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

Old February 19th, 2018 #361
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov interviewed by Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, February 10, 2018



12 February 2018 - 18:57




Question:

Does the Foreign Ministry have any special traditions for celebrating Diplomatic Workers’ Day?



Mikhail Bogdanov:

First of all, I would like to congratulate my fellow diplomats who work at the central office and our foreign missions all over the world on their professional holiday, Diplomatic Workers’ Day. The deeply respected veterans of Russian diplomacy deserve words of special gratitude and the warmest congratulations. They have a priceless role to play while working consistently to strengthen the Foreign Ministry’s system of tutorship and passing rich experience on to young diplomats.

As is our tradition, the Foreign Ministry hosts an official meeting marking Diplomatic Workers’ Day with the Foreign Minister offering an address to event participants. On this day, we also remember and honour the memory of our comrades, our outstanding Russian diplomats who have passed. Flowers are laid at a memorial plaque that lists the names of our colleagues killed in action during the Great Patriotic War, as well as diplomats killed in the line of duty and during the Stalin-era purges, at the Foreign Ministry building. Russia’s foreign missions hold traditional protocol events involving senior officials of the receiving countries’ foreign ministries and representatives of the diplomatic corps.



Question:

When will Astana host the next meeting on Syria? Will meeting participants raise the issue of extending the agreement on the de-escalation zones that were established in the summer of 2017 for six months? Will they discuss a new zone around Afrin?



Mikhail Bogdanov:

Exact deadlines for the next Astana meeting on Syria have not been set yet. I can only say that the meeting will take place soon. We cannot lose momentum given to the Syrian peace settlement on January 29-30 by participants in the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. Iran and Turkey, our partners in the Astana process, played an important role in ensuring the success of this event. They worked with us to include as many Syrian political forces, representatives of civil society, ethnic and religious groups as possible in the work of the congress. They facilitated the adoption of well-thought-out decisions that could form the foundation of the intra-Syrian negotiating process under UN auspices.

We see the Sochi forum as the result of constructive cooperation between our three states in the Astana format, which marked its first anniversary in January 2018. The results achieved are quite impressive. A ceasefire has been declared in Syria, and the de-escalation zones were established. This has drastically reduced the level of violence and improved the humanitarian situation. The Syrian Army was able to focus on fighting military-political hotbeds of international terrorism in Syria and to defeat ISIS with the decisive support of Russian service personnel.

We consider it necessary to preserve this tool and to continue effectively using it to promote and restore peace in Syria through a political settlement under UN Security Council Resolution 2254. In no way is the Astana format a substitute for the Geneva format. The Astana format supplements and incentivises it in a natural way.

As regards the establishment of a new de-escalation zone, participants in Astana meetings continue to focus on this issue. At the same time, we consider it important that the parties to the talks in Astana address other aspects of the Syrian peace settlement, including political and humanitarian aspects, as well as the issue of strengthening trust between the Syrian warring parties. For example, a working group on arrested and detained persons has already been established. It is necessary to discuss the coordination of efforts to support and implement the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress with our partners. This concerns the establishment of a Constitutional Committee and initial efforts to implement constitutional reform.



Question:

Are you now in talks with other countries, including Egypt, Italy and the United States, on the post-war arrangements for Libya? Does Russia have its own plan on this issue?



Mikhail Bogdanov:

We have never tried to draft and implement any peace settlement concepts for Libya or to introduce post-conflict arrangement plans for various areas of society activities. That said, we have never held any talks on this issue with anyone; nor do we plan to in the future.

Since the beginning of the Libyan crisis, our efforts aimed to help launch wide-ranging intra-Libyan dialogue under UN auspices. This dialogue would be expected to put an end to the fratricidal civil war in this country. Our goal remains the same: We must help the people of Libya overcome their current disagreements and reach mutually acceptable compromises on all issues on the intra-Libyan agenda.

It is certain Western and regional players, which are actively involved in Libya, that strive to impose ready-made solutions on the people of Libya. We consider this approach counterproductive. Our principled stand implies that the people of Libya should independently decide the destiny of their country.

At the same time, in an effort to rule out any doubt on this, I would like to note that we do not support any specific party to the domestic Libyan conflict. In our work, we are guided solely by the imperative task of preserving the unity and territorial integrity of Libya. This is our unconditional priority. We would like Libya to overcome the protracted crisis as soon as possible and once again become a prosperous state with dependable state institutions and law enforcement agencies capable of countering terrorism. We want Libya to again become an important player in the Middle East. Our Libyan policy aims to achieve these tasks.



Question:

Did Baghdad or Erbil request mediation during their bilateral talks? To what extent did Baghdad’s sanctions against Erbil, imposed after the regional independence referendum, affect Russian companies and Russian oil contracts?



Mikhail Bogdanov:

It is not quite correct to talk about requests for mediation that are addressed to Russia. Moscow consistently advocates the unity of the federative Iraqi state, supports its sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is our principled stand. In our contacts with Baghdad and Erbil, we urge the parties to search for compromise solutions through constructive and mutually respectful dialogue based on the constitution of Iraq. This is a difficult goal considering the list of accumulated problems and the level of mutual mistrust. Nevertheless, as experience shows, the compromise is possible if the sides have the political will.

Regarding Russian companies, they continue to do business in Iraq and the autonomous Kurdistan region as an integral part of Iraq with a special status. At the same time, any problems arising during operations due to restrictive measures against Erbil, are addressed, one way or another, in cooperation with the Iraqi authorities who understand the difficulties of foreign economic operators working in the country.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3070916






Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov’s interview with the newspaper Izvestia, February 13, 2018



13 February 2018 - 12:04




Question:

The United States has announced the training of the Syrian Border Security Force, a 30,000 strong group that will be mostly comprised of Kurds. The first elections of different levels have been held in the so-called Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. Does Russia have a recipe for stopping this increasing disintegration?



Mikhail Bogdanov:

We do have a recipe. It is based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the fundamental principles of international law, which stem from the UN Charter. The UNSC resolution must be implemented and the principles must be complied with.

The recent Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, which was attended by ethnic Kurds, although they did not represent the Democratic Union Party, which currently holds leading positions in the north and northeast of Syria (the reasons for this are well known), has shown that the Syrians are resolved to preserve the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of their country. The final statement of the congress says this clearly and unambiguously. None of the congress delegates proposed disintegration.

Moreover, I can assure you that none of the Kurdish delegates that I met proposed this either.

We believe that separatist sentiments among some Kurds have been provoked by the clumsy actions of our American partners. These actions have created an illusion among the Kurds in northern Syria that they will not lose the protection and sponsorship of the United States no matter what they do. These actions have also engendered serious concern in Turkey over the security of its southern borders, which the Americans supposedly intend to turn over to US-trained and armed Kurdish forces, as some statements by US officials seem to indicate. You know about the negative consequences of this. Therefore, an additional ingredient of our recipe is a recommendation for all external forces that are trying to influence the situation in Syria to take into account the complicated regional realities and the specifics of Syria, a country with a rich history and national traditions.



Question:

The fate of Bashar al-Assad is the main unsettled issue. Russia’s partners have taken an inflexible stand. What solution can Russia offer?



Mikhail Bogdanov:

The future of Bashar al-Assad is in the hands of al-Assad himself and the Syrian people, who entrusted him with governing the country through the constitutional election mechanism. This issue has nothing to do with the partners you mentioned, who have no right to force their will on the people of sovereign states.

If the Syrian opposition believes that the Syrian people should have a different president, they should be in a hurry to attend the Geneva talks and conduct them in a responsible and constructive manner without any preconditions, so as to implement the provisions of UNSC Resolution 2254, which stipulates constitutional reform and UN-monitored elections based on this reform. The opponents of the current government will reach their goal only if they win this election. However, I seriously doubt that the Syrians will support them.



Question:

Russia has resumed flights to Egypt, but planes are so far only flying to Cairo. When will Russian airlines fly to resort cities of Sharm el-Sheikh and Hurghada?



Mikhail Bogdanov:

Under the agreements between the presidents of Russia and Egypt, the sides are working on the resumption of direct flights between Moscow and Cairo. We expect the first fights to be made soon.

As for flights to Sharm el-Sheikh and Hurghada, a decision will be taken with due regard for the interaction between the two countries’ aviation authorities at Cairo Airport and for the security situation in the region.



Question:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said that Israel has killed the Oslo Accords, while the PLO Central Council has called for suspending the recognition of Israel. This is the Palestinians’ reaction to US President Donald Trump’s decision to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Can Russia do something to cut short the degradation of the situation, for example, take the Americans’ place in mediating an Israeli-Palestinian settlement?



Mikhail Bogdanov:

Indeed, the US administration’s decision on Jerusalem has seriously complicated the Middle Eastern settlement. Tensions have flared up on the ground, including around Gaza. The negative consequences at the political level include sharp criticism of the US and Israel by OIC leaders, as well as tougher Palestinian rhetoric. The Ramallah authorities have even decided to severe contact with the US regarding a settlement with Israel.

Of course, we are not at all happy about these developments, but they were not completely unexpected either. We said at the very beginning that unilateral actions such as the above US decision would have a destabilising effect and would hardly help bring about peace in the region. Regrettably, developments have taken this course exactly.

As for mediation between Palestinians and Israelis, we make no secret of our position. We believe that no country alone is able to find a solution to this old conflict. Evidence of this includes the developments of the past two decades when one foreign actor dominated the Palestinian track. As we say, things haven’t budged. This is why we have always advocated the coordinated efforts of the international community. We have the necessary format for this – the Middle East quartet of international mediators, which comprises Russia, the US, the EU and the UN. It is a fact that the Middle East quartet is the only internationally recognised mechanism for assisting a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. We stand for revitalising this mechanism. We are working on this with our partners in the quartet.

Neither have we stopped acting at the national level. In the autumn of 2016, we proposed holding a Palestinian-Israeli summit meeting in Moscow under the auspices of the President of Russia. We thought that the resumption of a direct political dialogue between the parties would help ease tensions. We still think so. This is why we are ready to provide the venue for such a meeting, provided the parties involved consider it useful.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3072642






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s consultations in Tehran



14 February 2018 - 14:05



On February 14, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov met in Tehran with Iran’s Deputy Chief of Staff of Presidential Office for Political Affairs Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Abbas Araghchi and Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs Gholam-Hossein Dehqani.

The officials discussed the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to resolve the situation around Iran’s nuclear programme. They agreed to continue to coordinate their efforts to preserve the JCPOA and protect their national interests amid the negative political developments around this agreement.

The Russian and Iranian officials also discussed other issues of mutual concern.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3076041






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s reply to the question from the Italian news agency AGI on Turkey’s actions in the exclusive economic zone of the Republic of Cyprus



14 February 2018 - 15:10




Question:

What could you say about the situation in the exclusive economic zone of the Republic of Cyprus?



Maria Zakharova:

We are watching with concern the developments in the exclusive economic zone of the Republic of Cyprus.

We believe the parties involved should refrain from taking any steps that may lead to the further escalation of tension in the Eastern Mediterranean, complicating the already existing disagreements in the region. We hope the interested parties will act in accordance with the norms of international law. We are urging them to look for exclusively peaceful ways of settling their differences.

Such incidents show once again the need to settle the Cypriot problem on the basis of the UN specifications as soon as possible. Our position remains unchanged. We favour a comprehensive, fair and viable settlement on the island for the sake of all of its residents. We will support the decision that the Cypriots come to themselves.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3076110






Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich’s remarks at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council, Vienna, February 15, 2018



16 February 2018 - 10:27



The situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements




Mr Chairman,

The situation in Ukraine is growing increasingly tense. Over the past week, the Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) registered more than 4,000 ceasefire violations. The Armed Forces of Ukraine are again using multiple rocket launchers (MRL) at the line of contact. On February 8, the monitors pointed to 60 Grad MRL projectiles fired from Svetlodarsk and about 180 hits in the area of Debaltsevo. The Armed Forces of Ukraine continue random gunfire attacks on populated localities. On February 7, the SMM confirmed that the shelling had done damage to a five-storey residential building in Dokuchayevsk.

During the week, the SMM has discovered 57 units of armaments the Armed Forces of Ukraine use in violation of the Minsk Package of Measures, including eight MRL in Topolinoye, 14 howitzers in Vodyanoye, 13 self-propelled howitzers in Aleksandropol, 12 antitank guns in Severodonetsk, four howitzers in Belaya Gora, four antitank guns in Mariupol, an antitank gun in Aleksandrovo-Kalinovo, and an anti-aircraft missile system in Teply. A record amount of military equipment – over 400 units – has disappeared from Ukrainian army depots. It is easy to guess where all this equipment has been redeployed.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces’ fire attacks on SMM drones in Mikhailovka on February 6 and Kleshcheyevka on February 10 as well as the closing of Shchastye, Zolotoye and Stanitsa Luganskaya under the pretext of a mine threat refute the allegations about the self-defence forces’ predominant responsibility for sealing off the monitors.

Not only does Kiev block the disengagement of forces and resources in Stanitsa Luganskaya, although no violations of the ceasefire regime have been registered there since December 25. Kiev also continues to remilitarise other sectors where forces and resources have been disengaged. Members of the SMM and local residents have confirmed that Ukrainian forces have retaken Katerinovka inside the Zolotoye disengagement area.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine have set up roadblocks and deployed soldiers in Novoaleksandrovka, in dangerous proximity to the positions of self-defence fighters. On February 12, a Ukrainian group tried unsuccessfully to seize new positions and crossed the demarcation line in the vicinity of the village of Zhelobok.

The situation is being aggravated by Ukrainian leaders’ statements about the “successes” of the punitive army in Donbass. On February 12, Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine Alexander Turchinov told Hromadske TV channel that, in 2016-2017, the Armed Forces of Ukraine had advanced by ten kilometres and more on the front. Ukrainian forces have improved their positions, and now there are no forces on the occupied territory that can change the current demarcation line, he noted. We hope that members of the SMM will check this statement regarding the Donbass security situation in line with their mandate and will evaluate it accordingly. It appears that Mr Turchinov is preparing public opinion for a new escalation of tensions in Donbass that Kiev is set to provoke in the nearest future.

The creeping offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has repeatedly triggered large-scale escalation of tensions. In February 2016, military units seized Shirokino in violation of obligations to demilitarise this community. In March 2016, they seized the Avdeyevka industrial zone. These incursions created new hotbeds of tension on the map of Donbass. Ukrainian forces redeployed their forward-based positions towards Yelenovka. This caused a tragedy in April 2016 when several civilians were killed and wounded under fire from the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In June 2017, the Armed Forces of Ukraine attacked the village of Zhelobok and also seized the Travnevoye and Gladosovo communities in November 2017. This provoked a serious escalation of tensions.

On February 14, representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk addressed a meeting of the Contact Group in Minsk and provided detailed information about the dangerous concentration of Ukrainian forces and weapons.

As before, there is no progress in discussing prospects for implementing political provisions of the Minsk Package of Measures.

On the contrary, the law on the so-called “reintegration” of Donbass virtually devalues the Minsk agreements and creates pre-requisites for a military operation. Ukrainian military units are intensively preparing for large-scale hostilities. The concentration of forces and resources near the demarcation line has assumed a threatening scale.

Radical nationalist groups, the main advocates of a military scenario, have become more active. Not only do they hold torch processions and rallies, but they commit crimes aiming to pressure the authorities and escape unpunished.

On February 4, nationalists tried to set fire to a Hungarian cultural centre in Uzhgorod. On February 5, radicals from the National Corps, Svoboda (Freedom), the Right Sector and the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists picketed the Polish consulates in Odessa and Lvov. They are making more active attempts to pressure the authorities. On February 9, the accomplices of defendants, charged with killing journalist Oles Buzina, staged a demonstration in support of the criminals.

Journalists continue to be harassed against this backdrop, with the authorities and nationalists actively pressuring media outlets. Igor Guzhva, editor-in-chief of the Strana.ua news website, has been forced to request asylum in Austria. The Mirotvorets website listing “enemies of the people,” including journalists, continues to function.

On February 8, raiders seized the Vesti media holding in Kiev. Ukrainian law enforcement officers blocked the company’s office, conducted illegal searches and prevent journalists from working. The company is now working from another location, and the publication of the newspaper’s next issue is in doubt. Kiev is seeking to rein in opposition media outlets. This is a blatant violation of freedom of speech. We demand that the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media respond promptly.

We hope that SMM members closely study and submit detailed reports on the situation around the media, in line with their mandate. As we see it, the combination of facts that have accumulated since 2014 calls for a detailed SMM report on freedom of expression and access to information in Ukraine.

The oppression of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has assumed threatening proportions. On January 25, nationalists from the S-14 and Sokol organisations dismantled billboards of the Church of the Dime in Kiev. Radicals tried to set fire to the Church at night and later organised pickets, demanding that the Church be demolished. Its priest and parishioners were threatened. Extremists desecrate and seize churches and commit acts of violence with regard to priests and believers. This is supplemented by attempts of official authorities to formalise their right to interfere in church affairs under the law. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is reviewing a number of anti-clerical and unpopular draft laws. Their approval can lead to discrimination, violate freedom of conscience and religion and cause religious strife and bloodshed.

In September 2017, the Verkhovna Rada approved the education law that restricted the right of almost 50 percent of the country’s population to be educated in their native language. The authorities are once again provoking the situation and recreating the causes that largely triggered the conflict in the first place. The approval of this law hampers efforts to bridge the gaps between the parties to the internal Ukrainian conflict and delays prospects for its final resolution. Kiev is openly unwilling to honour its own obligations under clause 11 of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015 that stipulates the approval of permanent legislation on the special status of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, with due consideration for their right to linguistic self-determination. There are no indications that the recommendations of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe to modify this law are being fulfilled. On the contrary, new steps are being prepared to further restrict the use of the Russian language.

The expulsion of famous international swindler and war criminal Mikheil Saakashvili from the country on February 12 is another sign of escalation. The radicals have responded in no time at all, and this could cause further instability. The supporters of Saakashvili have urged people to picket local government administrations in Ukrainian regions and to set up roadblocks along the Kiev-Lvov route. SMM members watched a rally of Saakashvili’s supporters in Kiev on February 12, and balaclava-clad volunteers of the Donbass radical battalion were spotted there.

I would like to remind you that it is possible to achieve peace in Ukraine. This can be accomplished through direct dialogue between Kiev and Donbass and by scrupulously honouring the Minsk agreements. The Minsk Package of Measures that was approved by the UN Security Council remains absolutely relevant. This does not amount to Kiev’s surrender but rather to an opportunity to preserve the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its current borders and to achieve reconciliation and accord in society.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3077599
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old February 19th, 2018 #362
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excerpts from Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, February 15, 2018



15 February 2018 - 19:03








180th anniversary of diplomatic ties between Russia and Serbia

Russian-Serbian diplomatic relations mark their 180th anniversary on February 23. On February 19, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will open an exhibition of historical documents commemorating this important event at Building No. 1 of the Foreign Ministry as part of celebrations.

The exhibition will feature copies of historical documents, including documents from the Russian Empire’s Foreign Policy Archive, starting from 1838, the year when diplomatic ties were established, to the latest visit of Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic to Russia in December 2017.

The exhibition will be additional evidence of the unchanging sincere feelings of mutual respect and sympathy between our peoples bound by the inheritance from our ancestors.



Global reaction following the crash of the AN-148 plane

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the words of sympathy people all around the world, starting with heads of state to regular people, conveyed on our tragedy: an AN-148 passenger plane crash in the Moscow Region on February 11.

Let me say that Russia received condolences from dozens of nations, governments, foreign ministers, prime ministers, international organisations, diplomats in Moscow and a large number of religious and social activists. In many countries, ordinary people came to diplomatic missions of the Russian Federation to pay the tribute to the victims.

We are still receiving messages from various countries.

I would like to say once again that Russia thanks everyone who was moved by the tragedy and sent us words of sincere support.



The situation in Syria

Last week, the results of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress held in Sochi on January 29 and 30 remained the dominating factor in the political situation in Syria. During the forum, representatives from Syria’s various political forces and civic groups from different ethnic and faith-based backgrounds spoke out in favour of the country’s unity and a transition, as soon as possible, to a peaceful life based on the agreed upon principles of a new system of government. Unfortunately, the continuing attempts by external forces to play their own game in Syria were still at variance with the signal sent by Syrians to the international community.

The US military continued the actual occupation of the 55-kilometre zone around Al Tanf, which, in fact, has become a safety zone for what is left of the ISIS fighters. US activities to the east of the Euphrates River were also provocative as they engaged in an almost open confrontation with the Syrian Army to demonstrate loyalty to their Kurdish allies.

Provoking Turkey, the Americans continued sending the Kurds new arms in convoys via Iraq. In turn, Turkey continued fighting the Kurds close to Afrin in the northwest of Syria as part of its Operation Olive Branch. The fighting in this area, in which Syrian armed opposition groups affiliated with Turkey are actively involved, was particularly fierce.

Terrorists from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) are still engaged in aggressive and provocative actions in the western part of the Eastern Ghouta de-escalation zone, including the heavy mortar-shelling of Damascus, as a result of which innocent people are killed.

Although they are well aware of this, many in the West, nevertheless, continue to treat al-Nusra fighters leniently, describing them as fighters against the “bloodthirsty regime” in Damascus. Those who hold these views seem to have forgotten how many al-Nusra militants are non-Syrian nationals. The group’s leader, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, publicly stated that this was about 40 per cent of the group.

As experience shows, this forgetfulness can be useful. Amid this memory loss it is easier to deceive and accuse the Syrian Army and the Russian Aerospace Forces of unprovoked strikes, escalating violence, deliberate bombing of civilian facilities, as well as the mass killing of civilians.

Following attacks by the Syrian Army, ISIS militants retreated from the so-called “pocket” in the east of Idlib Province towards the areas that are controlled by groups of Syrian armed opposition and after brief fights some 350 ISIS militants with families surrendered to them. It is unknown what happened to them afterwards. According to information posted on ISIS websites, they were executed, however, these reports raise doubt. It is important that former members of this terrorist organisation are not given the opportunity to join Jabhat al-Nusra or other radical armed groups which are ideologically close to them.

Our American partners often talk about the so-called “captured” ISIS fighters. In particular, speaking in Rome at a meeting with the US allies in the coalition fighting ISIS, Pentagon chief James Mattis has reportedly suggested that jihadists that have been taken prisoner should not be kept in Syria because the remaining instability might lead to them being released. However, the US has not made any specific proposals as to what should be done with these people. It was only stated that many Western countries did not want the terrorists from among their nationals back.

We will keep a close eye on how this issue is resolved. That said, we would like to note that, according to generally accepted practice, individuals who have committed a crime in a country bear criminal responsibility under that country’s law, in this case, Syrian law. It begs the question if international terrorists should be given extraterritoriality status.



The alleged shelling of Russian military by US-led forces in Syria

First, the Bloomberg Agency, and then a number of other US media outlets, including CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, published "revealing" materials about numerous Russian servicemen allegedly killed in a US air strike in Deir Ez-Zor. Bloomberg first mentioned 200 men, then 100. CNN is talking about more than a hundred. The New York Times picked up this subject as well. However, they counted only several dozen dead Russian troops.

Interestingly, the anti-government Syrian militants were among the first ones, perhaps, even before the above media, to pass along this disinformation on their media channels. For reasons unknown, they took a photo of the surface of Mars and superimposed an image - dated July 2014 - of destroyed (possibly, Ukrainian) military equipment on it.

Materials about dozens or hundreds of Russian nationals killed in action are a classic case of misinformation. It is not about 400, 200, 100, or even 10 people. According to preliminary data, five people, presumably Russian citizens, died in an armed clash, the reasons for which are being clarified. There are also wounded, but all of that needs to be verified - their citizenship, in particular and above all - to see whether they were citizens of Russia or other countries.

To reiterate, the issue is not about Russian servicemen.

We understand the reasons for the international terrorists spreading such rumours. I think you do, too. Now, it is also clear why the US publications have chimed in.

Notably, this information attack is coming from the United States, which has been accusing Russia for months on end of interfering in its internal affairs, in particular, the presidential election campaign, including in rather amusing ways, such as in social media.

By the way, perhaps the US administration would be willing to inform the media about the number of US civilians in Iraq during its presence in that country, both in the form of US private military companies and other agencies? How many people died? I assure you, the numbers may be shocking. Mind your own business instead of spreading disinformation about Russia.

The Presidential Executive Office and the Defence Ministry promptly clarified that there were no Russian servicemen in the area of ​​the US air strike.

There are large numbers of citizens in the conflict zones from all regions of the world, including Russia and the CIS countries. They have different reasons for being in these hot spots, including to engage in hostilities. Clearly, people leaving for warzones do not contact government authorities to notify them of their destinations. They make it to the combat zones in various ways, including illegal ones. Tracking them, or checking who does what, or their current status, is highly problematic. Nonetheless, our Ministry, in conjunction with other state agencies, is working through every case, since protecting Russian citizens abroad is one of our Ministry’s main tasks. Every Russian citizen is entitled to protection by the state, even if he or she violates Russian laws.

Once again, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we are talking about a conflict zone with ongoing hostilities. In a situation like that, diplomacy operates on the verge of what’s possible, and planted articles like that do nothing but further complicate our work.



OPCW special commission’s investigation of chemical weapons use in Syria in January

We noted the press release of the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on an investigation initiated by the OPCW special commission into the reports of chemical weapons use in Syria. These reports on toxic chemicals’ use in East Ghouta and Idlib Province in January of this year are coming from various sources.

As follows from the Technical Secretariat’s release, the investigation is based on materials from open sources, the questioning of witnesses, medical reports and the results of the analysis of samples obtained by the OPCW. In other words, everything indicates that, unfortunately, the vicious practice of remote investigations continues. We constantly point out the perfectly obvious fact that one should not blindly take the word of interested parties, which the Syrian opposition and affiliated NGOs undoubtedly are. The only acceptable criterion of truth should be the evidence collected on the site of chemical incidents, otherwise it is impossible to determine whether chemical weapons were used at all, and if so, by whom and by what means.

According to the information available to us, representatives of the Jaysh al-Islam group said they were ready to admit the OPCW special commission experts to the Karm Ar-Rasas Highway and M5 Homs Highway (Damascus-Homs) areas under their control (Douma, East Ghouta) and ensure the safety of their work in the locations of the alleged use of chlorine by the Syrian military, as the opposition claims.

We expect that OPCW experts will finally abandon the remote method of investigating the use of chemical weapons, visit the places of alleged incidents in East Ghouta and Idlib Province and independently gather evidence of another provocation by the militants aimed at discrediting the legally elected authorities of Syria.



Statements by Heather Nauert on US goals in Syria

We have noted the recent statements by Spokesperson for the US Department of State Heather Nauert that the US is in Syria for two reasons only: to destroy the Islamic State and to stabilise the country. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that just a few months ago, there was only one reason for US presence in Syria – the fight against ISIS. A couple of months later, there are two reasons.

In fact, the actions of our American colleagues in Syria have increasingly raised questions. As we have repeatedly noted, they have been acting without the invitation of the legitimate Syrian Government or UN sanctions. Nevertheless, Russia reached agreements with the US military in the interests of the fight against terrorism, believing what we were officially told more than once – that the only purpose for the US Armed Forces’ presence in Syria was to defeat ISIS.

The military-political structure of ISIS has been destroyed now. But, as soon as this happened, our American colleagues began giving us other reasons for their presence in Syria. They now say they have to stay until a political process is established leading to a sustainable and acceptable transition for all, that is, a regime change. At the same time, the Americans continue to play the ‘Kurdish card’ I spoke about today, guided by their own unilateral interests, aimed at undermining Syria’s territorial integrity rather than at preserving its unity.

We have repeatedly drawn attention to the obvious divergence of words and actions, but now we would like to point out a divergence of words from words, which is the next stage. We have not received any obvious or coherent answers to any of the concerns we have raised at meetings or publicly. Moreover, to divert attention from these inconsistencies, our American counterparts continually attack us and Damascus with aggressive propaganda, accusing us of escalating violence, the deaths of civilians, strikes against civilian infrastructure facilities, and the use of chemical weapons by Damascus. I do not rule out that the planting of reports I mentioned is also linked with this propaganda.

We would like to reiterate that the settlement of the situation in Syria must be achieved exclusively in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We support the launch of an inclusive intra-Syrian dialogue, which was given a powerful impetus by the Syrian National Dialogue Congress held on January 30 in Sochi, the Final Statement of which was circulated the day before as an official document of the UN Security Council.



Events to mark 120th anniversary of Russian-Ethiopian diplomatic relations

On February 17, Russia and Ethiopia celebrate 120 years since the establishment of their diplomatic relations. On this day in 1898, head of the Russian Extraordinary Mission Pyotr Vlasov presented his credentials to Emperor Menelik II.

The multidimensional links between Russia and Ethiopia have deep historic roots and successfully develop these days in reliance on strong traditions of friendship, mutual respect and interest in expanding fruitful cooperation. Ethiopia is one of Russia’s essential partners in Africa. Moscow and Addis Ababa support an intensive political dialogue built on similar views of the processes in the world as well as concordant approaches to present day problems. We see great potential in further increasing mutually beneficial partnership in trade and the economy, including energy, nuclear energy, fundamental and applied sciences, and education.

The foreign ministers of Russia and Ethiopia are expected to exchange messages on the anniversary of diplomatic relations. Events are planned in Moscow and Addis Ababa to mark the date. The Russian Embassy in Addis Ababa will host a reception to be attended by senior officials of the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry, the country’s prominent political and public figures and members of the local diplomatic corps.



Minsk Agreements anniversary

February 12 marks three years since the signing of the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements. This document allowed preventing escalation of the intra-Ukrainian conflict and its degradation into a full-fledged civil war. The document proposed a roadmap for the peace process that reconciled political steps with measures to ensure security. They must be fulfilled consistently and in strict order to reinforce each other. It was expected that the measures would bring peace by the end of 2015. Unfortunately, this did not happen.

Instead of honestly working towards the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, Kiev officials have blatantly sabotaged them from the very beginning by dragging out and stalling the negotiations. Kiev has not fulfilled a single provision in the Package of Measures substantively. Tension persists at the contact line, with continuous attacks that are initiated by the Ukrainian military, according to OSCE reports. Kiev’s strong unwillingness to engage in a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk representatives remains the main issue. At the same time, Ukraine is not giving up the idea of solving the “occupation problem” by force. This was indicated by the law on re-integration of Donbass passed by the Verkhovna Rada almost a month ago. The law legitimates the full-scale use of the Ukrainian Armed Forces against civilians in the region. Therefore, responsibility for fuelling the smouldering fire of tension in the southeast fully lies with Ukraine that is trying to shift all the blame to Russia instead of performing its own obligations.

Moscow is certain that the Minsk Agreements remain the only basis for settling the intra-Ukrainian crisis. There is no alternative to them. The sooner Kiev begins to put them into practice the sooner the conflict in Donbass comes to an end.



Harassment of Strana.ua news website editor-in-chief Igor Guzhva

We have already commented on the harassment of Igor Guzhva, the chief editor of Ukrainian news website Strana.ua, by Ukrainian authorities. Although he was released on bond, the Ukrainian Prosecutor-General’s Office now plans to introduce a tougher measure of restrictions and to have him detained. Mr. Guzhva has been forced to flee from his persecutors to Austria. On February 8, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich addressed participants during a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council and demanded that members of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine respond promply to this situation.

These repressive actions against the journalist are yet another episode of a campaign to combat independent journalism and to eliminate all dissent in this country, which has been unleashed by Kiev long ago. On February 8, Ukrainian law enforcement officers raided and searched the editorial office of the Vesti newspaper in Kiev and paralysed its work.

We are noting that the situation with the Ukrainian media outlets continues to deteriorate at a time when the relevant international human rights organisations are failing to respond accordingly. For example, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media has so far failed to issue an official press release regarding the situation with Mr Guzhva’s harassment.



Russian assessment of European Commission’s strategy for Western Balkans

We have noted the publication of the European Commission's West Balkans strategy on February 6. The document confirms the geopolitical task of further expanding the European Union and strengthening its role in this important European region.

The Russian side has repeatedly stated that Moscow does not reject the issue concerning the Balkan states’ Euro-integration, provided that prospective EU member-countries are not presented with an artificial choice and forced to have to choose between the European Union and Russia. Experience shows that the capitals of Balkan countries are often confronted with this alternative, and they are forced to join anti-Russia restrictions under the pretext of following Brussels’ foreign policy line. We hope that the European Union will, nevertheless, draw conclusions from the sad experience of implementing the Eastern Partnership project and will pay attention to the ties that have evolved between Russia and Balkan statesOne gets the impression that, despite underscoring the importance of meeting the relevant membership criteria, the Strategy’s authors mostly stipulated specific deadlines, due to be met by aspiring EU members. Our principled stand implies that Balkan states themselves should address the highly complicated regional matters, and that they should not be prodded or forced to meet any formal criteria. In other words, this should be done without any foreign interference. Patient dialogue alone makes it possible to reach mutually acceptable compromise solutions regarding real improvements in the Balkan situation and achieving stability as well as interethnic tranquility there. This concerns persisting border issues in the Balkan region, Macedonia’s official name, etc. Most importantly, this also concerns the situation around Kosovo, also mentioned by the Strategy. We are confident that the Kosovo issue can only be resolved on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 which has fundamental significance in the context of international law.

We cannot help but voice dismay in connection with some European media comments, including those made by Euronews, on the Strategy. These comments hinted at Montenegro’s privileged status in joining the EU because it is a NATO member. And Brussels continues to assure that accession to NATO allegedly has nothing to do with the European integration. It appears that there is a different opinion regarding the cojugation of these processes.



10th аnniversary of Kosovo independence

February 17 marks the tenth anniversary of so-called Kosovo “statehood.” This is certainly an occasion to take a close look at the dire consequences of the policy of retroactively legitimizing NATO’s 1999 aggression and dismemberment of a European state – the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – pursued by Pristina’s supporters.

Unilateral secession that took place in 2008 in violation of the bedrock principles of international law failed to resolve the Kosovo issue and the prospects of its solution are still dim. Owing to the efforts of its “benefactors” Kosovo turned into a “black hole” with a strange status. Hopes for an early unanimous recognition by the international community did not come true and attempts to make Kosovo a member of a number of multilateral entities led to a politicization of their activities as well as internal discord. Already, we have seen some acts of recognition of Kosovo independence being recalled.

The practice of mechanically applying European democratic templates to Kosovo has not worked. The result is a wobbly semi-puppet regime where key decisions are dictated by Western diplomats.

The chaotic situation in Kosovo is being used to deploy NATO infrastructure, specifically the US Bondsteel base, to project the alliance’s influence in the Balkans and manipulate the processes in the region under the cover of UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

Unilateral declaration of independence has failed to solve the region’s economic problems and attract investments. As a consequence, Kosovo remains the poorest part of the region from where people flee. This is compounded by rampant crime and corruption against the background of clashes of clan interests, security problems and vulnerability to the terrorist threat from the Middle East.

A legitimate question suggests itself: what is Pristina going to celebrate? It is obvious to all clear-minded observers that those who masterminded and executed the project have nothing to boast about.

I remember well that in 2008, after the unilateral, illegal and illegitimate recognition of sovereignty CNN showed a catchy and expensive advert whose keynote was “Kosovo: the land of opportunities.” So much for the country, and so much for the opportunities. At the time what interested me most was who paid for making this advert and who paid for it to be shown on CNN. We know very well how much every minute of air time costs.



Situation with obtaining US visas in Russia

We are genuinely surprised at the way US representatives, notably in their comments to the newspaper Nezavisimaya gazeta article on 9 February, present the situation with obtaining American visas in Russia. The situation is lamentable, and not through any fault of Russia.

Because of Washington’s continuing hostile actions, including sanctions and an unprecedented seizure of our diplomatic properties, Russia had to suggest that the US reduce the staff of American diplomatic offices in the country to about the same level as our staff in the US. However, the Russian side did not in any way try to dictate whom the US was to second and whom to sack. It was the Americans who decided to massively recall the staff in the visa section. It was their sovereign decision. As far as we understand this was done with a specific political goal in mind, to increase the barriers in the way of obtaining American visas in order to stir up public discontent with the decision of the Russian authorities and redirect the blow against Moscow.

There have, of course, long been difficulties with obtaining American visas because one has to pass an interview at US consular offices. For about 15 years now people in most Russian regions have had to travel to Moscow, St Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and Vladivostok spending their time and money. Six months ago the Americans stopped their visa work at their consulates general and dramatically downsized the consular unit at their Embassy in Moscow.

It was not until December that the American consulates general again started to do what they exist for, i.e. to issue visas. But still only a limited number of them. Today the number of US entry visas issued to our citizens is almost three times less than before. The official waiting time for visa interviews is still 85 days, i. e. almost three months, yet even this timeline is not complied with because it is simply impossible to get registered on the special website.

Let me repeat that this is a matter within the competence of the US authorities, a matter for them to decide. It is absurd and indecent to put the blame on Russia. This approach suggests an attempt to switch public attention, to name a culprit and to dodge the problem, for example, by specious and irrelevant assertions to the effect that a year ago Russia had itself created difficulties by raising the price of multiple visas for Americans.

US citizens continue to get Russian visas as before without experiencing any problems. The 2011 bilateral agreement on simplifying visa formalities does not specify the price of visas. Under Russian laws it now stands at 90 USD per single-entry visa, 144 USD per two-trip visa and 270 USD per multiple visa. Those Americans who do not plan repeat trips any time soon prefer to obtain single-entry visas that are much cheaper than what the Russians pay for their American visas (160 USD).

The allegations of the US Embassy to the effect that the Russian Foreign Ministry has asked to organize interviews for Aeroflot crews and Russian athletes look weird. We have indeed asked for fast-track visas for such people, but not at the expense of other Russian citizens. It was just a request to the Americans to comply with specific international obligations.

The thing is that the situation that arose last autumn could have forced Aeroflot to stop its flights to the US because its pilots had no visas. Because other airlines have no regular flights there, the air link between our countries was under threat due to the visa obstacles artificially created by Washington.

Naturally, we had to remind our American colleagues that the 1994 bilateral Air Transport Agreement requires them to issue visas to the crews of aircraft in a timely manner. So far we have managed to preserve the flight schedules.

Russian athletes en masse have faced similar problems with traveling to various international competitions in the US. It looks as if the American authorities have forgotten that in undertaking to host an event on their territory they thereby assume an obligation to ensure access for all the participants. Thus, non-issue of visas for Russian athletes is nothing but a deliberate discrimination against Russia. It may also represent unfair competition in sports. We had to flag it and will continue to do so.

We are of course indignant that because of the American visa restrictions many trips are disrupted, including in the area of business, cultural, scientific or family and friendly relations. One gets the impression that Washington does not want Russians to visit the US. It’s as if they are afraid that they would smuggle in truthful information about Russia and it would thus reach American citizens.

I would like to remind you that two years ago the US State Department withdrew accreditation from five of our honorary consuls who were engaged in promoting people-to-people contacts.

The serious issues that piled up in the visa area of Russia-US relations will be on the agenda of the upcoming consultations on consular matters. They were to be held at the end of last year but the American side chose to postpone them. Given the wish to discuss these topics why talk about them with the press? We are ready to discuss them in the course of consultations, especially since they have been set up. I call on the American colleagues, let us address these problems.



Russia’s participation in the international project to renovate the memorial museum at the site of former Nazi death camp in Sobibor, Poland

At the briefing on January 31, we commented on a tweet posted by Director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs Slawomir Debski, who said that it was the Netherlands, rather than Poland, that blocked Russia’s participation in the International Steering Committee for the project to create a new museum, a memorial built on the grounds of the former Nazi death camp in Sobibor. We promised to verify the information and give you more details.

Today I can share with you the following information. Dutch officials deny any such claims. The question is, who is lying? Is the Netherlands lying or Poland? Is it really so difficult to come out and tell the truth?

We would like to stress once again that for Russia, the priority is to exercise its historically substantiated right to full participation in eternalising the memory of the prisoners of that horrible place, among whom there were Soviet citizens as well as those, who, led by Soviet officer Alexander Pechersky, organised a riot in Sobibor in October 1943, the only successful riot in a concentration camp over the years of World War II. It is even more important because Russian archives contain a large number of documents that could significantly expand the exhibition of the new museum.



New exhibition opened by Latvian officials at Salaspils concentration camp

Many have asked why we need to participate in the exhibition and what is so special about it. It is said that we are living in an open information environment and should there be any questionable exhibits or problems we can always declare it. So, here is the answer to what can happen.

On February 8, a grand opening ceremony for a “new exhibition” took place at the Salaspils Memorial Ensemble, an exhibition that presents a new version of Salaspils history promoted by Latvian officials. According to the official Riga’s interpretation, Salaspils was not at all a death camp like Auschwitz or Dachau. Allegedly, people there did not die violent deaths but due to illnesses and natural causes. The number of victims killed in the concentration camp was marked down tenfold and was said to be only 3,000 (according to archives, more than 53,000 human lives perished in Salaspils).

The main focus of the new exhibition is on “crimes committed during the Soviet and German occupation”, to which Latvia claims to have no relation. On the contrary, Latvia is said to have been “a prisoner of historical circumstances.”

Not a single word has been said about Red Army soldiers who liberated Salaspils. By the way, the Russian Ambassador to Latvia was not invited to the event, for obvious reasons. The horrendous experiments on children by Nazi butchers were hushed up, in an absolutely shameless manner.

Attempts to erase the memory of the atrocities at the Salaspils camp at the official level cannot but cause great concern as another outrageous testimony to the fact that distortion of history, in Latvia in particular, is becoming increasingly perverse.

We really hope that representatives of international organisations will give their principled assessment of the situation.

You can see how things are done these days. Facts are being inverted and history rewritten.



Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service report, International Security and Estonia

On February 8, the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service released its annual report on the country’s status in security affairs. We received requests for comments on this report. I do not even want to comment on the fact that the document is completely anti-Russia, it is obvious. I would like to point out that, as local media outlets already discovered, (once again, we are talking about the report titled “International security and Estonia,” not Russia) Estonia itself is mentioned in the report 37 times while Russia is mentioned 458 times and, of course, solely as a “threat to the sovereignty of Estonia.” It appears that, based on these figures, the threat is ten times bigger than the country itself. I do apologise but that is exactly what it says.

We are nothing but perplexed by the unsubstantiated insinuations in the report on the Eastern neighbour’s allegedly aggressive behavior. It is a pity that, instead of an objective analysis of the current situation, the public was offered a number of threadbare anti-Russian clichés, paranoid through and through, and hysterical appeals against any contacts with Russia. Who are they addressed at? Estonians? To refrain from contacts with Russia? Is it a warning for Russians not to travel to Estonia? Could they be somehow dangerous to Estonian citizens? Is it a warning for Estonians against travelling to Russia? What did they mean? Such blatant scaremongering of their own people, officials and public organisations that are objectively interested in normal cooperation with their partners on the other side of the border clearly contradicts a constructive bilateral dialogue.



Restricted broadcasts of Russian RTR Planeta channel

On February 14, the Lithuanian Television and Radio Broadcasting Commission issued a decision to restrict broadcasting of Russian RTR-Planeta television channel for a year. The official reason was “consistent violation of the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the Lithuanian law on public information.”

Considering the background of this matter and a similar incident with Russia’s NTV Mir Lithuania channel in 2014, there is no doubt that these claims only cover a political order. It is apparent that the local officials want to subject the channel to strict censorship. The commission previously suspended RTR Planeta’s broadcasting for three months at least twice and also attempted to regulate it to be a paid channel.

As far as we understand, Vilnius is irritated by the channel’s political programmes. But freedom of speech implies expression of political views that may not be favoured by the government. If there are specific complaints against specific individuals, perhaps there is a point in addressing these complaints at these persons. Possibly, this repressive policy of Lithuania has something to do with the general sentiment against the Russian media across the EU.

We consider this decision yet another unfriendly act against the Russian media and open discrimination against our journalists. Not to mention the fact that this is a grave violation of such fundamental principles of international law as freedom of the press and freedom of expression, which is unacceptable in modern democratic society.

We call for the attention of the international human rights community and expect that it will clearly express its opinion on the matter. We assume that there must be a response from the OSCE. Obviously, it would be good to hear the official reaction of representatives of the EU and competent European institutions because the local Lithuanian officials are using the EU regulations as a cover.



Moldova bans Russian information and analytical broadcasts

On January 11, the Foreign Ministry provided a detailed commentary on the adoption of a law to amend the Moldovan Television and Radio Code. This law virtually bans Russian news, information and analytical broadcasts.

On January 24, the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation passed a special statement on the unacceptability of discriminating against Russian media outlets in the republic. The document urged the UN, the Council of Europe as well as the OSCE to assess the actions of Moldovan authorities.

Frankly speaking, the international community is in no hurry to respond, and Moldovan authorities are beginning to crack down on media outlets covered by discriminatory amendments. TV-Gagauzi, the public television channel of the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia, became the first media outlet to be fined under the law for its failure to fulfil instructions and to submit a new concept for airing Russian news, information and analytical broadcasts to Moldova’s Coordination Council on Television and Radio for approval until February 10.

We continue to believe that the approved law represents an act of gross violation of the fundamental international principle of freedom of speech and media freedom, aims to legalise censorship and to rid the media of viewpoints seen as unacceptable by official Chisinau. This is unacceptable in a modern democratic society.



Organisation of Russian presidential election abroad

We have received many questions regarding the organisation of the Russian presidential election outside Russia. It is good that people want to know about this. We have reviewed all the questions from various media outlets and prepared brief answers to them.

1. What is the statistical data for countries with the largest number of voters taking part in the Russian presidential election?

As of January 1, the largest number of voters has registered for the upcoming election in Germany (487,000), Moldova (189,000), Israel (146,000.), Estonia (114,000), the United States (104,000), Abkhazia (89,000), Ukraine (74,000), Kazakhstan (73,000), Belarus (67,000) and Latvia (63,000).

2. Will any officials from Moscow go to help out in the countries with the largest Russian electorates?

It is obvious that the staff of Russian offices abroad at local election commissions will have to work especially hard in the countries with large Russian electorates. Therefore, we plan to dispatch employees from the Foreign Ministry’s central office to help them out.

3. How will we organise voting in the countries where March 18 is a workday?

Sunday (March 18) is a workday in many Muslim countries. Therefore, voting stations in those countries will open on the nearest day off, in this case, Friday, March 16, to allow the voters to exercise their constitutional right.

4. Will we organise early voting outside voting premises for those who cannot come to the voting stations for various reasons?

A large number of our compatriots live outside the cities where Russian foreign offices are located, some of them very far away from them. Not all of them can come to voting stations on the voting day, primarily because of high travel costs and also because many of them are elderly. A considerable number of voters will be working on the voting day, working in shifts or for other reasons concerning their work schedules. This mostly concerns military personnel, border guards, ship crews, the staff of Russian companies working at large foreign projects, and plane crews at UN missions.

We plan to organise early voting outside voting premises for these voters.

5. How will we organise voting in Latvia and Estonia, where the authorities have prohibited us from increasing the number of voting stations and organising early voting outside voting premises?

This year, the authorities of Latvia and Estonia have refused permission to increase the number of voting stations and to organise early voting outside voting premises. We have expressed our regret regarding this. So, voters there have been placed in difficult conditions in terms of long lines and the inability to travel to voting stations from distant towns. Therefore, voting stations in these countries will be open two days, on March 17 and 18.

6. How will the Russian citizens in the consular district of San Francisco, where the Consulate General of Russia has been closed, exercise their right to vote?

Of course, the US authorities’ decision to close our Consulate General in San Francisco has complicated our work. We plan to hold early voting outside voting premises for the people who live in that consular district.

7. How many voting stations do we have abroad at this point in time?

As of February 14, the Foreign Ministry’s offices abroad have created 378 voting stations in 145 countries.

8. Which online resources publish information about the upcoming election?

This seems like a strange question, but I will answer it once again. The legally required information about the presidential candidates is available on the website of the Central Election Commission. Links to this website can be found in the Elections section on the websites of the Foreign Ministry’s offices abroad.

9. What can we say about the electoral activity of Russian citizens abroad?

This question should be better addressed to experts rather than to the Foreign Ministry. We will do our best to inform our citizens so that they will be able to cast their votes. We will also do our utmost to organise voting in the most convenient manner depending on the country. We will try to find the best form, date and place for organising voting in each country based on the parameters I have mentioned.

10. What are our recommendations to those who plan to travel abroad during the election? What documents do they need to be able to take part in the voting?

I would like to say again that a large amount of information, including on this issue, is available on the website of the Central Election Commission. I would recommend those who are planning foreign trips to visit the websites of our embassy and consulate in the country they are going to. In fact, I would advise them to do so not only because of the upcoming election but simply because they are planning to travel abroad. They will find hotline telephone numbers for emergencies and information about other methods of contacting Russian diplomats. This is especially important in this particular case. First visit the websites of our office in the country where you plan to travel. You will find information on the place and time of the voting, including early voting and voting outside voting premises, the addresses and telephone numbers of district election commissions, the schedule of their operation and other helpful information. To be able to vote, these people should have their foreign travel (service or diplomatic) passports, although most people hold foreign travel passports. In the countries which Russians can enter on their regular (internal) passport, this document is enough for taking part in the voting.

11. How will the election be organised in Ukraine?

Regrettably, organising voting in Ukraine has become an extremely difficult process, primarily because the atmosphere of hatred inspired by aggressive nationalists with regard to Russian citizens who come to voting stations at our offices in Kiev, Kharkov, Lvov and Odessa. Despite the Russian Embassy’s appeal to the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine to maintain public order on voting days, police officers seldom attempted to do so. We had to appeal to the OSCE leadership and the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine to monitor the maintenance of public order at Russian offices.

12. I said at a briefing that we have information about some Western countries attempting to interfere in Russia’s internal affairs in the context of the election campaign. Do we have any new information regarding this?

It is a very popular question. I would like to point out that unlike the unsubstantiated allegations about the omnipotent “Russian hackers” and “Russian influence on the election results in other countries,” we do have specific information about some Western countries’ destructive interference in our internal affairs in the context of the presidential election campaign.

During a briefing held for ambassadors from the OSCE member states and partner countries on January 19, Deputy Foreign Minister Yevgeny Ivanov asked them to send a clear signal to their capitals that these activities must stop or else we will have to take harsh countermeasures and possibly do so publicly.

We will either make public all materials regarding such activities or notify our partners and colleagues that such activities are unacceptable. I have told you about one of the forms of doing this – at a briefing held by the Foreign Ministry for the countries concerned.

13. Why should people attend elections, and why is it especially important to do so at this moment in history?

In my opinion, it is a question that does not need an answer. Yes, people do need to take part in elections and cast their votes, so that nobody would be able to accuse anyone of falsifying the election. They should vote, because each vote counts when we need to counter the endless allegations. The election has not been held yet, but there are already publications to this effect. I would like to tell all Russian citizens, including those who live abroad and who have the right and an opportunity to vote: Come to the voting stations and cast you ballots. We will do everything necessary for you to be able to do so.

The above are only part of the questions we have received. We will continue to answer them. Feel free to send your questions to us. The more questions you ask now, the fewer questions we will have to answer before the voting day. We will be happy to answer all your questions as soon as possible.

I would like to say that we received your questions regarding Ukraine, San Francisco and the Baltics a month ago, but we could not answer them earlier because we did not have the necessary information. I have answered them now and provided specific information, figures and parameters. Please, do send us your questions and we will answer them by all means.



Hero of Russia Alexei Botyan is 101 years old

On February 10, famous Soviet commando and intelligence agent, Great Patriotic War veteran and Hero of Russia Alexei Botyan celebrated his 101st birthday. He played an important role in saving the old Polish city of Krakow from destruction by retreating Nazi German forces. In January 1945, he commanded a reconnaissance team whose members destroyed a German explosives depot the contents of which was to have been used for planting explosive devices in the city and its environs. The destruction of these explosives thwarted the Nazi plan.

We would like to wish Mr. Botyan from the bottom of our hearts health, happiness and all the very best.

Unfortunately, people in Poland today so often forget the great feat of our compatriot. The policy of Warsaw aiming to dismantle monuments to Soviet soldiers is seen as particularly cynical and blasphemous in the context of Soviet soldiers’ heroic efforts to liberate and save this country and, in principle, the entire Polish nation and to preserve its cultural legacy. We hope that official Warsaw will voice a desire to unfailingly honour bilateral agreements in the area of war memorials as well as renounce immoral plans to dismantle monuments to Soviet soldiers who fought for the life and freedom of the Polish nation.



Exhibition marking the 140th anniversary of liberating Bulgaria from the Ottoman yoke

On March 1, an exhibition dedicated to the 140th anniversary of liberating Bulgaria from the Ottoman yoke as a result of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, due to be marked on March 3, will open at Atrium Hall inside the Foreign Ministry’s Building No. 1.

On display at the exhibition will be material from the Russian Empire’s Foreign Policy Archives and the Russian State Military History Archives. This includes such well-known documents as the April 12, 1877 Manifesto of Russian Emperor Alexander II on deploying Russian forces to Turkey. This document voiced the Russian nation’s readiness to make additional sacrifices for mitigating the plight of Christians from the Balkan Peninsula. Other documents include the San Stefano Preliminary Treaty of March 3, 1878 that implemented the Bulgarian nation’s dream of reinstating its own state and the Berlin Treaty of July 1, 1878 that was imposed on Russia by Western powers and which considerably reduced the territory of liberated Bulgaria.

Visitors will see diplomatic correspondence, requests by Bulgarian representatives pleading the Russian authorities to help Bulgaria, the first Bulgarian Constitution, drafted with the assistance of Russian lawyers, transcripts of meetings of the Constituent Popular Assembly whose members ratified this Constitution in Veliko Tarnovo together with other interesting exhibits.

Wreaths will be laid at 2 pm on March 3 in Ilyinsky Public Garden at the Monument-Chapel to Grenadiers killed in the Battle of Pleven during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. Representatives of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the Foreign Ministry and other agencies, the Government of Moscow, diplomats from the Bulgarian Embassy, public activists and media workers will attend the event.



Event honouring Russian citizens who served abroad

On February 13, the Jintai Art Museum in Beijing’s Chaoyang Park hosted an event timed to coincide with the Day of Honouring Russian Citizens Who Served Abroad at the initiative of the Russian Embassy in the People’s Republic of China. This day is celebrated every February 15 under Article 1.1 of Federal Law No. 32-FZ Days of Russian Military Glory and Commemorative Dates of March 13, 1995. Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Russia to the PRC Andrey Denisov, Russian and Belarussian military attaches, the management of the Jintai Art Museum, Russian Embassy officials, activists of the Immortal Regiment historical-patriotic movement and representatives of the Chinese public attended the event.

In his speech, Russian Ambassador to China Andrey Denisov noted that 3,665 Soviet military specialists, including about 2,500 pilots and technicians, who were ready to voluntarily fight for the freedom of the Chinese nation had arrived in China in the 1930s. Out of that number, 14 people became Heroes of the Soviet Union. Over 200 Soviet citizens never came home. The people of China cherish their memory. Many Chinese cities, including Nanjing, Wuhan and Chungking, have built memorials honouring the memory of Soviet pilots. The Soviet Falcon sculpture by famous Chinese sculptor Yuan Xikun stands in Beijing’s Chaoyang Park. Work is now underway in Wuhan to establish a memorial museum honouring the memory of over 100 Soviet volunteer pilots who were killed fighting Japanese invaders there in 1938 alone, he added. Today, when the level of Russian-Chinese relations has reached an all-time high, it is very important to preserve the memory of our common heroes for us and for future generations, he noted.

Event participants saw a presentation of the future museum in Wuhan and a photo exhibition dedicated to Soviet volunteer pilots. The participants were extremely interested in photos from family archives of relatives of Soviet pilots, including Alexei Blagoveshchensky, M. Matveyev, Konstantin Opasov, Ivan Puntus and I. Gurov.



Days of Russian Spiritual Culture in Vienna

A series of events took place in Vienna to mark the second anniversary of the historic meeting between Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and Pope Francis in Havana, a meeting attended by a representative delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church led by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Department of External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchy.

On February 12, a conference was held at the residence of the Archbishop of Vienna to discuss joint efforts of the churches to protect Christians in the Middle East. The conference was attended by Metropolitan Hilarion, Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Archbishop of Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, hierarchs of Middle Eastern churches, representatives of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches, Austrian public and the media (more than 100 participants in total).

At the previous meeting, the parties stressed the relevance and importance of the main theme of the conference, the significance of collective assistance to Christians in the Middle East, and Vienna’s influential role as a neutral platform for a political dialogue on this and other topical issues.

Appeals for peace in the Middle East and uniting efforts of the Orthodox and Catholic churches in defence and support of persecuted Christians, particularly, in Syria and Iraq, were the keynote of the event.

We highly value the cooperation between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church in the protection of Christians in the Middle East, and the willingness of both churches to continue fruitful collaboration.




Answers to media questions:



Question:

Spring will be the time for presidential elections in Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. There are always certain hopes after an election. Does the Foreign Ministry expect that after the elections, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will find a settlement or at least there will be significant progress?



Maria Zakharova:

We sincerely hope that the conflict will be resolved. As you know, we are paying careful attention to it and, most importantly, we are largely involved in fulfilling the parties’ plans.



Question:

Russia is a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group. What is the Foreign Ministry’s view of the recent statements by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev who said that Yerevan (and not only Yerevan) is Azerbaijan’s historical territory and return of this territory is Azerbaijan’s strategic goal?



Maria Zakharova:

Moscow has certainly noted reports of President Aliyev’s address to the ruling party’s conference. We are very well aware that the relations between Azerbaijan and its neighbour Armenia are extremely tense. The said statement is clearly not helping to reduce the tension.



Question:

This week, everyone has been discussing the report made by Director of the US National Intelligence Dan Coats. Could you comment on the statement that “Russia views Belarus as a critical buffer between itself and NATO and will seek to spoil any potential warming between Minsk and the West”?



Maria Zakharova:

To tell the truth, I don’t think it is necessary to comment on every statement from the US political establishment. In general, I can say that, unlike some other countries, Russia does not force countries, states and nations to choose: either you are with us or against us; we do not see this difference, especially if we are talking about such a close and friendly country as Belarus.

Let me remind you of an obvious fact: the Republic of Belarus is our ally and strategic partner. Relations at such a high level cannot be built without respecting your allies and partners’ right to choose their foreign policy for themselves. In this sense, we have always accepted Minsk’s course towards developing multifaceted cooperation.



Question:

You have mentioned the Minsk agreements. During the three years since they were signed people have been constantly voicing proposals to move the venue for the talks from Minsk. Does the Foreign Ministry believe that Belarus provides all the necessary conditions for the regular meetings of the trilateral Contact Group?



Maria Zakharova:

Representatives of Russia’s and other countries’ leadership have talked about this many times. The main thing is that this process is alive and gives results. Belarus organises all events it undertakes at a very high level and provides cooperation and support every time it is needed. It is very important that this process, which we have started and which I covered for so long today, will bear fruit.

You can always find many reasons to say that “there are walls in your way” when you don’t want to do something. But you can also find many reasons to say the opposite if you want to fulfil your mission. In this case, we must all concentrate on implementing the Minsk agreements. Let me repeat that the participants of all the events Belarus has held noted their high level and traditional hospitality of our Belarusian brothers and expressed their gratitude.



Question:

What is the situation with the de-escalation zones and the establishment of another zone in Afrin? How do you assess the work done by UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura on forming the Constitutional Committee?



Maria Zakharova:

Exhaustive comments on this topic have been made by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during his latest news conferences and interviews, and by the Defence Ministry; I have also given our assessment today. I have nothing to add.

Regarding the assessment of Staffan de Mistura’s work, you know that we support it and try to do everything in our power to make the processes on the Geneva platform more active due to their crucial role. We wish him every success in his demanding mission. When we see the need to reinvigorate the Geneva platform, we always openly say so to our colleagues and sometimes answer questions about this in public. Mr de Mistura has Russia’s full support, as does the Geneva process in general, and Russian representatives have said so many times.



Question:

Recently Foreign Minister of Germany Sigmar Gabriel announced that Serbia must recognise Kosovo if it wants to join the EU. Why do you think Brussels and Berlin are setting conditions of this kind to candidates? There are countries in the EU that have not recognised Kosovo, for example, Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain.



Maria Zakharova:

I think this question should be addressed to respective European bodies in Brussels so that they can justify their stance. I pointed out that Russia has never exercised a policy of promoting a divide or breakoff with respect to the Balkans or any other states. We understand the countries’ sincere interest in developing a partnership with their European neighbours and integration frameworks. At the same time, we are helping with developing relations with our country in every possible way, taking into account common historical roots, economic and financial feasibility and interests.

It is hard to understand why such completely unfounded, unnecessary and unhelpful pre-conditions are set, for Serbia, in particular. It could be partly a reflection of anti-Russia attitudes. It is no secret that there are powers inside European bureaucratic institutions that are doing what they can to prevent the expansion of Russia’s relations with the EU itself and other integration unions in Europe and with certain countries. At the same time, there are other political powers, another part of the EU political establishment, that support integration and linking integration processes both in the European Union and in the former Soviet states. They do not see anything reprehensible in this and support normalising relations with Russia and building a long-term partnership with the Russian Federation.

This could be related to wishes of certain politicians or officials who are not very fond of Russia and, most importantly, have no pragmatic understanding of how the modern world should develop.



Question:

The Italian newspaper L'Espresso published a large report saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to influence the March 4 Italian elections, supporting the North League party.



Maria Zakharova:

Thank you for reminding me. I would like to announce that tomorrow, on February 16, in the evening, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview will be released by the Euronews TV channel, touching on a large scope of issues concerning Russia’s relations with Europe. Although the interview was held by the Euronews TV channel, the discussion began with America and Russian-American relations. Mr Lavrov answered any questions asked.

He thoroughly spelled out the mechanics of how we are constantly accused of interfering in various countries’ internal affairs, in particular in Europe, and gives a detailed description of how it is done; and then explains that this is not so. I highly recommend that you watch the interview tomorrow.

We are not closed to discussing any issue that seems problematic to our partners. If they have a problem with any information about Russia’s alleged interference in elections, for example, in Italy, why not discuss this with Russia? We are open to it. Give us the facts, and let's see if there are any specific cases, some actions that were taken by Russia that the Italian authorities might consider inappropriate. Have there been any such facts or not? We have not been presented with any specifics, either in the context of the Italian elections, the situation in Spain, or the referendum in the UK. At the same time, we hear all the time that Russia has interfered in the affairs of these countries. This is said by politicians who make public statements, but who shy away from discussion through diplomatic channels and who never cite any specifics. I remember absolutely unacceptable statements made by Spanish politicians in the context of the internal situation there, despite our regular assurances of a commitment to respect its territorial integrity. Then these same politicians, spokespersons, and government officials in Spain began explaining that they had not meant quite that, but something else. Apparently, at the moment when they made the statements, they had in mind domestic political implications. The same is true of Italy. If there are specific facts, we are ready to discuss them – but give us figures, facts, dates, roles, names, secret meeting places, or any suspicions. Right now there are none.

Once again, I repeat that I highly recommend you to watch the Euronews interview tomorrow. The channel will broadcast the interview for an hour, but the full transcript will be available a little later on the Foreign Ministry website. I really hope that the channel will show the part I just mentioned.



Question:

Is there any information about the incident with pilot Roman Filipov? The thing is that the Russian Defence Ministry has made it clear that the MANPADS that shot down the plane were delivered to the terrorists by Americans. Are the results of the investigation ready yet? Should any political, military or diplomatic results be expected?



Maria Zakharova:

We have confirmed it both via the Defence Ministry and the Foreign Ministry. The investigation is on. As soon as there is any reliable information that we can use as evidence we of course, will make the relevant conclusions and statements.



Question:

75 years ago, diplomatic relations between Russia and Iceland were established. Will this anniversary be marked?



Maria Zakharova:

I will find out what events are planned to mark this anniversary and will speak about it next time. We will also send the information to you.



Question:

The news about the resignation of Foreign Minister of the Netherlands Halbe Zijlstra has shaken the entire diplomatic world.



Maria Zakharova:

Why do you think we were shaken? We were repeatedly answering questions whether we expect Dutch Foreign Minister Halbe Zijlstra in Moscow. Each time we answered that we were expecting him, even literally 15 minutes before his resignation. All preparations were in place. He did not come.



Question:

Zijlstra resigned because of a simple reason: lies about what happened at the dacha of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.



Maria Zakharova:

There was no talk about Vladimir Putin’s dacha.



Question:

There was in the Netherlands.



Maria Zakharova:

It was said that allegedly President Vladimir Putin made statements during the talks about some possible Russian expansion and some geopolitical ambitions in the neighbouring countries. The statements, which for many years passed of as true, were that Russia has some aggressive ambitions and geopolitical goals. It was made with a reference to a statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin which was made allegedly in the presence of Dutch Foreign Minister Zijlstra. You only recently learned that it was a lie, while we have said it repeatedly.

Moreover, this is not the first case when officials and highly-ranked representatives of foreign countries made such false statements, while the Russian party disowned them by offering to publish transcripts of meetings and personal and phone conversations. We began doing this after the number of such fake statements began to grow. Then, to calm down those who on the one hand have powers and are present at the relevant talks, and on the other hand, who allow themselves to make clearly fake statements, we offered them printed versions of the meetings. Soon after this all such statements began to cease. It was a revelation for people in the Netherlands, and maybe for people somewhere else as well. For us it is, unfortunately, routine. I just answered the question about Russia’s alleged interference in the Italian elections. We will soon be having our own elections and we have things to do in our own country. Similar fake statements are made on an entire range of matters. Therefore, I repeat for the third time, it was not news to us. We have to deal with it every day.



Question:

Can this affect Russian-Dutch relations, in particular, as regards the investigation into the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-17?



Maria Zakharova:

I wonder if you heard the statements we made every week regarding this investigation. Has this information never reached the Dutch people or at least Dutch political analysts? We have said more than once that the statements made by officials raise suspicions. And the investigation as it is being conducted raises our suspicions as well.

Please, do not make a connection between what I have just said and the situation with the resignation of Dutch Foreign Minister Halbe Zijlstra. We made these statements six or more months ago. The Dutch public is not aware of our statements, probably because nobody reports about them. When we made these statements, the only reply we received was a sharp comment by our Dutch colleagues to the effect that we need not worry because the investigation is being conducted honestly. Yet we have had our suspicions, and for rather a long time. We spoke about our concerns openly, item by item. Therefore, there is no sense in wondering if this can affect our relations. We have been speaking about this openly for many years now.



Question:

The Netherlands will assume the presidency of the UN Security Council on March 1, 2018. Can Russia be sure of the reliability of the Dutch President?



Maria Zakharova:

We wish the Netherlands every success, including during its presidency of the UN Security Council. We really do, because the UN Security Council is a platform for addressing acute international issues. It is not a place for pointing fingers, renewing old grievances or settling scores. It is a place for settling current problems that have a long history (this is really true of many problems) and for preventing the flare-up of old and the development of new conflicts. This is what our colleagues at the UN Security Council and we are focused on. When we wish the Dutch Presidency success, we also wish ourselves the same. It should be our shared endeavour.

No matter how much some people lie and how long slander campaigns are waged, the truth will be out sooner or later, quite unexpectedly for some but predictably for others. We remember US Secretary of State Colin Powell holding up a glass vial of white powder at the UN Security Council. And now Foreign Minister Zijlstra is in trouble. There will be many more things like that. We deny allegations as soon as we learn about them. We try to move interaction towards the discussion of facts, as we did now in reply to a question from the Italian journalist. We are willing to answer your questions. But there will be many more such stories. They will unfold under different scenarios. But there comes a time when people see that they can no longer live with what they did – with untruth, lies, disinformation and fake news. Don’t disregard this factor. It is not just a question of journalistic investigations or the reporting of facts. On top of everything else, one fine day people will see that this cannot go on and that an end must be put to this. There will be many such stories. We take note of them and provide relevant examples at our briefings.

