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

Old March 30th, 2017 #1
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia

Sergey Lavrov: The Interview



March 29, 2017



Paul Saunders, associate publisher of the National Interest, interviewed Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov on Friday, March 24, 2017, in Moscow. Their wide-ranging and blunt conversation, which lasted over an hour, covered topics from Ukraine and Syria to the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the future of U.S.-Russia cooperation.





Question:

I’d like to start by asking you about your forthcoming meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; we’ve read in the press that the two of you may be meeting soon.



Sergey Lavrov:

So they say.



Question:

Could you perhaps tell us about your expectations and goals in dealing with Secretary Tillerson?



Sergey Lavrov:

Well, after the American election, soon after Election Day President Putin and President-elect Trump talked over the phone. It was a good but very general discussion touching upon the key issues in our relations, and of course the key international issues. And they agreed that they would continue being in touch, and after the inauguration they talked again, and they reconfirmed the need to look for ways which would be effective in handling international problems. And of course to see what could be done to bring the bilateral relations to normalcy. They also agreed that Mr. Rex Tillerson and I would look into the agenda in some more details, and would also discuss the preparation for the presidential meeting which should take place when both countries, both leaders feel comfortable.

And we met with Rex in mid-February in Bonn on the margins of the G-20 ministerial meeting, and covered quite a lot of the bilateral agenda. I briefed him about the relationship on bilateral issues with the Obama administration, the problems which accumulated during that period. We did not go into the substance of this, I just briefed him so that his team, which is still being assembled, could take a look at these issues and determine what kind of attitude they would have on them. And we discussed Syria, Iran, the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East in general, relations between Russia and the West. It was a very general, but rather substantive discussion, obviously it was the first contact and Mr. Rex Tillerson is just getting into the shoes of his new capacity. We discussed the possibility of personal meeting and have been continuing these discussions. As soon as we finalize them it will be announced.

But my feeling is that from the point of view of personal relationship, we feel quite comfortable. I feel quite comfortable, I believe Rex had the same feeling, and our assistants should work closer, but of course this could only be done when the team in the State Department is complete.



Question:

Of course. If I could follow up on your answer there, you mentioned bringing normalcy to the U.S.-Russia relationship. What do you think “normal” is?



Sergey Lavrov:

“Normal” is to treat your partners with respect, not to try to impose some of your ideas on others without taking into account their own views and their concerns, always to try to listen and to hear, and hopefully not to rely on a superiority complex, which was obviously the case with the Obama administration. They were obsessed with their exceptionality, with their leadership. Actually the founding fathers of the United States, they also spoke of their leadership, and they believed that the American nation was exceptional, but they wanted others just to take the American experience as an example and to follow suit. They never suggested that the United States should impose, including by force, its values on others.

And the Obama administration was clearly different. Actually, long before Ukraine, long before Crimea, in early December 2012, there was an OSCE ministerial meeting in Dublin. And Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and was the head of the delegation, we had a bilateral meeting with her, she was trying to persuade me on something which was a difficult issue on the agenda, but I recall this situation because in the margins of this ministerial meeting she attended a meeting in the University of Dublin, and she delivered a lecture in which she said something like: “We are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent the move to re-Sovietize the former Soviet space.” December 2012.

What kind of action she was considering as the move to re-Sovietize the space, I really couldn’t understand. Yes, there were discussions about Ukraine, about Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia, forming the Customs Union, and if this was the reason, then of course it showed very obviously the real attitude of the Obama administration to what was going on in the former Soviet space and the area of the Commonwealth of Independent States, its obvious desire to take over this geopolitical space around Russia without even caring what Moscow might think.

This was the reason for the crisis in Ukraine, when the U.S. and European Union bluntly told the Ukrainians: either you are with us, or you are with Russia against us. And the very fragile Ukrainian state couldn’t sustain this kind of pressure, and what happened happened: the coup, and so on and so forth (if you want I can discuss this in some detail later). But my point is that they considered normal that the people in Obama’s team should call the shots anywhere, including around such a big country as the Russian Federation. And this is absolutely abnormal in my view.

At the same time, when we visited Venezuela with our naval ships, they were raising such hell, as if no one could even get closer to what they believe should be their backyard. This mentality is not adequate for the twenty-first century. And we of course notice that President Trump is emphasizing the need to concentrate on U.S. interests. And foreign policy for him is important as long as it serves the United States’ interests, not just some messiah projects doing something just for the sake of showing that you can do it anywhere. It’s irrational, and in this he certainly holds the same position as we do in Moscow, as President Putin does, that we don’t want to meddle in other people’s matters. When the Russian legitimate interests are not, you know, involved.



Question:

You just mentioned at the end of your statement that the United States shouldn’t meddle in others’ affairs, and obviously many Americans today feel that Russia has meddled in American affairs, in the 2016 election. Your government has denied that. But how do you explain what happened in the United States? Do you feel that Russia had any involvement or any responsibility at all for what transpired?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe that these absolutely groundless accusations—at least I haven’t seen a single fact that this was substantiated. I believe these accusations were used as an instrument in the electoral campaign, which for some reasons seemed to the Democratic Party to be an efficient way to raise support among the American people, playing on their feelings that no one shall meddle with American affairs. This is a Russophobic instrument. It was a very sad situation because we never wanted to be unfriendly with the American people, and apparently the Obama administration, the elite in the Democratic Party, who made every effort during the last couple of years to ruin the very foundation of our relationship, decided that the American people should be brainwashed without any facts, without any proof. We are still ready to discuss any concerns of the United States.

As a matter of fact, in November 2015, long before this hacker thing started, we drew the attention of the U.S. administration to the fact that they kept hunting Russian citizens suspected in cybercrime in third countries, and insisting on them being extradited to the United States, ignoring the treaty on mutual legal assistance which exists between Russia and the United States, and which should be invoked in cases when any party to this treaty has suspicions regarding the citizen of another one. And this was never done.

So what we suggested to them in November 2015, that we also don’t want to see our citizens violating law and using cyberspace for staging all kinds of crimes. So we would be the last one to try to look aside from them. We want them to be investigated and to be disciplined. But since the United States continued to avoid invoking this treaty on legal assistance, we suggested to have a meeting between the Justice Department and the Russian prosecutor-general, specifically at the expert level, on cybercrime. To establish confidential, expert, professional dialogue to exchange information.

They never replied; when we reminded them that there was a request, they orally told us that they were not interested. But in December 2016, more than one year after our request was tabled, they said, “Okay, why don’t we meet?” But this came from Obama administration experts, when they already were on their way out. Some technical meeting took place; it was not of any substance but at least they responded to the need to do something about cyberspace.

And of course on cybercrimes the discussions in the United Nations are very telling. When we are leading the debate on negotiating an instrument which would be universal and which would be mandatory for everybody, the U.S. is not really very much eager, and is not very enthusiastic.

Speaking of meddling with others’ matters, there is no proof that Russia was in any way involved either in the United States, or in Germany, or in France, or in the United Kingdom—by the way, I read yesterday that the Swedish prime minister is becoming nervous that they also have elections very soon and that Russia would 100 percent be involved in them. Childish, frankly speaking. You either put some facts on the table or you try to avoid any statements which embarrass you, even if you don’t believe this is the case.

It’s embarrassing to see and to hear what we see and hear in the West, but if you speak of meddling with other countries’ matters, where facts are available—take a look at Iraq. It was a very blunt, illegal intervention, which is now recognized even by Tony Blair, and those who were pathetically saying that they cannot tolerate a dictator in Iraq. Take a look at Libya, which is ruined, and I hope still has a chance to become one piece. Take a look at Syria, take a look at Yemen: this is the result and the examples of what takes place when you intervene and interfere. Yes, I’m sure you can say about Ukraine, you can say about Crimea, but for this you have to really get into the substance of what transpired there.

When the European Union was insisting that President Yanukovych sign an association agreement, including a free-trade zone with zero tariffs on most of the goods and services crossing the border between Ukraine and the European Union, and at that point it was noted that Ukraine already had a free-trade area with Russia, with some different kind of structure, but also with zero tariffs. So if Russia has zero tariffs with Ukraine, Ukraine would have the same with European Union but we have some protection, under the WTO deal with the European Union, so the only thing we said: guys, if you want to do this, we would have to protect our market from the European goods which would certainly go through Ukraine to Russia, trying to use the zero-tariff arrangement. And the only thing suggested, and Yanukovych supported, is to sit down the three—Ukraine, EU and Russia—and to see how this could be handled. Absolutely pragmatic and practical thing. You know what the European Union said? “None of your business.”

Then-President of the European Commission Mr. Jose Manuel Barrosso (my favorite) stated publicly that we don’t meddle with Russia’s trade with China, so don’t meddle with our deal with Ukraine. While the situation is really very different and the free-trade area argument was absolutely ignored. And then Mr. Yanukovych asked for the signature of this deal to be postponed, for him to understand better what will be the consequences—for his industry, for his finances, for his agriculture—if we would have to protect ourselves from potential flow of cheap goods from Europe. That’s so, and then the coup was staged, in spite of the fact that there was a deal between Yanukovych and the opposition, witnessed by Germany, France and Poland.

Next morning, this deal was torn apart under the pretext that Yanukovych disappeared, and therefore all commitments were off. The problem is that he did not leave the country, he was in another city of the country. But my main point is that the deal which they signed with him was not about him; it was about his agreement to go to early elections – and he would have lost these elections – but the deal started by saying, “We agree to create a government of national unity.”

And next morning, when they just tore apart this deal, Mr. Arseniy Yatsenyuk, then a leader in Ukraine’s Batkivshchyna party, and others who signed the deal with the president, they went to this Maidan, to the protestors, and said, “Congratulations, we just created the government of the winners.” Feel the difference: “government of national unity” and “government of the winners.” Two days later, this parliament, which immediately changed their position, announced that the Russian language is no longer welcome.

A few days later, the so-called Right Sector, the group which was an instrument in the violence in Maidan, they said that Russians have nothing to do in Crimea, because Russians would never honor the heroes of Ukraine, like Bandera and Shukhevych, who were collaborating with Nazis. These kinds of statements led to the people in the east of Ukraine just to say: “guys, you did something unconstitutional, and we don’t believe this is good for us,” so leave us alone, let us understand what is going on in Kiev, but we don’t want any of your new ideas to be imposed on us. We want to use our language, we want to celebrate our holidays, to honor our heroes: these eastern republics never attacked anyone. The government announced the antiterrorist campaign in the east, and they moved the regular army and the so-called voluntary battalions in the east of Ukraine. This is not mentioned by anyone. They are called terrorists—well, they never attacked a person.

And investigations of what actually happened on that day of the coup is going nowhere; the investigation of the murder in Odessa on the second of May, 2014, when dozens of people were burned alive in a trade-union office building, is moving nowhere. Investigation of political murders of journalists and opposition politicians is not moving anywhere. And they basically passed amnesty for all those who were on the part of the opposition during the coup. And they prosecute all those who were on the part of the government.

But even now they want to prosecute Yanukovych in absentia, but one interesting thing maybe for your readers to compare: there was a deal on the twenty-first of February, next morning they said, Yanukovych is not in Kiev, so our conscience is clean and we do what we please, in spite of the commitment to national unity. About the same time there was a coup in Yemen. President Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia. Not to some other city in Yemen, but he fled abroad.

More than two years passed, and the entire progressive international community, led by our Western friends, insists that he must be brought back to Yemen and that the deal which he signed with the opposition must be honored by the opposition. My question is why Ukraine’s situation is treated differently from the situation in Yemen. Is Yemen a more important country? Are the deals which you sign, and the need to respect your word and your deals, more sacred in Yemen than in Ukraine? No answer.

Sorry for getting into all these details, but people tend to forget, because they’re being brainwashed every day with very simple phrases like “Russia is aggressor in Ukraine,” “annexation of Crimea” and so on and so forth, instead of laboring your tongues, people should go there. Those who go to Crimea, see for themselves how the people live there, and they understand that all these hysterical voices about violation of human rights, about discrimination vis-à-vis Crimean Tatars, is a lie.



Question:

Maybe coming back, just for a moment, to the U.S. election, and setting aside the question of evidence, because your government has its perspective, the U.S. intelligence community has its perspective—I don’t think those differences are likely to be reconciled. Setting that question aside, many Americans believe that Russia did interfere in the election; it’s contributed to a particular political climate in the United States. Do you view that as an obstacle to the U.S.-Russia relationship, and do you believe there is anything that Russia can or should do to try to address these widespread concerns?



Sergey Lavrov:

You said a very interesting thing. You used the word “perspective.” You said, “Russia has its own perspective; the American intelligence community has its own perspective.” Perspective is something which many people have. We speak about facts, about proofs. And with all these perspectives, these hearings which sometimes are shown on CNN, on Russian TV, I haven’t heard any, any proof. Except the confirmation that the FBI and the NSA started watching what the Trump team is doing sometime in July. I heard this recently.

And I take this as acceptance by those who were doing this, for whatever reason, and they clearly said that this was not because of the suspicion that he had something to do with Russia but this was a routine process during which they find a trace leading to the Trump headquarters. Fine, this is a fact: they admitted that they started this. So what? If by admitting this they make their perspective regarding Russia a fact, I cannot buy this.

And then you said, they have their own perspective, and that the American people believe Russia had something to do with the American elections. Categories like perspective and belief are not very specific. And we speak about some very serious accusations. I understand that in the West, people who indeed profess Russophobic feelings, and unfortunately they are—they used to be very powerful, they are still very powerful even when they lost the elections, and Russophobic trends are obviously seen even in the Republican camp. You know, it’s very easy to find some external threat and then to put all the blame on this particular external threat.

When in 2014 the Malaysian plane was shot down over Ukraine, two days later I think, in the UN Security Council, when we insisted on adopting a resolution demanding further investigation, the American officials said yes, we believe investigation must be held, but we already know the result.

What about the presumption of innocence? The same happened with Litvinenko, the poor guy who was poisoned in London, when from the very beginning they said, we will have an investigation but we know who did it, and they never made this trial public. And they never accepted the offer of assistance which we were ready to provide. And so on and so forth.

Now, yesterday, this terrible murder of the Russian and Ukrainian citizen, who used to be an MP in Russia, and did not stay in the current parliament, and President Poroshenko two hours after the guy was murdered says that this was a terrorist attack from Russia—who also blew up the munition depot near Kharkov. It was said a few hours later by the president of a democratic country, whom our American and European friends call a beacon of democracy. I thought democracy was about establishing facts when you have suspicions.

And democracy is about division of power, and if the chief executive takes upon himself the functions of the legal system, of the judicial system, that does not fit with my understanding of how Western democracy works. We’re ready to discuss anything—any facts, I mean. We’re ready to assist in investigations of whatever issues our partners anywhere might have. Whether this is going to be an obstacle to normal relations, I don’t think so. I believe the Russian people, at least if we are asked, I would say no, if it depends on us. I understand that there are some people in the United States who want this to become an obstacle, and who want to tie up the team of President Trump on the Russian issue, and I believe this is very mean policy, but we see that this is taking place.

What can Russia do to help? Unfortunately, not much. We cannot accept the situation, but some absolutely artificial hysterical situation was created by those who severed all of the relationship—who dropped the deal on the Bilateral Presidential Commission between Moscow and Washington with some twenty-plus working groups, a very elaborate mechanism of cooperation—and then after they have done this, after they prevent the new administration from doing away with this absolute stupid situation, to ask us to do something? I don’t think it’s fair.

We said what we did, that we are ready to work with any administration, any president who would be elected by the American people. This was our line throughout the electoral campaign, unlike the acting leaders of most European countries who were saying absolutely biased things, supporting one candidate, unlike those who even bluntly warned against the choice in favor of the Republican candidate, and this somehow is considered normal. But I leave this on the conscience of those who said this and then immediately chickened out and then started praising the wisdom of the U.S. electorate.

We said that we would be ready to come back to the relationship and to develop the relationship with the United States to the extent, and to the depths, to which the administration is ready to go. Whatever is comfortable for our partners, we will support and provide it. We talk on the basis of mutual respect and equality, trying to understand the legitimate interest of each other and to see whether we can find the balance between those interests. We will be ready to cover our part of the way, as President Putin said, but we will not be making any unilateral steps. We offered cooperation on very fair terms, and we will judge by the deeds of course.



Question:

Perhaps we can pivot to international affairs. In the United States there’s been discussion of a new Cold War; you, for your part, recently talked about a post-West international order, which as you may imagine is not something that many in the United States and other Western countries would readily embrace. In fact, some may even be strongly inclined to resist the emergence of a post-West order. What do you think a post-West order is, and do you think that it makes confrontation between Russia and the United States, or Russia and the West, inevitable?



Sergey Lavrov:

Well first, I don't believe that we are having another Cold War. Ideologically, we’re not different, we’re not apart. Yes, there are nuances in how the countries in the West and Russia and its neighbors are run. But all in all the basis is democracy, which is elections, basically, and organizing the system, the way you respect the opposition and it’s also market economy. Again with “give and take”: you know in some countries the state is much more involved in economy than in others, but this happened in France some time ago, in the UK some time ago, so this is all secondary details, I would say. There’s no ideological differences as far as democratic principles and market economy are concerned. Second, these days, unlike the days of the Cold War, we have much clearer common threats, like terrorism, like chaos in the Middle East, like the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This was never the case during the Cold War days, which was a very negative balance with sporadic conflicts in periphery. This time we have global universal threats, not sparing anyone, and this is what we witness almost daily, with these terrorist attacks in the Middle East and Europe, there was one in the United States, and so on and so forth.

So this absolutely makes it necessary to reassess where we are and what kind of cooperative structure we need. Post-West system, post-West order: I mentioned this term in Munich at the Munich Security Conference, and I was really surprised that people immediately made me the author, the coiner of this term, because the title of the conference contained “post-West order”—with a question mark, yes. I put the question mark aside for one very simple reason: if we all agree that we cannot defeat terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, climate change without a universal coalition, if we all agree that this is the case, and I believe we do, then it would certainly be necessary to recognize that the world is different, compared to the many centuries when the West was leading with culture, philosophy, military might, economic systems, and so on and so forth.

We all have, China, the whole Asia-Pacific region, which President Obama, by the way, said is the place where the U.S. would be shifting, which in itself means that he was not thinking of the West order but post-West order. And, of course, Latin America; Africa, which is hugely underdeveloped but has the potential with resources and labor, young and vigorous, still untapped. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson just a few days ago in Washington convened a coalition to fight terrorism—sixty-eight countries, if I am not wrong, double the number of the countries in the West. This meeting was post-West order, or a manifestation of post-West order. So I don’t believe the Western countries should be really offended or should feel that their contribution to the world civilization has been underestimated—not at all. It’s just the time when no one can do it alone, and that’s how we feel. It’s a polycentric world. Call it multipolar, call it polycentric, call it more democratic—but this is happening. And economic might, financial might and the political influence associated with all this, they’re much more evenly spread.



