions of certain politicians in some European capitals. Everyone is aware of this. I hope that most sensible people will be brave enough to prevent this from happening.



Question:

Is Russia doing anything to prove to the West that we are reliable and can be trusted after what has happened to the Skripals and all those hacking attack charges?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our Western colleagues are priding themselves on having built a rule-of-law state in their countries; rule of law and the rules-based order are allegedly what the historical West has created as well as what all others should accept and reproduce, including the judicial system. There is English law and there is Roman law, but in both cases for someone to start proving his innocence he should hear the concrete charges. We have not been presented with such charges. We are baselessly being convinced that we have “highly likely” done something unlawful in Salisbury, then in Amesbury, and later we did something unlawful in Catalonia. Allegedly, we have meddled in all these matters. They are also accusing us of having played our sad role in Brexit and of many other sins. But not one single concrete charge has been presented.

Unlike our partners, we did build a rule-of-law state, because we hold sacred our international legal commitments and hope that all others will do the same. We have advised the British Government dozens of times, in keeping with conventions existing in our bilateral relations (the Council of Europe conventions, incidentally), of the need to utilise the mechanism for mutual assistance in criminal cases. After numerous reminders on our part, they replied officially that the British Government could not do that out of national security considerations. As is clear to everyone, this reply lacks substance and is disrespectful of the British legal system, among others. Therefore, as soon as we are presented with concrete facts, we will be ready to sit down and talk. The same goes for allegations that we have meddled in the US elections. Moreover, in both cases, we have long been suggesting – even before Donald Trump was elected president and before the Salisbury incident – that we should start concrete work on cybersecurity, where professionals, first of all, will exchange their concerns and respond to these mutual concerns, and, secondly, devise certain universal rules that will make it possible to rule out or dramatically reduce the abuse of cyberspace, which is used by terrorists, criminals, drug addicts, pedophiles, and many other people, who must be restrained in every possible way. In response, we hear only that Russia should mend its ways, if it wants to be talked to. This is neither serious nor the way adults behave.

Unlike our accusers, we ask some very concrete questions: there is a convention on legal assistance, let us use it; there is the Chemical Weapons Convention, which says that if a state party has questions to ask another state party, the country that has conceived a question must put this question directly in a bilateral format to the country, to which this question is addressed. Nothing of the kind has been done.

Yet another utterly concrete question, which we have been asking for too long now and which is shameful to ignore for much longer, is: where are Yulia and Sergey Skripal? If the evidence we have been presented with includes just the corpses of a cat, a hamster, and a poor, unstably housed woman, as well as a scent-bottle, it all looks grotesque. I don’t want to belittle the seriousness of cases involving the use of chemical substances, but if someone wants to gamble on this and put up a show to amuse the public and rally the European community against the Russian Federation, then this is shameful. If someone is seriously concerned about these problems, there is no need to tell the untruth. You should prove your accusations with facts, including by presenting to the public Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia. While Sergey has British nationality apart from Russian citizenship, Yulia is just a citizen of Russia. She appeared on television just once, uttered a clearly filmed monologue, and added that she wanted to return back to Russia. No one has seen her since then. Her relative, Viktoria, has failed to obtain a visa. She was harassed at the British Embassy in Moscow, where they repeatedly urged her to change the documents, rewrite the questionnaires or bring new photographs. In the end she was left without a visa. There are many other factors preventing relatives of these people from contacting them. So, we are in favour of legal solutions to any problems. The rabid accusation in the spirit of “highly likely” or “we don’t see any other plausible explanation” are just not serious.



Question:

What about Bellingcat? All these investigations...



Sergey Lavrov:

That’s part of the same story, really. White Helmets, or Bellingcat – it's all the same. It's not a secret for anyone, and Western journalists openly write about this, that Bellingcat is closely connected with the special services that use it to channel information intended to influence public opinion. No matter how many times we were told that the White Helmets are truth lovers, human rights champions and humanitarian workers who save people in the most difficult situations. More and more facts are popping up confirming their close connection with ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra. This is more like they are not at all benefactors working “answering the call of the heart,” but rather for getting payment. As for the staged videos, the locals are not allowed to leave the site until these people arrive with their cameras. There are a lot of facts like this that have become public.

Moreover, quite recently, three months ago maybe, our Western colleagues decided, as they said, to “save” the units of the White Helmets in southern Syria after non-Syrian forces left the de-escalation zones established there by Russia, the United States and Jordan. Their positions were taken over by the Syrian army, which has now restored the order on the Golan Heights established by the UN Security Council resolution of 1974, which Israel also supported. Representatives of the White Helmets, 400 people with their families, urged to take them to Jordan for a period of three or four weeks, and then, as was announced, Britain, Canada, Germany and Holland would take them. Three months have passed. They are still there. According to our data, Western countries, which promised Jordan to take these people and move them to Europe and Canada, have browsed through some of their dossiers and became horrified. Their past suggests that European countries would be scared of accepting such people with prominent criminal tendencies.



Question:

Do you believe that diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom and Western countries can improve?



Sergey Lavrov:

All relations do not boil down to just diplomatic relations. There are other relations, including cultural relations that have not disappeared anywhere and which continue to evoke tremendous interest among Russian, British and American citizens and those of the EU countries. There are also economic relations that, incidentally, concern Russian citizens and the relevant business circles to a considerable extent, and these relations are the subject matter of ongoing contacts.

Diplomatic relations depend on the extent to which various partners are ready to respect diplomatic proprieties. Our British colleagues who, to be honest, started wrecking our relations, are not seriously committed to diplomatic proprieties today. I have already said that we have failed to receive any reply after sending dozens of diplomatic notes. Many requests to the Foreign Office also went unanswered. One gets a strong feeling that the United Kingdom’s current authorities have decided to vent their domestic frustrations, including Brexit, on Russia and to explain their domestic problems by Russian scheming. It appears that the Democratic Party of the United States has set this example by justifying its election campaign defeat by the fact that Donald Trump waged an unfair struggle, with Russia allegedly assisting him during this process. It is sad when domestic political squabbles start affecting relations between leading states. They continue to face a problem linked with Brexit. A struggle is now underway for the post of the leader of the Conservative Party, for holding new elections and so on.