On the one hand, when someone admits publicly that he has told a lie, it is commendable gesture. But on the other hand, this very person insisted for a decade that he was telling the truth when he knew that he was lying. Many people made decisions and voted for the sanctions based on this lie, which affected the lives of the Russian and Dutch people. It affected our lives. This is what we must remember.



Question:

Turkey and the opposition groups it supports have attacked several villages in Afrin. They ransacked houses stealing everything, even poultry. They shot and posted related videos. They justified their actions by saying that the Kurds are not Muslims.

As is known, women in Afrin are defending their homeland. One such woman fell into the hands of the forces backed by Turkey. They killed her, stripped her of her clothes, cut off her breasts and wrote "Syrian opposition" on her stomach. What does Russia think about such actions?



Maria Zakharova:

May I ask you a question? Did you just learn about the atrocities in Syria? Haven’t you heard of the atrocities that have been committed in this country for several years now? Have we not talked about it? Haven’t we shown footage of women and children being killed there? Have we not called for putting an end to this violence and pooling our efforts to launch peace talks? Wasn’t that the mission of Russia? Isn’t that what the Russian Aerospace Forces and our troops have been risking and laying down their lives for? Is it not for that? Here you come and tell us that a woman was killed there? Thousands of women, children and civilians have been killed there. People have been maimed there not only physically. The entire Syrian nation has been psychologically wounded. No one knows how long it will take to rebuild the country and the existence itself of the Syrian nation, which is made of different ethnicities, including Arabs, Kurds, and vast numbers of people of other ethnic and religious backgrounds.

You can’t ask international public opinion to speak out only when trouble comes to your home. Certainly, this is not Russia’s problem. We came to their rescue not when trouble came to our house, but we went to help the Syrian people when trouble came to their house. There was a wave of aggression, direct threats, and resentment regarding our actions coming from a number of countries in that region and the West. However, we weathered it realising that this disaster is better dealt with not when it finally reaches you, but when there is still a chance to stave off even greater losses. Didn’t I talk about what's going on in Afrin today? Didn’t I talk about what led to this situation last week? I talked about it today as well.

Send this photograph to Ms Amanpour at CNN. Perhaps, she will start her next story with this photo of a Kurdish woman, rather than a Syrian boy, and ask her government who they give weapons to and why, and why they are pitting the peoples in this region against each other. This is definitely not a question for Russia.



Question:

Russia proposed to create a de-escalation zone in Afrin. Is this proposal still open?



Maria Zakharova:

I already answered this question today, and described the situation in Afrin in detail. I have nothing to add to this.



Question:

Recently, Prime Minister of Bulgaria Boyko Borisov jokingly said that there are two things in life that you can’t chose - your parents and the president of the Russian Federation. What can you say about this?



Maria Zakharova:

He has a chance to obtain Russian citizenship and to vote for the president of Russia. Dreams come true.



Question:

Could you provide more details about the incident in Deir-ez-Zor on February 7? How many Russians were there?



Maria Zakharova:

I told you everything we know at the moment, and I answered this question in full. I understand perfectly well that there are new developments and many additional questions, but I shared with you everything I had for today. As soon as I have more information, I will share it with you.


***


We have a little surprise for you. This is the week of Maslenitsa, an ancient folk festival rooted in the distant past, which is celebrated with pancakes. So, you are welcome to a small pancake party made possible by our press centre. The briefing took a while, and I can see it in your eyes that you are hungry.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3077521
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old February 24th, 2018 #363
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Euronews channel, February 16, 2018



16 February 2018 - 22:33








Question:

Mr Lavrov, thank you for your time, regardless of your packed schedule. My first question is about US-Russia relations. After Donald Trump took over as president, these relations have become unprecedentedly tense. Did Russia expect something more from the Trump presidency?



Sergey Lavrov:

I wouldn’t say we were in thrall to some expectations. Today there are many speculations to the effect that Russia has “put a bet” on Donald Trump and lost. In fact, there were pronouncements in favour of supporting Donald Trump’s presidential bid, but they came from politicians, public figures and some members of parliament. All officials, starting from the President to the foreign minister as well as other people responsible for foreign policy never placed any bets and stated in no uncertain terms that Russia in any case, in any country was ready to work with the president and the government that would be elected by the people in a relevant state. And this is so in reality. There was no guesswork, of course, and we could not interfere and we never did. They are still talking about some state interference in the electoral process, but I haven’t seen a single fact. The other day, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of cybersecurity went on record as saying that they had no evidence of Russian election interference during the latest presidential campaign.



Question:

Nevertheless, the investigation is in full swing.



Sergey Lavrov:

You know, the United States has a very specific political system. I worked there for a number of years. It’s not typical of the United States that not a single fact was leaked to the public during almost one and a half year of the investigation (this was Robert Mueller’s investigation plus Senate hearings, with dozens of people subpoenaed to appear for hearings and interrogations). Had there been even a small “fire,” the smoke would have been seen at once. I think they simply have driven themselves into a corner by their statements about “detailed” evidence regarding Russian interference and in retrospect are trying to find at least some excuses. But they are failing even in this.

I really do hope that the dominant tendencies we are seeing in Washington will eventually peter out. As is clear, this is unlikely to happen before the mid-term elections in November of this year: they are preoccupied with a scramble for congressional seats and gubernatorial positions. It is also clear that the Democrats are still unable to recover from their defeat that proved a total surprise for them and are now using every opportunity to poison life for President Donald Trump and the entire Republican Party (but primarily for Donald Trump as a non-systemic leader). But I don’t think this is working as perfectly as they would like it to. For all the need to compromise, given the sentiments in Congress, President Trump is sticking to his guns. He has repeatedly confirmed his sincere desire to implement what he spoke about during his election campaign – to promote normal, mutually respectful, mutually beneficial and mutually advantageous relations with Russia.



Question:

But still no one coerced him into signing sanctions laws or sending weapons to Ukraine.



Sergey Lavrov:

As I said, he has to compromise, given the sentiments in Congress. When a bill is passed by a margin of votes sufficient for overcoming a presidential veto, the rules of domestic politics come into play and the President proceeds from his relations with Congress on a wider range of matters. This is life. But it is sad, of course, that our relations have not improved during more than one year of the Trump presidency by comparison with what was the case under the Democratic administration. They have even deteriorated to some extent. To be sure, I mean the expropriation, the illegal seizure of our diplomatic property, which runs counter not only to the Vienna conventions but also all principles underlying the US Constitution and society – private property is sacred! This tenet was trampled underfoot and, as was said, we are launching suits in the United States.



Question:

But are you still hopeful that the pragmatism you bet on will prevail?



Sergey Lavrov:

We said we would work with any government and any president. Pragmatism is making its way. I have cited some examples: our cooperation in space hasn’t stalled, our interaction in Syria, although its progress is not easy – there are too many clashing interests – and yet, the southern de-escalation zone has been created with the participation of Russia, the US, and Jordan, and it is functioning well. However, it is still necessary to implement the agreements on the withdrawal of all non-Syrian forces from the area, which were reached as the zone was being established. There are still militants entrenched there, who are impeding the efforts to stabilise the Golan Heights, which is highly important for Israel. This was discussed during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to Russia. In my opinion, an understanding has been found with him. It is important for us that the Americans perform their work as well, in particular close their unilaterally declared 55-kilometre de-conflicting zone in al-Tanf with the Er-Rukban refugee camp inside, which, as numerous facts indicate, is used as an equipment, training and recreation centre for militants.

Nevertheless, our dialogue on Syria with the Americans is rather pragmatic. We are trying to make them see that their earlier solemn assurances to the effect that they are in Syria solely to fight ISIS should remain in force. Because, contrary to what I was told by Secretary of State Tillerson, they are declaring that they will remain in Syria not only until the last ISIS militant is destroyed or expelled from there but also until a stable political process comes under way and culminates in a political transition (an euphemism for regime change), whose outcome will suit America. This is yet another manifestation of intractability, which we have repeatedly seen the US and its Western partners display over the last two decades.



Question:

In Syria, the interests of two NATO allies, Turkey and the United States, are diverging. Russia cannot help but note this. I mean Turkey’s operation in Afrin. After all, they are not hiding that they will not stop at Afrin.



Sergey Lavrov:

This story emphasises once again the United States’ poor judgment, short-sightedness, call it what you will, if not ill intent. US special forces and other units have consistently remained on the ground in Syria for two or three years (that is, practically the entire period that the Washington-led coalition has operated in Syria). Their presence there is illegal, without an invitation from Damascus (the legitimate government) or a UN Security Council mandate. Since the start of their operations in Syria, the Americans have put their stake on the Kurds while ignoring Turkey’s concerns. No matter how you look at Turkey’s position, it is reality and has never been a secret. Ankara believed that certain Kurdish groups in Syria were offshoots of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which Turkey and a number of other countries have put on the list of terrorist organisations. All of this was known. The Turks have repeatedly said that they would do all they could to prevent the Kurds from taking the border between Syria and Turkey under their control. Nevertheless, the US has consistently armed, on a large scale, Kurdish units throughout that period, while disregarding the Turkish position. Not long ago – a month or a month and a half – they unexpectedly declared that they were creating a 30,000-strong, mostly Kurdish, force to maintain a border security zone between Syria and Turkey. Later they awkwardly tried to disavow this declaration, but the widely available facts indicate that this has not changed their intentions. Then Turkey made its announcement. For me, for example, it was not much of a surprise that this has happened. Ankara’s repeated warnings to Washington just fly over their heads.

One should proceed cautiously. The US clearly has a strategy that, I think, consists of stationing its armed forces in Syria forever. It wants to do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan despite all of its earlier promises. They are working to cut a huge chunk of Syrian territory from the rest of the country in violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic. They are creating quasi-local authorities in that area, and are trying in every way to establish an autonomous entity under Kurdish authority.

Playing with the Kurdish question from the perspective of a narrow understanding of their geopolitical plans for just one part of this region, as the United States is doing now, is very dangerous. This can lead to a lot of trouble in a number of other countries where the Kurdish problem exists and where there are Kurdish populations. We should be working towards ensuring equal rights for the Kurds within the present borders of countries where they are, rather than trying to incite unrest in the region, something our Western colleagues have been doing throughout the past century.



Question:

US influence in the world has been contracting under President Trump; we hear this everywhere. Do you agree or do you think that the US remains as much a global player as it has been in recent decades?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t agree that the US presence in international affairs is contracting. President Trump said they should make America great again and put America first. But those who took this slogan as an invitation to isolationism or a renunciation of foreign policies were mistaken. Throughout the 20th century, or at least since World War I, the core of US foreign policy doctrine has been that no one should be stronger than America economically, let alone militarily. This slogan has been passed from Democrat to Republican and back and no one has ended it. No matter what slogan is chosen for a presidential campaign, the strategic direction of US policy is still the need to ensure full domination in the world. This is a fight for pre-eminence. The US military doctrine (one of the few documents approved recently) is based on this slogan and repeats this thesis verbatim.

Interestingly, US international presence is expanding rather than contracting, mostly in the military dimension. I mean Syria, where no one has invited them, and Afghanistan, where they have been invited but their 16-year presence has led to nothing good: the terrorist threat has not abated and drug production has increased 10-fold. This is a source of anxiety for us and our Central Asian partners, and should be one for Europe because drugs are heading there as well. The terrorists are spreading all over the world regardless of borders. The same is happening in Iraq. The United States declared it was pulling out of Iraq under Obama. Now a presence has been resumed and it will grow.

I am not even talking about how military preparations are being stepped up in Southeast Asia with reference to the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula, but on a scale far greater than necessary for containing the threat that the Americans see in North Korea. Clearly, this is being done with an eye to finding a foothold in the South China Sea in the context of the territorial disputes that China has with a number of ASEAN countries and seeks to deal with it peacefully through a direct dialogue and without any interference. Of course, the US military build-up there is introducing adjustments to these intentions.

Speaking of global issues in which a US presence evokes a lot of questions, it is necessary to note the global missile defence system, which is being created in Romania and Poland in the European segment, and in South Korea in the East Asian segment. Japan has also taken much interest in this project. So it turns out that this global system is creating problems not only for us but also for China. As you can see, US presence is growing and it is far from harmless.



Question:

Participants in the Munich Security Conference will discuss the fact that the US has abandoned its role as a guarantor of international security, which entails certain risks for Europe, in particular, for Eastern Europe.



Sergey Lavrov:

This conclusion still needs some rationale. What I heard about the US refusal to act as international security guarantor was that they began asking more of NATO’s European members, criticising them for insufficient financial investment in their defence sectors and blackmailing them by threatening to reconsider its commitment to protect Europe unless the Europeans allocate 2 per cent of their budgets for defence expenditures.

But in reality, the situation is quite the opposite. Fuelling Russophobia in relations between Russia and NATO, accusing us of nothing less than preparing to launch an attack on the Baltic states, Poland and others (only a fevered mind could come up with such an idea, but still; maybe some of them are, including those who supported these ideas), they used this absolutely fake logic to justify a very real deployment of heavy weapons and additional large contingents on the NATO borders with Russia. The Baltics started this off, now the same process is going on in Poland; Romania is building a missile defence base I already mentioned. Moreover, apart from the deployment of American, British, Canadian, and German units in the Baltic states and Poland, they are now talking about expanded deployment, citing the fictional and far-fetched Russian threat, to consolidate US dominance in Europe through NATO. This is the complete opposite of the original expectations you mentioned. These are words, and those are deeds. This deployment is open; it has been announced and implemented, and nobody is hiding anything.



Question:

Over the past year, European countries and the EU followed the US lead to accuse Russia of propaganda, particularly of supporting populist ultra-right and leftist parties. Can a weakened and destabilised Europe be of strategic interest to Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course not. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that we are interested in Europe overcoming its trials and tribulations. We want to see a strong and stable Europe. It is our largest trade and economic partner, despite all the negative events of the past three years. Europe remains our largest and most important investment partner. We certainly want it to develop smoothly, predictably, and steadily. We have many plans.

Europe has a growing demand for energy resources, which can be satisfied with the projects we are now discussing with our European colleagues - Nord Stream 2 and Turkish Stream. By the way, last year Gazprom made record-high deliveries to Europe. All the talk about the need to move away from dependence on Russian gas is purely political play aimed at artificially disrupting our natural economic partnership.

Incidentally, I noticed that the coalition agreement signed by the CDU / CSU party and the Social Democrats in Berlin contains a clause that the new German government will support the idea of single economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok. We should welcome this. This idea has been voiced for more than a decade, and we must gradually move on to its implementation.



Question:

It is my understanding that Matteo Salvini, the leader of Italy’s Lega Nord [North League], supports this idea as well.



Sergey Lavrov:

Let me return to your question regarding radical or non-systemic parties. We never shun contact with anyone. This is a very special feature of our line in international affairs. For example, Russia is the only country that has maintained contacts with all political forces without exception in the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya. In Syria, we maintained contacts with the government and the irreconcilable opposition, which only wanted to talk about overthrowing the government. Their position has changed a bit, and these irreconcilable forces sent their representatives to Sochi and seem ready to join the talks, although this will be very difficult to implement. As I said, we never describe anyone as an outcast and have never shut the door on positive contacts.



Question:

Marine Le Pen, President of France’s National Front and a Eurosceptic, has visited Moscow. What is your reaction when she says she wants the EU to disintegrate?



Sergey Lavrov:

We see such statements as the opinion of a very large part of French society. Marine Le Pen got quite a few votes. Likewise, the parties in other countries that are similar to France’s National Front represent the opinion of a considerable part of the population. I consider it irresponsible to shun contacts when the representatives of these parties want to develop ties with us so as to find out more about our life, our solutions to various problems and possible ways of interaction with their countries, or at least with the regions they represent.

It is very easy to declare a country a rogue state , refuse to speak with it and impose sanctions against it, and, if the sanctions fail, to crush it militarily. I am referring to the policy of some Washington hawks regarding North Korea or Iran. They lay the blame on Iran and denounce it as a terrorist country, disregarding the fact that the overwhelming majority of some 15 terrorist organisations that have been officially declared terrorist organisations in the US by a court decision see Iran as their enemy. Despite this, the United States is directing its anti-terrorist rhetoric against Iran rather than the organisations that are trying to fight Iran, among other things.

Inclusivity is a factor that should be applied not only in situations which this or that country considers important for itself. In principle, inclusivity must become a principle of entire international intercourse. I don’t see anything shameful in this. This seems like a shared opinion, judging by the activities of Western embassy personnel in Russia. They regularly meet with our opposition groups, including both those that are represented in parliament and those who represent the non-systemic opposition and are arrogant critics of the Russian authorities. Nobody prevents the Western diplomats from doing so. By the way, it has been a political tradition for Europe and the United States for many decades and has become the norm at the least after the Cold War. When European chancellors, prime ministers and presidents, as well as US and European foreign ministers come to Russia, their agendas include meetings with members of the Russian opposition, with serious and all but irreconcilable opponents of the Kremlin. Nobody asks if this is right or wrong. The opposition is part of civil society, and nobody wants to neglect working with civil society.



Question:

What are Russia’s interests in the Balkans? How do you see the evolution in that part of Europe?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Balkans is our historical partner. We did a lot to ensure security and statehood itself of many Balkan countries, including during the Russo-Turkish wars, as well as the First and Second World Wars. Our historical, spiritual and religious roots in the Balkans (where the majority are Orthodox believers) are responsible for the very good relations between the peoples of the Russian Federation and Balkan countries. In recent years, our relations with Serbia and Slovenia have made strides. We have maintained a fairly good dialogue with Banja Luka and Macedonia. Not so long ago, the period of the pause in relations with Croatia came to an end, when President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović visited the Russian Federation. I had a meeting with my Croatian counterpart Davo Ivo Stier. Of course, we are concerned about the situation in Montenegro, which is being thrown under the bus in anti-Russian efforts and anti-Russian tricks. NATO membership has been imposed on them, with their leaders flatly refusing to hold a referendum. In general, I have noticed that a referendum, which is the highest expression of the people’s will, of democracy, is becoming less and less popular in the EU and NATO member-countries. Perhaps they fear that the ballot-box will reveal a point of view that differs from the one that the traditional, classical elites would like to promote.

Nevertheless, we have always maintained good relations with Montenegro. I don’t understand why the Montenegrins needed to join this anti-Russian campaign. This remains on their conscience. We believe that the course for inveigling and “sucking” this territory into NATO runs counter to all vows that we were offered as Germany was being reunited, vows that NATO would not move an inch to the east. This is also against common sense because attempts are being made again to turn the Balkans from a “soft underbelly” into a zone of confrontation.



Question:

This is about the powder keg of Europe. What about EU expansion?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am sure they will not be able to turn the Balkans into a powder keg, if they don’t run into the problems they are creating themselves, including by turning the blind eye to the outrages perpetrated in Kosovo. These are special and separate problems. But just compare the facts: There is not a single Balkan country where the US ambassador in cahoots with European ambassadors wouldn’t demand that the local leaders discontinue friendly relations with Russia. They are doing this in public, most certainly in Serbia.

At the same time, look at what we are doing in the Balkans: We simply offer mutually beneficial projects. We never demand that our partners in the Balkans or anywhere else stop promoting relations with this or that country. Herein lies the fundamental difference between our foreign policy and the foreign policy pursued by Western countries. When they claim that Russia interferes in some internal processes but fail to provide a single fact to confirm the claims, I think that independent and objective media (and I put Euronews in this category) should expose the steps that the Western countries openly take, in the Balkans and elsewhere, to make countries give up their friendship with the Russian Federation.



Question:

Possibly by 2025, Serbia and Montenegro could get fast-tracked into the EU. What is Russia’s attitude towards EU enlargement?



Sergey Lavrov:

We regard this as a natural process in which the countries that wish to join the EU pursue their economic interests, while the union will also benefit from market expansion and may well become stronger. It is true, though, that the current contradiction between two opposite trends within the EU will have to be overcome. One of them is to turn the EU into a multi-speed integration project. As far as I understand it, this idea is being given some thought in Germany. It will be interesting to find out the new German coalition government’s stance on the subject. France is rather in favour of strengthening the integrated core and relying on the eurozone. It is to be seen which path EU evolution will take. We will welcome any scenario which will render the EU more stable, predictable and independent in its foreign policy.

As far as Serbia’s and Montenegro’s accession is concerned, if the negotiations aim at integrating the candidate economy into the common economic and monetary space of the EU, and if the inclusion of newcomers into the eurozone is considered, then it is a totally natural process. Our Serbian colleagues are being told that all issues of finance, economy and procedure will be discussed with them, but their EU accession will be subject to their recognition of Kosovo and total support for the EU common defence policy, clearly implying adherence to sanctions against Russia and other anti-Russian actions. I would say that in today’s world such ultimatums are unbecoming, particularly on the part of an institution as respectable as the EU.

Serbia, like any normal country, wants to pursue a multi-faceted foreign policy, promoting relations with its neighbours to the West, East, South and North. This is a perfectly natural desire for a normal society. Serbia has fairly strong ties with the EU and, incidentally, with NATO, which holds numerous military exercises on Serbian land. At the same time, Serbia has a free trade zone with Russia and is starting negotiations on the creation of a similar zone with the EAEU, while maintaining contacts with the CSTO as an observer state in its Parliamentary Assembly. I regard the way in which Serbia’s foreign relations are developing as quite natural. Trying once again to force Belgrade to choose between siding with Russia and teaming up with the West means repeating the blunder that led to the Ukrainian crisis in which the entire nation was torn apart while the then president was forced to cede to a peremptory demand from the West.



Question:

Which means that a Ukrainian scenario cannot be ruled out?



Sergey Lavrov:

I hope that the West, which enacted that scenario in Ukraine, is now sobering up. It is perfectly clear to me that the West is now annoyed with the utterly arrogant behaviour of those in office in Kiev, anxious about the orgy of crime and corruption, vexed to see the presidential power slip into the hands of “war party” radicals and downright neo-Nazis. I can hear my Western counterparts say so in confidential discussions. However, they upheld the unconstitutional seizure of power at the time, and found themselves in a scandalous situation when the Western states that had endorsed the agreement between the then president and the opposition in February 2014 failed to prevent the agreement from being scrapped literally overnight. I am sure they understand everything perfectly well. Nevertheless, having staked heavily on the current Ukrainian authorities, and clearly seeing all their flaws and vices, they cannot openly admit to it without losing face. In principle, we consider the insistence on a choice of allegiance either to Russia or to the West as “medievalism”, contrary to the trend that we mentioned earlier, i.e. the growing understanding in Germany, as well as in other European countries, including France, of the need to return to the formation of a common economic space. We have repeatedly suggested that the European Commission start a dialogue with the Eurasian Economic Commission. The necessity of such a dialogue, as I understand it, is now beginning to be recognised, at least on the level of technical consultations. We will welcome this.



Question:

The Ukrainian Parliament has approved the so-called law on the “reintegration of Donbass”, in which Russia is called an aggressor state and the territories in eastern Ukraine are described as occupied. Commenting on this, the Russian Foreign Ministry described it as “preparations for a new war.” Do the Minsk Agreements remain in force, from Russia’s point of view? What is your vision of how this conflict can be solved?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Minsk Agreements remain in force from the point of view of international law. They were unanimously approved by a UN Security Council resolution, the implementation of which is obligatory. No Ukrainian law can overrule a UN Security Council decision. All our interlocutors both in western and eastern Europe as well as in the United States reaffirm that it is necessary to implement the Minsk Agreements.

The law on “reintegration” (that is the way everyone calls it, though it has a different title), in fact, does not mention the Minsk Agreements at all: it vests the Ukrainian Armed Forces and a certain united operational headquarters, which is currently being set up, with war-time powers. The final version of the law is yet to be published, but if we look at the versions that leaked out to the public, they authorise the military, security and law-enforcement representatives to arrest people without charge or trial, to resort to forceful measures and suppress unrest and dissent. Actually, I would say that this is a law on “disintegration” as it is directed against the logic of the Minsk Agreements, which require the restoration of a common public, political and state space through dialogue between the Kiev authorities and this part of Ukraine. Through dialogue and through a whole number of political steps, including the amnesty laws, the law on the “special status” of Donbass, which was spelled out by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande in Minsk three years ago, including the holding of elections in coordination with the regions called the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. None of this has been done.

Our Ukrainian colleagues say absolutely unacceptable things to their Western partners during private conversations. For example, it was agreed that all those who took part in the hostilities must be amnestied, and the Verkhovna Rada, in fact, passed the amnesty low a long time ago in a form that suits Donetsk and Lugansk. The president has not signed it, and has been dragging it out for three years. The Europeans are now hinting to us that during talks with the Ukrainians (actually, the Ukrainian side says this during meetings of the Contact Group) they say they are ready to conduct an amnesty under the 1996 law, which means that on the basis of the then Ukrainian legislation, exclusively on an individual basis, after restoring full control over the entire territory, the Ukrainian authorities will kindly decide who will and who will not be amnestied. Does this approach signal that the Ukrainian authorities are interested in a dialogue with these territories? They proclaimed these territories an anti-terrorist operation zone. Although, no one from Donetsk or Lugansk attacked the rest of Ukraine, but just the opposite, Ukraine attacked them, the Ukrainian government that rode into power on the bayonets of radicals and neo-Nazis. This is a very alarming law. We have already discussed this with our colleagues, aides to the heads of states in the “Normandy format” and also in the Contact Group. I am convinced that here we may not back down and pander to the radicals, who are seeking to bury the Minsk Agreements.

There were lots of examples, when, in our understanding, the Donetsk and Lugansk republics manifested readiness for a compromise. For instance, under the Minsk Agreements, the law “on special status” was to be introduced prior to local elections. President Petr Poroshenko categorically opposed this, saying that, first, he wants to see who will be elected and then decide whether to grant them special status or not. From the point of view of democracy, this is, of course, a “fine position.” As a result, a compromise was agreed upon that the law “on special status” will come into force on a temporary basis on the date of the elections and will take full effect the day the OSCE circulates a report confirming that the elections were free and fair. This understanding was reached by the Normandy format leaders a year and a half ago, but up until now, it has not yet been put on paper either in the Normandy format at expert level or in the Contact Group.



Question:

What are the chances of UN peacekeepers being deployed in eastern Ukraine by March?



Sergey Lavrov:

This depends on those who have not yet submitted a single practical amendment to the Russian draft resolution.

Our logic is very simple. The implementation of the Minsk Agreements is being monitored by the OSCE, which has established a special monitoring mission. There were concerns regarding the safety of the OSCE observers. President Putin suggested long ago that they be issued light weapons so that they would be better protected. The OSCE rejected the idea as unacceptable, because it does not have any experience of military peacekeeping operations. A while later, in September 2017, we submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council. It is very simple and directly connected to the Minsk Agreements, and involves the assignment of UN peacekeepers to protect OSCE observers no matter where they work. Our partners said it was a very good idea but proposed expanding the concept by replacing all provisions of the Minsk Agreements with a large and strong military structure disguised as a UN operation. They proposed deploying up to 40,000 armed peacekeepers, who would have not only small arms but also heavy weapons, who would have the latest military technology so as to assume control over the entire territory of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, create a provisional UN administration with a staff of 5,000 and decide all issues related to elections and special status for Donbass not via a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk, as is stipulated in the UNSC resolution that approved the Minsk Agreements, but as the proposed international administration would deem necessary. This is the idea that is being promoted now.



Question:

Is Russia for or against this idea?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia cannot support ideas that contradict the decisions of the UN’s top authority responsible for international peace and security. The resolution that approves the Minsk Agreements is binding on all sides, but Kiev has long been sabotaging it. If our American colleagues, for example, support this idea and hinder the establishment of a UN mission that would protect those who honour the Minsk Agreements, this will be very bad for international relations and for Ukraine. This would perpetuate the conflict in a state that suits the Kiev government. Kiev wants to maintain tension so as to show how harshly it can respond to the allegedly regular violations by Donetsk and Lugansk. The OSCE monitoring reports, which are published every week, indicate that neither side is honouring its commitments in full, but more Ukrainian heavy weapons are missing from the designated holding areas. This means that these heavy weapons are being used outside their storage sites to keep up the atmosphere of the war, which the Kiev authorities need to appease the radicals and to remain in power.



Question:

Russia has surprised the world by reaching an agreement with Iran and Turkey over Syria. What do these three countries plan to do in Syria? Does Russia see Iran and Turkey as allies that can coordinate their policies to influence the situation in the Middle East?



Sergey Lavrov:

We do not look so far into the future. At this point in time, we need to complete what we started in Syria when the Obama administration proved unable to implement the Russian-US arrangements on promoting a ceasefire. We had no choice but to work with those who keep their word and who, although they hold different views, agree to coordinate positions on a settlement that will preserve Syria as a united and territorially integral state. This is why we are working with our Iranian partners, who were invited to Syria by the legitimate government to help it fight terrorism, just as Russia was. Turkey has shown a similar readiness.

Our first summit, which was held in late 2016, led to the Astana process, which has helped lower the level of violence dramatically. The ceasefire is not perfect in the de-escalation zones, which have been established within the Astana format, but shooting is mostly reported in Idlib and Eastern Ghouta. The reason for this is the remaining units of Jabhat al-Nusra, which the Americans tend to spare, as we have seen many times starting with the Obama administration. Unlike their attitude to ISIS, they have never directed their attacks at Jabhat al-Nusra. Of course, the Syrian army has to respond to provocations, for example, when the al-Nusra terrorists in Eastern Ghouta shoot at residential areas [in Damascus], including at the buildings of the Russian embassy and trade mission. Our American partners feel uncomfortable about refusing to denounce such acts of terrorism at the UN Security Council, but what can they do? This is their politically charged stand.

Overall, the level of violence has decreased radically, as I said. Moreover, everyone agrees that the most important recent event regarding Syria is the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, which has approved the 12 principles of the future state of Syria. It is the main achievement made at the congress. It is true that not all opposition groups were properly represented in Sochi, yet it was an unprecedented forum in terms of the number of Syrian groups represented at the congress. By the way, Mr Nasr Al-Hariri, the leader of the opposition group [the Syrian High Negotiations Committee or HNC] formed by Saudi Arabia, did not come to Sochi out of political considerations, but about one-third of HNC members attended the congress.



Question:

Will all opposition leaders be involved in the process?



Sergey Lavrov:

This issue should be dealt with in Geneva. We have helped the Geneva process twice. It started skidding in 2016, and nobody did anything to help it out. It only regained traction after we launched the Astana process. No consultations were held in Geneva for almost a year before UN representatives became more active ahead of the congress in Sochi. After the congress, which UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and his delegation attended, they praised the results of the congress and said that they would use them to formulate their proposals on helping the Syrians draft a new constitution.

I see this as a practical result. Coming to an agreement won’t be easy, because the government and the opposition hold different view on methods for promoting constitutional reforms. However, Russia, Turkey and Iran will help them. For example, we are preparing for the next meeting in Astana, this time at the level of [foreign] ministers. We hope to convene it in the first half of March. Preparations for it are ongoing, and we will see what else can be done within this trilateral format to help the UN do its job.



Question:

And the last question to top off our interview. The FIFA World Cup will be held soon. I know that you are not just a football fan but that you also play football. Have you booked tickets for the finals? Can you predict who will win?



Sergey Lavrov:

I will not make predictions, because victory will go to the strongest team. As for booking the tickets, I haven’t thought about it yet.



Question:

Who will you cheer for?



Sergey Lavrov:

For Russia, of course.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3078435






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a media question on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Munich, February 17, 2018



17 February 2018 - 11:36




Question:

Mr Lavrov, will the Normandy format meeting take place today?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yesterday we explained that we were ready but our German counterpart suddenly had to fly back to Berlin. Today we proposed several suitable options taking into account the current programme. We are waiting. Nothing is confirmed yet.

Yesterday we had an in-depth discussion with OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger. Therefore, I am not sure we even have to have this meeting. If the Germans are ready, then we are ready, too.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3078582






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with representatives of Russian and German business circles on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Munich, February 17, 2018



17 February 2018 - 14:01








Mr Buchele,

Mr Gabriel,

Friends,

First of all, I would like to congratulate German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel on an important event in Germany’s foreign policy activities, that is, the return of a German journalist. Yesterday, we were pleased to observe this step, which will obviously help improve relations between Germany and Turkey. We welcome this in every way.

Thank you for this tradition. We have gathered in this room and at this table on many occasions. In our opinion, it is a bit too early, but this is quite all right, and it is better to start work earlier than planned.

We agree with assessments that have now been provided by Wolfgang Buchele. Despite our different approaches towards a number of political issues, it is our opinion that our relations should, nevertheless, hinge on the real and fundamental interests of Germany and Russia, so that politics will never prevail over the economy. On the contrary, expanded economic ties should create a solid foundation, on which it will be easier to resolve various disagreements on certain international situations.

As far as I know, officials of the Russian-German Chamber of Foreign Trade have recently polled German companies on their readiness for new large-scale investment in Russia. Their interests were estimated at about 500 million euros. This is quite a lot, considering the substantial volume of investment already being received by the Russian Federation. We will continue to do everything possible to help businesses, including German ones, feel comfortable in Russia.

We realise that the so-called spiral of sanctions, initiated by the United States (Mr Buchele has directly said this), is the main obstacle hampering business cooperation. Europe is forced to pay its bills. Yes, this is so. But it is also an objective fact that people are coming to comprehend the abnormal nature of this situation. We realise that economic interests are at stake here. The Americans do not conceal the fact that they want to promote their own interests, primarily under the pretext of containing the Russian Federation. The Federal Chancellor and a number of other countries whose companies perceive this project’s purely commercial and useful essence are voicing their clear position with regard to the Nord Stream 2 project. But it is important to remind those trying to “torpedo” the project that the pipeline route’s length between Yamal and Germany is 2,000 kilometres shorter than the current pipeline reaching into Germany via Ukraine. Gas transit costs will also be about half of current levels. Therefore, the project’s commercial and economic benefits are absolutely obvious. I am confident that the final decisions of countries neighbouring Germany will hinge on precisely these considerations.

We meet regularly. Last autumn, President Vladimir Putin met with representatives of the German business community in Sochi. Many of you were present there. Quite recently, he held a similar meeting with French business managers working in Moscow. In October 2017, I met once again with members of the European Business Association in Russia. We hold annual meetings. I see the normal, concrete and pragmatic mood of virtually everyone linked with the Russian economy, one way or another, and implementing their own projects in this country.

Negative trends in our trade are being gradually rectified. In2017, the volume of Russian-German trade increased by more than 20 per cent and reached $50 billion. The Russian-German Interdepartmental Working Group on Strategic Economic and Financial Cooperation Issues, an auxiliary inter-governmental mechanism, functions pretty well. The Group resumed its active work in September 2017 in Berlin. I would also like to note that the Bavarian-Russian working group for promoting economic cooperation has been established. A similar group involving Russia and Germany’s Mecklenburg-Vorpommern federal state is to launch its practical work in the near future.

It goes without saying that top officials of our foreign ministries are involved in regular discussions of economic issues, including at the November 2017 Petersburg Dialogue Russian-German Public Forum held in Berlin, that was attended by a number of both countries’ ministers.

State-of-the-art technologies were also mentioned. In September 2017, Hamburg held a ceremony marking the launch of an X-ray free-electron laser under the XFEL project. Russia is Germany’s key partner in this project. The Ministry of Education and Science and our German partners are drafting a road map concerning long-term scientific and technological cooperation. In June 2017, Mr Gabriel and I opened the Year of Regional and Municipal Partnerships in Krasnodar, and the programme of the Year’s events expires in mid-2018. There is a proposal by our researcher colleagues to dedicate the next year to cutting-edge technology. I believe that this will also be quite useful and effective.

Regarding elections, Mr Buchele said that elections have already taken place in Germany, and Russia is to hold them quite soon. However, I have not heard about any in-house elections at your companies. But everything probably lies ahead. In any event, I repeat, all of you aspire to expand cooperation on the basis of real interests, which was confirmed today. We don’t want this cooperation to be marred by any ideologised and external considerations.

Thank you for this opportunity, and I am very happy to see you all here today.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3078634






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Munich, February 17, 2018



17 February 2018 - 16:01



Question:

Why did the Normandy format meeting not take place?



Sergey Lavrov:

I was ready yesterday and I am ready today but German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel was summoned back to Berlin, as far as I know. We were ready to have a meeting today as well. There are several windows in the schedule which remain open.



Question:

My question concerns Georgia...



Sergey Lavrov:

Mr Saakashvili is here. You better talk to him.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3081291






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at the Munich Security Conference, Munich, February 17, 2018



17 February 2018 - 16:03








Ladies and gentlemen,

Colleagues,

Now that international relations have entered a period of radical change, which has overturned the thesis about “the end of history,” we should remember what happened in the relatively recent past. As Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky said, “History (…) punishes us for not learning its lessons.”

Eighty years ago, in 1938, an agreement on the division of Czechoslovakia was signed in Munich, which led to the Second World War. During the Nuremberg Trials after the war, the leaders of the Third Reich tried to justify the Munich Pact by saying that its aim was to push Russia out of Europe. For example, this is what Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel said.

The tragedy of the Munich Agreement highlighted the main pressure points of that period, including belief in one’s exceptionalism, disunity and mutual suspicion, reliance on sanitary cordons and buffer zones, as well as open interference in the internal affairs of other countries. This memory is especially alarming when superimposed on modern realities, the underhanded attempts to distort the truth about World War II and the events preceding it, as well as the rehabilitation of Nazis and their accomplices. Some EU countries have laws equating Nazis and their accomplices with those who liberated Europe and allow the demolition of monuments to those who defeated Nazism.

The experience of WWII and the subsequent polarisation of Europe during the age of bipolar confrontation should have shown European nations that there is no alternative to building a common European home where people will not be divided into “us” and “them.” The very integration project of the European Union is rooted in a desire of the founding fathers to prevent the revival of the logic of confrontation, which was the reason behind many disasters on the continent.

For many years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, in which Russia played a crucial role, we did our best to build a system of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic region. We dramatically decreased our military capability on our western borders. We advocated the strengthening of common European institutions, primarily the OSCE, and the coordination of an international framework of treaties on European security.

Regrettably, our calls for an equal dialogue and for realising the principle of indivisible security fell on deaf ears.

Contrary to the promises made to us in the 1990s, as documents from the US National Archives have recently confirmed again, NATO continues its eastward expansion. NATO troops and military infrastructure are accumulating on our borders. The European theatre of war is being systematically developed. The implementation of US missile defence plans in Europe is undermining strategic stability. Purposeful propaganda campaigns are underway to engender hostility against Russia among the European public. It has nearly become politically correct in the establishment of many countries to say either bad things or nothing about Russia.

When people in the West speak about Russia’s growing influence, they mostly do so in a negative way. The authors of a report for this conference encountered this as well. I would like to remind you that when Russia was weakened and facing historical trials, our partners said that they wanted Russia to be strong and that any actions by Russia’s neighbours outside the region and other countries are not directed against our interests. We have been given promises regarding the EU Eastern Partnership project. We hope they will be fulfilled and that Brussels will cut short any attempts to transform this project into a Russophobic narrative. Looking at the situation in Europe from the perspective of a zero-sum game can have extremely dangerous consequences.

One such consequence is the internal conflict raging in Ukraine, which was forced to choose between the West and Russia during the preparation of the Association Agreement. It is highly regrettable that the EU, which subsequently agreed to act as guarantor for the February 21, 2014 agreement between the Ukrainian Government and the opposition, proved unable to ensure its implementation and actually supported the anti-constitutional coup. And now Ukraine, a country with huge potential and talented people, has been reduced to a situation where it cannot govern itself. Russia has a greater interest in the settlement of the internal Ukrainian crisis than anyone else. We have the legal framework for this – the Minsk Package of Measures, which was drafted by Russia, Germany, Ukraine and France with Donetsk and Lugansk and approved by the UN Security Council. This agreement must be implemented strictly and in full. However, Kiev is openly sabotaging this in the Contact Group and within the framework of the Normandy format. Moreover, Kiev officials are talking about a military scenario. I am sure that the EU is aware of the dangers of this U-turn.

Regrettably, fresh attempts are being made to force the countries that border Russia and the EU, be they in the CIS or the Balkans, to choose between the West and the East. The German newspaper Die Welt has recently published an item titled “The EU or Putin: Who Gets the Western Balkans?” [EU oder Putin – wer bekommt den Westbalkan]. And this is far from the only example of public indoctrination in keeping with the “us or them” philosophy.

The renunciation of collective Russia-EU cooperation mechanisms, such as summit meetings, the Permanent Partnership Council and industry dialogues, and reliance on pressure have not made Europe a safer place. On the contrary, the conflict potential has grown visibly, and the number of problems and crises is growing in Europe and around it.

The developments in the Middle East and North Africa have shown that the policy of replacing undesirable governments across the ocean and forcing alien development models on other countries not just creates chaos in vast areas but also strikes back with very real problems imported to Europe, primarily a spike in international terrorism, tidal waves of illegal migration and all other related problems.

All this must be taken into account to understand the genesis of the current relations between Russia and the European Union. The Russian authorities invested hard work and political capital in developing mutually beneficial relations between Russia and the EU. But the goal of a truly strategic partnership and a reliable and stable system of relations, which would enhance the joint competitiveness of Russia and the EU, has not been attained. But for this we are not to blame.

I believe that the EU has been unable to find the golden mean in relations with Russia over the past decades. In the 1990s, Russia was seen as a disciple who must be tutored in the Western ways consistently and contrary to its protests. The predominant myth now is the alleged “omnipotent Russian threat,” the traces of which they are trying to find everywhere from Brexit to the Catalan referendum. Both stereotypes are profoundly mistaken and point to the lack of common sense and understanding of Russia. We note that more and more people in the EU feel uncomfortable about the abnormal situation in our relations. Respected experts openly admit that diplomatic paralysis is the price they have to pay for demonstrations of illusory EU unity.

Russia has not changed its policy approaches to cooperation with the EU. We would like to see the EU united on the basis of respect for the fundamental interests of its member states. They must be free to determine how to develop their economies and foreign economic relations, for example, whether to meet their energy needs based on pragmatic, commercial approaches or under the influence of political and ideological considerations.

We proceed from the assumption that the EU can play an active, responsible and, let me stress it, independent role in international affairs. I have taken note of Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger’s interview with the Bild newspaper, in which the respected Chairman of the Munich Security Conference speaks about the need for the EU’s higher foreign policy profile. We welcome his idea of cooperation between Russia, the EU, the US and China in creating a security architecture for the Middle East. A similar approach could be applied to the Persian Gulf.

It is in Russia’s interests to have a strong and predictable European Union for a neighbour, an EU that would be able to act as a responsible member of international life in the polycentric world that is becoming reality right before our very eyes.

It is time to stop trying to swim against the tide of history and to start working together to renew the system of international relations on an equitable basis and with reliance on the central coordinating role of the UN, as stipulated in the UN Charter. Russia is open to an equal partnership with the EU based on mutual respect and a balance of interests in order to find effective responses to modern-day challenges. We are also willing to promote our relations with the United States and all other countries on these principles.

It is important to make good use of the potential of Russia-EU cooperation so as to create a common space of peace, equal and indivisible security and mutually beneficial cooperation in the area from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. At the strategic level, I would like to draw your attention to the initiative of President Vladimir Putin on promoting a greater Eurasian project that would combine the efforts of all members of the integration structures within the CIS, the SCO and ASEAN. I see no reason why the EU could not join in this work, for example, by starting with the establishment of professional contacts with the EAEU. I hope this day will come very soon.



Question (retranslated into English):

What can you say about the information published in the US media yesterday to the effect that $1.25 million of the Russian taxpayers’ money was used on a monthly basis to try to influence the outcome of elections in the United States. Do you think the investment paid off?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have nothing to say about this, because one can publish just about anything. We can see growing numbers of accusations, allegations and statements. However, I also had the chance to read the statements by Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Jeanette Manfra, who dismissed reports with allegations that any particular country influenced the election results. As I understand, US Vice President Mike Pence said the same thing either here, or in one of the neighbouring capitals. So, until we have the facts, everything else is bunk, pardon my not too diplomatic turn of phrase.



Question (retranslated into English):

You claim that the EU has confronted the countries participating in the Eastern Partnership with a choice between Russia and the EU. Do you agree - if you look at the facts - that we have different levels of relations with these six countries? Azerbaijan and Belarus are reluctant to sign a comprehensive agreement with us. Under your pressure, Armenia is sacrificing its membership in the Eastern Partnership in favour of the Customs Union, and we have to consent to a lower-level agreement. Three other countries also decided against the comprehensive option. Do you agree that we are just trying to meet them halfway and are not imposing anything on them? After all, if someone refuses to sign an agreement with us, we are not sending tanks there.



Sergey Lavrov:

This is one way of conjuring up the “Russia threat.” You started your question by stating that I allegedly said that the Eastern Partnership is used to tear these countries away from Russia. What I said was that when the Eastern Partnership was being created, we received assurances that it would not be directed against Russia. I held out hope that these claims would be honoured, as some of the countries you mentioned would like to see the Eastern Partnership used precisely that way. That’s all there is to it.



Question (retranslated into English):

You mentioned my Bild article about cooperation between Russia, the United States and other countries in the Middle East. From Russia’s perspective, what needs to be done in order to create a more systematised security architecture in a region plagued by such a large number of crises? What does it take to make this happen?



Sergey Lavrov:

To recognise that all countries of that region - Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, other countries of the Persian Gulf, including Iran - have their legitimate interests there, and not to approach these issues solely from the standpoint of geopolitical games where it is either the West against Russia, or the West against Iran, or everyone wants to be together with Turkey provided it behaves differently.

Of course, there is another, even more dangerous two-pronged approach to these problems (I’m referring to differences within the Islamic world) of seeking to try to address regional issues through fomenting discord between Sunnis and Shiites. I think this is fatally dangerous.

The group of people, which Wolfgang mentioned in his interview, who represent the United States, Russia, the EU, and China, are probably a combination of external players who, to a certain degree, may have influence on all sides. Some speak to one group of protagonists, while others talk to other participants of this drama. If we add the Arab League leaders to this equation, combined, they represent an external mechanism capable of influencing the situation on the ground. If we could achieve this, then, I think, we could come up with proposals which would, to a large extent, rely on the experience of the Conferences on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Helsinki process. There’s no need to invent anything new here. They may include confidence-building measures, military transparency, invitations to exercises, briefings, and much more. I believe these are not too complicated things to start with. The most important thing now is to convince the antagonists that external players will not support conflicts along ethnic or confessional fault lines. We will be ready for such contacts at any time.



Question (retranslated into English):

You mentioned trends in Europe that may be described as Nazi revisionism. Could you clarify what you had in mind? Who were you talking about?



Sergey Lavrov:

What I mean is that the minions of Nazi criminals who were convicted by the Nuremberg Tribunal continue to be celebrated in a number of countries, including the EU. We are aware that marches honouring neo-Nazis are occasionally held in a number of northern EU countries. We are aware that even neo-Nazi symbols are widely used, in particular, in Ukraine, such as the emblem of the Azov battalion which is a replica of SS symbols. It’s not just about emblems and symbols, although torchlight processions are symbolic, and I think many in Europe still remember what they are connected to. However, the behaviour itself involving the destruction of everything that is non-radical, the demand to Ukrainise all spheres of life, or to outlaw the teaching of children of ethnic minorities in their native languages, the attempts to outlaw unwanted media, or to attack Orthodox temples of the Russian Orthodox Church, and much more represent hallmarks of radical nationalism which, in many respects, smacks of neo-Nazism. That’s all there is to it. I think that all those present here are following the developments in Europe and are perfectly aware of what I’m talking about.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3081301
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old February 24th, 2018 #364
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich on the attack on the Federal Agency for the CIS Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad and International Humanitarian Cooperation office in Kiev



17 February 2018 - 20:08



We are outraged by nationalists’ continuous violence in Ukraine. On February 17, representatives of the S14 (Sich) Ukrainian nationalist organisation attacked the Kiev office of the Federal Agency for the CIS Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo). Thirty radicals led by Verkhovna Rada deputy from the Radical Party Andrey Lozovoy broke into the building while there were 50 children and 50 adults inside. The fascist rioters destroyed an exhibition dedicated to singer Fyodor Shalyapin, painted walls with extremist slogans, insulted Russian diplomats and desecrated a Russian national flag. Apparently, Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko’s provocative statements at the Munich Security Conference regarding a ban on the Russian flag served as a signal to the radicals. As the police sat on their hands, the violence continued for more than half an hour. The criminals were not afraid of justice and did not hide their faces. Later, they posted photos from the debacle on Facebook.

Today’s crime is far from the first attack by radicals. In January, nationalists threw paint at Rossotrudnichestvo’s building, posted anti-Russian leaflets at the site, passed a chain around its gate and locked it. More attacks took place in August 2016 and April 2017. We clearly remember the incidents at the Russian Embassy in Kiev and other Russian foreign affairs agencies. We have information that tomorrow, on February 18, another neo-Nazi group, the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, is going to set the federal agency’s building on fire. It is unacceptable.

In the wake of this provocation and threats, we have appealed to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission demanding a prompt response to the horrendous example of aggressive nationalism and the issue of an urgent report on the event so that all OSCE members know about the barbaric act. It is also important to prevent any possible further attacks on the Russian Science and Culture Centre.

We hope that the Western countries who are turning a blind eye to the actions of the Kiev officials will be reasonable enough to give an appropriate evaluation of this incident. Encouraging primitive nationalism is extremely dangerous. The Kiev officials themselves did not want to do anything. The police were quietly watching what was happening.

Every week within the OSCE, we point out to representatives of member states and executive bodies the danger to peace and stability posed by radical nationalists, not only in Ukraine but across Europe. It is time to do something. A collective reaction by the international community is necessary.

We expect that this time, competent OSCE institutions (the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the High Commissioner on National Minorities) will react to the nationalist debauchery and will not withdraw into the shadows as they often have in the past.

We demand official condemnation of the radicals’ activity by the Ukrainian leadership. Condonation of frantic nationalism has gone too far.

The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly is opening next week. We expect that the members of parliament will comment on the matter, especially because the act of vandalism was led by their colleague, Andrey Lozovoy, member of the Verkhovna Rada representing the Radical Party.

Radical nationalism in Ukraine has been elevated to state policy. Amidst acute intra-Ukrainian disagreements, political turbulence and social dissatisfaction, Kiev officials are imposing an image of Russia as an external enemy. Crimes against Russian property and Russian nationals in Ukraine are encouraged. The government is supporting persecution of the canonical Orthodox church, Russian language and culture. Freedom of speech is being restricted. Attacks on the media, journalists and bloggers have unfortunately become commonplace.

As long as radical nationalists are roistering in Ukraine, there will no peace in that country. We insist on an objective discussion of incidents of xenophobia, nationalism and extremism in Ukraine, by the OSCE.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3082718






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s response to a media question on conducting a joint operation by Russian and Argentinean law enforcement agencies to intercept a drug shipment



23 February 2018 - 16:10




Question:

How would you comment on the recent media reports on a Russian-Argentinean operation to intercept a drug shipment allegedly organised with the involvement of a Russian diplomatic mission official in Buenos Aires? Could diplomatic channels have been used to transport drugs?



Maria Zakharova:

Russian and Argentinean law enforcement agencies conducted a joint operation to intercept a large shipment of a narcotic substance (cocaine) from this South American country to the European market. The operation resulted in the detention of suspects from both countries. Currently the investigation is underway and the suspects will stand trial.

The cargo in question was found ready for shipment 18 months ago at one of the annex buildings of the Russian Embassy in Buenos Aires that houses a school. As the investigation discovered, the cargo belonged to a former maintenance worker who had by that time completed his fixed term employment contract.

The information that the bags with suspicious contents had been discovered was passed on to Argentinean law enforcement authorities on the initiative of Russian Ambassador to Argentina Viktor Koronelli upon approval from Moscow. The joint operation was carried out, including in the building owned by the Russian Embassy, with full respect for its diplomatic status. It revealed that the bags contained a narcotic substance.

I believe there is no need to relate all the details of the operation, as this is the responsibility of the relevant agencies. I can only state that as a result of the operation, the shipment channel has been blocked.

We’d like to highlight the highly effective interaction between the Russian and Argentinean law enforcement agencies during the operation, including with Argentina’s Ministry of Security and Minister Patricia Bullrich.

This experience serves as further evidence of the close partnership that has developed between our countries in different areas, including law enforcement. It is important to mention in this regard that bilateral interstate agreements on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and on Transfer of Persons Sentenced to Imprisonment came into force on January 8, 2018, and in two weeks, on March 9, the Treaty on Extradition will come into effect. This creates an additional framework for joint efforts aimed at stopping unlawful activities that might follow if someone decided to take advantage of the favourable climate in relations between our countries.

As for the speculations in the media that the drug cargo may have been shipped through diplomatic canals, we’d like to note that the statement shows ignorance of the mechanism and procedure of sending diplomatic mail, whose content is certainly not determined by the mission’s maintenance staff.

We are surprised at the way the issue has been covered by the “experts”, some of whom went so far as to say that the incident “cast a shadow” over our diplomatic mission. The situation is just the opposite: the operation was a success due to the efficient actions of the Russian Ambassador and diplomatic staff.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3090796
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old February 24th, 2018 #365
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview for Leaders of Russia, a Channel One documentary February 18, 2018



18 February 2018 - 07:55




Question:

You have probably taken note of posters in this building, which say “Russia is a land of opportunity.” During your workshop, you appealed to historical experience. Can you provide any historical examples to prove that Russia is indeed a land of opportunity? In my amateurish opinion, when I look at Nina Khrushcheva and Jacqueline Kennedy I understand who comes from which country and that our country is indeed a land of opportunity. What examples can you offer?



Sergey Lavrov:

Essentially, anyone who has achieved something in life can provide examples that are based on his or her own experience and on the experience of their friends. It is true that not everyone succeeds or realises his or her dream. But those who keep moving steadfastly towards their goals will reach the desired result in an overwhelming majority of cases, if not always.

I believe that replenishing the leaders’ pool can be done best in conditions of social mobility. A short but very personal meeting I have had with young leaders today has shown that there are young people who love their professions and who believe that they can do more for their country. This is how I would formulate their desire to take part in this project and competition. I hope very much that the results of this project will be consistent with their expectations, that many of these young people will be noticed and offered a new job.



Question:

What catches your eye when you read an applicant’s CV and specialist fields to offer him/her a job at the Foreign Ministry?



Sergey Lavrov:

I spoke about this at the forum. The most important factors are commitment, readiness to address the most complicated matters even when this encroaches on your personal time, as well as extensive knowledge in many fields, because international relations sometimes encounter problems that go far beyond the scope of classical diplomacy. Plus you must be ready for very serious encroachments on your personal time. You must be also ready to work long hours and for long foreign missions, including in countries with an adverse climate and military-political situations. But the most important thing for making a successful career in diplomacy, just as in any other profession but especially in diplomacy, is to feel involvement in the life of your country and to feel that you are an integral part of your homeland. Call it patriotism, responsibility for your country or whatever, but this quality is indispensable for upholding the interests of the country whose interests you represent in a dialogue with other countries.



Question:

Do you know about such social mobility projects in other countries? If so, can you provide an example? What is unique when it comes to our project?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t think you will find anything like the project in Sochi. All countries have their rules and methods of selecting personnel. You can see regular changes in the majority of Western countries that have two-party political systems, primarily as in the United States, or three- or four-party systems like in Germany. When Democrats come to power, Republicans retreat into business or political science, which is financed by business and the state. Following the change of power, the losing party finds jobs in business or at think tanks. This is how they select those who are subsequently offered leading positions. As to what we have done today at the initiative of President Putin, no, I haven’t seen anything of the kind in other countries. I don’t think you should copy other people’s experience or force your methods of looking for young leaders onto others. Every country knows better what its society feels, what it wants and what can be done to offer the opportunity of social mobility to those who want to prove their worth.



Question:

Why is the Foreign Ministry interested in the Leaders of Russia national management competition?



Sergey Lavrov:

We hope to find those who would like to take up a diplomatic career and who would satisfy the criteria I mentioned above. We have a special selection process. In addition to objective criteria, such as good university graduation marks, a master’s degree and at least two foreign languages, the applicants attend special interviews where we can understand their creative features and abilities and test their reaction and intuition, because intuition is extremely important in diplomacy. Intuition is sometimes very helpful. For example, it can help you end the talks at the right moment and on good terms that suit you. I hope that today’s event, in particular, my meeting with the three winners of the foreign relations segment of the competition, will be fruitful.



Question:

Can other young leaders ask you for advice or share their proposals with you?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, absolutely. We are always open to this. By the way, it is not the first time when civil society representatives with professional knowledge in many spheres offer their ideas regarding our foreign policy or solutions to specific questions. We maintain dialogue with NGOs round the year and I hold a meeting with NGO representatives once a year. During the year, all our departments responsible for individual regions, as well as those that are focused on the UN and European organisations, meet with representatives from the NGOs in their field of operations and organise seminars with them. These disputes often produce interesting ideas. There is the Scientific Council under the Foreign Minister, where seasoned and young diplomats organise discussions that often produce interesting results. Of course, there is also the Foreign Ministry’s Business Council, where representatives of our leading companies share their views on global developments. The majority of our leading companies are not only working to prevent discrimination against Russian companies on global markets. They have also accumulated very interesting observations that are directly connected to foreign policy and the geopolitical aspirations of the countries where they do business. These views are a big help to us.



Question:

You have a very tight schedule. Do you have any time for dreaming? If so, what is your dream?



Sergey Lavrov:

As they say, there’s no harm in dreaming, but this is depending on your interpretation of the dream. When I am on a plane flying somewhere, I read documents for the upcoming talks. When I go to sleep, I sometimes can’t stop my mind thinking, just as anybody else. But these thoughts increasingly more often take the form of making plans for tomorrow, if I have serious talks ahead, or pondering solutions to a long-term problem. I do this and go to sleep. It helps.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3082708






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Serbian Information Agency BETA, Moscow, February 19, 2018



19 February 2018 - 10:00








Question:

Who are you going to meet with in Belgrade? What issues are on the agendas of your meetings?



Sergey Lavrov:

As our Serbian friends told me, the programme they prepared includes a meeting with the President, the Prime Minister, the First Deputy Prime Minister, and the Foreign Minister of Serbia. We will also have a cultural programme dedicated to the great anniversary of our relations, including a visit to the Church of St Sava. First Deputy Prime Minister, and Foreign Minister of Serbia Ivica Dacic and I will speak at meetings with the public.

The agenda is traditional and includes all aspects of bilateral relations, primarily our interaction on trade, and economic and investment issues, although we are unlikely to get into details on these topics since there is an Intergovernmental Commission that works comprehensively with them. From the Serbian side, it is headed by Mr Dacic. We will concentrate on our ties in scientific research, healthcare, education and culture, as well as our regular political consultations. We will mostly focus on international issues, such as the situation in Europe, the Balkans, and cooperation in the UN. We will touch on the need for full compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 on the Kosovo settlement.



Question:

How, do you think, the aggravation of relations between Russia and the West in the wake of the Ukraine crisis affects the Balkans and the relations of the countries of that region with such global powers as Russia, the United States and the EU?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Ukraine crisis is not behind the current state of relations between Russia and the West. Rather, it is a consequence of the policy that the Western countries, primarily the United States and NATO countries, conducted after the end of Cold War. Instead of taking advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime historical chance to form a truly pan-European structure of security and cooperation, the West opted for NATO expansion breaking all the promises made by the leaders of the United States and many European countries in 1990 to the effect that the Alliance would not advance a single inch eastward. This was not enshrined in any treaty or legal document (perhaps, it should have been), but a so-called gentlemen's agreement was reached back then, which was, in fact, trampled upon by our Western colleagues. Perhaps, in the future, we will make better use of our judgment in order to be able to tell a gentleman from someone who is not. However, the official documents from the US archives, which were recently declassified, unequivocally show that such iron-clad assurances were provided during a dialogue between the Soviet Union and the United States, Moscow and Berlin, and Moscow and Paris.

The developments in Ukraine did not come as a surprise to us. They came, as I said, as a consequence of the policy pursued by NATO. After the Cold War ended, three waves of NATO expansion took place, and each brought NATO military infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders. Now, they want to involve the Balkans in this game by putting the Balkan countries in a position to make a choice: you are either with the West, or with Russia. They required Ukraine to make the same choice and, as a result, Ukrainian society and the state snapped, which led to an unconstitutional coup and a dramatic increase in the role of radicals, including neo-Nazis, in our neighbour’s domestic political life. This is certainly a matter of grave concern, but we are committed to the Minsk agreements, and we hope that these agreements, which were not just "gentlemen's'" agreements, but legally binding, and were enshrined in the UN Security Council resolution, will be implemented.



Question:

The European Union has recently passed an enlargement strategy promising to grant membership to Serbia and Montenegro by 2025, provided that they meet a number of criteria. Serbia is mainly called on to resolve the situation in Kosovo and to bring its foreign policy into conformity with the EU line. As far as I understand, this eventually means introducing sanctions against Russia. Are you afraid that Serbia might take this step? In fact, the President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic has said that his policy prioritises accession to the European Union.



Sergey Lavrov:

We do not see any risks in the fact that countries of the Balkan region and other countries on the European continent want to expand relations with the European Union, including accession to the EU. They are informed about the accession criteria, and they should independently decide to what extent these criteria suit them, and to what extent they meet the national interests of the relevant state. Of course, they should draw conclusions on the advantages and practicability of any specific actions to expand their external ties with anyone.

We do not raise any problems in the context of expanding common economic space in the most open manner possible. I consider it incorrect to counter-pose relations with the EU to relations with the Eurasian Economic Union being expanded by regional countries, Serbia, in the first place.

Russia and Serbia have signed a free trade zone agreement. Two months ago, Belgrade and the Eurasian Economic Commission launched talks on establishing a similar zone between Serbia and the Eurasian Economic Union. I believe that this is a pragmatic and open approach on the part of Belgrade, which strives to exploit advantages in the West and in the East. You see, the Eurasian Economic Union is a voluminous market, with 180 million consumers, and it boasts favourable opportunities in infrastructure and in some other areas.

One can say the following regarding the European Union’s requirements on recognising Kosovo. The EU demands that every prospective EU member-state join the EU’s common foreign and defence policy. The very same philosophy and mentality that help incite tensions in Europe and that guided those who expanded NATO and presented European countries and Ukraine with the following choice ‒ either they side with the West or Russia ‒ come into play here. This is an extremely misguided practice. I regret the fact that the EU, trying to expand its influence, is following this logic that was manifested in the Eastern Partnership programme, formulated by the EU for six post-Soviet states several years ago. Despite assurances to the contrary, this programme is also being implemented on the basis of the same ultimatum: either side with Russia or Europe. It is bad that our European colleagues from Brussels continue to think in this manner. We would rather revert to a concept that has been repeatedly proclaimed in Brussels and other European capitals. In France, Charles de Gaulle advanced his own concept of a united Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural region, and we are now talking about a Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Quite recently, this philosophy proved topical once again. To the best of my knowledge, a clause on the need to advance the idea of establishing a common economic space between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans has been included in the programme of a future coalition government after inter-party talks in Germany. In this context, I would also like to mention the so far reserved initial technical contacts between the European Commission and the Eurasian Economic Commission from which the Brussels team tried to shy away until recently.

As I see it, this is the most promising long-term trend. One should not think of establishing some walled-in military-political or economic alliances. One should assess the situation from a wider perspective and look further ahead of the four-year horizon in the run-up to regular elections in any European country. And one should see the very positive opportunities that would open up if all of us are guided by an interest in joint work for the sake of our own citizens in each country taken separately and on the entire European continent. To my mind, the policy being pursued by Serbian leaders proceeds from precisely this factor.

While mentioning Serbia’s priorities, namely, the task of accession to the EU, President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic has never said that this would be done at the expense of Russia. On the contrary, he noted that Serbia continues to see the Russian track of its foreign policy and cooperation guidelines to be highly important. I am confident that this meets the interests of the Serbian nation.



Question:

Some people in Serbia say that President Vucic will be able to observe this course of action for a long time, playing both sides, but he will have to choose eventually.



Sergey Lavrov:

It will be the choice of the Serbian leadership. I am certain the choice will be made with the full understanding of the responsibility to the Serbian people. If the Serbians support the requirements set by the European Union, it will be their choice. And the President, as any head of state, must of course, follow the attitude of his people. I think, President Vucic fully realises this responsibility.



Question:

Lately, one of the European Union’s explanations for its increased attention to the Balkans has been growing influence of other world powers there such as Russia, China and Turkey. Do you think this influence is actually growing? What is Russia’s idea of its presence in the region in terms of political, economic and military affairs?



Sergey Lavrov:

We see our presence as solely constructive. We are not concerned at all with the fact that the countries you mentioned (China, Turkey and others) are interested in developing cooperation with the Balkans. In this age of globalisation, I do not see any obstacles to mutually beneficial cooperation.

Most importantly, this must be an actual sincere intention to carry out certain projects to mutual benefit rather than mark one’s presence in the region as opposed to someone else’s.

Russia has never, in the history of the Balkans, brought confrontation to the region. Instead, Russia has always tried to eliminate it and help the Balkan people to stand up for the interests of their statehood, ancestors, their spiritual, religious, cultural and civilisation roots. Now this is exactly the logic we follow in developing our cooperation.

If you take Turkey, we are working with Turkey to increase the opportunities for the Balkan states to get Russian gas. The Turkish Stream project is progressing at full speed. We are open about it. We are willing to take any decision with consideration for the interests of the Balkan states and the European Union. Our agenda there is absolutely transparent, without any covert intentions.

I want to say that, as opposed to such an open course that pursues cooperation with the countries in the region and the states that want to work there openly and constructively, we can see attempts by the United States and the EU, for example, to inject anti-Russian elements in their Balkan policy. Not in a single capital, in the Balkans or elsewhere in the world, do we run around offices, not to mention say publicly that one should not be friends with any of our Western counterparts. Washington and some European capitals send their envoys to the Balkans for this very purpose. They say: don’t be friends with Russia, refuse to cooperate with them in any area.

As an example, you mentioned the requirement for Serbia to adopt the EU’s foreign political slogans and approaches, including the anti-Russian component. This is very unfortunate and sad. I really hope that those promoting this course will eventually understand this. This course goes absolutely against our joint declarations made after the end of the Cold War (including in the OSCE) regarding the fact that a country must not strengthen its security at the expense of others. As I said, this is exactly what they are trying to do by fitting the Balkans into a policy of dividing lines and the policy of surrounding Russia with NATO military infrastructure, which is a grave violation of those “gentlemen’s” agreements reached at the time by comrades and gentlemen.



Question:

How can you explain the massive Russian presence in the Balkans through the media, through “soft power” and NGOs in recent years?



Sergey Lavrov:

I was just speaking about it. We are interested in preserving our historical, spiritual and cultural links with the Balkan friends. We are promoting economic projects without imposing them on anyone. We offer the terms of the projects and take in an absolutely normal way any decision the partner makes after studying our proposals. Of course, we are interested in developing cultural relations. I have mentioned the St Savva Church, we are taking part in its reconstruction and I hope the result will be good. This is a very important project. The Serbian leadership pays great attention to it. We are interested in being present in the information space of friendly countries some of which we have centuries-old relations with. If you look at the statistics, I don’t know the exact figures, but I am sure that the figures on the percentage of information space in the Balkans occupied by Russia and by the Western media, respectively, would be quite convincing. If there is to be pluralism of opinions, which the West constantly advocates, it would not harm the radio listeners, TV viewers and users of social networks to have an additional viewpoint.



Question:

Russia is against NATO expansion. Does Moscow intend to oppose the expected accession of Macedonia? What does Moscow feel about the fact that Serbia, which has proclaimed its neutrality, takes part in more exercises with NATO than with Russia and the CSTO?