Question:

Let’s zero in on Syria. You mentioned the terrorism issue and certainly the struggle with ISIS is an important focus for the U.S., for Russia. There has been, as I’m sure you’re aware, some skepticism in the United States about Russia’s role in Syria. President Donald Trump, when he was a presidential candidate, certainly referred many times to a desire to work with Russia in Syria. How do you envision the opportunities and constraints on the U.S. and Russia in working together in Syria, and do you have any specific new ideas about how to do that?



Sergey Lavrov:

First, when this coalition was created by the Barack Obama administration (the coalition which was convened in Washington just a few days ago) it was understood that out of sixty-some countries, only a few would be actually flying air force and hitting the ground. Others were mostly political and moral support, if you wish, a solidarity show—which is fine, it’s important these days as well to mobilize public opinion in as many countries as you can. We were not invited. The Iranians were not invited. Some others were not invited, who I believe should be important partners in this endeavor. But this was motivated by some ideological considerations on the part of the Barack Obama administration. I just don’t want to go into the reason for why they assembled this particular bunch of people.

But what I can attest to is that one year into the creation of this coalition, it was very sporadically using the air force to hit some ISIL positions. They never touched the caravans who were smuggling oil from Syria to Turkey and, in general, they were not really very active. This changed after we responded to the request of President Assad, who represents, by the way, a legitimate government member of the United Nations. After we joined, President Vladimir Putin and President Barack Obama spoke in New York in September 2015, and President Putin clearly told him that we would be doing this and we were ready to coordinate, and they agreed to have these deconfliction discussions, which did not start soon actually, not through our fault. But when we started working there the U.S.-led coalition became much more active. I don’t want to analyze the reason for this. I’m just saying before we moved there with our air force, the U.S. coalition was very rarely hitting ISIL positions and almost never hitting the positions of Jabhat al-Nusra, which many people believe has been spared just in case at some point they might be needed to topple the regime. And this feeling, this suspicion, is still very much alive these days, when Jabhat al-Nusra already twice changed its name, but it never changed its sponsors who continue to pump money and whatever is necessary for fighting into this structure. And people know this. So when we moved there, at the request of the government, we suggested to the U.S. to coordinate our efforts. They said, “No, we can only go for deconfliction,” and deconfliction procedures were developed and are being applied quite well, but we believed it was a shame that we couldn’t go further, and coordinate targets and what have you. And then my friend, John Kerry, who was very sincere in his desire to overcome the ideological—not ideological, but to overcome some artificial barriers, and to indeed start military coordination—we spent almost from February 2016 to September 2016 when, eventually, we had a deal to separate the armed groups, with whom the U.S. and the allies cooperate, from ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra, and then to coordinate the targets and basically to strike only those targets which would be acceptable to both Russians and the Americans. Quite a few people really understood the quality of this deal.

I put myself in the shoes of those who were criticizing us for hitting wrong targets. You remember, there was so much criticism. So the deal we reached with Kerry, when none of us could strike unless the other supports, was solving this problem. And the fact that the Pentagon just disavowed what Kerry did, and Obama could not overrule the Pentagon, meant for me only one thing: that he, the president of the United States, Barack Obama, was motivated by the desire to have some revenge on Russia, for whatever reason and for whatever situation, rather than to capitalize over the deal reached between John Kerry and us, to make the war against terror much more efficient in Syria. But let God judge him.

Now, whether we have an opportunity to resume the cooperation: yes we do. Yes, President Donald Trump said that fighting terrorism is his number one international goal, and I believe this is absolutely natural. We will be sharing this approach, I am sure, and it’s also, in this sense, coming back to our first question which we discussed, about intervention in other parts of the world, terrorism is a universal threat. So when you interfere to fight terrorist manifestations, it’s in the interest of your country. It’s another matter that you have to be faithful to international law. And the coalition, of course, led by the United States, was never invited to Syria. We were, Iran was, Hezbollah was. Still, the Syrian government, while complaining that the coalition were there uninvited, they said, “If and since you’re going to coordinate with Russians, with those who fight ISIL and Nusra, we take it as this is what you want, to defeat terrorism, not to do anything else in Syria.” So deconfliction procedures continue to be applied.

You might have heard that the chief of general staff of the Russian Army, General Gerasimov, met with General Dunford.



Question:

Twice, I understand.



Sergey Lavrov:

Twice, at least, and they talked over the phone. And this is something the military discussed. I assume that if their discussions go beyond deconfliction, I don’t want to speculate, this would be a welcome sign that we can really do what is necessary to bring about the situation when everyone who confronts ISIL and Nusra on the ground acts in coordination. If not under the united command—this, I think is unachievable—but in a coordinated manner.

The Turks have troops on the ground. Iran, Hezbollah are invited by the government. Russian air force with some ground special military police helping keep law and order in the Sunni quarters of Aleppo and Damascus, the military police from Russia is largely composed of Russian Sunnis from the northern Caucasus—Chechens, Ingush and others.

The U.S. Air Force and the coalition air force; U.S. special forces on the ground. Apparently there are French and UK special forces on the ground. The military groups who are part of the so-called Free Syrian Army, the military armed groups who are part of the Kurdish detachments—there are so many players: I listed all those who declare that ISIL and Nusra are their enemies. So some harmonization is certainly in order, and we are very much open to it.

When the United States dropped from the deal, which we negotiated with John Kerry, we shifted to look for some other opportunities and we had the deal with Turkey later—which was later supported by Iran—which brought about some kind of cessation of hostilities between the government and a group of armed opposition. And we created, in Astana, a parallel track supportive of the Geneva negotiations concentrating on mechanisms to monitor the cessation of hostilities, to respond to violations, also to build up confidence by exchanging prisoners, and so on and so forth.

It is not welcome by quite a number of external players who try to provoke and encourage the radicals, radical armed groups in Syria, to make trouble and to stage some terrorist attacks. They launched a huge offensive now in the northern part of Hama Province, and they basically coordinate with Jabhat al-Nusra, under its new name. So it’s also a game for influence in Syria, unfortunately, which prevails in the minds of the people who promote such an approach, rather than the need to get united to fight terrorism, and then to have a political deal. It’s a fight for influence on the battleground, and this is unfortunate. We don’t need this now. What we need is to strengthen the cessation of hostilities and to support strongly the political process in Geneva, concentrated on the new constitution, which would be accompanied by a division of power between the government, the opposition, all ethnic groups, then elections and so on and so forth. But all this would be absolutely meaningless if people sacrifice the fight against terror for the sake of their goal, their obsession, with regime change.



Question:

In Iran, the Trump administration seems to have signaled an intent to try to enforce the Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA, more strictly, perhaps to be more assertive in challenging Iran’s regional role. And I’d be curious about your reaction to that and the degree to which Russia could work with, or not work with, the United States on either of those things. Then there is Ukraine. Clearly a very complex problem, the Minsk Process I think to many outside observers really seems to have stalled. Is that process dead? Is there any way to move forward?



Sergey Lavrov:

On Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was a product of collective work—it’s a compromise. But the key things were never compromised. It’s a compromise which allows for all of us, with the help of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to be sure that Iran’s nuclear program is going to be peaceful, that all the elements which cause suspicion would be removed, and handled in a way which gives us all certainty and gives us control over the implementation of those arrangements.

I don’t think that the Trump administration is thinking in the same terms as the slogans during the campaign, that Iran is the number one terrorist state; we don’t have a single fact to substantiate this claim. At least when we were facing a huge terrorist threat, when we were under terrorist attack in the 1990s in the northern Caucasus, we detected and discovered dozens and hundreds of foreign terrorist fighters from very close neighborship to Iran, but not from Iran at all. And we know that the political circles in quite a number of countries were really encouraging these terrorist groups to go into the northern Caucasus. Iran had never challenged the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, never used its own links with Muslim groups to provoke radicalism and to create trouble. What we do now with Iran and those that cooperate with us and the Syrian army is fighting terrorists in Syria. Iran is a powerful player on the ground, legitimately invited by the government. Iran has influence over Lebanese Hezbollah, which is also legitimately on the ground. And if we all want, you know, to topple, to defeat terrorists in Syria, there should be some coordination. I have already touched upon this.

The IAEA regularly reports on this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action implementation. The latest report once again confirmed that there are no violations of the part of Iran, and that the deal is being implemented in line with the commitments of Tehran and all others. It’s another matter that the steps which were promised in return to the implementation, namely sanctions relief, are not being undertaken by all Western participants as fast and as fully as was promised. But that’s another matter.

On the Minsk agreements, I believe that the Ukrainian government and President Poroshenko personally want them dead. They want them dead in a way which would allow them to blame Russia and the people in the east of Ukraine. They certainly encountered huge opposition from the radicals, and the radicals believe that this government is weak enough just to wait it out and to have either early elections or to have another Maidan. The biggest mistake of President Poroshenko, I am convinced, was that after he signed this agreement in February 2015 in Minsk, and he came back with the success, with the support of Germany, France, then the Security Council in New York endorsed this deal, and he should have used this moment to impress upon his parliament, upon the opposition, that this was a good deal supported by the European Union, where he wanted to join.

Instead, he started apologizing in front of his opposition when he got back to Kiev saying, you should not think this is serious, I did not commit myself to anything in the legal way—in the legally binding way—this is not what you read. And so on and so forth. He cornered himself in the situation of an absolutely irresponsible politician who signed one thing and who was saying that this is not what he signed one week later when he came back. The opposition felt that this was his weakness and they started carving out of his position anything which was still reasonable. The fact is that every day he is in contact with President Vladimir Putin, they talk over the phone sometimes, they talk on the margins of the meetings of the Normandy Format when the leaders have their meetings; the last one was in October in Berlin last year. But my impression is that he tries to be constructive, to find ways to come back to the Minsk implementation. But the next day he comes back to Kiev or goes abroad, and goes public saying things which are absolutely aggressive and are absolutely unfair.

One very simple example: in the Minsk agreement, they provide for preparation for elections on the special status of these territories. The status itself is listed in the deal, and the law on this special status is already adopted by the Rada, but it is not in force. Then amnesty, because you don’t want to have a “witch hunt,” and the constitutional confirmation that this special status is permanent. That was all. And after this is done, the Ukrainian government restores full control over the entire Russian-Ukrainian border. They are saying now: no elections, no special status, no constitutional change, no amnesty, until we first take control of the border. But everyone can read the Minsk agreement—it’s only three pages. And it says absolutely clearly that the border transfer is the last step, and everyone understood why when this was negotiated. Because if you just under these circumstances, with all these animosities, with all these so-called voluntary battalions, Azov, Donbass and all the radicals, not reigned in by the government—when you just say, okay, take the border and we trust you that will do everything else, these people would just be victims. They will be suffocated and burned alive like the people in Odessa. So the political guarantees are crucial, and Germany, France and others understood this very well, just like the Americans understood this very well, because we did have parallel track—parallel to the Normandy Format—with the U.S., and we are ready to revive it again.

But one very simple example. October 2015, Paris: the Normandy leaders meet. And there is very specific discussion regarding the law on special status. The logic and sequence of the Minsk agreement is that you first have the special status, and then you have elections. Because people would normally want to know what kind of authority those for whom they are going to vote would have. Poroshenko said, no, we first have to have elections. Then I, Poroshenko, would see whether the people elected are to my liking. And if they are, then, we will give them the special status.

Which is rather weird. But still, we decided just to move forward; we would be ready to have some compromise on this thing, in spite of the fact that it was absolutely clearly spelled out in the Minsk agreement. And then the former foreign minister of Germany, who was participating in the meeting, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who is now president of Germany, he said, why don’t we have a compromise formula which would mean that the law on the special status is adopted, but it enters into force on the day of elections temporarily, and it would enter into force, full fledged, on the day when the OSCE reports that elections were free and fair, and in line with democratic OSCE standards?

Everyone says okay. Poroshenko says okay. One year later, in October 2016 in Berlin, the same group of people, the leaders with the ministers. And President Putin is saying the formula of Steinmeier is still not embodied in any papers, in the Contact group process, because the Ukrainian government refuses to put in on paper. Poroshenko said, well, but it is not what we agreed, and so on and so forth. And then Putin said, well this is Mr. Steinmeier, ask him about his formula, and he reiterated this formula: temporary entry into force on the day of elections, full entry into force on the day the OSCE confirms they were free and fair. Merkel said the same, Hollande said the same, that this was absolutely what we agreed.

And then Poroshenko said, okay, let’s do it. October 2016 is almost half a year ago. And we are still not able, because of the Ukrainian government opposition in the Contact group, to fix this deal on paper. So I can go for a long time on this one, but I am sure that those people who are interested can go and who follow the developments in Ukraine, they understand why we are not at the point of Minsk implementation.

The Ukrainian government wants to provoke the other side to blink first and to say, enough is enough, we drop from the Minsk deal. That’s why the economic blockade, that’s why the prohibition for the banks to serve the population in the east. By the way, in the Minsk agreements, two years ago we discussed the difficulties in banking services for this part of Ukraine and Germany and France committed themselves to organizing mobile banking, and they failed because they could never get cooperation from the Ukrainian authorities.

Well, I leave it to your readers to study what is going on, what is happening in Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere.





The source of information - http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...nterview-19940
 
Old March 31st, 2017 #2
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,170
Default

FM Lavrov did the right thing when he hired this lady.

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

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old April 1st, 2017 #3
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 30, 2017



30 March 2017 - 16:46





Holding regional consultations on Afghanistan in Moscow

We have already commented on this issue when we answered your questions. Today, I would like to talk about it in more detail.

Another round of regional consultations on Afghan issues will take place in Moscow on April 14. The talks will focus on security in Afghanistan and its prospects. In our opinion, the main goal of the consultations is to develop a single regional approach with regard to further promotion of the national reconciliation process in that country, while maintaining Kabul's leading role and complying with the earlier reviewed and approved principles on the integration of the armed opposition into peaceful life.

Invitations to participate in consultations were extended to Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, China, India, Iran, Pakistan and the United States. I would like to say that Washington and US officials expressed their interest in attending this event and participating in the international discussion on this subject. We sent them an invitation. Most of the countries have already confirmed their participation. We expect some of our Central Asian partners to provide a response soon. We consider the participation of the Central Asian states important. An agreement on this was reached during the previous meeting of the Moscow format on February 15. Thus, all the neighbours of Afghanistan and the key states of the region will be represented at the upcoming talks. We regret Washington's refusal to take part in the consultations. The United States is an important player in the Afghan settlement, so it joining the peacekeeping efforts of the countries of the region would help to reinforce the message to the Afghan armed opposition regarding the need to stop armed resistance and to start talks.



Current events in Ukraine

We are alarmed by the deteriorating situation in southeastern Ukraine. According to SMM OSCE reports, observers registered 500 to 5,000 ceasefire violations a day in March.

Towns and villages in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics were shelled on 14 occasions between March 13 and 26 alone, sometimes by MLRS, which are banned by the Minsk Agreements. Residential buildings and a secondary school in Dokuchayevsk were damaged and 13 people injured. I stress again that civil infrastructure was shelled.

The SMM goes on reporting the presence of heavy weapons along the contact line in violation of the Minsk Package, with 58 units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces against militias’ 24 units.

OSCE observers also report that the Ukrainian army-controlled stretch of the demarcation line in Zolotoye and a road in Katerinovka are mined.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces continue to shell the Donetsk water filtering station. On March 17, the station was shelled in the presence of SMM observers, Russian officers of the Joint Coordination Control Centre and local repairmen. Clearly, the shelling of such facilities poses a threat of chemical contamination to the area.

As for the situation in other parts of Ukraine, the SMM reports more instances of vandalism and blocking Russian banking offices in Kiev, Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk by local radicals with officials’ blatant connivance.

The SMM also monitored the trade and transport blockade of Donbass. Indicatively, the blockers told OSCE observers that they had found a way to bypass police posts. The Ukrainian authorities are making bewildering contradictory statements suggesting that they have not yet determined whether to support or condemn the blockade, while the Ukrainian National Bank and Finance Ministry have already made forecasts of its negative impact on the national economy.

We call upon the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to continue its objective observation of the situation in Donbass and other parts of Ukraine in conformity with its mandate, which has been prolonged to March 2018.



Kiev’s plans to enshrine in law forcible Ukrainisation of all spheres of life in Ukraine

With tenacity worthy of a better cause, Kiev continues its policy towards the total de-Russification and forcible Ukrainisation of the country. Following the infamous laws which deprived the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine of the right to receive objective information in their native language, the Kiev authorities intend to actually legalise a ban on the Russian language.

The Verkhovna Rada introduced a draft law On the State Language, which provides for mandatory use of the Ukrainian language in all areas of daily life without exception. Any attempts to establish the official use of more than one language in that country are equated with an attempt to overthrow the political system and are subject to prosecution. I would like to say that we are talking about decisions and actions of the very authorities that came to power not illegally, but on the declaration of their allegiance to European democratic values.

The draft law on media languages ​​adopted on March 23 in the first reading, which prohibits publications in the languages of neighbouring countries, is part of the same approach. Had the Ukrainian authorities tried to learn how the issues of multilingualism are addressed in European countries, they would have realised that they had been heading in the opposite direction all those years they were in power and declared their commitment to European values. Look at how the Scandinavian and Western European countries, as well as the United States and Canada, approach these issues. After all, it’s not about the minorities residing in Ukraine, but the people who have been using this language, which created the common culture of Ukraine, for many centuries. Most importantly, it is not about the people who moved to Ukraine in recent years or even decades, but the indigenous population. Under this document, national TV channels would have to allocate 75 percent of the air time to programming in the Ukrainian language.

Approving such documents would mean actual legalisation of the forcible Ukrainisation of the country, a legitimatised fight not only against the Russian language and culture, but also languages spoken by other ethnic groups residing in Ukraine. This “creative law-making” is nothing more than a tool to limit human rights and crack down on dissent. All international legislative acts and regulations governing human rights issues in the European and North Atlantic space signed by Ukraine as a sovereign state clearly state the inadmissibility of restricting human rights in this sphere or any crackdowns on dissent.

Acting in this way, the Kiev regime not only violates its own constitution, which guarantees “the free development, use and protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine” (Article 10), but also openly demonstrates disdain for universally recognised human rights protection standards, enshrined, in particular, in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, as well as in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. That country is, in fact, about to introduce “language genocide” at the state level.

We realise perfectly well why official Kiev is doing this. It is under heavy pressure from the nationalist ideas of radicals, whom they once encouraged to take appropriate actions, and today, they cannot force that genie back into the bottle. Any attempts to use language issues as a way to flirt with radicals can cost Kiev dearly, especially given the highly polarised Ukrainian society. Suffice it to recall that the attempt to repeal the current law On the Foundations of the State Language Policy in 2014 provoked the separation of Crimea from Ukraine and the onset of the armed conflict in Donbass. This is precisely what led to the momentous changes in Ukraine.