For some reason, the “Russian card” has become quite popular among politicians. Possibly, they don’t have enough creativity for doing something else. They simply blame Russia for everything, without trying to take into consideration their electorate and believing that their voters will accept any concoction.

It is amusing to see British representatives rushing all over Europe after the Salisbury incident and demanding that the EU countries take part in sanctions. They have persuaded many countries, but not all of them, to expel Russian diplomats after the Salisbury incident. Today, they are also inventing some new systematic sanctions that the whole of the EU would have to impose on any violators of the chemical weapons ban and lots more. It appears that a country, now leaving the EU, is frantically trying to influence the EU’s Russian policies. I believe that the UK wants to rein in the EU with regard to Russia and other matters concerning international affairs. It is not up to me to decide to what extent this meets the EU’s interests as well as their dignity.



Question:

Is Russia worried about the political and even economic fallout in connection with the Jamal Khashoggi case.



Sergey Lavrov:

You are so metaphorical! I support the current calls for a speedy investigation as soon as possible. We praise the agreements between Turkey and Saudi Arabia on the various steps being taken to make it possible to conduct this investigation. I do hope that the international community will get to know the results.







Question:

The media has reported today that President of Syria Bashar al-Assad is set to visit Crimea. Does Russia plan to involve Syria in Crimean matters? There are plans for economic activities there.



Sergey Lavrov:

President of Syria Bashar al-Assad is our partner. We regularly exchange visits with our Syrian colleagues at the level of presidents, ministers of foreign affairs, trade and economic development. Our military personnel and secret services also maintain contacts. This is very important for combating terrorism. The Russian regions are interested in various opportunities being provided by Syria for expanding economic, cultural, humanitarian and educational ties. Quite recently, Head of the Republic of Crimea Sergey Aksyonov visited Damascus at the invitation of President of Syria Bashar al-Assad. As is customary in normal diplomatic practices, he handed over an invitation from Russian leaders for Bashar al-Assad to visit the Russian Federation, including Crimea. Well, that’s about it.

Please come to Crimea. They are telling us that human rights are being violated in Crimea. But all those who are concerned with this matter have repeatedly been able to see what life is really like there. Those trying to make a politically motivated story out of this insist that they will only go to Crimea via Ukrainian territory. This is out of the question because Crimea is part of the Russian Federation under the results of the March 2014 referendum that involved the people of Crimea. But for some reason, not all Western journalists want to go there and see everything with their very own eyes. They have every opportunity to see how the people of Crimea live. If they are interested in a political game, they strike an attitude and say that they will only visit Crimea via Ukrainian territory. This is unprofessional.

Speaking of professionalism, I would like to mention another aspect, namely, Donbass. In effect, Ukraine is divided by the frontline. Provocations continue despite the Minsk Agreements and all attempts by members of the Normandy format and the Contact Group to fulfil all the agreements. Thank God, there are no large-scale hostilities like back in 2014 and early 2015, but regular firefights occur, despite regular “school,” “harvest” and “Christmas” ceasefire agreements. We have been asking officials from the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine not to issue sterile reports listing attacks on communities, the number of killed and wounded civilians. Instead, we are expecting them to provide specific updates on the developments in various sections of the demarcation line and to focus on attacks against civilian facilities and casualties and fatalities among the civilians. In September 2017, the OSCE issued the first such report listing the location of attacks and the damage incurred. This was a difficult job because the Ukrainian authorities tried hard to forbid the OSCE from publishing this report. According to this report, five times more civilian facilities were damaged in the areas controlled by the self-defence fighters. The responsibility for this rests with the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Civilians living in such places also sustained six-seven times more casualties and fatalities. Any military expert would use this data to note that such a correlation between damage and civilian casualties and fatalities means that, by all appearances, the Armed Forces of Ukraine attack civilian facilities in communities, including kindergartens, hospitals and schools. For their part, self-defence fighters retaliate by hitting positions from which they are being attacked. I have mentioned journalism and professionalism. Representatives of the Russian media work non-stop, seven days a week and 24 hours a day in areas controlled by self-defence fighters. They show the extent of damage and the real results of the operations involving the Armed Forces of Ukraine. If our Western partners are saying that Russia and the separatists are to blame for everything, and that the Minsk Agreements would be immediately fulfilled as soon as Russia wants this to happen, and that Ukraine has allegedly fulfilled them almost completely (this is what some of our European colleagues and US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker are saying), then it would probably be no problem to send BBC, CNN and Euronews correspondents to areas controlled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and to show everyone how people live there and the extent of damaged civilian facilities, if any. I have repeatedly spoken with journalists I know about this but failed to get any reply. They are simply looking at me, nodding but doing nothing. If Donetsk and Lugansk are accused of everything, including aggressive behaviour, then it would be appropriate to send journalists there, so that they would work honestly in areas allegedly severely attacked by self-defence fighters. Over all these years, BBC and someone else sent their groups there only once or twice, and that was all about it.



Question:

Speaking of President of Syria Bashar al-Assad once again, does Syria plan to conduct economic operations in Crimea or not?



Sergey Lavrov:

This depends on the extent to which this region and a certain region in Syria, be it Damascus, Latakia or any other, are interested in specific projects. This was the first meeting between the Head of Crimea and representatives of the Syrian leadership. Quite possibly, they will be able to discuss mutually beneficial projects after assessing the local situation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3374833






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with RT France, Paris Match and Le Figaro



18 October 2018 - 08:00







Question:

Western countries, the media and various organisations, including the World Anti-Doping Agency and the OPCW, have been constantly accusing Russia of meddling in elections and staging cyberattacks. Just recently, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands simultaneously voiced similar accusations and submitted six-month-old information to the media. What is this? Is this part of a planned campaign to put pressure on Russia and introduce new sanctions? What do you think about the evidence that has been presented?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is hard for me to think about this seriously because all the evidence has been presented to us through the media. With all respect to the media and the profession of journalism, we, as serious people, cannot examine such cases where Russia is accused of all mortal sins while the legal norms created specifically for such situations are being disregarded.