Sergey Lavrov:

The expansion of NATO is a mistake and at the same time a violation of the most “gentlemanly” agreement which I have already mentioned and which has now been amply confirmed by official archival documents which the US has declassified. It was common knowledge anyway, but the publication of these archival documents gave added proof of how it all actually happened.

We have repeatedly warned our NATO colleagues that this policy (and we have already seen three waves of expansion, and another is in the offing) not only undermines all that was agreed upon in the 1990s (that no party would seek security at the expense of others) but is perhaps the most serious challenge to European stability and security. They are trying to keep the continent divided into two parts. These dividing lines are being pushed eastward closer and closer to our borders. Actually, considerable contingents of NATO countries – the USA, Britain, Germany, Italy and Canada – are already deployed on the border with Russia.

All this runs counter to the agreements and, most importantly, inflicts colossal damage on the efforts to ensure stability and security on the European continent. Nothing of what NATO is doing today increases anyone’s security, including the security of the Balkan states which, incidentally, do not in any way threaten Russia’s security. Nothing of what is happening now is a step toward increasing NATO’s capability to react to real and not imaginary threats. I do not see that the three waves of expansion have made NATO more effective, for example, in combating the terrorist and drug threats, including those emanating from the Balkans where the absolutely unfounded, illegitimate unilateral declaration of Kosovo independence created a territory which is the embodiment of corruption, what is called a “black hole.” Examples of how extremists and terrorists take advantage of the situation abound. The West chooses not to speak about them publicly, but I know that the Western countries are worried and they draw attention to these facts in their contacts with Pristina. But hardly anyone listens to them anymore.

So we make our assessment of NATO expansion known to all our partners, be it in the Balkans or anywhere else in Europe. We hope that what is happening now and to what extent it meets the basic interests of this or that people will be fully taken into account while adopting their sovereign decisions.



Question:

What about Macedonia?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have said that we do not single anyone out. We say what we see and what we think. We are ready to discuss all countries without exception. I think admitting Montenegro to NATO was absolutely artificial and unnecessary.

Incidentally, we have noted that referendums are becoming a less and less popular method of determining popular sentiment when making consequential decisions.



Question:

Is Moscow ready to support the complete normalisation of relations between Belgrade and Pristina which would envisage Kosovo’s admission to the UN?



Sergey Lavrov:

What we see now is undoubtedly the consequence of a flagrant violation of international law. Back in 1999, for the first time after the start of the Helsinki process and the creation of the OSCE, member countries of the OSCE perpetrated aggression against another OSCE member country. This was unprecedented and it marked the beginning of a whole string of very sad events. Russia played the decisive role in stopping this aggression in order to put the situation on course towards a political settlement. The result of these efforts was the adoption of Resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council which seals the position of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo as part of Serbia.

On the matter concerning Kosovo, we back not so much Serbia as the decision of the highest international body responsible for international peace and security. Nobody canceled UN Security Council Resolution 1244. This should be the starting point. We have agreed to the European Union assuming the role of mediator in the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina which had got under way. I think this is right, such a dialogue is needed and it should be based on Resolution 1244 of the UNSC. The European Union sought from the UN General Assembly the powers to mediate and it got them. The Resolution was passed. We hope very much that Brussels will take further steps to at least make some progress.

You used the term “complete normalisation of relations.” This was conjured up by the European Union. As far as I remember up until now Brussels has not explained to us what this term really means. We believe that the initiatives Brussels put forward in the framework of the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, which have been backed by both Belgrade and Pristina, must be implemented. In the first place I am referring to the obligations of the parties, in particular Pristina, to create a community of Serbian municipalities in Kosovo. I think four years have passed since the obligation was assumed. Nothing has been done because Pristina’s leaders do not want to keep their promise while the European Union is reluctant to press them too hard solely due to geopolitical considerations not wishing to admit that the geopolitical project of unilaterally proclaimed Kosovo’s independence is not moving in the direction it was conceived to follow.

I would like to stress again that we come out exclusively for the solution of all the problems Belgrade and Pristina have through dialogue between them. We expect that the European Union as the mediator will behave in a responsible as well as a resolute manner. We will accept any decision agreed upon between the leadership in Belgrade and Pristina representatives.



Question:

Including Kosovo’s seat at the UN?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t think it makes any sense at this point to talk about Kosovo’s place at the UN. They already speak about Kosovo’s place in the European Union. One can talk about Kosovo’s place anywhere. But as long as an agreement has not been reached which suits both Pristina and Belgrade, UNSC Resolution 1244 is in force, which recognises the Autonomous Province of Kosovo as part of Serbia.



Question:

Naturally, a question about the Nis Humanitarian Centre. I understand this is a sensitive topic in the relations between Serbia and Russia. For several years now a solution to this matter has not been found. Does Moscow intend to continue to seek a diplomatic status for the staff of that humanitarian centre considering the tough negative stand of Serbia’s partners in the West and the statement of Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic to the effect that it is a very painful subject for him which he does not want to raise?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have heard other statements from President Vucic. First of all, this is not something invented. It follows from the 2012 agreement whereby the Centre was created. It envisages the signing of agreements on the terms of its activities, privileges and immunities of the staff of that international organisation because it is registered as an international organisation just like the representative office of the International Committee of the Red Cross as well as some other organisations. This is number one.

Secondly, in addition to the fact that the solution of the issue of immunities and privileges is envisaged by its founding agreement, I have to say that this is not about diplomatic privileges, but about service immunities, like in the case of the ICRC which I have already mentioned. If our colleagues from NATO still doubt whether this is a humanitarian centre and not what they call “a spy nest,” I advise them to look at the reports which the assistant to the US military attaché in Serbia was to write after visiting the Nis centre. He had been invited there and he has seen everything that was of interest to him.

I am convinced that it is ridiculous to pretend that the centre poses a threat to anyone. Incidentally, there are four Russian citizens working there (all the rest are Serbs, not many, 12 or 15 people, if I remember rightly). We are talking about them when we mention the obligation of Serbia and Russia to sign an agreement on their privileges and immunities. Speaking about comparability of Serbia’s cooperation with NATO and with the Russian Federation (you have mentioned it) a huge American military base, Bondsteel, feels very comfortable in Kosovo. By the way, it was created on the basis of and in accordance with the principles sealed in UN Security Council Resolution 1244. We were never invited to visit it and I don’t think UN people ever visited it either although the UNSC Resolution was the pretext and the basis for setting up the base.

The Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Centre in question deals exclusively with cleaning up the aftermath of natural disasters. For instance, it played a very important role in dealing with the consequences of a colossal flood that hit Serbia in 2014. In addition to Serbia assistance was also rendered to Macedonia, Slovenia, Greece, Bosnia and Herzegovina. So the international character of the centre’s activity is not only sealed on paper but is implemented in practice, too.

In this situation we remember the repeated assurances given us to the effect that the Serbian leadership does not believe it is reasonable to go back on the understanding sealed in the agreement on the establishment of the Centre. Anyway, the privileges and immunities we are requesting for the four staff members from Russia are by no means greater than the privileges already enjoyed by the servicemen at the US Bondsteel base and which are enjoyed by NATO counties’ servicemen when they conduct numerous exercises, as you have rightly pointed out, on Serbian territory.

Comparing the contacts between Serbia and NATO on the one hand, and between Serbia and Russia on the other I would not proceed from arithmetics, from who met whom and held joint events and how many times. We have great respect for Serbia’s leaders adherence to the principle of military neutrality. We see an interest in the development of relations (like in the economic sphere) in the military –political field with both the West and the East, including with the Russian Federation and as part of Serbia’s interaction with the CSTO. But the question of the Nis humanitarian centre has become so odious and the facts (four Russian citizens) are so much out of proportion to the hue and cry raised in the West that any right-minded person looking at the situation would realise that it has been artificially created and, as the saying goes, “it’s not worth a farthing.”



Question:

Why do your staffers need immunity? What will happen to the centre if the agreement is not reached?



Sergey Lavrov:

Look, the agreement to establish the centre, which was signed in 2012, provides for signing a separate document that will set forth the conditions for the operation of the centre, including privileges and immunity for its staffers. The personnel of the representative offices of other international organisations, and the Humanitarian Centre is an international organisation, are granted privileges and immunity in Serbia, for example, the International Committee of the Red Cross, which, while engaging in parallel processes, also provides assistance in resolving humanitarian issues. Incidentally, the Nis Centre has already cleared a large area of explosives left from the NATO aggression. We are not urging anyone to do anything against the interests of one’s own country, however, there are such things as international agreements and national sovereignty.



Question:

Do you plan to talk about the Humanitarian Centre during your visit to Belgrade?



Sergey Lavrov:

As I already said, the agenda includes the entire spectrum of issues covered by our bilateral relations.



Question:

Do you expect the decision on this issue to be taken any time soon?



Sergey Lavrov:

We’ll discuss it. We remember the discussion of this subject and believe that all agreements we have reached are in force.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3084489






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions on the sidelines of the Middle East Conference of the Valdai International Discussion Club Moscow, February 19, 2018



19 February 2018 - 13:01




Question:

According to reports, the number of casualties in Deir ez-Zor, including Russians, is growing. Can you tell us what happened there?
Sergey Lavrov: We have issued a statement on this matter. I believe this is enough. Overall, I hope that your questions proceed from a desire to promote a settlement. The reports we have read about hundreds and even thousands of casualties are an attempt to speculate on the war that regrettably continues in Syria, despite progress in the establishment of de-escalation zones. I consider such attempts as inappropriate, to say the least.



Question:

Judging by the publications, the number of casualties is growing.



Sergey Lavrov:

The publications you mention come from a specific group of media outlets. They are raising a public uproar without providing any hard facts and before the ongoing investigation is over. I am asking you for patience, and, please, remember your professional integrity – truth and nothing but the truth.



Question:

What is the latest count, according to your information? And why are there Russians there?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is strange that you cannot hear me. The investigation is still ongoing. Why are there French and British citizens there? There are mercenaries from all over the world there. There are also special operations forces there, which nobody invited. They simply went there. And then my French colleague says that Iran must withdraw its armed units and military advisers from Syria. He forgets that Iran has been invited to Syria by the legitimate government, whereas nobody has invited French special operations forces there. I cannot talk with you if you insist on using this logic.



Question:

I would like to ask you about Afrin…



Sergey Lavrov:

We have talked about Afrin in detail at a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. We have said everything, and I don’t want to make guesses about what will happen there next.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3084826






Remarks and answers to questions by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the Middle East Conference of the Valdai International Discussion Club, Moscow, February 19, 2018



19 February 2018 - 14:35








Colleagues,

friends,

Once again I am pleased to attend an event organised by Valdai Discussion Club which has proved its usefulness. It is always heartening to see interested and engaged faces which express the wish of the participants to argue in order to arrive, if not at the truth, at least at some common approaches to extremely complex problems which, of course, cannot be solved in one sitting.

We are discussing the Middle East and North Africa. The region is living through a huge tragedy. The “Arab spring” which started seven years ago is certainly a misnomer. A different season would perhaps have been more appropriate in describing, if only partially, what happened there: absolutely mindless, myopic outside interference, extremely complex processes of transformation which were germinating in the region turning into chaos, which the jihadists were quick to take advantage of. A surge of terrorism we saw at the start of the “Arab spring,” or rather, when crude attempts were made to manipulate it, and that threat is still there.

It was no accident that the goal of creating a truly collective front to fight terrorism emerged early on in the discussion. Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed it while speaking at the 70th Session of the UN General Assembly. Unfortunately, despite all the statements about the need to join efforts to fight this common evil, attempts are still being made to use this situation for one’s own geopolitical and selfish purposes and to avoid truly collective work. However, there is a growing understanding that this is wrong and that this approach needs to be changed, and this is a good thing.

I believe that Russia’s involvement in the fight against terrorism at the request of the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic signalled the turning point in this fight. The Russian Aerospace Forces and military police jointly with our partners in the Astana process, Iran and Turkey, and, as you know, Jordan and the United States in the south-west of Syria, have created four de-escalation zones where violence levels have been significantly reduced. Of course, sometimes violations occur, in which case they are handled by the guarantors of the Astana process. Conditions that are more conducive to resolving pressing humanitarian issues and initiating a political process have been put in place.

Speaking of our numerous efforts, in addition to the creation of four de-escalation zones, I would like to focus on the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, which was held at the joint initiative of the presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey, who announced it at their meeting in Sochi on November 22. The congress held in the same city on January 30 was an unprecedented forum, in terms of the number of Syrians from different ethnic and faith backgrounds, as well as representatives of various political forces who took part in it. It was the first time that Syrians have agreed on 12 principles they want to underlie their system of government. It is a very important result of the forum. True, not all were able to take part in the congress, both for objective and subjective reasons, nonetheless, it was attended by representatives of the so-called Negotiations Committee, which our Saudi colleagues, with our support, established by consolidating the Riyadh, Moscow and Cairo groups, who spoke on behalf of the members of the opposition who look to Turkey for support.

I see the creation of a mechanism in which all Syrian ethnic and religious political forces without exception can and will be represented as a major achievement of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress.

The broadest possible assistance should be provided to the 12 principles adopted at the Congress for the development of the state of Syria and for launching a constitutional reform, as well as the appeal to the international community for humanitarian aid and for helping Syria rebuild its infrastructure plus its economy. These decisions have been circulated in the UN.

Of course, the commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria is fully in keeping with international law, in general, and UN Security Council Resolution 2254, in particular. We are deeply concerned about the attempts to split Syria. This concern is raised by the plans the United States is implementing on the ground, primarily east of the Euphrates in the vast area between the river and Syria’s border with Iraq and Turkey. The claims made by our American colleagues that the fight against ISIS and the preservation of the country’s territorial integrity are their only goal in Syria should be backed with practical actions towards this end.

Regrettably, these provocative actions by the United States, which have involved part of the Kurds’ Democratic Union Party in undermining the territorial integrity of Syria, have increased tension in relations with Turkey. You know about the developments in Afrin. I once again urge our American colleagues to stop playing around with fire but instead to redirect their actions from short-term political considerations to primarily the long-term interests of the Syrian people and all other peoples in the region, including, of course, the Kurds of Syria, Iraq and other regional countries.

Major achievements in the fight against ISIS have been made in Iraq, just as in Syria. I believe that the idea of the Islamic caliphate as a quasi-state has been buried. But some jihadist groups have taken up subversive and terrorist tactics, which also needs our daily attention.

We welcome the latest contacts between Bagdad and Erbil, which have helped normalise relations between the central authorities and the Kurdish autonomous region. We still believe that the Kurds’ legitimate interests must be honoured. We are convinced that this can and should be done within the integral state of Iraq.

Libya is where the Arab Spring began and turned the country into a black hole of arms trafficking and illegal migration as well as a route used by the militants to reach the Sub-Saharan Region, yet another open wound that must be healed by providing support to the so-called G5 Sahel, the five countries of the Sahel region.

Speaking about Libya, the other day I had a meeting in Munich with the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative Ghassan Salamé. We support his initiatives, including the roadmap and dialogue between Tobruk and Tripoli, which has not yet gained traction. The implementation of the July agreements, which were reached with the mediation of President of France Emmanuel Macron, has slowed down. However, we are actively supporting all those who are contributing to the settlement of this situation, including Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia and the Arab League. Of course, the UN should provide coordinating assistance to harmonise these efforts.

I have not mentioned Yemen. The UN has described the situation there as the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Some 19 million people in Yemen are in acute need of medical aid and access to food and safe water. Confrontation must stop and talks must resume there as soon as possible. There is no other alternative. Like in any other crisis, we are working in Yemen with absolutely all parties without exception and we will continue to do so.

These conflicts, although all of them are acute, must not overshadow the Israeli-Palestinian settlement. The situation has deteriorated as a result of the US decision [regarding Jerusalem]. We are doing our utmost to prevent the negotiating process from collapsing in its entirety. As you know, over the past two weeks Moscow was visited by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas. King Abdullah II of Jordan has recently paid a visit to Russia as well.

We are convinced that there is no alternative to direct talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis. We confirm what we said 18 months ago regarding our readiness to provide a venue for a meeting between the Palestinian and Israeli leaders without any preconditions. We are still waiting for a response to our proposal.

And one last thing. As I have already said, we are working with all the political forces in each and every conflict of this kind, and the same applies to the region in general. We work with all countries without exception, including those with opposing views. We see a lingering danger of external forces playing their geopolitical games in the region, including by playing on the relations between Sunni and Shia Muslims within the Islamic World, which is the most dangerous thing to do. I strongly believe that we need to find ways to get this dialogue going. We have had an initiative for many years now to start a conversation on confidence building measures and security in the Persian Gulf region with all the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Islamic Republic of Iran. We have been promoting this initiative without trying to impose it on anyone, even though we believe that there is no alternative. On a broader scale, I think that this format would be also beneficial for the entire Middle East. Only recently Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, put forward an initiative of this kind, and Russia supported it at the recent Munich Security Conference.



Question:

You have talked at length about what is really needed in the region. What else could Russia do, especially in Syria? Russia is currently well positioned in this country, but new conflicts are emerging in the south of the Syrian Arab Republic, the relations between Syria and Israel have reached a dangerous level, and Iran and Hezbollah are also active in the country. What can Russia do to prevent the conflict between the two sides from escalating?



Sergey Lavrov:

You asked me what else there is that Russia can do in Syria. I think that the success of a settlement in Syria does not depend on what else Russia can contribute, but rather on what the US refrains from doing. The US should have stopped playing dangerous games that could result in the partition of the Syrian state. The US creates on the territories under its responsibility to the east of the Euphrates and up to the Syrian state border, authorities that are intentionally formed in such a way as not to have any communications with Damascus, and provides various forms of “assistance” to them. This could be a major obstacle in terms of ensuring Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as required by the UN Security Council.

As for the southern de-escalation zone, its creation was negotiated by Russia, Jordan and the United States. I do not think that I would reveal any secrets if I point out that our Israeli colleagues were aware of all the discussions, received updates and were able to express their views. At this stage, in order to implement all of the agreements, we need to focus on one of the provisions whereby all the parties to these arrangements make sure that there are no non-Syrian armed forces in or around this de-escalation zone in the southwest. This was a mutual agreement, so it would be incorrect and also inappropriate to view it as a unilateral commitment, as you have unfortunately formulated it.This was something that was only recently discussed during the visit made by Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu to the Russian Federation. The Israeli Prime Minister confirmed that the initiative to establish the de-escalation zone in the south-west of the country was based on this understanding.

What we did not agree upon was the unilateral initiative by the US to designate an area within 55 kilometres from At-Tanf as a safe zone, a zone of its influence. The Rukban refugee camp is nearby. There are regular reports about the presence of jihadists within the safe zone created unilaterally by the US in At-Tanf, as well as in the Rukban refugee camp. They use these areas to recover their moral and physical strength, as well as a base for carrying out attacks across the Syrian Arab Republic.

This zone should be dismantled immediately, and humanitarian access provided to the refugee camp. For some reason, our UN colleagues are unwilling to note that the humanitarian convoys are unable to penetrate the area under US control due to the lack of guarantees from the US. This is the information we have. Instead they focus on the humanitarian situation in Idlib, in Eastern Ghouta, while failing to mention that the Syrian army is fighting Jabhat al-Nusra there. Provocations by Jabhat al-Nusra fighters continue unabated in this region. Specifically, they are shelling residential neighbourhoods of Damascus, including where the Russian Embassy and Trade Mission are located. Nevertheless, for some reason our Western partners prefer making a row about these two areas, Idlib and Eastern Ghouta, failing to mention that what is happening there has to do with provocations by Jabhat al-Nusra. I have said it on numerous occasions, and I will say it once again: there is growing evidence to cast doubt on whether our Western colleagues from the US-led coalition are serious about fighting Jabhat al-Nusra, even though this group is recognised as a terrorist organisation in all the UN Security Council resolutions.

I do not know if you are satisfied with my answer. I just wanted to highlight the complexity of the situation as well as the importance of having a broader perspective instead of holding on to lopsided clichés.



Question:

You mentioned a new security mechanism in the region. Could you clarify this point? Does it mean that the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) should be dissolved before its member countries can participate in a new agreement? Who do you think should become members of this new regional alignment? Will it include only individual countries, or will the GCC be able to join as a bloc?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding the first question about the mechanism of confidence and security in the Persian Gulf, as I already said, we have been discussing it for at least 15 years now. We stressed the importance of them considering this initiative at every ministerial meeting with our GCC colleagues. A considerable part of the Council members spoke in a constructive manner. I hope that we will be able to help this organisation start a sensible dialogue with Iran in the near future. Of course, no one is suggesting, and Mr Zarif confirmed this, that the GCC should be dissolved.

When we came up with our idea many years ago, we had in mind the GCC and Iran with the assistance of external players. We named the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the European Union, the League of Arab States, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation as a possible configuration for such external support. Should such a process become a matter of practical implementation, the main part will be played by the Arabs and the Iranians, who, in fact, are the primary and key beneficiaries of such a project.



Question:

Speaking of the borders and the need to respect them, how does it relate to the fact that there are Popular Mobilisation Forces in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon, which moves freely from Lebanon to Syria? Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps is present in Syria as well. Are you concerned that something can go wrong between the Israelis and Iranians in Syria and Lebanon? I’m aware that Russia is playing a critical role. Do you feel that things may spiral out of control? Is there a mechanism to prevent this from happening?



Sergey Lavrov:

Unfortunately, the relations between Israel and Iran are taking a turn for the worse, and there are historical causes for that. We have repeatedly said that allegations to the effect that, as a Zionist entity, Israel must be destroyed and wiped from the face of the Earth, are unacceptable. I believe this is an absolutely wrong way for someone to promote their interests. By the same token, we do not agree that the attempts are being made to look into any regional issue through the prism of the need to oppose Iran. This can be seen in Syria and Yemen, and even the latest developments around Palestine, including Washington announcing its decision to recognise Jerusalem as the only capital of Israel, is largely dictated by the same anti-Iranian bias. Either one is fraught with the risk of further aggravating the situation in the region, which is already very bad.

Regarding the specific incident involving the drone and everything that followed, Mr Zarif called it a gimmick. I cannot comment on that, because there is not enough evidence. Following the incident, there were discussions in the Israeli and the US media and in social media about what really happened there and the drone itself. They pointed out the fact that a picture of one kind of UAV was posted on social networks, and then there was another photo showing a different drone. I believe that most importantly (we talked about this when Prime Minister of Israel Netanyahu was here) we should not use unsubstantiated facts to make political decisions. There’s a generally approved mechanism to deal with such incidents. I’m referring to two UN operations: the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force in the Golan Heights (UNDOF), and the Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO). The mandates of both mechanisms include provisions that entitle them to investigate such incidents. I believe it would be useful to conduct such investigations. Otherwise, we will start going downhill to a place where just about any incident will be declared someone else's fault, and events will ensue that , without any investigation, will lead to military implications. We want, and we have repeatedly said so, our Israeli colleagues to feel completely safe. However, in order for security to be mutual and region-wide, which is what the UN Security Council resolutions require, dialogues are needed. There’s a need to talk with an eye towards finding generally acceptable solutions, and to defend one’s own interests in a way that does not ignore the interests of others.

This is the principle of the indivisibility of security, which we are promoting in Europe and the Asia-Pacific Region. I don’t see why it cannot be applied in the Middle East and North Africa.



Question:

The Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi has indeed opened up many opportunities for the Syrian settlement, especially given the fact that it has brought together so many Syrians, and also provided the support of the guarantor countries, namely, Turkey and Iran. Do you think the UN now has all the means to launch a constitutional committee, the creation of which has become the focus of the SNDC’s final declaration?



Sergey Lavrov:

The answer to this question can be found in the SNDC’s final declaration, which enshrined the approval of the twelve fundamental Syrian state structure principles by all the participants. These principles are fully based on international law as well as the UN Charter. The declaration also includes a decision to create a Constitutional Committee. It also requests the UN to provide assistance in finalising this mechanism from the point of view of its membership (the corresponding lists have been submitted to the UN, and are still coming), and from the point of view of the rules, procedures, mandate, and operating guidelines for this committee. All this must be agreed upon by all the Syrians. In accordance with Resolution 2254, the UN should play the role of a facilitator in this process.

However, all the steps that must be taken in order to achieve the Syrian settlement, such as the constitutional committee, the subsequent elections together with everything else must meet the key prerequisite of UN Security Council Resolution 2254: only the Syrians themselves shall determine their future, and any agreements regarding the constitution or the elections should be the product of mutual consent of the government and all the opposition groups. This is the premise we are based on. As I understand it, Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Syria Staffan de Mistura, and his deputy Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy, who is present here, interpret the results of the Sochi Congress the same way as Iran, Turkey and Russia.



Question:

At the Munich conference, you spoke about the possibility of developing a new mechanism for the Middle East, the process of the creation of which involves a lot of challenges. How optimistic are you about this idea?



Sergey Lavrov:

If I comprehend this correctly, you are talking about a new Palestinian-Israeli settlement mechanism. We are aware that the President of the State of Palestine, Mr Abbas, has been strongly promoting this idea after the Palestinians expressed their thoughts about Washington’s decision on Jerusalem, which was construed as running counter to all the existing agreements, since all the key matters of the final status can be reliably and sustainably resolved only in the context of direct talks. President Abbas brought up this initiative when he was in Moscow and had talks with President Putin. He spoke in favour of returning the role of the Quartet and not creating a situation where someone is trying to usurp the functions of an intermediary. He also said that the Quartet should be reinforced and expanded primarily through the inclusion of the Arab states. This fully corresponds to the initiative which Russia has been promoting for 10 years now – to add a representative of the Arab League to the Quartet. Many previous meetings of the Quartet were organised in a way where the four got together and agreed on something. After that, the Arab League representatives were invited and informed about the decision. From the outset, I thought it was not a very polite and correct way of doing things. We have always advocated the idea that the representatives of the League of Arab States should directly participate in developing the decisions made by the Quartet. The rest of our partners have taken this proposal with varying degrees of neutrality or negativity. So far, it has not been implemented.

A new turn of events surrounding the Palestinian-Israeli settlement calls for understanding how the international community will try to support this process in order to create proper conditions for direct talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis. There’s no other way than to resolve all issues through direct talks. We must help create proper conditions for such direct talks.



Question:

I am a Kurd, but no one is perfect. The 20th century was very cruel on the Kurds in the Middle East. We survived genocide, ethnic cleansing, and systematic trampling of our national dignity. The first decade of the 21st century was not spectacular for our people, either. Now, the Kurds in Afrin are living through a terrible aggression unleashed by Turkey, which is NATO’s second largest stronghold in the region, while the UN Security Council has not spent a single day, since its inception, to discuss the fate of 40 million people in the Middle East. They also want to live with dignity and in peace, and they are also entitled to a spot under the sun and want their rights respected. I hope that the UN will urgently call on Turkey to end the aggression in Afrin, to stop calling the Kurds terrorists, and themselves angels and followers of Prophet Muhammad. The international community is just watching, but doing nothing about what’s happening in Kurdistan.



Sergey Lavrov:

I understand the feelings that overwhelm many Kurds. But we are here to try to understand what’s going on. Perhaps, slogans are better saved for public functions where public opinion is stirred, but here it is necessary to ponder the matters based on actual events. We have repeatedly stated (this is our principled position) that we fully support the legitimate aspirations of the Kurdish people to live in accordance with their traditions and customs, and their centuries-old glorious history. At the same time, we believe it is wrong when these aspirations of the Kurdish people are used by someone in their geopolitical games, which have nothing to do with the interests of the Kurds and regional security.

I’m not going to get into any details, but in order to defuse the situation in Afrin and not to create reasons for speculating on the Kurdish factor, there were contacts between the representatives of the Russian Aerospace Forces and the Syrian government with the Kurds who reside there. Unfortunately, as you said, no one is perfect. In that situation, this principle also worked. We are now witnessing an attempt to use the Kurds in a game that has nothing in common with their interests. We call upon everyone who is now involved in these processes to stop and start talks based on the balance of interests rather than the attempts to outsmart someone by speculating on Kurdish aspirations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3085010






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions during a joint news conference following talks with Algerian Foreign Minister Abdelkader Messahel, Moscow, February 19, 2018



19 February 2018 - 15:29








Question:

Could the Russian Federation benefit from the extensive experience the Algerian army has in combatting terrorism? Are there any mechanisms enabling Russia and Algeria to exchange experience?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would like to confirm what my friend has said. Algeria and Russia have a wealth of experience in combatting terrorism. It is unfortunate that this experience was acquired as we hunted down and liquidated organisers and perpetrators of terrorist attacks that claimed the lives of many of our citizens. It is true that we have established cooperation channels not only between our foreign ministries (we discuss the counter-terrorism agenda in this format too), but also between law enforcement agencies and the security councils of our two countries. As I have already said, Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Nikolai Patrushev, has recently visited Algeria, where he was received by the President of Algeria Abdelaziz Bouteflika and held talks with his counterparts on specific aspects of further coordinated counter-terrorism efforts. Algeria takes part in international events and forums regularly hosted by the Russian Security Council and Federal Security Service. As I have already said today, Algeria joined the International Counterterrorism Database created by Russia’s Federal Security Service. This is yet another step toward closer cooperation in countering the terrorist threat. I totally agree that this is one of the strategic areas of our cooperation that has a bilateral, as well as a multilateral dimension as part of regional as well as global efforts under UN auspices.



Question:

The US described the evidence in Friday’s report about Russia’s alleged meddling in the elections as ‘incontrovertible’ and raised eyebrows at how Russians fail to recognise obvious facts. You talked about it more than once. What do you think the US is counting on as it continues to blame Russia? What facts, if any, could convince Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

Let’s talk specifically. You say the US published some information. What kind of information is it? If I understand correctly, it is a list of names of thirteen persons charged with interference in the internal affairs of the United States; still, I did not see any facts - dates, forms of interference, or any other information that could be correlated with something remotely close to facts. It looks like the charges have been brought, but the evidence is not presented. When our US colleagues say that Russia does not recognise obvious facts, for us, I would say, it is not obvious at all, and these are not facts.

We have repeatedly said we are ready to consider any specific information. We have proposed many times, including at President Vladimir Putin’s meeting with US President Donald Trump in Hamburg last July, to resume a professional dialogue, one that goes beyond a propaganda campaign, to address any cyber security concerns. The American side, despite the President’s initially positive response, later took back its agreement. Those who opposed it said it would be impossible to establish a dialogue with Russia on the issue that is precisely where Russia has intervened in American affairs. That is a very perverted logic. If the people who use such logic see everything that happens between our countries and in the world from the perspective of Russia's guilt a priori, then no dialogue can probably be expected to take place.

I have already said that I have asked US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to provide what he calls irrefutable evidence of Russia's interference in US elections. He said he doe not have to do that because Russian special services are perfectly aware of them. This is not exactly a level of intellectual exchange of opinions, but rather in line with the statements that President Vladimir Putin is trying to re-establish the Soviet Union - the Dutch story, already known at the level of a joke or cartoon, or the British military leaders’ statements that they have hardcore evidence of Russia’s plans to invade the British Isles. Quite frankly, it's hard to take this seriously.

I repeat, for many years now, Russia has been promoting an initiative to establish a mutually respectful professional dialogue on cyber security without double standards. On our initiative, the UN General Assembly adopted resolutions on international information security. A Group of Governmental Experts was established to this effect. Russia, together with its SCO partners, has introduced draft rules of conduct in the information space and a draft international convention on combating cybercrime. This is what we are doing apart from our initiatives to develop bilateral contacts on combating cybercrime in relations with the US and other Western countries that are concerned about this problem. We are equally interested in cyberspace being a field of honest cooperation rather than speculation, which, unfortunately, is still the case.



Question:

Yesterday, General Suheil al-Hassan’s forces posted a video showing that a large number of heavy weapons were heading toward East Ghouta. An assault is likely, because negotiations with the militants have presumably failed. Don’t you think that an assault may entail a lot of civilian casualties? Do you believe that they could use Russia’s Aleppo experience?



Sergey Lavrov:

Allegations about humanitarian problems in East Ghouta and Idlib are a hot theme at the UN right now. It is contained in a variety of initiatives. Among other things, the UN Security Council is being used to urge the Syrian government army to stop offensive operations there. There is an initiative to call a pause for at least a month in order to bring about some calm and deliver humanitarian aid. What is this problem all about? It is about both Idlib and East Ghouta being controlled by militants belonging to Jabhat al-Nusra, which the UN Security Council designated as terrorist organisations. In keeping with the existing agreements, the fight against terrorism cannot be restricted by anything. It is a matter of grave concern for us that, in effect, the Syrian army and the Russian Aerospace Forces that support it are alone in trying to suppress Jabhat al-Nusra, this terrorist division of Al Qaeda, and those who cooperate with it. The appeals urging the Syrian army to stop its offensive – while our proposals that guarantees should be provided of al-Nusra’s simultaneous immobilisation are being turned down – hide the desire to once again let Jabhat al-Nusra avoid the blow.

I agree that any military operations should have regard for possible consequences that they will involve for the humanitarian situation as well as civilians. We hope that all necessary precautions will be taken. The Aleppo experience concerning agreements with militants on their organised withdrawal is quite applicable to East Ghouta. It was a huge effort to reach several agreements on medical evacuation, primarily that of children and others needing urgent medical assistance. However, all subsequent efforts to negotiate a larger-scale civilian exodus met with refusals on the part of Jabhat al-Nusra, which wants to keep these people and use them as a living shield. Let me note that Jabhat al-Nusra is not just based there; it constantly attacks civilian facilities, including residential areas in Damascus. Several of these attacks were directed at the Russian Embassy and quite recently the Russian Trade Mission’s building was hit and sustained heavy damage. This is why we ask our Western colleagues, who have leverage to influence Jabhat al-Nusra (they don’t deny this), to discipline this terrorist structure before calling for a solution to humanitarian problems. Otherwise it will be destroyed; there should be no doubt about it. However, all the necessary precautions to prevent civilian suffering and minimise these risks must be taken.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3085195






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening of an exhibition for the 180th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Serbia, Moscow, February 19, 2018



19 February 2018 - 18:02








Mr Ambassador,

Mr Minister,

Colleagues and friends,

This is a special year for Russia and Serbia. This year we will mark 180 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries. On February 23, 1838, Serbian Prince Milos Obrenovic received Gerasim Vashchenko, Russia’s first consul, in his residence in the city of Kragujevac, thereby launching official relations between our countries. That event opened a new page in the centuries-long relations between two fraternal nations, which share cultural, civilisational and spiritual roots, as well as Orthodox religion and military comradeship.

The Russian consulate opened in Serbia in a crucial period of the development of the Serbian state. Russia provided all-round assistance to its Serbian brothers and sisters in the liberation of Serbian territories. Thousands of Russian volunteers fought alongside their Slav brothers in the Serbian-Turkish War of 1876-1877.

The two world wars, in which our nations sustained huge losses, also abound in examples of Russian-Serbian friendship. Russia firmly took Serbia’s side in 1914. Emperor Nicholas II wrote the following in response to a plea for help he received from Alexander I, prince regent of the Kingdom of Serbia: “So long as the slightest hope exists of avoiding bloodshed, all our efforts must be directed to that end; but if in spite of our earnest wish we are not successful, your highness may rest assured that Russia will in no case disinterest herself in the fate of Serbia.”

During the Second World War, the Red Army participated in the liberation of Yugoslavia alongside Serbian partisans and other patriots. We highly appreciate Serbia’s efforts to keep the memory of the soldiers who found their final resting place in Serbia.

Global and European changes of the past few decades have had their impact on our countries as well. Yet our readiness to help each other and our sincere feelings of mutual attraction, respect and sympathy have not withered. Our bilateral relations have reached a new level of strategic partnership, which has been sealed in the declaration that was signed following a meeting between the presidents of Russia and Serbia in May 2013. Since then, the legal framework of our relations has been expanded with many important documents and continues to serve as a solid basis for the further development of our strategic partnership.

In December 2017, President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic paid another visit to Russia. Relations between our parliaments, our cultural and humanitarian ties, as well as close coordination between our foreign ministries are growing stronger. I will leave for yet another visit to Belgrade in the next few days, or more precisely, the day after tomorrow.

We are successfully implementing joint projects in the sphere of energy, transport and infrastructure, as well as cultural and humanitarian exchanges.

Our countries are facing new goals now. We highly value and do our utmost to maintain our strategic partnership, which is based on mutual respect for each other’s interests. I am sure that we will continue to promote it to the benefit of our nations.

Once again, thank you for attending this ceremony.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3085589
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old February 25th, 2018 #366
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on the start of the Years of Russian-Chinese Interregional Cooperation project



12 February 2018 - 18:36



As agreed by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping, 2018 and 2019 have been announced Years of Russian-Chinese Interregional Cooperation. The New Year messages, which the heads of the two states exchanged ahead of the holiday, announced the launch of this large-scale project.

The opening ceremony for the Years took place in Harbin on February 7. The event was attended by Deputy Prime Minister and Plenipotentiary Presidential Representative in the Far Eastern Federal District Yury Trutnev, Vice Premier of the PRC State Council Wang Yang, heads of several Russian and Chinese regions, ministries and agencies, public organisations and the media. Welcome addresses from President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping were sent to the participants in the ceremony.

The current large joint project, which continues the practice of bilateral themed years that have been taking place since 2006, is meant to expand and consolidate mutually beneficial relations between Russian and Chinese regions. Several hundred events, such as exhibitions, conferences and festivals, are scheduled within the framework of the project. Additional opportunities for productive interregional contacts will be available at such important sites in Russia as the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, and the Russia-China EXPO.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3070896






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the election of South Africa’s new president



16 February 2018 - 15:32



On February 15, following the resignation of Jacob Zuma from the post of President of the South African Republic (SAR), the SAR Parliament elected Vice-President Cyril Ramaphosa as the country’s new head of state.

Mr Ramaphosa is the leader of SAR’s ruling African National Congress party. He has contributed much to the fight of the South African people against apartheid and to the establishment of a democratic society in SAR.

We expect that with SAR’s new president elected and sworn into office, work will continue to promote the development of Russian-South African strategic partnership, which has been consistently implemented both in a bilateral format in the political, trade, economic, humanitarian and other spheres and within the framework of BRICS, the G-20, the United Nations and other international forums.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3078111






Press release on Second Round of the India-Russia Consultations on Security in the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)



16 February 2018 - 17:24



The Second Round of India-Russia Consultations on Security in the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) were held on February
15-16, 2018 in New Delhi, pursuant to the bilateral Agreement on Cooperation in ensuring security in the use of Information and communication technologies between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Russian Federation signed on October 15, 2016 on the sidelines of the 8th BRICS Summit in Goa.

The Indian delegation was led by Mr Rajinder Khanna, Deputy National Security Adviser, in coordination with Dr Gulshan Rai, National Cyber Security Coordinator. The Russian delegation was led by Mr Oleg Khramov, Deputy Secretary, Security Council of the Russian Federation.

The Sides reaffirmed their common concerns relating to threats in the use of ICTs and common approaches in ensuring security in this field. Both Sides highlighted the need to strengthen bilateral cooperation in the use of ICTs by deepening interaction between specialized agencies.

The Head of the Russian delegation called on India’s National Security Adviser who underlined the strategic character of India-Russia relations as well as highlighted the need to strengthen cooperation in the important sphere of use of ICTs.

Both Sides reiterated intention to strengthen practical cooperation on issues relating to ensuring security in the use of ICTs, including information sharing on emerging threats in this field, exchange of technical and confidential information, capacity building including sharing ICTs to fight against its use in criminal and terrorist purposes.

The Sides agreed that it is necessary to prevent misuse of ICTs for criminal and terrorism purpose and to prevent conflicts in the use of ICTs for ensuring security in the use of ICTs. The Sides stressed the significance of adopting norms, principles and rules of responsible state behavior in the use of ICTs with the UN as the key facilitator. In this respect, there is a need for the resumption of the work of a Group of Governmental Experts on Development in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security in order to develop the norms, principles and rules on security on the use of ICTs.

For the sake of further development of bilateral cooperation of security on the use of ICTs, both sides noted the necessity to consistently enhance activity by creating additional mechanisms of interaction between competent authorities and agencies as has been stated in the mentioned 2016 Bilateral Agreement.

The Sides reaffirmed their willingness to maintain regular bilateral dialogue on issues related to ensuring security in the use of ICTs with a view to further enhancing cooperation in this area.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3078159






Press release on the opening of an exhibition of archive material to mark the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Myanmar



19 February 2018 - 13:32



On February 19, the Foreign Ministry hosted the opening of an exhibition of archival documents on the history of bilateral relations to mark the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.

Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov and Myanmar’s Ambassador to Russia Ko Ko Shein addressed the opening ceremony.

Igor Morgulov’s opening remarks noted a traditionally friendly nature of Russia-Myanmar relations which are based on equality as well as mutual respect. He also praised the level and development of cooperation between the two countries in a wide range of matters and confirmed the intention of the Russian party to gradually promote interaction with Myanmar in practical fields.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3084932






Press release on summoning the chargé d'affaires of Ukraine in the Russian Federation to the Foreign Ministry



19 February 2018 - 18:13



Ruslan Nimchinsky, Ukrainian Charge d'Affaires ad interim in Moscow, was summoned to the Foreign Ministry on February 19 and was handed a note of protest against the continuing mayhem caused by Ukrainian Russophobic nationalists, who, on February 17 and 18, 2018 and at the behest of the Kiev authorities, staged provocative attacks on the Russian Centre for Science and Culture and the Rossotrudnichestvo office, as well as the Kiev-based offices of Russian banks.

Notably, with the police remaining conspicuously uninvolved and acting as on-lookers throughout the act, the rampaging thugs proceeded to break windows, write offensive messages on the walls, denigrate Russia’s state symbols, and cause other material damage.

All of that was accompanied by foul language and vociferous insults against Russia and its leaders. The presence of women and children rehearsing a theatrical play at the centre failed to stop the vandals. These events were witnessed by observers of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine who, acting in accordance with their mandate, put this on record for a subsequent report to be sent to the OSCE.

This is another example of aggressive neo-Nazi nationalism picking up momentum in Ukraine. It obviously enjoys the protection and support of that country’s official government. It is unlikely a coincidence that this pogrom took place immediately following an offensive speech by Ukraine’s President Poroshenko at the International Conference on Security in Munich, which abounded with anti-Russian attacks and contained a direct call for "combating the Russian flag" worldwide.

Ukraine's deliberate vote, alongside two other states, against the UN General Assembly resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other discriminatory practices only goes to show who the current Kiev regime is siding with.

The Russian Embassy in Kiev sent notes of protest to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, and promptly distributed a statement for the press. Our diplomatic missions at the OSCE and in the United States have provided an assessment of what happened, highlighting the extremely dangerous trends unfolding in Ukraine today, which threaten international stability and security.

The fact that aggressive nationalism in Ukraine is not met with an adequate response on behalf of Kiev’s foreign patrons cannot but cause concern. Moreover, in some cases such sentiment is even encouraged. It’s a shame that Europe and the United States have clearly not learned the tragic lessons of the past century.

Ukraine was asked to put an end to the excesses of radical nationalists, and to create a proper environment for the normal and safe functioning of Russian institutions in Ukraine in accordance with Kiev's obligations under universally recognised international conventions and Russian-Ukrainian intergovernmental agreements.

Russia has demanded that all those responsible for the acts of vandalism be identified and brought to justice.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3085611






Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding medical assistance for Russians wounded in Syria



20 February 2018 - 15:24



It has been pointed out that certain Russian citizens in Syria have arrived there of their own free will and for different reasons. The Foreign Ministry does not have the authority to assess the validity and legality of their decisions.

At the same time, we have the following to say, considering that the issue concerns Russian citizens outside Russia. During a recent armed clash, in which Russian service members did not take part in any capacity and Russian military equipment was not used, Russian citizens and nationals from other CIS countries are reported to have been killed or wounded – there are several dozen of the latter. They have been provided assistance to return to Russia, where, so far as we are aware, they are undergoing medical treatment at a number of hospitals.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3086874






Press release on Foreign Ministry Collegium meeting



20 February 2018 - 16:38



On February 20, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov chaired a meeting of the Foreign Ministry Collegium.

The participants addressed issues related to Russia's activity in Asia-Pacific multilateral associations, noting that the intensive development of multilateral cooperation is an important factor in creating an atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding in the Asia-Pacific region (APR), and strengthening collective principles in resolving important problems of our time. They reaffirmed the shared commitment to increase work on initiatives on multilateral platforms in the interests of supporting peace and stability in the region.

The Collegium emphasised the importance of promoting cooperative efforts to build a balanced, equal, and indivisible security architecture in the APR based on strict observance of international law and the UN Charter, on mutual trust, on the principles of peaceful settlement of disputes, and the nonuse of force or the threat of force.

They focused on prospects for practical implementation of President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to establish the Greater Eurasian partnership, the expansion of business cooperation while creating a favourable environment for sustainable social and economic development of the APR states, strengthening integration, and building mutually beneficial trade and investment ties.

The participants considered steps toward realising the SCO’s potential, which has significantly increased with India and Pakistan becoming full members in 2017.

They noted the fundamental importance of building a strategic partnership between our country and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and of enhancing practical cooperation with ASEAN on a wide range of issues on the international and bilateral agenda, including as part of joint work to strengthen the ASEAN-centric formats of regional cooperation, such as the East Asian Summits, the ASEAN Regional Forum on Security, and the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ meetings with dialogue partners.

The Collegium remarked on the importance of further developing Russia-India-China trilateral cooperation to develop collective responses to global and regional challenges and threats.

The participants paid special attention to the possibilities of multilateral diplomacy in the fight against international terrorism, drug trafficking, and criminal uses of information and communication technologies.

The results of the discussion were documented in the resolution adopted by the Collegium.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3087061






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the accusations by UK against Russia of staging massive cyber attacks against Ukraine’s cyber infrastructure



21 February 2018 - 11:24



A new era of information warfare against Russia is upon us. It is now alleged that Russia had something to do with the June 2017 cyber attack against Ukraine. The UK Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence have now joined the Western media in spreading these accusations. This time, however, instead of laying the blame on the anonymous and now legendary “Russian hackers,” they went as far as to accuse the Russian government.

In keeping with the tradition adopted by the West in general, London failed to provide any specific facts, preferring to make groundless and exasperating statements and allusions and pretending that everything is clear even without coming up with any evidence.

It is noteworthy that more than a year has passed since the cyber attack mentioned by Great Britain, but it is only now that they chose to voice their concern. It seems that the attempts to ratchet up tension can be explained by the need to justify the adoption by Western countries of laws designed to tighten control over their citizens and restrict fundamental rights and freedoms. They can hardly pull this off without playing the card of the “Russian threat.” Maybe in June 2017 these matters were simply irrelevant.

It is also worth noting that the accusations come from the very country with which Russia proposed holding bilateral interagency consultations on international information security. By facilitating constructive cooperation between relevant agencies, our two countries could work together in order to promptly respond to cybersecurity threats. Our proposal went unanswered.

For more than twenty years now Russia has been promoting a number of specific proposals in the UN and other international platforms to strengthen international information security and deal with the actual, not mythical, malicious activity in the information space.

There are well-known examples of malicious activity of this kind, and they are not linked to Russia. For instance, in 2010 Stuxnet and Flame malware was used to stage a targeted attack against Iran’s strategic facilities, resulting in losses worth billions and striking a heavy blow to the country’s development. It has to be said that the tracks left behind these attacks suggest that the countries that persist with their groundless accusations against Russia are not without a sin. As the saying goes, “liar, liar, pants on fire.”

The same goes for WannaCry ransomware that was developed in the West, as well as the planned campaigns and accusations against Russia in interfering with the preparations to and holding of the Winter Olympics in South Korea, as the Foreign Ministry has already reported.

Despite the never-ending Russophobic campaigning, we would like to remind the international community that Russia remains open to pragmatic cooperation on international information security and call on all the stakeholders to engage in constructive efforts. We strongly believe that the way to peace and security in the global information space lies through dialogue, while the intentions of those making groundless accusatory statements are far from peaceful.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3087676
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old February 26th, 2018 #367
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview for a Rossiya 1 film on the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin, Moscow, February 19, 2018



20 February 2018 - 01:00




Question:

How would you describe Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin?



Sergey Lavrov:

He was a talented person, and an outstanding diplomat, full of energy, very creative and courageous. Vitaly Churkin and I had close ties when we both served as deputy foreign ministers. I was in charge of UN affairs and the CIS, and he oversaw the European affairs. During my long tenure in New York, he served as Ambassador in Brussels and Canada. Perhaps the most spectacular episode of his career was when he served as the special representative to the talks on former Yugoslavia and contributed greatly to the settlement of the crisis there, including the signing of the Dayton Agreements and ensuring the legitimate rights of the Republika Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina. He even received a land plot in Republika Srpska in recognition for his efforts (to my knowledge, he never went there).

He was one of the most talented diplomats, making a difference in everything he did. He truly found his voice at the UN Security Council. Before I became Foreign Minister, he was Ambassador-at-Large, and worked on Arctic cooperation (Arctic Council, Barents Euro-Arctic Council and other similar sub-regional organisations). But it was obvious for me that he could go further. I was very pleased when President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin supported without any hesitation Vitaly Churkin’s appointment as Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, where he fully uncovered his talents. He was admired in New York and is still remembered there. He became part of Russia’s diplomatic heritage.



Question:

You proposed him for the position of Permanent Representative to the UN, while many others had doubts. Did you have any doubts?



Sergey Lavrov:

I did not. Let me reiterate that I was very glad when President Vladimir Putin supported his candidacy.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3085750






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a conference honouring the memory of Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, Moscow, February 20, 2018



20 February 2018 - 12:45








Dear Irina and Anastasia,

Friends,

Today, we are marking the first sad anniversary of the death of our friend and outstanding Russian diplomat Vitaly Churkin who wrote glorious pages in the history of our profession. Mr Churkin passed away exactly one year ago while on duty in New York City. He was a complex person and a highly professional and well-educated diplomat. He was also a very multifaceted person, he had a lively and cheerful disposition, as well as a good sense of humour. All this makes him a tremendous personality. This is confirmed by the faces I see here in this hall, including senior Foreign Ministry officials, chairmen of Federation Council and State Duma committees on foreign affairs, representatives of academic institutions, public activists and foreign diplomats. All of us are extremely grateful to you for attending this event. I would like to say a special thank you to the Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy and its Rector Yevgeny Bazhanov for this initiative. As far as I understand, this will become an annual conference whose participants will honour the memory of Mr Churkin and discuss other issues. This will also become a good forum for studying the experience of Russian diplomacy and mastering its progressive methods in every sense, methods that were employed so successfully and brilliantly by Mr Churkin.

Leaving all that aside, he and I were friends. We were appointed Deputy Foreign Minister at the same time in the spring of 1992. Mr Churkin’s best qualities shone in every position. His remarkable diplomatic career began in Washington DC (as discussed in Sergey Brilyov’s wonderful film for which I also want to sincerely thank him) under the guidance of our great Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Dobrynin. He later established the Information Department virtually from the ground up. Although the Soviet Foreign Ministry also focused on this work, press relations came to require different skills after perestroika and all those new trends and ideas that engulfed this country. Mr Churkin completely mastered these skills while working in Washington. As a modest Second and First Secretary, he regularly visited the US Congress, spoke with House members, replied to their questions and satisfied their curiosity regarding Russian developments. He introduced these skills of directly dealing with journalists in person into the Information Department. As everyone noted, this Department ranked among the most progressive information divisions of Russian government agencies of that period.

Mr Churkin later served as Ambassador to Brussels and Canada. After that, he worked in Moscow for several years and addressed highly important Arctic Council issues. His talents were on full display in New York City. Even those who disagreed with him on political issues loved him as a person and a professional. But, owing to the position of their government, they were unable to say this openly. I observed this during a session of the UN General Assembly and during events held after UN Security Council meetings when we and the Americans had some rather heated arguments. At that time, Russia presided in the UN Security Council, and the Russian side organised an evening reception. Samantha Power, the then US Ambassador to the UN, arrived slightly late. Only a short time before, Mr Churkin and Ms Power faced off behind their microphones at the UN Security Council meeting, as they engaged in heated debate. But, once at the reception, they started discussing the news of the day and what awaited them tomorrow in a friendly manner.

Mr Churkin will remain in our memory forever. I would like to once again thank everyone present for remembering him, and we will remember him for many years to come, as long as we live. I am very grateful to the Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy for the fact that an initiative to hold this special event will not simply be confined to eulogies but will also have practical implications, as a good school for assessing and carrying on the experience of Russian diplomacy in all its manifestations, so that this experience will live on in service to our Motherland.

I wish all of you successful work.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3086476






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions during a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Khawaja Muhammad Asif, Moscow, February 20, 2018



20 February 2018 - 15:51








Ladies and gentlemen,

My counterpart, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, and I have held substantive talks.

Our ties with Pakistan are constructive and mutually productive. This May will mark 70 years since the establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations.

We have developed an intensive political dialogue, including at the top level. We maintain partner-like cooperation at international organisations, above all, the UN and its specialised agencies.

Today, the Russian side reaffirmed its willingness to continue providing assistance to Pakistan in strengthening its counterterrorist activity, which meets the interests of the entire region. Last year, we transferred four Mi-35M combat-transport helicopters to our partners. I am sure they are needed for anti-terrorist operations as we heard today from our colleagues. We decided to continue holding the Druzhba (Friendship) joint tactical exercise to strengthen our interaction during counterterrorist operations in mountain terrain. We already have the experience of similar exercises in Karachayevo-Circassia last autumn.

We agreed to step up efforts to build up trade and economic cooperation. We emphasised the importance of intensive activity by the Russian-Pakistani Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technological Cooperation, the fifth meeting of which was held in Moscow last November and produced solid results. The implementation of these things is crucial in bringing our bilateral trade to a level that better suits our countries’ potentials.

A commission on military-technical cooperation is being set up in keeping with last year’s intergovernmental agreement in this area.

We discussed prospects for energy cooperation, which is one of our priorities. Our flagship project is the construction of the North-South gas pipeline from Karachi to Lahore under an intergovernmental agreement signed in 2015. Other opportunities are also being considered, including Gazprom liquefied gas supplies to Pakistan and the construction of regional pipelines, among them the Iran-Pakistan-India subsea gas pipeline.

Additional opportunities opened up after Islamabad joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) as a full member. As you know, at the SCO summit in Astana last June, India and Pakistan were admitted to the organisation. We agreed to build up our cooperation within the SCO framework. As our colleagues reaffirmed today, Pakistan will continue integrating itself into the SCO’s practical activities and across its entire broad agenda, including the promotion of security in the region.

We welcome the fact that Pakistan joined the SCO Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS). Today, we explained in detail our initiative to create a universal response centre, based on RATS, to meet modern challenges and threats, including the fight against drug trafficking, which directly feeds terrorism.

Special attention was given to the situation in Afghanistan and around it. Both of us are concerned about the worsening security situation in the country, the growing terrorist activity, the narcotics threat that still looms large and the strengthening of ISIS’ position in the north and east of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, we have to say that the military presence of the United States and NATO that has lasted for many years has failed to bring peace and stability to the Afghan people. Moreover, the Afghanistan strategy that was recently presented by the US administration focuses on the need to increase the use of force and military pressure on the armed opposition, although it is clear to Moscow and Islamabad, as I understand it, that this approach is leading to nowhere. We believe that the process of national reconciliation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan based on the leading role of the Afghan people and respect for the interests of the regional states has to be initiated as soon as possible.

We have similar or close position on Middle East affairs, in particular, Syria and other regional and international matters that are of interest to our countries. Earlier today, we discussed, in this context, the status of the Syria settlement process and the Syrian chemical case, on which some countries, unfortunately, try to speculate to achieve their dishonorable purposes. We discussed the worrying situation around the Palestinian-Israeli settlement process. Our common position is that this issue should be resolved on the basis of the UN Security Council resolution and the Arab Peace Initiative, which, incidentally, was supported by all members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

As I mentioned, we had very useful talks, which have reiterated our mutual commitment to expanding cooperation between Russia and Pakistan on our bilateral agenda and on regional and international matters.



Question:

The current state of relations between Pakistan and Russia could be described as the spring of the relations. How are the two countries cooperating in education?



Sergey Lavrov:

We talked about this today. We have good traditions that span several decades. We are interested in the Pakistanis continuing to receiving education in our country, and the number of students [from this country] majoring in various subjects at our universities and higher educational institutions is increasing. Today, we conveyed this wish to our Pakistani colleagues. We drew their attention to the 90 government scholarships that were allocated for the current academic year. We will make every effort to try and increase this number.



Question:

The issue of ISIS terrorists’ presence in Afghanistan was raised today, as well as the fact that they are able to penetrate Central Asian states or Russia because of the lack of border control coordination with the United States. What can be done to prevent this? Is it enough to coordinate the matter within the SCO, or are Russia and Pakistan taking practical measures to stop the terrorists?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, today we discussed Afghanistan and the roots ISIS is taking there. We are seriously concerned. Likewise, we are worried that the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan fail to mention this danger, deny facts and even claim that they are not true. According to the data available to us and our Pakistani colleagues, these facts are true. ISIS has established a considerable presence in northern and eastern Afghanistan – approximately a thousand terrorists – and continues to increase it. As for the dangers you mentioned regarding the border with our Central Asian neighbours, it is true that there is an increased risk of terrorists entering Central Asia, which is an easy route into Russia and other countries. We believe that efforts must be redoubled to preclude these developments.

Pakistan and India have recently become full members of the SCO, which now has all the key neighbours of Afghanistan among its members. Afghanistan has observer status in the SCO. The SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group, which resumed operation last autumn at Russia’s initiative, will focus on these issues. The group has held its first meeting in Moscow and is preparing for the second meeting, which our Chinese colleagues will host.

I would like to mention the SCO Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure, which we discussed today as well. We can use it to develop practical measures to curtail ISIS influence in Afghanistan and prevent it from spreading to Central Asia. As I have said, we will promote a reform of this anti-terrorist structure so that it will not only deal with counterterrorism but will also be used to fight the drug trafficking.

Regrettably, the years-long presence of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan has not reduced the terrorist threat, while the drug threat has grown manifold. This data has been provided by the UN and cannot be disregarded. We are still waiting for our US colleagues to answer the questions we have asked them many times regarding the public statements made by some regional Afghan leaders about unidentified helicopters making flights to the Afghan regions where terrorists have their bases. Nobody can explain the reason for these flights. These legitimate questions are being avoided.

We are seriously concerned about the growing ISIS influence in Afghanistan. We are also worried about the attitude of the US-led NATO coalition to this threat and the measures it is taking against it. This is happening in the background of statements and the new Afghanistan strategy that is focused on the use of military force. It is unclear against whom military force will be used.



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Khawaja Muhammad Asif):

I would like to say that, in addition to SCO structures and Russia’s bilateral agreements with its Central Asian neighbours that border Afghanistan, there are also major CSTO programmes regarding this. The CSTO regularly holds operations against terrorism, illegal migration and drug trafficking, operations Channel, Illegal and Proxy. A major deterrence factor, these operations are held to receive prompt information about the militants’ plans and to take preventive measures to stop the militants from crossing the border to Central Asia. But the most important thing is fighting these militants inside Afghanistan, which must be the priority for the Afghan security forces, as well as the United States and NATO, which maintain a military presence there.



Question:

Today President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan disclosed the essence of the meeting he had yesterday with President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Iran Hassan Rouhani. He said that they discussed an agreement to prevent the Syrian army from deploying in Afrin. Is this so?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is our firm position that any problems, be it in Syria or anywhere else, are settled with due respect for the territorial integrity of the state concerned, in this case, the Syrian Arab Republic.

We recognise Turkey’s concerns about the developments in Syria and along its perimeter, as we have agreed in Astana, including at the level of the presidents of Russia, Turkey and Iran. Of course, we also recognise the Kurds’ aspirations. What we do not recognise and reject is the external forces’ attempts to take advantage of these aspirations so as to promote a Syrian and regional agenda that has nothing in common with the legitimate interests of the Kurdish people but is designed to attain these external forces’ self-serving geopolitical goals. I am referring, in particular, to the game which the United States has been playing for many months in Syria east of the Euphrates. This game engendered many questions and warnings, but it gradually looked more and more like a deliberate provocation that has ultimately triggered the current events. I am convinced that Turkey’s legitimate security interests can be realised and protected through a direct dialogue with the Syrian government. I strongly hope that all of us will act resolutely against any further attempts to hype up the Kurdish problem so as to keep up or even deepen the regional chaos and to split the regional countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3086927






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Executive Director of the UN World Food Programme David Beasley, Moscow, February 20, 2018



20 February 2018 - 17:59








Mr Beasley,

Colleagues,

I am happy to welcome your delegation to Russia, to the Foreign Ministry, to be more exact. We maintain very good relations with the UN World Food Programme. From 2010 through 2017 we made voluntary contributions to your projects that totaled $370 million. We will continue our cooperation as the World Food Programme enjoys a high reputation among the donors and recipients, primarily, thanks to your policy of respecting international humanitarian law when carrying out projects in different countries and regions around the world.

Our cooperation is based on the strategic partnership agreement. Currently, we are completing the preparations for a similar document for the next three years. Hopefully, it will be signed soon.

Today’s meeting offers us a good opportunity to listen to your views of the tasks facing the World Food Programme. We will eagerly incorporate them into our practical steps.

I am happy to introduce Mr Vasilyev to you. Viktor Vasilyev was appointed our new representative at the UN World Food Programme, the FAO programme and the International Fund for Agricultural Development.

Welcome.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3087265






Article by Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov and Foreign Minister of Serbia Ivica Dacic, Russia and Serbia: 180 Years of Friendship, Trust and Cooperation, published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta and Serbian daily Politika on February 21, 2018



21 February 2018 - 06:05



This year, Russia and Serbia will celebrate a landmark date: 180 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations. On February 23, 1838, Serbian Prince Milos Obrenovic received Gerasim Vashchenko, Russia’s first consul, in his residence in the city of Kragujevac.

That event opened a new page in the centuries-long relations between the two fraternal nations, which share cultural, civilisational and spiritual roots. Relations between Russia and Serbia go far beyond the framework of interstate relations.

Back in the 12th century, Rastko Nemanjic (St Sava), the future founder of the Serbian Orthodox Church, became a monk in the St Panteleimon Monastery, a Russian Orthodox monastery on Mount Athos. In the worst periods of the Mongol invasion, the Serbian rulers provided support to this and many other Orthodox monasteries.

The Russian consulate opened in a vital period of the development of Serbian state. The Treaty of Adrianople, which concluded the Russo-Turkish War of 1828−1829, provided for giving autonomy to the territories liberated during the First Serbian Uprising of 1804−1813. The policy of Russian Emperor Nicholas I created conditions for practical implementation of this provision. Russia’s contribution to the development of Serbia as a state, its constitutional foundations and a combat-ready army facilitated the eventual liberation of Serbian lands.

People in Serbia and Russia alike will never forget the thousands of Russian volunteers who fought selflessly alongside their Slav brothers in the Serbian-Turkish War of 1876−1877. The names of General Mikhail Chernyayev, who commanded the Serbian army in that trying period, Colonel Nikolai Rayevsky, who died fighting at the village of Gornji Adrovac, as well as other heroes, are inscribed in gold in the history of Russian-Serbian relations. A year later, Serbia gained the long-awaited independence.

The 20th century was not easy for our countries and tested the Russian-Serbian friendship many times. The age of global shocks and radical change left its imprint on both countries. We have been through a lot, and our bilateral relations were no exception. However, even when we took different sides for ideological reasons, we never denied each other assistance and have always maintained feelings of mutual respect and sympathy based on the legacy of our forefathers.

Back in the 18th century, during the reign of Peter the Great and Elizabeth Petrovna, we opened the door to Serbian migrants, many of whom left their imprint on the Russian history, such as generals Mikhail Miloradovich, Georgy Emmanuel, Ivan Shevich, Nikolai Depreradovich, Ilya Douka and other outstanding military leaders prominent during the Napoleonic Wars.

After the 1917 revolution and the subsequent tragedy of the Civil War, Alexander I, prince regent of the Kingdom of Serbia, took in tens of thousands of Russian émigrés who were forced to leave their homeland. Serbia became a second home to many of them, the land where they realised their intellectual and creative potential. Russians were allowed to open schools, hospitals, cultural and research facilities. They also had the right to enter civil and military service, and many of them used this right. The Russian community made a big contribution to the development of Serbia’s economy, science, culture and arts. Architect Nikolai Krasnov is well known in Belgrade, whose modern image he helped create. There are many other Russians who are well remembered in Serbia, including Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky), historian and Byzantinist Georgy Ostrogorsky, doctor Alexander Ignatovsky and ballet dancer Nina Kirsanova.

The two world wars, in which our nations sustained heavy losses, also produced inspiring examples of military comradeship and selfless fight for Victory. Serbians still cherish the memory of Emperor Nicholas II, who raised Russia in defence of Serbia. Russians are grateful to their Serbian friends for safeguarding the memory of Russian soldiers who died in battles for the liberation of Belgrade and the rest of Yugoslavia during WWII. The heroism of our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, who gave their lives for the freedom of Europe, will forever remain the symbol of courage, valour and selfless service to their homeland.

In 1999, Russian-Serbian relations were again put to the test. Our concerted efforts helped stop the NATO aggression against the Union Republic of Yugoslavia and launch a political settlement of the conflict in Kosovo, which led to the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 that formalised Serbian sovereignty over the province. We continue to uphold Serbia’s legitimate rights to Kosovo based on international law.

Relations between our countries have moved forward to the level of strategic partnership, which has been sealed in the Declaration on Strategic Partnership, signed by the presidents of Russia and Serbia in Sochi in May 2013. Our political dialogue is developing in the spirit of trust and mutual understanding both at the working and summit levels, as evidenced by the December 2017 visit by President Aleksandar Vucic to Russia. Relations between our parliaments have been boosted by visits to Serbia of Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko in November 2017 and State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin in June 2017. Close coordination between our foreign ministries is growing stronger as well.

We are greatly satisfied with the positive development of our ties concerning the economy, trade and military technology and with the successful implementation of joint projects in the spheres of energy, transport and culture. Russian-Serbian relations are based on a solid legal framework, which we continue to expand.

Our countries pursue an independent and balanced foreign policy based on national interests. At the same time, we consistently advocate unconditional compliance with the basic principles of international relations sealed in the UN Charter, such as the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their internal affairs and a peaceful settlement of disputes. We also stand firmly in favour of tackling the main challenges and threats exclusively on the basis of international law.

A salient feature of our cooperation is respect for each other’s choices and interests. Moscow and Belgrade do not accept the flawed “us or them” philosophy, which has strengthened mistrust and instability in Europe.

Today we are facing the challenge of making broader use of the truly inexhaustible potential of the Russian-Serbian partnership. We believe that we have all the necessary conditions for doing this. The most important condition is the friendship and trust that have existed between our nations for centuries. We will continue to strengthen them to the benefit of the current and future generations of our people.


Sergey Lavrov
Ivica Dacic





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3087424
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 1st, 2018 #368
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia Karl Erjavec Ljubljana, February 21, 2018



21 February 2018 - 16:44








Ladies and gentlemen,

We feel at home and among friends here. Thank you for inviting us, for organising our work so well and for the traditional Slovenian hospitality.

As usual in our relations, today we had a very open discussion of bilateral relations, primarily in the context of the agreements that were signed in the past two years during the exchange of visits by President of Russia Vladimir Putin to Slovenia and President of Slovenia Borut Pahor to Russia.

We pointed out the rapid growth of mutual trade and positive trends and results in the investment sphere. We see this as a vital intermediary performance result of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, which is co-chaired by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia Karl Erjavec and Minister of Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation Nikolai Nikiforov. The commission relies in its operation on the vigorous activities of the business councils and ties between Russian regions and their Slovenian partners. We are implementing several promising investment projects in Slovenia and in Russia, which involve both Russian and Slovenian companies.