The situation in Syria

The intra-Syrian talks based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 have been underway in Geneva under the auspices of the UN since March 27. The consultations are being held separately. Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Syria Staffan de Mistura and his staff are making efforts to guide the discussion between the Syrian government and the opposition into a constructive course. Russian representatives in Geneva, namely, Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov and Special Envoy of the Foreign Minister for the Middle Eastern Settlement and Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Middle East and North Africa Department Sergey Vershinin, are actively involved in this process. Moscow looks forward to the Syrian parties showing their willingness to achieve a compromise on all four baskets of the agreed-upon agenda in order to make headway towards peace and stability in Syria.

We assess the military and political situation in Syria as tense.

The Syrian army continues its anti-terrorist operation in eastern districts of Damascus, which was undertaken in response to the rebels’ attempts to invade the city centre on March 19–22. The extremists from Jabhat al-Nusra who organised this raid suffered significant losses and were forced to retreat into the suburban towns of Jobar and Qaboun and retaliated with rocket and mortar fire on Damascus. The shells exploded in the districts of Tijara and Qusur and in the suburban town of Sayyidah Zaynab. There are casualties among civilians.

The offensive by Nusra and their accomplices in the north of the Hama province, where terrorists created an immediate threat to the administrative centre of the province and the Christian town of Mahardah, was stopped.

Relief efforts are underway following a major bloody provocation undertaken by the terrorists during a counter-offensive by government forces, and the Syrian military are regaining their temporarily lost positions.

We took note of the fact that the terrorist attacks outside Damascus and Hama were synchronised and well prepared. Radicals from Nusra managed to involve militant formations officially participating in the agreement on cessation of hostilities, in their actions.

We are disappointed by assessments of these events provided by a number of opposition politicians, primarily in Western and regional media, who have tried to justify the terrorists and their accomplices, and portrayed it as “the success of the Free Syrian Army in its fight against the regime.”

This kind of propaganda game is unacceptable. Everyone should clearly understand that any actions taken with the participation of Nusra, ISIS, or other Al-Qaeda offshoots, are subject to decisive and unconditional condemnation.

The Syrian government troops are continuing to drive ISIS out from eastern Aleppo. They blocked an ISIS unit outside the town of Deir Hafer in Aleppo and are on an offensive in the direction of the Jirah Airbase controlled by ISIS. An operation is underway seeking to destroy it.

A lightning-fast attack by Kurdish militiamen undertaken with the support of the US special forces made it possible to seize a bridgehead on the right bank of the Euphrates River and drive ISIS from the airbase outside the town of Tabqa. The town itself remains under the control of the terrorists, who clearly stated that air strikes by the US-led coalition may destroy the Euphrates, Syria’s largest hydroelectric power plant, built with the technical assistance of the Soviet Union. Indeed, two security valves in the southern part of the dam were damaged during an air raid on March 26. Military operations in the vicinity of the power plant have been stopped. Engineers were provided with an opportunity to inspect the dam and take proper measures to prevent this catastrophe.

In this regard, we urge all participants of the US-led coalition to act responsibly as they fulfill their mission to defeat terrorists in Syria and Iraq in order to prevent civilian casualties and damage to critical civilian infrastructure.

Work is underway to sign local reconciliation deals between the opposing sides in order to avoid unnecessary loss of life and to alleviate the sufferings of the civilian population. In accordance with the plan, the evacuation of rebels and their families from the al-Waer neighbourhood in the city of Homs continues.

On March 29, media reported that, with Qatar's mediation, an agreement had been reached to evacuate the defenders of the Shiite enclaves of al-Foua and Kafraya in Idlib in exchange for the rebels withdrawing from Zabadani, Madai and the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp outside Damascus. We welcome this agreement, which provides for the rebels and the civilians who wish to evacuate to be evacuated, the unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid and the adoption of measures to strengthen mutual trust and release prisoners. We hope that the agreements will be fully implemented.

At the same time, I would like to remind everyone that, within the Astana format, Russia has suggested that its participants adopt a provision on a reconciled area, which would identify a clear path towards stopping hostilities, including responsibilities on the part of the parties, which would exclude any rumours about alleged forced relocations. Unfortunately, as is known, the armed opposition representatives refused to come to Astana this time.



French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault’s statements on Syria

We are saddened by the statements issued by Western capitals, by officials and representatives of foreign states with regard to the Syrian settlement, most of which are absolutely devoid of objectivity. I’d like to elaborate on one of them.

Against the backdrop of efforts to promote a political settlement in Syria, which continue in the Astana and Geneva formats, statements released by some of our Western partners arouse dismay and disappointment. We think that they are beyond mere propaganda. We believe that they can be qualified as direct instigation. In this context, we have taken note of French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault’s speech at the Arab World Institute on the occasion of the sixth anniversary of the Syrian conflict, during which he made absolutely inappropriate and destructive remarks.

True, we have many differences with our partners, as you well know. We speak at length about them and spell out our position both publicly and, above all, during bilateral contacts. At the same time, a sincere wish to resolve the Syrian crisis should, in our opinion, push all the parties concerned not to fixate on contradictions or criticise each other (often without any proof), but to search for new common points and expand the area of understanding. This is not so hard to do, if there is a wish, because this area is outlined by relevant resolutions, above all, UN Security Council resolution 2254, International Syria Support Group (ISSG) decisions and other jointly adopted documents. They should be regarded as a single set, without distortions or wishful thinking. It is impossible to build an effective counter-terrorism strategy against the seat of international terrorism in Syria based on political pressure on Damascus and its allies. Let me remind you that the Russian military are in Syria and are helping Syrians fight terrorists on legal grounds, unlike our European and American partners.

The position, according to which the removal of the legitimate president of a UN member state is proclaimed a condition for bringing aid to the population of that country, seems paradoxical. One gets the impression that this is a kind of blackmail and that the officials in Paris have stopped understanding humanistic values. From a political standpoint, it is hard to combine the thesis that the Syrians themselves have the right to decide their own future with attempts to force them preemptively to accept humiliating terms: make one choice and get a carrot, make a different choice and get a stick.

On the whole, continuing public talk of the “Bashar al Assad must go” variety fully contradicts our common – I would like to stress that – beliefs that it is up to the Syrians themselves to determine their future and choose the government that will steer them there. Frankly speaking, that slogan virtually torpedoes and undermines any attempts to move forward along the path of intra-Syrian talks and dialogue and to separate the armed Syrian opposition from the ISIS and Nusra terrorists. This is something that Mr Ayrault cannot fail to understand.

We have repeatedly emphasised that Russia is ready for equal and mutually respectful cooperation with all partners interested in a political solution and the liquidation of the terrorist seat in Syria. Those are very serious priorities requiring collective efforts on a solid international legal basis. And here, there is no room for envy, jealousy or unhealthy competition.



The situation around Mosul

The situation around Mosul is continuing to deteriorate. The military operation to free the city, which has been going on for four months now, has not yet achieved its declared goals, specifically eliminating ISIS’s main base in Iraq. Despite the forces and assets used in combat operations, Iraqi government troops, unfortunately (we take note of this), have bogged down in gruelling urban fighting in the western right-bank part of Mosul. Each step forward here comes at great cost. Regular army forces and militias have to breach ISIS’s multi-layered defence involving the use of locals and civilians as a human shield. Unfortunately, these tactics are well known to us.

Meanwhile, in UN estimate, as many as 500,000 people remain in terrorist-controlled districts. With such density, what kind of “surgical” air strikes (something that our Western partners like to talk about) are possible here? Consider this. Statistics speak for themselves. According to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, between March 17 and 22 alone, at least 307 civilians were killed and 273 injured in western Mosul. And this is only confirmed data reported by the UN. However, what is happening in reality and what are the actual casualty figures? It is terrible to think about the actual figures and the casualty scale has yet to be assessed.

US military representatives had to acknowledge, albeit with the utmost reluctance, the mass casualties among the Iraqis as a result of the air strikes by the US-led anti-ISIS coalition. A few days ago, Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, commander of the Combined Joint Task Force, made statements to that effect. It may be recalled that this refers to the March 17 air strike on the al-Jadid district. According to various sources, 200 civilians were killed there. On March 22, a residential building was razed as a result of an air strike against the Rajm al-Hadid district, burying people alive, including children. These are only two tragic episodes that have been widely reported in the media. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein aptly described the operation to free the main city in northern Iraq as a massacre of civilians, when coalition forces bomb residential districts from the air while ISIS militants kill people on the ground.

The humanitarian situation in Mosul has escalated to the limit. Iraqi President Fuad Masum has compared it to a full-blown disaster. Now is the time to sound the alarm and constantly remind [everybody] that 400,000 residents remain in the city, where food and medical supplies are running out. Experts are warning about the danger of mass famine if the storming of Mosul drags on. Unfortunately, by all indications, this is the most likely scenario.

The position of hundreds of thousands of residents who have fled the city is also unenviable. Their suffering continues even after they escape from that hell. The provision of aid still leaves a lot to be desired, which is also recognised by international agencies.

It is impossible to understand why world media outlets are keeping to mainstream coverage. To say nothing about what is going on in Mosul is simply a crime, as evidenced by reports occasionally filtering through that show the real picture of what is happening in the city.



The humanitarian situation in Yemen

We have taken note of a statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, timed to the second anniversary of the Yemeni conflict. He cites civilian casualty statistics specifying that these are only figures obtained by his agency. As far as he knows, 4,773 have been killed and 8,272 injured in these two years, while the actual casualties are much greater. The United Nations does not deny these figures, I stress again. More than that, 21 million Yemenis, or 82 per cent of the population, are in urgent need of humanitarian relief. A nationwide catastrophe has broken out.

Last month alone brought 106 civilian deaths, mainly in air raids and naval artillery shelling. An incident is mentioned in which 32 Somali refugees and a Yemeni died, ten Somalis were reported missing, and 29 Somalis, including six children, were injured, some of them badly. According to eyewitness accounts, their ship was attacked by the Coalition’s Apache helicopter. The UN High Commissioner mentions a number of other instances of helicopters shelling fishing vessels, and the Khokha marketplace tragedy, where 18 civilians died in an airstrike.

Instances are also reported of indiscriminate strikes by people’s committees associated with the Houthis and former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. They are also reported to impede humanitarian deliveries to Taiz.

A similar statement was made by Stephen O’Brien, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, who said that even appalling casualties do not entirely reflect the scope of the Yemeni humanitarian disaster, with the economy in ruins and seven million people starving.

This is not an industrial accident or a natural calamity that has stricken Yemen but a human-caused disaster. I took notice of a statement by United States Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, who said that the United States is “the moral conscience of the world”. If you are really the moral conscience, why do you turn a blind eye to what is happening to people in Yemen? Or is it a new hybrid kind of conscience, which does not send signals to the brain or other vital organs? It is impossible not to see the disaster. I realise that the US media are preoccupied with other problems. The words “Yemen”, “Mosul” and “Syria” do not occur in their front-page news. They are focusing on Russia. We will talk about it later. But can “moral conscience” be mute to such an extent? Surely, it cannot have atrophied completely. This means there is no such conscience at all.

Two years of violence, bloodshed, despair, famine and destruction are more than enough for all sides to see the necessity of an urgent search for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. All this bears out our assessments of the Yemeni situation and the correctness of repeated appeals to an urgent peaceful settlement.

The international community’s duty is to work towards an immediate cessation to all violence, whatever motivations might be found for it. We are firmly convinced that there is no military solution to the Yemeni conflict. The sides should return to the negotiating table with assistance from UN Special Envoy for Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed and work for a lasting ceasefire and the political settlement of the conflict.



More about Russia’s alleged meddling in the US presidential election

We have taken note of yet another attempt to play the Russian card in the internal political debates in the United States. Personally, I wouldn’t describe this as an attempt but the continuation of a campaign and a new round of the hellish propaganda campaign launched under the previous US administration. The point at issue this time is a fresh bout of hysterics over routine diplomatic contacts of the Russian Embassy’s leaders and staff in Washington.

Some US and other media are again writing about Russia’s alleged meddling in the US presidential election last year. It looks as if you are preparing for a new round of an internal election campaign. I think you should see that it’s time to do some work in-between the election campaigns. As it is, it looks as if the US administration will approach the next election cycle with only one result – artistic demagoguery about Russia meddling in the previous election. I would describe this behaviour by some US journalists and media outlets as a threat to our diplomats. If our diplomats refuse to give interviews on highly specific matters – we understand that requests for such interviews are made to keep the issue of Russia’s alleged meddling in the US elections afloat – fresh batches of “compromising information” will be planted in the media. We see this as dirt throwing and misinformation. We are told about the fake news that appeared in January, which was spearheaded against President-elect Donald Trump and contained allegations about Russia. It was published by BuzzFeed and hinted that Russia should be more actively involved in this information war or they would do everything without us. Actually, this is information blackmail.

I can cite one more example. To avoid generalising, I will provide hard facts. One of the items included allegations concerning our colleague, Russian diplomat Mikhail Kalugin, even though we published a refutation when Mr Kalugin’s name was first mentioned in the items about the alleged Russian spies and agents in Washington. We said that this is disinformation that has nothing in common with reality. However, these allegations continue.

I want to once again make it quite clear that neither Mikhail Kalugin nor any other member of the Russian diplomatic and other agencies in the United States was connected in any way with the US presidential election. We believe it’s time to stop playing these dirty information games.

I would like to say more about Mr Kalugin. We have taken note of a recent item published by a BBC correspondent in Washington. It is a long item that has no respect for personal data. It includes claims that have no relation to reality and is supplied with many photographs. It is an absurd story that violates BBC principles. As I have said, the item has been published, and I want to comment on it.

This item mentioned Russian diplomat Mikhail Kalugin, who headed the Russian Embassy’s economics division until last August. According to this item, Mr Kalugin is a spy and this confirms Mr Steele’s dossier about the Russian connection in last year’s election campaign in the United States.

I want to say that we have published the necessary refutations. However, more than two months later, the allegation is being repeated in an item that provides photographs, personal data and the photos of the Russian Embassy in order to give more weight to the allegation.

I would like to repeat what I already said at a briefing [in January] that Mikhail Kalugin is absolutely not guilty of the allegations laid against him and the Russian Embassy. He is a Russian diplomat who has worked in the United States for six years. His mission in the United States was to facilitate the Russian and American companies’ business in Russia and the United States. He helped promote bilateral economic relations and, contrary to what the media claimed, he left the United States when his contract ended to assume new responsibilities at the Foreign Ministry. He goes to his office [in Moscow] every day. Contrary to what the BBC claims, when he worked in the United States he regularly met with representatives of the US Department of State, the National Security Council and various US economic departments, including the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Energy. I am saying this now to lay to rest the fake news published by BBC and its Washington correspondent. This is all lies, nothing but lies, fake news and disinformation.

Mikhail Kalugin was also engaged in the public sphere giving lectures and interviews on the prospects of our bilateral relations. You can check this information and conduct your own investigations. By the way, the BBC item claims that State Department staff who dealt with Russia did not come across Kalugin. This is nonsense. However, I really do wonder if the State Department knows anything. Based on my contacts with our American colleagues over the past few years, I can tell you that they only admitted six months after the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis that they had a clearer view on what was happening there than they did at the beginning. For a long time, there was nobody in the State Department with whom we could discuss matters. In the past six months, it was unclear whom we could phone there in case of problems. It is also unclear whom the BBC correspondent talked with. He mentioned reliable sources. We know only too well just how reliable these sources are.

I have told you about the areas where Mikhail Kalugin worked and his contacts. As for the claim that he never went to the State Department or communicated with State Department staff, I can tell the BBC reporter Paul Wood that he simply doesn’t know that in 2014 the US State Department curtailed communications with Russian diplomats, which had been maintained in full in many areas before that. Russian diplomats could only get an appointment with the State Department in the case of an emergency. All other humanitarian and economic contacts were curtailed. The Russian Foreign Ministry holds regular consultations on information issues with the foreign policy departments of all countries, both those with which we maintain trust-based relations and those with which we are poles apart on information matters. We hold consultations, exchange opinions and discuss issues of concern for us and them. I can tell Mr Wood how we pressed the US State Department to talk with us on information matters. Trying to get an appointment to talk with State Department staff was no easy feat. You are writing nonsense, of course, but at least try not to put your head on the block with such items as this one.

So, the US State Department curtailed any contact with us in 2014 as prompted by the Obama administration. The Russia-US Bilateral Presidential Commission was suspended by our American partners. The same happened to other bilateral formats. When coming to any conclusions on a cosmic scale, remember what writer Mikhail Bulgakov said about conclusions that can turn out to be silly on a cosmic scale.

Although all official forms and methods of interaction were curtailed at the initiative of the Obama administration, our diplomats searched for and found ways to keep our bilateral relations afloat. I have said above with which officials and agencies our diplomats cooperated. It is an absolutely normal practice.

And lastly, I would like to present this “tough, arrogant KGB man”, as the BBC reporter described him. Can you imagine this? A “tough, arrogant KGB man” in 2017? Guys, the KGB was closed down long ago. What are you talking about? Mikhail Kalugin goes to his office every day, but today he changed his routine to come to the Foreign Ministry Press Centre. Here he is, this “tough, arrogant KGB man”. He will be available to make comments, and he will tell you about his work. This is a paradox, an information paradox. We have to comment on these rumblings, which are published again and again. There are such problems as Yemen, ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, drug trafficking, organised crime, migration, illegal migration and Afghanistan. However, the intellectual power of Washington, including the media and analysts, are busy searching for the Russian connection in all their problems and failures. There will come a time when these cases will be cited in textbooks as drivel, and this horrible period in our history will be sharply criticised in the United States itself. People will come to their senses and they will see that they wasted their time on fighting imaginary dragons. Regrettably, it will only happen later, not now.





Answers to media questions:



Question:

After yesterday’s meeting of the State Council in Turkey the President and Prime Minister of that country announced the end of the Euphrates Shield operation in the neighbouring state. How does Russia see it and does it have anything to do with the decision (the reference is to bilateral discussions on this matter between Moscow and Ankara)?

About 20 days ago Turkey told Russia that terrorists cannot be used to fight terrorists. Has Russia determined its attitude to the terrorist groups in the region?



Maria Zakharova:

It is interesting to hear the Turkish side asking whether terrorists could be used to fight terrorists. This is dialectics. The Russian Federation has an absolutely clear position that terrorists cannot be used or divided into good and bad, moderate or active in order to justify supporting them. This position has repeatedly been articulated by the Russian leadership, reaffirmed in all our basic documents as well as during the course of work on international legal acts. We have a clear-cut position. Certainly, there is the process of a peaceful settlement, which implies “conversion” or an invitation to people who preach the use of force, including terrorist methods, to renounce their ideology and sit down at the negotiating table to put in place the process for a peaceful settlement. These are different things.