You mentioned the anti-Russia accusations that were brough up six months ago. We were recently presented with accusations that date back four years. The British government has once again turned its attention to the death of former Aeroflot Vice President Nikolai Glushkov in London, where he had been granted political asylum. Speculations about Russia’s complicity in his death are already being circulated. Shortly before his death, Glushkov wanted to disclose information about his contacts with the security services and their plans in the United Kingdom and other Western countries. So, six months is not the limit. We are ready for even more massive provocations. Our response is very simple: if they communicate with us through the media, we will also reply very cordially via the media.

This means that we ask absolutely practical questions. Why doesn’t the OPCW activate its mechanism for investigating the incident you mentioned? The document states expressly that a country party to the Convention, if it has questions for another signatory country, should launch direct professional dialogue. This was not done. Moreover, the Investigative Committee of Russia sent an inquiry to the concerned British agencies, noting the need to activate provisions of an agreement for mutual assistance on criminal cases. The British side failed to reply to this inquiry for several months. We received a reply several days ago stating that, for security reasons, the UK is in no position to assist Russia on this criminal case linked with the fate of the Russian citizens. Sergey Skripal is both a Russian and British citizen, but Yulia Skripal is exclusively a Russian citizen. All international conventions require London to honour its obligations and to allow Russian representatives to meet with her. But this has not happened.

In addition, no answer has been provided to a very specific, question: where is Sergey Skripal? Where is Yulia Skripal? These are not questions in the “highly likely, no one else had a motive” style. Why aren’t their relatives allowed to meet with them? Why have their relatives been refused British visas? There are many other specific questions. If our Western colleagues are trying to wind us up and make us loose our temper, they surely have not studied history. If all this is superficial and this political rage is only a temporary thing and will go away on its own after they run out of steam, then we will be ready to conduct a serious, professional and propaganda-free conversation that remains within the bounds of the law.



Question (retranslated from French):

French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking about Russia, unlike his predecessor François Hollande, has said that he intends to improve our relations. Is it a sign of a new era of greater openness in our relations?



Sergey Lavrov:

It seems to me that the intentions declared by the current French leaders do deserve support where they concern interaction with Russia. We can also hear many accusatory invectives from Paris, including with respect to our media, such as Sputnik, RIA Novosti and RT France, which are actually isolated from the Elysee Palace and sometimes also from other official entities of the French Republic. We listen to the criticism against us for doing nothing in order to overcome this or that crisis, but at the same time we see that President Macron and his team are interested in developing a dialogue with us. However, it is going on in a rather ambiguous manner. We are completely open for cooperation but sometimes good intentions that are implemented at first, later stall.

You mentioned President Hollande. After a heinous terrorist attack in Nice in 2016 President Hollande displayed initiative and came to Russia to talk to President Putin. It seemed to me that a very serious and sincere understanding was reached on specific forms of engagement in combatting terrorism, including in the Mediterranean region, given the Syrian crisis. However, the heat of the moment subsided in several days. And we never had any practical interaction with France then. Now we are prepared for any forms of cooperation in antiterrorist matters and other spheres. I would like to mention Syria. We have established a rather trusted two-way foreign ministries’ channel for the foreign policy and diplomatic aides of the two presidents. We are maintaining this channel. It is useful enough: it makes it possible to exchange information and understand each other better. There was a cooperative initiative of President Putin and President Macron concerning joint humanitarian aid. French aid was delivered to East Ghouta by Russian transport and distributed among those who needed it. So far this is the only initiative. We are also ready for more active things.

We are closely cooperating with France in a settlement of the Ukrainian crisis in terms of strict observation of the Minsk Agreements (a result of joint work of the Russian, French, German and Ukrainian leaders). We are talking about another meeting in the Normandy format. We had two summit meetings –in Paris in 2015 and in Berlin in 2016. We are for holding a third summit. Naturally, it should be well prepared so that the leaders of the four states do not feel awkward because the decisions of the previous summits are yet to be implemented. Indeed, they are not even on paper yet (we want to put them down on paper), but in the air, including in terms of the forces disengagement in three populated centres within the conflict zone. This intention is blocked, and toughly blocked by Kiev authorities. And also with regard to putting on paper the Steinmeier formula that provides specific parameters of granting Ukrainian territory a special status, something, and I am saying this again, which was first agreed in Paris and later reconfirmed in Berlin. As soon as we fulfil what the leaders spoke about at least in respect of these two matters, we will be ready to hold the next summit.

Together with France we have many other forms of cooperation. Soon after his election President Macron invited Vladimir Putin to France and in June 2017 they met in Versailles. The meeting results include, in addition to the confirmation of interest in developing and normalizing our relations, an understanding on starting a Trianon Dialogue. This is a very important format that enables the public, civil society, NGOs, scholars and political scientists to communicate on a regular basis. It already works. Many events, which to my mind enjoy much success with the public in Russia and in France, are conducted. Regretfully, so far more formal intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary entities are not as active as the public of our countries. The Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation still cannot resume its work. It is managed by heads of the Russian and French governments. The Commission has not had a meeting for a long time, although an authority at the level of ministers of the economy, who are to prepare the meeting, has resumed its contacts. Of course, we also thought it to be right if a large parliamentary commission could resume its activities. President Macron has expressed his interest in it. We fully share this attitude and I hope that all the problems remaining on our bilateral and multilateral agendas (they do exist and they are complex ones) will be dealt with, given the goodwill of both presidents which is evident.



Question:

I have a very simple question regarding Iran, Syria and Ukraine. Do you find French politics very similar to the politics of the United States?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would not say so, because speaking of Iran, for instance, Russia and France together with Great Britain, Germany and China are countries committed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Active efforts are now underway, including by the aforementioned countries that initiated the treaty, excluding the United States, which abandoned it. The three European countries together with Russia, China and Iran are working hard to keep the agreement without the United States. This required developing mechanisms that will allow us to secure everything that has been agreed upon, including economic benefits for Iran, which will fulfil its obligations in new circumstances. These efforts include many technical matters as well as financial and bank procedures, but we are working on it. I hope that the threats voiced by Washington, which abandoned the Iran nuclear deal and demands that others do so as well, despite it being one of the most important agreements in recent years, will fail to affect European business.