We are promoting our traditionally rich cultural ties, which we discussed in depth today, in particular, the International Forum of Slavic Cultures, which is headquartered in Ljubljana and was established at the joint initiative of Russia and Slovenia. This forum, a branch of which opened in Moscow 18 months ago, is facilitating closer ties between Slavic nations and the preservation of Slavic cultural heritage. We attach great importance to this part of our humanitarian cooperation.

We hold successful overlapping cultural seasons, with Ljubljana hosting numerous interesting performances by Russian musicians, including performances by the Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra, conducted by Valery Gergiev, and the Alexandrov Academic Song and Dance Ensemble of the Russian Army. Foreign Minister of Slovenia Karl Erjavec has mentioned a truly landmark event, the opening of the first EU subsidiary of Lomonosov Moscow State University on the basis of University of Primorska in Koper in the Slovenian Littoral Region.

We have discussed an initiative advanced by the Slovenia-Russia Friendship Society and the Russian Society of Friendship and Cultural Ties with Slovenia, which seeks to establish the Russian-Slovenian Public Forum. We have supported this initiative.

We have focused on the military memorials issue. Russia greatly appreciates Slovenia’s solicitous treatment of Soviet and Russian soldiers’ graves and monuments to them in this country. Today, we have laid wreaths at a monument to the Sons of Russia and the Soviet Union who were killed in Slovenia during both First and Second World Wars. We consider it important to support the creation of a similar memorial dedicated to Slovenian nationals in the Russian Federation.

Today, we will sign a memorandum on cooperation regarding the activities of an international centre to research World War II issues. The centre has been established at a museum in Maribor (inside a former German concentration camp for Soviet prisoners of war). We consider this joint research project to be very important. We will involve various departments, primarily Russia’s Defence Ministry, Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Education and Science, in this project. I believe that very good results can be obtained, and these results will have paramount significance for the younger generation to have a correct understanding of the outcomes of World War II.

While discussing international issues, we praised Slovenia’s position regarding Russia-EU and Russia-NATO ties. This position implies that EU and NATO membership does not necessarily call for terminating ties with all other members of the international community, no matter how much someone might want this to happen. Just like Slovenia, Russia is ready to cooperate with any other state which is open to equitable, mutually beneficial interaction based on a balance of interests.

We consider it absolutely incorrect and harmful to present certain countries with a false choice between aligning with the West or with the East. Unfortunately, some of our Western colleagues are guided by precisely this logic while addressing cooperation with countries in the western Balkan region, and not only there. The same either-or principle is applied to some post-Soviet states. This principle was a major cause of the protracted Ukrainian crisis. We believe that there is no alternative to the Minsk Agreements for resolving the situation in Ukraine.

We hope that the West, primarily Berlin and Paris, as well as the other capitals of countries of the Normandy format, realise that the latest actions of the Ukrainian leadership deviate from compliance with the Minsk Agreements and are an attempt to scrap them. First of all, I am talking about the so-called law on the reintegration of Donbass, which allows and even encourages the use of force for restoring the territorial integrity of Ukraine. We consider this to be absolutely unacceptable. Attempts to ignore the Minsk Agreements, approved by the UN Security Council, are followed by attempts to violate other documents of international law, first of all, those guaranteeing equal rights for languages of ethnic minorities and regional languages. The law on education, which has already entered into force in Ukraine, aims to undermine these obligations. We insist that the recommendations of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe regarding this law be followed without delay.

We are confident that Europe cannot fail to see the extremely dangerous increase in nationalist, xenophobic and neo-Nazi sentiments in Ukraine; and these sentiments are being acted on more and more often. I am talking about the attempt to set fire to a Hungarian church in Trans-Carpathia, the rampage at the Russian Centre of Science and Culture in Kiev and attempts to attack bank affiliates. Even judging by Ukrainian news stories (unlike the people of Ukraine, Russian citizens can read the neighbouring country’s press), there are many indications that Ukrainian authorities passively observe and largely encourage all these actions, including attacks on the Russian Centre of Science and Culture and the burning of the Russian flag. For example, this was how police officers, summoned to the scene of the incident, acted. We are waiting for the appropriate principled response from the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and, of course, from the European Union and NATO because the latter two organisations are always particularly worried about the destiny of the Ukrainian state and the future of the Ukrainian peace settlement.

We also discussed other foreign policy issues, including the situation in various hot spots in the Middle East and North Africa. Despite attempts to undermine the Syrian settlement, Russia, alongside Iran and Turkey, acting within the Astana format, and with UN sponsorship, will do everything as part of the Geneva process to implement UNSC Resolution 2254.

Of course, salient issues in a number of other countries in the region (Libya, Yemen and Iraq), should not sidetrack the need to settle relations between Palestine and Israel. This issue is fundamentally important for the future of the Middle East. We are in favour of direct talks between Israel and Palestine, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas, without any preliminary conditions. We consider this a critical step in the current difficult and unsettled situation.

Once again, I would like to thank Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Karl Erjavec, his entire team, and our Slovenian friends for their hospitality. We will look forward to reciprocating your hospitality. I invite Mr Erjavec to come to Russia on a regular visit.



Question:

You mentioned yesterday that Turkey could resolve its security issue in connection with the situation in Afrin through a direct dialogue with Damascus. Is Moscow ready to promote such a dialogue or, perhaps, it is already doing so?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have already said more than once that it is only possible to resolve all current issues in Syria, which occasionally tend to be aggravated, solely on the basis of respect for Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is a universal criterion. It is important for all external parties, especially those who are present in Syria, to realise the need to start a dialogue with the Syrian government based on the principle of Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which has been repeatedly confirmed by the UN Security Council. All ethnic, religious and other groups residing in Syria also must respect Syria’s territorial integrity.

The fact that a portion of the Kurdish population in northern Syria declared autonomy awhile back was not helpful in achieving a settlement. The actions taken by the US-led coalition to promote the autonomy of the Kurds and even to promote the establishment of local government bodies, which were openly portrayed as disobeying Damascus, did not help, either. Finally, the Syrian government itself should also be guided by the principle of sovereignty over the entire territory of its country. This implies the need to talk with all representatives of ethnic or religious groups, including the Kurds. Russia’s work with all the participants in Syrian events is based on this. We believe that this an absolutely viable foundation on which to stop the bloodshed, and to begin a sustainable settlement process, which will ensure not only the interests of the Syrian people in all their diversity, but, I am convinced, the legitimate interests of Syria’s neighbours and other external actors.



Question:

Recently, a lot of criticism has been heard in Slovenia and beyond its borders regarding Ljubljana’s policy which neglects relations with the United States and seeks to strengthen its relations with Russia. What can you tell us about this situation? What can we expect in relations between Russia and Slovenia?



Sergey Lavrov:

I already commented on this in my opening remarks when I talked about the need to abandon the completely disastrous principle “either with the West or with Russia” in all foreign affairs. I'm going over the events of recent years in my head and I cannot find any evidence that Slovenia wants to pursue a policy that is more pro-Russian than pro-Western. I don’t want to speak for Karl, but I have a feeling that Slovenia would want to pursue foreign policy in such a way and to cooperate with any state that will bring it, on a reciprocal basis, the maximum trade, economic and investment benefits, and so on. Of course, like any normal country and any normal nation, the Slovene people want to preserve their cultural and spiritual identity. I don’t see this as an affront to anyone. We are fully respectful of such a multipronged approach.

Our foreign policy doctrine is also based on a multipronged approach, which means that if a mutually beneficial project arises, then, by and large, it would be foolish not to go ahead and implement it. When Slovenia proposes something to us, we consider the proposal from the perspective of our own interests. If our interests coincide, these proposals get implemented. Likewise, we come up with certain projects for Slovenia, and Slovenia responds depending on whether they meet its interests.

I don’t want to sound anti-American in any way, but just yesterday US State Department spokesman Heather Nauert publicly said with pride that US ambassadors in all countries without exception have strict instructions to issue daily demands that the respective state does not cooperate with Russia, because the United States imposed sanctions on us. I think it is enough to learn this fact to understand the principles on which the Americans are building their relations with foreign countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3088459






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with President of the Republic of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic Belgrade, February 21, 2018



22 February 2018 - 00:37








Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic, my colleague First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Ivica Dacic and all our Serbian friends for their traditional hospitality. We feel at home here. I hope our Serbian partners also feel at home when they come to Russia. A while ago, in December 2017, President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic paid a visit to Russia.

We have met on the occasion of the 180th anniversary of our diplomatic relations to discuss our efforts to implement the agreements that were reached during numerous recent meetings between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic.

We pointed out the rapid development of our trade and economic cooperation. Statistical data may differ, but it is a fact that our trade is growing and has already exceeded $2 billion, and investment in our cooperation amounts to over $4 billion. We will continue to promote this process, including through the efficient operation of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technological Cooperation.

I share the opinion of President Vucic regarding our close and fruitful cooperation in many spheres, primarily energy and infrastructure, including railway infrastructure.

The establishment of diplomatic relations 180 years ago does not mean that our nations did not have any ties before that. Our ties, including spiritual and religious – Orthodox – ties go much further back in history. As President Vucic has said, tomorrow we will attend a ceremony of the delivery of a mosaic for the interior decoration of the Cathedral of St Sava. This project has the joint blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Serbian Orthodox Church and involves our countries’ official government agencies. This is of major significance not just for our bilateral relations, but also for our common tasks of protecting the spiritual, religious and other traditional values against the increasing number of attempts around Europe, including in Ukraine, to vandalise Orthodox churches and foment religious discord. I am confident that the rights of Christians and all other religions must also be protected in the Middle East and North Africa. We discussed this issue today as well.

Our foreign policy ties are based on international law, mutual respect and balance of interests. Russia and Serbia do not force anything on each other. We never ask each other to stop dealing with any other party. We believe that all countries, including Russia and Serbia, must have the freedom of choice and develop their foreign policy and foreign economic ties with all those who are ready to do this on the basis of mutual advantage.

In this context, we welcome Belgrade’s efforts to promote ties not only with the European Union but also with the Eurasian Economic Union. In the sphere of military policy, Serbia cooperates with NATO and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. At the same time, it maintains its status of military neutrality, which President Vucic once again spoke about today very clearly and unambiguously. We are convinced that Serbia’s neutral status is a key factor of stability in the Balkans and the rest of Europe.

We held in-depth discussions of the situation in the Balkans, where controversial developments are underway. We share the opinion that the regional countries must not be forced to make a false choice between the West and Russia. We are also in agreement regarding the situation in other parts of the world.

Today we spoke at great length about Kosovo. We agree that UN Security Council Resolution 1244 is the only legitimate basis for any actions that may be taken in this area.

We welcome and have a high regard for the EU’s mediation mission, which has been supported in a resolution by the UN General Assembly. We hope that our European colleagues in Brussels will do their best to implement their mission. So far, dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina has produced certain agreements but is unable to ensure their implementation, such as the agreement on the Community of Serb Municipalities in northern Kosovo, the decision on a special court in Kosovo and the UN sealed principle preventing the transformation of Kosovo security forces into a regular army. The so-called President of Kosovo Hashim Thaci said the other day that the Kosovo army would be created contrary to all agreements and positions, including those of Pristina’s European curators. I hope that the Brussels headquarters of the EU and NATO are fully aware of the danger of closing their eyes to these sentiments in Pristina. We will continue to advocate a comprehensive settlement in Kosovo in full compliance with international law.

We highly appreciate the efforts taken personally by President Aleksandar Vucic to ease the tension that has been created by the shooting of Kosovo Serb politician Oliver Ivanovic. We believe that an objective and unbiased investigation must be completed as soon as possible to identify and mete out punishment to those guilty of this crime. We fully support Belgrade’s efforts towards this end, including the demand to involve the concerned Serbian agencies in the investigation.

Today we also discussed other joint foreign policy actions, including at the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. I am convinced that our strategic partnership has a strong potential for development not just to the benefit of Russian and Serbian nations but also in the interests of European stability and prosperity.



Question:

Is Moscow concerned about Serbia potentially joining the European sanctions on Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

I see you are smiling as you ask this question. I can only take with satisfaction what the President of Serbia just said. If you need any additional comments, I can say that we are aware that the EU is putting forward a number of preconditions as part of the negotiating chapters on Serbia's accession to the EU, including in the sphere of foreign policy, which concern Serbia joining the sanctions on Russia and recognising Kosovo.

With regard to the first requirement concerning the sanctions, the European Union is a fairly inertial structure. Some time ago, they adopted − based, I think, on a misinterpreted principle of solidarity – a decision that the sanctions on Russia, which they imposed in a hurry based on fleeting interests, can be lifted once the Minsk Agreements are fully implemented. Now, they are saying it is not necessary to implement them in full. It is possible to gradually implement the agreements and lift the sanctions. However, most importantly, the Kiev regime is not going to comply with these agreements. I can back this with the following example. The other day, President of Ukraine Poroshenko signed an absolutely odious law on reintegration, which not just allows, but presumes the possibility of a military settlement of the conflict in southeastern Ukraine. All our European colleagues who are perfectly aware of what’s at stake are keeping mum and can say nothing on this topic. Amid the ongoing discussions in the European Union (we are aware that an increasing number of countries now consider such a confrontational policy absolutely counterproductive), I don’t think that this demand with regard to all those who want to cooperate with the EU to take an anti-Russian stance, will last long. But then again, I’m not here to do any guesswork for Brussels.

The second prerequisite for Serbia joining the European Union is about recognising Kosovo. I already mentioned that we all welcomed the EU efforts to establish a dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. This Brussels’ initiative was supported by the UN General Assembly. We all expected that the European Union would fulfill this function in good faith. A few years ago, a decision was made to establish Serbian municipalities in northern Kosovo. This has not yet been implemented. Also, the EU has put forward a demand for Pristina to create a special court to investigate crimes committed in Kosovo during the well-known events. This court has never been established. The Pristina authorities are trying to obstruct its functioning and make everyone forget about it.

Of course, we are concerned about the EU passivity with regard to the initiative coming from Tirana about the “Tirana platform,” which is an explicit call for creating Greater Albania. There are enough examples which give us cause for concern. Most recently, when parliamentary elections were held in Macedonia, the chairman of the parliament, once elected to this post, entered his office and put an Albanian flag on his desk. In Macedonia! The other day, Prime Minister of Albania Edi Rama proudly announced that it was he who, from Albania, initiated a draft law in the Macedonian parliament that gives the Albanian language the status of the state language, thereby abrogating the Ohrid Agreements, which everyone took with a sigh of relief and which created a basis for overcoming the crisis in Macedonia many years ago. If someone tries to erode these achievements and agreements, then things that it took so much effort to develop as well as agree upon, be it in Macedonia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, or elsewhere in western Balkans, will be lost. I believe we have every reason to ask the European Union to report back to us on how it fulfills its own decisions and to what extent it is up to the credit of trust that the international community has given it.

So, I wouldn’t try to make this situation less complicated than it is. We heard what the President of Serbia said. I’m convinced that any state should choose its partners based on its national interests, and its desire to receive economic, commercial and investment benefits based on its commitment to preserve its spiritual and cultural roots. Punishing the state of Serbia, or any other state for that matter, for wanting to live in harmony with all its neighbours and the world around it, is so un-European, so not part of the European culture, that, I believe, it merely doesn’t even need any additional comments.



Question:

Are you apprehensive that the Ukrainian scenario could be used in Serbia? You have said several times that the West must not force Serbia to choose between Russia and the EU. Would Russia join the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina if the US did so at the Albanians’ request? Did you discuss the status of employees of the Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Centre?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am not sure I understand the first of the three questions addressed to me. Are we concerned with what could happen with Serbia? We are not worried about Serbia as long as it has the elected leader, Aleksandar Vucic and his team, as well as the coalition for which the Serbian people voted. I have nothing more to say on this issue.

Speaking about the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, we have expressed our confidence in the EU, as I said, including via the UN General Assembly. It seems that the EU should take additional steps to justify this confidence. If the Albanian party to this process expresses a desire to expand the group of intermediaries, we will rely on the opinion of Serbia and see if this would be in the interests of our Serbian friends. If they decide that the invitation of the US should be complemented with the invitation of Russia to ensure a comprehensive approach to mediation, we will certainly do our part.

As for the Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Centre in Nis, it is working. In the years since its establishment, it has completed several highly important projects, for example, clearing mines in a vast area in Serbia and providing fire and flood relief to many regional countries, including Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Greece. The four or five centre employees from Russia are working well alongside their Serbian colleagues. We hope the centre’s assistance will continue to be sought after just as it was during the emergencies I have mentioned. This international regional centre does not have any hidden agendas or ulterior motives. When suspicions were aired about the duties of the centre’s Russian and Serbian employees, we invited a military diplomat from the concerned country (it was the US) to visit the centre. He was able to look into every room so as to see that the staff is only involved in the issues that have been coordinated upon the centre’s establishment. By the way, I would like to say that a US military base, Camp Bondsteel, has been established in Serbia, or more precisely, in the Autonomous Province of Kosovo. It has been established in keeping with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and hence it is blessed by the UN. Numerous reports show that it is unclear what our American colleagues do at this base. However, the Americans are not willing to invite anyone to the base so as to dispel these doubts. As I said, this base is blessed by the UN, which makes it the property of the international community, to a degree.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3088723






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks during presentation of mosaic decorations for the dome of the Church of St Sava, Belgrade, February 22, 2018



22 February 2018 - 13:54








Your Holiness,

Your Eminence,

Mr President,

Mr Milorad Dodik, Ivica, Mr Chepurin,

Friends,

Much has already been said about the history of today’s event and the efforts of many people to make it a reality. I would like to sincerely thank everyone who has contributed to this sacred cause. This project was initiated by President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic and Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church Irinej, and President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin personally kept this project under observation. Gazprom Neft has made its own significant contribution, and this has already been mentioned today. I cannot help but express words of admiration to the artist and all those who implemented this project under the auspices of the Moscow International Foundation for Support to UNESCO, overseen by the well-known Goodwill Ambassador Zurab Tsereteli.

In addition to what has already been said here, I would like to note one simple thing. Of course, today’s event symbolises the spiritual and cultural affinity between our citizens and our churches. I consider it particularly important to display such unity when the resilience of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Serbian Orthodox Church is being tested. All of us can see the attempts to draw the Church into political games, be it in Ukraine, Montenegro or Macedonia. But the Orthodox Christian faith has one distinguishing feature: it has always made our parishioners and our citizens feel confident of what they are doing. I am confident that our churches will cope with the current troubled times with dignity, just like Orthodox Christian believers have always done.

I would like to once again thank everyone who made today’s event possible.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3089801






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at a news conference following talks with First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia Ivica Dacic, Belgrade, February 22, 2018



22 February 2018 - 16:04








Ladies and gentlemen,

We are indeed celebrating a glorious date, the 180th anniversary of the establishment of our diplomatic relations. The way our Serbian friends organised these festivities reflects, in my view, the true scale of our strategic partnership at the level of both government and civil society.

I was very impressed by today’s ceremonies, where we laid wreaths at the Memorial to the Liberators of Belgrade and the Monument to the Soviet Soldier-Liberator, and unveiled the mosaic interior of the dome of the Church of St Sava.

During my meeting yesterday with President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic and today’s talks with First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia Ivica Dacic, we discussed at length the current state of our bilateral relations. We are unanimous in our opinion that the Intergovernmental Committee on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technological Cooperation, which is co-chaired by Minister of Foreign Affairs Ivica Dacic on the Serbian side and Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin on the Russian side, is playing a very effective role in developing trade, economy and investment cooperation. During its regular meeting in Sochi a week ago, our colleagues noted the robust progress made on the agreements reached last December, when President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic visited the Russian Federation.

Today, we also focused on our foreign policy cooperation, on coordinating our steps on key multilateral platforms, including the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe.

We support Serbia’s efforts to pursue a self-reliant and independent multi-vector foreign policy. Russia, in its own foreign policy, is guided by exactly the same principles. We reaffirm our commitment to international law in addressing any problems that emerge in Europe or elsewhere. This fully applies to the need to strictly comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 on the autonomous region of Kosovo.

We have also discussed the situation in Europe. Unfortunately, an unhealthy environment is taking shape due to attempts by some NATO and European Union members to step up the confrontation, to further expand the North Atlantic alliance to the east without taking account of the public opinion in some countries, as was the case with Montenegro and as they are trying to do currently in Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Let me reiterate, we are committed to the earlier agreements that have been enshrined in the UNSC resolutions. It concerns the Kosovo settlement and the settling of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the basis of the Dayton Accords. We will resist attempts to “lance” those agreements and damage the cornerstone principle according to which all the issues of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be authorised by the two entities and the three nation-forming peoples.

On the whole, let me reiterate, our positions on the international agenda largely overlap, which is key to our further interaction on the global stage.



Question:

The UNSC is discussing today a draft resolution on the introduction of a 30-day humanitarian ceasefire in Syria. What does Russia think of the draft? Will Russia support the idea?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are concerned about the context in which humanitarian issues are being discussed. To put it briefly, it is hard to object to ceasefire calls for the civilian population to have a break, so as to deliver humanitarian aid, medicines, and to render assistance to people who are in a grave situation.

In the meantime, we would like to draw attention to the following. The ceasefire is elicited primarily by the escalating tensions and rhetoric regarding the development in Eastern Ghouta. Our western colleagues focus on this district, which is, in fact, a suburb of Damascus. Let me remind you that over at least the past two years residential areas in Damascus, including the city centre, have been regularly shelled from that district, and this has continued to this day. Mortar strikes targeted the Russian Embassy a number of times, and quite recently, a few days ago, the premises of the Russian Trade Delegation. After each such terrorist attack from Eastern Ghouta (and we know that Jabhat al-Nusra and extremist groups collaborating with it are behind those attacks) we addressed the Security Council urging it to give a principled assessment of those unacceptable attacks. And each time our US and European partners were reluctant to give such a response. This suggests certain ideas.

We are ready to consider the draft resolution but we suggested a clear wording saying that the ceasefire will in no way cover ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and those groups that are collaborating with them and systematically shelling residential areas in Damascus. Unfortunately, our western partners do not want terrorists to be clearly exempt from the ceasefire. This also gives rise to certain questions. Moreover, literally a few days ago our military working in Syria at the Centre for the Reconciliation of Opposing Sides suggested to the militants that they should leave Eastern Ghouta peacefully, the way the evacuation of the militants and their families was organised from Eastern Aleppo. Jabhat al-Nusra and its collaborators categorically refused to accept the proposal and continue shelling the city from their positions while using the civilians of Eastern Ghouta as a human shield.

The array of the factors I have just mentioned suggests to us that the goal of those who want to adopt the resolution without including our principled amendments lies not in the desire to really help the civilians but rather in shifting the focus of the Syrian agenda from the need to urgently start the Geneva talks, relying on the success of the National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, in accusing the regime of all possible sins, blaming the Syrian Government so as to promote the so-called Plan B, namely, the overthrow of the regime in violation of the UNSC Resolution 2254, which demands that everyone must accept the necessity for the Syrians themselves to decide the destiny of their country.

Incidentally, today’s UNSC meeting was summoned at our request. We suggested considering all aspects of the situation in Eastern Ghouta and around it. If our arguments are ignored once again, this will do nothing but validate our belief that the goal of the initiative’s authors is to put blame on Damascus and to shield the terrorist groups.



Question:

Hashim Thaci said that Russia could play a very positive role in the peacekeeping process if it recognised Kosovo’s independence, that Serbia would heed Russia.



Sergey Lavrov:

Ivica already mentioned those statements. We spelled out our position on Kosovo. The rhetoric used by Hashim Thaci will not alter our position. I would advise the Pristina leadership to attend to their own affairs. The majority of them are accused or were accused of military crimes. Regrettably, this sad chapter is being sunk into oblivion, including by our European colleagues, who protect the Pristina authorities. Our position was spelled out by me and it is reflected in the UN Security Council resolution, to which we are fully committed, unlike our western colleagues.


* * *


Sergey Lavrov (adds after Ivica Dacic):

Thank you very much. I know that Serbia is in the same group with Brazil. If I my memory does not fail me, on June 27, I believe, there will be a match with Brazil at the stadium of my favourite team, Spartak. So, we will root for a great match.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3090057






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s speech and answers to questions at Belgrade University, Belgrade, February 22, 2018



22 February 2018 - 18:12








Mr Minister,

Mr Rector,

Friends,

Colleagues,

First of all, thank you very much for inviting me to speak at the University of Belgrade, along with my counterpart and friend, First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia Ivica Dacic, before a representative audience of professors and students. We welcome your university’s contribution to joint efforts aimed at strengthening the bilateral cooperation of Serbia and Russia.

Our states are tied together by centuries-old bonds of friendship, solid traditions of mutual assistance, and common spiritual and cultural roots. This is the foundation of our strategic partnership, which is evolving on the basis of the declaration signed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic in Sochi. Key issues of our cooperation were discussed at length when President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic visited Moscow and held talks with President Vladimir Putin last December. We are now working, including within the framework of this visit, on ensuring the steady implementation of all those agreements. First Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Serbia Ivica Dacic performs exceptionally useful work in this respect by chairing the Serbian section of the Intergovernmental Committee on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technological Cooperation.

This is an anniversary year. It marks 180 years since the establishment of our diplomatic relations. We dedicated a whole series of events to this memorable date. These include my joint article with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia Ivica Dacic, which was published in the Politika newspaper yesterday, a series of exhibitions and today’s solemn exhibition at the Church of St Sava. Moscow invariably appreciates Serbia’s independent multi-vector foreign policy and its principled position towards developing constructive neighbourly relations with all countries, including all Balkan countries.

This balanced policy is especially important now that tension continues to persist in our common European home. The conflict potential as well as the number of crisis areas is growing.

We pointed out repeatedly that this situation is the logical result of a policy that the US-led Western countries waged after the Cold War to reinforce their domination to the detriment of the other members of the international community. Instead of building a territory of peace, stability and equal security throughout the Euro-Atlantic region, which Russia strongly advocated, our Western colleagues opted for taking over new geopolitical territories, primarily through NATO’s eastward expansion.

They regularly violated the basic standards of international law and acted contrary to the UN as the key international institution. Back in 1999, they bombed Yugoslavia for two and a half months, trampling underfoot the principle of the inviolability of the European borders. Ten years ago, they unilaterally declared the independence of Kosovo in an attempt to retroactively legitimise their aggression. We will continue to provide all-round assistance to our Serbian partners in their efforts to uphold Belgrade’s legitimate rights and interests in the Autonomous Province of Kosovo based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

Another deplorable result of the Western policy in the region that forced the regional countries to choose between the West and Russia was the coup in Ukraine, which was provoked and supported by Washington and Brussels. Failing to learn the lesson of this negative experience, our Western colleagues are again trying to force the Balkan countries with the same old choice between the EU/NATO and Russia. They are forcing the regional countries to make a choice. They are working actively to drag them into NATO. It is obvious that this has nothing in common with their declared goal of strengthening the Balkan countries’ national independence, because nobody is threatening them. However, joining NATO will force them to take sides in a military and political confrontation the philosophy of which the Americans and NATO are forcing onto Europe.

NATO is unable to provide an answer to the only real modern threat – terrorism. Moreover, the NATO states’ actions in Iraq, Libya and, currently, Syria as well as other regional countries are engendering extremism and chaos and are creating fertile ground for the recruitment of new terrorists.

Everyone knows that a considerable part of anti-Russia directives in the Balkans and the rest of Europe are initiated in Washington. Their obvious goal is to reinforce the US military-political domination and economic leadership, including by forcing Russia to withdraw from the local energy markets and by making Europeans import more expensive LNG from the United States. This policy, which the EU has adopted, has had a negative effect on the interests of Serbia and several other countries when Bulgaria succumbed to foreign pressure and prevented the implementation of the South Stream gas pipeline project.

We hope the regional countries will draw conclusions from this lesson. At least, we now see a more reasonable attitude to such major projects as Turkish Steam and Nord Stream 2.

Russia has never viewed the Balkans as a place for geopolitical zero-sum games. Our unconditional priorities are respect for territorial integrity, stronger security and stability in the region, as well as the prevention of ethnic and religious strife. We are focused on the promotion of a positive and unifying agenda rather than an agenda that can split the region. There are many things we can offer the regional countries, from energy projects and economic initiatives to our experience in the sphere of emergency relief.

We highly appreciate and support Serbia’s policy of military neutrality. We also hope that Belgrade’s aspirations for European integration, which it is discussing with the EU, will not hinder the build-up of our cooperation with Serbia at the bilateral level and within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). I am sure that our Serbian partners will be able to derive considerable benefits for themselves by promoting mutually complementing relations with the EU and the EAEU.

This well-thought-out line is now acquiring special significance when the situation on our European continent and all over the world remains tense. The conflict potential continues to expand, and new hotbeds of crises are emerging.

We have repeatedly noted that this situation is a logical consequence of the post-Cold War policy implemented by US-led Western countries for the purpose of consolidating their dominant role in global affairs to the detriment of other participants in international life. Instead of building a peaceful and stable infrastructure stipulating equal security for the entire Euro-Atlantic region, as insistently advocated by Russia, our Western colleagues moved to take in new geopolitical regions, primarily through NATO’s eastward expansion.

They systematically neglected fundamental norms of international law and acted in circumvention of such a key institution as the UN. Back in 1999, they grossly violated the principle of the inviolability of the European borders, formalised by the Helsinki Final Act, and bombed Yugoslavia for two and a half months. Ten years ago, they unilaterally recognised the independence of Kosovo in an effort to legitimise their aggression post factum. We will continue to provide all possible assistance to our Serbian partners in defending Belgrade’s legitimate rights, as regards the Autonomous Province of Kosovo, while relying on the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

Friends,

The world is changing before our very eyes. International relations are becoming increasingly more complicated and complex. It is obvious that no one country or even several countries alone can effectively deal with terrorism, cybercrime, drug trafficking, climate change and other major modern threats. New centres of economic power – and hence political influence – are emerging and growing stronger. More and more countries seek to pursue a pragmatic foreign policy based on their own national interests. The world’s nations want to be free to choose their socioeconomic development model and their destiny. This is why the polycentric architecture and the multipolar world order are not anyone’s whim but objective reality, which the majority of experts in international affairs accept, including in the West.

Europe in its present state is facing multiple challenges and is no longer the centre of global politics. European countries must combine their potentials to ensure each of them a befitting place in the rising world order. The attainment of this goal is impossible without the architecture of truly equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic region. Russia previously advanced the idea of signing a Treaty on European Security to formalise this principle. We will work to ensure the implementation of the political declarations that were adopted at the top level at the OSCE and the Russia-NATO Council, when the leaders of the countries concerned publicly pledged not to strengthen their security at the expense of others’ security. We urge everyone to abandon once and for all the vicious practice of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, including by supporting the unconstitutional change of government.

We believe that not only security but also economic development must be indivisible. In the past, our strategic goal was the development of a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and this goal remains important. Moreover, in light of the rapid global changes, we have advanced a new philosophy that is built on and expands the above principle, making it even more comprehensive. As you know, President Vladimir Putin has proposed considering the idea of a Greater Eurasian Partnership that would include the member states of the EAEU, the SCO and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The doors to this partnership will be also open for the European Union. I am sure that the gradual implementation of this initiative would ensure the harmonious development of all countries on our common Eurasian continent, including those that are not members of the above associations.

Friends,

Russia is working hard to find effective solutions to the common global challenges and threats. Our actions on the international stage are designed to protect the universal values of multilateralism, justice and equal cooperation based on mutual respect. We share these approaches with our Serbian friends. We are ready to continue to further develop and strengthen our strategic interaction.



Question:

Yesterday was International Mother Language Day. Unlike Russian, which is well protected, Serbian is terrorised in Serbia. Unfortunately, we care about it less; the Cyrillic alphabet has almost disappeared from the media, and foreign companies use Latin letters or foreign languages in their advertisements. How has Russia managed to protect its language? What can Serbia do in this vein?



Sergey Lavrov:

Let me be honest, I haven’t noticed that Serbia is losing respect for its language or the Cyrillic alphabet. I just do not have enough facts about it. I can say that every self-respecting nation should, first of all, protect its language, so that its children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren would know that language and the literature written in it. I have never had any reason to doubt that Serbians care about their language as much as Russians do about Russian.



Question:

My question concerns Serbia’s military neutrality. How firm do you believe it is?



Sergey Lavrov:

It was a sovereign decision of the Serbian leadership. The Serbian leadership reaffirms its status regularly; we have no reason to doubt it. Let me say it one more time: it was a sovereign decision of Serbia, and we respect it. Let me stress that this status is, in fact, a factor that provides stability not only in the Balkans but in all of Europe.



Question:

I am a young politician, and I represent a district in Belgrade which supports Russia, like the rest of Serbia. We take an active part in Russian-Serbian projects; I participate in the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund and attended the 13th World Festival of Youth and Students in Sochi. We learned about an interesting format, the Council of Young Diplomats in the framework of the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund. We believe this is a very good format, and we would like to do something similar. How do you think youth diplomacy will develop in the future? What is the benefit of youth diplomacy today?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, thank you for taking part in events organised in Russia. It is true that we have the Council of Young Diplomats as well as the Council of Veterans at our Ministry. These two organisations work together closely. Veterans help our young colleagues as mentors, and the youth helps take care of veterans. This is a very human kind of cooperation, and we absolutely support it. I can see no reason against creating a similar council in Serbia, at the ministry headed by Ivica Dacic. I have known Mr Dacic for a very long time; he likes young people and encourages them in every way. So it’s only fitting.

Let me also note that our Council of Young Diplomats held its first international meeting of young diplomats as part of the World Festival of Youth and Students in Sochi. They decided to create a permanent structure (congress, or maybe it will have a different name) for young diplomats from different countries to communicate regularly.

I believe its importance is obvious. When young people start communicating with their colleagues and counterparts from other countries at the very beginning of their careers, they will not have to search for a common language later, when they will hold senior positions in various departments; they will have found it during their younger years.



Question:

Is the popularisation of the Russian language and the Cyrillic alphabet an important foundation of relations between our countries? What is your view on this score? How else can it be possible to expand the Russian language’s potential among young people?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have a number of state-sponsored programmes to strengthen and consolidate the Russian language’s positions abroad. We open schools, and we are doing this under separate projects and as part of activities of Russian centres of science and culture. Some of them offer Russian language courses, and schools are opened, including in the neighbouring CIS countries.

I can only say that, in our opinion, the Russian language’s stronger positions highlight respect towards Russian citizens who live outside their Motherland for various reasons and towards our foreign colleagues who want to learn the Russian language, to read Russian classics in the original language and to enjoy Russian art created through it.

As I have already said in my reply to the first question, a frugal attitude towards one’s own language is a sign of a mature and self-respecting nation. It appears that it is possible to exchange experience in this context, including within the Forum of Slavic Cultures International Foundation that was established about ten years ago. The languages have very much in common. As I see it, experience exchanges regarding the preservation of these languages and their development are also in high demand. Exchanges between universities, mentioned by the rector today, are also part of our common work. In turn, we are doing everything possible to enable Russian citizens wishing to study Serbian and other languages, especially those of countries with which we maintain a spiritual and historical similarity, to receive this opportunity.



Question:

I would like to ask on behalf of my colleagues and myself who are studying Russian and are future lecturers. How do you perceive our role in Serbia and Russia? How can we promote Russian-Serbian cultural ties?



Sergey Lavrov:

You can do this by nurturing a creative, responsible and efficient attitude towards your profession. I have nothing else to add here.



Question:

In the 1990s, you witnessed discussions in the UN regarding our country and media coverage of all this. Authorities in Pristina are also waging an information campaign against our country today, with the support of Western countries. How can we deal with this?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is necessary to deal with this because we always have to defend the truth. It is hard to deal with this because this campaign is orchestrated and implemented on a large scale. This also concerns attempts to slander Russia. You know that these attempts do not abate, but, just like the Serbians, we maintain restraint, personal dignity, and we will always tread the path of truth and justice. In the 1990s, I did not only watch the military and psychological attack on Serbia, but I also took part in discussions at the UN at that time. We played a decisive role in passing the current version of UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

I want to mention an episode when G8 members coordinated a preliminary text. Then they brought it to us at the UN Security Council, and they said this resolution had to be passed. We noted that it said nothing about Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It was precisely Russia which had insisted on passing this resolution only if it included this highly important principle. We discussed those years with Mr Dacic today and with President Aleksandar Vucic yesterday not for the sake of bemoaning the developments of that period but for learning our lessons from the assurances that were made and are being made by our Western partners. If necessary, they quickly and easily renounce their statements. This is not the way we are used to doing business in the country, with our comrades or with our foreign colleagues.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3090323






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at the presentation of the Order of Friendship to First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia Ivica Dacic, Belgrade, February 22, 2018



22 February 2018 - 18:16








Mr Dacic, friends,

I have the honour of carrying out President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s instruction to award First Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Serbia Ivica Dacic the Order of Friendship for the services enumerated in the Order. Let me say that Ivica Dacic contributes to the advancement of our foreign-policy cooperation and coordination in various international organisations, as well as to our trade, economic and investment ties. He successfully heads the Serbian section of the Russian-Serbian Intergovernmental Committee on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technological Cooperation. Besides his official functions, Ivica Dacic really promotes contacts between people. He is an amazing person to talk with, who can really see the essence of what states are doing on the global stage through personal contacts. This is crucial for us to remember our roots and preserve our traditions. This is exactly how the peoples of Russia and Serbia feel. It is very meaningful that Ivica has dedicated this award to his father who passed away on January 30. Let me express my condolences once again.

I wish my friend success in all his future endeavors.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3090333






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s comment on the results of his visit to Serbia, Belgrade, February 22, 2018



22 February 2018 - 21:24




Sergey Lavrov:

Ivica and all the Serbian leaders have done the impossible, because I cannot recall such an emotional, official in every sense, kind and brotherly reception. I think we have celebrated the 180th anniversary of establishing our diplomatic relations in the best possible way.



Question:

Did you really like the layer cake?



Sergey Lavrov:

I liked everything.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3090515
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 1st, 2018 #369
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov’s interview with TASS News Agency, February 24, 2018



26 February 2018 - 12:24




Question:

Mr Morgulov, earlier you said that you had sent an invitation to US Special Envoy for North Korea Policy Joseph Yun to visit Moscow for a new round of consultations. Has Moscow received any answer from the US? Is your meeting with Mr Yun likely to take place in the coming weeks?



Igor Morgulov:

Mr Yun has my invitation to come to Moscow. We are now working out dates that will suit both sides. I don’t want to use any guess work when it comes to saying when the meeting will take place, but I’m sure that the rapidly changing situation on the Korean Peninsula requires an active dialogue between Russia and the US.



Question:

Washington and Pyongyang have not yet started direct negotiations even though conditions for them have been created in PyeongChang. Has Russia been receiving signals from the US and North Korea on their readiness to begin talks? How can Russia assist in launching direct talks between representatives of the US and North Korea as soon as possible?



Igor Morgulov:

Media leaks have shown that direct contact between the US and North Korea could have taken place in PyeongChang, but, unfortunately, the initiative was never implemented. Moscow is firmly in favour of the establishment of direct dialogue between Washington and Pyongyang. Incidentally, it is part of the second stage of the roadmap for the Korean settlement that we designed in cooperation with our Chinese partners. We hope that both the Americans and the North Koreans realise that there is no alternative to a dialogue. During our conversations with both sides, we try to persuade them to move on from the waiting tactics to decisive steps that aim to establish direct dialogue by making use of the window of opportunities that opened as a result of the “Olympic lull” during the Winter Games in PyeongChang.



Question:

How does Moscow view the thaw that seemed in recent weeks to be taking shape between the two Koreas? Do you believe that the trend will continue after the Olympics? What can you say about the statements that the North Korean moves to seek rapprochement with the Republic of Korea are aimed at sowing discord in the unified anti-North Korean bloc, whose backbone is made up of Seoul, Washington and Tokyo, and by doing so to evade international sanctions?



Igor Morgulov:

We are unequivocally positive about the start of the dialogue between the two Koreas, whatever the parties’ motives. We see no obstacles for this trend to take a more solid shape and to grow after the Olympics. Moreover, we are in favour of the expansion of bilateral agenda, including economic cooperation, the implementation of trilateral projects between Russia, North Korea and the Republic of Korea. For example, Russian coal transportation to South Korea through the North Korean port of Rajin would not violate sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, including Resolution 2397 adopted in December 2017. Naturally, we proceed from the assumption that the future of the intra-Korean rapprochement will not be torpedoed by thoughtless steps to resume military activities in the subregion.



Question:

Kim Jong-un earlier invited his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-in to visit Pyongyang. Do you believe the meeting can be held in the short term? Or is it likely that the arrangement of the visit could drag on indefinitely? Can Moscow suggest its own venue for the negotiations between the two Koreas in the foreseeable future?



Igor Morgulov:

We support the idea of holding an intra- Korean summit. Of course, it is up to these two countries to decide when to hold such a meeting. We believe that the only condition for it to take place is that neither side sets forth any conditions. If approached, we could, I think, consider providing our venue for this meeting. However, neither Pyongyang, nor Seoul has so far asked us about this.



Question:

The other day, Deputy Foreign Minister of North Korea Sin Hong Chol said that his country was planning to expand ties with Russia ‘overcoming obstacles’. In what way could this cooperation develop, in which areas, and would it be against UN Security Council sanctions?



Igor Morgulov:

Russian-North Korean cooperation has, of course, been impacted by sanctions. Last year, trade fell to $70-80 million, which is what my colleague probably meant. Still, there are no obstacles to developing ties in areas that fall outside of the UN Security Council sanctions. I’ve already mentioned the Hasan - Rajin Project, and there are other areas of cooperation as well.

The meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technological Cooperation, which is scheduled to take place in late March in Pyongyang, will present an opportunity for each country’s relevant agencies to take stock of the existing economic relationship, and chart future cooperation in view of sanctions.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3094400






TASS news agency interview with Gennady Gatilov, Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN Office and other International Organisations in Geneva, February 26, 2018



27 February 2018 - 17:31




Question:

Mr Gatilov, you became head of the Permanent Mission of Russia to the UN Office in Geneva at a very difficult time. What topics covered by the UN Geneva Office constitute diplomatic priorities for Russia?



Gennady Gatilov:

For us, almost all topics discussed in Geneva are of high priority. It is safe to say that there are no issues of secondary importance for us here. Speaking of the political track, it is, above all, the Syrian settlement and the resolution of conflicts and chronic crises in Cyprus and Yemen. Of course, Geneva is a global centre for human rights and humanitarian activities, where our country has its own strategic interests and initiatives.

Also notable are the talks on disarmament and non-proliferation in Geneva. Equally important is the work in areas such as healthcare, economic, environmental and scientific and technical cooperation, information and communication, including the internet. All of that directly affects our national interests. There are also issues related to various international organisations and UN institutions. We are pursuing our own policy in cooperation with other members of these organisations.

The agenda is very busy. Speaking about our initiatives in Geneva, for example, our country gives priority attention to preventing an arms race in outer space through the Conference on Disarmament. We are working in close contact with our Chinese partners and, in 2008, submitted to the Conference a draft treaty on preventing the deployment of weapons in outer space, the use of force or the threat of force against space objects. This document was revised in 2014 based on comments of other states. We will continue to treat this topic as a priority.

Due to the fact that some delegations, particularly the US delegation, were not prepared to discuss this topic in 2006, we proposed - as a unifying idea for all states - to use the conference to develop a convention to combat acts of chemical and biological terrorism. A draft of the key provisions of this document was submitted. We believe that once adopted it would increase the effectiveness of international efforts in countering the WMD terrorism.

Our initiatives within the World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and a number of other organisations account for a sizable amount of our work. Russia is a universally recognised leader in international cooperation in the sphere of prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. As you may be aware, the first global WHO conference on this topic, which was held in Moscow last November, gave a powerful impetus to multilateral efforts in fighting tuberculosis.

The WMO highly values ​​Russia’s experience in the sphere of polar meteorology, as well as our contribution to the deployment of the Global Framework for Climate Services.

Of course, we are actively promoting our initiatives concerning the development of Euro-Asian Transport Links and the formation of the Unified Rail Law at the UN Economic Commission for Europe.

These are, perhaps, the main topics that are being discussed in Geneva. They are quite diverse and multi-dimensional, and cover a widest range of issues.



Question:

In the past years, Geneva has become synonymous with the efforts to resolve the Syrian conflict. Do you think it will maintain its role or will the talks move to other platforms if the Geneva process stagnates?



Gennady Gatilov:

Our stance in favour of continuing the Geneva talks in Syria remains unchanged. We have consistently supported and continue to support the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura in promoting the intra-Syrian peace process under the auspices of the UN and pursuant to UNSC Resolution 2254.

We were the ones who were unhappy that the Geneva process had been ineffective for so long. Meetings initiated by Russia in Astana were intended to give the necessary impetus to the political process. The same applies to the Syrian National Dialogue Congress that was held recently in Sochi. Its final statement clearly indicates that the political settlement must proceed within the scope of Resolution 2254, and the UN is granted the right to participate in forming the constitutional commission that will be developing Syria’s fundamental law.

It should be noted that neither Astana nor Sochi contradicts the Geneva process. On the contrary, they contribute to its progress. This has been confirmed by the countries directly involved in the Syrian settlement process and the search for a solution to the crisis. We believe that the UN should exercise wisdom, political will and make efforts to engage truly constructive forces in the constitution’s development, forces that are concerned with the fate of their country rather than short-term, self-serving interests.

The constitutional commission is already being formed. Three guarantors, Russia, Turkey and Iran, are closely cooperating on this issue and selecting members of the commission. I hope this work will be finished soon.

There are, certainly, many pitfalls and difficulties on the way. We can see that until this day, a certain part of the Syrian opposition, its most radical representatives, insists on unacceptable preconditions for beginning talks with the government delegation. The main precondition is the resignation of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Our opinion is that in this context, Staffan de Mistura should turn his attention to those in the opposition with a constructive approach – namely, the moderate opposition that was formed following the congress in Sochi. It is the platform of Haytham Manaa, Qadri Jamil, Randa Kassis and Ahmad Jarba. These representatives who played a constructive role in the Sochi forum are ready for substantive work on the constitution to make sure the result addresses the interests of all the categories and classes of the Syrian society rather than only a small group of immigrant members of the opposition who, by the way, have lost touch with their land and with those who remain in Syria.



Question:

Journalists are used to seeing you not only as an expert on international diplomacy, especially on the Arab world, but also a newsmaker. What steps will be taken to settle the situation in Syria? For example, when will the next intra-Syrian round take place in Geneva? When will the constitutional commission become functional?



Gennady Gatilov:

Predictions are unrewarding and do not come true very often because too many factors can influence the situation. Further steps on the road to settlement in Syria will depend on the development of the situation. I believe that the priority task today is the creation of a constitutional commission. If this is not delayed, talks between the Syrian government delegation and the opposition will finally move beyond a deadlock.

True, in many respects this will depend on the actions of Staffan de Mistura. We will be ready to support him as we have said many times. When he convenes a new round of intra-Syrian talks we will proceed from this principled position.



Question:

When guns do all the talking in Syria, diplomats find it particularly difficult to achieve anything. Do you think this means that there is no room for international efforts to move the political process forward?



Gennady Gatilov:

From the very start we have been promoting a political solution based on universally recognised principles of international law and have agreed that there is no alternative to the predominance of diplomacy over guns, as you put it. Regrettably, many players came to this conclusion too late. Unfortunately, we are still witnessing attempts to disrupt the movement towards a peaceful, political solution by stirring up certain “issues.” Primarily, this applies to chemical arms. Some Western countries are accusing the Syrian authorities of using them, while Russia is made indirectly responsible for this.

It is also worth mentioning another issue − humanitarian difficulties – that is being continuously stirred up by the media, by the same ill-wishers. Today this is the situation in East Ghouta. Every day the media try to terrorise the public with this issue. The media lay the blame at Damascus and Russia that stands behind it but these statements do not reflect reality.

We are worried about the humanitarian situation in East Ghouta and Syria in general. In some places humanitarian problems are more pronounced, in others they are being resolved, mostly, with the aid of the Russian military that helps civilians on practically a daily basis. As for East Ghouta it is common knowledge that terrorists – Jabhat al-Nusra fighters – have entrenched themselves there. They are shelling civilian facilities in Damascus from there – hospitals, schools and diplomatic missions. Our Embassy in Damascus was also shelled several times. Recently mortars hit the Russian trade mission.

Therefore, allegations that the Syrian military is to blame for the current humanitarian difficulties are groundless. If our colleagues want humanitarian relief delivered to East Ghouta, it is necessary to compel Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists to stop the hostilities and the shelling of the capital from this place. This is the only way to have a truce and create favourable conditions for humanitarian supplies for civilians.

It is also common knowledge that the fighters are preventing medical evacuations and the release of civilians from East Ghouta, using them as a live shield. It is well known that militants establish their headquarters in hospitals, schools and other civilian facilities.

As for chemical arms, this issue is being used to escalate anti-Syrian actions and is also aimed against the country. One of the examples is France’s initiative to establish the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons. Some time ago, France convened a closed-door meeting in Paris on this issue. Incidentally, neither Moscow nor Beijing was invited to take part in the event and it is clear why. This was basically to accuse Damascus of using chemical weapons and denounce the Syrian authorities and Russia. Moreover, this was done without any evidence or facts. References were made to some falsified reports that are floating around online.

Regrettably, this line continues. We know that France is going to conduct a meeting on the said partnership in Geneva on February 28. Needless to say, we are emphatically opposed to this event. This is an attempt to transfer it to an international venue to feign the impression that the international community, including the UN, allegedly supports this initiative. This is untrue. This idea is shared by only a small group of countries. We would like to hope that sooner or later these states will realise that there is no alternative to collective efforts without double standards to counter universal threats, such as terrorists from ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra and that they will facilitate the unification of all Syrians who are interested in seeing results on the platform of talks about the future of their country.



Question:

The Geneva track of Russian diplomacy is not just about Syria. It is known that the Russian Foreign Ministry focuses on human rights issues. Will this continue? What steps can be expected of Russian diplomacy during the upcoming session of the UN Human Rights Council on February 26?



Gennady Gatilov:

The subject of human rights is one of the main areas of our activity. In Geneva, we are expecting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who will speak in the “high segment” of the UN Human Rights Council session, to spell out our approaches to these issues and our vision of how this very important structure should work. In his speech, the Russian foreign minister will propose a package of specific initiatives.

We intend to hold a high-level thematic discussion to mark the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 25th anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. In addition, we will submit our traditional resolution, The Integrity of the Judicial System, which condemns arbitrary custodial detention without access to justice. Regrettably, this is still being practiced in some countries, above all, the United States.

In cooperation with Russian civil society, we will organise several events on the sidelines of the Human Rights Council session including a photo exhibition on the achievements of disabled Russians and persons with limited disabilities, a conference on Ukraine and the unacceptability of falsifying history. These are the key themes that we will work on during the upcoming session.



Question:

During Human Rights Council sessions, Russian diplomats have always stood consistently and firmly for an unbiased approach to the human rights situation in one country or another and have opposed double standards in this area. Will Russian diplomacy pursue this line?



Gennady Gatilov:

Our principled position on this issue remains unchanged. We believe that any human rights activity must, above all, serve people and promote respect for human dignity. Unfortunately, our Western partners constantly attempt to use the council to attain their own political and, as a rule, unseemly goals. We understand this and will, of course, take counter-measures and act proactively.

We cannot agree with using the issues of human rights as a means of attaining political goals and to exert pressure on uncooperative governments in order to eventually overthrow them or impose sanctions. The Human Rights Council is an organisation that must help countries adjust human rights mechanisms, rather than act as a punitive instrument.



Question:

Russia has always seen Geneva as a major center of multilateral forums and bilateral meetings. Will Geneva retain this status in the future? What meetings and talks have been scheduled for this year?



Gennady Gatilov:

Of course, Geneva will retain this status. This is convenient in every way, so all countries eagerly send delegations to Geneva to hold, among other things, bilateral talks with their colleagues. In particular, the heads of Russian federal ministries handling relevant issues come to Geneva to attend UN-sponsored events and meet their foreign partners.



Question:

In recent years, the parliamentary dimension of international cooperation has gained importance. Geneva is the seat of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and Russia’s representatives are involved in this. Please tell us about the upcoming IPU events.



Gennady Gatilov:

We attach great importance to the activities of the IPU as a major international forum for promoting diplomacy at the parliamentary level. Russian delegations traditionally take part in its work.

Last October, St Petersburg hosted the 137th IPU Assembly, which was attended by an unprecedented number of delegations, including 87 speakers of national parliaments. They approved a resolution proposed by our country, Sharing Our Diversity: The 20th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Democracy. Other assembly results included a proposal to designate June 30 as International Day of Parliamentarism, as the first IPU session was held on this day in 1889.

We will continue to be actively involved in IPU activities. The next IPU session will be held in Geneva on March 24−28, which is expected, in particular, to approve important resolutions, such as Sustaining Peace As a Vehicle for Achieving Sustainable Development and Engaging the Private Sector in Implementing Sustainable Development Goals, Especially on Renewable Energy. We expect the leaders of the State Duma and the Federation Council to attend the session.



Question:

What is the outlook for the Geneva Conference on Disarmament, given that its work is being hampered by the differences among the member countries? What role should the forum play, in Russia’s view?



Gennady Gatilov:

Unfortunately, the conference has failed to make any progress for many years. Nonetheless, despite all the difficulties, the situation is not desperate. As the latest session of the conference has shown, the participants are becoming increasingly aware of the need to restore the normal operation of this body while they continue to look for a solution to this problem.

The input from our delegation in these efforts is considerable. During our chairmanship of the conference last year, we prepared a draft programme of work that shows a balanced approach to two main areas: nuclear disarmament and our initiative concerning the likely use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists. These documents are still on the table of the conference and we expect action to finally be taken on them.

I would like to note that the recent approval of the decision to establish ad hoc bodies to thoroughly examine issues on the agenda with the aim of resuming negotiations can be viewed as an important move. It is a new turn in the activities of the Conference on Disarmament and we are looking forward to substantive talks in the future. The main thing now is to not mark time and use this concrete practical result, no matter how modest it is, to provide an impulse to the work of the conference.

We believe that this shows very clearly that constructive dialogue and flexibility help the delegations find solutions acceptable to all.



Question:

On February 1, La Tribune de Geneve, commenting on your new appointment, wrote that the arrival of “a heavyweight Russian diplomat bodes well for Geneva” because it demonstrated that Moscow was interested in this international forum. Do you agree with this comment?



Gennady Gatilov:

I am flattered by these words but, frankly, I don’t associate my arrival and work here with an attempt to provide an additional impetus to the Geneva Office as this is already a forum in its own right and will remain so.

As for using other venues to hold international events, this only means that there is a multi-pronged approach that allows other cities and countries to make a contribution to the search for solutions to resolve serious conflicts. That said, I am sure that Geneva will remain a major centre for diplomatic efforts.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3100982






Nezavisimaya Gazeta interview with Russian Ambassador to Argentina Viktor Koronelli published on February 27, 2018



28 February 2018 - 14:01




Question:

Mr Koronelli, why has Russia and Argentina’s special services operation been the object of such an inordinate amount of rumour and speculation? Is it just because almost 400 kilogrammes of cocaine were found at the embassy school in Buenos Aires?



Viktor Koronelli:

I think that in and of itself it is very unusual to store that much drugs on embassy premises, even auxiliary. This piques the interest of those who are happy that this channel was shut off and drugs didn’t make it to potential consumers, and those who want to gloat and take advantage of any opportunity to say nasty things about the Foreign Ministry and the embassy. Finally, there’s one more thing that should objectively stir interest: this is the first time in the history that the special services of Russia and Argentina have conducted such an extended and thorough operation. It proved to be quite unique in the sense that there were no leaks for a long time. This was critical, without it everything would have failed. I think that this successful operation reflects the current level of relations between Russia and Argentina, which is what makes effective interaction between the special services possible in the first place.



Question:

How do you explain that the operation lasted more than a year?



Viktor Koronelli:

After the embassy staff and I discovered suspicious suitcases and established that they were filled with cocaine, we, in conjunction with the FSB, contacted local law enforcement agencies and, for a long time, worked out an operation that would not just destroy the cargo, but shut off the delivery channel and roll up the entire drug network.



Question:

Do you believe that drug traffickers could have used such a channel before?



Viktor Koronelli:

I do not have such information, and frankly, I doubt that such a channel could have existed before. At least, not in our embassy. It is completely out of the question.



Question:

Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said that the case of cocaine supplies from Argentina to Russia is outside the Kremlin’s purview. Does the Administration of President Mauricio Macri have anything to say about this shady deal?



Viktor Koronelli:

It was commented upon in sufficient detail by Minister of Security Patricia Bullrich, who is a member of the Cabinet of Ministers and with whom we worked closely throughout the operation. She personally oversaw the operation from the Argentinean side. Once it was over, the Minister provided appropriate comments, with special focus on the particularly high effectiveness of interaction between the special services of the two countries. From Argentina, the operation involved the Ministry of Security and the National Gendarmerie, which is under the umbrella of this ministry, and from our side it was the FSB.



Question:

Let's picture this. Suppose you didn’t find 12 suspicious suitcases and didn’t alert the Argentine special services, what would have happened to this cargo?



Viktor Koronelli:

I believe that sooner or later everything would have transpired. According to law enforcement agencies, the suitcases were brought to the school grounds by former technical employee of the embassy, ​​who had free access to the building and who was in charge of numerous warehouses and basements. For some time, the owners of the cargo were working on ways to move it to Europe, but could find none. Meanwhile, that technical employee’s posting was up, and he departed for Moscow leaving the suitcases here. The cargo owners had no access to the building. I cannot disclose all the details, since an investigation is underway, but there was some probing as to how to take the suitcases out. We thus got information that there was some kind of cargo on the grounds of the school and housing complex. Although at that time there was no talk of drugs, this in itself aroused suspicions, and I issued an order to check all storage facilities. As a result, suitcases were found, followed by what I have already told you.



Question:

That is, shipping these suitcases by diplomatic mail or other diplomatic channels was out of question?



Viktor Koronelli:

Totally impossible. It is sheer nonsense. Diplomatic mail is formed and put together by diplomats and the people who are in charge of it. No technical worker is ever involved in this. Diplomatic mail is shipped in special packages with special locks and seals, not ordinary suitcases, and is accompanied by diplomatic couriers. Thinking that 12 suitcases with 400 kilos of drugs could have been shipped under the guise of diplomatic mail is total nonsense. Theoretically, one cannot rule out that such a cargo could be transported as someone's personal baggage. Apparently, this is what their plan was. According to the Minister of Security, one of the attempts to ship the cargo involved renting a private jet to take it to Lithuania. We couldn’t let this happen, as we would have then lost track of the cargo.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3101987
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 1st, 2018 #370
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 questions at a joint news conference following talks with Uzbekistani Foreign Minister Abdulaziz Kamilov Moscow, February 23, 2018



23 February 2018 - 17:04








Question:

The West claims that Russia is delaying a settlement in Eastern Ghouta. The US Department of State has written that developments in this suburb of Damascus are evidence of the failure of the Astana process and the need to resume the Geneva talks. What is your response to this?



Sergey Lavrov:

The root of the problem in Eastern Ghouta and nearby areas is that the terrorist organisation Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups that are coordinating their actions with it, hold key positions in this suburb of Damascus. From there, they regularly shell other parts of Damascus, including the centre. They shelled the Russian Embassy several times, and the other day the Russian trade mission building was hit. We have raised this issue several times at the UN Security Council, emphasising that no exceptions should be made for terrorists, who bring suffering to civilians. These terrorists refuse to free civilians, using them as human shields to protect themselves, and, to say the least of it, accuse the Syrian Government and those who support it of violating international humanitarian law.

Many questions arise regarding the nature of the current attacks on Damascus and its allies in the fight against terrorism. As I have said, these attacks include accusations of violation of international humanitarian law. Questions arise because the overwhelming majority of the so-called evidence is provided by the White Helmets, a group that was created and is supported by the US and Britain, as everyone who is interested in this problem knows. The White Helmets have been caught in the act many times and found guilty of producing fake news, which was subsequently used to complicate matters as part of the efforts aimed at so-called regime change in Syria.

It is not the first time during the Syrian conflict that Jabhat al-Nusra, which, I repeat, is the main problem in Eastern Ghouta, has been on the same side as the critics and accusers of the Syrian Government. Al-Nusra is left to itself. We still have no evidence that the US-led coalition views al-Nusra as a military target. We have tried to draw the attention of our American partners to this, of course, but it does not appear that our efforts have had any effect.

As for who failed and in what way, I do not doubt that the Astana process is hindering the implementation of plans to split Syria. Although the Americans refuse to admit this, efforts to implement these plans are underway. As we have said, the Americans are developing large territories on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. They are yet again involved in geopolitical engineering and the creation of quasi-states. This is common knowledge. Of course, the Astana process is hindering these plans, which is why it is being criticised. There is nothing surprising in this either, because information wars extend into all spheres of international life, and our Western partners have been able to give vent to their emotions.

On the practical level, these emotions have led to discussions at the UN Security Council, which is considering a resolution that would declare an immediate humanitarian ceasefire of at least 30 days. However, nobody can say for sure whether the fighters will honour this ceasefire and stop shelling residential districts in Damascus. For this resolution to work, and considering that we are ready to discuss a text that would ensure this, we have proposed a formula that would make a ceasefire really effective and based on guarantees for everyone in and outside Eastern Ghouta. However, external actors, in particular those who can influence the extremist groups that are operating from Eastern Ghouta, would need to reinforce this with their own guarantees.

So, if the Americans and their allies do not seek to escalate tensions or create additional pretexts for promoting the idea of regime change in Syria but are genuinely concerned about the humanitarian situation and the plight of civilians in Eastern Ghouta, there is the possibility of reaching an agreement. However, so far they have refused to approve an amendment that would make them responsible for getting clear guarantees from the militants to stop shelling.

I have noticed that when the Americans talk about the failure of the Astana process they say that the only de-escalation zone in Syria that works is the US-Jordanian ceasefire zone in southwestern Syria. It appears that it is beneath them to admit that Russia played a crucial role in the establishment of the southern de-escalation zone with the US and Jordanian military. Not mentioning Russia in this context is behaviour that raises big questions.

Anyway, we see differences over the Syrian settlement. We have nothing at all to be ashamed of regarding the Astana process. We continue to work in Astana with our colleagues from Turkey and Iran. We are now preparing for a meeting at the level of foreign ministers. We will continue to move forward based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which stipulates, first, respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of the Syrian Arab Republic, and second, precludes foreign interference in an inclusive intra-Syrian process. The Syrians themselves must be free to decide their future. Compliance with this provision is the key to the implementation of the resolution.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3090823






Comment by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for Vesti v Subbotu programme at Rossiya 1 TV channel following his visit to Serbia, Belgrade, February 22, 2018



24 February 2018 - 13:35




Question:

In my opinion I think it was one of the happiest visits that has taken place recently, what do you think? Such a fabulous atmosphere…



Sergey Lavrov:

I think there were several reasons for this. First of all, the date itself: we mark the 180th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries, and the contacts themselves go back even further than that. Secondly, what Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic said while being presented with the order was in fact true. Crowds of people that gathered here, at the Russian Embassy in Belgrade, and people who, despite the snow and the rain, attended the ceremony to lay wreaths at the memorial to Belgrade Liberators, they were not paid for it or forced to do it. They came of their own accord. They carried portraits of our President and Russian flags – all of it came from the bottom of their hearts. Mr Dacic was right: we have such good relations because we love our countries; Serbs love Russia and Russians love Serbia.

Finally, the timing of everything played a key role, because at the moment both of our countries are being put under unconcealed pressure. In his speech, Ivica Dacic mentioned the attempts to use Serbia’s interest for European integration to force Belgrade to take an anti-Russian stance.

There are very few people in Europe, by the way, who can explain their views on the current events so simply. I think the combination of all these factors provided a very emotionally intense visit. We are very grateful to the Serbian party for it.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3090925






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Portuguese Foreign Minister Augusto Santos Silva, Moscow, February 26, 2018



26 February 2018 - 13:54








Question (via interpreter):

Is there a comprehension among the political elites of both Russia and the European Union that politics are going against the will of the business community? How far can these trade wars between Russia and the EU go, as you see it?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe that Russia has shown enough good will regarding our readiness to reopen the channels of dialogue, cooperation and mutually beneficial projects, which were frozen after the spring events of 2014, without any preconditions. I would like to say once again that nothing of what is happening in Ukraine would have happened if our European partners, primarily those who attended the signing of the agreement between President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition on February 21, 2014, honoured their pledge to guarantee this agreement and did not back off after the unconstitutional coup, following which radical forces seized power in Ukraine, and have since then been staging torch marches with Nazi symbols in Ukrainian cities and glorifying Nazi collaborators. Therefore, we regard the EU’s reaction as unjustified but accept it as a given.

We appreciate the fact that many in the EU have become aware of the pernicious nature of this situation and call for change, as my colleague, the Portuguese Foreign Minister Augusto Santos Silva said. We are ready for this. As I have said, we are not asking the EU and the other countries that have joined the sanctions to lift them. We will not hold any talks on the conditions for lifting the sanctions. But we are ready to begin steering away from the policy of isolationism in this situation, both regarding the attempts to isolate Russia and the self-imposed isolation of the European Union. We are ready to comply with the coordinated principles of our cooperation and to give a positive response to the aspirations of the business community, which has been calling increasingly often and loudly for overcoming this unhealthy situation. A recent example is the meeting between German business leaders and President Vladimir Putin. Later, our President met with French business people. I recently had a meeting with members of the Association of European Businesses in Russia. All of them have a common stance. As I said, we are ready to cooperate with our European partners and with the governments so as to take this objective interest of our business communities into account.



Question:

How do you assess the various interpretations, recently voiced in a number of Western countries, regarding the UNSC Resolution on ceasefire in Syria? Is this an attempt to use the ceasefire to achieve some other goals, despite Moscow's statements that the resolution does not apply to terrorist groups such as ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra?

What are the chances of reconciliation in Syria today, given that Damascus is still being bombarded by certain groups, and officials warn they will respond to the terrorist aggression by military actions, while Turkey continues an operation in northern Syria? In your opinion how realistic are the goals of the Syria resolution objectives taking into account the present situation?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, the freshly adopted Resolution 2401 very clearly states how the proposed ceasefire can be implemented for the delivery of humanitarian aid. The truce will begin when all the parties on the ground agree on how to introduce it so that the ceasefire is complete and comprehensive throughout Syria. This is stipulated clearly in black and white so that multiple interpretations are hardly possible here, even less so with respect to whom the proposed ceasefire regime affects. It does not in any way concern the Syrian Government’s actions carried out with Russia’s support against all terrorist groups you mentioned – ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and whoever cooperates with them.

Incidentally, in this regard, there are a number of groups in Eastern Ghouta and to a large extent in the province of Idlib that their Western partners and patrons qualify as moderate, such as Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam, that cooperate with the group included in the UN Security Council relevant terrorist list - Jabhat al-Nusra. This circumstance makes the partners of Jabhat al-Nusra also unprotected by the ceasefire regime that should be established. They are also subject to the legitimate actions of the Syrian armed forces and all those who support the Syrian army.

Incidentally, we have repeatedly called attention to the fact that mortar shelling continues. Most recently it was mentioned by representatives of the Defence Ministry and our Ministry. There were attempts to send jihadists to the central areas of Damascus in mined cars. They also apply new tactics: they dig tunnels into the part of the city controlled by the Government to carry out terrorist attacks through them. They seem to be quite imaginative.

Everyone needs to be on the alert here. We will never support any actions that would help terrorists get away.