On the first question, let me reiterate that flirting with terrorists, still less supporting them in order to solve one’s own tasks or get involved through some terrorist groups in some internal political or international conflicts is simply inadmissible. If we are talking about peaceful political processes, which promise a chance that the people who preach the principles of terrorism to further their ends renounce these principles, then on the basis of international law and proceeding from the norms, laws and international documents, that would be another matter. The Syrian crisis is vivid proof that such a concept may work. Only a year ago irreconcilable opposing sides were preaching not just extremism, but terrorism, pure and simple, and now they are trying in one way or another to work out a common platform and an approach to trigger a political process and set the situation in Syria on a peaceful track. This is one example, and there are more examples in the world.

As for your question about the end of the military operation, it is up to the military experts to answer it. The Russian Ministry of Defence is in a better position to comment on this aspect. The Foreign Ministry gives political assessments.

We are in contact with Turkey on the Syrian settlement in the framework of bilateral contacts and the responsibility assumed by Moscow, Teheran and Ankara. Dialogue and active work on the issue continue with the Turkish colleagues. We think it is constructive, though not devoid of difficulties.



Question:

It looks as if the “hand of Moscow” has reached Poland. Ukraine accuses Russia of being complicit in the blockade between Ukraine and Poland.



Maria Zakharova:

I think it would be right and honest if Ukraine, which constantly accuses Russia of throwing its weight about and of instigating many internal political decisions and actions on Ukrainian territory, published a list of persons who, in its opinion, are “Kremlin agents.” Let it make an inventory and analyse those people. Instead they are engaged in vetting (I don’t know if they have dropped this practice). Perhaps they need a second round of vetting at the present stage. Let them say what opposition forces, organisations, people in Kiev’s City Hall or the Poroshenko Administration are working for Moscow, in their opinion. Let them point the finger at Ukrainian citizens whom they suspect of working under orders from Moscow. Making unsubstantiated accusations is really not the way.

A couple of years ago I talked with a colleague from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry and asked her if they were not aware that what their nationalist radicals were doing in Kiev and in the regions was doing harm to Ukraine. She replied that they had strong suspicions that they were working for Moscow. In other words, we come out against Ukrainian radicals and argue that this is destructive for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, and they are accusing us of this very thing. Let them step back, present proof and say which forces are suspect at the Rada, for example. Is Oleg Liashko a Russian agent too? The leaders of some parties, people who wear nationalistic armbands and promote the theories that there is no shared history with Russia – I ask you are they Russian agents too?

One has to start with banal things, with determining the foundations, with taking a long hard look at the ideology inside Ukraine. It is not right to say each time that Russia is to blame for all the bad things that happen on Ukrainian territory. Most importantly, there are laws. The blockade declared by Ukrainian citizens themselves falls under certain internal Ukrainian laws and can be regulated through legislation. There are law-enforcement agencies, and laws that can be complied with and these people can be punished. It is odd when on the one hand, radicals are encouraged and egged on using the anti-Russian theme, and the people in Donetsk and Lugansk are declared enemies and then, after the radical elements start boiling over and pass on from words to actions, to blockade, to look on and say that this is “the hand of Moscow.” I believe that Kiev has to do its internal ideological work. I repeat, perhaps it would mark the second round of vetting. I find the word abhorrent, but since they are actively engaged in witchhunt, it may help to determine who among them is on which side of the barricades.

Speaking seriously, everything we warned people about two years ago is coming true. We did not say it somewhere on the quiet or during private conversations, we stated clearly that this strategy and putting the stake on radicals and nationalists would lead to a dead end. Nationalism is a beast that constantly demands sacrificial offerings, it needs somebody’s blood to feed on. When the topic of southeastern Ukraine is milked dry and is no longer sufficient while problems in the country multiply and Donetsk and Lugansk are no longer enough to explain them away, a new target, a new victim will be needed. They will then go after other ethnic groups, and social classes. That is how it all happens.

Ukraine needs to get its act together, by staging “another round of vetting,” as I noted sarcastically, or in earnest. Serious work is a hard slog, but it is the only way to deal with mistakes made over many years. Renunciation of nationalism and the use of radical forces, the search for a national consensus, discarding the methods of tearing society apart, as I have said, including on grounds of language, and an attempt to analyse the interests of Ukraine to understand what the Ukrainian people is, what its true and intrinsic interests are, who makes it up and how to ensure the rights of all the categories of the population. This is a colossal lot of work. Torches and nationalist slogans would not be enough. One would have to work seriously, perhaps bringing in international experts from the organisations I have mentioned which work out international provisions on protecting human rights, and the rights of ethnic minorities. This is serious and profound work. A lot of time has been lost, but things may keep getting worse.

I repeat, it is the mechanism launched in Ukraine several years ago, and not “the hand of Moscow” that got Ukraine to where it is today. I repeat, things may get even worse. No one is setting barriers in the way of this absolute ideological collapse, on the contrary, the process is gaining momentum. Afterwards, people will ask who is to blame and look for culprits not in Donbass, Donetsk or Lugansk, but in Kiev, in big cities, in next-door flats and houses. You cannot forever keep people on a diet of stories about a mythical enemy, mythical tanks allegedly flown by air to Ukraine, about “Kremlin agents” etc. Some day that tale will come to an end, and it will be indeed a tragic end.



Question:

Italian newspaper La Stampa carries a contribution on the US administration warning Rome about the major political party Five Star Movement’s direct contacts with Russia, which tries to influence Italy and other European countries at future elections as it implements its interference strategy. Can you comment on this information? Is it a hoax?



Maria Zakharova:

I don’t quite see what “a political party has contacts with Russia” may mean. What hard facts are there behind this statement? You have come to the Foreign Ministry Press Centre, and it is possible to say that Italian journalists have contacts with Russian government agencies. Anything can be misinterpreted as you wish.. It is also possible to say merely that Italian journalists visit the Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s news briefing and ask her questions.

You know our strategy of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs, and our approach to this matter. We maintain contacts with national capitals and official governments, work on NGO lines within Russian legal limits and with due respect for the relevant laws of other countries. We have official contacts with many opposition and pro-government parties and movements in keeping with diplomatic traditions.

That was the case before the US presidential election, when Hillary Clinton’s people came to Russia but no one took any interest in it afterwards. They came repeatedly to talk to officials and had very informal meetings with particular people to discuss diverse matters. However, the US press takes no interest in this- for some reason. However, Russian Embassy phone calls in Washington (I needn’t say how many people in the US relished these conversations) give reason to accuse the election winner of some kind of ties with Moscow.

I think this is just a mere part of an information campaign. If you have hard facts I can confirm or deny, please cite them. I have no idea how to comment on vague allegations of Italian parties’ ties with Moscow.



Question:

During the congressional hearing on Wednesday, American politicians and generals agreed that the counterterrorism operation must continue despite the civilian casualties in Mosul. Why didn’t they say this during the operation in Aleppo?



Maria Zakharova:

Can’t you guess, or do I have to tell you? Propaganda is a tool used by all countries, though to a different degree by some. It amounts to promoting one’s own interests in the sphere of information. All states are involved in information work and the promotion of their policies. This is normal. However, it’s bad when the media take up the propaganda campaign. Also, the lengths to which our Western colleagues go are unacceptable. They distort facts completely, which is actually very much like disinformation.

As for Aleppo, their goal was to publish material that would convince the public that Russia’s role in settling the Syrian conflict was not constructive or positive but, on the contrary, extremely destructive, which would explain our partners’ political and military failure in Syria. This issue was also used for election purposes, because Hillary Clinton’s team was concerned with foreign policy when she was US Secretary of State. It was therefore clear that her election campaign would be focused on US foreign policy achievements and victories. This is why Russia’s involvement in Syria and its allegedly unconstructive role there was given as much attention as possible.

As I have said, facts about the situation in Mosul are being hushed up to minimize the information damage to the United States. The Mosul operation did not begin yesterday or a month ago; it was launched by the Obama administration almost six months ago. We described it as part of the election campaign. They needed a short victorious war, but the war is neither short nor victorious. The war would have been completely acceptable – after all, it is a war on terror – had it not been timed for the election campaign. It should have been a carefully planned operation with provisions for keeping the civilian casualties low, with humanitarian corridors and humanitarian aid, as well as assistance for those who wanted to leave the city. All these considerations were sacrificed to the time factor though and the election campaign. As a result, we have what we have, that is, what Iraq and the Iraqis have.



Question:

The United States has refused to attend the Moscow conference on Afghanistan in April. Will Washington’s absence affect the outcome of the conference?



Maria Zakharova:

I have already commented on this too. We sent an invitation to our American colleagues at their request, because they had expressed an interest in this. A while later, they said they would not attend the conference. So the conference will go ahead without US representatives. We wanted as many countries as possible to attend it not because we are after numbers, but because different countries could make different contributions to the common search for a solution to this complicated issue.

I don’t think I need to tell you about the US role in Afghanistan. As an Afghan journalist, you know what the Americans were doing all these years in Afghanistan. I would like to remind you that apart from their interest and political involvement, here is also the factor of the UN Security Council mandate for a US-led counterterrorist operation. I would like to remind you that in the decade since this operation was launched the United States and the US-led coalition in Afghanistan never reported to the UN Security Council about their achievements there. The UN Security Council issued the mandate and set the goals, but it has never learned if these goals were attained and what strategy the United States pursued in that region. We could only judge about this from the statements made at a national level. There was no documentary proof in the form of a report.

Our American partners expressed a desire to attend the conference, we duly sent the invitation to them, but they have refused to come. I have the impression that, unfortunately, this decision was taken largely because at present Washington does not have a global foreign policy strategy yet. We are waiting for them to formulate this strategy, so that we will be able to interact more actively. We are open to any form of US involvement in the formats where our American partners are traditionally present, including on Syria and Afghanistan.



Question:

Recently, Russia has faced accusations that Russian hackers influenced the election results in the United States. But you somehow missed the recent elections in Bulgaria. Is it because of fraternal friendship?



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian hackers, it seems, had a day off on that day.

This topic has indeed become ridiculous. There is no proof whatsoever. These are the same songs sung over and over and the fantasies of mass media. This topic has become a convenient way to excuse someone’s own defeats and failures. Curiously, when the results suit the interests of the mainstream, the Russian hackers did not intervene, and when the results came as a surprise for the mainstream, they were blamed on the “Russian hackers.” It’s very strange logic indeed.



Question:

Yesterday, Great Britain launched the official procedure of its withdrawal from the EU. How does the Russian Foreign Ministry see this event? In your opinion, can Russia benefit from Brexit? Foreign Policy magazine, for example, wrote that Brexit is Russia’s victory. Do you agree?



Maria Zakharova:

We consider Brexit to be an internal matter for Great Britain and see it in terms of relations between London and Brussels. Naturally, we analyse the potential consequences of this event for Russia, in the economy, for example, or perhaps also in other spheres, including finance. As for political assessments, they are made by our analysts, journalists and political scientists, who study global processes and movements, the future of Europe, a certain strategy and development prospects for countries.

We do not have any special attitude to Brexit because this is an internal affair for Great Britain. It’s an area of responsibility for Britons themselves and their relations with the EU. Of course, we have been watching this process since we live on the same continent and we have relations both with London and Brussels.



Question:

The US Congress has proposed putting North Korea on the list of terrorism sponsoring countries. Do you think such sanctions will promote the Korean Peninsula settlement?



Maria Zakharova:

You know our position regarding unilateral sanctions – we consider them absolutely non-constructive. In the context of Korean Peninsula, as well as in other situations, we have always emphasised that only sanctions imposed by UN Security Council resolutions can be effective. We regard a collective approach to crisis settlement, rather than its exacerbation, as the sole opportunity for using sanction instruments.

We proceed from the assumption that the current situation on Korean Peninsula is just the case that demands collective efforts to settle the crisis rather than bring it to a head. It is questionable whether the US rhetoric and moves you mention will improve the situation. We suspect the result will be quite the contrary.



Question:

US intelligence data show that North Korea is about to carry out new nuclear tests. Russia has said repeatedly that it resolutely objects to continuous nuclear tests and missile launches. Is Russia doing anything to prevent possible nuclear tests? Is it working to influence North Korea or other nations in the region? Does Russia intend to introduce sanctions against North Korea if it goes through with the test?



Maria Zakharova:

As for sanctions, I have said that they are introduced by the UN Security Council, not Russia. As far as work is concerned, we cooperate with our interested colleagues at the relevant agencies, and have general discussions of the Korean Peninsula situation in the context of current international efforts. We think that the available efforts and mechanisms can be very effective when implemented. On the contrary, when one engages in political creativity which, instead of following the line of established international institutions and formats, pursues particular domestic political goals, such conduct does not help to address the problem. We have said repeatedly that we deem it necessary to work in the available formats. We have everything for it, and need only goodwill. We have goodwill, and we are ready to cooperate.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2712458
 
Old April 1st, 2017 #4
roman1 TITAN
Junior Member
 
roman1 TITAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Russia
Posts: 98
Default

Sergey Lavrov is mountain jew from Armenia and Georgia. Why you are flood his texts?

 
Old April 2nd, 2017 #5
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,170
Default Zakharova tells the US State Department, BBC, where to go...

Quote:
Published Apr. 2, 2017

Maria Zakharova, Russia's Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, has come out in sharp criticism over a BBC article, published by a certain Paul Wood on 30 March, 2017. In the article titled "Trump Russia dossier key claim verified"--Wood asserts that a key Russian diplomat, Mikhail Kalugin, has been verified to have been a Russian spy, and not a simple diplomat.
Her responses at 0:28 and 6:25 are great.

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

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old April 4th, 2017 #6
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 results of the ministerial meeting of the North-Atlantic Council



31 March 2017 - 20:56



On March 31, a North-Atlantic Council meeting at the level of foreign ministers took place in Brussels. It was convened ahead of time to fit in with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s tight schedule. The US Secretary of State’s presence was needed for a joint confirmation of the strength of the transatlantic bond, which some members started to doubt after the new US administration came to power.

It seems that it is no easy task to maintain unity in the ranks of a multilateral structure, especially one consisting of very different states, like NATO. It is important to have a strong team-building theme. It did not take NATO ministers long to find just such a theme. According to their own comments, they always have the same thing on their minds: the “Russian threat” myth, the “Russian aggression” slander and endless entreaties to collectively resist this aggression.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s respective statements are bewildering. We state with regret that these declarations were made a day after the Russia-NATO Council meeting at the level of permanent representatives, which, according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, featured “a thoughtful discussion of a wide range of issues in an open and positive atmosphere.” Apparently, this statement had nothing to do with the voodoo dance that followed in the private NATO circle.

In this connection it is important to bear in mind the Russia-NATO Council meeting’s agenda: each side reported on its defence plans, NATO representatives pursued the issue of “increasing the predictability of military activities” and regional topics were discussed.

This begs the question: how could the relationship between Russia and NATO be constructive when the alliance keeps behaving in line with the old models and when the United States and their allies are fixated on the idea of building up their military presence on our borders justifying it with the need to “contain Russia”? In fact, they impose the confrontational model of relations on us, relations based on military confrontation. At the same time, we cannot see any signs of the alliance’s intention to restore practical cooperation in areas of common interest, or to move in the direction of tackling real challenges to security, including regional terrorist threats.

Once again NATO has placed its ideological dogmas above real efforts to address global problems. There can be only one conclusion: only a radical transformation in the nature of the alliance that is hopelessly stuck in the past can pave the way to positive change in European security.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2714612
 
Old April 4th, 2017 #7
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by Foreign Minister Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the possible establishment of the Kosovo Armed Forces



3 April 2017 - 15:40



We have taken note of US Ambassador in Pristina Greg Delawie’s statement regarding US support for the initiative of creating a regular army of the self-proclaimed Republic of Kosovo if the move is formalised through amendments to the so-called Kosovo Constitution.

The idea of transforming the Kosovo Security Force to the Kosovo Armed Forces has been germinating within the Pristina authorities for several years. Several attempts have been made to provide a pseudo-legal basis for this initiative.

We believe that the issue should be considered from a different angle. It is essential to bear in mind that the planned transformation would violate international law by running counter to UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which only stipulates an international security presence in the province based on the UN Security Council mandate, or more precisely, the Kosovo Force (KFOR). To date, the Kosovo Force predominantly consists of military units from the NATO member states.

Furthermore, this move would be highly irresponsible from the viewpoint of security in the region and the rest of Europe. The appearance of a new military component – the Kosovo Armed Forces – in the Balkans would also contradict the arms limitation agreement signed in Florence (Article IV of Annex 1B of the Dayton Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, approved by UN Security Council Resolution 1031), which sets out measures for sub-regional arms control under the OSCE auspices. The establishment of a regular Kosovo army would amount to the appearance, in a state signatory of the Florence agreement, of an armed force that would not be accountable to the authorities of the said signatory state.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2715334
 
Old April 7th, 2017 #8
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s response to a media question on Georgette Gagnon’s appointment to a senior post in OHCHR



5 April 2017 - 19:16



Question:

We have learned that Canada’s Georgette Gagnon, who has been declared persona non-grata by the Syrian authorities, was appointed to one of the highest posts in the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. What is your response?



Maria Zkharova:

Indeed, High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein is doing a staff shakeup and occasionally makes decisions that clash with the United Nations personnel standards stipulated by the UN Charter – suffice it to mention the appointment of the notorious Georgette Gagnon as Director of the Field Operations and Technical Cooperation Division.

Ms Gagnon is known for her stint as Director for Human Rights of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria, which ended a mere three months into the job in a huge scandal. Actions unbecoming of a UN official led her to flee the country while the Syrian authorities declared her non grata.

Now, Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein has appointed this person, who is far outside moral and professional ethical norms, to a leading post in his office. We believe it is unprecedented and absolutely unacceptable. We hope that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres will respond accordingly and that this clear mistake will be reconsidered.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2716990
 
Old April 7th, 2017 #9
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 5, 2017



5 April 2017 - 19:58





Terrorist attack in St Petersburg on April 3

The Foreign Ministry again expresses its deep condolences to the families of those killed in the April 3 terrorist attack in St Petersburg. We wish a speedy recovery to all those injured.

We are grateful to the leaders and citizens of foreign countries and the heads of international organisations who did not remain indifferent to our tragedy.

The barbarous and ugly crime in the St Petersburg metro has confirmed once again that terrorism is a deadly global threat and that it requires the utmost cohesion of the international community, immediate and, without a doubt, effective collective measures under the aegis of the UN, based on the existing foundational decisions on fighting terrorism that have come above all from the UN Security Council.

In fighting terrorism, there can be no room for so-called double standards or “hidden agendas”. It is wrong to divide terrorists into “bad” and “not so bad”. It is unacceptable to use terrorist and extremist groups for political or geopolitical purposes, for interfering in the internal affairs of other states or for destabilising “uncooperative” regimes. In the end this always leads to the escalation of the global problem of terrorism.