I heard that some European companies, including French ones, left Iran. Our colleagues in Berlin and Paris, affirming their respective governments' commitment to the deal, say they cannot force businesses to remain in Iran if they have greater interests in the United States. We are aware of it. However, the government can and must make every effort to provide an alternative option to businesses. This is what our colleagues from financial departments, central banks and other structures are working on. So I do not see France’s and the United States' stances as similar just as I do not see Paris’s and Washington's positions as coinciding on a whole array of other issues, including the Paris Agreement, which the United States withdrew from as well, just as they withdrew from UNESCO, a major respected organisation headquartered in Brussels. This is not a very good example of political accord between the United States and France; here their interests are clearly at odds.

As regards Syria, here you have more common ground in approaching the crisis not only between France and the United States but between Europe and the United States as well. Initiated by French President Emmanuel Macron, the “small group” on Syria comprises France, the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. We do not share the stance of this group. Here you have rather similar views with Washington, seeking regime change at any cost and wanting the political process to ultimately conclude in regime change, regardless of the forms in which this stance is expressed at any stage. This contradicts UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which we want to respect and which sets forth a very simple principle - only the Syrian people themselves can choose their and their country's future. As you know, this resolution supports developing a new constitution and holding an election observed by the UN that all Syrians can take part in.

We cannot agree with the actions of this so-called "small group," particularly, the Western countries, as regards the use of force against the Syrian state and government facilities under the pretext of Damascus use of chemical weapons, which was never proven by evidence. What happened on April 14, when France, Great Britain and the United States conducted air strikes on facilities that they claimed were involved in producing chemical weapons in Syria, took place several hours prior to OPCW inspectors arriving at those facilities. Your officials were perfectly aware of this. Everyone was aware of this. If in this situation, when inspectors were about to arrive and conduct an independent investigation, three countries decided to bomb that territory, then I have no other explanation than they learned the accusations against Damascus were fake and this was an attempt by your official structures to cover their tracks. Since then, we have tried to build a dialogue. We support contacts, even with those who do not share our assessments and whose assessments we do not share either. Russia is in Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government, while Western countries were not invited. A while ago, French President Emmanuel Macron came up with the idea that the "small group" should have contacts with the Astana group, which comprises Russia, Turkey and Iran. We are ready for such contacts. Before seriously discussing anything, we must agree on the basis of such talks. There can be only one basis – UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which gives top priority to Syrians' approaches and the processes they themselves must conduct. We cannot solve serious issues behind the back of Syria's government, opposition and civil society.

I have already spoken about Ukraine. There is a Contact Group, where the government and opposition with support from the OSCE and Russia must agree on concrete steps to fulfil the Minsk Agreements, and there is the Normandy format, which is represented by Russia, France, Germany and Ukraine and must accompany the work of the Contact Group. We cooperate rather closely in this format. Although a summit has not taken place for two years, experts and ministers - including those from Russia and France - communicate within this format. In my opinion, we now understand each other better.



Question:

The Western mainstream media remain silent about the largest humanitarian crisis in Yemen. While some countries, such as France, supply weapons to Saudi Arabia, the media do not speak about victims such as those in Mosul or Raqqa, where vast numbers of civilians were killed. At the same time, the situation around the liberation of Eastern Aleppo, where Russia organised humanitarian corridors, was declared the main disaster in the region. How would you explain these double standards?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is simple: in one word, this is propaganda, and unscrupulous propaganda at that. You have mentioned Yemen. Some time ago, representatives of the United Nations at the level of the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Issues said the Yemen situation was the worst humanitarian catastrophe of our time. We participate in the efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people and send them humanitarian aid from time to time. This is difficult given the ongoing military operations. We have managed to reach several agreements with the coalition, in particular, with Saudi Arabia that leads the coalition. Such humanitarian deliveries have taken place. We will continue with them. We know that the coalition, while continuing military operations, also provides substantial humanitarian aid for the Yemeni people. This is useful, but the war must end. I believe that Martin Griffiths, the United Nations Special Envoy for Yemen, has very noble ideas and thoughts. We would like to help him. The key task right now is to cease hostilities, to reach an agreement on how Port Al Hudaydah, where the fiercest combat is taking place, should operate, and then move on to the political process, which was impeded by disputes on where to assemble and how to get there. This does not correspond to the tension of the moment, and we will do our utmost to show that it is necessary to set all secondary things aside and sit down at the negotiating table without any preliminary conditions.

As for other situations – you have mentioned Raqqa and Mosul – nobody was worried about any special additional measures to alleviate or minimise risks for civilians, like we did in Aleppo. We established humanitarian corridors in Aleppo and also in Eastern Ghouta. We took additional security measures along these corridors and spoke with the opposition. Residents who wanted to leave those districts had the opportunity to do so. Fighters who wanted to leave and to stop taking part in the military operations also had such an opportunity. This was widely discussed back then, including in the western media and the media in some of the countries in the region. It was said that it was ethnic cleansing and people were being exiled from where they lived. Let me remind you that since then hundreds of thousands of Aleppo residents have returned and continue to return. All the basic infrastructure and the conditions necessary for people’s vital needs have been completely restored there.

By the way, when battles took place to liberate Eastern Aleppo, among the complaints of our western colleagues was the issue of a lack of medicines. There were constant demands for the safeguarding of medical convoys, including surgical instruments. In fact, there were reasons to suspect that, in addition to sincere humanitarian concerns, these demands were also made in order to deliver medicines, materials and instruments necessary to treat militants.

When Eastern Aleppo was liberated, representatives of the World Health Organisation went there from Damascus and announced publicly that a vast number of large warehouses with all the necessary medicines had been found, so there was no shortage in Aleppo.

As for Raqqa and Mosul, nobody declared any humanitarian corridors there and nobody was concerned whether civilians could find a safe way out to return later. They have only begun returning now. Until recently, unburied corpses lay there for months and nobody cleared the mines like our soldiers did in Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta.

Let me repeat once again: of course, we draw the UN’s attention to the situation facing civilians in Raqqa and other places. We have never acted in accordance with the principle “if your propaganda attacks us in Aleppo, we will respond to you with Raqqa.” We want an objective and complete picture of the situation in all Syrian districts to be shown to the international community.