You asked if someone might try to use this resolution, this ceasefire to achieve their own goals? Well, they are already trying. Reports have been planted in the media about the use of chlorine in Eastern Ghouta yesterday or this morning as a poisonous substance, with reference to some anonymous character who lives in the US. Allow me to remind you that Russian officials warned yesterday that such provocations were being prepared. Most certainly more fake news is going to be planted. We even know where it comes from – from social networks, primarily the so-called White Helmets, an absolutely provocative organisation created by Americans and British mentioned in a huge number of fake stories, mostly about the alleged use of chemical weapons without showing any single piece of evidence. There is also the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in London, where one person is registered, renting an apartment in one of the districts of the British capital. Those stories will certainly continue from such sources, with the sole purpose of tarnishing, defaming the government forces, demonising them, accusing them of war crimes so as to consistently implement the scheme we are already witnessing in the eastern regions of Syria where the United States is implementing the scenario of creating a quasi-state, I am convinced, leading to a split of Syria.

We will continue discussing this with the Americans and their allies that are part of the US-led coalition. They still have to explain why these steps are being taken despite the fact that the resolution we are talking about has unambiguously confirmed the need to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. Many questions arise in this connection.

Is there a chance for this resolution to be observed? I have already cited examples of actions that create obstacles in its way. But in principle, it is possible if all the Syrian parties on the ground, and those who support them, including from outside Syria, who patronise them, are guided by the UN Security Council's requirement to agree on specific parameters for cessation of hostilities in order to ensure a 30-day long pause for humanitarian and medical access to the population of the affected Syrian areas.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3094671






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with French Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian, Moscow, February 27, 2018



27 February 2018 - 17:18








Question:

Jaysh al-Islam, while supporting Russia’s proposal to introduce a humanitarian pause in general, refused to let civilians out of Eastern Ghouta saying that UN Security Council Resolution 2401 does not include this condition. How might this interfere with the goals of the truce?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not agree with Jaysh al-Islam’s statement that the resolution does not allow civilians to leave Eastern Ghouta, which they are citing as a reason for not allowing them to leave while accepting Russia’s proposal for daily five-hour humanitarian pauses. If I remember correctly, article 10 of the UN Security Council Resolution 2401 has all the demands on those laying siege to residential areas: lift the siege of Eastern Ghouta, the Yarmouk refugee camp and the al-Fuah and Kafriya Shiite enclaves. Everyone maintaining the siege must provide access to humanitarian aid, medicine and other necessities, and allow out those who want to leave, including from Eastern Ghouta. The fact that Jaysh al-Islam takes this position makes us wonder how sincere the group was when it told the UN Security Council President that it agreed to comply with the resolution, as Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France Jean-Yves Le Drian has just said.



Question (addressed to Jean-Yves Le Drian):

Mosul is no longer in the headlines because of the developments in Syria. What should be done, in France’s opinion, to balance this situation and will it attempt to deal with the humanitarian catastrophe in Mosul the way it did in Eastern Ghouta?



Sergey Lavrov (adds after Mr Drian):

We welcome the progress the Iraqi government made with others’ support. We attended the conference in Kuwait that was dedicated to restoring normal life In Iraq. We can see that we have achieved a lot in this area due to the fact that Iraq has solved its main problem: it prevented ISIS from establishing a caliphate. Despite isolated ISIS groups that still carry out terrorist attacks, it is much easier for Iraq to concentrate on returning to ordinary life and rebuilding everything the war destroyed.

As for the humanitarian situation in different parts of Syria, we spoke in detail about this today and have agreed that the situation is far from perfect. You know about our position regarding Eastern Ghouta. We have indeed voted for UN Security Council Resolution 2401 demanding that all parties cease hostilities throughout Syria. The resolution also calls on the external players to use their influence with the parties on whom the implementation of this comprehensive ceasefire depends. It is obvious that we are as yet far from attaining this goal. The latest information, which has been made public here, confirms that this resolution should be implemented via agreements on the ground.

In light of the dire humanitarian situation in Eastern Ghouta, Russia has decided not to wait until all parties agree on a specific pattern of actions. Russia and the Syrian Government have taken a unilateral decision to announce daily five-hour humanitarian pauses starting today. Humanitarian corridors have been marked out for the delivery of humanitarian assistance during these pauses and for the evacuation of all civilians who wish to leave, in full compliance with paragraph 10 of UNSC Resolution 2401. We will see if the three armed groups, which claim to have disengaged from Jabhat al-Nusra in Eastern Ghouta, honour their stated commitment to comply with UNSC Resolution 2401.

We remember how many countries expressed their deep concern and criticised the developments in Eastern Ghouta a year ago, when Russia and the Syrian Army conducted operations on the ground to liberate Eastern Aleppo. That operation included a large-scale evacuation of civilians to create conditions for finishing off the terrorists who refused to leave Eastern Aleppo. It was said then that the operation was very risky, because those who leave Eastern Aleppo would be unable to return there. There was fear of an ethnic cleansing. I believe it was yesterday when the Aleppo governor said that some 200,000 of those who had left the city have returned. A third of the buildings damaged in the war have been restored. And the process is going on.

Regrettably, and we have stated this publicly, we do not know what is going on in Raqqa that was liberated from the terrorists by the US-led coalition. According to the photo and video evidence at our disposal (few people are allowed to enter Raqqa), the city has been razed to the ground. It is true that the terrorists have been bombed out. Most of them were killed there, but many left Raqqa. According to our information, the streets are full of dead bodies which nobody is removing. The epidemiological situation is dramatic: there is no water and no sewage system. We have proposed that the UN or the International Committee of the Red Cross dispatch an emergency mission to Raqqa to help the international community understand the developments and the humanitarian situation there. This would be fully in the spirit of UNSC Resolution 2401, which calls for dealing with humanitarian problems throughout Syria.

Likewise, we need to know about the situation in the Rukban refugee camp, which the Americans are guarding and which nobody is allowed to leave. It is believed that there are some 60,000 refugees in that camp, but it is a rough estimate. We would like to ensure humanitarian access to this part of Syria as well, or, at least, to dispatch a mission to find out what is really going on there.



Question (addressed to Jean-Yves Le Drian):

Does France support US President Donald Trump’s idea of modifying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme so that it also covers Iran’s missile programme? If France supports this idea, what does Russia think about it?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Jean-Yves Le Drian):

We fully agree with France that the JCPOA must be implemented in full and that it would be extremely dangerous to open it up. If there is a desire to discuss any other issues related to Iran in the format that coordinated the JCPOA, these discussions must involve Iran and should be held on the principles that were used to coordinate the JCPOA, that is, on the basis of consensus rather than ultimatums.

You have asked about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and Russia’s attitude to it. Russia is now often referred to as a “revisionist power,” including even in official US doctrines. It is claimed that we seek to revise the underlying principles of the world order. But if we look at Washington’s actions regarding the JCPOA and the Paris agreement on climate change, or at its views on the WTO as “a disaster”, we may well wonder about who is revising what, as well as about the fate of the agreements that have been achieved and approved at the global level.



Question:

Does Russia want to hold specific talks on Iran’s ballistic missile programme, as the other Western countries want? Do you agree that Iran is destabilising the region?

Do you think that the operation in Afrin targets terrorists and hence cannot be included in the ceasefire conditions, which you are trying to establish throughout the region?



Sergey Lavrov:

You have asked about Russia’s views on changing the JCPOA. We view this negatively. Jean-Yves will probably tell you about what they are discussing at the US + the EU Three group. I planned to ask him about this during our business breakfast. But maybe he will tell us about this now, if it’s not a secret.

As for our attitude to Iran’s destabilising role in the region, the wording of your question is wrong. There are very many destabilising factors in the region. The destabilisation period began with the invasion and collapse of Iraq, which is still in the throes of a very difficult movement towards national unity. All of this is the result of a rash action undertaken primarily by Washington and London, which Moscow, Paris and Berlin denounced. They did not support it, and with good reason. The disintegration of the region continued with the aggression against Libya, which destroyed the Libyan state and turned it into a black hole through which terrorists and illegal weapons move southward, including to Sub-Saharan Africa, where France has vested interests, and through which illegal migrants enter Europe. We must not forget about the difficult situation in Yemen either. Much more is going on in the region. There is also the unsettled Palestinian problem. There are forces, many forces that are destabilising the region.

I don’t think it is fair that the blame for all of this is laid on Iran, with demands being made that it must keep within its borders and not try to project its legitimate interests beyond its territory. Iran, just as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and many other regional countries, cannot be denied the legitimate right to develop relations with the outside world. It is another matter that these relations, no matter what country we are talking about, must be transparent. This is what Russia has been urging for years when it proposed launching a dialogue on confidence and security measures in the Persian Gulf between the six Gulf countries, Iran, the five permanent UNSC members, the EU, the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). This proposal is still on the table. Recent statements indicate the rising interest of many parties in this proposal. We are ready to actively promote it. The regional problems can only be settled through an inclusive and constructive dialogue in individual countries, such as Syria, Libya, Iraq or any other country, or at the interstate level, between states.

I believe that the main condition for prodding the region towards this is reconciliation between the Sunnis and Shiites within the Islamic world, so that nobody would use the religious factor, including the factor of strife in Islam, for advancing their geopolitical interests.

As for Iran and the fact that a number of countries blame everything on it, I would like to remind you about the open letter CIA, FBI and US military intelligence veterans wrote to the US President last December regarding Iran’s role in the region and the fairness of the US policy regarding Iran. They cited US documents, primarily the State Department list of the terrorist attacks that targeted US citizens. Nearly all terrorist attacks staged around the world in the past few years, including those that involved US citizens, were initiated by ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram or Jabhat al-Nusra. The policy documents of these groups declare Iran their enemy, a feeling reciprocated by Iran.

The US Department of Homeland Security has compiled a Global Terrorism Index, which mentions 14 Islamist groups that directly threaten US interests. Of these 14 groups, all but one are anti-Iranian. Draw your own conclusions from these statistics. As I said, this is not my invention. This is what US intelligence veterans write in their open letter to the US President.

Judging by your question, this letter has escaped the attention of such a respected news agency as Reuters, which tends to give much more attention to less newsworthy events. I hope that your will read this letter now and will provide a professional journalistic assessment of its significance.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3100919






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the High-Level Segment of the 37th Regular Session of the UN Human Rights Council Geneva, February 28, 2018



28 February 2018 - 12:43








Mr President,

Ladies and gentlemen,

International relations have entered a period of radical change. We are witnessing the development of a rejuvenated democratic and fair polycentric world order. Since this process is compounded by large-scale challenges and threats, we need to join our efforts and align our potentials in order to find the best form of equal and indivisible security, strengthen mutually beneficial economic cooperation and apply the humanitarian standards that we have developed over the past decades.

There were several important dates in the human rights sphere in the past few years. This year we will mark the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a good opportunity for reviewing our performance as well as outlining new spheres for the concerted efforts of the international community.

This is especially important, despite the achievements in this field, since we see continued attempts to adjust human rights to one’s own short-term interests, as well as the alarming use of human rights issues as a pretext for putting pressure on “undesirable” and “disagreeable” countries.

Twenty-five years ago, the countries attending the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna declared unanimously that all human rights, including the right to development, are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. However, 25 years later a group of countries continue to stubbornly insist on the priority of political and civil rights and to disregard economic, social and cultural rights. This directly contradicts the principles of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and has led to mistakes in the choice of mechanisms for the encouragement and protection of human rights.

Today we will have a high-level themed discussion. This year, it was initiated by Russia.

This platform offers broad opportunities for an honest exchange of opinions on problems in the sphere of the human rights and ways to resolve them. We hope that this discussion will help us set right the distortions that exist, alas, in the operation of the UN Human Rights Council.

The main problem at the Human Rights Council is the continued attempts by some of its member states to preserve the dividing lines and to add a political dimension to the Council’s operations. This prevents us from joining efforts to find answers to the common civilisational challenges and to ensure genuine respect for the dignity and value of the individual.

We have taken note of the open unwillingness of some of the Council members to condemn all and any forms of international terrorism under the pretext that this will violate the principle of the freedom of speech. We consider the division of terrorists into “good” and “bad” unacceptable, the most so since this is done depending on the extremists’ stated goals or the sources of their funds. Russia will continue to fight the detestable practice of double standards, in particular, by helping the Syrian Army eradicate the terrorist threat.

The fight against terrorism must be based on the solid foundation of international law and national legislations. In this context, we are deeply concerned about the decision of the US administration to keep open the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, where the inmates who have been incarcerated without any trial are regularly tortured.

We plan to submit to this Council session a draft resolution on the integrity of the judicial system, which is extremely important for ensuring that everyone has equal access to a fair trial. We urge everyone to hold a constructive discussion on this document.

I have to say that accusations of human rights violations are used by some countries increasingly more as a pretext for imposing unilateral economic sanctions, which are illegitimate and have been denounced by numerous resolutions of the UN General Assembly. The Human Rights Council must take a clear stand regarding this wrongful policy that has a direct negative effect on civilians.

Using the pretext of human rights violations for military operations to change governments in sovereign countries is extremely dangerous. Pope Francis has said recently, “One cannot fight evil with another evil.” No matter what one may think about Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi, can those who overthrew them say that illegal intervention has eased human suffering and protected the most important human right, the right to life? The answer to this question is evident. Never in human history has the deliberate destruction of states benefitted common people. On the contrary, it has always resulted in humanitarian catastrophe for the civilian populations. One result of this is the unprecedented wave of illegal migration to Europe, the unparalleled rise in terrorism and the persecution of Christians and people of other religions.

The people of Syria are facing a huge humanitarian crisis. UN Security Council Resolution 2401 has outlined the framework for all parties to coordinate conditions for easing the suffering of civilians throughout Syria. Russia and the Syrian Government have announced the creation of humanitarian corridors in Eastern Ghouta. But the militants and their sponsors are hindering the delivery of humanitarian aid and the evacuation of all civilians who wish to leave, as well as continue to shell Damascus. We urge the member states of the so-called US coalition to provide similar humanitarian access to the Syrian regions they control, including the Rukban refugee camp and the area around al-Tanf. An emergency UN-ICRC mission must be dispatched to review the situation in Raqqa, which the coalition has bombed out and left to its own devices among mine fields and the ruined infrastructure.

Despite the efforts undertaken against discrimination, xenophobia and radicalism, racism, aggressive nationalism and religious intolerance are on the rise around the world. Ideological radicals go unpunished because some countries give absolute priority to the freedom of expression, assembly and association contrary to Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

A vivid example of historical revisionism is a recent Latvian law, which gives an equal status to WWII veterans and the Nazi collaborators who are directly responsible for the suffering and death of millions. We are especially concerned about the rewriting of history and the justification of Nazi henchmen in Lithuania, as well as a war on monuments to Soviet soldiers in Poland. SS collaborators are hailed as national heroes in Ukraine, where ultra-radicals wearing Nazi symbols stage sinister torch marches, arson attacks and pogroms, acting as the masters of the country while the nominal authorities just turn a blind eye.

An atmosphere of fear and violence is reigning in Ukraine, with persecution campaigns against journalists and the clergy and the general fight against dissent. Cultural figures are denied entry to Ukraine. Books, radio programmes and television products are prohibited. The number of arson attacks at minority cultural centres as well as diplomatic missions is on the rise. International human rights organisations must react harshly to such infringement on the fundamental rights and freedoms. Of special concern is the Ukrainian law that grossly limits the right of minorities to receive education in their native tongues. Kiev does not take any notice of the Venice Commission’s recommendations that it modify this law.

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is now more important than ever to preserve ethnic and religious accord, as well as to create conditions for a peaceful coexistence of people of different cultures, religions and ethnicities. Russia will continue to promote the principles of inter-civilisational dialogue at multilateral venues.

In conclusion, I would like to once again point out the need to pursue human rights within the internationally recognised legal framework. Any attempts to impose lop-sided approaches and to present ultimatums instead of looking for consensus solutions will only hinder collective efforts to protect human rights and moral values that are shared by the basic religions and civilisations.

Thank you. I wish you every success in your work.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3101699
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 5th, 2018 #371
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the signing of the “Donbass reintegration” law by the President of Ukraine



24 February 2018 - 09:31



The scandalous law on the so-called reintegration of Donbass entered into force on February 24, 2018. Kiev has therefore finally confirmed its striving to resolve the conflict in southeastern Ukraine by force.

By signing the above-mentioned law, Petr Poroshenko has virtually annulled the Minsk Agreements and set loose the war hawks. Any direct dialogue with the authorities of the self-proclaimed republics, the de-escalation of confrontation and a search for ways of achieving a political peace settlement are out of the question. On the contrary, the document creates favourable conditions for the forcible seizure of territories of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions that are not controlled by Kiev and legalises the use of the Ukrainian army against civilians.

There remained a fragile hope that President Poroshenko, who had personally helped draft the Minsk Agreements three years ago and later regularly stated his commitment to the accords, would, nevertheless, change his mind. But no miracle happened. With the stroke of a pen, the Ukrainian head of state has virtually signed a verdict for the Minsk Package of Measures.

Indicatively, the enactment of this law has coincided with another anniversary of the coup d’etat, staged by Ukrainian nationalists in February 2014. The conclusions are obvious: The current Kiev regime that gained power through an armed putsch accepts no methods other than violence.

The practical implementation of this law is fraught with the serious escalation of the situation in southeastern Ukraine. We hope that its Western curators realise this and will be able to use their current influence on Kiev to prevent a scenario that might prove ruinous for Ukrainian statehood and which is rife with unpredictable consequences for European stability and security.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3090905






Press release on the adoption of UN Security Resolution 2401 on Syria



25 February 2018 - 12:41



On February 24, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2401, which demands the cessation of hostilities in Syria.

The Russian party supported the draft document (which was prepared by the delegations of Kuwait and Sweden), with a view to easing the suffering of civilians in the Syrian Arab Republic and with regard to the inclusion of our main comments following long-term intense discussions.

It is vitally important that we succeeded in not allowing the resolution to approve the directive and therefore unrealistic ceasefire measure insisted on by Western countries: the current document urges the parties to the conflict to cease hostilities, adhere to the agreements reached earlier and to hold talks on general de-escalation and establishing humanitarian pauses all over the country. Naturally, there can be no ceasefire on New York’s instructions without any concrete agreements between Syrian parties.

We expect that foreign patrons of anti-government armed groups will finally do their homework and adhere to the ceasefire in the interests of the soonest and safe passage of humanitarian aid convoys. We will be monitoring this closely. Maybe somebody did not know or purposely ignored that there had been talks with militants in eastern Ghouta on a ceasefire, but they rejected all options given to them. Moreover, they refused to release civilians, whom they use as a human shield, from the areas they control, and hindered humanitarian corridors.

In this context, we are satisfied that the UN Security Council noted the work by Iran, Russia and Turkey as guarantor countries of the Astana peace process, in the de-escalation zones to reduce the violence as a step towards the national ceasefire.

The resolution states expressly that it does not apply to the military operations against ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda and related organisations and other terrorist groups. This fight will continue despite the attempts of certain players to use the Terrorist International and related groups of opposition militants adhering to it in order to implement their plans still being plotted to topple the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic and divide the country. Terrorists will not get a break.

In fact, for the first time in many years the UN Security Council condemned the shelling of Damascus, which frequently struck the Russian diplomatic mission and which killed hundreds of civilians and damaged civilian infrastructure.

The humanitarian situation in Raqqa is grave. It is the direct consequence of combat operations by the US-led so-called coalition that is in Syria illegally. The resolution emphasises the task of providing humanitarian aid to the Rukban camp for internally displaced persons, which the US hinders, while, in violation of Syrian sovereignty, occupying vast areas for deploying their military base near Al-Tanf.

It is important that the resolution calls for the urgent acceleration of humanitarian activity in Syria related to mine clearance. It reaffirms the demand to demilitarise medical facilities, schools and other civilian facilities where, as we know, militants often camp.

In general, the resolution acknowledges that the humanitarian crisis has swept not only across Eastern Ghouta and Idlib, but also other regions of the country. Aid must be provided in an impartial way and must not depend on reaching certain political goals, as it often does in Western capitals.

By accepting the adoption of the UN Security Council resolution, we will prevent in the harshest way attempts to inspire anti-Russian and anti-Syria hysteria and derail the political settlement process, which got a new lease of life following the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

Russia, being a guarantor country of the Astana peace process and a responsible member of the international community, will continue working with all Syrian parties in the interests of settling the conflict as soon as possible, reaching a truce between those who want it in fact rather than in word, and eradicating the terrorism threat.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3090973






Comment by the Information and Press Department on South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s statement



26 February 2018 - 18:50



We have noted President of the Republic of Korea Moon-Jae-in’s statement on the importance of the US and North Korea sitting down to talks and also on the need for the US to lower the threshold to start a dialogue.

We support this appeal, which dovetails with the international community’s efforts to launch a direct North Korea-US dialogue as the key component of a comprehensive settlement of problems on the Korean Peninsula. We welcome the harmony of the South Korean president’s words with the provisions of the Russian-Chinese roadmap, which calls on the opposing sides to reduce their military activities and establish direct contacts during the first two stages.

We support the Government of the Republic of Korea’s commitment to reinforcing and building up the intra-Korean rapprochement process aimed at improving relations between the two Korean states.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3095330






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the latest data regarding the aggregate numbers of US strategic offensive arms published by the US Department of State



27 February 2018 - 13:41



We have taken note of the New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms as of February 5, 2018, which the US Department of State published on February 22, 2018. According to the US, this data allegedly indicates that the United States has reduced its strategic offensive arms to the level stipulated in Article II of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START).

The Foreign Ministry statement of February 5, 2018 reads that the United States has reached the set limits not only by actually reducing the arms but also by excluding from the aggregate count 56 Trident II SLBM launchers and 41 В-52Н heavy bombers, which were converted in such a way that the Russian Federation cannot confirm that these strategic arms have been rendered incapable of employing SLBMs or nuclear armaments for heavy bombers as specified in Part Three Section I paragraph 3 of the Protocol to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, as well as by arbitrary renaming silo training launches into “training silos,” a category not specified by the Treaty.

We hope to be able to continue working constructively with the US in order to find mutually acceptable solutions regarding the conversion of strategic offensive arms and their subsequent exclusion from the aggregate count. We believe that an appropriate solution must be found to this problem, which is of fundamental significance for the sides’ approaches to the implementation of the New START.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3100658






Press release on the 5th session of the Russian-Mexican Mixed Commission on Cooperation in Culture, Education and Sports



27 February 2018 - 17:28



On February 26−27, Moscow hosted the 5th session of the Russian-Mexican Mixed Commission on Cooperation in Cultural, Education and Sports, chaired by Russian Special Presidential Representative for International Cultural Cooperation Mikhail Shvydkoy and Executive Director of the Mexican Agency for International Development Cooperation (AMEXCID) of the Mexican Foreign Ministry Agustin Garcia-Lopez Loaeza.

The negotiations brought together representatives of relevant Russian and Mexican ministries and departments. The sides had an in-depth discussion of ways to promote bilateral cooperation in culture, art and education, as well as youth policy and sports.

The commission’s session is a result of the consistent development of bilateral dialogue, which received an impetus following a meeting between presidents Vladimir Putin and Enrique Pena Nieto on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Xiamen (China) on September 3−5, 2017as well as Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Luis Videgaray Caso’s visit to Moscow on November 17, 2017.

Rounding up their meeting, Mr Shvydkoy and Mr Garcia-Lopez Loaeza approved the Cooperation Programme for Cooperation in Culture, Education and Sports for 2018−2020, which was signed as a protocol.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3100946
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 5th, 2018 #372
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement at the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, February 28, 2018



28 February 2018 - 14:58








Madame President,

Secretary General of the Conference,

Thank you for the opportunity to address this authoritative forum once again.

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) plays a unique role in the field of arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation. It holds a special place in the sustainable international machinery established alongside the UNDC and the UNGA First Committee. Under the aegis of the CD the fundamental agreements upholding the belief in humanity’s capacity to avoid self-destruction were elaborated. Improving the forum’s efficiency is of a crucial significance in preventing fragmentation of global efforts to implement the disarmament agenda, search for reasonable compromises, create conditions for maintenance of peace, equal and indivisible security for all.

Under the current complex circumstances at the international arena systematic collective efforts to ensure security and stability at the global and regional levels have gained particular relevance.

One has to acknowledge that the work of our forum has been stalled in recent years. Therefore, we need to overcome the existing differences and agree upon a balanced Programme of Work of the Conference without any further delay. Solution to the most pertinent issues in the field of arms control and nonproliferation prompts us to resume the negotiating work at the earliest.

We believe that it is possible to redress the situation by drawing upon the richest legacy and long-standing traditions of negotiations which unite all the participants of the forum. The historical experience proves that even in the most difficult times we need to demonstrate will and responsibility, forgo narrow national interests and come up with consolidated responses to the large-scale challenges of our time.

Nuclear disarmament definitely remains at the core of the international agenda. Russia as a responsible and consistent advocate of this process has been making an outstanding contribution to further reductions of strategic offensive arms. On the 5th of February we confirmed that we had reached the aggregate limits of nuclear armaments and their means of delivery under the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. Therefore, the Russian nuclear arsenal has been reduced by more than 85 percent as compared to the Cold War peak.

At the same time, despite these impressive achievements in implementing the Russia-US agreement, it is noteworthy that we still have some pending questions to our colleagues in Washington. In particular, it relates to unilateral removal of a considerable amount of strategic arms from the accountability under the Treaty, as a matter of fact, by circumventing the procedures established by the Treaty. These procedures stipulate, inter alia that methods applied for removal of strategic arms from the accountability by the other State are crystal clear. We are also concerned by a considerable shift in the US approaches in the context of the updated Nuclear Posture Review which provides for a greater role of nuclear weapons. This includes the development and deployment of «low-yield» warheads thus leading to a lower threshold of the nuclear weapons use.

At any rate, guided by the spirit and the letter of the NPT we have reached the point when all the States that possess nuclear military potential should join in further efforts towards nuclear disarmament. Besides, one should not ignore a new reality: disarmament is impossible without due consideration of the whole range of developments and factors that affect strategic stability and international security. Among those there currently are the unrestricted deployment of the global missile defense system, development of high precision non-nuclear strategic offensive arms, non-ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, a possibility of deployment of offensive weapons in outer space.

Nuclear disarmament is hampered by the US non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe as well as the destabilizing practice of so called NATO nuclear sharing. Within its framework non-nuclear NATO Member-States participate in planning of employment of the US non-strategic nuclear weapons and get involved into appropriate skills training in grave violation of the NPT. Everyone should understand that by doing so the US military train the armed forces of the European countries to employ tactical nuclear weapons against Russian Federation.

I would like to remind you once again that Russia has neither deployed tactical nuclear weapons, nor any practice of employing those. All existing armaments were transferred to central storage facilities on the national territory. Under these circumstances the presence of ready-for-use US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe is not just a rudiment of the Cold War, but clearly an aggressive stance. I hope that European citizens will be in a position to say a resolute “no” to stationing on their territory of the most powerful weapon of mass destruction possessed by the one and only State which used it against population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Without taking into account all the factors that impact strategic stability, the principles of equal security it is impossible to advance along the way leading to elimination of nuclear weapons what sponsors of the Treaty on their prohibition call for. This initiative, as we have pointed out on many occasions, not only fails to facilitate progress towards this noble goal, but rather causes problems with securing viability and effectiveness of the NPT review cycle. And this year the NPT marks the 50th anniversary of its opening for signature.

To preserve the regime of this key instrument it is also crucial to achieve tangible progress in bringing the CTBT that was elaborated here at the CD into force. This instrument is a basis that could help to overcome differences between Nuclear-Weapon States and Non-Nuclear-Weapon States. Moreover, it is essential to achieve a real progress in convening international conference on establishment of a zone free of nuclear and other WMDs in the Middle East.

Let me touch upon chemical disarmament. Russia has fully eliminated all its stockpiles of chemicals weapons. Meanwhile, we face a paradox when the United States, a major CWC State Party, which once insisted on adoption of a global legal obligation to eliminate chemical weapons until 2007, is still in a possession of the largest stockpile of this type of WMD and the prospects for its elimination remain elusive. In parallel, Washington while referring to fake news makers such as fully discredited “White Helmets” puts forward absurd claims against the Government of Syria. The latter in response to the joint initiative by Moscow and Washington eliminated its chemical weapons stockpiles under the strictest international control under extraordinary circumstances of war against international terrorism and continues to cooperate with the OPCW Technical Secretariat.

It is deplorable that the US and its allies cynically exploit baseless allegations of toxic chemicals’ use by Damascus as a tool of anti-Syrian geopolitical engineering.

Just an hour ago an informal meeting to promote another anti-Syrian «offspring» so called «International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons», established on January 23 in Paris, was arranged by France nearby. We reaffirm that such closed-door and non-inclusive initiatives are totally unacceptable. Those are invented to substitute discussions at the OPCW and the UN for a comfortable company of like-minded ones in absence of alternative opinions.

We should not forget about the threat of biological weapons which by their deadly impact can outmatch all known methods of killing human beings. The work to create a verification mechanism for the Biological Weapons Convention remains blocked due to the US position. I hope that our US partners are aware of their responsibility for breaking the deadlock.

For the time being Washington opts to freeze the status-quo. At the same time the US by imposing bilateral arrangements outside the BWC framework on different countries attempts to set up a biosecurity infrastructure controlled by itself that would be easy to manipulate.

During the Russian Presidency at the CD last year, we succeeded, with the assistance of responsibly thinking States, in fixing the issue of elaboration of an International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Chemical and Biological Terrorism (ICCBT) on the CD agenda. It is necessary to continue its substantive discussion during this session as well. I hope it will be done. The preparation of this extremely relevant instrument, which meets the interests of all States, will allow relaunching the CD activities in full compliance with its mandate.

Another priority of ours is the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Russia is not the only country which is concerned about the prospects of “weaponization” of outer space – and it is proved by the fact that our initiatives aimed at addressing the threat enjoy broad support. I would like to remind that it was here at the CD, 10 years ago, that we together with our Chinese friends put forward a draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects. Its updated version was submitted to the Conference on Disarmament in 2014.

I think that without elaborating and adopting a legally binding international arrangement that would contain reliable guarantees that weapons will never emerge in outer space, it is getting practically impossible to address the issues of ensuring international security and strategic stability. We are willing to discuss any concerns of interested parties. We regard the UN Group of Governmental Experts on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, to be launched this year, as an appropriate mechanism to jointly search for solutions and as an additional measure that would give a needed impetus to the process at the CD.

The Russian Federation is ready to resume the CD negotiation activities on any Program of Work that is balanced and consensus-based. No item on the CD agenda is taboo for Russia. We have both political will and the expertise to start full-fledged negotiations at the CD. We, as well as the UN General Secretary, who spoke here two days ago, highly appreciate the decision taken by the Conference on February 16 to establish five subsidiary bodies to search for the outcome with the aim of launching negotiations on the agenda items.

Madame President,

Ladies and gentlemen,

I wish to conclude by saying that Russia calls upon all States to demonstrate political will and maximum responsibility to resume substantive work at the Conference. The way to the really effective agreements in the field of arms control always goes only through full-fledged negotiations and search for consensus-based solutions.

I wish all participants fruitful work and every success in coping with issues that so far impede activities of this most important international forum.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3102270






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening ceremony for “Only wings matter: Breaking the stereotypes” photo exhibition, Geneva, February 28, 2018



28 February 2018 - 15:02








Mr Director,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Friends,

I am happy to have this opportunity to speak at the opening ceremony for “Only wings matter: Breaking the stereotypes” photo exhibition.

First of all, I would like to sincerely thank the Give Love to the World international charity foundation, which initiated this project, and members of the All-Russian Society of Disabled People and the Russian Union of Art Photographers, who joined this initiative and submitted works by the finalists of the “Without barriers” photo competition.

I would like to note the contribution of the Russian company Sakhalin Energy to organising the exhibition and, most importantly, to creating a barrier-free environment for people with disabilities in Sakhalin. I am happy to note that this is by no means the only Russian company with an active human rights record, including the promotion of disabled persons’ rights. Notably, the Russian Federation’s social policy prioritises cooperation between the state, the business community and civil society in supporting people with disabilities.

In the past few days, the Russian Federation’s report on fulfilling provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was discussed at the Palace of Nations. Six years have passed since the Convention’s ratification, impressive results have been achieved in this time. The amended Russian legislation now includes provisions on the barrier-free environment, social inclusion, reasonable adaptation and guaranteeing the rights of disabled persons in 20 areas, ranging from education and culture to employment and sport.

All this is very important for creating comfortable conditions for people with disabilities and for their full-fledged socialisation. We encourage initiatives to involve disabled persons in creative and sports projects, including alpine skiing and mountain climbing, and support the organisation of art workshops, music lessons and theatre productions for them. In November 2017, one such performance was shown here, at the Palace of Nations, during the UN Forum on Business and Human Rights.

The recent decision by Russian President Vladimir Putin to issue a special grant for holding an inter-regional parachute jumping festival for people with disabilities in the summer of 2018 has won public acclaim. Yelena Volokhova, CEO of the Give Love to the World international charity foundation, will discuss this project in greater detail a little later.

Many disabled people consider sport to be important for keeping fit and also as an opportunity to display their achievements. I hope that, despite all artificially created obstacles, our Paralympic team will make a worthy showing in PyeongChang.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3102285






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions on the sidelines of the 37th Regular Session of the UN Human Rights Council and the Conference on Disarmament Geneva, February 28, 2018



28 February 2018 - 18:05








Question:

The United States adopted new sanctions against North Korea last weekend. What is the probability of a US military operation? How would Russia react in this case?



Sergey Lavrov:

You should ask the US administration about the probability of a military option. US President Donald Trump said many times that he would take all the necessary measures, including a military operation, to settle this problem. Views on this scenario have been presented many times in the US, Russia and other countries. They indicate that a military operation would result in a humanitarian catastrophe, claiming hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent lives. These military calculations are public knowledge.

We hope that the positive trend which was set during the Winter Olympics and will hopefully continue during the Paralympic Games in PyeongChang will be used to create conditions for launching talks. A high ranking North Korean delegation was in PyeongChang during the Olympics. Talks were held at the level of the President of South Korea, and the North Korean delegation expressed a desire to meet with US Vice President Mike Pence. Regrettably, this opportunity did not materialise.

We hoped that the period of tranquillity, during which the above contacts were held, no missiles were launched in North Korea and US-South Korean military exercises were suspended, would be used to create a de facto positive impetus. Regrettably, it has not happened so far. Many observers noticed that US Special Representative for North Korea Policy Joseph Yun has submitted his resignation. Few believe that he has done this exclusively for personal reasons, as it has been announced. It is unclear who will replace Mr Yun, which is not raising optimism either. However, we continue to discuss ways to normalise the situation and create conditions for talks with all parties to the so-called six-party talks. Today I had in-depth discussions on this issue with my colleague, Foreign Minister of South Korea Kang Kyung-wha. We will stay in contact.



Question:

Will the maintenance of the humanitarian pause in Eastern Ghouta be coordinated with the [terrorist] groups? For example, the Free Syrian Army sent a request to the UN Security Council yesterday regarding the evacuation of Jabhat al-Nusra fighters and their families. How will Moscow respond to this?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are ready for any option. We organised a voluntary evacuation of fighters and their families during the liberation of Eastern Aleppo. We are ready to discuss any option that will help neutralise the terrorists and end their operations. If they can be evacuated somewhere, we will not object, but this option should be discussed first. We are ready to discuss any option, but primarily those that will help save lives. The relevant resolution has been adopted. It says unambiguously that the ceasefire regime will not apply to the terrorists. If our colleagues at the UN and those who have influence with Jabhat al-Nusra coordinate this evacuation, we will not object.



Question:

Did you discuss the possibility of rapprochement between the two Korean states at your meeting with the South Korean colleague? What role could Russia play in the potential rapprochement?



Sergey Lavrov:

The reunification of the two Korean states is a major issue on the agenda and the goal towards which both states are moving. Each of them has a special ministry or agency on reunification. We support the Koreans’ aspiration for restoring their unity. We are ready to help, but this is for Seoul and Pyongyang to decide. If they need our assistance for their contacts, which have taken a quantum leap during the 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Games, I can assure you that we will provide any possible assistance to the benefit of our neighbours.



Question:

What do you know about North Korea supplying chemical weapons to Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have not heard about this. If there are such facts, they should be presented. Otherwise I cannot respond to something that lacks a factual basis.



Question:

Are you confident the war in Syria is going to be over this year? What are the scenarios, since it seems to be getting worse?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not think that it is getting worse. It is getting worse for the terrorists from Jabhat al-Nusra, who, willing or unwillingly, have been consistently spared by the American coalition. We have raised this issue with Washington many times, and there was no credible answer. But it is absolutely clear that all manifestations of terrorism in Syria must be eliminated completely. This is also what the United States says, and this is what our other colleagues say who are present in Syria, both invited an uninvited.

Parallel to this, of course, we believe that the conditions are ripe for resuming the political process. I met with UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura today. We discussed the follow-up to the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. Staffan de Mistura confirmed the importance of that forum for consolidating the basis for him to re-launch negotiations and to start the real work on the constitution.

The key issue now is to make sure that UN Security Council Resolution 2401 is implemented as drafted. It clearly says that the UN Security Council demands that all parties on the ground and all those who influence the parties on the ground agree on a ceasefire throughout Syria and allow a 30-day pause, at least, for humanitarian deliveries. As the conditions for announcing this ceasefire throughout Syria are getting ripe, we are not waiting. As you know, the Russian military at the request of the President announced daily five-hour humanitarian pauses for addressing the humanitarian needs of the people, if the bandits who control Eastern Ghouta so allow. In the case of Eastern Aleppo they were not allowing humanitarian convoys, saying publicly that they would attack them. The same humanitarian corridors, as the resolution provides, could be used by the civilians who want to get out, to be evacuated.

We also want the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people to be addressed not only in relation to Eastern Ghouta alone but also to other parts of the country, especially Raqqa, where we want the United Nations, and probably the World Health Organisation and the ICRC to send a mission in order to understand what kind of humanitarian action in required there. The place has been levelled, there are still corpses decaying in the streets, there is no water supply, no sanitary facilities, and the entire territory is littered with landmines. No one is attending to this huge humanitarian disaster. When we proposed sending a UN mission and an ICRC mission there, I heard one American commander on the ground say that there was no need for this. So it will be now for the Secretary-General and the ICRC to decide whether there is a need to go there or not.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3102589






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s working meeting with President of the International Committee of the Red Cross Peter Maurer



28 February 2018 - 19:35



On the sidelines of the 37th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Peter Maurer.

The two officials signed a memorandum on cooperation between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and the International Committee of the Red Cross on celebrating the 150th anniversary of the St Petersburg Declaration of 1868 on discontinuation of use of explosive and incendiary bullets during hostilities.

The officials also discussed the activities of the committee in the Russian Federation, as well as cooperation between Russia and the ICRC in their joint response to humanitarian crises around the world. The parties paid special attention to the situation in southeastern Ukraine and the developments in Syria, namely, the provision of humanitarian aid to civilians.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3102671






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a Tula Region presentation, Moscow, March 1, 2018



1 March 2018 - 18:22








Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to greet everyone who has come here for the presentation of the next Russian region – the Tula Region – in the Foreign Ministry’s Mansion. I see many familiar faces here. I welcome the representatives of the federal and regional authorities, the diplomatic corps, Russian and foreign business circles and our colleagues from the media.

The Tula Region has become one of Russia’s most dynamic regions. The figures speak for themselves. For example, last year the growth rate of industrial output exceeded the national average.

The region is actively diversifying its economy. Its core industries include machine building, including defence (Tula is famous for this), the chemical industry, and metallurgy. Enterprises like the Akademik Shipunov KBP Instrument Design Bureau, that is the leading designer of weapons and military equipment, Tulamashzavod, and the manufacturer of industrial chemical products Shchekinoazot, are widely known.

I’m confident that the presentation showed the opportunities that are opening up in relation to the creation of a special economic area, Uzlovaya, which of course will give additional impetus to the general development of the region.

The Tula Region is a major transport hub with five federal motorways and main railway arteries of our country going through it.

I would like to note the energetic work of the region's leaders to create a comfortable environment for entrepreneurship, which helps to increase its investment appeal. According to the Strategic Initiatives Agency, the region has been one of the five Russian regions with the best investment climate over the past several years.

We are very pleased that the region’s geography of international and foreign economic relations is expanding. Its key foreign partners include the CIS countries, Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, and the United States. The legal framework underlying this cooperation is being improved. We are interacting very closely and productively with the region in this regard. I would like to note that representatives of the region participate in various international events held in Russia, including the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

I would particularly like to mention the efforts aimed at implementing joint projects with our foreign partners in areas such as automotive manufacturing, construction materials, and the food industry. It is gratifying to know that large foreign companies like Cargill and Procter&Gamble, Knauf Aquapanel and Heidelberg-Cement, and many others are working in the region. The Chinese Great Wall company, I heard, is about to complete the construction of a large auto assembly plant with full cycle production.

I could talk at length about the region’s tourist potential. People here carefully preserve the centuries-old cultural and historical heritage of their land, which, thanks to its original artisanal crafts, has gained fame far beyond Russia. The gingerbread and samovar which you may have seen on display at the entrance to our Mansion remain the crown jewels of the Tula Region.

There are more than 900 historical and cultural landmarks in the region, such as the world-famous Yasnaya Polyana museum-estate of Leo Tolstoy, the Kulikovo Field Military History Reserve which is a place of Russian military glory, the museum-reserve of outstanding Russian artist Vasily Polenov, whose paintings you can also enjoy in the lobby of our Mansion and, of course, the Tula State Weapons Museum, the exhibits from which you can see in the nearby halls.

Tula Region Governor Alexei Dyumin is an active athlete, which makes us close to him and many of our other friends. I would like to congratulate the region on its participation in international sports events. International children's hockey tournament – EuroChem Cup 2018 – with the participation of young athletes from eight countries will take place for the fifth time in the Tula Region’s second largest city – Novomoskovsk – in late May.

The Russian Football Championship will resume the day after tomorrow. We know where the Arsenal Tula football club stands, and it is really putting up a fight. I wish you every success in getting to the Eurocup. That is, football will be the Tula Region’s international contribution to promoting our achievements.

I’m sure that Governor Dyumin, his staff and the business representatives who work there will tell you more about the Tula Region.

Once again, I would like to thank you for accepting our invitation. I’m sure you’ll have fun today.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3103621






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening of the exhibition to mark the 140th anniversary of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, which resulted in the liberation of Bulgaria from the Ottoman oppression, Moscow, March 2, 2018



2 March 2018 - 11:14








Mr Ambassador,

Ladies and gentlemen,

We are here for a landmark event, the opening of an exhibition of archival documents and photos dedicated to the 140th anniversary of the liberation of Bulgaria from the Ottoman oppression.

The exhibition features over a hundred documents and photos from the Archive of the Russian Foreign Policy, the Russian State Military-Historical Archive, the Russian State Film and Photo Archive, and from several private collections. Many of these documents are unique, including the Manifesto of Emperor Alexander II of April 12, 1877, which states the readiness of the Russian people for “new sacrifices to ease the fate of Christians on the Balkan Peninsula.” The exhibition also displays the Preliminary Treaty of San Stefano, and the appeal of the Bulgarian people to Chancellor Alexander Gorchakov for protection. In response to this petition and in accordance with the Emperor’s order, our predecessors pursued a principled policy in support of establishing a united and autonomous Bulgaria. From June 1876 to April 1877, Chancellor Alexander Gorchakov took part in tense talks and did everything in his power to settle the situation through political and diplomatic means. On the eve of the signing of the Preliminary Treaty of San Stefano, Gorchakov advised Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Empire to the Ottoman Empire Nikolai Ignatyev, who led the talks, to stand ground in everything that concerns Bulgaria.

The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 plays a special role in the history of our bilateral relations. The friendship between our peoples was sealed with blood that was spilled for justice. Today we pay our tribute to Russian warriors and Bulgarian militia who fought together in the harshest conditions for the independence of the Bulgarian nation.

We appreciate that our Bulgarian friends have eternalised the memory of such prominent commanders as generals Mikhail Skobelev, Iosif Gurko, Eduard Totleben and Mikhail Dragomirov. Our friends carefully preserve the memory of Russian soldiers and officers who sacrificed their lives for the victory.

I am confident that the Russian-Bulgarian fellowship, our common cultural and spiritual heritage, is the unbreakable foundation for the progressive development of bilateral ties and cooperation in all areas, from politics and the economy to culture and tourism. Our exhibition marks the anniversary. I am sure you will enjoy gaining new insights into this era, which deserves to be cherished by our countries and our peoples.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3104056






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a joint meeting of the Supervisory Board and the Board of Trustees of Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University), March 2, 2018



2 March 2018 - 13:00








Colleagues, friends,

I am very pleased to see all members of MGIMO University’s Supervisory Board and Board of Trustees. Our joint meetings have become an important element of decision-making in administration of the university and a venue for discussing new ideas and plans. I would like to highlight the importance of our meetings as a mechanism of public control over the university’s activities. For the Foreign Ministry, as well as for other ministries and agencies that focus on foreign policy and international relations and have contacts with international partners, MGIMO University remains a crucial source of international relations specialists.

Today MGIMO is more than an educational centre. Here, our colleagues from Russia and abroad receive further training on dealing with new threats and challenges, information security, sports diplomacy and sports rights. There is no need to tell you how important these issues are in the current situation. The teaching process is conducted in close cooperation with such partners as the Council of Europe, OSCE, UNCTAD, WTO and international arbitration tribunals.

Of course, we highly value MGIMO as a source of personnel for the Foreign Ministry and other government agencies, as I have said, but it also plays an invaluable role as an intellectual repository and an important information and analysis partner for our foreign policy projects.

Research results are becoming more and more impressive. MGIMO is affiliated with 11 academic journals included in the State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles system. It holds stable high positions in prestigious international rankings. Popularisation of Russian expert approaches and research is an important element for promoting an objective image of our country abroad and improving our reputation in the academic community. I think we can all praise MGIMO, which continues intensive work in this area, raising its popularity as a source of credible analytical information about Russia and about our approaches to key issues of global and regional security and international development.

I believe that in order to strengthen our positions in academic diplomacy (there is such a term) we must use the potential we have to the full, first of all, the fact that MGIMO is a key structure for our discussion mechanisms with a number of countries, for example, the Russian-Czech Discussion Forum. We should pay special attention to the Trianon Dialogue, a new channel of Russia-France cooperation between our countries’ civil societies. It was established last year by a joint decision of President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of France Emmanuel Macron during Vladimir Putin’s visit to Versailles last summer. Anatoly Torkunov will co-chair the Trianon Dialogue forum from Russia’s side and France’s former Ambassador to Russia Pierre Morel will represent his country.

This year MGIMO will actively participate in the Year of Japan. There is a good base for this: there is a joint group of historians based at the university, and experts in Japanese studies, both those working at MGIMO and MGIMO alumni (such as Fattah Shodiyev), hold top positions in professional rankings and head bilateral institutions of informal cultural and business communication and information exchanges.

The MGIMO ASEAN Centre also provides unique opportunities to promote cooperation with multilateral institutions. The tasks of this important organisation include cooperation in organising business missions for Russian entrepreneurs and heads of the Russian regions to ASEAN countries.

Speaking about the regional element of MGIMO activities, I would like to mention the successful implementation of the Odintsovo campus project we held together with Governor of the Moscow Region Andrey Vorobyov. The campus has the traditional components of higher education as well as the Gorchakov Lyceum and even secondary vocational education in profile areas: economics, law and banking. MGIMO took a daring step opening new areas and training programmes in business and applied IT sciences, system analysis and modelling of socioeconomic process. I believe we can see from the results that the university did not make a mistake in taking this step. This means the digital economy is closely integrated with the education process.

MGIMO continues to strengthen its positions as a core university for retraining regional and municipal administration personnel of the Moscow region and its activities give a boost to the region’s entire education system. In addition to Governor of the Moscow Region Andrey Vorobyov, I would like to mention Head of the Odintsovo District Andrey Ivanov, who also focuses much attention on MGIMO’s work at the campus.

Another important issue is the promotion of MGIMO’s infrastructure opportunities together with a substantial education reform. I am primarily talking about the 18-storey dormitory building on Prospekt Vernadskogo. It still has a long way to go, but the main work has already been completed.

The reform process will take another several years. However, we are systematically implementing the tasks we have set as part of the MGIMO Development Strategy we approved in 2015. The MGIMO Endowment Foundation, established with the support of the Broad of Trustees, which we are sincerely grateful for, provides for its successful implementation and has become an important project financing mechanism.

Incidentally, after our meeting last year, when we had a detailed presentation, many of those present became our partners in developing the university and implementing several projects. Let me once again express my gratitude for your help.

The Strategy’s main priorities are related to strengthening the faculty and administrative staff, as well as improving the quality of education, further promoting the university in the Russian education export development programme, digitalising education content and updating our IT resources. MGIMO is becoming involved in new education and research areas such as the environment, natural resource management, commodity market analysis, innovation management and such areas as mathematics and economics, which I have already mentioned, together with completely new approaches to studying finance and risk management. Elevating the MGIMO economic school to an entirely new level is an ambitious task, but a task that we can accomplish. I believe we have chosen well the areas to focus on in the Strategy, and we must thank the entire teaching staff headed by MGIMO Rector Anatoly Torkunov for this.

Today we will listen to Anatoly Torkunov, who will speak about the university’s achievements last year and its main financial indicators for this year. You have received detailed materials on the issues in advance.

The Supervisory Board is actively working off-campus and overseeing MGIMO’s economic, administrative and organisation activities. The Supervisory Board’s task is to look at these processes from a long-term perspective and to approve a draft resolution following discussions – of course, taking into account the remarks, proposals and comments made during our meeting today.

Thank you for attention and now I give the floor to Anatoly Torkunov.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3105638






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov interviewed by Bulgarian journal International Relations, Moscow, March 2, 2018



2 March 2018 - 16:00




Question:

This year marks the 140th anniversary of ending the Russo-Turkish Liberation War of 1877-1878 and the reinstatement of the Bulgarian state. What do you think about the role of these events in the recent history of the Balkan region and Europe? Do historical processes, including the above-mentioned events, have any topical dimensions?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, I would like to congratulate the people of Bulgaria on the occasion of their national day and wish them well-being, peace and prosperity.

The 140th anniversary of the liberation of Bulgaria from the Ottoman yoke is a landmark date in the history of Russian-Bulgarian relations. I am happy to note that a number of commemorative events are devoted to this anniversary.

Having depleted all diplomatic opportunities, Russia came to the assistance of the fraternal Bulgarian nation, and it helped reinstate and strengthen Bulgarian statehood. At the same time, Russia acted sincerely and selflessly. This was in contrast with the behaviour of some European powers whose unconstructive line at the Berlin Congress of 1878 considerably reduced the territory of liberated Bulgaria.

Obviously, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 greatly influenced the entire European system. Victory that was made possible by the blood of Russian soldiers and Bulgarian militiamen made it possible to reinstate Bulgaria as an independent state and increased the ethnic self-awareness of other Balkan nations.

Russia highly appreciates the fact that today, 140 years later, the people of Bulgaria cherish the memory of the heroic feat of Russian officers and soldiers. The streets and squares of Bulgarian cities are named after outstanding Russian statesmen, including Emperor Alexander II, diplomat Nikolay Ignatyev, Generals Mikhail Skobelev, Nikolay Stoletov, Eduard Totleben, Mikhail Dragomirov and Josif Gurko.

I am confident that reliance on our common historical past, common cultural and spiritual roots and profound feelings of mutual sympathy and friendship linking our fraternal nations remains a solid foundation for the sustained development of diverse bilateral cooperation.



Question:

Russian-Bulgarian relations are currently affected by a tangle of complex factors. On the one hand, there are Orthodoxy and Slavdom, common cultural roots and traditions, spiritual and geographical affinity, respect, kinship and brotherhood. On the other hand, there are geopolitics and political commitments. What are the prospects for the development of bilateral cooperation in various fields of mutual interest, in the run-up to the 140th anniversary of the signing of the San Stefano peace treaty between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, which marked the end of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 and the creation of the Third Bulgarian State? What are the best ways to successfully develop our relationship?



Sergey Lavrov:

Bulgaria is an important European partner for Russia. For us, relations with Sofia have a value of their own, regardless of political fluctuations. We are interested in further strengthening these relations on the principles of mutual benefit and consideration for each other’s interests.

Unfortunately, our dialogue has not always been successful in recent years. The most striking example is Bulgaria’s decision to abandon the strategically important South Stream gas pipeline project under pressure from Washington and Brussels.

In this regard, I must note with satisfaction that today our Bulgarian partners are showing an interest in the development of constructive interaction. It is yielding results, too. Trade growth has resumed – by 24 per cent to 3.45 billion dollars last year. I expect that the 16th meeting of the Russian-Bulgarian Intergovernmental Commission for Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation slated for next autumn will consolidate these positive trends and identify promising areas for other cooperative efforts.

In December 2016, we finally turned the page with the Belene nuclear power plant project. After Bulgaria paid the 600 million euros to the Russian manufacturer, the equipment was delivered to the buyer. Sofia is now considering various applications for it, including possible renewal of the project.

Last June, Gazprom and the Bulgarian Ministry of Energy signed a roadmap for the development of cooperation in the gas sector, which involves exploring the possibility of expanding the Bulgarian gas transit system.

Cultural and humanitarian contacts are also progressing quickly. Russian education is becoming an increasingly attractive education option, and the status of the Russian language is growing stronger; and mutual tourism is growing.

I hope that this anniversary will be an important driver for the further expansion of Russian-Bulgarian relations for the benefit of our peoples, in the interests of maintaining stability and security on our common continent.



Question:

After the disintegration of the bipolar world and a short period of unipolar illusion, the world has finally become multipolar. We are seeing an increase in confrontation and threat of clashes. It feels as if war is coming back to Europe as a mindset and a legitimate and morally acceptable instrument of resolving international disputes and pursuing interests.

What does Russia think about its place in this new world and what priorities will it have in relations with other global players? Do we have to go through a crisis or even a war to reach catharsis and get back to the road of peace? Do we need a new wave of détente? Should we also expect Helsinki-2 in the near future?



Sergey Lavrov:

Today we are witnessing the formation of a new, more fair and democratic polycentric world arrangement. This natural process reflects the appearance and consolidation of new centres of economic power and related political influence. Guided by their own national interests they are confidently assuming their part of the responsibility for maintaining security and stability at different levels.

A multipolar world embodies the cultural and civilisational diversity of its countries, their desire to choose their own political and socio-economic development path without outside interference.

Regrettably, there are a number of serious obstacles on this road. The main one is the stubborn urge of a US-led narrow group of western states to preserve their dominance in all areas in the hope of continuing their wellbeing and prosperity at the expense of others. The international community is paying a high price for these actions. The potential for conflict is growing and the number of hotbeds is multiplying. International law is being subjected to further erosion and attempts are being made to use the factor of force for promoting one’s own interests and to consolidate one’s own security by diminishing the security of others.

It is necessary to fulfil a number of conditions for the radical improvement of the situation in Europe. First of all, it is essential to give up a stake on unilateral actions, pressure, threats and blackmail and to strictly observe the fundamental principles of international life fixed in the UN Charter, including the sovereign equality of states (regardless of their size or form of rule), non-interference in their domestic affairs and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

It is essential to refine the legal framework of interstate communication, in particular, to agree on the uniform interpretation of the principles and standards of international law. In this context, it is difficult to overestimate the role and importance of such a unique organisation as the United Nations with its universal legitimacy. Recent practice has shown that solidary actions backed by its authority in the form of relevant Security Council resolutions are capable of leading to considerable progress in resolving most complicated and intricate issues.

Russia is one of the leading centres of the world that is taking shape, a member of the UN Security Council and a major guarantor of global stability that will continue taking an active part in promoting a positive, unifying and future-oriented international agenda.

Russia will continue facilitating a political and diplomatic settlement of the many crises and conflicts in the world and will consistently uphold the values of truth, justice and large-scale equitable cooperation in global affairs. We are always open to cooperation with anyone who is willing to search for effective solutions to urgent issues of world development.



Question:

International terrorism and radical Islam have turned a war from a struggle for territory into a struggle for people's minds, a split of society. We are witnessing a new picture of the world and a redistribution of the global space in a way dictated by the new enemy of mankind – terrorism. Thus, the whole world obviously needs to combine efforts in the fight against international terrorism. In September 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an initiative to create a broad anti-terrorist coalition under the auspices of the United Nations. Two years later, he urged the formation of a broad anti-terrorist front, not only in words but in deeds, on a universally recognised international legal basis, with the UN having the central role in it. What, in your opinion, are the prospects for this initiative? Can Russia, China, the US and the EU overcome their disagreements for the sake of a common battle with international terrorism, and what is needed for this?



Sergey Lavrov:

The world is facing many challenges. International terrorism is a special danger for all of civilisation. Terrorist attacks in various countries suggest that this problem has reached an all-embracing scale. For the first time in history, terrorists threatened to create a state – a caliphate with its own territory, population, and a misanthropic ideology.

To effectively defeat the terrorist threat President Vladimir Putin put forward an initiative at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly to form a broad anti-terrorist front, which fully retains its relevance today. Largely thanks to military and diplomatic efforts, Russia has managed to deal a crushing blow to the international terrorist group ISIS in Syria.

We consistently rely on the strong conviction that antiterrorist cooperation should be developed on the foundation of international law and under the auspices of the United Nations, as envisaged by the above-mentioned Russian initiative. The international community needs to overcome the disunity in the actions of various countries and abandon its double standards – the vicious practice of dividing terrorists into evil and lesser evil and attempts to employ them to attain selfish geopolitical goals.

The number of supporters of our principled approach continues to increase. There are some even in the Western political and expert community, where an understanding is growing that we need to learn to overcome controversy to defeat terrorism, and to be guided by long-term goals. Russia has successfully cooperated with many countries for a long time in this sphere. For example, Russian-American special services cooperation helped prevent a terrorist attack in St Petersburg in December 2017.

The relevant ministries and agencies of Russia and China maintain a comprehensive dialogue on a wide range of counter-terrorism issues, including in the format of regular meetings of the bilateral interdepartmental Working Group on Countering Terrorism, also as part of the SCO RATS and the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Working Group.

Fighting terrorism is among the key areas of our interaction with the European Union. A new round of high-level consultations on counter-terrorism took place in early February; the agenda covered a range of issues. In general, we note an understanding of the need to avoid politicising this effort on the part of Brussels.

We view the appointment of Russian diplomat Vladimir Voronkov UN Under-Secretary-General, head of the UN Counterterrorism Office, as evidence of recognition of our contribution to the common antiterrorist effort. We will continue to do our best to build up joint work on the range of issues related to countering international terrorism. There is no alternative to this.



Question:

Russia is a strategic partner of the EU. You and the EU are negotiating an agreement on cooperation and partnership on visa liberalisation. These are important issues for Bulgaria as well. You have said that Russia wants the EU to be strong and united but its decisions should be based on a balance of interests of its member states. Do you think that Bulgaria, which will preside over the Council of the European Union until the middle of 2018, can do something to improve Russia-EU relations?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, I would like to say that the talks on a new basic agreement, as well as on visa facilitation, have been suspended at the EU’s initiative following the February 2014 events in Ukraine, when a coup was staged in Kiev with the connivance of Washington and Brussels. The ultranationalists, who seized power by force, split Ukrainian society and launched a fratricidal war.

The EU, following in Washington’s footsteps, laid the blame for this at Russia’s door, adopted unilateral sanctions and suspended cooperation in many areas, including mutual visa liberalisation and the modernisation of the legal framework for our relations. Moreover, the new Global Strategy [for the EU’s Foreign and Security Policy] says that the relationship with Russia represents a key strategic challenge for Brussels. Using such terms is short-sighted and unprofessional.

Russia has not changed its attitude to relations with the EU. As we said, we want the EU, which is a major neighbour and a key trade and economic partner, to be a strong and independent international actor capable of independently setting its foreign policy priorities. We hope that Europeans will overcome their mental inertia, abandon a Russia policy based on the lowest common denominator, and stop taking its cue from a small but very aggressive group of anti-Russia countries. This would not just make our relations more predictable but also strengthen trust and mutual understanding in the Euro-Atlantic region.

I am pleased to say in this context that several positive trends have recently developed in Russia-EU relations. For example, mutual trade increased by over 20 per cent in 2017, although this is a far cry from the pre-crisis figure, of course. Our political dialogue is being revitalised.

We hope that Bulgaria, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU, will help redirect Russian-EU relations to a path of sustainable improvement.



Question:

What is Russia’s attitude to the active and prospective NATO and EU memberships of western Balkan countries? How does it affect the geopolitical situation and the balance of interests in the Balkans?



Sergey Lavrov:

I get this question a lot. NATO is a relic of the era of bipolar confrontation and is still acting in line with Cold War logic, trying to justify its own existence. In the past few years, it has unequivocally proclaimed deterring Russia as its goal.

NATO is obsessed with the idea of bringing the Balkans into its orbit. Having drawn Montenegro into its ranks without considering the opinion of its people, NATO is boosting efforts to accelerate Macedonia’s accession to the bloc and has similar plans for Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this way, it is consolidating the dividing lines in Europe and loosening the architecture of European security. Such actions are hardly in the interests of European nations. Moreover, NATO failed to give an adequate response to the main challenge of our time – international terrorism.

Having proposed an initiative to sign a European security treaty, Russia continues working for indivisible security in our common European home.

We do not see the desire of Balkan countries to join the EU as a problem. Naturally, they should judge for themselves, without outside interference, whether the preconditions for joining the EU meet their national interests. Needless to say, the Euro-integration aspirations of the Balkan nations should not be an obstacle to their cooperation with Russia. If the will is there, it is always possible to find acceptable formats of cooperation.

Regrettably, efforts to undermine Russia’s centuries-long ties with the Balkan countries have been considerably stepped up recently. They are being given an ultimatum, “You’re either with us or against us”. In other words, they are supposed to choose between Moscow on the one hand and Washington and Brussels on the other. The aim of such efforts is to turn the Balkans into yet another front in the confrontation in Europe. I am sure that the public of the Baltic countries is against such scenarios.

As for Russia, we intend to continue making a positive contribution to regional affairs. We view the Balkans as a region for constructive dialogue and cooperation in the interests of its nations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3105914
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 5th, 2018 #373
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin’s remarks at the international conference Russia-Kazakhstan: A Forward-Looking Alliance, Astana, February 28, 2018



1 March 2018 - 15:36




Today's conference is devoted to the present and future of our relations, which are inextricably linked with the centuries of co-existence of the peoples living in Russia and Kazakhstan. Our main task is to save the best that history and geography gave us, and to use it for the benefit of our respective national interests. I believe that the impressive intellectual forces gathered together by the organisers of our meeting will contribute to this noble mission.

I don’t need to convince anyone here that acting together and relying on the unique advantages of our neighbours and allies makes it easier for us to address the issues of development, to improve the competitiveness of our economies, and, in general, to strengthen the positions of Russia and Kazakhstan in the world of competition and challenges. This rests on the foundation of the Treaty on Neighbourliness and Alliance in the 21st Century signed in 2013, which is the brainchild of President Nazarbayev. In short, we can not only take Russia-Kazakhstan cooperation to a higher level, but also invite our external partners to share with us our common vision of Eurasia as a single space for cooperation and stability.

Above all, Russia and Kazakhstan are able to do much to keep at bay zero-sum geopolitical games, which we see unfolding in other parts of the post-Soviet space, as well as in the Middle East and North Africa. Today, experts are noting the attempts of the third countries to form, in close proximity to us, dangerous factors of disagreement and rivalry between the CIS members, the EAEU, the CSTO, and the SCO. They are using the bugaboo of anti-Russian sanctions to threaten all those who continue to remain loyal to partnership and alliance with Russia.

I’m confident that none of our friends will give in to this "logic" of confrontation. That would be a mistake. On the contrary, such intrigues should be met with a position oriented towards deepening relations, pragmatism and mutual benefits. The more successful our bilateral and integration projects are, the more attractive.

The object of criticism of the detractors of our deepening ties is telling. The issue is about integration cooperation. Allegedly, it does not benefit any of its participants, except Russia. However, they fail to take into account the material basis for modernising our economies and deep processing of raw materials. The Eurasian integration contributes to guaranteed marketing of a substantial portion of our output and the use of common supply infrastructure.

The Eurasian Economic Union has successfully passed the formation stage. Our union is going from strength to strength. There are concrete results.

Tatyana Valovaya spoke about this in detail.

In the future, the integration process will be focused on developing an optimal formula for relations with neighbouring states and expanding ties in the East and West. Such cooperation is the imperative of our times. Soon, there will be no areas untouched by various trade and integration agreements, and if you are not a member of these "elite clubs," you will not be able to withstand competition in the coming decades. Russia and Kazakhstan are destined to play an important role in the formation of a common space of cooperation and harmony from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

In this regard, Russia is interested in close interaction with Kazakhstan as part of the Organisation for Cooperation of Railways, including during the discussion of the Convention on Direct International Railway Traffic. Our countries support the development of the North-South corridor. The international Europe-Western China route and the high-speed railway "Eurasia" corridor may be quite lucrative projects for Russia.

Without exaggeration, the future of our economic relations system directly depends on implementing the common EAEU digital agenda, developing an online economy, the general rules of e-commerce, and common standards for the exchange and protection of information. High technology is already used in public administration, industry, and customs regulation. The digital strategy of Kazakhstan’s leadership, your desire to be part of the top 30 of the most developed countries is in full accord with our vision of the future of our bilateral and integration ties.

Friends,

Unfortunately, the global military-political situation is not becoming any calmer. This fully applies to the territories adjacent to the CIS.

The proponents of geopolitical competition are diligently developing recipes for "managed destabilisation," which could hamper the plans of the EAEU and the SCO to implement their economic, social and other projects, including in the sphere of countering new challenges and threats. Under the pretext of defending "general democratic" values, controlled NGOs and the media are being manipulated. Efforts are being made to prepare the political climate in the Central Asian countries and to exert pressure on official circles. International financial institutions are used, where Western countries have a controlling interest. They even stoop to blackmail methods. To increase their influence, some are resorting to threats of extending anti-Russian sanctions to the countries of the region. Every now and then, pseudo-advice to abandon the Russian language as an instrument of "Russian ideological expansion" is offered.

It is important to remain vigilant and not let yourself be played by those who see things unfolding in the CIS in their own specific way from their faraway lands.

We see the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) as one of the main instruments for ensuring peace and stability in our region. The priorities of the chairmanship in the Organisation stated by Astana deserve support. These include greater interaction of member states in the military sphere, the establishment of practical defence industry cooperation, the participation of the CSTO in forming an international global system for countering terrorism, responding to cybersecurity threats, and increasing the effectiveness of measures to counter drug trafficking. We are ready to do productive work in order to implement them, including within the framework of approved mechanisms for foreign policy coordination.

We welcome Kazakhstan's intention to increase its presence in international peacekeeping activities under the auspices of the UN. We believe that your country can act as a trailblazer in forming the CSTO peacekeeping mission. You have more than enough authority to do that. This can be seen from the results of work on the site provided by Kazakhstan for the Astana process on Syria.

Our strategic partnership and the evolution of integration processes objectively meet the interests of the peoples of Russia and Kazakhstan. They underwrite prosperity and political stability. I am confident that common economic policy and coordinated policy on the international arena will make us stronger in the face of any trials. This allows us to look confidently into the future.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3103140






Remarks by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Dmitry Balakin at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the fourth anniversary of Crimea’s reunification with Russia, Vienna, March 1, 2018



2 March 2018 - 12:36




Mr Chairman,

I am glad to have this opportunity to comment on the extremely important matter of Crimea’s reunification with Russia. March 18 will mark the fourth anniversary of this truly historic event.

The people of Crimea had waited for years to exercise their legal right to self-determination, which is enshrined in the UN Charter and reaffirmed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States according to the UN Charter, and the final act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the Helsinki Accords).