We are once again calling for action against terrorists in a united, powerful front and for support for the Russian initiatives on fighting terrorism at both the UN and other international organisations.

I would like to address in detail the reaction that we have received through different diplomatic channels, as well as from ordinary people. A response to our tragedy came from the US, China, EU countries, the UK, the brotherly peoples of the CIS, Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia, India, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Israel, where in the evening of April 3, the façade of the Tel Aviv mayor’s office building was lit up in the colours of the Russian flag as a sign of solidarity with Russia, among other countries. We are grateful for their expression of support to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, EU diplomacy chief Federica Mogherini, European Council President Donald Tusk, PACE President Pedro Agramunt, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz and OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier, among many others. Thank you, thank all those who brought flowers and candles to Russian embassies throughout the world. We appreciate the unanimous condemnation of the terrorist attack by UN Security Council members.

I would like separately to thank everyone for the reaction that we have seen in Ukraine. The words of Ukrainian officials and citizens did not go unnoticed. We especially thank you for that.

Of course, the traditional nightmare could not be avoided, either. Some people in the media and social networks saw a “Russian political trail” in this inhuman act and did not refrain from outright mockery of what happened. Some mainstream media outlets, in particular, Politico and The New York Times, said the terrorist attack was “payback” for Russia’s foreign policy (while it is clear in the West that “terrorists attack freedom and democracy”). The Washington Post went even further in its evaluations. An article in this publication says that Russians should not expect the same level of empathy from the international community as it showed after the attack on Westminster Bridge in London, where four people were killed even though there were far more casualties in St Petersburg. It is simply disgusting to write such things. These media outlets can probably be expected to go even further and analyse not only the nationality of the people who were killed in terrorist attacks but also their ethnic backgrounds.

Even what I have just cited is over the top. You can’t go any further. The author of the article bluntly recognises the legitimacy of such “double standards”. He states without any qualms that, as a general rule, terrorist attacks in Europe and the US arouse far more sympathy than attacks in other countries, suggesting that few if anyone will change their avatars on social networks in solidarity with the victims of suicide bomb attacks in Baghdad. This terrible subject was taken up in another article in the same publication, alleging that fighting terrorism has become a priority for Russia and its leadership but for some reason Russians continue to get killed. They even cited some mind-boggling, incomprehensible statistics since 1970. This is a fact that you can check out.

As history shows us daily, nobody is insured against this disaster. We once again urge the international community and the media, considering their role in today’s world, to fight terrorism in all of its forms and manifestations, so as not to leave the organisers of such crimes against people any hope that they will get away with it or will be justified.



Developments in Syria

The situation in Syria is noted for attempts taken by the destructive forces that want to prevent a settlement in Syria, to derail recent positive initiatives. These actions are spearheaded primarily at violating the ceasefire and vital agreements on local ceasefires, as well as at delivering a blow to the Astana process and the intra-Syrian consultations that have resumed in Geneva.

On the practical level, these attempts are orchestrated by the terrorists who do not want peace to be restored in Syria. They want confusion to prevail in the country and to spread throughout the Middle East and beyond. It was Jabhat al-Nusra that organised large-scale raids near Damascus and in North Hama in late March, in which it involved other armed groups that are still considered to be moderate opposition.

It is not just the terrorists’ actions that are unsettling (what else can you expect from terrorists?) but the position of some of our international and regional partners. Instead of firmly condemning the terrorist movement, they are trying to whitewash al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups. They appear willing to support any justification and fake news planted by the adherents of terrorism in order to bring charges against the Syrian government without bothering to check the facts.

There have been many instances when Western politicians and media outlets have expressed solidarity with ISIS and al-Nusra. We cannot understand the reason for this sympathy and the surprising amount of trust London, Paris and Brussels feel for these thugs, criminals and media opportunists, who provide alleged evidence which the West uses to present its case. It appears that the West would support anyone who is willing to throw stones at the legitimate Syrian government and spread any rumour. In addition to moral support, we also see material backing that is motivating and stimulating these actions.

On April 4, Syrian Air Force planes taking part in the operation to clear up the consequences of the recent terrorist offensive in the Hama Province delivered airstrikes at the extremists’ positions on the eastern outskirts of Khan Sheikhoun. They bombed the accumulation of military hardware and a munitions warehouse. The facility they bombed included shops where chemical munitions were produced.

The internet and politically influenced media have published reports alleging that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people. It is remarkable that initially they claimed that the chemical bombs were dropped from Russian aircraft. After that, they provided the number of casualties of the chemical attack and videos of dying and dead children, women and old people.

Responding to the media activity over the events at Khan Sheikhoun, the Russian Defence Ministry stated that the terrorists had previously used chemical bombs from that warehouse to bomb Aleppo and also delivered them to Iraq. Russian military experts reported the use of chemical weapons in Aleppo in the autumn of 2016. I want you to take note of these facts, because we not only reported the attacks but also placed them on record and forwarded the reports, together with soil samples, to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Regrettably, nothing has been done to investigate those attacks. Using exclusively fake news and fabricated reports planted in the media, the United States, France and Britain have planted – this is the right word for their action – yet another openly anti-Syrian draft resolution at the UN Security Council. This document will add fuel to the already complicated military-political situation in Syria and the rest of the region.

In addition, I would like to say that this action, this performance is clearly designed to stimulate political destabilisation in Syria. Apart from the military and political implications, this move is also designed, as we see it, to complicate and even stall the nascent intra-Syrian talks.

Russia will continue to work towards an early settlement of the serious military-political conflict in Syria. We urge all the parties concerned to assess the events objectively and in a responsible manner and not just talk but take action to promote political negotiations on a settlement in Syria and its liberation from the evil of terrorism.



UN Security Council draft resolution on Syria

I would like to dwell separately on the issue I have mentioned and outline the Russian approaches to the UN Security Council’s draft resolution planted by the UK, France, and the United States.

Let me note that the text they have submitted is absolutely unacceptable. Its flaw (and the case in point is a fundamental flaw) is that it pre-empts the investigation results and hastily allocates blame, pointing a finger at Damascus. I will explain why we do not see any particular need for adopting a resolution at this stage.

The earlier decisions are quite sufficient for a thorough investigation into this incident. But if certain members of the UN Security Council regard a new resolution as desirable, necessary and timely, this resolution should look totally different. We have a concrete suggestion on this score.

It should have been pointed out in any event that the Security Council is deeply concerned about the news of numerous deaths caused by chemical poisoning at Khan Sheikhoun and that this dictates the need for a full-scale investigation to clarify what has happened in reality and who is to blame. Any use of chemical weapons by whatever party should have been denounced as well. It would be important to urge the OPCW Fact Finding Mission to fully investigate the reported incident on location under the mandatory condition that a list of the Mission’s personnel taking part in the investigation should be submitted to the UN Security Council. It should also be of a geographically balanced nature. What I mean is that representatives of Western countries must not dominate among the people who will be directly involved in clarifying these matters. For the Western nations, the fate of Syria has been reduced exclusively to the issue of regime change. [If they dominate the proceedings], there can be no full-scale, balanced and fitting investigation or analysis.

We have already witnessed examples of such work, when some or other structures tasked with finding out the truth were from the start pre-programmed for political bias. This case is different. It is vitally important to be absolutely impartial and enable oneself and this mechanism to avoid political bias. It would also be necessary to envisage a demand that the illegal armed groups, which control the area where the incident has occurred, should provide investigators with full and safe access to both the location in question and the information they need.

As you understand, the draft has failed to include the things I have just mentioned. It is being actively lobbied under canons and rules other than those accepted by the UN Security Council and with the only aim to put everyone in a situation where it would be either approved or vetoed bypassing any analysis or joint work. Joint work is aimed at achieving concrete results, which is the bedrock of UN Security Council activities.

I would like to say that in recent years, the Russian side, the leaders of the Russian Federation and Foreign Ministry representatives at all levels have repeatedly identified and promoted this issue as one of the UN Security Council’s focal points. They emphasised the urgent imperative to hold an investigation into crimes involving the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the region as a whole. Each time we called on others to avoid politicisation so that we have clarity with regard to the motives, perpetrators and consequences of these crimes.

At this point, the main task is to conduct an objective analysis of what happened. I would like to say that the falsified reports on this issue are sourced to the notorious White Helmets and the odious London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Neither can be trusted. These sources have seriously undermined their credibility by releasing staged videos and information that was subsequently refuted by all parties. Why then do the people who assume responsibility for adopting decisions that will be binding for all countries, such as UN Security Council resolutions, rely on information coming from untrustworthy agencies? These agencies have long discredited themselves. The information they provide must not be used to take far-reaching decisions that will be binding for all countries.

We have grown used to hearing unsubstantiated allegations against Damascus and its demonisation. These actions have only one goal in sight: to remove the legitimate Syrian government from power at any cost, and, failing that, to at least rally the political support and a propaganda campaign for the proposed decision that would ultimately force Russia to accept or veto it.

Here is an example from my personal experience. When I worked at Russia’s Permanent Mission to the UN in New York, I communicated with our Western colleagues, including the press secretary and the representative of one of the topmost three Western missions. That was in 2005 and 2006, at the height of the Iraq war, when we had no proof that the reasons and pretexts for the invasion of Iraq as stated by the United States and its allies had been falsified. We took part in debates and went to the editorial boards of various newspapers and magazines, where the press secretaries of the five permanent UNSC members upheld the positions of their countries. Once I said that the US-led coalition was acting in Iraq illegally because it did not have a mandate or a UNSC resolution on an armed operation against Iraq. In reply, one of my colleagues urged me to count the number of UNSC resolutions and decisions denouncing Iraq and the number of proposals they had made for a collective decision to launch a military operation against Iraq. It came as a revelation to me that attempts also count, that they help create an information environment for justifying the subsequent use of armed force in the eyes of the public and the international community. It may be illegal from the legal viewpoint, but the atmosphere for such actions was created deliberately and consistently.

I see the same happening with regard to Syria. It is absolutely clear to everyone involved that illegal decisions based on falsified information will be not accepted. So why are they planting it at the last possible minute? Why is this information not discussed properly? Why has this obviously no-win proposal been made? All of this is being done to create the necessary information and propaganda environment. Nobody knew in the early 2000s that Colin Powell holding up a vial that allegedly contained anthrax was a huge fake. The world came to discover this much later. As I have said, the propaganda campaign included efforts to encourage the UNSC to adopt a resolution condemning Iraq and also a resolution approving the use of armed force against it. This is all I wanted to say to explain what is happening around Syria.

We would also like to draw your attention to the controversial nature of reports about the alleged use of chemical weapons. The White Helmets, which everyone is citing, keep changing their reports. First they say that the bombs were dropped from a helicopter and then change it to a fixed-wing plane. They cannot decide which chemical agent it was – chlorine gas or sarin, and are undecided about the number of casualties. The video and photo materials posted on the social media show that the White Helmets helping the victims are not using proper protective equipment and are otherwise acting unprofessionally. Also, their appearance is much too calm for such an emergency. Taken together, this means that these video materials have been staged.

We have no doubt of the incendiary purposes of this campaign. I would like to remind you once again that it was not a representative of a non-governmental organisation or movement that brought a vial with a white substance and put on a performance at the UN Security Council, but the US Secretary of State. It was much more powerful than the staged video of the White Helmets, because the vial was brought to the UNSC by a senior official of a global power. That performance created a pretext for intervening in Iraq. Later everyone, including Washington, admitted that it was a mistake, that there was no reliable proof, that the proof they had was falsified, and that some high-ranking US officials knew this but did not expose the falsification because it was not in their interests at the time.

Shall we allow something of the kind to be now perpetrated against another country? The contradictions I’ve mentioned have been reflected in the draft resolution. For example, it mentions, I quote, the “horrors” related to the incident, which is presented as an established fact. Simultaneously, the same draft insists on finding out whether or not this incident took place at all. See in what haste they were compiling the resolution? Its authors understood that it stood no chance of being approved, but they needed an effect, a concrete result, a bit of propaganda. In other words, the draft was being prepared with much haste and is remarkable for its sloppiness. We have no doubt as to the tasks its authors faced. It’s simply outrageous to suggest that the Security Council approve this text. The Western public opinion should know how diplomats representing their countries’ interests in the UN Security Council do their job. Will the Western public let them step on the same rake again and use a fake to promote serious international legal documents?

Let me say a few words about the putative incident that took place in that area which has been controlled by the terrorists from Jabhat al-Nusra since 2014. From 11:30 to 12:30 am local time on April 4, the Syrian aviation attacked a major ammunition storage facility and a fleet of military equipment in the eastern suburb of Khan Sheikhoun. The facility included shops that manufactured land mines with chemical agents intended for use in Iraq, as well as in Aleppo. Their use in the same province was recorded by Russian military experts late last year, as I said. The signs of poisoning at Khan Sheikhoun in the video and the social media are exactly the same as in Aleppo last autumn. At that time, all the facts related to the use of chemical weapons, along with soil samples taken in that city, were put on record and submitted to the OPCW. The Organisation is still analysing them.

Whatever the finale of yet another chemical weapons saga, it is already clear that chemical terrorism is getting into high gear and that it should be resisted in the most resolute manner. Regrettably, all our attempts over the last three years to provoke a reaction from the Security Council to crimes perpetrated by terrorists, who increasingly often use chemical weapons, have met with no success because of the stance adopted by our Western partners. Characteristically, they were absolutely indifferent to ISIS using toxic agents in Mosul the other day. But now that they saw an opportunity to bring yet another charge against Damascus, the very same countries plunged into action with a kind of unreal deftness and in violation of all rules of decency and evading consultations within the UN Security Council rushed a vote on a resolution accusing the Syrian government.

Let me stress again that there were no consultations before this draft was planted in the UN Security Council. We believe that a full-scale and effective investigation should be held. It is certainly high time we put an end to remote investigative actions based on information derived from the internet or requested from neighbouring countries clearly biased against the legitimate Syrian authorities. To find out the truth, OPCW and Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) experts should, in keeping with their mandates, reach the location in question and use the entire spectrum of methods, including sampling, forensic tests and more. The importance of such a strictly scientific approach was stressed in JIM reports No. 4 and No. 5 (p. 49 and p. 11, respectively).

I understand that our information will not reach Western audiences, except the diplomats; it will be blocked. Your representatives are bringing a falsified document based entirely on fake news to the UN Security Council. It’s Colin Powell and his test tube all over again! Later you’ll feel ashamed for your authorities’ actions in the UN Security Council. I am addressing the Western audiences: Stop your representatives!



Developments in Mosul

The operation to liberate Mosul was launched more than five months ago, but its conclusion is nowhere in sight. The ISIS terrorists have mounted fierce resistance on the right bank in western Mosul, using civilians as live shields.

The Iraqi military, the militia coalition and Kurdish units are fighting gruelling battles at Matahin and Yarmouk. We welcome their efforts to liberate Iraq from ISIS. According to the militia coalition’s spokesman, Ahmed al-Asadi, the terrorists maintain control over 30 percent of the city. There are about 1,000 extremists on the right bank and up to 3,000 taking into account the units in the suburbs of Tal Afar and Mahlabiya.

We believe that international attention must be focused on the growing humanitarian catastrophe in Mosul. According to available data, there are some 400,000 people in Mosul who cannot leave the zone of hostilities. They are running out of food and medicines, and hunger and epidemics are a distinct possibility if the storming of Mosul takes much longer. Assistance must be also provided to the hundreds of thousands who have fled from the hostilities in Mosul and many more who are leaving the city.



Israel’s settlement policy in the occupied Palestinian territories

On March 30, the Israeli government decided to build the first new Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank in two decades. The 2,000 units to be built there will house the Israelis who have been ordered out of their houses in the Amona outpost in the West Bank by decision of the Israeli Supreme Court. The Israeli authorities have confiscated a 90-hectare area for the new settlement and declared it state property.

We reaffirm the principled position of Russia and the international community on the illegality of Israel’s settlement policy in the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem. We believe that this new decision will have a negative impact on the efforts to create conditions for the resumption of Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, which should settle the issues of status and borders.

At the same time, we have taken note of reports about Israel’s willingness to curtail its settlement construction plans. We hope that the declaration of this intention will be followed by practical actions on the ground.



Kiev’s attempts to shift the blame for Donbass blockade on its foreign sponsors

The Ukrainian media have circulated alleged approval statements from Ukraine’s foreign sponsors in response to the Donbass transport and trade blockade the Ukrainian leadership introduced in March. In their reports, the Ukrainian media quoted the Ukrainian president’s press service communique that followed his meeting with the G7 and EU ambassadors in Kiev and also his trip to Malta to attend the European People’s Party congress.

The reality, however, transpired to be different, as usual. This is yet another case of wishful thinking on the part of the authorities in Kiev. As far as we know, the blockade that Kiev introduced in violation of the Minsk agreements and thereby aggravated the local population’s predicament, received no support. Conversely, Kiev’s foreign partners clearly realise how detrimental it can be for the conflict settlement inside the country and for Ukraine itself. Ukraine failed to secure the support of the G7 nations not because they are siding with Russia, as Kiev claims, but because they believe this blockade will have a negative impact on Ukraine itself. It has nothing to do with Russia. Their position was formulated in the context of the internal Ukrainian processes.

The circulated communique is nothing but another propaganda fake. We believe it demonstrates Kiev’s aspiration to share the responsibility for the events in the country with their Western sponsors, make them de-facto accomplices in the course for a military solution to the Donbass problem. We do hope that the G7 and EU nations take a common sense approach to the situation in Ukraine. We know this from our conversations with these countries’ representatives who have been rather perplexed, to put it mildly, by the way Ukrainian President Poroshenko’s administration presented the information. We hope they will find a way to persuade the Ukrainian leadership to give up confrontation and get down to meeting their international commitments set out in the Minsk agreements on all counts and in the stipulated order.



Protest rallies in Serbia

We have taken note of the protest rallies that have been held in some cities in Serbia attempting to cast doubt on the outcome of the April 2 presidential election. Meanwhile numerous observers, including international ones, as well as representatives of international organisations, have said that they reported no serious violations of the voting procedure. They say that the election was conducted in keeping with the accepted standards and its results provide an objective picture of the will of Serbian voters.

We believe that all necessary conditions are available in democratic and friendly Serbia for the implementation of civil rights, including freedom of expression and assembly. It is vital that all arising problems are settled exclusively within the framework of the law. We hope that all political forces in Serbia will act responsibly and prevent the destabilisation of their country.



Lithuanian intelligence agencies’ analysis of Russia

A new, recently published “masterpiece” from Lithuanian intelligence services has come to our attention. Lithuanian intelligence services’ analysis reports always cause waves on the internet. This latest one is almost entirely devoted to Russia, which is presented as the main threat to Lithuania’s security. This is a highly biased line that rests on a collection of distorted facts and biased assessments. This report’s aim is clearly to present Russia as the enemy of the Lithuanian people. Russia has nothing better to do these days than sit here thinking about how best to make trouble for Lithuania. These insinuations fit in completely with the general context of Vilnius’ anti-Russian policies and hostile rhetoric, which have already become something of a national theme. The Russian Embassy in Lithuania is one of the main targets.