Question:

Let us discuss the 2015 situation in Aleppo and Ghouta once again. At each stage of the Syrian war, Russia was accused of conducting air strikes against the civilian population. As a diplomat, do you regret the fact that so many people have been killed in order to end this conflict? If we compare the 2011 situation when Bashar al-Assad was in power with the current developments, we will see that, in effect, little has changed.



Sergey Lavrov:

Any normal person cannot treat lightheartedly a situation when civilians are being killed and when people, especially civilians, perish. All conventions dealing with international humanitarian law that have been signed by Russia, France and most other countries oblige the signatories to do everything possible to prevent risks for the civilian population. For example, these conventions expressly ban any attacks on civilian facilities, schools, hospitals, residential areas and dual-purpose facilities where civilians are supposed to be.

If you are sincerely interested how humankind, including Western and Russian civilisations, is fulfilling these requirements, then it would be appropriate to start discussing this matter from an earlier vantage point. In this connection, considering the fact that we are Europeans and members of the OSCE, I would like to begin with the year 1999 when NATO indiscriminately bombed Yugoslavia, without distinguishing between civilian and dual-purpose facilities. They hit the Defence Ministry, the General Staff and a railway bridge when a train was crossing it.

The following incident is linked with your profession: NATO aircraft bombed a television centre in Belgrade because it allegedly spread “mendacious propaganda.” This evokes some recollections when they, including Paris, are telling us that Russian media outlets are nothing but propaganda tools.

I agree with you completely. By the way, NATO bombed Libya under the guidance of France. President Nicolas Sarkozy was the main instigator of this operation, conducted in violation of a UN Security Council resolution that merely called for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya, so that Muammar Gaddafi’s aircraft would be unable to take off. By the way, his aircraft did not fly. Nevertheless, they started bombing Libya. In 2011, the French military noted openly that they were supplying weapons to Gaddafi’s opponents in violation of an arms embargo regarding the delivery of any weapons to Libya. Predictably, the current situation in Libya amounts to a tremendous humanitarian disaster, with refugees and immigrants flooding into Europe. At the same time, bandits and terrorists, including those with French weapons, are moving into Sub-Saharan Africa.

I remember an incident which is impossible to forget. Soon after NATO had bombed Libya, and after terrorists relocated down in the south, former French Minister of Foreign Affairs Laurent Fabius phoned me and expressed French concerns about the deteriorating situation in Mali where a French military contingent was stationed by agreement with Bamako. Various bad people approached the country’s capital from northern Mali and Touareg territories with the intention of seizing it. France wanted the UN Security Council to allow its military contingent to combat this terrorist threat. Mr Fabius called me and asked us not to object. We supported this idea because this amounts to a really important job and a terrorist threat. I told him to keep in mind that they would thwart the actions of people whom they had armed in Libya. He laughed and said: “C’est la vie” (“Such is life.”) But, to be honest, “C’est la vie” is not about politics, it is about double standards.

Regarding Syria, I would like to note once again that I mentioned this while replying to the previous question. We did our best to protect the civilian population during the liberation of Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta. By the way, we also accomplished this while addressing the matter of the southern de-escalation zone that was established by Russia, the United States and Jordan during consultations with Israel, all the more so as the Golan Heights are located nearby. That operation did not cause any substantial humanitarian consequences. UN disengagement forces patrol the Golan Heights once again. The Alpha and Bravo lines, manned by Syrian and Israeli forces, have been reinstated under the 1974 agreements. Of course, it is necessary to act like this all the time.

We don’t know about the situation in some of the other Syrian regions. For example, US forces are digging in on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. They have unilaterally established a 55-km security zone around Al-Tanfa base housing the Rukban refugee camp which cannot be accessed. No one can guarantee that it is possible to safely enter this camp, without risking an attack by terrorists, including ISIS militants, who are feeling great in this US-controlled zone.

We are receiving additional evidence that the United States continues to relocate ISIS militants to Iraq and Afghanistan. These facts are alarming. We have sent inquiries to the relevant international agencies and the United States. We are alarmed in this connection because such actions reflect the suspicions of many analysts that there are plans to turn Afghanistan into a new ISIS bridgehead. Most ISIS militants are settling down in northern Afghanistan, that is, in direct proximity to our allies and strategic partners. This is an extremely serious matter. We will demand absolute clarity here.



Question:

I would like to ask you about Russia-China military exercises held recently. It was an impressive event discussed by all the international media. We have several questions. Today many believe that Russia has turned towards China. Or is it still facing the West? What do you think?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have an eagle with two heads in our coat of arms. By fate, history and our predecessors’ achievements Russia covers the area that it covers. Russia has never had the luxury of turning its back to Europe or to Asia. Of course, in the cultural sense Russia is part of the European civilisation. It has made an enormous contribution to the heritage that the European civilisation enjoys and is so proud of, such as composers, poets, writers, artists and others; by the way, many Russians lived and worked in France. We have a great deal in common: a mixture of cultures and ideals, among other things. In better times, Russia and the European Union held regular summits. One summit, back in 2007 or 2008, I believe, took place in Khabarovsk. The European Commission was chaired by Jose Manuel Barroso at the time. When the European delegation arrived in Khabarovsk, they took a walk along the embankment and were amazed to see that they flew 10 hours from Moscow and were still surrounded by a European atmosphere. Vladivostok and our other eastern cities make the same impression. As Russia asserted itself as an Asian or European power, it has always remained a country that is part of the European culture. Of course, there are many examples when Asian culture has also influenced our genetic code, such as the heritage of the Huns. Many Russian researchers studied the impact eastern tribes had on this geopolitical space. As a result, today Russia is a multiethnic and multiconfessional country, and our Muslims live in the areas where their ancestors lived for many centuries. It is not an imported nation.

To answer your question, let me say that our relations with China went through difficult times in the 1950s–1960s and in the early 1970s, but after that our two large and great countries realised, thanks to the wisdom of their leaders, that they should use their proximity to their advantage. Many parts of our economies are complementary, as are our approaches to regional and international problems. Our relations began improving then, and in 2000 we signed the first documents that characterise them as strategic cooperation and a comprehensive partnership. Russia and the People’s Republic of China have never enjoyed such a level of relations as they do now.

In the middle of the 2000s, we finally dealt with the territorial issues by signing an agreement following the talks that lasted for more than 40 years. It would be unwise and lacking foresight for Russia not to use these advantages in the West and in the East.