There are no grounds to cast doubts on the results of the referendum that took place in Crimea on March 16, 2014. Those who know the actual situation on the peninsula have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the local population indeed voted in favour of reunification with Russia and continues to support that decision. Anybody who speaks about so-called annexation and the need to “shove Crimea back” into Ukraine is being extremely disrespectful of the peninsula’s population, who are the holders of the territory’s sovereignty.

Crimea’s return to Russia was motivated by a forced anti-constitutional coup that took place in Kiev four years ago. The attack on buses with Crimean residents who were returning from Kiev by barbaric nationalist radicals near the town of Korsun-Shevchenkovsky on February 20, 2014 became the turning point for the Crimeans, who realised where their further path should lie.

The Crimeans’ resistance to the forcefully imposed Ukrainisation and Russophobia began back in 1991, when the prevailing majority of the population voted in a referendum for restoring the Crimean Autonomous Region as a separate constituent entity of the Soviet Union, an entity independent from Ukraine. The resistance continued for almost 25 years and finished with the 2014 referendum on the reunification with Russia.

One of Ukraine’s nationalist leaders, Dmitry Yarosh, expressed the Kiev officials’ attitude towards the people of Crimea in the following manner: “Crimea will be Ukrainian or uninhabited.” Kiev authorities did not stop at words. They organised a water and food blockade, cut off transit and energy. In its appeal to the UN General Assembly on December 25, 2017, the Crimean State Council Presidium qualified those measures as terrorism against the residents of Crimea.

Ukrainian nationalists continue to call for punishing Crimeans for their choice. Governments of several other countries have taken the same discriminatory stance by imposing restrictions against the Crimean people – although back in 1975 the same countries stated that the main achievements of the Helsinki Accords were the freedom of speech, the freedom of movement and the peoples’ right to determine their fate. It is paradoxical that these countries are now punishing Crimeans for exercising those very rights and freedoms.

It is particularly inappropriate that the accusations regarding human rights in Crimea come from Ukraine, which in the period since the dissolution of the Soviet Union has not taken any efforts at all in this area and has ignored the recommendations of international human rights institutions.

Life has affirmed that the Crimean residents made the right choice. Watching Kiev’s policy of persecuting dissidence that resulted in bloodshed and tragedy in Odessa and Mariupol and the civil war in Donbass, it can be easily surmised what actions the radical nationalists would have taken in Crimea. Thanks to its reunification with Russia, Crimea has avoided such brutality.

The current situation in Crimea is peaceful. Local residents freely exercise the rights granted by Russia’s international obligations and guaranteed by the Russian Constitution.

Crimea is confident of its future. Its structural integration with the Russian Federation is completed. Regional legislation has been brought in compliance with federal laws. The republic’s socioeconomic status is stable despite its difficult legacy. The regional budget revenue is growing. Housing construction is expanding. Industrial production and agriculture are developing. The tourist industry is improving. The free economic zone is developing rapidly. The total amount of capital investment has exceeded 100 billion roubles ($1.7 billion). Investors from China, India and some OSCE countries are taking great interest in the peninsula. The republic has foreign trade relations with 60 countries.

The local population enjoys positive inter-ethnic and inter-faith relations. Federal and regional officials protect the interests of ethnic minorities, including Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians, with respect to their culture, language, religion and other aspects of their lives, in accordance with the Constitution. There are 14 regional ethnic and cultural autonomies on the peninsula, including two Crimean Tatar autonomies.

The Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar languages are the official languages in the Republic of Crimea, and conditions are in place for learning these languages at schools and universities. Parents enrolling their children at any Crimean school can choose a language of instruction.

Major ethnic groups are represented in the Crimean executive bodies on a proportional basis. The Interior Ministry, for example, has 56 percent Russians, 29 percent Ukrainians and 11 percent Crimean Tatars in its staff. The prosecutor’s office has 71 percent Russians, 16 percent Ukrainians and 10 percent Crimean Tatars.

The number of Ukrainian nationals visiting the peninsula is increasing every year. Around 400,000 Ukrainians visited Crimea in 2014 and 2015. In 2016, the number of Ukrainian tourists reached 700,000. In 2017, the figure exceeded 800,000. The total number of tourists who visited Crimea in 2017 stands at 5.13 million.

All this is happening against the backdrop of intimidation of Ukrainians by Kiev and Ukrainian media, recommendations not to visit Crimea, and even despite the fact that many Ukrainians have to wait for hours at Ukrainian checkpoints at the Russia-Ukraine border to enter Crimea.

Finally, we would like to propose that representatives of the OSCE states, parliament members and NGOs visit the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol and form their own judgement of the situation based on their personal experience rather than observations from a distance which are usually based on biased sources. We are ready to welcome delegations of international organisations in Crimea if they travel there according to procedures applicable to Russia visits.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3104374






Remarks by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Dmitry Balakin at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, March 1, 2018



2 March 2018 - 12:37




Mr Chairman,

Four years ago, the Ukrainian domestic political crisis, inspired and fuelled from abroad, escalated into an unconstitutional coup, an armed debauchery of nationalist radicals and an extremely brutal civil conflict that does not abate. The people of Ukraine are forced to pay this price for trusting empty-worded promises. An artificial choice between the so-called European way and expanded ties with Russia has divided the country, created a hotbed of instability on the borders between the European Union and Russia and dealt a heavy blow to the entire system of European security.

Unfortunately, the situation is far from being stabilised. On February 24, the so-called Donbass reintegration law entered into force in Ukraine. This is a dangerous step towards escalating the conflict in Donbass, above all because it runs counter to the letter and spirit of the Package of Measures, the only real foundation for a peace settlement. The deliberate omission of references to the Minsk Agreements from the draft law once again confirms that Kiev does not view them as binding and does not plan to fulfil them.

We see a discrepancy between this law’s provisions and the law on the special status of Donbass that must be coordinated with representatives of certain districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions and enacted under Clause 11 of the Package of Measures and the Normandy Format agreements.

This is an obvious attempt by Kiev authorities to indulge in wishful thinking. A reluctance to reach an agreement with Donetsk and Lugansk representatives forced Kiev to conceive the “occupation administration” in their place. Mythical “aggression” should serve as justification for war crimes, perpetrated by the army and the so-called volunteers.

Without going into additional details, we are noting that this law does not in any way deal with a comprehensive political settlement, the main pre-condition for the reintegration of Donbass as stipulated by Clauses 9 and 11 of the Package of Measures, and the need for direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk.

In this context, any claims that this law meets the Minsk Agreements are groundless.

Ukrainian Defence Minister Stepan Poltorak has been instructed to draft proposals on changing the format of the military operation in Donbass by April 1. An attempt to legalise the use of the Ukrainian army against the civilian population while repelling the so-called “aggression” should not mislead us. Appointing a new main department responsible for the so-called anti-terrorist operation and renaming the operation do not change the essence of the conflict: This remains an attempt to forcibly subdue those who disagree with the February 2014 unconstitutional coup in Kiev.

Quite possibly, the re-delegation of powers between law enforcement agencies will only influence the distribution of profits during trans-border smuggling operations across the contact line.

We are warning Kiev against taking any steps aiming to further undermine the work of the Contact Group in Minsk, the only venue for direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk.

We are calling for unfailing compliance with the agreed-upon spring ceasefire agreement starting on March 5. It is necessary to publish ceasefire orders and to refrain from provocative actions to seize positions in the “grey zone.” It is important to prevent an escalation, preparations for which we can see, including from the reports of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces have become entrenched in the village of Novoaleksandrovka, inside the “grey zone,” and they have taken up positions inside a disengagement sector in Zolotoye. Military equipment has been deployed near the contact line. In the past two weeks, members of the Special Monitoring Mission have spotted 30 pieces of Ukrainian weaponry deployed in violation of the Package of Measures, and 110 pieces of military equipment immediately outside redeployment lines. The Ukrainian Armed Forces are holding exercises with live-ammunition target-shooting sessions along the contact line, in violation of the Contact Group’s March 3, 2016 decision. Almost 200 artillery systems and tanks have disappeared from Ukrainian depots in the past two weeks. Kiev is blocking the disengagement of forces in Stanitsa Luganskaya, although a ceasefire was declared there on December 26, 2017.

On February 14, the Ukrainian Armed Forces fired on two schools in Dokuchayevsk. Fortunately, no children were hurt there. Shelling wounded a civilian in Spartak and damaged housing in Golmovskoye, Gorlovka, Dolgoye, Kashtanovo, Kominternovo and Molodyozhnoye.

On February 22, an anti-tank guided missile hit an ambulance with clearly visible Red Cross insignia carrying a wounded self-defence fighter, in violation of a ceasefire agreement that was coordinated with members of the Special Monitoring Mission.

In the early hours of February 24, Ukrainian army units launched a massed fire in direct proximity to observers who were forced to quickly evacuate a patrol base in Popasnaya.

Observers have long been denied access to Ukrainian-controlled districts of Stanitsa Luganskaya, Schastye, Zolotoye and other communities under the pretext of a mine threat. On February 21, the Ukrainian Armed Forces once again fired at a drone of the Special Monitoring Mission in Konstantinovka. This is the sixth Ukrainian attack against the Mission’s drones since early 2018. Previous incidents include the January 12 shelling in Pavlopol, the February 2 shelling in Verkhnetoretskyoe, the February 4 shelling over a weapons depot in the Donetsk Region, the February 6 shelling in Mikhailovka, the February 10 shelling in Kleshcheyevka and the February 21 shelling in Konstantinovka.

Mr Chairman,

The situation in Donbass gets worse as soon as there is a flare up in other parts of Ukraine. On Tuesday, there were again clashes in front of the Verkhovna Rada building in Kiev. On February 15-16, representatives of the National Militia and volunteers from the Donbass battalion clashed with police in Kiev and Odessa, demanding a review of the court decision on the arrest of Odessa’s mayor. On February 23, radicals from the Self-Defence, Sokol and AutoMaidan movements armed with bats, car tires and bulletproof vests forced the government to hand over the Lermontovsky resort in Odessa.

The number of radicals’ assaults on Russian foreign institutions and monuments keeps growing. On February 17, nationalists attacked the Russian Centre of Science and Culture in Kiev. The radicals, led by Verkhovna Rada deputy Andrey Lozovoi, stormed the building with 50 children and as many adults inside. While the police took no action, they destroyed the exhibition and painted walls with extremist mottos. On the next day, nationalists threw rocks at the building in plain view of the Special Monitoring Mission observers. The Ukrainian police did not bother to get involved. On February 26, Ukrainian nationalists threw flares at the Russian Consulate General in Odessa and poured red paint on the fence. On February 14, radicals tried to set Sberbank’s office in Lvov on fire. On February 18, they broke the windows in the bank’s Kiev office. On February 15 and 24, they desecrated the memorial to the Soviet liberators in Lvov. The leader of Ukrainian nationalists, Nikolay Kokhanivsky, openly threatened that attacks on Russian facilities in Ukraine will continue.

The religious factor is also being stirred up. Radicals are attacking the parish and the property of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The SMM has recorded many cases of assaults, attempts to seize churches, let alone the murders of priests, which happened in 2014.

Not only Russian institutions are falling victim to radicals. On February 27, radicals set fire to the office of the Hungarian Cultural Society in Uzhgorod, Transcarpathia. This was preceded by a failed attempt to attack the Hungarian cultural centre on February 4.

All these cases were recorded by the SMM and prove the need for an urgent reaction from the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. There must be a report by the OSCE SMM on cases of radical nationalism, extremist and xenophobia in Ukraine. It is necessary to have a collective reaction of the international community to Ukrainian radical nationalism.

The riotous behaviour of radicals comes with the passive consent of the Kiev government, which itself pursues a discriminatory policy towards the Russian-speaking community and ethnic minorities.

The Law on Education, adopted by the Verkhovna Rada in September 2017, violates Article 10 of the Ukrainian Constitution and Clause 11 of the Minsk Package of Measures, which stipulates the adoption of permanent legislation on the special status of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions with regard to their right to language identity. Kiev has infringed on the right of the non-Ukrainian speaking population to receive an education in their own language and thus has deepened the split in Ukrainian society.

There is information that the Ukrainian Constitutional Court, pressured by radicals, has abandoned the law on language policy basics. According to estimates, the rights of at least one-third of Ukrainian society will suffer from it.

Under the pretence of protection from “aggression,” the freedom of speech and assembly is limited and dissidents are persecuted. Even Amnesty International pointed at unprecedented violations of human rights in Ukraine in its review report on human rights in various countries in 2017. The report features cases of the persecution of journalists who have a critical attitude to the current political course of Ukraine. The report says that there are no results yet in the investigation of the murders of Oles Buzina and Pavel Sheremet. Recorded are regular persecutions of civil activists who are investigating corruption cases. Secret prisons of the Ukrainian Security Service have been proven to exist, as well as the mass use of torture and abuse by Ukrainian law enforcement officers; many cases of sexual assault by the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Ukrainian armed groups were reported. The report recognises the indifference of the Ukrainian judicial system to the victims and the lack of assistance to them.

In conclusion, I would like to say the obvious. The Minsk Agreements and the overall political settlement through a direct dialogue of the parties is the only real way to reach peace. The statements by Ukrainian politicians that the “Donbass problem” can be solved in two weeks by military means are a road to disaster.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3104384
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 5th, 2018 #374
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Official Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 2, 2018



2 March 2018 - 16:53








Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s trip to Angola, Namibia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia

From March 5 through 9, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will travel to a number of African countries on working visits: Angola, Namibia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia. Mr Lavrov is planning to meet with the top leadership of the afore-mentioned countries and hold full-format negotiations with his counterparts.

A wide range of important international and regional issues will be discussed, with special emphasis on forming a new international and regional agenda and building a new polycentric architecture of interstate relations, based on international law, including the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, while continuing to bolster the central role of the UN. There will be separate discussions on priority areas of bilateral and multilateral cooperation in combating international terrorism, transnational crime and drug trafficking. Among the focal points of the upcoming talks are ways to resolve conflicts on the African continent, the Middle East settlement process, the situation in Syria, the developments on the Korean Peninsula and the reform of the UN Security Council.

Mr Lavrov’s meetings and talks in African capitals will allow for more detailed analysis of the current state and future prospects of trade, economic, investment, scientific, technological and humanitarian ties. Another planned topic of discussion is joint efforts to make work on these tracks more effective, considering the existing experience of constructive partnership and the presence of important objects of bilateral cooperation in the afore-mentioned countries.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi

On March 13, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia Retno Marsudi in Moscow.

The agenda of the upcoming talks comprises a wide range of bilateral cooperation issues, including ways to step up political dialogue and boost trade, economic and humanitarian ties, as well as a substantive discussion of international and regional problems.



Sixth meeting of the Russia-Turkey Joint Strategic Planning Group

On March 14, the sixth meeting of the Russia-Turkey Joint Strategic Planning Group headed by Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov and Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu will take place in Moscow.

Russia-Turkey political dialogue is characterised by dynamic contacts up to the highest levels. During the upcoming talks, the sides will compare positions on key issues on the bilateral agenda, analyse the implementation of the agreements reached between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan and discuss the preparations for the regular meeting of the High-Level Russian-Turkish Cooperation Council chaired by the two heads of state.

The ministers will discuss the implementation of strategic bilateral energy projects (the construction of the Akkuyu nuclear power plant and the Turkish Stream gas project) as well as the possibilities for further promoting bilateral trade.

During discussions of current regional and international issues, attention will be focused on countering international terrorism, stabilising the situation in Syria and promoting the political settlement process in the context of the results of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress held in Sochi.



Voting abroad in the Russian presidential election

Acting within its authority, the Foreign Ministry is making preparations for holding the presidential election abroad. Ballots and other papers are being taken to our foreign missions. The formation of precinct election commissions (PEC) is almost complete. As of late February, they were headed by 32 ambassadors (including in the United States, New Zealand, Austria, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, to name a few) and 45 general consuls. Orders to form PECs continue to come in, so these numbers are not final.

The following has been done to reach as many foreign-based voters as possible. The total number of fully outfitted polling stations amounted to an unprecedented 393 as of the end of February. I would like to note that their number stood at 378 during the previous presidential election. The foreign ministry is expanding the geography of early and absentee polling stations. As compared with the last presidential election in 2012, where early and absentee voting was available in 166 cities of 62 countries, their number has increased to 356 in 90 countries now. This practice has never been used so extensively.

For the first time in the history of organising voting abroad, polling stations have been set up at popular tourist destinations, such as Goa (India), Phuket and Pattaya (Thailand), Sousse (Tunisia), and Hurghada (Egypt). We will take visiting polling stations to other holiday destinations, such as Bali (Indonesia), Sharm El Sheikh (Egypt), and Phu Quoc Island (Vietnam). Additional information will be provided.

Absentee voting stations have been set up at Bushehr (Iran), Ostrovets (Belarus), Guayaquil (Ecuador), Santa Cruz (Bolivia) and Vung Tau (Vietnam) at camps hosting our specialists working at major foreign industrial sites related to construction of nuclear power plants, oil production, and others. The production workers will have access to absentee voting stations in Angola, Algeria, Bangladesh, Venezuela, India, Iraq, China, Oman, Sudan and Turkey.

Since the authorities of Latvia and Estonia are against opening additional voting stations or organising absentee stations (the human rights watchdogs at the European Union and the OSCE would do well if they provide an assessment of such actions by these states), Russia decided to hold elections at the polling stations in these countries on March 17 and 18.

In these countries, as well as in the Federal Republic of Germany and a number of others, it is planned to organise free bus rides to voting stations from the cities with large numbers of Russian citizens. The corresponding information was posted on official websites of foreign missions of the Russian Federation.

On February 15, the Central Election Commission of Russia held the first cluster meetings with the heads of Russian foreign missions from the CIS countries, the Baltic states, Scandinavia and Israel. They had substantive discussions about preparations for the elections, and exchanged views on organisational, methodological and legal issues. CEC senior officials spoke highly of the work done by the Foreign Ministry and Russian foreign missions in this area. We will try to keep up the good work.

A similar meeting was held at the Russian Embassy in Berlin on February 27.

Online conferences will be held at the ministry to cover remote foreign missions. We have already held such a conference with the countries of Africa, to be followed by Asia and America. We know from experience that this form of work is effective. Our diplomats who are in charge of organising elections are satisfied and thankful for the ability to receive answers, even remotely, to specific questions about the election.

The official CEC website shows addresses and phone numbers of the polling stations of Russian foreign institutions in the corresponding section. This week, we have already verified these data, and will do so again. A list of polling stations will also be posted in the corresponding section of the official foreign ministry’s website.

Every time, I focus on this specifically. In addition to existing disinformation topics, we now have the election theme. I can see posts in social media and on popular bloggers' pages that it will be impossible to vote abroad, or, that in order to vote abroad, one will have to wait for months to obtain a permit or a registration, and so on. Things get mixed up. There are things such as consular registration, voting and preparations for it. All information about what needs to be done, if you happen to be abroad on the day of voting, has already been posted on the CEC official website. Please, use verified information. Do not fall for misinformation. We are asking the media to cover this topic as extensively as possible. Indeed, there is lots of misinformation out there, and it's about citizens who need to vote. To reiterate, everything has been done to make sure they can do so. As compared with previous electoral cycles, the Foreign Ministry has stepped up its work.



The situation in Syria

Over the last two weeks tensions have grown in and around Syria, as two factors came into conflict. One is largely associated with the efforts of Russia and its partners in the Astana format and the team of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura. These are efforts to back the positive impulse that the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi provided to the political settlement process in this country and make sure that there is a real push for peace on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 2254. The other factor is associated with the terrorists’ frantic attempts to intervene. Regretfully, not only have some of our Western partners failed to denounce their activities but they even did what they could to cover up and justify them, jumping at the opportunity to seize the initiative from Russia and continue carrying out their self-serving geopolitical plans, which have nothing to do with the interests of the Syrian people. Syrians have different views of their country, its political system and its future. But what terrorists, militants and extremists are doing is definitely not in the interests of the Syrian people.

In political terms, the confrontation was triggered by the complicated humanitarian situation and the groundless accusations of using chemical weapons that continue to be made against Damascus.

This is an entirely artificial topic, since nobody has so far presented conclusive evidence that Damascus used chemical weapons. This can be seen, among other things, from recent statements by head of the US Department of Defence James Mattis, who publicly admitted that Washington had no evidence to prove this.

All accusations made to this effect are based on falsified evidence from militants and certain “volunteers” from among the notorious White Helmets, who were many times caught distributing fake videos. The latest one that is being hyped now on the internet is a fake new “chemical attack by the regime” using chlorine in the village of Al Shifunia. At the same time, reports of the use of toxic agents by extremists are being ignored. For example, on February 15–17, two provocations involving the use of chlorine by militants against the government troops were recorded in the towns of Huvain and Sinjar in Idlib province.

Now let us move to the humanitarian aspect. In mid-February, after a long break, the joint humanitarian convoy organised by the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross delivered food and medicine to the town of Nashabia in Eastern Ghouta. The necessary conditions were put in place thanks to the assistance of the Russian military who had secured a 72-hour moratorium on flights over this area. However, this did not stop the terrorists and illegal armed groups who interact with them in Ghouta from continuing to fire missiles at Damascus and shell the city and its environs. On February 24 and 25, over 70 mortar shells and missiles were fired at Damascus.

The shelling of the capital of Syria never stops, killing innocent people every day. According to the Damascus health department, 32 civilians were killed and over 200 wounded over the last few days.

On February 24, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2401 aimed at relieving the humanitarian situation in Syria, also through demanding an immediate end to the fighting, with the exception of military operations against terrorists, and the establishment of a humanitarian truce lasting at least 30 days; however, the militants only stepped up their attacks. The Russian and Syrian forces established a daily five-hour pause and created a corridor for the residents of Eastern Ghouta wishing to leave the area; the terrorists responded to it with fierce gunfire, hampering the safe movement of both people and humanitarian supplies.

These provocations by illegal armed units have made a large-scale ground-based counter-terrorist operation in Eastern Ghouta supported by the Syrian Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Force, necessary and inevitable. The villages of Hazrama, Salehiya and partially Nashabiya have been liberated. The strategic height of Tal Farzat has been taken. After severe battles with the terrorists, Syrian troops occupied the village of Hosh Al-Dawahra. Fierce fighting continues in the area of ​​ Utaya, to the southeast of Damascus. In Harasta, soldiers of the Syrian Army's 4th light armoured division won back several buildings in the Al-Ajami District. The militants there put up stubborn resistance. Reports say they are using US TOW missile weapon systems. The government forces’ offensive is unfolding, embracing Harasta from the north.

The situation in the Homs de-escalation zone remains generally calm. A few provocations by Jabhat al-Nusra and their allies were recorded in the north of the province of Hama.

Signs of life returning to normal have been noted in Deir-ez-Zor province, in the areas liberated from ISIS. In the first weeks of February, about 300 families returned to their homes in Abu Kamal. To facilitate this process, the authorities are building crossings over the Euphrates. The border crossing on the Syrian-Iraqi border has begun to operate in regular mode. As Abu Kamal and Al Mayadin were cleared of mines, new ISIS arms caches were discovered, including Israeli weapons. On the opposite bank of the Euphrates, more than 10 people were hit by another indiscriminate air strike by the US-led coalition on a camp of IDPs.

We are closely following the developments in the Idlib de-escalation zone, where, according to reports, clashes have erupted between Syria's Liberation Front (SLF), the newly formed Syrian armed opposition association (Jabhat Tahrir Suriya) and al-Nusra (Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham). Al-Nusra troops are retreating, leaving one city after another.

We are still seriously concerned about the actions of the US-led coalition in Syria, in particular, the continued blockade of humanitarian access to the Rukban IDP camp, located in the so-called 55-kilometer ‘deconfliction’ zone, by our American partners. Such actions are in conflict with UNSC Resolution 2401. The US troops’ illegal presence in the area around Al-Tanf and the closure of the most important transport artery between Damascus and Baghdad constitutes a gross violation of Syria’s sovereignty.

As the extremists on the ground stepped up their efforts to break the truce, their foreign sponsors and biased media were stirring up hysteria over Damascus and Moscow’s alleged failure to implement Resolution 2401. I would like to say once again that Russia voted for the resolution and, hours after its adoption, began taking practical steps in coordination with Syria’s legitimate Government, to support the implementation of its main requirements exactly the way they are stipulated in the document. We will continue working toward this goal. However, we should not be expected to prevent the Syrian authorities from fighting terrorists, the very ones that have repeatedly bombarded the Russian diplomatic mission in Damascus, among other things. Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov has stated this repeatedly, commenting on the adopted resolution; statements and comments of the Russian Foreign Ministry contained the same message.

Fake unsigned papers accusing Syria’s legitimate government, Russia and Iran of violating UN SC Resolutions 2254, 2268 and 2401 do little to fulfill Resolution 2401; it will be implemented through specific actions, which should result in a disengagement between those who are ready to support the ceasefire, and terrorists, with the subsequent elimination across Syria of terrorist organisations designated as such by the UN Security Council, and a political settlement process in that country based on Resolution 2254 and the decisions taken by the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.



Humanitarian fallout from US-led coalition’s storming of Raqqa

We are very concerned about the situation in the city of Raqqa, the centre of the Raqqa Province in the north of Syria. The population of the city stood at 300,000 before the start of the 2011 crisis. However, as ISIS militants captured Syrian territory to the east of the Euphrates, it grew to 800,000 people by 2014 due to internally displaced persons. Later all of these civilians, in fact, became a human shield for ISIS’ pseudo caliphate, which turned Raqqa into its capital.

In November 2016, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which are largely made up of Kurds, launched an operation to liberate Raqqa from terrorists. The operation was completed in October 2017. Throughout this period, the SDF was assisted by the air force and artillery of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition which blanketed the city with artillery and mortar shelling, and air bombs that sometimes included white phosphorus. For almost a year Raqqa’s districts and residents who were caught in a cauldron, were being methodically killed. The foreign advisors in charge of the operation would dismiss any mention of humanitarian corridors or humanitarian breaks, or of medical evacuation or humanitarian aid deliveries to the needy.

Now, frequent parallels are being drawn to what was happening, for example, in Aleppo. I would like to remind you that, in particular, when the Syrian army with support from the Russian Aerospace Force was conducting an operation to clear the area of terrorists, the top priority was always to consider and find opportunities to save lives and ensure the security of the civilians. I would like to remind you how many times we spoke in this room about webcams at the Russian Defence Ministry’s official site that were streaming the situation around humanitarian corridors, about which operations were planned and conducted on delivering humanitarian cargo, rendering medical assistance to those who were leaving the area of the clearance operation.

The fate of Raqqa’s civilian population was of no concern to the commanders of the operation or to the Western community either. All the known cases of the short ceasefires declared by SDF commanders were related to the periods when fully armed and the most combat-ready ISIS units were evacuated from Raqqa to be redeployed in Deir-ez-Zor and other fronts to fight government troops.

After many months of siege the city of Raqqa has been essentially wiped off the face of the earth. This is confirmed by drone footage that is freely available on the internet. Residences, schools, hospitals, bakeries have been turned to ruins. Water and sewage systems are totally destroyed. There is no electricity. According to eyewitnesses, some areas are shrouded in a stench from decomposing bodies lying under the debris. The Western world does not want to know anything about this. Western journalists do not want to write about it. The humanitarian organisations that were closely following the developments in Aleppo and are currently watching all the activities of the government forces, are reluctant to pay attention to the Raqqa situation.

Raqqa is loaded with deadly traps left behind by terrorists and with unexploded ordnances that were used by the coalition, both are stalking new victims. Meanwhile, some declarations by a number of Western countries about their intention to commit some funds on mine clearing in Raqqa still hang in the air.

It is hard to tell the destiny of several hundred thousand civilians who were in the city at the onset of the siege, how many of them are forced to languish in terrifying conditions. Raqqa is a ghost city today which, however, according to media reports, has some sort of local council. Meanwhile, it is unclear who it represents and what responsibilities it has. Will the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights tell us something?

We don’t need to talk again about the need for the restoration of a legitimate administration in this province and in the city of Raqqa in particular. Not only does the US, which settled to the east of the Euphrates in violation of Syria’s sovereignty, not allow representatives of the Syrian military or civilian authorities’ access, but neither are international humanitarian organisations or the media allowed in.

Meanwhile, according to reports seeping through that information “iron curtain,” the people still living in Raqqa urgently need humanitarian aid. In this respect, the Russian Federation put forth an initiative to set up an international evaluation mission that could give an independent and impartial assessment of the current situation in the territories, which are de facto controlled by the US, to estimate the needs of the Syrians there and to work out plans for emergency responses under the current conditions.

We must direct the attention of the world community and primarily the anti-ISIS coalition member-states that, according to Provision 10 of unanimously adopted Resolution 2410, the UNSC directly calls on the parties to assist in the delivery of humanitarian aid to those in need on the entire territory of Syria, and to allow humanitarian agencies safe and unhindered access to all affected areas in Syria which includes Raqqa, something that is mentioned in the resolution twice, by the way.

Meanwhile, instead of assisting in resolving the problem of this long-suffering Syrian city, the media, as if in response to the Russian initiative, airs declarations of a different sort of “responsible military” on “the lack of value in Russia’s parallel efforts” in a Syria settlement. I would like to respond to this kind of “analytics”: Russia has never had and does not have any “parallel” or “perpendicular” efforts. Our actions are aimed at the universal and scrupulous implementation of the provisions of the UNSC Resolutions 2254 and 2410, adopted unanimously. That said, Russia is consistently making a weighty contribution to this process unlike some of our partners who, according to our evaluations, continue efforts for the realisation of their own geopolitical schemes which have nothing to do with the interests of a long-term Syria settlement.

I would like to remind you that back then we were told so much about Aleppo, that everything was completely wrong there. According to the mayor of Aleppo, a man who in one way or another has shouldered the responsibility for this long-suffering city, there are 200,000 civilians living there. So stop lecturing us. I am perfectly aware that the numbers we present can get to you. But it is true.



Access to Russian citizens in the Iraqi penitentiary institutions and related issues

According to available information, today 22 Russian-speaking women and 49 children who are presumed to be citizens of the Russian Federation are held in a Baghdad prison together with women and children from other countries.

The women are on remand and are denied contacts with people outside, including foreign diplomats, until the end of investigation. Hence, the employees of the Russian Embassy in Bagdad have no access to these women.

Following the investigation, the Iraqi authorities are planning to hold trials of wives and widows of foreign ISIS terrorists. There may be Russian citizens among them. They will be charged with illegally residing in Iraq as well as involvement in terrorist activity and aiding and abetting them. If convicted, they could face the death penalty, life in prison or long prison terms. The Iraqi Anti-Terrorism Law is very strict and those involved in ISIS crimes in Iraq can hardly expect leniency.

The problem is aggravated by the difficulty of identifying these women and their children. Some deliberately destroyed their papers and refuse to reveal their nationality, while others have really lost their documents in the course of hostilities. As you know, it is even more difficult to determine little children’s nationality, because they do not speak any language yet.

Nevertheless, the Russian Embassy in Bagdad is progressively and rather actively working on establishing the identity of these people, how they landed up in Iraq and the reasons behind their arrest. Diplomatic notes requesting visits for consular officials of the Russian Embassy in accordance with international law have been sent to the corresponding Iraqi ministries and agencies. If the Russian citizenship of these women is confirmed, we are planning on providing local lawyers’ services to protect their rights and appeal in case of tough sentencing.

Soon, we are expecting movement in the Iraqi position on allowing our diplomats to visit the women who are presumed to be Russian citizens in Baghdad.

As for children, the Iraqi authorities have never opposed and do not oppose their return back to their home country, provided their documents are issued properly in Russia and delivered by the Russian Embassy in Bagdad to the local judicial authorities. As you know, we have enough expertise in this area. From Iraq and Syria, 24 women and 73 children have been returned to Russia since the summer of 2017.

I would like to repeat that the Foreign Ministry is constantly monitoring this issue, because we receive a large number of messages, letters and requests from families and from the Russian regions. We are constantly working on it. We disclose details when possible.



The situation in Yemen

As a result of yet another round of escalation in the fighting, the catastrophe in Yemen grows deeper. We are dealing with the “world’s largest humanitarian crisis”. This is not just our opinion. This is a quote backed by statistics presented by Ismail Ahmed, the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Yemen (who has already resigned), during the UN Security Council briefing held on February 27. The same information and data were also presented and confirmed by John Ging, the UN Director for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. So, what are the numbers? A total of 22.2 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance. Over 8.5 million, most of which are children, of course, are food insecure. Over a million people suffer from cholera and diphtheria – in the 21st century! Two million Yemeni are internally displaced.

When the Russian delegation participated in the work of the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Conference of Disarmament in Geneva, one of the western journalists came up to me and asked me if we thought about children in Syria, because they were being killed. We had talked about this problem long before the West became aware of Syrian children at all, and before this humanitarian crisis started intensifying. I have a different question: does anyone in the West think about children in Yemen? Did anyone come up to anyone else, to some delegation, perhaps, to ask if they knew what was happening to children in Yemen? I will expand on children in other war zones later today. By the way, speaking of children in Syria – it is the Russian Federation who is taking these children in for treatment, providing humanitarian assistance to both children in Syria and children who come to our country. So yes, we do think about them. The most important thing is not even dealing with the aftermath. The most important thing is that we had spoken about this before all hell broke loose in certain Syrian regions, which I have already mentioned today.

According to the most conservative estimates, during the three years of the conflict in Yemen, over 9,200 people died, while over 50,000 people were injured. As a result of aerial bombardment, Yemen’s civil infrastructure keeps suffering tremendous losses. Schools, hospitals, transport facilities have been destroyed. The country is suffering from severe shortage of medicines, which is the reason why Yemeni people keep dying from diseases that can easily be treated today. A million and a half civil servants in both north and the south of the country have not been paid for over a year and a half.

The situation improved somewhat when Saudi Arabia lifted the blockade on Yemeni sea ports. Nevertheless, Sana’a airport remains closed to civil aviation, while the factions in the conflict keep obstructing humanitarian convoys.

We would like to also call attention to the fact that a number of delegations in the UN Security Council, which are showing excessive focus on Syria and allegedly are acting out of purely humanitarian motives (as they tell us), have been more restrained when it comes to the catastrophe in Yemen.

We strongly believe that there is no military solution to the Yemen conflict. We have to look for ways to launch the peace process without preconditions. We must bring the parties back to the negotiating table. Martin Griffiths, the new UN Special Envoy for Yemen, will be playing the key role in this process, and we wish him luck. We count on his ability to draw the necessary conclusions from the work done by his predecessor.



More outrages committed by radicals in Ukraine

We are concerned to see the further radicalisation of the situation in Ukraine. On February 17 and 18, nationalists, Russophobic zealots attacked the Russian Science and Culture Centre and the Rossotrudnichestvo office, as well as the offices of Russian banks in Kiev with the taciturn consent of Ukrainian law enforcement agencies. We will not focus on this since we already commented on it on February 19. We will note, however, that our appeals to the Ukrainian side to put an end to these outrages by radicals and create conditions for the safe functioning of Russian offices abroad have failed to elicit a proper reaction.

Hardly a week passed before our Consulate General was attacked in Odessa: on February 27, about three dozen nationalist activists threw smoke grenades on the grounds of the diplomatic mission and poured paint on the fence while shouting insults at the Russian Federation. About 50 Ukrainian law enforcement personnel stood watching. The increased number of assaults on Russian offices in Ukraine and the inaction of law enforcement testify to the fact that the assaults are instigated by the Ukrainian authorities who persistently follow the course of aggressive nationalism in a neo-Nazi manner.

In one of my interviews I mentioned US President George H.W. Bush’s speech in Kiev in 1991 who cautioned Ukraine’s people against nationalism. There is a passage in his speech which really shatters the imagination of the people who are closely dealing with Ukraine where he calls this nationalism ‘suicidal,’ as if he had foreseen that nationalism was not just a negative trait. Every country, all people have something to deal with, have manifestations of radicalism. But there are also peculiarities. In 1991 President George H.W. Bush said his country would not support ‘suicidal’ nationalism in the context of Ukraine proper and the people there.

It is not just Russian missions that are affected by the acts of radicals. In February, the Society of Hungarian Culture was attacked twice in the Trans-Carpathian region. There is no doubt that these incidents are a response to the hard and principled stance of Hungary’s leadership to defend the rights and interests of ethnic minorities in Ukraine. Official Kiev, rather than thoroughly investigate the mob attacks, immediately tried, in the best Russophobic traditions, to shift the blame to the Russian side and talked about some “Russian trail” in the case. The question then arises if it was Moscow that vandalized our own diplomatic missions.

We call on international organisations to give an adequate assessment of the developments in Ukraine (before they start killing people), of this lawlessness, and demand that Kiev comply with universally recognized international standards to ensure the safe operation of foreign offices, and also to conduct investigations to find and punish those responsible for attacking foreign diplomatic missions.

Of course, we urge international organisations that focus on human rights issues to give their evaluations. Of course, there is little hope, because even now none of those who are dealing with and engaged in the settling of the Ukrainian internal conflict have given an evaluation of the so-called law On the Reintegration of Donbass. Despite numerous requests, no assessment has been given so far.

We would like to say that the Russian side completely fulfills its obligations on creating favourable conditions for foreign offices on its territory including Ukrainian offices. For example, Ukraine’s Cultural Centre on Arbat Street in Moscow conducts its activities without hindrance in accordance with the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of February 27, 1998, on the Establishment and Activities of Information and Culture Centres.

The Ukrainian side has lately been trying to stay in the limelight. Odd and occasionally plainly absurd statements by Ukrainian politicians, the adoption of discriminatory laws, regular excesses by radicals have become normal in the political life of Ukraine.

It seems things cannot go any further but there are no limits to perfection. Kiev has the impertinence to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and to command how they should arrange election processes. This refers to the diplomatic note of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry of February 21 regarding the presidential election in the Russian Federation on March 18, 2018. This note, which pretends to be a document, was nothing but bewildering. In particular, the Ukrainian side, in violation of commonly accepted standards and regulations, attempted to dictate election procedure rules in the Russian Federation and in the polling stations at the Russian Embassy in Kiev and the Russian Consulates General in Odessa, Lvov and Kharkov, which enjoy diplomatic immunity.

In this connection we would like to reiterate that the Russian Federation is a sovereign state which, according to the Constitution, independently determines the order of presidential elections on the territory of the country, including, naturally, the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol which became part of the Russian Federation through the realisation of the peoples’ right to self-determination enshrined in Article 1 of the United Nations Charter and international pacts on civil political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights. We will keep hammering home that the decision of the Crimean people is final and irreversible, the status of the Republic of Crimea as a constituent entity of the Russian Federation is encapsulated in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

We expect that the Ukrainian side will comply with international and bilateral obligations including the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Consular Convention between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and that all necessary measures will be taken to ensure the safety of Russian diplomatic missions in Ukraine, and also Russian citizens on the territory of Ukraine who will take part in the upcoming Russian presidential election.



The media situation in Ukraine

The story of the media in Ukraine has been taking one dramatic turn after another. Journalists are being prevented from doing their jobs, pressured, even subjected to physical violence. Law enforcement are not carrying out proper investigations into such incidents, including into murders of journalists, which is further evidence of the fact that this campaign of repression has been sanctioned by Kiev.

According to an estimate by the Independent Union of Ukrainian Journalists, during the Euromaidan protests alone, or between November 2013 and February 2014, 271 attacks on journalists and media offices were recorded in Kiev. Nobody was held accountable. The coup was followed by systematic killings, beatings, arrests of Ukrainian and deportations of foreign journalists. When we raise the issue of Russian facilities being attacked in Ukraine, what we tend to hear is that our relations with Ukraine are in such a state that this should be expected. Will the same argument be used to justify Ukraine’s attitude towards its own citizens and media?

In fact, it has got to the point where Ukrainian journalists have to flee their country. What values guide the Ukrainian leadership to allow this?

No one appears to be investigating, as far as we know. Instead, Ukrainian human rights bodies serve a political agenda and directly put pressure on media undesirables. Let me give you one more example. On February 8, law enforcement agents stormed the office of the Vesti newspaper to conduct searches under what appears to be a made-up pretext of intervening in a property dispute. What really happened was that the publication was blocked from doing its job.

When lack of respect for the law is pervasive, journalists can hardly be expected to adequately perform their duties. Whenever we asked international bodies to take action against discrimination on the part of Ukrainian authorities that targeted Russian media, we were told to work it out with them on our own. You can see for yourself how that country deals with media. Russian media are not the only ones to suffer. A certain trend is now well-established.

We reiterate our call on the international community to resolutely state its position on this situation. We also call on European human rights organisations based in countries that were enthusiastic about the Euromaidan protests to give an unbiased assessment of the developments in Ukraine.



The situation in Moldova around the law on combating “foreign propaganda”

We have repeatedly commented on the situation in Moldova around the discriminatory law on combating “foreign propaganda.” We have called on relevant international organisations and human rights organisations to come up with an objective expert assessment of the actions taken by the Moldovan authorities as regards their compliance with the fundamental principles and standards of international law. There has been no clear response so far. Or, to be more precise, there has been a response, but it does not match the scale.

It should not go unmentioned that the heads of the US and EU diplomatic missions in Moldova have spoken up on the matter, saying that this approach clashes with universal diplomatic norms. Regrettably, despite that, the pressure on the media continues to mount in Moldova. On February 26, following the public television in the Gagauz autonomy, TV-Gagauzi, Moldova’s Council for Television and Radio fined the RTR Moldova TV channel for retransmitting news broadcasts from Rossiya 1 TV network. If the channel refuses to change its feed, it will face more fines and possibly the revocation of its licence.

So, we are witnessing how a European country seeking to become a full member of the European Union is sliding towards totalitarian methods of control and putting direct pressure on uncooperative media that displease official Chisinau, up to banning their activity. We strongly protest these anti-democratic measures aimed at suppressing freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, all this is being passed off as the desire to follow the advanced experience of the EU. They claim that Moldovan legislation is being adapted to the European Convention on Trans-Frontier Television. Has the European Union ever heard of this?



Controversy in statements by US officials on the development of Russian-American relations

We have noticed obvious controversy in the assessments of bilateral relations and, basically, of approaches to Russia and what is happening in it, which have been made by various US officials. Not long ago, there was an official statement on Russian-American ties. On February 28, US State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert said that she was not sure that the United States and Russia can make headway on the issue of improving relations. At the same time, the day before, on February 27, US Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman, addressing students in Kazan, said that he was optimistic about 2018 and that we could end it “on a higher note” than we began it. He believes that this year could be a better year for our relations, making it possible to address a number of problems. The ambassador noted that this should be done gradually without backsliding on developing business and investment ties and maintaining people-to people ties. A pretty nice dissonance indeed. All this is certainly alarming.

In all probability, the US has two versions of how bilateral relations are developing. One is intended for domestic consumers in the US and for an international response. For the American citizens, a number of representatives of the American political establishment shape the image of Russia as an awful country and constantly demonize our country. The same message is sent to journalists, who cover international relations inside the US.

The second version is meant for Russians. Perhaps, they want to show us that the US is doing everything to develop relations between the two countries, but that something or someone prevents it from doing it. I cited statements made by two officials several hours apart. From doubts about the possibility to make headway in improving relations to the prospect of bettering them this year. Impressive, isn’t it?

I am perfectly aware that sometimes it takes decades to wipe out some negative characteristics and trends in social development. The US needs more time to wipe out segregation in its society.

I would like to repeat that if the US State Department dares once again call our journalists attending a briefing “journalists from Russia” and stop talking to them for that reason, we will do what we have promised to. We will make special seats for so-called journalists from the US. This conduct is unacceptable. If just a few decades ago, people of a different skin colour were not let onto a bus, then one must wipe this out in oneself, rather than return to the perverse practice in the beginning of the 21st century, dividing journalists by their countries and nationalities. These are journalists, who do their job. Of course, they have their national identity, of course, they came from the Russian Federation, but you have no right to deny them access to information because of the country to which they belong. Let me repeat that if this happens again, we will arrange separate seats for journalists form the US. These will be special seats at the Russian Foreign Ministry’s press centre and at press conferences so that your journalists can feel what it’s like.

I am very grateful to those American journalists, who defended the right of their Russian colleagues to have access to information and be treated equally.



Systematic interference by the United States in other countries’ elections

We are often asked what we mean when we talk about America’s systematic interference in other countries’ elections. We cite various examples but it would be best if you read a book by former US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. Not the latest one, titled What Happened, but the one that she wrote about her work as Secretary of State. Every page of that book describes several occasions when they interfered in internal affairs of various countries and trigger internal processes, what they did to support certain regimes they were interested in or, on the contrary, not interested in. All this is written in black and white and is not only publicly available but sold in shops.



Russia’s alleged plans to denounce the European Convention on Human Rights and terminate membership in the Council of Europe

Yesterday we received numerous requests from Russian and foreign correspondents to comment on the information that appeared in the media about the Russian authorities allegedly intending to denounce the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and, as a consequence, to withdraw Russia from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and terminate Russia’s membership in the Council of Europe.

To be honest, I can neither confirm nor deny this information. This being said, it is evident that Russia’s relations with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) are currently going through a crisis. We regularly express concern about the frustrating situation that currently exists in the PACE: Russia has not taken part in its sessions since the end of 2014, when the Russian delegation’s powers were limited. Meanwhile, a wide range of major decisions falls within the competence of this body, including the election of judges for the ECHR and of key functionaries for the Council of Europe.

In this context, Russia’s inability to vote on such major issues, in our opinion, has a direct bearing on the legitimacy of decisions made about Russia by an organisation in forming which Russia’s will is not taken into consideration.

We also regularly inform our partners in the Council of Europe about our concern over the ECHR’s imaginative and sometimes offensive interpretations of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights that run counter to the norms of common international law and the principle of the ECHR’s subsidiary, or accessory role. Several politically charged statements against Russia are a clear evidence of the Court’s double standards, on which Russian representatives report at special meetings of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

Therefore, we hope that our joint efforts to overcome the existing difficulties in relations between Russia and the Council of Europe will soon result in restoring comprehensive cooperation in the spirit of the organisation’s goals set out in its Charter.




Answers to media questions:



Question:

What is your view on the US State Department approving deliveries of Javelin missiles to Ukraine? Can the Normandy Four negotiations resume after these developments?



Maria Zakharova:

We have openly, publicly asked our US and European colleagues, and representatives of those discussing the situation in Ukraine with Russia, if they have analysed and calculated what this move will lead to, and what they aim to achieve. Is it peaceful settlement? We have the Minks Agreements for this. Everything is there. By the way, there is no mention in that document of arms deliveries being conducive to the peaceful settlement. In fact, the agreements contain the opposite — a step-by-step plan to achieve peace that needs to be implemented in stages. In order to ensure its implementation, other countries should provide every assistance and exert all influence that they have on the parties in conflict. This is the end of it. The agreement makes no mention of arms deliveries whatsoever.



Question:

Yesterday reports, including a release on the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry, mentioned a meeting between the foreign ministers of the Caspian Five. Have the specifics of the discussion been made public? Later, Sergey Lavrov spoke over the phone with the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Iran. Was it in connection with the preparations for the upcoming summit?



Maria Zakharova:

I’ve taken your question down for clarification and, if possible, I will get back to you soon with more information. I can say that Russia has regular discussions with Azerbaijan and Iran on the Caspian region as this issue is of interest to our nations.



Question:

Armenia has elected a new president, who will be sworn in on April 9. How is Russia planning to build relations with him?



Maria Zakharova:

I think that, without doubt, it lies exclusively within the ambit of the President of Russia to make relevant statements. Our relations with Armenia are rooted in history, and their trajectory is enshrined in bilateral agreements, so we are working on the assumption that the future of our relations will be what has been stipulated in bilateral treaties or agreed at numerous summits, meetings, negotiations, based, first and foremost, on the well-being and interests of our two nations.



Question:

Do you believe it would serve a purpose to include once again the issue of Stepanakert in the Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations?



Maria Zakharova:

Our stance on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is well known. It is set out in the relevant reference materials on the Foreign Ministry’s website, and has not changed. In case of new developments or adjustment to our position, we will be sure to inform you.



Question:

In his Address to the Federal Assembly yesterday, President Vladimir Putin said that the new missiles were no bluff. He appeared to refer to the fact that some people might think so given it’s 17 days until the presidential elections.



Maria Zakharova:

I think a lot of people would want it to be just a bluff.



Question:

Do you think the international community can ascertain the existence of these missiles?



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to point out once again that any comment, let alone an official comment, on the Presidential Address, falls strictly within the ambit of the relevant bodies, as does the execution of Presidential instructions, which, as you are well aware, is stipulated in the relevant laws and the Constitution.

As to whether it is possible to see if the missiles are real, I would like to ask you a non-rhetorical question: has Russia ever declined military cooperation or refused to share military information? You should look at the number of diplomacy-oriented events that Russia’s Ministry of Defence has been holding. There is a special centre in Moscow that was built for this purpose. It hosts foreign delegations, military attaches and media events. I think the openness and readiness to cooperate that the Russian Ministry of Defence has shown is without precedent globally and, for our country, historically. Let’s be honest with ourselves, it’s not as if our country was very open throughout the 20th century. But times change, and openness and cooperation, especially in such areas as defence, the military-industrial complex, and so on, have become our trademark qualities. If interest is evident, and there are questions, Russia is always ready to answer them. I repeat that you can go to the Ministry of Defence website and see how many events that involve foreign experts and observers the Ministry holds.

Let me touch on another topic, although it’s not directly related to your very narrow question. I would like to point out what has been repeated numerous times. Russia has always proposed that we should resolve jointly all the issues that our country thought would arise to threaten international stability and security. Take the example of the anti-missile defence. A big news conference was held a few years ago in the vicinity of the Russian Foreign Ministry. It wasn’t just held at Russia’s initiative – it was organised by our country. Maybe some of you even covered it. I think our long-serving correspondents from Latin America will recall that conference. It was a large-scale event, and it was Russia that invited our western partners – the US, and other countries – to have an in-depth, serious discussion. Short videos, infographics and calculations were presented to show our vision of global security that wouldn’t have the world divided into safe and unsafe areas and security privatised by individual capitals and regions. After all the statements and concept documents, it was a real invitation to do concrete work.

Russia received no response that would translate into real steps. What we saw was a military build-up close to our borders, stepped up aggressive rhetoric, and new more horrifying armament concepts that aimed to contain a certain aggressor (which in recent years was meant to be solely Russia). There used to be an effort to be more hush-hush about the identity of that aggressor. In recent year, however, it has been stated publicly.

We’ve never closed the door to cooperation in any area. We sent out invitations and tried to make the first step. You will recall the Russian President’s Munich speech. There was a lot in that speech that showed that Russia had foreseen what the international community should have considered. What is worth remembering, too, is the Russian President’s speech at the 2015 UNGA. Was it not an invitation to start a dialogue on a concrete subject that would require collective action? Even if some people thought that anti-missile defence is not an issue where cooperation with Russia would be beneficial, pragmatic and serve a political purpose, no one can really say that cooperation on counter-terrorism is pointless. It benefits all from politicians to the ordinary people. That speech is worth remembering.

So I want to say once again that we have always been and will always be open to cooperation in various areas, and this principle underpins modern Russia.



Question:

Russia and the Hungarian Government promised that the construction of a nuclear power plant in Hungary will be launched in January or February. There was unofficial information that President of Russia Vladimir Putin will visit Hungary in this context. Is there any information about this or possible delays in construction?



Maria Zakharova:

We will ask our experts to look into this information and will reply to you today.



Question:

President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko spoke about Russia’s debt in connection with gas. What is this debt all about?



Maria Zakharova:

You should ask the Ukrainian authorities. Regrettably, we have experience in cooperating with Ukraine on the gas issues. This is always complicated and not due to any fault of Russia. You know the story and you should ask Kiev what happened this time.



Question:

The Americans instantly reacted to President Vladimir Putin’s address to the Federal Assembly yesterday by accusing Russia of violating international norms of using strategic weapons.



Maria Zakharova:

The instantaneous comment of the US Department of State was followed by an immediate comment by Russian Ambassador in the United States, Anatoly Antonov, which has been published on our website. Pay close attention to it. This is a specific, expertly addressed and dispassionate comment.



Question:

What do you think about the US refusal to take part in Russian-American expert consultations on international information security?



Maria Zakharova:

To put it diplomatically, this is a strange situation for sure. But in reality this is beyond the bounds of propriety. An agreement on consultations was reached, dates and parametres were fixed and consultations were due to take place. Apart from everything else, we regularly hear from US politicians (senators, congressmen and experts) about new information that has surfaced about Russia’s cyber interference, influence and so on. It would have been best to discuss this in the proper format. Russia was not only ready for these consultations, but also did everything possible to make them productive.

Despite the fact that an agreement had been reached and confirmations about American participation received, the Americans were ordered not to take part. This was a big surprise, particularly to them. This is how the matter stands at the moment. To be honest, I was not going to comment on this at this point but since you asked I am telling you how things really stand. This is food for thought about reality, notably about groundless accusations of cyber threats emanating from Russia.

We even suggested that we discuss everything that causes the Americans concern at an expert level because experts can always communicate. However, some political signal compelled the experts to forego these planned and confirmed consultations. The agenda, the format, time and place and even specific details were all confirmed but, and let me repeat, the political signal did its job. As to who sent it, why and what it was about, well, it is better to ask the American side about this.



Question:

The newspaper Kommersant wrote that a former Embassy employee, Ali Abyanov, said that the channel had worked since 2012 through Andrey Kovalchuk, who was detained in Germany. How could you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

I will offer a piece of sensational information, one that unfortunately has not reached all media outlets. An investigation is still ongoing, experts have been working hard for the last 18 months together with their Argentinian colleagues. They have taken certain steps and made some arrests. The investigation continues. Let me remind you that it was the Russian authorities who recommended to their Argentinian colleagues that cooperation in this matter be initiated and the Russians who were first and foremost interested in the efficient running of this operation, which, in the end, turned out to be a success. Both sides have stated this because everything was discovered on the grounds of the Russian Embassy. I repeat, this investigation is still ongoing.

Sadly, a lot of false information will be made public. Now a new wave of denials is coming. Today, for example, The Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper published a refutation of yesterday’s publication that the suspect, a certain Mr Kovalchuk, who was sought by Interpol, was an employee of the Russian Embassy. People have read millions of versions identifying him as a diplomat, a Security Department employee, a Foreign Ministry employee, a technical expert at the Russian Embassy and even a technical expert at several Russian embassies. All these suppositions are total lies. Refutations are already starting to be published. When I answered this question on the air today, I showed proof that even Russian state media are guilty. We will take pains to refute all information that is not true and we will make the relevant postings on the Foreign Ministry’s web site. All technical specifications, questions about the defendants and arrested persons – all this is part of the ongoing investigation.



Question:

The Argentinian customs office (they even published a photograph in Twitter) claims that the plane was Russian and part of the Rossiya Special Flight Detachment. The Presidential Executive Office claims that the photograph is a fake. Does the Russian Foreign Ministry intend to show a real plane?



Maria Zakharova:

I repeat that these issues are all under the competence of the investigators. You should ask them about such technical aspects. We published official comments of the Presidential Executive Office but, unfortunately, not all of them were quoted. I believe that everyone should rely upon the information being provided by those government agencies where such information exists. Comments by the Foreign Ministry and the Public Relations Centre of the Federal Security Service state that the investigation is ongoing. We have provided all the necessary details for the investigation team. The Russian Ambassador gave seven or eight interviews in which he promptly commented on the situation, to the extent he could, given his capacity, so what else can we talk about now? Our big request is that you draw your information from the Ambassador’s interview, the Foreign Ministry’s comments and from announcements made by the Public Relations Centre of the Federal Security Service. For our foreign and domestic colleagues alike, we publish everything on our informational resources, web sites and social networks.



Question:

Russian Ambassador to Azerbaijan Vladimir Dorokhin left his post on November 27, 2017 and it remains vacant to this day. Has any decision regarding candidates for the post of Russian ambassador to Azerbaijan been taken yet?



Maria Zakharova:

Decisions regarding the appointment of Russian ambassadors are made by the President of Russia. Executive orders to this effect are posted on the Presidential website. This is the prerogative of the President. As for me, I can tell you that we are working to promote our relations with Azerbaijan. Our embassy is working in Baku, and we maintain contacts with our Azerbaijani colleagues in Moscow. The rotation of ambassadors is a natural process. It can take different forms. As I have said, this does affect our ties and contacts with our Azerbaijani colleagues.



Question:

Unlike the US media, which wrote about Putin’s “super weapons” yesterday, the German media wrote about the hacking attacks at its federal ministries, including the Foreign Ministry. They are accusing a Russian hacking group of perpetrating these attacks. We have seen this before, when such hacking attacks were blamed for the Democrats’ defeat in the US and the results of the independence referendum in Spain.



Maria Zakharova:

Do you know that Madrid changed its official position after some Spanish officials had accused Russia? They said that we again misunderstood them, that this is not what they meant. What can I say to this? They said what they meant. They needed an argument for domestic use, and they invented it. And then they decided to back-pedal. Sorry for using this term. This shows the value of such statements and responsibility for making them. They provided this hackneyed explanation when they needed to react to the domestic situation but had no political resources for doing this properly. After they lost face doing this, they took back their words and said that we misunderstood them.



Question:

The US used [the alleged Russian hacking attacks] to explain Donald Trump’s victory and Spain blamed them for the separatist movement in Catalonia. Why is Germany accusing Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

Frankly speaking, I don’t know. I think we should ask political analysts and experts in Germany. Overall, the political situation is developing very actively in Germany. This could be the explanation. There are very many comments on the political situation. I suggest that you read them to see what is going on there. Anyway, it is difficult to pinpoint the reason. What I said is one of the possible explanations.



Question:

The main part of your briefing concerned Russia’s initiative for humanitarian corridors in Syria. Heather Nauert, the spokesperson of the US State Department, yesterday criticised this initiative and described it as “ironic.” She said that innocent civilians in Eastern Ghouta are not using those corridors, and that the situation is not dissimilar to what happened in Aleppo.



Maria Zakharova:

How does she know?



Question:

According to information available to her, civilians are not using them because they fear persecution by the Syrian government. What can you say to this?



Maria Zakharova:

Before saying anything, one should at least research the situation. I have provided a concrete example today. I told about the efficiency of the humanitarian corridors organised by Russia that, considering the complicated situation there, are working impeccably. They are used to deliver humanitarian aid and medicines, provide psychological assistance and ensure people’s safety. The webcams at the Russian Defence Ministry’s official site were streaming this. This is the experience of the Russian party. Can you describe the corridors as ineffective in this situation?

Efficiency is what we should speak about in the US zone of responsibility. Today I cited the example of Raqqa. We would like to hear the US assessment of the efficiency of its operation there. Is everything normal there? Are things getting better there? As I said, 200,000 people have returned to Aleppo. These are not empty words or propaganda. You can see the footage.

By the way, your channel has access to this footage. We know this because foreign delegations tell us that they watch RT reports and can compare them to Western reports, which say nothing about normalisation in those parts of Syria where the Syrian Government waged counterterrorism operations with support from Russia’s Aerospace Forces and were conditions are being created to encourage people to return there. In fact, this was our goal from the very start. But you don’t provide this information. It is possible that the US State Department’s spokesperson does not know that people are returning to the liberated cities and resuming their lives there? Is it possible that she does not know about these positive examples? If she doesn’t know this, it is because she only watches CNN or Fox News. On the other hand, it’s unlikely she watches CNN.





[This part of the text was lost in translation - Alex Him.

Question:

Yesterday, during his Address to the Federal Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that any use of nuclear weapons against Russia and its allies would be considered a nuclear attack, and the answer to it would be immediate. Can you voice these allies of Russia, so that our Western partners have this in mind?



Maria Zakharova:

It is possible, but it is not necessary. Our foreign policy and military doctrine is available. These text documents have been repeatedly commented on. I consider that there is no need for any detail of the part of the Message you quoted. Everything is very clear, clear and understandable. That prohibitive level of pressure that Russia has felt in recent years, as well as noncooperation on sensitive issues, including in combination with national, regional and global security, just do not leave a chance, We have repeatedly said that they do not consider it necessary to share safety. We consider it important to work together to create common security with the Europeans, to maintain communication on security issues with other regions of the world, not only with those that we have border on land. Unfortunately, we were not heard, respectively, in the Message yesterday about this and it was said.]





Question:

You said that during Minister Lavrov’s upcoming visit to a number of African countries he plans to discuss a reform of the UN Security Council with his counterparts. Does it mean that the UN Security Council reform is becoming more real or that Russia has changed its position regarding the matter?



Maria Zakharova:

No, the position remains the same. The UN Security Council reform is a major point of discussion during talks with most of our foreign partners, even more so because it is not every year that the Minister visits African countries. It is a region that the Minister visits regularly but not as frequently as, for example, Europe. This is exactly why the plan is to discuss the entire range of issues, particularly, the issue that by all means concerns African countries, and the UN Security Council reform is a matter to be highlighted. Once again, the UN Security Council reform is discussed with the overwhelming majority of countries during talks between foreign affairs agencies. As concerns the conceptual approach, I cannot say that recently the work in the headquarters has been particularly intensive. Still, it does not appear that the reform is getting insufficient attention. The work is indeed ongoing, from bilateral and multilateral discussions to research and practice events at the United Nations itself. Minister Lavrov often pays particular attention to this matter, as he knows the organisation’s work from the inside after serving as Russia’s permanent representative to the UN for quite a long time. We will by all means provide you with a package of documents on Russia’s approach to the matter.



Question:

My question concerns the resumed economic war with Belarus, specifically, with respect to the deliveries of milk and dairy products from Belarus that the Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare postponed until March 6.



Maria Zakharova:

I have not heard about any “wars” with Belarus in any area. I will clarify with experts what this is all about but I am certain it cannot be called a “war.” If problems arise, we solve them. By the way, today we met the new Minister-Cousellor of the Belarusian Embassy in Moscow Natalya Kislekova, who will work and represent Belarus in Russia. We did not discuss anything like this with her and I have not heard any such words from her. I will find out what this is about. If there are any problems we always resolve them with our Belarusian counterparts in a constructive manner.



Question:

Yesterday President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko gave a very harsh response to this type of measures.



Maria Zakharova:

I will find out.



Question:

You have said that those claiming that cocaine was to be shipped by diplomatic pouch had no idea of how diplomatic shipments work. How are diplomatic shipments prepared and who decides on what is in them? For example, can a diplomat or maintenance staff send their personal belongings this way?



Maria Zakharova:

What I can say to respond to your questions is that it is hardly sensational. It was clearly stated in the comment released by the Foreign Ministry immediately after the Argentinian media reported on the affair that in foreign missions diplomatic pouches are prepared by their senior officials. There is no way it can be done without any oversight by senior diplomats. This is what the Foreign Ministry said in its written comment.



Question:

But what can be inside the pouches? Can the embassy employees or maintenance staff send their personal items? Otherwise it is not clear why 12 suitcases were left in the school building, if there was no way they could be sent as diplomatic pouches, while they would have been subject to mandatory inspection if sent by regular post?



Maria Zakharova:

This is the case in point. When reports about the diplomatic mail emerged, we said that this was untrue and either a misrepresentation or an intentional lie. Perhaps, I cannot rule out the possibility that there was a plan to make it look like diplomatic pouches. Today, in my interview with Sergey Dorenko, I gave a very simple example. If you go to a store selling brand name goods, and you ask for a bag with a brand logo, but then place in this bag a product that was bought on the street, and try to make it look like something that had come from the store, it does not change the fact that the product you bought on the street did not come from the store. We may have a similar situation in the case with the diplomatic shipment. It may be that there was an attempt to make it look like a diplomatic cargo shipment, but this is something the investigation will have to determine. I cannot confirm this, since it is up to the investigators, and the investigation is still underway. Was this a diplomatic shipment? Let me tell you once again that it was not. This is what the Foreign Ministry said right away in its written comment. By the way, I think that we also released an article on diplomatic couriers and on how diplomatic cargo shipments work. I think that this text should be updated and posted on the Ministry’s resources.

Let me reiterate that we are not trying to avoid answering your questions. As long as the investigation is underway, we are bound in our actions. This is what I wanted to tell you, and I hope that you understand what I mean. I am not hiding that I was unaware of this operation. I learned about it from my colleagues and the information we have is limited by those in charge of the investigation.


***


I wanted to end today’s briefing on a very unusual and somewhat gloomy note.

On February 22 an incident took place on the set of Mesto Vstrechi television show on NTV. You probably know what I am talking about. The participants were discussing the developments in Ukraine, including in Donbass. Responding to a political observer from Germany, who said that the Ukrainian military is shelling civilians in southeastern Ukraine, a Ukrainian expert became indignant and started asking for evidence. The conversation turned to children. Several times the Ukrainian expert requested evidence of children suffering. He said that this was not the case and that there were no materials to prove allegations of this kind. Let me say that the show ended the way it ended. I strongly believe that journalists, experts and political observers can and should defend their points of views in an intellectual debate instead of using force (this is another matter, but I could not fail to mention it).

We felt that it was out duty to respond, since we received a huge number of letters and calls from people in Donbass who were appalled by the fact that nobody seemed to know about the tragedy they were living in and the suffering of children among other civilians. For the Ukrainian expert who took part in the show and was not aware of the consequences of the shelling against civilians in Donbass, we prepared photographs of children who were killed or wounded by the Ukrainian armed forces. We received these images directly, not through any intermediaries. We did not look them up online and made sure that these are not fake images. We talk to people from Donbass directly. Even seasoned members of the Department of Information and Press staff said that this was too much for them. We will not show you everything, since these are horrible photographs. It is our duty however to know, to remember and make sure that those who are not aware or have forgotten also remember. Today, we will show you several images and will also create a special section within our social media accounts where these images will be available to those who do not know or fail to remember what is happening to children in Donbass.

I am sorry for ending this briefing in this unusual manner, but we had to do this.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3106032
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 11th, 2018 #375
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Ethiopia’s The Reporter, Moscow, March 3, 2018



3 March 2018 - 09:00




Question:

Russia and Ethiopia are marking the 120th anniversary of diplomatic relations. What new elements will your visit contribute to cooperation between the two countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia values its long-standing and friendly ties with Ethiopia. I am pleased to state that our multi-level cooperation is based on the principles of equality, mutual trust and respect. The Russian-Ethiopian political dialogue is very strong and relies on a concurrence or considerable similarity of approaches to key problems today.

We proceed from the assumption that the upcoming visit to Ethiopia will make a useful contribution to the strengthening of time-tested ties between the two states. Symbolically, it is taking place against the background of the 120th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations. It is gratifying that Russia and Ethiopia attach much importance to this memorable date; anniversary events will be held throughout the year. Moscow and Addis Ababa have plans to host scientific conferences to be attended by prominent politicians and public figures, cultural events, and exhibits of archived documents. An issuance of thematic postal envelopes is being prepared.

During the talks with Ethiopia’s leadership and with my Ethiopian counterpart, Minister of Foreign Affairs Workneh Gebeyehu, we intend to discuss in detail ways to further develop bilateral cooperation with an emphasis on the trade, economic and investment component, and the implementation of joint projects, including those in the power industry, specifically the nuclear power industry. Promising avenues for cooperation include Russian assistance to Ethiopia in creating its own research infrastructure in fundamental and applied sciences. Among other things, there are plans to establish a Centre for Nuclear Science and Technologies in Ethiopia based on a Russia-designed research reactor.

We also hope that the visit’s results will facilitate the strengthening of foreign policy coordination between our states.



Question:

Recently, we have observed considerable militarisation in the Horn of Africa area, with oil-rich Gulf states stepping up their activities near the coast. This threatens the security of the Horn of Africa countries and the region as a whole. What is Russia’s position with regard to this issue?



Sergey Lavrov:

The situation on the Horn of Africa during the last few decades has been characterised by interstate conflicts, territorial disputes and contradictions, socioeconomic and humanitarian problems, and serious security challenges, including terrorism, piracy, trans-border crime, and drug trafficking.