We consider this report and its content provocative in nature, giving us every reason to conclude that Lithuania is steadily turning into a country set on making Russophobia its national theme.

We firmly condemn this practice of open pressure and blackmail by the Lithuanian intelligence services, which obstruct the normal work of Russia’s foreign missions in Lithuania, the main professional task of which, as you know, is to promote dialogue and business contacts in the country in which they work.

I want to remind those who initiate such campaigns that no one has abolished the principle of reciprocity in relations between countries.



The international conference, The Probability of Rapprochement in Russian-US relations and the Political and Geopolitical Consequences for Europe and the Arab World

An international conference, The Probability of Rapprochement in Russian-US relations and the Political and Geopolitical Consequences for Europe and the Arab World, took place in Paris on March 25. The event was jointly organised by the French International Centre for Geopolitical and Analysis Forecasting and the European Institute for Democracy and Cooperation (EIDC).

The speakers at the conference included Alexey Pushkov, chairman of the Federation Council commission on information policy and the media, Natalia Narochnitskaya, director of the EIDC (Russia), the founder of the Trump-France Committee, Chairman of the American-Russian Coalition to Support Trump R. Gavzhi; Republican Party candidate for Congress from Florida and founder of the group Americans Against Hate, Joe Kaufman (US); former Secretary General of the Elysee Palace Claude Gueant; prominent journalist and specialist on the Middle East R. Gerard (France); former Prime Minister of Algeria Sid Ahmed Ghozali; former foreign ministers of Egypt and Tunisia Mohamed Orabi and Kamel Morjane, and others.

The conference saw a candid and involved exchange of views, which included possible cooperation between Russia and the US on combating ISIS, and the prospects for Russian involvement in efforts to resolve the situation in Libya, a country that France did much to destroy during Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidency.

The discussion showed that the expert community is coming around to an understanding of the important and constructive role that Russia plays in Middle East affairs.

It is characteristic that despite the high level of the conference’s participants, the main French media outlets chose to ignore the event.





Answers to media questions:



Question:

Syrian Ambassador to Russia Riyad Haddad accused Turkey of supporting terrorists in taking Syrian territory in the north of the country. Turkey, for its part, following Britain, the US and France, accuses Syria of using chemical weapons. In this confrontational situation, how can Turkey remain a guarantor of the ceasefire?



Maria Zakharova:

We take the view that Turkey did not only state its support for the processes launched, but, in Astana, in particular, took on obligations. This is about more than words and more than political strategy. These are obligations that were formulated and cemented at the very highest level. We always said that, regrettably, we do have our differences with Turkey on the Syrian issue. We discuss them through our bilateral channels and share our concerns with our Turkish colleagues.



Question:

How will Russia’s relations with Montenegro develop once it joins NATO? Does Russia have any possible levers of influence it can use on the current president, Filip Vujanovic, and the prime minister, Milo Dukanovic? How effectively are we using them in the current situation? Do we have a strategy in the Balkans?



Maria Zakharova:

Yes, we do have a strategy. It is not possible to have a foreign policy without a strategy. We have the Foreign Policy Concept, the main reference document that sets out the main lines for our work. There are other documents and situational analyses too, of course.

Regarding the idea of putting pressure on anyone, whoever they may be, we have said many times before that Russia’s foreign policy is based above all on the main international legal rules and provisions. The UN Charter is our principle platform, and it expressly prohibits using any form of pressure to intervene and meddle in other countries’ domestic affairs.

We have our vision of how we think it best to go about building our bilateral relations with other countries, and with Montenegro in particular. We have always taken the view that this change of status will, above all, harm the interests of Montenegro’s own people. We have always said this. We saw the pressure a number of NATO countries, its Western members, put on Montenegro’s authorities. We said each time that a country has the right to take the decisions it sees fit, but it would not be a bad thing to ask the people of Montenegro what they think about these fundamental issues. After all, these decisions have a huge impact on the future of Montenegro and regional stability. Probably we will be talking not about stability, but about instability. Montenegro’s government has presented new arguments each time about why a referendum is not needed, and accused Russia of all manner of evils. But, I say again, developed democracies hold plebiscites, conduct public opinion surveys, organize referendums on minor issues that do not affect a country or region’s future. However, Montenegro has not held any plebiscites or referendums with any kind of legal nature on this issue which is of such great importance for the country.

We have never made a secret of our view in this regard. We have used all arguments available to make our view public, and have discussed this during our bilateral contacts. We said that action of this sort, which is not based on broad consensus within the country, changes the political landscape and impacts on the region’s stability and not only cannot pass unnoticed but will not have any positive results. It will not bring new stability to what is already a very complicated situation in the region.

Of course, this situation has not become complicated simply overnight. We are well aware of the Balkans’ fate and history. These countries have gone through so much, through bloodshed, redrawing of their borders, division of their peoples, and have had their destinies redrawn as if these people have absolutely no feelings. Decisions based on broad national consensus should serve as the foundation for a long-term solution.



Question:

Several hours ago, you posted on Facebook, commenting on a photo that shows Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of the Russia Today television channel, with Russian President Vladimir Putin. How would you comment on this photo? What can you say about the US intelligence report in this connection?



Maria Zakharova:

To my mind, this story is quite sensational. US Senator Jeanne Shaheen has gained notoriety for her openly foolish escapades. I would like to tell US officials that the next time someone offers them any “classified” photos of Margarita Simonyan and Russian President Vladimir Putin in exchange for handsome sums of money, they can get them absolutely free on the Russia Today website or from the Foreign Ministry. If you have any extra money, you would do better to donate it to a charity foundation.

This time, the US senator has submitted a “declassified” photo that has already gone viral and that shows Russian President Vladimir Putin and RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan attending a project presentation. The senator has asked everyone to think about what they see in this photo and what some people have come to. I don’t quite understand what someone has come to. Is she referring to the President of Russia, the RT television channel or everything taken together?

As I see it, the photo clearly shows that our Russia Today television channel now ranks among the largest Russian and global TV channels. The photo shows that Russian leaders, including the President, federal government ministers, top regional leaders and local authorities, are open to media outlets, and that they regularly meet with journalists in various formats. These formats include news conferences involving hundreds of journalists, presentations of new studios, exhibitions organised by media outlets, as well as open and off-the-record meetings with various agencies, channels and foreign media outlets. The US senator does not understand this, but we have also borrowed from US experience in our work. We agree or disagree with them on some aspects, and we consider certain experience to be extremely important and useful. We were largely guided by US methods for dealing with the media in terms of openness, the availability of official information to media outlets. We did not invent anything new. All major countries operate foreign-language broadcasting networks. Moreover, these networks have taken on a global scale. But they can also operate on a regional scale. Last time, a representative of Bulgaria discussed the work of a Turkish-language television channel in his country.

What does this photo mean? To me, it is also evidence, and very important evidence, that women in my country are appointed to positions based on their talents, not because of nepotism or protectionism. There are no gender, age or nationality qualifications. The main criterion is professionalism and whether you satisfy the requirements of a given position. What Margarita Simonyan did when she was appointed editor-in-chief of the RT television network many years ago was a heroic feat that changed the mentality of many people in Russia. First, she created a high quality product from scratch. She did not inherit a product that had worked well before. She created this television network from scratch and made it a huge success. Her achievements have been noticed not just by the Russian authorities and the public. Wherever we go, for example to the Middle East, people express a positive attitude to the appearance of an alternative view on information in the media. People are tired of listening to the same old mantra from the mainstream media, which serve the interests of a certain group of countries. You can reject the views expressed by RT, but at least we have our own views. This is good, because it creates competition.

The second thing that is very important relative to Simonyan’s appointment is that young professionals see that their career depends on them and that the state is coming to trust young people. It is extremely important when young people get this impetus in the most creative and important period of their lives. This young woman is a trailblazer of sorts, a mental trailblazer. It’s important. I know many women who see Simonyan as an example.

Regrettably, this is not what the honourable senator saw in this photo. She probably focused on the word “declassified.” The other details are available in my blog.



Question:

Russia claims that the bombing raid in Khan Sheikhoun took place between 11:30 am and 12:30 pm. But the doctors say that the attack started several hours earlier. How can you explain this contradiction?



Maria Zakharova:

Why haven’t those who submitted their resolution to the UN Security Council asked themselves this question? You, a journalist, are speaking about conflicting data. Who should sort this out? I don’t think it should be permanent representatives at the UN Security Council. They are responsible for politics. It takes experts to provide a political assessment of an event. How can we establish when the strikes or blows were delivered and where? This is a task for experts. There is an agency within a larger organisation that is authorised to determine what happens on the ground. I wonder why the United States, Britain and France did not use this agency, which they created, to send experts to collect at least initial information on the ground. They have the experts and the agency for this. I am referring to the OPCW fact-finding mission in Syria. Why haven’t they used this agency? Why have they rushed to provide political assessments? Do you know how the UN operates? Before taking a political decision, the representatives of the bodies responsible for a given field compile reports for the UN Security Council and hold briefings. There were none in this case, and nobody has requested them. Nobody at the UN has requested factual data or value judgments. They have simply planted their draft resolution at the UN Security Council and are waiting for a political performance.



Question:

Do you think that footage from the incident site is fake?



Maria Zakharova:

If we are going to speculate on this, then we’ll end up in a situation where “we think this way, you think that way, so let's see who thinks better.” We do not need to make guesses. We have an expert group that should be working on the site. Why is it not working there? Here’s an example from everyday life. Every time something happens, such as a traffic accident or a robbery, the surveillance cameras footage is taken and witness accounts are used. In the case of a traffic accident, the vehicle trajectories are examined and it becomes clear what led to the collision. All of that is done by specialists. Here, we are dealing with a complicated issue of a chemical attack, as our Western colleagues are saying. Is it really up to the diplomats at the UN Security Council to determine what kind of chemical weapon was used there, how the attack was carried out, when it happened, and what witness accounts are available? Who should be doing that? One could assume that an appropriate mechanism to address these issues is not available, but it is. Why isn’t anyone using it? I'll tell you why. Because then these people will bring objective data to the UN Security Council. Today, there’s no need for them. What we need today is a political show in order to once again demonstrate to the world the unity of the West with regard to the Bashar al-Assad regime and continue to lobby their policy. There’s no alternative to it. We can see this time and again. Of course, the desire to introduce, again, a document that can be vetoed, and thus to draw the attention of the international community to the fact that Russia is acting in an unconstructive manner is an important part of what is happening now. When we talk about sending experts there, nobody hears us. How can this be?

With regard to the White Helmets, we strongly believe that some of the materials that they are distributing were absolutely fabricated. These materials need to be analysed by experts, because we doubt their authenticity. We have no doubt that this is part of the propaganda campaign, and that this organisation is used as an element of a propaganda campaign. Oscar, the Nobel Prize – we’ve been there, saw it coming, and talked about it.

There are experts and they should do their jobs. If everything is reduced to politically biased decision-making, then this is exactly what we are now observing and will observe in the future.



Question:

The experts are unable to get there.



Maria Zakharova:

Why are they unable to get there? Does Damascus prevent them from doing so? No. There’s a threat coming from the militants.



Question:

The situation in Idlib is totally different.



Maria Zakharova:

Where’s the logic behind that? If it’s not safe there, then you can take binding decisions that are not based on anything? It's a crazy thing to do.



Question:

Getting there is a problem, and it’s extremely dangerous.



Maria Zakharova:

Then we should go ahead with Plan B – “Colin Powell and his vial.” Is my understanding correct that if it’s dangerous to go there, then it’s okay to take absolutely falsified decisions? In our opinion, there is no basis for taking an objective decision.

One other thing. You are saying that it's dangerous out there. Who exactly is in Idlib and does not allow experts to come there? Moderate oppositionists? They are “moderate” – that’s how you refer to them. Making a deal with “moderates” shouldn’t be a problem. I haven’t heard anyone from the Syrian government say that they would not let experts come there. The Syrian government keeps talking about the need for thorough international investigation in accordance with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions, existing OPCW procedures, etc. As for the “moderates”, you know who stands behind them. Go ahead and make a deal with them.



Question:

You commented on the situation in Venezuela. What do you think about the external pressure on the Venezuelan government and the violations within the CELAC?



Maria Zakharova:

As you rightly noted, we already commented on this. I would like to remind you that our commentary was published on the Foreign Ministry website. We repeatedly said that it is unacceptable to seek to influence domestic affairs in Venezuela. Not only with regard to the situation in question but also with regard to others, I suggest you think about the topic which I would not call our official response but something that deserves a global analysis. It is the issue of democracy and a democratic system. Democracy has existed since ancient times and throughout centuries. It has become the most reasonable system for the public to determine its own fate. Democratic institutions, the general principles that the democratic system and democracy promoted were considered by many as the best in the absence of another, a more optimal way for people to influence and govern the processes in their country. The 20th century introduced us to the phenomenon of globalisation. This is cause for wide-ranging reflection on what democracy is now and who has more opportunities to influence events within a country. Is it the people of said country or more powerful states that can use democratic institutions in the country to promote their own interests? I think it is a topic for a major serious discussion.



Question:

At the last briefing, you said that the draft law in the Verkhovna Rada would be genocide for the Russian-speaking population. Do you not think this could be a defensive reaction on the part of the Ukrainian population to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statements that Russia was forced to defend the Russian-speaking population in Crimea and Donbass? Where is the Russian Foreign Ministry now with clarifying how to define the Ukrainian people?



Maria Zakharova:

Is it normal that the Russian language and the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine did not have full rights before 2014, like many other peoples in European countries and OSCE member countries, which, under the laws and human rights provisions, should ensure these rights? The Russian language and its status have been an issue in Ukraine for the last decades now. The Russian-speaking population ended up completely unprotected overnight right from the moment Ukraine gained its independence. You know better than I, since you lived there, how many people fought for their rights and for how long. They gained rights, lost them again. I think we could speak about a defensive reaction to Russia’s actions, as you say, if the Russian-speaking population had not fought through lawful means for its rights before 2014.

Ukraine chose the road of European integration more than 10 years ago. We all knew this and we accepted the choice as Ukraine’s right as a sovereign state and worked with our Ukrainian colleagues in various international forums, keeping this choice in mind. But what is hard to understand is why Ukraine followed European values and norms in some issues, but in one basic area did not wish to do this. Do people who want to speak their native language have fewer rights than other minorities?

Let me explain the situation for those who are not so familiar with it. We are not talking here of some theoretical desire to speak the language of one’s ancestors, of people who lived all their lives speaking Ukrainian, using it in their studies and daily lives, and then as adults suddenly feel the presence of this or that blood in their veins, feel the call of their ancestors, and want to fight for their right to study this or that language and for the conditions for being able to use it. What we are talking about is the huge number of people (you can find the figures without my help) who, as adults, as elderly people, overnight found themselves deprived of the right to use the language they had used all their lives, not through conscious desire, but through birth, history, speaking this language, using it to fill out forms and carry out all transactions. How can such a situation be possible?

We have long since been observing the emergence of this kind of ethnicity-based approach and division of the population (including by ethnic and linguistic identity) in Ukraine. I think, and you can give evidence too, that representatives of the Russian-speaking communities and diasporas also raised this issue. Though I cannot call them like that, after all, these people always considered themselves Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine. They were not ‘agents of Moscow’, and never represented another country’s interests, but were citizens of a sovereign state, Ukraine, only they happened to be Russian-speakers. Many countries live with this kind of situation, and rather than tugging the blanket their way, give their citizens the opportunity to speak their native languages. If people had not travelled this long road first, we could perhaps speak of an element of revenge, a counter reaction, but people had fought for this right for more than 20 years.

There is another moment, too. Rewind a few years and look at what Russia’s representatives were saying. They said that the policy the political establishment was following at the West’s behest would “tear Ukraine apart”. You can find this expression used repeatedly in Russian representatives’ remarks. This was not gloating over impending disaster, but was simply stating a fact that we know. We know Ukraine’s very complicated history of development as a state, and the division into ‘ours’ and ‘not ours’. Many are not aware of all this. This forced Ukrainisation and forced revoking of Russian-speakers’ rights has led to what we said would happen back then. This was simply not the right road to take.

I think it is too late now to talk about what should have been done, but I think nothing should have been invented. There are two basic things here. First are the legal agreements that Ukraine has signed, out of solidarity with the EU position, or as a member of the OSCE or other organisations, including human rights organisations. They should have taken all the documents that regulate complicated cases such as Ukraine’s and different groups’ linguistic identity and implemented their provisions, looking at the experience of Western Europe and Scandinavia. They could have looked at how things work in Canada, too, a country with which Ukraine has very close ties. I can share some of my personal experience. Many people do not know that Russian is a working non-official language of the state of New York. You might not believe me, but when you go to buy a ticket in the New York City metro, the ticket machine gives you the option of carrying out the operation in Russian. No one thinks this an act of nationalism, vandalism, historical nihilism or whatever. This is normal and is done simply because a large number of people who speak Russian live there.

Second, you should have looked at the experience of countries with a similar history of establishing their statehood and sovereignty since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Look at how other countries have settled the Russian language issue. You have a representative of Tajikistan sitting beside you. He can tell you later about how Tajikistan has settled this matter. Forgive me, but the difference between Russian and Tajik is far greater than that between Ukrainian and Russian.



(Remark by Tajikistani journalist):

It is a state language in Tajikistan.



Maria Zakharova:

Look at how the situation developed in Kazakhstan and Belarus. Each country, out of respect for the people who are part of its culture, economy and industry, including the defence industry, and speak Russian, gave them the right to use this language and found suitable solutions. In some cases it is a state language, in some cases an official language, but in general, everyone has treated this matter with respect.

What happened in Ukraine, to be honest, does not fit into any logic. I think this was a mistaken policy that has resulted in the consequences we see.

Now, you are again becoming hostage to this strange model.

As for Eurovision, what I can say is this. You passed a law on a compulsory share of Ukrainian language on the airwaves. This share was not to be below a set level. Ukraine will host the Eurovision Song Contest. Most of the competitors will sing in English, of course. The funniest thing is that when your representatives go to sing there, they also do not sing in Ukrainian, but this does not rouse any negative reaction. That is my reply to your question, without any excursions through history.

You are busy demolishing Lenin statues now. We have many complaints about Lenin, too. We have various political parties and movements, but people continue giving their assessment of those years. The most ironic thing though is that it was Lenin who supported raising the status of the Ukrainian language. Read his articles and pamphlets on raising the Ukrainian language’s status. He was the founding figure of this idea. Will you leave at least one monument to him, the founder of Ukrainisation?