Perhaps I should note that due to objective factors the main population of Russia is located in its European part, where industry and agriculture are best developed. Overall, the Far East is less developed than the European part. So perhaps there are more business opportunities in the west of Russia because they are, if I may say so, more easily accessed – geographically, economically, infrastructurally (infrastructure is much better developed in this part of Europe and Russia). There were many old partners very close, the relations with whom have been developing for many decades, and even centuries in many cases.

At the same time, we realised well that we should create conditions that would interest people in the Far East, so they would want to move there, to work there and to settle down there, as Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said since he became President. In order to do this, the Far East must have the necessary economic, transport, social and cultural infrastructure. The government is working on this. This is difficult, because a lot of work must be done, the tasks are ambitious, but we can see the progress. A number of legislative initiatives have been adopted to give a boost to the development of these Russian regions. The free port of Vladivostok has been established there as well as a simplified e-visa procedure and benefits for those who want to move there, including free land among other things. Of course, we have been doing that for almost 20 years. But when relations with Europe started to decline due to the sanctions and other political processes, when trade decreased sharply (I believe it was $440 billion in 2013, while last year, although trade grew compared with 2016, it was only $217 billion, or half the volume of three years ago), we began looking for opportunities to compensate for the dwindling volume of mutually beneficial economic cooperation.

Such opportunities were becoming more pronounced in cooperation with China, as well as with India and with Japan and Korea to some degree, because during that time these countries’ potential grew significantly and they showed an interest in our goods, not only in energy, but also in cooperation in space exploration, nuclear energy, aviation and car manufacturing. So there is no political blueprint or programme. This is just a response to the current conditions in order to develop economic ties as effectively as possible, nothing more.

As you know, we are rebuilding relations with European countries very successfully now. I cannot say the same about the European Commission. As I understand, the European Commission is still in thrall to what you call “solidarity” and “consensus”, when a small group of countries that does not want to have good relations with Russia forces all other countries to keep low profile. But I am sure that national interests, which are now increasingly mentioned in discussions of the European Union’s future, will lead to the fact that the reforms, which Emmanuel Macron speaks about among others, will reflect the consensus not in the sense that a minority can block the majority’s interests, but so that a middle ground can be found, and the European Union’s position on Russia will not always be based on the lowest and the most negative denominator. I do not think that the EU’s policy towards Russia will not always be largely and sometimes crucially determined by the states leaving the European Union.







Question:

Europe is concerned about the upcoming elections. Headlines are full of the impending radicalisation of Europe and the right-wing forces potential coming to power. Russia, on the other hand, is often accused of sympathy for the far-right political movements in Europe, if not of direct support. Could you clarify Russia’s position on this matter?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would say this is the wrong idea, because those who think such a thing, who express such thoughts, do not know the nature of our people. Russians are very responsive, hospitable and reluctant to take a grudge.

I do not want to cite historical examples here, but the fact of our reconciliation with Germany is widely known. Now our people have almost nothing to quarrel over with the Germans, except for some political games that ordinary people have little to do with.

Speaking bluntly, when we are offered an opportunity to build constructive relations, to consider matters of mutual interest, and the other person is ready for equal and mutually respectful cooperation, personally, that person’s political views will be the last thing I will care about. If that person represents a political force that operates in a legitimate legal field, if they do not violate the laws of their country or any international norms, why should they be “untouchable”? If the only reason is their approach that does not fit with the current European mainstream, then, probably, this is not quite democratic.

Who knows when the current “fringe groups,” as populists call them, will become mainstream? Maybe they will create a new mainstream after some time. Nobody knows that. But democracy is democracy. In 2000 I think, Jorg Haider’s party won the parliamentary elections in Austria. The whole of Europe considered it populist, preaching the values of the Austrian people’s democratic will unacceptable for liberal policies. But he was still forced to resign.

Speaking of the universal application of democracy, when in 2007 the Americans wanted to hold elections in the Gaza Strip in Palestine, many warned them that, before holding elections, they needed to make sure that all the political forces understood the process the same way, and advised them to postpone the vote. However, then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted almost single-handedly on holding the elections immediately. This was done, and Hamas won. The Americans quickly said the elections were illegitimate, although all the international observers who were present during the voting said that everything was in order. So it is very important not to set artificial tasks.

We are trying to help resolve the situation in Libya with our French colleagues, as well as with our Italian and other European and regional partners. We highly appreciated what President Emmanuel Macron did back in May, when he invited four key players to Paris. They reached an understanding and agreed on December 10 as a tentative date for holding elections in Libya. Unfortunately, that understanding is not very accurately implemented and as a result, the main political forces still do not have a general agreement on how this political system will work. So according to many experts, it will be risky to hold elections in a situation like this. Therefore, under these circumstances, we, like in Yemen, support the UN special envoy - the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Libya, Ghassan Salame, who is trying to find approaches that would really reflect the consensus of the political forces before they can go to the polls with a clear conscience and mutual commitments.



Question:

Under President Donald Trump, the United States has withdrawn from many international treaties and agreements, including the Paris and Vienna agreements, as well as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme that we have discussed so much. It turns out that the United States is an unpredictable ally. Many people are now saying that Europe should become more independent. What do you think of such an emergent powerful and independent Europe?



Sergey Lavrov:

You know, this question should, first of all, be addressed to Europe itself. But we have always said that we are interested in a united, powerful and predictable Europe that would decide its own future, choose its own partners and chart its own actions with regard to other partners. In reality, this is our position, rather than mere words.

I cannot say that Europe looks independent today. Quite possibly, this perception motivates European leaders to discuss the situation and to understand the place of Europe in the modern world, all the more so as the centre of economic development has now shifted to the Asia-Pacific region. The competitiveness of Europe and the preservation of civilisational values are now at stake. We see the initiative of President of France Emmanuel Macron regarding the EU reform (an initial serious discussion of the EU reform, to be more exact), as a reflection of these thoughts.

We would also like to know how these discussions will develop. During our upcoming contacts in the near future, we would like to be briefed by our colleagues on how they see this matter. So far, we can hear ideas being set forth in the context of concentric circles with several membership categories, including a common monetary union, even a common ministry of finance and a central bank. The second circle is less integrated. The third circle will include partners who are so far unprepared for any serious moves.