The above factors are the main reason behind the growth of military spending in the region’s countries and the presence of numerous foreign military bases and navies there.

Russia traditionally advocates settling all disputed issues solely by peaceful, political and diplomatic means. In this connection, the arms buildup both in the Horn of Africa region and in other parts of the world is a cause for serious concern, all the more so as the huge resources allocated for these aims could be channeled into socioeconomic development and humanitarian assistance.

Each country, to be sure, has the right to define the optimal parameters of its security. In this context, we proceed from the need for strict compliance with the principle of the indivisibility of security, or, in other words, for the need to refrain from strengthening one’s own security at the expense of others.

In a number of cases, for example, in Somalia, a military presence maintained by the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) remains a key component of support for the federal government of that country in its fight against Al-Shabaab, a terrorist group whose activities are a threat to the entire region. Given the situation emerging in that country, Russia is in favour of the international community continuing to take measures towards increasing the potential of the Somalian army and AMISOM units.



Question:

What is your attitude towards the war in Yemen, where a Gulf Cooperation Council coalition is engaged in an operation against Yemeni groups? As a main player in Syria, do you see an end to these clashes on the Arabian Peninsula? What do you regard as the main problem?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have been following the military, political and humanitarian developments in Yemen closely. We are seriously concerned about the fact that the continuing hostilities have taken a heavy toll in terms of the number of killed and wounded. A considerable part of civilian infrastructure facilities, including medical facilities, have been destroyed or disabled.

We continue to proceed from the assumption that it is possible to put an end to the protracted internal conflict in Yemen that involves the “Arab coalition” solely through dialogue and mutual regard for the interests of all political forces in Yemen.

But all parties concerned must be ready to face the fact that they will be unable to restore national accord in Yemen overnight. The opposing parties have accumulated too many grievances against each other and these grievances are not always ungrounded. This state of affairs is responsible for the unwillingness of the factions in Yemen to go back to a constructive discussion of ways to overcome these conflicts, something that today constitutes, in fact, the main problem in the context of crisis settlement in that country. However, this should not cause us to “lose heart” over this area.

We are convinced that the international community, primarily the UN that we traditionally assign the central role to, must continue to encourage the Yemeni protagonists to renounce violence and sit down at the negotiating table.

For our part, we intend to continue contributing to this work. We have been doing this since the moment the internal Yemeni conflict began and we have been in contact with all those who can help to pacify Yemen.

Simultaneously we are taking practical steps to provide humanitarian assistance to the embattled population of Yemen. We are now considering how to send them our next humanitarian shipment.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3106312






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the Hommes d’Afrique magazine, Moscow, March 5, 2018



5 March 2018 - 09:00




Question:

Your planned African tour in March 2018 includes five countries. It will be the most important visit by a Russian Foreign Minister to Africa in several decades. What is the goal of your visit?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia’s foreign policy is multi-directional. The African direction is one of our priorities, as the updated Foreign Policy Concept, which President of Russia Vladimir Putin approved in November 2016, says. We appreciate Africa’s contribution to the development of a fairer and more democratic polycentric world order and to the settlement of current problems.

Russia actively contributed to the independence of African countries and the development and strengthening of their states. Today, we maintain friendly relations that are spearheaded into the future. We are promoting our political dialogue, including the exchange of visits at the high and top levels, as well as trade and economic cooperation and relations between our parliaments.

The goal of my upcoming visit to Sub-Saharan countries – Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Namibia and Ethiopia – is to promote multifaceted ties and find new areas of cooperation in trade, the economy, research, technology, culture and other areas. We hope to have in-depth exchanges of opinion on a wide range of global and regional issues, such as counterterrorism and conflict settlement, including in the Sahara-Sahel region, the Horn of Africa and in the Great Lakes region.

Russia attaches much importance to strengthening its ties with regional and subregional African organisations, primarily the African Union. I plan to have a meeting with Chairperson of the African Union Commission Moussa Faki Mahamat as part of the implementation of the 2014 Memorandum of Understanding between the Russian Foreign Ministry and the African Union Commission on the Establishment of a Mechanism for Bilateral Consultations. We will discuss Russia-AU relations and the African Union’s role in finding the best possible solutions to the numerous challenges and threats that are facing the world.



Question:

What is the present state of Russian-African relations across the political, diplomatic, economic and cultural spheres? Are you satisfied with the situation?



Sergey Lavrov:

As I said, Russia’s relations with African countries are traditionally friendly and based on the principles of equality and mutual respect. They also have considerable potential for development in the political, trade, economic, and humanitarian spheres, as well as other areas.

Our political ties in particular are developing dynamically. We maintain close relations with South Africa, which is our strategic partner and a member of the BRICS group. Our presidents regularly meet on the sidelines of BRICS summits and at other multilateral platforms.

Chair of the African Union and President of the Republic of Guinea Alpha Conde made an official visit to Russia last year. Mr Conde previously visited Russia as a guest of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. Last year, Deputy Prime Minister and Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoy to the Far Eastern Federal District Yury Trutnev made working visits to Angola, Namibia and South Africa.

Ties are actively developing between our parliaments. Large delegations from many African countries attended the 137th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which was held in St Petersburg in October 2017. The speakers of the two houses of the Russian parliament met on the sidelines of that event for talks with their colleagues from Botswana, Burundi, Namibia, Rwanda, the Seychelles, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea and South Africa.

Interaction between our foreign ministries is expanding. Last year, 12 foreign ministers visited Russia. Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov is doing much to promote links with African countries. Regular consultations are held between our foreign ministries. We also maintain close ties at the UN. I am pleased to say that the majority of African countries are interested in strengthening political dialogue with Russia and in coordinating our views on the main issues of the present time.

We are deepening humanitarian ties. The Russian Centres for Science and Culture are working fruitfully in Zambia, Congo, Tanzania and Ethiopia. They hold seminars, conferences and advanced training sessions for African specialists in Russian philology, Russian language festivals, roundtables and open lessons. Our embassies in Africa regularly organise themed exhibitions and show Russian films. A cross-cultural year was held between Russia and South Africa in 2016−2017.

Another traditional area of cooperation is the training of national personnel. The Russian Government annually allocates federal scholarships for the training of African students at Russian universities. In 2017 alone, more than 1,800 African young people studied in Russia on federal scholarships. Overall, 15,000 young people from Africa are studying in Russia, including some 4,000 at state-financed departments and the rest under contracts.

Our economic cooperation is not as far advanced as our political ties. However, it has improved over the past few years. Our trade with Sub-Saharan countries amounted to $3.6 billion in 2017, compared to $3.3 billion in 2016 and $2.2 billion in 2015. Russian companies are working in the exploration, mining, energy and petrochemical sectors in Africa. They conduct exploration, develop oil and gas deposits, take part in national programmes to build gas pipelines and gas storage facilities, provide technical maintenance for hydroelectric power stations, as well as carry out feasibility studies for the construction of nuclear power plants and nuclear research and technology centres. Cooperation in high technology is also developing. There are good prospects for partnership in transport, industry and agriculture.

We believe that we should promote joint activity in order to make broader use of the huge potential of Russian-African trade and investment cooperation.



Question:

Africa is a huge continent that still requires economic development. Its active demographic growth and abundance of natural resources are creating conditions for the emergence of probably the world’s biggest market in the next few decades. Russia is an advanced industrial country with a relatively small population and considerable natural resources. How should Russia and Africa develop mutually beneficial economic ties? What economic branches, or to be more precise, what goods and services can make up a foundation for such relations?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already partially answered this question. Africa is rich in raw material resources, including those that are required for high technology and for moving to a new technological pattern.

We have a number of examples of productive cooperation in this area. Alrosa is involved in diamond mining in Angola’s largest Katoka deposit. In Guinea, RUSAL is mining bauxite at the Friguia deposit and works under the Dian-Dian concession agreement. RUSAL owns 85 percent of Alscon, a Nigerian aluminium company. A consortium of a number of our companies, including the Vi Holding investment and industrial group is developing Darwendale, a project on one of the largest deposits of platinum-group metals in Zimbabwe. Rosneft has won a tender for gas prospecting on the continental shelf in Mozambique. Nordgold is mining gold in Burkina Faso and Guinea, while Global Resources is involved in geological prospecting for gold in Mali and uranium in Niger. GeoProMining is involved in extracting and processing of titaniferous sands in Guinea-Bissau, RENOVA is mining manganese ore in South Africa, while Severstal is taking part in developing a phosphate deposit in Guinea-Bissau. These and other examples allow us to look to the future with optimism.

Apart from mining, Russia and African countries are cooperating on high technology. Rosatom is considering a number of projects that are of interest to Africans, for instance the creation of a nuclear research and technology centre in Zambia. Nigeria has a similar project. There are good prospects for cooperation with Ghana, Tanzania and Ethiopia. Talks are underway on the construction of a nuclear power plant in South Africa.

Again, we will do our best to raise trade and economic ties to a high level of political cooperation.



Question:

Many African states favour general UN reform. They are particularly enthusiastic about the expansion of the UN Security Council and want to have two permanent seats there. Do you know about this? What is Russia’s attitude to this issue?



Sergey Lavrov:

Naturally, we are well aware of Africa’s consolidated position on reforming the UN Security Council, which was formulated in the Ezulwini Consensus in 2005.

For our part we agree that Africa should be duly represented in the UN Security Council, in particular because African issues dominate the UN agenda. We are prepared to help Africans expand the Council based on a model that will enjoy the most support of the UN member states.

We hope the African Union will continue adhering to the common approach formulated in the Ezulwini Consensus. This is a reliable guarantee that African interests will not be neglected as has happened in the past. It is impossible to ignore the common opinion of 50 countries. We are convinced that Africa’s strength lies in following this common line.

We conduct trustworthy bilateral dialogue with African countries at the UN and bilaterally. Thus, Sierra Leone Foreign Minister Samura Kamara visited Moscow in July 2017 as the Chairman of the African Union Committee of Ten, which was established to promote African interests in expanding the UN Security Council. The sides conducted an engaging exchange of views and stated their common understanding that the Security Council can only be reformed through intergovernmental talks in New York. It should be continued on all available proposals without commotion, artificial narrowing of the agenda or a fixation on temporary schedules and deadlines.

We believe the Security Council should become more representative but without damaging its efficiency. The lineup must reflect the formation and consolidation of a polycentric world arrangement.

At the same time we are skeptical about restricting the right to veto. We regard this right as an important element in drafting the Security Council’s decisions and in upholding the interests of the minority.



Question:

The letter R in BRICS stands for Russia, and the letter S for South Africa. The establishment of BRICS and the BRICS Development Bank became for many Africans a source of hope for a more favourable alternative to the imperialist, oppressive and predatory policies of western countries and such institutions under their control as the IMF and the World Bank. The hope was not borne out. And many Africans feel disappointed. As a foreign minister of one of the leading BRICS nations, what could you say to Africans to sustain their belief in the opportunities afforded by BRICS?



Sergey Lavrov:

I cannot agree with such a view of BRICS activities. On the contrary, international interest in the association is growing. We see it at the summit meetings which attract increased attention of the media and experts, and at dozens of meetings of the foreign ministers and agency heads, at forums of representatives of civil society, the scientific community, and figures from the worlds of culture and sport. The decisions worked out by the Five go well beyond intra-BRICS cooperation, projecting into the most diverse political and economic international platforms.

Interaction within the Five is an important element in shaping a fairer and more democratic polycentric world system, a clear example of improving the multilateral, collective foundations of world affairs. Our strategic partnership is unfolding on the principles of equality and solidarity, mutual respect and strict consideration of each other’s interests, openness and mutually beneficial cooperation, the primacy of international law and the UN Charter. These principles are shared by the majority of the world’s nations, including on the African continent. With that in mind we do not set ourselves in opposition to other associations or forums. BRICS is always ‘for,’ not ‘against.’

The Republic of South Africa took over the helm of BRICS this year. Figuratively speaking, the association is coming back to Africa. Our countries have never shied away from the continent’s problems – they receive due attention at the summits and other high-level meetings of the Five. It is symbolic that the RSA’s chairmanship coincides with the centenary of Nelson Mandela’s birthday, the wise Madiba who stood up for the same principle as our association does.

I note with satisfaction that our South African friends are going to fill the BRICS agenda with African issues, to discuss the continent’s key challenges and problems. We, for our part, welcome these intentions. We support deepening the BRICS-Africa dialogue which was started in Durban in 2013 during a meeting with the African Union leadership and the heads of eight leading regional integration associations. This year’s chairman also plans to invite Africans to the tenth BRICS summit in Johannesburg.

The BRICS – African Union dialogue is not limited to the RSA’s chairmanship. Guinea as chair of the African Union took part in the meeting of the BRICS leaders with heads of invited states at the 2017 Summit in Xiamen. I think that the BRICS Plus Concept adopted last year lays a foundation for inviting African Union chairing nations, and maybe the leaders of other African regional organisations, to BRICS summits on a regular basis.

The BRICS countries are major investors in the African economy. We note with satisfaction the growth of African countries’ interest in deepening practical cooperation with the Five. The New Development Bank mentioned here offers additional opportunities for that. This financial institution – along with BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement – is set to create a more just global economic architecture.

The Bank is in its fledging phase now. We expect that it will be able to operate not only in the RSA but also in other countries of the continent, including with the help of the NDB’s African Regional Centre set up last August.

The five countries’ relations with the continent are not confined to economics and finance. Tens of thousands of African students study in the BRICS countries. The BRICS countries play an important role in peacekeeping efforts in Africa.



Question:

The Fifth African Union – European Union Summit was held in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoir, in November 2017. African countries have regular summits with China, India, Turkey and other countries, and there are also regular meetings of the Tokyo International Conference on African Development which is in fact a Japan-Africa summit. Why do they not have Russia-Africa format summits? Wouldn’t they benefit both Russia and Africa?



Sergey Lavrov:

We carefully study the practice of summits between African countries and their major partners abroad.

At present, Russia’s relations with African countries are progressing both on a bilateral basis and along the line of African regional organisations, primarily the African Union and the Southern African Development Community. As I have already noted, an intensive political dialogue is being maintained with the continent’s countries, interparliamentary contacts are gaining strength, trade and economic and investment relations are improving, and scientific, technological and humanitarian interaction is expanding. African countries’ representatives are active participants in international forums hosted by Russia.

A dialogue launched between the African Union Commission and the Eurasian Economic Union Commission has become a new area of cooperation. We hope it will deepen.

Our African friends note the need for Russia’s active presence in the region, and more frequently express their interest in holding a Russia-Africa summit. Such a meeting would undoubtedly help deepen our cooperation on the full range of issues. However, it is necessary to bear in mind that arranging an event of such a scale with the participation of over fifty heads of state and government requires most careful preparation, including in terms of its substantive content.

The economic component of the summit has a special significance in this relation as it would be of practical interest for all the parties. As such, specific Russian participants in bilateral or multilateral cooperation should be identified, which are not only committed to long-term cooperation but are also ready for large-scale investments in the African markets with account of possible risks and high competition. Equally important are African businesspeople who are looking to work on the Russian market.

Definitely, time is needed to solve all those issues. We could start with experts’ meetings, say, within the framework of the St Petersburg Economic Forum or the Valdai forum, and other events where business leaders of our countries participate.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3106421






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s responses to media questions at a news conference following talks with Angolan Minister of Foreign Affairs Manuel Domingos Augusto, Luanda, March 5, 2018



5 March 2018 - 18:00








Question:

Has Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invitation to Angolan President Joao Lourenco been confirmed? Do you know the dates of the visit? How is our AngoSat satellite project proceeding?



Sergey Lavrov:

The satellite is on the geostationary orbit and undergoing technical tests. In April, it will reach a point when together with Angolan specialists we will be able to decide how we are going to develop the project further.

As for the invitation for President Joao Lourenco, President Vladimir Putin extended this invitation shortly after the Angolan president was elected. Recently, President Putin confirmed in public that a visit was in the plans. The timeframe remains to be coordinated, as we agreed today.



Question:

You said some Russian companies want to invest in Angola. What are these companies, and how are they going to invest?



Sergey Lavrov:

There are lots of them. First of all, it is Alrosa, which has long been present here, and VTB Bank also operates in the country. Some companies showed their interest during a meeting organised by the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Moscow last autumn. The meeting was attended by top managers of such companies as Rosneft, Zarubezhneft, Gazprom Neft, UralVagonZavod, KAMAZ and others. We have noticed that alongside large business entities, smaller companies are operating quite actively and successfully too. And this is something we welcome. They found their partners here and are successfully implementing joint projects.

Investment is welcome anywhere as long as it is interesting for the Angolan government and can unite the efforts of Russian and Angolan business people and government structures.



Question:

The participants in the aforementioned meetings of the Commerce and Industry Chambers highlighted Russia’s role as a strategic partner in the Angola Visao 2025-2050 programme and agreed that the Russian side would have access to all the relevant Angolan ministries involved in the project – from fishing to tourism and defence. Is there any progress on the issue?



Sergey Lavrov:

The entire trip is devoted to the work in this direction. As I said, Mr Augusto organised negotiations in the Foreign Ministry today that brought together ministers responsible for the key sectors of the Angolan economy and the programme Angola Visao. I am sure our conversation today was very useful. There is progress, and it is obvious.



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Angolan Foreign Minister Manuel Augusto’s remarks):

I'd like to say a few words on the last subject: our cooperation within the UN. We have been invariably developing our relations with African nations not only in the bilateral format but also within continental alliances: above all, the African Union and the South African Development Community.

We have always come out in favour of African people addressing their problems themselves based on the agreements they achieve, without any external interference. There have been attempts to force things on them. For example, in Sudan, external forces (call them this) insisted on dividing the country and they now do not know what to do about it and how to prevent crises, primarily in South Sudan. We insist that African problems need African solutions, and the international community should respect the Africans’ choice of resolving a conflict, and support them morally, politically and financially in training staff for peacekeeping operations, which Russia has been actively doing.

A graphic example of Africans coming up with useful initiatives is the constructive role Angola plays in resolving conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Lesotho. Quite recently, Angola completed its four-year presidency in the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region. These four years were very successful and kept the situation in check, and created conditions for gradual but steady progress in resolving these problems.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3107750






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s address at the opening ceremony for a memorial to soldiers performing international service in Angola, in Luanda on March 5, 2018



5 March 2018 - 18:06








Mr Foreign Minister,

Mr Defence Minister,

Ambassadors of Cuba and Namibia, your Excellences,

Dear friends,

First of all, I would like to thank the Angola Veterans Union and the Russian Embassy in Luanda for this initiative.

Today, during my conversation with President of the Republic of Angola Joao Lourenco and talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Angola Manuel Augusto, we reaffirmed our shared memory of our nations’ wartime brotherhood, which allowed Angola to achieve liberation and independence.

The figures that tell the story of our assistance to Angola in its most difficult time, during the fight for independence, were given today. Over 100,000 Russian citizens took part in that struggle. Eighty were killed and hundreds more wounded, including Russian Ambassador to Angola Vladimir Tararov.

Russia’s assistance to the brotherly nation of Angola was not limited to the struggle for independence. It continued when the Republic of Angola was establishing its national identity.

Certainly, both Soviet and Russian diplomacy made contributions to the establishment of our friendship and cooperation in times of peace.

I would like to note that when times were tough for the Angolan people it was not only Russia that offered them assistance but also Cuba and Namibia. I am happy to see the ambassadors of these two fraternal countries here today.

There is a reason to this memorial stone reads “In Memory of Those Who Fought for Independent Angola”. I am convinced that this symbol of solidarity with those, who fight for justice and the right to control their own destiny, will serve for many years as a reminder to younger generations that these are the highest values. When I see the boys and girls who go to our school and who have come to attend this ceremony, I am convinced that our cause is just and we shall prevail.

Once again, thank you for this initiative. I wish all the best and new achievements to our Angolan friends as they continue to build their free and independent country.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3107768






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a media question at a news conference following talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of International Relations and Cooperation of Namibia Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, Windhoek, March 5, 2018



6 March 2018 - 09:12








Question:

The issue of Syria is on the agenda of your African tour, in one way or another. The Western pressure on Russia has recently reached an unprecedented scale. The leaders of the US, France and Germany are urging us to do something to end the hostilities in Eastern Ghouta. What can we say to this? Will we respond to these calls?



Sergey Lavrov:

Syria is not the only issue over which Russia is being pressured. Many other current international issues are being used to put pressure on Russia. I have even heard that Russia is being blamed for the recent cold spell in Europe.

We always implement our agreements. Speaking about Eastern Ghouta, we are firmly committed to Resolution 2401, which the UN Security Council adopted by consensus. I would like to point out that the main provision of this resolution is that all Syrian parties must coordinate at least a 30-day ceasefire for humanitarian deliveries. Our Western partners prefer to disregard this provision and insist, as you have pointed out, that the Syrian Government unilaterally stop the hostilities and that Russia withdraw its support. These actions by the Syrian Government, which we support, are aimed at suppressing Jabhat al-Nusra, which is a terrorist group whose activities are not covered by the UNSC resolution’s provision on the ceasefire throughout the period stipulated in this resolution. It is absolutely legitimate to wage a consistent and irreconcilable fight against this group.

There is increasing evidence that our Western partners would like to protect Jabhat al-Nusra, which has changed its name but this has not changed its essence, and to save it in case our partners decide to re-enact the so-called Plan B, which involves a regime change in Damascus. We are receiving a growing amount of information from various sources, which indicates that this narrow and non-inclusive group, which the Americans have created for dealing with Syrian issues, is considering disintegration plans for Syria. This is further evidence of our Western partners’ inability to honour their agreements. While paying lip service to respecting Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, they have actually entered a path that runs contrary to UNSC resolutions. One must act honestly. Regrettably, this is something our Western partners are lacking.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3108121






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Republic of Mozambique Jose Pacheco, Maputo, March 7, 2018



7 March 2018 - 16:40








Mr Minister, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank our Mozambican hosts for the invitation and excellent organisation of our work.

Relations between our countries are friendly. They were formed during the years of anti-colonial struggle and have acquired a strong and stable nature already in the course of Mozambique’s emergence as a state and your country’s social and economic development under the leadership of the FRELIMO party.

We noted with gratitude President of the Republic of Mozambique Filipe Nyusi’s willingness to hold talks with our delegation today. At the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Mozambique, we discussed key issues that need to be addressed in the near future.

Of course, our key goal is to make sure that our trade, economic and investment cooperation reaches the same level as the political dialogue. We are already starting to see results. An agreement was reached on establishing the Intergovernmental Commission for Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, the first meeting of which will be held next month in Maputo.

Both sides have positive words for the long and successful experience of interaction between the countries. In the sphere of military-technical cooperation, we stated that the decision to create a working group on military-technical cooperation, which met last year for the first time, also promotes the development of cooperation in this important area.

Our relations in the area of education, which also have a rich and long history, are expanding. Several hundred Mozambican citizens are studying at civilian Russian universities and training facilities of the Defence Ministry and the Interior Ministry.

Relations between our parliaments and political parties are expanding as well. Most recently, delegates from the United Russia Party and the Communist Party attended a FRELIMO congress.

We pay special attention to youth exchanges. We are grateful to our Mozambican friends for sending a representative delegation to the World Festival of Youth and Students held last autumn in Sochi.

We maintain close interaction on international issues, including at the UN, and also as part of Russia's cooperation with the African Union, the Southern African Development Community and other entities that operate on the African continent, of which Mozambique is a party.

Just like our Mozambican friends, we consider joining efforts to fight terrorism an absolute priority of the international community. It is necessary to do so on a common and solid basis of international law, without any double standards or attempts to use extremists to achieve self-serving geopolitical goals. It was with this initiative that President Vladimir Putin addressed a recent session of the UN General Assembly. It remains fully relevant, including in view of the mounting terrorist threat. Despite some successes in fighting this evil, it continues to bring a large number of problems upon many countries and regions.

We discussed the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, in particular, the Syrian settlement. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a participant in the Astana process, Russia actively engages in helping to overcome the Syria crisis. We also contributed to the common efforts to implement UNSCR 2254 by holding the Syrian National Dialogue Congress with our Iranian and Turkish colleagues in Sochi in January.

We confirmed Russia’s full support for the efforts of the African countries to combat the terrorist threat on their territory, especially the Sahel-Sahara region, where terrorists began to actively try to dictate terms after Libya was invaded and plunged into chaos.

We will continue to cooperate with our Mozambican friends in all the formats mentioned, while also strengthening the bilateral dialogue across all areas of our interaction.

In closing, I invited Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Republic of Mozambique Jose Pacheco to pay an official visit to the Russian Federation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3114596






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions following a meeting with President of the Republic of Mozambique Felipe Nyusi, Maputo, March 7, 2018



7 March 2018 - 17:36








Question:

What’s the status of energy cooperation between Russia and Mozambique given that ExxonMobil announced in 2017 its withdrawal from joint projects with Rosneft? Will work on Rosneft projects continue in Mozambique?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, natural resources development projects, including hydrocarbons, account for much of our plans in Mozambique. The first session of the Intergovernmental Russian-Mozambican Commission on Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation to be held this April will focus on this subject in particular.

The projects that have been actively discussed recently include a consortium with the participation of a Mozambican company, Rosneft and ExxonMobil to develop offshore hydrocarbon fields near Mozambique. Last I heard, the consortium is working with the corresponding entities of the Government of Mozambique to formalise legal paperwork. If ExxonMobil has problems, they need to be sorted out. I think that the consortium participants will do this directly, of course, with the participation of the Government of Mozambique.

We very much hope that this and other projects between Russia and Mozambique, or any other country, will be handled based on the actual economic interests of the state where such companies are operating rather than political considerations or calculations. Let's see to what extent the economic interests of US companies will be respected by the US government.

I would like to say that President Nyusi informed us of the recent efforts to reach an agreement between the FRELIMO (Mozambique Liberation Front) and RENAMO (Mozambican National Resistance Movement). We strongly support such efforts and consider them to be critically important in order to overcome domestic problems in your country on the basis of national accord and social peace. We will render to our Mozambican friends every support deemed useful to help promote this process.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3114637
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 11th, 2018 #376
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the illegal demolition of the Monument of Gratitude to Red Army Soldiers in Lidzbark Warminski, Poland



3 March 2018 - 15:38



We have learnt with indignation about yet another act of state vandalism against a monument to Soviet liberator soldiers in Poland. On February 20, the Monument of Gratitude to Red Army Soldiers was demolished in Lidzbark Warminski in Poland's Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship upon the decision of city council deputies. The monument was installed in 1949.

We have to state that despite our numerous protests, as well as protests by the international community, in particular a joint statement by the CIS foreign ministers released as a document of the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly this January, the Polish authorities continue to demonstrate a lack of historical consciousness by cynically getting rid of Soviet memorial heritage in Poland. The fight against monuments to those who saved the Polish land and people from total extermination and who will never be able to stand up for themselves is hypocritical and sacrilegious.

We demand that Warsaw strictly observe the bilateral agreement in the military memorial sphere.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3106378






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the statements by commander of the United States Central Command Joseph Votel



3 March 2018 - 16:44



We have noted the biased assessments of Russia's policy towards the countries in Central Asia in comments made by commander of US Central Command Joseph Votel during the hearings at the House Armed Services Committee, a committee of the US House of Representatives, on February 27. The way this was done again testifies to the anti-Russia prejudices that reign in Washington. Joseph Votel condemned Russia for “increasingly impinging on US influence and spreading inaccurate information.” The fact that the Central Asian countries “rely on Russia to varying degrees for their economic and security needs” is also problematic for the United States. Votel also claims that “Russia has increased Eurasian integration efforts to reassert Moscow’s dominant influence along the periphery.”

Those behind these claims would obviously like to cut the Central Asian countries from their multilateral cooperation with Russia and other participants in the integration processes on the post-Soviet space. The actual facts speak to the exceptional importance of this direction for all countries in the region.

Our countries are tied by over 900 agreements, 70 per cent of them are trade and economic. Russia has relations of alliance or strategic partnership with every country in Central Asia. Recent events include signing a separate agreement that secures Turkmenistan's strategic partnership status with Russia at the former’s initiative on October 2, 2017.

In the past 10 years, Russia's assistance to the development of Central Asian countries has exceeded $6 billion. Russian investment in the region has reached $20 billion. Some 7,500 companies with Russian capital are operating in the region. The mutually beneficial and equal nature of these links is marked by the export of capital from the Central Asian countries to Russia. In particular, Kazakhstan has invested over $3 billion.

Establishing the CIS free trade zone and the EAEU common economic space has opened vast opportunities in the region. Last year, the Central Asian countries' trade with Russia grew by a third − in particular, Kazakhstan's trade with Russia increased 30.1 per cent, Kyrgyzstan's 31.6 per cent, and Uzbekistan's 33.9 per cent.

Mutual cultural and humanitarian ties are developing as well. Together, we are creating a professional and intellectual “pool” in the region. Over 150,000 students from Central Asia are studying at Russian universities, including some 46,000 with fully-funded Russian Government scholarships, which amounts to about $100 million per year. These are lofty investments in future generations.

The labour service supplied to the Russian market is a major export and revenue point for the countries in the region. Unlike Europe, where attempts to solve the migration crisis have failed, our labour market remains open to citizens of these friendly countries. In 2017, about 4 million people came to Russia from the Central Asian countries alone. We are aware that this is important for our friends: each year, the working-age population of this region is replenished by hundreds of thousands of young people.

Russia spends billions of roubles as part of its efforts to assist in modernising the armed forces of certain Central Asian countries, training officer personnel for them, providing military technical assistance, strengthening border security, and combating drug trafficking.

To compare, between 2008 and 2016, Washington allocated some $3 billion, including military assistance, to the countries of the region. The US has a self-serving approach to the cooperation with the Central Asian countries, seeking the access to raw material resources, logistics, transit corridors, as well as control over the sensitive security sector.

We respect the right of our Central Asian friends to choose partners, but do not want these partners driving a wedge between us.

Politicians, members of the business community and the people in these countries have been long aware of the advantages of the decades-long non-politicised equal partnership between us. Attempts at imposing schemes similar to the New Silk Road or Greater Central Asia on them are detached from reality. The creators of such schemes think that by ignoring the difference between the security levels in the countries of Central Asia and to the south of the Panj River they neglect the risks for stability in the whole region. Many experts wonder what are the goals of the US presence in Afghanistan. During the years of the US presence, the situation with security and illegal drug production has only aggravated. And this is taking place in close proximity to Central Asia, as well as Russia, Iran and China, whom Washington sees as “challenges” to its interests.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3106392






Comment by the Information and Press Department on passing of UN Human Rights Council resolution on human rights situation in Eastern Ghouta



5 March 2018 - 18:55



On March 5, members of the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution on the deteriorating human rights situation in Eastern Ghouta, Syria.

We regret to say that this initiative has nothing to do with real concerns for human rights in Syria or for the humanitarian needs of this area’s population. This is proven by the position of the document’s main authors, the delegation of the United Kingdom. Supported by the United States, its members refused to approve amendments suggested by Russia and a number of other states, aimed at denouncing terrorism in Syria and militants’ shelling of residential areas of Damascus. The proposed amendments also urged illegal paramilitary units not to hamper the evacuation of civilians via humanitarian corridors. Therefore, US and UK representatives have virtually confirmed their own reluctance to honour the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2401. In effect, they have confirmed their support for militants who are entrenched in Eastern Ghouta; and many of these militants are linked with Al Qaeda.

One can once again perceive the double standards of some countries whose delegations have declined to denounce terrorism in Syria out of considerations of the moment. The fact that on the voting day itself, the militants actually bargained over the conditions under which they would be willing to release their remaining civilian hostages, makes one particularly indignant.

In this connection, we are urging all states with an influence on anti-government paramilitary units to persuade their “clients” to cease hostilities, to ensure unimpeded deliveries of humanitarian aid and the unobstructed evacuation of civilians wishing to leave the Eastern Ghouta war zone.

In turn, we will continue to work with all Syrian warring parties in the interests of resolving the conflict as soon as possible, establishing peaceful dialogue between all the concerned participants, and completely eradicating the terrorist threat.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3107863






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the latest inter-Korean contacts



7 March 2018 - 12:44



We welcome positive trends in inter-Korean dialogue in the context of the outcome of the March 5-6 visit by a special envoy of the President of the Republic of Korea to Pyongyang where he was received by DPRK leader Kim Jong-un.

We expect that agreements reached between North Korea and South Korea will be embodied in practical steps aimed at further reducing tensions around the Korean Peninsula, and that these agreements will help launch direct dialogue between the United States and North Korea.

We are urging all the parties involved to support this process. Collective efforts in this direction should result in a comprehensive resolution of the situation in this sub-region and the creation of a lasting mechanism of peace and security in Northeast Asia.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3114411
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 15th, 2018 #377
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN Office and other International Organisations in Geneva Gennady Gatilov’s interview with Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, March 5, 2018



7 March 2018 - 10:34




Question:

What does Russia think about the resolution on the situation in Syria’s Eastern Ghouta, passed by the UN Human Rights Council?



Gennady Gatilov:

As is known, our British colleagues convened emergency debates on Friday and submitted a confrontational and politicised text for the Human Rights Council to consider. We saw clearly that the alarming goal of this ploy was to unleash criticism of Damascus in a scenario similar to the developments around Aleppo in 2016.



Question:

And what about states which denounce terrorists in UN Security Council resolutions but which simultaneously decline to support amendments based on these same decisions of the UN Security Council?



Gennady Gatilov:

We have suggested amendments to the submitted document. These amendments aim to uncover the real intentions of those who support politicised initiatives by the UN Human Rights Council that, in fact, are aimed at supporting anti-government armed units.

All states that do not want the conflict to escalate and which sincerely strive to resolve the Syrian conflict and to eliminate the terrorist threat should have supported our amendments. But one can draw the conclusion that those who initiated this resolution are not interested in resolving the crisis around Eastern Ghouta, and actually continue to support militants and turn a blind eye to their crimes.

It is symptomatic that the United Kingdom, supported by the US, demanded voting on our amendments. Therefore, they have in fact proven their support for terrorists in Syria, including in Eastern Ghouta.

We have closely monitored the voting results and we have come to the conclusion that this vote is a striking example of the application of double standards. Some states declined to denounce terrorists and terrorist attacks against civilians for political reasons. We cannot agree with this position.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3111222






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s reply to The Washington Post question on the prospects of signing a new START Treaty



7 March 2018 - 16:07




Question:

Are Russia and the United States conducting any talks on what will happen after the START III Treaty expires in 2021? What do you think the results of these talks should be, and how will they be affected by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Address to the Federal Assembly and new information on Russian arms?



Maria Zakharova:

Such talks are not currently underway. At present the most urgent task in this area is to settle the problems linked with the implementation of the current START Treaty. These problems are related to the US unilaterally excluding from the count part of its strategic offensive arms that it has described as “re-equipped.”

It would be premature to speak about any further steps until this issue is resolved properly. At any rate, we see no reason to rush. The current START Treaty was drafted in less than a year, so we still have enough time.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3114548






The Russian delegation’s remarks on Clause 4 of the preliminary programme for the IAEA Board of Governors session, March 5-9, 2018



9 March 2018 - 12:55



Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in the light of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)




Mr Chairman,

We are grateful to the IAEA Director General and the Department of Safeguards staff for preparing an exhaustive report on verification and monitoring in Iran in the light of implementing UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015).

Most importantly, the report has clearly reaffirmed that Iran has meticulously fulfilled its commitments under the JCPOA, observed the established parameters and restraints on the development of its nuclear programme, and provided IAEA inspectors access to all the facilities of interest to them. We regard this as a planned advance towards preparing a so-called extended safeguards conclusion that all the nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful nuclear activities.

We support the Secretariat’s intention to strictly abide by the abovementioned practices in the context of verification in Iran and to refrain from going beyond the JCPOA mandate approved by the relevant IAEA BG decisions. Any matters related to assuring IAEA inspectors’ access to Iranian facilities should be addressed strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Additional Protocol. The slightest departure from the existing procedures and accepted practice will have the most negative consequences for the IAEA system of safeguards and the non-proliferation regime as a whole.

We are pleased to note that Iran and the IAEA Secretariat are demonstrating a high level of professional interaction. The results are self-evident: The Iranian nuclear programme presents no proliferation threats. This is direct confirmation of the fact that the JCPOA is coping with its objectives.

We think it necessary to stress that the 2015 comprehensive agreements related to the Iranian nuclear settlement between six world powers and Iran are a coordinated and balanced mechanism based on mutual regard for the interests of all parties concerned. We call on all parties involved to strictly abide by their commitments under the JCPOA. It should be recalled that the comprehensive agreements on the INP have been approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and are mandatory for implementation by all member-states without exception, including the permanent members of the UN Security Council. We note the IAEA Director General’s remarks to the effect that the JCPOA collapse would be a major loss for the verification mechanisms and multilateral diplomacy principles. What is happening around the JCPOA now has a negative effect on prospects for dealing with the nuclear problem on the Korean Peninsula.

We are concerned over a certain country’s attempts to terrorise Iran, in line with its domestic political preferences, by threatening to withdraw from the JCPOA or induce its collapse, this contrary to its own commitments, to the international community’s will expressed in Security Council Resolution 2231, and to common sense. It should be remembered that the comprehensive agreements on the Iranian nuclear programme have been largely formulated by that country itself. We call on all politically sound forces to unite and move to the defence of the JCPOA in the name of preserving the non-proliferation regime and maintaining international peace and security.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3115068






Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich’s remarks at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, March 8, 2018



12 March 2018 - 13:05




Mr Chairperson,

The latest ceasefire, which was coordinated between the representatives of Kiev and certain districts in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, began on March 5. According to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM), the number of ceasefire violations in Donbass has radically decreased. We welcome this.

In order to further stabilise the situation on the contact line, the parties must publish ceasefire orders, withdraw heavy weaponry and the radical Ukrainian volunteer battalions from the contact line, as well as return military equipment to the permanent weapons storage sites. An important step towards this goal will be investigations conducted by the parties on SMM reports of damage due to firing at residential areas and bringing those guilty to account.

We pinned strong hopes on the disengagement of forces and weapons in Stanitsa Luganskaya, which would offer an opportunity to coordinate new security areas where necessary on the contact line. The ceasefire along this section of the line lasted nine weeks from December 26, 2017. We urge the SMM to analyse video information so as to clearly establish who opened fire there on March 3.

Over the week preceding the start of the Spring Ceasefire, the SMM reported six shooting attacks on the residential areas controlled by the self-defence forces from the government-controlled positions. On the evening and night of February 24 and 25, the SMM reported an attack at the power substation in Mikhailovskoye, where large amounts of mercury are stored. An oil tank was damaged in the attack and started leaking oil, which is fraught with an environmental disaster that can cause irremediable damages. Residential buildings in Dokuchayevsk, Kominternovo and Slavyanoserbsk have been damaged in these and other similar attacks. Artillery attacks have been delivered at Zaitsevo and Molodezhnoye.

Over the past month, the Ukrainian army accumulated weapons on the contact line in violation of the Minsk Agreements. The SMM observed Ukrainian military aircraft at the frontline, in particular, a Mi-8 helicopter flying over the entry-exit checkpoint in Maryinka on March 6. This amounts to a gross violation of Clause 7 of the Minsk Memorandum of September 19, 2014 and an alarming signal that may point to Kiev’s preparations for a large-scale offensive operation.

In this situation, the SMM must monitor the contact line especially closely and the flashpoint areas around the clock. The SMM’s freedom of movement at the contact line must not be restricted by the “mine threat.” SMM observers have a restraining effect on the parties. The SMM must be able to promptly report new ceasefire violations and try to identify the shooting parties. The SMM must make wide use of its technical equipment, primarily unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), to monitor the contact line. We hope for the resumption of operation of the SMM forward patrol base in Popasnaya as soon as possible.

We condemn cases of threats against SMM observes, such as the one that took place near Kozatsky on March 5, when a man in military-type attire pointed an assault rifle at an SMM vehicle.

Mr Chairperson,

The alarming increase in militant rhetoric and confrontational acts must be reversed. We urge our colleagues to see the dangers of this situation and to send a clear signal to Kiev regarding the unacceptability of opportunistic military activities in Donbass.

Kiev has recently taken a number of other dangerous steps in addition to the accumulation of forces and indiscriminate shelling.

The law on the so-called reintegration of Donbass, which aims to disrupt the Minsk Agreements, has come into force and is being used as the basis for planning a so-called joint military operation. More foreign military shipments are expected in Ukraine. The number of foreign mercenaries and instructors is growing.

On March 4, a US RQ-4B unmanned aircraft made yet another 10-hour-long reconnaissance flight along the contact line in Donbass in violation of Clause 7 of the Minsk Memorandum of September 19, 2014.

Recent statement by US officials regarding the need to eliminate the structure of certain districts in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions are pampering militarist sentiments of the Ukrainian authorities and hinder the possibility of negotiations within the Contact Group.

On February 28, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine invalidated the law On the Principles of the State Language Policy. The first attempt to invalidate this law was made on February 23, 2014, immediately after the state coup in Kiev. It exposed the true intentions of the radical forces that seized power in Ukraine and poured fuel on the flames of the internal divisions in Ukraine. Alexander Turchinov, who seized the position of president, decided against signing the order invalidating this law. He opted for a gradual offensive on the Russian language.

In the autumn of 2016, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law on the mandatory quota for Ukrainian language content on the radio. The law on language quotas on television followed in May 2017. Since the autumn of 2017, radio and television broadcasting in Russian and other minority languages has been reduced to nearly zero. The Law on Education, which was adopted in September 2017, restricted the right of non-Ukrainian-speaking people to receive education in their native tongue.

This has had a direct effect on the humanitarian situation in Donbass. According to the Donetsk administration, Kiev rejects applications for the restoration of Russian language infrastructure in the country.

We have tried to draw international attention to rampant nationalism in Ukraine more than once. The cause of Nazi accomplices from OUN-UPA has been taken up by their modern-day followers. Radicals have been attacking foreign property more often recently. On February 26, they again attacked Russia’s Consulate General in Odessa. On February 27, they set fire to the Hungarian culture centre in Uzhgorod. There are more cases like this. On March 3, nationalists held a march under the banner “Lvov is not for Polish gentlemen.” Ukrainian radicals keep up their pressure on the authorities. On February 27, they scuffled with police while trying to influence a court hearing for the mayor of Odessa. On March 8, radicals attacked women’s rights marches in Uzhgorod and Kiev. Several people have been injured. We urge the OSCE SMM to monitor investigations into these incidents. We also reaffirm the need, long overdue, for a comprehensive report on nationalism in Ukraine.

We cannot accept the statements made by US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker in Warsaw on March 7. Seeking to justify the actions of Ukrainian nationalists, he said that Ukraine was strengthening its national identity and needed respect and understanding. Aggressive nationalism is not an acceptable means for strengthening one’s identity.

This brings to mind what the Ukrainian representative to the OSCE said about the right to a “peaceful protest” in February 2014 and at the most recent meeting of the Permanent Council. The removal of a tent camp for protestors near the parliament building in Kiev on March 3 has demonstrated the current authorities’ selective attitude to the peacefulness of protests. We have seen such hypocrisy among our Western colleagues as well.

I would like to remind everyone that the most active “peace protesters” on Maidan in 2014 later joined punitive battalions and are guilty of murder, torture, plunder and looting. Ukrainian radicals and some unscrupulous Ukrainian soldiers are now plundering residential buildings in Katerinovka and Novoaleksandrovka, which the Ukrainian army has occupied recently. The police have closed their eyes to this despite numerous complaints from local residents.

In conclusion, I would like to say once again that a comprehensive political settlement based on the Minsk Package of Measures is the only peaceful option for ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine and preserving the country’s territorial integrity. Any attempts to revise this document will only deepen the crisis.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3115772






Statement by Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation at the 61st session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Mr. Oleg Syromolotov at the High-Level Side-Event “UN and SCO in the fight against drugs: new threats and joint actions”



12 March 2018 - 20:18



Unofficial translation




Dear Mr. Alimov,

Dear Mr. Fedotov,

For us, it is encouraging to see that contacts between the SCO and the UNODC are becoming consistent and systematic in character. This is also evidenced by the present meeting that highlights the importance of further developing mutually beneficial interaction. Since our previous talks in Vienna, the SCO has seen qualitative changes in its activities and structure. In particular, India and Pakistan have joined our ranks thus reinforcing the power, authority and capacity of our organization. By virtue of its geography, the SCO has a common border with Afghanistan which highlights the importance of the Organization's counter narcotics mechanism. Given the current alarming drug situation in Afghanistan and the increasing relationship between the revenues generated by drug trafficking in this country and the financing of terrorism, the ability of the SCO to effectively respond to these challenges is a key factor in ensuring peace and stability in Eurasia.

The SCO summit in Qingdao scheduled for June 9 and 10 is expected to adopt the counter-narcotic strategy which we see as a road map for combating heroin expansion from Afghanistan. The SCO-Afghanistan Working Group has resumed its activities. In the framework of this mechanism we try to find effective remedies to the ills that have afflicted Afghanistan. We also support the strengthening of the counter narcotics segment of the Organization, that, over time, could become a full-fledged organizational unit within the SCO Center for New Challenges and Threats.

The SCO is far from being an isolated structure, we seek to develop cooperation with all the mechanisms that defend peace and security. Collaboration is underway between the SCO and the Almaty–based Central Asian Regional Information and Coordination Centre for Combating Illicit Trafficking of Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and Their Precursors (CARICC). Our agenda includes development and implementation of large-scale joint projects to counter drug trafficking. We hope that collective efforts will help us effectively block the heroin trafficking. Moreover, we expect that the SCO Member States will actively contribute to promoting the Paris Pact initiative, which represents a unique inter-state counter narcotics mechanism.

We stand ready to continue providing training at the Russian educational institutions to counter narcotics personnel of Afghanistan, which is the first line of defense against the heroin aggression. Of course, while preparing for the forthcoming 2019 comprehensive review of the implementation of the 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action, we intend to build on our experience and existing best practices. Our ultimate goal is to create a society free of drug abuse and we are ready to spare no effort to promptly make this a reality.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3117524






Remarks by Head of the Russian Delegation to the 61st session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov, Vienna, March 12, 2018



12 March 2018 - 20:54




Madam Chairperson,

We are pleased that the current session of the Commission is chaired by a representative from Mexico, a country that is on the frontline of the fight against drugs. Our task is to further strengthen the global drug control regime based on the three core UN conventions. Russian President Vladimir Putin made this statement on February 28, 2018, stressing the need to enhance the coordination of the Russian public associations and authorities’ anti-drug activities at all levels, to strengthen cooperation with our partners from countries where the main drug flows originate, and also as part of international organisations such as the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). The first international conference Parliamentarians Against Drugs in December last year made a call for immediate, decisive and consolidated action in response to the global drug challenge, thus laying the groundwork for the parliamentary dimension of countering illicit drug trafficking.

Russia is deeply concerned about the current drug boom in Afghanistan, where opiate production has reached about 9,000 tons in opium equivalent. Furthermore, drug money actively nourishes terrorism, thereby strengthening its deadly arsenal. We are determined to further strengthen the Paris Pact Initiative (PPI), a unique interstate anti-drug framework.

At the same time, our aim is to build up the anti-drug potential of the SCO. It is significant that the current session of the Commission will further develop the dialogue between the SCO and the UNODC aimed at consolidating the joint effort against the narcotic threat.

The CSTO has rallied to protect Eurasia from opium expansion. In 2017, the CSTO member states together with their partners conducted two major operations, Channel - Western Cordon and Channel-Volga Front to curb illicit drug trafficking and related cash flows.

The BRICS group is gaining an increasingly clear anti-drug profile in its intercontinental dimension.

The CARICC has become a reliable stronghold in the system of deterring Afghan drug trafficking, confidently entering the second decade of its activities.

Last year, an important step was taken towards the development of our anti-drug dialogue with ASEAN, which, we hope, will become progressive and dynamic.

To further the requirements of the resolution adopted at the 60th session of the Commission, Russia is stepping up its activities to train drug police officers from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asian countries at the relevant educational institutions under Russia’s Interior Ministry. The contribution of the Japanese government, which is a clear example of the unity of interstate efforts to repulse a common enemy – drugs – is highly important. Russian instructors are part of successful anti-drug training programmes in Nicaragua and Peru. The Federal Service for Financial Monitoring provides assistance in the training of officers in South-Eastern Europe in combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

Our policy is based on the international anti-drug law, whose inviolability was confirmed at a special session of the UN General Assembly in 2016. The International Narcotics Control Board is the custodian and guarantor of its consistent application. In November 2017, an INCB mission led by its President Viroj Sumyai visited the Russian Federation; we tried to demonstrate maximum openness and transparency during our meetings.

We are confident that our Commission is obliged to contribute to improving access to painkillers for those who need them. The current situation, when pain relief is only available to 20% of the global population, cannot continue. We must change this unfair state of affairs.

Every effort should be made to promote alternative development programmes, so that many thousands of people have real sources enabling them to live decent lives.

Today, drug-related crime is increasingly aimed at children. Children become not only drug users, but they are often used as drug traffickers. We need to put an end to this shameful practice as soon as possible. This is why Russia is presenting a resolution on protecting children from illicit drugs at this session. We hope that the initiative will receive broad approval.

We need to work together to address these matters in the context of the upcoming full-fledged review of the implementation of the Political Declaration and Plan of Action for 2009. We believe we should be guided by Resolution 60/1, in which the Commission clearly spelled out its vision of the preparations for 2019.

We strongly reject any calls for the legalisation of narcotic substances. We do not think it acceptable to legalise death and human suffering. In addition to this, drugs legalisation goes against human rights, including the right to life and health.

Madam Chairperson, our ideal vision is a world free of drugs. If we all combine our efforts for the embodiment of this dream, then it can become a reality.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3117543






Statement by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW, Ambassador Alexander Shulgin, at the 87th session of the OPCW Executive Council on the chemical incident in Salisbury, The Hague, March 13, 2018



13 March 2018 - 17:01




Mr Chairperson,

In connection with the vicious attacks launched by British officials in London, as well as the statement by the head of the British delegation to the OPCW with regard to Russia concerning the suspicious story of two persons poisoned with a toxic agent in Salisbury, we would like to state the following.

The British authorities’ unfounded accusations of Russia’s alleged involvement in using poisonous agents on their territory are absolutely unacceptable. Our British colleagues should recall that Russia and the United Kingdom are members of the OPCW which is one of the most successful and effective disarmament and non-proliferation mechanisms. We call upon them to abandon the language of ultimatums and threats and return to the legal framework of the chemical convention, which makes it possible to resolve this kind of situation.

If London does have serious reasons to suspect Russia of violating the CWC - and the statement read by distinguished Ambassador Peter Wilson indicates directly that this is so - we suggest that Britain immediately avail itself of the procedures provided for by paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the CWC. They make it possible, on a bilateral basis, to officially contact us for clarifications regarding any issues that raise doubts or concerns.

We would also like to emphasise that such clarifications under the Convention are provided to the requesting member state as soon as possible, but in any case no later than 10 days following receipt of the request. As such, the ultimatum’s demand that information be provided immediately, by the end of today, is absolutely unacceptable.

Our British colleagues should save their propaganda fervour and slogans for their unenlightened domestic audience, where perhaps they will have some effect. Here, within the walls of a specialised international organisation, such as the OPCW, one must use facts and nothing but the facts. Stop fomenting hysteria, go ahead and officially formalise your request to begin consultations with us in order to clarify the situation. A fair warning, we will require material evidence of the alleged Russian trace in this high-profile case. Britain’s allegations that they have everything, and their world-famous scientists have irrefutable data, but they will not give us anything, will not be taken into account. For us, this will mean that London has nothing substantial to show, and all its loud accusations are nothing but fiction and another instance of the dirty information war being waged on Russia. Sooner or later, they will have to be held accountable for their lies.

In addition, in this particular case, it would be legitimate for the British side to seek assistance from the OPCW Technical Secretariat in conducting an independent laboratory analysis of the available samples that allegedly show traces of nerve agents in Salisbury.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

We ask you to circulate this statement as an official document of the 87th session of the OPCW's Executive Council and post it on the Organisation’s external server.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3118434
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 16th, 2018 #378
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of the Republic of Zimbabwe Sibusiso Moyo, Harare, March 8, 2018



8 March 2018 - 16:12








Question:

You have already visited a number of African countries, including Angola, Namibia and Mozambique. What are Russia’s main interests in this region?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our visit to Zimbabwe is part of a grand African tour. We have already visited Angola, Namibia and Mozambique. We are staying in Harare today. Tomorrow, we will hold talks with Ethiopian and African Union leaders in Ethiopia.

Speaking of countries, visited by us to date, Russia maintains very kind and friendly relations with each of them. These ties evolved during the struggle of your nations for independence. Our nations maintain very strong mutual sympathies and friendly feelings, and this ensures a very trustful and effective political dialogue, including a top-level dialogue.

We together with our African friends want to elevate our trade, economic and investment relations to a level that would meet our political and trust-based relations.

Today, we have held talks with President of the Republic of Zimbabwe Emmerson Mnangagwa, the country’s vice-president and an overwhelming majority of economic-block ministers. We have discussed tasks of expanding our trade and investment ties. We attach great significance to improving the performance of the Russia-Zimbabwe Intergovernmental Commission on Economic, Trade and Science and Technical Cooperation. The Commission’s members are to hold their regular meeting this year.

Today, we have focused on a project for the integrated development of the Darwendale platinum group metals deposit, one of the largest in the world, where Russia and Zimbabwe operate a joint venture.

We have also had a good conversation regarding cooperation prospects in the diamond sector. We have told our friends that many Russian companies, including KAMAZ, the Rostselmash Factory, Uralkhim, Rosgeologiya and others, would like to establish partner relations with their colleagues from Zimbabwe.

We have also discussed prospects for military-technical cooperation. Members of a working group under the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic, Trade and Science and Technical Cooperation are addressing these matters.

Of course, we have devoted quite a lot of attention to international affairs on which we closely coordinate our actions, including at the UN.

The Republic of Zimbabwe Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Sibusiso Moyo and I have reviewed our contacts in the context of relations between Russia and the African Union, Russia and the Southern African Development Community, as well as those with other subregional organisations.

We praise Zimbabwe’s constructive role in common African efforts to resolve various regional crises and conflicts.

To my mind, talks in this country, as well as in other countries I have already mentioned, including Angola, Namibia and Mozambique, have proved quite beneficial for furthering our bilateral cooperation in all areas and for coordinating our efforts on topical issues concerning international affairs.



Question:

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is now touring African countries. The other day he criticised China’s African policy and noted that, instead of creating jobs, this policy served to increase debts and threatened political as well as economic stability. Would you like to make any comments about this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I did not know that Rex Tillerson is an expert on Chinese-African relations. In my opinion, if this is true because I have not seen such media reports, it is not very correct to comment on relations between receiving states and other countries, especially in such a negative way.



Question:

What are the implications of establishing special economic zones? And what are the contents of a special message by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to President of Zimbabwe Emmerson Mnangagwa?



Sergey Lavrov:

Today, we have signed a memorandum between the concerned ministries dealing with the industry and trade. Indeed, several memorandums have been signed. One of them calls for the establishment of a special economic zone in Zimbabwe. Experts and other professionals will work on this project, and they will report on the results of their work to the leaders of our countries and to specialised ministries. I don’t think this will take too much time. The relevant decisions will be made.

Regarding the message from President Vladimir Putin to President Emmerson Mnangagwa, it primarily supports the Zimbabwean leader’s efforts to stabilise the political situation, to consolidate society and to enhance diverse cooperation with the countries that are willing to help Zimbabwe in addressing its problems.



Question:

In terms of what you would want to see Zimbabwe implementing for the fruition of the cooperation that we are seeking, what are some of the issues that you have impressed upon your counterparts so that they are fixed, because most of the countries across the world have been hesitant to come to Zimbabwe because of some of the policies? What are some of the issues that you have brought up?



Sergey Lavrov:

Frankly speaking, I do not understand why we should press anything on our friends. We cooperate with all countries that are ready to cooperate with us based on equality and mutual benefit. We reject the policy of unilateral sanctions and enforcement measures, including such as have been applied towards Zimbabwe. I believe that such politically-charged actions are seriously complicating the market situation. It can be said that those who apply unilateral sanctions become illegally involved in the play of free market forces and in the fundamental rules of the global economy.



Question:

You are going to Ethiopia tomorrow. As far as we know, Russia has proposed holding a meeting with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson there. Have the Americans replied to this proposal?



Sergey Lavrov:

I did not want to speak about this, but I have learned today that the Americans said yesterday that there had been no discussion of the possibility of a meeting between Secretary Tillerson and me in Addis Ababa. Since they have decided to make this statement, I would like to say that it is not true. In fact, this is what happened. I was instructed to attend the January meeting of the UN Security Council, which President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev chaired. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was unable to attend that meeting. Three days after I returned to Moscow, he called me to propose that we meet whenever it was convenient for us. I replied that I had returned from New York, where it would have been very convenient to meet because New York is such a short distance from Washington. Mr Tillerson replied that he was very busy in the capital during the two days I was in New York. We agreed that we would try to meet when we both had meetings in the same place at roughly the same time. When it turned out that both of us would be in Addis Ababa – at least we will definitely be there this evening – we proposed holding a meeting there. The Americans said they needed to think about it. But when they were asked yesterday if there will be a meeting or not, they said, as you now know, that the possibility had not even been discussed. So now I have told you the truth I would like to point out once again that I did not want to go into details regarding this question, but since they publicly refute hard facts, I had to do what I have done.



Question:

Minister Lavrov, in the nearest future elections will be taking place in Zimbabwe? Will Russia be giving a helping hand when it comes to conducting these elections?



Sergey Lavrov:

We never interfere in the internal affairs of any country, although we fear allegations to the contrary on a daily basis in Washington and several other Western capitals, but they have not provided a single, I repeat, a single fact concerning this. I believe The New York Times has recently published a big item on the history of US interference in elections and in the internal affairs of dozens and dozens of states over the past decades. When this question was raised in the US media, I heard incredible statements to the effect that the Americans really do this only for the good of the countries concerned, because together with their interference they bring freedom and democracy to these countries. We do not share this philosophy at all. I see this as a neo-imperial position. We will never do anything of the kind. It is up to the people of Zimbabwe or any other country to decide their future. I am sure that the people will do this when they express their opinions at the upcoming elections.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3114951






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks following talks with Chairperson of the African Union Commission Moussa Faki Mahamat, Addis Ababa, March 9, 2018



9 March 2018 - 13:04




Ladies and gentlemen,

Colleagues,

Friends,

I am happy to visit the Headquarters of the African Union once again, and we have held very useful, trustful and detailed talks with Chairperson of the African Union Commission Moussa Faki Mahamat here.

Russia sees the African Union as a key regional organisation in Africa that plays a leading role in maintaining peace and security on the continent, implementing political and socioeconomic integration and promoting agreed-upon approaches of African countries on the international scene. We praise the level of dialogue between Russia and the African Union.

In September 2017, President of the Republic of Guinea and Chairperson of the African Union Alpha Conde paid a special visit to Russia and held talks with President of Russia Vladimir Putin. In 2016 and 2017, the African Union's Commissioner for Peace and Security, Smail Chergui, also visited Moscow. We called for further expanding our contacts under the memorandum on mutual understanding, signed in September 2014 between the Foreign Ministry and the African Union Commission.

Today, Mr Moussa Faki Mahamat and I agreed that this memorandum lags behind current requirements to some extent. We now have to draft a new comprehensive document that would bring together available experience and chart ways for furthering our all-round cooperation. We have analysed the state of relations between Russia and African Union states and their prospects. We are particularly interested in expanding trade and economic cooperation and that in the area of education, cutting-edge technology and personnel training projects. We have agreed to energetically involve major Russian economic operators in implementing projects on the continent and to think about holding the relevant forum of Russian business circles and African Union countries. We are interested in expanding partnership with African countries in such areas as energy, including nuclear energy, construction of infrastructure and cooperation in the field of cutting-edge technology.

Now that Russia is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, we have supported more proactive tiers between the Eurasian Economic Union and the African Union Commission. Some 12-18 months ago, the Eurasian Economic Union’s member-countries submitted the relevant proposals to the staff of the African Union Commission. The colleagues promised to react positively. I believe this will become another good and important step in strengthening our partnership. The SCO would also like to establish contacts and to maintain ties with the African Union Commission, and this is another good and promising aspect of our subsequent steps.

We have exchanged views on topical issues of the international agenda, primarily efforts to counter modern challenges and threats, including international terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime. All this also threatens countries of the African region. Today, we have confirmed Russia’s interest, voiced during Smail Chergui’s 2017 visit, in obtaining observer status during activities of the African Police Organisation (Afripol). In turn, we have called on members of the African Union Commission to encourage member-countries to explore the possibility of joining the Russian Federal Security Service’s database that lists foreign terrorists-militants. The more versatile this database becomes, the easier it would be to track down people suspected of staging terrorist attacks in any other country.

Mr Moussa Faki Mahamat has mentioned issues of resolving crises on the African continent. We are confident that the Africans should independently address their own issues, and this is our principled position. Only those decisions being adopted by Africans will be stable and long-lasting. The additional imposition of methods for resolving any domestic political situation merely leads to very sad consequences, as had been the case with Libya. Today, Russia proactively cooperates with our colleagues in resolving conflicts in Libya, the Sahara-Sahel region, in the Horn of Africa and in the African Great Lakes region.

We invariably support African countries’ appeals to launch peacekeeping operations, including operations involving the African Union, and we support them on many other issues at the UN Security Council. We proactively train specialists for peacekeeping operations. African countries have been training their own peacekeepers for the relevant operations at the Russian Interior Ministry’s universities. Russia also helps provide the relevant African troop contingents with the required equipment.

In a broader context, we listed educational issues among key matters in the development of the relevant states, including in the context of preventing Jihadist terrorist ideology from penetrating regional countries. We have agreed to expand our educational cooperation. Thousands of Africans have studied and continue to study at Russia’s civilian universities and those of the national Defence and Interior Ministries. Expanded contacts between Russian and African Union countries universities will prove very useful. As you know, the Foreign Ministry has its own Diplomatic Academy that offers short-term advanced training and personal improvement courses for foreign diplomats. Some African embassies have taken advantage of this opportunity. We have suggested that members of the African Commission think of sending their employees to study in these courses.

On the whole, we are quite satisfied with the results of our talks that have confirmed our mutual striving to strengthen partnership in the interests of consolidating regional and international stability and security for the sake of the development of our countries and nations.

I am sincerely grateful to Mr Moussa Faki Mahamat for his hospitality, and I have invited him to pay an official visit to Russia.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3115165






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Chairperson of the African Union Commission Moussa Faki Mahamat, Addis Ababa, March 9, 2018



9 March 2018 - 13:13








Question:

As you know, Africa is coordinating efforts for peace and prosperity in line with Agenda 2063. How is Russia going to align itself with this agenda for the prosperity of Africa, alongside funding?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe I touched on this issue in my opening remarks.

We are intent on cooperation with the African Union in all areas, political, trade, economic, cultural, educational, and on coordinating our actions on the international stage. All plans and strategies that are being developed in the African Union until 2063 include areas that are also of interest to the Russian Federation. In spheres where our interests coincide, we will build additional forms of cooperation, including those we have just outlined to the participants of the meeting.



Sergey Lavrov (adds after Chairperson of the African Union Commission Moussa Faki Mahamat):

I would like to add a few words regarding the reform of the UN Security Council. Mr Mahamat is correct that Russia proceeds from the need to reform the UN Security Council in order to increase the representation of the developing countries. I do not think that developed countries are under-represented in the current Security Council. The most important thing is for developing regions to join the council. We are ready to consider all options as long as they lead to a broad consensus. In this sense, we support India and Brazil (representing Asia and Latin America), and consider them strong candidates, but we do not see any possibility of taking a decision on expanding the council if there is no representation of Africa. This is the only way we can increase the value of the UN Security Council, because there is probably not much sense in expanding the council by inviting countries that already have their position protected there. The main priority is to expand the representation of the three developing regions of the world, including the African continent by all means.



Question:

Did you discuss the possibility of holding a Russia-Africa summit today? Under what conditions would this be possible?

During your visit to Zimbabwe, you spoke about the possibility of creating a special economic zone. Did you discuss such a project within the African Union today?



Sergey Lavrov:

We did not discuss holding a summit. We share a common view that it is more important to take concrete action that will benefit African countries and Russia. I have mentioned the steps we have planned. I am sure that when there is a solid package of agreements, we might well discuss holding a summit.

As for a special economic zone in Zimbabwe, it is a bilateral issue. But the plans that are approved and promoted by the African Union, including the liberalisation of trade across the continent, are, of course, of interest to the Russian business community. In this connection, we will do our best to assist Russian businesses in joining mutually beneficial projects.



Question:

There are strong allegations in the UK that your government has been involved in the assassination attempt of Sergey Skripal and his daughter. How do you respond to these allegations?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are accused not only of this, but of everything that our Western partners believe is wrong on this planet. As for your concrete question, we have not seen a single fact. We only watch TV reports where your pretentious colleagues with serious faces say that if Russia is guilty, it will receive a response it will remember forever. It is not serious. It is again propaganda and stirring up hysteria. If you are interested in cooperating in an investigation, be it the poisoning of British citizens, rumours about interference in the US election campaign or any other issue, and if Russia’s assistance is really needed, we are ready to consider this possibility if we have relevant information. But for this to happen, you should not rush to the TV and make unfounded accusations, but ask for professional help using other channels, including law enforcement agencies.

I watch television ‒ of course, you cannot escape it ‒ and I see that there are parallels with the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which also happened in the UK. I would like to remind you that Litvinenko’s death, for which Russia was also blamed, has not been investigated to the end, because the inquiry – it was called public but took place behind closed doors – was held in a very strange way. Numerous facts which were discovered during the investigation were never made public. We offered our services and cooperation because there was a series of questions for Russia, but the British justice did not deign and issued an unfounded verdict, which, I repeat, is not complete. They did not mention many facts connected with this tragedy. Therefore, I would advise anyone interested in this issue to follow the rules used in international society and to address the countries they want to receive information from using professional, not propaganda channels.



Question:

US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un have decided to hold a personal meeting. Do you consider it a breakthrough in the settlement of the North Korean issue? Do you agree with the US leadership that it was the sanctions that forced Pyongyang to negotiate?



Sergey Lavrov:

We consider it a step in the right direction. We only heard about this today. I hope this meeting will happen. It is necessary to stabilise the situation around the Korean Peninsula. We also welcome the agreement between Seoul and Pyongyang to hold an inter-Korean summit in April. All of this is exactly what the Russian Federation, China and other countries spoke in favour of in order to de-escalate tensions around the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula and use not threats, ultimatums and unilateral sanctions, but dialogue based on mutual respect and the search for new agreements which will satisfy all parties. I will not comment on whether this agreement to hold a high-level meeting was because of the sanctions. I think that each party wants to see its own explanation as a correct one. Let us not discuss the reason for this agreement. It is more important that it exists. And even more important is to make good on this agreement and pave the way to a comprehensive renewal of the political negotiation process in order to settle the nuclear issues of the Korean Peninsula based on the existing principles that were approved at the six-party talks and in the UN Security Council.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3115078






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia Workneh Gebeyehu Addis-Ababa, March 9, 2018



9 March 2018 - 14:07








Question:

Can you give us a timeline on when the nuclear project will be implemented in Ethiopia?



Sergey Lavrov:

Talks are underway on creating a nuclear technology centre in Ethiopia based on the research reactor that was designed in Russia and is already operating. These efforts have gained considerable momentum, and there are no reasons to talk about any delay. They will be further accelerated once we complete the drafting of intergovernmental agreements that are required for this project to be implemented.



Question:

My question is about the nuclear project. How is it going to be used in Ethiopia and what is its purpose?