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/s...ent/id/2717014
 
Old April 7th, 2017 #10
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by roman1 TITAN View Post
Sergey Lavrov is mountain jew from Armenia and Georgia. Why you are flood his texts?
Because this is a topic about the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And this person is working here
 
Old April 7th, 2017 #11
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roman1 TITAN View Post
Sergey Lavrov is mountain jew from Armenia and Georgia. Why you are flood his texts?

Do you have any source for your accusation?
 
Old April 7th, 2017 #12
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry statement regarding Palestinian-Israeli settlement



6 April 2017 - 10:40



Moscow is deeply concerned about the situation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Palestine and Israel have not held political negotiations for nearly three years, and the situation on the ground has been deteriorating.

The stalling of the Middle East peace process has created conditions for unilateral moves that undermine the potential for an internationally accepted solution to the Palestinian problem, under which two states – Israel and Palestine – could live in peace and security with each other and with their neighbours.

Moscow reaffirms its support for the two-state solution as an optimal option that meets the national interests of the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom have friendly relations with Russia, and the interests of all other countries in the region and the international community as a whole.

We reaffirm our commitment to the UN-approved principles for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, which include the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state. At the same time, we must state that in this context we view West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

The concrete parameters of a solution for the entire range of issues regarding the status of Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem, should be coordinated at the direct talks between the parties involved. Using its opportunities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a co-sponsor of the peace process and an active member of the Middle East Quartet of international intermediaries, Russia will continue to provide assistance to the achievement of Israeli-Palestinian agreements. We will focus on ensuring free access to Jerusalem’s holy places for all believers.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2717182
 
Old April 7th, 2017 #13
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Statement by H.E. Mr. Gennady Gatilov, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, at the Brussels Conference "Supporting the Future of Syria and the Region", Brussels, 5 April 2017



6 April 2017 - 13:42



Ladies and gentlemen,

Indeed, the Syrian conflict is the worst crisis of our time. We are confident that it is not possible to resolve humanitarian problems without reaching a political solution. Certain positive changes have recently taken place. Russia jointly with Turkey and Iran launched the "Astana format", within the framework of which the issues of strengthening the ceasefire regime are being discussed. Thanks largely to this initiative it has become possible to resume the intra-Syrian negotiations, the last round of which has just taken place in Geneva. Of course, the process is not easy. The parties have accumulated mutual distrust over the years of the conflict. However, the task before all of us is to help the Syrians reach sustainable agreements by themselves and in accordance with the parameters set forth in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254, including on the issues related to the drafting of the constitution and the fight against terrorism. It is extremely important that the Syrians themselves determine the fate of Syria.

In this regard, we consider it unacceptable to use the humanitarian leverage to influence their sovereign choice. It is indispensable to depoliticize the humanitarian dossier, stop artificially inflating "tragedies of the day." The provision of humanitarian assistance should be carried out in direct coordination and in a mutually respectful dialogue with the legitimate Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, which, unfortunately, once again was not invited to the conference. This is not the right approach.

Let us not forget that the majority of the population of the Syrian Arab Republic are concentrated in the territories under the control of the Government. Meanwhile only about 1.5 million people live in the territories under the mixed control of the forces of the so-called "moderate" armed opposition and terrorists from "Jabhat al-Nusra".

Let me mention another point of utmost importance. One should not call for the provision of humanitarian assistance to the population of Syria and at the same time expand restrictions, which affect the most vulnerable segments of the population. This abnormal situation leads, in particular, to the shortage of medicines and imported raw materials required for the production of essential medicines in Syria.

Unfortunately, in the Syrian conflict the international community still faces a gap between pledges to allocate financial assistance and bringing real assistance "on the ground" to those in need, who often need bread and water more than money.

Russia provides humanitarian assistance to the Syrian Arab Republic via both international humanitarian organizations, through which we have already allocated more than 45 million dollars, and using bilateral channels, through which we supply food and medicines directly to Syria. The Russian military distribute on a daily basis humanitarian aid to the population, including in frontline areas. This is why we are really do not understand the position of those who paid much attention to humanitarian convoys in eastern Aleppo at the time when the warehouses there, as it transpired later, were stocked up with medicines. Why the same people forgot about the need to help this city after the terrorists had been expelled from it? This is yet another sign of "double standards"!

Ladies and gentlemen,

Now we should also focus our agenda on the issues of assisting Syria in restoring the social and economic infrastructure: providing electricity and water supply, reviving and setting up schools and hospitals in the areas liberated from terrorists, providing students with everything necessary to ensure a normal educational process. It is not humane to link the solution of this task with the so-called "day after agreement" and, under this pretext, to put forward preconditions for such agreement.

The reconstruction of the destroyed economy could constitute a powerful impetus for the return of refugees and IDPs to their homes. Such efforts would eradicate the social base of armed and terrorist activities in Syria. Also one should not lose sight of the desperate fate of Palestinian refugees sheltered in Syria.

Urgent measures are also required for the humanitarian demining of the Syrian territory, in particular aimed at preserving invaluable cultural treasures for future generations where terrorists and radicals have inflicted enormous damages. We call for the formation of an international coalition on demining of the Syrian territory. Russia is already actively working on it. We call upon all partners who are not indifferent to preserving the historical heritage to put aside their well-known differences and to contribute to this common cause, which requires, among other things, considerable financial investments. We expect that the UN, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and UNESCO will also actively join these efforts.

Last but not least. We understand that the Chairs are going to produce a summary of the Conference. Of course, we leave it for the Chairs’ own responsibility. We hope that the Chairs will be balanced and accurate in their assessments so that to reflect all the positions expressed at the meeting.

For its part, the Russian Federation is ready to develop, on a solid international legal basis, equitable cooperation with all those who wish to make a constructive contribution to the Syrian settlement.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2717297
 
Old April 7th, 2017 #14
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry statement on US military action in Syria on April 7, 2017



7 April 2017 - 10:27



The United States conducted strikes against Syrian government troops in the early hours of April 7, using chemical weapons attacks in Idlib Province as a pretext.

The US opted for a show of force, for military action against a country fighting international terrorism without taking the trouble to get the facts straight.

It is not the first time that the US chooses an irresponsible approach that aggravates problems the world is facing, and threatens international security. The very presence of military personnel from the US and other countries in Syria without consent from the Syrian government or a UN Security Council mandate is an egregious and obvious violation of international law that cannot be justified. While previous initiatives of this kind were presented as efforts to combat terrorism, now they are clearly an act of aggression against a sovereign Syria. Actions undertaken by the US today inflict further damage to the Russia-US relations.

Russia has expressed on numerous occasions that it was ready to cooperate on resolving the most urgent issues the world is facing today, and that fighting international terrorism was a top priority. However, we will never agree to unsanctioned action against the legitimate Syrian government that has been waging an uncompromising war on international terrorism for a long time.

Seeking to justify military action Washington has totally distorted what had happened in Idlib. The US could not have failed to grasp the fact that the Syrian government troops did not use chemical weapons there. Damascus simply does not have them, as confirmed a number of times by qualified experts. This was the conclusion reached by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Over the recent years this organisation inspected almost all the facilities linked or possibly linked to Syria’s chemical weapons programme. As for Idlib, the terrorists operating there used to produce toxic land mines intended for use in Syria and Iraq. These manufacturing facilities were put out of operation in a military operation carried out by the Syrian air force.

The US pretends that it does not understand obvious things, turning a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons in Iraq, officially confirmed by Baghdad. The US refuses to believe the evidence provided by certified documents confirming the use of chemical weapons by terrorists in Aleppo. In doing so, the US is abetting international terrorism and making it stronger. New WMD attacks can be expected.

There is no doubt that the military action by the US is an attempt to divert attention from the situation in Mosul, where the campaign carried out among others by US-led coalition has resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties and an escalating humanitarian disaster.

It is obvious that the cruise missile attack was prepared in advance. Any expert understands that Washington’s decision on air strikes predates the Idlib events, which simply served as a pretext for a show of force.

Russia suspends the Memorandum of Understanding on Prevention of Flight Safety Incidents in the course of operations in Syria signed with the US.

We call on the UN Security Council to hold an emergency meeting to discuss the latest developments.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2717798
 
Old April 7th, 2017 #15
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,170
Default

Quote:
Russia suspends the Memorandum of Understanding on Prevention of Flight Safety Incidents in the course of operations in Syria signed with the US.
Maybe the threat of a MiG or Sukhoi bearing down on them or S-400 radar locking on will make ZOG air pirates think twice about operating with impunity in the future.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old April 8th, 2017 #16
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,170
Default

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

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old April 10th, 2017 #17
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich’s remarks at the meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council, Vienna, April 5, 2017



7 April 2017 - 11:24



Mr Chairman,

We are grateful to Alexander Marschik, Political Director of the Foreign Ministry of Austria, OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier, Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office to the Trilateral Contact Group Martin Sajdik, Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission Ertugrul Apakan and Patrick Vial, Director of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for Europe and Central Asia, for their assessments of the situation in eastern Ukraine.

The internal Ukrainian conflict can only be settled through a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk and the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures, to which there is no alternative.

The situation in Donbass started improving on April 1 following the decisions taken by the Contact Group on March 29. Regrettably, there have been large-scale ceasefire violations in the past few days. The parties have only provided partial information about their weapons deployed near the line of contact. More efforts must be taken to bring about a lasting ceasefire, ensure weapons withdrawal and rule out even the possibility of resumed shelling of residential areas and infrastructure.

Although the number of ceasefire violations has decreased significantly, the SMM reports shootouts and artillery duels. On the night of April 1-2, cameras in Shirokino and Avdeyevka recorded the use of weapons on both sides following shooting from west/northwest to east/southeast. This means that the Ukrainian Armed Forces were the first to open fire.

As of April 2, the Ukrainian forces have not withdrawn 67 large-calibre artillery guns from the line of contact. These weapons were sighted in Artyomovsk, Zhelannoye, Konstantinovka, Kulikovskoye and Tarasovka, which is a violation of the Minsk Package of Measures.

Shooting was recorded in Luganskaya within the area where the disengagement of forces is scheduled for April 6. On March 29, a camera in Luganskaya recorded a shot fired from north to south, that is, from the positions of the Ukrainian forces at the area controlled by the self-defence forces, which led to a shootout.

Increased attention has been given of late to incidents involving SMM observers. The use of small arms has been recorded near the SMM patrols, and SMM observers have come under mortar fire. Kiev regularly accuses SMM observers of being Russian spies. The safety of observers is a serious matter. We urge the parties to respect them. There are 40 Russians at the SMM, who are working in difficult conditions side by side with their colleagues from other OSCE countries.

The SMM’s opportunities are not limitless, and the observers physically cannot record each and every use of fire. Nevertheless, the SMM must work in an objective and unbiased manner, monitoring both sides equally closely. There must be no pressure from the host country.

It is important to enhance the level of Donbass public trust for the SMM. The observers should demonstrate the results of their work more actively, provide a more detailed coverage of the issues that are of the utmost concern for the local population, and hold briefings more often not just in Kiev but also in Donetsk and Lugansk. The public is waiting for a consolidated report on the consequences of shooting at populated areas in Donbass since the beginning of the conflict. Public trust for the SMM depends on this.

In this context, we express serious concern over the reported sightings of false SMM observers in the Kiev-controlled Donbass districts. A white car with a logo imitating the OSCE SMM logo was seen in the government-controlled areas near Avdeyevka on March 4 and 31. This is much more damaging to the SMM’s image and safety than newspaper or online reports. How can the people be sure that there are SMM observers and not Ukrainian military in the white car?

We are convinced that the SMM’s efficiency can be enhanced, without affecting the observers’ safety, through close cooperation with the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination (JCCC). For its part, the JCCC should bring Donetsk and Lugansk representatives back into its team. Failure to do this clearly points to Kiev’s unwillingness to create an effective system for verifying compliance with the agreements in the contact zone.

The priority should be given to monitoring developments along the contact line, including the ceasefire, the absence of the prohibited weapons in the area and withdrawal or disengagement of forces and weapons. The same concerns the use of technical equipment for monitoring purposes.

The situation in eastern Ukraine directly depends on developments in other parts of the country and the internal political situation. Anarchy and chieftain rule are gaining momentum in Ukraine, to quote President Poroshenko, and nationalist radicals are becoming uncontrollable. Yielding to the radicals’ pressure, the Kiev government has approved the trade and transport blockage of Donbass. The Verkhovna Rada is discussing unconstitutional draft laws that infringe on the language rights of Russian speakers and other ethnic minorities in Ukraine. De-Russification has become a government policy. The freedom of the media is being infringed upon. Churches, monuments and graves have been desecrated, and foreign diplomatic missions have been attacked.

All of the above falls within the SMM’s authority and hence should be given close attention by the SMM. In order to preclude any rumour and speculation about the alleged distortion of facts, we expect the SMM to provide detailed reports, including themed ones, on these issues. The SMM has the necessary personnel for this. Regrettably, a large amount of information provided by observers is not included in the reports. We urge the SMM and the OSCE Secretariat to share the information they have with the member states.

We welcome the revitalisation of the Contact Group and the results of the March 29 meeting. We hope that this will create conditions for transitioning from armed confrontation to a political settlement and implementation of the relevant provisions of the Minsk Package. Donbass residents must have the legal and material guarantees of respect for their rights. The law on the special status must be adopted and formalised in the Ukrainian Constitution. There must be local elections and guarantees of non-prosecution for the persons involved in the events that have taken place in eastern Ukraine. The reintegration of Donbass into Ukraine’s economic and legal space depends on the restoration of the cultural, economic and financial ties, which Kiev has severed. This goal can be achieved by lifting the blockade and the border-crossing regime at the contact line.

Work in the political subgroup remains stalled. Ukraine is not even willing to put the Steinmeier Formula on paper. This formula provides for a connection between local elections and the enforcement of the law on the special status for Donbass. We expect the OSCE member states to give a political signal on the importance of full implementation of the Minsk Package.

The punitive operation in eastern Ukraine, which began three years ago, has claimed numerous lives, destroyed cities and brought suffering to the local population. Many people have fled from their homes to other countries, including Russia. The situation has been further aggravated by Kiev’s refusal to pay pensions and social benefits to Donbass residents, the establishment of the border crossing regime at the contact line and the formalisation of the trade and transport blockade launched by the nationalist forces. Kiev’s tactic is aimed at the socioeconomic suppression of the defiant population. This tactic also includes the regular shelling of the Donetsk water treatment plant and water shortages in the Lugansk Region.

We insist that the population must have access to humanitarian aid. This goal could be promoted by a closer interaction of the concerned humanitarian organisations with the Donetsk and Lugansk authorities. Practice has shown that this is possible if humanitarian assistance is provided regardless of political considerations.

The situation of the people, who have suffered tremendously from this conflict, can be primarily improved by the cessation of hostilities and strikes on residential areas and infrastructure, the withdrawal of heavy weaponry and the lifting of all restrictions on crossing the contact line, in addition to opening more border checkpoints and lifting of the trade and transport blockades. This is what we must apply our efforts to.

Thank you for your attention.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2719392
 
Old April 10th, 2017 #18
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Director of the Foreign Ministry Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Mikhail Ulyanov’s interview with the Interfax Agency, April 6, 2017



7 April 2017 - 12:14





Question:

Mr Ulyanov, the UN Security Council held debates yesterday on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, focusing on reports about the April 4 tragedy in the area of Khan Sheykhun, Idlib Province. What is your take on the discussion?



Mikhail Ylyanov:

The Americans, who currently hold the Security Council presidency, insisted on an open, televised debate, and this is a good thing, because we were able to convey Russia’s approaches to a wider audience. But the contrast between the Russian fact-based remarks and the largely demagogic statements by a number of Western countries produced a sad impression. A case in point is the US Ambassador, who showed heart-rending photographs of supposed child victims of the Khan Sheykhun attack. This propaganda trick is quite like Colin Powell brandishing the notorious test-tube at a UN Security Council meeting in February 2003, where he sought to justify the need for a military invasion in Iraq. But the “noble” pathos of the American remarks can hardly be taken seriously, given that the United States and its allies were absolutely indifferent to identical events that took place in Mosul, Iraq, several weeks ago, when a number of peaceful civilians suffered in an ISIS chemical attack, including adolescents. It appears that the Western countries are more concerned with the suffering of children in Syria than the death of their peers in neighbouring Iraq. As is clear, this is yet another demonstration of double standards based on anything but humanitarian considerations.



Question:

What in particular displeases Russia in the US-British-French draft resolution?



Mikhail Ulyanov:

We are primarily displeased with two points. First, the tragedy was blamed on Damascus even before an investigation began. From the point of view of normal logic, it should be the other way about: first comes an investigation, followed by an accusatory verdict. Another serious flaw of the document submitted by the Western trio is the weakness of its provisions related to the investigation. Its wording is, in effect, ritualistic and proposes maintaining the existing practice, which has proven its ineffectiveness. The staff of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission and the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) do not even come to the scene of events. Nor do they take soil samples or make postmortem examinations. Their conclusions are mostly based on internet data and interviews with dubious “witnesses”, chiefly opposition members, who are questioned in neighbouring countries rather than directly in Syria. Conclusions based on such flimsy evidence cannot be trusted at all. It’s profanation, not serious and important work.

As we see it, the FFM and JIM staff should immediately leave for Khan Sheykhun and use all the tools in their arsenal to find out the truth. Moreover, investigators should be provided with free and safe access to the presumed incident site and the adjoining territories. The investigative groups should report their conclusions to the UN Security Council and the OPCW, along with all of the evidence the conclusions are based on.

Yet another point of fundamental importance is that the group of inspectors who will conduct the investigation should be truly international. It is only in this case that we can hope for the investigative mission to be impartial and unbiased. We have to talk about this, because the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria is dominated by NATO countries. Moreover, the heads of the Mission’s two constituent segments are UK nationals. Even if they are brilliant professionals and managers, this is absolutely abnormal and contrary to the UN Charter, with its principle of broad and balanced geographical representation. This state of affairs must be urgently redressed. And, without any doubt whatsoever, it is high time we gave up the rotten practice of “remote” investigations.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2720566
 
Old April 10th, 2017 #19
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 during a joint news conference with CIS Executive Secretary Sergey Lebedev and Foreign Minister of Uzbekistan Abdulaziz Kamilov following a meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers, April 7, 2017



7 April 2017 - 13:44





Question:

Could you comment on the situation in Syria? Have Russian servicemen been injured or military property damaged in the strikes? How will Moscow respond?