Apart from economics and finance, the security issue is also being mentioned. European leaders, including President of France Emmanuel Macron and some others, are openly saying that Europe cannot rely solely on the United States for its security. I am noting this in an absolutely neutral manner and merely repeating statements from European capitals.

This is Europe’s right, and there is also NATO to consider. President Emmanuel Macron has said that NATO will remain, no matter what. But, in his opinion, Europe should also strive to enhance its independence in the area of defence and security. I don’t know exactly how this concept will be formulated, and how it will be harmonised with intra-NATO circumstances. I can see and hear that the United States now focuses on this issue inside NATO and proactively promotes the so-called “military Schengen” concept that aims to overhaul the European infrastructure in such a way, so as to more quickly deploy heavy weapons near Russian borders. In effect, this is what the “military Schengen” is all about.

All these processes are very interesting, including all NATO exercises, now being conducted in the three Baltic states, Poland, Romania and other countries, the deployment of German, Canadian, British and apparently French contingents in the three Baltic states and Poland, as well as the intention of our Polish colleagues to allow the United States to deploy one division on Polish territory. This would directly violate the Russia-NATO Founding Act that bans the deployment of substantial permanent military forces on the territories of NATO member-countries in Eastern and Central Europe. We will keep tabs on them because this also concerns our security.

There are many ideas. Regarding the initiatives of President of France Emmanuel Macron, he recently voiced the European intervention initiative, explaining it by the need to quickly send certain military contingents to hot spots from time to time, without waiting for any special UN Security Council resolutions and even those of NATO and the EU. Although he did not name these contingents, their description matches that of old-time expeditionary forces. To the best of my knowledge, this resembles some self-contained task force that would primarily accomplish certain objectives in Africa.

I don’t know how feasible this is, but the fact that such ideas are being voiced confirms that the issue of how the EU will address security issues is long overdue. I repeat, we will follow this closely. We want a powerful and independent European Union, and, of course, we don’t want the EU and NATO to discuss European security issues behind the scenes because this is our common continent, we have common borders, and they had promised us a lot when we were withdrawing our forces from Europe, and when NATO was expanding.



Question:

I would like to go back to the military exercises in Eastern Europe you have mentioned. Are we on the threshold of World War III?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think all parties will be reasonable enough not to take things as far as that, although, of course, we are quite concerned with there being no professional dialogue whatsoever between the Russian and NATO military.

The Russia-NATO Council, which has been frozen by our Western partners, met three times during the last couple of years, without any result to speak of. The initiative to resume those meetings came from NATO, but they said they wanted to meet in order to discuss Ukraine. I am trying to stay within the bounds of decency, but this means just one thing: they wanted to use the Russia-NATO Council as yet another tool to accuse us of all mortal sins and as yet another method to gratify the whims of our Ukrainian neighbours, who are dreaming of sanctions being tightened ad infinitum and Russia continuously getting the flak. We agreed to join the discussion with the understanding that we should also discuss Afghanistan, which we did, the fight against terrorism and other more real problems than the crisis in Ukraine which is artificially kept alive to please the radical nationalists and neo-Nazis.

However, apart from these “get-togethers” at the level of permanent representatives, practically all forms of Russia-NATO cooperation are frozen. I mean Afghanistan, where the “helicopter package” – a programme of personnel training to fight drug trafficking in Afghanistan – was being implemented with much success, and many other things.

Accordingly, the military dialogue has been frozen through and through. Periodically, Russian Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov talks over the phone with Supreme Allied Commander Europe Curtis Scaparotti. But this is not what is needed in the current situation, where risks of an accident are growing significantly. Not so long ago, a Spanish fighter jet in Estonia fired an air-to-air missile by accident. Thank God, it did not kill anyone. But what if it had fallen on Russian rather than Estonian territory? It was just a short distance away.

Therefore, a professional and constant dialogue is absolutely necessary. But NATO has been evading it. As I understand, this is largely so because the US laws passed to enable imposing sanctions on the Russian Federation ban the Pentagon from cooperating with the Russian Defence Ministry, among other things. It is clear that NATO won’t do anything without the US. So, look at this situation. I think it is silly to remain hostage to US legislators’ whims. In the final analysis, they found an opportunity to start working with us in Syria and continue to do that in the context of so-called deconflicting, lest there are any clashes. But NATO takes no such steps towards our common European territory. So, look: The stockpiling of weapons on our borders, the intention to modernise the transport infrastructure in Europe so that it is easier for US heavy weapons and probably weapons of other NATO countries to pick up our borders, the openly provocative military exercises – not the Russian-Chinese exercises in the middle of Siberia – but those in Ukraine, Georgia and the Black Sea… Today Ukraine wants to invite NATO exercises to the Sea of Azov, but they will be unable to sail there because the existing Russian-Ukrainian agreement requires the two countries’ mutual consent to the passage of warships to the Sea of Azov. But they are willing to do that and are being actively encouraged. All of this is taking place against the background of the new US military doctrine that dramatically lowers the threshold for using nuclear weapons. Nuclear warheads with a very low-yield are being developed with the clear intention to make them a possible means of warfare. This will conceptually erode all existing agreements, under which these are deterrents and reciprocal containment weapons, but not weapons for real warfare. But the low-yield warheads … the need for them is explained in this new military doctrine. Back in the Soviet times, if my memory serves me right, we and the Americans issued two serious joint statements saying that no one could win a nuclear war and therefore it should not be fought. It would not be a bad thing to confirm this statement under the present conditions.



Question:

The Ukrainian Patriarchate decided to turn its back on Moscow and become independent from the Russian Orthodox Church. This is considered an important decision, politically. What do you think of the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church?

On November 11, we will mark the 100th anniversary of the Armistice in World War I. Many heads of European governments will attend. Do you think President Vladimir Putin will attend?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Ukrainian Patriarchate has not turned its back on the Russian Orthodox Church because the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate does not support the provocations that Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has launched with direct public support from Washington.