Sergey Lavrov:

The nuclear technology centre will carry out research, for example, with a view to opening new horizons for Ethiopia in areas of the peaceful use of nuclear energy, such as radiological medicine. As I have already said, a research reactor designed in Russia has been operating in Ethiopia for quite some time now. The nuclear technology centre will be based on this research reactor.



Question:

US senators have called on the US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to resume dialogue on strategic security after the President Vladimir Putin’s statement on new weapons. Has the time come to resume dialogue and update New START?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have always advocated continuing and developing dialogue on strategic stability between Russia and the US. When almost all cooperation channels were suspended under the Obama administration because of the anti-Russia policy adopted by the US, it was Russia that initiated the resumption of discussions on this subject. Of course, this dialogue should be based on mutual respect, balance of interests and be held without any preconditions.

As for New START, which you also mentioned in your question, all interaction mechanism are stipulated by the treaty itself, and used in relation to the commission established to oversee its implementation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3115200
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 16th, 2018 #379
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 7, 2018



7 March 2018 - 15:59








Upcoming Russia-Iran-Turkey trilateral talks in Astana

A trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers from Russia, Iran and Turkey is to take place in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, on March 16. The ministers will discuss the coordination of efforts by the guarantor states of the Astana process to facilitate a settlement in Syria. The event will differ in format from past international high-level meetings in Astana because representatives from the Syrian Government or the opposition, or external observers have not been invited, with the exception of Mr Staffan de Mistura, Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria. The participants are expected to be received by President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev.

The ministerial meeting will be preceded by a session of the Joint Working Group and the first meeting of the working group on the release of detainees/hostages, the transfer of bodies of the deceased and the search for the missing.



Preparations abroad for Russian presidential election

With a view to the forthcoming presidential election in Russia to be held on March 18, we would like to draw the attention of journalists and our citizens who will be out of the country on the voting days. That was not a slip of the tongue on my part since March 18 is not the only day on which voting will be open. A number of citizens can vote early while abroad. The Russian Central Election Commission’s site posted detailed instructions on how to vote if one is abroad and is a Russian national. On our part, we would like to specifically underline the information on the voting procedure for Russian citizens abroad. We posted instructions at the Foreign Ministry’s official site on voting procedure for citizens of the Russian Federation who permanently reside or are currently outside Russia, leaving the territory of Russia on private invitations for business, work-related or tourist trips, for Russians who are staying abroad as guests, on business or on a travel tour, and also for Russian citizens who will be en route while voting is open. One can find a detailed list of polling stations outside the Russian Federation, and contact information including addresses and hotline numbers. Everything has been double-checked and posted. This work was done very carefully since all our foreign missions were involved. If this appears to be insufficient and any additional questions should arise, we are always ready to promptly respond to them.

We urge all voters who are going to be abroad on those days to carefully read the posted information. We keep repeating this because, unfortunately, information is spread in social networks either by accident or maliciously to the effect that it is practically impossible to vote while on a short business trip or travel tour abroad due to bureaucratic hurdles, allegedly requiring that one register with the consulate and present a whole package of documents. Another myth is that two to three months are needed to obtain documents for voting. None of this is accurate. Everything is done as quickly as possible. It is not a matter of months or weeks. Detailed instructions on how to do it are published in the official resources of the Russian Foreign Ministry, diplomatic missions in respective countries; all the necessary information is first of all published on the official site of the Central Election Commission of Russia.

I saw a post on the internet whose author was endorsing one of the candidates, noting that he would certainly vote for him but unfortunately he will be in a European capital on that day, and since gathering the package of documents will take several weeks, he will not be able to vote. You are able to vote in this case. It can all be done quickly and promptly. All that is required in the passport of the citizen of the Russian Federation.

Let me repeat that step-by-step instructions are posted on the official resources of the Foreign Ministry of Russia.



Crimea: fourth anniversary of reunification with Russia

On March 18, Russia will celebrate an important event – the fourth anniversary of Crimea’s reunification with Russia.

Life has reaffirmed the validity of the decision made by the population of the peninsula during the 2014 Crimean referendum, which became the only way to protect its interests from the rampancy of national radical elements that came to power in Ukraine as a result of the coup, something that some forces are trying carefully to forget now. Today, the Republic of Crimea and the city of federal significance Sevastopol are integrated in the Russian political, legal and economic space. In this context we would like to emphasise the absolute delusiveness of persistent Western hopes to reverse this, in particular, by exerting pressure on Russia.

The politicised character of the information campaign launched against Russia on this issue has been confirmed by the evaluations of over 100 foreign delegations that visited Crimea in 2017. We would like to note once again what we said more than once, that assessments of the political, economic and human rights situation on the peninsula are presented, including through international agencies, by those who have never visited Crimea. Despite this, and proceeding from unsubstantiated data and indirect sources, they publish reports that, regrettably, are becoming a foundation for making corresponding decisions and statements, including official ones.

We have repeated and will continue to repeat: welcome to Crimea! We are not seeking to receive any glossed over evaluations or an embellished picture of Crimea's current life. We want an objective approach.

Those who really know life in Crimea today – I am referring to foreign delegations and representatives – note the interethnic stability and obvious socio-economic success, although there is still a lot to be done. Today, 14 regional, ethnic and cultural autonomies are registered in Crimea, including two Crimean Tatar ones. There is a federal targeted programme for the socio-economic development of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol until 2020 worth 700 billion rubles.

The demand for an objective view of Crimea and interest in cooperation with it on behalf of foreign entrepreneurs and public and political circles is growing. The creation of the International Association of the Friends of Crimea last year reflected this trend.

Crimea has a strong cultural life. Over 400 public events are planned in 2018, including those timed to religious and national holidays, and memorable dates of the ethnic communities on the peninsula.

Over 120,000 tourists visited Crimea in January 2018 alone.

The large Crimean Bridge will open to traffic this year.

To be honest, Crimeans should say this themselves but considering that I deal with journalists that represent foreign audience, I will say it on behalf of the Foreign Ministry: the residents of Crimea are ready and willing to communicate with you directly.

The Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are confidently looking to the future and are open to those that are willing to visit these Russian regions and see how matters really stand. We conducted teleconferences for Russian and foreign journalists with their Crimean colleagues and representatives of public organisations and NGOs. We are organising press tours and are ready to arrange specific events at your requests.

Let me repeat that nobody wants to invent anything or paint an embellished picture of what is taking place in Crimea. We all support an objective view of the situation and people's lives there. Go to Crimea, talk to local people and reach your own conclusion, but do not spread false or unreliable information.



Situation in Eastern Ghouta

In response to the daily shelling of the central districts of Damascus by terrorists based in Eastern Ghouta, the Syrian army launched a large-scale operation in this suburban area with the aim of eliminating the outgoing threat to the safety of civilians.

Russia does not view this counterterrorist operation as contradicting the provisions of recently adopted UN Security Council Resolution 2401 and is supporting the fight against terrorists in Eastern Ghouta with its Aerospace Forces. In paragraph 2 of this resolution, it is clearly confirmed that the cessation of hostilities does not extend to military operations against ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra or other terrorist groups recognised as such by the UN Security Council.

At the same time, in coordination with the Syrian authorities, Russian military forces are taking all possible measures to avoid casualties among civilians, which are being used by the terrorists as human shields, as well as to provide them with food and necessary medications through UN humanitarian convoys and evacuate the sick and wounded and those in need of urgent medical assistance.

As part of these efforts, on March 5, assistance was provided to the UN humanitarian convoy going to the largest town of East Ghouta, Douma. The convoy delivered enough food for 27,000 people for a month.

While self-styled "representatives" from the opposition, who are far beyond Eastern Ghouta, make loud statements about the alleged willingness of the armed groups in the enclave to comply with the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2401, the terrorists operating on the ground continue to disrupt the daily humanitarian pauses established at the initiative of Russia and strictly observed by the Syrian military, and fire upon a humanitarian corridor intended for the evacuation of the sick and wounded and the release of civilians wishing to leave the area of ​​the counter-terrorist operation.

According to Russian estimates, the responsibility for fighting in Eastern Ghouta, the deaths and suffering of people lies with the terrorists and those commanders of the armed groups who, instead of taking advantage of the opportunities that have been given to them after the de-escalation zone was created in the enclave and instead of fulfilling the provisions of the relevant agreement concluded in Cairo in July 2017 on disengagement from the terrorists and the fight against them, have conspired with the al-Nusra group and have turned into the latter's instrument of struggle.

The criticism from a number of Western capitals of the allegedly indiscriminate attacks by the Syrian army on Eastern Ghouta as well as unsubstantiated and logically absurd accusations of Damascus using poisonous substances do not serve the interests of an early termination to the bloodshed and suffering of the civilian population that remain in the enclave, but irresponsibly encourage those who found a place in one trench with terrorists and give them the misleading hope that the determination of the government of Syria to put an end to the terrorist threat, coming from the capital's suburbs, can be broken. This is an erroneous and bloody calculation that perverts the meaning of UN Security Council Resolution 2401, which does not abolish the uncompromising struggle against terrorism and any of its manifestations.



Humanitarian consequences of the operation to reclaim Raqqa by the US-led coalition

We are still concerned about the situation in Raqqa. As part of its contribution to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2401 to assist in the improvement of the humanitarian situation in Syria, Russia put forward an initiative to form an international evaluation mission that would give an independent and impartial assessment of the current situation in that large, by Syrian standards, city, which is also the capital of the province of the same name.

As a reminder, from November 2016 until October 2017, Raqqa, where almost 800,000 people found refuge, including 300,000 local residents and displaced persons, was besieged by the forces of a US-led coalition. ISIS used people that were trapped in the city as human shields. Terrorists did not allow them to leave and the coalition forces did not take care to arrange humanitarian corridors. There was no humanitarian assistance either by the UN or any other international agencies. The forces that had besieged Raqqa considered the city and its inhabitants to be the capital of the ISIS caliphate. At that time, the situation was aggravated by the conflict between the ethnic Kurds and the Arabs.

Raqqa suffered ruthless bombings from the air, and when the attack began US added artillery fire to the air strikes. As a result, most of the city’s districts were almost levelled to the ground. Aerial views of the city, probably made by a drone, were posted online and showed a terrifying picture.

You understand that destroyed buildings can be restored but there are questions that no one can answer for some reason, for example, how many people have remained in Raqqa? What are their living conditions? Who holds power in the city? Who controls the situation there? Who does the so-called city council report to and what is its nature?

There is practically no access to the city from the areas controlled by the legitimate Syrian government. Access is closed even to journalists. We often heard from Western journalists, when they were asked why they were not describing the situation in certain parts of Syria, that it was life-threatening. But it is possible that the reason lies in the unwillingness of those who liberated Raqqa from ISIS to publicise the price the city’s population had to pay for liberation.

Hostilities are always accompanied by collateral losses, especially during the large-scale military operation of destroying such an insidious enemy as international ISIS terrorists. However, we believe it is important that the fulfilment of a combat mission should not result in large devastated regions and a population doomed to abject poverty or in humiliation by the victors. It should provide the conditions for a rapid revival of the economic and the social infrastructure, the relocation of IDPs and refugees. It should not destroy a people’s already difficult life.

In our opinion, it would be normal for a legitimate administration to head this process. Syria was and is a sovereign state and the power and authority of its government should cover all the country’s territory.

There are more questions requiring answers. Is anything being done in Raqqa to achieve this goal? What is the amount of assistance needed by the people who remained in the city? The answers should be given by an international evaluation mission, the establishment of which was welcomed by the Syrian government.



Development of new strategic weapons systems

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Address to the Federal Assembly has been extensively commented on abroad, especially the part on defence-related issues. There were many articles and quite a few official statements on this matter along with comments by political observers and experts. Having focused on Russia’s future weapons, many have unfortunately preferred not to go too deep into the reasons that prompted Russia to develop these systems. They still fail to understand that the steps Russia has taken should be viewed as a response to the consistent efforts by the US and other NATO member countries over many years to intentionally ratchet up military and political tensions. No one seems to see or notice this.

Washington and its allies have clearly opted to rely on a factor of power in advancing their approaches on the international stage while bypassing the universal peace and security mechanisms. The subject of military dominance is a common thread running through US doctrines. For example, in its new Nuclear Posture Review, the US assigns an enhanced role to nuclear weapons in military planning. The US has announced plans to develop low-yield warheads which, once deployed, would significantly lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons. The US also made public its refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and plans to have the means available so as to be able to resume full-scale nuclear testing within a short timeframe. And all this is undertaken in order to be able to continue talks on war and peace “from the position of strength.”

In connection with the development of weapons mentioned by the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, we are perplexed by the accusations against Russia of violating its international arms control commitments. Statements to this effect were released by the spokespersons of the White House and the Department of State. It has to be noted that the Department of State also referred to the INF Treaty, which prevents the parties from developing and deploying land-based missiles with a range capability from 500 to 5,500 kilometres. However, President Putin did not mention any weapons of this kind in his Address to the Federal Assembly.

We have also taken note of the “reasonable doubt” expressed by German government spokesperson Steffen Seibert, who said that the Kremlin needed to dispel these fears in a convincing manner, and that there was no reason for Russia to be proud of blatant violations of international law made during the annexation of Crimea, and the development and use of Russian weapons systems in Syria.

In this regard, the Foreign Ministry would like to ask its German colleagues to clarify what specific international arms control treaties and agreements are being violated by Russia. What evidence does Berlin have and why hasn’t it been presented so far? If Germany and its European allies view nuclear weapons as a direct threat, as Mr Seibert said in his statement, why are there no efforts to withdraw non-strategic US weapons from the European continent? Why didn’t the German government spokesperson talk about that in his statement? Why don’t we see new articles and television reports in Germany on this subject every day? Why isn’t German civil society sounding alarm? And what about Germany’s participation in the so-called NATO nuclear missions, which are a direct violation of the ban under the NPT to provide access to or enable the use of nuclear weapons by third countries?

Finally, another legitimate question is why Berlin is so cautious and delicate when it comes to commenting on the new US Nuclear Posture Review, while voicing serious concerns over the destiny of the world and strategic stability? It would be interesting to know whether this critical instrument was coordinated, be it partially, with NATO allies, the key donors of this military block, or the decisions were taken by Washington on its own, so that the European capitals learned about it from the media. It is unclear why Berlin and other capitals are still not uconcerned about Washington’s “incommensurate” approach to the use of nuclear weapons, whereby it can be used “in the most extreme circumstances”, which are not limited to military scenarios. In this sense, by assuming the tasks of “guaranteeing global security”, the US may launch a nuclear strike against anyone who would be deemed an aggressor. By reserving the right to a preventive strike, including using low-yield nuclear warheads, the US puts in place dangerous prerequisites for a nuclear missile war even in low-intensity conflicts. Just think about it, this can even be possible in case of cyber threats! I understand that today this still belongs to the realm of surrealism, but many of the things we once believed to be impossible have already materialised. For example, a nine-year girl somewhere in Asia-Pacific, Africa or Europe presses the wrong button on her parents’ smartphone, and causes a nuclear launch. Is that possible?

We have long sought to establish constructive dialogue on strategic security and discuss with our colleagues matters that are of genuine concern for Russia, as well as an important part of the international community. Specifically, we proposed starting a serious dialogue with our Western partners on limiting anti-missile defence systems. Despite Russia’s efforts, the US withdrew from a bilateral treaty to this effect in 2002. Observers have forgotten this fact almost entirely, as if it never existed. The US anti-missile systems are in fact part of the US offensive capability, posing a direct threat to the strategic balance of power. Responding to our counter arguments, the US pointed to the so-called Iranian nuclear threat and reiterated assurances that the US anti-missile shield was no intended to target the Russian Federation. The US turned down all of Russia’s initiatives to create a joint missile defence system without even looking at them. Since then, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran was concluded, but the US persists with its anti-missile programme in Eastern Europe, which includes violations of the INF Treaty, since interceptor missile launchers can be used to launch offensive weapons that are banned under this treaty.

I would like to remind you that Russia destroyed most of its non-strategic nuclear weapons stockpiles by reducing its arsenal by 75 percent, changing their deployment status to non-deployed and transferring them to centralised storage facilities within the national territory. This effort to downgrade the operational status of nuclear weapons and review its role in the national military doctrine was unprecedented in its scale. Nevertheless, there is still malicious speculation regarding Russia’s non-strategic nuclear weapons.

To sum up, I would like to emphasise once again that Russia was compelled to develop cutting-edge strategic weapons in order to respond to the insistent efforts by the US and its allies to ratchet up international military and political tensions. The response was not as symmetrical as many expected. Let me reiterate that the Russian Federation has not violated any agreements. I recommend that everyone reading carefully the Address by the President of Russian Federation, especially the part were he clearly states that all the efforts to enhance Russia’s defence capability have been undertaken in keeping with the applicable arms control treaties.

We reaffirm that the Russian Federation is open to dialogue on arms control and reductions with the view to achieving equal and indivisible security, without giving up the right to pursue its national interests and ensuring a peaceful and calm living environment for the Russian people. We hope that common sense prevails and at the end of the day our partners find the courage to abandon their meaningless propaganda rhetoric and opt for honest and equal cooperation in the emerging multi-polar world.

Let us live in the real world instead of creating a virtual one.



Situation on the Line of Control between India and Pakistan

The situation on the Line of Control between India and Pakistan remains complicated, with random exchanges of fire resulting in human casualties, including among civilians. New Delhi and Islamabad hold diverging positions on the reasons behind the ongoing tensions.

Russia continues to call on the sides to show restraint. We believe that the disagreements between India and Pakistan should be resolved by political and diplomatic means on a bilateral basis in accordance with the 1972 Simla Agreement and the 1999 Lahore Declaration.

Our country is interested in good-neighbourly relations between New Delhi and Islamabad, which should directly help consolidate regional stability and security, and develop mutually advantageous trade and economic ties.



Contacts between North and South Korea

I would like to comment on the latest contacts between North and South Korea. This topic is widely discussed in the media, and we have received a lot of requests to comment on this subject.

We welcome the positive trends in the dialogue between the two Koreas in the context of the March 5-6 visit to Pyongyang by South Korea’s special presidential envoy, who was received by North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

We hope the agreements reached between North and South Korea will be implemented in practice and aimed at further reducing tensions on the Korean peninsula and be conducive to a direct US-North Korean dialogue.

We urge all the sides involved to support this process. The collective efforts in this area should help resolve the situation in the sub-region and create a steady mechanism of peace and security in Northeast Asia.



Ukrainian Constitutional Court decision on the state language policy law

The Ukrainian Constitutional Court has recently ruled that the adoption of Ukraine’s law On the Principles of the State Language Policy in 2012 violated the country’s fundamental law, thereby declaring it unconstitutional.

Let me remind you that this piece of legislation, better known as the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law, guaranteed the Ukrainian ethnic minorities’ rights to widely use their languages in various spheres in the regions where they made over 10 percent of the local population, with authorisation by the local governments.

This law has clearly been a stumbling block for Ukraine’s radical nationalists. They openly admit that the law prevents them from imposing total Ukrainian assimilation in the country in disregard of various ethnic groups who speak other language or languages by birth. Of course, this law did not allow the radical nationalists to build a mono-ethnic unitary state. The Ukrainian Constitutional Court, whose primary role should be to defend the law, is unfortunately playing into their hands.

It is revealing that one of the first decisions taken by the perpetrators of the 2014 anti-constitutional coup was to vote for abolishing this law. It was the first thing they did. Even such an odious figure as the then Acting President Alexander Turchinov baulked at signing this decision. Our Western colleagues never stopped reminding us of this when the Russian delegation told them that the current crisis in Ukraine is, among other things, caused by the highly sensitive and abnormal situation around the use of the Russian language. Russia also pointed out that one of the first decisions by the perpetrators of the anti-constitutional coup, who were supported by the radical nationalists, was to attempt to change the language policy in the country, which was only taking shape.

We were told in response this had only been an attempt and it had failed. Now it has been accomplished successfully. What will our colleagues in the OSCE, the EU and the Brussels bureaucrats say to this? What will the US Department of State say? What will individual countries, for example, in Western Europe or Canada say, considering their language policy experience? What will they say? Or will they fail to comment as they failed to comment on the “law” on the reintegration of Donbass?

We know very well what this can lead to. You know what it led to in 2014 – we talked about it today. The people of Crimea decided to reunite with Russia. The actions of the radicals and the political forces they supported, their attempts to change this law in 2014 became a trigger. Then Crimea was reunited with Russia and protests in southeast and south Ukraine escalated into a civil war. We will see what the current actions will lead to, but we can already make some predictions.

The current Kiev regime clearly has not learnt its history lesson. By persevering with the total Ukrainisation and totalitarian state policy, the nationalist groups are refusing to admit that Ukraine, both historically and at present, is a multi-ethnic entity that has for centuries been populated by various ethnic groups whose rights and traditions must be respected. I want to address these words to Kiev: a multi-ethnic country and people of various ethnic origins are nothing to be ashamed of but something to be cherished. Unfortunately, they do not remember that or maybe they do not even know it. There is certainly no way they can keep violating those rights forever.

Forsaking these basic truths will bring nothing but problems. I would like to point out to our Western partners patronising their Kiev clients that endless support for this nationalist instinct will not end well. We can see the signs of it now, and it will get worse. I just recommend that they retrace contemporary history and possibly the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, although I believe contemporary history should be enough.

We call upon the relevant international human rights institutions such as the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe to give their assessment of Kiev’s discriminatory actions that violate the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Helsinki Accords, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.



Another incident of vandals desecrating the memorial to Soviet soldiers-liberators on Schwarzenbergplatz in Vienna

We are outraged by the second incident this year of desecration of the memorial to Soviet soldiers-liberators on Schwarzenbergplatz in Vienna: on the night of March 6, the front side of the monument’s base was defiled with black paint. A similar desecration of the monument occurred on January 10.

The Russian Embassy in Austria immediately sent a note of protest to the Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs with the demand that Austria’s competent authorities take urgent measures to remove the damage from the monument and find and punish those guilty of that offensive act.

We are deeply disappointed by the fact that despite the recurrence of such outrageous acts of vandalism, our numerous appeals to the Austrian side to enhance the protection of the memorial complex by arranging permanent physical protection or installing video surveillance on the square have fallen on deaf ears. The culprits have never been identified and never got the punishment they deserve.

Nevertheless, we hope that the Austrian authorities will investigate this incident, that they will finally resolve the problem and will take comprehensive measures in accordance with their commitments to provide due protection of the monument and prevent similar incidents in the future, in particular, during the events on Schwarzenbergplatz marking the liberation of Vienna by the Soviet troops and the end of World War II. This is especially important since Austrian society carefully preserves the memory of those events. We will be closely monitoring the situation.

I would like to add that we are perfectly aware that installing surveillance cameras is not a matter of finding the money since the spending involved is trivial. Installing cameras at the site and connecting them with the data available on other cameras, which are present in every European capital already, will resolve this issue instantly. Why is it not done? For want of political will? Let me repeat that this is not a matter of technical difficulties of lack of funding as we all realise it costs virtually nothing. It is precisely a matter of will or lack thereof, the presence or absence of the respective political will.



Alleged “war” between Russia and Belarus over milk and dairy product deliveries

At the previous press briefing I was asked about an alleged “war” between Russia and Belarus over milk and dairy product deliveries. As I said then, there are no “military activities” between Russia and Belarus over milk and dairy products; there is absolutely nothing of the kind. Mutual deliveries of food and agricultural raw materials are a crucial item in the trade between our two union states. In 2017, Russian imports of this category of products rose by 12.2 percent to $4.1 billion, with milk having a substantial share. The trend is positive.

It is natural that problems can occasionally arise given such large trade volumes. The key is that they are being resolved through the respective government agencies in Russia and Belarus, primarily by the agriculture ministries, which keep in constant contact in order to remove any emerging disagreements as quickly as possible. We are confident that all the problems will be resolved this time too.

We urge you to treat the situation in this way and to refrain from frightening epithets, all the more so that they do not reflect the real situation, which, let me reiterate, can be described as mutually beneficial, dynamic, constructive and serving to advance Russia-Belarus cooperation in food trade.



Municipal elections in Belgrade

We were asked a question earlier regarding what Moscow thinks of the March 4 city and municipal elections in Belgrade.

According to our estimates, the elections were held in accordance with the Serbian legislation and democratic procedures. Numerous observers were present, including representatives of the Russian Embassy in Belgrade, and no significant violations were recorded.

The ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SPP) won a landslide victory. According to the preliminary reports of the city’s electoral board, the SPP will have 64 seats out of 110 in Belgrade’s city legislature. Its coalition partner, the Socialist Party of Serbia, also got nine mandates. We hope for the development of comprehensive cooperation with the Serbian capital’s new authorities.



Parliamentary election results in Italy

I would like to respond to an enquiry by Italian journalists who asked me to comment on parliamentary election results in Italy.

We followed the national parliamentary elections to Italy’s Senate and Chamber of Deputies, which were held this past Sunday, March 4. A new Council of Ministers will be formed, in coordination with the President of the Italian Republic Sergio Mattarella, once the two chambers of the Italian Parliament begin their work, which is expected to happen on March 23. We hope that our joint work with the new Italian Government will build on the positive spirit of Russian-Italian relations.



Update for Russian nationals travelling abroad

In addition to the information on voting stations abroad, I would like to draw the attention of all Russian nationals travelling abroad to the importance of getting medical insurance for their trips, given that the number of Russian nationals travelling abroad seems to be on the rise (up 27 percent in the first nine months of 2017 to 31 million trips).

We have been highlighting this matter annually for the last several years. This effort has not been in vain, since it really helps instil a culture of getting medical coverage during travel. More and more Russians do so, which can prove very helpful in difficult situations. As you know, the Foreign Ministry regularly updates information Russian nationals may need when travelling abroad, if they need to contact a Russian mission abroad. The Foreign Ministry has posted on its website updated information on visa-free destinations for Russian nationals. In addition to this, all the contact details of Russian foreign missions and the opening hours of consular offices are available on the website.

As a reminder, the Zarubezhny Pomoshchnik application developed by the Foreign Ministry’s Crisis Management Centre Department is available for all smartphones. This is an indispensable tool for all Russian nationals who find themselves in a difficult situation when travelling abroad. All Russian diplomatic missions have an official website and a social media account where they publish updates on the situation in the country, as well as consular and political matters.

Unfortunately, it is still quite common for Russians who forgo getting an insurance policy to find themselves in a difficult situation or face an emergency when they have to pay for emergency medical care. Sometimes people try to shift the financial burden to the diplomatic missions. Let me remind you that under Article 14 of the Federal Law On Entering and Leaving the Russian Federation, in the absence of a medical insurance policy any expenses for medical care abroad, including emergency care, are born by the citizen or persons interested in providing assistance.

The Russian consular missions and embassy are always available and operate hotlines, but this does not mean that travellers do not have to get medical insurance. In order to avoid any difficulties with invalid documents, we call on all travellers to plan their trips abroad in a responsible manner without neglecting any details, which may seem minor when you are still Russia.



Fake media reports on a Russian and Argentine operation to curb illegal drug trafficking

We publish information on this issue on a daily basis – an interview by Russian Ambassador to Argentina Viktor Koronelli, refutations, Russian Foreign Ministry’s officials’ interviews regarding the so-called “cocaine case.” In reality, it is a special operation to curb illegal drug trafficking. We note and capture information that the campaign in the media and social networks regarding this joint operation is increasingly morphing into a powerful disinformation campaign aimed at distorting the facts.

Let me again draw your attention to the section of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s official site where we publish refutations of the materials that are constantly surfacing. Some of them are signed, while others are published with no mention of authorship.

It is obvious that speculations and information attacks of such a level cannot be simply spontaneous. Who is behind them? Why is this being done? Why do they try to disorient the audience and social networks users by spreading fake and false stories? This is an important question. We have also paid attention to the fact that oftentimes such materials and fakes are posted on information resources funded directly by foreign governments. This cannot but raise concerns.

We are analysing such materials, the trend in their emergence and how they are spreading. They will be handed over to the Russian law enforcement agencies for expert analysis and possible inclusion as evidence.

We again urge all journalists to use verified information, to ask questions in writing or orally. We are ready to answer them. But let me remind you again that this investigation is still ongoing.




Excerpts from answers to media questions:



Questions:

Italy’s elections mean that instability in the political life of the country and of the entire European Union, of which Italy is a member, will continue. What do you think of the processes unfolding there are? They do impact relations with Italy and with Europe as a whole.



Maria Zakharova:

We traditionally regard elections abroad, regardless of whether they take place in EU countries or on other continents, as an internal affair of the countries in question. It is expression of will of the people who live and work in a certain state. It is the people’s prerogative to elect their president, government and parliament. We traditionally say that we will respect the legitimate choice made by the people. I can only re-affirm this position.



Question:

Is there a chance that Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will hold a meeting in Africa?



Maria Zakharova:

This, as our American colleagues say, is “quite a story.” Our Embassy in Washington sent a request to the Department of State for such a meeting with our US colleague. The Department’s official spokesperson said at a briefing they are not aware of any such request, that they did not receive any papers, and they know nothing about this. This is not true. Such a request was sent. Moreover, receipt was reconfirmed during conversations with our colleagues in the Department of State. They confirmed that the request had been received and is being processed. We do not know why then such a public statement was made that the request has not reached them. We only have one guess – probably because the Department of State was reported to be closed on Friday due to gale-force winds. Probably, some information got held up. But the gale winds have passed, the Department of State should have reopened. Our Embassy published its respective comment with a full assessment of the events. This request has been sent. We are awaiting a US response.

I do not want to evaluate what is going on there anymore. But I can assure and prevail upon you that the request was sent and we have a confirmation that it was received and is being processed. They promised to respond yet have failed to do so. They said publicly the request has not been received, unfortunately, as has been the case as of late.



Question:

Last week Armenia abrogated the Armenia-Turkey treaty signed in Zurich in 2009. What does Moscow think of Ankara and Yerevan’s actions in the framework of this treaty? Were they adequate?



Maria Zakharova:

We gave an assessment of this treaty itself since the Russian delegation, as you remember, was in Zurich and took an active part in the process. Our attitude remains unchanged. We proceed from the importance of normalising relations between Armenia and Turkey, in the interests of both countries. From our side, we have always done everything in order to reach this goal. The Russian side in Zurich took a most active and, what is most important, effective role in hammering out the respective agreements. We subsequently commented on the topic, too. Those assessments still hold.



Question:

London said it will respond robustly if it turns out that…



Maria Zakharova:

No, it’s not like that.



Question:

Not like that? How is it, then?



Maria Zakharova:

Not London said…



Question:

OK, Foreign secretary…



Maria Zakharova:

Those are two different things.



Question:

Boris Johnson said.



Maria Zakharova:

When he was the mayor of London, one could say “London said.”



Question:

If Russia is found to have been involved in the alleged poisoning of Sergey Skripal, what will be your reaction? What can you say about this unfolding story?



Maria Zakharova:

As you know, the Presidential Executive Office, specifically the Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, gave his assessment. I can repeat that as of today this information is absolutely relevant. We do not have information about what could have caused, as you rightly put it, this “story.”

At the same time, we draw your attention to the fact that what happened to Sergey Skripal was immediately used to further escalate the anti-Russia campaign in the western media space. Well before the situation gains any clarity, traditional fake stories are already doing the rounds. Moreover, it is apparent that someone is directing this campaign, statements by British officials have already been voiced. To be honest, it is hard to give any assessment other than that provocative fakes are being aimed at complicating relations between our nations.

Proceeding from your view of the situation, you said it is a “story.” There have been many stories like that. How did the story with Boris Berezovsky end? And the one with Alexander Perepelichny? Do you know? No, of course not. Do we know? Nobody has informed us, either via official channels, for example, that of the Foreign Ministry, or other channels. This “story,” as you rightly said, will end similarly. First, a media background will be stirred up, absolutely ungrounded and unsubstantiated accusations will be voiced, and then everything will eventually be classified. And neither journalists, nor the public nor officials will know what really happened there. Will the same scenario be played out in this case? Look, the situation with both the Berezovsky and Perepelichny cases is identical. The same also happened before. This scenario is no different.



Question:

Did Sergey Skripal lose his Russian citizenship?



Maria Zakharova:

We have information that he was not registered with the consular department of our Embassy in London. I have no other information in this regard.



Question:

Did you receive an official request to offer support in investigating this story?



Maria Zakharova:

As of now, we have not received any official requests or proposals from British officials to conduct a joint investigation that might suggest any participation of the Russian side. A statement and comments about this were made yesterday.



Question:

Afghanistan's National Security Advisor, in response to Russia's concerns regarding the redeployment of ISIS militants, stated that certain ISIS leaders are in Afghan prisons and asked that a group of Russian intelligence service members be sent to get it sorted out. How would you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

I do not have any information at the moment. I will get more information.



Question:

On March 1, in his address Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia is developing weapons that will render the US missile defence useless. Does it mean you no longer have to be concerned about the global development of the missile defence system, including in Northeast Asia?



Maria Zakharova:

And what does it mean for you? I consider it an answer. We keep repeating - and today I have mentioned it several times - that this is about creating a global security system that would avoid dividing the world into dangerous and safe zones and accumulation of power, capacities and technical resources to make one country, one group of countries or one region safe while neglecting others. We are interested in this first of all. We assume that there has to be international interaction, especially given that there are corresponding agreements and doctrinal documents in this regard. We offered cooperation, to have a dialogue with all interested parties. Sadly, all this talk that security is indivisible remains just talk on the part of our partners. We are ready to work on this. We are prepared not only for a dialogue but also for practical implementation of this very pertinent idea of the indivisibility of security. But I think the question I allowed myself to ask you remains very important.



Question:

Are there any talks between the United States and Russia on what is going to happen upon expiration of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) in 2021? What do you think the result of these talks should be? How will the Presidential Address and the new information on the weapons affect them?



Maria Zakharova:

That's an excellent question. I will definitely give a detailed answer to you personally and we will post it on the site.



Question:

Has anyone accused Russia of interference in the parliamentary elections in Italy? And my second question concerns the meeting of the prime ministers of Turkey, Iran and Russia in Astana. Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag has recently said that the Turkish troops together with the Free Syrian Army took 50 per cent of Afrin's territory under control. Will the advance of the Turkish troops in Afrin be discussed at the meeting in Astana? What is Russia's stance on this?



Maria Zakharova:

As regards your second question, I can say that this issue is discussed on a regular basis during our contacts with the Turkish side. As regards the first one, we have long been accused of interfering in the parliamentary elections of Italy. An Italian colleague will confirm this - recently, just before the elections, a prominent article was posted in the western press on Russia's so-called techniques for interfering in elections, particularly, and the ways they are going to be implemented in Italy. So we were accused of interference in internal affairs long ago, including the elections in Italy, and there have been forecasts about Russia's so-called interference in these processes. Sadly, these accusations cannot be stopped, the process is underway, with more and more false information being thrown in. Once again, take note of the publication I have mentioned. This huge article that claims to be analytical was posted just ahead of the elections. What for? Naturally, its aim is to make voters in Italy biased and frightened, and this way to affect the elections. This is a precise example of outside influence. On our part, we state that this is free expression of the will of people, in particular, in Italy or any other country where election takes place.



Question:

My question concerns the visa regime between Russia and Georgia, which has been in effect for almost 18 years. Is there any progress or changes?



Maria Zakharova:

We are working on this progress, as you have called it. Russia was not the side that cut diplomatic ties between our nations. It was Georgia. And this has led to the present situation. We are aware that peoples of our two countries and representatives of various spheres - business, culture and public organisations - want to travel and interact with each other. That is why the Russian Foreign Ministry officials have repeatedly said that the work to make the visa regime between are countries easier is underway and it is relevant and important.



Question:

My question concerns the recent meeting between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and South Korean President's special envoy Chung Eui-young, where Kim Jong-un expressed his consent to hold an inter-Korean summit in late April. The United States, in turn, expressed cautious optimism, saying it will not take part in the official talks with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea until the country's nuclear programme is fully discontinued. What is Russia's stance on this? The second question concerns South Korean President's special envoy Chung Eui-young's upcoming visit to Moscow to report on the results of the meeting. When is this expected? Who will represent the Russian side at this meeting?



Maria Zakharova:

As regards the first question, today I have already shared our assessment of the contacts between North Korea and South Korea. As regards the meeting on this issue that may take place in Moscow, the dates are yet not known. As soon as the meeting is scheduled we will announce them. We do not have this information so far.



Question:

Chair of the State Duma Committee for International Affairs Leonid Slutsky has been accused of sexual harassment by three female journalists.



Maria Zakharova:

What does the Foreign Ministry have to do with it? What connection do you see here?



Question:

Mr Slutsky represents Russia on the international arena as the Chair of the Committee for International Affairs of the State Duma.



Maria Zakharova:

This issue has nothing to do with the Foreign Ministry. The only thing I will say is that yesterday we touched upon this subject during the taping of programme at a Russia radio station, and agreed that more time should be devoted to this issue ahead of the International Women's Day. The programme will be broadcast tomorrow. I am ready to talk on this but solely as spokesperson. I see no reason to give any official comment. I think this is within the competence of corresponding structures – the State Duma's Ethics Committee or the specific deputy.



Question:

And what can you personally say on this issue?



Maria Zakharova:

Listen to the radio programme.



Question:

Bulgaria’s football fans have asked me to tell you your glass lectern inspires them.



Maria Zakharova:

You will be accused of harassment before long. You are getting nervous, I think?



Question:

Also, we would like to wish you happy International Women’s Day on March 8. The previous time you wanted to give Russian citizenship to Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borissov. This time, an NGO from a city in northern Bulgaria has nominated you for their Honorary Citizen.



Maria Zakharova:

It seems you have a simple procedure for granting this honorary status.



Question:

Your candidature will be discussed yet. As for now, another private organisation is offering you a registration address [in Bulgaria]. You can choose one of 60 addresses. And this flower arrangement is from Media-Most LTD Bulgaria.



Maria Zakharova:

Thank you, it’s very beautiful. Is this the symbol of Russian-Bulgarian friendship?



Question:

Yes, these are the flags of Bulgaria and Russia. The Bulgarian and Russian people have always been close.



Maria Zakharova:

The colours of the Russian flags are wrong, though.



Question:

Everything is good there.



Maria Zakharova:

All right, let’s say that the colours are correct but their position is subject to debate.



Question:

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia has returned from his recent trip to Bulgaria disappointed. Bulgarian diplomacy has failed in this case, and I have to take control of the situation.



Maria Zakharova:

You are like a minister without any portfolio.



Question:

Yes, I am. To show how close the people of Bulgaria and Russia are, I would like to invite you to dance merengue with me.



Maria Zakharova:

I’ll think about it.



Question:

The Russian Centre for the Reconciliation of Opposing Sides in Syria has announced that it could ensure the safe withdrawal of the leading fighters and their families from Eastern Ghouta. It looks like permission for the fighters to leave Ghouta. What is Russia’s view on this?



Maria Zakharova:

Russia has a clear view according to which the fighters who continue fighting and staging terrorist attacks must be eliminated. Those who want to surrender – you know how this can be done – and civilians can be offered a corridor for leaving the zone of hostilities.



Question:

The US has adopted new sanctions regarding North Korea over the alleged use of chemical agents in the assassination of Kim Jong-nam, the half-brother of Kim Jong-un. What do you think about these sanctions in light of the nascent improvement in relations between North Korea and South Korea?



Maria Zakharova:

You know about our stand on sanctions and the sanctions policy. We believe that sanctions are legitimate, in particular, regarding North Korea, when they are imposed by the UN Security Council. Any other sanctions imposed over a problem that is on the UNSC agenda that have not been approved by a concerned committee or adopted by the UNSC are not legitimate. This is our position.

We saw the drastic turn the developments took. Several months ago in this very room, I was asked about the possibility of full-scale hostilities on the Korean Peninsula. We should welcome every action that is being taken to normalise the situation, to restore peace and, more than that, to resume talks. The events call for great accuracy. We must prevent actions that could provoke problems and push the us back to a high tension situation, which we have been gradually easing.



Question:

Ksenia Sobchak recently said that she has submitted an application to the Ukrainian Embassy for visiting Crimea via Ukraine. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin has described this situation a schizophrenic. We would like to hear your comments on this.



Maria Zakharova:

This reminds me of a funny story that happened in the mid or late 2000s. I was working at Russia’s Permanent Mission to the UN in New York. The UN Security Council convened a joint meeting with the heads of state. The US was represented by President George W. Bush, who was writing something on a pad during the UNSC meeting. A photojournalist from a Western news agency focused his camera on the pad. The photo he later published showed a note scrawled by President Bush asking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice if he could have a bathroom break. People ask permission for things that are important to them.



Question:

Much is being said about Russia’s increased military might following President Vladimir Putin’s address to the Federal Assembly. But everyone knows that we also have the most beautiful soft power – you. I would like to wish you a happy International Women’s Day, March 8. I wish you professional success and interesting briefings.



Maria Zakharova:

Thank you very much. It is a pleasure. It is our shared holiday. I wish all female members of the journalist pool a good holiday. This international date is very important to us. Good luck, and have a really nice time.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3114528
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old March 16th, 2018 #380
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a joint news conference following talks with Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi, Moscow, March 13, 2018



13 March 2018 - 13:44







Ladies and gentlemen,

We have had constructive talks with my colleague, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Indonesia Retno Marsudi. Our talks have focused on the broad agenda of our bilateral relations, as well as on international and regional issues. The talks are a continuation of our intensive contact during my August 2017 visit to Jakarta.

We agree that the necessary conditions have been created for elevating our relations to the level of strategic partnership. We have agreed to accelerate the drafting of a corresponding declaration.

We have supported intensive exchanges between our parliaments, foreign ministries, judicial bodies, law enforcement agencies and defence ministries, including those within various mechanisms of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

We have agreed to expedite the work on a number of bilateral agreements that will certainly strengthen our contractual legal framework.

We praised the steady growth of trade as well as more active cooperation in the areas of energy, transport, the mining industry and high technology. We have positively assessed the work of the Russian-Indonesian Joint Commission on Trade, Economic and Technical Cooperation which will hold its regular 12th meeting this year.

We encourage expanded direct contact between our countries’ business people. We will be happy to once again welcome delegations from Indonesia’s business circles at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum in May 2018 and at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok in September.

We have reaffirmed our coinciding positions on key issues of international relations. Our countries advocate the central role of the UN, respect for international law and the political settlement of any issues using an all-inclusive approach without attempts to isolate anyone, while completely respecting the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states.

We have agreed to more actively coordinate our efforts at the UN and to continue close cooperation to expand general cooperation in all areas in the Asia Pacific Region based on ASEAN’s leading role.

We have confirmed our determination to fulfil the decisions taken at the May 2016 Russia-ASEAN summit in Sochi and to elevate relations between Russia and ASEAN to the level of strategic partnership. We are confident that Indonesia, due to coordinate the dialogue partnership between Russia and ASEAN in 2018, will help achieve this goal.

We have also agreed to continue discussing various aspects of the initiative advanced by Russian President Vladimir Putin on establishing the Greater Eurasian Partnership that would involve the Eurasian Economic Union, the SCO and ASEAN member states.

We have agreed to expand cooperation in counterterrorist operations via bilateral channels and UN mechanisms, as well as through diverse cooperation in the Asia Pacific Region.

While discussing specific regional issues, we, of course, focused on the situation on the Korean Peninsula and around it, in the Middle East and North Africa. We agree that, in addition to the highly complicated problems facing countries like Libya, Syria and Yemen, the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli settlement based on UN decisions should not be forgotten. Like Indonesia, Russia calls for resolving all issues of the final status of the Palestinian-Israeli settlement through direct dialogue and within the logic of the Arab Peace Initiative, supported by the UN Security Council.

I would like to thank my colleague, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Indonesia Retno Marsudi, and her delegation for this very constructive work. I am confident that we have made a positive contribution to expanding Russian-Indonesian relations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3117994






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions, March 13, 2018



13 March 2018 - 14:47








Question:

How will Russia respond to British Prime Minister Theresa May’s demand to provide an explanation over the poisoning of Sergey Skripal in one day? What will Moscow’s reaction be if the British government takes the promised restrictive measures in this case?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have heard the ultimatum from London. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova has already commented on our attitude to this. I can only add that Great Britain, as well Russia, are part of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and the Prime Minister and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs are well aware of this. I have no doubt that there are still plenty of experts who work with this convention and its issues, and those of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons established in accordance with this convention. I think (actually, I am sure) that they have their experts but evidently nobody is listening to them.

According to the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in cases of suspected use of a toxic substance banned by the convention the country affected should immediately address the country that is suspected of the production of this particular poisonous substance. The query must be answered within ten days. If the answer does not satisfy the first country (Britain in this case) it should address the OPCW Executive Council and the conference of the states parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention. The side that is being asked about the substance has every right to receive an access to it so as to conduct its own analysis. We did this as soon as the rumours spread, by almost everyone in British leadership, that the substance was produced in the Russian Federation. We sent an official note asking for access to this substance so our experts could analyse it in accordance with the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In the same note, we requested access to the facts linked with the investigation, considering that one of the victims, Julia Skripal, is a Russian national.

We only received a vague answer to justified request that is based on the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In effect, it was rejected. So, instead of demanding that we respond to the British government’s ultimatum within 24 hours, it would be better for them to comply with their own commitments regarding international law, in particular the obligations under the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. As for manners, it should be remembered that the era of colonialism has long past.



Question:

We have still not heard your response to British Prime Minister Theresa May’s statement. It seems that Moscow is not taking the situation seriously. I would like to understand what needs to be done to avoid confrontation.



Sergey Lavrov:

I understand that you need to present information that is commensurate with the sentiment in London. I have stated what the UK needs to do before Russia answers its questions. We have not received the request that London is required to send in accordance with the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.



Question:

Tomorrow you are planning to meet with your Turkish counterpart, and in a couple of days there will be a Russia-Iran-Turkey trilateral ministerial meeting. Will the issue of expanding the de-escalation zones in Syria to Afrin be discussed, as stated earlier? Also, yesterday, the United States and our other Western partners gave assurances at the UN Security Council about the possibility of strikes against Syria, as well as accusations against Russia of violating UN Security Council Resolution 2401. How is such rhetoric influencing the effectiveness of the strategic peace process in Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

Tomorrow I will meet with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu in Moscow. On Friday, we will meet again, our Iranian counterpart, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif will join us in Astana for a ministerial meeting of the Astana format guarantor countries. We will certainly discuss the matter of de-escalation zones. I do not think we should be striving to increase the number or expand the area. The main thing now is to ensure that they function as agreed, mainly, as ceasefire zones. Our most urgent task now is to prevent the gross violations of the ceasefire in Eastern Ghouta. Militants from several illegal armed groups were concentrated there, but Jabhat Tahrir al-Sham has dominated them all, having once again blended in with the surroundings and taken a different name; but this does not change the basic facts – this organisation is on the UN Security Council terrorist list. Mortar shelling of Damascus from Eastern Ghouta continues, also hitting the Russian Embassy grounds. People are dying. This is a gross violation of Resolution 2401 because this resolution tells everyone to observe the cease fire with the understanding that the parties’ obligation not to use weapons does not extend to fighting the terrorists, and with another understanding that the humanitarian pause that we are talking about will be subject to the agreement of all parties on the ground. Those who are on the ground in Eastern Ghouta, as I have said, and who are under Jabhat al-Nusra control, do not want to fulfill their obligations. They want only one thing – the government to stop shooting so they can get a breather. The UN Security Council has never promised a respite to terrorists. Moreover, they were told they were not getting one.

The second aspect of this problem is our Western partners, who do not conceal that they have very close contacts in Eastern Ghouta and who have failed to deliver on their obligation under Resolution 2401, which consists in influencing their charges that should be disciplined and made to stop shelling residential areas. Our US-led Western colleagues did neither. The fact that US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley threatened yesterday to introduce a new resolution which, as I understand, is ready, means just one thing: they failed to implement the previous resolution. First, the new draft that the Americans will be promoting does not contain any exemptions for terrorists (this means a ban on getting at terrorists). Second, the new draft refers, not to the whole of Syria, as UN Security Council Resolution 2401 does, but to Eastern Ghouta alone. This makes me think that, first, our assumptions that the US coalition is concerned not so much with suppressing the remnants of terrorism as with preserving a military irritant for the regime are correct. Second, if the case in point is Eastern Ghouta alone, it is just the place from which one can do the most serious damage to Syria’s capital and thus prepare the ground for Plan B, which Washington has consistently denied. But there are increasingly more facts indicating a course toward effecting regime change and engineering the collapse of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Incidentally, unlike UN Security Council Resolution 2401, the new US plan excludes any reference to the humanitarian situation in Raqqa or at the US-controlled Rukban Syrian refugee camp, to which the UN cannot get an access. No other place in Syria is mentioned.

This obvious failure to implement UN Security Council Resolution 2401 as it relates the militants and the West, their sponsor, serves as a background for introducing a new resolution under the pretext that Russia, Iran and the Syrian Government have failed to ensure what was required by the previous resolution. In this context, US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley makes a statement to the effect that the US is, of course, a peaceful nation but they can at any moment launch a strike at the government forces in the Syrian Arab Republic, as they did a year ago by attacking Shayrat airbase. I don’t have any normal terms left to describe all this. Without a second thought, they make a statement that as the US once “punished the regime” (as they call it), so they will be ready to do the same now.

There are two comments I would like to make on this. I will try to word them as politely as possible. First, I have repeatedly said (but, in all evidence, those who make such statements on behalf of the United States at the UN Security Council shut their ears to this) that after the first news about the use of sarin in the area of Khan-Sheikhoun on April 4, 2017, with reports saying that the gas was contained in an air bomb delivered by an aircraft that had taken off from the Shayrat airbase, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson telephoned me to say that the United States was highly concerned over these reports. They asked Russia to obtain the Syrian Government’s consent to sending international experts to Shayrat airbase so that they might make it clear whether or not there were chemical weapons at the base. We reached an agreement with Damascus that this access would be provided. But when we passed this information on to Washington, they thanked us and said they did not need it any longer and immediately fired missiles at the airfield.

This is the information that we communicated to our US partners on several occasions, both directly and via the media. But it was totally ignored. Therefore, if another strike of this sort occurs again, it will entail most serious consequences. Ms Haley must understand that it is one thing to irresponsibly exploit the microphone at the UN Security Council and quite another when the Russian and US militaries have communications channels and a clear message has been passed down the line on what can and what cannot be done. The US coalition knows this full well.



Question:

Can you rule out Russia’s involvement in the Sergey Skripal case?



Sergey Lavrov:

You’re a strange one. I said that we are members of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, as is your country, which, for some reason, neglects to use the expertise of those who know what obligations the United Kingdom has. If the procedures envisaged in the Convention are fulfilled, I assure you that the Russian Federation will fulfill its obligations and respond to the corresponding request in the time allocated to prepare a response.

In turn, we are waiting for the United Kingdom to respond to our request, sent in accordance with this same Convention, to provide the substance in question, and to make the whole investigation open to us because it involves a Russian national.

If I have not explained this clearly enough, we will certainly make a transcript of my answers to the first and additional questions, will send it to the BBC in the hope that this time around, you will not censor it before publishing or broadcasting it to your listeners and viewers.



Question:

Still, can you rule out Russia's involvement in the Skripal case?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have already made a statement, which is that it is all nonsense. Maria Zakharova laid it out more politely. We have nothing to do with it. Everyone seems to be so brainwashed that our blogosphere is already full of comments that turn things upside down. I read with amazement on one blog that I had claimed it was unacceptable to compare the Alexander Litvinenko case and the Skripal case. I said exactly the opposite. They asked this question during my last trip to one of the African countries. I said, there was a similarity with the former case – when we began to cooperate with the investigators, it was classified, and we were told that we could not have all the information. Pretty much the same is happening this time around. We are given nothing in return for our request. So please, again, I beg you, please report all I am saying now, in detail, rather than limit your report to what I am imagining: “Asked whether Russia is guilty, Mr Lavrov fudged the issue.” Russia is not guilty. Russia is ready to cooperate in accordance with the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, if the United Kingdom condescends to fulfill its international obligations under the same document.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3118300






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Special Envoy of the President of the Republic of Korea and Head of the National Security Directorate under the President of the Republic of Korea, Chung Eui-yong, Moscow, March 13, 2018



13 March 2018 - 18:23








Esteemed Mr Chung Eui-yong,

Guests,

We appreciate your coming to Russia as part of the current efforts to overcome the crisis on and around the Korean Peninsula. Your mission, carried out on behalf of the President of the Republic of Korea, Mr Moon Jae-in, is at the centre of attention of the international community. You have visited Pyongyang, Washington, Beijing and today you are in Moscow. This once again underscores the understanding by your leadership of the need to form a sufficiently strong front of all those who can help in a peaceful settlement of the crisis on the Korean Peninsula.

Russia has consistently advocated a reduction in tension, a shift from confrontational rhetoric to specific ways to find a generally acceptable approach to settling the situation. In this regard, your impressions and assessments of the situation will be valuable to us. Once again, thank you for coming to talk with us.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on the successful holding of the Olympic Games. I’m confident that the Paralympic Games will be no less successful. I think I can express special gratitude on behalf of millions of Russian fans for the kind attitude shown by your citizens towards the Russian national team and Russian athletes.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3118598






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey Mevlut Çavusoglu following the 6th meeting of the Russian-Turkish Joint Strategic Planning Group, Moscow, March 14, 2018



14 March 2018 - 14:01








Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held the sixth meeting of the Russian-Turkish Joint Strategic Planning Group that is part of the High-Level Cooperation Council (HLCC) headed by the presidents of Russia and Turkey.

We focused on preparing the next top-level meeting that will take place in early April in Turkey, and also reviewed matters that will be on the agenda of this meeting.

In terms of bilateral relations, we focused on the activity of our respective economics agencies to deliver on the objectives set by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan to step up investment and trade cooperation.

We noted with satisfaction a 37 per cent increase in trade to $21.6 billion in 2017.

We agreed to continue moving toward lifting restrictions, including on agricultural products, as well as on other goods we supply to each other. This is largely related to the need to streamline bureaucratic procedures that stand in the way.

Of course, we shared a positive view of progress in implementing strategic projects, such as the Turkish Stream pipeline as well as the construction of Turkey’s first nuclear power plant at Akkuyu.

We expressed our support for the proactive efforts undertaken by the Joint Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation, and agreed on the need to revitalise the Russian-Turkish Public Forum. We hope that its next meeting will take place ahead of the High-Level Cooperation Council meeting.

We also noted the fulfilment of the contract to deliver S-400 Triumph surface-to-air systems to Turkey alongside other current and future projects in the field of military-technical cooperation. We noted that in all these areas our relations are developing in keeping with the agreements between the presidents of the two countries.

We discussed preparations for the cross years of culture and tourism to be marked by Russia and Turkey in 2019. There are some very interesting projects. I strongly believe that the people in Russia and Turkey will be positive and enthusiastic about these events.

We noted the record growth of the number of Russian tourists arriving in Turkey. Last year the number of our citizens who visited Turkey reached 4.7 million people. Last year we overtook Germany in this number, which had been the leader in terms of tourists visiting Turkey.

We reaffirmed the need to continue observing our agreements on ensuring the security of tourists, which were reached by the relevant agencies. Naturally, we will be guided by the priority of the life and health of our citizens in approaching another important issue that we would like to resolve with our Turkish colleagues – mutual easing of travel restrictions. We discussed several steps that could ease visa procedures now and that could eventually lead to the return of visa-free travel.

We also reviewed international issues, emphasising the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, primarily in Syria where Russia, Turkey and Iran are working within the Astana format on implementing the agreements of the presidents of these three countries. The results of the Congress of the Syrian National Dialogue in Sochi, which was a joint initiative of the leaders of Russia, Turkey and Iran, were approved by the United Nations and became the foundation for preparations for resuming full talks on a political settlement of the Syrian crisis in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

Our agenda included such issues as the situation in the South Caucasus, Central Asia, the Black Sea region and Ukraine, as well as cooperation in international organisations, including the UN, the OSCE and the EU.

I believe today’s agreements on promoting our bilateral agenda and consolidating foreign policy cooperation are making a very useful contribution to the preparations for a regular summit that, as I mentioned, will take place in early April in Turkey.



Question:

Did you discuss military-technical cooperation in this meeting? When will the S-400 air defence missile systems be delivered to Turkey?



Sergey Lavrov:

As I said in my opening remarks, we discussed military-technical cooperation, including the Russian-Turkish treaty on supplying the Republic of Turkey with S-400 air defence missile systems. These issues are now being discussed in practical terms by the experts – this is not public information at this time. I can only say that we are ready to meet the request of our Turkish partners to expedite this agreement.



Question:

Have you discussed the problem of US military bases in eastern Syria? What responses are there to the plans to split the country?



Sergey Lavrov:

As part of other aspects of the Syrian problem, we have discussed US actions, primarily on the eastern bank of the Euphrates and along the entire length of the eastern Syrian Arab Republic, where the Americans are creating their military bases. I am confident that there are no grounds for doubting the intention – at least that harboured by certain members of the US leadership – to entrench themselves there for long, if not for good, and facilitate the split of the Syrian Arab Republic. Most varied methods are being used for this purpose. Yesterday, we informed the public via the Russian Ministry of Defence and the Russian Foreign Ministry that another series of provocations involving the use of chemical weapons were being prepared. They will stage shows, hysterical as usual, in Eastern Ghouta and elsewhere, to attract the world community’s attention to the suffering of peaceful civilians and innocent victims. Under this pretext, the US-led coalition are planning to use force, including against the Syrian capital. Yesterday, we issued a harsh warning to the US through all channels. I hope these irresponsible steps will not be implemented. But in any event, they are indicative of the fact that the policy of creating any pretexts to topple the regime remains on the US agenda. It is not for nothing that they say that all options are on the table. This will be a violation of all thinkable norms of international law, UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and Washington’s solemn assurances that it is not attempting to undermine the territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic. This will have to be proved by deeds, not by words. There are too many deeds that are at variance with this rhetoric.

You asked whether our Turkish colleagues had discussed with us the things they considered in contacts with the Americans. Yes, today we received information from Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu. We are grateful for this. As he said, we do not agree one hundred percent on all counts, but nevertheless, our exchange of views helps to coordinate efforts and move forward towards the goals set by UN Security Council Resolution 2254 within the framework of the Astana Process, which were confirmed by the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.



Question:

You said recently that the Russian Foreign Ministry has not yet received an official request from London on the Sergey Skripal case. Has anything changed during the day? Moscow also drew attention to the need to conduct a joint investigation and presentation of samples of the toxic agent. Is there any progress in this case?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is regress. We are not seeing any progress. We have not yet received any official inquiry from London on the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter. In turn, we officially notified the Brits that we will be ready to answer their inquiry if they formulate it on the basis of their own commitments under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) that requires that an official inquiry is sent in such cases to the competent bodies of the country that is suspected of the crime that has been committed. Such an inquiry has not been sent.

Moreover, a spokesman of the United Kingdom in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons started asking our representative why we are bringing the Chemical Weapons Convention into this conversation. It was allegedly enough for British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson to have invited the Russian ambassador and told him everything. This is amazing self-conceit that is visible in the steps taken by London not only in this case but also in many other situations. We calmly explained once again that holding consultations in accordance with the CWC is mandatory, not optional. If there are no more experts in London that could advise the heads of the Foreign Office and Downing Street how a law-abiding member of the international community should behave in such cases, this is not our problem. When the official inquiry is made we will definitely respond to it in 10 days in line with our CWC obligations. Our answer will meet the requirements of this international document. However, for the time being instead of making this inquiry the United Kingdom continues playing political games.

Yesterday Theresa May sent an official address to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, which was distributed in New York. It said the chemical was produced in the USSR and later on became Russia’s property. How does this correspond to the complete destruction of chemical arms by this country, which was registered by the CWC in the presence of observers, including US experts? This question is not answered. It is claimed that nobody but Russia could bring this chemical to Britain and nobody but Russia has motives to target these victims. I will leave this allegation without any comment because yesterday Russian and Western media provided numerous arguments demonstrating that Russia could not have any motives for the crime.

Meanwhile, those who would like to continue this Russophobic campaign in all areas of human activities without exception could have and definitely had motives for it.

In her letter Ms May uses the phrase “highly likely” about her assertions (I think this is the most interesting point in it). People who are urging respect for international law simultaneously refuse to abide by their CWC commitments. Talking about some party’s involvement in certain actions and describing it as “highly likely” is not really defensible or serious.

Incidentally, such terms as “highly likely” or “with high confidence” were frequently used in the report on the notorious incident involving the use of chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, on April 4. This incident was investigated remotely, in part by laboratories located in the UK. The results of the investigation were forwarded to The Hague. When we were told that this organisation will rely on the information of a British laboratory, we asked our British colleagues competently as representatives of any country that want to have precise information to tell us how samples from Khan Shaykhun were received. We were told that this area was controlled by militants and was unsafe. We wanted to know how the analysis was conducted and how samples were delivered to the relevant laboratories.

We were unceremoniously denied any information. London has been repeatedly employed this approach – we know everything, believe us, and we demand that you accept everything.

I even thought that this approach outdoes even Soviet Prosecutor-General Andrey Vyshinsky who used to say that “confession is the tsarina of all evidence.”

But this is not enough for our British colleagues and those who start supporting them without any proof, without even knowing the results of the investigation that has not yet been completed. For them it is not confession but suspicion that they voice themselves that should be treated by the international community as “the tsarina of all evidence.” There is no deal on that. We will uphold international law. We do not see our partners putting forward any arguments. Those who make accusations without citing any facts will be taken to task for their crude attempt to mislead the public.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3119121






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a question from the Vietnamese and Japanese media, Moscow, March 15, 2018



15 March 2018 - 14:19








Question:

You referred to Great Britain’s accusations against Russia as nonsense, saying that Russia had no motive. In your opinion, what steps can Russia take in this situation? What can Russia do to bring the truth to light?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia not only can but actually is doing more than anybody else, including the United Kingdom. When the man was discovered with his daughter, Great Britain claimed that it was poisoning and that they had carried out an investigation and come to the conclusion that the toxic agent was made in the USSR and accessible to Russians because not all of their chemical weapons stockpiles had been eliminated. This led to the conclusion that Russia was behind this incident and that it was either ordered by the country’s leadership or resulted from failure to control its chemical weapons stockpiles. Even in the second scenario, Russia was still to blame for the attack, since its chemical weapons had to be eliminated in their entirety.

Almost every word in these accusations requires supporting evidence. Nothing is transparent here. When the British parliament debated this issue, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn requested that the investigation results be made known to parliament. His request was denied. This in itself would be enough to raise flags in traditional well-established democracies.

As for the rest of it, we are waiting for the United Kingdom to submit an official request using the procedure set forth in the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). But we are being told that this official request consisted of the statement made by Prime Minister Theresa May in parliament and the summoning of the Russian Ambassador by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. This is not the way things are, and this statement does not make any sense. In accordance with the CWC, the party that seeks to understand what happened on its territory must do so officially and in writing. I have no doubt that our British colleagues know this very well. They have very smart people working for them. The fact that they adamantly refuse to file an official request and intentionally fan the anti-Russia rhetoric in the public arena, with much arrogance and to the point of hysteria, shows that they understand all too well that they do not have any formal pretext for legal action. They are trying to shift the conversation into a political dimension and invoke Russophobia hoping that, as in a number of other cases, the West will follow obediently in their footsteps, especially since the United States fully supported Great Britain.

We have put forward many facts that cannot be ignored, including data from Western research magazines over the last 15 years. Let me reiterate that I am referring to Western publications on toxic agents that Great Britain decided to call Novichok. When the Russian Federation eliminated its chemical weapons stockpile, this work continued and continues to this day, according to Western publications in the US, Great Britain, the Czech Republic and Sweden. It all started in 1991−1992 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. A number of laboratories that made the toxic agents that are now referred to as Novichok remained in several former Soviet republics, including the Baltic States and Uzbekistan, beside the Russian Federation. The laboratory in Uzbekistan and the country’s stockpiles were eliminated with assistance of US experts. Now it is hard to tell exactly who saw, took or put what in their pocket. But the fact is that a famous chemistry researcher who now lives in the US and who left the USSR, Mr Vil Mirzayanov (and not just him, there were two or three other chemists there), took his documents with him when he somehow landed up in the West. We provided all this evidence. It makes you wonder why they are not willing to discuss it or deny its validity.

Let me share a fact with you. Sergey Skripal and his daughter are alive. Once they recover, and I hope that they do, they could shed some light on this entire incident. No one wants to wait for this to happen. Everything is decided in advance. As our British colleagues have said, they will not show us anything, they know everything, and all that is left for us to do is to plead guilty, followed by a punishment. This is a literal translation of their message from English.

When asked how sure they are that things are the way they think, and I have to say that these questions are coming from Western experts, not Russia, they say that it is “highly possible.” Considering the flexible nature of the English language, it is not serious to build your case around provocative accusations that are merely “highly possible,” including expelling diplomats and threats of deteriorating relations.

The OPCW Executive Council met yesterday in The Hague. Once again, Russia proposed following the procedures stipulated by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The British representative said arrogantly that Britain was under no obligation to do so (why I don’t know) and will not do so. As a matter of principle, parties to the CWC may have the possibility of saying that they do not wish to take it to this body. But they did just that! And since they have done so, they have to follow the CWC provisions whereby they have to submit a request to Russia as a suspected country of origin and even a country that allegedly made use of a toxic agent. They need to provide this agent to us so that we can analyse it together with the OPCW experts. After Great Britain files its request, we would have 10 days under the CWC to respond. Moreover, under the procedures set forth in the convention, should Britain be unsatisfied with the reply, the same convention gives it the right to convene an extraordinary session of the OPCW Executive Council to take the relevant decision. Great Britain is not willing to follow any of these procedures, as they said publicly. If, upon hearing this statement and witnessing such behaviour, any other country goes as far as voice its solidarity with London, this is just profanation that defies common sense.

Other avenues are available as well. If they do not want to use the OPCW or the CWC that underpins the OPCW operations, there is also the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Using the mechanisms envisaged in this convention would be another option. But all they want to say with their big words and rhetoric is that Great Britain is under no obligation to show anything to us or anyone else. They decided that they are beyond any doubt or suspicion, and for this reason they call on everyone to punish the Russian Federation. This is just ridiculous.

You have mentioned the lack of motive. Honestly speaking, it is true that a motive is nowhere to be found. In fact, there is no way the Russian Federation could be suspected of doing it, no matter how you look at it. But even if we speculate on this distorted logic of our Western colleagues, who could think that the Russian Federation would seek to create any problems for itself in the run-up to the presidential election and the FIFA World Cup? There is no motive whatsoever. But those who continue to pressure us, and are looking for new pretexts (after the doping allegations and other things) for complicating the World Cup, they have a motive. Everyone knows it. If we try to understand what drives the actions of the British cabinet, the conservative government (as many Western observers have already said in the media), it is probably clear that London has found itself in a very tight spot in its Brexit talks with the EU. The government’s approval ratings are plummeting. The British public is well aware that they are unable to get from Brussels what they had promised to their people, their voters. The provocation over Sergey Skripal draws attention away from these matters. The second reason may be the fact that the British do not want to be forgotten. They want to remain in the lead. It may be my personal subjective opinion, but I do know the British people quite well. In this case, they have opted for Russophobia for the simple reason that there are fewer and fewer areas where Britain can still take the lead. Let me reiterate that we are open to dialogue, and we said so in The Hague, at the OPCW Executive Council meeting, when we proposed using all the possibilities, and there are quite a few of them, provided by the CWC to investigate and explore this issue. We also propose employing the Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Yesterday, at the UN Security Council we proposed adopting a statement by the Security Council President calling on all sides to cooperate in order to establish the truth. But our British colleagues blocked this statement, which proves yet again what I have already said. They do not want the truth. All they want is for everyone to accept what they say at face value. I do not think that they will succeed.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3120248
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:30 PM.
Page generated in 2.10686 seconds.