Sergey Lavrov:

Moscow has already responded. Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov has issued a comment, and the Foreign Ministry has published a comprehensive statement. They are available on the relevant websites and clearly outline our position. I can only add now that it was an act of aggression under a far-fetched pretext. The situation is reminiscent of 2003, when the United States, Britain and some of their allies invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council and in violation of international law. But they at least tried to provide material evidence to justify the invasion. Colin Powell, my good friend, had been misinformed by the CIA, who gave him a vial with some white substance; it was tooth powder, I believe. He presented this vial at the UN Security Council claiming that it contained anthrax. This time they did not even try to provide any hard facts. They have only shown photographs, again speculating on children and the alleged evidence from various NGOs, including the crooks from the White Helmets, who stage various situations to provoke action against the Syrian Government.

I have mentioned the invasion of Iraq. Approximately 10 years later, Tony Blair, who was UK Prime Minister at the time of the invasion, admitted that they had used misleading intelligence. I don’t know when we will find out the whole truth behind the decision to deliver air strikes at Syria, but I think that we must demand the truth. This is what we will be doing.

Once again, this makes us wonder whether Jabhat al-Nusra, which keeps changing shapes and names, is viewed by our Western partners as an organisation that should be preserved even though the UN Security Council has declared it a terrorist organisation. When the US-led coalition delivered strikes against some ISIS positions during the Obama administration, it spared the territories held by al-Nusra. As we said, there are grounds to believe that the territory in the Idlib Province the Syrian Air Force bombed was controlled by al-Nusra, which had units, weapons and military equipment in the target area. It turned out that there was also a chemical weapons factory there. We provided this information without claiming it to be the ultimate truth. We said that this is the information we have at our disposal and requested that OPCW experts be dispatched to the area to look at the situation on the ground. The US strikes were delivered before the OPCW inspectors went to Syria to investigate the attack. It looks as if the intention was to distract public attention from Jabhat al-Nusra, which is still considered by some as a reserve force for transitioning from talks to the change of government in Syria.

When you stop to think who will benefit from this, the answer is that this will only benefit those who want to derail the Geneva and Astana processes and create evidence, pretexts and motives for moving from a political settlement to the change of government through the use of armed force. Jabhat al-Nusra and those who are cooperating with it – there are many of them – would be useful in this case.

Of course, it is regrettable that this is damaging Russian-US relations, which are already in poor shape. I hope these provocations will not produce irremediable results, although the media are citing joyful statements by former members of the Obama administration to the effect that Russian-US cooperation looks utterly unrealistic after these strikes. I hope they will be brought to shame, although we will draw conclusions from this situation regarding the future of our relations with Washington.

As for possible victims among Russian servicemen, I have no information on this issue. It appears that there were none.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2720804
 
Old April 10th, 2017 #20
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 Syrian chemical dossier



7 April 2017 - 19:10





The Russian Federation has invariably held the unequivocal and straightforward position that any use of chemical weapons by anyone is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances, and those responsible for such crimes must be held accountable.

However, the so-called red line set by President Obama in 2012, the crossing of which was supposed to trigger outside military intervention in the intra-Syrian conflict, was clearly the watershed moment in this story – which has been so unscrupulously distorted by our Western partners – about the use of toxic chemicals in Syria and then the use of actual chemical warfare agents. It was this decision that served as a starting point for a host of ensuing provocations by terrorist and extremist groups who used chemical weapons in an effort to discredit official Damascus and create an opportunity for the “friends of Syria” to use military force against a sovereign state. Up until then, even if there had been reports about the use of chemical weapons in that region, they concerned only Libya, where, in the absence of the Libyan state destroyed by NATO countries, non-state actors occasionally used mustard-filled artillery shells in local turf wars.

Regrettably, back then, in the absence of a political “order”, our Western partners in the Security Council chose to remain silent and inactive also in connection with the request received from Damascus in March 2013 to activate the well-known UN Secretary General’s mechanism to investigate the use of sarin by militants in Khan al-Assal district of Aleppo. This terrorist attack killed 28 Syrian troops and civilians, and wounded over 200 people.

The militants, emboldened by the inaction of the UN Security Council and their impunity, perpetrated a larger attack with the use of sarin in the outskirts of the Eastern Ghouta district of Damascus on August 21, 2013 which, according to various estimates, killed and wounded over 1,500 people. This was still not enough for the opposition and its foreign patrons, and they tried to blame this barbarous action on Syrian government troops, timing it to the first visit to that country by a group of UN experts led by Swedish chemistry professor Åke Sellsrtöm. There is no need to go over the fabricated findings of the investigation into the terrorist attack in Eastern Ghouta and how revealing they are. Those who want to refresh their memory can read the report by Mr Sellsrtöm at http://www.Un.org/ga/search/view_doc...bol=S/2013/553 . You can also read the studies by American experts in the field of military science and ballistics: Professor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Theodore A. Postol and former UN arms inspector Richard Lloyd, who crunched the numbers and took to pieces an account fabricated by the opposition which alleged that the Syrian Armed Forces used BM-14 multiple rocket launchers in Eastern Ghouta, although the Syrian army had withdrawn them from operational use back in 2010 ( https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/...telligence.pdf ). It wouldn’t hurt to look at the materials of the journalistic investigation by Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot, either (“LES CHEMINS DE DAMAS, Le dossier noir de la relation franco-syrienne”). In a word, a fake is a fake, but someone really wanted to use it as a pretext to replay the Yugoslavia, Iraq or Libya scenario in Syria.

Nevertheless, the plans of these extremists and their sponsors were not destined to materialise, and common sense prevailed. Due to the good will that Damascus showed in abandoning its chemical weapons, through combined Russian-US efforts and with complete support from the international community, it became possible in short order to successfully achieve the main goals of eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons, for which the OPCW was justly awarded the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize.

Everything would have ended on a positive note if certain interests, out of considerations of political expediency, had not applied doubled standards to the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria. Hence the contrived accusations against the Syrian military of using chlorine, as well as the notorious Syrian chemical dossier that boils down to the allegation that Damascus concealed a part of its chemical arsenal in its initial report to the OPCW.

As it became evident that Bashar Assad’s government had successfully met the targets of destroying its chemical arsenal within an unprecedentedly short time span and under the most difficult circumstances of the armed conflict, since the spring of 2014 there have been a series of planted stories alleging that Syria used chlorine as a chemical agent. The selection of this chemical leaves no doubt that terrorists have learned or were helped to learn the lessons of Eastern Ghouta. Chlorine is a common industrial and household disinfectant that is not on the OPCW list of chemical agents and it is practically impossible to place it under any verification control. What’s more, it is all but impossible to detect chlorine traces even after a short time due to its high volatility. It was in fact with due consideration for this circumstance that the OPCW Fact Finding Mission was set up with Damascus’s consent, designed to promptly respond to incidents of this kind. What has happened in reality, however, is the exact opposite: the Fact Finding Mission has never inspected the areas where chlorine was used.

Why? Because, according to a well-established account, the very first visit of FFM experts to Syria in the spring of 2014 “coincided” with a large-scale provocation by militants involving the use of chlorine in Idlib Province. However, when FFM specialists tried to visit the area of the purported incident on a tip-off from the opposition they were taken hostage by militants, which essentially put an end to any further activity by FFM experts on the ground in districts outside Damascus’s control. This is the origin of the flawed practice in the work of the FFM and then the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM), aimed at investigating chemical weapons attacks in Syria, whereby the reports of the alleged use of chlorine by government forces fabricated by the Syrian opposition and “sympathetic” NGOs are taken at face value. In other words, there is no need for the mission to visit areas where toxic agents were purportedly used because apparently there is a danger to the safety of OPCW and UN personnel. Well, then, what about UN Security Council Resolutions 2118, 2209 and 2235 that make it incumbent on all parties to the Syria conflict to ensure unhindered access to places of chemical incidents for international experts. By the way, this provision also applies to those subjects of international relations that have influence over these parties to the conflict, above all the opposition.

On this point, another remarkable thing should be noted. The numerous advocates of the Syrian people’s interests insist both in the Hague and in New York that OPCW experts visit without delay any research and military infrastructure facility in Syria despite Damascus’s recommendations that such inspections be postponed for security reasons, blaming any delays over such “fact finding” missions on the Syrian authorities who ultimately are in fact responsible, within the framework of their sovereign jurisdiction, for the life and health of international experts.

This situation has created ideal conditions for the armed opposition and those behind it for “filtering” practically all information coming to the FFM and then to the JIM on the incidents they declare themselves, which has naturally affected the quality of the reports by both international agencies.

Thus, the findings by one of the FFM’s expert segments investigating incidents directly or indirectly reported by the armed opposition are entirely based on some eyewitness accounts selected by the same opposition groups and NGOs affiliated with them. Their interviews are conducted not even in Syria but in neighbouring countries, where photo and video materials are also collected, all of which can easily be falsified. Now what about medical reports and conclusions, the results of biomedical tests, autopsies and other forensic medical studies? Do these documents actually exist? By all indications, they do exist in some form but definitely need comprehensive verification with the use of criminological examination as to their authenticity and correlation with the use of toxic agents under particular circumstances. These conclusions are prompted, for example, by the “testimony” actively provided by senior personnel at the Sarmin field hospital, which represents the so-called Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS). In June 2015, these medical officials demonstrated at the US Congress and the UN Security Council some rather dubious photo and video materials on the alleged victims of chlorine attacks by Syrian aviation. Everybody knows very well how such materials are fabricated following the tragic events in Eastern Ghouta, as evidenced by their thorough analysis made by Mother Agnes Mariam el-Salib, mother superior of St. James Monastery in Qara ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/STUDY_T...TA_VERSION.pdf ).

Furthermore, the expert opinion by independent medical specialists from Sweden following a study of the video prepared by the White Helmets, a pseudo-humanitarian Syrian NGO established by James Le Mesurier, a former British special service officer, leads to a rather disturbing conclusion. The extremely unprofessional emergency medical service procedures seen in the film were described as follows: “If not already dead, this injection would have killed the child!” It is evident right at the beginning of the video that the child was alive on arrival at the hospital, which is also confirmed by one of the “eyewitnesses,” Muawiya Hassan Agha, a White Helmets member. All of this raises serious questions about what in fact happened and why a death certificate was never issued. Mohamed Ghaleb Tennari, head of this medical facility, considered it perfectly appropriate to present this video to the Security Council, showing that his own personnel acted unprofessionally, to say the least, causing the death of a child ( http://theindicter.com/swedish-docto...-zone-in-syria ).

If somebody still has doubts that the footage of purported incidents, in particular in Sarmin, was staged, it is enough to watch the videos made on the subject by both the White Helmets and Jabhat al Nusra, where the same “actors-correspondents” appear (
,
). It is plain to see that the so-called White Helmets are affiliated with this terrorist organisation.

It is revealing that, in a high-profile case, in December 2016 Egyptian Interior Ministry officers detained in Port Said Province one of the “film” crews that, under “contract” with the Syrian opposition, had fabricated a series of staged photos about the “atrocities” of the Syrian armed forces ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7486541.html ).

It is noteworthy that amid all of these fabrications and fakes, the accusations against the Syrian authorities of using chlorine against militants and civilians, which were made first by the FFM and then by the JIM, are based on the notorious “helicopter trail.” Only one argument is cited: At the time the incidents took place, only government forces had helicopters the sound of which was purportedly heard at a high altitude when chlorine-filled “barrel bombs” were exploding.

First of all, we would like to note right away that the so-called “helicopter trail”, on which our Western colleagues insist so much, is just one version of what happened – a version that is the most convenient for them and there is no conclusive evidence to back it up with. Who can confidently say that chlorine containers were not detonated by the opposition itself at a time when helicopters were flying by somewhere nearby and at night?

Second, it should not be forgotten – and we have repeatedly pointed this out – that opposition groups have seized military airfields in Syria with functional aircraft and that well trained army pilots and technicians are fighting on the side of armed [opposition] groups (this is confirmed in a JIM report). Videos of militants posing in warplane cockpits, available online, are revealing in this respect.

Furthermore, the unreliability of information that certain countries provide to the FFM and the JIM is evidenced, among other things, by the fact that of the four Syrian air bases mentioned in the JIM’s fourth report, from which helicopters with chlorine “barrel bombs” aboard took off, only two remained in its fifth report (paragraph 4).

In other words, the authors of those planted stories ended up with egg on their faces when it turned out that in 2014−2015 two air bases, specifically Taftanaz in Idlib Province and al-Zahraa in Aleppo, were in fact controlled by the opposition, not the Syrian Army. Meanwhile, the aims of such fabricated stories, which were not checked even by “Syria’s friends”, are quite obvious: to “ground” Syrian aviation by any means and thus deprive the government forces of their main advantage – air support – for the benefit of the opposition. Repeated attempts to establish no fly zones under various “humanitarian” pretexts, by analogy with Libya, belong to the same category.

These are only a few examples showing how false and often simply implausible the FFM’s information is, as the mission has no way of collecting substantiated and conclusive evidence on the ground with the appropriate chain of custody procedures. Meanwhile, the mission has not been denied access to chemical terrorism sites by the Syrian authorities but by the armed opposition, which is not interested in its anti-Assad propaganda manipulation and falsification becoming known to the world public. Nevertheless, this will happen sooner or later, and we are absolutely certain of that after what happened in eastern Ghouta.

Let us take, for example, the fantastic “eyewitness” account that the opposition proposed to the FFM, which then forwarded it to the JIM, of a chlorine “barrel bomb” being dropped into a ventilation shaft in the town of Sarmin. The bomb had the same diameter as the “shell” itself. This account goes against all common sense, as well as the laws of physics.

One of the main sources of FFM information compromising Damascus is the Chemical Violations Documentation Center of Syria (CVDCS), which is part of the Same Justice NGO. This organisation was established in Brussels at a time when the international media space was awash with rather dubious and sometimes clearly fabricated reports of supposed chemical incidents east of the city of Idlib in 2015. The same NGO selected “eyewitnesses” who were subsequently interviewed by OPCW experts. In 2014, the CVDCS engaged in similar activity. To get a clear picture of what is going on, it would be a good idea to find the financing sources behind these NGOs, and then a lot of things will most likely fall into place.

Regarding FMM activity and the consideration of Syrian “chemical” issues at the UN Security Council, we believe there is another pattern, which is far from accidental. A series of chemical incidents – be it Sarmin and the adjacent area (March, 16, 23 and 26, May 16, 2015), Qminas (March 16, 2015), Binnish (March 23, 2015), Idlib (March 31, April 16, and May 20, 2015), Al-Nayrab (April 27, May 1 and 2, 2015), Kurin (mid-April 2015), Saraqib (May 2, 2015) or Marea (August 21, 2015) – came right after the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2209 (March 6, 2015) condemning “in the strongest terms any use of chlorine as a weapon in Syria” and stating that “in the event of non-compliance with resolution 2118 (2013), it would impose measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.” Here, it is quite appropriate to ask this question: are the Syrian authorities deliberately doing all they can to be considered war criminals and rogues or are the planted stories about the use of toxic agents in Syria playing into somebody else’s hands? It is clear to us that the use of chlorine as a weapon makes no military or political sense for Damascus that has other, far more effective means of destruction.

OPCW experts themselves have confirmed that terrorist groups such as ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra produce toxic agents (yperite and sarin) and regularly use them in both Syria and Iraq. Would Syrian specialists from among those who were once involved in the national chemical weapons programme all of a sudden start experimenting with chlorine barrel bombs? Is there any elementary logic in the ongoing chemical use allegations against official Damascus? Or is the idea that the military-political combination based on outright lies about WMD in Iraq will work just as smoothly in Syria? In short, it should be obvious to all sensible people and governments of sovereign states that only terrorists, extremists and the intransigent armed opposition, as well as those behind them, need chemical provocations of this kind. They believe – presumably not without reason – that with the anti-Assad political order, any, even ephemeral, suspicions will always be used against the Syrian authorities.

We would like to stress that we are not in the least questioning the professionalism of OPCW experts, who have to work with the information that the armed opposition, as well as the co-opted media and NGOs, keep planting on them. Right from the start their investigation was set on the wrong path and it is hardly surprising that their findings abound in assumptions and suppositions that have laid a rather dubious groundwork for the JIM’s subsequent work.

We have repeatedly argued our position regarding the JIM’s preliminary findings at the UN Security Council. We believe that a lot of things have yet to be cleared up and this is precisely why we agreed that the JIM’s mandate be extended for another year. We still believe there is need for a thorough and depoliticised investigation into the crimes involving the use of chemical weapons, based not on speculation and fabricated reports but exclusively on reliable and verified facts.

The JIM’s subsequent activity should be expanded geographically while its mandate should acquire a genuine antiterrorist dimension, as provided for under UN Security Council Resolution 2319. We understand very well that it will be extremely difficult to establish the truth amid the unrelenting political pressure on Bashar al-Assad’s government from the intransigent opposition and that this will require strict adherence to principles, as well as time and experts from different fields such as the military, criminalistics, ballistics, medicine and forensic examination among others. In fact, the JIM’s fourth and fifth reports talk about the need for such action. As the JIM is faced with a far more responsible mission – not simply to determine the probability of chemical weapons being used in Syria but also to establish those guilty of such crimes – everybody has the right to set the strictest standards for the evidence they use.

At the same time we are deeply concerned about the fact that certain states are already now speculating on the preliminary results of the JIM’s activity and are pushing, at both the OPCW and the UN Security Council, for punitive sanctions against Damascus. This irresponsible approach came to a head on February 28 when, amid the ongoing efforts in Geneva and Astana to find ways for a political settlement to the Syria crisis, a draft sanctions resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter was put to a vote. The sponsors of that draft did not even bother to explain what grounds they had used for putting specific Syrian individuals and legal entities on the sanctions lists as being allegedly responsible for the use of chlorine as a chemical weapon. It turns out that the generals and scientists on these lists bear personal responsibility for the production and use of chlorine. According to this logic, all and everyone in Syria who use chlorine chemicals for household purposes could be held to account. In short, it’s one absurdity on top of another just to suit the political situation of the moment.

Thus, the really pressing issue of growing challenges and threats of “chemical” terrorism in Syria and the Middle East as a whole is being ignored by accident or design. Today, it should be obvious to all that terrorists and extremists not only use toxic chemicals but also have their own production and technological basis for synthesising toxic agents. They also have channels for the supply of precursors from neighboring countries.

We continuously draw the Council’s attention to the issue of nonstate entities, including terrorists, having access to chemical weapons. Back in 2015, together with our Chinese colleagues, we co-sponsored a resolution designed to fight chemical terrorism in the Middle East. All our efforts, however, invariably come up against political tunnel vision and the anti-Assad bias of some delegations, which has resulted in the loss of at least two years to neutralise these threats in a timely manner. This problem is now looming large and extend beyond the Middle East region in the foreseeable future. Not only Russia, but also Western intelligence communities are warning about this.

We therefore call on the UN Security Council to focus on the real challenges that are posed by chemical terrorism and to take urgent measures to meet them. For starters, a preventive resolution on chemical weapons, co-sponsored by us and our Chinese colleagues, could be adopted.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2721218
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:27 AM.
Page generated in 0.50358 seconds.