This provocation is aimed at using two non-canonical schismatic churches in Ukraine (the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church), which have never been recognized by a single Orthodox Church. However, Patriarch Bartholomew recently convened the Holy Synod in Constantinople and made them canonical and lifted the anathema from the two hierarchs leading these churches solely to facilitate this provocation. Most local Orthodox churches have expressed indignation. I would guess that this is not about a few days of repercussions, but a long term issue. The idea behind this is obvious – another step in tearing Ukraine from Russia, not just politically, but also spiritually.

Ukraine’s new laws that strip language minorities of the rights they had until recently are part of the same story. They recently passed an even more interesting law in the first reading, in addition to the one I just mentioned, “On the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as a State Language.” It limits education in schools and universities in Ukraine to the Ukrainian language only. Minority languages ​​can be used in kindergarten and elementary school (Grades 1-4). Exceptions can be made for English and other EU languages. This means that the only target being attacked is the Russian language, which the majority of Ukrainian citizens speak, and many are native speakers. We have asked the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Harlem Desir, and Council of Europe agencies, what they think about this and whether they are planning to make an effort to see that this bill never goes further than the first reading. Let us see what the answer will be. The Constitution of Ukraine explicitly says “it is necessary to protect the Russian language and other languages ​​of national minorities.” So this is also the competence of the constitutional court.

As for church problems, intervention in the life of the church is legally prohibited in Ukraine, in Russia, and I hope, in any other adequate country. But, when the US special representative on church relations openly welcomes Patriarch Bartholomew's decision, when Kurt Volker, whose duty is to facilitate a settlement in Ukraine based on the Minsk Agreements on behalf of the US, says what he says on this matter, that’s the pot calling the kettle black. The people who cannot cite a single fact confirming their groundless accusations that we meddle in others' affairs behave as if this is normal! I am not even talking about the US ambassadors in countries like Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, let alone Ukraine, because the country is essentially under external control; everyone knows that.

So several issues are coming up, also for discussion at the Paris Peace Forum. I very much hope that the forum organisers will not turn a blind eye to these extremely negative trends of replacing the culture of dialogue, negotiation, the culture of diplomacy, with dictatorship through blatant blackmail. This is probably a discussion that has yet to be assessed. We have not yet received accurate information on how the platform will be structured or what its specific agenda will be, but we are certainly looking forward with interest to see how it will go and be accepted by the European public.

As for the 100th anniversary of the Armistice that ended WWI, we have received invitations and will definitely be represented there.



Question:

Will your country be represented by Russian President Vladimir Putin?



Sergey Lavrov:

This will be announced by the Kremlin. What events the President of the Russian Federation attends and where, is usually announced by his press service.



Question:

I would like to revisit the Idlib issue. President Assad said that the situation in Idlib is temporary. Do you think your Turkish partners under the Sochi agreement are capable of disarming the jihadists in Idlib? How can a solution be found to this final part of the Syrian war?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is really a temporary agreement. This story will end only when the power of the Syrian people is restored in Syria, and all those who are now in Syria, especially those who were never invited there, leave its territory. Everyone understands this.

Now, with regard to the Sochi agreements. They are being acted upon. The demilitarized zone has been created around the perimeter of that area in Idlib, and heavy weapons are being withdrawn. Our Turkish partners are working with the opposition urging them to cooperate. This cooperation is underway. We will follow it closely.

I do not agree that Idlib is the only problem area in Syria. There are vast swathes of land to the east of the Euphrates River where absolutely unacceptable things are happening. The United States is trying to use this territory to create a quasi-state with its Syrian allies, particularly the Kurds.

The United States is trying, absolutely illegally, to create a quasi-state in this territory and to create proper living conditions there for their minions. They are creating alternative governing bodies to the legitimate Syrian government and are actively promoting the return and resettlement of the refugees. This is being done at a time where neither the United States, nor France, nor the other Western countries, want to create proper conditions for the return of the refugees in the territories controlled by the legitimate Syrian Government prior to, as the West keeps telling us, the beginning of a credible political process. The question is why no one has to wait for the beginning of a credible political process on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River controlled by the United States and their local supporters. There can be only one answer. They want to create a territory which will be a prototype for a new state, or start another dangerous game with Iraqi Kurdistan, the so-called idea of ​​Greater Kurdistan. I have not ruled out the possibility that the United States wants to keep the situation so heated that it never calms down. It is much easier for them to catch the fish they want in muddy waters. This approach has never led to anything positive.



Question:

ISIS still has control over these territories, correct?



Sergey Lavrov:

ISIS is present in small numbers. As I have already said, ISIS militants are present in the region of At-Tanf, which was illegitimately created by the United States. They are there, in fact, illegitimately, and this area was created, in fact, unilaterally. According to our data (other countries have them as well), they are sending ISIS gunmen to Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States is trying absolutely illegally to create a quasi-state in this territory and to create proper living conditions there for their minions. They are creating alternative governing bodies to the legitimate Syrian government and are actively promoting the return and resettlement of the refugees. This is being done at a time where neither the United States, nor France, or other Western countries, want to create proper conditions for the return of the refugees in the territories controlled by the legitimate Syrian Government prior to, as the West keeps telling us, the beginning of a credible political process. The question is why no one has to wait for the beginning of a credible political process on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River controlled by the United States and its local supporters. There can be only one answer. They want to create a territory which will be a prototype of a new state, or start another dangerous game with Iraqi Kurdistan, the so-called idea of ​​Greater Kurdistan. I do not rule out the possibility that the United States wants to keep the situation so heated that it never calms down. It is much easier for them to catch the fish they want in muddy waters. This approach has never led to anything good. When we are told that someone is doing something not to the liking of the United States, let’s think back to Iraq and the “vial” produced by hapless Colin Powell. Importantly, in May 2013 George Bush Jr. announced victory of democracy in Iraq from an aircraft carrier. Where is Iraq now? In Libya, it was also announced that the dictator was over and done with, and Hillary Clinton was watching live as he was being killed and was very excited about it. Where is Libya now? They wanted to do the same thing with Syria. Perhaps, the American way that things are being done in this and other regions can hardly be referred to as exemplary.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377331






The following event is not displayed in the English version.


15 October 2018

Meeting of S. Lavrov with the Deputy Secretary of the Security Council, Director of the Institute of Strategic and Interregional Studies under the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan V. Norov - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3374022
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:21 AM.
Page generated in 3.39844 seconds.